Councilwoman Jennifer Brahier reviews the five city charter amendments on the ballot.
You can follow along with this:
Question No. 1: Shall the Charter be amended to delete, add or revise provisions including the preamble; scope of municipal powers; duties of Mayor and Council Members; removing Council staff; notice of special meetings; computation of time; procedures for adopting Charter amendments and for appointing members to Charter Review Commission; and deleting transitional language from original charter? Yes–For Approval; No–Against Approval.
Question No. 2: Shall the Charter be amended to provide that City Clerk and City Attorney shall have the sole power to hire, discipline and terminate staff and employees supervised by them and that neither Mayor nor City Council shall interfere with the exercise of that power? Yes–For Approval; No–Against Approval.
Question No. 3: Shall the Charter be amended to reduce filing fees for candidates for offices of Mayor and City Council; reduce the percentage of signatures needed for being placed on a ballot for either the office of Mayor or City Council; and further reduce, during decennial census years, the percentage of signatures needed for candidates for Mayor or City Council to be placed on the ballot? Yes–For Approval; No–Against Approval.
Question No. 4: Shall the Charter be amended to provide that the annual salary of members of City Council be set each year by a formula derived from Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research, beginning in 2024 and continuing thereafter for each fiscal year that a member is in office? Yes–For Approval; No–Against Approval.
Question No. 5: Shall the Charter be amended to add a further exception to the powers of initiative for ordinances and of referendum for any measures passed by the City Council regarding the compelling of government speech in a particular manner; and to clarify the timing of and procedures for petitioning for initiative and referendum? Yes–For Approval; No–Against Approval.
The pay… the schedules:
City Council: $21,486
https://www.cityofpensacola.com/2684/Agendas-Minutes-and-Video
The council serves nearly 7/7.
ECUA: $44,693 full benefits
Meets at best 4 meetings a month @3:00… THAT IS IT!
BOCC: $93,738
Four public meetings a month and outreach to their district including various citizen based forums. Full benefits.
HUMM…
There is little transparency in the charter amendment language. Way to much bundling. The public is not put on notice that the council will get a $10,000,00 raise if the public votes to adopt amendment #5. The council salary should not be in the charter. The council has always addressed its salary in ordinances. They want the public to blindly give them a huge raise and no doubt raises every year. Nothing if real substance came out of the charter review commission. Vote No.
Bob Kerrigan had a full-page ad in this past Sunday’s News Journal urging voters to vote NO. It must be a very cold day in hell for him and I to so much agree on something so important. Unlike in 2009, after the first Charter Review Commission (CRC), this time the City Council did “not” send out an informational mailer to describe what was proposed. In 2009, the mailer was four pages. The 2009 vote was conducted by mail. On the downside, in 2009, the CRC promised but failed to submit its final proposal to an independent legal review. [It took me five years to get one legal error fixed. Others remain.] The 2009 CRC was required by its written mandate to hold a public hearing “after” finalizing its recommendations but “before” submitting its recommendations to the City Council. The CRC refused. The CRC was also required to prepare and submit a final report to explain its recommendations. It refused. It was mostly for this reason that the CRC’s academic advisor from UWF resigned telling me that he felt ethically bound to end his participation in what was a corrupt process. The CRC was tasked to review the prior Charter in place since 1931 but did not. The CRC was required to review the operations of the city government but did not. What did the CRC “do” in 2009? It only reviewed other Charters of cities with “county-sized populations.” CRC Chairwoman Crystal Spencer who bullied both Mayor John Fogg and Mayor Mike Wiggins explained that she was, “Looking more towards our community geographically, something more of a 300,000 population than the 55,000 population we have.” She also excitedly exclaimed, “How goes Pensacola, so goes Escambia County!” Ed Ranelli said that the new Charter had to be “consistent with consolation.” DeeDee Ritchie said, “I think it’s important that we make bold moves that set the stage for consolidation.” What is consolidation? The legal abolishment of the City of Pensacola merging it into a new countywide charter government armed with “both” city and county taxing powers. Imagine people living in Cantonment having to start paying “city” taxes and fees too! I served on the Escambia County Consolidation Study Commission as did John Peacock who then lived in Marcus Point. Peacock told me that the new city Charter was never going to be implemented because it would be overcome by the new county Charter. But the county Charter never got past the local state legislative delegation and we in the city then got stuck with a city Charter that seemed to take the worst of everything and put it in one Charter. Knowing all the above, I advised the 2022 Charter Review Commission in writing to conduct a “clean sheet” review. It did not. Instead, it was a hasty, disjointed and poorly run effort. The city would have gotten a far better result if it had picked nine PHS IB students by random lottery. The 2022 CRC did not even submit a report that explained its recommendations. Who knows why they recommended what they recommended? CRC Chairman Sam Horton did not participate in the City Council review of the charter amendments telling me that he was not invited to do so. Bottom line – there is no way that anyone can read what is written on the ballot and understand what is being proposed. Just vote NO. The fact that the City Council voted itself a huge pay raise in 2016 and wants another in 2024 and then every year is the best reason of all to vote NO.