This article, originally published by Al Zucaro on BocaWatch.org, is preserved for historical purposes by Massive Impressions Online Marketing in Boca Raton.
If there are questions or concerns with the content please e-mail info@4boca.com.
Publisher’s Comment: Two items have been raised since posting this article requiring clarification…1) Acting Mayor Scott Singer originally asked the City Attorney to draft Ordinance 5453; and, 2) In the discussion between the 3 council members present, the one year time element was settled upon but could be adjusted if that was the City Council’s direction. Al Zucaro, Publisher ______________________________________________________________
Ordinance 5453, dubbed the Incumbent’s Protection Relief Act (IPRA) is an ill-conceived proposal to limit residents the ability to vote for candidates of their choice. A council vote on moving forward with an August City Charter change referendum has been postponed until a date certain of May 8th for action of the full City Council.
If passed, this ordinance would place a referendum vote on the August 28th special election asking the residents to vote for its terms and conditions. The City Council action item scheduled for Tuesday night, May 8, reads in part as follows:
Ordinance No. 5453 An Ordinance of the City of Boca Raton amending Article V, “Qualifications and Elections,” Section 5.03, “Qualifications,” of the Charter of the City of Boca Raton to modify the requirements to qualify as a candidate for City Council, including the office of Mayor, by: (i) extending the length of the residency requirement, establishing certain requirements for residency, and requiring proof of such residency (to be prescribed by Ordinance), and (ii) eliminating the $25 qualifying fee and instead requiring the verified signatures of a specified number of registered voters of the City, and providing for procedures for collection, submission, and verification of such signatures (to be prescribed by Ordinance); providing for a special election regarding the proposed Charter amendments to be held on August 28, 2018 (the date of the primary election); amending Chapter 6, “Elections,” of the Code of Ordinances to create (subject to approval of one, or both, of the above Charter amendments) a new Section 6-16, “Proof of Residency,” prescribing procedures for establishing residency, and a new Section 6-17, “Filing of Petition,” prescribing procedures for the collection, submission, and verification of signatures; providing for severability; providing for repealer; providing for revisions to the City Charter and codification in the City Code, respectively; providing an effective date.
Councilwoman Andrea Levine O’Rourke is the IPRA’s leading proponent. The Councilwoman argues that these requirements are necessary to prevent unqualified candidates from running for City Council seats. The arguments offered presuppose that the residents cannot judge for themselves who should be elected; the democratic process. Argued is that one year is the magical number; that the potential candidate should be required to demonstrate residency for the prescribed period of time and that the candidate gather 200 verified signatures to qualify.
Specifically stated as what the Ordinance is protecting against are people with little or no history of Boca Raton matters; using the arbitrary time element of one year as the measurement. Another issue raised is to prevent residents from filing last minute papers to run for open seats on the council. Further argued is that surrounding jurisdictions have qualifying requirements but offers no examples to support the statement except to say that to run for President of the United States, a candidate must be a citizen of the United States; a stretch to say the least as no mention is made of the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement.
The underlying objection seems to be the March ’17 filing by Andy Thomson who moved into the city just weeks before filing to run while he maintained a homestead outside the city. Kim Do’s candidacy to run in the last election cycle is another reason cited in support of this proposed charter change. Councilwoman O’Rourke has been heard to argue that Ms. Do was not qualified because she was an unknown candidate with no apparent history in city matters although Ms. Do was a resident for the required period of time.
Finally, additional reasoning offered in support is the Armand Grossman candidacy in the March ’18 election cycle for the open council seat where Mr. Grossman filed to run on the last filing day before the window of opportunity closed. Using that logic, I suspect my candidacy to run for Mayor in the March ’17 election cycle would have been prevented as I also qualified to run on the last day of qualifying in that race.
I used the term ill-conceived earlier…Ill-conceived because there are so many challenges to the reasoning. For instance…I have lived in Boca for 10 years now…what if I moved to Boca-Del-Mar just west of Military Trail on Camino Real; resided there for say 6 months and returned to Boca. By virtue of the reasoning, I would be prevented from running for City Council in the upcoming special election for Mayor and/or the open City Council seat being vacated by Scott Singer who is an announced candidate for Mayor.
Certainly it could not be argued that I am unfamiliar with Boca matters….Another ill-conceived element is the time element of gathering 200 signatures and having them verified would take a candidate’s election strategy of registering the last minute away. Requiring a candidate to expose themselves before the qualifying window closes is simply a warning signal to the incumbent or other candidates.
