When voters go to the polls Nov. 4, they will elect three county commissioners, the property appraiser, the Lee County sheriff, public defender for the 20th Judicial Circuit and hospital governing board members.

Neither Cape Coral’s one pending vacancy, nor Sanibel’s, will be on the ballot.

Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington again rejected Cape Coral’s request to “piggyback” a city issue on a ballot that contains national, state and city races.

Ms. Harrington’s reasons have been twofold: One, she doesn’t, by law, have to add our races to her ballots, and two, adding the races and issues most important to local voters could delay voters at the polls and counts after those polls close for the elections that have the greatest turnout.

With the advent of the new optical scanners, the problem with “overly-long” ballots is more prevalent than ever, Ms. Harrington said, adding that if she made an exception for one municipality, she would have to so for all.

“Our position is we just do not put municipal races or issues on those ballots anymore,” she said.

Too bad. Adding the Cape mayor’s race to a ballot that had no trouble accommodating an additional hospital board race due to a resignation certainly would have been our method of choice to fill the pending city council vacancy due to Mayor Eric Feichthaler’s decision to resign so he could run for the county commission.

Now the city is facing a tough challenge — pay Ms. Harrington’s office an estimated $80,000 to hold a special, single-race election here in the Cape, or fill the mayor’s post via council appointment.

Council already has indicated it is likely to opt for appointment because the cost of an election is just too pricey in these hard financial times.

It’s difficult to argue with that logic but it leaves the city in a bit of a quandary: how to go about replacing the council chair in a manner that is fair and equitable to those seeking to serve and the voters who are being denied.

There is little precedent for council’s task at hand. Only once in the city’s history has council opted to fill a mayoral vacancy by appointment. That was back in 1980 when then-mayor Lyman Moore died while in office. Council tapped then-Planning and Zoning chair Bernard Langguth to serve for the year remaining on Mr. Moore’s term.

This go-around there’s an added twist as Mayor Feichthaler is not only hail and hearty, he’s kicking in his two cents on how his replacement should be appointed, and he intends to be part of the process.

We agree with his premise, should council vote to appoint: that the focus allow significant public input and participation. The mayor’s post is an elected office, not a staff appointment, not an appointment to a voluntary advisory post. The public certainly has a right to be part of the process and to have its collective voice heard.

Where we see some need for improvement is in the method the mayor is suggesting as we think a couple of key components stray from the very objectives he states are most important — public input, public participation.

Advertising the vacancy is a good first step, and one the city has taken in the past. The submission of applications also is proper and standard.

The mayor’s suggested requirement for 1,000-word essays, though, is an interesting deviation, especially in light of his suggestion that council use these essays, and applications, to winnow any roster of candidates down to a list of five finalists to be interviewed by council.

One, essays can be bought and paid for — political consultants, as the mayor knows full well, are as much a part of the process as voters. Unfortunately.

Essays also can be written by supporters or even a “kitchen cabinet.”

We have no real problem with their submission but even colleges follow up with interviews and that is what we suggest — public interviews of all applicants, even if it makes the process “difficult to administer,” the mayor’s reason behind the application/essay selection process.

If council takes this task upon itself, don’t take short cuts.

Two, we understand the mayor has a legal opinion in hand that says he can be part of the process, that he can, in fact, be appointed.

So be it.

But if he wants to take part, Mayor Feichthaler needs to make it absolutely clear to council that he will not be a self-submitted applicant, nor a council option for the office he chose to vacate to make his unsuccessful bid for county commission. While it may be legal that he outline the process, take part in the process — and be a subject of the process — it is not the right thing to do.

If he wants to remain as mayor — yes, people do change their minds, it’s a human prerogative — he should wholly recuse himself from the selection process.

Either works for us.

Three, if council is serious about public input, televise the interviews and separate the interviews from the vote. Allow the public time for input.

Lastly, look long term. The charter provides council the authority to fill its vacancies via special election or appointment. Council, though, has never seen fit to draw up an ordinance delineating the appointment process. It’s time for such a proposal to come forward.

It’s also past time for Ms. Harrington to re-think her position on municipal races and issues. Her argument of overly long ballots is specious, at best, as adding municipal races “for everyone” does not add to everyone’s ballot. Those “extra” races appear only on the ballot within the respective communities.

In our case, and Sanibel’s, it would have been one race. And in our case and Sanibel’s, one race that is key.

Again, what is legal is not always what is right. While Ms. Harrington is only legally obligated to place national, state and county races on ballots in the so-called “even” years, it is right that she serve all of the voters of Lee County, at their convenience, not hers.



— Breeze editorial