Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-86-04756 is J-86-S19 6/12/86 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CREATING A CHARTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON SAID COMMITTEE; SETTING FORTH THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF SAID COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR THE COMMITTEE TO PRESENT ITS FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FORM OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE - JULY 10, 1986 CITY COMMISSION MEETING. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. A Charter Amendment Advisory Committee is hereby established for the purpose of making recommendations in the form of proposed legislation concerning possible City Charter amendments dealing with the following: (a) A four year term of office for the Mayor; (b) An increase in the compensation to be paid to members of the Commission; (c) Adoption of an Executive -Mayor form of City Government; and (d) An increase in the size of the City Commission. Section 2. The following individuals are hereby appointed to serve on said Committee: (a) Robert Traurig, Esa. (b) Peter Roulhac (o) Mary Ellen Miller ' (d) Norma Kipnis-Wilson (e) Charles Gottlieb CITY CO Ni t-u 5 J MEETIty JUN 12 IM :SOLUTION *ARKS. _ . � is Seotion 3. The proposed legislation to be presented by the Committee is to be in a form aooeptable to the City Attorney and is to be submitted to the City Commission at its July 10, 1986 meeting at 6:00 P.M. PASSED AND ADOPTED this_i2th day of JUNE 1986. XAVIER L. AREZ ATT&"- MAYOR iiATTi HIRAI, CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: ROBERT F. CLERK CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED��AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: CITY ATTORNEY RFC/rr/M148 86-475; CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA �O INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members DATE: June 6, 1986 FILE: of the City Commission SU&JECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Charter Amendment FROM` Cesar H. Odio REFERENCES: 6/12/86 Agenda - 9:30 A.M. City Manager ENCLOSURES: At its March 27, 1986 meeting, the City Commission directed the City Administration to advertise a public hearing to be held in June and July in regards to a proposed referendum to amend the City Charter to provide for 1) Four Year Term for Office of Mayor and 2) an increase in the compensation paid to members of the - City Commission. As a result, I have scheduled this item as a public hearing and intend to schedule a second public hearing on July 10, 1986. If you have any problem with the date for the second public hearing, please advise. 86--4'75: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER TO EXPAND TO FOUR YEARS THE TERM OF OFFICE OF MAYOR, CITY OF MIAMI MARTIN FINE MARCH 27, 1986 Miami, Florida p 86-4'7 S. y � � P R 0 P 0 S A L TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER TO EXPAND TO FOUR YEARS THE TERM OF OFFICE OF 'MAYOR, CITY OF MIAMI MARTIN FINE MARCH 27, 1986 Miami, Florida f sGr4- 75. 86--4 75' 0 I am pleased to present to the City Commission my proposal to amend the City Charter to expand to four -years, the term of office of Mayor, City of Miami, and request the change in the interest of economy, continuity and stability of democratic and highly -principled city government. I hope the City Commission will place the amendment on the ballot of September 1986 and have it become fully operative - effective as of the city election in September 1987, so that the person then elected as Mayor will serve a four year term. Ideas are a dime a dozen - especially good political ideas - and getting them adopted is a real challenge. Once it becomes fully understood, the 4-year mayoral term of office should have an overwhelming appeal to the public's requisites of -- stability of reflection -time in office -- continuity for development of skill and experience -- liberation of mayor and staff from continual contribution and campaign strategy concerns -- mayoral -campaign cost -control through less frequent elections This proposal has nothing to do with the question of changing Miami's form of government (to a strong -mayor form, recently proposed by others, giving the mayor the power to veto the vote of the commission), or to the increase in the mayor's salary, or to increasing the number of commissioners, or electing some of that number by district rather than all at large, or the limiting of campaign spending, although I 86-475; 6. 