Historic Council Meeting - Videos

Some democracy, some tragic comedy, some video snippets for your viewing pleasure ...

In this incredible exchange, councilamn Kiester suggest that the legal fees being paid by the city to the councilmen being recalled for their unecessary suit against the citizens that signed the petition be limited. Tucker responds by accusing Kiester of being "TRIPE" and of being corrupt!

-----------
In this video, city council person POPOFF attempts to prevent a citizen from speaking - citizen becomes enranged by the attempt to prevent the exercise of his first ammendment rights.

------------
In this video, the lawyer for the City of Marco Island backpedals on his tacit acceptance of voter intimidation - claims voters NOT Liable for Legal Fees VOLUNTARILY incurred by the city council who opt to fight their recall.

-----------------
In this video, Roger Hall addresses the city council as they prepare to vote on whether citizens who signed the recall petition will continue to face voter intimidation by having to pay the legal fees of the city councilmembers who voluntarily sue the citizens to prevent the recall.

------------
Butch Neylon Letter to the Council as read by Doug Enman.(unfortunately abridged...)

Won the Battle ...

The City Council of Marco Island has called for a “special called meeting” on September 28 at 5PM. The purpose is to consider a resolution where “It is anticipated that the Resolution will clarify that there is no intent to seek reimbursement of legal fees from citizens who sign the petition”.

After an initial posting on this blog (“Threats by City Attorney & Others - A Felony - You Decide” 9-20-2006) denoting how city officials appeared to have threatened voters with financial retribution for exercising their right to vote, the citizens of Marco Island became outraged and did what good citizens of a democracy do – expressed their indignation to each other, to the City Council of Marco Island, to the media, and even to state and federal law enforcement authorities.

With such heat that even the City-Council-Can-Do-No-Wrong Political Committee could not dampen, the few reasonable souls remaining on the city council opted to best clarify this matter. Good for them and us, thank you and congratulations.

We presume that the motivation is to assuage the overwhelming anger of the citizen body by claiming it was all a big misunderstanding. We can be equally presumptuous and posit that a felony conviction is perhaps a stronger motivating force, since clarifications by many on this council and nearly all of the staff are decidedly scarce.

So the question becomes ... if a retraction (read: backpedaling) ensues, should the law enforcement pursuit continue? Interesting, isn’t it. Did the words intimidate just one voter? Did the words cause just one person not to sign a petition?

As that decision ferments, we can only hope that some on the council are enlightened as to how they continue to alienate the citizens of Marco Island since governing by threats (or threats through proxy) appears to have backfired.

Then onto the other related questions.

So as to reevaluate their alienation strategy, is the majority of the council going to continue the truly Byzantine decision of pre-paying for legal fees and expenses for council members to fight the recall (read: the will of the people)? Reimbursement a priori – whether they win or loose? Reimbursement whether the three city council members “think” they have to contest the recall through the courts or not (they don’t have to – unless they need to be reimbursed for writing a 200 word rebuttal to the recall petitions).

So as to reevaluate their alienation strategy, is the majority of the council going to continue belittling the efforts of its citizens – just because they don’t agree with those citizens?

The citizens appear to have won the battle, irrespective of how the city and the council spin the retraction. They could appear magnanimous and claim that they have decided not to purse seeking the restitution of the fees and costs “for the good of the community”, or appear to once again hide behind the worst that society has to offer by claiming that they are not seeking the restitution of the fees and costs “based on the advise of our lawyer”, or if a miracle happens “that was a real stupid thing to say, we are sorry and we did not mean it and we are not doing that and shame on the people who said it.”

The last one would sure go a long way to healing this community.

But it is still up to the citizens to show up, express their opinions and views and thereby enforce our representative form of government. And with the grace of good fortune, our elected officials can represent us.

See you there!

Celebrate Marco "PC" Claims Diversity (but) Denies Opposing View Point

In this first video clip, an officer of the Celebrate Marco "PC" attacks the Recall Effort and Besmirches Roger Hall. (press the arrow below the image to play)




In this second vide clip, the Celebrate Marco "PC" refuses to allow Roger Hall to rebut the allegations.




So much for the Celebrate Marco "PC" allowing/representing/putting forth different points of view ...

Don't agree? Well, unlike Celebrate Marco "PC", you are welcomed to post your opposing opinions here - all will be posted uncensored.

Note:"PC" - Political Committee by virtue of how they are acting and what they are doing. It is unclear if they are so registered.

CELEBRATE MARCO RESEARCH PAPER

THE RECALL FACTS

Celebrate Marco has completed a review of the proposed recall of three elected city council members. The recall process will cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars and cause significant disruption of city operations. The recall initiative requires a thorough review of the facts. Based on its review, CM strongly urges that the recall be rejected for the reasons highlighted below. CM has focused its review around two key parts; the misleading and inaccurate statements made in the petition and the accompanying letter (the petition package) and the questionable motivations of the group leading the effort. The results of the CM review are described below.

Misleading Aspects of the Petition Package (Petition and Letter)

The petition letter states that Florida law puts the “power of recall in the hands of the people”. That is misleading because it implies that recall actions have no limits. Florida Statute 100.361 governs recalls. The statute is clear that there are very specific and narrow grounds to warrant a recall of an elected official. There are seven grounds for recall; malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform duties and conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.

The petition letter states that, if enough signatures are obtained there is no way the recall process can be stopped. Again, not so. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that an accused elected official has an opportunity to defend himself or herself and stop the recall action based on “lack of legal sufficiency” (State v Tedder, 106 Fla, 140). Other Florida courts have used this ruling on other cases (Thompson v. Napotnik, 923 So. 2nd 537 5th DCA (2006))

The petition charges the three councilors with having voted to expand the sewer system on August 21, 2006. The fact is that the same sewer expansion program has been voted on, and approved by previous and present councils numerous times in the past three years. The petition is also erroneous in stating that, on August 21, 2006, the councilors being targeted for recall “voted to extend the STRP to three new districts”. No such vote was taken on that date. In fact, on that date five city councilors voted to approve the assessment methodology for future sewer districts.

The petition charges the three councilmen with voting for a program that, in the petitioners’ opinion, is unfair and inequitable. The petition fails to mention that the design and fairness of the program, approved by these councilors, has been upheld by the review and decisions of the Circuit Court and has been found to be legally sound and fair.

The petition letter states that those who sign the recall petition are “collectively referred to as the ‘committee’”. The Florida Statute 100.361 does not use the word “collectively” but states that “those signing the recall petition shall be designated as the ‘committee’” and that the leader of the petition will “act for the committee”. Therefore, unlike other petitions, those supporting a recall petition, are considered members of an official committee and may be responsible for the actions of their leadership.

