Attorney: "Both Amendments should be a NO Vote"

Citizens for Sarasota County asked Susan Schoettle-Gumm, a former assistant County Attorney, to review the two items added by the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners to the November Ballot. Her answer:

"In my opinion, these two proposed charter amendments – individually and definitely in combination – would effectively block future citizen-initiated charter amendments in Sarasota County.  

If the amendments proposed for the November 2022 ballot are approved, Sarasota County would have the most stringent and difficult requirements in the state for citizen-initiated county charter amendment petitions.  

Both amendments should be a NO Vote."

Below is a comparison of Sarasota's Charter Amendment provisions with those of other counties in Florida:

Commissioner Al Maio

Sarasota County already has the shortest time period for collection of signatures among all charter counties in Florida (the 90-91 days from January 1 to April 1, with possible additional 30 days for signatures added to required number already submitted) and a high signature requirement.  Fifty-five percent (55%) of charter counties allow 180 days for signature collection (some with an additional 30 days if signatures are rejected) and some counties allow even longer time periods for collection.  Half of Florida’s charter counties require signatures from only 5% - 8% of registered electors. Only one charter county in the State currently imposes a substantive legal review of a petition prior to allowing it to be on the ballot (Orange County, which uses a board of 3 independent attorneys hired annually to make the determination).  If these 2022 proposed amendments had been in the Charter in 2018, the petition for single-member districts would have been rejected and never on the ballot.

Question 1 changes would apply only to citizen-initiated amendments and would require:  

A) the signatures of 10% of registered electors to be collected as 10% within each county commission district (rather than county-wide), and, 

B) after collection of 1% of required signatures and submittal to the County, the following are required: County review/approval of the form of the petition, County review/approval of the legal sufficiency of the petition (terms not defined), a fiscal impact analysis (terms not defined) by the County, and a presentation of the petition to the Charter Review Board, if it has a meeting during the relevant time period.

Comments:  This makes the high 10% signature requirement even more difficult as 10% within each commission district would be required.  So use of centralized petition collection points will be more difficult.  Less urbanized districts may be very difficult to efficiently obtain signatures. When the requirement of 10% signatures from each district is added to the already very short signature collection period, collection of the necessary signatures would be nearly impossible.  

• Review of petition format is widely required in other county charters but does not appear to be a significant problem – but it would depend on what requirements are included in the County ordinance proscribing the form.  
• Three charter counties currently require a fiscal/economic impact analysis, so this is not widely adopted.  
• Requiring a determination of “legal sufficiency” and that it be decided by the County is like having the fox guard the hen house when the hen house has no door.  

• The combination of the legal review and signature requirement by district are very damaging and unacceptable provisions.

Question 2 would add the requirement that any proposed amendment, whether proposed by the Charter Review Board, the County, or by citizen petition “shall not conflict with the Florida Constitution, general law, or the Charter.”  

Comments: Charter provisions, whether proposed or already adopted, must already not conflict with the Florida Constitution and general law.  So this change is really focused on prohibiting any major changes to the Charter.  Any proposed change that could not coexist with existing charter provisions would be prohibited.  And presumably the County would make this determination for citizen petitions as part of its “legal sufficiency” review under Question 1.  For example, if this provision had been in the County Charter in 2018, the question to change county commission elections from at-large to single-member districts would not have made it on the ballot.  Presumably, provisions in a new subject area, such as ethics, might not “conflict” with the Charter, but again, with the County making this determination, the fox guarding the hen house would be choosing which chickens might live or die.

I believe that the proposed amendments are terrible intrusions into the authority that remains with the citizens of Sarasota County under home rule.  

The County has not granted the power of amendment by petition to the citizens – rather the citizens have retained this power to themselves.  We cannot give up more of our power to the County.  In fact, we should consider a citizen petition to amend the Charter to allow the proposal, amendment and recission of ordinances by citizen initiative – as is authorized in at least 75% of Florida’s charter counties.  

I hope this information is helpful to you.  We need to get this out to the public in any and all ways possible. 

The message must be to Vote NO on the Sarasota County Charter Amendments.