Florida Gov’t Weekly Roundup: On A Wild Summer’s Week

June 11, 2016

Florida might not have been on a train bound for nowhere this week, but there were still times when the state’s government and political news felt a lot like “The Gambler.”

“You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em,” Kenny Rogers sings in the country music classic. “Know when to fold ‘em. Know when to walk away. And know when to run.”

http://www.northescambia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/floridaweeklly.jpgTwo South Florida senators decided to fold ‘em by leaving the Legislature — including one whose retirement followed four decades of public service and an inflammatory comment that could have made her re-election bid particularly tough. Two more lawmakers from Palm Beach County decided to run, but for each other’s seats.

Officials at Florida A&M were deciding whether to walk away from Elmira Mangum, the embattled president of the state’s only historically black public university.

Meanwhile, gambling itself was before the Florida Supreme Court, but largely got lost in a deck full of cases and decisions dealing with everything from the death penalty to the state’s workers’ compensation system.

Supporters of the workers’ comp provision struck down by the justices warned that it would harm business — another area where the Gambler had some advice. “You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table. There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.”

SOUTH FLORIDA SHUFFLE

A colleague once compared Sen. Gwen Margolis, D-Miami, to Mount Rushmore for her long record of service and sizable reputation in South Florida. But that reputation took a beating after Margolis sounded dismissive of the heritage of some of her political opponents this week, something that likely led to her decision to end her elected career.

She was elected to the House in 1974, rose to become the first female Senate president in 1990, served on the Dade County Commission and was on her third stint in the Senate when she decided to retire.

“I am guided by the belief that one must leave your community a better place from where you started,” the 81-year-old Margolis said in a statement issued Thursday by her campaign. “Today, I am proud to say that we have done that. The last 40 years have been a blessing because so many milestones and history-making moments were reached on behalf of Miami-Dade and Florida. ”

Margolis didn’t reference the imbroglio over her colorful analysis of the Democratic primary in Senate District 38. The Miami Herald reported that, at a Monday campaign event, Margolis allegedly said it was “reprehensible that three Haitians, some teacher and some lawyer think that they have the right to run against me.”

Three of the remaining five District 38 Democratic primary candidates — accountant Anis Blémur, former state Rep. Phillip Brutus and state Rep. Daphne Campbell — are Haitian-Americans, and some of them started putting pressure on Margolis after the comments became public.

“It is truly sad that Sen. Margolis would stoop that low just because she has competition,” Brutus said. “What is reprehensible is the fact that Gwen Margolis, a public figure, thought it acceptable to attack the Haitian community the way she did.”

The teacher is Don Festge and the lawyer is Jason Pizzo, an attorney from North Miami Beach.

Margolis wasn’t the only female senator from the southern part of the state who decided to leave. Sen. Maria Sachs, D-Delray Beach, told The Palm Beach Post that she was departing the upper chamber two years earlier than expected to focus on running a nonprofit, the Coalition Against Human Trafficking.

Meanwhile, Rep. Kevin Rader and Sen. Joseph Abruzzo said they would swap seats — with Rader, D-Delray Beach, seeking a spot in the Senate while Abruzzo, D-Boynton Beach, returns to the House.

All the moves were driven to some extent by a court-ordered redistricting plan for the state Senate. Margolis was in a redrawn District 38 because of that decision. Sachs, Abruzzo and Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, were in the middle of trying to figure out how to unscramble a three-incumbent pile-up in the district where they all lived, and part of that involved Abruzzo moving to a district where he didn’t live, but Rader did.

A BUSY COURT

The other branches of government were overwhelmed this week to some extent by the barrage of news coming out of the Florida Supreme Court. Justices dealt with cases on gambling, the death penalty, medical malpractice and the open carrying of firearms.

The gambling case centers on a tiny horse track that is trying to convince the court that it should have slot machines, even without the express approval of the Legislature.

Lawyers for Gretna Racing in Gadsden County and the state traded at-times semantic arguments concerning a 2009 state law that the track said gave it permission to let voters decide whether slots should be allowed at the pari-mutuel.

Some justices seemed frustrated with the close parsing of the state law involved.

