Last year, we turned down proposed charter amendments that made a mockery of our needs. This year, we are still not getting what we want, but at least it got better...better enough to vote YES.
Most residents do not want to compromise, but in this case, it seems to be a necessary evil. Voting YES will ensure that residents and grassroots organizations will have more time to collect petition signatures for Charter amendments, without having to rely on Commissioners to put them on the ballot. Beyond that, we get to put an end to perpetual incumbency by voting YES on the second amendment, setting term limits to 8 years.
It seems like so much time has passed since Miami-Dade voters recalled Mayor Carlos Alvarez and I began the recall of Commissioner Natacha Seijas, but it has been less than a year since that historic and proud moment for voters. Now we have to keep that ball rolling, and these 2 charter changes will do just that.
With one week left to the January 31st GOP Primary and Special Election, it is expected there will be dismal turn out of Countywide electors even though we have these 2 important Charter Amendments on the ballot. Do voters know it is NOT just a Republican primary? Do they know that Democrats and Independents need to vote too?
I won't lie. I would love for Commissioner term limits to be retroactive, giving us an opportunity to completely restructure our local representation and government. The reality is, however, that unless the current commissioners approve such language for a special election ballot question to electors, it will not happen. Of course, we have one shot at getting retroactive term limits on the ballot, but that would mean that on January 31st, voters would need to approve the first proposed amendment Relating to Initiative Petitions and Elections on Charter Amendments. In this case, we would have a 120 days to collect petition signatures for a Charter Amendment. I can tell you from experience, 120 is much better than 60, any day.
I won't lie. I believe $92,000 is too high a salary for public service. Notwithstanding the almost three-figure salary, public servants should dedicate their time FULLY to responding to residents' needs and issues. That will happen if you vote YES. Commissioners will be barred from having outside employment. I would dare say that the bulk of County Commissioners that currently hold outside employment make much more than $92,000/year thanks to their connections to lobbyists, consultants, and departmental knowledge.
It is difficult to swallow a $92,000 salary, especially for people we feel have been representing themselves more than the taxpayers. Still, the second proposed amendment relating to Salaries, Service, and Term Limits of County Commissioners ascertains the one thing we have always wanted - for sitting Commissioners to finally have an 8 year term-limit. Last time the County Commissioners offered us 12 years and it failed - rightfully so.
I plead with the people of Miami-Dade to remember that the County Commission WILL NOT give you exactly what you want - not now, not any time soon. The Commission is hoping that you will vote down these amendments to justify their inaction on Charter reform in the future.
Has anyone wondered why Commissioners have not spent much time talking about these Charter Amendments and most non-Republicans are not aware that they have a right to vote on these Amendments?
Put it on your Facebook page and tell your friends and family to vote YES on these 2 Charter Amendments. Tell them: One will stamp County Commissioners with an expiration date and the second will give us more time to change that expiration date.
17 comments:
Bell making any money off her commish gig is a crime in and of itself.
Don't be short-sighted. The big picture is more important.
Brito is right. With district voting, this is the only way we can get them out of office. Hasn't Souto been a commissioner for fifty years?
Javier Souto has been a county commissioner 19 years. Isn't 8 better?
Though I appreciate Ms. Brito’s effort to muster enthusiasm for these two charter amendments, I really think the people of Miami-Dade County deserve a charter that has integrity and functionality. It does need fixing, but these two amendments do not get us where we need to go.
Charter changes can become effective at a date in the future. (The 1992 vote to create the office of Executive Mayor became effective in 1996). A salary increase should become effective in the future – allowing challengers to seek the office with the knowledge that the office comes with a $92,000 salary. Instead of giving the incumbents an undeserved raise, the salary change should have had an effective date of November 2014 – after every incumbent stood for election. That would be fair. The ban on outside employment is an issue that might be considered in tandem with the salary question, but the term limit issue has nothing to do with compensation.
