Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges clarity on mayoral succession and proposes special fund for policing
Summary
During public comment, Louis Broccardo asked whether the runner-up in a mayoral race should automatically succeed if a mayor leaves and proposed directing fees (boat, golf cart) into a special police fund; Treasurer Beverly said current sticker fees already flow to designated funds and the police are funded from the general fund.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Louis Broccardo used his public-comment time to press the board on how mayoral succession and vacancy-fillings are handled under state law, asking whether the second-place mayoral finisher should automatically assume the office if the mayor leaves: "The law says that the mayor going out has to pick a board member first. If no board member wants it, then he can pick whoever he wants. My question is, why do we vote? Why shouldn't the second runner up in the mayoral contest be next?"
Broccardo also raised questions about compensation for deployed officers and possible new municipal revenue streams. He suggested creating a special police-services fund by routing fees such as golf-cart stickers, trailer/boat license fees and ordinance fines into a dedicated account to support part-time officers and equipment: "if you put it in a fund where you are funding a police officer... then we could hire another guy or we could buy guns when we need them, or we could buy bullet proof vests when we need them." Treasurer Beverly responded that boat stickers already go to the lake fund and golf-cart stickers go to the park fund and that "the police department is fully funded by the general fund," explaining that ordinance-fine revenue is recorded under general fines.
Mayor Morris suggested questions about succession might be directed to the attorney general's office or the board of elections for clarification. The exchange remained a call for legal clarification and potential policy review rather than a formal proposal adopted at the Jan. 13 meeting.