Apparent Wrong Motivation for the Recall Action

For those who closely follow public issues, there is an obvious link between some who helped organize CARES, POP and now the recall efforts. The petitioners have targeted three councilors that voted for the sewers, as well as mentioning in the petition letter their desire to recall the fourth councilor who voted for sewers. The petitioners did not, however, move to recall, or show any intent to recall, any of the three councilors who voted against sewers. This selective recall action proves that the reasons for recall are clearly based, specifically, on the votes taken by those councilors being targeted for recall.

The Florida Supreme Court (Garvin v Jerome, 767 So. 2nd 1190 (2000)) clearly states that officials should not be faced with recall based on their votes on an issue and that the recall process is not to be used as a substitute for the elective process. Such action would compromise the elective process by removing a duly elected official solely on the basis of a vote. That is contrary to Florida law and they cannot be recalled on that basis. The three councilors who are involved in the recall were elected to office two years ago with some 6,000 votes.

When the POP referendum to change the city charter was thrown out for failure to meet the specific requirements of the city charter, the group involved in these efforts called such failure a “technicality”. They took the position that the people’s wishes were more important than the need to follow the legal requirements of the charter. In the description of the recall the petitioners also clearly state that decisions to recall should also be placed “in the hands of the voters and to prevent City Hall or the courts from interfering in the process”” and not depend on the legal requirements of such action. It is clear that the motivation of this group is to try and bypass the representative form of government and put the law in their own hands.

Unable to achieve their goals through the accepted elective/representative process, the petitioners have directed their efforts to overturn the governing process that has been successful, not only for Marco Island, but for all cities in Florida and the nation. The latest recall effort also ignores the effect this action would have on the remaining councilors who may be subject to recall next year and to candidates in future elections in our community.

RECALL COMMITTEE RESPONDS TO CELEBRATE MARCO ARTICLE

The article in Wednesday’s Eagle regarding Celebrate Marco is so fraught with false statements that it is hard to know where to begin. It is clear that the pro development old guard has circled the wagons and turned City Hall into a campaign headquarters to defeat the recall. It is both inappropriate and unlawful for Councilwoman DiScillio, the city manager, and the city attorney to be campaigning against the recall from their official positions. The law is quite clear in this matter and the Chairwoman’s prepared statement to the press with legal opinions provided by the city attorney is a clear violation.

Mr. Yovanovich, the city attorney, takes this abuse one step further with his involvement with the distortions propagated by “Celebrate Marco”. The most deplorable is the claim by this group that “The signers of the petition make themselves liable to be able to have the dollars retracted from them for the city successfully defending those three councilors. Nobody knows that.” That is a despicable falsehood designed to intimidate the voters from signing the petition.

The case of “Ferrara v. Caves” the appellate court found that the recall committee and its chair could not be held responsible for attorney fees advanced on behalf of the elected officials.

The appellate court held:

To interpret the law otherwise is to chill the constitutional and statutory privilege belonging to Florida electors to attempt to bring about the recall of elected municipal officials." Ferrara v. Caves, 475 So. 2d 1295, 1299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985). The above case is binding precedent.

The law is clear:
Voting rights; deprivation of, or interference with, prohibited;

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or not to vote as that person may choose, or for the purpose of causing such other person to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate for any office at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

(5) Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.775.084.

We are very upset over this possibly illegal attempt to intimidate the voters of Marco Island.

In a further distortion both Chairwoman DiSciullo, Bill Moss, Yovanovich quote a 2000 decision regarding Malfeasance. What they don’t quote is the controlling February 10, 2006 decision (Thompson v. Napotnik) in which the fifth district appellate court found in favor of the recall committee on the basis “No requirement is set forth in Florida’s recall statute mandating that the recall petition allege a claim of malfeasance based on some alleged criminal conduct.” Contrary to the misleading representations that have been made by Mr. Moss, Council chair DiSciullo, and the city council, this allegation does not have to be based on a criminal act. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that “the sufficiency of the charges for the recall of a public officer to cause the voters to require his removal is a political question to be determined by the people”.

There are so many distorted statements about the STRP that it is hard to know where to begin other than to direct the reader to www.earnmarco.com for a complete presentation of the facts. There you can see these councilmen in steaming video making their contradictory statements at various council meetings. You will also see the real numbers which reveal that the people on the septic tanks are being forced to pay $38,000,000, $6,500 each, to build a sewer treatment plant that will provide the capacity for an additional 18,000 homes or 25,000 hotel rooms.

In recognition that this response will be given a limited amount of space, I will let the above misrepresentations reflect the credibility of the entire article rather than refute the issues point by point.

Councilwoman DiSciullo’s motion at last Monday night’s council meeting raises the abuse of power by this council to a new level. At the last council meeting, the council presented councilmen Tucker, Trotter and Minozzi with an open check book, paid for by the taxpayers, to pay for all their reasonable attorney fees and expenses in their defense of the recall effort, win or lose. When asked what reasonable legal fees were, Councilman Tucker said as much as $500 per hour. There was no qualification as to the expense authorization that Councilman Tucker inserted into the motion. Does this mean that he gets paid his hourly rate for time lost? Can these men fly to Tampa, rent cars, and stay in hotels in search of their $500 per hour blue chip attorneys at the tax payer’s expense?

The Florida statutes are clear; a recalled councilman that successfully defends his position is entitled to request reimbursement for his legal fees and costs after the fact. There isn’t any case law that an unsuccessful councilman was granted reimbursement. There isn’t any case law that they are entitled to expenses which are quite different than costs. There isn’t any case law that supports the incurring of legal fees on the taxpayer’s behalf before a petition is even filed.

The remaining issue that I would like to address is the ongoing war between the citizens and the city council. I don’t think any of us have ever witnessed a council that has so little respect and moral authority to govern.

I didn’t create this problem. I didn’t have anything to do with the council’s support of Mr. Tucker’s and Mr. Moss’s hoax that they perpetrated on the voters and the FDEP for five months. Vice councilor Tucker’s statement that the asbestos contamination was made to look worse by people or persons unknown and they had photographic evidence to prove it was not true. The fact that the voters were outraged when Mr. Tucker finally admitted that he didn’t have any photographic evidence is not my fault. The complicity of Mr. Minozzi and Mr. Trotter in support of this ongoing misstatement is not the result of anything I did. How can you trust councilmen that will make or support false statements? The fact that they were part of an attempt to cover up a major asbestos contamination that impacted the health of thousands on this island is reprehensible.

The bottom line is that we have a very pro development council that is willing to ignore the law, as demonstrated above, distort, misrepresent and do anything they can to push through their pro development agenda before they lose power. The voters would like to stop everything, clean up the mess they’ve made, and enjoy the Marco Island they thought they had moved to. These councilmen know they will go down in resounding defeat if they have to face the voters.

