Reprinted from the Miami-Dade County Libertarian Examiner- Larry Warrick, author.
Examiner Exclusive - Amid corruption, Cooper City Mayor moves to vet candidates
July 12, 11:59 AM · Larry Warrick - Miami-Dade County Libertarian Examiner
Citing rampant corruption across local governments in South Florida, Cooper City Mayor Debbie Eisinger has placed candidate vetting on the agenda for discussion in the upcoming July 20 Commission meeting. According to the official request: “The City of Cooper City will conduct FDLE background checks and a motor vehicle background review on all candidates running for the office of a Cooper City Commissioner or Mayor of Cooper City beginning with the November 2nd, 2010 elections… Additionally, the city may contract with an independent agency to provide education verification and employment verification checks… Candidates may request and receive a copy of requested “investigative consumer reports”.”
The request includes a sample policy meant to be used by employers in private business, found here. In essence, Mayor Eisinger proposes to discuss the best way for the current commission to vet candidates who have declared their intention to oppose or replace them in the next election and beyond, and post their findings for the world to see. Presumably, any candidate who refused to allow intimate details of his or her past life history to be made public knowledge would in some way be blocked from filing candidacy.
Maverick Commissioner John Sims was direct in his response “This woman is crazy!” adding “Would Background checks have led the public to vote initially against Bev Gallagher, School Board Elected Official Indicted on corruption Charges? How about Fitzroy Salesman? Would background checks lead to the choosing of a better candidate than Josphefus Eggelation for County Commission when he first ran? How about Diana Wasserman-Rubin? And let’s not forget how her husband played a major role, more than hers, in her corruption indictment.” In each case, the person accused of public corruption had exemplary personal backgrounds prior to being elected.
There are also questions regarding the legality of any city ordinance requiring publication of personal information. Prior to the election, all non-sitting candidates are still legally ‘private citizens’. Post – election, those candidates who are not elected are also ‘private citizens’. Whilst it is certainly advisable to carry out due diligence when considering whom to cast a vote for, the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Is it unreasonable (or even ethical?) for a city government to use public money in searching through the past histories of those who would replace them? Is there probable cause in utilizing that information during re-election campaigns?
Is this a strategic move on the part of Mayor Eisinger to garner publicly stated disapproval from her political opposition, providing her with a golden opportunity to imply (rightly or not) past wrongdoings amongst her enemies as the source of this opposition? Politricks as usual, perhaps, or is the mayor simply attempting to entrench herself as the ‘honest (if misguided) politician’ in a sea of corruption?
At press time, emails to Mayor Eisinger requesting more information had not been returned
