Florida was a pioneer among states in legislation that was supposed to guarantee "open government" and give citizens unrestricted access to public information.

It was called government in the sunshine. The theory was that even in the complex governments of modern times ordinary people have a right to be involved in public decisions.

Government bodies that operate behind closed doors do not govern with the consent of the governed. They are not likely to govern fairly, to represent the people, or work within the proper limits of their authority.

On the other hand, government in the sunshine does not work without some tension. Notice means delay. Debate means delay. Dissent means delay. Elections mean delay. Administrative process means delay. Delay is denial, and denial is the opposite of action.

There is, therefore, the inclination of public officials to try to test the boundaries of the sunshine laws. Somewhere along the line, the spirit of the law is lost and sunshine becomes a game of what they can get away with.

It may seem at first an exaggeration to call Mr. Deetjen's city government a secret government. However, the recent political history of Deerfield Beach proves otherwise.

For example:

There is reason to believe that these practices are not confined to beach issues but carry over to other areas of city business, such as fiscal management and bond issues, where the city manager has another agenda. This is a matter of immediate concern as we approach a bond issue vote in November. Members of the public may have questions about the proposals that can only be answered by what is contained in city records. But do citizens have full access to these records?

Larry Deetjen, the city manager of Deerfield Beach, seems to have this strange idea that he can work out of the sunshine, control public information, and classify city documents to restrict public access.

Unfortunately, local ordinances contain few guidelines that relate to public ethics and the rights of citizens. But state laws and the state constitution do provide for open government and public access to public records. A breach of these laws can result in termination of an official or even criminal prosecution.

At the beginning of its current term of office, Mayor Capellini with the acquiescence of the other members, directed the city manager not to meet with developers without the knowledge of the commission.

Not long after the directive was issued, Deetjen secretly negotiated a contract, almost to the point of agreement, with the developer of a private parking garage that had not yet been approved by the commission. Supposedly no elected official was aware of the negotiations and the public did not know that the city was interested in this sort of arrangement. This contract would have leased part of the garage to the city, which would have operated it as a beach parking facility.

When public officials negotiate contracts or make deals that have not been authorized by the proper authority, this raises some sticky legal questions. In some jurisdictions, it's called, simply, "misappropriation," a word that many people equate with "stealing."

We don't have a "misappropriation" ordinance on point, but Mr. Deetjen's actions still seemed to violate the mayor's directive and usurped the authority of the commission.

The fact that the negotiations were conducted secretly may also have violated state law. The state attorney general has advised that even where a public agency has authorized a subordinate official to negotiate a deal, it must be done "in the sunshine." (AGO 74-294)

The commission did not discipline or even censure the city manager. Shortly after this incident, they gave him a raise and extended the term of his contract. Most of this deal was cut outside the commission chambers -- secretly -- in discussions with Commissioner Trinchitella and, some people believe, Mayor Capellini.

Next came the "confidential" memorandum circulated by the city manager to commissioners regarding the proposal to remove sand from our off-shore reserve and use it to restore beaches in other parts of the county. The city had opposed this plan, believing it could damage our beach, but Deetjen was now secretly urging commissioners to reverse their stance because this may have caused retribution by Broward County with respect to other projects. It is assumed that the city manager's reason for "classifying" this memorandum was to keep this allegation off-the-record, lest it might prove embarrassing to the city in future dealings with county officials.

The truth is that in most cases, Mr. Deetjen has no right to correspond secretly or confidentially with commission members, even if there are good reasons. On the other side of it, is that residents would not have known why the city had changed direction. Opposition to the sand removal had been solid up to that point. We can only speculate that once again the public would have been kept in the dark, assuming that the real motive for the action was suppressed for the same reasons. To put it another way, city officials would have had to lie to the residents of the city. This is exactly what sunshine laws are supposed to prevent. Moreover, the manager has no lawful authority to classify public records, including his communications with commission members, as secret or confidential. Secret meetings with commissioners or other board members, even in the form of written notes, may violate the law. Thus, the "confidential" memorandum may have violated both the sunshine laws and the Public Records Act.

The Public Records Act defines very specifically those records which may be withheld from public inspection. There are not many exceptions that apply as a practical matter to city business. State law precludes local officials, including Mr. Deetjen, from restricting public access to city records. The state has exclusive jurisdiction over the classification of government documents. City officials may not even destroy or dispose of public records without the state's permission. Finally, no one who wishes to view a public record can be denied because of who he is, or his intended use of the information.

So now comes the most recent report that Mr. Deetjen has instructed city employees that they are not to release records to the public which are pertinent to the upcoming bond issue election without his approval. This came right after an explosive situation in which two city employees were called on the carpet by the manager and suspended for providing copies of city documents relating to the 1999 bond issues to a former city official who is now a private citizen and outspoken critic of the current administration.

(More of what we know about this incident follows this article.)

The way in which this situation was handled by Mr. Deetjen strongly implies that the manager is trying to manage information, and invites the question of what is contained in the city's records of revenues and expenditures under the 1999 bond issue that the city manager thinks the public does not have the absolute right to know.

But voters are being asked to approve another round of bond issues and they want some answers. Some residents are concerned that the proposed bond issue duplicates projects that were funded four years ago. Where did the money go that voters approved in 1999?

From our perspective far from City Hall, it appears that the city manager is walking a fine line with respect to the laws which are supposed to assure citizens government in the sunshine, but he does this without effective oversight from the commission. Every day that passes raises new concerns. We do not think that a public official who commits unlawful acts or tests the boundaries of the law acts in the public interest, even if he has good intentions.

There are questions that need to be addressed with respect to the bond issue election. Time for debate is limited and some voters, in light of what has happened, may not have confidence that the answers from Mr. Deetjen's government would be complete or truthful. This is the other side of when public officials try to evade the sunshine and public records laws. It is not only unlawful, but undermines the public trust.

Usually voters are favorable to bond issues and the current round of proposals contains projects that have merit. But it should not be assumed that an affirmative vote is a given. The 1999 bond issues were passed by only 62 percent of the vote, and this without an organized opposition. It seems to us that it would not take very much to upset the apple cart in 2003.

This is the information we have about the incident that occurred on August 14th:

Two city employees, Doreen Urso and Tommy Hostetler, were suspended for three days for "insubordination" for making copies of city documents for former Mayor Jean Robb which had to do with expenditures of funds authorized by the 1999 bond issue. The information was requested by telephone and was delivered to Mrs. Robb at her residence. The law is clear that requests by telephone or letter for public information must be honored just as requests made in person. The law is also clear that public records cannot be withheld because the city manager does not like the requestor or because of his belief that the information will be used in a manner not to his liking.

The documents were delivered to Mrs. Robb by Hostetler. He did this on his own time, during lunch break. While there is no requirement that requested information be hand delivered to the requestor, it is not prohibited as such. We assume the city would deliver or mail requested documents if they were requested by letter or telephone. We wonder whether, had the recipient of this courtesy not been Jean Robb, but Jim Moran or Dr. Fierimonte of the Citizen Opponents, as much, or anything, would have been made of it.

We have been told that at the meeting with the employees in his office, Mr. Deetjen called Mrs. Robb a liar and said that the information will now get on the Internet. It was apparently after this meeting, that a directive was issued at departmental meetings to all city employees restricting the release of official documents to the public. (City manager or department head approval required.)

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUMS: This Article is Secret. Please Delete Before Reading.

The State of Florida has enacted progressive legislation that is intended to make government at all levels open and accessible to its citizens. Broward County has recently adopted a Citizen's Bill of Rights which provides that people can get information from the County that they need, when they need it. It also guarantees that citizens have the right to adequate notice of pending matters that effect them and have the opportunity to be heard by the appropriate agencies.

Unfortunately, open and responsive government is not the strongest point to be made about the political administration of the City of Deerfield Beach. The city has no code of ethics. Some cities around the country [see the following article] have taken innovative steps to promote ethics in government. Deerfield Beach city officials seem far more interested in promoting beach redevelopment than in ethical principles. High rises; low values.

