St. Petersburg’s city code obligates council members to facilitate municipal election debates. A committee recently voted to eliminate the amendment rather than modify its language.

City staff requested the Aug. 14 discussion, primarily to “clean up” outdated code amendments related to SPTV, the city’s government broadcasting channel. Councilmember Lisset Hanewicz noted that potential changes to political debates for municipal elections were more substantial.

An amendment incorporated in 2000 states that the council “will choose an impartial third party” to conduct debates that broadcast live on SPTV. “My recollection from the last year is that we were open to having the debate, but I don’t think there was a particular council member who wanted to organize it and take it forward,” said City Administrator Rob Gerdes.

“We would really defer to the City Council on how you would want to approach it,” Gerdes added. “But we’re also fine to remove it.”

Assistant City Attorney Brett Pettigrew suggested revising or removing the amendment. Council members have not selected an independent group to organize a debate in several years, and he said it is “problematic to have something in the code that reads as though it is a mandatory obligation … and it is not being done.”

City Clerk Chandrahasa Srinivasa explained that in the past, interested organizations would contact the council, which would then determine the time, date and location of debates. “It’s not that groups didn’t have an opportunity,” he said. “They just didn’t reach out.”

The city code states that “if no impartial third party agrees to conduct any debate, then no debate shall be required.” Pettigrew does not believe the council has neglected its duty, as the city cannot force someone to conduct and moderate an event.

Logistics and optics present additional issues. Hanewicz said it could seem like officials are “inserting ourselves into the political process.”

She recalled a debate at City Hall that was “not a pretty sight, in terms of a racist rant that happened on the dais.” Hanewicz “hated seeing that,” as someone could mistake the candidates for elected officials.

Councilmember Mike Harting echoed that sentiment. He said that “10 different people” would have “10 different views of what they saw, and there will be a perceived bias no matter what.”

Multiple committee members noted that candidates now have additional avenues to reach voters. Pettigrew said officials could change the amendment’s language to allow for city-sponsored debates “if there aren’t community organizations holding one.”

Council Chair Copley Gerdes said he would be “more inclined to keep it and try to thread the needle” if organizations had requested the debates over the past few years. He believes the “simplest answer” is to remove the amendment rather than “go down the wormhole” of establishing new guidelines.

In 2019, the city council voted to let the mayoral administration oversee the process. Gerdes was not a “massive fan” because the administration “is really one person.”

City Administrator Gerdes said he could not commit to assuming that responsibility. “We’d want to look at the history of it – there may have been a very good reason why it was written this way, and why it was the council’s basic responsibility to do this.”

Councilmember Corey Givens Jr. wanted to continue the discussion rather than voting to remove the amendment. “I just really think we’re robbing the community of an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process,” he said.

“I think democracy is all about being able to have an opportunity to hear your candidates,” Givens continued. “And the last election cycle, through the hurricanes and other things, we just did not have that opportunity.”

Councilmember Richie Floyd said he would approve eliminating the amendment or modifying the language to make the debates optional. However, Givens was the only committee member who favored the latter proposal.

Pettigrew will now draft an ordinance encompassing the changes for the city council’s approval. Floyd clarified that a member could still plan and host a debate when they are not on the ballot; the primary difference is that SPTV would not broadcast the event.

This content provided in partnership with stpetecatalyst.com