Attorney: "Both Amendments should be a NO Vote"

Citizens for Sarasota County asked Susan Schoettle-Gumm, a former assistant County Attorney, to review the two items added by the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners to the November Ballot. Her answer:

"In my opinion, these two proposed charter amendments – individually and definitely in combination – would effectively block future citizen-initiated charter amendments in Sarasota County.  

If the amendments proposed for the November 2022 ballot are approved, Sarasota County would have the most stringent and difficult requirements in the state for citizen-initiated county charter amendment petitions.  

Both amendments should be a NO Vote."

Below is a comparison of Sarasota's Charter Amendment provisions with those of other counties in Florida:

Commissioner Al Maio

Sarasota County already has the shortest time period for collection of signatures among all charter counties in Florida (the 90-91 days from January 1 to April 1, with possible additional 30 days for signatures added to required number already submitted) and a high signature requirement.  Fifty-five percent (55%) of charter counties allow 180 days for signature collection (some with an additional 30 days if signatures are rejected) and some counties allow even longer time periods for collection.  Half of Florida’s charter counties require signatures from only 5% - 8% of registered electors. Only one charter county in the State currently imposes a substantive legal review of a petition prior to allowing it to be on the ballot (Orange County, which uses a board of 3 independent attorneys hired annually to make the determination).  If these 2022 proposed amendments had been in the Charter in 2018, the petition for single-member districts would have been rejected and never on the ballot.

Question 1 changes would apply only to citizen-initiated amendments and would require:  

A) the signatures of 10% of registered electors to be collected as 10% within each county commission district (rather than county-wide), and, 

B) after collection of 1% of required signatures and submittal to the County, the following are required: County review/approval of the form of the petition, County review/approval of the legal sufficiency of the petition (terms not defined), a fiscal impact analysis (terms not defined) by the County, and a presentation of the petition to the Charter Review Board, if it has a meeting during the relevant time period.

Comments:  This makes the high 10% signature requirement even more difficult as 10% within each commission district would be required.  So use of centralized petition collection points will be more difficult.  Less urbanized districts may be very difficult to efficiently obtain signatures. When the requirement of 10% signatures from each district is added to the already very short signature collection period, collection of the necessary signatures would be nearly impossible.  

• Review of petition format is widely required in other county charters but does not appear to be a significant problem – but it would depend on what requirements are included in the County ordinance proscribing the form.  
• Three charter counties currently require a fiscal/economic impact analysis, so this is not widely adopted.  
• Requiring a determination of “legal sufficiency” and that it be decided by the County is like having the fox guard the hen house when the hen house has no door.  

• The combination of the legal review and signature requirement by district are very damaging and unacceptable provisions.

Question 2 would add the requirement that any proposed amendment, whether proposed by the Charter Review Board, the County, or by citizen petition “shall not conflict with the Florida Constitution, general law, or the Charter.”  

Comments: Charter provisions, whether proposed or already adopted, must already not conflict with the Florida Constitution and general law.  So this change is really focused on prohibiting any major changes to the Charter.  Any proposed change that could not coexist with existing charter provisions would be prohibited.  And presumably the County would make this determination for citizen petitions as part of its “legal sufficiency” review under Question 1.  For example, if this provision had been in the County Charter in 2018, the question to change county commission elections from at-large to single-member districts would not have made it on the ballot.  Presumably, provisions in a new subject area, such as ethics, might not “conflict” with the Charter, but again, with the County making this determination, the fox guarding the hen house would be choosing which chickens might live or die.

I believe that the proposed amendments are terrible intrusions into the authority that remains with the citizens of Sarasota County under home rule.  

The County has not granted the power of amendment by petition to the citizens – rather the citizens have retained this power to themselves.  We cannot give up more of our power to the County.  In fact, we should consider a citizen petition to amend the Charter to allow the proposal, amendment and recission of ordinances by citizen initiative – as is authorized in at least 75% of Florida’s charter counties.  

I hope this information is helpful to you.  We need to get this out to the public in any and all ways possible. 

The message must be to Vote NO on the Sarasota County Charter Amendments.

Commissioners: Respect the Charter and the People

Board of Sarasota County Commissioners

Date: 12.6.21

To: Mike Moran, Al Maio, Ron Cutsinger, Nancy Detert, Christian Ziegler

cc: Matt Osterhoudt, Ron Turner

Commissioners of Sarasota County:

You're in a bind. You have consistently fostered pro-growth policies and approved super-sized developments, despite public hearings that bring hundreds of people to your chambers in hopes of persuading you to moderate, if not halt, egregious development plans.

