September 28, 2018 - Given the political fireworks launched during elections, most voters would rather flip a coin than self-educate about Ballot questions or proposed Constitutional Amendments. As a result, unscrupulous politicians and industrial juggernauts religiously use them as vehicles for realizing outrageous measures that would otherwise wither under marginal scrutiny.

Of the five methodologies available to amend the Florida Constitution, citizen initiative petitions and legislative Joint Resolutions (SJR, HJR) are the most common. When stonewalled by lawmakers in the majority party (who control the legislative spigot), citizens or business interests can place an amendment on the ballot by collecting petition signatures equal in number to 8% of the votes cast in the last Presidential election and sourced from at least one-half of the State�s Congressional Districts.

To place a proposed Constitutional Amendment on the November 6, 2018 Ballot, a Citizen�s initiative had to petition the signatures of 766,200 registered Florida voters by the February 1, 2018 filing deadline. In contrast with the rigorous eligibility burden mandated for citizens, for lawmakers in the majority party, bagging the 60% approval in both chambers required for a joint resolution is often easier than breathing.

Constitutional amendments can be proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, a panel of 25 members selected by the Governor, the House Speaker and Senate President that meets every 20 years (next time in 2027) - and only provides for two members of the minority party. The fourth vehicle is a Constitutional Convention, which must be requested in a voter initiative and approved by a simple majority. Lastly - and this tear's headliner - amendments can be balloted by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), which is established every 20 years to consider and propose amendments (met in 2017 - 2018); its 37 members are mostly selected by the Governor, the House Speaker, the Senate President, and include the Florida Attorney General - although three others are selected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Overwhelmingly predominated by the majority party, the CRC invariably furthers a partisan agenda. Unlike other ballot proposal vehicles, the CRC is allowed by law to bundle more than one issue into each question, a practice known as �logrolling�. This format has devolved into a clich� - as it has been systematically used to cloak a nefarious objective. Usually, a series of inane and/or "apple pie" measures serve as window dressing for a surreptitious power grab, a special interest payoff - a back-door proposal that would ordinarily go down in flames.

Although thirteen (13) Proposed Amendments were initially certified for the ballot (eight proposed by the CRC, three by the Florida Legislature and two by citizen initiative), one of them � Amendment 8 - was scratched by the Florida Supreme Court. Amendment 8 would have mandated term limits of eight years for all Florida school boards; required schools to teach �civic literacy� and allowed the state to create public schools, something only local school boards currently can do. In addition to supplanting locally elected school boards with Tallahassee bureaucrats - it would provide for funding private Charter Schools with your tax dollars. Upholding a lower court decision, the high court ruled that Amendment 8 misled voters by not clearly stating its true purpose and never mentioning charter schools by name.

Three other CRC measures - Amendments 7, 9 and 11 - were also struck down by court rulings and removed from the ballot, but may reappear pending appeals. Potentially, twelve (12) Constitutional Amendments (nine (9) surviving ballot measures and three (3) under appeal) could appear on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot. Keep in mind - many of them camouflage constitutional hop-toads couched in misleading Ballot language. Several were created for the sole purpose of abridging your rights or draining your wallet, read on:

Proposed Amendment #1

Ballot Title: Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption

Reference: Amendment #1 would amend Section 6(a) of Article VII and add a section to the Florida Constitution's Article XII Schedule; Referred by the Florida Legislature.

Official Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to increase the homestead exemption by exempting the assessed valuation of homestead property greater than $100,000 and up to $125,000 for all levies other than school district levies. The amendment shall take effect January 1, 2019

What you need to know

Ballot Amendment 1 creates a third $25,000 Homestead exemption, although inapplicable to the School Board levy. As of 2018, Section 6(a) of Article VII of the Florida Constitution allows for a $25,000 Homestead exemption on the portion of home�s value between $0 and $25,000, and another $25,000 on the portion of home�s value between $50,000 and $75,000 � a $50,000 total deduction for homes valued at more than $75,000.

SENATOR TOM LEE

If approved by the electorate, beginning January 1, 2019, a third $25,000 homestead exemption could be claimed on that portion of a home�s value between $100,000 and $125,000. This measure is controversial. Although it would only benefit roughly 2.4 million homesteaded Floridians with properties worth more than $125,000, it will cost local jurisdictions more than $687 million in lost revenues, leaving a huge gap in local government budgets.

HOUSE SPEAKER RICHARD CORCORAN

Although originally filed by Senator Tom Lee as Senate Joint Resolution 1774 (SJR 1774) on March 7, 2017, its companion bill in the other chamber, House Joint Resolution 7105 (HJR 7105) was ultimately approved and filed with Secretary of State on May 5, 2017. The resolutions encountered blowback in the Senate and party-line votes in the House due to its adverse impact on local governments. A political force of nature, House Speaker Richard Corcoran has repeatedly characterized local governments as inefficient, corrupt and wasteful; and has supported a litany of bills that pre-empted local regulations to the Legislature. He announced that Amendment 1 was specifically designed to starve Counties and Cities. Corcoran helped leverage the necessary Statehouse votes.

