MAYOR WRONGLY ELECTS TO “WORKSHOP” BENCHES
Faced with a rather large audience, almost all of which appeared to be opposed to changing our sign ordinance to allow advertising on benches and bus shelters, our crafty Mayor Michael Yakes announced at the beginning of the Dec. 5 City Council Meeting that the second reading of the revised ordinance would not be heard that night. He announced that the matter needed more study and would be the subject of a workshop at some indeterminate date.
At the Public Session which immediately followed the Mayor’s pronouncement, many expressed their concern that the workshop should not be held in the morning at some place other than the City Hall because many concerned citizens would not be able to attend. Others were concerned that the Council, traditionally does not allow citizen input at workshops.
Because the benches ordinance would not be heard at the meeting, people were free to give their views at the Public Session and they certainly did. About 10 people spoke on the issue and with the exception of the president of the sponsoring Lion’s Club, all spoke in opposition.
Leading the opposition, was David Hastings, CPA who spoke on behalf of The Planning and Zoning Advisory Board, of which he is a member, who opposed the ordinance on a 3-2 vote. He recited a list of reasons the P & Z Advisory Board opposed the change in the sign ordinance. He encouraged the Council Members to read the Board’s findings before moving forward on the second reading vote. The City Council voted to change the ordinance on a 5-0 vote without even being aware of the P & Z Advisory Board’s decision. (See prior articles, “SAY NO THANKS TO THE FREE BENCHES AND MINI-BILLBOARDS.” BY Margarete Tober and “CITY VOLUNTEERS GET SLAP IN FACE…AGAIN!” by yours truly.)
The Mayor’s decision to cut off debate by moving the item to an as yet to be scheduled “workshop” was dead wrong in three ways. First, we have a Weak Mayor/Manager Council form of government with a Charter that specifically prohibits the Mayor from setting the Agenda of the City Council Meeting. Under our Charter it is the City Manager who is authorized to set the agenda. By arbitrarily removing the article from the agenda without consensus approval or vote, he was, in fact setting the agenda without authority to do so. The proper way to get the same result would be to allow a motion from a fellow Council Member, say Michele King, the Council Member most supportive of the workshop idea, to move to table the article and set up a workshop to study the issues. If a majority of the Council approved such a motion, (and that was not certain), then the workshop idea could be accomplished properly.
The second and more important problem with the Mayor’s arbitrary move is that the time to do due diligence is before you vote on the first reading not afterwards and then only in response to a public outcry. As one observer said, “The Mayor apparently saw a shark fin in the water and decided to make a move.” Maybe he didn’t think he had the votes and simply wanted to stall until the proponents had time to re-group.
The third and possibly the most damning issue with the Mayor’s decision is that the Mayor did not disclose that he is a member of the Lion’s Club, the local beneficiary of the benches program and seek an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not he was operating in a conflict of interest. While this issue pertains to the change of a City Ordinance, it is a condition precedent to entering into a contract with the Lion’s Club as the local sponsoring agency. In fact the Lion’s Club contract has been openly discussed in front of the Council in public session. A suggestion by the attorney for the advertising/bench company for whom the Lion’s Club will be agent, in the drafting of the new ordinance was received by our prior Interim Attorney Tom Minkoff back in September.
It is also interesting to note that Council Member Michele King who voted for the ordinance change in first reading is also a member of the Lions Club. She too did not disclose her position with the Lion’s Club, nor did she seek an opinion from the Interim City Attorney as to whether or not she was operating in a conflict of interest.
We believe that there is a conflict in that the whole matter was presented to the Council by the Lion’s Club with many Lion’s Club shirts in evidence. Unfortunately it is the modus operandi of the advertising/bench people to use the good name and image of local civic organizations to get controversial sign ordinances and contracts through cities that would not even give the advertising/sign people houseroom. There is a direct financial benefit to the Lion’s Club and we believe this creates the conflict.
In any event, a ruling by our Interim city Attorney is in order before one more step is taken in the bench/bus shelter ordinance matter.
