Elections Building

Questions

We walk residents through a series of questions to assist them in figuring out a sound position.

FIRST QUESTION: Is there a need for a new election facility of some sort?

YES. The Dade County Democratic Committee is firmly behind the idea that a new election facility is needed.

This is based upon direct observation and participation over the years by many of our Committee members who have volunteered in various aspects of conducting elections. There just isn’t enough room in the Administrative Building for the Elections Division to do everything they need to do. The space within the current office is too cramped; it doesn’t always allow for enough separation between teams who are opening ballots on the one hand, and other teams who are supposed to be reviewing those same ballots, on the other. In addition to risking ballot secrecy, there’s also the issue of machine storage, record-keeping, and the fact that there are usually candidates on the ballot working in that same space, only a few feet away. The county has made the Secretary of State aware of all of these issues, and allowances have been made. But now that the county can build a new space of some kind, if it declines to do so, the State may not be as forthcoming in its tolerance of the situation.

SECOND QUESTION: Does the Committee have a position on the proposals for the new Election Building by the six contractors?

IN PROGRESS. It was discussed at our last meeting, we’re following the online and in-person public hearings, and we’re trying to do some fact-finding on what the going rate of government buildings is these days, instead of rushing to judgment.

We are open to other possibilities. Like everyone, the members of our Committee want an adequate facility that meets state guidelines and requirements. We also want any facility to be as economical as it can be while meeting all requirements and without sacrificing quality in a rush to be cheap about it.

Finally, if the anxiety over the cost of the building is due to anxiety about the impact of inflation in general, didn’t the current Administration in Washington DC claim to have “fixed” that on Day One?

Watch first virtual Town Hall here

THIRD QUESTION: There is currently an effort to recall County Executive Don Townsend over the proposals for the Election Building, seemingly because of the proposed cost. Does the Committee have a position on this?

UNWARRANTED AT THIS TIME. The recall is the “atomic bomb” solution to any state or local political issue. It is to be used carefully and only for specific reasons. Those reasons include:

(A) While holding public office, a public official conducts themselves in a manner that relates to and adversely affects the administration of his office and adversely affects the rights and interests of the public; and

(B) That a public official has done at least one of the following:

• (i) Committed an act or acts of malfeasance while in office;

• (ii) Violated his oath of office;

• (iii) Committed an act of personal misconduct in office;

• (iv) Guilty of a failure to perform duties prescribed by law; or

• (v) Willfully misused, converted, or misappropriated, without authority, public property or public funds entrusted to or associated with the elective office to which the official has been elected or appointed.

It should also be noted that "Discretionary performance of a lawful act or a prescribed duty shall not constitute a ground for recall of an elected public official," according to state law.

Our Committee does not see how anything County Executive Townsend has done to date warrants a recall effort. Even if one strongly disagrees with the proposals for the building, neither Townsend nor the Board of Commissioners has acted upon those proposals in any way yet, other than informing the public about them.

We have reached out to the people behind the recall effort and asked them to explain how they think County Executive Townsend’s has, to date, warranted being recalled. As of publication, we have not received a response.

Finally, in a recent article on the Mountain Independent, its editor, Evan Stone, made a characterization of the man heading up the petition movement that was purposely prejudicial. It was the kind of thing he (Stone) would not have written had he agreed with the petition, and it was clearly designed to turn more conservative segments of the county against the petition and the petitioner.

We all like living here, we all want a community that’s safe and enjoyable for ourselves and our neighbors. We’re going to disagree on things, but regardless of what we think about this or any local issue, let’s keep our conversations and debates on the facts and substance of the matter at hand.