Your largesse has increased over time; your regulatory authority is so little used in development approval hearings that the rules have become flaccid, feckless things. Instead of assiduously applying the laws that express the people's wishes for their community's future, you have handed interpretation of our Comprehensive Plan to the construction syndicate. 

Tens of thousands of dwelling units are already approved and on your books. The total is far more, as I understand it, than the most liberal projections for the county's housing needs predict.Yet you refuse to publicly discuss the planning overview, the total context that would give us the basis for deciding when too much is too much. Knowledge of the facts would bring a strong reaction from our residents.

Here's the point: You have disappointed and angered people in each of the five districts -- people who deeply care about what is happening to the place where they and their neighbors live, where their children go to school, and where they once were happy. 

Because you know this, you are doing everything you can to turn upside down the voting structure we the people put in place in 2018.You know that your pro-growth insensitivity has angered many people in your districts, and you wish to avoid your official accountability to them.

So here's the math: Each district is drawn to contain roughly 75,000 voters. Each of those voters has had the opportunity to experience the pain and hassle, the traffic and construction detours caused by your approvals of developments where they live.

The only way to kneecap those 75,000 angry voters before they enthusiastically retire you from office is to have 285,827 people from other districts bury the informed electoral power of your district voters under an avalanche of ignorance.

Add this to your gerrymandered redistricting and the extent of de-democratization in Sarasota County becomes clear. This is not about Dems versus Republicans. It's about undermining Democracy itself. 

When the voters tell you to refrain from placing Single Member District voting on a costly special election ballot, listen to them, Commissioners. Do not approve any special election without itemizing in complete detail how many of our tax dollars will be needed if this bureaucratic tantrum is exercised.

Very truly yours,

Tom Matrullo 

Citizen of Sarasota County

Critical Times: Corporate support for Voter Suppression and Tallahassee's squelching of free speech

Stories from the July Issue of Critical Times -- the info is important, local, and free.

Top 25 Corporate Contributors to Voter Suppression Supporters

Tallahassee - First in reducing public expression - 

Tallahassee also first in Voter Suppression - which local elected officials supported suppressing your vote?

Sarasota voters want single-member districts

OPINION: Sarasota voters want single-member districts

May 26, 2021 Herald Tribune

Pat Rounds and Bill Zoller

In November 2018 – in a countywide referendum to amend the county charter – Sarasota County voters approved the election of commissioners by single-member districts by an impressive 60% margin across all five districts.  

Board of Sarasota County Commissioners

To get such a mandate requires support from Republicans, Democrats, and No Party Affiliation independents. Voters were clear that they wanted district-level representation and accountability.

Last November three county commissioners were successfully elected by single-member district in Sarasota County. Yet just two weeks later the same county commission began to sow seeds of doubt about district-level representation.

With only three of five commissioners elected by single-member districts – and before allowing voters several election cycles to decide whether they prefer single-member districts to At-Large voting – our commission has intervened and asked the Charter Review Board to review single-member districts.     

Here's why this is a bad idea:  

• Nineteen other Florida counties – both smaller and larger than Sarasota County – currently elect commissioners by single-member district. Like Sarasota, voters in these counties recognize the value of direct representation; it requires a commitment from commissioners to serve the best interests of the entire county. 
• The Florida Legislature and the U.S. Congress are elected by single-member district. Would our county commission suggest that the Legislature convert to At-Large voting, which would allow Miami-Dade County voters to help decide who represents Sarasota County in Tallahassee? Not a chance.
• In 2018, 60% of Sarasota County voters endorsed single-member districts. Now – nearly three years after the fact – our commissioners are suddenly citing a few anecdotes about voter confusion with the ballot language? The county commission should post the 2018 single-member district ballot language on the county website. Why? Because it would remind everyone just how clear and concise the language was –and it would remind everyone that voters were not confused when they endorsed single-member districts.
• Ironically a current county commissioner previously served in the Florida Senate – and was elected to that seat by single-member district. If election by single-member district was OK back then for this current commissioner, why is it a problem now?

Sarasota County voters deserve accountability from all of their elected officials, and in 2018 the voters spoke clearly on how they want their representatives to be elected. Stoking doubts about our chosen election system does a disservice to Sarasota County's voters. That's why the Charter Review Board should reject any unseemly effort by the Sarasota County commissioners to undo the voters’ will.