Hi Big Dog:
I share your concern “that we have accurate reporting and publication of news and thoughtful opinion on all matters affecting local government”
I am hoping you will allow me “To provide a voice in local affairs to residents of all sections of the City and to create understanding among various factions in the City”
I am sure what happened to my comments from yesterday but here is the important information for the people of Gulfport to hear in the interest of accurate reporting.
“Let’s be clear”… The Gulfport Lions Club has no interest in being involved with any political shenanigans.
We are a bit different from many other clubs in Gulfport as a service club we are a voluntary non-profit organization where members meet regularly to perform charitable works either by direct hands-on efforts or by raising money for other organizations in our community. A service club is defined first by its service mission.
It is interesting how the facts can be presented in such a way, to take our offer to provide benches, help create awareness for local service clubs, and pay for it with local business advertising, to look like some great conspiracy theory. The plan was to have 7 out of every 10 benches present our local service clubs in a favorable light. The last thing we want is for this to be anything but a win-win-win for the people and the businesses of the city as well as all service clubs in Gulfport. The spirit for which this was presented seems to be lost, and it appears a lot of conclusions may have been mistakenly drawn. As it has been pointed out, if implemented incorrectly, it would be detrimental to the quaint ambiance of our lovely community. If done with care and thought this will be a positive for all in our community.
Rob Case-I was unavailable to put up your comments from yesterday. We have elected to cull out SPAM or blatantly offensive material due to the nature of our readership, so sometimes there is a delay in comments getting posted. Sorry.
The Gulfport Lions Club has been and is deemed by almost everyone to be a major community asset. It is unfortunate that the club should be involved in what has become a controversy. The controversy does not involve the club except where we indicate that the club was unknowingly being used by part of the sign industry to secure local legislation to allow a mini-billboard campaign in Gulfport. Only an organization of high repute would be chosen for such a purpose.
We know the intent of the club is to provide a public service, but the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance goes far beyond that in allowing all sorts of bad things in Gulfport. That is probably why the Planning and Zoning Board found against the amendment. If the Council chose to accept their advice at the first reading, there would have been little or no controversy.
Red flags went up all over the place when the Council voted 5-0 to overturn the P & Z Board’s advisory opinion. Another red flag went up when the sponsors used a local State Representative to smooth the way with the unsuspecting local pols.
There is no big benefit to anyone in this except the advertising/bench mfg. principals. It must be a potentially huge benefit given the trouble they are taking to ram this thing through.
We wish the Lion’s Club well and will do what we can in the future to help wherever we can.
Mr. Case – I echo Big Dog’s comments regarding the local Lions Club and I believe I have stated that in previous posts. The issue is not the local Lions Club. Just to recapitulate, the issue for me is essentially threeefold:
One of my primary issues is the notion of writing an ordinance in response to or for the benefit of one person or one group. I don’t care if it is the Lions or MADD or the Nat’l Bead Collectors Assoc., etc.–it is not right. Jim O’reilly, Fred Metcalf the Mayor and Michele King have indicated that residents are confused and getting ahead of themselves or worrying about what will happen post ordinance. Well yes we are because Fred introduced the ordinance to the P&Z Board as being in response to a request from a “3rd party vendor”. Jim introduced the ordinance at the Council meeting as being in response to a request from a “service organization”. You yourself are talking about what will be, yet none of that is in the ordinance, however, it does indicate anticipaton of a contract, contary to what Ms. King, Mr. OReilly, md Mr. Metcalf state. Further if it is just all about the Ordinance and not in anticipation of a contract nor just for the Lions, then why are Lions’ members and Mr. Kriseman attending the Council meeting and speaking in support of the ordinance? We know Rep Kriseman likes to come to Gulfport as Private Citizen Kriseman fairly often to peddle stuff to the city, but I doubt he is looking for a bench to sit on while he is here. We have no sushi restaurants so something tells me Mr.Moos wasn’t just making a goodwill call and looking to sit on a bench while waiting to take a bus back to Tampa. Some of your members have stated that they didn’t approach the City, rather it was the FL Lions.Further, associates of the City indicate it was Rep Kriseman acting as Private Citizen Kriseman and Mr. Moos that made the offer. It’s all just a little weird don’t you think?
