Home Rule Charter Change: Ballot Language is Confusing. Guest Blog by Vanessa Brito

Norman Braman on Friday in the Miami Herald outlined why he is voting NO on all the Charter Amendments and Vanessa Brito of Miami Voice is saying the same for different reasons (see below). Eye on Miami is NOT necessarily in agreement with Vanessa or Norman. I probably will vote for 3 (Charter Review Task Force), 4 (Inspector General) and 6 (delete the Notarization requirement from petitions). However, I can see the dilemma of people trying to parse out what to vote for. Is it easier to tell people to vote NO on everything rather than see people make a big mistake and vote yes on the Strong Mayor question giving the commission more power? - Geniusofdespair

I will vote "no" on all the items - mostly because the items do not reflect the will of the people... - Vanessa Brito - Miami Voice

When we urged the Board of County Commissioners to push for significant charter reform, we expected REAL reform - reform that would be understood and embraced by the voters. A majority of the reform items (4 of the 6) are an aberration of what the voters have been asking for in the last decade. Though polls are not tell-all tools, they do give us an idea of what voters want to see and what needs to be done in order to subdue the voter apathy and cynicism toward the County Commission. The voters, before and after the march 15th recall election, have pushed for two eight-year term limits for County commissioners. Yet, the Commission agreed to place three four-year terms on the May 24th ballot instead. If that were not enough, the commission bundled term-limits with a salary based on state formula and a restriction on outside employment. These 3 points should have been placed on the ballot as separate amendments. However, our County Commissioners probably anticipated that if these items were placed separately, voters would vote in favor of term limits and oppose salary increase - not something the Commission would want. If the current rules are independent of one another in the Home Rule charter, then changes to them should be placed independently on the ballot. It makes "cents." In any case, I don't think this packaged item will pass, but we must be weary of the repercussions if it does. A $92,000 salary that is not fixed and based on the state formula and is likely to change every year does not sit well with me. Three four-year terms effective after 2012 would allow current County Commissioners to be re-elected until 2024. The packaged item should be bubbled wrapped and returned to dais.

As far as language for some of the other items, it's difficult to tell - mostly because legal jargon is not my forte and isn't for most of us. We asked for the removal of the notary statement, but also asked that the BCC review the municipal ordinance which, for starters, is mis-numbered, and requires one signature per page. One signature per page means thousands more forms must be printed and paid for - making it impossible for an average citizen to participate in the civic process.

Attempting to change government functions or policies by petitions epitomizes a true grassroots movement - one that is almost rarely financed by big money. This amendment item does not address these deep-rooted issues. On the surface, it all sounds great, but the ballot language doesn't reflect the real needs, meaning, this will not lead to real reform. Voting yes on the "...Amendment Regarding Petitions" means that the forms will not require notarization but will still require circulators (paid and not paid) to collect ONLY one signature per page.

The discussion at the BCC meeting prior to placing these six items on the ballot specifically noted that the changes would yield countywide petitions to mimic the format required by the state. Where is that in the ballot language on this amendment? And why is the state referenced on County Commission salaries but not on Petition restrictions? Beyond that, the ballot language does not reference the notarization component directly; although, it is implied - for me, that's not enough.

Let's go one step further. While these are not the only two amendments I deem are flawed, the intentions are clear. Let's pretend to give the voters what they want, leaving some room for our own self-serving changes in the future. This rings a bell - "Half Cent Tax for Transportation." The voters have a chance to avoid the same thing from happening on May 24th. The loopholes are there, we just have to read between the lines. Oh wait, we can't, because the language is so complex, most of us can't figure out what any of this really means - let alone what will happen when we vote.

By the by, has anyone looked back at the ballot language for the January 23, 2007 Special Election (yes, that's when Carlos Alvarez became Strong Mayor). Check out the ballot item title in 2007: "Charter Amendment Expanding the Mayor’s Responsibilities and Restricting the Responsibilities of the County Manager." This year, the item is titled: "Charter Amendment Pertaining to Powers of County Commission, County Mayor and County Manager." For those who voted in 2007, the ballot title should be relatively similar - instead, the ballot language is completely different. The words "Strong Mayor" were not used in 2007 (but it is now) and it seems that back then, the 75 word limit was used more wisely to explain the differences between forms of government. The language on the Spanish ballot is even worse, but I cannot locate the official sample from 2007. For those of you who speak Spanish, you know that "Alcalde Poderoso" is not THE widely used term.

For the record, I strongly support an Inspector General, but if the inspector general is to be appointed by the Commission, then we run into the same problem of having self-serving friends controlling the County at all levels. An elected position would be best. Omitting this from the language is critical and compels me to be overly cautious.

While I was glad to see SOME of these items get on the ballot, I was not hopeful that the language would lead us anywhere different than we are today. I will vote "no" on all the items - mostly because the items do not reflect the will of the people, not clearly anyway. This is exactly what happens when there is an extreme loss of trust in elected officials. I hope the message sent on March 15th was saved for later review because it seems we'll be replaying it in the next couple of months.