Vote NO on City Amendment !

     We will ALL vote in  just two weeks! Right?

     Probably most importantly, we will decide if President Obama, or former Governor Romney,  should serve as our President for the next four years.........


                      But we will also vote on things that are important  .....

                                    only to us in  ...  Fort Lauderdale!

                                                  Mayor and Commishes

On your ballot, you will see an amendment to the Fort Lauderdale Charter. It will ask if you want to change the City's Charter ( Constitution) to allow for a change in the way we elect our Mayor and Commissioners.

     Vote against it!  ..... 

     The problem with this amendment is that it extends the amount of years that the  Fort Lauderdale Mayors and Commissioners can stay on the Commission!

      Now, the Mayor and Commissioners can serve for 9 years, and that's enough!


     If the Amendment passes, Mayors and Commissioners will be able to serve 12 years!

     Just Vote No !





What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.

  • 10/23/2012 12:59 PM District 4 wrote:
    Tim: waiting for my absentee ballot in the mail and will Vote NO on that amendment. What were they thinking?
    Reply to this
  • 10/23/2012 1:21 PM Steve Glassman wrote:
    Agree, Tim - Vote No.
    1. This Commission did not want the amendment affecting them, but still - does it make any sense to place this on a ballot now and have it take effect in 2018?
    2. The only good part is that it moves the City election to November – when people actually vote!
    3. Getting rid of the primary is ridiculous – you can have multiple candidates running and one wins with maybe 22% of the vote and that’s it – the winner!
    4. Should be two four-year terms, not three.
    5. The City has done nothing to educate the voters on this ballot issue; should have waited and done it right. The conversation at the Commission meetings was rushed and not well thought out in its totality.
    6. Now that this Commission has left 25% of the City without a district Commissioner for four months, perhaps we can look to follow Hallandale Beach's lead. They have a charter question that deals with vacancies on the Commission. When a Commissioner resigns to run for another office, it would allow the city to deem the seat vacant as soon as the Commissioner qualifies for the new office. Now that's good government!
    Reply to this
  • 10/23/2012 1:51 PM Jack Seiler wrote:
    While I always appreciate your advocacy, service, and leadership, I need to clarify a few things with respect to your post.

    The Charter Review Board originally brought a comprehensive election reform amendment forward for consideration by the City Commission. Although the CRB's proposal contained some good suggestions, certain recommendations were not favorably received by the whole City Commission. For one, a few of us (including me) insisted that the longer term and longer term limits not benefit any sitting Mayor or Commissioner, and we made that change. As such, your post should have pointed out that the sitting Mayor and Commissioners can not extend their own term limits. Other changes were also made at our request (some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not), and we then allowed the amended CRB recommendation to go to the voters for their consideration, but I made it clear that I was not a proponent of passage.

    As you know, I served 7 years as a Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioner in Wilton Manors, before moving on to the State House of Representatives. I then served 8 years in the Florida House of Representatives, before term limits forced me to leave that office. I then ran for Mayor of Fort Lauderdale with the full knowledge and understanding that 9 years (3 terms of 3 years each) was the maximum time that I could serve as Mayor of this great city and, thankfully, the voters placed their trust, confidence, and support in my continued public service. Without getting into a long and winding explanation, I support term limits and I specifically support the 9 year maximum term limit here in Fort Lauderdale. It is more than enough time to make this City a better place to live, work, play, visit and raise a family.

    With all that said, I will not be voting for the amendment for several reasons, one of which is the new 12 year term limits.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/24/2012 7:49 AM Constance wrote:
      Thank you, Jack! It's refreshing to have an elected official take a stand. Too many of them are "all over the map," so, thanks for NOT being one of those folks!
      Reply to this
      1. 10/24/2012 10:03 AM the mayor is a flip flopper wrote:
        What is your problem? Please pay attention: the Mayor supported this and voted "YES" to put it on the ballot. Now he is opposed. So, contrary to what you say, he IS all over the map.
        Reply to this
  • 10/23/2012 3:26 PM just vote wrote:
    charter revision committee is 5 appointees
    city population 165,000 more or less

    no to both city amendments on ballot
    we will vote citywide again in march 2015

