Cape Coral City Council discussed a pair of possible charter amendments during its workshop this week.

The first would amend the section of the city’s governing document that sets base salaries for Council members with increases tied to inflation. The proposal would, instead, allow Council to set its own salaries by ordinance.

The second would have changed the way voters select council members. Currently, the seats are “at-large,” meaning voters may cast a ballot for each of the seven seats, plus mayor. The proposal for single-member districts would mean voters would only be able to cast a ballot in two — the mayor’s race and the council seat in the voter’s district only.

Council determined that neither proposal was ready to face voter muster in November. Most agreed that the former would flame out at the ballot box and, at minimum, needed modifications. The latter, brought forward by resident petition, would limit, not enhance, resident representation and so was dropped.

We await with interest the city’s still-in-the-works attempt to control its compensation. We agree that single-member districts would be a waste of ballot space given that the most consistent complaint at public input is that Council is not listening to residents who currently — as they are fond of saying — have the ability to vote all of them out.

Also floating about, but not yet discussed by Council as a possible charter change, is a citizen petition calling for a referendum to ban Council’s self-awarded “stipend,” which doubled its total remuneration.

It will be interesting to see if this one is afforded an opportunity to come before Council for ballot consideration while the board is entertaining citizen initiatives.

Let us add one more discussion: Clarification of the city charter provision that defines qualification for office.

That provision, S 4.02. – Eligibility – states “Only qualified electors of the City, who have been continuous full time residents of the City for the entire calendar year immediately preceding their qualification for office, as provided in Section 4.05, shall be eligible to hold the office of Council member or Mayor.”

Seems pretty straightforward but then so does the particular provision of the referenced S 4.05 which states a prospective “Council member may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a candidate for Council member for the Council district in which he or she resides.”

The italic emphasis is ours and we flag it because a suspended Cape Coral City Council member is facing felony charges based, in part, on her interpretation of what it means to “reside” is a district, giving an announced candidate cause to pause as he fears the same fate should he misinterpret what “continuous full time” residency means.

Larry Gillis “a homeowner, registered voter, and resident here in Cape Coral since March 2008” when he purchased a home in the southwest Cape, has asked the city attorney’s office and the State Attorney’s Office whether he can lawfully assert in the city’s required “sworn statement” that he has been a “… continuous full-time resident …” as he typically — as so many residents do — travels out of state to visit “up north.”

In his quest for clarification, Mr. Gillis explains he’s typically gone each year for about three months, staying with family or in AirBnBs. He did this last year, plans to do so again this, and so wants to know if that could be interpreted as breaching the “continuous” qualification rule to qualify for city office.

“Certainly, I do not wish to falsely swear, thus exposing myself to criminal liability (i.e., Perjury). I don’t want to guess at my peril whether I satisfy the requirements of the law. I have resided here for some 16 years. I am a ‘snowbird’, but believe myself to be a continuous full-time resident here, in that I do not ‘reside’ anywhere else…” he wrote.

The city and State Attorney’s Office, each of which questioned the residency of former council member Patty Cummings with the latter charging her with fraudulent application for a driver’s license and two counts of false swearing in connection with or arising out of voting or elections last November, declined to answer Mr. Gillis’s query.

Each said public agencies cannot prepare legal opinions for private citizens, and he should seek an opinion from an attorney on his own.

Fair enough.

But let us point out two things.

Ms. Cummings retained counsel when her residency was questioned. Based on legal advice received, she maintained and maintains she met the city’s qualifying rules, violated no other laws, and has pleaded not guilty. The case remains pending. Her suspension is ongoing.

Mr. Gillis is a professor of law, licensed in New Hampshire and Massachusetts where he practiced as an attorney for three decades.

He questions the clarity of the city’s charter not only for himself but others who may be looking to put their “snowbird” years behind them and run for office in the city where they declare residency.

We’ll not weigh in on Ms. Cummings’ case which is much more complicated than an alleged charter violation.

But we do agree with Mr. Gillis that requirements that lack definitive definition can be confusing and could keep residents from running.

Does clarification need to come in the form of a charter amendment?

Or can Council clear this one up as the charter also states “The Council shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members.”

We ask Council to ask the necessary questions and take appropriate action. It is the proactive thing to do.

Breeze editorial