Council declines to adopt emergency ordinance setting recall qualifying dates; 4–1 vote blocks town timetable

The Fort Myers Beach Town Council on Sept. 11 voted 4–1 not to adopt an emergency ordinance that would have set a qualifying period for candidates to fill vacancies that might arise from a special recall election scheduled for Nov. 4.

Town Attorney Nancy explained that state law governing recalls (citing section 100.361 and related Florida statutes) requires a chief judge to fix an election date if council members do not resign after a petition certification. She said the supervisor of elections requested an ordinance establishing qualifying dates so his office could administer the recall and any concurrent candidate qualifying by petition. The proposed ordinance would have opened qualifying at 9 a.m. on Sept. 15 and closed at 5 p.m. on Sept. 16.

Council debate focused on whether the town was being asked to “clean up” a poorly drafted state statute and whether the town was being compelled to act. Vice Mayor Aderholt, Councilor Safford and others described the statute as ambiguous and criticized the process that led to the recall effort. Some councilors said they would prefer a directive from the chief judge rather than creating local dates.

Councilor Safford made a motion not to adopt the emergency ordinance; Vice Mayor Aderholt seconded. The roll call vote in favor of not adopting was: Councilors Safford (aye), Aderholt (aye), King (aye), Woodson (aye); Mayor Allard voted no. The motion carried 4–1.

Why it matters: the clerk and the supervisor of elections had indicated that without town‑established qualifying dates, the supervisor could not complete required timelines — including overseas ballot deadlines — for a Nov. 4 special recall election. The town attorney said the situation arose from a statutory text that assigns different responsibilities in at‑large jurisdictions than in single‑member district jurisdictions and leaves a gap when a municipality has not adopted qualifying dates by ordinance.

Discussion versus decision: council explicitly debated policy and statutory drafting; the final outcome was a formal vote not to adopt the emergency ordinance. The supervisor of elections and the court could still act: the town attorney said the supervisor might seek further direction from the chief judge if the council declined to set dates.

Ending: Council members urged clearer direction from state courts and the Legislature for future recall procedures and debated pursuing changes to state law; the council’s vote leaves the supervisor of elections and the chief judge as the next likely actors in the timetable.