The City Manager likes to work behind closed doors. This raises interesting legal and ethical issues. Is this just a matter of efficiency (the old trope is that people can't work in a fishbowl) or do "confidential" meetings and memos conceal something that he would rather the public not know about?

Larry Deetjen is the chief executive officer of a municipal entity that is supposed to act in the public interest, openly and with consideration of the views of informed citizens. Is anything the City Manager does lawfully "secret?" Deetjen is not Donald Rumsfeld and he has no comparable authority to decide that city business will be conducted "off-the-record."

There are certain records which are exempt from mandatory disclosure under the state Public Records Act, but not too many things. If we look at the Public Records Act as a kind of road map for open government, we might conclude that there are very few discussions of public policy matters in City Hall that can be secreted. This would include almost anything that city employees discuss with outside parties that would have to be decided as a matter of course at a public hearing.

Sometime before the February 19th, 2002, meeting of the City Commission, Mr. Deetjen met secretly with the investment firm of Mogerman, O'Leary, and Patel (MOP) who wanted to build a parking garage at the intersection of A1A and N.E. 2d Street and lease a portion of it to the city. One thing that made these meetings so controversial is how far they proceeded in secret to reaching an agreement on the public/private venture aspect of the deal before the core project had been considered by the Commission and supposedly before any Commissioners were aware that discussions were taking place concerning a public partnership with MOP.

The City Manager could meet with MOP to hear its proposal. But why were the discussions off-the-record and closely held until just before the MOP proposal was to be pitched to the Commission? Deetjen has no authority to hold secret meetings with private parties just because there might be public opposition. In fact, it's just this sort of question that needs to be laid out in a timely manner for public discussion if "open government" has any meaning at all.

We believe, but cannot prove, that some Commissioners knew more about the MOP proposal in advance than they care to admit while others were kept in the dark. This accounts for some of the blustering that occurred at the Commission meeting when the proposal was finally made public. What we are saying is that it was much easier to say for public consumption that Deetjen made a boo-boo by holding a "secret" meeting, than to admit that some elected officials were in on these negotiations. Could their participation have violated the Sunshine Laws?

A related question concerns how far the City Manager can go with a person outside government in discussing an official position without the advance knowledge or approval of the Commission. In some jurisdictions, if an official in effect commits public funds not already allocated, this is "misappropriation." This might include negotiating a contract for a purpose not yet authorized. Our code does not contain any specific guidelines concerning this subject. Still, the fact is that discussions were held, virtually to the point of agreement, on something that had never been proposed, considered, or approved by the Commission in the manner which is legally required. There was in place an informal directive to the City Manager that he was not to meet with developers without advance notification to the Commission.

Now comes an even more interesting question, which has both ethical and legal implications. This concerns communications by the City Manager or staff with the Commissioners, as opposed to private parties. We'll bet that not too many people have even thought about the implications of this. It is assumed that the City Manager and elected officials occasionally huddle about city business; and unless they involve more than one Commissioner at a time, these meeting are essentially and properly confidential. In fact, this may not be the case.

Let's add to this another twist, and this is when the meeting between a Commissioner and the City Manager (or other staff member) is not about official business, but one in which the Commissioner is acting as a private party, a lobbyist in effect for a private interest or his own interest, but with the aura of being an elected official, one of the "bosses." This could happen at an official meeting, when a Commissioner casually asks for a special favor.

Deetjen's New Contract

Because the supposedly secret meetings with MOP violated an already established Commission guideline about outside meetings with developers, the Commission had grounds to terminate Deetjen or discipline him.

This site and others called for Deetjen's termination. This drew angry responses from the local newspaper and Commissioner Trinchitella, who said Deetjen would be fired over his dead body. Our commentary The People of the Deerfield Beach versus Larry Deetjen was quoted at length in an Observer front page article and blasted by an editorial in the same issue.

Shortly thereafter and under fire, Mr. Deetjen applied for the city manager's post in Daytona Beach, although there were public statements at first that he wasn't really much interested. Later, during his contract negotiations with Daytona, he withdrew.

According to the "official" story, Deetjen felt that he had to tell Mr. Trinchitella the good news right away. So he called Trinchi at his Century Village apartment. When there was no answer, Mr. Deetjen became alarmed and called the Mayor. Could the elderly Commissioner be ill, they wondered? The City Manager and the Mayor now rush to Trinchi's side. By the time the Mayor arrives, Deetjen and Trinchitella had already negotiated a pay raise and contract extension for the City Manager. There was supposedly no discussion of this between Trinchi and the Mayor. If there had been, it would almost certainly have violated the state Sunshine Law.

Of course, it is very difficult to prove a violation of a law if the only people who know the truth don't tell it. Obviously, our elected officials, not to mention local media, are not overly concerned about the ethical conduct of the City Manager or the related question of whether he acts within the proper bounds of his office. True, the Commission did not have to terminate or discipline Deetjen, but they didn't have to raise his salary or extend his contract either. There was simply no obvious reason to do this. This implies that there were obscure reasons.

Century Village Favors

Let us suggest two possible reasons why the City Manager was handed a new contract and not fired.

First, the City Manager may not know who's stealing what from city parking meters, but he knows who was involved in the MOP negotiations and who knew what about that public/private proposal from MOP. He knows why a "developer" who has done precisely nothing but buy and sell property and talk a lot of talk has disproportionate influence at City Hall. He most likely knows about elected officials who could benefit from various beach redevelopment schemes.

We are not saying that Deetjen necessarily pulled a stick-up on Capellini and Trinchi to win his new contract. That would not have been necessary. They know what he knows. Perhaps they felt that it was better to stabilize Deetjen's position on the team, than risk a new manager, whose operating philosophy with respect to certain issues might be different.

Second, there is the business with Century Village, which happens to be headed up by Deetjen's main champion, Mr. Trinchitella. We have raised questions about this before, but the people who have the resources to investigate and find out the whole truth seem to have no interest in looking into misappropriation or backroom deals.

When the sewer and water system began to deteriorate in CVE, the city paid for their repair. There are disputed claims that Century Village reimbursed the city. More recently, when the Kraft Nursery property was razed for redevelopment, certain creatures that lived there decided to spend their retirement years at CVE. The city paid an exterminator to take care of the problem. Of course, the details of these events are fuzzy, no pun intended, because once again those who could fully investigate them are not inclined to do so.

In writing this Web site, our primary interest is in beach redevelopment policy. The focus, however, is not on competing architectural visions, but on the politics of redevelopment on both sides of the issue. Redevelopment has not only changed what our beach area will look like in the future, but has also altered the public ethos in Deerfield Beach, where we live.

One might ask, what is it exactly that motivates public officials to promote beach area redevelopment policies which are anathema to the public, even to the point of refusing to acknowledge an overwhelming vote on the issue in a general election? On the other hand, why do people oppose development?

Self-interest is the pure and simple answer, on both sides. But to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, pure and simple is rarely pure and never simple.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest when it is rational, enlightened and honest. There is nothing stupid or unreasonable about someone wanting to protect his home against encroaching development that will alter and even destroy his lifestyle. There is nothing wrong in a freeholder wanting to maximize the value of his property to secure his future.

It is another matter when the self-interest of the people who hold public office overrides the public interest and is facilitated by deception and unlawful secrecy. So when a secret deal is carved out for the city to pay the extermination bill at Century Village, for example, does this not spare the Commissioner who lives there the assessment that would be applied to residents of every other private community? Is the Commissioner acting in an official capacity or using his official position in a private capacity?

And the quid pro quo? Trinchitella gets the veneration and undying loyalty of CVE residents and his seat on the City Commission forever. Deetjen is secure in his position as City Manager, no matter what, and can continue to push his redevelopment agenda.

Conclusion

It is cases like these that show the need for open government and specific rules of official conduct. The citizens have a right, or should, to know what was discussed between Deetjen and Trinchitella with respect to the Manager's contract and how the Mayor figured into the discussion after he arrived. No one actually believes that Capellini did not engage in this subject after he arrived. We would also like to know about what deals took place with respect to Century Village; any written record of these transactions should be readily available to the public or to the press if it should care to investigate further.