My second issue is the notion of allowing the public right- of- ways to be commercialized. If we do that, what public property will be commercialized next? Police cars? Fire trucks? Maybe put an advertising banner on the wall behind the Mayor in Council Chambers? What the local Lions intend / view as a do good offer is from my perspective a guise by the “service providor” to create revenue for a private advertising entity.
My third issue and most important is that Gulfport doesn’t need to be littered with mini-billboards polluted with advertising. Our city is too small, too quaint and cozy for that. Putting the benches on a six lane road is one thing–it is not Gulfport. If we need benches, there are other ways to procure them. If the local Lions’ need $upport then we as a community should band together and help, if you want our help. Writing an ordinance just for the Lions or the “service providor” to engage in business is not the way to do it.
Gulfport also don’t need mini-billboards on bus shelters. The Lions state that they don’t wish to do that. Perhaps not, but that is not what the ordinance says. Mr. Moos and Rep. Kroseman acting as Private Citizen Kriseman have also stated that the bench company is toatally responsible for the installation, maintenance and removal of the benches. Again, that reflects anticipation of a contract and further the ordinance doesn’t state that. There is a clause in the ordinance that places certain responsibility on a property owner if they agree to have a bench placed on their property.
Fortunately or unfortunately an effort to learn more about the “bench project” raised alot of questions. As I indicated in an earlier article it is all out on the internet. IMO, some of the cause for suspect, created by the info, could have been alleviated had Mr. Moos and Rep. Kriseman acting as Private Citizen Kriseman just been forthright about their involvement. I read the three page letter Mr. Moos sent to City Council and he never addressed his involvement with The Rocker Corp. nor his or Rocker’s relationship to Metropolitan Advertising. In fact he and Kriseman have yet to answer a simple question: what is the name of the bench company? Why?
The members of the P&Z board that voted against the ordinance asked very good questions, that no one could answer:
How many benches / shelters are needed?
Have citizens complained that there aren’t enough benches / shelters?
Would this issue have been pursued had the “vendor” or “service organization” not approached the city?
Has anyone asked PSTA for more benches or shelters? Has PSTA denied to provide benches / shelters?
Is the plan to replace the current PSTA benches with the mini-billboard benches?
If the ordinance wasn’t written in response to a specific organization, then why is their consultant writing the language for the amended ordinance? (see attached)
Why did the consultant state the change was needed BEFORE the contract could be approved? Obviously there is an anticipation.(Lawyers don’t typically spend time on a project for naught.)
Under normal circumstances wouldn’t a request for benches / shelters be put out to bid?
Last, who will buy the advertising? Some in the Lions have indicated it will be limited to local businesses and no chains. The ordinance doesn’t say that and while I am not a lawyer, I find it difficult to believe that such a constraint can be written into the ordinance. That presumes someone will always uphold that aspect in the contract. You know that will not happen when different players become involved.
I’ve spoken with some of our local businesses and they have indocated they have no interest, don’t want to see mini – billboards nor can they afford this type of advertising. The other aspect of no chains being allowed….does that mean the Whitco the State Farm agent can’t advertise? How about Advanced Auto Parts or BOA which houses the Chamber of Commerce?
The list of questions goes on and on and that is why I and others are suspect. So while I thank you and the local Lions for an offer perhaps well intended , it concerns me to know that this matter appears to have been “fast-tracked” in defference to one organization with no regard for basic business protocol / due dilligence.
Ive been following this a bit but I cannot understand some of your language. “Unsuspecting local pols” – are they really that dumb?? “used a state rep to smooth the way” – isnt the state rep a lawyer? Thats what the last article said. Im not defending the guy but not sure why it matters that hes a state rep? “controversy”…ive yet to see anything that rises to controversy. Except when you guys mention it. Im a new resident so maybe im naive?
Big Dog
I agree with your opposition to the bench plan, but I have to wonder why David Hastings spoke on this issue as a representative of the Planning & Zoning Board? Could it be that the Chairman of the P&Z Board, Jeri Reed, was of a different opinion? Is it not a matter of protocol that the Chairman should speak for the Board?
What does it matter that he is a CPA, does that give him some special authority to speak out of school? If you are to be critical on the formalities of this Government, I should think that you might also want to be critical of the Board Members that you yourself serve with. If you were to be critical of other department’s full disclosure I would expect that you would hold yourself to the standard that you define.
