The Same Old Larry? - 05/06/08

Could be. There's a story coming out of Oak Whatever, Illinois, where Larry R. Deetjen is now manager, that might be of interest to our local firefighters and all others who continue to observe the path of destruction that is LRD. There is still this nagging feeling that some have that Larry R. Deetjen plans to return someday to be the big fish in the slime pool that is Deerfield Beach politics. So just about any news Deetjen evokes some interest locally, even if we're down here and he's up there.

The story is that the village council up there laid off three firefighters at the urging of the manager, Mr. Deetjen. Doesn't seem like much of a story, except that local fire eaters think the action is retaliation, not legitimate budget cutting. Deetjen and Oak Lawn politicos say the cuts were necessary to trim the budget and shift priorities to beefing up the police department. In the same action, the village council voted to recruit three new cops.

The firefighters see it differently. So did an editorial in a local paper (Southtown Star 04/17/08):

"Given the bitter nature of the stalled contract talks between the village and firefighters, it's hard not to think there may be some retaliation involved here. Even if the village manager's per capita numbers are correct and the village does have more firefighters than other towns its size, laying off three people in one department rather than spreading cuts around seems mercenary and possibly vindictive.

"To put a local spin on an old adage, if it looks like retaliation, sounds like retaliation and feels like retaliation, does that make it retaliation?"

We can't sort out the facts here -- who's right and who's wrong -- but it does sound like vintage Larry. He plays politics; he can't help it, we suspect. He played politics here against those who did not go along with his programs. This included using police and code enforcement against his more conspicuous opponents. He may not have been the point man -- there were useful idiots for that -- but we have little doubt that Mr. Deetjen was lurking in the background in the recall effort against Steve Gonot. He could be lurking there too, perhaps with Mrs. Deetjen, who still resides here, as the proxy, in the continuing attacks on Gonot, as Gonot himself seeks to unseat Mayor Capellini.

After all, if Gonot should become mayor, Deetjen's chances of coming back as city manager are sunk.

The prospect of Deetjen returning to Deerfield Beach, hooking up with Al Capellini and his ex-fire chief Gary Lother in some sort of power play, is enough to wrench a lot of stomachs.

We don't think it's going to happen, but the idea of it alone is sufficiently nauseating to anyone of this community who has greater aspirations for the city than the kind of regime that Larry R. Deetjen represented.

Gary Lother: Running for Office, but from His Past - 04/28/08

Ex-fire chief Gary Lother is now an official candidate for the #4 city commission seat, which is presently occupied by his arch-enemy, Steve Gonot. Gonot will be term-limited out in March, 2009.

While Gonot guns for the mayor's spot in 2009, Lother had better be looking over his shoulder. He likely will be a target for his past actions and present connections, especially his association with Lynn and Larry R. Deetjen. Moreover, Lother brings to his candidacy a controversial history in Deerfield Beach, which will undoubtedly haunt him during the campaign. Whether he has a constructive program to offer remains to be seen.

Many people are troubled about a Lother-Capellini-Poitier troika on the commission and what it could mean for Deerfield Beach. Add to this the possibility of Peggy Noland back on the commission. But what we want to write about now is Lother's prospects as a city commission candidate.

We can think of at least four problems with Gary Lother's candidacy. It will be interesting to see how these things play out in the campaign; bear in mind, however, that District 4 is Far Side Deerfield Beach, both geographically and politically. Not long after Lother's disgraced resignation from the fire department post, he was elected to the board of the Deer Creek homeowners' group right along the side of Lynn Deetjen. So anything can happen out west.

The first bit of Lother's past to come to mind is the devastating survey conducted among active employees of the fire department by their union. The vast majority of the employees surveyed thought Lother's management of the department was highly deficient.

Of course, it is not unusual for employees to be critical of their bosses. What was most troubling about this particular survey was the width and depth of the criticism, and widespread accusations of favoritism and discrimination against personnel who spoke out about department policies or procedures. One could only come away after reading the survey with the conclusion that there were serious, serious problems in the department and with morale under Lother's management.

This survey came around the same time that Commissioner Gonot was questioning the state of fire inspections, which were lagging. There was talk about merging the city fire and rescue services unit with the BSO as a solution to some of the department's problems; this was generally favored by firefighters, but opposed by city administration, including Lother, Larry R. Deetjen, and Mayor Capellini (the idea was subsequently nixed by voters).

Pursuing the inspections issue, Commissioner Gonot asked questions of Chief Lother, in open session. On one occasion, Lother refused to answer, supposedly on the advice of his attorney. The case of a city department head or supervisor refusing to answer questions of the commission was so unusual that even the city attorney stated that he had never seen anything like it.

City Attorney Maurodis conceded there was no way to compel Lother to answer questions posed to him by the commission, but that this was a novel situation. Under the charter, Lother was hired by the civil services board and reported to the city manager. Nonetheless, city employees normally answer the commissioners; while the elected officials cannot micro-manage the city departments, they certainly are entitled to information to assist them in their lawful functions. And it's not up to the employees to decide what the commissioners need to know.