It is common knowledge that the City Manager and/or city staff members brief the Commissioners on city business and specifically on items on the upcoming meeting agenda.

There are three principles which we submit clearly apply to communications between the staff and elected officials. 1.) Any document, memorandum, email, computer file, etc., including a handwritten note, pertaining to staff briefings is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. 2.) Staff briefings relating to public policy matters cannot be secret. 3.) Staff briefings cannot constitute a meeting. We will further explain this principle in due course.

Most of the readers of this Web site are familiar with the "sand" issue. We have not written very much on this subject, because there is another Web site which provides just about all the information and data that there is on the sand relocation project. There is a difference of opinion on how this project could impact the coast and the coral reefs.

What this is about, in brief, is that Broward County wants to dredge up and relocate sand located in off-shore burrows to beach areas which are experiencing erosion. One of these burrows happens to be located off our coastline and provides most of the sand that continuously renourishes Deerfield Beach. Deerfield has not experienced extensive erosion because of a unique groin system installed here about 40 years ago.

City officials are concerned that the renourishment cycle will be disrupted if some of "our" sand is relocated to other beaches under the County's plan. Therefore, they have taken an official stance opposing the project.

Now it comes to light, a "confidential" memorandum written by Mr. Deetjen to the Commissioners, suggesting that the city revise its position and drop its opposition to the project. This memo was obtained and reported by the Sun-Sentinel in their February 9th, 2003, edition.

What is interesting to us in the context of this discussion is that a position paper circulated to the Commissioners was apparently tagged as "confidential." We wonder, of course, by what authority the City Manager believes he can write a "confidential" memorandum pertaining to a public policy matter. We can understand why he wanted his comments about the County government to be kept quiet, but this doesn't mean he has the authority to advise the Commissioners in private. We don't think he has any legal authority to classify documents, but this seems to be his mindset. We also wonder whether this technique of circulating "confidential" memos or holding off-record or low profile meetings with Commissioners is a common practice.

This is not nit-picking or a mere technicality. Here's why. Because staff briefings, or whatever you wish to call them, can be practiced in such a way that the cumulative effect is an off-the-record meeting of the Commission. Many people suspect anyway that the real business of the Commission is done in back rooms and that the public meetings are just formalities. This explains the absence of debate or real public discussion on important issues, not to mention the indifference of Commissioners to what is said in the public hearings.

The State Attorney General was asked to rule on a practice in which City Commissioners circulated among themselves position papers on current issues. The Attorney General strongly advised against this practice, because the exchange of position papers and responses to position papers could have the effect of constituting a meeting of the Commission. The Sunshine Law, of course, requires that Commission meetings be held in public, with notice. State laws also require that citizens have the opportunity to address the Commission on issues under consideration.

We submit that staff briefings or communications with the Commissioners also could conflict with the Sunshine Law, if positions and opinions are transmitted back and forth through the intermediation of the City Manager or staff, and we can't help but wonder if this is what is happening in practice. The way that the open meetings proceed does suggest that more than we know is happening in the background.

There are constructive measures that could be taken to insure that meetings with outside parties are conducted above board and as openly as is possible. The city should require that all lobbyists register with the city. The City Manager and staff should be required to keep records of all meetings with outside parties and all written communications or material used in such meetings should be made part of a publicly accessible file.

Similar records should be maintained with respect to meetings or communications with elected officials. Any discussion -- oral or in writing -- with a Commissioner which involves a personal or private favor should be made a matter of record.

WHEN YOU GOTTA GO, YOU GOTTA GO: The Pros and Cons of Term Limits

In the wake of the 2002 election, there is renewed interest in replacing the current City Commission with members less influenced by developer interests. Some people are looking at restoring the term limits charter provision, which was decimated in the off-year 1999 election.

A recall effort to force early retirement of the incumbents would make for some exciting politics in this city, but such a campaign would not succeed without considerable organization and at a cost that could outweigh the benefits. The momentum generated by the charter amendment referendums in 2002 might be better directed to a campaign to restore term limits to the City Charter and possibly to push for other basic reforms.

We plan to lay out a plan for a citizens bill of rights (or open government amendment) and a code of ethics in future articles and hope that these things will become part of a reform package that could include term limits sometime before the 2005 election. It is also not too early for people thinking about running for Commission seats in 2005, or thinking about who should run, especially for the Mayor's seat and in District 1, to start planning, talking to people, and organizing a campaign.

We do not know what Mr. Trinchitella's plans are for 2005, but we certainly hope that someone is thinking ahead to his retirement. Trinchitella has been a significant component of Deerfield Beach politics for a few centuries now, and his departure is certainly going to leave a gap to be filled. Trinchi practices a brand of politics many of us think has best seen its day in this community, but no one can deny it has been quite effective for his constituents in CVE.

Of late, however, Trinchi seems to be out of step with his constituents on the issue of beach redevelopment. Also his wheeling-dealing has come under fire in certain cases. Questions have been raised about the legality of the city's "participation" in the repair of CVE's private sewer and water system and also the city's "vector control" (that is, the extermination of rats in this gated community with public monies). Some say privately that deals worked out between Trinchi and city officials regarding these services amount to misappropriation. Perhaps the so-called Observer would like to look into these matters and do some investigative journalism for a change of pace. Maybe there is nothing to these stories, but until more facts are known, what we do know invites a certain amount of suspicion.

In any event, it seems likely that Mr. Trinchitella will depart the Commission before term limits would take effect, and this could have profound significance on redevelopment politics in Deerfield Beach, depending on who replaces him. Think of how different things might have been the last couple of years if Districts 1 and 3 had been represented by people more in tune with their constituents on this issue.

If a term limits amendment were passed before 2005, it would not necessarily prevent incumbent Commissioners from running for re-election one more time. Past experience has shown that it is quite difficult to unseat an incumbent and there is no question but that the present incumbents will be magnets for developer money in the next election if strong opposition candidates emerge who would not support the free wheeling development envisioned by the present Commission and City Manager.

If Mrs. Noland were to do the right thing and decide not to run for re-election in 2005, you can bet that the pro-development axis will find a replacement candidate for her in the District 1 race. Someone with a balanced position on the subject of beach redevelopment could beat Noland or some other pro-development person handily, but there has to be a candidate for the Observer, as the main spokespaper for BULLdozer politics in Deerfield Beach, to endorse.

There are good things and there are bad things to say about term limits. Quite frankly, we do not like them too much. The ultimate "term limits" is when voters decide to kick out the incumbent in the regular election. Good people stay. We would prefer the emphasis be on good candidates who have the requisite brain power and moral sense to be public servants in our community.

Unfortunately, this is not the real world. Incumbents usually get the most campaign money from special interests. As often, opposition candidates are going it alone, or more alone, and are not as well able to get their message out to voters. Undecided voters tend to vote for the incumbent (the recognition factor). Unless they are just plain despised by their constituents, incumbents almost always have a clear advantage in an election. Good potential opposition candidates may not run at all where they will face uphill battles with deeply entrenched incumbents (proof: District 3).

So term limits do have some utility. They level the playing field to a degree. They encourage competition in the most important decision voters have to make, who will run the city.

Term limits do not, however, guarantee a renaissance. They do not mandate that the best people, or even good people, will run for office. Those who push for this reform must bear in mind that term limits are meaningless unless competent, ethical people run for public office. There is the risk that good people will be replaced with bad, and what we do now will be undone in the future.

One thing that must be considered is that term limits, or other reforms, could have the effect opposite of what was intended. Take for an example, a recent reform election in Pompano Beach. In Pompano, the Mayor is a Commissioner selected by his fellow Commissioners to be Mayor. The current Mayor is a pro-development windbag politician worthy of being a character in the cartoon strip "Shoe" and has conflicts of interest deeper than the Grand Canyon.

