To: Honorable Alex Penelas, Mayor, Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners, Miami-Dade County

SUBJECT: Citizens Referenda Bill of Rights: Metro Ordinance - (1) Equal time on Metro Channel 34; (2) To protect government employees and other citizens against improper governmental influence in referenda elections. (3) Prohibiting referenda elections except during general elections preferably in November and (4) Pro and Con position statements after ballot summary.

On behalf of the voters and taxpayers of Miami-Dade County, Florida, I am making the following proposals to protect the sanctity of the vote and the ballot process in Miami-Dade County, concerning referendum elections. As to Miami-Dade County, I propose the adoption of an ordinance covering the following four proposals.

Proposal I - Metro Cable Television Channel 34 - Equal Time

I propose a Miami-Dade County ordinance to require that cable television Channel 34 owned and operated by Metro government: (a) only be used for informational purposes (b) not be used to proselytize during referenda elections and (c) if one side of a referendum issue is given time to use Channel 34 to offer their viewpoint, the other side shall be advised in writing directly and/or by newspaper notice, and shall be given equal time to give the opposite viewpoint.

Background

During the Metrorail Sales Tax battle, Metro government produced a one-half hour television show, called Metropolis, on cable Channel 34, on which appeared County Manager, Merritt Stierheim, Budget Director, David Morris, and MDTA Director, Danny Alvarez. This show proselytized in favor of the Metrorail sales tax and was repeatedly broadcast.

In response to such broadcast, I requested equal time from Mayco Villafana, Director, Communications Department, by my letter dated 7/19/99. (Shortly after writing my 7/19/99 letter I learned that Mayor Alex Penelas appeared on July 20, 1999, 11-11:30 AM on Channel 34 with Humberto Estenoz as host). By letter dated 7/23/99, Mr. Villafana pointedly advised me that I could not obtain any time on Channel 34. This arbitrary viewpoint was independently castigated by Miami-Dade District Commissioner Javier Souto at the regular Metro Commission meeting on 7/27/99, at which I criticized Mr. Villafana and Metro government for such a totalitarian attitude.

Reasons

Channel 34 is owned, operated and paid for by the public. When there is a public debate on a referendum or other serious issues, both sides should have equal time to express their views.

The only way to insure public access is to require equal time and not leave it to the discretion of partisan Metro employees.

Proposal II - Use of Tax Money to Proselytize - Prohibit

I propose a Miami-Dade County ordinance to prohibit, in connection with referenda elections, acts by public employees, the expenditure of public funds, and the use of governmental facilities to influence a particular vote, provided however, public employees may offer objective information publicly, and government may expend funds for the publication of objective informational materials on the issue.

Background

In order to promote a "yes" vote on the Metrorail Sales Tax, Mayor Alex Penelas caused his County Manager to solicit Metro government employees to work in telephone banks to solicit a "yes" vote and to wear penny lapel pins. The Metro fire chief also solicited his subordinates to vote "yes." Ira Clark, President, Jackson Memorial Hospital used County funds and the JMH letterhead to solicit a "yes" vote. Other not for profit institutions which are beneficiaries of federal, state and/or local tax monies solicited a "yes" vote, including, but not limited to, FIU and the FIU Foundation, the Coconut Grove Playhouse, and the Museum of Science.

Reasons

A debate on a public issue should be fought between private citizens in public forums using private funds without the intervention of coerced public employees, or government facilities or tax dollars being involved, except to disseminate objective information.

Citizens of opposing viewpoints should be able to engage in honest and open debate on a referendum issue without that debate being influenced by goverment employees who work for all the people or the government’s money and facilities which are owned by all the people.

The test of who is right or wrong on a referendum issue should be determined by vigorous arguments made in the marketplace of ideas. The public interest is best served without government intervention attempting to determine the outcome of a referendum election.

I propose a Miami-Dade County ordinance to require that, all referenda elections should be held during a scheduled general election, preferably in November, except as may be otherwise required by the Home Rule Charter.

Background

Holding a referendum election in July and on a Thursday is unprecedented. The public rightly perceived the election as a sneak attack on the voters, thereby challenging the integrity of the election.

Reasons

The special referendum election held on July 29, 1999, cost approximately $800,000. If held during a general election, the cost would have been minimal.

The electorate should have confidence in the integrity of the balloting process. Holding an election when government hopes for a low turnout to pass a ballot questions undermines the integrity of the fundamental right to vote.

Elections should be held to maximize voter turnout not to minimize same, thereby encouraging voting and enhancing democracy.

Proposal IV - Pro and Con Statements After Ballot Summary

I propose a Miami-Dade County ordinance that will give each side of a referendum issue the opportunity to write a maximum of 50 words in support of their position on the issue and that such language will appear immediately following the ballot summary.

Background

Florida Statute, Section 101.161 requires that a proposed statute, ordinance or constitutional provision placed on a referendum ballot contain a summary of same, with a maximum of 75 words, which summary is clear and unambiguous. Over the years, the failure of governmental authorities or initiative petitioners to comply with F.S.101.161 in drafting the ballot summary language, has caused numerous lawsuits to be filed, many successful, alleging the ballot summary fails to meet the test of F.S. 101.161. Opponents of the sales tax increase saw this problem first-hand. As a result, a lawsuit was filed on July 12, 1999 against the ballot summary language. However, Circuit Court Judge Fredricka G. Smith in her Order of 7/22/99, while conceding the ballot summary could have been drafted better, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction to stop the election. The issue of using the language of the ballot summary to attempt a one-sided acceptance of the ballot proposition remained, until the voters, on July 29, 1999, made the issue moot, by a resounding defeat (68% to 32%) of the referendum proposal.

Reasons

Ballot summaries frequently are inaccurate and confuse voters actually, if not illegally. There are frequent lawsuits, many successful, which attack a ballot summary’s noncompliance with F.S. 101.161. A 50-word position summary by both sides will mitigate confusion or prejudice created by a one-sided or manipulative ballot summary. The position statements will help reduce the need for money to communicate with voters and should reduce litigation over ballot summary language.

Future Actions