2024 Local issue voter guide

OPINION

BY LEN CABRERA

The discussion of at-large voting is long; scroll down to see our discussions of the One Mill tax, the GRU referendum, and High Springs charter amendments.

At-Large Voting
Our recommendation: No
Ballot language:

Shall the five members of the board of county commissioners of Alachua County, Florida, be elected by all electors within the county at large?

The short history:

• January 2020 – Alachua County Charter Review Commission refused to put single-member districts on the ballot in January 2020
• December 2021 – Alachua County Legislative Delegation voted to create a local bill to put single-member districts on the ballot
• June 2022 – HB1493 signed into law
• November 2022 – Single-member district initiative passes
• December 2022 – County Commissioner Ken Cornell raises possibility of putting it back on the ballot
• April 2024 – Alachua County Commission proposes referendum to return to at-large districts
• September 2024 – Senator Keith Perry challenges County Commission’s ballot measure
• October 2024 – Judge rules that ballot language is “unlawful,” but the question will still appear on the ballot

We’re voting on this issue again because Alachua County Commissioners didn’t like the outcome of the 2022 referendum. Commissioners and their representatives repeatedly refer to “misinformation,” and we thoroughly covered that allegation here. The bottom line was that Rodney Long and Chuck Chestnut’s quotes were accurate but were spoken during a previous campaign to convert the City of Gainesville to a mixed commission of four single-member districts, two at-large representatives, and a mayor elected at-large. The NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund  FAQ page still shows the quote used on the mailer: “Fewer and fewer districts still practice at-large voting. That is because courts and other decision-makers long have recognized that discriminatory methods of election, like at-large voting, enhance the discrimination that communities of color experience because of socioeconomic and other disparities in life opportunities between Black and white communities” (emphasis added to the language used on the mailer).

A University of Houston white paper published in 2018 says, “At-large elections have been employed when ruling majorities attempt to emphasize the corporate identity of particular jurisdictions and to suppress partisan or ethnic factionalism… Work in political science broadly illustrates that substantive representation is most common in AL (at-large) systems for the wealthiest and most connected in the community.” The same paper says, “Since the 1960s SM (single-member) districts have been the method of choice for most local elections because they enable smaller, geographically situated communities to send their own representatives to larger legislative assemblies. SM systems provide the benefits of localized democracy.”

In Alachua County, the incumbents want to return to at-large voting to stay in power. In other areas, like southwest Florida, Republicans prefer at-large voting for the same reason. Both parties have favored at-large voting when they have a clear majority and fear the other party might win a district and offer an opposing view, even if it’s not enough to change the result of commission votes.

Interest groups are also divided based on political convenience. As stated above, the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund prefers single-member districts and claims “at-large methods of election are often discriminatory.” The NAACP Alachua County Branch, however, opposes single-member districts for the Alachua County Commission, possibly because it would be difficult to draw a district that would ensure an African American representative. In October 2021, County Commissioner Chuck Chestnut said, “Well, when you talk about single-member districts, it has to be a large concentration of African-Americans or Hispanics or what have you, or Asians in an area to make single-member districts work. But you can’t do that in Alachua County. You can’t even do that with African-Americans in Alachua County.” African Americans make up less than 21% of the population of Alachua County, so how do at-large elections that dilute their vote benefit their interests? Arguably, if any single district has more than 21% black voters, then single-member districts will give them a stronger voice in county government.

If you don’t want to be a blind political partisan, consider the broader principle of local representation: If you favor at-large districts, so everyone in the county gets to vote for every commissioner, what is the limiting principle? Since commissioners are supposed to reside in a specific district and represent it, why should voters in other districts get to weigh in on who represents the voters in that district? Should residents of surrounding counties also get to vote for our county commissioners since the policies also affect them? Should everyone in the county get to vote for Gainesville City Commissioners? Should we get to vote for every state representative and senator? Should Georgia and Alabama residents get to vote for Florida’s state representatives?