The residents of Pompano Beach are so divided on the issue of beach area redevelopment that they wear different color tee-shirts at public meetings to designate which side they are on. In any event, some well-intentioned voters in Pompano, including those opposed to the pro-development stance of the incumbent Mayor, decided that the remedy to this situation would be to elect the Mayor as we do here, in a city-wide popular election. If the charter amendment were to pass, however, it would mean that one Commissioner would have to give up his seat. It did in fact pass, in the November, 2002, election, and it now appears (as of the date of this article) that the Commissioner who will be dumped will be the one most avidly opposed to the Mayor's pro-development agenda. Not necessarily what supporters of an elected Mayor-at-large had in mind.

The moral of this story is that the restoration of term limits is not where the reform process ends. We must have good candidates to run for Commissioner and Mayor, to replace the incumbents. If we had these people in the running in the first place, term limits might not matter that much anyway.

POST-MORTEM ON THE 2002 REFERENDUM ELECTION: Still They Sing The Same Old Song

Local officials always seem to have an interesting way of interpreting election results, especially when the vote doesn't go quite their way. In the half-empty glass of what we quotidian types thought was a rather clear indication of voter sentiment in the 2000 Ocean Park election, the City Manager saw increasing public support for his plans for the beach area. City Commissioner Peggy Noland said her shaky (and very lucky) re-election in 2001, in which she was returned to office by 11% of the registered voters in her district, was a vote of confidence for the Commission's redevelopment vision. What we saw was a great victory for nothing and no one.

Now comes 2002 in what seems like a result almost beyond interpretation and the usual spin by public officials.

Referendum #1. Limit Size of a Municipal Parking Garage on the Beach

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,386 . . . 73.45%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,477 . . . 26.55%

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,863

Referendum #2. Limit City's Authority to Manipulate Zoning and Land Use Rules in Favor of Developers

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,638 . . . 75.20%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,167 . . . 24.80%

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,805

Referendum #1. Limit Size of a Municipal Parking Garage on the Beach

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 . . . 77.18%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 . . . 22.82%

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

Referendum #2. Limit City's Authority to Manipulate Zoning and Land Use Rules in Favor of Developers

YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 . . . 79.07%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 . . . 20.93%

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540

We won't bother to rehash all the comments by Mr. Deetjen and other city officials about this election. You can read their comments in the local so-called Observer if you want. It may be that the Commissioners are waiting out the lawsuit which seeks to overturn the referendums on constitutional grounds before they acknowledge the obvious. But even if the outcome were "favorable," can City Hall then simply ignore the will of the people?

The answer to that question is, unfortunately, yes. Yes they can as long as they hold office as City Commissioners and City Manager. The often repeated statement that nothing will really change as long as the "Five" are in office is probably quite true. We must acknowledge on our part another obvious election result, however, and that is that voters returned these people to office only last year. The next two years could be very long ones in the history of Deerfield Beach politics.

This brings us to the issue of recall. It is not our purpose here to outline the procedural maze of recall, but we want to explore whether it might have utility in the case of District 1.

Politicians like to say that public office is a privilege and an honor. It really isn't. Public office is a public trust and a demanding job. When someone is elected to office, she is expected to put aside her personal interests and act for the public good. That, in fact, is a very hard thing for most people to do.

A City Commissioner is expected to allocate most of her time to the job without a lot of pay or a paid staff. This requires considerable dedication, but also invites "perks" that might corrupt her judgment and influence her decisions.

Overall Mrs. Noland has done an "okay" job as City Commissioner. At least that was the view of 40% of the voters who voted in the last election to return her to office. She has made some mistakes and we think she is disconnected from what her constituents want to see happen in the beach area. If she had simply looked at the voting results over the past few years -- 1998, 2000, her own race in 2001, the recent vote, and the bond issue votes -- it should be clear that the majority of voters in District 1 do not support extensive beach area redevelopment and are concerned about the impact of such redevelopment on their traditional lifestyles. When she makes a statement that her re-election is a vote of confidence for the city's plans, we don't know whether she is being ingenuous or simply does not care what her constituents really think about these issues.

She should care and she should know. She should be holding informal town meetings in every precinct of her district regularly, three or four times a year. She should open up other lines of communication as well, and return her phone calls.

We don't know if Mrs. Noland has a cadre of advisors or not. Nobody knows everything about everything. Every successful office holder has people they can talk to, and we don't mean insiders or people with campaign money to contribute. We mean people who know what they are talking about and have no personal stake in the outcome.

On the other hand, it would be incredibly wrong to blame Mrs. Noland for some of the things that have happened over the last couple of years. She was clearly out of the loop on the secret meetings between the City Manager and the developers of the parking garage project at the corner of A1A and N.E. 2d Street, for example. We believe some of the other Commissioners knew about these deals. We also do not think that she knew about the business relationship between the Mayor and the architect who was awarded the public garage contract, at the time of the vote.

Of course, this points to another significant weakness. Why doesn't she know these things and why doesn't she know what her constituents think? Being out of the loop is one thing. Being out of touch with her constituents is another. Disregarding her constituents in an egregious error.

Noland also made a mistake by participating in the firefighters' pension fund negotiations, which created an appearance of impropriety. To make things worse as a matter of ethical conduct, her continued participation, after some people raised concerns, was predicated upon the lie that the State Ethics Commission had ruled that she did not have a conflict of interest. In fact, the question was never submitted to, let alone considered by, the ethics agency.

These things raise legitimate questions about the intellectual and moral qualifications of the District 1 Commissioner to hold office in Deerfield Beach. The counter argument to this is that politics is inherently dishonest and all politicians lie. That does not mean, however, that the electors of District 1 do not have the right to expect better from the people they elect to conduct the business of the city.

All this having been said, the reason that we are picking on Mrs. Noland on this subject is that she would probably be the easiest to recall. The law requires that the "committee" of petitioners lay out a case that meets one or more of certain criteria, but once the question is on the ballot, voters can vote to recall, or not, for any reason they choose.

A recall effort on a city-wide scale would be complicated and very expensive. A movement to recall the Mayor from office is not very likely to succeed and would drain resources that could be better spent. If the object of recall is to achieve a realignment of the Commission on beach redevelopment issues, recall of the District 2 and 4 Commissioners would be pointless, and of Trinchi, nearly impossible.

An attempt to recall all five Commissioners simultaneously would be enormously expensive and require extensive organization. There would not only be the cost of the campaigns to recall the members, there would also be the cost of financing the campaigns of people to replace them. Is anyone prepared to foot this bill? Does anyone think that rivers of developer money would not flow to the incumbents to keep them in office, thus making them even more beholden to these special interests?

Recall of Mrs. Noland might be useful in making a statement, but it would be a mistake. In all honesty, her recall would not be on the basis of malfeasance, neglect, or incompetence, but because of a disagreement over policies she supports. This is not really the purpose of recall. Differences of opinion are why we have elections and competing candidates for office every so often.

It is also a matter of fact that even if Mrs. Noland were deposed, or forced to resign because of an impending recall election, there is no guarantee that her replacement would be any better or more in tune with his district with respect to the issue of beach area redevelopment. After all is said and done, the rats would still be in the attic. While she may agree with the "vision" and support redevelopment and measures like the RAC, she is not the main proponent of these ideas.

The better strategy for those interested in getting rid of Mrs. Noland is to find a person for the District 1 position more in sync with district voters, to run in the 2005 election. That may seem a long way off, but this would also give reform-minded citizens a chance to press for a citizen's bill of rights and a code of ethics, and perhaps for replacement candidates to develop for Mayor and seats in the other districts, as well.

In the meantime, the momentum for change that was generated by the recent referendum election could be directed to an effort which would have much more profound effect in the long haul. We are talking about restoring the full force and effect of term limits in the City Charter.

THE CITIZENS' BILL OF RIGHTS: A Sensible Blueprint for Good Government in Broward County.

The Citizens' Bill of Rights, so-called, could serve as a model for good government in Deerfield Beach and other cities in Broward County. [ PROJET OF THE CITIZENS' BILL OF RIGHTS ]

This county charter proposal, which will appear on the November 5th ballot, is essentially a blueprint for good government. Among other things, it requires county officials to tell the truth, encourages public discussion of issues, and mandates a code of ethics applicable to county government.

