Resolve questions first
More than a dozen Cape Coral residents, including half the sitting council, have expressed an interest in serving in the wake of Mayor Eric Feichthaler’s resignation.
We thank these people for raising their hands for a position that will last only until the next city council election in fall of ’09. There are some viable candidates here and more, we wager, waiting in the wings.
Council’s task is a tough one — to choose the best qualified from among those seeking the mayor’s post. This duty, unfortunately, has been made much tougher by a plethora of complications ranging from questions as to who votes to when the selection process can legally commence.
It’s time for a collective deep breath. More information is needed. Fortunately, there is time to get it.
First, understand there is no council vacancy, at least not yet.
Mayor Feichthaler’s resignation is not effective until Nov. 17 at midnight. The charter then gives council 30 days to fill that vacancy or schedule a special election, something the city already has deemed impractical due to cost.
Collecting applications now to make sure there is ample time for council consideration may make sense but there is no reason to have an appointment in place by Nov. 3, council’s target date. Some suggest it may even be a charter violation unless Mayor Feichthaler steps down earlier than planned.
This needs to be clarified.
Two, council also needs to clarify who can vote to fill the vacancy. It is gratifying to see that Councilmember Jim Burch has had the foresight to get at least part of this question answered.
Specifically, Mr. Burch has asked for an ethics opinion as to whether a sitting council member can vote for his or her own appointment.
While it is likely that he or she can, clarification is welcome as there is a perceived conflict. State law requires elected officials to recuse themselves from voting if a vote would “inure to his or her special private gain or loss” but exempts votes pertaining to salary and other compensation for the duties performed.
Movement to the mayor’s seat would include a small bump in compensation but that is the only practical “benefit” of being mayor. Cape Coral’s council structure provides that the mayor is an at-large council member with some additional duties: presiding over the meetings, signing documents and, as of the last voter-mandated change in the charter, line item veto authority.
Basically, the position is that of council chair — with a fancier title and some additional pocket change.
If the ethics opinion comes back as expected — that council members can vote — the next question that needs to be answered is whether they must.
Some council members seeking the appointment have indicated they won’t vote on their own appointment. But if the ethics commission finds they can — i.e. there is no legal conflict — it is likely that they will have to vote if present, meaning all good intentions aside, council members will have no opt-out option as some have suggested would be proper.
Lastly, the charter language concerning the filling of vacancies refers quite specifically to “all its remaining members” casting a vote. Some want the ability of Mayor Feichthaler to vote on his replacement to be reviewed.
Get these issues clarified. The last thing the city needs is a challenge based on an issue that should have — and could have — been resolved beforehand.
Council also faces some practical issues.
There is an argument that the city can ill indulge in a learning curve in the chair’s seat, that the person to be appointed needs to have a demonstrated ability to run a meeting and a firm understanding of the issues on the table.
We agree, this is key.
If this means the best choice is a sitting council member, so be it, provided that council member has demonstrated the ability to take on the primary additional duty that goes along with the title change. “Continuity” is not the issue here, a specific skill set is.
We also agree there is merit to the concept that a sitting council member has a quantifiable mandate. Cape voters, denied the right to fill this vacancy at the polls, will have some comfort in knowing that the appointee has, in fact, been elected — at some point in time.
While we appreciate the willingness of community members to step in, we ask council to take another look at its decision to fish from one big pool, to, at the least, consider council members first before beginning a wave of interviews with community applicants. The number of contenders needs to be winnowed, in logical fashion, and looking “in-house” first sure beats culling via essay.
Slow down and do it right.
Then draft what has been learned into an ordinance for future reference. With three council appointments in about as many years, it’s past time to get a charter-compliant appointment procedure in place.
— Breeze editorial