[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:13]
I CALLED THE WORKSHOP TO ORDER AND AS ALWAYS WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> . >> YOU MAY BE SEATED. WE DO HAVE ITEM 2 ITEMS ON TONIGHT'S WORKSHOP WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM 5.1 BOARD ADJUSTMENT AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL VARIANCE AND PROCEDURES. THIS IS PUT ON THE AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSIONER. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.>> CAN I MAKE A POINT OF ORDER.
IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY AND ANYONE OF US WHO PUT SOMETHING ON A WORKSHOP AGENDA TO PUT THE MATERIAL WHEREVER THEY ARE GOING TO PRESENT AT THAT MEETING IN THAT PACKET AND ALSO WHAT THE ISSUE IS. EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS AND WHAT THE CONCERN IS SO PEOPLE WOULD KNOW AHEAD OF TIME AND CAN PREPARE AND HAVE REASONABLE QUESTIONS WHAT THE DISCUSSION THAT'S JUST A REQUEST IN THE FUTURE WE COULD DO THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I'VE BEEN GUILTY IN THE PAST OF NOT DOING THAT.
IT WOULD HELP US AND EVERYONE. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ROSS.
[5.1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL - VARIANCE PROCEDURES]
BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER ASK YOU. >> I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKED BY A COUPLE PEOPLE BASED TO START THIS BY SAYING HOW DID I ARRIVE AT THIS IDEA TO BRING THIS TO THE COMMISSION. IT WILL GO BACK QUITE A FEW MONTHS.WE WILL REMEMBER THAT THE BLA MADE A DECISION THAT WENT TO CIRCUIT COURT ABOUT A RESTAURANT THAT WE WON'T TALK ABOUT. THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS APPEALED THAT I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY THE APPEALS PROCESS WENT. I MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAD MADE A DECISION THAT IT WENT TO THE BLA AND IT WAS AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO THE JUDGE BECAUSE THEY HAD MADE THE DECISION SIDE AND QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. AS WE WERE SITTING HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO AND WE WERE DISCUSSING CERTAIN LTC CHANGES IT WAS BROUGHT UP AGAIN ABOUT THE POAIT BAFFLES ME FROM A STANDPOINT OF WHY IS THE APPEALS GOING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. >> THERE'S THREE MAIN REASONS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST LOOK AT THE CHANGE.THE FIRST ONE IS BEING THAT AS A COMMISSION WE ARE THE ONES THAT ENACT THE CODE AND THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE TO BE FOLLOWED.WHEN SOMEBODY GOES FURTHER VARIANCE AND THEY GO IN FRONT OF THE POA AND THEY GO TO APPEAL THAT DECISION THEY DON'T COME IN FRONT OF THE BODY THAT SELECTED.
NOT NECESSARILY AS IF THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT COULD BE AN EFFECTIVE PARTY AND THAT VARIANCE WORKS OUT NEGATIVELY AND IMPACTS THEM THEIR ONLY AVENUE FOR RELIEF IS TO GO TO A JUDGE. I DON'T SEE THAT PROCESS BEING JUST.
I LOOK AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF BEING ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY FROM AN APPOINTED BOARD THAT MAKES THE DECISION THAT ENDS UP IN LITIGATION. IF WE OR AN APPOINTED BOARD MAKES A DECISION THAT ENDS UP IN A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT IT'S POSSIBLE.
THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT BOARD. THERE'S NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CITY COMMISSION. YOU COULDN'T COME TO ME AND BLAME ME FOR A DECISION THAT THE POA MADE THAT PUT US IN A POSITION OF BEING SUED. THERE IS ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE PROCESS IF AND ISN'T AT LEAST REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION BEFORE IT GOES TO COURT. LASTLY THE PROCEDURE IS NOT CHANGING.
[00:05:01]
IT'S A LONG PROCEDURE. STAFF GOES THROUGH A LOT OF PROCESS TO GET A VARIANCE IN FRONT OF THE POA. IT'S BECAUSE I'M TRADITIONAL. THE SAME PROCESS WILL DEPRIVE COMMISSION. WE HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION .EVERYTHING ELSE WILL PASS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE POA IS DOING NOW.
FOR ME OF YOUR SOMEBODY THAT'S LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE THE MORE SCRUTINY IS GOING TO BE ON THIS BOARD THAN EVER WILL. THOSE ARE MY POINTS. I WANT TO BRING IT FORTH FOR DISCUSSION AND SEE IF MOVING THOSE PROCEDURES WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION
WOULD DO. >> YOU ARE SEEING THAT IN THE FUTURE IF THERE IS AN APPEAL IT WOULD COME FROM THE CITY COMMISSION INSTEAD OF THE BOARD.