Frankly, Deerfield Beach officials have shown no interest in enacting measures like these which might lead to a better city government. In fact, some of their actions over the past few months suggest that open and honest government is the least of their concerns. The City Commission, egged on by the City Manager and possibly by powerful business interests, is urgently trying to implement its plan for redevelopment in the beach community and east of Federal Highway. In the process they have trampled on the rights of citizens to fair notice and open discussion of some controversial issues, such as the Regional Activity Center (RAC) proposal, and have created an aura of mistrust and suspicion. Also, in so doing, the Commission seems to be on a collision course with citizens' initiatives which would limit the power of City Hall to change zoning and land use rules in the CRA and to act on the explosive question of a municipal parking garage on the beach.

While nothing is certain, it appears that the two proposed city charter amendments will have substantial voter support when the referendums hit the ballot.

When the impact occurs, reform-minded citizens may have no other choice but to consider recall proceedings against some or all of the Commissioners and demand termination of the City Manager.

We believe that grounds may already exist to oust some public officials because of questionable actions, some of which are unrelated to redevelopment issues. We have previously suggested that the City Manager, while an exceptionally competent public administrator, has violated the public trust by some of his actions and shows little regard to public opinion or civic involvement in public affairs.

The proposed Citizens' Bill of Rights (section 1.06 of the County Charter) contains a number of provisions which might interest citizens who believe that open and honest government is a reasonable expectation and should be the standard for governance in this city. These provisions are of special interest:

Subsection B provides that "Each Person has the right to truthful and accurate information from Commissioners and County employees. Commissioners and County employees shall not knowingly omit any information or significant facts when disseminating public information."

This is a pretty straight forward provision. Truthful and full disclosure of public information is an essential and obvious component of good government.

So obvious in fact, one would think that it would be not be necessary to require public officials to tell the truth, and anyway you can't really legislate honesty. Nevertheless, we think that codification of this principle, at both the county and city levels, is a good idea, especially if it is tied in with specific penalties.

Public information is not an area in which the City of Deerfield Beach excels. The City's magazine, the Wave, is little more than a slick campaign brochure published at taxpayers' expense, and usually appears conveniently around election time.

The city's Web site is months behind in publishing Commission minutes and agendas. The water bill newsletter, which has long been a conduit for public information, contains misleading and inaccurate statements concerning the Commission's meeting schedule. These "errors" occur when controversial issues are on the agenda.

While the Mayor is dismissive of our effort on this Web site (interview with Sun-Sentinel, 9/1/02), it is we who have tried to provide a searchable database of Commission Minutes for the public and a discussion board where citizens can express their views on important issues. Maybe if the Mayor scanned our site once in a while, he might even see a few words of praise for him on these pages.

Meanwhile, city officials use terms of art such as "TIF" and "mixed-use" to paint a prettier picture of their redevelopment plans than they really are. These terms mean, in effect, "public revenues collected on top on what taxpayers already pay because of real/artificial increases in property values" and "residential projects that include things like stores. restaurants, tattoo parlors and bars."

Too much happens in the dark recesses of City Hall outside the public view. This not only violates the spirit of public records laws and open government rules, but creates suspicion on the part of citizens. If something is a good idea (ethical, legal, in the public interest), why is it worked out secretly?

Subsection D says that matters brought before the County Commission "shall be scheduled for the convenience of the public...." The next subsection requires "timely notice to Persons entitled to notice of a hearing before the County Commission, Board, or Committee."

We would like to see even more specific notification requirements in our city charter. Short, just barely legal, notice of controversial issues has become an all-too-often tactic used by our City Commission to thwart public debate.

Subsection J directs the County Commission to enact a code of ethics which "requires Commissioners, County employees, and individuals appointed to Boards, Committees, Agencies, and Authorities to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in the performance of their duties and responsibilities."

We have time-and-time again urged the City Commission to adopt an ethics code that would include a provision concerning "the appearance of impropriety." It is interesting and significant that the proposed county charter employs this language exactly.

Why this is significant is that there is an important distinction to be made between unlawful conduct by a public official and unethical conduct, which is more than just philosophical.

Specifically unlawful conduct such as bribery or conflicts of interest is criminal. Actions which do not violate technical rules but appear to be improper are unethical because they create suspicion that something is wrong and undermine public confidence in city government.

We do not want to question the intelligence of our city leaders, but they do not always act like they understand the importance of public trust. Leadership requires more than just getting a job done.

The "Noland Affair," while old news, illustrates perfectly the indifference of city leaders to ethical conduct. Here was a situation that created a clear impression of impropriety in the minds of many citizens. It was irrelevant who was right or wrong in the pension fund negotiations between the firefighters and the city. Commissioner Noland is married to a fireman, who was a union official, and would clearly benefit by a decision favorable to the union. Her continued participation in the negotiations as a public official may have violated state law and almost certainly violated the more narrowly drawn city charter provision on conflicts of interests. To compound the matter, untrue declarations were made that the question of impropriety had been submitted to the state ethics commission. In fact, no such submission had been made. We know this as a fact because someone at the state agency researched this for us. No record of any submission or decision about Commissioner Noland could be found.

Noland eventually withdrew but it wasn't because she was suddenly slain in the spirit. It was because a private citizen set out the facts before His Honor the Mayor in a letter which explained why the Commissioner was probably in violation of the law. The Mayor employed a prominent attorney, Sam Goren, to look into the matter. Even before Attorney Goren's report, which was never made public, Noland withdrew.

We thought at the time that Mrs. Noland's conduct in this matter was evidence that she lacked the moral and intellectual qualifications to be a City Commissioner of Deerfield Beach, and that sufficient grounds existed for recall. Her 11th-hour withdrawal from further involvement in the pension fund negotiations, we think, saved her from any serious recall initiative, to date.

According to his published statements, the Mayor does not read this Web site, but perhaps someone could tell him that we have a plan for better government in Deerfield Beach which we have laid out over these pages for several months. It's nice that the city wants to improve its appearance and make a pretty entrance to our beach area, but what if the roads are paved with corruption? Is this to be the legacy of this City Commission?

RESTORING THE PUBLIC TRUST: Some Sensible Proposals to Rebuild Public Confidence in City Government.

City Hall has not lately done a very good job at public relations and this is one of the reasons why people want to curtail its power to change zoning and land use rules near the beach.

Working behind the scenes with developers to formulate plans for the beach, cloaking real intentions with terms of art like "mixed-use" and "TIF," and questioning the intelligence of people who question their plans ("If they only understood...") have been S.O.P. for the city administration since it adopted a proactive redevelopment strategy for the beach area. Straight talk and open discussion about redevelopment proposals which concern city residents have been exceptions rather than the rule.

Few people have a clear idea as to what the plan is for the CRA. Yet, we hear constant references to a "vision," as if something were projected on the sky for all to see. The recent unveiling of a plan was still very general in concept and contained nothing we didn't already know about.

The average guy may or may not know the technical distinctions between "mixed-use" and "commercial," but he darn wells knows that he doesn't want somebody building a shopping center behind his house, or on the beach front.

Citizen initiatives to amend the city charter are as much about the public trust as they are about redevelopment of our coastal area or the building of a parking garage.

Many citizens have lost confidence in the ability of the Commission to act in the public interest when it comes to the question of beach redevelopment. They want to make sure these officials can not make decisions on these issues that are bought and paid for by private interests who have everything to gain by turning our beach area into a "fashionable urban center" or mock Keys village, or something that the majority of city residents do not want.

We have written before about public "involvement." We do not think that this means that the majority of citizens want to micromanage city government. What they want is to be fully and truthfully informed about important matters. They do not want things like the RAC proposal worked out in virtual secrecy then sprung on the public without an opportunity for critical examination. They want integrity in government, and competent administration they can trust. They expect elected officials to oversee operations and to debate the issues openly.

There are no intellectual requirements for public office. Still, people elected to these offices ought to have enough savvy to recognize issues before them that are likely to cause concern and stir opposition. These are exactly the matters that should be laid out on the table for discussion.