Term limits deserve to be presented to the voters as a stand-alone question. Despite a couple of long-serving members currently on the board, history suggests there is little need for term limits. In 1993, when Commissioners Moss and Souto were first elected, the board consisted of Maurice Ferre, Arthure Teele, Larry Hawkins, Joe Gersten, Sherman Winn, Bruce Kaplan, Betty Ferguson, Natacha Seijas, Jim Burke, Pedro Reboredo, Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, and Alex Penelas. Except for Moss and Souto, they are all gone. The point being, there has been plenty of turnover without term limits.
The petition and referendum rules have not been wholly reviewed since the establishment of district commission seats. Doubling the amount of time for a petition or recall without revising the entire process does not make sense. A 4% requirement for recall of an elected commissioner may have made sense when they were elected countywide, but for a district commissioner that threshold is fairly low. Most districts have fewer than 100,000 registered voters. If the time is extended to twice the number of days, then double the signature threshold from 4% to 8%.
Further, a recall in the middle of a term is an extreme remedy, and the petition should be based on a specific offense, a record of broken campaign promises, ineffective representation due to excessive absenteeism or an act of public betrayal. If the petition cites a cause, and 8% of the voters have to agree, maybe the extra 60 days to collect signatures makes sense.
I am all for charter reform, but I do not believe these two amendments will bring about any improved efficiency or accountability to Miami-Dade County. Though I am voting no to both amendments, I look forward to the opportunity to participate in a real discussion about charter reform in the future.
You are living in dreamland. If you wait for perfect, you will never get anything. I have been through years of proposed changes, this is the best we have had and Brito is right. Vote YES.
Your moderate approach is wishful thinking. And 8% -- bite your tongue. Who are you Lynda Bell?
I offer my 'moderate' approach as suggestions to begin a real discussion of charter reform. The current charter was dramatically revised by petition (the Alvarez Strong Mayor push) and has never been thoughtfully evaluated for consistency and functionality since then. The last charter group in 2008 did not even notice there was not a provision for governing in the absence of a mayor (when Alvarez was recalled).
If these two random changes fail, and I think the polls suggest they will, then the citizens need to push for a new charter committee of adults to develop a document to govern those that govern.
We may need to petition for the formation of a responsible charter committee whose recommendations will appear on the next ballot. If so, count me in...and I am not an elected official.
These two Charter Amendments is more of the same from The Board of County Commissioners. They have piece meal items for vote instead of a comprehensive menu of reform. Vote NO and let’s demand the necessary reform needed for good government.
Be aware that comments here are not always left by citizens---we are crawling with lobbyists.
I like the distinction between “lobbyists” and citizens”!
No question that there’s a lot more reform that needs to happen but the two amendments are a start. I’m voting yes.
Many people think that term limits has greatly lowered the effectiveness of the Florida legislature.
And, your point? Do you think the County Commission can possibly be less effective?
Will this fact change if we get term limits: that our politians are apparently in office for their own benefit.... Whether ego or empire building? I don't see any in office that are there because they are in love with helping the community ... They are there because the position feeds their egos.
If we found someone that was there for the right reason, they could stay forever, but I don't see any saints.
GoD: Barely literate Bell can't spell let alone complete a gramatically correct sentence.
Insofar as posting on a computer, she's at Eddie's mercy...
Stop the whining - GOD is right.
Besides, this isn't a compromise. It is EXACTLY what the charter review task force recommended.
BOTH items on the ballot - verbatim.
All we heard from the recall and Braman was that the Commission "ignored the sage advice of the Task force" and that they should put their ideas on the ballot unadulterated.
The commission finally caved and did, and everyone still bitches and moans that it isn't "real reform" and is "watered down."
If you don't like getting exactly what you asked for, what the hell do you want??
RE: Genius's post RE: Bell's post:
Genius is on to something.
It appears that Miss Lynda is the culprit behind the half-assed, amatuerish, and factually challenged "Homestead Is Our Home" blog afterall!
Ya'all click over to "Homestead is Home" to get the lurid and long-winded details...
Shame on you, Lynda Bell.
Homestead Is My Home. Sorry, Lynda.
Post a Comment