>> IT COULD BE THAT SET UP. THAT WOULD GET AWAY FROM WHAT I THINK IS THE WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS. ILLS GO TO CIRCUIT COURT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.I BELIEVE THERE IS IS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THEY ARE PLANNING AND ZONING AND GOES ON THE VARIANCES. THERE APPEALS GO TO VOC. I THINK THAT THAT IS THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT THAN TO TELL A CITIZEN AN EFFECTIVE PARTY. YOU GOTTA GO SEE A JUDGE YOU
CAN GO SEE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. >> LET'S GO TO COMMISSIONER
ROSS. >> FIRST I HAVE SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION AND SOME COMMENTS. FIRST THE PROCESS THAT YOU ARE SAYING IS AN APPEAL PROCESS.
>> IT COULD BE QUICK SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. >> I AM PROPOSING A DISCUSSION. TO WHERE THE DECISION DOES NOT TERMINATE IN CIRCUIT COURT.
THAT'S WHERE I AM. I'M PERFECTLY FINE MAKING THE DECISION.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM SITTING IN A QUASIJUDICIAL MEETING AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. ARE YOU PROPOSING WHAT A COURT RULES ON WHICH IS WHETHER THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS ARE INVOLVED. WHETHER DECISION WAS BASED ON COMPETENCE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WHICH STANDARD WOULD IT BE? ARE EXTENSIVELY ASKING FOR DISCUSSION. I'M NOT NECESSARILY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER I BROUGHT THIS FORTH BECAUSE OF JUST THE IDEA OF IT GOING TO COURT AND THAT NOT
COMING TO THE COMMISSION FIRST. >> SEE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN INSET PROPOSAL.
>> NO I DON'T. THIS IS DISCUSSION. >> SO HERE ARE MY COMMENTS.
FIRST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS SELECTED BY THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THEY ARE SELECTED SHOULD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE IS DONE WITH BOARD APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS AND YOU CAN ALWAYS FIRE THEM AND COME UP WITH A NEW BOARD. IF IT'S A DE NOVO HEARING WHY ARE WE BOTHERING TO HAVE THE FIRST HEARING? IT'S IN THE MARYLAND JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES. HE FIRST HAS TO GO BEFORE A BOARD AND YOU HAD TO GO TO COURT. THE FIRST CASE WAS REALLY JUST A TRIAL AND IT NEVER WORKED OUT AND EVERYBODY WENT TO COURT ANYHOW.
JUST TWO BITES OF THE APPLE. NUMBER THREE, IF IT'S AN APPEAL IS HERE AND WHY IS THE CITY COMMISSION ANYMORE ADAPT AT HEARING COMPLAINTS THAN CITIZENS AND YOUR PEERS.
[00:10:02]
ON THE HDC YOU HAD PEOPLE ON PART OF THIS. WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD. THE SAME THING YOU CAN JUST POINT PEOPLE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THIS TOO.IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THEIR THAT HAVE DEAF KNOWLEDGE ON THAT AND ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SECOND-GUESS THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ARE ANYMORE PREPARED ARE BETTER OFF HEARING ENCASED WITHIN THE CITY COMMISSION.
IT BECOMES HIGHLY POLITICAL AS OPPOSED TO A GROUP OF THE PEERS.
IT'S A JUDGE AND A JURY. THE JURY IS ESSENTIALLY THE BOARD OF APPEALS OR HDC.
(THANKFULLY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.OST OF THEM SPEND MANY HOURSPREPARING FOR
THESE CASES . YOU CAN ROLL YOUR EYES. >> IT'S ONE MORE THING FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO DO. FOCUS ON THAT AND THAT'S ALL THEY DO AND YOU BECOME AN EXPERT'S ON WHAT THEY DO. WE ACT LIKE A COURT I CAN TELL YOU A JUDGE HAS FAR MORE EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE LAW AND YOU GET A MUCH MORE FAIR HEARING.
IT'S ALWAYS BEFORE A JUDGE AND JUDGES HAVE THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE LAW AND UNDERSTANDING THE LAW. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO COME TO US? NONE OF US ARE LAWYERS AND NONE OF US HAVE SPENT THIS TIME. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE US HEAR AN APPEAL ON THE LAWN THE APPLICATION. HAVE YOU DONE THE CASES THERE THAT THE JUDGE HAS?ND SO WHEN YOU GO TO COURT YOU HAVE TO WRITE A BRIEF AND SO FORTH WHICH ELIMINATES THE ISSUES. I THINK THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS.