    yes to state amendments 3 and 4

    Thank You commissioner Tim!
    Reply to this
  • 10/23/2012 6:19 PM Sam wrote:
    YEAH TIM! I totally agree- The President of the United States only gets an 8 year term for God's sake!!!
    Just like when you initiated term limits,I recall your great saying back then " polititions are like dirty diapers- they start to stink if you leave them on too long"!!!
    Reply to this
  • 10/23/2012 7:17 PM John Rodstrom wrote:
    The problem is that in my opinion, the Charter Change is illegal because it
    violates the single subject constitutional requirement. It provides for the
    extension of Commission terms and at the same time moves the City election to
    the November election. It also eliminates the City's runoff election. A voter
    cannot pick and choose from the menu of options. Having been a former City
    Commissioner I favor the longer term but oppose moving the election to November
    and eliminating the runoff. I will be voting against this. That said, I do not
    blame the Mayor or any of the Commissioners for placing this on the ballot since
    this proposal emanated from the Charter Revue Board, which proposed the change.
    In the end I get to exercise my right to vote and I will be voting No!

    John Rodstrom
    Former City Commissioner
    Reply to this
    1. 10/23/2012 7:50 PM Rodstrom fan wrote:
      Thank you Mayor Rodstrom. Your wisdom is not limited to bond, fiscal and budget matters. The citizens of Ft Ldle will defeat this.
      Reply to this
    2. 10/23/2012 8:10 PM Jack Seiler wrote:
      Thanks for your input and insight.
      Reply to this
  • 10/23/2012 7:39 PM former with cred wrote:
    Good afternoon. I hope you enjoying another day in paradise.

    I previously contacted you about my concerns about the proposed charter amendment regarding elections and terms.

    Regardless of the merits of the proposal, it does not seem that the voters have been made adequately aware of of such a major change, which is contrary to over 100 years of Fort Lauderdale experience and history, and which could have serious ramifications.

    My favorite theories have always been "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "beware of unintended consequences". This violates both.

    In my view, the amendment opens wide the door for partisan elections. If you were the average voter and received a campaign mailing (probably from a shadowy election committee) covered with photos of the candidate with either Romney or Obama, what else are you going to think about? (Maybe the city should just switch to partisan elections; they work so well elsewhere....)

    But what most concerns me is that this issue has been put on an already-crowded ballot in perhaps the most contentious election in recent history. How many people who cast a ballot will really have any understanding what they are voting on?

    In short, I believe that this amendment is a serious mistake which will have a variety of unanticipated consequences.
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 7:05 AM Dr No wrote:
    I love the electeds - Seiler and Rodstrom! What BS - what backpedaling! As for Seiler, he repeatedly stated at the Commission meetings that he would support this as long as they moved it to 2018 (which they did). Now he has unfortunately caught ROMNESIA.
    As for Rodstrom, you can bet he was texting Charlotte during these discussions so why did she say she was supporting this because it saved money (she was happy that the primary was eliminated). Does she now oppose this as well? You call this leadership? Are DuBose, Rogers, and Roberts happy to be thrown under the bus? And since when does the Commission throw things on the ballot (costing us all money) just because an Advisory Board recommends it? Wake up people and stop drinking the Kool-Aid! Would these politicians ever had said anything except for the fact that Tim Smith and Cal Deal forced the issue?
    Reply to this
    1. 10/24/2012 8:54 AM voter wrote:
      Absolutely correct. Without Tim and Cal, this topic would never be discussed and no city official would post here. The duplicity and posturing of some is amazing, and I don't put it past them to vote for it in spite of quotes and sound bites. The charter committee did this on behalf of the 5.
      Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 7:23 AM NPR wrote:
    Can they still remove this from the ballot? Seems like it was not well thought out. An Advisory Panel should not have the power to put this on the ballot. Were they elected? No. Am I going to vote for this ? . No!
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 7:37 AM Nod Walknirc wrote:
    Dear Tim--
    Congratulations on Term Limit fight, your attempt to keep public service from turning into the public trough.
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 7:55 AM Jacquelyn Scott wrote:
    Charter Amendment
    Municipal Elections

    I WILL VOTE NO for all the Obvious Reasons!
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 8:19 AM Walsh is onto something wrote:
    N.Y. court finds pole dancing revenue can be taxed

    By Daniel Wiessner

    ALBANY, N.Y., Oct 23 (Reuters) - Pole dancers might be
    athletic and artistic but their performances don't qualify for

    tax-exempt status under New York law, a state court ruled on

    The owners of Nite Moves, an exotic dance club near Albany,
    New York, had sought to have pole dancing and private lap dances
    qualified as tax exempt since revenue collected from "dramatic
    or musical arts performances" is not taxable under state law.

