Public Input for Non-Taxpaying Residents of Winter Springs --

was  attacked  on  April  12th,  2004 !

Special Bulletin  !!!!

dais  can't  take  criticism !

            This item passed unanimously as a consent agenda item with NO PUBLIC INPUT, or DISCUSSION by the Commissioners.    That has the DEFINITE appearance that the City Manager had PRIOR approval by the commissioners before he even placed it on the agenda.    It was a CLOSED DOOR deal against the citizens of Winter Springs by this conceited, dictatorial Commission, and their cohort City Manager McLemore.    They don't want citizens to oppose them.    They have deemed the City of Winter Springs as THEIR property !    The City Manager/Commission don't like people who disagree with them !

Not even the Mayor spoke up -- these officials DON'T represent the citizens of Winter Springs !

(By the way -- the above agenda wasn't even published on the City's web site until Friday the 9th --- when City Hall was CLOSED.     PFGG's publisher sent them an email stating this fact --- which City Manager McLemore hasn't even had the courtesy to answer.      That's typical of his office ! )

           The City Commission is set to vote on Resolution 2004-12 as drafted by City Attorney Anthony Garganese.    This resolution if passed will limit public input only to taxpayers of the City and only if permission is secured from the presiding officer at any commission meeting.

             After a quick read, this ill-written resolution will have you scratching your heads.     If anything, it will make you wonder how a city attorney can get so overly compensated for putting out such confusing and conflicting garbage.     Oh, that’s right.    We forgot.    The City Attorney works for the most overly compensated City Manager of Central Florida who does nothing all day but spews confusing garbage.

            Resolution 2004-12 relies heavily on the appeal case Rowe v. City of Cocoa for its content and purpose.     Regardless of how poorly the resolution is drafted, and regardless of how much the resolution directly mirrors the City of Cocoa case, the resolution’s premise has dangerous ramifications and overtones.

            How is it that City Attorney Anthony Garganese is so well versed on the Rowe case?    (Let’s get the cat out of the bag right away.)    Would the fact that Garganese is also the City Attorney for the City of Cocoa have anything to do with it?    It's a small world.    And, how convenient too, but for whom we have not figured out yet.

            Riddled with conflicts, the resolution makes you wonder who can or cannot speak and to whom are you begging permission from to do so.     For one thing, definitions of key terms used in the resolution are lacking.     What is a "presiding officer" and who is it in Winter Springs?     No place in the Winter Springs’ City Code of Ordinances is this term defined.     But, take comfort, the term “presiding officer” is defined in the City of Cocoa’s code.

            Why do you have to "secure" the permission from the presiding officer to speak?    How can you do this if you don’t know who it is?     Well, according to the last sentence of Paragraph A in Section 2 of the resolution the presiding officer can’t be the Mayor, or the City Commissioner because it states, “No questions shall be asked of the Mayor or a City Commission member or city official except through the presiding officer.”     Oh by gosh, does the presiding officer have to interpret the question for the City Commission?    Is that what the problem has been for the Commission all these years?

             In his recitation of Rowe v. City of Cocoa, City Attorney Garganese is now over reaching the bounds of this case by not only limiting non-residents from public input but non- taxpayers as well in Resolution 2004-12.     The heart of the Rowe case was non-resident versus resident, not taxpayer versus non-taxpayer. 

            There are many non-taxpayer residents who live and vote in Winter Springs, and most certainly have a direct stake in the City’s business aside from having an opinion on water and sewer.    Of course, we are assuming that non-taxpayers include anyone who does not pay property taxes.     Why are we assuming?    Well, the term “non-taxpayer” is not defined in the resolution or anywhere else in the City Code of Ordinances.    For that matter neither are the terms “interested person” or “resident”.

            Without definition, non-taxpayers to us would include renters of residential lease properties as well as little old Granny Doe living in the backroom of Jane & John Doe’s tax burden Winter Springs home.     According to Section 2, Paragraph D of the drafted resolution, non-taxpayers can be denied the opportunity to make public input if so voted upon by our elected “closed door” Commission.     The only thing non-taxpayers will be allowed to speak on is about their water and sewer bills that don't fit in the un-sealable return envelopes.

            So from our view, based on Section 2, Paragraph D of the resolution, all renters in Winter Springs are about to have their rights trampled on by your Commission.     In our view, this ordinance draws a distinct line between two classes of residents: taxpaying and non-taxpaying.    It allows the Commission to unfairly usurp the ability of one class of people to speak while pandering to another class.    This resolution is not about having orderly meetings, it’s about controlling who can speak to the Commission and who can’t.    And we know who the City Commission and Manager want to quash so that an opposing view cannot be heard. Folks, that’s not democracy the last time we checked.

            So how will the commission tell a taxpayer from a non- taxpayer?    Will the City require all non-taxpayers and/or non-residents to wear armbands to distinguish who they are at commission meetings?     Hmmm.    Where else in history did distinguishing a group of people via armbands, or sitting in the back of a public place occur?

             In Section 2, Paragraph E, we have a serious conflict to the Paragraph D.    In this paragraph it states any resident or taxpayer can approach the gilded dais to speak to The Commissioners Puff N Stuff.    So, WHAT IS IT?    According to this paragraph, now all residents can speak.    But don’t get too excited and forget Paragraph D, since the Commission can vote you right off the speaker’s podium if you are a non-taxpayer speaking about something outside of water and sewer.    Boy, the whole resolution stinks of mental retardation.

            In Paragraph E of Section 2, we are now introduced to a new "City of Cocoa" term that is being imposed on our City.   It is the word “delegations”.   As defined in this paragraph, the whole "delegations" portion of the meeting may be only up to 30 minutes.     Well, we can all forget about making public input now, since we all know Commissioner Martinez routinely uses at least 15 minutes for his droning babble.    Will this resolution apply to Commissioners as well?    It should!

             If this City is so interested in having orderly meetings, it would limit individual commissioners who ramble on during public input, and from their seats.    Hey, what's fair is fair!    Oh, that's right.    This is the City of Winter Springs where the term "fair" does not apply, and where the rules are applied selectively whether you are liked or disliked by individual Commissioners, the Mayor, or the City Manager.     Wasn't there a places like that in the mid 1930's through the mid 1940's?  

            Given all this information, there are a few questions taxpayers and non-taxpayers of this City need to ask themselves.     Why does the City Commission and Manager need Resolution 2004-12?    What are the Mayor Bush, the Commission, City Manager McLemore, and City Attorney Garganese afraid of?     Finally, how much did it cost in taxpayer money to draft this resolution to protect these people’s pompous and inflated egos versus protecting the rights of citizens and allowing Democracy to rule?    

SO  BE  IT !

[ million dollar pool ]        [ homepage ]        [ tiny town blunder ]