The point of single-member districts is to have the representatives of each district represent the specific views of the constituents in that district, not the county as a whole. The commission would have five people representing five different areas of the county (thus allowing for the possibility of a more diverse commission) to ensure the interests of all five districts are considered, not just the majority viewpoint of the county. That’s the difference between representative government and pure democracy. That is what the nation’s founders intended, as we mentioned in a December 2021 column:

In Federalist 10, James Madison specifically says the purpose of representative government is “to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country.” He specifically warned against forms of popular government that allow the “overbearing majority” to sacrifice “both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” He also wrote that “by enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests.” He said “a greater variety of parties” provides security “against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest.”

In a single-member system, each commissioner is accountable to a smaller number of electors. By focusing only on their own districts, they will be more likely to present concerns of “lesser interests” (i.e., minority views) that are currently ignored by commissioners who are elected at-large. That’s not a partisan position, as we argued in an October 2022 column. In a letter to the editor, Dan Richman made “the progressive populist case for single-member districts.” Every office in the state (city, county, school board, legislature) should use single-member districts. At-large voting should be reserved for offices that cover an entire region, not just a district, like mayor, governor, and cabinet positions.

While arguing for at-large voting, the incumbent county commissioners and their allies make appeals to “saving our democracy” and “everybody having a voice,” but if you pay attention, you see how cynical this really is. Essentially, they want to keep voting on the issue until they get the result that they want. At the same time, they’re saying that voters are easily manipulated, uninformed rubes who fell for disinformation.

Finally, some argue that this won’t change anything, but we disagree. For one thing, candidates will be forced to campaign on issues that matter to their districts instead of appeasing the progressive activists in the Duck Pond. Campaigns will be less expensive because they focus on a smaller, more geographically concentrated electorate compared to the entire county. This may encourage more candidates to run, increasing the choices for voters.

Secondly, many local issues are not simply red versus blue, one political party against another. Two commissioners from the same political party answering to different electorates can disagree on the same issue. There is value in having a dissenting voice on the dais and requiring commissioners to argue for their policies instead of voting unanimously with no discussion, as frequently happens with the current commission. All commissioners have the ability to ask questions, bring up issues that matter to their constituents, and request that items be placed on the agenda. This could be more effective than dozens of public comments restricted to three minutes each.

Bottom line: Voters approved moving to single-member districts in 2022; vote “no” to show the county commission we meant it.

---

School District “One Mill” Referendum
Our recommendation: No
Ballot language:

Shall the Alachua County School District’s existing one mill ad valorem tax be renewed, beginning July 1, 2025 and ending four years later on June 30, 2029, for necessary operating expenses to fund school nurses; music, art and drama programs; school library programs; school counseling programs; band and chorus programs; academic magnets; career technical programs; and to update classroom technology, with oversight by an independent citizens’ committee?

Money is fungible, so it’s easily diverted to other purposes. Anyone old enough to remember when the Florida Lottery was approved knows that promises of special money dedicated for education simply freed up existing education money to be spent elsewhere. The same is true of the One Mill funds, which have allowed the School Board of Alachua County to fund their true priorities.

At their September 11 Special Meeting, the School Board admitted that the district charged 100% of the statutorily allowable labor costs to the One Mill funds. Despite this, they also had to use Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds to shore up the General Fund. This year, they’re transferring $10.5 million out of capital outlay funds to the general fund to shore up budget gaps. Read any article about the School Board members discussing the budget and ask yourself if these people should be trusted to spend your money wisely.

The reason the Alachua County School District needs an additional one mill tax is because the dysfunctional Alachua County School Board has all sorts of priorities that don’t involve education in the traditional sense of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Instead, they create new administrative positions, make LGBTQ+ History Month proclamations, hire consultants to lead a rezoning effort that has stalled, ensure that grooming books are available in the libraries (Melissa, A is for Activist), and fight the Newberry charter conversion.