At the end of the day, this question will be decided by the voters, not the courts. These councilmen are using our checkbook to finance their attempt to hide behind the court system in order to protect their part time, $6,000 per year jobs. I had intended to finance this recall personally. It is clear that these men will use the city’s check book to force the recall committee into a costly court battle that I can’t afford. I have spent my own funds on this effort but now I need help. I am therefore retracting my earlier commitment not to accept contributions.

Roger Hall
Chairman Recall Committee
Marco Island

Open Letter to the City Council

To the City Council:

I write this to express my extreme concern regarding your unanimous vote to offer what amounts to a blank check to each of the three councilors who are the subject of Mr. Hall’s recall drive. Who is to say what expenses are “reasonable”? Mr. Popoff suggested that attorneys could cost $175, $200, or $250 an hour; Mr. Tucker said $400 or $500 an hour. Which is “reasonable”? Does each councilor decide for himself? Is each councilor authorized to engage his own attorney(s) at City expense? Is there any limit on the number of attorneys a councilor can retain? And apparently you have authorized these councilors to begin spending taxpayer dollars immediately before anyone knows whether Mr. Hall will obtain the required number of signatures to demand a vote or not. Your resolution was not advertised to the public, it was modified on the spot several times, and no one was prepared for debate. I realize that you considered passing the resolution an “emergency,” but this smacks of panic!

My concerns lie deeper. The very thought of using public tax dollars to insulate a councilor from recall is deeply offensive. It is clear in Florida Law that citizens have the right to recall councilors. Who would dare undertake to launch a recall petition knowing that they face the unlimited pocketbook of the government … a pocketbook funded by the petitioners themselves?

I believe it was Mr. Popoff who expressed concern that no one would run for council if he or she thought they might be subject to legal expense to defend themselves against a recall. This is false reasoning. Nothing obliges a councilor to spend a nickel in legal expenses unless he or she chooses to. Nor need they resign. By law, all they need do is write a 200-word rebuttal to the charges on the original petition and a revised petition is issued. If the revised petition receives the support of 15% of the electorate, a recall election is held. Otherwise it is not. Then of course the councilors must lose the election to be removed from office. It’s a long and difficult path to recall!

I would reverse Mr. Popoff’s concern: who would dare to exercise the right to recall a councilor if he or she might be subject to the untold legal expenses of a court battle? Your actions last night effectively deny the right of Florida citizens to recall a councilor. I am not an attorney nor have I consulted one on this issue, however I would hope that the court would realize that insulating councilors from all expense (as you have done) frustrates the right of citizens to seek a recall and therefore would rule against the councilors and, indirectly, the city that is footing the bill.

Some councilors accuse CARES of initiating legal battles and “costing the city money.” Let me make it clear that there would be no legal battles had not the City been the root cause of them by refusing to listen to their constituents. Your vote last night almost certainly will initiate another suit … not by CARES or by Mr. Hall, but, in effect, by the City! There is no reason for this to go to court unless the affected councilors take it there. By immunizing them against legal expense, you have virtually guaranteed that will happen, and the taxpayers of Marco Island will line the pockets of a few more law firms instead of building Veterans’ Park. If history is any teacher, the Council and City Manager will then blame Mr. Hall for wasting taxpayer dollars!

The council seemed to think that, if they did not vote to insulate Councilors from legal expenses, Councilors could be removed from office at the whim of any citizen who did not like the way that councilor voted on an issue. That is sheer poppycock! As your City Attorney advised you, recalls are rare! There’s a reason they’re rare: they are very difficult to win and that’s the way it should be! The difficulty of winning a recall effort protects every councilor; it is the ONLY protection any councilor should need. The fact that successful recalls are so rare is proof that the system works without requiring taxpayers to provide immunity from legal expense. Councilors are not city employees; they choose to serve and are solely responsible for their actions. If they act responsibly in the best interests of the majority of the citizens, their position is secure.

As you know, for a petition to be validated, 10% of registered voters must agree to it and sign the petition. That’s a serious hurdle that only POP has been able to overcome in recent years! Council chose to disenfranchise the supporters of the POP petition. I believe that was an incorrect and very foolish move; if the majority did not support the petition, it would have been defeated at the polls. That is the American way.

A recall petition has two additional hurdles: the time frame for the original petition is extremely short (30 days) and it is followed by a second petition that must receive 15% voter approval. Then, and only then, does the recall question go to a vote of the community. This is the community that elected these councilors. If the councilors have retained the respect and admiration of the community and the community feels that they have properly carried out the duties of their office, the community will vote to keep them in office. Once again, that is the American way. Council has no right to set itself up as a Politburo that decides what issues the people are allowed to vote on and I respectfully ask that you reconsider your positions on this question before the community loses faith in our City government as a whole.

Thank you,

Ed Foster
Chairman, C.A.R.E.S., Inc.
www.marcocares.com
cares@marcocares.com

Open Letter to Mrs. DiSciullo

Greetings Chairwoman DiSciullo:

I just read your memorandum RE: Recall Petition dated 9/18/06 and am compelled again to write to you.

I apologize for having to do this so often, but it seems that our Council if nothing else appears to need some political advice. In politic s perceptions are actually more important than what has actually happened. I say this because you have acted without there being any need to. You h ave committed public resources for something that you do not know will happen. Your decision to commit these resources is based on perceptions and projecti ons not a public need, emergency or reality.

You claim you wrote the memorandum because you felt the need to seek City Council's approval to reimburse legal expenses for the three Councilors being recalled. You site a Florida Supreme Court ruling as your authority. I assume that was provided to you by the City Attorney or Councilman Tucker or perhaps via the City Manager.

There is currently no need for the three Council members to seek legal representation. The only thing that has happened is the electorate has been asked by Mr. Hall to vote to support a petition to recall these men for various charges. To invoke some law saying that the city must support them comes across as being political and inappropriate at this time. You are throwing gasoline on a fire.Further, you are doing it without discussion and thoughtfulness. The funds you are obligating appear to have no limits and are subject to anyone's interpretation of "reasonableness". I remind you that you are a steward of these funds, they actually belong to the citizens of this City. The revenue of Marco Island is not a personal check book fo r the Councilor's to use as they please. If the Councilmen being accused ever require legal assistance that can always be discussed as the need becomes a reality.

It is also your responsibility to protect the voting rights of you r citizens so if you respect the Republic form of government, you must reconsider this decision. Your decision to use taxpayer mone y to comfort those being accused is the wrong message and inhibits the right of the electorate to vote on this issue. If you are so sure that Mr. Hall is wrong and that the voters will prove you are right, what are you afraid of? Let the process play itself out as it is designed to do. We shall see what the voters say. The electorate o nly wants to vote and they should be permitted to do so.

