Friday, September 2, 2016

Hospital Board: 6 Questions for William Noonan

William Noonan
Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, Central District - Seat 1



1. What are the major pros and cons of privatizing Sarasota Memorial Hospital and what is your position? 
I completely support the continued operation of Sarasota Memorial as a publicly owned hospital. The performance of the hospital by all measures has been strong including patient satisfaction, key quality and safety measures, as-well-as the financial operating margin which allows for expanding services, all while reducing the tax revenue received as a % of total revenue over the last several years.  
Many residents don’t realize what services many for-profit hospitals do not provide because of these services low or no profit margins. For example, Sarasota Memorial is the only hospital in the county that provides childbirth services (over 50 percent of these patients are enrolled in Medicaid or are uninsured), neo-natal intensive care (over 60 percent of these patients are enrolled in Medicaid), inpatient pediatrics care, a Level II trauma center, inpatient psychiatric services.  SMH also has a Community Medical Clinic that provides a wide range of free diagnostic and specialty care for underinsured or uninsured patients. 
The Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board, executive team as-well-as our experienced and highly-skilled doctors, nurses and medical technicians work together every day to ensure the highest quality of patient care and satisfaction for our entire Sarasota County community. This is reflected in the numerous awards SMH has achieved, most notably the Federal Government’s CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) 5-star award for overall quality and safety.  Only 2% of hospitals nationwide achieved this recognition level.


2. Regarding the expansion of Sarasota Memorial Hospital: please expand upon why you agree or disagree with the current expansion?
I completely agree with and have supported the expansion of Sarasota Memorial Hospital. 
We all know that Sarasota County is growing at record rates.  In March of this year, the US Census Bureau released new statistics that showed the Sarasota metro area was ranked 11th on the list of fastest-growing areas in the United States.  Almost every day there is a new story about development going on in North Port, Venice, Honore Ave in Palmer Ranch, the 75 corridor, University Ave and downtown Sarasota. That directly translates into the need for more medical services for our residents, workers and visitors.  Sarasota Memorial Hospital’s average census (the number of patients in the hospital at a given time) has increased +25% over just the last 4 years. 
The SMH executive management team and the Board of Directors has anticipated this growth and the resulting patient need by expanding medical services and access to that care throughout Sarasota County. At the end of 2013, SMH opened the new Courtyard Tower - a state-of-the-art, nine-floor facility with floors dedicated to childbirth and neonatal care, cardiology and orthopedics.  Some recent examples include the new Level II trauma center, nursing and rehabilitation pavilion under construction opening in December, plans for the new Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital Clinic in North Port slated to be open in 2017, the internal medical residency program in Newtown and the St Armand’s Urgent Care Center which will open in October to name a few.

3. How would you like future expansion to proceed?
I see the continued need for additional medical services throughout Sarasota County to meet the population growth needs that I talked about in question 2.  This would mean additional primary and specialty medical practices where there is a need and is underserved.  That was a major driver in the announcement establishing an Internal Medical Residency Program in partnership with the Florida State University College of Medicine to address local physician shortages. The program will include a new adult Internal Medicine practice in the Newtown community that will serve as a base for resident physicians’ outpatient training and provide care to an underserved population. 
Also, I believe and support the need for a hospital in the Venice area, as well as North Port as soon as it is feasible.  In terms of Venice, I feel there is a clear need for SMH to establish a new hospital there.  It will ease capacity restraints at the main hospital while providing alternative services to South County residents, workers and visitors.  The Venice area has the needed physicians and medical staff as well as the population demographics to support a new hospital.  The case for an additional hospital in North Port will take time. The average age in North Port is younger and therefore needs less hospital services.  Also, there just aren’t enough physicians located in the North Port area to support a hospital.  SMH opened a free-standing ER in North Port over five years ago to bring emergency and outpatient services to the community.  We just recently announced plans along with Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital to open a pediatric specialty clinic on the 2nd floor of the ER building. I support the continued effort to bring new and additional medical practices to the North Port area including primary and internal medicine care, obstetrics and specialty care. This will build the medical services capability that a new hospital requires.