The balance of power has clearly shifted between the legislative and administrative sectors of city government. The Commission has stepped back from the more aggressive oversight of the city administration of the Robb era. To add to this, they have dealt away any effective means of dealing with transgressions by the administration. What would they do if they do if the City Manager just simply told them to go stick it in their ear?

More than a few people even believe that the City Commission is no longer really in charge. The city is run by a "secret government" controlled by the City Manager and based on a coalition of insiders and private business interests.

One reason for this shift in power is the more direct role that city government plays in the business of redevelopment that to a degree corresponds in time with the current city administration. Redevelopment is a political matter as well as an economic issue. The city has, in effect, partnered with developers like the MOP group to redevelop the beach area. A perplexing question is whether the city can continue to play the traditional "protective" function implied by zoning and land use rules, which focused more on the interests of residents, when so much political money flows from developers.

Take for example the matter of the parking garage a developer plans to build at the corner of A1A and N.E. 2d Street near the beach. To do so, to their specifications, required a large number of deviations and variances. Many citizens objected to this plan, saying this was not in the public interest, to grant so many exceptions to the rules. How did the Commission respond to this concern? They wrote a new set of rules to accommodate the developer. Thus rules established presumably to protect residents against inappropriate or intrusive projects were casually set aside.

A proposed charter amendment addresses this issue in a roundabout way. It basically says you can't change the rules (such as height limitations) that apply to the beach area without voter approval. While this may seem to move the pendulum too far the other way, it is nevertheless a way to deal with the problem of excessive development. Another way, perhaps better, would be to remove elected public officials from the orbit of developer influence and to restore the public trust in city government.

In fact, developer interests have managed to mop up a lot of political support. They have contributed mightily to the campaigns of incumbent Commissioners in Deerfield Beach, not to mention to the grandson of political powerhouse Amadeo "Trinchi" Trinchitella, who was a candidate in a hotly contested judicial race.

Money is also funneled to candidates by the ubiquitous Ruden, McCloskey, Smith, Schuster & Russell, the law firm that seems to pop up in virtually every controversial development project. This law firm represented Lapine, in his bid to redevelop the Main Beach Parking Lot; underwrote the Ocean Park referendum campaign; and now represents the developers who propose to build the private parking garages.

There is nothing new about developers and lawyers who represent developers giving money to political campaigns. Of course, they have every right to do so, as do we and you. This is not a question of legality or even moral ambiguity on the part of politicians who take this money.

It's political influence. Anyone who believes that political contributions by developers are made with any higher purpose than to gain influence with public officials simply does not live in the real world.

Unfortunately, it does not seem that city government has made or intends to make any effort to restore public trust, and prefers to attack opponents rather than address the real concerns of beach redevelopment. They simply move on as if they don't care about the city residents or public opinion.

There are things that the City Commission could do right now which would help to restore the public trust:

1. Adopt a code of ethics for all elected officials, the City Manager, and all city workers.

2. Adopt rules providing for the registration of lobbyists and require them to file reports of all meetings with city officials.

3. Require the City Manager to maintain a diary of all official meetings and keep minutes of all meetings with outside people.

4. Require the Mayor and City Commissioners to keep records of all their official business.

5. Adopt specific notice requirements for all matters pending before the Commission.

Needless to say, all records and reports would be public records, and penalties would attach for failure to comply with these requirements.

None of these ideas is particularly radical. Many cities across the land have adopted strong guidelines for official conduct, and the specific provisions suggested herein were lifted almost verbatim from existing Federal rules. The Broward County charter requires the adoption of a code of ethics. Our own city charter presupposes that such a code will be adopted locally. It hardly seems to us that to require public officials to tell the truth and act lawfully is all that revolutionary.

Broward County has also adopted a stringent lobbyist registration ordinance. Grassroots activists in Pompano Beach are pushing for a similar reform there. Why not here?

There is no grassroots political movement for fundamental reform of city government in Deerfield Beach. None of the Commissioners wants to talk about measures such as we have proposed.

We think it's time to shake things up in city government. Let's get a new city charter on the ballot at the earliest possible time, incorporating some of the ideas set forth on this Web site.

We want to know if (and why) the Commissioners object to a code of ethics. We want to know why the Mayor doesn't want the public to know who meets with public officials on a regular basis. We want to know why the City Manager does not want the public to know what is said in his office to people outside government.

THE CITY CHARTER IS NOT MAGNA CARTA: Maybe It's Time for a New "Constitution" for the City of Deerfield Beach

The City of Deerfield Beach should review its charter, which was adopted in 1979. While there are many matters to be addressed, this article will focus on three issues.

• Term limits for public officials.
• The city manager form of government.
• A code of ethics.

Term Limits

Either let's have term limits or let's not have them. Whichever, the current city charter is ineffective and needs to be rewritten.

The charter provides for term limits. "No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to the Deerfield Beach City Commission... if, by the end of the current term of office the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) as a member of the Deerfield Beach City Commission for eight (8) consecutive years."

However, an amendment to the charter approved in an off-year referendum allows an incumbent disqualified by the term limits to run anyway if he submits "a petition executed by ten (10) percent of the registered electors residing in the district (as measured by the last preceding municipal election for city commission)." (The Mayor's petition requires five percent of the registered votes residing in the city.)

This "exception" effectively erases the term limits provision. In the 2001 election all of the incumbents qualified for re-election in this way.

Term limits prevent Commissioners from becoming entrenched in office and make way for new blood and new ideas -- or so the argument goes. Prospective candidates may be reluctant to run against incumbents who usually have a head start in their campaign for re-election. Incumbents attract more financial support and are more likely to gain endorsements than less well known opponents. In non-partisan election systems, it is more difficult to form effective coalitions to oppose incumbents as seen most recently in the March, 2001, District 1 race.

On the other hand, a case can be made for experience. Term limits can shut out exceptionally good office-holders arbitrarily and take away from the voters the legitimate choice of re-electing an effective incumbent.

If term limits are retained, the terms of the Commissioners should be staggered. With or without term limits, a commission election every year might not be a bad idea. Finally, a majority of the votes should be required for election.¹

The Strong Mayor

We do not expect that this idea will be met with wild applause: But the city should consider scrapping the city manager form of government and adopting a "strong mayor," or at least a strong-er mayor. There are many pros and cons to this idea.

Roughly half of all American cities have the council-manager form of government, including Deerfield Beach. About two-thirds of cities our size or larger have professional management.²

Are we opposed to professional management of our city? Not at all, but something has happened in Deerfield Beach which has drastically altered the position of the Executive and that is his entry into the significantly policy-making role of planning and directing redevelopment in the city. The City Manager position has become politicized.

Policy-making, under the council-manager form of government, is supposed to be the role of the City Commission, but the Commission has proved to be largely ineffectual in reining in the City Manager, especially in the matter of redevelopment. The fact is that development and redevelopment issues are largely political.

The City Manager brokers deals and serves as advocate and promoter of ideas that very much affect the way of life of many of our citizens; but he is not accountable directly to the people and in some cases even seems to defy public opinion as best it can be gauged. A savvy professional administrator, if he plays the elected officials the right way, can set his own parameters and even ignore the directives of the Commission without major consequence.

The arguments for the city manager form of government make sense up to a point. Cities are service providers, businesses that should be run like businesses. City managers are pros, slick clean-cut MPAs, hired and fireable. Politicians are often seen as corrupt, wheeling-dealing, drunken slobs, who should not be trusted with garbage collection and water purification, public safety or fire protection.

Nevertheless, given the expanded scope of the Executive's role in the city and the politicization of the City Manager's position, we submit that the executive power should be vested in an elected official accountable directly to the people. The professional administrator should be responsible to him. If he turns out to be ineffective or corrupt, then the people can turn him out. If the Mayor's position was elevated in this way, better candidates might emerge to fill the position.

Lest this seem to be a radical idea, remember that Broward County is considering an elected mayor vested with executive power. There is a movement afoot in Daytona Beach to adopt a strong mayor system. A similar recent move in Sarasota was rejected by voters in the March 12th election.