    But the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, decided
    against the club in a 4-3 ruling handed down on Tuesday.

    "Surely it was not irrational ... to conclude that a club
    presenting performances by women gyrating on a pole to music,
    however artistic or athletic their practice moves are, was also
    not a qualifying performance entitled to exempt status," the
    majority wrote in an unsigned memorandum.

    Nite Moves was trying to fend off a $125,000 tax bill on
    admission fees, beverage sales and income from private dances
    between 2002 and 2005. The owners argued that exotic dance
    qualifies for the tax exemption because it is difficult to
    perform and requires practice and choreography.

    In dissent, Judge Robert Smith said that deciding the
    artistic merits of different dance forms "is not the function of
    a tax collector."

    "The people who paid these admission charges paid to see
    women dancing. It does not matter if the dance was artistic or
    crude, boring or erotic," Smith wrote. "Under New York's Tax
    Law, a dance is a dance."

    Andrew McCullough, who argued for Nite Moves, said on
    Tuesday that he is considering appealing the decision to the
    U.S. Supreme Court. "We're very unhappy and looking at whatever
    options we have," he said.

    Geoffrey Gloak, a spokesman for the state Department of
    Taxation & Finance, said, "We're pleased with this decision,
    because it gives similar businesses clear guidance on the issue
    of sales tax when it comes to live exotic dance establishments."
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 10:09 AM fact checker wrote:
    All this second guessing by the Mayor and Rodstrom must leave one to wonder about the competence of City staff (Attorney and others) and the Commission. They discussed this issue several times at meetings, so why wasn't everything properly vetted before wasting time and money in placing it on the ballot? You would think that if a Commission votes unanimously on placing this on the ballot, then they would all be champions of the issue; if not, why bother putting it out there?
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 10:16 AM real agendas wrote:
    Let's look at what is happening behind the scenes:
    Jack Seiler hates controversy and a sinking ship - so he is spinning this to look like he never favored it. Most people will buy it because most people don't pay attention throughout the entire process.
    John and Charlotte Rodstrom are bailing to again attack their once best friend and now bitter enemy Judy Stern (did you see Stern's slap at Charlotte in the recent Sun Sentinel article on this charter amendment blaming her for the $250,000 cost?) Stern is the Charter Review Board Chair who made these recommendations in the first place. Charlotte dumped her from the Board after the recommendations, but Romney Rogers reinstated her. So much behind the scenes tells the real truth, not the political camouflage spouted by the elected politicians above.
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 10:35 AM lester zalewski wrote:
    Just vote no. To save money you go 4&4. I followed the Charter Revue Board meeting and could not get a sense of what they where trying to accomplish.

    Lester Zalewski
    Reply to this
    1. 10/24/2012 12:26 PM tell the truth wrote:
      4 & 4?

      what are you referring to?
      In 1998 ft ldle voters voted for term limits of three 3 year terms, to commence with the 2000 elections. That is why naugle, moore and hutchinson were term limited. the sneaky underhanded power grab by the current CC to alter the charter started in early 2011. read the minutes. golub lead the way along with stern, as the minutes clearly depict. further delays of posting these minutes obscured their actions unless you attended the meetings. it appeared they even sought to change the charter with a commission vote, only to realize it had to be put on a ballot for voter approval. once more voters caught on, the afternoon conf. mtg. discussions by the 5 attempted to mask their intent, and slowly the topic changed to AFTER their own 3 three year terms. It was obvious they were prolonging their own time in office, had they not masked this by pushing to 2018 election. They did not want TWO FOUR YEAR TERMS because it kept them out of the max they could serve if we stupidly reward them till March 2018. Lots of 'exploration' of their 'options' as they directed and re-directed their 5 appointees on charter rev. comm. Watch the afternoon conferences from January through May 2012, and then the mad scramble to get 75 word max. language to SOE by June 2012. (It was also going to be 2 questions related to the term change and years in office as John Rodstrom states above). Their assumption that we are stupid and not paying attention is an insult to all of us. Hence the backpedaling, and tap dancing by the elected ones posting here.

