Category: Florida

The numbers on African-American enrollment at the University of Florida have been disappointing–although overall minority enrollment (notably Hispanic) is up. In 2007, more than 900 black freshmen were enrolled in Gainesville. In 2013, it was less than 400. No word, however, on what percentage of those 2013 enrollees played football and basketball.

It might be the oddest couple since Kim Jung-Un and Dennis Rodman.

We’re talking about the Christian Coalition and Tea Partiers joining hands with liberals and environmentalists. And, by the way, Libertarians and the Florida Retail Federation also want in. And what motivates this disparate lot to opt for kumbaya over the mosh pit of partisan politics?

Solar energy. You betcha. Even in a “Sunshine State” that is a solar-power oxymoron without any policy to support renewable energy.

Specifically, it’s the bottom-line potential to combine pure marketplace dynamics and enlightened energy conservation. Adam Smith meets Al Gore. Something for everyone not named Duke Energy, Tampa Electric or Florida Power & Light.

This otherwise unlikely coalition, known as Floridians for Solar Choice, is out to maximize energy efficiency and free-market independence–not to venerate the business model of the state’s investor-owned, Tallahassee-connected, monopoly utilities. They want non-utilities that generate electricity from the sun to be able to sell that power directly to other consumers. More than 30 other states–none nicknamed Sunshine–allow it.

But first things first. The coalition has drafted a citizen petition that was approved in December. It would allow private companies to sell up to two megawatts of solar energy to customers. The actual solar facilities would have to be on the same or adjacent property as the customer’s.

It will need close to 700,000 signatures in a year (Feb.1, 2016) to get the issue on the ballot for the 2016 election. Then meet a 60 percent threshold to pass.

What’s ultimately at stake with the common cause of these strangest of bedfellows? Nothing less than competition in the energy market and a boost in renewable energy usage.

What are the chances of success?

Put it this way: Grass roots, conviction-driven, take-no-ideological-prisoners Republicans and Democrats actually agree on something. Everybody sees green. You have to like the odds.

We are Tampa, Floridaand the subject ofCuba is never far from a talking point. The Cuban-American normalization process now underway ratchets up the rhetoric as well as expectations.

Some thoughts to reflect on:

*My wife and I have acquaintances in Cuba. They made the case 15 years ago that it would ultimately take the “biological” solution for all barriers–i.e. the embargo that is still called a “blockade” on the island–to be lifted. “Biological solution” is the Cuban euphemism for the passing of both Castro brothers. That would truly pave the way for the ultimate “face saving” negotiation.

* Al Fox Jr. Before it was trendy to talk about preparing for post-embargo reality and courting contacts and relationships on the island, there was Al Fox. Generations from now, this counterproductive, Cold War-relic policy will be looked upon as some embarrassingly weird, historic anomaly. But when it mattered most to keep the issue alive and fight the good–if often unappreciated–fight, Fox, the founder of the Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy, was there.

* U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa. Once she got her bearings, the five-term congresswoman became a proactive factor for progress on Cuban policy. Now no one in the Florida delegation matters more on the issue. She’s the key catalyst in organizing the March community forum on Cuba–in conjunction with the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce and TIA.

* U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz., D-Pembroke Pines and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. Thanks for nothing. The native New Yorker is a liberal in everything except where she has to sell out to the politically potent, right-wing exile community.

* Sen. Marco Rubio, U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Díaz-Balart. History will not be as kind to the “Three Amigos” as Little Havana has been. Via political intimidation, the sovereign state of South Florida has dictated a vendetta-agenda foreign policy on Cuba. It has benefited neither Florida nor the U.S. How ironic that the jowly, snarly Ros-Lehtinen was caught on camera when President Obama was referencing his evolving Cuban policy at the State of the Union address. She looked like a Banana Republic dictator.

*Too bad the governor of the state and the mayor of the city that would benefit most from normalization aren’t gung-ho for it. Rick Scott reflexively plays the hardliner card to accommodate the usual suspects, while Bob Buckhorn stays neutral because of loyalty to those who lost the most as a result of the revolution. Regardless of motivation, non-advocacy doesn’t help.

* Finally, some advice for the adventurous as well as the generic tourist. Do your best to get to Cuba now before it loses cachet and turns into the Bahamas with Cold War history and clueless gringos in Che berets.

