GOP’s Pozzuoli: A Second Opinion On The Constitutional Amendments
Earlier today, Democrat Angelo Castillo posted on Browardbeat.com his recommentations on the Constitutional Amendments on Tuesday’s ballot.
Below is the views on the same amendments by one of Broward’s leading Republicans, Ed Pozzuoli.
XXXXX
October 29, 2010
Navigating the Amendments on the November Ballot:
A Guide from Ed Pozzuoli, president of Tripp Scott
Next week, Florida’s citizens will have the opportunity to shape Florida’s future by voting on several important amendments.
Below is a summary of these proposed changes and a recommendation from Ed Pozzuoli about how the voters should cast their ballots.
No. 1 CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE VI, SECTION 7
Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirement
Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.
Ed’s View:
Recommendation is a lukewarm YES. Should this pass there would no longer be matching state monies for campaigns. Sounds like a good idea but candidates who opted to take state matching dollars also agreed to campaign spending limits. I lean yes, since the only benefit of spending limits are easily worked around by both political parties.
No. 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3, ARTICLE XII, SECTION 31
Homestead Ad Valorem Tax Credit for Deployed Military Personnel
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.
Ed’s View:
YES—this provides an extra tax benefit to members of our military. Enough said.
No. 4 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE II, SECTION 7
Referenda Required for Adoption and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans
Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions.
The amendment’s impact on local government expenditures cannot be estimated precisely. Local governments will incur additional costs due to the requirement to conduct referenda in order to adopt comprehensive plans or amendments thereto. The amount of such costs depends upon the frequency, timing and method of the referenda, and includes the costs of ballot preparation, election administration, and associated expenses. The impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.
Ed’s View:
BIG NO——-this is a JOB KILLER. The costs of current regulations as set forth by local and state government are already high. Our local economy is dependent on development and construction. Unemployment in the construction industry is already in excess of 25%.—this amendment if passed would make matters worse.
No. 5 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE III, SECTION 21
Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting
Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.
Ed’s View:
BIG NO——this amendment and its companion amendment 6 would cost the State of Florida big money in litigation. Redistricting would be resolved in the courts as opposed to the legislature. If passed, many of the minority seats in Congress and in the State would be lost. We would lose the gains in minority representation Florida has benefited from over the last 10-20 years.
No. 6 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE III, SECTION 20
Standards for Legislature to follow in Congressional Redistricting
Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State Government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.
Ed’s View:
No —- See above
No. 8 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ARTICLE IX, SECTION 1, ARTICLE XII, SECTION 31
Revision of the Class Size Requirements for Public Schools
The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students. This amendment specifies that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment, ad schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
Ed’s View:
YES—-if this fails the cost to comply would bankrupt the State and Local School Boards. If passed, class sizes would remain low, but local school districts would have some needed flexibility so that they could minimize the cost compliance.
(Ed Pozzuoli is one of the most influential Republicans in Broward County.
He is a native New Yorker proving some of them are not Democrats. A graduate of the University of Miami, he was president of the prestigious Iron Arrow Honor Society. I went to UM and I can assure you that this is a big deal.
Pozzuoli was a county attorney and then ran his own Broward law firm. He was also Broward’s GOP chair, was a member of the Bush recount legal team and handled the reapportionment litigation for the Florida Senate in 2002. He is scheduled to handle the reapportionment for the Senate again this cycle.
A accomplished trial attorney, Pozzuoli is the managing partner of the GOP law firm Tripp Scott. His wife, Gina, is also a lawyer and is a member of the Judicial Nomination Commission in Broward….By Buddy Nevins )
October 31st, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Of course Eddie is against Amendments 5 and 6: because it would break the GOP gerrymandering stranglehold on drawing the district lines, which ensures the GOP gets the most seats possible. Eddie is right that adopting of these two amendments will ensure litigation: because Eddie and his GOP cohorts plan to file the lawsuits to try blocking these reform amendments.
Vote YES on 5 and 6! It ensures the fairest district lines possible, drawn by a non-partisan committee which must recognize political (city/country) boundaries and draw the straightest and most logical district lines possible. That’s why the NAACP, League of Women Voters … and even a hardcore conservative like Allen West have said VOTE YES on 5 & 6.
