Jun 04, 2024 Workshop

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>> I AM CALLING THIS WORKSHOP OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH CITY COMMISSION TO ORDER. AS ALWAYS , WE BE IN

WITHDRAWAL. >> HERE.

>> PLEASE JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, LED BY

COMMISSIONER AYSCUE. >> 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. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE ARE GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS TO DISCUSS IN TODAY'S WORKSHOP. WE START WITH 4.1 ABOUT CITY COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE. BEFORE WE GET INTO THESE, LET'S MAKE SURE WE ALL KNOW UP HERE -- OUR AUDIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE PROCESS. TONIGHT, WE CAN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES. WHAT WE CAN DO IS FORMULATE CHANGES TO OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT THEN, LATER ON FOR A RESOLUTION. IS THAT RIGHT?

[4.1 CITY COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE - AGENDA ITEMS - Consider amending the City Commission Rules of procedure to include how items are placed on the agenda. This item is placed on the agenda by the City Commission following discussion at their May 21, 2024, Regular Meeting.]

>> YES BRITISH >> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT. DIRECTION TO GIVE TO CITY STAFF ON HOW TO AMEND AND UPDATE RULES AND PROCEDURES. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TONIGHT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR LIST TO DISCUSS, 4.1 POINT THAT IS THE CITY COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURE AGENDA ITEMS. SOMETHING THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION OF IS THAT THE PRACTICE OF HOW TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA IS IN THERE. FOR ITEM 4.1, IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD FORMALIZE? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START WITH COMMISSIONER AYSCUE.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK THE PROCESS THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS FALLEN UNDER FOR A WHILE IS THAT IF THERE IS A COMMISSIONER THAT WISHES TO PLACE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THEY GO TO STAFF AND ASK FOR A WORKSHOP. AND THEN WE GET TOGETHER AND WE WORKSHOP THE ISSUE. IF THERE IS CONSENSUS TO BRING THAT FORWARD, THEN THAT IS HOW IT BECOMES ON THE AGENDA. OTHERWISE, THE AGENDA IS SET BY THE CITY CLERK IN THE CITY MANAGER, AND THAT IS HOW WE SET IT UP FOR YEARS. I DON'T BELIEVE A SINGLE COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLACE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. FOR AN UP OR DOWN VOTE WITHOUT THERE BEING SOME CONSENSUS. EVEN IF THERE ARE JUST TWO THAT REACH OUT STUFF TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT IS NOT OUT IN THE OPEN. THERE IS NO SUNSHINE AT ALL THERE IF I PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE CITY MANAGER AND SAY, I WOULD LIKE THIS ON THE AGENDA. AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANTUN HEARS THE SAME THINGS. NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING . THERE IS NO SUNSHINE WHATSOEVER . I BELIEVE THE PROCESS WE HAVE BEEN USING HAS WORKED. WE COME INTO THE CHAMBERS. WE SIT DOWN AT A WORKSHOP. WE DISCUSS IT. WE GET CONSENSUS, AND IT MOVES FORWARD. THAT IS OUT IN THE OPEN AND OUT IN THE SUNSHINE FOR ALL COMMISSIONERS TO SIT HERE AND PUT FORTH OF THE -- THE PLAN. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD DISRUPT THAT PROCESS -- IF WE NEED TO CODIFY THAT, I'M ALL FOR IT, BUT I THINK THE PROCESS HAS WORKED REALLY WELL. IT HAS BEEN VERY OPEN AND TRANSFER AND SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> I HAVE TO START WORKING ON IT.

>> I WOULD DISAGREE. CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS. SEVEN YEARS. THE CITY MANAGER CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. THE CITY DIRECTOR CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. THE CLERK CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA.

AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. I THINK THE CITY COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA IF THEY FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE. IT IS DONE IN JACKSONVILLE. IT IS DONE IN MANY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. I

[00:05:05]

YOU WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE HEARD TWO DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS HERE. AND I'LL GO AHEAD, AND GO, COMMISSIONER AYSCUE.

>> IF ANY COMMISSIONER IS ALLOWED TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHAT STOPS ME FROM PUTTING 20? I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. WHAT STOPS ME FROM SAYING , LET UP ON COFFEE, FELLAS. WE ARE GOING TO BE HERE UNTIL 2:00 IN THE MORNING. I BELIEVE THESE NEED TO BE WORKSHOP. THAT IS WHY WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH. OTHERWISE, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING ME FROM PUTTING 20 OF THEM ON THEIR 520

ITEMS I WANT TO DISCUSS. >> THAT MAKES SENSE, COMMISSIONER AYSCUE. COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> IT IS JUST COMMON SENSE. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED TRADITIONALLY. I THINK YOU ARE TAKING IT TO THE EXTREME, AND I THINK IF SOMEONE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT AN ITEM, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IT ON ONE AGENDA WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WORKSHOP. IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A WORKSHOP. IT SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER , WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS. AND I DON'T THINK THE PROCEDURE -- BE THAT FOR A WORKSHOP, WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING IS THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. AND I

DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. >> THANKS, COMMISSIONER ROSS.

