Sarasota County Commissioners violated County Comp Plan, it seems

The former head of Sarasota County Natural Resources Dept. says the Board of County Commissioners violated the Comp Plan when it gave Whole Foods Market permission to turn a living wetland into a parking lot.

Letter to the Editor, Herald Tribune

Wetland worth saving

A recent letter writer asserted that Tom Lyons added spin to his column on Whole Foods’ planned destruction of wetlands. Perhaps as author of many of Sarasota County’s environmental regulations, I can show that facts do not constitute spin.

While it is true that Sarasota County changed some of the environmental provisions in its Comprehensive Plan over the last 17 years, it did not change them to the extent that allows a developer to take out a functioning wetland just because it’s in the way.

Here’s the revised language (Environment Chapter, Management Guidelines): “In cases where a wetland is no longer capable of performing defined environmental functions and providing defined environmental values, or in cases where no other reasonable alternative exists other than disrupting a wetland, as determined by the County, some alterations may be allowed.”

The main difference between the 1999 rule and the current one is that the former rule required swamps to be preserved while the current one lumps in swamps (the habitat on the Whole Foods site) with all wetlands and allows them to be disrupted only if they meet the standards in the above-cited provision.

This wetland remains in good ecological condition — even Whole Foods’ environmental consultant agreed with that — and still provides environmental values and functions as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.

County ecologists are responsible for determining the quality of a wetland. County staff opined correctly that removing this wetland would be contrary to Comprehensive Plan provisions, but the board ignored that recommendation.

Gary S. Comp, former director
Sarasota County Natural
Resources Department

Destroying Tenure Tip of Poisoned Iceberg

This piece by Dennis Maley is reprinted from The Bradenton Times in full, because it offers a clear and important overview of the political landscape right now; developer-driven, and serving a far right-wing agenda. The original piece can be found here.

SCF Trustees Want Respect But Earn Laughter

Dennis Maley
Sunday, Jan 31, 2016

On Tuesday, I went to the State College of Florida’s Board of Trustees meeting to watch them cast their final vote on abolishing the practice of "continuous contracts," a less-than-tenure protection for a select group of the school’s top educators that is in place, at least partly, to prevent good instructors from being victims of political agendas—though ineffective instructors could and have been removed for cause even after attaining it.

It was no secret how the vote would go, but I wanted to see for myself. A lot of people had contacted me to tell me they had planned to show up to oppose the vote, hoping the trustees would come to their senses and realize that the policy had the potential to be utterly destructive to the quality of education at what has for decades been an exemplary institution of higher ed.

For 40 minutes, former and current professors, students, parents and members of the community gave seething public comment. How could you do this to our beloved school? Why would you deliberately create a policy that had no discernible benefits but a host of obvious negative ones? 

The questions were rhetorical. The speakers knew why, and they let the trustees have an earful on that front as well. This was a political move, orchestrated by a political boss, for political benefit, through a board that is little more than a political conduit.

Millionaire developer Carlos Beruff is one of the most powerful political figures in Manatee and Sarasota Counties. He and his frequent business partner Pat Neal largely control Republican politics in the local area. Aided by a handful of other development interests—Benderson Development, Schroeder Manatee Ranch, etc.—they organize and distribute much of the campaign cash that decides who sits where in local government.

Carlos Beruff

It was Beruff, one of nine trustees for the college, who suggested out of nowhere last fall that the school dump continuous contracts and consider having instructors bid for their jobs, or at least indicate what the least amount of compensation they’d accept would be. Beruff gave no argument as to why it would be in the college’s best interest, beyond a few platitudes equating policies in the business world, with those at the educational institution—a field in which he has no expertise to speak of.

The rest of the board, which is largely made up of other local Republican political types—including several who have their own political ambitions or are married to someone holding or seeking public office—eagerly went along.

Everyone from the college’s president to other institutions of higher learning quickly lampooned the idea. What kind of candidates will we attract when we’re the only college in the state that doesn’t offer the opportunity to achieve continuous contract status? Will the best students want to enroll in a college that clearly doesn’t seek the best instructors?

