Incumbent Commissioner Jerry Libbin would support an overhaul of the way Miami Beach citizens elect their leaders. Photo by Richard M. Brooks

At Large and In Charge?
Miami Beach’s Group Election System Could Be in Desperate Need of Change

By Lee Molloy

As the City of Miami Beach prepares for another election season, some politically engaged residents are wondering if the current system of elections offers the best choice to the citizenry, or if the process really just favors politicians currently in power.

Section 2.01 of the Charter of the City of Miami Beach is clear: “The City Commission shall consist of six City Commissioners and a Mayor who shall be elected at large,” meaning that each commissioner represents all of the residents of Miami Beach and not those from a specific geographical district, e.g. South Beach.

However, the system allows candidates to select which group they will run in, and usually the selection is based not on whom they want to represent, but rather whom they want to oppose.

“It adds an unnecessary calculation regarding who you are going to run against,” said David Nemitz, local political activist and president of The Miami Beach Toastmasters.

Along with Mayor Matti Bower, City Commissioner Jerry Libbin is one incumbent voters will see on their ballots in November. Libbin told The Lead that he had previously attempted to discuss changing the group system in committee, but couldn’t get another commissioner to second the motion.

“The problem with running in group seats is that there is a huge advantage for an incumbent,” Libbin said. “Most people don’t run [against an incumbent] unless they’ve got a grudge, or they’re upset with that person.”

Commission candidate Roger Abramson believes pitting one candidate against another is not in the best interest of the city.

Nemitz agrees with Libbin’s assessment, and sees a further advantage.

“The other people that were elected are not running against you,” Nemitz said. “It isolates you from your toughest competitors.”

Although he once had his hat in the ring for a candidacy against current Mayor Matti Bower, Commissioner Saul Gross, termed out this year, has since gone on record stating that he will not run for mayor in November.

“I think the incumbents would have the advantage in either system,” said Gross, who now has nothing to gain or lose if the system were to change, at least as far as a candidacy goes. “They have been in office and have name recognition.”

Former commissioner Michael Gongora who, as an incumbent, was narrowly defeated by Commissioner Ed Tobin in 2007 by a mere 33 votes amid widely-publicized mud slinging, in part agrees.

“Regardless of whether we have the group [system] or not, there still would be some advantage to incumbency,” Gongora said. “So I am not really sure how different it would be.”

Commission candidate Michael Gongora would like to see less negative campaigning in the city.

Gongora’s example, however, does highlight another concern of those who believe a change to the system is in order — group campaigns can get nasty.

“In my case, I was specifically targeted,” Gongora told The Lead. “I think one of the benefits of switching to an at-large system is that it would help eliminate some of the negative campaigning.”

Board of Adjustment member and commission candidate Sherry Roberts favors doing away with the groups, and is generally very concerned with the amount of money being spent on elections, much of which goes to attacking ones opponent. Without groups, “there would probably be less negative campaigning,” she said.

Libbin and several of the other candidates concur. Bemoaning the fact that commission races often come down to two horses, candidate and former entertainment producer Roger Abramson spoke to the consensus.

 “When it becomes a one-on-one like this, it all of a sudden becomes very personal,” he said.

Gross, however, is not convinced.

“Groups give a clear choice to the electorate between you and the people you are running against,” he said, and even if the system was changed, “I think you’d see the same thing, whoever was seen to be among the front-runners would still be the subject of a negative attack.”

Commission candidate Alex Fernandez thinks the citizens should decide.

Nemitz has another problem with the current system. If, as the charter states, the commission is to be elected ‘at large’ then shouldn’t those candidates that receive the most votes be elected?

“Michael Gongora was a commissioner — that’s what the numbers show if it had been an ‘at large’ election,” Nemitz said of the fact that even though Gongora lost his seat, with 4,564 votes he still got more than Commissioner Weithorn (4,503) who ran in a different group.

“When a candidate went in, they knew what they were getting involved with,” Group 3 candidate Alex Fernandez said. “Everyone knew the rules of the game.” Fernandez does concede that “there is always room for improvement.”

What’s the Alternative?

In a straight ‘at large’ election, all candidates would be pitted against each other with the top three becoming commissioners; the Mayors seat could be decided separately or won by the top vote getter.

Another option could be to divide Miami Beach into three districts (South, Mid and North) so that all commissioners represent a specific geographic area.

A combination of the two, where there are three district commissioners and three ‘at large’ commissioners is another idea being proposed by local activists.

According to 2003 data from the National League of Cities, 58 percent of medium-sized cities like Miami Beach use some form of ‘at large’ election system, while 27 percent have a district system, and the rest are a mix of the two.

“I believe that the public should have the opportunity to pick who they want to represent them and the best way to do that is to pick from all the candidates,” Libbin said, favoring the removal of the group system. However, he is also open to having a mix of ‘at large’ and district elections. “Miami Beach may be ripe for a split on this issue, where we could potentially have three seats done by group and three seats done at-large,” he said.

Gross believes that an ‘at large’ system without group designation has “some merit,” but he isn’t too keen on districts.

“I think Miami Beach is a very small city and I think it’s important for all the commissioners to go out and meet all the different people,” Gross said. “I think if you have a system where [commissioners] only represent a small part of the city, you end up with something like [Miami-Dade] County has, which I don’t think is successful.”

Democracy In Action

Commission candidate Sherry Roberts beleives its time for a change in the system.

Although the system is not going to change before the November election, Roberts has made it clear that she would support “at large” elections without groups if elected, and several of the other candidates said they would support at least a discussion, and a change if it was what the public wanted. The next commission will likely have time to study other electoral systems.

“I don’t think [changing the system] should be done by anyone but the people,” Fernandez said, adding that the amount of money needed to run for election also needs to be considered. “We really need to take a more serious look at electoral reform,” he said.

Nemitz agrees and thinks that the citizenry must act to get the commission to change the way elections are run, with the “simplest solution” being to directly lobby commissioners to sponsor a charter amendment. However, this may not be an easy sell. Because commissioners will be incumbents, “like most people want an unfair advantage in life. And why not, if you can get it?” Nemitz said.

Commissioner Libbin is ready to push for reform.

“I’m willing to do this,” Libbin said. “If I couldn’t be in the top three, I probably shouldn’t be there.”

Meanwhile, at least one commissioner thinks if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

comments@theleadmiamibeach.com