(He's also a parent and an Islamorada resident and taxpayer.)

The November 3 general election ballot has three proposed Islamorada Charter Amendments.

Many people have asked for guidance and I hope to bring some clarity with the following explanations:

The Village Charter functions like a local constitution, defining the governance structure, powers, and operational procedures.

Intentionally they made it difficult to change the charter.

The Council must hold two publicly noticed public hearings to pass an ordinance requesting any changes to the Charter.

Then it is placed on the ballot for voters to ratify.

Those critical issues can be placed in the Charter to avoid allowing a majority on council to change policies and limitations important to and identified by the community.

The Height Restriction was a charter amendment: The charter was modified in 2007 to provide a 35’ height restriction with a vast majority of voters agreeing.

Unfortunately, the council changed how we measure 35’ – no longer from the ground up! Thus keeping the 35’ per the Charter, but changing the intent.

Huh?

Last January, the Council decided to appoint a Charter review committee as the charter had not been reviewed or amended in several years.  

During Council discussions there were numerous comments suggesting that the process would consist of amendments to the Village Charter as suggested by the public.  

The importance of public participation was frequently mentioned. Yet for the very first Charter Review committee meeting, only one member of the public attended.

There was urgency to get the work of the committee done within several months to meet the election deadlines.

Here are with three proposed amendments to the Charter on the November 3 ballot.

Three-year staggered terms for council members:Instead of having all five members of council elected every two years, there would be years when three members are selected and some years when the other two are selected.

The difficulty is when the three-year terms are decided in an odd year – 2029, 2031. Because these are not standard election years, the Village may have to pay for the election.

Odd years are characterized by low attendance (no president or governor to elect) with the ballot having just two or three Village council members to elect.

Some people are concerned that with the current two year terms we could have elections when all five members are new.

Remember that our US House of Representatives has existed for 250 year without staggered terms.

Often new people have new energy and ideas.

We do not support three year staggered terms because we derive no real benefit.

Filling Vacancies exceeding half a term: Currently if a vacancy occurs on council, the remaining members select a replacement by majority vote.

Through our experience we concluded that this is not ideal as we then have “representatives” who are not elected the voters.

If this amendment passes, a special election would be held if the vacancy occurs with more than half the term remaining.

A potential problem is that until the proposed 3 year term is decided, it is unknown whether the half term is 12 months or 18 months.

If a special election is required, the council would appoint an interim member of council within 30 days and call for a special election within 6 months.

The special election filing, qualifying and campaign period would be similar to the current period of August through the first Tuesday in November.

We support this solution.

Requiring a supermajority vote related to Village-owned property:

Seems simple enough – four affirmative votes instead of a simple majority of three to buy or sell Village real property.

But that isn’t all. Part two-The amendment also requires a supermajority to change the zoning or future land use of Village-owned property to uses not permitted in Recreation or Conservation districts.

Translation to part two-

No changes to the zoning of recreational or conservative properties to commercial or residential properties.

We support this amendment.

Many people in the public have suggested that instead of having specific council seats, the charter should be changed so that the five candidates receiving the most votes would be elected.

The hope is that candidates would then run on their own merit, potentially avoiding negative campaigning against specific opponents.

The charter review committee did not consider this option, to eliminate “seats.”

Bad call for many reasons.

People would tend to look at the qualifications of candidates rather than voting for their business associates and friends.

Most people want competent people spending their tax dollars and managing their village.

I hope this information helps to enlighten voters in the coming election.

Best!

Tom