There was no real dialogue as the plan moved forward over several months. There were no workshops with faculty and the community. There were just a bunch of public comments, limited to a maximum of three minutes each at the beginning of the meetings, followed by a few board comments at the end, defending their decision in vague and hollow terms without bothering to explain it.

That’s because no one has the political courage to give the real reason: Mr. Beruff would like it to be this way, and we would all like to remain chummy with Mr. Beruff and his various political action committees and campaign fundraising devices.

Why does Mr. Beruff want to screw with a highly-successful institution against the advice of those with infinitely more experience and expertise on the subject? My guess is that it has nothing at all to do with SCF or what may or may not be best for it, or even what Beruff himself thinks about the matter. Reforming the liberal education system is a huge pet issue on the far right, one that Governor Scott—who appoints the trustees of Florida’s 28 state colleges—is rather fixated on.

Scott already ended tenure for Florida’s public school teachers in 2011, a promise he made while campaigning the year before. SCF is the first college in the system that he has now appointed a majority of the trustees to their board. I doubt it’s a coincidence that it’s also the first to take this step, or, for that matter, that it was one of his close political allies who carried the water for him on it. Why is Scott so concerned with this issue? Because it is a popular one for him to laud to the far right as he tries to advance his political career, possibly in a 2018 Senate run. I wrote more on the ideological component of this issue in a previous column that can be found here.

The question on so many minds on Tuesday, however, was why were so many people following Beruff. That goes back to the point about political ambitions. The chair of the board of trustees is Ed Bailey. When Bailey ran for Manatee Supervisor of Elections as a Republican in 2012, Beruff was his biggest supporter, giving maximum contributions from multiple LLCs set up for his Medallion Homes operation. Bailey’s wife is currently running for school board in Manatee County.

SCF Trustee Lori Moran is married to Mike Moran, a Republican running for the Sarasota County Commission. Moran has also received a number of contributions from LLCs under Beruff’s umbrella and the rest of his hefty campaign account is largely funded by a cadre of influential local development interests. Another trustee, Robert Wyatt, is the treasurer of the Republican Party of Sarasota. Wyatt had planned to run for the Florida House this year when it looked like incumbent Ray Pilon would be redistricted, but stepped aside when Pilon remained in district 72. Clearly, he has political ambitions.

Eric Robinson is what’s known as a bag man in local politics, though to be fair, Robinson usually carries much bigger bags than the term typically implies. A Venice-based accountant, Robinson is the go-to treasurer for local Republican candidates who’ve received the blessing of the local development cartel.

Even more importantly, Robinson is often chosen to manage some of the biggest shadow PACs in state politics, expertly using technically-legal sleights of hand to obscure the money trail, blocking the intended transparency of such contributions, while often making it impossible to determine who exactly has funded nasty attack ads. He’s built a profitable little niche in this role and is obviously intent on staying tight with the people who provide the beans he counts.

Robinson himself is running for the Sarasota County School Board this year, and his campaign war chest is a veritable Who’s Who of the local development establishment. His wife is Christine Robinson, an incumbent on the Sarasota County Commission. Commissioner Robinson, who came under fire when she took the job as head of a special interest group that routinely lobbies the board she serves on for pro-development issues, will be forced out by term limits at the end of this year. She too has benefited significantly throughcontributions from Beruff and the other local developers.

As you can see, there’s plenty of incentive for those sorts of people to be thought well of by Beruff, while demonstrating that they are extremely receptive to whatever ideas he might have by not even attempting to discuss them before falling in line, as was the case with continuous contracting. And even if they aren’t able to get Beruff behind their ambitions, they surely know that it would be even more unwise to encourage him to be standing in the way of them. As much as Beruff can propel a willing surrogate to victory, he’s even more adept at knocking down enemies.

In 2012, Beruff trained his sights on 22-year Manatee County Commissioner and TBT publisher Joe McClash. McClash was a socially-conservative Republican but ran afoul of Beruff’s litmus tests at two points. While he’d consistently been pro-growth, McClash was a staunch believer in smart growth policies and the idea that new growth should pay for itself. He also saw our environmental resources as an important component to an economy dependent on tourism and migration, as well as a key quality of life component for current citizens.