“We can get all wrapped up in all the words and phrases and need an English professor to tell us what these things mean,” Justice R. Fred Lewis said.

Almost as complex were the court’s deliberations over whether the state’s new death penalty law is constitutional and, if so, whether it applies to cases that were already in the pipeline when the law passed in March.

But the arguments Tuesday in the case of Larry Darnell Perry, who was convicted of the 2013 murder of his infant son, did little to clear up the murky situation surrounding a January ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida, or a new law approved in response.

“Clearly at this stage in our jurisprudence, we want to make sure that the statute is construed in a constitutional manner so that we don’t have another 15 years of death penalty — if the state wants the death penalty, which apparently it does — in flux,” Justice Barbara Pariente said.

Under Florida’s old law, jurors by a simple majority could recommend the death penalty. Judges would then make findings of fact that “sufficient” aggravating factors, not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, existed for the death sentence to be imposed.

That system was an unconstitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in an 8-1 ruling.

Florida’s new law requires juries to unanimously determine “the existence of at least one aggravating factor” before defendants can be eligible for death sentences. The law also requires at least 10 jurors to recommend the death penalty in order for the sentence to be imposed.

The gun case dealt with whether Floridians should be allowed to carry firearms openly, instead of being required to follow the state’s concealed-carry law. On medical malpractice, the issue was whether non-economic damages, commonly known as pain and suffering damages, should be capped.

Justices did rule on a case dealing with workers’ compensation insurance, issuing a 5-2 decision in favor of Bradley Westphal, a St. Petersburg firefighter who suffered a severe back injury while on the job in 2009. The case focused on a workers’ compensation law that led to Westphal’s benefits being cut off after two years, creating what the Supreme Court described as a “coverage gap.”

“As applied to Westphal, the current workers’ compensation statutory scheme does not just reduce the amount of benefits he would receive … but in fact completely cuts off his ability to receive any disability benefits at all,” said the majority opinion written by Pariente and joined fully by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Justices Peggy Quince and James E.C. Perry. Lewis wrote a separate concurring opinion.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America quickly issued statements warning that Thursday’s ruling could hurt businesses. Florida Chamber President and CEO Mark Wilson described it as a “further sign that Florida’s workers’ comp system is under attack.”

FAMU: ‘WORKING FOR THE STUDENTS’ OR ‘DYSFUNCTION’?

Also under siege was Mangum, whose week ended with the university president not knowing exactly how much longer she might have at the helm. The Florida A&M University Board of Trustees on Friday delayed a decision about whether to extend Mangum’s contract, now in its third and final year. The deal expires at the end of March.

The 13-member board has eight new members since a failed attempt to fire Mangum last fall. At that time, Kelvin Lawson — who was elected chairman of the board Friday — was the author of a motion to remove Mangum for “incurable cause.”

“I think some of us that have been around longer have a slightly better perspective,” he said Friday. “I think the other board members are going to have to go through that review and then probably get (last year’s evaluation) as a point of comparison to decide if anything at all needs to happen, or if the president’s just allowed to work out the balance of the term of the agreement.”

Mangum said she would not resign.

“The board can do whatever it wants to do,” she said. “I’m here to serve, working for the students, so the board can go line by line, they can extend, they can add, they can change, they can offer options.”

The day before the Friday meeting, a group of former FAMU presidents sent a letter to the board urging trustees not to renew her contract.

“Unfortunately, the disenfranchisement of students, faculty, alumni, staff and community seems to have thrown the university off course,” said the letter, signed by former presidents Frederick Humphries and Fred Gainous and former interim presidents Castell Bryant and Henry Lewis. “We agree that the stalemate that is currently in place creates a culture that will not allow for growth or stability. It is impossible for any university to thrive amid constant dysfunction.”

STORY OF THE WEEK: The South Florida legislative delegation underwent significant changes, with two longtime lawmakers stepping aside and two others deciding to swap their seats.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “This isn’t a ban. It’s just a ban on the method of carrying that the Legislature has determined protects public safety more than people walking around like they’re in the wild west.”—Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente, questioning how a state law allowing citizens to receive concealed-weapons licenses to carry firearms suppresses gun ownership.

by Brandon Larrabee, The News Service of Florida

Comments

Comments are closed.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News