Provided below are my positions on the five charter amendments proposed by the Tallahassee City Commission that will be on the November ballot.
City Charter Amendment Question 1: Charter Amendment Addressing the Salaries of City Commissioners
Shall the Charter of the City of Tallahassee be amended to provide that members of the City Commission be paid an annual salary equal to the annual salary set by state law for members of the Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida?
The amendment would make city commission salaries ($45,000) equal to Leon County Commissioner salaries ($90,000). This is a no for me. Some city commissioners have been trying to increase the salary of elected officials for years – remember the deferred compensation scheme.
However, I believe that the job of a city commissioner should be part-time endeavor, and the current salary reflects the responsibilities of a part-time
commitment.
City Charter Amendment Question 2: Charter Amendment Expanding Jurisdiction of the Independent Ethics Board
Shall the Charter of the City of Tallahassee be amended to provide that the Tallahassee Independent Ethics Board has jurisdiction over members of the City Commission when they are serving as board members of outside governmental agencies by reason of their city commission roles?
I support this amendment. It will provide jurisdiction for the Independen Ethics Board over city commissioner actions on boards like Blueprint and the Community Redevelopment Agency.
City Charter Amendment Question 3: Charter Amendment to Resolve Two-Candidate Elections at the General Election
Shall the Charter of the City of Tallahassee be amended to provide that if only two candidates, neither of whom is a write-in candidate, qualify for the same seat on the City Commission, the names of those candidates will appear on the general election ballot instead of the primary election ballot?
This is a yes. This will move two-candidate city elections to November when more voters are engaged.
City Charter Amendment Question 4: Charter Amendment to Provide for Periodic Review of the Charter
Shall the Charter of the City of Tallahassee be amended to require the City Commission to convene a charter review committee and conduct a review of the Charter every ten years, beginning in June 2033?
This is a yes. It requires a charter review committee to be appointed every ten years instead of leaving the decision of when to to review the charter up to elected officials.
City Charter Amendment Question 5: Charter Amendment to Define the Role of the Inspector General
Shall the Charter of the City of Tallahassee be amended to define the role of the Inspector General by charter rather than by ordinance?
I support this amendment because it will provide protections for the Inspector General who is responsible for investigating financial irregularities and mismanagement.
How about a breakdown of judge retention?
@ Steve
I agree on 1, 2 & 4. You many want to rethink your vote on 3 & 5.
#3 Many important elections are decided in the primary election when the candidate gets over 50% of the vote. That clears the deck for the voters to direct their attention to other important races like President/VP, Federal and State Senators and Representatives along with State Constitutional Amendments. It’s been proven that when too many voting decisions appear on a ballot, people get worn-out while casting their votes and just leave too many races blank. Those might be very important local government positions. For what it’s worth, I’ll be voting NO on #3.
#5 Requiring a Charter Amendment to change or refine the role of the Inspector General could get messy and very time consuming. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume this would be part of the City Charter. If so, after the IG’s role is defined, that role could not be changed for at least 10 years if Charter Amendment #4 passes as I hope it will. If the Inspector General’s role is not very, very, very carefully defined the city has to live with that charter for 10 years before mistakes or modifications could be made. On the other hand, making a change to the IG’s role by ordinance would be rather quick and easy and does not require a 10 year waiting-period. Again for what it’s worth, I’ll be voting NO on #4.
If I’m mistaken on any of this, please feel free to pull me from the “sea of ignorance.”
Agreed
I agree on all Five.