McClash was rarely against a development in general, but when it came time to ask for permission to destroy wetlands that got in the way of adding a few extra houses, amending the county comp plan to increase density in rural areas that lacked the infrastructure to accommodate it, or increasing development intensity in floodplains or evacuation zones that could affect public safety, McClash was often the lone voice of dissent.

Of course, he almost never got his way. Beruff and other developers had stacked the board with a majority of commissioners who would do as they were told, but his mere calling attention to the issues was enough to inspire Beruff to fund one of the most expensive and vitriolic attack campaigns in Manatee County history, which you can read about here. McClash lost the seat by 494 votes, out of more than 25,000 cast, and Betsy Benac, a development consultant Beruff sponsored for election, was able to win the countywide seat.

Beruff also spent heavily on getting and keeping District 1 Commissioner Larry Bustle in office. Bustle will retire at the end of this year, and a potential candidate speaking under the condition of anonymity said they were told not to bother running for the seat, as the development cartel had already anointed former State Rep. Ron Reagan as their guy.

Reagan has already received several max donations from SMR related entities. SMR-related interests also paid for Vanessa Baugh’s East Manatee seat in 2012, and Pat Neal and company have sprinkled money over several campaigns in both counties to make sure their county commissions continue to see things the same way as developers.

When a Manatee County School Board seat was vacated last summer, it was Neal and Beruff who did the vetting of nearly two dozen applicants who wanted the governor’s appointment to the seat. The timing was crucial, as that board would soon be voting to reinstate impact fees, which had been inexplicably abated since 2009.

The developers tapped John Colon, who’d challenged Baugh for the county commission seat in 2012 with strong support from Beruff's LLCs. Unsurprisingly, Colon was the most vocal advocate for not having developers pay the impact fees prescribed in a taxpayer-funded study that detailed their need. 

It’s not just the elected officials who can help the developers. Some of the boards have considerable power, like Swiftmud, our regional water management board. Until recently, Beruff also served on its board—again surrounded mostly by those who seemed eager to appease him. On the same day he resigned, Beruff motioned and voted for the approval of a permit that would allow Neal to destroy high-quality wetlands for a development on Perico Island.

When Neal goes before Governor Scott and his cabinet—who have final say on land use disputes since the governor gutted the Department of Community Affairs in 2011—he’s arguing his case in front of very friendly faces. Neal has been very generous in fundraising for both Scott and Ag Commissioner Adam Putnam, who quickly ruled in his favor on the Robinson Farms issue, even after an Administrative Law Judge’s recommended order was to do the opposite.

If these boards and bodies seem incestuous, that’s because they are. It’s all part of a game where the deck is stacked in favor of those who grease the skids to keep the gravy train rolling. When Neal’s wife resigned as a trustee from SCF in late October, the governor replaced her with Peter Logan, who happens to be the President of Beruff’s company, Medallion Homes. Perhaps more than any other trustee, Logan definitely has reasons not to rock the boat when it comes to Beruff's wishes.

So, there you have it teachers, students, parents and community members. It isn’t about education. It isn’t about efficiency. It isn’t even about the State College of Florida. It’s about politics—which is why when Wyatt suggested with a straight face to SCF President Dr. Carol Probstfeld that now that this matter is behind them, he would hope she could get the faculty to start showing the board morerespect, the room literally burst into laughter. 

Wyatt looked genuinely hurt and perplexed as to why they were all laughing at him, but the answer was simple. The SCF Board of Trustees is nothing but a bad joke. If he wanted the respect of a community of highly-competent educators, he should have earned it by standing up for common sense and voting against the new policy, or at least forcing a discussion on a meritless plan that wouldn’t have stood up to debate.

Instead, the board—every single one of them this time—showed political cowardice, something I’ve yet to see inspire respect from anyone.

