Charter Review Commission member explains process
The Fort Myers Beach Town Charter is the town’s constitution. It’s the basic set of rules by which the town operates. In it is a requirement that it be reviewed every 10 years, a self-study which is currently underway. Years ago, a former mayor ungraciously bestowed upon me the title “The Town Windbag.” Probably because of that title, I was appointed to this year’s Charter Review Commission.
This is the first in a series of articles about the purpose and function of the CRC. Later articles will offer what I hope will be a lucid and compelling explanation of the changes we are proposing.
First, the disclaimer: I am writing this strictly as an individual and am not in any way an official spokesman for the Commission. The opinions expressed are purely my own. They may well be shared by other members, but you’ll have to ask them about that. They are Tom Babcock, Miffie Greer, Dan Parker and Dan Hughes. Babcock and Parker served on the CRC 10 years ago and Hughes was mayor when that group was formed but was no longer mayor when their report was issued. Greer and I are the “newbies” to the process. We are usually joined at meetings by Councilperson Rexann Hosafros, Town Manager Don Stilwell and Town Attorney Derek Rooney, who are not commission members but sure are helpful with insight, experience and clarity.
The only agenda here is to keep the Charter relevant and up-to-date and insuring that it covers all the necessary bases for the town to function in an orderly fashion. There will be some additions proposed and some alterations. We found a couple of places where the words didn’t quite make the intention clear. In some instances, we’re recommending the deletion of provisions that made sense when the town was first incorporated, but are now getting in the way. In our discussions, some excellent ideas came out that we decided didn’t belong in the Charter. We’ll recommend that the Council address them either as ordinances or policies to be adopted elsewhere.
Every proposed change has to be passed by the voters before it is adopted. However, before it goes to a referendum, it has to be approved by the Town Council to even get onto the ballot. Therein lies some interesting history: Ten years ago, the last CRC proposed a list of changes which had some excellent ideas. That council summarily blew the report off and nothing of substance ever made its way to a ballot. The mayor at that time, the late Bill Thomas, was heard to boast about how he had quashed the report. Ironically, some of the same ideas, which are still valid, have resurfaced in this group’s deliberations. I’m hoping the current council will take them more seriously.
Thus far, we’ve gone through the entire document, most of which is a no-brainer to leave as is. (We’re not about to suggest changing the name of the town, its boundaries or the form of government.) We’ve reached consensus at least in concept on the “important stuff” and are now attacking the actual wording. Some of the drafting of the details is being farmed out to attorney Rooney to be sure they stand up legally.
We’re using a worksheet which shows the existing chapter and verse along with any proposed changes, the rationale both pro and con for the changes, also the recommendation to Council and the actual vote on each issue. It has helped keep things organized, and I’m hoping the finished worksheets will be posted on the Town website for anyone to examine.
On a personal note, I’ve served on a bunch of similarly-charged committees in my previous life on a university faculty and this one has been the most satisfying. No one knows better than I that there’s a big difference between “educated’ and “smart.” This group is a great combination of both. If there are any personal axes to grind, I haven’t seen them. The discussions are calm and thoughtful. Someone will throw something out which at first hearing sounds great. Then somebody else tosses back a “yeah, but what if,” showing why it won’t work and the discussion continues. I ran up a flagpole a couple of ideas I thought were brilliant but nobody saluted. By the time we’d finished discussing the pros and cons, I wouldn’t have voted for them either. A couple of other proposals did sell.
The purpose of this series is for people to know what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. Some of the recommendations will have financial implications and the best way to convince the public that they’re a good idea is for people to understand the case for any proposed change. I hope you’ll stay tuned.
Jay Light is a member of the Charter Review Committee. This is the first installment of the series about the CRC.