No form of government is perfect. A strong mayor does not guarantee good government. But it gives well-organized electorate groups a better chance of forcing it.

Public Ethics

A code of ethics incorporated into the charter would make public officials at least think about ethical conduct before they act.

Government service as an elected official or civil servant is a public trust which requires that loyalty to country, ethical principles, and the law be placed above private gain and other interests.

Under state ethics laws, conflicts of interest must be disclosed. City Commissioners having a conflict of interest are not allowed to vote or even participate in an official discussion of the issues involved.

The public trust requires even more. Citizens have a right to insist that public officials conduct themselves, both on and off the job, in such a manner as to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between their official responsibilities and their personal affairs.

They also have the right to insist that public officials tell the truth, conduct the business of city government as openly as possible, keep their word, and do their jobs competently.

In general, the appearance of impropriety is at issue whenever an official or employee of the city takes action, whether or not specifically prohibited by law, which might result in or create the appearance of:

• Using public office for private gain.
  
  

• Giving preferential treatment to any person or entity.
  
  

• Impeding efficiency or economy of the city government.
  
  

• Losing complete independence or impartiality.
  
  

• Failing to adhere to a policy of equal opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical disability.
  
  

• Making an official decision outside official channels.
  
  

• Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the city government.

The goal of a code of ethics for public officials is not merely technical compliance with a set of standards, but good government. Even in light of recent cases raising serious ethical questions, the Commission seems reluctant to address the issue of official conduct. Therefore, a code of ethics should be incorporated into the charter and should apply to Commissioners, the City Manager and all other civil servants regardless of rank or position.

Summary

Obviously there are scores of other issues that should be addressed by a charter review. Some of these relate to the scope of city involvement in redevelopment. Initiative/referendum provisions contain conflicts that need to be resolved. Should the Commission be expanded in light of the annexations almost certainly in our future?

There are compelling cases to be made both for and against term limits. In one sense, they tend to rob the electorate of the chance to keep good people in office. On the other hand, they help empower the people against the power of incumbency.

The strong mayor would be a tough sell. The arguments for such a system are abstract. The wide-spread public distrust of elected officials weighs in against it. An elected Executive is not a guarantee of good government. Ultimately, the people are the guarantors of that.

Good government requires ethical behavior on the part of public officials. As far as we can tell, our city officials could not care less about standards of official conduct. This is disturbing because it really is not that complicated. If it doesn't look good, then there are issues. There should be a process so that such "issues" can be openly discussed and resolved in public view. As we said, "A code of ethics incorporated into the charter would make public officials at least think about ethical conduct before they act."

¹ A flaw in the term limit provisions as originally enacted is that they did not provide for staggered terms. The fact that the entire Commission could be turned out at once was a major argument for the petition amendment. Under the current charter, Commission members are elected by a plurality.

² More information can be found in The Municipal Year Books 1984-2000, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Washington, D.C.

A CASE STUDY IN REDEVELOPMENT POLITICS: The Saga of the MOP Parking Garage

The official definition of a screw is a cylinder with an inclined plane wrapped around it. It occurs to us that with a little imagination, this also could be the definition of a parking garage. Just repace the "cylinder" with a "box." In the case of the proposed MOP parking garage, this image becomes even clearer by applying another common meaning of the word screw.

The history of this project could be the subject of someone's master's thesis on the politics of urban redevelopment. It is a case study, though not necessarily the worst case we can think of, of what seems to happen whenever a CRA is established to "improve" a city.

Why is it that when a city adopts a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), democracy flies out the window and corruption flies in? Deerfield Beach is a relatively mild example of this. Look at Pompano Beach, Boca, and Hollywood.

The people who run the CRA in Pompano actually brag about their conflicts of interest. One board member has a conflict with her employment so bad that even her employer says it is a conflict. Holy cow.

In Boca, they just lie a lot. They promise the voters a cultural center and they build a shopping center.

The Pompano mayor, though, takes the award when it comes to conflicts of interest. He works for a construction company that stands to benefit if the city grants a contract to a particular developer on a deal that state law requires be put out for competitive bidding. The city has stacked the deal so that the developer who is connected with the Mayor's employer can't lose! When asked about this, he plays the role of pompous windbag perfectly. It's none of our business, but we can see why some of the voters in Pompano Beach are thinking recall.

For our foreign viewers, let us explain about the MOP. The MOP is an "investment group" that talks a lot about how they are going to improve Deerfield Beach. They don't do a lot, but they talk a lot about what they plan to do.

The MOP came into the possession of a vacant lot at the edge of the business district in the beach area. It's a big lot, but not really big enough for a five-story combined shopping center and parking garage containing nearly 400 spaces without many deviations from the code. That's what the MOP proposed to do, however, but not at first.

At first, they said they just wanted to build a 110 space parking lot. They needed a few zoning changes and variances to do that, and the Commission obliged.

In fact, they never built what they proposed, and the vacant lot remains vacant to this day. Instead they came up with the parking garage plan outlined above.

There were basically three things that could have happened with this plan. One, the Commission could have granted all the necessary exceptions and variances. However, so many people showed up at the public hearing to protest granting this number of exceptions when no real hardship was shown, that the Commission backed down from what seemed like a practically done deal.

Two, MOP could have scaled back its proposal so that it would conform with most of the rules. Most proposed projects get a few breaks.

We said, let the MOP build their project if they can do it within the rules. Our reasons for this position were three-fold. First, we don't think the idea of more parking in the business district is all bad. This is a different issue from beach parking. We admit that this is not necessarily the best location for a multilevel parking structure, but this is not the Garden of Eden, and some compromises may be in order.

Second, in spite of what you might think, we believe people have a right to do what they want with their property if what they want to do is mostly within the rules. If the MOP can do what they want within the rules, then it just does not matter much that some people don't like the project.

Finally, we do not think the project will be built anyway. Not as a strictly private project at least. More on this later.

That's plan #2, to come up with something that is within the rules, the rules MOP knew existed before they developed their parking garage plan. That is what they said they were going to do after the Commission tabled the proposal in the wake of substantial public opposition, but instead, they chose plan...

Three, change the rules. So here it is, democracy in action in Deerfield Beach. Change the rules so that there is no real basis for denying the MOP application when it comes before the Commission. Tell people there will be no meeting of the Commission in July or August, except for a budget meeting in mid-August, so that people who are interested in this issue will think it won't be taken up until September. Schedule a meeting for late July but don't tell anybody until absolutely required by state law. Schedule the meeting for sometime when most people cannot attend. Act really coy when the few citizens who do show up question the Commission about scheduling a hearing on the amendments to the Land Development Code on such short notice that the Commission knows a lot of people oppose. How convenient it is that the Mayor had a conflicting appointment later on that day. Pretend like you don't get the distinction between reasonable notice and legal notice.

The city's water bill newsletter.

Now comes the other part of the story. It seems that while the MOP plan was wending its way through City Hall for its formal presentation to the Commission, the developer and the City Manager were secretly negotiating a different deal altogether. Not only was the new deal unknown to the public, even most of the Commissioners were unaware of it.

The public plan at this point was for the construction of a privately owned and operated parking garage. The secret plan was for the city to operate and partly to finance a parking facility to be developed by MOP at this location.

In some jurisdictions it is more than a minor flapdoodle for a public official to negotiate a contract which had not been authorized, and to commit expenditures of public funds not yet appropriated.

It's called misappropriation.

Moreover, the Commission had said to the City Manager earlier in their term, we don't want any more back room deals concerning development projects in the CRA. The Manager's action seemed to violate this directive.

Some people thought that misappropriation, usurpation, and insubordination might be grounds for discipline or even termination. This is when Mr. Trinchitella made his famous over-my-dead-body statement (Deetjen, he said, would be fired over his dead body).

But not in Deerfield Beach. Mr. Deetjen got a new contract, with a raise, that virtually assured his immunity from termination on any grounds in the near future.

So it appears likely that the MOP parking garage/shopping center will be approved. But will it be built?