VICE MAYOR. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I AGREE WITH ERIN. I THINK SHOULD BE A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE IT GETS ON THE AGENDA SO I DON'T WASTE TIME. OUR TIME IS VALUABLE, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE'S.

NOT ONLY THAT, THE MEETING LENGTH . I'M COMPLETELY FINE IF THERE IS SOMETHING STRONG ENOUGH THAT STAFF AND THE MAYOR ARE INTERESTED IN PUTTING ON THE AGENDA, I'M COMPLETELY FINE WITH THE MAYOR HAVING THE POWER TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

I'M WILLING TO MOVE THE RULE TO WHERE IT TAKES THREE SITTING COMMISSIONERS FOR CONSENSUS AND OR THE MAYOR TO PUT STUFF ON THE AGENDA. I'M WILLING TO ADJUST A LITTLE AND MAKE IT HAPPEN. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. APPRECIATE THAT. HEARING EVERYTHING, I THINK I HAVE SOME CONSENSUS, SO PLEASE OBJECT IF THERE'S MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE WHO WOULD SAY THIS IS THE SHADOW WANT TO PUT WORDS INTO ANYONE'S MOUTH HERE. I THINK WE DO HAVE CONSENSUS OF A FOR MAJORITY OF THE VOTES . IT IS NOT A CONSENSUS OF ALL FIVE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAY THIS CORRECTLY. IT IS A CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF FOLKS APPEAR, TO CODIFY FORMALLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. THE PRACTICE THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN OPERATING UNDER FOR MANY YEARS.

THAT IS, SINCE WE STARTED THIS WORKSHOP, THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP IS TO SEE THESE ITEMS, FLUSH THEM OUT, GET THEM READY FOR A FUTURE AGENDA, AND THEN, FURTHERMORE, AND YES, IT'S A NICHE CASE. THERE CERTAINLY IS A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT IF THERE WAS A SINGLE COMMISSIONER WHO HAD THE POWER TO PUT UNLIMITED ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, THAT JUST WOULDN'T WORK. THERE NEEDS TO BE CHECKS AND BALANCES THERE. I THINK THAT HAVING TWO

[00:10:12]

>> I DO NOT AGREE. IT IS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL. IN PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS, THERE WERE NOT WORKSHOPS WITH ALL THIS STUFF ON THE AGENDA. YOU SAY BUSINESS AS USUAL. FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK WE HAD TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA IN SEVEN YEARS DOING THIS.

COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT SOMETHING ON A PUBLIC AGENDA. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT IS RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY AND I THINK THE MAJORITY KEEP THINGS OFF.

THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY FREQUENTLY. I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED . WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING IS THE WORKSHOP IS NOT TO MAKE CITY COMMISSIONERS, BUT THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS FOR

CONSENSUS. >> I'M SAYING THAT TO MAKE CITY COMMISSIONERS PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. IF WE WORKSHOP IT AND WE HAVE TWO, WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA WITH TWO. I BELIEVE THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. FURTHERMORE, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS, AND HE SAID SOMETHING EARLIER I AGREE WITH.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING CODIFIED. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NOTHING CODIFIED. I'LL TELL YOU WHY I WAS AND THAT IMPRESSION EARLIER. IN THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION, WHEN I WASN'T THE MAYOR, I WAS TOLD I CANNOT PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. YOU NEEDED TWO PEOPLE TO DO IT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK SHOULD STAY IN THE REASON BEING IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SEMBLANCE OF -- SOME SEMBLANCE OF THIS IDEA HAS LEGS BEFORE YOU CAN PUT IDEAS THAT MAY BE DON'T HAVE LEGS ON THE AGENDA. SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK WE SHOULD CODIFY WHAT I CALL BUSINESS AS USUAL AS FAR AS THE LAST THREE YEARS HAS

[4.2 CITY COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE - PUBLIC COMMENTS - Consider amending the City Commission Rules of Procedure "Public Comments" to include "Public Comments/Questions". This item is placed on the agenda at the request of the City Commission following discussion at their May 21, 2024, Regular Meeting.]