2006. THE SYSTEM HAS WORKED. I HAVE HAD ZERO COMPLAINTS IN THE SIX YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION. YOU GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WHAT THE JUDGE DID THIS APPLY THE LAW.HE APPROPRIATELY SAID HE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE LAW AND THAT'S WHY WE RETURN THE CASE SO HE MISSED A STEP AND THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS. THE SECOND CASE WOULD'VE GONE TO COURT NO MATTER WHAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY SOMETHING THAT'S WORKED FOR 20 YEARS I WOULD JUST BE CURIOUS WHY AND WHAT CHANGED. I BELIEVE THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY ON THESE VARIOUS BOARDS AND I HAVE FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS GONE TO EVERY PART OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND EVERY HDC MEETING. THEY DO A BANG UP JOB AND THEY TAKE IT REALLY SERIOUSLY AND SPEND HOURS ON IT AND HAVE GONE ON FOR HOURS. I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THESE HEARINGS.WE NEED TO SPEND ANYMORE TIME ON THIS BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
>> I DO THINK YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS THERE. I HEAR EXACTLY WHAT CHIP IS SAYING. I DO AGREE THAT THESE BOARDS DO HAVE EXPERIENCE AND THEY DO THIS STUFF BUT IF IT WAS ADDED IN AN EXTRA STEP FOR THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD DISAGREE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN A CERTAIN DEGREE AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DIFFERENT LOOK OR JUST DETERMINING WHETHER THE CASE WAS RULED CORRECTLY. LIKE LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY. IF THEY LOOKED AT IT AND THAT COULD BE SOMETIMES IN THE HDC IT COULD BE AN OPINION AND I KNOW A FEW CASES THAT HAVE COME FORWARD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. CAN TRY VERY HARD TO MAKE THE THINGS NEAT THAT HDC AND I KNOW FOR FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T.
NEXT UP BEFORE GOING TO COURT WITH ME THE GUIDANCE THAT THAT THEY FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES?
[00:15:06]
DO THEY FOLLOW WHAT WAS CORRECT? WE FOLLOWED EVERYTHING AND THEY REVIEWED IT THEN I WOULD HAVE TO BACK THE BOARD UP WHICH OF REPORT IT WAS AT THAT POINT.I WOULD BE HOW I WOULD LOOK AT THE SITUATION. WE COULD LOOK AT IT AND YOU ARE CORRECT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY DOES OPERATE. EVERY ONE OF THEIR DECISIONS EVEN THOUGH THEYCOME FROM SEPARATE BOARDS IN THE COUNTY . SHE I'M NOT AGAINST ANOTHER STEP BEFORE THEY ARE HAVING TO GO TO COURT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA.
HOWEVER FOR ME WOULD BE FOR PROCEDURES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FOLLOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURES AND EVERYTHING IN IT WASN'T JUST A MATTER OF ARCHITECTURE OR MATTER OF DETAIL. IF IT'S AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE THAN I CAN UNDERSTAND.
>> JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. NUMBER ONE THIS IS ADDING ANOTHER LAYER OF EXPENSE.
IT'S NOT REALLY THE EXPENSE OF THE CLIENT OR THE CITIZEN BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW PAYING THE ATTORNEY AND YOU NOW HAVE ANOTHER LAYER OF EXPENSE TO PAY FOR.
IT'S FOR THE CITY STAFF. AS FAR AS FOLLOWING EVERYTHING I THINK A JUDGE UNDER COURT AND I'VE BEEN TO COURT A FEW TIMES IS FAR MORE SEAL AT DECIDING WHETHER THE CORRECT LAW WAS PRIZE AND THE PROCEDURES WERE APPLIED. THEY HAVE FAR MORE EXPERIENCE IN THE. THAT'S WHY THEY WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AND THAT'S WHY THEY WENT
TO THE JUDGE SCHOOL AND HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. >> I THINK TRUSTING A JUDGE AS OPPOSED TO FIVE FIGHTS WILL HAVE THEIR OWN POLITICAL AGENDAS.
>> TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE ONLY BOARD THAT POTENTIALLY HAS POLITICAL AGENDAS TO ME JUST FALLS. IT DOESN'T TAKE VERY MUCH TO RESEARCH AND SAY THEY ARE PARTICULARLY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA.