Unfortunately, this election year popcorn is a mixed bag for the Galt Mile. To prevent threatened service cuts, cities and counties will offset the resulting revenue shortfall by shifting the assessment burden to small business owners, manufacturers, working families and non-homesteaded property owners - which includes thousands of Galt Mile snowbirds. Anticipating the amendment's approval, Broward County is adding $11 million annually to reserves for 3 years to fund the projected $34 million shortfall in FY 20. What happens in subsequesnt years will depend on the economy.

Proposed Amendment #2

Ballot Title: Limitations on Property Tax Assessments

Reference: Amendment #2 would amend Section 27 of Article XII of the Florida Constitution; Referred by the Florida Legislature and primarily supported by Amendment 2 is for Everybody - a lobbying puppet of the powerful Florida Association of Realtors.

Official Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to permanently retain provisions currently in effect, which limit property tax assessment increases on specified non-homestead real property, except for school district taxes, to 10 percent each year. If approved, the amendment removes the scheduled repeal of such provisions in 2019 and shall take effect January 1, 2019.

What you need to know

On January 23, 2017, the amendment was filed in the state legislature as House Joint Resolution 21 (HJR 21). Unanimously approved in the House and snagging all but 3 votes in the Senate, on May 8, 2017, the resolution was enrolled with the secretary of state.

ROBERT WEISSERT OF FLORIDA TAXWATCH

In 2008, voters approved Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment that, among other provisions, created a cap of 10 percent on annual non-homestead parcel assessment increases. Other provisions in that landmark amendment - a second $25,000 Homestead Exemption, a $25,000 exemption tor tangible personal property and Save-Our-Homes portability - were all permanent. The "snowbird cap" expires on January 1, 2019,. Although conceived as a hedge against a housing bubble, snowbirds, landlords and business owners were finally provided a cap on their tax exposure. In limiting the property tax on rental properties, the cap increases the availability of affordable housing by cushioning leasing costs for tenants. It also slows inflation by lowering merchant overhead, provides relief to millions of Florida snowbirds and brings a measure of parity to a poorly balanced tax code. Since it doesn't apply to the School Board assessment, educational resources are preserved.

Seven weeks before the measure sunsets, Florida voters will have an opportunity to make the cap permanent. If Amendment 2 fails, all non-homestead property would be assessed at its full value beginning in January 2019. Referring to an in-house study that assesses the economic impact, executive vice president and counsel Robert Weissert at Florida TaxWatch explained, �the combined tax increase could potentially reach $700 million annually.� Amendment 2 enjoys broad statewide support. The only known objection is a protocol shortfall by the League of Women Voters, whose basic policy asserts that �No tax sources or revenue should be specified, limited, exempted, or prohibited in the Constitution.� This is a no brainer - vote �YES�.

Proposed Amendment #3

Ballot Title: Voter Control of Gambling in Florida

Reference: Amendment #3 would add a Section 29 to Article X of the Florida Constitution; Sponsored primarily by Voters in Charge; Citizen Initiative.

Official Ballot Summary: This amendment ensures that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling by requiring that in order for casino gambling to be authorized under Florida law, it must be approved by Florida voters pursuant to Article XI, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution. Affects articles X and XI. Defines casino gambling and clarifies that this amendment does not conflict with federal law regarding state/tribal compacts.

What you need to know

GOV. CHARLIE CRIST SIGNS SEMINOLE CASINO PACT

GOV. RICK SCOTT EXTENDS SEMINOLE CASINO PACT

In 2004, voters passed an initiative, Amendment 4, to allow voters in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to authorize slot machines at parimutuel facilities, such as horse racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai exhibititions, that existed and were licensed during the prior two years. The Seminole Tribe of Florida, through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), negotiated a Class III gaming compact with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist on July 7, 2010, allowing the Seminole Tribe to operate blackjack at five facilities through 2015, sharing revenue with the state. In 2015, Gov. Rick Scott (R) extended the compact with the Seminole Tribe for 20 years, adding craps and roulette to the agreement and providing the tribe with an exclusive right to blackjack. Except in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, card games, casino games, and slot machines are currently prohibited at non-tribal facilities in Florida.

Approval of Amendment 3 would provide voters with the �exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida,� and make the citizen initiative process �the exclusive method of authorizing casino gambling.� The Florida State Legislature would be prohibited from authorizing casino gambling through statute or a constitutional amendment referred to the ballot. The measure would affect card games, casino games, and slot machines while omitting pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing, dog racing, or jai alai exhibitions. The amendment doesn't impact casino gambling on Native American tribal lands established through state-tribe compacts.

Compared to crafting an empowering statute or a legislative ballot referral, achieving consent by citizen initiative is significantly more difficult. A two signature threshold must first be met for ballot position. In addition to a statewide acquisition of signatures equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election, to comply with a constitutional distribution requirement, the signature totals in at least half (14) of Florida's 27 Congressional Districts must also be equal to 8 percent of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election. Districts seeking to increase entertainment revenues by embracing casino gambling would be forced to rely on the approval of neighboring districts with competing alternative entertainment venues.

