By Coral Gables Gazette staff

Only months after two Coral Gables advisory boards raised concerns that the City Commission was disregarding their recommendations, two more boards—one a committee—voiced similar frustrations within the span of an hour on October 9.

Charter Review Committee questions its role

At a 9 a.m. meeting at City Hall, members of the Charter Review Committee expressed disappointment upon learning that several key issues they expected to review had already been placed on the ballot for a special mail-in election scheduled for April 2026.

Deputy City Attorney Stephanie Throckmorton had barely begun her presentation outlining the committee’s responsibilities when members acknowledged that the commission had already advanced multiple charter amendments for public vote—effectively sidelining the new committee’s work.

“The committee has been given a certain charge, and a lot of what is most important has been taken from us,” said former Mayor and Committee Chair Don Slesnick.

The upcoming mail election was triggered by the city’s effort to remedy a procedural misstep earlier this year, when the commission voted to move the city’s election date from April to November without voter approval—an action unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Mayor Vince Lago subsequently proposed putting the matter to voters, along with a slate of other charter amendments he has long supported.

In doing so, however, the commission preempted the newly formed Charter Review Committee.

Committee member Felix Pardo questioned the utility of the group’s work. “What are we doing here? Are we wasting our time?” he asked, requesting a full report from the City Attorney’s office outlining the commission’s actions and its rationale.

Throckmorton agreed to prepare a report, though she cautioned that the commission’s rationale might be difficult to document. She added that the committee could still offer recommendations on the ballot items when final language is reviewed by the commission early next year.

Parks and Recreation Board flags naming process

Less than an hour earlier, members of the Parks and Recreation Board raised similar concerns during their meeting at the War Memorial Youth Center. Their frustration centered on the commission’s recent decision to name a new city park after David Lawrence Jr., the former Miami Herald publisher and noted children’s advocate.

Board members praised Lawrence’s contributions but objected to the lack of board input. Mayor Lago introduced the naming proposal without advance notice, and the commission approved it without consulting the board.

“Don’t park namings go to this board for approval and support?” asked Chair Kirk Menendez, who joined the meeting via Zoom while celebrating his wedding anniversary. Menendez, a former city commissioner and frequent critic of the mayor, said the process disregarded decades of precedent.

“All of a sudden we are bypassing rules and procedures of this board,” he said. “I’m in full support of naming the park after David Lawrence, but I also don’t want this board’s authority to be dismantled.”

Board member Michelle White agreed, warning that the move could set a troubling precedent. She urged that both the final name of the park and any playground dedications be brought back for board review.

“If our board decides we don’t agree, does it even matter?” one member asked.

Pattern of frustration

The concerns echo complaints made earlier this year by the Historic Preservation Board and the Parking Advisory Board—two other city advisory bodies that say their guidance was disregarded.

The commission approved steel-framed windows for City Hall despite the Historic Preservation Board’s recommendation for wood and later rejected the board’s preferred location for reconstructing the city’s historic Gondola Building.

The Parking Advisory Board’s recommendations on prioritizing a parking master plan and evaluating a proposed Aragon Avenue development were also largely dismissed.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” said Parking Board Member Stuart McGregor at the time. “We’re an advisory board, and that’s how they take our recommendations—‘We’ve taken it under advisement, thank you very much.’”

With two more boards now joining the chorus, tensions continue to rise over how much weight the city’s advisory groups hold in shaping Coral Gables policy.