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