PB: Jigsaw COW Meeting Tonight
Vice Mayor John Dubois gives us a view into the workings of his mind tonight at the village’s Committee of the Whole meeting. The agenda shows a man who thinks in contingencies. If the answer to the question is A, then my next question is X. If the answer to the question is B, then my next question is Y.
For those who own their own businesses, such thinking will be commonplace. Business owners try to make decisions through a framework that allows them to consider all options. Successful businessman Dubois is bringing such thinking to Palmetto Bay and all SDM can say is Thank God!
Check out the agenda for tonight:
2. Discussion concerning putting restrictions in place to prohibit the position of Mayor
from abusing the privilege granted under the charter to call for special council meetings.
(Vice Mayor DuBois)
3. Discussion regarding Charter Amendments for the Ballot (Vice Mayor DuBois)
Specifically regarding the following questions:
a. Number of other Cities in Miami-Dade, if any, that have lighting code requirements
superseded by and defined/guided by City Charter.
b. If any exist, the level of detail required in the Charter in order to make it enforceable
c. Constitutionality of the proposed Partial Lighting Prohibition charter amendment set
for special council meeting later in June.
d. Likelihood of being subject to litigation if the proposed charter amendment passes
and probability of plaintiff prevailing.
e. Number of other Cities that have moved what are traditionally code related zoning
prohibitions for property improvements which are applicable to select members of a
zoning class but not to others within the same zoning class. If there are any, please
present such examples to the council before the vote on placing the partial lighting
prohibition on the ballot.
f. If there are such examples from #e above and if the likelihood of #d is low, I would
like to direct the Village Attorney to prepare a companion charter amendment to go
on the ballot for an excessive noise prohibition to include ALL non-residential
property owners in residential areas, not just private schools and churches. This
companion Charter Amendment should be put on the Agenda for vote at the same
special council meeting as the Lighting Prohibition Charter Amendment.
The item related to Mayor Stanczyk “abusing the privilege” to set special meetings is great. The code currently says that “[s]pecial meetings may be held on the call of the Mayor or upon the call of three Council members upon no less than 48 hours notice to the public or such shorter time as a majority of the Council deems necessary in case of an emergency affecting life, health, property or the public peace.” Sec. 4.1(A), Village of Palmetto Bay Charter.
The answer to Mr. Dubois’s question is that without a charter change the council is stuck with the Mayor calling special meetings willy nilly, as she has done for the special meeting scheduled for next Wednesday, June 23rd. (SDM will get into the items on the special agenda in later post, but suffice to say the Mayor’s argument for hearing the items listed currently is dubious.
The fix for the charter is to require a mayor to secure two additional signatures for a special meeting based upon full disclosure of the “emergency” item that she intends to introduce. Council Member should not be made to attend a bunch of extra meetings just because Mme. Mayor didn’t have the votes for her item. We elected a part-time council and our current mayor shows very little respect for her colleagues’ time.
Now, take a look at Item 3. You can almost see Mr. Dubois’s mind at work. Do other cities limit lighting by charter? If so, how do they do it? Is the limitation proposed by Mayor Stanczyk constitutional? Will such a limitation lead to litigation? Do other cities have charter limitations on “religious” facilities based on their status? If so, name them. If we can create such limitations, Mr. Dubois wants to limit noise in the same way for all similarly situated facilities.
Here’s the fly in Mr. Dubois’s ointment: Getting the village attorney to opine that Mrs. Stanczyk’s charter proposal is unconstitutional or that it will not lead to litigation are two very difficult questions for any attorney to answer.
SDM agrees that we need the answers, but Mr. Dubois and his colleagues may feel like Harry Truman talking about economists: “Give me a one-handed attorney! All my attorneys say, on the one hand such and such, but on the other hand so and so.”
SDM Says: We wish all village decisions were given such scrutiny and analysis. Such contingency thinking if applied to the Palmer decision to limit the school to 900 students probably would have saved the village money and years of divisive politics.