Any thoughts (whether to pass or not) about the referendums 1, and 2 on the ballot? The wording of the referendums sounds like a bunch of political mumbo jumbo to me.
Referendum 1
AMENDING THE CHARTER; CONCERNING THE CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE GENERAL COUNSEL
Ballot Summary: Shall the Jacksonville Charter be amended to
provide for a General Counsel qualification review committee; Clarify
the term and qualifications of the General Counsel; Allow for removal of
the General Counsel by City Council for cause by super majority vote?
Financial Impact Estimate: This Charter Amendment, if implemented,
would have no fiscal impact on revenues or costs for the City of Jacksonville.
Referendum 2
AMENDING SECTIONS 6.07 AND 7.101 OF THE CHARTER
REGARDING MAYOR'S STAFF AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS.
Ballot Summary: Shall Ordinance 2015-51-E which amends the
Jacksonville Charter to (1) require the Mayor to appoint a Chief
Administrative Officer and Director of Finance; (2) define the duties,
responsibilities and authority of such positions; and (3) require Mayor to
appoint City department directors within 60 days of a director's position
becoming vacant, become effective?
Financial Impact Estimate: This Charter Amendment, if implemented,
would have no fiscal impact on revenues or costs for the City of
Jacksonville.
The answer would be yes to both.
Ref 1 is requesting a committee to be put together to review the actual qualifications for general council.
Ref2 is requiring higher qualifications for mayoral appointees, specifically CAO and Director of Finance (essentially CFO).
Neither of these cost any tax dollars and I'm surprised they have been ignored for so long.
^^^Thanks NRW.
Absolutely yes to both!
These referendum questions were part of the recommendations the Task Force on Consolidation put together last year (created by then Council President Gulliford and chaired by now Council VP Boyer) by 30 private citizens which heard hundreds of hours of testimony from all levels of local government, the independent authorities as well as the Beaches and Baldwin about how our consolidated works, what doesn't work and what could work better.
You can read meeting minutes here: http://www.coj.net/city-council/task-force-on-consolidation.aspx (http://www.coj.net/city-council/task-force-on-consolidation.aspx)
You can also read the comprehensive report of the task force's findings here: http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/reports/consolidation-task-force/task-force-final-report.aspx (http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/reports/consolidation-task-force/task-force-final-report.aspx)
Absolutely recommend voting yes to both referendums 1 and 2 on today's ballot.
Here are the task force's recommendations that specifically led to these referendums appearing on today's ballot (for background info):
Administrative Functions
Charter Amendments:
1. Amend the Charter to require the Mayor hire a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Director of the
Finance Department. (C)
2. Amend the Charter to require the Mayor's appointments to the position of Chief Administrative Officer
meet the following professional requirements.
a. The Chief Administrative Officer shall have a bachelor's degree from an accredited postsecondary
institution in business administration, public administration, or a similar field, and
seven (7) years' experience in an administrative capacity in municipal government, three of which
are in a management capacity, and a thorough understanding of the principles of municipal
administration and of applicable provisions of the Laws of the State of Florida; or an equivalent
combination of education and experience. (C)
3. Amend the Charter to require the Mayor's appointment to the position of Director of the Finance
Department meet the following professional requirements.
a. The Director of the Finance Department shall have a bachelor's degree from an accredited postsecondary
institution in finance, accounting, business administration, public administration, or a
similar field, and seven (7) years' experience in public or governmental finance, three of which are
in a management capacity, and a thorough understanding of the principles of municipal finance,
budgeting, and accounting, and of applicable provisions of the Laws of the State of Florida; or an
equivalent combination of education and experience. (C)
4. Amend the Charter to require the Mayor's appointment to the position of Chief Administrative Officer have
the following job responsibilities.
a. The Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible for overseeing all operating departments;
managing the day-to-day affairs of the City of Jacksonville; and overseeing the implementation of
the City's annual operating budget and capital improvement plan. (C)
5. Amend the Charter to require the Mayor's appointments to the position of Director of the Finance
Department have the following job responsibilities.
a. The Director of the Finance Department shall be responsible for overseeing the Finance
Department of the City of Jacksonville, including the Office of Treasurer and the Budget Office;
establishing, controlling, and directing the City of Jacksonville's annual operating and capital
improvement budgets; and overseeing and managing the authorized financial borrowing of the
City of Jacksonville. (C)
6. Amend the Charter to require that the Mayor fill any vacancies in the position of Chief Administrative
Officer, Director of the Finance Department, and all other department head positions, within 60 days of
such position becoming vacant.
