SELF-SERVING! Palm Beach Gardens council declares war on the 79%

Citizens in Palm Beach Gardens spent time, money and effort to put term limits on the ballot for the city council. Voters approved the measure with 79% of the vote in a general election in November 2014. It was a case of grass roots democracy for which the city can be proud.

 

The council, however, was furious and took the citizens to court -- and lost. Now the new council is working to put a new term limits measure on the ballot gutting the newly enacted term limits, making them the longest and weakest in the county.

 

Worse, since they know they cannot win an honest, straightforward vote, they aim to put the anti-term limits measure on the March 2018 ballot where it would appear all by itself. Whereas 20,000 people voted in the general election in November 2014, the council expects maybe 1,000 or even less to vote in March. 

PBG residents, please go here to send a quick email to the council and tell them:

Hands off our term limits!

Consider:


*  Palm Beach Gardens has 6-year term limits, just as Boca Raton, Boynton Beach and Delray Beach. West Palm Beach and Wellington have 8-year limits. The council is discussing 9- or even 12-year limits, making them the weakest term limits in the county.


*  Palm Beach Gardens city council is the second-highest paid council in the county. They are nominally paid about $30,000 -- but this figures balloons to $62,000 or more with all the perks and reimbursed expenses factored in -- for this part-time job. It includes an FRS pension too. Sadly, this is may be a key reason why council members are so adamant about retaining their positions.


*  The Palm Beach Gardens Charter warns against corrupt referendum shenanigans in Sec. 26-7(a) Calling of Election: “Except as otherwise provided in the law or city charter, an election issue shall be held in conjunction with a regular state, county or city election.” In spite of this clear direction, the council currently aims to place the referendum alone on the March ballot.


*  There has been no discussion of time already served of being counted under the proposed weaker limits. Hence, the new council may really pushing for 12-year (or even 15-year) limits for only themselves. This is a far, far cry from the 6-year limits that citizens proposed and approved with 79% of the vote.


*  Under the current six-year term limits, incumbents can sit out one term and then run again. That is, they are consecutive, not lifetime, limits.


*  Whereas the campaign to put the term limits measure on the ballot took time, money and hard work on behalf of citizens, the well-paid council can place the issue back on the ballot via an effortless vote, forcing citizens to sacrifice more time, money and hard work after winning handily as recently as 2014. And, yes, the council will be spending the citizens’ tax monies on a special election to thwart them.


The conflict of interest inherent in this new council-led anti-term limits proposal is clear as day. They have their seats and their new perks and they aim to keep them, voters be damned!