By Coral Gables Gazette staff

The Coral Gables Charter Review Committee moved swiftly through numerous important recommendation changes at its Dec. 4 meeting, making 18 motions in under two hours as it considered a wide range of proposals, most of which will appear on the city’s April mail-ballot referendum. 

At the top of the list was whether to reaffirm or rescind the previous committee’s recommendation against moving municipal elections from April – where they have been held for the past century – to November. Although the City Commission has already approved placing the question on the ballot, the current committee opted to take a fresh position.

“Both the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney reminded us that… there are things that are going on the ballot in April that have been determined,” said former Mayor and Committee Chair Don Slesnick. He emphasized that the committee’s Dec. 4 meeting was the final chance to weigh in on ballot wording or to express support or opposition to measures already slated for voter consideration.

Committee member Jane Moskowitz reiterated her longstanding concerns about shifting elections to November. She dismissed claims that the move would significantly save taxpayer dollars or meaningfully boost participation in city races. “Most people vote for President and Senator… and then they jet out the door,” she said. “I’d put money on the fact that there will not be greater voting on Coral Gables candidates and issues if we are put together with all the other things happening on the county ballot.”

Committee Member Nestor Menendez countered, arguing that residents had recently elected candidates who openly supported moving the election date. “I think just on pure numbers alone, the amount of people that would put eyes on these issues would be way more than what we’ve been seeing in April,” he said. He noted that while the issue may not have been decisive, it was part of the platform of candidates voters chose in the 2025 election.

Former Mayor and committee member Raul Valdes-Fauli said he had changed his stance since previously opposing the shift. “I think I made a mistake,” he admitted. “Participation is much, much greater in November… 85 percent versus 20 to 25 percent.” Slesnick, appointed by Mayor Vince Lago – who strongly supports the change – spoke in defense of keeping April elections, calling it the “appropriate time” for city matters. Though he emphasized tradition alone was not the reason, he ultimately voted with the majority to rescind the previous committee’s opposition.

Members Annie Betancourt and Eve Boutsis joined Menendez and Valdes-Fauli in the 5–2 vote to reverse the prior recommendation, clearing the way for voter consideration of the date change without the committee’s earlier disapproval attached.

Committee rejects ballot language framing election change

Although the committee supported withdrawing the prior opposition, it declined to endorse the proposed ballot wording provided by city staff. Slesnick raised concerns over language stating the proposed change was made “with the intention of increasing voter turnout and decreasing election costs,” saying it improperly influenced voters. “If this is a ballot issue, shouldn’t it be neutral?” he asked.

City Attorney Cristina Suarez and Deputy City Attorney Stephanie Throckmorton said the phrasing was legally defensible and used in nearby municipalities. Moskowitz was unconvinced. “I’d like to better do what’s right than what’s just defensible,” she said. The committee unanimously recommended to strike the contentious phrase.

Term limits, residency rules, commissioner raises and more

The committee also took positions on multiple additional charter issues:
• Term limits: In a 4–3 vote, members declined to recommend stricter limits. Currently, commissioners and the mayor face 12- and 8-year limits, respectively, but only for consecutive years – meaning the clock resets after a break in service.
• Residency requirements: The committee unanimously supported clarifying that candidates must reside in the city for one year immediately prior to the end of the qualifying period for the election they seek.
• Commissioner raises: Members unanimously opposed recommending that proposed commission salary increases be placed on the ballot.
• Removal of board appointees: In a 4–2 vote, the committee declined to recommend allowing commissioners or the mayor to unilaterally remove their appointees from boards or committees without a full commission vote, as currently required.