Personally, I believe you have been influenced again by Councilman Tuck er and the City Attorney. The Attorney has an interest in maintaining the current state of affairs in Marco Island, he is making a lot of money. Continued conflict is always in the interest of the Attorney. Ask a divorce attorney and they will tell you the same. Councilman Tucker is an accused who has made false statements to promote his agenda in the past and admitted as much. He should not be trusted.

We didn't vote for you because you did what lawyers told you to do but because we believed you were grounded in our community, had g ood instincts and common sense. We believed you to be like us and were interested in us. So please discard the advice you have been given, it is politically flawed. Use your good judgment and reconsider this decision.

Sincerely, Byron Erickson

Threats by City Attorney & Others - A Felony - You Decide

Per today's newspaper ...

Yovanovich said that the state Supreme Court found that a city has a "decided interest" to defend its elected officials from illegal recall petitions. The city council voted unanimously Monday to cover legal fees, if necessary, for Tucker, Minozzi and Trotter. Stefanides said that people signing the recall petition become part of the committee doing the petitioning.

"They make themselves liable to be able to have the dollars retracted from them for the city successfully defending those three councilors," he said. "Nobody knows that."

------------

Now, according to Florida law ...

104.0515 Voting rights; deprivation of, or interference with, prohibited; penalty.--
(1) All citizens of this state who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in this state or in any district, county, city, town, municipality, school district, or other subdivision of this state shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections without distinction according to race,color, or previous condition of servitude, notwithstanding any law, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage to the contrary.
(2) No person acting under color of law shall:
(a) In determining whether any individual is qualified under law to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under law to other individuals within the same political subdivision who have been found to be qualified to vote; or
(b) Deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under law to vote in such election. This paragraph shall apply to absentee ballots only if there is a pattern or history of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude in regard to absentee ballots.
(3) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or not to vote as that person may choose, or for the purpose of causing such other person to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate for any office at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.
4) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, and no standard, practice, or procedure, shall be imposed or applied by any political subdivision of this state to deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.
5) Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

OUTRAGE?

Just two questions at this time if our elected officials would be so kind as to respond:

• Why was the "charge" of the asbestos issue not addressed in this prepared speech?
• When the council members discussed this issue before the meeting - was it done in accordance with Florida's Sunshine Law?

Just asking...

Practical Suggestions for Either Direction

It is not clear to this author whether Marco Island is headed towards a tourist-driven commercial zone or a community where common folk come to raise their family or retire while complimenting a modest tourist economy. Since fanatical commercialization is antithetical both in theory and practice to a community, clearly there is no middle ground. Hence the direction for Marco Island is either big-business based or community based.

The trend does appear to be that we are heading towards the commerce-at-all-cost end (some would argue dead end). However, there are individuals and organizations that are resisting this direction through their constitutionally protected activism. The war is on, and at the minimum, it will be quite interesting to watch.

But to whichever force prevails, there are some steps that we can take now which will support either victor – but which in actuality benefit all of Marco Island.

Whether the zealots of big business realize it or not, they will need middle class folk. These are the people that make up the fine police force, and the fire department, and make up the civil service, and pick up the trash, and fix the electrical and plumbing problems, and soon will be processing the sewage. There are signs everywhere screaming to the all-out-developers to be careful lest they loose the middle class. Ergo, the myriad studies and articles and initiatives for “affordable housing”. Other signs such as high turnover, inability to hire, and middle-class flight are everywhere.

The first suggestion is to realize the signs. Regardless of where you fall on this debate, accept what is occurring.

The second suggestion is more specific. In order to support the middle class – which both directions need – we must take explicit steps to shore up the class base.

On this vein, Marco Island needs a high school. Marco Island should not surrender at the first word from the kakistocracy that rules the county school district by immediately considering only a charter school. More on this issue in a forthcoming article. Demand a high school – it’s the law.

Another specific suggestion is to support the police and fire departments with pay raises. The city council needs to stop hiding behind the “spending cap” boogeyman and take a leadership role and do whatever it takes to use part of that gargantuan surplus to help those that help us by perennially placing at risk that which is priceless.

Another specific suggestion is tax abatements for homestead-exempt properties below a certain appraised value. Forget the “affordable housing” farce – that is socialism at its worse. Substantially reducing taxes on the middle class neither impacts the cash register at the city coffers or is a tax cut for the “rich”.

Another specific suggestion is tax incentives for non-tourist based businesses. And please, not for more restaurants. Light clean industry, non-restaurant service industry and the such employ quite a good number of people. Ecotourism is very hot and it should be governmentally promoted. There is nothing wrong with diversifying the economic support base of a community.

There are many more specific suggestions that can be made – suggestions that should not be offensive to either side – suggestions that imply the benefit of Marco Island as a whole. We need leadership, and just as importantly, we need action – and now. There are many residents that would welcome an opportunity to work on any of the above noted initiatives (this author included) – but in a communal sense.

Let’s see if anyone else wants to move forward.

Normalizing the Voting for Recalling City Council Members

In purely technical and in extremely general terms, normalization is the process of eliminating duplicate data. Though duplicate data is not always “bad”, knowing that there are duplicate data helps the informatics specialist derive valuable information.

So, how does this explanation apply to the on-line voting by the citizens interested in Marco Island as related to recalling the city council members? Is there “duplicate” data in the voting? Has the voting been compromised?

The answer to the last question is NO. The voting has not been compromised. Safeguards are now in place preventing the miscreant(s) that voted approximately 3,500 times to remove Mr. Kieser and only Mr. Kiester from performing another such dishonest deed.

Is there duplicate data? Technically speaking, no.

But here is the rub. A household with one computer can have several legitimate voters. As an example, one household can have a wife, a husband, a child over 18, the husband’s mother-in-law, and a dog. In this case there are five legitimate voters (only kidding – there are only 4 – the mother-in-law does not count). Hence “one” computer can vote several times – and the votes be sincere and of different sources (different voters).

However, and in another example, one household can only have one voter but yet vote many times, say five times.

So how do informatics experts distinguish the first five (real) votes from the second five (four are fake) votes?

How? Look carefully at the fifth word in the above sentence – EXPERTS. Informatics experts have at their disposal tried, tested and proven algorithms by which to detect with a great degree of certainty these “fake” votes.

Detecting these “fake” votes, and taking them out of the calculations, is in a very general sense, normalization.

Hence, the new graph on the recall voting site reflects these algorithms.

Why were these algorithms not implemented from day one? Because, in part, it takes analysis of the data to design the proper algorithm by which to account for the problematic data. Hence you need something to study before you figure out how to fix it.

