Our View: The real charter debate

The Sarasota County Charter certainly doesn’t register as a nerve-twinger on Longboat Key like, say, installing a cell tower on the north end of the island. And half of the Key — the Manatee County half — if not the entire island, probably couldn’t give a whoopdedoo about the proposal that the Sarasota County Charter Review Board was expected to vote on Wednesday night.

That proposal, in the accompanying box, has become a tempest in Sarasota County among those who pay close attention to local government.

The originator of this proposal is Kathy Bolam, the Venice resident who ran for election to the Sarasota County Charter Review Board but lost by 113 votes and subsequently ended up in court with Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections Kathy Dent. Their dispute was over whether Dent pressured Bolam to concede her loss to avoid a recount.

Though not elected to the charter review board, Bolam nonetheless pressed on and submitted her proposed amendment to the sitting board for consideration to be placed on an upcoming countywide ballot.

If you read it, you don’t have to make much of an intellectual leap to realize Bolam has a lot of opposition. Any time you start talking about placing ironclad limits on how modern-day government bodies can spend money, the redistributionists, power-grabbers and leeches go into attack and defend modes. Attack the assault, and defend their share of the taxpayer take.

It’s no surprise, for instance, that our counterparts across the bay editorialized against it. “The proposed amendment is simply unworthy of consideration by county voters,” it said. A week earlier, Cathy Layton, a good-standing Republican, businesswoman and member of the charter review board, also editorialized against the proposal. Describing herself as a constitutional purist, Layton said she “writhes” at cluttering the U.S. and state constitutions “with whims, mandates and special-interest measures.” Likewise, the county charter. Layton contends how the County Commission spends money should be governed by ordinance.

To further complicate the issue, Layton said the board’s research revealed that if Bolam’s amendment became law, county government would be required to take over providing a “staggering” number of state and federally mandated services that are now administered by non-profits hired by the county.

Layton doesn’t think county voters should be given the opportunity to vote on Bolam’s amendment.

On one point, we are on Layton’s team — loathe to clutter constitutions and charters with junk. The epitome of this was when Floridians added to the state constitution an amendment that prohibits certain kinds of cages for pregnant pigs.

But we’re also loathe to elected officials making value judgments on what issues are worthy or unworthy for voters to decide. Yes, we’re a democratic republic that elects representatives to determine governance. But when elected officials ignore the people, our nation’s philosophical core says people have a right to take their grievances to the people at large — government by the people. Let the voters ultimately decide.

The risk, of course, is they adopt dumb things like pregnant-pig amendments. But the longstanding intent of the Founders was to rely on the intelligence of the marketplace, of the voters; give them the freedom to decide. Denied that right, Americans, in general, recoil.

Here’s what is going to happen next: A grassroots petition drive ultimately will succeed placing Bolam’s amendment on the ballot. And then voters will have to decide: Is it worthy to be codified?

The way it is written, no.

It’s the proverbial rug that has been covering a floor for years. You don’t know what’s under it — the unintended consequences. The wording of this proposal can be treacherous: What, for instance, is the definition of “distributing,” of “grants” or the meaning of “any other names for funding” or “types of organizations/groups not mentioned herein”? You can envision, if it passed, the future lawsuits between the County Commission and citizens groups.

From a larger perspective, you can see the roots of Bolam’s Amendment. She, like so many Americans today, is frustrated and sick of watching every level of government take money by force from taxpayers and redistribute it to people, activities and programs that go far beyond what the Founders saw as the role of government.

We have “grants” (tax dollars) to individuals for downpayments to buy homes; we subsidize businesses that want to produce entertainment films; we give grants to help finance the arts. Harvey Golub, former chairman and CEO of American Express, questioned similar activities on the federal level in Monday’s Wall Street Journal:

“Do we really need to spend money on solar panels, windmills and battery-operated cars when we have ample energy supplies in this country?” he wrote. “Do we really need all the regulations that put an estimated $2 trillion burden on our economy by raising the price of things we buy? Do we really need subsidies for domestic sugar farmers and ethanol producers? … Why do we spend billions on trains that no one will ride? Why do we keep post offices open in places no one lives? … Do we really need an energy department or an education department at all?”

The message should be clear: Kathy Bolam, Harvey Golub and millions and millions of other Americans want government scaled back, severely restricted and out of their lives. We are objecting to how the role of government has evolved.We are protesting that, in spite of our clearly articulated U.S. Constitution, Florida Constitution and local charters, our elected representatives have taken the role of government far beyond its original bounds.

The preamble to the Constitution spells out those bounds — “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity … ” Promoting welfare is not confiscating others’ money. Securing the blessings of liberty is protecting our right to our property and fruits of our labor.

We support the concept behind the Bolam Amendment. But in truth, before it comes to a vote, it needs refining and recrafting on the true role of government.

Bolam Amendment
The Sarasota County Charter Review Board was expected to vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend the proposed amendment be placed on the Sarasota County ballot.

Section 5.5 Residents/Citizens of Sarasota County reserve the right to directly fund by means of their own personal finances non-profit community organizations whether it be for charity, education, child care, self-help, the arts, science, beautification or neighborhood improvements. Therefore, the Sarasota County commissioners are restricted from distributing funds via grants to charitable, educational, civic, homeowner, neighborhood, arts, science, non-profit organizations through grants (Contracted Human Resources) and any other names for funding or types of organizations/ groups not mentioned herein.

Guidelines for placing questions on ballot
4The charter review board’s bylaws state:

4.10 When evaluating proposed Sarasota County Charter amendments, the Board shall consider the following guidelines:

4.10.1 Constitutionality of amendments should not be doubtful, e.g. conflict with the Constitution, or Statutes, or Statutory preemption.

4.10.2 Amendment and ballot language should be clear, concise, and understandable.

4.10.3 Amendments should consider impact on County government.

4.10.4 Amendments should attempt to avoid specific, static dollar amounts that can only be changed by an amendment to the Charter.

4.10.5 Amendments should not reference State Statute numbers; titles should be used instead. Amendments should not duplicate Statute provisions.

4.10.6 Amendments should avoid usurping the Board of County Commission’s authority.

4.10.7 Amendments should avoid matters that would be more appropriate as Ordinances.

4.10.8 If a proposed Charter Amendment does not meet the above criteria, other means of addressing the problem may be suggested.