It could be a “win-win” for Florida GOPsters if the Republican-dominated Legislature passes a medical marijuana bill. Doing the right thing and keeping a potentially Democrat-aiding constitutional amendment off the 2016 ballot–possibly in that order.

By June, we will know the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on a First Amendment case whose ripples will emanate from Tampa.

In 2010, public defender Lanell Williams-Yulee didn’t just lose big in her election challenge to Judge Dick Greco Jr. for a seat on the Hillsborough County Court, she also took a notable hit from the Florida Bar. She was fined for sending out a signed letter personally soliciting campaign funds. She challenged it on First Amendment grounds.

Such direct solicitations are the sort of thing candidates for office do–but not those running for judge. Not in Florida. And not in more than two dozen other states. The Florida Bar’s response was an overreaction to the ever-increasing influence of money in judicial elections. So, yes, it comes from a good place.

And, by the way, thanks again, Supremes, for the post-Citizens United era were stuck in.

Here’s the inherent issue with the Florida Bar’s proscription against direct solicitation of funds in judicial races. It’s a sham. It’s hypocritical. It’s disingenuous. Other than that, it’s swell.

It’s a sham because there’s no prohibition for judicial candidates to raise money via a campaign committee set up largely for that exact purpose. Hardly church-and-state separation.

It’s hypocritical because in the honorable name of being removed from all fundraising activities, candidates are still allowed to jot off thank you notes to those who have donated to their candidacy. Being privy to such detail is not seen as problematic, even if at obvious odds with the spirit of the Florida Bar rule.

In effect, “Thank you so much for helping out by writing that check and then giving it to somebody who represents me and my campaign. As you probably know, I can’t literally ask you directly for money. To stay legal, which is really, really important for a judicial candidate, that’s the way we have to do business.

“And also thanks so much for responding to my campaign committee’s request for a high-profile, public endorsement. That was better than cold cash. And finally, thank you for being so understanding about this whole wink-and-nod process.”

It’s disingenuous because it purports to address a serious societal problem–the insidious incidence of donors buying influence across the spectrum of government–while enabling an easy work-around for contributors, however motivated.

There are two ways of addressing this.

The Supreme Court, of course, can just say the Florida Bar rule doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

Or we can all agree that it’s better–albeit still imperfect–to vet and appoint judges, not elect them as de facto, fund-raising politicians.

The ACLU and NAACP are weighing in. The “Let My People Vote T-Shirts” are on display. There’s a grass-roots petition drive aimed at a constitutional amendment in 2016 that would automatically restore voting rights to ex-felons not convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses.

Thanks to Gov. Rick Scott and the Caligari Cabinet in 2011, felons have been required to wait at least five years after their release before they can even begin the tortuous process of applying for full citizenship. Florida is one of four states in which a felony conviction technically includes the permanent loss of civil rights. So in this state, the released felon must formally petition the governor and the cabinet for clemency, a process that could take years to never. The current backlog is 20,000 clemency cases.

As presently constituted, the wait-and-petition system is manifestly unfair to those who have served out their sentences. It’s a civil rights issue.

Yes, we can quibble about “paying one’s debt to society” in the context of a questionable plea bargain or the sobering aftermath of crimes that leave debts literally impossible to fully “pay off.” Some victims’ lives, for example, are never made quite whole. Even after “closure,” there is no unscarring of the scarred. We get it.

But we have a legal system where the forfeiture of rights is part of the punishment meted out. And then we have the finite end of punishment without rights being restored. Quid minus quo.

But there’s an even more important factor here, one that is typically overlooked. The restoration of rights, such as voting, is in society’s–not just an individual ex-felon’s–best interest. This is not all about altruism.

We know that the rate of recidivism is notably less among felons who have served their time and regained their rights. Not surprisingly, recent reports show that former prisoners who have had their rights restored re-offend at one-third the rate of other inmates who had completed their sentences.

Surely Scott can spin public safety. Surely.

The stark reality is that most felons don’t stay locked up in jail. At some point they’re back in our midst–whether re-integrated or shoe-horned. It’s estimated that there are at least 1 million Sunshine State residents who are permanent “second-class citizens.” They served their time, pay taxes and can’t vote.

Waiting a minimum of five years in order to APPLY to have rights restored is unacceptable. In too many cases, that could be five years worth of a ticking, societal time bomb.

Call it a matter of fairness to ex-felons looking for a second chance after serving out their sentence. But more importantly, call it a matter of common sense and common good.