      And a big NO on the surplus property disposal, because it eliminates the necessity of establishing a minimum acceptable value OR a competitive bid. In other words, the 5 can give away city assets to whoever they want, most likely CRA's and their favorite developers.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/26/2012 2:31 PM lester zalewski wrote:
        First thank you for the opinion piece. I enjoyed reading it.
        Phase in two terms of four years to coincide with the presidential elections. Cost effective and higher voter turn out. Tim's blog mentioned it first.
        But for now there are more pressing issues, like the budget and crime.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/27/2012 7:25 PM telling the truth wrote:
          well said on priorites. I can agree.
          BUT VOTE NO on BOTH city amendments.
          Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 2:03 PM City Activist Robert walsh wrote:
    As far as the case in New York 'taxing" the strippers and the club-I told you we are missing out on big money that can be collected. Why? Everyone that I talk to supports my"Stripper tax"-and not just the gals guys to(pay up)When you see that they are making like 2g's a night come on, cash in Mayor.. And stop giving the store away guys. Johhny's ring a bell. Tax them all. Equal taxes on all strippers,dancers. As far as Mayor Seiler's statements he is correct I wa s there. He was not in favor in getting the extra years on the Commision. If I remember right Charlotte was against it as well. Judy Stern propasal was a good start. At least she addressed the issue. Then it wa s up to the Commission to tweak it- which they did. I agreed w/ Judy get rid of the Primary. Roll the dice canidates -that 's it in a nut shell. First the Primary then if you survive then you have the General. Getting rid of the Primary will save us money ,that and moving the election to November. To state that the present Comm. will get to much time etc. then don't vote for them. Thank-you for your honesty Mayor. I will be sur e to tell the "Civil Service" staff who just adore you..Remember people he has that same benefit. Yes he can call me to and voice his concerns as well. All in all I support the charter advisory bd. suggestions. Besides al these commnets where were alot of you? I attended the Charter workshop, and sat through the Confernce when this was all hashed out. I got your backs.PS-Charlie King Dad owns "King World entertaimment and distribution.(When are we going to see you on a stripper pole Chaaarlie. His father's company distributes Opray Winfrey's show. King World. Goggle it, lots and lots of money huh Charlie.When you taking me to the Hamptons??? Cash in on your best supporter Char.....
    Reply to this
  • 10/24/2012 6:54 PM City Activist Robert walsh wrote:
    i received alot of feed back concerning my commnets. . Also to point out Mayor Rodstrom(john) you would love the fact if we did not have a primary(who you kidding). People who raised their concerns are telling me that they are voting no because Primaries are good, becaus e of the fact that certain canidates would be able to put pasty canidates that they would choose to go up against. So in other words say Char here got say 22% and say I got or Dean or chuck got 16% she would prevail. W/ the Primary rule if you don't get 50% then comes round 2-see why Rodstrom would love to forfeit this Primary. To others that called that can't find it on there Absentee ballot its on the last page,page 4 last 2 questions. As far as Mayor Seiler some of you feel he is being disengenious becaus e of the negative feedback concerning the Charter changes. If it fails he doesn't want to look like he endorsed all this-it was a unanimous-after they tweaked Judy 'proposal. I see the Mayor's point and to the others. Still he did voice that he wa s not in favor of giving themselves more additional time on the Dais. This from my understanding will not take place until 2018. I have to say I support the changes. I feel like John Rodstrom really feels-end the Primaries. Oh come on JOhn its ilegal etc. to be doing this, but its ok for you to challenge the term limits rule how many times???. All the way to the State Supreme court. On a personal note if I may(people I do not know either he or Charlotte personally.) That is how you get these elected officals in trouble. And lastly your ast. Sue she can say all she wants that I'm vile this and that. She had a hell of a nerve asking me if your wife put me up to running. Like i'm some errand boy. Oh she and that other ast. they got cussed out but good. Imagine. Mind your own business first of all, and you ar e there to answer the phones, emails etc. Your personal opinions -leave at home.Back to the Charter they all supported it including Charlotte.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.