What exactly is the logic to the algorithms? This will not be revealed. Why? Because we want to continue trapping these “fake” votes. Knowing who is attempting to cheat, and in what context, is information that is exceedingly valuable – as priceless as knowing what the real votes are.

Don’t you find it valuable to know that the person(s) that went to such lengths to write a robot to flood the votes did so to recall one and only one council member? I do.

Thank you for your interest and please continue encouraging the voting! But only American style voting (vote early, vote once) and not Latin America voting (vote early, vote often).

Marco Island Real Estate Cabal Declares State of Emergency

The Marco Island Real Estate Daleks association (MIRED) announced today that real estate sales and prices will further decline due to the earthquake.

“Last year we blamed the precipitous drop in real estate sales and prices on Marco Island on the hurricanes. Before that we blamed a stagnated trend on interest rates. Now, with excuses running out, we are blaming our inability to sell on the earthquake”, proclaimed the chairman of MIRED – who for obvious reasons opted to remain anonymous.

For years, real estate agents on Marco Island relied exclusively on the highly aggressive sales tactic of waiting for the phone to ring. Starting in late 2004, the phones stopped ringing at Marco Island real estate offices, causing the agents to search for all possible culprits – except themselves. With Miami (only 90 miles to the east) booming with new and high-end condominium sales and other markets across the country also expanding rapidly – all during the same period – agents had to determine the “real problem” with real estate sales on Marco Island.

Now they have found yet another pretext. “Clearly, with earthquakes just offshore no one will want to buy on Marco” proclaimed the vice chairman of MIRED. “I mean, look at what happened in South East Asia after that big earthquake a couple of years ago. They got tidal waves, tsunamis, death, destruction, the plague, five of the seven deadly sins, crazy people running around naked, the U.S. Navy was sent to help and all of their beach front tourist sites were wiped out. That can happen here, so no one will want to buy!” further decried the vice chairman.

But there is a bright side to all of these apocalyptic prophecies of dropping sales and flat real estate prices. The City of Marco Island city council in an emergency session to address the economic impact of the earthquake, voted 4-3 (Disciullo, Forcht, Kiester in the minority) passing a referendum that if any large corporation or anyone claiming to be in any way related to any real or imagined American Indian tribe wants to rezone any part of the island to build casinos of any size, they get automatic approval without even having to file any documents.

Reports are coming in that six Mormons claiming to be descendants of the Calusa Indians are desirous in taking advantage of the earthquake ravaged Marco Island tourist economy. They are designing a casino with 25,000 luxury condominiums to be built on Residents Beach.

Recall Petition - DO IT!

These pages have always advocated the exercise of democracy. Voting by the citizens of a federalist democracy is the greatest tool free individuals can posses.

It is once again time to call for exercising that tool. Given the extensive and vociferous nature of the dissatisfaction with the Marco Island government, let’s once and for all put the issues to rest as related to the council members.

Should they stay or should they go?

If the voting is for them to stay, then rejoice for the majority approves of their efforts, and business will continue as usual, and as such the detractors are silenced. The citizens have spoken.

If the voting is for any one of them to leave, then the council members so designated should leave immediately. The citizens have spoken.

There should be not one citizen, not one group, not one councilmember and not one public employee that should fear this process, that should besmirch this process, that should thwart this process. For in doing so, they are dishonest and hypocritical, for they reap the rewards of living in the greatest country on earth – a democracy – but impede the very foundation that provides for their standard of living. Lest anyone doubt this assertion, try living in Cuba or North Korea for a while.

And as salient and inarguable this position appears to be, there are those that will go to great lengths to divert our unalienable rights to vote and to obstruct the process with no shame. More on this farce in the following article.

So, Marco Island, allow the recall, vote, and let the chips falls where they may!

Oh the Stupid Games They Play

On Sunday September 3, 2006 a “straw” vote web site was established by which people could vote on whether any one member of the Marco Island city council should be recalled. The web site is at address http://209.15.40.246/miblog/recall/ . The purpose of this effort and web site is to simply and cost-effectively measure the will of the people as it relates to the possibility (well, with today’s news, perhaps more like a near certainty) of desiring a recall election on specific council members.

This website was put forth without any inkling whatsoever about the efforts already underway to institute a recall. In truth, a sheer coincidence. Though perhaps not too surprising given the immense level of dissatisfaction of many residents with some city council members that appear to serve special interests – and not those of the citizens.

Late Sunday night an email was sent out to a few concerned citizens about the voting web site.

By Wednesday, there were approximately 30 votes – not bad!

By Thursday afternoon, there were 4,464 votes!? What in the world happened?

Here is what occurred. The design of the web site was basic in that there was never any anticipation of abuse. Perhaps programmers are naïve in thinking that on such a benign and democratic and non-binding effort – remember that the purpose is just to measure the will of the people – that although there would be a few that would vote several times, but not to the extent that would affect the results.

Boy, were we wrong. One computer alone registered 2,371 votes. Another one computer 908, another one computer 606, and two more registered a combined 326 votes.

Clearly we had an issue. But more importantly, we stumbled upon the extents to which people will go to thwart the democratic process in order to protect God-knows what.

But first things first. By the evening of Thursday September 7, 2006, we purged the database of all of these illicit votes, and did some more data housecleaning. For example, there were a few other votes that we deemed as not nefarious (e.g. single computers that voted 8 times, 10 times, etc.). All of the votes that came from the serious offenders were deleted. Votes that came from the low repeaters, like those who voted 8 times, all but two of their votes were deleted.

Then we proceeded to upgrade the voting logic. The offending computers are forever banned from voting. We have also instituted some advanced logic that would prevent single computers from voting excessively or even repeatedly without reason. Please keep in mind that there are important factors to consider – one household with one computer can have more than one legitimate vote – for example, spouses are two votes, and even beyond that as we know that friends can get together, and even relatives can live together (except mothers-in-laws of course).

As of this moment, the new logic is working. The database is pristine. Additionally we are monitoring the site very carefully in lieu of what occurred and in lieu of today’s news of a formal recall drive.

Now, onto the geniuses. We were able to trace the offending computers.

The four most offending computers are:

Computer Address = 71.2.229.204
Node = fl-71-2-229-204.sta.embarqhsd.net
Located at = Winter Park, FL
Using = Sprint DSL Network SDSL-NET9-04
Votes Posted = 2,371

Computer Address = 66.221.54.10
Node = interactiveglobal.propagation.net
Located at = Bedford, TX
Using = USA C I Host CIHOST7

Computer Address = 67.15.97.24
Node = web7.ourinternet.us
Located at = Fort Lauderdale, FL
Using = Our Internet,Inc. EVRY-267

Computer Address = 68.47.146.88 & 68.47.146.115
Nodes = c-68-47-146-88.hsd1.fl.comcast.net & c-68-47-146-115.hsd1.fl.comcast.net
Location at = Miami, FL
Using = Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. NAPLES-1

Note that the “Located at” is where the internet service is provided – not necessarily the physical location.

