Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

On Pinellas, Hillsborough charter amendments

PINELLAS COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENTS

On a ballot already crowded with candidates and state constitutional amendments, Pinellas County voters will have some additional choices to make - accepting or rejecting five proposed amendments to the county charter.

The first four amendments clarify the professional relationship between the County Commission and county administrator, while the final amendment would allow the Charter Review Commission more time to finish the work it started in January.

Pinellas is one of 19 counties in Florida with a charter, which establishes the form and powers of county government. Without such a document, counties must rely on the state for guidance, but once a charter is established, only the voters can change it. That is what Pinellas voters are being asked to do with these five amendment questions.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 1: For county government to be effective, elected commissioners should set policy and leave it to the appointed administrator to direct county employees to carry out that policy. This amendment would prohibit commissioners from interfering in that administrative process, although they would still be able to communicate with employees or observe their operations. This amendment would formalize what is already the practice in Pinellas, and in most county and city governments.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 2: This is essentially a housekeeping measure that officially designates the county administrator as the county budget officer. While the County Commission establishes the budget, clearly its implementation should be overseen by the top administrator.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 3: The charter already includes a process for county commissioners to fire an administrator, but this clears up the time element. There are two ways to terminate the administrator - with the votes of five of the seven commissioners at any one meeting, or the votes of four commissioners at two meetings. This amendment specifies that using the second method, the votes would have to occur at two consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 4: Nearly every charter county gives the county administrator the authority to fire county employees working under his or her direction, but it isn't spelled out in Pinellas.

A professional administrator should have that authority, which would help shield key personnel decisions from political interference. The administrator would still have to act within the bounds of civil service protections, if they apply.

Each of the first four amendments would bring the Pinellas charter up to the modern standards of other urban counties, and the Times recommends a YES vote on each one.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 5: All of these amendments were proposed not by the elected County Commission, whose motives in proposing changes could be seen as self-serving, but by a 13-member, appointed Charter Review Commission with a majority of members drawn from the public at large as well as four elected officials.

The charter calls for this review commission to meet for six months every six years to study the charter and recommend changes, but Amendment 5 would grant a two-year extension of the current term.

Near the end of their work this year, review commission members - who are civic-minded volunteers working without pay - came to realize that they needed more time to fully address the complexities of Pinellas' patchwork charter and the issues challenging local government.

Some members advocate throwing out the current charter and writing Pinellas' first true home-rule charter. The existing charter, adopted in 1980, provides only limited autonomy because it requires the Florida Legislature to approve the most substantial charter amendments before they go to the voters, and lawmakers can change the wording and meaning of the amendments - and have done so in the past. Other charter counties in Florida need not seek legislative permission.

It is not clear whether the review commission, even with a two-year extension, could successfully balance competing interests in the county and come up with a new charter. The group might merely propose more amendments to the current document.

A few critics of Amendment 5 want to leave things the way they are, but who could argue against a thoughtful group of citizens shining a light on our most important governance issues and encouraging full debate? Besides, the voters will have the final say on any charter changes. The Times recommends a YES vote on Amendment 5.

Hillsborough voters will decide Nov. 2 whether legal advice to county government should be shaped by reasoning or politics. The ballot question asks whether voters want to change Hillsborough's county charter, shifting the power to select and manage the county attorney from the professional administrator to the elected commission. Such a switch would invite political abuse and polarize county government. Voters should reject it.

The idea was born last year after turmoil involving then-County Attorney Emmy Acton. She came under fire for mismanaging the office and abusing vacation time. Under the charter, then-County Administrator Dan Kleman could have fired Acton, "with the advice and consent" of the board. But Kleman was hesitant because Acton enjoyed political support on the board. Both left the county soon after the impasse, and the commission seized on the opportunity for a power grab. Supporters claim the amendment clarifies the chain-of-command over the county attorney.

In fact, it does the opposite. The problem was Kleman, not the county charter. He should have disciplined Acton and faced the consequences. Rather than clarify anything, the change would further muddle authority and invite the very political abuse the charter was designed to prevent.

Removing the county attorney from under the umbrella of the administrator creates two distinct power centers - in effect, codifying the dueling relationship that existed between Kleman and Acton.

It also creates inherent conflicts. Would a county attorney hired by and answerable to the board be more inclined to accommodate a member's political agenda? The board's similar move in creating a hand-picked county auditor has produced equally troubling concerns, as the office has become a political tool and not the good-government reform commission advocates promised. How aggressive, for example, would the hand-picked auditor be in pursuing allegations that the hand-picked attorney was throwing work to campaign contributors? Having a wall between elected officials and the staff is crucial for instilling public faith and fostering the orderly working of government. The Times strongly recommends a NO vote on Hillsborough's charter change.