The handiwork of two corporate goliaths, this measure was designed to block the growth of Florida gaming - and each of the amendment's supporters have endorsed this objective. Amendment sponsor �Voters in Charge� is the lobbying spawn of the Walt Disney Company and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. 97% of the $27.27 million amassed by �Voters in Charge� was pumped in by Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. ($14.65 million) and the Seminole Tribe of Florida ($11.78 million), whose shared objective is to preempt competition. Disney aspires to legally restrict Floridians and visitors to "wholesome family-friendly entertainment". As exclaimed by incoming Senate President Bill Galvano, Amendment 3 virtually locks up a gambling monopoly for the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Whether you support or oppose casino gambling, rest assured that Amendment 3 is not a grand exercise in Democracy, but a surreptitious vehicle for quashing competition. As such, if you think the gaming industry can boost the state economy, vote no. Conversely, if you believe that gambling is the devil's playground, vote yes.

Proposed Amendment #4

Ballot Title: Voting Restoration Amendment

Reference: Amendment #4 would amend Section 4 of Article VI of the Florida Constitution; Sponsored primarily by Floridians for a Fair Democracy, Inc; Citizen Initiative.

Official Ballot Summary: This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

. What you need to know

As of 2018, Florida is one of four states - along with Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia - where convicted felons do not regain the right to vote, until and unless a state officer or board restores an individual's voting rights. This felon voting law was part of the Florida Constitution of 1968 - the state constitution active in 2018 - as well as the state constitutions of 1885 and 1868 - a vestige of Florida�s post-Civil War concerns. Of the 50 states, two states - Maine and Vermont - do not rescind the right to vote for convicted felons, allowing them to vote while incarcerated; 14 states and Washington, D.C., restore voting rights upon completion of a prison sentence; four states restore voting rights upon completion of prison and parole time; 19 states restore the right to vote after prison time, parole, and probation are completed; and seven states have systems where certain felons, based on the type or number of crimes committed, regain the right to vote.

Amendment 4; was designed to restore voting rights for convicted felons, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon the completion of all terms of sentence, including prison, parole, and probation. Under former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, the Executive Clemency Board automatically restored the rights of felons who had completed their sentences, paid restitution, and had no pending criminal charges. Eliminating those reforms, Governor Rick Scott (R) required convicted felons to wait five or seven years, depending on the type of offense, after the completion of their sentences to request that the board consider the restoration of their voting and other civil rights.

In Florida, an estimated 1,686,318 persons - 10.43 percent of the voting age population - are barred from voting due to felonies (the nation's highest disenfranchisement rate). Between 2012 and 2016 the Florida Department of Law Enforcement reported 6,759 felony convictions for driving with a suspended license. Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla) asked if someone who has paid his debt to society for driving with a suspended license should lose his right to vote for the rest of his life? Vote your conscience.

Proposed Amendment #5

Ballot Title: Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize, or Raise State Taxes or Fees

Reference: Amendment #5 would add a Section 19 to Article VII of the Florida Constitution; Referred by the Florida Legislature.

Official Ballot Summary: Prohibits the legislature from imposing, authorizing, or raising a state tax or fee except through legislation approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature in a bill containing no other subject. This proposal does not authorize a state tax or fee otherwise prohibited by the Constitution and does not apply to fees or taxes imposed or authorized to be imposed by a county, municipality, school board, or special district.

What you need to know

On January 9, 2018, Republican Gov. Rick Scott, in his last State of the State address, called on the state legislature to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to increase taxes. The legislature passed House Joint Resolution 7001 (HJR 7001), which was enrolled as Amendment 5 and filed with Secretary of State on Friday, March 16, 2018.

Amendment 5 would require a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the Florida State Legislature to enact new taxes or fees or increase existing ones. As of 2018, the state legislature can enact new taxes or fees or increase existing ones, except the corporate income tax, through a simple majority vote in each chamber. Voters approved the amendment for the corporate income tax, with a three-fifths vote requirement to increase the tax above 5.0 percent, in 1971. Supported by Florida TaxWatch and opposed by the League of Women Voters of Florida, the measure would preclude a party-line vote to raise taxes or fees, unless a single party controlled 27 seats in the state Senate and 80 seats in the Statehouse.

Proposed Amendment #6

Ballot Title: Rights of Crime Victims; Judges

Reference: Amendment #6 would amend Section 16 of Article I and Sections 8 and 21 of Article V of the Florida Constitution and add a new section to Article XII of the state constitution; Referred as a Proposal by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).

