With a majority of city commissioners and the public speaking their skepticism about changing the make-up of the Flagler Beach City Commission, giving the mayor more voting or veto power, or changing the lengths and limits of commissioners’ terms, a proposal to go down that road appears to be teetering on the edge of a failing vote, if it comes to that. But it won’t.
Look for the reappointment soon of a charter review commission to discuss the slate of proposals, removing the issue from the fraught territory of an election season or the politically tendentious hands of commissioners.
The commission held a special workshop Thursday evening to discuss the proposals first raised by Commission Chairman Eric Cooley and, more pointedly, to hear from the public. It did both, with one novel addition Cooley proposed today: expanding the mayor’s veto power. That power is currently limited to resolutions or ordinances.
A clever city manager can craft proposals in such a way as to make the risk of a veto moot, by putting initiatives before commissioners outside the stream of resolutions or ordinances. Mayor Suzie Johnston has felt manipulated and silenced by those schemes by a previous city manager. (Cooley is running for re-election. Johnston, his companion, is not.)
“If we just expand the mayor’s veto power, we don;t need to change the whole construct of the city commission,” Cooley said. He’d explained where that idea came from: he’d recoiled, as had some residents, at the way several commissioners dressed down Johnston in July 2022 (reducing her to tears), claiming she was overstepping her role when she called other governments to research employees’ cost-of-living increases and when she researched the county’s IT contract. The critical commissioners were wrong: Johnston had not acted beyond her authority. The city attorney corrected the critical commissioners. The matter was resolved.
But obviously not. This is where the personal and the political intersected, incubating what resulted in Cooley’s proposals. He said he waited until now to issue them, knowing that Johnston would be leaving the commission.
“Expanding the veto power with heavy guard rails, strong guard rails, would be a good solution,” Johnston said Thursday evening.
For the most part term limits and changing the length of commissioners’ terms drew almost no support, including from Cooley. That left the mayor’s role: should the mayor be a voting member of the commission, reducing the commission to five members?
A majority of commissioners and of the public did not understand where the proposal was coming from, why it was needed, how it could be justified, and why it was being proposed now, in the midst of an election, when it could or should have more properly have been discussed in the context of a charter review process.
Commissioner Scott Spradley had been key in slowing Cooley’s push for a vote in late December to put several proposals on a ballot referendum. What’s the hurry? he’d asked, redirecting the momentum toward what resulted in the workshop. At the time, Spradley declared himself open to possibilities. But he wanted to get educated first. Spradley may be a first-year commissioner, but he’s chaired several advisory boards, and was the last chair of the last Charter Review Commission five years ago.
Thursday evening, he summed up the skepticism several of his colleagues and most of the residents he spoke with felt about the proposals.
Giving the mayor a vote would reduce the number of commissioners, which he said was not acceptable. He was more open to expanding the veto power of the mayor. But looking at the proposals in whole, he asked: “What is the compelling reason to do that? I know Eric just said he’s wanting to look at ways to solve problems. I’m at a loss to understand what the problem is in the current makeup of the city commission, the mayor, the mayor having veto power. I just have not run into anyone who’s explained to me what the problem is with that. What’s the compelling reason to change? And then the last thing is why now?” Especially with the major issues before the commission now, from stormwater problems to pier reconstruction to a new hotel rising. “Why now do we talk about a change in the form of government on the eve of all these things happening?”
Spradley had also reviewed the minutes of the last two Charter Review Commission meetings. At no point were the proposals Cooley put forward discussed.
The charter review process to take on Cooley’s suggestions was proposed by Linda Provencher, the former commissioner and mayor who, as an elected official and since, has wielded a disproportionate ability to sway the commission, or open its eyes–as she did again Thursday.
She was last to speak from an audience of just 19 people, but truly “not least,” as someone on the commission said when she walked up to the lectern. “I wanted to become mayor because I wanted to be able to talk to the public and bring both sides of an issue to the commission,” she said. Turning the mayor into a commissioner would be ill advised: “If you have a bad mayor, that’s now a bad commissioner,” and the commission has no veto anywhere.
