By Matt Silbernagel
The Florida Legislature is currently engaged in a debate on whether county commissioners should be subject to term limits. While state law places term limits on state-level offices and many local positions, county commissions have remained an exception. Two bills filed this session, HB 57 (Salzman) and SB 438 (Ingoglia), aim to change this, however, by proposing term limits of either eight years (SB 438) or twelve years (HB 57) for county commissioners statewide.
Floridians and conservative organizations have indicated strong support for these legislative measures. Some polls have indicated around 70 percent approval of term limits for county commissioners and the Republican Party of Florida has even gone so far as to designate the passing of HB 57 or SB 438 as its top legislative priority in 2024.
In the 1990s, Florida implemented eight-year term limits for state officials to combat corruption at the state level. It’s now time to extend this commonsense limitation on power and corruption to the county level. Observers of county governments will be quick to note that often the longest-serving county commissioners are closely connected to major developers and businesses. These major developers and businesses can usually be found to have fiduciary obligations to national or even international shareholders and investors. Grimier still is that fact that all too often, it is the county commissioners’ own businesses, partners, or clients that stand to benefit the most from a strategic “yay” or “nay” vote from the commission dais.
Opponents of county commissioner term limits, mainly consisting of current commissioners and their paid lobbyists, argue that HB 57 and SB 438 hinder local residents’ ability to decide their commissioners’ tenure. While this argument aligns with traditional ideals of American democracy, the reality of county electoral politics reveals a different story – a story unsurprisingly dictated by money. In many elections, voters enter the booth having had time to pay attention only to the highest profile national candidates and topics. Most voters simply do not have the time to thoroughly vet their commissioners’ voting records or positions. Instead, voters rely on simple name recognition when it comes to local, seemingly less flashy races. This is where money and tenure rule the day. Deep-pocket donors, with an interest in keeping their favored commissioners on a short leash, know this spend their campaign and PAC dollars accordingly. Rarely does a grassroots candidate, with solid policy proposals and principled stances, prevail against an entrenched commissioner supported by the county’s major businesses and developers.
While some sitting county commissioners are loath to have Tallahassee place an expiration date on to their time in office, some county commissioners welcome the legislative effort. One such commissioner is Lake County Commissioner Joshua Blake (Dist. 5). Blake recently expressed his support for HB57/SB438 and stated:
“Representative democracy depends on a level playing field – applying term limits at the county level helps to prevent entrenched power from weakening the checks and balances that local elections are intended to be.”
During his initial 2016 run for the Lake County Commission, Blake publicly pledged to self-impose a term limit of eight years to his time in office. True to his pledge, Blake is not seeking reelection as a Lake County Commissioner this year.
Under Article VIII of the Florida Constitution, counties are considered “creatures of the State.” Enacting term limits for county commissioners is therefore a tool well within the purview of Florida’s state law makers. In fact, failing to pass either HB 57 or SB 438 and allowing unscrupulous county commissioners to continue to treat Florida’s counties as their own private fiefdoms would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Florida Legislature. It’s time for term limits for Florida’s county commissioners.
Matt Silbernagel is an attorney at Nardella & Nardella, PLLC in Orlando, Florida where he focuses his practice on complex commercial and eminent domain defense litigation.