I see no mention of your appointment and membership to the Planning & Zoning Board. I see no mention that you also voted against the plan. Of course my eyes are not what they used to be.
I also see no mention that at the time of this meeting David Hastings was running for a Council seat for Ward 1. Did you not know this? Was it not pertinent to the argument, where being a CPA was somehow? Are you promoting his candidacy? If so, should that factoid also be revealed to the public? Why did he lead the opposition according to you, when we have not heard a word from him until now? As far as I’m concerned, Margarete Tober is the Champion of this cause and Mr. Hastings actions are tantamount to an egg trying to lay a political chicken. If you meant that he spoke first on the issue, then that would be a clearer statement to the reader. Speaking first was at the selection of the Mayor, was Mr. Hastings leadership just a random selection, or did he make arrangements with the Mayor in his Cigar filled room on Gulfport Boulevard?
I’m concerned that you might be using this issue now to shine a positive light on a candidate that you serve with on the Planning & Zoning Board. I mean if we are going to be cynical of every action, word and inference of our Government, maybe we should examine who exactly you are serving with and what else this candidate for City Council represents besides the anti-bench movement and the AICPA.
Aside from my minuscule concerns I thank you for your article, it is very informative.
2iview-Thanks for your comment. Vice Chairperson Leopold was in the room when Mr. Hastings spoke. They appeared to be together. Chairperson Reed was not present. My assumption is that Mr. Leopold sanctioned Mr. Hastings’ speech. Mr. Hastings was speaking for the majority decision. Any other opinion is not the Board’s opinion if we are to believe in majority rule.
I was not present at the meeting in question. If I were I would have less to say about the proceedings.
At this point we are not endorsing any candidate for any office in Gulfport. You can be sure that we shall, however and you’ll know it when we do.
Let face it we’re stuck with a government that we do not trust, that seems the heart of the matter. Metcalf, Reed, Yates, Ryerson, King, Worthington, Henderson could all fall into the sea and I doubt that the brain trust of our collective will be diminish.
Mtober has them nailed, caught in her cross-hairs and in a way it’s good. I mean I didn’t know the Lions were in trouble and I would support them as soon as this issue is addressed properly. If we need a bench, buy a bench and raffle it off to a sponsor, who could have a small plaque that expresses gratitude.
6 inch plaque that says
“”This beautiful bench is dedicated
to , Margarete Tober”"
The Grateful City of Gulfport Florida
two roads diverged in a wood, and I –
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
2iview
We may not have it all together..
..but together we have it all.
Gulfport Watchdogs
—-Big Dog, I doubt that Jeri Reed dispatched the Vice Chairman to speak on her behalf, or Mr. Hastings by proxy. Nice try though.
I’m delighted to see that your not involved in that P&Z vote, and taking this stand. Not that,,, it shouldn’t be shouted from the highest sand dune, just not from that position. I suspect that with you in the room our Planning Nightmare would have gone though a thoughtful analysis.
I’m confident that you’ll do your homework, we need strong ethics in our leadership for Ward 1 with the strength to lead the room. Good sense and respect among their peers is the hallmark of a leader. Look carefully I know… you’ll know it when you see it.
http://burningissues.org/car-www/legal/MA-const.html
Question???
If some members of the council are affiliated with the lions club; and if the lions club may receive some sort of benefit because of the benches, shouldn’t those same council members disclose their affiliation with the lions club?
Florida statute 112.3143 (3)(a)
“No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss; which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he or she is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained, other than an agency as defined in s. 112.312(2); or which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the public officer. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the officer’s interest in the matter from which he or she is abstaining from voting and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his or her interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the minutes.”
Not sure if this would really pertain to a non-profit or not. Also not sure exactly what, if any benefit the lions club is getting. But why not publicly disclose the affiliation just to show your not pulling a fast one?
@ Nate Currier — Welcome to Gulfport!!
I think I have provided my reasons for being against this ordinance in fairly great detail. In summary:
1. The City shouldn’t write ordinances in defference to an individual person or group, particularly when there is no evidence of basic due dilligence.
