How’s city government working for you?

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst – An opinion
May 12, 2014 10:06 a.m.

The way people in democracies think of the government as something different from themselves is a real handicap. And, of course, sometimes the government confirms their opinion. ~Lewis Mumford, in Anne Chisholm, Philosophers of the Earth: Conversations with Ecologists, 1972

This summer marks my 20^th year of observing Fernandina Beach city politics and government.  During that time I have seen a parade of commissioners—and city managers—come and go.  Commissioners, all elected by that majority of our citizens who bother to vote, have run the political spectrum from progressive to reactionary.  City managers have ranged from activist to flat-liner, depending on the political winds blowing during their longer or shorter tenure.

No one runs for office or aspires to be a city manager with the goal of making things worse.  Indeed, the people who choose to pursue elected office or a career in public administration display sincere determination to make things better.  Yet we grind on from commission to commission and manager to manager with little progress on the most important challenges facing our city and its ability to prosper in the future.

After watching so many different commissioners and city managers here in Fernandina Beach over the past 20 years, I am left to wonder whether lack of progress on some important fronts is attributable in some degree to unintended consequences arising from sections of the City Charter.   Or are these problems the fault solely of those we elect, or maybe even our fault for not taking city government seriously.

City Charter issues

Both the Nassau County Board of County Commissioners and the Nassau County School Board consist of 5 members each, elected for 4-year terms.  Elections are held in even-numbered years, with 2 county commission seats and 3 school board member seats and up in this “mid-term” year.  The remaining 3 county commission seats and 2 school board member seats are up for election during Presidential election years.  There are no term limits for county commissioners or school board members.

By contrast, the City of Fernandina Beach operates under home rule and is not bound by the same state requirements.  Under the charter adopted by the citizens, city commission terms have been set at 3 years with elections each year to elect 2 or 1 commissioner each election cycle (2-2-1).  While city voters amended the charter to limit commissioners to two consecutive terms, a commissioner may return to seek additional terms after sitting out a 3-year term.

Do the shorter terms and annual elections adversely impact the city’s ability to accomplish ambitious agendas that allow capital improvement projects to be completed and insure the long-term health of the city?  Recent experience suggests that might be the case.  The city’s history in solving big problems ranging from downtown development to beach renourishment and enterprise funded activities like the golf course and the city marina reads like a chronicle of good intentions gone awry, with thousands of taxpayer dollars invested in professionally prepared studies left on the shelf and a plethora of community focus groups and visioning exercises that have further disillusioned an already skeptical electorate.  The commission that approves a project may not be the commission required to provide funding or to authorize the awarding of contracts.  New commissioners arrive with new priorities, little or no knowledge of why previous commissions acted as they did, and no sense that they are bound to follow through with plans approved by others prior to their arrival at the commission table.

When problems constantly seem to defy solutions, both our commissioners and the electorate look for someone to blame.  The usual suspects include “previous commissions” or specific commissioners, city bureaucracy, or the most popular choice:  the city manager.  But realistically speaking, how can a project as complex as a major park remodel, long-term sustainability of either the golf course or the city marina, or riverfront development be solved in a year?  Solving such problems requires multi-year plans and financing, sound strategies supported by the public at large and understood well by those who might be considering investing in our city.

So instead of focusing attention and public resources on solving complex problems that involve innovative ways of approaching long standing problems, commissioners choose to focus on a one-year work plan in hopes that they can accomplish something before the next election brings about another change in the commission and its voting patterns.  Not to mention being able to point to accomplishing something, even small, in going into a re-election campaign.

But when commissioners are more focused on elections than governing, and when city staff is wondering from budget year to budget year which positions will be sacrificed to the god of balanced budgets, and a city manager is constantly counting to make sure he (or maybe “she” one day) has three commissioner votes to keep a job, stuff happens. Commissioners squabble among themselves over seating arrangements and whether proclamations are deserved or not.  A greatly reduced city staff spends precious hours on projects doomed to the scrapheap.  The city manager develops a reluctance to manage and instead merely carries out direction of the commissioners.  The electorate becomes disillusioned and disconnected, often reacting with anger and skepticism to new ideas.