So this raises questions which may pertain to Mr. Lother's credibility as a candidate. First, what was Lother trying to hide? The refusal to answer questions of an official usually arises in the context of self-incrimination. Second, what does this say about Mr. Lother? To some, it reflects poor judgment and an unusual arrogance on his part with respect to the city's governing board. Now he wants to play the role of commissioner himself.

The tension between Gonot and Lother over fire inspections rose further when Chief Lother decided to write a scathing public denunciation of the commissioner. While Mr. Lother has a right to his opinions as a citizen, it was unseemly for a city employee, especially a member of the management group, to attack publicly an elected official. It is not clear what Lother thought he would accomplish.

Likewise, Lother's high-profile support of the recall effort against Gonot was inappropriate. He was not the only ranking city employee to participate, but he's the one now seeking office. This brings to mind Deetjen's public support of the Boinis proposal when it was a matter pending before the commission; Deetjen claimed he was acting as a private citizen. At the time, we suggested that Mr. Deetjen has an on-off switch implanted in his body. On, he was city manager. Off, just an ordinary slob. Lother, as fire department chief, must have felt he was similarly equipped.

Perhaps Mr. Lother has an inspiring agenda for his district, other than to seek revenge upon Gonot and the others who worked for Deetjen's (and his) ouster. But what we see is a pattern of politically miscued conduct which raises questions about Lother's competence, character and motives. Lother is also seen by some as part of the quixotic faction of Deer Creekers who cling to the Deetjen era and seek to restore it. At what point in our city's history do we try to elevate politics above Larry R. Deetjen?

Campaign Reform - 04/20/08

Lobbyist registration and laws limiting election campaign contributions do not necessarily lead to a more ethical city. But they could help restore the public trust in local government.

It really does not matter whether money, that is, the expenditures of a candidate, is the determinative factor in the outcome of a typical election. Sometimes it seems as if it is. What is important is that people give money to candidates in order to gain influence; this is why the contribution reports are interesting, to see who may get an advantage when the candidate is elected. If a candidate receives a large percentage of his campaign finances from developers, it is presumed that he will give consideration to developer interests in his votes over what is perceived to be the better public interest.

Further, if one pours over the reports, he will see that developers and others who have interests in development are among the largest campaign donors. Development, in some respects, is the business of cities in Florida.

The state law on campaign contributions (Fla. Stat. s. 106.08) is fairly simple in its bare outline: contributions are limited to $500 per candidate per election. Of course, this can be evaded easily by funneling contributions through several companies connected to a single source of money. Developers in particular are often represented by a number of entities, whose exact relationship is difficult to prove.

There may be no fail-safe way to prevent such bundling of campaign contributions to get around the intent of the law, but this is what Sarasota put in their city charter: "No candidate for the office of City Commissioner shall accept a campaign contribution from any contributor, other than a natural person."

In 2007, the City of Sarasota adopted a campaign reform package that mirrored similar rules established earlier at the county level which had weathered judicial challenges to their constitutionality. Two measures were approved by voters by a substantial margin. The first limited campaign contributions to $200, and the second was the charter amendment cited above. If you think that $200 is a low figure, consider the fact (as reported in a local editorial supporting passage of the amendments) that Fort Collins, Colorado, a city of 125,000, limits campaign contributions to city council candidates to $75.

Sarasota's action relied upon the fact that other jurisdictions in Florida, including Sarasota County, had adopted similar limitations and on language in the 1980 5th Circuit Let's Help Florida v. McCrary decision that affirmed a city's legitimate interest in regulating election practices because "actual corruption resulting from a candidate's dependence upon large individual contributors would undermine the integrity of representative democracy and even the appearance of corruption that arises from public awareness of the possibilities for abuse would erode confidence in the democratic system."

But, as the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in a 1996 case involving similar issues, "Strict scrutiny applies to any regulation of First Amendment rights." Violation of First Amendment rights is the principal argument against too-deep limitation of campaign contributions. Also both the Louisiana decision and the McCrary court in fact held against laws limiting campaign contributions.

Nonetheless, Harvard Law School professor Christine Desan pointed out in a Boston Globe op-ed (8/18/06) that communities all over America are adopting caps on campaign contributions ranging from $100 to $250 in local elections.

She wrote: "Citizens can see the effect of money on politics most clearly at the local level -- in decisions on development, zoning, education, and policing. The myriad local campaign finance measures around the country show that these citizens want to keep their elections fair and competitive. Americans can still act in their cities and towns; to be safe, they should avoid characteristics of Vermont's law that the court disliked, such as the state's failure to adjust its caps for inflation."

The Vermont case to which she was referring was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2006, Randall v. Sorell, which struck down a law limiting campaign contributions. The very brief explanation of this decision is that the court found the limitations specified in the Vermont law to be disproportionate to the public purposes that the law was intended to advance. Ms. Desan points out that this is the first Supreme Court case to strike down contribution limits. It may be further suggested that the Vermont decision involved issues far more complex than, for example, the Sarasota charter provisions.

Deerfield Beach has nothing pertaining to campaign contributions; thus candidates can receive up to $500 per contributor and, doubtless, some contributions are bundled, especially to the mayoral candidates. If limitations modeled on the Sarasota laws were enacted, it would be a new ball game in Deerfield Beach at election time. Candidates can say that contributions from developers don't influence their decisions all they want, but most common-sense people know better.