4. The failure of the State of Florida to expand Medicaid increases the hospital's uncompensated costs. What is your position on accepting the Federal Medicaid Funds? 
I support SMH accepting Federal Medicare and Medicaid funds.


5. Moral and financial reasons for accepting Federal Medicaid Funds which were presented to the past Legislature did not work. How can the taxpayers encourage the Legislature to accept the federal Medicaid funds?
Similar to any issue that taxpayers would care about, they should contact their Florida Legislature representatives to express their opinion.

6. Mental health services are currently poorly funded; the low income working poor and some elders could benefit from the expansion of the federal Medicaid funds. How do you feel the hospital can be instrumental in providing the proposed expansion of mental health services that may be funded under the Affordable Care Act? 


Sarasota Memorial is the only hospital in Sarasota County providing behavioral health care for patients of all ages. SMH’s Bayside Center for Behavioral Health is licensed by the Department of Children and Family Services, accredited by the Joint Commission, and approved by Medicare and Medicaid. Their professional, certified staff members are available 24/7 for urgent consultations or by appointment during normal business hours.  The Center provides clinical assessment, connection to resources, referrals, inpatient psychiatric services and Baker Act support. I would like to see more local medical providers and clinics accept Medicaid.  That would support Medicaid patients getting medical services sooner and at a much lower cost to the program then waiting until a medical issue is significant and going to the Emergency Room. 
Also, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Sarasota County just partnered with Sarasota Memorial Hospital on an interactive panel discussion about needs and options for area residents dealing with mental health conditions. They brought together members of local medical and mental health organizations and community residents to discuss options for mental health treatment, challenges, reform and strategies. This is the type of community program that can make a real difference in this area and I support SMH’s participation in it.
Government funding for expansion of mental health services will have to be decided by the Federal and State governments.  
 Sarasota Memorial, as the county’s only safety-net hospital needs financial support to continue to provide high quality medical care and expanded services to meet the needs of the community.  The SMH Hospital Board and executive team have worked in close collaboration for years to operate the hospital as efficiently as possible and will continue to do so. We have an excellent track record.

Hospital Board: 6 Questions for Tramm Hudson

Tramm Hudson



1. What are the major pros and cons of privatizing Sarasota Memorial Hospital and what is your position?


Sarasota Memorial Hospital was founded in 1924. In 1948 enabling legislation was passed by the Florida legislature to establish public ownership of the hospital to be governed by an unpaid, nine person board elected from the citizens of Sarasota County. I support the continued public ownership of  SMH. I believe public ownership ensures the very best medical care for the most people in our county. I do not see any major pros of privatizing Sarasota Memorial Hospital.



2. Regarding the expansion of Sarasota Memorial Hospital: please expand upon why you agree or disagree with the current expansion?
I support the current expansion of Sarasota Memorial Hospital into Venice and the North Port area. I also support the establishment of the 5 Urgent Care Centers strategically placed around the county to provide convenient delivery of health care to our citizens. The expansion of rehab services with the new rehab hospital now under construction will expand those services as well. Finally the building of a continuity clinic in Newtown is an appropriate expansion of services to this under served market.

3. How would you like future expansion to proceed?  


We should always be open to new opportunities to deliver the very best health care to the citizens of Sarasota County. Future expansion should be undertaken after careful study and thorough deliberation by the board.  


4. The failure of the State of Florida to expand Medicaid increases the hospital's uncompensated costs. What is your position on accepting the Federal Medicaid Funds?


The decision to accept or not accept Federal Medicaid Funds is the responsibility of state government, not the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board.


5. Moral and financial reasons for accepting Federal Medicaid Funds which were presented to the past Legislature did not work. How can the taxpayers encourage the Legislature to accept the federal Medicaid funds?


Taxpayers should contact their state representatives and state senators and express their opinions.  

6. Mental health services are currently poorly funded; the low income working poor and some elders could benefit from the expansion of the federal Medicaid funds. How do you feel the hospital can be instrumental in providing the proposed expansion of mental health services that may be funded under the Affordable Care Act?


As a safety net hospital Sarasota Memorial has extensive psychiatric services. Since the closing of the G. Pierce Wood hospital in Arcadia we have seen a continued increase of the need for mental health services in our county. I support the additional funding for mental health services in our county.