Why did they feel this way? Here is what the task force said:
Administrative Functions
Issue:
There is room for improvement in the continuity of management and effective delivery of City services. Professional managers have become increasingly valuable as local governments become larger and more complex. The Chief Administrative Officer has functioned as a professional manager in some, but not all, administrations, and their duties and responsibilities vary with each Mayoral administration. The CAO position is not in the City's Charter and is not subject to Council approval, making it purely discretionary. A similar situation exists with respect to the position of Chief Financial Officer. Further, there are no qualifications for either position in the City's Charter.
• Would the creation and use of a City Manager be desirable in addition to or in place of some of the current structure?
• Should the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) function as a City Manager?
• Should there be a written job description in the Charter describing the role of the Chief Administrative Officer? Should it be called a City Manager? If there is a job description, what are the minimum qualifications?
Background:
In the council-manager form of government, the Mayor is either a ceremonial figurehead, a member of the City Council, or both, and a professional city or county manager runs the administrative functions of the municipality, or county. Due to the popularity, and success, of this form, the Governance Committee was asked to review the desirability of having a city manager in addition to the current Strong Mayor structure, or in place of it. As discussed in the executive branch section, the Task Force affirmed that a Strong Mayor form of government is best for the City.
With that point being established, they moved to considering if adding a city manager to the current structure would be desirable. In the original Charter, the Mayor was required to have a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) whose duties were determined by the Mayor. However, the language relating to the CAO in the original Charter was removed in 1971. Currently, the Mayor is not required to hire a CAO or other position for the specific purpose of handling the administrative functions of the City.
Theoretically, a Mayor could handle this responsibility personally, albeit very likely to his or her own peril. Fortunately, every Mayor has had someone perform some of the functions of the CAO. Due to the impact on the lives of residents and the magnitude of the administrative functions of the City, the absence of a provision in the Charter requiring the Mayor to hire a trained professional to run the City is very imprudent. Further, this requirement alone is not sufficient to ensure competency in one of the most important unelected positions in the City. Therefore, there must be specific professional requirements that the CAO must meet to hold the position.
Finally, to ensure that administrative functions are not divided up, and the position of CAO undermined by future mayoral discretion, the Charter should include a specific description of the duties of theCAO. This will help ensure effective and efficient handling of the administrative functions of the City.
Similarly, the financial matters of the City are of equal importance to the administrative matters. As such, the Governance Committee concluded that the Charter should have a companion amendment requiring that the Mayor hire a Chief Financial Officer (CFO). This requirement should include professional qualifications that the CFO must possess, and a job description to ensure professional, effective, and efficient financial management of the City.
As the Task Force discussed this recommendation, several members shared their experience in government, and based on that experience suggested that the CAO be superior to the CFO, as is common practice in government. The group agreed, and the recommendation was amended to require the Mayor hire a CAO and a Director of the Finance Department who will report to the
CAO. The Task Force then approved this recommendation and those requiring professional requirements and job descriptions as submitted.
Finally, Council approval should not be mandated for either. The purpose behind these recommendations is to ensure competent professionals in two of the most important positions in the City. Placing the requirements in the Charter puts the burden on the Mayor to comply. No further checks or balances were deemed necessary. Ideally, a new Mayor would recognize the abilities of the previous CAO and Director of the Finance Department and appreciate the advantage of continuity by retaining these individuals, either permanently or at least through a transition period. Lex Hester, and other CAOs, were retained by several Mayors because of their knowledge and expertise.
The Governance Committee recommended no requirement that the Mayor fill the CAO, CFO, or department head positions within a certain time period. The Task Force, however, felt that imprudent and believed the importance of these positions to the needs of residents and the operation of the City dictated that there is a requirement to fill these positions within a certain time period. The Task Force believed that since there is no requirement for Council approval, 60 days is sufficient time for a Mayor to fill these positions.
Agree with both of you. Absolutely vote yes on both.
I voted yes to both about 30 minutes ago!
Just came from the Fleet Reserve Hall on Blanding, yes to both done deal!
The financial impact estimates are a joke! There are no estimates because these have never been done. Its also a joke to say that the Mayor can appoint two people without being vetted by City Council in positions that are extremely important, as seen by what Councilwoman Lori Boyer uncovered. I hope there is a lot more to these than this "brief", voted NO to both.
Yes on both is the way to go.
both passed by larger margins than any of the races. Just goes to show that most people vote YES on referendum questions, often without knowing what they are voting for. That's why the Florida Legislature raised the bar years ago so citizen-led referendums need 60% to pass.
I voted yes because corrine said to vote no :D
Quote from: coredumped on May 19, 2015, 11:05:36 PM
I voted yes because corrine said to vote no :D
Unfortunately that is a good policy to follow.