Official Ballot Summary: Creates constitutional rights for victims of crime; requires courts to facilitate victims� rights; authorizes victims to enforce their rights throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes. Requires judges and hearing officers to independently interpret statutes and rules rather than deferring to government agency�s interpretation. Raises mandatory retirement age of state justices and judges from seventy to seventy-five years; deletes authorization to complete judicial term if one-half of term has been served by retirement age

What you need to know

BROADCOM CO-FOUNDER HENRY NICHOLAS

Amendment 6 would make changes to the state�s law regarding the rights of crime victims, the age at which judges are required to retire, and judicial deference. The constitutional amendment regarding the rights of crime victims - known as Marsy's Law - would provide crime victims, their families, and their lawful representatives with specific rights, including a right to due process and to be treated with fairness and respect; a right to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse; a right to have the victim's welfare considered when setting bail; a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, among others.

Broadcom Corporation co-founder Henry Nicholas started campaigning for this kind of legislation to increase the rights and privileges of victims. He formed the national organization Marsy's Law for All in 2009. Marsy�s law is named for Henry Nicholas' sister Marsy Nicholas, a California college student who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Henry and his mother were confronted by Marsy's ex-boyfriend after his release on bail - prompting their advocacy on behalf of victim's rights. Voters in six states approved ballot measures for Marsy's Law, with the most recent in Ohio. Voters in neighboring Georgia will also consider an amendment for a Marsy's Law in 2018.

Amendment 6 would increase the age at which judges are required to retire from 70 to 75 and prohibit state courts from deferring to an administrative agency�s interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits. The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) voted 34 - 3 to place Amendment 6, which is composed of three constitutional amendment proposals, on the ballot. As Amendment 6 bundles three constitutional amendments, voters cannot approve or reject some, but not all, of the amendments. Voting �yes� on the ballot measure is a vote to pass the three constitutional amendments. Voting �no� on the ballot measure is a vote to reject the three constitutional amendments. Again - vote you conscience.

Proposed Amendment #10

Ballot Title: State and Local Government Structure and Operation

Reference: Amendment #10 would amend to Section 3 of Article III, Sections 4 and 11 of Article IV and Sections 1 and 6 of Article VIII of the Florida Constitution; Referred as a Proposal by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).

Official Ballot Summary: Requires legislature to retain department of veterans� affairs. Ensures election of sheriffs, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, tax collectors, and clerks of court in all counties; removes county charters� ability to abolish, change term, transfer duties, or eliminate election of these offices. Changes annual legislative session commencement date in even- numbered years from March to January; removes legislature�s authorization to fix another date. Creates office of domestic security and counterterrorism within department of law enforcement.

What you need to know

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) voted 29 - 8 to bundle four constitutional amendments into Amendment 10, which was placed on the November 2018 ballot. Proposal 9, Proposal 13, Proposal 26, and Proposal 103 were combined to create Proposal 6005, which formed the basis of this ballot measure.

Amendment 10 requires the legislature to provide for a state Department of Veterans Affairs. In 1988, voters approved constitutional authorization to create a Department of Veterans Affairs, which was shortly thereafter established by the state legislature. In Amendment 10, creation of a Department of Veterans Affairs is required, not simply authorized. Since that Department is now almost 30-years old, this is essentially a housekeeping change with no practical benefit.

The skunk in Amendment 10 is a provision (CRC Proposal 13) that prohibits counties from abolishing certain local offices - sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, and clerk of the circuit court - and requires elections for these offices. In Florida, counties with voter-approved charters are allowed to alter the duties managed in local constitutional offices or reassign those duties and abolish the offices. Of the state's twenty charter-governed counties, eight have either changed or eliminated at least one constitutional office. For example, in Miami-Dade, a sheriff is not elected but appointed by the County board while Volusia and Broward counties neither need nor elect tax collectors.

In 1974, Broward County voters abolished their elected tax collector position and transferred many of the duties from the clerk of courts to the County administrator and the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. An independently selected county auditor was also created. With the approval of Tallahassee, the changes enhanced the efficient delivery of these services while saving $millions for County taxpayers. If this amendment passes, the offices would have to be restored, along with an increased taxpayer burden. Since the amendment would take effect in Miami-Dade and Broward counties on January 2, 2025, both counties would have to fund elections for the reconstituted offices in 2024. Cities and counties across the state oppose this provision for undermining the right of residents to local self-governance.

The amendment also creates a state Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism and requires the legislature to convene the regular legislative session on the second Tuesday of January of even-numbered years. As Amendment 10 includes four divergent constitutional amendments, the electorate isn't afforded an opportunity to approve those that make sense, and reject the bear traps. Voters must vote yes or no on the entire package. Since the housekeeping measure for the Department of Veterans Affairs has no impact, and lawmakers can easily create the Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism and change the start date of any legislative session, the remaining issue in this logrolled amendment begs the question - should your county answer to you - or Tallahassee?

Proposed Amendment #12

Ballot Title: Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers

Reference: Amendment #12 would amend Section 8 of Article II, Section 13 of Article V and add a new section to Article XII of the Florida Constitution; Referred as a Proposal by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).

Official Ballot Summary: Expands current restrictions on lobbying for compensation by former public officers; creates restrictions on lobbying for compensation by serving public officers and former justices and judges; provides exceptions; prohibits abuse of a public position by public officers and employees to obtain a personal benefit.