It depends on the business model. We doubt that a parking operation of this magnitude in this location is a viable business. But we also think the public/private deal would have been very good for MOP because it would have assured them of at least a break even situation, while the taxpayers would have been forced to absorb the losses.

If the objective of the CRA is to improve the beach area, it is not going very well in the business district. A better plan would have been to restrict commercial development in that area, to the extent possible, to stabilize or decrease the need for parking. The city might have considered buying or leasing the vacant property at A1A and N.E. 2d Street and building a parking lot there without retail stores. Changing the rules to facilitate the MOP project and permitting even more retail construction seems to us to go in the wrong direction.

Don't be surprised if the city is dragged back into the MOP venture before the final chapter on this deal is written. That's because there might be better way, from an investment standpoint, to utilize this property than to build a costly and management-intensive parking garage. It's only sweet for the private investors when the city is the partner who pays the bills.

Right now things are moving along as if this is not going to happen. But given the history of the CRA to date, we know that a secret private/public partnership could still be in the works.

It would not be the first time that the proposal is for one thing, but the real plan is for something else.

THE WAR (OF WORDS) ON THE BEACH: Welcome to Shenaniganistan

The scores of citizens who showed up at a recent Commission meeting to oppose/support the MOP parking garage proposal in about equal numbers, the wrangling over the North Beach project, and the verbal battleground now known as the Beach Advisory Committee (BAC) demonstrate two things about the continuing civil war over beach redevelopment in our community.

The first is that there is no real consensus among residents of the city about what the beach area should look like two weeks from now, let alone 30 years from now. The idea that there is a common "vision" was one of the basic selling points of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) a few years back when the concept was trumpeted at the various so-called workshops.

Now comes the Regional Activity Center (RAC) proposal which has been taken under the advisement of the ad hoc BAC, which is supposed to make up for the lack of citizen involvement before the RAC became a virtually done deal at least at the city level.

Has it occured to anybody else that the RAC has almost nothing to do with the publicly-owned beach?

What it actually is about is a sizeable chunk of the 40 or so block community which is adjacent to the beach. Most of the land within that area is privately owned.

Yet only one of the BAC members is a resident of that community. Another member, who is neither a resident of the beach Beach or the city Beach, ostensibly represents the interests of the PAC that opposes the RAC. None of the other members is a resident of the beach community.

We submit that this is a major crack in the BAC. The BAC (or some other process of citizen involvement) should have consisted of residents of the community most affected by the RAC and it should have been constituted before the RAC was officially anointed.

It is as if someone had had a "vision" for Deer Creek, or Century Village, or some other community within Deerfield Beach. It was decided that winding lanes and green fairways were a growing public menace and that the area in general should be declared a slum, but one having regional impact. After all, the golf course is "world class" and what could be more regional than that? These are not logical or legal conclusions, of course, but political decisions made in back rooms.

Then, to involve the public, after the decision has been made anyway, we appoint a DCAC. The principal criteria for eligibility for membership in the DCAC are (1) that all but one member are not to be residents of Deer Creek, (2) that they are totally lacking in impartiality and (3) that they are highly skilled in verbal warfare.

Scores of citizens show up to argue the case for and against the MOP parking garage proposal

The other thing is what might be called a "constitutional crisis."

The first element of this is to what extent City Hall should be involved in redevelopment. Obviously, the city does have some legitimate involvement here. They have zoning authority and some responsibility for economic and land-use development under state law.

CRAs, as a specific instance of this, are supposed to be for the redevelopment of slum and blighted areas. But in truth, these words have no literal significance; as noted above, what is a slum is what is decided. There is no historical reason to believe that Deer Creek could not be declared a slum also and be made into a CRA.

Given this reality then, that the CRA and all the rest are here to stay, there is the issue of the relative roles of the City Commission and the City Manager in directing redevelopment activities within the CRA. Because this often involves decisions that have a significant impact on the community, and are essentially political, one would think the Commission would be in charge here. But it does not always work that way. The fact that the City Manager negotiates and even promotes deals with developers before the Commission or the public is aware of them is one example of this imbalance.

The third element of this "constitutional crisis" is the question of public involvement. Frankly, this is a tricky question, and concept has been bandied around a lot without much thought as to what it really means.

Obviously, most citizens do not want to be involved in the minutiae of city business. A lot of people don't even vote and could not care less about the "issues." This is why we have Commissioners and why they hire professional administrators to handle the details.

However, when issues have a really significant potential impact on the way of life of many people in the community, as, for example, a project that would make a major and irreversible change in the landscape of the beach, then there is greater public interest and a greater interest in public "involvement." But what does that mean? If deals are essentially done before the public is even informed, then what is the point of "involvement?" Perhaps what the public really needs is more information, more truth, and better representation, rather than more "involvement."

We have a couple of suggestions. One, we like the idea of an independent CRA with its own professional staff. However, this idea makes more sense to us if the members of the CRA actually live in the CRA. After all, this is their community. Issues, such as a parking garage on the Main Beach Parking Lot, or other "beach matters" are not really CRA issues, and the rest of the community would be represented by the City Commission in these things.

SHOULD NOLAND PARTICIPATE IN THE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND DELIBERATIONS? Peggy Noland's Involvement in these Negotiations May Be an Unlawful Conflict of Interest

The Deerfield Beach City Charter (Article VIII) provides that "any city officer, employee, board member or members of their immediate families who have a financial interest, direct or indirect in any... contract with the city...shall make known that interest at the time the matter is under consideration; and, if substantial, shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in such capacity as a city officer, employee or board member... in the making or performance of such contract." It further provides that "Any city officer, employee, or board member who willfully conceals such a substantial financial interest or willfully violates the requirements of this section, shall be guilty of malfeasance in office or position and shall forfeit such office or position."

The Deerfield Beach Single Family Homeowners Association (DBSFHA) has petitioned the city commission to remove Noland from the firefighter proceedings. Commissioner Noland is married to a firefighter and received considerable monetary and physical support from the firefighters in her bid for reelection to office. It should be noted that District 4 commissioner Steve Gonot and Mayor Al Capellini also received financial contributions from firefighters in their recent campaigns.

According to a statement issued by Mayor Capellini on June 23d, Noland's participation in these negotiations was considered by the State Ethics Commission several years ago, which ruled that Noland's participation in these proceedings did not violate the law. She continues to sit in on the executive sessions to this day.

The editor of this Web site contacted the State Commission on Ethics concerning this opinion. According to the COE no formal opinion concerning Commissioner Noland has ever been issued and the staff was unable to locate any documents relative to Commissioner Noland's participation in the firefighter negotiations. Since the Mayor's statement, the city has acknowledged that the "opinion" referred to in the statement was merely an informal advisory made to the city attorney by the COE staff. It should be noted that the city attorney has requested formal rulings by the COE on a number of other matters over the years which are a matter of public record. Why not the case of Commissioner Noland, given the gravity of the question, is not clear.

While Commissioner Noland's participation may or may not comply with state law, which bars a public official from voting "in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss," we submit that the city charter imposes an even stricter standard on official conduct by prohibiting a commissioner from voting "if [his or her interest in the matter is] substantial...." The state code of ethics specifically permits a city to adopt a stricter standard than that prescribed in the state law.

In response to the DBSFHA request, Mayor Capellini directed the city attorney to submit the Noland question to the State Ethics Commission for further clarification. He also directed the city attorney to appoint an independent counsel to examine the question.

Samuel S. Goren has been selected as independent counsel. His 10-member firm, Josias, Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, was established in 1974 and specializes in municipal, zoning and administrative Law. Attorney Goren is a graduate of North Carolina Central University (J.D., cum laude, 1975) and was also admitted in 1975. He acts as City Attorney for the City of North Lauderdale and as Legal Counsel to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Josias, Goren also acts as city attorney to a number of other municipalities, and has been called the "monarch of municipal firms."

Note: Commissioner Peggy Noland formally withdrew from all negotiations concerning the Firefighters' Pension Fund and did not participate in the final commission vote. The work of the independent counsel alluded to in our article was cancelled before any formal opinion was rendered.