6-4 i 51 0 believe a thorough study of each of these possibilities should be considered in the very near future. This proposal addresses one question only, that of expanding the mayor's term of office to four years. The city of Miami has a commission -mayor form of government. Four commission members are elected at large to 4-year terns. The mayor, a voting member of the commission, is also elected at large, but to a 2-year term only. Under the present system, the mayor and two of the incumbent 4-year term commissioners share a ballot, running together for office every two years. Few who take the time to closely examine our local political process have any doubt as to the inefficiency and exhorbitant costs of a 2-year election system. In my judgement, this process remains in effect, not because of any ineptitude, but because the logic of these too -frequent elections has never been challenged locally, perhaps due to lack of curiosity, or simply a complacency to leave the traditional status alone. The rationale behind the distinction and inequity of the mayoral 2-year term and the commissioner 4-year term is not clear. Do not the mayor and commissioners answer to the same electorate? Is the integrity of a mayor more suspect than that of a commissioner and therefore to be tested by the shorter -gamble?! There is not yet a 'crisis' need for a change to a longer term ... a condition under which one can always count on public support, but I imagine I speak for a constituency that believes that since efficiency, economy, accountability and cost containment -2- 8E-475. 86 -475: u are relatively new political objectives, we reasonably ought to do everything possible to accomplish those goals. Nationally, election reform is a problem which nearly everyone acknowledges but which seems to be going nowhere. However, in light of the pressing need for economy in government in our own community, it appears that there is something we can and must do to improve our local election process. A great deal has been written recently about the exhorbitant costs of running for public office. Due in part to recurring 2-year campaigns, and in large measure to the advent of television as the major exposure medium (unquestionably the most expensive and most influential) we have developed a system wherein candidates are having to generate millions of dollars. Based on recent campaign figures, our present 2-year mayoral system is costing about $2 million - a one-year average of S1 million to elect a mayor who is salaried at $6,000 per year. Whether or not the person who has the most money to spend always wins is not the important question. A candidate feels compelled to spend 'so much' money because his, or her, opponents are expected to be spending 'so much' and because of the fear of the consequence of NOT spending enough to win. Unless great sums of money are raised - the candidate is surely more vulnerable to defeat. What are the funding sources for this cost, and what are the less tangible costs? These are not 'free elections'. We pay for them as we pay for everything else, the costs filtering down to the electorate and contributor as well. -3- SGr4 75; 86--475: 0 0 Nationally and locally, money is the number one political problem. Most campaign contributions are made because the contributor already agrees with the candidate's point of view. I am concerned about the mounting pressures to gather large and larger amounts of money every two years, soon becoming so great that the democratic election process is distorted to something other than it was originally intended to be. The less tangible cost is the declining ability of short- term office candidates to concentrate on quality of public service. It has become increasingly difficult for good, qualified persons to run for office, and more importantly, to remain in politics and function to maximum intellectual capability. We may have in the near future, short-term AND long-term office -holders who do not have time to think about broad social and economic questions because fund-raising has become a continuous activity. The important point to make is how expensive it is NOT to have a LONGER TERM for our city mayor. V!e need to have the mayor's election continue to be on the basis of merit, leadership qualities and ideas ... not money. Because of the role money plays, we must consider that the nature of the kind of person who will be able to enter politics to serve his or her community is rapidly changing. Those who seek to enter the mayoral arena who do not have great personal wealth to commit to the race are going to be more and more subject to the pursuit of monied special interests, whether good or bad, but still seeking to control influence over official conduct. What can we do to keep high principles in force? -4- 86-47S: 8f-47S,' 0 Among the positive effects of a longer mayoral term of office would be provision of time for long-range reflection on solutions to the local problems we face as a community, a society. Ideally, the office of mayor is a pursuit that demands a high level of skill, continuity and experience. The current 2-year system fails us in this regard. I realize the mayor's role presently is largely ceremonial, but the mayor DOES have a vote equal to a commissioner's, and must be cognizant of all issues. Long term development needs long term leadership. I think it very IMPROBABLE for a man or woman serving a part-time 2-year mayoral term to become conversant with the nuances of issues, to develop programs, consider alternatives, oversee implementation of new programs and policies, and at the same time build