TO SAY THAT TAKING IT AND GOING AWAY FROM THE COMMISSION INTO THE POA AND THE HDC THEY HAVE ZERO POLITICAL AGENDA I THINK IT'S JUST NOT FACTUAL. IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T DO THEIR JOB THAT THEY CAN'T SERVE IN THE CAPACITY OF A QUASI-TRADITIONAL AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I THINK THAT'S JANUARY'S. WHEN I SAY HOLDING SOMEBODY ACCOUNTABLE FOR DECISIONS GOING TO COURT THAT SHIP HAS SAILED BY THE TIME IT'S IN COURT AND THEY ARE SUING THE CITY FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. IT'S GONE.
SH>> TO THE CREDIT OF WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED I COULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF MINIMIZING LEGAL LIABILITY WITH OUR CITY . I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE'S ANY CHANGE ITS SENSITIVE ENOUGH TO UNDER NINE AND WHAT THE BOARD IS IN
THE PURPOSE OF DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE BMI HAS FIVE MOTHERBOARDS WITH TWO ALTERNATES.
[00:20:01]
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CAROLINE OR ANYONE THAT MAY KNOW THE ANSWER ON TOP OF YOUR HEAD.WHEN WAS THE LAST APPOINTMENT FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO ONE OF THE SEATS?
WAS THAT THIS YEAR? REMIND ME WHEN THAT WAS. >> THE TERMS ARE STAGGERED.
SHE. >> I DON'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE LAST TIME WE HAD
THIS. >> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THIS MIGHT BE INCORRECT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT ONE.
>> IT WAS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO. I THINK WE DID.
>> I THINK IT WAS ONE BLA MEMBER. WE ARE JUST SPEAKING WITH THE
POA AND I THINK THERE IS ONLY ONE. >> MY POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS THAT THERE IS A LAG TIME IN TERMS OF THE POA OR ANY BOARD IN TERMS OF THE COMMISSION SO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE CAN AFFECT THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY COMMISSION IN TURN AFFECTS THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD SO THE BOARDS ARE AT A LAG TIME TO WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION. THE POINT IS WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT ONE THIRD THEORETICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THREE YEARS EVERY STAGGERED TERMS IN DECEMBER.
MAYBE THAT WILL HELP MAKE THIS BOARD MORE PALATABLE. >> I'M NOT DISPLEASED NECESSARILY WITH WHAT THE POA OR HDC IS DOING IN TERMS OF THE DECISION.
I AM SIMPLY JUST BRINGING FORTH THE PROCESS AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD TERMINATE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY GETS TOLD TO GO SEE A JUDGE BEFORE YOU CAN GO SEE YOU YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THAT'S MY POINT OF IT. I AM NOT UPSET WITH THEM.
I AGREE. SHE I'M NOT HEARD THAT, THAT YOU'RE BASICALLY DOING IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. THEY SERVE AT THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONER ROSS SAID IT VERY CLEARLY. IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THEY ARE DOING WE CAN SIMPLY STAND UP HERE AND VOTE EVERY ONE OF THEM OUT AND TURN THE WHOLE BOARD OVER. SEARCHED IT AND THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THAT I AM STANDOFFISH ON. THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE I AM. AGAIN I BROUGHT IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND I BROUGHT IT UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAYING THAT THIS IS WHERE MY MINDSET IS COMING FROM. IT HAS TO DO WITH NOT TERMINATING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE. I'M PERFECTLY OPEN TO ANY AND OTHER SUGGESTIONS.
AGAIN IT'S A DISCUSSION. >> I WOULD CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER ANTONE WHEN HE SAID THAT IT'S A WORTHY GOAL TO MINIMIZE LITIGATION COSTS. THE REASON I DON'T THINK I'M NECESSARILY INFO THIS IS BECAUSE IN A SENSE I TRUST THE POA.
I TRUST OUR BOARDS THEY DO A LOT OF WORK. WE APPOINT THEM.HE COMMISSION DOES AND THEY DO ANSWER TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT'S THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY.
>> HOW MANY TIMES WHAT THEY HAVE APPEALED? >> NONE THIS YEAR.
FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO COURT. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL APPEAL THAT ARE COULD'VE POSSIBLY COME THERE WERE NO APPEALS THIS YEAR.
>> LAST APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS BRAD'S CASE. >> WHAT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF CASES THAT DIDN'T GET DENIED. ONE FOURTH OF THEM FROM THE HDC IN THE BE AWAY? WHAT AMOUNT? EXPRESS TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN MY OPINION I REALLY WANT TO
[00:25:08]
KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGES ARE AND AT SOME POINT THAT COULD BE WHETHER WE NEED ANOTHER LAYERTO LOOK AT IT OR ANOTHER LAYER TO SEE IT. >> WHAT I RESEARCHED AND IT WAS JUST THE POA'S DECISION OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT THREE
FOURTHS OF VARIANCES THAT WERE APPLIED FOR AND WERE ACCRUED. >> OF 75% WAS APPROVED O.
>> THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS. I DON'T KNOW ANY APPEALS. AGAIN I THINK THAT IF THERE WERE TO BE AN APPEAL IT SHOULD COME HERE. THAT'S IT.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION THANK YOU EVERYONE.OMMISSIONER
ROSS?>> GOING BACK TO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LIABILITY NONE OF THESE CASES CREATE ANY LIABILITY. THEY ARE ABOUT DECISIONS AND THERE'S NO MONEY INVOLVED.
SUING SUING SOMETHING IN THE BEST SCENARIO IS IT'S OVERTURNED THAT'S IT.
THERE'S NO MONETARY DAMAGES IN THE. AS FAR AS THE WORDS GO.
IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH WHAT THE BOARD COULD BE FIRED. BELIEVE ME I KNOW.
I WAS PART OF THE PLANNING THE ENTIRE THING THE BOARD IS PLEASEDI WAS ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS. IT DOES HAPPEN UNTIL NEXT HE SAY 75% OF OUR PROVED.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A LIEN THAT, VARIANCES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SPARINGLY GRANTED IN VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT'S THE LAW. IF YOU SAY THAT 90% OF THEM SHOULD BE APPROVED AND WHAT WE HAVE A VERY WORD? THESE ARE QUESTIONS AND THE POINT OF IT IS 75% IS A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE IN PASSING THESE CASES.
FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SPARINGLY GRANTED IN THE LAND SHE IS TO THE LAND, I THINK THERE IS A FINE JOB. BEEN DOING THIS FOR SIX YEARS AND I THINK IF IT'S NOT BROKE
DON'T FIX IT. >> I WOULD DISAGREE IN THE SOCIETY THAT WE LIVE IN.
IT CAN CAUSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. I THINK THAT IT WILL IN SOME POINT IN TIME HAVE THE POTENTIAL IF NOT IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IT WELL.
I DISAGREE THERE. BACK TO THE POINT AGAIN IT'S NOT ABOUT OVERWRITING ANY DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. I RESEARCHED IT TO THE POINT AND UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT UNDER ANY POA NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION.
THIS IS A SIMPLE DISCUSSION NOT TERMINATING IN PRIOR JUDGE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE HERE.
I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY, BASED ON WHAT YOU I DON'T THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHANGES AT THIS TIME AND SO FOR THAT REASON I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP IS AN EXCELLENT POINT AND A WORTHY GOAL TO MINIMIZE LAWSUITS.
IT SEEMS TO ME UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THAT I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU WILL MOVE ON TO
[5.2 COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE]
THE NEXT ITEM. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT DISCRETION.
WE ARE PERFECTLY ON TRACKS WILL GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE.BASED OFF THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE MET WE HAD BROUGHT UP HAD HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW THE COMMISSION AND PROCEDURES WOULD OPERATE. WE WENT AHEAD AND JUST PULL THIS MOST RECENT COPY OF AND I ASKED TO MAKE SOME SLIDES AS TO TOPICAL AREAS THAT WE CAN HAVE DISCRETION ON AND FRANKLY COMMISSIONERS I COULD GO ANYWAY ON THESE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AGREE ON WHAT THE RULES AND PROCEDURES WOULD BE SO PLEASE
TAKE US AWAY. >> THERE ARE THREE SIDES THE FIRST ONE IS BROUGHT UP AT THE
[00:30:01]
LAST CONVENTION. THE ORDER OF BUSINESS. THE ORDER OF BUSINESS, THE FIRST IS THAT THE ITEM IS INTRODUCED A STAFF PRESENTATION.THEN PUBLICAN PIPE.DISCUSSION BY THE CITY COMMISSION, A MOTION IS MADE.URTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION IS RESTATED BY THE MAYOR BEFORE THE ROLL CALL VOTE.THESE ARE YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.HIS COMMISSION'S RULES AND REALLY IT'S YOUR WORLD.
WHATEVER RULES YOU WISH TO HAVE AMONG YOURSELVES THE MAJORITY OF YOU WHICH TO HAVE AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. THIS IS WHAT THE ORDER OF BUSINESSES RIGHT NOW IS
ADOPTED. >> JUST TO CLARIFY TO THE PUBLIC WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WE HAVE ALWAYS OPERATED UNDER ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER.