But for our greatest offender, we are getting close, real close. The offender appears to come from Naples, between 17 and 18 streets on 54Terrace SW.

To all of those reading these pages – we will pursue this issue to its fullest in the drive to determine the name of the person that is registered to the street address of where the offending computer made the illicit votes. Once we do, their names and address will be publicized.

Of interest …
The intellectual that wrote the robot to pump the 2,371 votes, voted for recalling Mr. Chuck Kiester – and only Mr. Kiester – in every one of the 2,371 votes. Perhaps that gives us some ideas?

The intellectual that wrote the robot to pump the 908 votes, voted for recalling Mr. Chuck Kiester – and only Mr. Kiester – in every one of the 908 votes. Perhaps that gives us some ideas?

The intellectual that wrote the robot to pump the 606 votes, voted for recalling Mr. Chuck Kiester – and only Mr. Kiester – in every one of the 606 votes. Perhaps that gives us some ideas?

It certainly tells us a lot – with additional facts that we will not yet divulge since at some point we will turn over this hacking proof over to the U.S. Attorney’s office for prosecution.

The other two large offenders of the voting nearly always voted for recalling Mr. Kiester, and at times for Mrs. Disciullo and Mr. Forcht.

Can someone refresh our collective memory? Didn’t Mrs. Disciullo, Mr. Forcht and Mr. Kiester vote FOR stopping the sewer project?

What a story – keep watching – and unlike Latin America, DON’T vote often – just vote once!

Open Letter To Council Members

Greetings Council Members:

I understand from today's Eagle article that you are soliciting citizen input for some of the decisions you are making tonight. That is commendableand I hope you will carefully weigh all of what you receive.

Tonight you will be deciding on the Budget and I want to make a few comments about that.

The city will have a 12 billion dollar taxable property value to draw from. A considerable amount of money for a city the size of Marco Island. Many city administrators across the country managing budgets for comparable communities would be elated by such a windfall. Yet our city managerand his financial director lament not having enough to pay for such basic services as police and fire rescue services or park and recreational services.

Mr. Harrison stated to the Eagle today that "the city has the same cost issuesas every individual and business". I respectfully disagree. We can go backto the rollback rate if our City Council would slow down spending. Unlike,our City Council, thrifty individuals do not spend more than they can affordand successful business owners do not borrow to purchase more infrastructurethan they really require. So give our taxpayers, City Manager our FinancialDirector, our Police and our Fireman a break. Stop trying to rebuild Marco Island in such a short period of time, use more of our good fortune to supportthese basic services. We can eventually have all that we plan for, just be willing to adjust your timetable and wait for it a little longer.

As for this large reserve the City keeps accumulating every year. Start paying for things we really need like replacing the WWTP. We own it, in someway it benefits all of us. Declare it an emergency and use the excess reserveto replace the WWTP if is in such bad condition.

Slow down the STRP, priorto approving a new district test the area and prove that it is required first. We will support you if it is needed. Pay for it out of general revenueso that we can deduct it from our Federal taxes. Don't develop a scheme to bilk the tax payer like your current assessment plan is. The STRP has neverbeen justified and may never be required. 135 million dollars is a lot of moneyto ask us for, especially when you have a 12 billion dollar taxable property pool. When you develop programs that require assessments, you are in fact increasing taxes. An assessment is simply another name for a tax, we are notfooled by this especially when the assessments are not charged across the board. Try harder to be fair and you will have less discontent on the island. Slow down and be reasonable. Mr. Trotter said it best "it's not your money". I know I have already sent you an email regarding the POPS petition and how

I feel you were misinformed by the City Attorney. However, let me simply askyou this question, why do you have so much trouble with the word "may"? Surely you know that this word allows for contingencies. Abide by the Charter,it's intent and not your personal wishes. Stop looking for loopholes.

You are not only sworn to uphold the Charter but to apply it's intent. So takeanother look at your decision, debate the arguments and move forward. I amconfident you will do the right thing and permit the referendum to play out withthe electorate. Do not disenfranchise 2,000 supporters or you will surely have another law suit. You must do the right thing. What are you afraid of? You all sincerely believe that the electorate is on your side, so you already know they will do the right thing.

Thank you for considering my opinions and advise.

Byron Erickson,
1735 Hummingbird Ct.

Open Letter to Chairwoman DiSciullo:

By Byron Erickson

Greetings Chairwoman DiSciullo:

I am dismayed by predictions made today in the NDN regarding the Personal Evaluation of City Manager William Moss and some comments attributed to you.

The article predicts that this City Council will again reward Mr. Moss with a salary increase.

How can this be? Admittedly, I have never had to work directly with Mr. Moss but I have been able to observe his performance during the past year and I cannot for the life of me agree that he has consistently performed at a level deserving of recognition. That said, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I ask only that before you make up your mind you consider the following and weigh the opinions of your constituents along with your personal experiences.

I submit to you that it is a substantial portion of his job to do the City Council's bidding. Repeatedly, members of this Council have recommended changes and suggestions to the STRP assessments to make them more equitable to those being impacted. Repeatedly Mr. Moss has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy formulating excuses and justifications to not change it. Mr. Moss appears to be on a mission and that is to keep the STRP as it was originally designed, whatever the political cost to the Council. His suggestions for improvement and alternative payment plans are not real changes, they do not make the plan more equitable.

The City Manager's tenure is marked by constant and growing disharmony in our community. Although the Council shares the blame, much of the discontent is directed at Mr. Moss. Political Action Committees have been formed to change the City Charter and others to stop the STRP. Citizens have filed legal actions against policies and programs he designed and ultimately approved by a majority of one. A major contamination of our City on his watch has occurred during the last 12 months. His attempt to cover up the Asbestos mishap alone is enough to stop any bonus payment. The making and distribution of a glossy promotional book directed to our citizens contained false and misleading information that our septic tanks were contaminating our waterways. The making and writing of that document was his doing not the Council's. He is a manipulator and promoter with skills expected of a used car salesman, not skills we should be rewarding.

Public officials have a basic responsibility to protect the public from harm and corruption. Mr. Moss exhibited extremely bad judgment when he requested that the contractor move asbestos pipe to hold down construction material during Hurricane Wilma. It is Mr Moss who is responsible for a flawed contract procurement policy lacking sufficient adequate oversight. This policy has led to accusations of corruption by some of our citizens towards Rony Joel. Mr Moss should know that this type of Policy should be written to deny any implication of undue influence by a contracting official. Former employees of contractors bidding on jobs should not be part of the process.

