Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Commission Meeting 6/3/14



It's hurricane season.  No one knows what to expect.  So be ready.  Brian McNoldy provided the science, and Candido Sosa-Cruz provided practical advice.

Michael Hepburn is running for Daphne Campbell's State House seat.  He's a very appealing candidate.

We reminded ourselves how pleased we are to have gotten $1M from the State for log cabin renovation.

A lot of people wished we hadn't outsourced sanitation, but we already did.  Some of us are warned to expect to be recalled.

We kicked around several ideas, and none of them got enthusiastic traction.
Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Milton HunterJune 4, 2014 at 9:33 AM

    For anyone interested, I contacted the Miami-Dade Elections Department and they referred me to Section 5.03. - Initiative, referendum and recall. I would suggest to read it to better understand the requirements needed for any of these actions.
    Excerpts:
    (1) A minimum of ten (10) electors may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing an affidavit with the Clerk which states the following: (a) name and address of each elector; (b) the willingness of the ten (10) electors to constitute the petitioners' committee, circulate the petition and file it in the proper form; (c) the address to which all notices to the committee shall be sent; and (d) the identification of the ordinance to be proposed or reconsidered.
    (2) Promptly upon the filing of the petitioners' committee affidavit the Clerk shall validate the electors listed in the affidavit and the Attorney shall review the Petitioners' proposed ordinance for legal sufficiency. Once the electors are validated and the proposed ordinance is found to be legally sufficient, the Clerk shall prepare and issue the appropriate petition blanks to the petitioners' committee at the committees' expense.

    The first two problems was that the petition was not properly constructed. The most glaring issue would be if this issue would qualify for "legal sufficiency." According to those I have spoken with, it would not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Milton HunterJune 4, 2014 at 10:09 AM

    You may view the Biscayne Park municipal code at the following link: https://www.municode.com/library/fl/biscayne_park.
    Article 5 Elections- section 5.03

    I think a large part of the problem is that too many residents didn't take the time to research facts for themselves and relied on, what has now been proven to be faulty information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FredJune 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM

      You know, Milt, the more I think about this issue, and the meeting last night, the more amazed I am at how misguided we (outsourcers) all managed to be. First, it was an ad hoc group of people who pored over applications and interviewed and investigated applicants, and who somehow identified just the wrong contractor: WastePro. Then, it was a Commission, who studied Village finances, and this issue, and attended every informational opportunity, and made extra outreaches and asked lots of questions, and who also managed to get it precisely wrong. It's amazing. How can such extra care lead in exactly the wrong direction? And it seems the more you research, and the more questions you ask, the more wrong you get it.

      I tried to be open-minded about this. I admit that I had my mind made up at the outset: I was very much against outsourcing, and I said so publicly. But I tried to understand it anyway. As it happens, I wound up changing my mind, and deciding that outsourcing was not only better than not outsourcing, but that it was much better.

      Having said that, I was still willing to vote not to outsource, as long as a majority of my neighbors didn't want to outsource, and they were willing to pay the admittedly higher cost of not outsourcing. I don't know that advocating not to outsource would have been a responsible position to take, since it traded advocacy for the Village's overall welfare for advocacy for the wishes of my neighbors. But they elected me, and I was willing to do it. I told them what I needed, and they didn't give it to me. So I voted my conscience, instead of popularity.

      I sided with the forces of the reasoning and the research I did. I understand what that is costing me, and what it will cost me, but I didn't have a reasonable choice. I could have pandered, but it's just not my way of doing things. So "sue" (recall) me.

      Fred

      Delete
  3. Milton HunterJune 4, 2014 at 11:00 AM

    Fred,
    Firstly, you know I'm not an attorney but the recall threat seems way too thin on substance. A disagreement on a voting issue is not grounds for recall. After all, you voted to save our residents money on our solid waste service (BTW, that savings in year 2 will be 90%- not a small number) and to also benefit our Village in many other areas.

    My hope from all of this is that those who felt "railroaded" will take some accountability in their apathy and that the fault of not knowing soon enough was of their own doing. Sorry, but that's the truth of it.

    Also and as important, the dire need to research facts for themselves and not relay on others to do it for them. There was way too much deliberate disinformation spread for political purposes that had nothing to do with our sanitation guys.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)