What you need to know

FLORIDA ETHICS COMMITTEE

Amendment 12 would make sweeping changes to the state Constitution�s �ethics in government� provisions, following a failed attempt by the Legislature in 2018 to reform lobbying practices. It would prohibit public officials from lobbying for compensation during the official's term in office and for six years after the official leaves office. Under the current ethics rules, state lawmakers need only wait two years after leaving office before they can begin collecting a check for peddling influence in the legislature. This proposed amendment would expand the prohibition to lobbying federal and local governments, and would also apply to statewide officeholders, such as Cabinet members.

Originally approved by the CRC as Proposal 6007, Amendment 12 also applies to County and City officials, Department heads in Executive State agencies and tax district officials - who are also banned from lobbying their governing bodies while in office and for six years after they leave. Judges are banned from lobbying state government for six years after they leave the bench. Additionally, it prohibits public officials from using the office to obtain a disproportionate benefit for themselves or their families. It tasks the Florida Commission on Ethics with defining "disproportionate benefit" and codifying punishment. Although it fails to address the real problem with lobbying - the funding of political campaigns by special interests - Amendment 12 is a step in the right direction.

Proposed Amendment #13

Ballot Title: Ends Dog Racing

Reference: Amendment #13 would add a new section to Article X and a new section to Article XII of the Florida Constitution; Referred as a Proposal by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).

Official Ballot Summary: Phases out commercial dog racing in connection with wagering by 2020. Other gaming activities are not affected.

What you need to know

SENATOR AND CRC PANELIST TOM LEE

Initially filed as Proposal 67 by sponsor Tom Lee, it was revised by the CRC as Proposal 6012, and added to the November 2018 ballot as Amendment 13. As of 2018, Florida was one of 10 states where wagering on dog races is legal. Of the nation�s 18 dog-racing tracks currently operated for gambling in six different states, 12 are in Florida. Neigboring Alabama is also one of the six states with active dog racing tracks. The remaining 40 states had prohibited wagering on dog races. Gambling was illegal in Florida until 1931, when the Florida State Legislature passed a law to allow wagering on horse racing and dog racing.

If approved, Amendment 13 would prohibit Florida pari-mutuel operations (a type of betting pool) from racing dogs for wagering after January 1, 2021. All wagering on the outcome of live dog races held in Florida - primarily greyhounds - would also be prohibited. Dog tracks operated by licensed permitholders would be allowed to host other pari-mutuel sports such as horse racing and jai-alai, and continue offering other types of gambling, including poker rooms. Also, the amendment waives a state requirement that tracks hold a full schedule of live greyhound races in order to continue operating poker rooms or slot machines as part of their pari-mutuel licenses. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which oversees the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, estimated annual losses of $1 million and $1.3 million in tax and fee revenues in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 - if voters approve the ban.

Primarily advocated by Protect Dogs- Yes on 13 - organized to end the cruelty of greyhound racing in Florida - the ban is also supported by several animal advocates, including the Committee to Protect Greyhounds, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Pets Ad Litem, and others. Committee to Support Greyhounds is leading the campaign in opposition to this amendment. Amendment 13 authorizes the Florida Legislature to specify civil or criminal penalties for violating the constitutional amendment. Animal advocates will vote YES, inveterate gamblers will vote NO. Which are you?

April 14, 2018 - A few years ago, rampant abuses by rogue Condo Boards in Miami-Dade sparked a series of events that prompted revisions to the laws governing Florida associations. According to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), during 2015 condos in Miami-Dade recorded the highest number of complaints of any Florida county for forged ballots, financial fraud, election irregularities, missing records, and disappearing funds. Of the 1,908 complaints received statewide, 566 were filed in Miami-Dade.

Following a 2016 probe by South Florida media outlets el Nuevo Herald and Univisi�n 23 that confirmed the Miami abuses, a Miami-Dade Grand Jury issued a scathing report about the fraudulent rip-offs collusively perpetrated by rogue Condo Boards and shady management companies in Miami-Dade. Given its integral role in uncovering the abuses, the Miami Herald fueled a media frenzy that provided three Miami lawmakers with a golden fast-track to the Front Page.

REPRESENTATIVE J JOS� F�LIX D�AZ

During the 2017 legislative session, Florida Senator Ren� Garcia (R - Hialeah), Florida Senator Jos� Javier Rodr�guez (D - Miami) and Statehouse Representative Jos� F�lix D�az (R - Miami-Dade) filed legislation to ostensibly rein in the criminal abuses that chronically proliferate in their districts. Given the underlying notoriety, the bills (HB 1237 in the Statehouse and SB 1682 in the Senate) flew through vetting committees and were signed into law on June 26, 2017.

FLORIDA SENATOR JOS� JAVIER RODR�GUEZ

FLORIDA SENATOR REN� GARCIA

The 2017 legislation provides that Board members who are convicted of committing crimes will be subject to Felony charges. These include forging election ballot envelopes or voting certificates, the theft or embezzlement of association funds and destroying or concealing official records in furtherance of a crime. The bill term limits board members after 4 consecutive two-year terms, unless there are an insufficient number of candidates or if they are elected by a two-thirds supermajority of the full membership.

