Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Charter skirmish lands in court

A judge will decide if Pinellas voters can approve or reject the document's changes.

By WILL VAN SANT
Published October 20, 2006

A battle between Pinellas County and a coalition of cities over proposed changes to the county charter is scheduled to go before Circuit Court Judge Robert Beach today.

Beach is to decide whether voters will get the chance to approve or reject the changes to the charter, a document that outlines the powers and duties of county government.

Here's a look at how the two sides arrived at this point:

HOW WE GOT HERE: Twenty-one of 24 Pinellas municipalities filed suit in August seeking to have the seven proposed amendments to the county charter removed from the Nov. 7 ballot.

The cities claim that some charter changes give the county broader authority than state law allows, that the ballot language crafted is unclear and that Florida's Sunshine Law was violated when the changes were developed by the county's Charter Review Commission.

BIGGEST ISSUE: The most controversial change would remove what's known as the dual-vote requirement. The charter requires a dual vote for a regulatory policy, such as one governing environmental standards.

It must pass a countywide referendum to take effect, but if it is rejected by voters in a municipality, it doesn't apply there.

Pinellas is Florida's only county with such a requirement. The dual vote provision was inserted in a 1999 referendum vote by the state Legislature at the request of the cities.

County voters approved the referendum, but the ballot language mentioned nothing about a dual vote or what the actual impact of approval would be: Cities can opt out of regulations supported by voters countywide.

The cities are also opposed to three charter amendments that could curb their ability to annex land from the county.

NEW WRINKLE: The county may have found a way to grab a substantial victory, regardless of whether votes are ultimately cast on the measures.

Pinellas has asked Judge Beach to declare the dual-vote requirement unconstitutional.

"It's not sneaky," said chief assistant county attorney Jim Bennett. "We are duty bound to raise that issue before the court."

As Pinellas attorneys see it, the dual-vote requirement conflicts with the state Constitution, which gives citizens in charter counties the right to grant regulatory power to a single government of their choice.

Bennett said the county had until now not sought to have the provision declared illegal because of uncertainty in the law, but a decision last May in a Seminole County case nicely resolved the critical issues.

In the decision, the court ruled that in charter counties, the will of the electorate when it comes to countywide regulatory issues trumps the home rule powers of municipalities.

WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING: Both camps have been busily taking depositions before the trial and also mounting public relations campaigns to sway opinion. In addition to mailers, the cities have been running television ads and the county's Charter Review Commission has posted videos on the popular Internet site YouTube.

The sides have been engaging in some legal sparring too, with the county suffering dual setbacks last week. One came from an appeals court, which rejected the county's request to set aside an earlier ruling by Judge Beach that called for a prompt trial rather than the lengthy mediation with the cities that the county sought.

The second defeat came from Beach, who ruled that the review commission, which developed the proposed changes, violated state Sunshine Law by having a consultant present when it met privately on Sept. 11 to discuss legal strategy.

[Last modified October 20, 2006, 08:02:38]