Sarasota's Charter Review Committee endorses elected mayor

A volunteer advisory board is recommending the city change its form of government to elevate the position of mayor, a proposal voters have previously rejected.

By David Conway
| 12:10 p.m. November 11, 2021

Although some members favor maintaining the current form of government, a majority of the Charter Review Committee voted Tuesday to recommend creating an elected mayor position.

Sarasota
News

The Charter Review Committee endorsed a major change to city government Tuesday, recommending the creation of an elected mayor position with executive power distinct from the legislative City Commission.

Panel of experts

On Monday, the Charter Review Committee heard from a lineup of speakers with first-hand experience in various forms of local government.

As the advisory board attempts to sort through the pros and cons of different power structures — and, ultimately, elected officials do the same — here’s the guidance those speakers shared:

Bob Buckhorn, former Tampa mayor
Form of government: Council-elected mayor
“I would submit to you ... that one of the reasons — perhaps the most important and compelling reason Tampa has been able to move as quickly as it has and to transform itself as quickly as it has is because of that form of government. When you are the mayor of Tampa, the community and the city is running based upon your vision and what you were elected to do.”

Mollie Cardamone, former Sarasota mayor
Form of government: Council-manager with appointed ceremonial mayor
“I served eight years with five different mayors ... but none could have done the job of a professional city manager. I had no ability to come in and run a sewer system or a performing arts hall, and I did not have that in mind when I ran as a city resident to become a commissioner and be involved in the governing of my city. Our city has 750 employees; we have 10 departments. We have a highly qualified, educated and trained city manager to make it all work for us.”

Jason Grant, director of advocacy for the International City/County Management Association
“Do you believe in distributed power or consolidated power? Are we better as a government when that power is distributed among many people — less likely that bad things can happen — or do we consolidate it in one, where bad things may happen, but doggone it, they can move a lot of stuff really quick? Which is good government? Any of those are right or wrong. ... I don’t advocate that one is a better form than another. They can all work.”

Wayne Poston, former Bradenton mayor
Form of government: Council-elected mayor
“[During a previous visit to Sarasota, I] asked the question: How many of you business people would like to change your chief executive officer every year? If you would like that, raise your hand. Nobody did. I’m a believer that there has to be leadership consistency over time.”

The advisory board did not come to a decision regarding many of its preferences for a restructured government, vowing to revisit the topic at its next meeting later this month. Already, the group has taken the first step toward a referendum on the question of amending the city charter to establish a “strong mayor.”

The Charter Review Committee, composed of 10 members whom the City Commission appointed, voted 6-3 in favor of an elected mayor. Although some committee members expressed a preference for maintaining the council-manager form of government, a majority said they believed a singular elected leader with more centralized power would prove beneficial for the city.

“I do feel as if we are in a little bit of a crisis when it comes to leadership,” committee member Philip DiMaria said.

+ Questions remain

Even some Charter Review Committee members who favored an elected mayor said it was unclear whether Sarasota voters felt the same way.

The committee held off on discussing the details of an elected mayor until later this month, holding off for the return of some seasonal residents in hopes of gathering more public input. But Tuesday’s meeting was sparsely attended, with just five residents speaking for or against an overhaul to city government.

“We are really struggling with this as if it’s a life or death situation, when it’s not even as important as tennis courts, based on the audience,” committee member Peter Fanning said.

Between 1996 and 2009, city voters rejected three separate referendums seeking to create an elected mayor position with varying levels of power. Committee members who favored the current council-manager system cited that past opposition and said they did not believe there was a compelling reason to significantly adjust the city’s current system of governance.

“I don’t see the need for change,” committee member Cathy Antunes said. “I don’t see the people clamoring for change.”

Opponents of an elected mayor — particularly one that wielded significant power — also raised concerns about what would happen if a mayor did not conduct himself properly in the leadership position. Committee member Eileen Normile expressed skepticism about the city’s ability to attract qualified candidates in a mayoral race and about the ability of the electoral process to filter out substandard candidates without any conditions on who could run.

“Vision doesn’t do it for me,” Normile said. “Division of power, to me, is a safeguard I wouldn’t want to give up.”

Some elected mayor supporters took issue with that line of thinking, arguing that minimizing the risk associated with a potential bad actor should not be a leading consideration in structuring city government.

“I don’t think working from fear is the right approach,” committee member Kim Githler said.

Those who advocated for an elected mayor said they saw upside in moving away from a form of government in which five commissioners wielded equal power. Committee members suggested an elected mayor would be able to take action more swiftly and serve as the unquestioned point person for major issues facing the city. Committee member Dan Clermont said he envisioned an elected mayor as someone who would lay out a singular vision for the future of Sarasota.

“Without vision, you do tend to just be stewards of the city,” Clermont said. “You don’t provide leadership.”

The committee sorted out a few details about its vision for an elected mayor at Tuesday’s meeting. It recommended a mayor that does not have a voting position on the City Commission, which would continue to serve as a legislative body. It said the mayor should not have veto power over the commission.

The committee also turned away some efforts to limit the power of an elected mayor, voting against proposals to make the mayor a two-year term and to retain the City Commission’s authority to appoint a city manager.

Still, the full scope of a potential elected mayor position — and associated changes with other leadership positions in city government — remain unsettled. The committee intends to finish its work beginning at its next meeting later this month. What would the term of an elected mayor be? What positions would that person oversee? Will there continue to be a professional administrator in the city, and if so, what title would be associated with that role?

Regardless of what the committee cobbles together, its work will ultimately serve as a recommendation to the City Commission. The commission is scheduled to hear a presentation from the committee in March, at which point the city’s elected leaders will have the authority to decide whether to place charter amendments on the ballot for voters to consider.