25

Government Accountability, Transparency & Term Limits

Within AuthorityGovernance1 barrier · 0 statutes

Audit Verdict · Within Authority

Transparency, dashboards, meeting access, participatory budgeting, and civic-tech tools are executive choices; term limits and election-date changes need a charter referendum.

City can act directly, subject to budget, staffing, and execution quality.

The Promise

Stream meetings and comments, publish dashboards, adjust meeting times, expand participatory budgeting, launch a city app and AI assistant, strengthen ethics rules, and support term limits and election-date alignment.

Authority Scope

Executive action, agenda setting, budget, IT, ethics rules

Most of the agenda is operational, but term limits and election-date changes require charter amendment via voter referendum under F.S. 166.031.

Analysis

This is a largely deliverable governance plank. The few non-executive pieces are clearly identifiable and already routed through charter process.

Legislative Record

No separate municipal executive record exists yet; the question is whether the administration would actually resource and publish the promised accountability systems.

Implementation Barriers

A portion of the inventory depends on agencies where the mayor has limited board representation, informal influence, or no direct management authority.

  • SunRail is owned and operated by FDOT; weekend service requires state funding
  • LYNX is a regional board where the mayor holds one of five seats
  • Orange County Public Schools and UCF are independent entities outside mayoral control
Open matching inventory →

Within-Authority Path · What Orlando could actually deliver

Launch the dashboards, hybrid access, civic app, and participatory-budgeting process directly, then package term limits and election changes as a separate referendum question.