 |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
City Commission In Chaos: 3 Commissioners defy term limits by Howard Melamed 4th Draft: 05/20/2001 8:00 pm . Included latest news, and references to Jeb Bush.
It all began when a question was asked by the Commissioners of legal experts of the firm Holland and Knight L.L.P. involving whether or not Commissioner Rhonda Calhoun could run for reelection next year. In 1996 the citizens of Coral Springs passed an amendment to the City Charter setting the maximum time a City Commissioner could hold office at 8 consecutive years. Commissioners are elected to office for a period of 4 years. Since Commissioner Calhoun was elected in 1996, for her to run in the 2002 election for another term of 4 years would mean she would be holding office for 10 consecutive years. What they got back was an answer they didn't want to hear. Commissioner Calhoun could run, but the law also applies to the other commissioners as well, since they were reelected after 1996. According to the City Charter the other 3 have, in fact, been sitting illegally as City Commissioners. Oops! The City Charter states the following:
According to Holland and Knight any commissioner currently sitting in office must only serve 8 years consecutively whether or not they were elected before 1996 or after. It clearly says that any commissioner that wants to seek election after 1996 must not have served 8 consecutive years. It never excluded the ability to count those years prior to 1996. If that were the case the ordinance should have had a paragraph (d) that would have said :
Look at that. I wasn't even paid for my legal advise, and I am not even a lawyer. Yet I was able to find some wording that would have made it clear that the intentions of the People were to allow existing city commissioners to exclude themselves from the law. Follow the chart and you will see that 3 commissioners currently have a problem.
If they are right, Commissioners Stradling, Berk and Polin are sitting illegally. Even worse, there could be a question as to the validity of their votes at city commission meetings from 1999 to the present. It is important to note that the three commissioners did not knowingly defy the city charter. They were under the impression that the term limit amendment only applied to the amount of time they were in office from the time after it was enacted. Commissioners Stradling, Berk and Polin were all instrumental in bringing this whole issue to referendum in 1994. They didn't realize that it applied to them retroactively to the time they were first elected. But now that they know they are illegally sitting as commissioners, are they allowed to continue in office? Here is the oath that they took in accordance with article 5.12 of the City Charter:
These strong words force the City Commissioners who are currently holding office contrary to the City Charter to resign immediately. Even though the intent of the City Commission at the time they made the ordinance and created the wording for the referendum might have been to exclude themselves from it, the People could not have assumed it. The people voted on a clear concise question. The law was enacted and 8 consecutive years is just that: Eight years for any city commissioner. The 3 city commissioners also have a problem according to 4.03(b)(1) and 4.03(b)(2) (click here) of the City Charter:
Since they are not qualified to serve due to their contravening the City Charter regarding term limits, and fail to qualify after having been elected, the 3 must resign immediately. (Section 5.12 is the oath of office as shown above). Sources close to the situation have indicated that the 3 Commissioners will not resign. Instead, they intend to spend public money to hire attorneys to try to keep their positions. It can be argued that the use of public money this way is for personal reasons since the only ones to benefit from litigating this mess are the three commissioners. This might be considered as a misappropriation of tax payers funds. Perhaps this whole situation is one in which the Attorney General of Florida may have to handle. I have been told that it may be necessary for one or many citizens to pursue a legal action in the removal of the City Commissioners or in a Quo Warranto action seeking a Declatory Judgment to the question " By whose authority does these city commissioners hold office. " Either way it does not serve the city's best interests for these commissioners to on. If they really cared about the City and wished to seek office at a future date, I think it would be magnanimous of them to step down. What happens if they step down or are removed? According to Article 4.03(d) of our City Charter, the Governor of the State of Florida, Jeb Bush will have to appoint 3 new city commissioners and a city wide election will be held within 90 days. The other main issue is if any of the decisions of the City Commission since 1999 are legal. Since Commissioner Polin may be deemed to have been illegally sitting as a commissioner his vote may be discounted. That could mean that any vote where his would have been the decisive one may be challenged and any vote where Commissioner Polin was required for the quorum may be thrown out. That might hold the same for the other 2 commissioners that are deemed to have exceeded their term limit. Unless of course there is some law that says that even though they were not supposed to be there, their vote still counts. Other questions may come up such as are they entitled to the salary that they had received all this time or do they have to give it back? What about all the actions that were passed at the city commission meetings, will anyone challenge them? It might be open season on lawsuits with the city. That will certainly not serve us well. How did this mess happen in the first place? With all of the money we are spending on legal counsel, why was the amendment in 1996 not presented exactly as the city commissioners wanted? Good question. Maybe they'll vote on it at the next City Commission Meeting. One thing will be certain, as word gets out of what is happening: Increased ratings for the televised city commission meetings. I suppose the most amazing thing that will come of all of this is affirmation of the rights of the citizens to have their voice counted. 'We The People' are the ones that really count here. The referendum that 'We The People' passed in 1996 indicated that no commissioners should serve for more than 8 consecutive years. Unlike Monopoly there was no "Community Chest" card that was given to any commissioner in 1996 that allowed them to stay on past the term limits. When a referendum is held and the people vote, their decision is final whether the politicians like it or not. I am suggesting that any attempt at this point in time to try to sugar coat the referendum passed in 1996 or make it something it isn't, will be an attempt to usurp the power of the people. It will be contrary to the Constitution of the United States which clearly states that government is for the people by the people. As a citizen of this city and an American, I certainly hope that you will join me in standing up for our rights and let your voice be heard. Let's make sure that everyone understands that the law is the law is the law. It applies to you and me and it certainly applies to City Commissioners. If the law must be respected then Commissioners Polin, Berk, and Stradling must resign immediately. Comments? Add your comments to our Town Hall discussion Board by clicking here!
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
According
to the Coral Springs City Charter, the amount of consecutive years a City
Commissioner can hold office is 8. Commissioners Polin, Berk and Stradling
are currently in violation of the City Charter since they have exceeded this
time limited. In accordance with the City Charter, they must resign. The
question is: Will they? 
|
|