I have seen written evidence that when he wants to discuss a controversial issue with the Council he requests that he be permitted to meet with each of you on an individual basis. Requests like that are designed to inhibit the council from making decisions under "Group Think". He takes from you the benefit of questions, information and thoughts that the other Council members may have regarding the issue. This is manipulative behavior and should not be entertained. He should be counseled about this and told that this practice is contrary to the spirit of Florida's sunshine laws. He should not be rewarded for these efforts.

You are quoted as saying that his communications skills have improved. I find this statement surprising considering the way he addressed your initiative to make the STRP assessments more equitable. I found his written response to be disrespectful to you and your initiative by consistently referring to your proposal as "The Problem". He now will not communicate with citizens about the STRP because of pending law suits but finds plenty of time to address Marco's commercial community. His limited target audience for these talks are clearly political and should not be permitted. He should be counseled that if he intends to address the community it should be an address to the community at large and not to politically influential groups or institutions.

I suggest that prior to promoting this individual or awarding any further bonus payments you also read the web site at www.earnmarco.com you will see not only evidence of his wrong doing in the asbestos mishap but also statements revealed on video clips of council members and citizens questioning Rony Joel about the asbestos incident. These video clips clearly offer evidence of the crushing of asbestos pipe. Mr. Moss followed this discussion with denial of wrong doing and an admission that he ordered the movement of the pipe.

In spite of what Mr. Moss may believe, the law suits against the City and some of it's employees including Mr. Moss may still go against the City. If it does, any promotion you give him now will look pretty silly and reflect directly upon those that recommended it. Please for the sake of your creditability don't recommend a bonus payment, he really does not deserve it.

Sincerely and thank you for your service.

Byron Erickson,
1735 Hummingbird Ct.

Should This Be Attempted?

The 2006 Florida Statutes, Title IX, ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS

Chapter 100
GENERAL, PRIMARY, SPECIAL, BOND, AND REFERENDUM ELECTIONS

100.361 Municipal recall.--

(1) RECALL PETITION.--Any member of the governing body of a municipality or charter county, hereinafter referred to in this section as "municipality," may be removed from office by the electors of the municipality. When the official represents a district and is elected only by electors residing in that district, only electors from that district are eligible to sign the petition to recall that official and are entitled to vote in the recall election. When the official represents a district and is elected at-large by the electors of the municipality, all electors of the municipality are eligible to sign the petition to recall that official and are entitled to vote in the recall election. Where used in this section, the term "district" shall be construed to mean the area or region of a municipality from which a member of the governing body is elected by the electors from such area or region. Members may be removed from office by the following procedure:

(a) A petition shall be prepared naming the person sought to be recalled and containing a statement of grounds for recall in not more than 200 words limited solely to the grounds specified in paragraph (b). If more than one member of the governing body is sought to be recalled, whether such member is elected by the electors of a district or by the electors of the municipality at-large, a separate recall petition shall be prepared for each member sought to be recalled. Upon request, the content of a petition should be, but is not required to be, provided by the proponent in alternative formats.

1. In a municipality or district of fewer than 500 electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 50 electors or by 10 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

2. In a municipality or district of 500 or more but fewer than 2,000 registered electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 100 electors or by 10 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

3. In a municipality or district of 2,000 or more but fewer than 5,000 registered electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 250 electors or by 10 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

4. In a municipality or district of 5,000 or more but fewer than 10,000 registered electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 500 electors or by 10 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

5. In a municipality or district of 10,000 or more but fewer than 25,000 registered electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 1,000 electors or by 10 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

6. In a municipality or district of 25,000 or more registered electors, the petition shall be signed by at least 1,000 electors or by 5 percent of the total number of registered electors of the municipality or district as of the preceding municipal election, whichever is greater.

Electors of the municipality or district making charges contained in the statement of grounds for recall and those signing the recall petition shall be designated as the "committee." A specific person shall be designated in the petition as chair of the committee to act for the committee. Electors of the municipality or district are eligible to sign the petition. Signatures and oaths of witnesses shall be executed as provided in paragraph (c). All signatures shall be obtained within a period of 30 days, and the petition shall be filed within 30 days after the date the first signature is obtained on the petition.

(b) The grounds for removal of elected municipal officials shall, for the purposes of this act, be limited to the following and must be contained in the petition:

1. Malfeasance;

2. Misfeasance;

3. Neglect of duty;

4. Drunkenness;

5. Incompetence;

6. Permanent inability to perform official duties; and

7. Conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.

(c) Each elector of the municipality signing a petition shall sign his or her name in ink or indelible pencil as registered in the office of the supervisor of elections and shall state on the petition his or her place of residence and voting precinct. Each petition shall contain appropriate lines for the signature, printed name, and street address of the elector and an oath, to be executed by a witness thereof, verifying the fact that the witness saw each person sign the counterpart of the petition, that each signature appearing thereon is the genuine signature of the person it purports to be, and that the petition was signed in the presence of the witness on the date indicated.

(d) The petition shall be filed with the auditor or clerk of the municipality or charter county, or his or her equivalent, hereinafter referred to as clerk, by the person designated as chair of the committee, and, when the petition is filed, the clerk shall submit such petition to the county supervisor of elections who shall, within a period of not more than 30 days after the petition is filed with the supervisor, determine whether the petition contains the required valid signatures. The petition cannot be amended after it is filed with the clerk. The supervisor shall be paid by the persons or committee seeking verification the sum of 10 cents for each name checked. Upon filing with the clerk, the petition and all subsequent papers or forms required or permitted to be filed with the clerk in connection with this section must, upon request, be made available in alternative formats.

(e) If it is determined that the petition does not contain the required signatures, the clerk shall so certify to the governing body of the municipality or charter county and file the petition without taking further action, and the matter shall be at an end. No additional names may be added to the petition, and the petition shall not be used in any other proceeding.

(f) If it is determined that the petition has the required signatures, then the clerk shall at once serve upon the person sought to be recalled a certified copy of the petition. Within 5 days after service, the person sought to be recalled may file with the clerk a defensive statement of not more than 200 words. The clerk shall, within 5 days, prepare a sufficient number of typewritten, printed, or mimeographed copies of the recall petition and defensive statement, as well as the names, addresses, and oaths on the original petition, and deliver them to the person who has been designated as chair of the committee and take his or her receipt therefor. Such prepared copies shall be entitled "Recall Petition and Defense" and shall contain lines and spaces for signatures and printed names of registered electors, place of residence, election precinct number, and date of signing, together with oaths to be executed by the witnesses which conform to the provisions of paragraph (c). The clerk shall deliver forms sufficient to carry the signatures of 30 percent of the registered electors.

