Spotlight: Let’s jump into the redistricting lawsuit. A federal judge in April ruled that the city’s voting maps were unconstitutional on the grounds of racial gerrymandering. But what really irks many residents, especially here in Coconut Grove, was the belief that some commissioners were acting to benefit their own personal or political objectives, irrespective of race. Did that occur?
Russell: I believe it did. The racial gerrymandering does exist. The commissioners on the dais said it was their objective to draw lines that would designate different races to different districts. But it also accomplished a separate goal — which has been stated on the record on the dais, in the press, and in courts — that lines were drawn to exclude certain candidates from districts they were running for. Lines were drawn to protect certain commissioners from land issues that were in and outside of their districts. Specifically, Commissioner Carollo, with regard to his house that wasn’t in his district. The line was drawn to bring that house into his district. There was no other logical reason for District 3 to suddenly cross US 1 and draw a circle around his house.
Spotlight: Did anybody on the commission say, wait a minute, we shouldn’t be doing this sort of thing?
Russell: It was brought up that gerrymandering for personal interest was not right. But the commission is very adept in masking true intention. Cutting the Grove into three parts made no sense whatsoever, but all the statements on the record by the commissioners in favor of it insisted that District 2 had become outsized and the only solution was to carve up the Grove. My counter argument at the time was that the Grove’s population had not grown, yet Brickell and downtown had exploded with new development, new density, new intensity, and of course new residents. That’s where the lines should have been drawn.
Spotlight: Were there any ulterior motives for breaking up the Grove?
Russell: I believe there were several motives. Commissioner Carollo certainly wanted to protect his house in the redistricting. He moved out of District 2 to run for District 3. He moved back into District 2 to protect his home from a pending lawsuit. The other issue is that Grovites are the most politically active in the city, and I don’t mean by voter turnout, but in terms of activism at City Hall on issues that Grovites care about. No one shows up more. The Grove is where the larger political activism is. And so by cutting the Grove up, you can neuter that political voice. The issue may be trees or over-development or it may be about racial inequality in Little Bahamas. But by cutting it up, you create chaos at the ballot box when people don’t know which district they’re in or when to vote. You create chaos when people don’t know who their commissioner is.
Spotlight: In the wake of all this, there seems to be some momentum for expanding the City Commission from five to seven or even nine seats. A larger commission, as the argument goes, will be less susceptible to influence peddling and other backroom shenanigans. Is this politically feasible?
Russell: I’m very encouraged by the move to a larger number of commission districts and even-year voting [for all commission seats]. Mayor Suarez is looking at a charter change that would bring those two changes. Coral Gables is trying to undergo the same exercise. The people who would not want that, of course, are the ones in power who hold that undiluted 20 percent vote on the city commission to change the code and the ordinances. That’s a lot of leverage. So, the ones in power currently would be the ones opposed.
Spotlight: Would any outside influences – independent of commissioners’ own self-interests — oppose such an expansion?
Russell: I don’t believe so. The world of development simply wants to make a profit and they want to operate under predictable rules. So, whether it’s five or nine or 13, they’ll figure out a way. Many applicants at the county have 13 different lobbyists, one for each commissioner. So could [an expanded City Commission] cost them some more money? Sure, but I don’t foresee an opposition to such a move outside of politics.
Spotlight: And what role might ethnic politics play within the debate? Was that something that became part of the legislative calculation when you were in office?
Russell: It would be naive to say that ethnic politics doesn’t play a role in City of Miami government. It always has. The city is clearly gerrymandered in a way that the commission is, has been, and probably will always be, majority Hispanic. That also reflects our city, which is majority Hispanic.
Spotlight: And how does that play a role in governing?
Russell: On such a small commission — five commissioners, smallest commission for a city this size in the country — how do you get your legislation done? You have to find three votes – yours and two others. You need to find two other people to agree with you. Now I’m very proud of my many legislative accomplishments. But at times I was not able to pass things that I cared about. I wouldn’t say those failures were based on an ethnic split, but there was definitely, at some point, a team on the commission that was working together to undermine others. And that just happened to fall on ethnic lines.
Spotlight: Speaking of counting to three, last month the commission mustered the votes to remove City Attorney Vicky Mendez – almost eight years after you tried, and failed, to fire her. Was this overdue?
Russell: The city attorney’s primary master is the commission, because the commission decides whether or not they keep their job. Technically, any one commissioner is not their client; the body is their client. Some would argue that the city itself should be their client. But in recent years the city attorney has very clearly worked in the best interest of the commissioners themselves. Maybe not the commission as a body, or the city as a whole, but in the personal interests of those individual commissioners. This was the source of my problems with her. She believed the commissioners were her clients, and if they wanted to do something, her job was to help them navigate it, legally, with the least exposure. She didn’t feel that her job was to be a point of accountability for them. And that’s why you start hearing terms like “mob lawyer.” The psychology of a mob lawyer is to protect their client regardless of ethics and legality. It can definitely be argued that members of the commission have undertaken exercises of questionable ethics and legality that have been supported by, and protected by, the city attorney.