Pat Rounds is the past secretary of the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections. Bill Zoller is the past president of the Council on Neighborhood Associations.

Cosentino can join suit on Charter case

Subscribe to the SNL

County and plaintiffs in Charter amendments lawsuit agree Reopen Beach Road can be a party to the case

February 14, 2019 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Reopen Beach Road objects to judge’s proposal to refer the case to a Circuit Court magistrate

The Silvertooth Judicial Center is located on Ringling Boulevard in downtown Sarasota. File photo

Siesta Key property owners who have challenged the legality of two Sarasota County Charter amendments and the Office of the County Attorney have agreed that the nonprofit organization Reopen Beach Road should be allowed to intervene in a 12th Judicial Circuit Court case focused on the amendments.

Siesta Key resident Michael Cosentino — who established the nonprofit Reopen Beach Road in June 2016 — wrote the two Charter amendments, both of which are related to a May 2016 County Commission vacation of part of North Beach Road. The amendments won voter approval on the Nov. 6, 2018 General Election ballot.

Attorney Ryan Reese of Moore, Bowman & Rix in Tampa, acting on behalf of plaintiff William H. Caflisch, and Assistant County Attorney David M. Pearce signed a stipulation that was filed with the Circuit Court on Feb. 6. It said that it was appropriate for Reopen Beach Road “to intervene in this matter …” They were joined in the stipulation by attorney Fred E. Moore of the Bradenton firm Blalock Walters, acting on behalf of Reopen Beach Road.

The stipulation indicated that the attorneys had prepared an order for Circuit Judge Maria Ruhl to review and then execute, allowing Reopen Beach Road to be a party to the case. However, no order from Ruhl had appeared in the docket as of this writing.

Ryan C. Reese. Photo from the Moore Bowman & Rix website

On Jan. 16, Reopen Beach Road had filed a motion, seeking to intervene in the case that Siesta property owners William and Sheila Caflisch initiated on Oct. 9, 2018. The Caflisches had sought to have the Sarasota County Charter amendments removed from the November 2018 ballot, but the court did not rule on the matter prior to the election. As a result, on Jan. 3, Caflisch attorney Reese filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, saying that the documents filed in the case “demonstrate no genuine dispute of material fact exists [between the Caflisches and Sarasota County].” Adding that the amendments “offend existing state law, in violation of [Florida Statute 125.01],” he wrote that the court should declare them “void ab initio,” meaning that the amendments were not valid from the time they were proposed.

Statute 125.01 requires county law to be consistent with state law.

A Jan. 30 hearing on that motion for judgment was cancelled.

In a filing in a related case, Assistant County Attorney Pearce wrote, “The constitutionality of the charter amendments is a real issue and not an academic one.”

In that document, Pearce pointed out that the county had challenged the Charter amendments “because they are inconsistent with general law and vague. … [They] interfere with the express authority granted to the [County Commission] to sell and convey property, vacate roads, and make budgetary decisions, as envisioned by [sections of the Florida Statutes]. The County has also alleged the charter amendments are vague because they outline no standard of conduct,” Pearce added.

That document was filed with the court on Nov. 7, 2018, the day after voters approved the amendments.

Reopen Beach Road arguments

In a supplemental memorandum of law filed with the Circuit Court on Jan. 28, Reopen Beach Road pointed out that it “was the sponsor and driving force” behind Charter Amendments 3.9 and 3.10.

This is Sarasota County Charter Section 3.9, which was approved on Nov. 6, 2018. Image courtesy of the Office of the Sarasota County Clerk of Court and County Comptroller

The former says the county must rescind the vacation of the 373-foot-long segment of North Beach Road that was approved on May 11, 2016, and then the county must re-acquire the right of way. The amendment also indicates the county should repair the road and keep it open to vehicular traffic.

Amendment 3.10 prohibits Sarasota County from vacating or selling any segment of road or right away abutting any area that could be considered to have a “waterfront vista.”In June 2016, Cosentino filed suit against the county, arguing that the County Commission had violated the county’s Comprehensive Plan in vacating the portion of North Beach Road. Although Circuit Court Judge Frederick Mercurio dismissed all the counts against Sarasota County, Cosentino has appealed the final dismissal to the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.

Cosentino’s attorney in that case — Lee Robert Rohe of Big Pine Key — asked that the Appeal Court delay until March 22 the filing of his initial brief with the court. On Jan. 28, the Appeal Court ordered that the initial brief “shall be served within 30 days of the date of this order.”