(g) Upon receipt of the "Recall Petition and Defense," the committee may circulate them to obtain the signatures of 15 percent of the electors. Any elector who signs a recall petition shall have the right to demand in writing that his or her name be stricken from the petition. A written demand signed by the elector shall be filed with the clerk and upon receipt of the demand the clerk shall strike the name of the elector from the petition and place his or her initials to the side of the signature stricken. However, no signature may be stricken after the clerk has delivered the "Recall Petition and Defense" to the supervisor of elections for verification.

(h) Within 60 days after delivery of the "Recall Petition and Defense" to the chair, the chair shall file with the clerk the "Recall Petition and Defense" which bears the signatures of electors. The clerk shall assemble all signed petitions, check to see that each petition is properly verified by the oath of a witness, and submit such petitions to the county supervisor of elections, who shall determine the number of valid signatures, purge the names withdrawn, certify within 30 days whether 15 percent of the qualified electors of the municipality have signed the petitions, and report his or her findings to the governing body. The supervisor shall be paid by the persons or committee seeking verification the sum of 10 cents for each name checked.

(i) If the petitions do not contain the required signatures, the clerk shall report such fact to the governing body and file the petitions, the proceedings shall be terminated, and the petitions shall not again be used. If the signatures do amount to at least 15 percent of the qualified electors, the clerk shall serve notice of that fact upon the person sought to be recalled and deliver to the governing body a certificate as to the percentage of qualified voters who signed.

(2) RECALL ELECTION.--If the person designated in the petition files with the clerk, within 5 days after the last-mentioned notice, his or her written resignation, the clerk shall at once notify the governing body of that fact, and the resignation shall be irrevocable. The governing body shall then proceed to fill the vacancy according to the provisions of the appropriate law. In the absence of a resignation, the chief judge of the judicial circuit in which the municipality is located shall fix a day for holding a recall election for the removal of those not resigning. Any such election shall be held not less than 30 days or more than 60 days after the expiration of the 5-day period last-mentioned and at the same time as any other general or special election held within the period; but if no such election is to be held within that period, the judge shall call a special recall election to be held within the period aforesaid.

(3) BALLOTS.--The ballots at the recall election shall conform to the following: With respect to each person whose removal is sought, the question shall be submitted: "Shall _____ be removed from the office of _____ by recall?" Immediately following each question there shall be printed on the ballots the two propositions in the order here set forth:

" (name of person) should be removed from office."

" (name of person) should not be removed from office."

(4) FILLING OF VACANCIES; SPECIAL ELECTIONS.--

(a) If an election is held for the recall of members elected only at-large, candidates to succeed them for the unexpired terms shall be voted upon at the same election and shall be elected in the same manner as provided by the appropriate law for the election of candidates at general elections. Candidates shall not be elected to succeed any particular member. If only one member is removed, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected to fill the vacancy. If more than one member is removed, candidates equal in number to the number of members removed shall be declared elected to fill the vacancies; and, among the successful candidates, those receiving the greatest number of votes shall be declared elected for the longest terms. Cases of ties, and all other matters not herein specially provided for, shall be determined by the rules governing elections generally.

(b) If an election is held for the recall of members elected only from districts, candidates to succeed them for the unexpired terms shall be voted upon at a special election called by the chief judge of the judicial circuit in which the districts are located not less than 30 days or more than 60 days after the expiration of the recall election. The qualifying period, for purposes of this section, shall be established by the chief judge of the judicial circuit after consultation with the clerk. Any candidate seeking election to fill the unexpired term of a recalled district municipal official shall reside in the district represented by the recalled official and qualify for office in the manner required by law. Each candidate receiving the highest number of votes for each office in the special district recall election shall be declared elected to fill the unexpired term of the recalled official. Candidates seeking election to fill a vacancy created by the removal of a municipal official shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 106.

(c) When an election is held for the recall of members of the governing body composed of both members elected at-large and from districts, candidates to succeed them for the unexpired terms shall be voted upon at a special election as provided in paragraph (b).

(d) However, in any recall election held pursuant to paragraph (b) or paragraph (c), if only one member is voted to be removed from office, the vacancy created by the recall shall be filled by the governing body according to the provisions of the appropriate law for filling vacancies.

(5) EFFECT OF RESIGNATIONS.--If the member of the governing body being recalled resigns from office prior to the recall election, the remaining members shall fill the vacancy created according to the appropriate law for filling vacancies. If all of the members of the governing body are sought to be recalled and all of the members resign prior to the recall election, the recall election shall be canceled, and a special election shall be called to fill the unexpired terms of the resigning members. If all of the members of the governing body are sought to be recalled and any of the members resign prior to the recall election, the proceedings for the recall of members not resigning and the election of successors to fill the unexpired terms shall continue and have the same effect as though there had been no resignation.

(6) WHEN PETITION MAY BE FILED.--No petition to recall any member of the governing body of a municipality shall be filed until the member has served one-fourth of his or her term of office. No person removed by a recall, or resigning after a petition has been filed against him or her, shall be eligible to be appointed to the governing body within a period of 2 years after the date of such recall or resignation. The clerk shall preserve in his or her office all papers comprising or connected with a petition for recall for a period of 2 years after they were filed. This method of removing members of the governing body of a municipality is in addition to such other methods now or hereafter provided by the general laws of this state.

(7) OFFENSES RELATING TO PETITIONS.--No person shall impersonate another, purposely write his or her name or residence falsely in the signing of any petition for recall or forge any name thereto, or sign any paper with knowledge that he or she is not a qualified elector of the municipality. No expenditures for campaigning for or against an officer being recalled shall be made until the date on which the recall election is to be held is publicly announced. The committee and the officer being recalled shall be subject to chapter 106. No person shall employ or pay another to accept employment or payment for circulating or witnessing a recall petition. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree and shall, upon conviction, be punished as provided by law.

(8) INTENT.--It is the intent of the Legislature that the recall procedures provided in this act shall be uniform statewide. Therefore, all municipal charter and special law provisions which are contrary to the provisions of this act are hereby repealed to the extent of this conflict.

(9) PROVISIONS APPLICABLE.--The provisions of this act shall apply to cities and charter counties whether or not they have adopted recall provisions.

History.--ss. 1, 2, ch. 74-130; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 12, ch. 77-175; s. 1, ch. 77-279; s. 1, ch. 81-312; s. 20, ch. 83-217; s. 17, ch. 89-338; s. 15, ch. 90-315; s. 549, ch. 95-147; s. 14, ch. 95-280; s. 1, ch. 2000-249; s. 5, ch. 2001-40; s. 8, ch. 2002-281.