“The White House has conceded everything and gained little.” That was U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s knee-jerk, exile-community-pander response to the announcement of the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Basically, the president was weak, dumb and traitorous. Yada, yada, ay Dios.

Rubio later joined fellow South Florida GOPsters Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in promising to use their positions to block efforts by the president to fund initiatives that would make it easier for people to travel to Cuba, use U.S. bank cards there and for the two countries to open consulates in each other’s countries.  

The short, (sanitized) answer to Rubio:

“Gained little? In exchange for getting 3/5 of the Cuban Five, the Castro government freed Alan Gross, a U.S. intelligence agent and 53 political prisoners. Whose side got one-sided?

“You want Havana to have elections and other democratic trappings that half our trade partners and “allies” don’t have? Unless you’re pondering “The Bay of Pigs, The Sequel,” it would be to max out on opening Cuba to U.S. influence. Cuba is economically dysfunctional and ideologically perverse, but it’s not North Korea. This is a difference maker. Finally.

“Normalizing relations would be a humanitarian plus to families on both sides of the Florida Straits. Geopolitically, it would send the message–especially in our own Hemisphere–that we are ending a vendetta-driven, Cold War relationship with a sovereign country that means us no harm. And economically, no state would benefit more than the one you ostensibly represent.

“Enough with the obstructionist lectures and exile rhetoric. Try transcending Little Havana on this one and representing the best interests of your country and your state.”

First the good news. The state’s high school graduation rate is now at an 11-year high: 76.1 percent.

Now the bad news. Roughly 1 in 4 Florida high school students still don’t graduate.

It’s only fitting that the U.S. Department of Education has ruled that Florida didn’t violate any anti-discrimination laws in its administration of Bright Futures scholarships. Of course it didn’t. The inquiry was based on allegations that the eligibility criteria (GPAs, SATs, ACTs among them) was, in effect, discriminatory against African-American and Hispanic students.

Criteria, of course, can always be re-thought, but let’s at least remember this: Is this a “scholarship” or a “subsidy”? The original (1997) intent of BF was to address a “brain drain” from the Sunshine State. Merit-based BF was an alternative to hand-wringing over the challenge of keeping more of our “best and brightest” right here in Florida. As for need? It’s what Florida needed, according to the Florida Legislature.

This is now 2014. Is this too much help for high-achieving, affluent students? Too little for relatively needy, good minority students? That conversation is worth having. But not the one that raised the bogus issue of discrimination.

The letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. The law vs. common sense. The context of fairness. Questionable law. They are among the rationales for appeals courts and sometimes constitutional amendments. Redressing a wrong always needs a lifeline, however tenuous.

Case in point. The felony murder doctrine that holds that an accomplice is just as responsible as the actual killers when a murder takes place during the commission of a felony. For example, all masked gang members are guilty–not just the one actually spraying victims with his Uzi. Or the idling, get-away driver in the convenience-store homicide. Or the murder-for-hire recruiter who never fired a round. We get it. They’re all integral parts of the final, fatal result.

But the doctrine, by definition, is rife with gray areas of unforeseen subplots and arguable exceptions. If the same penalty–including life sentences and capital punishment–is to be meted out to those who literally kill and those who literally don’t, there should be unequivocal complicity by all principals.

Which brings us to the equivocal case of Ryan Holle. He was 21 when a Pensacola jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. Among the details: He was drunk and handed his car keys to four friends who burglarized a house and killed a teenager. Holle was a mile and a half away and had no criminal record. The state said he knew they were up to no good; Holle said he thought they were joking. Etc.

Because it wasn’t an iron-clad, felony-murder case, the prosecutors offered a plea deal: 10 years in exchange for testimony against those directly involved. He rejected it. Had he not, he would have been out by now. Instead, at 32, he’s still at Graceville Correctional Facility in North Florida and hoping a clemency hearing–Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Cabinet–will vote for his release.

It didn’t happen. The Pensacola prosecutor’s office was against it. So were emotional members of the victim’s family. Holle was analogized to Charles Manson. The governor ultimately took the case “under advisement.” That was in lieu of a vote that almost assuredly would have been no.

To no one’s surprise, Attorney General Pam Bondi was the most vocal opponent of Holle’s release.

The felony murder doctrine: It can be a tortuous call. But it shouldn’t be determined by a coin flip with counsel over a plea deal–one proffered because the prosecution knew it didn’t have a get-away driver.