PINECREST VILLAGE REFERENDUMS EXPLAINED

Pinecrest Referendum 1

This referendum is about changing the rules for how long someone can serve as Mayor or Councilmember in the village. Right now, the rule says that a person can only serve in either role for up to two terms in a row, or a total of eight years in a row. The proposed change would allow someone to serve as Mayor for two terms and also serve as a Councilmember for two terms, meaning they could serve a total of four terms in a row (which could be up to 16 years).

In simple terms, the change would let someone serve for a longer period by being both Mayor and Councilmember in separate terms, instead of combining the time limits for both roles.

I, Ralph Sanchez, will vote NO.

Pinecrest Referendum 2

This referendum is about whether a short term in office should count towards the limit on how long someone can serve as Mayor or Councilmember. Right now, it's not clear if serving part of a term (less than a full term) counts toward the maximum number of terms a person can serve in a row. The proposed change says that if someone serves for less than two years in a term, it wouldn’t count as a full term.

In other words, if someone takes over part of a term (like filling in for someone else), and it's less than two years, that time wouldn't count toward the limit on how many terms they can serve consecutively.

I, Ralph Sanchez, will vote NO.

Pinecrest Referendum 3

This referendum is about what counts as a "break" in someone’s time as Mayor or Councilmember when calculating consecutive term limits. Right now, the rules don't say how long someone needs to take a break from being in office before their previous time no longer counts toward the term limit. The proposed change says that if a person takes a break of at least six months (180 days), the time they served before that break wouldn’t count toward the limit on how many terms they can serve in a row.

In simple terms, if someone steps away from being Mayor or Councilmember for at least six months, the time they served before the break wouldn’t count toward the total limit of consecutive terms they can serve.

I, Ralph Sanchez, will vote NO.

Pinecrest Referendum 4

This referendum is about how the village handles the situation if the Mayor or all Council members leave their positions before their terms are up. Right now, if the Mayor's position becomes vacant, there has to be a special election within 90 days to fill it. Also, if all Council members leave, there would be a special election that wouldn’t keep the staggered timing of Council member terms (meaning some members are elected at different times to maintain balance).

The proposed change would make it so that if the Mayor’s position becomes vacant, it would be filled during the next regular election instead of having a special election within 90 days. And if all Council members leave, there would be a special election to fill each open Council position, but the remaining terms would be preserved, keeping the staggered election timing for balance.

In other words, if the Mayor's position becomes vacant, waiting for the next regular election to fill it could leave the village without a Mayor for an extended period of time. This would create leadership gaps and delay important decisions or actions that require a Mayor's input.

Additionally, in the case of the entire Council becoming vacant, while the staggered terms would be preserved, holding a special election for each position’s remaining term will be complicated and confusing for voters. It will also lead to increased costs due to multiple special elections, rather than filling all positions more quickly in a single election. These factors will slow down the process of getting the local government fully functioning again.

I, Ralph Sanchez, will vote NO.

Pinecrest Referendum 5

This referendum is about updating the village's election rules to match current Florida state laws. Right now, the village's Charter (a document that outlines how the village is governed) has some old rules about election timelines that no longer apply because state laws have changed.

The proposed change would update the Charter to make sure it clearly says that all election timelines must follow Florida state law and can work with the schedule of the Supervisor of Elections, who oversees elections.

By strictly aligning with Florida state laws and the Supervisor of Elections' schedule, the village will lose  flexibility in how it runs its local elections. For example, if the state laws or the Supervisor’s schedule don't perfectly match the needs or preferences of the village, it will limit the village’s ability to make adjustments that might better suit the community.

Additionally, since the changes are described as "non-substantive technical updates," this creates a lack of clarity for voters on exactly what is changing. The community has not been truly informed on how these changes will impact our local elections.

I, Ralph Sanchez, will vote NO.

- Ralph Sanchez, 9/26/2024