Hospital Board: 6 Questions for Susan Tucker

Susan Tucker

Hospital Board At Large, Seat 3

1. What are the major pros and cons of privatizing Sarasota Memorial Hospital and what is your position?

There are not any pro's to privatizing SMH. It will always be a public hospital. I am against privatization.

2. Regarding the expansion of Sarasota Memorial Hospital: please expand upon why you agree or disagree with the current expansion?  

I agree with  expanding the SMH footprint to help enable coverage for all citizens of Sarasota county.
3. How would you like future expansion to proceed?

The continued expansion of services and facilities in North Port and other area's that need services. North Port expansion is  a priority. Additionally, I am in favor of SMH growing where needed to support all citizens of Sarasota receiving
4. The failure of the State of Florida to expand Medicaid increases the hospital's uncompensated costs. What is your position on accepting the Federal Medicaid Funds?

It is unfortunate that a solution could not have been reached with the state of Florida and the Federal Government outside of Medicaid expansion. The Federal Government would not work with our state and it became an all or nothing decision. The Federal Government would only provide 90% of funds during the first three years, and then Florida would be responsible 100% for all costs as long as it stayed in the exchange. Florida is working on a system that takes care of our most vulnerable populations and I agree that a solution should be met without increases our taxes as a community and a state.

5. Moral and financial reasons for accepting Federal Medicaid Funds which were presented to the past Legislature did not work. How can the taxpayers encourage the Legislature to accept the federal Medicaid funds?

Over the past couple of years, the Legislature has reviewed and examined accepting Federal Medicaid Funds. I agree with the Legislature’s decision to find alternative solutions and programs for those who do not have access to health insurance. If the state of Florida had accepted the funds, the projected budget for our state in the next couple of years would be even more dire than the projected deficit of $1.3 and $1.8 billion our state is facing currently.
6. Mental health services are currently poorly funded; the low income working poor and some elders could benefit from the expansion of the federal Medicaid funds. How do you feel the hospital can be instrumental in providing the proposed expansion of mental health services that may be funded under the Affordable Care Act?

Thursday, September 1, 2016

CRB Questionnaire: Mike Shlasko

Mike Shlasko
Sarasota County Charter Review Board, District #5
1. Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board? 
I am very intelligent, reasonably articulate, have diverse and relevant experience in business and in working with government, and I believe in the diversity of opinion that makes our American Democracy so unique.

I have been a full time resident in District 5 for 11 years. In my career in information technology I spent more than a decade as a small business owner doing business with other small to mid-sized businesses. I spent a decade and a half working on technology projects and standards as a trusted advisor to government agencies across the country. I developed an appreciation for hyperlocal governance based upon long-term involvement on my HOA Board, and appreciation for environmental issues as a long term sea turtle conservation and shorebird monitoring volunteer on Manasota Key. In short, a resume of diverse and relevant skills.

I also need to be upfront and say that I am a Progressive Democrat, heavily involved in the local Democratic Party because I don’t believe that it is ever a good thing for my government to be controlled by a single party, or a single viewpoint, for many decades. For those scared by the term “Progressive” or the party “Democratic”, my HOA is about to enter its 7th year without a dues increase. I retired at age 58 without a pension but with enough savings from a prudent life style to live comfortably although certainly not luxuriously. And I live my life on a cash basis taking on minimal debt and only when it makes sense based upon tax consequences. So, while I have philosophical differences with members of the other party, I am fiscally very conservative and appreciate the fiscal responsibility that our local government has exhibited and the low tax structure that has resulted from that fiscal responsibility.
 
So what can you expect from me as a member of the Charter Review Board? Proposals that I will make and decisions that I will support with be centered around my basic values and my appreciation of the role that our Charter plays in our governance. First, I am a strong believer in representative democracy. I believe that we should have a diverse government representative of all of the people and not only one wing of the political or economic spectrum. So I will fight to preserve the Charter Review Board as an elected body providing a check and balance to the County Commission and a vehicle for direct citizen’s input into potential changes to our Charter. I will also strongly push for single member districts to provide opportunity for grass roots candidates to seek elected office without requiring support of the wealthy elite, or party bosses, or the powerful real estate developers that have controlled our county politics.

