A village committee tasked with reviewing the Islamorada charter recommended maintaining the seat numbers one through five, and giving candidates the ability to file for a certain seat, as opposed to transitioning to the top five vote getters, during a village election.
At a Feb. 18 meeting at the Founders Park Community Center, the seven-member committee also voted 6-1 to recommend council members serve terms of three years as opposed to two years. However, the committee turned down a recommendation to keep the seats unstaggered, meaning they would all come up for election every three years.
Recommendations by the committee still have to go to the village council for consideration and approval before they go to village voters at the November 2026 election. The committee was expected to continue discussing the idea of potentially staggering terms at a Feb. 25 meeting.
Talks over keeping the seats numbered versus having an election with the five highest vote getters transitioned to the issue of candidates switching seats before the qualifying deadline. Recent elections have seen candidates filing for one seat, but jumping to another just before the qualifying period deadline. Several committee members expressed their desires to see the practice end.
“It just seems improper,” Joe Roth said.
“I had conversations over the last week with numerous residents. They all said mostly the same thing, they were not happy with seat switching,” Lorie LaLonde said.
Per village attorney John Quick, Florida statute doesn’t prohibit candidates from seeking a different office or switching seats. If they do swap, Quick said, they have to notify their financial contributors within 15 days. That way, the contributor can decide to keep their funds with that candidate or get their contributions back if they prefer another person running for office.
“As you can imagine, the reason might be you donate to John Doe because he’s running against John Smith, but then he switches seats and he’s running against Jane Doe, and you prefer Jane Doe and you might not want your funds used against Jane Doe,” Quick said.
The village has a qualifying period, meaning a candidate can’t jump out of one seat to go for another after the deadline.
Village Clerk Marne McGrath said state law stipulates the election qualifying fee is 3% of council’s annual salary. There’s also a 1% assessment fee. Together, fees to enter a village race are $480. Candidates can also secure petitions to enter a village race. McGrath noted that petitions wouldn’t be transferred if they ran for one seat but switched to another.
Committee member Richard Black asked Quick if the village could require a candidate to pay the qualifying fees again if they decide to switch seats. Quick believed it could be possible, but would research more to confirm.
The lone “no” vote, vice chair Susan Raffanello, believed the village should do away with the numbered seats and instead go by top vote getters.
“I think seats become a popularity contest. They choose the weak gazelle and devour it,” she said. “People will pick who they want to run against, for better or for worse. I think it’s for worse.”
Committee members then discussed lengths of council member terms. A majority believed two years wasn’t adequate, but four years was too long. Historically, questions posed to voters about increasing term lengths to four years on the ballot have been overwhelmingly voted down.
Chair Ty Harris said a three-year term gives staff the ability to perpetuate policies that often change when the council makeup changes every two years. Craig McBay also acknowledged the potential benefit of giving council and staff time to implement policy with a term length beyond two years.
“Look at the time staff spends preparing for things like the Fills. The new council wants to do one thing, ‘Here’s our plan,’ then a new council comes in and says, ‘Nope that’s not our plan’ and it starts over,” he said.
Raffanello, who preferred keeping council term lengths to two years, said there’s more accountability to council and the public.
“Every two years, those doing well will maintain their seats if that’s what the public desires,” she said. “It gives residents a voice in the community and sometimes feel like they don’t have one.”
LaLonde said people she talked to about term lengths supported going from two to three years. With two-year terms, Roth acknowledged that it takes a year to learn how village government works. The next year, they have to turn around and campaign, if they’re seeking re-election.