It bars a Condo association from hiring an attorney retained by the association's management company. Conflicts of interest for association officials must be declared, recalls are fast-tracked and Condo associations with 150 or more units are required to publish a grab bag of association documents on a password protected website by a July 1, 2018 deadline.

As is often the case with knee-jerk legislation slapped together by lawmakers hunting political capital, the bills were regulatory tarpits. Association advocates admonished that the sponsors� well-intended legislation was rife with glitches, confusing language, provisions that cause more damage than the drawbacks they were meant to cure - and a boatload of unintended consequences. Evidently more concerned with exacting vengeance for disgruntled constituents than crafting workable solutions to statutory deficiencies, the Miami lawmakers would leave others to address the bill�s pitfalls.

MORAITIS EXPLAINS BILL TO COMMITTEE

SENATOR KATHLEEN PASSIDOMO

As expected, several bills were filed in the 2018 session to fix skewed or otherwise problematic provisions, including House Bill 841 (HB 841) by District 93 Statehouse Representative George Moraitis (R - Fort Lauderdale) and Senate Bill 1274 (SB 1274), a companion bill in the other chamber by Senator Kathleen Passidomo (R - Naples). The bills also enhance regulatory consistency in common interest communities. In most cases, that means applying regulations that already benefit condominiums to cooperatives and/or homeowner associations (HOAs).

SENATOR ANNETTE TADDEO

FORMER FLORIDA SENATOR FRANK ARTILES

HB 841 was overwhelmingly approved in both chambers (by a vote of 100 Yeas vs. 1 Nay in the House while passed in the Senate by a vote of 35 Yeas vs, 1 Nay) � and signed into law on March 23, 2018. Having acknowledged that the statutory glitches needed correcting, Florida Senator Ren� Garcia � one of the 3 Miami lawmakers who filed the 2017 legislation � voted to approve Moraitis� bill. When Miami Congresswoman U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced her retirement, and Senator Jos� Javier Rodr�guez - another co-sponsor of the Miami legislation - declared his intention to fill the District 27 congressional seat, Rodr�guez feared that supporting Moraitis' bill might alienate local constituents victimized by the rogue boards. The sole Florida Senator to oppose HB 841, Rodr�guez later dropped out of the Congressional race when the candidate field become overcrowded, announcing that he would remain in the State Senate.

BRIAN BALLARD WITH DONALD TRUMP

When Florida Senator Frank Artiles (R � Miami) was forced to resign after hurling racist invective at two black lawmakers, Representative Jos� F�lix Diaz � Statehouse sponsor of the Miami Bill � hoped to grab the vacated District 40 Senate seat in a special election. He lost the race to now Senator Annette Taddeo (D � Miami), who pounded Diaz about his relationship with Donald Trump. In January, Diaz was snatched up by lobbying firm Ballard Partners, as lobbying Guru Brian Ballard�s expansion into Latin America is also based on close ties to the Trump Administration.

REP. GEORGE MORAITIS AND GALT MILE OFFICIALS

During an April 2, 2018 Galt Mile Community Association (GMCA) Presidents Council meeting at Regency Tower, more than 50 officials representing 21 of the 29 member associations reviewed an agenda item dedicated to Moraitis� new law. In exploring how its provisions might affect Galt Mile condominiums and cooperatives, attendees asked if it clarified the confusion surrounding board member term limits, recalls, document uploads to mandatory association websites, and other operational impacts.

Since the existing law term limits board members after 4 consecutive two-year terms but doesn�t address those who serve a series of one-year terms, Moraitis� bill provides that no board member may serve more than eight consecutive years (barring an insufficient number of available candidates). The current exemption for those elected by a two-thirds supermajority of the full membership was also revised � applying instead to candidates elected by two-thirds of the votes cast in the election.

To help associations that are �IT� illiterate, Moraitis adds 6 months to the July 1, 2018 deadline for associations to provide members with a password protected website for downloading official documents and data - the new deadline is January 1, 2019.

Moraitis observed that recall procedures revised in the 2017 legislation could result in recalls that weren�t approved by a majority of an association�s members. Having removed a requirement for the board to �certify� a recall, the 2017 law automatically made recalls effective at a board meeting noticed and convened within 5 days of the board receiving a recall petition. To be valid, a recall requires the approval of a majority of the association�s voting interests, either by a vote during a meeting or a written agreement.

However, the language was unclear as to whether a board must accept a recall petition that is invalid on its face or not signed by a majority of the owners � although the Board could challenge a defective recall by petitioning for arbitration � after the damage was done. The law also provided the recalled board members with a right to fund a petition for arbitration if they believed the recall was invalid. In deleting the sole process that �certified� a recall petition�s validity, the legislation could enable a handful of malicious owners to destabilize the association by engineering bogus recalls that could only be reversed in arbitration.