Second, I am very concerned with the rapidly changing character of our community. Bumper to bumper traffic, the lack of parking at our beaches, red tide and fecal coliform closing our beaches, disappearing wildlife, and developments like the view blocking “Vue” in Sarasota and the sensitive environmental land destroying “Woods” in Venice are all symptoms of a serious problem with our local government and our local economy. We need to learn to say no to the real estate developers who, via massive campaign contributions, have taken ownership of government decision making to the detriment of our community. We need to diversify our economy, enhance rather than gut our 2050 plan, maintain impact fees that pay for infrastructure required to support new development, and respect the rights of the majority of citizens of the county as much as those of the large landowners and developers who have put their profits ahead our best interests.
 
Third, the Charter is not the place to solve all of our problems. It is our county constitution, a document that provides a high level framework for how our local government is structured to best serve the interests of the citizens of Sarasota County. So in considering Charter changes, they first must be structural and recognize that day to day governance is the purview of the County Commission and the County Administrator. The Charter Review Board does not pass ordinances, however, some county charters do allow ordinances to be initiated via citizen petition. That would be a structural change that would address potential citizens concern with the County Commission not responding to the needs of the community. 
Fourth, our Home Rule Charter is granted to us in accordance with the Constitution of and Laws of State of Florida which derives its authority from the Constitution and the Laws of the United States. While the Board should listen to all citizen input, suggestions for clearly unconstitutional changes to our Charter should not be supported for study by even a single Charter Review Board member.

2. Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain.
I believe that this unique avenue for ongoing direct citizens input into the Charter Amendment process is valuable and deserving of preservation. It provides a check and balance on the power of the County Commission by providing a separate elected body that has the ability to take proposed changes to our Charter directly to voters for decision via a referendum. To quote Section 2.8B of the Charter: “On, behalf of the citizens of Sarasota County, the Charter Review Board shall review and recommend changes to the County Charter for improvement of County government.”

I do think, however, that this question deserves more in-depth analysis. The proposal on the table is not simply to make this an appointed board. The proposal is to make it a board appointed by the County Commission and other local politicians. By virtue of their number, effectively the board would be appointed by the County Commission. The proposal is also that the board meet very infrequently, as infrequently as every 5 to 10 years, at the behest of that same County Commission. So why does the County Commission need such an appointed board? Section 7.1 of the Charter currently allows the County Commission to vote, by simple majority, to pass an ordinance that places a Charter Amendment on the ballot. So why this movement to take away an elected body that provides checks and balances in the structure of our county government?
 
One also needs to view this in the context of other proposals that have been presented to, and from within, the Charter Review Board over the years to make it more difficult to amend our Charter. There have been proposals to change the percentage of votes required to pass an amendment in a referendum from 50% to 60%. There have been proposals to increase the percentage of registered voters required to sign a citizen’s initiative petition to put a proposed amendment on the ballot. There have been proposals to limit the time period for which signatures collected on citizen’s initiative petitions are valid. There have been proposals to eliminate the requirement for special elections to vote on proposed Charter Amendments.

I believe that we are facing an entrenched political machine that has controlled our county government for the past 50 years. I further believe that those entrenched politicians are effectively controlled by a handful of real estate developers who have, via their economic influence and campaign contributions, set public policy for our County. Given that they are supportive of, and in fact are, the status quo, they have no interest whatsoever in ordinary citizens having direct or expeditious input into changes to the structure of our county government.
3.  What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important.
Ethics
Florida Statutes Chapter 112 Part III defines a Code of Ethics for public officers and employees.  Division 3 or Article IV of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances likewise defines Standards of Conduct for county officers and employees.  Somehow, in spite of these state statutes and county ordinances, a sitting Sarasota County Commissioner has been permitted to simultaneously serve as the paid Executive Director of the Argus Foundation, a business lobbying organization.  All of our sitting County Commissioners as well as our County Attorney find that this apparent conflict of interest is not illegal.  In addition, in the recent past, Sarasota County’s first Ethics Coordinator was fired for investigating ethics complaints against County Commissioners who apparently concluded that they were not subject to such local scrutiny.  I also note that the word “ethics” does not appear in our county Charter.  I believe that the Charter Review Board should study a potential Charter Amendment that would address this apparent failure of our state and county statutes to provide an enforceable ethical framework for our county government.