2. The City shouldn’t commercialize the public right of ways.If that is done, what will be commercialized next?
3. We don’t need a bunch of ugly mini- billboards scattered helter, skelter throughout the city.
Gulfport is a quaint, cozy community once known to be a small fishing village with the moniker of “Gateway to the Gulf”. It is a mere 2.5 mi square and has about 12,000 residents. Despite our size we are known as a full service community, being family oriented, tolerant of diversity, having fairly minimal crime, for having affordable housing, for an active artists’ community with numerous related activities, for a busy downtown with a variety of restaurants & shops, for a reknowned senior center, for a great marina, for a small open beach, and for being a fairly close knit community. As any city, we have some issues that require attention. HOWEVER, DO WE NOW WANT TO BE KNOWN AS THE LITTLE CITY LITTERED WITH A BUNCH OF UGLY MINI-BILLBOARDS? I and others think not! We need to work to continue to beautify Gulfport not uglify it!
It is my affinity for this city that causes me to be so vocal in opposing this ordinance. The purported “controversy” stems from the peripheral issues and how this all came about. That too, unfortunately, is a hallmark of this small town and small town politics
KEEP GULFPORT FUNKY, NOT JUNKY!!
Watchman, I think you’re correct in the need for disclosure, but …(this is going to be difficult) don’t think that their nondisclosure is a malicious act.
They get a sense of confidence when faced will familiar people and requests. They can relax and be like community players when helping out a local guy/gal or organizations. They like that part of governance. They’re quick to judge, to waive concerns, because it’s only a local guy or a friend. I don’t want to take that away from them, truly, but if it doesn’t workout they should be just as ready to correct it.
The problem arises when they forget that there are legal responsibilities attached to every decision and there are real consequences to injustice, indifference or negligence. In the case of the benches they were far too quick to judge, they didn’t do the work, they didn’t see why the P&Z voted against it. Of course they could have seen that the Chairman voted for it, and that was the signal to disregard the P&Z findings. I’m sure there are nuances in the room that go undetected.
I suspect the Council is not keeping up with the workload, they are depending on their Staff who is not doing a very thorough job, and it shows. The council is taking the slack for a lazy staff. The work product that Mtober has produced should have been in the P&Z packet. This goes to the failure of Fred Metcalf’s office once again.
I’ll bet you when it all comes to light, that the fight Al Davis is fighting will point to the same incompetent department heads that brought this bench issue to light. The lack of production and competency in the Department of Community Development is ridicules and directly related to the rising sea of discontent, and again they have a lot of friends in that department who will never pay for their poor work product. The downside of a small community is that everyone knows your nose and owes or barters for goods and services, even in the Planning room, P&Z board and Council. It’s not malicious it’s human, but being a careless human comes with a price.
@Watchman– you are right!! There may be no personal gain but why not just be forthright? Why is that so difficult?
Let’s not get caught up in whether or not Hastings was dispatched to speak on behalf of the P&Z. He enummerated the reasons given for their NO vote,which I think is OK. Let’s just all work to get more people on board to SAY NO TO MINI-BILLBOARDS IN GULFPORT!! I hear the Clerk is trying to schedule the Workshop for 1/12 @ 7pm.
Mtober, the bench deal challenges City Protocol, that we ourselves are faced with every two weeks, while department after department do not adhere.
What I suspect you’ll find at the end of the trail is a lack of protocol throughout the government.
Deals struck in back rooms, cronyism, tit for tat, vote trading and favors from the Mayors Home phone. If you examine these contentious issue where the bleeding never ends you may discover what I have. They cannot explain their actions, they have no compelling arguments so they ignore or protract solution or conclusion counting on winning by attrition.
What can possibly come from a workshop?
Drop the plan entirely. Say NO to any ordinance changes.
If there truly is a need for benches address them one at a time.
That is the only way to control the outcome and retain our public space.
At least concerning this issue they bothered to address the ordinances, thanks to the direction of Kriseman, in my case the just blatantly broke them and made their police department complicit in their crime.
pro·to·col n
1. the rules or conventions of correct behavior on official or ceremonial occasions
2. the rules of correct or appropriate behavior for a particular group of people or in a particular situation
Encarta®