I could go on and on with why this is ill-conceived argument…but my main reason to not impose additional qualifications is that residents are perfectly capable of making that decision and, as Ms. O’Rourke did in her race against Mr. Thomson, a candidate’s opposition will be the first to point out this type of deficiency.
Hence, on May 8th the City Council should shelve this idea and not bring this matter to a referendum vote in August….there are certainly more pressing items for the council to handle. but, if a charter change is desired, let’s convene a Charter Review Commission to look at this question in a holistic way…an argument well worth the time and effort….an effort to bring the city charter into modern Boca Raton, a place we all have to come to know better.
Al Zucaro,
Publisher – BocaWatch
Please let me know your opinion on the residency requirement ordinance.
This gets complicated. We now have to define residency. If one visits New England for the summer, have they been a resident the whole year? What if one was a resident for ten years, moved away, and then moved back last month. Have they been a resident for a year? Does it have to be the current year or any year? The combinations of circumstances are many…..
That’s easy issue date of drivers license or issue date of voters registration.
The one year requirement makes sense. It shows (more or less) that the candidate is established or making Boca their home.
I agree that the voters should decide, and that there should be no time period. However, I believe the candidate should be a resident of the City.
I notice this survey is tilted to the benefit of the writers point of view. Use of the term ‘arbitrary’ in the one year selection casts that choice in the derogatory. Essentially all selections are atbitrary, except perhaps the 30 day, which is the current requirement.
On future surveys deal the cards any way you wish but please try to avoid stacking the deck.
Well George,
This kind of proves something in and of itself: even with the deck “stacked”. You should have seen my goofy slanted answers I suggested as a joke initially – they were horrible. This poll was indeed “loaded up” big time with Al’s opinion prefacing the survey. But look! The results are proving citizen opinion to be the one-year requirement. Even with all that obvious and transparent stacking and loading it didn’t change people’s viewpoint on what’s reasonable. Did Council Member Andrea O’ Rourke do a poll to come up with the one year requirement, as what voters want, or did she just shoot from the hip and hit it?
Any time period is arbitrary, it should be long enough to guarantee a commitment to the community. We don’t need professional political interests to rent an apartment for a month just to try to get a job in our city.
I agree with Al’s comments. Andrea O’Rourke di a nice job reminding voters of Mr. Thomson’s brief residency and won the election handily and even if Al was late in filing at least there was competition (I wonder how many Haney supporters would like their vote back since her recent indictment).
Most importantly, there are other decisions to be made that are for more important than attempting to protect their positions.
You just never know and this might create a slippery slope for other amendments.
Let’s move on with governing and not sweat the small stuff!
Do we require candidates to own property within the city limits for one year…have a little skin in the game…You are doing a good job in educating the public, but don’t get too biased…I’ve lived in Boca for 87 years, except for college and the Navy, which may be the longest anyone has ever lived here…
There is room to see both sides of the requirements. A lot will depend on the individuals qualifications and meet the basic requirements of property owner, residential lease holder, drivers license, etc.
If a person moves to Boca (or any municipality) just before an election one must question their intent.If that person has the backing of others with intent of gaining the inside tract” to the city a flag should be raised. As with the last election we certainly don’t need any “Tom Dick or Andy” sweeping in at the last minute. Our voters saw the need for qualified candidates and acted accordingly in the last election. To bad that did happen in the last mayoral election.
A 3 year requirement seems to be the best
As
1 year you don’t know if your staying
5 years you’ve been waiting so your angry
3 years. You have roots but it’s still fresh ideas of what needs to be changed
Mr. Zucaro,
The Libertarian in me often agrees with your position that the public should be given credit to exercise judgement and make a good decision. As a result, i believe there should be fewer regualtions and laws. That said, I do believe that there needs to be some residency requirement. The elected city leadership should be, among other things, Residents. Residency should be long enough to ensure that it is bona-fide. One year seems right, but i wouldnt have a big issue with a different amount of time.
All of that said, according to your pole, 93% the residents you say are “perfectly capable” of making a good decision disagree with your position. Maybe you should rethink your position?
Craig, thank you for your comment and your readership. The poll is tell tale…The residents that have responded have sent a clear message. I have no further argument with them. I do, however, still take exception to the need for signatures. Elections are about strategy. The signature requirement eliminates legitimate strategy. No issue is raised with the need to provide proof of residency. Al Zucaro