Whole Foods responds - Wetlands paving "within current regulations"

From the Citizens for Sarasota County Group on FB:

A response from Whole Foods Market to Tom Lyons' editorial:

Whole Foods was challenged to respond to a Herald Tribune editorial critical of Sarasota County's decision to allow a 4.5-acre wetland to be paved over for use as a parking lot for a new Whole Foods outlet on University Parkway:

Whole Foods Market
January 28 at 10:56am

If social media has any value to Whole Foods other than advertising its wares, perhaps someone from the local store will address this editorial:

Lyons: Wetland to become Whole Foods parking lot
Gary Comp recalls how right it seemed in 1999 when his environmental assessment of a wetland full of maple trees helped sway the Sarasota County Commission not to let it become a parking lot.
HERALDTRIBUNE.COM

COMMENT FROM WHOLE FOODS:

Here is the comment from Whole Foods Market:

Hi Tom, Thank you for your concern regarding this matter. we are very sensitive to environmental sustainability, and one of Whole Foods Market's core values as a business is to practice and advance environmental stewardship. While we are not the site developer, we understand, the city, county, and federal agencies have all agreed that the developer’s plans for the space we and other retailers plan to lease are within current regulations. The developer has also gone above and beyond what is required by purchasing a large tract of pristine wetlands within the watershed and donating it back to the public to ensure it is preserved for generations of Sarasotans.

Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr


Linda K I appreciate the additional land was purchased and donated for preservation. HOWEVER...right here we have a prime example of just how "preserved and protected" these lands ACTUALLY are if a developer wants them! I also had to either laugh or cry at the "within current regulations"....is WF ACTUALLY so naive that they don't know that the City Commission is OWNED by the developers??? Need a regulation changed...just mention it and it's a done deal....
(Thank you, Commissioner Hines, for your "no" vote...It is appreciated and will be remembered...)

Like · Reply · 47 mins · Edited

Gini H - Whole Foods could have built a parking garage, like Publix at Bay St/41 did . I won't be shopping there anymore. BTW, Florida lost more than 260,000 acres of freshwater, emergent wetlands during 1985-1996, and the rate of loss of this wetland type more than doubled as compared to the rate during the 1970's-1980's period. Wetlands, particularly freshwater emergent wetlands, are essential for waterfowl and other wildlife, yet losses continue. Since Florida became a state, total wetland area has decreased by approximately 44%.
Wetland habitat in wintering areas such as Florida is important in the overall annual cycle of migratory waterfowl. Habitat conditions during this non-breeding period affect waterfowl survival and reproduction in subsequent years. Ducks must maintain or improve their body condition during winter to avoid mortality during spring migration and to meet the physiological demands of the nesting season (i.e., egg laying, incubation). The FWC's waterfowl staff devotes considerable resources to monitoring and managing these migrant birds and providing quality habitat for them in Florida.
Managing wetland habitat is critical to providing the greatest quantity and highest quality of habitat possible to support Florida's waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. Without a large habitat base that includes breeding, migration, and wintering areas, waterfowl populations will decline despite any attempt to restrict sport harvest. Wetland habitat management has importance beyond its value to waterfowl by benefiting many other Florida plant and wildlife species.

Like · Reply · 1 · 27 mins

“There is a lot of growth; we can’t stop it anymore."

Following up on the Sarasota County Commission's decision on Whole Foods' wish to build on living wetland:

Shocking absolutely no one at all, the Sarasota County Commission bowed to Whole Foods and WaWa Tuesday, approving the erection of those commercial enterprises on a wetland on University Parkway at Honore.

One resident near the wetlands site was quoted by the Herald Tribune as saying: “There is a lot of growth; we can’t stop it anymore." 

Herald Tribune:

A forested wetland preserve standing in the way of a new Whole Foods Market at Honore Avenue and University Parkway will become a parking lot after the Sarasota County commissioners approved a rezoning change over the objections of some staff and residents. 

The measure passed 4-1 with Commissioner Charles Hines voting against it. 

“Clearly this is a good location for this end user, except there’s a wetland right on it,” Hines said. “There is testimony in the record that says it’s a functioning wetland. It still has value. It still has use.” 

More . . .

Citizen advocate Bill Zoller wrote to acknowledge the effort of Commissioner Hines [link added]:

Dear Charles: 

Thank you very much for voting against the Whole Foods proposal which will result in the destruction of the wetlands at that site. That wetlands was the basis for the denial, some years ago, of the McKay et al proposal for that site. At that time, all aspects of the issue, and of the importance of the wetlands, were aired, discussed, and dissected in great detail. Since that time, nothing has changed that would warrant the destruction of the wetlands, nor has the role of that wetlands in the overall ecology changed. 

