should we change the mix of the EPC board?
Our County Commission also serves as our Environmental Protection Commission (EPC)—a system that has come into question recently since most of our commissioners are not inclined toward Environmental Protection. City Councilwoman Mary Mulhern is proposing we reform the EPC, giving seats to all three cities as well as the county.
Let’s don’t forget: not only did our BOCC/EPC recently vote 4-3 to eliminate our local wetlands protections, only to have to back down in the face of massive public outrage; but before that, last spring they refused (in a 5-2 vote) to oppose state legislation that would have eliminated our local wetlands protections. That legislation fizzled after Governor Crist promised to veto it. Notably, the Tampa City Council voted unanimously to do exactly what the County Commission refused to do: write a letter defending the EPC against the proposed legislation that would have eliminated local wetlands protections across the state. Both Tampa & Temple Terrace unanimously opposed the county’s effort to eliminate the EPC wetlands division.
Mulhern’s proposal would change the EPC board’s composition from the seven county commissioners to: 5 of the seven commissioners, 2 Tampa City Council members, 1 Temple Terrace council member and 1 Plant City council member. The Tampa City Council and the Temple Terrace City Council have both voted unanimously to ask the state legislature to give them these EPC seats.
Oddly, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio doesn’t want Tampa to have seats at that table:
“I don’t believe the composition of the EPC board needs changing,” Iorio said. “I understand the concern over the wetland issue, but you don’t change the composition of a board because you disagree with the board on an issue,” she said. “Voters will decide who sits on the EPC board at election time.”
Odder still, the county commissioners seem willing to share the power of the EPC with the cities. Of course, there’s a catch: commissioners say ALL local boards should be changed to reflect the greater population of the unincorporated county compared to the cities. Hillsborough commissioners had lobbied the state last year to change the balance of power on the Tampa Sports Authority and the Planning Commission to give the county greater power. That proposal failed to launch last year because of widespread concern that giving greater weight to the county would give special interests greater leverage on those boards.
There is an important distinction between the two proposals: the city councilwoman wants to give cities representation on a board where they now have none, while the commissioners want to overpower boards where they already enjoy representation.
Last Wednesday, the county commission voted unanimously to request legislation that would change ALL local boards to base the representation on population. That would include the EPC and the Planning Commission. You can read their brief discussion, and hear WMNF’s interviews of Mary Mulhern and several commissioners after the vote.
Recently, Tommy made a similar point to Mayor Pam’s with regard to two other proposals to change two other systems, saying the real solution is to elect good leaders. Boy, do we ever need to elect good leaders! Still, I think that in the case of the EPC, recent events illuminate a basic flaw in this system. With only one board in charge, it is easier for special interests to exert undue influence. I have seen good and bad county commissions and city councils, but rarely are they all bad in the same way, at the same time. Adding political diversity to this board would make it much less likely that all the representatives could be manipulated by the same forces at the same time, affecting the natural resources that belong to the county and its cities.
I intend to ask our legislative delegation to broaden the representation on our EPC, but leave the other boards alone. I encourage you to let your legislators know what you think, too.
Loading ...
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 am
This could be a slippery slope. It’s my understanding that Norman wants representation according to POPULATION. With that, the county would potentially over power any other representatives on critical issues. How very clever. Not only that, but they would have the ability to appoint more developer-friendly folks to the Planning Commission, right? I would be ok with it as long as it applies only to the EPC board. As far as the Sports Authority board goes, I don’t keep up with them but do know that Norman and Marchetti both are on that board. There is so much cronyism in this state it’s pathetic!
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
We should all support the idea of representation based upon POPULATION. At present, too much power is in the hands of the BOCC. Over the years, the county population has moved from the cities to the unincorporated areas. The government has failed to move with it!
Too many of us have chased the issues over the years with limited success. The fundamental problem is the need to change the structure of county government.
In my opinion, voters need to decentralize this power by changing the structure of county government from 4 single member and 3 at-large commissioners to 7 single member commissioners. We need to bring the government closer to the people! Once done, better representative government and a lower cost for conducting an election campaign would be realized.
If you feel there is merit to this idea, let me hear from you
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Wouldn’t implementing representation based merely upon POPULATION make the BOCC even stronger???????
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Reply to GKR: Thanks for responding.