October 31st, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Just for my personal education, can you point out the sections, clauses, paragraphs or portions of either the U. S. or State constitution that mentions “the minority seats in Congress and in the State?”
I didn’t think so.
You are exactly right — if the legislature can’t fix the problem, leave it to the judiciary. SOMEBODY has to uphold the people’s will.
October 31st, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Amendment 5 & 6 will not cost anything more in litigation than what it already costs every 10 years when the legislature has done it in the past. (Which everyone expects anyhow.)
If the legislature fails to draw a proper district, then the court will do it. Maybe Ed doesn’t remember how the court has been involved in the past.
October 31st, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Ed and the GOP can in writing say that they oppose 5 and 6 because of their concern for minorities…ha ha ha thud
October 31st, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Since when has the GOP been worried about minority representation?
October 31st, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Since when has the GOP been worried about minority representation?
—
I believe millionaires and billionaires are both minorities the GOP strives to represent.
The rest of us, not so much.
November 1st, 2010 at 7:58 am
Let me revise my comment above:
When, since the 1870s, has the GOP been worried about minority representation?
November 1st, 2010 at 8:27 am
Buddy,
Are you going to mention that Tripp Scott represents the Senate for redistricting?
Ed has no choice but to argue against 5 and 6.
FROM BUDDY: It is mentioned.
November 1st, 2010 at 9:56 am
Dear Friends:
Let me just say that even when Ed Pozzuoli and I disagree on an issue of public policy not one moment goes by when we fail to consider each other friends, fail to respect each other’s views or doubt each other’s sincere interest in the betterment of our community.
Democrats and Republicans can and perhaps should disagree intellectually on certain issues without ever becoming uncivil or disagreeable. Unfortunately, that’s a value that too many of us have lost. The job of our leaders is to confront disagreement and overcome it, never to succumb to it or become the captive of disagreeable gridlock.
Leaders master their disagreements. They work through those issues and form consensus where they can. Leaders do not to allow unresolved conflicts to master them or cause resentments.
Ed understands all this. It’s one of the reasons he is so well respected and a big part of what makes him a gentleman and a statesman.
Even when we disagree he has my respect and he should have yours also. Regards,
Angelo
November 1st, 2010 at 10:21 am
what’s wrong with millions in costs of litigation??
-A lawyer
November 1st, 2010 at 11:55 am
AMENDMENTS
State #1
Repeal of Public Campaign Financing Requirements NO
State #2
Homestead Ad Velorem Tax Credit for Deployed Military Personnel YES
State #4
Referenda Required For Adoption and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans NO
State #5 Standards For Legislature To Follow in Legislative Redistricting
YES
State #6 Standards For Legislature To Follow in Congressional Redistricting
YES
State #8 Revision of Class Size Requirements NO
Non Binding Statewide Referendum
Calls for a change of the U.S. Constitution requiring the Federal Budget to be Balanced
NO
November 1st, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Buddy
What are we to imply from your use of a black and white picture of Ed Pozzuoli? Republicans lack color or that they are scary?
Just making light of the picture since it seems so vogue to raise an issue with the use of a black and white photo.
FROM BUDDY: The black and white picture is from Tripp Scott’s website.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Buddy, I agree with Mr. Ahearn. I mean, you reamed out Mardi Cohen for using a distorted black and white picture of her opponent for political reasons.
You on the other hand go so far as to make Mr. Pozzuoli look pale, pasty and chubby in this picture for political purposes.
You should be ashamed.
FROM BUDDY:
I am not ashamed.
Ed obviously likes the photo since it is on his law firm’s website.
However, I always try to be responsive to my readers. So I changed it.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Buddy:
Please accept my sincere apologies. I didn’t realize you weren’t actually distorting Mr. Pozzuoli’s picture to make him look chubby and pale.
The color photo is proof positive.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Buddy
You know my post was in jest due to the recent controversy over the use of different types of photos. Ed is a great guy and looks great in color or black and white.
November 1st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Thank you Angelo–the respect runs both ways.
To–What would Jeebus do?–thanks for making me laugh.
Ed
FROM BUDDY: Ed, I think you look good in black and white, or color.