THAT GUARANTEES THE MAJORITY RULE WITH MINORITY RIGHTS. THAT IS THE GOAL OF OPERATING IN THIS WAY. THE BOARD CAN PLACE ADDITIONAL RULES ON TOP OF ROBERTS RULES OF WORKERS WHICH DESCRIBES BASIC STRUCTURE CITY COMMISSION SUCH AS US CAN PUT AN ADDITIONAL RULES AND PROCEDURES ON TOP OF OBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND THIS IS USING THE SCALES THAT SOMETHING WE'VE DONE. I WILL USE IT IS THE QUESTION FOR TONIGHT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE SLIDE AGAIN I CAN GO ANYWHERE AND THIS IS HOW WE DID IT AFTER COMMISSIONER ROSS BROUGHT IT UP.WE'VE DONE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY BEFORE THAT BUT I'M OPEN TO ANYTHING SO I WILL GO IN ORDER .
QUICK SOME KIND OF WITH YOU. I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS. WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS BECAUSE I WATCH THE BOC SCENE HAVE EIGHT CONDUCTED THEIR MEETINGS.
I WATCHED HOW THE STATE AND THE SENATE HOUSE HELD THEIR COMMITTEE MEETINGS.'VE WATCHED AND REVIEWED MY TIME AS CHAIR. OBVIOUSLY THE MANY MEETINGS I'VE HAD WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS AND HOW WE USE ROBERTSRULES . JUST FOR MY SUGGESTION.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FOR MOVED TO THREE AND INSTEAD OF IT BEING A DISCUSSION IT BE QUESTIONS FROM THE CITY COMMISSION I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION ON HOW THIS WOULD COST. IT WOULD BASICALLY BE FACTUAL QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD ASK AND THEN WE WOULD ASK FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THE ITEM AND THEN ONCE PUBLIC INPUT WAS DONE THE CHAIR WITH THEN ASKED FOR A MOTION. AT THAT POINT IN TIME I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HOPE DISCUSSION BY THE CITY COMMISSION BECAUSE UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS ON THE WAY SOMEBODY CAN JUMP IN BEFORE WE GET THERE DISCUSSIONS I THINK IT SHOULD BE QUESTION. PUBLIC INPUT AND MONEY MOTION CALLED FOR BY THE CHAIR. AFTER THAT IS WHEN DEBATE WOULD HAPPEN.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SUGGEST IS AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO THROW A MONKEYWRENCH AND IS THAT THAT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION OF PUBLICAN PEPE ASKED FOR AGAIN BECAUSE WE'VE NOW CHANGED THE MOTION AND IF THAT HAPPENS WE SHOULD ALLOW FOR PUBLIC IF WE SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE MOTION YOU ALREADY HAVE PUBLICAN. I WANT TO HAVE PUBLIC INPUT.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW IT AFTER AN AMENDED MOTION OF THE. >> COMMISSIONER THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE. BEFORE I SAY SOMETHING THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE LET'S HEAR
FROM COMMISSIONER ANTON.>> I LOVE THOSE SUGGESTIONS AND LINKING THEM TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU ALREADY JUMPED THE GUN ON IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN DOING IT AND THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW IT'S BEEN. REALLY APPRECIATE THAT WE CAN GIVE PEOPLE AMENDED INPUT IF
THE MOTION SHOULD CHANGE AS WELL. >> WHEN YOU SAY FORCE THE DISCUSSION BY CITY COMMISSIONERS.I THINK YOU'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND EXPERIENCE BY CITY COMMISSIONS IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING?
>> THAT WOULD BE MY IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE A FACTUAL BASED DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS
TO STAFF OR WHOEVER IS READING. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. >> WORDS ARE IMPORTANT AND WE
[00:35:02]
ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THAT WORD DISCUSSION. >> EASIER TO DESCRIBE THAT IS WHEN YOU WATCH THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE AND THE BILL PRESENTER WILL PRESENT THE BELL AND THERE ASKED QUESTION OF THE COMMITTEE. DEBATE DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL
AFTER THE QUESTIONS HAPPEN. >> I WOULD SAY LIMIT DEBATE ON THE ISSUE.
>> AGAIN WORDS ARE IMPORTANT. LEAVE DEBATE? X BASICALLY TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT THE OPINION IN THE QUESTIONING SECTION WOULD BE LEFT OUT.
