Formerly, like most counties nationwide and throughout Florida, commissioners were all seated in distinct, apportioned geographic districts and voted upon by electors from the entire county--meaning every citizen got to vote for 5 commissioners.
This made sense as decisions county commissioners make affect every citizen in the county--so it only made sense that every voter should be able to vote for every commissioner.
But this, regrettably, led to a condition locally where minority (black) candidates could not be and were not being elected--even though the minority population of Escambia County was and has been significant at roughly twice the national percentage of the black population overall (24% locally, 12% nationally).
So litigation in the late 1970s that sought to correct this inequity and allow for appropriate minority representation in county government led to the issue going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. That Supreme Court decision let stand a lower-court ruling mandating single member districts in Escambia County--with one district being a "minority-majority" district by law, in perpetuity.
Fast forward to today, and about 28 counties (Including Escambia County) of 67 in Florida utilize single-member districts for the election of county commissioners, shcool board members, and utility authority board members. The majority of counties in Florida, and in the rest of the nation, however, utilize the model where individual commissioners are voted upon by ALL constituents and seated (with a concomitant residency requirment) in specific districts.
District wide elections help to prevent the "ward-politics" effect that we witness locally--where obviously clear-cut decisions, rulings, and votes by the board instead get pushed back in a byzantine method of appeasment to small groups of citizens vocally opposed to initiatives or decisions in "their neighborhoods." Easy decisions get kicked down the road or denied outright. This occurs simply to appease one geographic block of voters--for the benefit
of one elected board member's re-election prospects---yet to the detriment of the rest of the county or the entity appearing before the commissioners for the action or approval. These important decisions eventually end up in the courts--where we have witnessed the original decision-denials made by the county be quickly and decisvely overturned by a judge (as it becomes readily apparent such decisions should have been approved by the commissioners in the first place). And this ends up costing the taxpayers inordinate sums of money. It is bush-leage, rustic, arcane and glacially slow. It is backwoods and backwards.
So when I successfully ran for re-election last year and put my platform online, NEXT4Escambia, this idea----district wide or at large commissioners--- was one of 34 initiatives I said I would bring for discussion.
For this and many other reasons---- I did this and discussed this very topic at our last meeting (at 2:12:00 of this video)--I feel there could be a better way for Escambia County to govern. And it would benefit all citizens, it would actually strengthen and empower our court-ordered minority-majority district (Escambia County District 3).
In the better scenario/governance model that I envision: all residents of Escambia County would be able to vote on four county commissioners--Districts 1,2,4, and 5. Citizens residing in District 3 would be the sole electors that would vote for their commissioner in District 3- keeping with the McMillan decision. But this would actually enhance the voices of District 3--as not only would they be the sole decider of who would represent them from their district--they would also have a direct vote in every other district race as well--meaning additional Black candidates in other District contests would have an additional block of voters to potentially support their candidacy outside of District 3.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that this sort of a system would comport with state statutes--according to our attorney.
Additionally, as one will clearly see from watching the portion of the meeting linked above, there is absolutely ZERO appetite from my peers for this or any other sort of change to the locally accepted "single member" districts in Escambia County.
So, for now at least, it appears that the status quo wins the day and will remain. Along with the unavoidable parochialism and ward politics this local single-member district system naturally perpetuates.
3 comments:
Each commissioner will then receive salary and fringe benefits? $85,674 x 7 Commissioners?
Anonymous-that would lnly be the case if we went to a 7 commissioner model--which I do not feel would be approved as it would actually serve to "water-down" and decrease the representation of the one court-mandated minority majority district. The optimal model, if we could get it approved, would be to have four of us, districts 1,2,4, and 5 be elected county wide by ALL citizens in all 5 districts. (District 3 representative would be elected solely by district 3 voters). I believe this model would comport with the McMillan decision while also BOLSTERING the influence and power of the D3 voters by giving them a say in not only D#---but in all district races--meaning they could as a block help elect perhaps another minority candidate if such a candidate ran in another district as well. And meanwhile--this would also foce the rest of us to take a more county-centered mindset and less of a "my district, my voters" parochial stance on issues that inflame small segments of our own districts. In a nutshell--it would be much better for everybody. But sadly there was ZERO appetite for any change, so ward politics and the status quo continue in Escambia County. Ho hum.........
Some discussions are taking place after an opinion piece on PNJ by John Peacock.
Personally I didn't see the discussion at the meeting about this, I don't think there is much appetite for at large commissioners.
I think an elected administrator is a terrible idea. He is comparing it to the strong mayor but in reality, they have a city manager. I also believe you all as commissioners renew the Administrator's contract periodically. I also think you all should have stayed with the hiring process and hired the man from the midwest instead of bypassing the entire process to hire a local.
So pass on an elected county administrator. Honestly the voters are NOT always the smartest, I know that's a strange concept for the direct democrazy crowd.
I think you all do a good job with what you have of looking at things county wide and also your own districts.
Post a Comment