The intent is not to strengthen or weaken the BOCC but rather to make it more representative of the people (that’s you and I) by bringing it closer. At present, each at-large commissioner represents over 1 mil people and the single member commissioners about 250,000. By going to 7 single member district commissioners, the number of constituents served by each commissioner is reduced to an average of 143,000 and fair representation based upon population is realized. Again, the cost for conducting an election campaign is reduced and average persons (like you and I) can consider running and serving, without the obligatory support of the special interest financial contributors who often have their own agendas.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
In regard to the current compostion of EPC, am I missing something here. The Cities of Tampa, Plant City, and Temple Terrage make up at least half or more of the population in Hillsborough County.
I am also assuming we are living in the United States of America where our founding Fathers designed the government of this great country to be representative of the people it represents.
If this is the case, i.e. I am not dreaming or living in some dictatorship, why not should the citizens of those cities also be represented on EPC.
Am I missing something here? If not, our county governing body is only respresenting the interest that of the county with no regard to the other half of the population in this county.
Hillsborough County spends tens of thousands of dollars advertising and holding local meetings in order to hear input from the public.
What a Fraud. What ever comments at public hearings or editorials of local newspapers have to say, our “Elected Officials” do exactly the opposite except for one or two county commissioners who we all know.
So much Democracy. We preach it, but do not do it.
Herb Berman
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Ron, I’m with you on the single-member districts. I’d even go for 9 or 11. (Other counties have more.) Then a grassroots door-knocking campaign could be practical again, and it would be harder to buy a majority of commissioners. Also, in a small district, more voters would know their representative.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Ok, I get the point now. I’m sorry for being off the mark. Now that the single member districts have been explained further, would it be possible for the charter to be amended to reflect this will?
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Wendy, your first comment was right on the topic of my post - restructuring the EPC. Ron led me off on the tangent of restructuring the county commission. Sorry for the confusion.
Restructuring the county commission would take a county charter amendment. Restructuring the EPC would take state legislation.
Your points about that are well taken.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Thanks for the clarification Ron.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Fairness to the citizens of Hillsborough County and good stewardship to our environment could be achieved with a composition of the EPC as follows:
- 3 city representatives from Plant City, Tampa, Temple Terrace
- 3 people who have the scientific and/or technical credentials so they understand the issues and ramifications
- 1 county commissioner from a single member district
Which leads me to the next suggestion:
The BOCC should definitely be comprised of single-member districts. The District 4 area is too broad for 1 commissioner and the at-large commissioners really do not have a good grasp of the entire county. Our elected “officials” need to be more accessible to the people who they are supposed to represent. Let’s get our officials back out into the community working for us ….. for a change!
October 24th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Chuck, ideally it would be good to have some environmental experts on the EPC, but the practical problem is that they would be appointed by our elected officials.
If they appoint the foxes to guard the henhouse, like they recently did with the Planning Commission, then what recourse do we have when those appointees make decisions based on self-interest rather than the public good? At least with elected officials we have a shot at bringing voter-pressure to bear when they threaten to do something horrible like eliminate the wetlands division. Appointees do not answer directly to the voters, which has its pluses and minuses.
In the case of the Planning Commission, I believe the benefits of having non-politicians on that board outweighs the disadvantages, because the Planning Commission is an advisory board, not a regulatory board like the EPC.
I shudder to think of the “scientists” our politicians might appoint to make or break our environmental protection regulations.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
[…] voted unanimously to write this letter (on City of Tampa letterhead) asking state legislators to change the composition of the EPC board to include representatives from the cities, Mayor Iorio wrote this letter (on City of Tampa […]
October 26th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
A Letter to the Tribune and SPT:
“As a long-time resident of Temple Terrace I support Tampa City Councilwoman Mary Mulhern’s challenge to the dysfunctional status quo of our county.
I refer to her efforts to reform the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC).
The commission protects the natural resources (water, air, soil and wildlife) of Hillsborough County, yet only County Commissioners comprise the board. This ignores the fact that natural resources transcend “incorporation”; and the municipalities of Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City have no representation.
Currently, the City Council of Tampa and Temple Terrace (Plant City is considering it) have endorsed the effort, as have many of our state representatives and senators. Even members of the County Commission support it. Sadly, Ms. Mulhern’s logical, common sense effort to safeguard our natural resources is not without challenge.
Curiously, Tampa Mayor Iorio fails to realize that the EPC governs more than just “wetlands”. Predictably, some County Commissioners are gung ho about Ms. Mulhern’s efforts merely because they want to use the rationale to gut the Hillsborough County Planning Commission in the future.
Let’s stay focused and deal with the Machiavellian efforts of a few later, our three county municipalities deserve representation on the EPC.