No Boss Mayor funded by ICMA
Anti-charter group No Boss Mayor, which has failed to disclose its donors and expenditures throughout most of the charter referendum campaign, has filed its financial report due today, and it is available online.
The vast majority of No Boss Mayor’s intake — $17,000 — came from the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) Fund for Professional Management. ICMA is an organisation of professional city and county managers and is dedicated to the advancement of the Council-Manager form of government.
The report details four expenditures totalling $19,250. Of that amount, $16,250 went to Clearwater political strategist Beth Rawlings to cover printing and postage costs of the numerous No Boss Mayor mailers, as well as robo calls. The remaining $3,000 went to Charlie Fairchild to repay an earlier loan he made to No Boss Mayor.
Aside from ICMA, donations to No Boss Mayor were limited to just a few individuals: $100 from David Nobles (brother of former City Councilman Jack Nobles), $50 from Gary Sansing (chronic Open Forum speaker at Council meetings), and $25 from Delores Curry.
According to ICMA, the Fund for Professional Management was founded in 1986 “to support and promote the council-manager form of government and professional local government management. Investment interest from the fund is used to support communities interested in adopting council-manager government, assist in efforts to retain the council-manager form when it is challenged by ballot referendums, and raise public awareness of the benefits of professional local government management.” Former Pensacola City Manager Ed Hinkle was a donor to the fund in 2007.
No Boss Mayor’s refusal to disclose donors was ironic given its call early in November for pro-charter group Believe in a Better Pensacola to do the same. Throughout the campaign, Better Pensacola disclosed its contributors on a near-daily basis, while No Boss Mayor remained silent from early November until today.
Pro-charter group Believe in a Better Pensacola’s latest financial report, due today, is also available online.
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
Well, it sure is lucky there’s a special interest group that can flood a campaign with money to help keep the city manager system in power. Otherwise we’d have a system where special interest groups could conceivably flood a campaign with money to keep a strong mayor in power!
There’s a group that supports strong mayors as well, but the pro side obviously didn’t need their help since rich people in this city were able to write checks for $10,000. Wonder why they want a strong mayor? It’s not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Yes, Joe, you are correct. This IS a system that allows a “special interest” to flood a campaign with money, and thus BUY an election. Referendum elections have no limit on the amount of money that can be contributed to a campaign.
As an example, lets look at the 2006 referendum vote for the “park”, which was actually a disguised project to build a baseball stadium for Quint Studer’s hobby team. According to public records, Quint Studer contributed well over $1,000,000 towards that campaign. The next highest contributor was Mort O’Sullivan, who contributed $50,000. But according to campaign records, O’Sullivan was also listed in the expense category, having been paid $150,000 by Studer to be a “consultant”. So, in effect, O’Sullivan was simply “kicking back” a third of his consulting fee. There were only a handful of other contributors to that campaign, most in the $100 range.
So there is a perfect example of someone buying an election, and then reaping the financial rewards of the election. I can personally recall my mailbox being inundated with colored photos of the Fantasy Rendering from the “pro-park” campaign, all of it paid for with Studer’s money. I especially loved the Christmas card telling me that we would all be watching the Pensacola Children’s Chorus singing hymns in Studer Stadium by Christmas 2010. Never mind that it might be 30 degrees in December. Never mind that it might be raining that night. Never mind that there are plenty of indoor venues to watch the Children’s Chorus.
So tell us, Joe, do you really want to change the system, or are you just giving us a hypocritical rant?
Uh, because they think a strong mayor system is more efficient and better for economic development? That has tangible value for those of us who aren’t just waiting for DROP to kick in, you see. This isn’t rocket science, and it doesn’t require any ulterior motives.
It’s so funny to see everything the anti-charter folks fear could happen under a strong mayor, happening under the current council-manager system. And even funnier to watch them desperately dismiss it as irrelevant.
If the pro list didn’t read like a list of rfp awards and development awards, I might see things differently, but these big supporters have what seems like successfully done business with the city.
Russenberger developed Palafox pier with nice condos.
Reeves “won” Aragon and Hawkshaw.
Spencer was successful with CRA projects while working with former CRA director David Bailey, making big improvements to Main Street with a new parking lot and underground utilities.
What’s the problem?
Mike,
Your examples of Palafox Pier, Aragon, Main Street etc. are all iimpressive examples of beautification and enhancements that have been desperately needed in our Pensacola. Why is that a problem?
Uh, because they think a strong mayor form of government will benefit them financially? If you think someone writes a check for $10,000 & doesn’t expect anything in return, then you obviously don’t live in my world & have limited funds as I do.
