Wishner’s vote for City Attorney (Michelson)?

Feren’s campaign manager (Michelson) is now the City Attorney?

Michelson is paid $400,000/year plus to be Sunrise City Attorney?

City Attorney (Michelson) rules there can not be a City of Sunrise resident’s election for Mayor, and Wishner gets the Mayors spot, for almost 2 years by appointment?

Payback?

And Lomelo was corrupt?

Wake up City of Sunrise residents and vote them out starting this March and again in November of 2010!

I would like to have seen the election take place in March as well, but agree or disagree, the law is the law.

Should it be changed? Yes, and even Commissioner Roger Wishner, by his own words, agrees with that. But last time I looked, this is still the USA a Constitutional government and there IS a process.

The very same process that got us into this situation to begin with.

Like it or not, what happened last night was execution of the will of the voters of 1992. And because of that, the Commissioners had no legal choice in the matter.

A perfect example was this:

In 1993, the Condo residents of Sunrise Lakes Phase 2 were adamant that the now existing Home Depot at Sunrise Lakes Blvd and University Drive not be built.

Property rights be damned, according to the Condo leaders the night of the Commission meeting. Commissioner Dan Pearl, stood up and spoke:

“We understand what you want and if we vote with you, we will violate the law. Home Depot will sue the city and win, and then we’ll have no choice.”

“WE WILL LOSE!”

The Commission voted with the demands of the audience. Home Depot sued and won, and with that, all the gains and concessions made went out the window.

Commissioner Joey Scuotto does not agree with last night’s decision and states that he intends to sue for a “Declaratory Judgment.” It’s his right to do so. Will he win? There are so many options that I can’t predict.

Meanwhile, that provision in the charter needs to be changed. Again, by the will of the people, not by the complaints of a vocal few.

Somebody sitting near me shouted “this is a Democracy!” Damned right it is, and voting against the law is not and never should be part of that Democracy.

Use the process and change the law.

With so many issues related and unrelated last night, I am openly calling for a SUNRISE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE to be formed immediately so it can explore the issues raised last night.

On a related note, what I heard near the beginning of the discussion was Steve Feren’s acknowledgement that he was part of the process in drafting the very rule that nullified the Mayoral election. As one of two lawyers sitting on the Commission at that time he should have known better. They both should have.

Malpractice? No, but way too close.

And now Feren is going to be a Judge. I sure as hell hope he has a better command of the law now than he did in 1992.

Sec. 6.05. Regular and Special Elections.
1. (1) Regular Elections. Regular city elections for the purpose of electing members of the City Commission and the Mayor shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of any even numbered calendar year. (I think that they are in transition so the older provision is March for this situation)

and

Sec. 3.05 (f) Succession by Deputy Mayor. A vacancy in the office of Mayor shall also be deemed a vacancy in the City Commission. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor for any reason whatsoever, the Deputy Mayor shall succeed to the office of Mayor until the Mayor’s return if the vacancy is of a temporary nature or until a new Mayor is elected at the next city-wide election that is more than one hundred twenty (120) days in the future.

Normally, when a direct conflict occurs, the later one controls. However, if the two can be read together in a way that eliminates this conflict then they both can be upheld.

In this case, I believe the conflict can be resolved. I believe that you can interpret Sec. 3.05 to occur only when a regular Mayor election is NOT in play, which is not this situation. It would make sense that if the city had an election, not involving the Mayor, that they would not add it to the ballot unless it was more than 120 days. But when it already on the ballot, Sec. 3.05 does not apply.

If someone takes it to court, lets see how they interpret it. Logically, I don’t understand why else that provision would be in the Charter.

By the way, Stuart is just doing his job, and he has a valid opinion that he had nothing in creating this language. He could very well be correct.

FROM BUDDY: Thanks for this very intelligent discussion of the law.
You are right. Indeed, Stuart Michelson may be correct. But as of now, his is just one lawyer’s opinion. That’s why they have courts.