City Charter Amendments Guide

Along with important elections for Governor, State Legislature and County and City Commissioners, our local constitutions are on the November ballot. Here is a review and my take on the City Charter Amendments amendments. Having served on the City of Sarasota’s Charter Review Committee (CRC), I expected this article to be a pretty straightforward undertaking. But I am surprised (not in a good way) by the final version of some of the proposed City Charter amendments.

Bottom line: I’ll be voting NO on all amendments except the one raising City Commissioner salaries.
So that is one YES (for the salary increase) and three NOs (regarding surety bond/insurance question, general recommendations, eliminating special elections). Here is why:

The ONLY YES

Commissioner Salaries Increase

Proposed amendment to increase the salary of City Commissioners to $44,643.97. The current salary of Sarasota City Commissioners just under $30,000. which is two-thirds of the full amount authorized by Florida statutes, I supported this amendment as a member of the City Charter Review Committee. The CRC recommended increasing City Commission salaries, as the position is demanding and the current compensations is low.

The NOs

Insurance vs. Surety Bonds

Proposed amendment to allow the City to purchase insurance to protect against dishonesty or theft by the City Manager, City Auditor & Clerk, City Director of Financial Services or (if hired as a full time employee) the City Attorney. Currently these employees are required to be bonded (surety bonds) in favor of the City.

What is the difference between a surety bond and insurance? Surety bonds are a form of credit. They’re mistaken for insurance because they are purchased to protect an entity and involve payment when things don’t go as planned. But with surety bonds, risk is always with the entity purchasing the bond (in this case, the City of Sarasota) not an insurance company. Similar to paying interest on a bank loan, akin to opening a line of credit, a surety bond premium is a fee for borrowing money, covering pre-qualification and underwriting costs, and not a means of covering losses. The surety bond covers the municipality against financial harm, but the City must repay the surety over time for any damages paid out. With insurance, the City pays a premium and if the City experiences damages, the City is paid by the insurance company.

I brought this issue before the Charter Review Committee, as I was made aware of a situation where a Charter official did not qualify to be bonded and the City purchased insurance instead (which is out of compliance with the City Charter). The CRC was advised to add the insurance option to the Charter. I was wondering whether a hiring requirement that Charter Officials be qualified to be bonded (surety bonds have very strict underwriting requirements) would be a better way to go. At this juncture, I still wonder. This amendment is a toss up for me, with a strong lean against it.

General Housekeeping? NO. this is actually a HUGE change, not a routine update

Proposed amendment to provide that City Commission may change city boundaries consistent with law; to allow for digital posting of ordinances and resolutions at City Hall; to remove reference to retention or ordinances in a book; and to update powers and duties of City Auditor and Clerk, including audit function, as provided in Ordinance 22-5419 including responsibility for access to public records and Commission agenda preparation (emphasis mine).

This amendment broadly expands the City Auditor and Clerk’s function from a focus on finances and records (“Audit of Accounts”) to a sweeping “Audit Function”.

The proposed Charter language (which you won’t see on your ballot) would say:“With regard to auditing, the duties of the city auditor and clerk shall include, but not be limited to, reviewing, investigating, and evaluating systems of internal control to promote adequate safeguarding of assets, reliability of financial and operating information and compliance with laws and regulations. The City Auditor and clerk shall have the authority to audit all operations, functions and divisions of the city and to recommend changes for improvements. The city auditor and clerk shall have full and unrestricted access to records, data, personnel and other information necessary to effectively carry out the auditing function.” (emphasis mine – not an update, a major change).

The amendment would create a HUGE increase in audit and investigating power for the City Auditor and Clerk, one that could potentially be used to push back against calls for an Inspector General function or outside investigations. The need for an ombudsman, compliance officer or inspector general function was discussed in depth at the CRC. At no time did the CRC suggest that such a function should or could be effectively handled in house, as this amendment provides. In addition, we did NOT discuss or recommend such a huge expansion of the City Auditor and Clerk’s role during the Charter Review Committee sessions.

The City Auditor and Clerk’s office does not have the staff necessary to take on this sweeping audit function. In addition, an outside, independent audit of City functioning is conducted annually. Would that wise oversight be eliminated? This amendment is a big fail when it comes to a balance of power, putting a concerning level of power in the City Auditor and Clerk role.

While this amendment does include some common sense updates to allow for digital notice, the concerning audit aspect is more than a sound reason to reject it. Moreover, voters deserve to know the full impact of any amendment, which the ballot language fails to communicate.

This is an alarming amendment, disrupts the balance of power at City Hall and deserves to be rejected.

Elimination of Special Elections

Proposed amendment to require that a referendum to approve amendments to the City Charter only be held during a general election in November.

Currently it’s possible to hold a special election for a City Charter amendment. Avoiding a special election does save money and requiring amendments to be on a November ballot does optimize the likelihood of higher voter turnout. However, this amendment seeks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Special elections for City Charter amendments are extremely rare. The Supervisor of Elections website doesn’t list results for any special elections for City Charter Amendments in the past 14 years. I don’t recall any since I’ve lived in the City (2003). Prohibiting a special election for a City Charter amendment may remove an important tool in the citizen and City Commission tool box. We may need to address a situation that won’t wait until a November general election. Such situations could include approving a bond or recalling a Commissioner. This amendment creates an unnecessary constraint for both citizens and the City Commission.

Thank you for reading, liking and subscribing! If you like this content, please share it with others.