Charter Revision
Over the years a significant percentage of the Charter Review Boards time has been invested in discussing proposals for revision to Section 7.1 of the Charter which defines procedures for approving potential Charter Amendments for presentation to the voters in a referendum election.  Most of that discussion seems to have been centered around proposals that would result in making it more difficult to petition for, and pass, Amendments.  I agree that we need to study changes to Section 7.1, however, instead of focusing on changes that would make it more difficult to amend our Charter I believe that we should study changes to this Section that provide clear definition of the citizen’s petition process.  The Charter should describe a petition format, procedures for impartial legal review and approval, and a process for ongoing tabulation of petitions as they are turned in to the Supervisor of Elections for validation.

Single Member Districts (see question 4)
Elected vs Appointed (see question 2

 4. What is your position on single-district elections?
I fully support changing the way that we elect County Commissioners, Charter Review Board Members, School Board Members and Hospital Board members.  Our current method of at large election is no longer appropriate for a County which by population and growth rate is among the largest in the state.

It requires approximately 100,000 votes to win in a county-wide election and to reach that many voters requires a very substantial campaign fund and, in many cases, additional outside PAC money.  There is little room for grassroots candidates, or candidates not beholden to special interests, to run for elected office in our County. Most of the largest counties in our state elect county officials either exclusively via single member districts, or, by a hybrid model of single member and at-large representation.  I believe that it is past time for Sarasota to structure its government to be more representative of our large, geographically diverse and growing population.

5. Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures?
No. We need to keep in mind that a petition drive to collect the currently required approximately 15,000 valid petitions requires a level of effort greater than that required to run for county wide office.  We need to provide adequate time for a successful grass roots petition gathering effort without the use of paid petitioners which somewhat negates the concept of a citizen’s petition.
6. Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)
In a word, yes.  And naïve though it might sound, I believe that partisanship should not enter into the decision-making process when reviewing citizen’s applications for inclusion on advisory boards.  It is very unfortunate that some of our most capable citizens are excluded from Advisory boards simply because they are from the wrong political party, or, often, the wrong wing of the governing party.

CRB Questionnaire: Jody Hudgins

Jody Hudgins
Sarasota County Charter Review Board, District #4

1. ​Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board?
​I have lived in Sarasota for 26 years. During that time I have served on the Sarasota County Planning Commission for twelves years (two terms as chairman), the City of Sarasota Police Pension Board for twelve years, The Salvation Army board for 15 years, and have been president and CEO of two successful banks in Sarasota. ​I feel with my government service and business experience I am uniquely qualified to fulfill the role of Charter Review Board.

 2. Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain.
​At this time no, however the CRB has agreed to study the matter to see if it is a worthy change to bring to the voters. Sarasota County government works - I do not see a compelling reason at this time to change how we do things.​
3. What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important.
​I have only most recently joined the CRB as an appointee of Governor Scott for an unexpired term, so I do not have the history or knowledge of past issues that have come before the board. I feel the CRB is the best venue for citizens of our county to voice their concerns and offer up ​changes to be studied and put to a vote for consideration.
4. What is your position on single-district elections?
Our county commission works best without single district elections. I have not been convinced in the whole that single district elections would be the best approach for all citizens of Sarasota county.​
5. Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures?
Yes, but a reasonable time limit to give the CRB time to consider the outcome if necessary of the petition drive and study it's intent and value.​
6. Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)​
Theoretically yes, practically I do not think this would be acceptable unless we went to appointed members of CRB which at this time I am not in favor of. Most of my twelve years on the Planning Commission I was one of the leading advocates for Affordable Housing initiatives in Comp Plan language, 2050 adoption and DRIs. As well as you can voice concern and help lead the discussion, it still takes interested parties to agree to affordable housing initiatives

CRB Questionnaire: Pat Wayman

Pat Wayman
Sarasota County Charter Review Board, Dist. #3

1. ​Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board?

