Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Charter joins problems plaguing city election

Until last week, it had seemed this Largo election season could not get any more tumultuous.

First, residents who had opposed the City Commission's consideration of a human rights ordinance two years ago recruited a candidate to run on a "family values" platform. City Commission candidates suddenly faced questions about whether they supported gays, abortion and stem cell research.

Then the city clerk was removed from her normal duty of running the election. City officials said they couldn't explain why because a state law guarantees confidentiality to alleged victims of discrimination.

Then the only incumbent in the race, Charlie Harper, abruptly withdrew after the Times questioned his education credentials. He said he had been diagnosed with leukemia.

Last week's news was that at least three of the city's seven commissioners contributed to commission candidates in apparent violation of a city charter provision that prohibits paid city employees or officials from making, soliciting or receiving contributions in city elections.

Then on Saturday, the Times reported that Mayor Bob Jackson, who had previously dodged any body blows in all of this, had gathered petition card signatures for one of the candidates so he could get on the ballot. Did that violate a city charter provision that forbids city employees to "take part in the management, affairs or political campaigns of (city) elections"? The city attorney opined that it did not, in part because that provision conflicts with another that says city officials can exercise their rights as citizens to express their opinions and vote.

These accusations about charter violations are important because the charter contains harsh penalties against any city official who willfully violates the rules against contributing to or being involved in others' political campaigns. The charter states the official is guilty of a misdemeanor and if convicted can be fined as much as $500 or jailed for as much as 60 days or both. In addition, the official must forfeit his office and cannot hold office again for five years.

Now the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office is investigating, and some residents are calling for Tuesday's city election to be delayed until the investigation is complete. There is so much dust being kicked up in Largo that it is difficult to see through it. However, we'll give it a try.

First, there is no reason to postpone Tuesday's election, even if the city had the power to do so. None of the city commissioners accused of contributing is on Tuesday's ballot. The candidates who accepted those contributions haven't done anything wrong, because there is no law that says candidates can't take contributions; the charter ban applies only to current city employees and officials. It would be unfair to the candidates and the voters to delay.

Second, just because the commissioners contributed does not automatically mean they should be fined or go to jail or give up the offices to which Largo residents elected them.

Did they violate the charter? They surely did. Commissioner Pat Gerard gave $100 to candidate Rodney Woods. Commissioner Harriet Crozier gave $25 to candidate Gigi Arntzen. And Commissioner Pat Burke gave $50 to Arntzen and $50 to Woods. The charter says commissioners can't do that.

But the penalty clause notes that the punishments of fines, jail and forfeiture apply only when there has been a willful violation, and it is clear that these were not willful violations.

Burke, Crozier and Gerard were embarrassed and upset when they learned they had done something wrong. They said they did not remember seeing the ban on campaign contributions in the 26-page charter. Should they have known it was there? Absolutely, but it appears they did not.

It defies logic to conclude that the three commissioners would risk jail and forfeiture to give a $25 or $50 or even a $100 check to a candidate. These are not bad people. Burke, Crozier and Gerard have served faithfully on the commission for years. They do the work they think they were elected to do, do it thoughtfully and with compassion, and tolerate the criticism and personal attacks that come with the job. It is especially difficult to conclude that they willfully violated the charter when there was an easy way around the ban on contributions: The charter does not apply to commissioners' spouses, who could have written the checks instead.

Why didn't these city commissioners know about the charter provision? We can make some guesses. First, they apparently didn't study it enough. It's a lousy excuse, but it shouldn't get them thrown out of office. The Largo city manager said newly elected Largo officials no longer get a thorough primer on the city charter from the city attorney as they did in the past. That should be reinstated.

Also, the commissioners may have thought it was okay to give money to a candidate because doing so had been common practice for years. These were not the first commissioners to contribute; they are just the ones who got caught. Elected officials often contribute to candidates, in Largo and in other Pinellas communities.

Finally, Largo officials may be rusty on the city charter because the document has not undergone a thorough review in 30 years. Unlike other area local governments, Largo has no provision for a regular citizen review of the city charter - something the City Commission should remedy by putting a charter amendment to create such a review on the next city election ballot. The charter is so outdated, with many of its provisions superseded by changes in state law, that it had become easy for city officials not to reference it.

The improper campaign contributions were promptly returned by the candidates. Burke, Crozier and Gerard owe the public an apology, and they need to study all 26 pages of the charter immediately. But should good commissioners have to step down because of this? No way.

* * *

How ironic that on Tuesday, voters will find on their ballot two questions about the city charter. The city attorney told commissioners that some sections of the charter are so outdated, they need to be changed to bring them into compliance with state law and common practice. Because only voters can modify the charter, commissioners put the proposed amendments on the ballot.

Referendum question No. 1 is a compilation of needed changes. If approved, the most significant changes would:

Give people annexed into the city the opportunity to run for City Commission on the same basis as current city residents. The charter now requires that a candidate live in the city for one year before filing for office. The proposed change allows an annexed resident to run after living less than one year in the city, as long as the resident had lived continuously in his home for one year prior to filing.

--Require commissioners to report to the full commission any neglect of duty or improper conduct by any city official. Only the mayor is required to do so now.

--Create the name Largo City Code for the book of city ordinances and require that copies be kept at the library and City Hall for free public reference.

--Let the city manager appoint more than one assistant city manager with commission approval.

--Give applicants denied by the city planning board the opportunity to appeal to the City Commission and eliminate the right of appeal to the commission for applicants denied by the board of adjustment, which is an appeals board.

We recommend a "yes" vote on Question 1.

The second referendum question, if approved, would add to the charter a provision that the City Commission may appoint an internal auditor who will report directly to the commission. The auditor would be required to do an internal audit annually, verify that money has been spent as the budget required, find operational deficiencies and make sure the city departments comply with the law.

The new position is unnecessary. The city already is required by state law to have an annual audit by an outside auditor - certainly an objective outsider is best. The outside audit uncovers any unlawful spending and operational deficiencies in record keeping. The City Commission is responsible for approving the budget and seeing that it is followed. It should remain its job, not that of a hired employee.

We also are troubled that the proposed charter amendment says nothing about required professional credentials for the internal auditor and nothing about how the auditor's assignments will be determined. These missing elements mean the job could go to a political appointee and that individual commissioners could dispatch the auditor on witch hunts. Largo doesn't need that kind of trouble.

We recommend a "no" vote on Question 2.

[Last modified February 28, 2005, 01:04:17]