Skeptical as she clearly was about changing anything, she suggested the charter review process. “I know we do it every 10 years but I believe we can do it sooner if we’d like and there’s probably a few things now with the way our city is changing that other things need to be looked at,” Provencher said. “At that time you can go through this.” It wasn’t going to be on the March ballot anyway, she said.
The workshop audience was a reunion of sorts, with Don Deal, who had chaired a previous Charter Review Commission and long chaired the city’s planning board, John Feind, the former city commissioner, and Patti King, the future mayor, all in attendance. They all added to the skepticism about the proposals, with Deal and Feind reminding the commission of the early 2000s, when a block of three commissioners reduced the government to what Feind called–and what was immortalized in a DVD as–a “freak show,” at times circumventing the mayor’s veto on key issues.
“The veto power is very important for the commission, for the town,” Fiend said. “It’s definitely important that you maintain the balance of power.”
There was no unanimity against the proposed changes. One of the people speaking in favor of some of the changes was Bob Cunningham, the only candidate challenging Cooley for a commission seat. Cunningham thinks there should be a voting mayor: “If the mayor is in lockstep with the rest of the commission and doesn’t exercise her voting power, it really doesn’t provide any benefit,” he said. He supports three-year terms, but also term limits, as non-incumbents tend to.
Commissioner James Sherman had been hard to read before on Cooley’s ideas. He was a clearer read Thursday, recalling having several uncontested elections in the city’s recent history. At one point he thought term limits might be ideal, but he doesn’t think the city has the population to support that. He also supports three-year terms. Commissioner Jane Mealy, always Cooley’s strongest opponent, was also the strongest opponent of the changes he was proposing from the start. THat didn’t change Thursday.
Commissioner Rick Belhumeur summarized the evening in a few words: “A lot’s been said and most of it’s been kind of leave it alone.” Noting the dearth of people in the audience, he said the proposals would have drawn more interest had there been an interest in pursuing them. He, too, lent his support to Provencher’s proposal, saying a charter review approach would give room to the public to show up at multiple meetings and discuss the matter more deliberately.
Joe D says
“An audience of 19 people.” Wow! ONLY 19 people?
For issues THIS big which could change the way Government in Flagler Beach works for GENERATIONS, I definitely think we need to move SLOWLY and get EXTENDED citizen input. I agree with a Charter Review, but in a year or two, given all the other very important issues to deal with as mentioned in the article.
Although I think term limits IN GENERAL are a good idea for political positions, when you get to such a SMALL pool of citizens to pull from in Flagler Beach, I would suggest caution in setting strict term limits, unless you want positions to remain vacant in key areas, due to a lack of new applicants willing to serve, and the INABILITY of current members to run for re-election due to term limits, even if the citizens were GENERALLY pleased with their performance. You could likely run out of QUALIFIED candidates.
For example, my local Homeowners Association has difficulty finding people interested in filling basic Board of Directors positions, and Board “members at large.” Imagine that played out in a City election ( not to mention the LOW level of most elected positions salaries in Flagler Beach, which essentially mandates you have another MAJOR source of income…and as we have seen in the past, has created potential “conflicts of interest” with elected duties).
You might want to consider the restrictions on term limits be for CONSECUTIVE terms ( meaning a term limited candidate could sit out one term, but be eligible to run again in future terms).
I AM saddened that the only Commission member running for re-election is Commissioner Cooley….but given some of the contentious meetings there have been in the last two years, I can see why some members are just weary of the responsibilities, and personal toll on their lives.
I PERSONALLY would like the position , responsibilities, and powers of the MAYOR position to be left alone. Why “fix” something that doesn’t appear to be “broken.”
I TRULY do not want to see Flagler Beach become a “mini” Palm Coast.
Scott W. Spradley says
The Flagler Beach City Commission seats are on staggered terms. Commissioner Cooley is the only current commissioner on this year’s ballot because his is the only seat up for relection this year. Next year, there will be 2 other seats up for grabs, the year after 2 other seats, and so on.
BMW says
It is a little disheartening to think Cunningham could be our next commissioner. Truly would be a step backward at such a crucial time in our City.
Lauren Spicer says
Unfortunately, we all know there is no good choice in this election BMW.