I am research and detail oriented and rely on the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, to guide my decisions. I attended a seminar on the history of how human rights were lost and regained over centuries, which greatly impressed upon me the importance of preserving our constitutional republic form of government and the necessity of being involved in government. I have a BS in chemistry and work experience as follows: laboratory research associate, Sarasota school teacher, legal assistant at a Sarasota law firm and consultant for a major computer corporation. Currently, I am retired, but still work as a part time consultant for a major computer corporation. I have no ties to special interest groups and took no campaign donations. My focus is on the people and what is best for them and our future.

2. Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain. 
I listen to the people and follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with special emphasis on the rights of the people. In general, I believe appointed boards cannot be held accountable for their actions, whereas elected officials may be removed from office through the election process. I view the election process as the voice of the people. I voted to keep the board as an elected board.

3. What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important. 
Ethics rules for elected officials - I would support some guidelines regarding political donations and voting on donors' issues and some guidelines for private employment and public office. I believe our community will work better if there is a clear separation between special interest groups and our elected officials. I would be interested in hearing other suggestions, too. 
Single district candidates - I would like there to be a stronger connection between the district residents and their representatives. I believe people would feel a connection with their own public officials and not feel they need to contact all of the officials, although they could. In addition, it will reduce the costs of campaigning, making it easier for people to run for office. 
Common law jury - I believe this issue deserves some research and discussion, since Justice Scalia specifically addressed the importance of the common law system in one of his opinions, saying that this is the 4th branch of government. As you know, the Constitution sets the rules for the 3 branches of government, not the rules for the people. Several states are currently using the common law system, so I would like to investigate it's feasibility and usefulness.

4. What is your position on single-district elections?
 See above

5. Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures?

 I do not believe there should be a time limit. However, logically speaking, since the signatures must be verified, and since we live in a state with an older population and a transient population, it would be in the best interest of the petitioner to obtain signatures within as short a time frame as possible. Currently, I do not think there is a need to regulate this; it is self regulating.

6. Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)​

That would be an interesting subject to research and discuss. I am not a fan of appointed boards, since they are unaccountable to the people, and they make it easy for the elected officials to do little or none of the research themselves. I would like to see all aspects represented in the decision-making process: environmentalists, affordable housing advocates, farmers, realtors, ranchers, builders, merchants, regular citizens, etc. Any rules would need to be carefully worded.

CRB Questionnaire: Donna Barcomb

Donna Barcomb
Sarasota County Charter Review Board, District #2

1. Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board?

The learning curve to fulfill the duties of the Sarasota County Charter Review Board is a steep one. Participation on the board requires patience, integrity, and a receptive attitude towards the constituents we represent. Owning a small business for 33 years, interacting and tending to the needs of patients, having served the last four years on the CRB and 12 years on the Sarasota County Hospital Board, I have garnered the experience and preparation to provide the citizens of Sarasota County with an intuitive, sensible, thoughtful, fair and intelligent approach to all that is brought to the CRB.

2. Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain. 
 Although the CRB voted to send the selection proposal to special committee, I was in the minority and therefore did not vote to support an appointed board. I will continue to oppose an appointed board because I believe that an appointed board disenfranchises the voters.

3. What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important. 
As stated before the only proposed amendment currently presented to the CRB is the elected versus appointed board. I do not support an appointed board. I have proposed a change to our by-laws which are procedural. One allows us time to properly vet a proposed amendment and the second part addresses an opt out of re-visiting a proposed amendment that was voted down previously for a one year time period. Currently we are mandated to docket and debate all proposals presented to the board, even those previously voted down which I believe held us hostage over a one year time period.

4. What is your position on single-district elections?
 I believe as an elected official, I represent all of Sarasota County and subsequently do not support single member districts.

5. Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures? 
 I do not support making a citizen petition charter amendment a more difficult process.

6. Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)​ 
 I do not have any comment on this question.

