Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sarasota County commission sends Charter Review Board package back after sustained public criticism
Summary
After extended public comment alleging procedural gaps and incomplete work by the Charter Review Board, the Sarasota County Commission voted unanimously June 2 to decline sending the proposed charter amendments to the November ballot and sent the package back to the CRB for additional review and clarification.
The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously June 2 to deny the Charter Review Board's recommendation to place a set of proposed charter amendments on the November ballot and instead sent the package back to the CRB for further work.
The decision followed more than an hour of public comment from residents and former CRB members who said the special committee's work was incomplete, that some meetings were not properly held, and that clerical-looking changes could mask substantive rollbacks of voter-approved protections. "Renumbering and capitalizing words are clerical changes that do not create a substantial change to the charter," public speaker Alexandra Ko told the commission. "What we have here is the repeal of a citizen initiative amendment, camouflaged and obscured as a collection of clerical changes."
Former CRB member Jack Miller recounted repeated delays, no-shows by committee leadership and minutes that did not reflect votes he said had not occurred. "There was not only no vote on 12/14/2023, there was no meeting," Miller said, urging commissioners to refer the package back to the CRB rather than advance it to the ballot.
Commissioners discussed legal background and transparency. County legal staff explained that some charter provisions had been declared invalid by court decisions and noted that removing an invalid provision from the charter still requires voter approval. Commissioner Knight, who had pulled the agenda item for discussion, moved to deny the CRB's recommendation to place the measures on the November ballot and to return them to the Charter Review Board for further review; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The board's action does not change current charter language; rather, it directs the CRB to revisit the package and provide clearer documentation and vetting before any referendum. Commissioners emphasized a need for clear public explanation of the legal effect of proposed changes and more time for staff and the public to review the material.
The commission did not schedule a new hearing date; the CRB is expected to review the board's feedback and return with revised recommendations in the future.
