May 7, 1997

To: Commission

From:George Makrauer

Subject: Procedural courtesy

This was supposed to be a personal communication to Leon from me, no copies anywhere else.  That's what I wanted to do.  But, after my session on Sunshine Law constraints with Jim Denhardt (who has not seen this), he said the Sunshine Law requires this memo to go to all Commissioners.  I'm sorry about that, because I had wanted to settle this issue as between two gentlemen.  I apologize for the Law's result.

I'm going to make this point for the last time in this memo, because this has happened previously between the Mayor and me; I wrote about it before; I received a reply which was erroneous; but I chose not to respond at that time in order to try to let the tension pass and the behavior change - obviously to no avail. 

After Tuesday night's Workshop, I was not the only person who did not appreciate the Mayor's apparent "shutting me down" when I tried to speak on certain issues before the Commission.  It was obvious to others who asked me questions with the same theme: "Why did the mayor keep cutting you off, but he let all the other commissioners speak?"  I answered by passing it off as nothing important in the same way I was also a gentleman Tuesday evening by letting it pass without challenge.  Please understand that was the last time it will happen that way.

In Commission meetings and workshops, I am speaking and asking about issues and information with the same direct and thorough interest I did during the campaign.  The election on Capri said clearly, "We want a different type of representation from Capri on the Commission."  They got it.  I'm different; I'm fulfilling what a majority of voters on Capri said they wanted.  They grew tired of rubber-stamp meetings with minimal involvement and even less information-sharing with residents.

Whatever is motivating the Mayor's behavior is not just now a new issue.  It goes back to the election.  The Mayor made it clear to everyone (including telling me personally and professionally) he was supporting my opponent, which is his choice to make for any reasons he chooses.  He also told me his reason, verbatim: "I feel I should always support the incumbent."  His choice; but my view is all that does is breed inadequate performance.  Not a responsible rationale, in my view, but his right to make any choice he chooses.

Curious though, when the Mayor and I were standing outside the Community Center on election day, he made a startling remark to Don Callahan standing next to my car at 9:38 AM.  (I made a note at the time because of the surprising change in philosophy from what he first told me.)  Without hesitation or qualification, on Don's way in to vote, the Mayor shouted to him: "You gotta vote for the most qualified."  My position, exactly.  Too bad what's good for the gander is not good for the goose. 

Nevertheless, from the day of the Mayor's filing to run and throughout the campaign, whenever I was asked either individually or in front of groups, "Who are you supporting (or voting for) for mayor?" (more frequently as the election neared), I always answered, "Leon Atkinson.  I believe he's not just a choice - I believe he's the only choice, because he's got the better experience and ability."

There's more to the story of candidate support.  But I'd rather not go into it.  I hope it's not necessary to do so in the future.

My effort from the beginning of my involvement in this process has been to work collegially with all Commissioners (including the Mayor) and the City Manager, and to support the Mayor (as I did during the campaign and since then).  The courtesy has been returned in like fashion from all but from the Mayor's chair, for reasons that are his own and which neither I nor the folks who ask me about it understand.  I have said to them, without going into other issues, "I don't know.  We'll get through it." 

Here's what I won't tolerate any more.  Commission Meetings and Workshops are just that - they are not Mayor's Courts.  The Mayor's comments last Tuesday that "the questions I wanted to ask at the Workshop are more appropriate at the afternoon Meeting" is absolute garbage.  No one bought it.  The Mayor is WRONG.  Any doubt?  Ask the City Attorney. 

The very purpose of the Workshop is to encourage public discussion, ask, debate, stimulate ideas and otherwise communicate with residents, other interested parties and ourselves.  Any doubt?  Ask the City Attorney.  That is what I am going to defend - everybody's right to free speech, including mine.  Where the Mayor got the idea to say, "We are going to discuss only items on the agenda," is, I am told, brand new.  The desire of a Commissioner to speak is not a whim; it's a duty if it's pertinent and respectful.  If I had a matter to discuss at any meeting or workshop - on the agenda or not - there had better not be any attempt to quash me on it.

Meeting procedures are the prerogative of the Commission.  The system in-place now works, if there is no inappropriate effort to quash legitimate comment.  Under the circumstances and behavior that have now become generally obvious at meetings, if a proposal were to be made during the current regime that the Commission should review and modify its meeting protocol for any reason, I would be a fool not to see it for what it is, and I would have no option but to make my position and its entire background perfectly clear.

If the Mayor has friends or there are others who are complaining about my questions and comments, tell them to stay the hell home.  If they want to remain ignorant of facts and issues, let them do it by themselves.  My neck - the necks of all Commissioners - not the neck of some crank in the audience who wants to go home early, are on the line for the decisions we make.  I want and need to know what's right, what's wrong, if the data I have are correct or in error, and if the issues being brought before the Commission are truly as they are represented.  That is one of the responsibilities I believe I have as a Commissioner.  My responsibility is NOT to just rubber-stamp what the Mayor wants to do.  My responsibility is to represent residents, ask questions, research facts, present facts, acknowledge and correct my mistakes and take positions on Resolutions and Ordinances that benefit the entire City.  That is what I am going to do.  There is no justifiable or responsible excuse for trying to block me from doing this, as has increasingly been done by the Mayor.

On the tollbooth issue, when I answered Kathy Saunders' (St. Pete Times) question by saying I would vote for changing lanes 1 and 4 to passes and exact change, she said, "Don't you know that will anger lots of the people who voted for you?"  I answered, "Kathy, you and Leanora covered me during the campaign.  You never heard me promise anyone I was going to work hard to get reelected.  I said I was going to work hard for the benefit of the entire City."  That's what I'm doing.  Political correctness and political BS are not part of my style.  I am not going to shy away from calling warm moist fecal matter what it really is.

I never wanted to write a letter like this.  I never imagined I would ever be provoked to do so.  My objective from the beginning has been to work collegially and cooperatively with and support the Commission, the Mayor, the City Manager and all the city employees in helping Treasure Island continue and increasingly become a wonderful place to live in an increasingly challenging and changing era.  My style of work might be different than what went before.  If it weren't, I should not have been voted in. 

There is no need for a response to this memo.  Actually, a response would be counter-productive, because it would beg the release of other comments I'd rather not share.  Let this be the end of the acrimony.  Let the behaviors of both of us as Commissioners indicate we're mutually respectful colleagues in fulfilling our duties.

I apologize for the harsh tone of some of this.  But, I've tolerated all the unwarranted demeaning and disrespect I will take.  The pen might be mightier than the sword, but email and fax distribution are virtually insurmountable, especially when the media salivates for it.  Golf among amateurs will not nurture "camaraderie and relationship building", as the Island Reporter quotes its objective.  Mutual respect among professionals will.