Don’t fall for the typical “it’s for the children” argument. The School Board of Alachua County has a proven record of mismanaging the resources entrusted to them. They should be forced to go back to basics and put the money into classrooms instead of layers of administrators in the district office. The positions that are now paid under the One Mill used to be part of the general fund, and districts without a One Mill tax have the programs that are funded here by the One Mill; don’t just accept the scare tactics coming from the district and the teachers’ union about what will happen if the tax does not pass.

---

GRU Authority (City of Gainesville voters only)
We recommend: No
Ballot language:

Shall the City of Gainesville charter be amended to delete Article VII, eliminating the governor-appointed Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority and its appointed administrator that manage, operate and control the City of Gainesville’s local public utilities, and placing that responsibility with the elected city commission and charter officer; and eliminating limitations on the government services contribution and utility directives, as proposed by Ordinance No. 2024-448?

HB 1645 amended the city charter to put GRU under the GRU Authority rather than the city commission.

GRU CEO Ed Bielarski’s letter to the editor provides some history of the Gainesville City Commission’s abuses of GRU over the last 20 years. The most notable was the use of the general fund transfer to fund City projects while GRU’s debt mounted and its credit rating was downgraded.

In an April 2023 column, I explained the economics that justify public ownership of a utility: government knows the cost structure and can set the market-efficient price while subsidizing power from general taxes to ensure solvency of the utility. The City of Gainesville turned that upside down with GRU and abused its monopoly position just like an unregulated, privately-owned utility would. Rather than benefiting from a publicly-owned utility, GRU customers have been subjected to some of the highest rates in the state in order to enrich City coffers.

The best solution would have been to put GRU under the Florida Public Service Commission (which regulates investor-owned utilities) for 5 to 10 years or until GRU’s debt situation improved. The PSC would limit how much the City of Gainesville could raise rates to fund their limitless desire for a larger general fund transfer. Instead, our legislators opted for a governor-appointed independent board, the GRU Authority.

Like the at-large ballot initiative, this one has fueled lawsuits on both sides, from the GRU Authority to prevent the City from taking back control, from the City to fight HB1645, and from activists who want to return control back to the City (Gainesville Residents United, Nath Doughtie, and others).

It’s important to understand that the ballot referendum would not revert the City’s charter to its previous form; it does not restore the GRU General Manager Charter Officer position that prevously reported directly to the City Commission and ran the utility. If the referendum passes, GRU’s manager will report to an unspecified Charter Officer and would default to the City Manager. In April, City Attorney Daniel Nee said this was specifically because the City didn’t want the voters to decide based on their opinion of the current City Manager: Nee said, “Part of the consideration was not to mislead anyone, to put personalities in place… There won’t be this City Manager always.”

Although the Authority has not reduced electric rates, rates were kept flat for the fiscal year beginning October 1; the City Commission would have increased electric rates by 3% and wastewater rates by 5%, in accordance with their July 21 resolution to raise rates every year through 2027.

GRU’s present financial malaise was caused by 20 years of mismanagement by the Gainesville City Commission. We should give the GRU Authority a little more time to fix the problem.

---

High Springs charter amendments (City of High Springs voters only)
We recommend: Yes
Four ballot questions:

• Shall the City’s corporate boundary be updated to that of the present-day boundary and provide for the ability of the City to change its boundary as prescribed by law?
• Shall the City’s Charter be amended to allow for electronic advertisement of public notices in the event the City has followed the requirements of Fla. Stat. 50.0311 and require five weeks of online publication in the event of electronic advertisement?
• Shall the City’s Charter be updated to require commissioners and charter officers to assert they are not precluded from holding office pursuant to Article VI, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution prior to taking office and to allow the City Commission to make supplemental appropriations or reductions and to require the City Manager to inform the City Commission when revenues will be insufficient to meet appropriation amounts?
• Shall the City’s Charter be amended to update the names of public parks and add the Sports Complex to the list of publicly owned lands?

These amendments are uncontroversial and mostly bring the charter into alignment with current statutes, city boundaries, and lists of publicly owned lands.