HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-86-0228MARTIN FINE
s401 DOUGLAS ROAD
MIAMI, RL00110A 33148
t[L[RMONC f3051446-2200
February 26, 1986
Mr. Cesar Odio, City Manager
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
1
Re: Proposed Charter Amendment Extending Term of Mayor
from two to four years.
Dear Cesar:
I am pleased to write to you and request an opportunity
for me to appear before the City Commission, as a private
citizen and taxpayer, to discuss the above proposal.
Basically, I would like to suggest that the Commission
consider placing a proposed charter amendment on the ballot
in September 1986 which would call for a change in the charter
whereby the Mayor would run and be elected for a term of
four years. I believe that this change is important for
the stability of the community and is in keeping with the
length of the terms for which City Commissioners are elected.
I would respectfully request that I be permitted to
appear at the meeting of the Commission which I understand
is scheduled for Thursday, March 27, 1986. I have a meeting
all morning on that date and would particularly be pleased
if I might be able to appear after the luncheon break at
approximately 2:00 p.m. or anytime shortly thereafter at
your convenience.
I would also be pleased to submit a proposed charter
change to you prior to the meeting so that you and your
legal staff might review it and include it in any packet
you may consider submitting to the Commission in connection
with this proposal.
Wo T DN
12
1 would, of course, also be pleased to meet with your
at your convenience, if you so desire, in order to discuss
this proposal.
With kindest personal regards, I remain
Cordially,
Ntn7in e
MF/cdb
cc: Honorable Xavier Suarez
Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
a
t ..
�`^
r
� - r e- � � t $ `.!• E�t"il��sa- taw �'' .i4g1Y t r r :' .i"4 .�, 3, �1�a fj��� _� a ,,�r�'P �:
ryEi`
�a{WY�II�.i1c�`ie.. .... »..h ., .'..:'_ }.: :. .....aww.. i. `..'. k... .':' .. • .,. . ., ,.. ,. _ . ... x.. •a... �. .{t.Y ':......... .�._ ',i —
" ,t ,„ � srr_ ,�• m
i
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
86-228--
W
W
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-princinled 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
8E-228,
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 terms.
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--22fj__
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 Si million
to elect a mayor who is salaried at S6,000 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- 86-2280�
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. Ute 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?
86-228,
-4-
r**)
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
dedication of a candidate's concern BEFORE RUINING FOR OFFICE. TIME
FOR THE CONTINUED STUDY AID DEDICATION AFTER INSTALLATION 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
0
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
-6- 8t;`22Cj�.
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 PRESIDE1.11T 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 ME'MBERS (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
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
-8-
$6,000 salaried position. We should very seriously consider doing
something about this.
REGARDING THE "DEED 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 tc 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 SECONDARY ELECTION REFORM IDEAS ME14TIONED HEREIN
WILL NOT BE STUDIED TO DEATH, BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED
AND COMPLEX AND WILL RESULT IN DEFERRING THIS INITIAL IMPORTANT STEP:
PLACING THE FOUR-YEAR MAYORAL TERM ON THE BALLOT.
-9-