Cosentino lost an earlier appeal of one of Mercurio’s rulings in favor of the county.

The Jan. 28 supplemental memorandum of law says Reopen Beach Road “was organized and incorporated … for the express purpose of promoting a citizen’s initiative petition drive for placement of the Charter Amendments on the Ballot.”

A county graphic shows facets of the area surrounding the North Beach Road vacation site. Image courtesy Sarasota County

It also points to “the County’s continuing alignment with the Plaintiffs (who are condominium developers) …” Further, it says, “It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Plaintiffs and the County may enter into a settlement agreement, thus leaving [Reopen Beach Road] out in the cold.”

A Sarasota News Leader check of Sarasota County Property Appraiser Office records shows William H. Caflisch Sr. and Sheila S. Caflisch — the plaintiffs in the Charter amendment case — own several parcels on Siesta Key, including property at 77 Beach Road and 70 Avenida Veneccia, each of which is the site of a single-family house. They do own two vacant lots on Avenida Veneccia that are zoned for multi-family construction, according to the Property Appraiser’s Office.

The Caflisches were among the three sets of property owners who petitioned for the North Beach Road vacation in 2016, arguing that the segment had been closed to motor vehicles since 1993 because of repeated storm damage. Cosentino has contended the County Commission never should have approved the request because of the road segment’s value as public access to Siesta Beach. He cited a section of the county’s Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time to underscore his argument.

Objection to referral of case to a magistrate

Circuit Judge Maria Ruhl. Image from the 12th Judicial Circuit Court website

Circuit Court Judge Ruhl — who was elected to the bench in November 2018 — has taken over the case from Circuit Court Judge Mercurio. On Feb. 4, she issued an order, referring the matter to 12thJudicial Circuit Court Magistrate Deborah A. Bailey. That order called for Bailey to handle all discovery motions and all motions “directed to the pleadings.”

Bailey was authorized to conduct any hearings, which could include the “taking of evidence,” and then was directed to file a recommended order to Ruhl, “as soon as practicable.”

Nonetheless, the order pointed out, “A referral to a Magistrate requires the consent of all parties.”

On Jan. 31, S. William Moore, another attorney for the Caflisches, had a letter hand-delivered to Ruhl, the court docket shows. Moore wrote that he had conferred “with all counsel” regarding her proposed order of referral to the magistrate. Sarasota County had no objection, he added. However, “Counsel for proposed Intervenor Reopen Beach Road, Inc. … has notified us of its objection to the referral. It is therefore anticipated that a written objection may be filed, pursuant to the Court’s requirements.”

On Feb. 13, Cosentino’s attorney, Rohe, did file a notice of objection of the referral to the magistrate. Among Rohe’s arguments was the fact that part of Cosentino’s suit against the county is on appeal.

The notice added that Reopen Beach Road “believes that, in the interest of justice and to best serve the public, the Court must be directly involved in acquainting itself with the complexities of the case and ruling upon the First Amendment and election law issues arising from this case; instead of relying upon the ‘filter’ of recommended ruling(s).”

Fight unfair voting practices

The people's right to vote is being suppressed by unconscionable state laws and manipulated by moneyball gerrymandering.*

One way to fight back (from The Detail):

If you are already a registered Republican, show up on August 30th and vote. If you are not a registered Republican, register with the Republican Party by August 1st.  You can change your party affiliation back after August 30th if you choose.  Just mail in another registration form.  Local election information can be found at www.sarasotavotes.com. 

Here is the specific link for a Florida voter registration form: 

http://dos.myflorida.com/media/693757/dsde39.pdf  

Print it out and to fill it out with black ballpoint pen. You must be a US citizen and a Florida resident to register, and you must be 18 years old by August 30th to vote in the primary (you can preregister to vote at 16 or 17 years old, but you will not be able to vote until you are 18)

Mail the completed, signed form in to the Supervisor of Elections PO Box 4194 Sarasota FL 34230-4194, or

Drop it off at the one of the Sarasota Supervisor of Elections offices:

• 2001 Adams Lane, Sarasota, FL 34237
• RL Anderson County Administration, 4000 South Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida 34293
• Biscayne Plaza, 13640 Tamiami Trail, North Port, FL 34287

Click here for street maps to all three locations

Who's contributing to whom? Find out at this link to all local candidates.

===========

Brief History of Voter Suppression.

Give us the Ballot - Ari Berman.

Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy - David Daley - about gerrymandering.