No Boss Mayor funding disappointing
We were disappointed to learn Friday that the vast majority of anti-charter group No Boss Mayor’s campaign funding came from an out-of-town organisation dedicated to the advancement of the council-manager form of government. It seems unfair that this single-minded group, which has no stake in Pensacola nor knowledge of our particular circumstances, should get to play so prominent a role in this decidedly local decision-making process.
Say what you will about the big checks received by pro-charter group Believe in a Better Pensacola. At least they were from locals.
No Boss Mayor collected money from locals, too; but $17,000 of its total $23,324.10 in contributions — 73% — came from the ICMA Fund for Professional Management, based in Washington, D.C. The ICMA, or International City/County Management Association, is an organisation of professional city and county managers. Their Fund for Professional Management, established in 1986, is “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.”
Would No Boss Mayor have been able to afford its many yard signs, mailers, and robocalls without ICMA’s $17,000? Probably not. It’s fair to say that their anti-charter campaign was essentially funded by an out-of-town special interest group. That’s ironic, given that one of No Boss Mayor’s arguments against the proposed government is that “special interests” would have undue influence.
We’re disappointed that No Boss Mayor opted to take a fat check from an out-of-town group which has no stake in Pensacola’s future. Our referendum on whether or not to replace the City’s charter is a local issue. The issue should have been funded by, debated by, and decided by Pensacolians exclusively.
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
I was disappointed to see this too, Derek. But maybe not surprised.
The No Boss crowd has been so divisive, their campaign so filled with fear and innuendo, that maybe it’s fitting they’ve been bought and paid for by a special interest group from Washington, DC. In fact, it makes perfect sense, based on the campaign they’ve run.
Well said, Derek. Right on point.
I’m feeling a little philosophical this morning and see at least one lesson in all of this. Perhaps this is a fine example of how we project onto others how we see ourselves. If we see ourselves as trusting stewards to our City, we will have a greater likelihood of trusting others. The flip-side to this is true as well. If we believe others, such as a strong mayor, is not trustworthy, we might just be projecting a bit of ourselves onto this role.
Chuck
I think folks are looking at the way things have done with the current cast of characters.
XO reminds us of one.
Hawkshaw rfp was increased to include donating Admiral Mason park for stormwater and vacating a city street to increa$e buildable area for Mr. Reeves project. Affordable housing was used to sweeten the deal. After the vote the rfp was expanded to include another well known name-Moulton . $till, no project.
Was there affordable housing built in Aragon as promised with Mr. Reeves previous project? Didn’t think so. Lots of empty lots still available
and the build out date has passed.
The real development went to Gulf Breeze, but once again the same names “won” the rfp.
Will strong mayor change this for the better if elected by those funding the change?
Not many want their opinion to be analyzed via Outzen style in his newspaper as a loser or his blog as a naysayer or old.
His ploy worked
So… what you’re saying is… because of these perceived exploitations and fiascos of our council-manager system… we desperately need to keep the council-manager system?
Mais oui! Classic NBM logic. *high five*
Perceived?
Joe, until you can recognize exploitations and fiascos it is probably best that you continue to eat at the children’s table! You still cannot recognize why it is a bad thing for a millionaire to buy an election and then reap the financial rewards of that election.
Xochitl-
“millionaire buy an election” – are you referring to the $17,000 contributed to the No Boss Mayor fund by a Washington, DC special interest group?
the PAID CONSULTANT for the Florida City / County Managers Association – a statewide group that runs around Florida supporting city managers in campaigns against mayor-council government.
what do they say about glass houses and stones?
No I’m saying if there is this much back room deal stuff with the current requirements citizens may find themselves in a worse hand basket to hell when it’s a one man show paying back his supporters in the private meeting room at the fish house
It’s the people not the procedures!
Deals have to be approved by City council – that is part of City Procedures. Under the new charter there is no provision that overturns that.
Currently, the city manager can let contracts up to $25,000 on his own, without council approval. That number may have recently been increased to $50k for small businesses / minority business.
But this is another misleading scare tactic from the No Boss guys…
A Children’s Treasury of Fun Facts for Xochitl to ponder at the grown-up table:
* The collapse of the Hawkshaw development was caused by many factors, most of them having nothing to do with the names of the people involved, which unfortunately seems to be the limit of Mike’s familiarity with the issue. Thus my charitable use of the word “perceived.”
* Replacing incidents of the letter “s” with dollar signs as implicit evidence of wrongdoing is considered insufficiently persuasive by many courts of law and opinion. Likewise, in blinded tests, the “well known”-ness of a person’s name is not an accurate predictor of that person’s corruptiveness.
* The inclusion of Admiral Mason Park in the Hawkshaw development for stormwater retention — “perceived” as a giveaway by some — would have “actually” saved the city (which has discussed converting the park to a retention pond at its own expense) quite a lot of money.
* For all its faults, the Aragon development did include a portion of workforce housing. Another “perceived” exploitation which has the disadvantage of not being “actually” true.
* The fact that Xochitl has repeatedly cited the Hawkshaw land sale process as an example of how the city should have handled the Trillium property and is now deriding it as so self-evidently flawed that anyone who does not recognize it as such is unfit for adult discussions, while not technically “ironic,” is nevertheless amusing to longtime observers.
