Just in today, September 12, 2006

The Supervisor of Elections agreed to have 5 of 6 of our referendums on the Ballot

For the November Election !
From: Kenneth Weiss <kweiss1@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 08:36:47 -0400
To: "MGarateix@sptimes.com" <MGarateix@sptimes.com>, "gadsen@sptimes.com"
<gadsen@sptimes.com>
Cc: "East@sptimes.com" <East@sptimes.com>
Conversation: St. Pete Beach Ballot Issue Saga Continues
Subject: St. Pete Beach Ballot Issue Saga Continues

Ms. Garateix and Gadsen,

       I do not have Sheila Estrada's email, so I trust you will forward this to her or the appropriate person. There is an issue which has arisen between the Supervisor of Elections and the City of St. Pete Beach. The supervisor had advised the city that it will not place the six items which the appellate court ordered be placed on the ballot and which the commission reluctantly approved. The only reason these items were placed on the ballot was because the commission was ordered to do so by the appellate court.

As you know the city filed a motion for rehearing to request that the appellate court reconsider its opinion. Because of that motion, the appellate decision is not officially final. The city is holding out hope that its motion will convince the appellate court to change the decision while all the time telling the commission and the voters that it is merely asking for clarification of the court order.

Now the city is crying wolf because it is claiming the SOE has to place it on the ballot. The city has had almost an entire year to respond to its residents to place these items on the ballot. It is this motion for rehearing that has caused the SOE to refuse to place the items on the ballot. Here is why.

If the court does change its decision, which is doubtful, the city will want the SOE to stop everything it is doing to run an election for the entire county and remove the 'offending' ballot item. So now, instead of interrupting just the city's voters, the commission is threatening to spend more money to go to court (without commission approval) to try to force the SOE to place the items on the ballot. There is one very simple way to resolve the problem. If the city withdraws its motion for rehearing, the appellate court decision becomes final. That solves the issue for four ballot items (the proposed charter amendments).

There is another ballot item that is also up in the air because of the city's motion for rehearing. As you know, the voters have utilized the city's charter provision to suspend the city's comprehensive plan ordinance.The city filed suit to have that action (and their charter

provision) declared unconstitutional. Judge Logan has stayed his decision pending the ruling of the appellate court. If that ruling is final, then Judge Logan could make a final decision on that issue as well. This would then eliminate the entire problem.

Furthermore, in February this year, the City unilaterally and contrary to an ordinance it passed, ordered the SOE to remove an item from the ballot that Judge Logan had ordered be placed on the ballot (Petition II). This cause a huge amount of logistical problems for the SOE to change the ballot on the last possible day. The action was illegal as well.

Of course, the city is now going to argue that the SOE somehow is 'picking'

on it. It will spend more taxpayer dollars, divert the office of the SOE, and may well affect all of Pinellas County voters because of the arrogance of power which three members of the commission wield.

I have excerpted a portion of the 8-22-06 meeting as additional proof of the CRG's attempt to have the motion for rehearing withdrawn. You will note in the excerpt that Mayor Friszolowski is clear about not wanting to withdraw it and City attorney Driscoll (in response to Commissioner Ruttencutter's question) stated that the motion was only for clarification.

Again, on August 25 the city was asked to withdraw the motion. There was, in fact, a motion and a second (by commissioners Finnerty and Ruttencutter) for the city to withdraw the motion for rehearing but it was killed by the other three (Markoe, Nicklaus and Friszoloski).. Commissioner Markoe was especially vocal about not wanting the motion withdrawn. We have the tapes of the meeting as proof

http://web.mac.com/klw2

This is the site with the excerpt. We have the entire meeting on DVD if you would like it.

For the record as well, I have found the SOE's office and that of the attorneys representing the SOE to be exceptionally responsive, understanding, and cooperative in the CRG's attempt to get these items on the ballot. The CRG understands that the SOE's office is doing everything possible to ensure that the citizens of St. Pete Beach have the right to vote on court ordered charter amendments. It is only three members of the city commission who are stopping that vote.

The CRG stands for the citizens right to vote. Whether it is in November or March, the residents of St. Pete Beach will have their court ordered constitutional right to vote notwithstanding the efforts of Mayor Friszolowski, Commissioners Markoe and Nicklaus, the city attorney and city manager to prevent that vote. (Just wait till they start whining now about how they wanted the items on the ballot but the SOE won't put it on.)

I hope this gives you FACTS that will be helpful when the city starts its disinformation campaign this week about why the SOE is refusing to place items on the ballot for the city.

Ken Weiss
Kenneth L. Weiss, Esq.
727-367-9512-Fax
kweiss1@tampabay.rr.com