I am a little surprised that Whole Foods, given its image as a champion of environmental issues, would pursue this environmentally destructive path to a new store. 

Again, your concern and your vote are much appreciated in this matter. Sarasota will lose one more important piece of its natural systems, which is a loss for us all. 

Best, 

Bill

UPDATE: The loss of Sarasota's wetland is now a component of Wikipedia's entry on Whole Foods.

Degrading Sarasota County, one wetland at a time

From Dan Lobeck, Sarasota attorney and citizen advocate:

PAVING PARADISE AND GRIDLOCKING OUR ROADS

On Tuesday, January 26 shortly after 1:30 pm at their downtown Sarasota location, the Sarasota County Commission will consider allowing a developer to pave over 4 ½ acres of very rare and valuable forested wetlands for commercial development and to create traffic gridlock at an important intersection. 

It is a public hearing, with the right to speak for up to five minutes.
Sarasota County staff is recommending against this, and would require that the wetlands be preserved on the 8 ¼ acre site at University Parkway and Honore Avenue. They point out that most of these wetlands were agreed to be preserved in a previous business park approved for the site, so the developer would violate the requirement of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that there is “no reasonable alternative” but to destroy the wetlands. 

Staff reports that the particular wetlands “are very rare in Sarasota County” and “have a high degree of environmental importance for water filtration, assimilation of nutrients, floodwater storage and as a refuge and habitat for a wide variety of species that rely on this urban environment.” “Such isolated habitats within the urban environment,” staff says, “are becoming increasingly more important to migratory species.” 

The wetland destruction would be “mitigated” six miles away on Manatee County property unconnected to any Sarasota County habitat, which staff says also violates the Comprehensive Plan requirement that mitigation (where there is “no reasonable alternative” to destruction) should be on-site or nearby. 

If this is approved, it will follow a brand-new pattern of the Sarasota County Commission allowing destruction of valuable habitat for mitigation in Manatee County, as it granted to Benderson Development last year for expansion of the University Town Center.
The proposed commercial development would also create severe traffic congestion at the University Parkway-Honore Avenue intersection which can only be solved by a large, expensive road and intersection improvements and a traffic light. Two lanes must be added to University Parkway from Honore to Medici Court and to Honore Avenue from University Parkway to Desoto Road, if the traffic is to be handled. However, amazingly, transportation staff recommends – without any evident concurrency analysis required by state law – only to require the developer to add the traffic light. There are no plans for the other improvements. 

So not only do valuable wetlands get paved over, but another stretch of University Parkway, and of Honore Avenue, and their intersection, gets gridlocked. 

The Planning Commission, which the County Commission has stacked with development interests, unanimously recommended approval of the developer’s proposal. (Earlier on the County Commission agenda, the Commission will most likely pass over citizen advocates Lourdes Ramirez and Ray Porter to appoint two developers and a development contractor to the Planning Commission, if they follow what they have done before). 

Will the County Commission act again to let developers pave over wetlands which their environmental staff says are required to be preserved, and gridlock the roads in the process? 

-- Dan Lobeck

A proposed change in procedure for Sarasota's Charter Review Board

A follow-up to the most recent Charter Review Board meeting, at which Bob Waechter submitted an amendment to the Sarasota County Charter, and the Board agreed to review it at its next meeting. Neither Waechter nor the Board disclosed the content of the amendment, but a person in attendance requested a copy and read aloud from it. It proposed to change the Board from an elected panel to an appointed Board.

Following the meeting, one person who'd been in attendance sent an email to each member of the Board. A copy is below:

To the Charter Review Board: 

I attended your Jan. 20th, 2016 meeting. Much of the discussion involved efforts on your part to be more meticulous about procedure. While this is laudable, I was surprised to learn that you do not routinely make the texts of proposed amendments docketed for review easily available to the public. 

Not publishing proposed amendments as soon as you receive them fails to provide open participation to the public in this process. These are, after all, amendments that could eventually impact great numbers of people. While you appear conscientious about allotting time for the pubic to speak at meetings, it would be consistent for you to adopt a rule or bylaw to the effect that proposed amendments need to be published promptly upon submission to the Board. 