CRB Questionnaire: Karen Collins-Fleming

Karen Collins-Fleming
Sarasota County Charter Review Board, District #2
1. Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board?
I feel that I am particularly well suited for a position on the Charter Review Board in light of my 25+ years of county government experience – 8 years in Comprehensive Planning plus 16 years administering the County’s environmental management/protection functions. Although this experience was gained in Manatee County, the commissions function in the same way and are faced with identical challenges from rapid growth and development. I am intimately familiar with the workings of local government and the ways in which such could be improved to make County Commissions more responsive to the citizens they are elected to serve.
2. Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain.
I feel strongly that the Charter Review Board must remain an ELECTED body, one that meets on a regular basis, whose meetings are well publicized to maximize public participation. It has been proposed that the CRB be reconstituted as an appointed body, with infrequent meetings. In my opinion, an appointed CRB would be little more than a rubber stamp for the Commission and a facilitator for special interests. Citizens would not have the ability to vote appointed CRB members off the board, and so would have little or no influence or power to change the Charter except for the very onerous petition process.
3. What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important.
Three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that may be worthy of further inquiry:

A. Independent, elected ethics committee – I FAVOR this idea. At present, there appears to be one person within the County structure responsible for ethics questions, along with other responsibilities. As it stands, this position is not independent of Commission influence, and thus has an inherent conflict.

B. Single member districts for the County Commission and Charter Review Board – I strongly FAVOR this proposal. At present, candidates for either the Commission or the CRB must run countywide campaigns. The County is very large, so there is a huge area to cover, making running an effective campaign prohibitively expensive except for those candidates funded by deep-pocket special interests. The influence of special interest donors is well known in politics at all levels. Single-member district campaigning would level the playing field for campaigners, and serve to encourage more diversity and foster more enthusiasm for running for local office.

C. Limiting the length of time petitioners for Charter change have to gather signatures for their particular issue – I feel that a move to put strict time limits on gathering signatures for a petition is another way to limit the citizens’ ability to participate in their government. It takes many, many signatures to complete a petition for a referendum. Additionally, it takes time to educate and inform the citizenry on the issue. Placing an important issue on the ballot takes time and lots of legwork. Petition sponsors/initiators should be allowed whatever time it takes to move a proposal forward to a vote.
4. What is your position on single-district elections?
I STRONGLY SUPPORT single member districts for County Commissioners and CRB members.
5. Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures?
I do NOT believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures.
6. Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)​
YES, I believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise and relevant experience in advocacy. These boards, whatever their purpose, should be truly representative of ALL citizens of the county.

CRB Questionnaire: Arlene Sweeting

Arlene Sweeting
Sarasota County Charter Review Board, District #1
1.     Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board?
I’m a native Floridian and have lived in the Sarasota/Bradenton area since 1993.  Since moving here, I’ve taught middle school science (7 years), started and operated a community coffeehouse (5 years), managed a community radio station (9 years) and I currently run the Fogartyville Community Media and Arts Center. Over the years I have been active locally with a number of organizations including the Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club (outings leader/publications chair/conservation chair/group leader), the American Association of University Women (mentor program), and Transition Sarasota (gleaning project/eat local week/fiscal sponsor). My work over the past decade has been geared to supporting a more active, educated and engaged citizenry.   I believe people should have a voice in their local government and in decisions that affect their community.  


2. Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain.
The Charter Review Board should remain an elected body. It provides a no barrier, entry-level position to citizens interested in getting more engaged with their government - there is no petition requirement and no filing fee to run for the office.  It gives citizens a voice in how county government operates and gives them a meaningful way to participate. Keeping the Board elected, keeps it more accountable to the people.
If we want to live in a democratic society, we have to build a culture that supports democracy and that means we need to actually practice democracy in as many areas as we can – work, school, and, certainly, government.
3. What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important.
I) I would be interested in revisiting the issue of Single Member Districts for County Commission and the Charter Review Board – petitions are currently being circulated by members of the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections. In 2013 the Charter Review Board rejected a request to study this issue.  In 1992 single member districts were supported and in 1994 they were overturned before residents really got to see what impact they would have on county government.  With single member districts, CRB members and County Commissioners would be more accountable to their District and maybe would make more of an attempt to actually educate voters in their District AND get their input.  Would we get more candidates willing to run for office?  Who knows?  This year two of our County Commissioners were elected without opposition.  This denies citizens a choice about the direction of the county.  Certainly there are a number of issues at play here – but the cost involved in running a viable county-wide race is certainly one of them.  Having single member districts would greatly reduce the cost of running for office and would allow grassroots candidates to be more competitive.
II)  Making local elections nonpartisan is another idea that has been suggested that I think is worthy of consideration.  One thing this would do is it would eliminate the write-in loophole that allows ‘sham’ candidates to close a primary thus disenfranchising a large part of the electorate.  
III) I would support stronger ethics provisions in our Charter.  Many residents were upset last year when Commissioner Christine Robinson accepted a position with the Argus Foundation while still serving on the Board.  It seemed a clear conflict of interest, yet the County Attorney did not interpret it that way.  People need to have trust in government and right now that is sadly lacking.  People see their interests and their voices being drowned out by those with more power and more money. Integrity in government is essential if we are to re-build trust with citizens.  
4. What is your position on single-district elections?
I support single member district elections.   Right now, County Commissioners and Charter Review Board members are elected county-wide. This makes it extremely difficult for grassroots candidates to be viable. Currently 43% of registered voters in the County are Republicans, 31% of voters are Democrats, and 26% are third party or NPA, but 100% of our County Commission and 100% of our Charter Review Board are Republicans. This year we had two County Commission seats go unchallenged. This is not good for our democracy. I have been approached by a number of residents that support single-member districts and I think it is time for the Charter Review Board to revisit the way in which County-wide offices are elected.   
5. Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures?
I think some time limit would be reasonable. However, before placing a limit of any kind on gathering signatures I would want to talk to groups that have organized petition drives in the past to see what they believe is reasonable.  I believe a time limit actually could help grassroots organizations plan a more effective campaign and bring urgency to their issue.   But I also understand that resources are limited for citizen’s campaigns and they need to have an adequate amount of time to get the word out about their concerns.  It doesn’t really seem to have been an issue up to this point – we don’t have multiple charter amendment petition drives that have been ongoing for a long time.  So if someone brought the idea of time limits forward, I would look closely at who was proposing the amendment and what their real goals were.  My goal is to protect citizen’s rights to petition government and not place unnecessary limits on them.

6. Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)
Yes, it is important to have people with diverse experience on advisory boards.

CRB Questionnaire: Ray Porter

Ray Porter

Why do you think you’re particularly well suited for the Charter Review Board? 

I have an extensive 30-year background in local journalism, reporting on county, city, school board, police and fire, state government and much more. I consider myself a strong advocate for local government involvement, having worked closely with the Democratic party, and run for office in 2008 (CRB) and 2014 (Sarasota County Commission).

Do you think the Charter Review Board should be changed from an elected board to an appointed board? Please explain. 
The CRB has been and should remain an elected board, representing and acting as the voice of the citizens, particularly when their local county commissioners are not listening. An appointed board would simply be a subservient, or irrelevant, arm of the county commissioners.

What are three issues that have been suggested for the CRB’s consideration that you feel are worthy of further inquiry? For each one, please explain why you think it’s important. 
First, we need to strongly consider a charter amendment to change the election process for county commissioners and for charter board members, going from countywide voting to single member district voting. I believe this one change would improve local government immensely, making our elected boards more representative of our population and demographics (currently 57 percent are not Republicans, yet every single county commissioner has been a Republican since 1970). Reducing the cost of campaigning, and allowing for grass roots democracy - door-to-door campaigning - would bring a new wave of participants, ideas and officials.  

Second, I would like to see an ethics requirement in our charter - very specific guidelines to be followed by our elected officials (the exact wording to be reviewed and vetted by the board and legal authorities).  

Third, I want stronger protections for the environment to be embodied in our charter. These could take the form of “no fracking” language, as one example.

What is your position on single-district elections? 
I stated that in my previous response.

Do you believe citizen petition charter amendment drives should be subject to a time limit on gathering signatures? 
I don’t think a time limit is even necessary, or desirable. We should always be open to citizen ideas and perspectives - the people should ultimately guide the ship of government, not their elected servants.

Do you believe advisory boards should be subject to a rule that aims to balance them by geography, areas of expertise, and relevant experience in advocacy? (For example, for the Planning Commission, at least one member with experience in advocating for affordable housing.)​ 
Yes - I think that would be a good idea.