City Council schedules first Apopka City Charter Review meeting

The Apopka City Council, at its December 6th meeting, set in motion a review of the City Charter that is a long time coming.

This is how the current Apopka City Charter begins:

"Printed herein is the Charter of the City of Apopka, Florida, as adopted by Ordinance Number 781 on July 7th, 1993, and by referendum on September 14th, 1993."

It was last amended in 2015.

For many reasons, a charter review is long overdue. In the dynamic landscape of city governance, the periodic review of a city's Charter stands as a cornerstone for progress and adaptability. A city charter is a foundational document outlining the municipal government's structure, powers, and functions. Conducting a charter review is a strategic and proactive approach to ensure that the city's governance framework remains aligned with the evolving needs of its residents. 

City Attorney Cliff Shepard compares it to a municipal wellness check.

"A periodic charter review is like going to the doctor's office for a checkup," he said. "You tend to overlook things that can be important, and you don't want to be reminded of them only when there's a problem.

One of those problems arose back in April.

Previous City Attorney Michael Rodriguez and Mayor Bryan Nelson were under increased pressure after the City Council voted 3-2 to remove Rodriguez at the April 5th meeting. Nelson described that vote as ceremonial and retained Rodriguez.

"It's just a ceremonial vote," Nelson said on April 14th. "They (the City Council) have no authority to fire anybody."

That shifted the issue into a debate over the wording of the Apopka City Charter.

The City Council, however, saw things differently.

"My interpretation of our Charter permits the collective City Council, of which our Mayor is included as part, the ability to fire the City Attorney, which we did at our last meeting with causes stated by three of the majority members," said Commissioner Kyle Becker. "Clearly, we will need to take further steps to make that a reality. It appears the mayor seeks the will of our Council only on topics convenient to him."

Shepard recommends periodic review of the Charter in the future.

"The frequency of a full review varies from government to government, but a good rule of thumb is every 5-7 years. Of course, if an issue does arise between full reviews, it can be addressed case by case."

For many reasons, Becker sees this charter review as having more significant implications than just a checkup.

"I think it very healthy to be on a cycle of continuous inspection of our policies to ensure relevancy in how we want our city to be governed, and our Charter is the most important of these," he said. "Apopka is no different than other cities or bodies of government that grapple with questions regarding terms limits, number of elected positions, who those elected officials represent and where, and most importantly, what form of government we should be governed by. I look forward to hearing the various priorities from my fellow Council members on these many topics."

But he makes it clear his primary goal is to change the form of government Apopka employs.

 "I make no secret of my intentions to bring forth an argument to transition to a City Manager-Council form of government, like most every municipality in Central Florida with the exception of Orlando, and how this would benefit both employees and our residents. I will be scheduling some town hall events in January to get resident feedback, so please be on the lookout for dates/locations. At the end of the day, the residents will ultimately decide the outcome of any potential Charter revisions."

The two primary models of municipal government in the United States—Strong Mayor and Weak Mayor with City Administrator—offer distinct approaches to leadership and decision-making. 

The Strong Mayor Model:

Under the Strong Mayor form of government, executive power is concentrated in the hands of the mayor, who is elected independently by the public. This model grants the mayor considerable authority over the city's administration, including vetoing legislative decisions, proposing budgets, and hiring and firing key officials without council approval. The mayor is often directly involved in policy-making, significantly impacting the city's day-to-day operations.

Advantages of the Strong Mayor Model:

1. Clear Leadership: The Strong Mayor model provides a clear line of leadership, as the mayor is the executive branch's head and a prominent political figure.
2. Decisiveness: The mayor's authority allows for swift decision-making, which can be crucial in times of crisis or rapid change.
3. Accountability: Since the public directly elects the mayor, they are accountable to the citizens, providing a direct link between leadership and the community.

It's obvious, but a strong mayor form of government is only as good as the mayor sitting in the seat.

The Weak Mayor with City Administrator Model:

In contrast, the Weak Mayor system features a mayor whose powers are limited, with an appointed city administrator responsible for the day-to-day operations. The mayor's role is often ceremonial or as a part of the city council, and they may have limited authority over policy decisions. The city administrator is a professional hired for their expertise in managing municipal affairs and overseeing the administrative functions of the city.

Advantages of the Weak Mayor with City Administrator Model:

1. Professional Administration: A city administrator brings professional expertise to the role, ensuring that day-to-day operations are managed efficiently and based on best practices.
2. Shared Decision-Making: The city council often makes policy decisions collectively, promoting a collaborative approach to governance.
3. Stability: With a city administrator handling administrative tasks, the mayor can focus on broader issues, promoting stability and long-term planning.

Commissioner Diane Velazquez would primarily like to see better language in the Charter as it applies to the role of the commissioner.

"A great start to the New Year," she said. "A date has been set to begin the review of the Charter. It will start with the first Article of the Charter. When I previously interviewed (with The Apopka Voice), I had expressed the Charter did not define a role for Commissioners to be more interactive. The last 2 1/2 years have shown how limited the roles of commissioners are when it concerns important issues in our community or within city staff. With our city growing exponentially, residents and constituents are looking to the commissioners to be more effective. When they come to us for whatever reason, we take their concern and issue to the City Administrator or bring the subject matter for discussion at the public Council meeting and hope it gets resolved or the mayor agrees with the consensus. I look forward to reviewing the Charter and hearing the input from our public and co-commissioners. We already know the role of a strong Mayor under the current Charter, so we have a document with duties set in stone since 1993 with only one change in 2015, defining the role of the Chief Administrator."  

The first Charter Review meeting is scheduled for January 10th at 5 pm.