* Electioneering laws actually do a pretty good job of making political donations transparent, even when they’re funneled through a DC lobbying group.
* (corollary to previous) Switching to a strong mayor government will not alter electioneering laws in any way.
* The ongoing epidemic of Studer Derangement Syndrome notwithstanding, there are actually things in the world (and even in Pensacola!) which are not directly related to the 3-year-old referendum your side lost.
“…if there is this much back room deal stuff with the current requirements…”
NOTE: “Back room deal stuff” is here defined as “deals made at open meetings in full compliance with applicable laws, but which I don’t like and which involved ‘well known names.’”
Throwing a temper tantrum won’t get you a seat at the grownup table either, Joe. Neither will the twisting of words.
GOOD: The RFP process for what was supposed to be the sale of the Hawkshaw property.
BAD: Drastically changing the rules after receiving the proposals.
If you can nod your head that you understand this concept we will give you a cookie.
Now, if you can admit that allowing a millionaire to buy an election and then receiving the financial benefit of that election is an example of BAD GOVERNMENT, you can go out to play.
Travis Peterson has to stay behind though, because he still thinks that two wrongs make a right.
Xochitl, what are you talking about? If it’s your Studer obsession again, then just keep jabbering away to yourself. If it’s the question of council-manager versus mayor-council government — ya know, the issue at hand — then please explain how anything that you and Mike have mentioned would be handled differently under the proposed charter.
No, no, no, Joe. The issue at hand is your statement from Nov. 20.
“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!”
You and Rick Outzen and Travis Peterson and Derek Cosson and Jeff DeWeese are so APPALLED that an out of town lobby group gave $17,000 to the anti-charter group. Yet NONE of you thought it was a bad idea for a non-resident millionaire to spend over $1 million to win an election that greatly benefitted him financially. NONE! In that same campaign, Mort O’Sullivan contributed $50,000. O’Sullivan’s contribution was actually a kickback from the $150,000 “fee” given to him by Quint Studer.
The issue – YOUR ISSUE – is special interest groups flooding a campaign with money. The $17,000 is PALE in comparison to the $1.2 million that bought an election for Quint Studer.
Where’s your indignity? Do you wonder why no one trusts the “pro” group.
GET IT?
Right
an rfp that expanded and expanded AFTER
And a waterfront development plan that shrunk to phases
And $50,000.00 or more from those benefitting financially goes unreported while $17,000.00 is rehashed for days.
Again, it’s the players political influence not the form of government that holds Pensacola back.
Mr. Sealy,
We are only appalled at the lack of real ethics in their “challenge”
I did not believe the gents involved with NBM would actually try to deceive the voters.
You are obsessed with Quint Studer. Everyhting you ever say revolves around him. It is pathetic.
Everyone, Mr. Sealy just wanted the Maritime Park for his condo developer clients.
Sour grapes Mr. Sealy
I’m not “APPALLED” that an outside group donated $17,500 to a PAC, nor do I think the others you mention are. The donation is perfectly legal, and I’m grateful we have electioneering laws that disclosed its source.
The point of my comment that you quoted, as I think was perfectly clear to most human beings familiar with sarcasm, was not to complain about the donation, but to point out the hypocrisy of the No Boss Mayor group. We’ve heard non-stop prognostications from NBM about how, if the charter passes, wealthy special interests will finance their chosen candidate for strong mayor to carry out a mwah-ha-ha-ha hidden agenda, and lo and behold, it turns out there was a wealthy special interest funding NBM the whole time.
The other big reason NBM was called out by the people you mention, as they all made clear in their criticisms, was because of NBM’s dog-and-pony show about “disclosing donors” while the whole time they neglected to reveal their biggest donor. It was THEIR issue, not mine. (Quint Studer may or may not be aware of the issue, but it’s probably his fault.)
Time to demonize the No Boss Mayor folks. You gotta demonize the opposition and make em look real bad in order to get what you want. The merits of your own position usually aren’t enough to get through the hard times, so you gotta sell out on yourself and go for the dirt throwing. Well, it’s right to do it because we gotta get this charter passed. We can raise taxes and the folks won’t be able to do anything about it. The term limits will be a lot longer and the politicians can take breaks in between their terms so they can keep on keeping on. It’s a beautiful thought.
I don’t think you know what “demonize” means.
Also — and I don’t mean to demonize you or nothin’ — your claim that “term limits will be a lot longer” under the proposed charter is only true in the sense that 3 > none.
Everything said about the waterfront revolves around Quint Studer? Of course. He is the winner and recipient of our tax dollars .
Got a new list of names from our local ad excecs for all the so called leaders and chamber members in their business suits to ridicule anyone who disagrees with their grander plan? Got some words like disingenuous and pathetic to throw at anyone who dares disagree with the power brokers?
-Thanks for a peek of the attitude that’s in store for the taxpayers.
-The same old power group only with more power and longer terms -
“…in their business suits”
LOL, funniest epithet I’ve read. Curse those highfalutin fatcats with their fancy hair pomades and their autogyros and their ceramic indoor turlets!
No, Joe, no need to curse them,
but their words aren’t more credible just because they call their toilet a thrown.