a constituency, begin to campaign and oversee campaign fund-raising for the next election. We talk of Miami's becoming a world -class city. Now is the time to think and act in terms of preparing to govern such a city. Governing and representing a world -class city is an extremely complicated business. Knowing the details of an issue or procedure, the city's inherited past and future plans certainly requires the r' ` dedication of a candidate's concern BEFORE RUINING FOR OFFICE. TIME FOR THE CONTINUED STUDY AID DEDICATION AFTER INSTALLATIOPJ is all the more important and can mean the difference in a successful admini- stration. Two lists follow. The first compares the form of government of -5- 8E-4'75', 86-4'75: R 11 some Florida cities with population figures over 100,000; the second shows some 'world -class' cities of the United States. FLORIDA CITIES GOVERNMENT JACKSONVILLE Jacksonville & Duval County combined to form a unified city -county government in 1968. The Council is the chief legislative body and must approve many of the mayor's actions, including appointments. 4-Year MAYOR (not a member of council) 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (19) Five elected at large Fourteen elected by district TAMPA 4-Year MAYOR 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (7) All seven elected at large ORLANDO 4-Year MAYOR (a voting member of council) 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (6) All six elected by district FT. LAUDERDALE 3-Year MAYOR 3-Year COMMISSIONERS (4) All four elected at large MIAMI 2-Year MAYOR (voting member of commission) 4-Year COMMISSIONERS (4) All four elected at large CITY MANAGER, appointed to serve as long as service satisfactory ST. PETERSBURG 2-Year MAYOR (a voting member of council) 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (6) All six elected by district CITY MANAGER, appointed by council, in charge of administration, as long as service satisfactory HIALEAH 2-Year MAYOR (not a council member) 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (7) All seven elected at large HOLLYWOOD 2-Year MAYOR (a voting member of council) 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (4) All four elected at large 10 86-475', WORLD -CLASS U.S. CITIES GOVERNMENT NEW YORK 4-Year MAYOR 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (43) Each borough elects 2 members at large 33 members are elected by district THE PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL is elected at large The MAYOR is not a member of the council and has no vote. His chief strength is in appointive powers, including deputy mayors and heads of city departments Each BOROUGH elects a BOROUGH PRESIDENT to advise the MAYOR on matters of importance in that borough CHICAGO 4-Year MAYOR 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (50) (largest in U.S.) All 50 elected by district Council or State approval required for many of mayor's actions LOS ANGELES 3-Year MAYOR (non voting) COMMISSIONERS (23) Appointed by Mayor to direct the 23 city departments 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (15) All 15 elected by district, serve full time, meeting each week day SAN FRANCISCO 4-Year MAYOR (not a council member) 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (11) All 11 elected by district DENVER 4-Year STRONG MAYOR has complete appointive & budgetary powers 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (13) Two elected at large, with mayor Eleven elected by district ATLANTA 4-Year MAYOR, may serve only two consecutive terms 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (18) The Mayor & 6 council members elected at large Remaining 12 council members are elected by district to staggered 4-Year terms PHILADELPHIA 4-Year MAYOR -.elected at large; has no council vote, but empowered to veto legislation, plan budgets and appoint administrative officials 4-Year COUNCIL MEMBERS (17) Ten are elected by district Seven elected at large Council is chief legislative body and can override mayoral veto by 2/3 majority vote -7- 86-4715 • 8E-4 75: ra The major, and I believe the only, flaw or objection to leaving an elected mayor in office four years, is the risk that the mayor may prove an unsatisfactory performer. There is, without question, a need for a check against such a possibility. The mayor is always on probation, so to speak. A watchful electorate is capable of exercising the necessary removal from office by citizen petition/recall, is it not? As a matter of fact, provision can be made to reintroduce the original 2-year term, if, in four years, the economic and political and social climate is not dramatically improved as a result of the proposed extension to four years. The adoption of a 4-year term of office for the city mayor may, of course, deprive or postpone initially, the ambitions of some mayoral hopefuls, and this is a change that they and their supporters, friends and family may be expected to oppose. However, I believe such a change to a longer term should enhance the office, and attract to the office, highly qualified