DEFECTIVE RECALLS?

To mitigate the adverse impact of defective recalls, Moraitis� bill directs a Board to determine if a recall vote is facially valid at a meeting convened within 5 days of receiving a recall petition. Based on that decision, the recall will either be abandoned or become effective when the meeting is adjourned. It also provides that a recalled board member may petition for arbitration to challenge its facial validity or compliance with procedural requirements.

If an arbitrator cites the recall as invalid, the board member is immediately reinstated, and entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs from the respondents (the association and possibly � the unit owner representative). Conversely, an arbitrator who finds that a petitioner�s claim is frivolous may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the respondents. In short, whoever games the system pays the freight.

After initially excising the prohibition against an association hiring a Management Company's attorney � pursuant to section 718.111(3)(b), Florida Statutes � Moraitis reversed course, as habitually spotty enforcement of the Florida Bar ethics rules wouldn�t offset the potential for conflict. If some ill-conceived action promulgated by a management company employee places the association at risk, a shared attorney might seek to balance the liability instead of protecting the association. Moraitis' bill sidesteps a prospective conflict of interest by leaving the provision intact.

HB 841 either creates or revises regulations applicable to the governance and operation of Florida�s common interest communities (although it doesn�t address mobile home parks, vacation units or timeshares). Since the bill features 72 pages of text, the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries � which became a co-sponsor after officially vetting the legislation � summarized the bill in mid-session by aligning its provisions with their specific impacts on condominiums, cooperatives, and homeowners� associations. See below to review the final version in a similar format.

• The bill revises notice requirements for board and owner meetings at which an assessment will be considered. For condominium or cooperative associations, a notice must provide estimated costs and a description of the assessment. The bill further enables an HOA to give notice by electronic transmission to any parcel owner who provided the HOA with written consent and a fax number or email address.

• The legislation enacts procedures for a board-imposed fine or a suspension of voting rights. A hearing is followed by a majority vote of a committee comprised of at least three members who are appointed by the board (not officers, board members, employees of the association, or their family members) before imposing a fine or suspension. Payment of the fine is required within five days of the meeting at which the fine was approved. The association must provide written notice of any fine or suspension by mail or hand delivery to the unit owner and, if applicable, to any tenant, licensee, or guest of the unit owner.

• The bill requires that minutes of meetings and accounting records be maintained in perpetuity (instead of seven years).

• Electronic records related to voting are included in the list of official records kept by the association. Along with ballots, sign-in sheets, and voting proxies, they must be maintained for one year from the date of the election or vote.

• Extends the deadline to make records available to unit owners from 5 working days to 10 working days

• Makes condominium unit owners and cooperative shareholders consenting to receive association emails (for notice purposes) responsible for removing or bypassing filters blocking receipt of mass e-mails sent by an association.

• While the bill permits board members to communicate by e-mail, they are precluded from casting a vote by e-mail (mirroring a regulation applicable to condominiums).

• The bill revises the period of time specified official records must be maintained by an association.

• The deadline to post specified documents on an association�s website is extended to January 1, 2019, from July 1, 2018.

• The bill revises the information related to contracts, bids, and financial reports an association with 150 or more units must post on its website. In lieu of a requirement to post complete copies of bids for materials, equipment, or services, the bill allows a condominium association to post summaries of bids exceeding $500. Instead of posting proposed financial reports, the bill requires associations to post any monthly income or expense statements to be considered at a meeting.

• An association is exempted from liability for disclosure of protected or restricted information on its website.

• An association that fails to comply with a request by the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation) to provide an owner with a copy of the most recent financial report is prohibited from waiving financial reporting requirements for two fiscal years.

• The bill clarifies when the recall of a board member is effective and provides attorney�s fees and costs for a recalled board member or an association prevailing in an arbitration proceeding concerning a recall � in certain circumstances.

• A unit owner is allowed to install an electric vehicle charging station within the boundaries of the unit owner�s limited common element, with conditions.

• Unless otherwise approved in a manner provided in a condominium�s declaration, any substantial addition or material alteration to a common element requires install an electric vehicle charging station.

• The July 1, 2018, deadline for classification as a bulk buyer is removed, extending indefinitely the applicability of bulk buyer provisions.

• In a residential cooperative association of more than 10 units, co-owners of a unit are prohibited from serving simultaneously on the board, unless the co-owners own more than one unit or there are insufficient eligible candidates.

• The bill provides for the removal from office of an officer or director who is more than 90 days delinquent in any monetary obligation owed to the association.

• The cost of communication services, information services, or Internet services obtained under a bulk contract is allowed to be a common expense of the association.

• An association is permitted to provide electronic notices of a meeting to any member who has provided written consent as well as a facsimile number or e-mail address for such purpose.

• An amendment to the governing documents must contain the full text of the provision to be amended, with the new language underlined and proposed deleted language stricken with hyphens. However, an association may reference the governing documents in the event an amendment is too extensive and the inclusion of the full text with stricken and underlined text would hinder understanding of the proposed amendment.

