Vote YES on Fernandina Beach City Charter change: An Opinion

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm

Reporter - News Analyst

October 20, 2014 11:09 a.m.

During a Special Meeting held on August 25, 2014, an affirmative vote of 4 Fernandina Beach City Commissioners (Commissioner Johnny Miller was absent), approved a modified Ordinance 2014-28 on second reading to place a binding referendum question on the November 4, 2014 general election ballot:

Should the City Charter be amended to provide that City Commissioners shall serve four (4) year terms instead of three (3) year terms and City elections held every two (2) years in conjunction with county, state and federal elections?

There has been little to no public discussion in this topic subsequent to that special meeting. City Commission candidates have not been campaigning in support for this change, despite their vote of support for taking it to the voters.  There has been no education campaign launched by the city to explain why the idea deserves public support. Here’s why I think such a change is a good idea.

With the current system of three-year city commission terms, elections are held every year to elect sometimes two or only one commissioner.  It takes new commissioners time to get up to speed on issues, public financing and the legal framework for their policy setting activities.  It is difficult for the governing body to develop common goals and agree on priorities for action if its members change too rapidly.

Other locally elected bodies—the Nassau County Board of County Commissioners, the Nassau County School Board, and the Ocean Highway and Port Authority—all operate with 4-year member terms.  All of these boards also consist of five members each, so three members are elected in one cycle and two members are elected in the second cycle.  Both cycles are held in even numbered years and coincide with state and federal elections.  Members of these bodies are not term limited by any means other than the voters, whereas the City Charter limits city commissioners to two consecutive terms.

The combination of shorter terms along with term limits results in greater, faster turnover on the City Commission.  Whereas voters might find that preferable when they are dissatisfied with a commissioner(s), the reverse of the coin is that the city loses sometimes too soon commissioners who are outstanding in the performance of their duties.  Recent attempts to convince voters to repeal term limits have met with a resounding NO.  Increasing the length of terms is another possible approach to making city government more effective and retaining good commissioners for longer, productive service.

Opponents of the change cite the problem that might arise if the voters elected three new commissioners during one election cycle and effectively changed the direction and course of city policy.  I would counter by asking:  if the voters are so unhappy with the current course of government, shouldn’t they be able to change that course sooner rather than need to wait for another election cycle?  If you look at today’s city commission, the election held three years ago that replaced Commissioners Susan Steger and Erik Childers with Commissioners Charlie Corbett and Sarah Pelican signified a change in course.  Yet the will of the majority of voters to seek a change in direction could not be implemented until a second election brought Commissioner Pat Gass to replace the retiring Commissioner Jeffrey Bunch, guaranteeing a solid 3-vote majority for a more conservative approach to city government.  The intervening year, while Commissioners Corbett and Pelican awaited their third vote, did not produce much positive action for the city.

The question of extending city commissioner terms was defeated once before.  The reason given by many voters for opposing the change at that time was that they did not want to see terms of incumbents extended “automatically” with a YES vote on the question.  This time around, the incumbent commissioners agree on that point.  Commissioners spent considerable time discussing how such a change could be implemented, because their clear intent is that no sitting commissioner should have his or her term extended automatically by passage of the referendum.

Should the referendum pass, no commissioner will be treated to a free year.  Instead, the changes will be phased in over time, with every commissioner openly seeking a 4-year term.  The implementation schedule, presented and adopted by the current city commission this past summer, would require two more odd-year elections before all group seats could be converted to four-year terms.  The resulting schedule of elections would mean that in 2018, Groups 4 and 5 (currently held by Pat Gass and Ed Boner) would run for four-year terms; Groups 2 and 3 (currently held by Charlie Corbett and Sarah Pelican) would convert to four-year terms in 2020.  Group 1, the seat currently held by Johnny Miller would be the first to convert to 4 years in the 2016 election.

Should the voters support this change, by the time implementation took effect, any of the current incumbents who had been re-elected in the meantime, would have term-limited and not be eligible for the 4-year term.  So voter support for or opposition to incumbent commissioners Boner, Corbett, Gass or Pelican should have no bearing on the merits of moving to 4-year terms.  Only Miller would be eligible to seek a second term as a 4-year, as opposed to a 3-year term in the 2016 election.

Starting in 2018, all elections would be held in even-numbered years, paralleling those of the Nassau County Commission and the Nassau County School Board. Voter turnout during off year elections is lower than that during state and federal election cycles.  All communities should be looking toward ways to increase voter turnout.  I believe that moving to the same terms and cycles employed by the County Commission, School Board and Port Authority is a step toward achieving that goal.  It is also true that holding elections during general election cycles would save on the order of $15,000 for each off-year election no longer needed.

The Charter Review Committee, of which I was a member, recommended this change in its final report dated November 1, 2007. Other members of that committee included Chair Jerry Greeson, Vice Chair Dick Bradford, Burton Bright, Amy Bryan, Rev. Bill Holmes, and Melvin Usery.

I urge you to support it, too.