candidates, which we may reasonably assert would benefit the community. There appears to be very little risk, but much potential, to be gained from this proposed change. The negative aspects fade in relative importance to the probable benefit in better government, stability and citizen satisfaction. The public should be greatly pleased to see monies being conserved, not wasted in unnecessarily frequent elections. The citizens' apathy and cynicsm grows deeper with each too , frequent election and growing million dollar campaign costs for a t M 86-4 ! J, 86-475; rl $6,000 salaried position. We should very seriously consider doing something about this. REGARDING THE NEED FOR A LIMITED CAMPAIGN SPENDING AMENDMENT It is clearly evident that the effect of the constant anxiety for all public officials about having access to enough campaign money is distracting and degrading. The key is to have a system that allows an incumbent and his or her challengers to compete, but there ought not to be the temptation of the presumed advantage of 'blasting away' competition by outspending it. Limited election campaign spending has been struck down by the Supreme Court as an infringement on freedom of speech. I am a litte puzzled by the rationale behind the limits on campaign contributions being judged constitutional, but limits on expenditures being unconstitutional. My strong feeling is that when the framers of the Constitution wrote that First Amendment, all they had in mind was a guard against the prior censorship of speech. Do contributions tender more 'danger' to the democratic election system than do expenditures? I submit that the magnitude of the sums of money needed for campaign costs is the pressure-temptor that leads to any dangers risked in the acceptance of contributions. We ought not to give up on addressing the need for a limited campaign spending amendment. I HOPE THE SEVERAL SECO'IDARY ELECTION REFORM IDEAS MENTIONED HEREIN WILL NOT BE STUDIED TO DEATH, BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED AND COMPLEX AND 'DILL RESULT IN DEFERRING THIS INITIAL IMPORTANT STEP: PLACING THE FOUR-YEAR MAYORAL TERM ON THE BALLOT. In 8c►-4'75, 86-4 75: 130 t CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA f INf#14-0,1rFICE IV "ORANDUM TO Matty Hirai DATE June 10, 1986 FILE: City Clerk , SUBJECt Request by Mr. Huber ' Raymond Parsons, Jr. to Address City Commission FROM Cesar H. 0dio on 6/ 12/86 City Manager REFERENCES ENCLOSURES 1 The attached letter from Mr. Huber Raymond Parsons, Jr. is being forwarded to you so that his name can be included in the list of those members of the public who wish to address the City Commission on the subject of a Proposed Referendum to amend the City Charter to provide for an increase in the compensation paid to members of the City Commission. This subject is encompassed within a Public Hearing item advertised to be heard at 9:30 a.m. at the June 12th City Commission Meeting (Agenda Item #30). My staff contacted Mr. Parsons and informed him of the fact that this subject was already scheduled as a public hearing and therefore, there was no need to treat his letter as a request for a separate personal appearance in that segment of the agenda which is normally scheduled for consideration at 3:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please advise. attachment cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission 9G-47 5. Bf -475', IIUHER RAYMOND PARSONS, JR. -m="""A June 2, 1OW MANAOFTS OFFIC` TO. VIA HAND DELIVERY 1986 JUN -5 PH 3: 39 Mr. Cesar H. Odio City Manager PROW The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Compensation Paid to Mayor and Commissioners; Request for Personal Appearance on Agenda for June 12, 1986 Dear Mr. Odio: I write to request a Personal Appearance for other appropriate entry) on the Agenda for June 12, 1986, in respect of the matter of compensation and entitlements to the Mayor and Commissioners. With all good wishes, I am, HRP/st 04/o cc: 1 Very truly yours, 1 Huber R. Parsons, Jr. Mayor Xavier Suarez Vice Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Commissioner J. L. Plummer 86 -4 75; o �y CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO. BOB CLARK, Raq. DATE- May 19, 1986 FILE OATTY f Deputy City Attorney SU.JECT: Election Dates 1986 HIRAI F"O"" City Clerk REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES. Please be informed that we have confirmed with Metropolitan Dade County Elections Department tha a State elections re presently scheduled for Septembe 2,' Septembe 30 nd Novembe 4, 1986. Please be also informed in conv tions with David Leahy, Metropolitan Dade County Supervisor of Elections, he stated that given the length of State wide ballots, and allowing appropriate time for translation of the ballot, if the City were planning to have any issues in any of the above stated dates, he would appreciate having the instrument calling for the City's Special Election in his hands at least 60 days prior to each election date. If you have any questions please call. MH:sl cc: Cesar Odio, City Manager 86-4 75;