This can be easily accomplished if you would require all amendments to be submitted via digital format -- in a pdf or text file that then could be posted to your page on the county's site. Virtually no resources or storage space would be required for this purpose. 

With this procedure in place, amendment proposals could be shared with the general public via the Internet on many sites, virtually immediately upon submission. One result would be more informed meetings, as those attending will have had time to read and consider new proposals. 

Another benefit: You would avoid even the appearance of impropriety as was raised at the Jan. 20th meeting in which several members of the public objected to Mr. Waechter's proposal being submitted and set for review without having shared its title or intent with those present in the meeting chamber. I understand this was not the first time Mr. Waechter had appeared with his amendment, but for myself and other first-timers, there was a sense of inappropriate secretiveness. 

If you do not have staffing for this purpose, I'm sure we can find a public-minded citizen who can create a dedicated site whose sole purpose would be to publish amendments submitted to the board at no charge in a timely manner. 

Thank you for considering these thoughts. 

Thomas Matrullo
Sarasota, FL

Several days later, Donna Barcomb, Chairman of the CRB, responded:

Dear Mr. Matrullo, 

I do not know why we haven't published proposed amendments previously however I think it is a good idea. I do believe we need to address this as well as some other procedural "rules" or by-law amendments. 

Thank you, 

Donna Barcomb

Ms Barcomb is the only member of the Board to respond to date. She will be stepping down from the Chair to be succeeded by Richard Dorfman. Other members of the Board include: Anthony Sawyer; Pat Wayman; John Fellin; Steven Fields; Joe Justice; Jim Gabbert, and Bruce Dillon

The Sarasota Charter Review Board, Waechter, and Public Process

From today's Herald Tribune:

Bob Waechter, Sarasota County's former GOP chief, gave the board a proposed written charter amendment calling for the board members to be appointed, rather than the current system which elects the members. He said he would discuss the details during the next meeting. 

Waechter's proposal calls for a 15-member appointed board chosen by county commissioners and other officials. The move, the proposal states, would not disenfranchise voters. 

“It is time, after 24 years, to again ask the voters what they think,” he wrote.

At the Charter Review Board's meeting last night, Waechter handed copies of his proposal to members of the Charter Review Board, but did not say what it contained. The Board then agreed to consider Waechter's proposed amendment at its next meeting, in May.

Bob Waechter handing his proposed charter amendment to
Sarasota County's Charter Review Board

A board whose purpose is to publicly consider amendments to Sarasota County government thus accepted and voted to formally review a proposal whose contents were undisclosed -- until one citizen in attendance stood up, asked for a copy of the proposal, and stated that in fact it does call for an appointed, rather than publicly elected, panel.

Currently amendment proposals submitted to the Board are not published. To find out what they contain, one needs to go to the Clerk of the Court's office and seek them out.

Should proposals for Charter amendments be submitted for review without public awareness? Would it not be more consistent with the Board's purpose for it to adopt a procedure something like this:

1. Require all proposed amendments to be submitted as a digital file - preferably a pdf. 

2. Publish all amendments accepted for consideration to the Internet with reasonable promptness - within 24 hours of submission, for example. 

3. Make the CRB site known to the public so that the actions and process of the Board become more widely known.

The amount of computational power and storage to handle this chore is minimal. If the Board needs help, it can write to us at sarasotavision@gmail.com. We'll be happy to help.

The spectacle of Mr. Waechter handing his papers to the officials while refusing to even state what his amendment contained smacked of disdain for public awareness -- even as his apparent desire to do away with the public's involvement in choosing Board members suggests a peculiar disregard for democratic process.


Election of officers

The Board concluded its session with an election of officers for the coming year:

• Richard Dorfman - Chairman.

• Anthony Sawyer - Vice Chair

• Jim Gabbert - Chair Pro Tem

Cathy Antunes urges anyone interested in how Sarasota County operates to be at the May meeting of the CRB:

• Go to the May CRB meeting!  Mr. Waechter is proposing that our Charter Review Board be an appointed rather than an elected body.  It will be critical for citizens to show up and speak out against this proposal. Her commentary in full is here.