THEY WOULD STRICTLY BE PRESENTING THE FACTS OR I NEED TO CLARIFY FACTS WITH THE PRESENTER.ANY CITY COMMISSIONER COULD PRESENT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WANTED
TO. >> I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. >> I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE
WITH THAT. >> AND THEN THERE IS A DEMOTE MOTION AND IT DEBATE WHETHER IT'S YES, SIR NUMBER UNLESS THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE DO NOW BUT IF YOU WANT TO CLEAN IT UP
AND PUT FOUR BEFORE THREE PROBLEM. >> I THINK YOU DO HAVE A GROUP POINT FAIR ON THIS ONE. I ONLY POINT OF ORDER ON ANY OF THIS IS BEFORE WE GO TO THE RABBIT HOLE AND HAVE A LARGE DISCUSSION AS LONG AS SOME OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE AGENDA AND THE MAYOR OR TO COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID THIS NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT ISTHIS IS A TOPIC ON THE AGENDA . HOW DO WE DEAL WITH BRINGING THIS UP FOR INSTANCE JUST SOMETHING THAT SOME COMMISSIONERS ARE TALKING ABOUT AND SAYS THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS EVENING. IT'S A BIG TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND THEN WE GET INTO A
DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. >> THAT WOULD BE ON ME AT THAT POINT.
>> I'M HOPING THERE IS SOME SORT OF REGULATION AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME GETTING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE. I WOULD THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION POINT AND IT WOULD BE MORE TESTIMONY TO TRACE THAT FACT BECAUSE IF YOU START GETTING INTO I LIKE TO WEAR DEBATE EVERYONE COMMISSIONER SAYS I DON'T LIKE THAT AND ANOTHER SAYS YES I DO AS WE ARE DISCUSSING IT AND SPENDING TIME ON SOMETHING YOU MIGHT HAVE A SECOND IN YOUR MOTION TO ASK SO THAT'S MY QUESTION TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT WASTING TIME.
>> SHOULD THE COMMISSION DIRECTIVE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT'S DONE BY RESOLUTION OF COURSE. I WOULD RECOMMEND DELETING THE TERM DISCUSSION AND WHERE IT FIRST APPEARS WE COLLECT QUESTIONS AND TESTIMONY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND THEN WHERE IT SAYS FURTHER DISCUSSION WE CHANGE THAT TO
DEBATE. >> UNDER TO RESTATE THE CONSENSUS.
WE WILL HAVE INTRODUCTION OF THE ITEM ALIBI PRESENTATION. WE WILL THEN HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OF THAT PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY A PUBLIC INPUT. WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC INPUT FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION/DEBAT
. >> AND I COULD WEAR DEBATE BETTER.YOU HAVE A MOTION AND
ROLL CALL VOTE.HAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO. >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
ADD THAT WE HAVE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT IF IT IS NEEDED. >> GOT IT.
[00:40:02]
>> I HAVE TUMOR SITES FOR INFORMATION BECAUSE THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE.
STOPPING THE DEBATE. THAT IS POSSIBLE. IT'S NOT MY OPINION BUT WE DON'T ALLOW FILIBUSTERS HERE SO STOPPING THE DEBATE OR CALLING THE QUESTION.
THE TOP PORTION THAT'S NOT BOLDED IS RIGHT OUT OF ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER.
>> IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING WHEN YOU READ IT WHAT IT MEANS IN THIS OLD PRINT IS ACTUALLY IN OUR SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING FOR MY COMMENTARY BUT TO DEMAND THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS IS THE EQUIVALENT FACT TO MOVING THAT THE DEBATE NOW SEES IN THE CITY COMMISSION PROCEEDS TO A VOTE.
THIS IS MADE IN THE FORM OF A MOTION IF A CITY COMMISSIONER WISHES FOR DEBATE AND THE MAYOR CANNOT MAKE EMOTIONAL AS HE PASSED THE GAVEL IN THE CITY COMMISSIONER CALLS THE QUESTION. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT WE COULD CLOSE THE DEBATE?
>> I THINK THE MAJORITY CAN CLOSE THE DEBATE. >> OF THREE PEOPLE OUT OF THE
FIVE SAY WE'RE DONE TALKING ABOUT THIS. >> I HAD TO COME TO THREE.
I CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS GOING. >> SO WE ARE STOPPING. >> THAT'S RIGHT SO THIS SLIDE
WILL REMAIN IN PART OF THE EDITS WILL BE THE OTHER ONE. >> THE SECOND BULLET IS WHERE IT SAYS THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES I THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
TALK ABOUT IT BEING A DEBATABLE QUESTION. ONCE THAT'S CLOSED WE NO LONGER HAVE A DEBATABLE QUESTION. SHOULD I LEAVE THAT IN? I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S OKAY.
>> IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. >> I KINDA LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER RUSS. >> WE HAVE ONE LAST SLIDE.
>> A RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MAYOR WHO SOMETIMES WILL INTERPRET THE RULES.
