Attempt at an anti-reform coup led by scoundrels
Al’s Loupe
Attempt at an anti-reform coup led by scoundrels
By Alvaro F. Fernandez
alvaro@progreso-weekly.com
Last year Miami-Dade voters were in an uproar. They were so mad they decided to do something about it. A voter-led drive garnered enough petitions to put the mayor and one commissioner before a recall vote. Eighty-eight percent of people who voted expressed their outrage by throwing out the two politicians.
County commissioners, realizing they were all on hot seats, called for a special election. That election will take place next week – Tuesday, May 24 – to replace the ousted mayor and commissioner. At the time voters will also have the opportunity to vote on six charter amendments placed before them – hastily – by these crafty commissioners.
The amendments are a diluted copy of the “Covenant with the People” first proposed by businessman Norman Braman together with Victor Diaz, a prominent Miami attorney. Diaz, in 2008, chaired the totally ignored (by commissioners) Charter Review Task Force, which produced a document proposing reforms to how the county was being run.
I’ve been asked to comment on the six amendments. I look at them as not being what they should have been. I sat through the meeting when county commissioners decided to put them before the voters. After much hemming and hawing, they quickly turned a reform movement into what could become an anti-reform coup by our county commission – if some are approved.
The “Covenant,” as proposed, was based on work done by a task force who labored arduously over months. The commission massacred that work in a matter of eight hours. I present the language that will appear on the ballot, with my brief comment below each one – in italics.
I – Home Rule Charter Amendment Relating to Salaries, Service, and Term Limits of County Commissioners
Shall the Charter be amended to provide that County Commissioners shall:
- Devote full-time service to the Office of County Commissioner and hold no other employment;
- No longer receive the $6,000 annual salary established in 1957, but receive instead the salary provided by state statutory formula, adjusted annually by the County’s population (currently approximately $92,097); and
- Serve no more than three consecutive four-year terms in office excluding all terms prior to 2012?
Why do you think I called these scoundrels crafty? They managed to bundle three important items into one. And all benefit – the county commissioners currently in power. I will vote NO. I agree that commissioners should receive higher pay and hold no other employment. But these folks worked it out so that they can remain in office until 2024 earning a six-figure salary. I’d agree to a 12-year limit if they’d agreed to limit themselves to just one more four year term.
II – Home Rule Charter Amendment Prohibiting Lobbying by Elected County Charter Officer After Leaving Office
Shall the Charter be amended to provide that elected County Charter Officers shall be prohibited from lobbying the County for compensation for a period of two (2) years after leaving office?
I plan to vote YES on this one. And not because I agree with it. The proposal called for a 10-year period of no lobbying by an elected official leaving office. They managed to water it down to two. Makes you wonder doesn’t it?
III – Home Rule Charter Amendment Relating to Creation, Appointment and Power of Charter Review Task Force
Shall the Charter be amended to provide for creation of a Charter Review Task Force who shall meet on presidential election years to propose Charter revisions; to prohibit elected County Charter Officer from serving as member of the task force; and to submit those revisions approved by two-thirds majority of the task force directly to the electorate on the same ballot as the presidential elections?
This one does not sound half bad. But then again, these amendments were cobbled together so quickly, and by people who I totally distrust. I will vote NO. I wonder: who decides who’s on the task force and how are they chosen?
IV – Home Rule Charter Amendment Establishing Independent Inspector General
Shall the Charter be amended to create the Office of Inspector General who shall be independent and shall, at a minimum, be empowered to perform investigations, audits, reviews and oversight of County contracts, programs, projects, abuse, waste and mismanagement as well as County funded contracts, programs and projects and provide Inspector General services to other governmental entities with such office’s appointment, term, powers, duties and responsibilities to be further established by ordinance?
I will vote YES. I like the idea of an independent Inspector General. But this should only be the first step. The next step needs to be deciding on an independent funding source. As is, county commissioners fund this office.
V – Charter Amendment Pertaining to Powers of County Commission, County Mayor and County Manager
Shall the Charter be amended to undo the “Strong Mayor” form of government approved by the voters in 2007 by returning the powers and responsibilities of administering County government from a “Strong Mayor” to an appointed County Manager who may be removed by the Commission or the Mayor with Commission approval?
The plural of scoundrel belongs here too. In 2007 we decided we wanted a strong mayor form of government. We saw the results last year – an ousted county mayor. Four years later commissioners have decided the system does not work and would like to return more power to themselves by reverting to the county manager type system we used to have. My vote will be a HELL NO! This item alone shows how little respect these folks have for the voters.
VI – Home Rule Charter Amendment Regarding Petitions
Shall the Charter be amended to provide that petitions for charter amendment, initiative, referendum and recall shall no longer require a sworn affidavit of a circulator and shall instead only require the name and address of a circulator?
I plan to vote YES on this one. It makes petition drives much easier for regular citizens like you and me. It was changed a couple of years back to a much more difficult version (the one we have). This tightening of the screws (on voters) was led by Commissioner Natacha Seijas – who was the commissioner ousted in March along with Mayor Carlos Alvarez. Interestingly, polls indicate the voters will not approve this item. I wonder what they’re thinking…