Tell the Board what you think: Email The Charter Review Board

Lobeck: The Cabal and the Charter Review Board - UPDATE

As a follow-up to the email below, please email the Charter Review Board to tell them not to take away our right to elect the Charter Review Board by making it appointed by the County Commission:
Email The Charter Review Board

Protect Our Right to Elect the

Charter Review Board




Unlike other communities, Sarasota County has an independent, elected Charter Review Board with the power to put Charter amendments directly on the ballot for a public vote. That avoids the need to get over 14,000 signatures or a vote of the County Commission.

Developers and their supporters are scared by that. They know that given the opportunity the people will vote for measures to rein in their control over local politicians and policies, as they have over the years.

On Wednesday, January 20, the developer cabal will make another effort to take away the citizens’ right to elect the Charter Review Board. The CRB will hear a proposal to do that, as requested by Bob Waechter, the long-time henchman of the developers, who works each election year to recruit candidates to the developers’ liking.

You may remember Bob Waechter, who stole the identity of a candidate for County Commission and sought to discredit her by making false campaign contributions in her name, and was charged with a felony as a result (to add to a prior felony conviction).

The Wednesday meeting will be at 6 pm at the Anderson Center, County Commission chambers, at 4000 South Tamiami Trail in Venice.

Citizens will have a chance to speak against this proposal during Open to the Public at the beginning of the meeting, for up to 5 minutes each.

If the CRB votes to approve the proposal for consideration, it will go to a CRB committee for consideration and then back to the CRB for final approval of a motion (which requires a 2/3 affirmative vote) to place the change on the ballot.

On May 6, 2009, the developers lost a previous effort in the Charter Review Board, by a tie vote, to have a committee consider taking away the citizens right to elect the body. They lost a previous effort to do the same thing in 2006, by a 6 to 3 vote of CRB members against it.

In the 1980’s and early 90’s, the Charter Review Board sponsored good measures, which were approved by the voters, to create $200 campaign contribution limits for local politicians, to require voter approval for the County to raise property taxes or deepen taxpayer debt beyond certain limits, to require full disclosure of property owners seeking rezonings and to require testimony under oath at rezone hearings so that developers tell the truth.

The problem is that it takes a two-thirds vote of the Charter Review Board to put a measure on the ballot and about half its members currently tend to go along with the opponents of citizen power.

This got that way when those forces recruited and supported candidates to take over the Charter Review Board in 1994, in reaction to a Charter Review Board proposal to amend the County Charter to provide a right of citizen initiative and referendum over County ordinances.

Since 1994, the Charter Review Board has done little but attempt to repeal or weaken the reforms added to the Charter by a pro-reform Charter Review Board in the 1980's and early 1990's. They tried to repeal the tax cap but the voters turned them down. They tried to tie the borrowing cap to annual increases in real estate values but the voters turned them down (later approving a much more modest indexing of the limit to the consumer price index). They tried to repeal the campaign contribution limits (because as we know the developers are the ones who like to pour the big bucks into campaigns) but again the voters turned them down

Ultimately, the anti-reformers want to take away the citizens’ right to elect their Charter Review Board and just make it a committee of the County Commission.

The CRB was right in 2009 and 2006 to preserve the citizens’ right to elect an independent, elected Charter Review Board as a source to put measures on the ballot to protect and enhance citizen rights and interests.

Five of the ten Charter Review Board members are up for election every two years, to a four-year term. Candidates run from five districts (the same as the County Commission districts) but all votes are county-wide. It is a partisan election, so there is a primary as well as the November general election.

Three factors favor running for Charter Review Board rather than other political offices:

1) There is no filing fee.
2) The position is a fairly minimal commitment, as the Charter Review Board meets infrequently, in evening meetings.
3) The financial disclosure requirement is minimal, requiring the listing only of significant property, debts, business interests and sources of income, with no amounts.

Citizens who favor citizens’ rights and interests belong on the Charter Review Board. Anyone who would act contrary to those rights and interests do not.

The vote Wednesday on whether to take away the citizens’ right to elect our Charter Review Board is an important one.

