In Part 1 of this series, we told you how North Miami Beach City “Attorney” Joe Geller couldn’t be bothered to take seriously the City Charter’s mandatory decennial review of its governing laws. Chapter II, Article VII, Sec. 2-44 states, “There is hereby created and established a Charter Review Committee, which Committee shall consist of seven (7) appointed members,” which Committee “shall be appointed no less than once every ten (10) years.”
Joe Geller had presented a ridiculous, one-question ballot afterthought, literally dismissing all the hard work that the seven volunteer members of the Charter Review Committee spent during approximately 27 hours of their lives (or a collective 189 hours) in service for the betterment of their city.
His rationale, beginning at hour 3:28:24 of the July 21, 2026 Commission Meeting, was simply pathetic.
He said:
“There are only three major items that the commission chose to put forward. There are only three significant ones. They’re very simple.
One is the change of election date. There’s a number of things that are ancillary to that if that passes and extending the terms and all that, but that’s only if related to it if it passes.
A second one is that there be mandated a second meeting any time that the commission does not finish an entire agenda that there be a meeting within 15 days to address it. It’s very simple. It’s not complicated in any way.
And the third one was the one that I think the vice mayor offered that said that compensation could only be raised by a vote of six instead of five commissioners.
Those three very simple things were discussed, debated, understood. There’s no mystery about them. Everyone knows that those are the items and that’s what we wrote.”
Even if it were that “simple,” Joe Geller is intellectually incapable of grasping the reality that if a voter wants to vote for only one or two of the three proposals, but is against the remaining one(s), they will vote against the entire ballot question.
Is that “simple“ enough for you, Joe?
When Commissioner Phyllis Smith clarified that Joe’s intentions were to justify a one-question ballot instead of the usual “three or four” questions that she is accustomed to, Joe buried the hole he was standing in even deeper.
He attempted to explain why he completely ignored and disregarded all the other recommendations given to him by the Charter Review Committee by stumbling over his own words when he said, “There’s an attachment that’s available in the Clerk’s office which is the actual red line. We say that all these items are on the red line. It’s in the resolution in the, the ballot the notice and then it’s in the, the resolution itself.”
So, let’s get this straight.
If the voters want to understand all three proposed changes to their Charter that Joe crammed into one “very simple“ Amendment, all they have to do is storm the City Clerk’s office and ask for a copy of the “Redline Charter,” before deciding whether to vote for it or not.
Which literally explains nothing to anyone not fully versed in Charter-speak.
Or, 99% of North Miami Beach residents.
But, okay, Joe. It’s really “very simple.”
When a few of the members of the Commission pushed back on Joe’s “very simple,” one-question ballot, he responded with, “Now to be clear, if the commission wanted, if you said we don’t want it all combined, I would separate them tomorrow. We will not miss the deadline. Whether it’s a hard and fast deadline or not, we’re not going to miss it.”
Commissioner Smith wanted to clarify that Joe expected only one question to be on the ballot.
What Joe said in the next exchange between him and Phyllis is so incredibly disingenuous, it literally boggles the mind!
Phyllis: The official ballot is going to have only that paragraph, one question.
Joe: Yes, ma’am. Because we are limited to 75 words. Per item.
Phyllis: But we’re only having one item.
Joe: And it’s less than 75 words. I made it work.
After a lengthy discussion about what questions should be placed on the ballot, Commissioner Fortuna Smukler made a motion to split all of them up into separate questions.
Of course there was another lengthy discussion until there was a motion to have “up to nine” questions on the ballot. All approved except the so-called “mayor,” Michael Joseph, who obviously opposes anything that he perceives might take power away from himself.
But, we digress.
The real “fun” began in the days after the July 21, 2026 meeting and leading up to the July 24, 2026 5:00 pm deadline to turn in the Charter Amendment questions to the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections for placement on the November 3, 2026 ballot.
The very next day after that disastrous meeting, former Commissioner and current Charter Review Committee member Barbara Kramer sent Joe an email at 1:31 pm, expressing her disappointment in the entire process. She summed up the problem when she wrote:
“From the very beginning of our Charter Review Committee meetings, I stressed how quickly we needed to get to work. On May 20th, I expressed my concern that we were already too close to the deadline, with only two Commission meetings remaining, one of which was last night. That left less than three days, and even less time when measured in business hours, to get everything to the Miami-Dade Elections Department. There was simply no room for delays or unexpected issues.
Throughout this process, you did not appear to be championing this effort or fulfilling the leadership role I expected from the City’s Attorney. The Charter Review Committee invested countless hours into this process, and that effort deserved better. So did the elected officials. They deserved adequate time, guidance, and support to fully understand this important legislation before being asked to make decisions that will ultimately affect the voters.”
Needless to say, Joe did not respond to her letter.
Despite his promise to the Commissioners that the very next day he would provide a new Resolution to separate the ballot questions individually on July 22, 2024 — the day after the meeting, it wasn’t until Thursday night, July 23, 2026 at 9:07 pm that he finally sent an email to the Clerk stating:
“Attached please find the proposed amendments to the City Charter, representing the work of the Charter Review Committee, as modified by the City Commission, and per the instructions given by the City Commission two nights ago.
I have done my best to separate the items into eight distinct questions for submission to the Office of the Supervisor of Elections, for presentation to the electorate on the November ballot.”
He closed his letter by asking the Clerk to send the proposed amendments to the elected officials and the Charter Review Committee, and to have them contact him with questions. He also reminded her that the “questions are due to the Supervisor of Elections by end of day tomorrow (Friday).”
In other words, instead of providing the revised proposal the very next day as he said he would, he waited forty-eight hours to to submit it.
The Clerk, who does not earn overtime pay, forwarded his email to all intended parties at 9:26 pm when she was technically off duty for the day.
Joe Geller then expected everyone to drop what they were doing late Thursday night and give him direction on his proposal by no later 5:00 pm the next day – LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS!
Never mind that most people actually sleep during the night and work during the day.
Joe Geller actually expected the courtesy of an immediate response which he never gives to anyone else.
But that isn’t even the worst of it!
Stay tuned for Part 3.
Stephanie