Axis Stone says
Really BMW. Have you done research on Commissioner Cooley. You promote domestic violence. Ur disgusting. Sorry 😢
Don Deal says
When I retired from serving on the PARB for 23 years, then previously on the Board of Adjustments and during the time on the Charter Review Committee I told my wife it was time to move on and not get involved in City Politics any longer. However, when I heard about this agenda item, I thought it was imperative to bring in the minutes from the early 2000’s and give both our current commission and the public in attendance a historical perspective on exactly how important a Mayor’s veto had been in the past history of Flagler Beach. Yes, I know I am dating myself.
The article by Flagler Live mentions a movie called 3 to 2. Commissioner Feind was part of the 2. Therefore, I called former Commissioner Feind (and his wife Kathy who also served on the PARB for approx. 2 decades) and asked both of them if they could possibly attend. I mentioned the current structure of the Mayor was up for discussion in a workshop as well as the discussion potentially regarding the loss of veto power as our check and balance against a block of 3 commissioners.
Former Commissioner Feind lived through this tumultuous period in Flagler Beach as well as his wife Kathy. Of course, I did also while serving on the Planning and Architectural Board. In order to drive the point home just how important the Mayor’s veto power serves as a check and balance, I brought in the minutes from September 2004 to present a historical fact of that check and balance. Those minutes (which you can read here) reflect a block of 3 commissioners passing a resolution to ban parking (East side of A-1-A) from North 10 st. on A-1-A to 3 parking spaces south of the intersection of 100. Reflecting back, a number of us lined up to speak out against losing this much needed parking and how important it was to the business community. However, it did not make a difference to the block of three. The resolution passed by this block voting for eliminating parking on A-1-A with two Commissioners (John Feind and Ron Vath) voting against. Fortunately, at that time and still today, with our Mayor having veto power, Mayor Jones vetoed this resolution. During his tenure, there were more vetoes, but I was limited to 3 minutes last night and this veto I felt was the most important to bring up.
Having said all of that, once the historical facts were presented both to the Commission, Mayor and the public in attendance, I witnessed some members of the public in attendance now realize just how important a Mayor’s veto is to our check and balance of the power at Commission meetings in particular to a vote of 3 to 2 as it relates to a resolution or ordinance. (I heard the words I have come full circle. Or, I changed my opinion) When our Charter Review Committee met a little over a decade ago, we recommended a few changes, which have proven to be very significant based on historical facts. One was to have 3 year terms so a block of 3 running at the same time could never seize control of our city again. Before that time, it was possible with 2 year terms which indeed did happen. We also recommended a 4 to 1 vote by the Commission could over ride a Mayor’s veto.
I was hoping Commission Candidate Bob Cunningham would recognize after hearing the historical facts how important a Mayor’s veto was and would change his previous opinion as I understood it. Quote in article by Candidate Cunningham: “If the mayor is in lockstep with the rest of the commission and doesn’t exercise her voting power, it really doesn’t provide any benefit.” I am disappointed the “benefit” of the Mayor’s check and balance on the Commission was missed, even though I thought I went into detail of those minutes from 2004 regarding a very crucial Mayor’s veto by Bruce Jones. Former Commissioner Feind I thought also drove that point home as to the importance of a Mayor’s veto as it relates to a check and balance on the City Commission as he served on the commission through that ordeal. Former Mayor and City Commissioner Linda Provencher also stated how important the check and balance of a Mayor’s veto was. Keep in mind she served in both seats. For clarification purposes, by having a Mayor with a vote, the City will end up with the loss of veto power which is vitally important in keeping a check and balance on the Commission.
In closing, all of us that live in Flagler Beach, not only the business community, but the residential community as well, can realize what the disastrous effect would be today if our Mayor did not have veto power 20 years ago. Imagine if we lost well over 100 parking spaces in the core downtown area on A-1-A as the result of the mayor not having veto power. Pleased the current commission realizes the importance of a Mayor’s veto power.
Also, our incoming Mayor, Patti King spoke out in favor of keeping the Mayor’s veto check and balance which I was also pleased to hear. Never let history repeat itself without the check and balance of a Mayor’s veto.
Don Deal
BMW says
Thank you Don – always the voice of reason.