I live in the same world as you. We are just seeing the same thing, but with a different perception. I know many wealthy people who have very fine intentions and do care deeply about their community. This is what I know.
No, no, no, Joe. Don’t try to change the subject. The subject of your first post was “ a special interest group flooding a campaign with money”. We are not talking about the pros and cons of the charter. We are talking about a “system” that allows a special interest (i.e. millionaire Quint Studer) to buy an election. You don’t seem to have a problem with the “system” as long as the results are in your favor. Am I correct?
BTW, the News Journal reports that the “pro charter” group has raised TWICE as much money as the “anti-charter” group. This has occurred because a very small number of fat cats have each chipped in $10,000. Would you deem this group to be a “special interest” just like you deemed the ICMA a special interest?
“Interested”, you failed to mention Hawkshaw. Was that an “impressive example of beautification and enhancement”? As I recall, two fat cats were fighting over the spoils of a city-owned land give-away. I also seem to recall that they were able to get a city council that was “in their pockets” to actually give them Admiral Mason Park so that they could use it as their stormwater retention pond.
Joe is correct when he says that the existing city government is a miserable failure. I attribute that more to the quality of people running the city government rather than the form of government. Will the quality of people improve with a new form of government? As I’ve said before, if the charter passes Mike Wiggins (and the people who CONTROL Mike Wiggins) will be running things at city hall for the next 12 years.
Xochitl: I think you’re off on that last part. If the charter passes, Wiggins may run, but I doubt he’d win. That’s part of the reason he opposes it.
You may be right, but the thought of it still gives me nightmares. (The horror! The horror!) I can vividly see the acceptance speech.
“Friends, I was against this charter thing at first, but the voters have spoken. I hereby accept your appointment as ‘Dictator For Life’! Please pass out the spoils to all of my supporters who wrote checks for $10,000 or greater.
Xochitl: Wow, that kind of drama can get you a TV spot along with Glen Beck. If you truly belive our “existing government is a failure” then you really have to consider the process as a contribution. No one is going to be able to prove this one way or another, so no sense in getting bent out of shape. Besides, TIME will tell the story.
That was the question interested. What is he problem with the current form that prevents development?
Our current process is inefficient and lacks a true vision driven by an accountable leader. To believe or pretend we are doing great and continue on with our current method is insane.
My question to you is how many successful projects have NOT happened because of our current system?
In some ways you are right, Interested. In high school Civics class we learned that the BEST and MOST EFFICIENT form of government is a benevolent dictator. Decisions are made quickly and things get done fast. The problem with that system is that 99 out of 100 dictators are not “benevolent.” If we had a crystal ball and could see who your “accountable leader” turned out to be, everyone could more easily make their decision. From my observations of the Pensacola political scene, I believe that the “accountable leader” will be a puppet who will be manipulated in much the same way as the current leaders are manipulated.
Yes, the process does contribulte to our current mess, but only in the fact that it produces such less than mediocre leaders. I (and others) have suggested that salaries for the city council and mayor need to increase to encourage others to run for office.
I need to make it clear, so I will reiterate my message. Please forgive me for shouting:
OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS INEFFICIENT AND LACKS A TRUE VISION DRIVEN BY AN ACCOUNTABLE LEADER — (by-the-way, this leader is a mayor-role, NOT a dictator).
Thank you.
I can’t believe the group funding this doesn’t have a strong mayor candidate.
But again, if there is a residency requirement, where has this leader with vision and city management experience been hiding?
I’ll take Thad Cohen. He doesn’t seem to check last names before he makes a decision.
What “process” are you talking about, Interested? I find that city services are run VERY efficiently. My garbage is picked up on schedule, the police give me a ticket every time that I speed, and the fire department responds with 3 vehicles to every minor traffic accident. One of the hallmarks of a Manager form of government is that city services are run efficiently.
If you are referring to real estate development as the “process,” then I whole heartedly agree with you. Of course, I also believe that the city government has no business trying to be a real estate developer in the first place.
The “true vision” part concerns me as well. I have seen the “true vision” of those that are pushing this agenda, and I don’t like ti. Their “true vision” always seems to benefit the same small group of fat cats at the expense of the rest of the populace.
Ah, but you say there is “accountability.” I think that you are underestimating the political machines that control Pensacola. Are you oblivious to the fat cat who made 5 phone calls and raised $50,000?
Good luck in the election, Interested. I personally believe that either system can work as long as the people in charge are “benevolent.” I hope that you will work hard to make sure that happens.