Charter Review Committee Recommendations

The city is required to appoint a committee of citizens from time-to-time (general rule:  every 5 years) to review the city charter to insure that the city’s governing document promotes effective and efficient government.  The most recent such committee reported out recommendations for changes to the city commission in 2007.  That committee, which was the first to be charged to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire Charter, issued an extensive report dated November 8, 2007.  Among its recommendations were the elimination of term limits, extending commissioner terms from 3 to 4 years, and holding elections every two years. Members of the committee believed that such changes would lead to more effective and efficient government.  (Full disclosure:  I was a member of that committee.)

When asked via two relatively recent referenda about abolishing term limits, voters responded with a resounding NO.   While various commissioners have seemed interested in lengthening terms to four years, the idea has not gained traction among the public for several reasons.  First of all, many voters are traditionalists and want the city to be different from the county and the school board.  Secondly, many voters seem to have difficulty in looking at Charter changes affecting future commissioners without seeing the face of their favorite—or least favorite—commissioner being advantaged or disadvantaged by the change.  Some recent momentum to place term extensions on the ballot was killed when a vocal opponent seemed to convince commissioners that electing three commissioners in one election would mean that the decision-making structure of the commission could be reversed almost overnight. Neither the County Commission nor the School Board has experienced such tumult using the same formulae, however.

Another reason for backing off the change seemed to be rooted in the commission’s inability to find a way to enact such a change without “giving” a sitting commissioner a longer term than s/he had earned via election.  No commissioner has seemed interested in pursuing solutions to this dilemma, which could be addressed by a special election or by postponing the effective date until such time as all commissioners could stand for the new, 4-year terms.

Other possibilities

So what if proposed charter changes are rejected by the electorate?  Or even worse, what happens if they are approved and implemented, and yet projects still can’t get off the drawing board?  If we rule out systemic problems caused by the City Charter then we are left with two other possibilities:  the commissioners and the city manager are not thinking and acting strategically, or the commissioners and the city manager are doing exactly what the electorate expects.

What should the electorate expect from city commission candidates as they prepare for elections?  Off the top of my head, I can think of a few essential requirements for candidates:  knowledge of current issues; familiarity with the city charter, code of ordinances and city budget; willingness to engage in civil, public debate with those who might disagree; understanding constraints imposed under the Florida Sunshine Law.

To some, these might seem fairly obvious.  But all too often new commissioners are woefully unprepared for the size and scope of the tasks facing them.  Their legislative priorities are sometimes rooted in personal causes or grievances, their information coming from the local rumor mills as opposed to fact-based research or civic involvement.  While commissioners have been elected to lead the city, instead they try to fulfill campaign promises that were often made without benefit of information or experience.  Changing direction for them becomes a sign of weakness rather than a result of critical thinking.  Digging in becomes more important than tunneling out.

Every election cycle we listen to candidates talking about the need for less government, lower taxes, and greater transparency in public decision-making.  At the same time candidates try to reassure an electorate uneasy with the prospect of change that city services will remain at a high level, sacred cows like beach driving and free parking will not be affected, and that maintaining duplicate recreation facilities is not a vestige of segregation but a response to neighborhood needs.

How do we change the paradigm?  Or are we doomed to keep running in place as other communities take advantage of development opportunities that we have squandered?  If Fernandina Beach is to thrive as we move into the 21^st century we need civic leaders who can see a better, more prosperous future for a wider segment of our population—and who are willing to work hard to educate first themselves and then bring along the electorate to understand and embrace that future.  Leaders understand that building support for positive action is more important than tearing down public confidence through inconsistent actions and personal agendas.

Is Fernandina Beach capable of electing such leader/commissioners?  Or are we, the voters, so entrenched in our own personal issues that we refuse to acknowledge the need for civic leaders who can focus on the collective interests and future of our city and the local community?  Recent studies have presented a picture of Fernandina Beach as a place with an aging population.  Young families, teachers, health workers and other wage earners find it increasingly difficult to afford to live in our community.  If city government turns a blind eye to the need to attract more businesses that pay good wages, we stand in danger of losing jobs, population and businesses to Yulee, which seems poised on the brink of major development. Should that happen, the tax burden for existing city residents will increase dramatically.

Changing the City Charter, changing the focus of our commissioners and upping our own expectations from local government—all of these are ambitious goals.  In the final analysis, it all boils down to the individual voter, you and me.  We have the power of the vote.  The best angle from which to approach any problem is the try-angle.

Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.