Our Observation

On Amendment One

In 2009, a Charter Review Committee was established to review Winter Park’s charter and make recommendations to the City Commission on any proposed or necessary changes. The well-balanced committee set to work on a document that hadn’t seen updating for many years. Much of the committee’s work bore fruit in the 12 amendments put to the voters on the 2010 ballot. Outside of those 12 issues, the committee also considered a proposal to change the city’s election cycle and terms of office for the mayor and city commissioners. The committee was unable to reach a consensus on how to implement such a change and rejected the proposal.

Currently, commissioners are elected to three-year terms and are limited to four consecutive terms. On the March 8 ballot, residents will vote on a charter amendment that would add a year to commissioners’ terms — making it a four-year term — but would only allow them to serve for three consecutive terms. The total consecutive years they can serve remains the same — 12 — but it would mean the end of every-year elections, saving the city money.

But we think this measure would limit the rights of voters to annually review and change the makeup of the Commission. Passage would stagger elections in an every-other year fashion, rather than the current annual election cycle enjoyed by the voters. That creates a two-year window between poll stops where an unpopular Carlisle-like project could be approved, constructed and occupied long before you made it back to cast your vote two years later.

The Observer endorses a “no” vote on Amendment 1.

On supermajority

Winter Park elections are historically close. Take for example last year’s election where Commissioner Carolyn Cooper barely escaped a mandatory recount with her slim victory over David Lamm by only 155 votes. Or there’s Karen Diebel’s 2007 victory over Beth Dillaha by a mere 109. Dillaha tried again in 2008 and prevailed by only 456. Even our two most recent mayors, who were both swept in on waves of change, won with slim margins of 600 votes or less. With margins that tight, the simple truth is that when it comes to Winter Park, nothing gets done without a compromise.

With a contested comprehensive plan finally in place, the city of Winter Park used the 2010 elections to clean up a much-outdated charter with several amendments. Twelve in fact — on a variety of topics ranging from the provision allowing for commissioner pay raises to a code of ethics. While some of the 12 were mere housekeeping items, one attempted measure — Amendment 10 — tried to alter the very fabric of the city. Proponents of the amendment argued that the city needed a so-called “supermajority” to make any changes to the city’s comprehensive plan. The citizens disagreed and voted the measure down. The other 11 proposed amendments easily passed.

Why did the astute citizenry “Vote No on 10”? Even a comp plan needs compromise. A vote for supermajority could nearly freeze a comprehensive plan in place, making needed updates and exceptions difficult if not unlikely.

One of the more surprising elements of this year’s Commission race has been a revisit to this supermajority debate. Following last year’s no vote by the people, a Winter Park City Commission ignored the citizens’ wishes, and used an ordinance as a political loophole to maintain a supermajority rule for the comprehensive plan anyway.

Frustrated that their votes aren’t heard and that commissioners beat previously decided issues to death, people are rightly asking candidates where they stand on the comp plan supermajority. The candidates’ positions on a comprehensive plan supermajority are as follows:

• Sarah Sprinkle stands by the voters’ decision, however she supports the comprehensive plan and is not seeking to change it.

• Bonnie Jackson favors the supermajority vote that lets the Commission change the comprehensive plan only when they reach a 4-to-1 consensus.

• As a living document, Steve Leary recognizes that the comprehensive plan may need to be amended to accommodate currently unforeseen circumstances but believes the supermajority has not been used as a roadblock to good amendments to the comprehensive plan and has no plans to change it.

• Scott Callahan supports the supermajority provision of the comp plan and is committed to vote to maintain that requirement that’s laid out in a city ordinance.

Should the new commission take up the question of supermajority? Let us know what you think at WPMObserver.com or on facebook.com/WPMObserver