Palm Coast, Weeks still at odds over 2014 elections

Palm Coast Observer
News

UPDATED at 4:13 p.m. Feb. 5
The city of Palm Coast is waiting on a response from Supervisor of Elections Kimberle Weeks. Will she run the city’s elections this year, or will she not?

Among the issues being disputed is whether an item on the 2011 election should be considered valid. On that ballot, citizens of Palm Coast overwhelmingly approved moving City Council elections from odd years to even years, which would synchronize them with county, state and national elections. That means 2014 should be a year in which citizens vote for new City Council members.

However, Weeks informed the city in 2013 that state law requires such a vote to be held “at the next general election … or at a special election called for that purpose.” Instead, the election — which, City Councilman Bill McGuire pointed out, she supervised — was held on a primary and was never identified as a “special election.” Therefore, she wants the state to provide guidance on the matter.

Weeks said in a Feb. 4 interview that she wants confirmation from the Attorney General’s Office before she proceeds with the 2014 election. According to state election officials, Weeks cannot seek a formal opinion from the attorney general; the city would have to make that request. But city attorney Bill Reischmann wrote a letter to Weeks in January to tell her that the city doesn’t need to request an opinion because the attorney general has already ruled on an identical situation in April 1978.

He references AGO 78-62, which asks this question: “May a special election called for the purpose of submitting a proposed county charter for approval by the electorate be held on the same date as the date fixed for the general election or a primary election?”

The response from then-Assistant Attorney General Patricia R. Gleason states that a special election “may be held on the same date as the date fixed for a general or primary election. … Your question is answered in the affirmative.”

Referring to the request that the city ask for a direct ruling on the 2011 Palm Coast vote, Reischmann’s Jan. 20 letter to Weeks states: “It is the Attorney General’s position that such a request, even if it were submitted by the City of Palm Coast, would likely not be accepted as the Attorney General’s office prefers not to opine on the propriety of matters that have already occurred and will opine on questions of law.”

Weeks was not pleased by the response. She wrote, in her Jan. 21 letter: “It would be more comforting if the city had requested the Formal Opinion and allowed the Attorney General’s office to respond, rather than you tell me what the response would be or mostly likely be before it was requested.”

Weeks reviewed AGO 78-62 and noted that it refers to a “special election.” But the 2011 vote was never identified as a special election on the ballot, per se, so she’s not certain AGO 78-62 applies to this situation.

City officials, at a Jan. 28 workshop, vented their frustration at Weeks’ insistence on the city obtaining an opinion from the state and not understanding how legal precedence works.

Referring to the legal issue at hand, City Manager Jim Landon said, “It’s pretty basic, actually.”

Searching for any other possible explanation, Reischmann wondered aloud whether there could be any complaint about the vote only being open to one particular party, but he said that, in fact, everyone was eligible for the vote.

“Which she conducted,” City Councilman Bill McGuire said. Then he quipped, “I have nothing further, your honor.”

Weeks reiterated on Feb. 4, however, that she would prefer an attorney general’s opinion. “I want to have confidence in what we do,” she said. “I don’t want to conduct an election, have someone challenge it and then have a costly lawsuit for the taxpayers.”

Morever, she can’t see any reason the city would refuse to seek guidance from the attorney general.

“Their resistance has put red flags up for me,” she said. “If you’re confident you’ve done everything you need to do, why would you be resistant to that? … If the city would just cooperate and get the attorney general’s opinion, we wouldn’t have this concern.”

BOX: Cooperation recommended
Supervisor of Elections Kimberle Weeks exchanged multiple emails with Gary Holland, assistant director of the Florida Division of Elections, asking for guidance on this issue. Excerpts of those communications follow:

2:29 p.m. Dec. 5
Weeks’ deputy to Holland: “Must the Supervisor of Elections adhere to City of Palm Coast charter requirements when they violate State law?”

10:12 a.m. Dec. 9
Holland to Weeks: “I spoke with Virginia Smith, City Clerk, City of Palm Coast, about the highlighted issues in your email below. She assured me that the city will be taking action (via ordinance) to remedy the situation.”

5:10 p.m. Dec. 9
Weeks to Holland: “The city attorney has confirmed that charter language can only be amended by following section 10(1) of the city charter and FL Statutes, Chapter 166 —not by ordinance, so how is this going to be accomplished by ordinance?”

8:08 p.m. Dec. 9
Holland to Weeks: “Our suggestion is that you coordinate with the city to resolve the issue.”

7:17 p.m. Dec. 12
Weeks to Holland: “I have requested that the Palm Coast city manager, mayor and councilmen obtain an Attorney General Formal Opinion regarding the modification of the city charter following the 2011 city municipal elections and understand from the correspondence from the city council that they will not be doing so.”

7:52 p.m. Dec. 12
Holland to Weeks: “My guidance would be for you and the city to work these issues out. They are local, not state, issues. With all due respect, I do not intend to serve as an intermediary in your communications with the city.”