THEY WILL SAY THIS IS THE RULE OR THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT.
A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION CAN APPEAL THAT DECISION OR RULING OF THE MAYOR.
AGAIN IT'S IN THE FORM OF A MOTION. >> I DO HAVE ONE.
IT'S 4.8. IT SAYS NO CELL PHONES OR MOBILE DEVICES DURING MEETINGS.
>> OVER THE LAST YEAR OR TWO CERTAIN PEOPLE I POINT OUT HAVE BEEN USING THEIR CELL PHONE.
I THINK THAT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. I THINK CELL PHONES SHOULD BE PUT AWAY AND THERE SHOULD BE ON THIS ENTIRE DAIS NO CELL PHONE . THEY SEE SOMEONE SITTING ON A PHONE.WHO ARE THEY TALKING TO? WHAT ARE THEY DOING IN THIS IS
[00:45:01]
PART OF A PUBLIC MEETING. YOU'RE MAKING COMMENTS TO SOMEBODY DURING A PUBLIC MEETING AND NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY ACCESS TO IT. THAT THE MAYOR WOULD ENFORCETHIS ROLE. >> I'VE HAD MY CELL PHONE APPEARED TO LOOK THROUGH EMAILS BEFORE. SO THE BECAUSE I DON'T PUT UP ON HERE.
OFTEN TIMES IT'S JUST REFERENCING THE EMAIL AND SOMETIMES I DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOG IN. I'M NOT DOING IT ON PURPOSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT
CLEAR. IT DOES SAY NO CELL PHONES. >> BEFORE WE EDITED THIS IN 2020 WANTED TO SAY NO CELL PHONES IT SAID NO EMAILS. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS SET IN STONE. WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT IF YOU ARE USING IT AS A TOOL BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES THERE ARE REFERENCES FROM THE PODIUM ABOUT EMAILS AND I WILL
REFERENCE BACK TO THE SAID. I SEE YOUR POINT? >> MY COMPUTER ONLY WORKS HALF TIME. I DO KEEP A PAPER COPY OF THE AGENDA IN FRONT OF ME.
THAT IS IN THE ISSUE. MY ISSUE IS SEARCH A LOCATION OR SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON OR THE COMING EMAIL. IF THIS IS DOWN I HAVE USED MY PHONE BEFORE AND I LOOK AT MY EMAILS. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS BUT AS LONG AS THE COMPUTER WORKS I DON'T NEED THIS. A RULE PITCHED VIA PREFERENCE. OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO BE ON OUR PHONE WHILE CONSTITUENTS ARE TALKING. WE NEED TO HAVE A HARD RULE AND THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU MAY NEED TO LOOK UP INFORMATION AND THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT NEED YOUR PHONE FOR. I DON'T HAVE A HARD RULE FOR THAT.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF STAFF. I CAN LOOK IT UP FOR YOU. IT'S A PUBLIC PERCEPTION.
PUBLIC MEETING IN A PUBLIC MEETING SHOULDN'T BE ON A CELL PHONE.
HE HE ALWAYS SAYS WE HAVE THE COMPUTERS IN FRONT OF US AND WE LOOK INTO THE SAME THING THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT. IT'S PUBLIC PERCEPTION. WE TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
IF YOU ARE ON A CELL PHONE NOBODY KNOWS WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO HER WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF STAFF HERE WHO ARE HAPPY TO LOOK THINGS UP.
I JUST THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE A HARD FAST RULE THAT THERE ARE NO CELL PHONES APPEAR
DURING PUBLIC ORDER. >> FOR THE RECORD AT MY CELL PHONES OUT BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT AN EMAIL THAT SENT TO ME. I HAVE NO PROBLEM DECLARING WHY IT'S OUT.
I AGREE THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE OUT HERE TALKING AND TEXTING. I'M NOT DISAGREEING BUT THERE ARE TIMES THAT I HAVE TO REFERENCE AN EMAIL AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM SAYING I HAVE IT OUT
IN A LOOKING THROUGH MY EMAILS. OR REFERENCING ANY TO ME ALL. >> IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT A RECOMMENDATION ON A RULE. IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE A
CONSENSUS. >> WE DO NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS WE MAY HAVE A MAJORITY BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE CONSENSUS. I DO NOT AGREE TO THAT. SO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS OF THE
MAJORITY. >> THAT'S THE DISCUSSION ON THIS.NY FURTHER DISCUSSION
ABOUT RULES AND PROCEDURES? >> SEEING NONE WE WILL SEE RIGHT BACK HERE FOR O
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.