• If an election is not required because there are either an equal number or fewer qualified candidates than board vacancies, and if nominations from the floor are not required pursuant to s. 720.306, F.S., or the association�s bylaws, then write-in nominations are not permitted and such candidates shall commence service on the board of directors, regardless of whether a quorum is attained at the annual meeting.

• The bill provides a clarification of existing law for the accrual of interest on unpaid assessments, and the application of payments to accrued interest, administrative late fees, collection costs and associated reasonable attorney fees, and finally the delinquent assessment, in such order of priority. While the Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) allows a debtor to make a restrictive notation on a payment instrument, which may direct how the payment is applied, State law supersedes any restrictive endorsement, designation, or instruction placed on or accompanying a payment, including any purported accord and satisfaction (the parcel owner paid a lesser amount claiming full satisfaction of the amount due) pursuant to s. 673.3111, F.S. Notwithstanding the UCC, debtor funds will be applied according to the priorities clarified in HB 841.

According to State law, the contact information provided by condominium and cooperative homeowners to their respective associations for notice purposes are considered official records of the association. Ordinarily, this includes a name, address and occasionally - a telephone number. To notify the membership about upcoming board meetings or other events for which notice is required, the association can either hand deliver the information or mail it to the address provided by the member. As official records of the association, this contact information must be furnished to any association member who specifies anyone's - or everyone's - contact data in an official records request.

Associations are increasingly using emails (electronic notices) to facilitate communications with the membership. Unlike other forms of contact information, well-meaning Florida associations are asking owners for permission to use their email addresses for notice purposes � or in an association directory. They are not simply being courteous; the consent is required by State law.

While many association homeowners mistakenly believe that their email address will be kept confidential, if they agree to allow the association to use it for notice purposes, it can be handed out to any member on request. When this is explained, most owners who decline this quid pro quo do so to avoid being harangued by electioneering wannabes or buried in an endless blizzard of online neighbor-spam. Many of our neighbors downplay simmering suspicions about a far more egregious dilemma.

As identity theft has evolved into a $multi-billion criminal enterprise, a list of email addresses has acquired a significant black-market value. While most of our neighbors enjoy a functional moral compass, every association has a few slime balls with friends in low places. Any reprobates that need fast cash can sell these emails online, where they are typically scooped up by marketing wonks. Less scrupulous ethical lepers can also monetize these email lists on illegal, untraceable auction sites that pepper the Dark Web, where they are used for more nefarious purposes. With your email address, a motivated Ukrainian 12-year old middle school hacker with a remote key logger can finance a car, mortgage your home, and empty your bank accounts � in a heartbeat.

You can safely provide your association with your email address � as long as you don�t consent to its use for notice purposes. In that case, your association must notify you the old-fashioned way � by mailing or hand delivering your notice while plastering it across the premises. You can still request inclusion in email blasts to the membership � but the association will be barred from passing out your email address � and forced to keep it confidential. That said � your association can also be hacked...

Click To Top of Page

January 25, 2018 - On December 26, 2017, Association Advocate Ellyn Bogdanoff delivered a Holiday gift to thousands of Florida homeowners in high-rise associations. A message from the former State Senator revived their hopes for a legislative opportunity to dodge a $multi-million assessment - the cost of complying with a scam mandate to install an Engineered Life Safety System (ELSS).

Opt-Out Plan Rescue

GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT

When Governor Scott broke his word and vetoed last year's ELSS opt-out bill - despite its overwhelming approval in both chambers - Bogdanoff and Rep. George Moraitis (R � Fort Lauderdale) expressed trepidations about refiling the bills in 2018, citing the Gubernatorial "wild card" and political obstacles common to an election year legislative session - when cash-strapped campaigning lawmakers become highly vulnerable to the political predations of deep-pocketed lobbyists.

ELLYN SETNOR BOGDANOFF

Offering an alternative strategy, they proposed legislation that would extend the ELSS installation deadline, empanel a task force to study the fiscal impact and refile the opt-out legislation in 2019 - after term limits ended Rick Scott�s Gubernatorial tenure. Their tactical holding action suffered from sizable drawbacks.

MORAITIS EXPLAINS BILL

For instance, since Rep. George Moraitis is also departing the Statehouse after 2018, unless Bogdanoff could then recruit an equally credible Statehouse sponsor, a far less experienced District 93 successor might be ill-equipped to face the mercenary sprinkler association lobbyists in the subsequent session. Moraitis conveyed this dilemma to Statehouse Speaker Richard Corcoran.

HOUSE SPEAKER RICHARD CORCORAN

Arguably the most politically imposing figure in the Florida Legislature, Corcoran's support can eviscerate a litany of legislative obstacles. When Corcoran advised Moraitis to refile his original bill in the upcoming session, Bogdanoff and Moraitis alerted grateful association supporters to prepare for Round 2 before successfully scrambling to beat the January 9 opening day filing deadline - in both chambers. On January 15, 2018 - almost a month later - Bogdanoff provided supporters with the following "Week 2" session update. Read on... - [editor]