-- Dan Lobeck

An email from Cathy Antunes

This email is dated Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016  [links added]:

Hello all,

Our County Charter is our local constitution.  It has served us well, and has been a way for citizens to shape and guide our County government.

On Wednesday night the Charter Review Board (CRB) will meet at 6 p.m. in Venice. On the agenda: a twenty-minute presentation from Bob Waechter.

Some news reports indicate Mr. Waechter may present on reducing citizen input to the CRB and/or suggesting that CRB members be appointed, not elected, Other reports indicate Mr. Waechter may be acting as a "placeholder" and someone else will present on the topic of a common law grand jury. 

Why is the Charter Review Board accepting counsel from Mr. Waechter at all?

As you may remember, a Publix surveillance videotape showed Mr. Waechter purchasing a debit card in the name of a Republican candidate, which he later used to donate to Democrats in her name.  The FBI wanted our state attorney to give Waechter's felony identity theft case to them, but the state attorney refused and permitted Mr. Waechter to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.  Through his actions Mr. Waechter has displayed complete contempt for the integrity of our local elections. 

Tomorrow night you have the opportunity to witness what recycled or completely new approach may be proposed by Mr. Waechter (or his designee) to undermine citizen input through the County Charter.  Show up and learn how the CRB functions, question why Mr. Waechter is advising them, see what may be unfolding at the outset to reduce your voice in your government. 

At last week's Republic Executive Committee meeting CRB board member Richard Dorfman shared that Mr. Waechter and his cohorts may propose abolishing the Charter Review Board - a bizarre suggestion.  

The CRB and our County Charter exist to serve the public.  Let's keep it that way.

Cathy Antunes 

Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government.


*Meeting details:

January 20, 2016         6:00 p.m

Charter Review Board Regular Meeting

Robert L. Anderson Administration Center

4000 South Tamiami Trail

Commission Chamber

Venice, FL 

The Charter Review Board gives citizens 5 minutes each to provide public input.  Public input typically begins at 6:05 pm.  Please attend and speak for preserving publicly elected CRB officials and time for public input during CRB meetings.

More on this:

http://thedetail.net/2016/01/13/waechterians-at-the-gate/

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20151018/ARTICLE/151019643/0/APN

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20160118/ARTICLE/160119621/0/APN?p=1&tc=pg

What does Waechter want at the Charter Review Board?

From The Detail:

Waechterians at the Gate

January 13, 2016 cathycantunes@gmail.com Corruption, County Charter, County Elections, Elections, Ethics, Sarasota GOP 

Your presence is kindly requested at the January 20th Charter Review Board meeting.* Here’s why:

We have a lot to celebrate and give thanks for in Sarasota. Sarasota County is a “home rule” county—one of 21 counties in the state of Florida with a County Charter. Sarasota County instituted a local constitution, or County Charter, in 1971. Amendments to our County Charter can be initiated by citizen petition, the County Commission or the Charter Review Board. The CRB works on behalf of the citizens of Sarasota County to review and recommend changes to the County Charter for improvement of County government. Charter amendments are put to referendum for voter approval. It’s a system which has served us well. But in the past decade we’ve seen numerous proposals, each one defeated, which would have undermined citizen powers through the County Charter amendment process. Bob Waechter has been one of the principals in such efforts, proposing changes which would constrain effective citizen engagement in local government. Waechter is at it again.

You might remember Bob Waechter. He was caught on videotape purchasing a debit card in the name of a fellow Republican—a candidate for County Commission he wanted to defeat. He made donations to Democrats with the card. Mr. Waechter was charged with felony identity theft. Thank goodness for security cameras. Without the videotape, we’d have to rely upon the former Sarasota GOP chair’s conscience to kick in and let us know the donations were fraudulent. How long would that take? 

Continue reading at The Detail

*Meeting details:

January 20, 2016
6:00 p.m
Charter Review Board Regular Meeting
Robert L. Anderson Administration Center Commission Chamber
4000 South Tamiami Trail
Venice, FL

The Charter Review Board gives citizens 5 minutes each to provide public input. Public input typically begins at 6:05 pm. Please attend and speak for preserving publicly elected CRB officials and time for public input during CRB meetings.