>> YES SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, WE WILL HEAD TO ITEM 4.2, WHICH IS THE CITY COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE. PUBLIC COMMENTS PRETTY SPECIFICALLY, WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN HERE -- AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE RIGHT DOSE SAME PAGE WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS REQUEST WANTS TO CHANGE THE PHRASE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS. SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS IS, I WOULD SAY, BEFORE I OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION, IS THAT THE PUBLIC IS ALWAYS WELCOME TO COMMENT ON ANY ITEM, AND THAT COMMENT CAN ASK QUESTIONS. THAT HAS CERTAINLY ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED. THAT HAS BEEN OUR POSITION SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. I'VE COME HERE AND I'VE SEEN MANY OF OUR PUBLIC COME AND MAKE COMMENTS. YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS BUT SOME THINK THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH ALSO INCLUDES THE FREEDOM TO NOT SPEAK. THAT IS PART OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS ASKED A QUESTION DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE FORCED TO RESPOND. I'VE SEEN MANY COMMISSIONERS RESPOND TO QUESTIONS, AND I'VE SEEN COMMISSIONERS NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS. TWO FOR SOMEONE TO RESPOND IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO BY PEOPLE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THAT'S WHERE I MET. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD REITERATE THAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS SOMETHING THAT IS STILL HERE THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE HERE. I WILL FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO ALWAYS SPEAK AT OUR CITY MEETINGS, AS I HAVE, EVERY DAY THAT I'VE BEEN MAYOR. WITH THAT IN MIND, LET'S OPEN UP BEFORE THIS GOT -- FOR DISCUSSION AND I HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK. THAT IS COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH COMMENTS AND CONCERNS WITH THE AGENDA ITEMS. IT WAS ITEMS THAT WAS

NOT ON THE AGENDA. >> I WAS JUST READING WOES ON

THE AGENDA, COMMISSIONER. >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> WE ARE WELCOME TO DISCUSS IT AT THIS TIME.

>> WE SHOULD AMEND SECTION 2.9 . IT WILL OCCUR AFTER

[00:15:04]

INSTEAD OF COMMENTING ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA , A SPEAKER BEING ASKED A QUESTION OF IS BIGGER, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. THE COMMISSIONER DOESN'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, GOING TO YOUR POINT.

YOU CAN SAY, I WISH NOT TO ANSWER THAT. IT'S AN ANSWER.

IT'S NOT FORCING ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING, BUT I THINK THAT IT HAS BEEN SAID OF PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T ASK A QUESTION.

INAUDIBLE ] IF THEY WANT TO ASK PERMISSION, THEY CAN DO THAT DURING THAT THREE MINUTES ON THE AGENDA. THOSE ARE MY IDEAS.

I THINK WE WOULD MAKE THE MEETINGS MORE TRANSPARENT AND GIVE PEOPLE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT, AND I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I THINK PUTTING IT AT THE BACK OF THE MEETING WILL HELP. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

INAUDIBLE ] SPOKE ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. BEFORE I GO TO SOMEONE ELSE, I'LL SPEAK ON THIS. I WILL START WITH THIS FINAL POINT AND MOVE OUT OF THE FRONT. STARTING ON THIS SLIDE, THIS IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED THIS IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED. EVERY SPEAKER GETS THREE MINUTES IF THEY WANT TO USE IT TO ASK A QUESTION, AND THEN JUST PAUSE FOR AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME AND ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY INSANE. ADDING THIS WOULD NOT REALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO OUR PROCESS. THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO POINT OUT THERE. ON THE SITE BEFORE THIS, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, ACTUALLY.

I THOUGHT ABOUT HOW IT'S IN THE EFFORT OF TIME BECAUSE THERE IS AN ACTUAL CITY BUSINESS THAT WE DO HERE. EVERY MEETING AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING THIS. THIS IS VERY CRUCIAL BECAUSE THERE IS SOME MISINFORMATION, I BELIEVE, OUT THERE. THERE'S SOMETHING I WOULD CALL A RUMOR THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT PUBLIC COMMENT WAS MOVED TO THE END OF THE MEETING. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS MOVED TO THE END OF THE MEETING. PUBLIC COMMENT STILL OCCURS DURING THE MEETING , AS IT ALWAYS HAS. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU COME FORWARD, AND YOU TALK DURING THE ITEM, AS WE SPEAK. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT -- THAT IS THE PROCESS. IT IS THE WAY THE PROCESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN. WHAT WE MOVED TO THE END WERE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT AGENDA ITEMS. SOMETHING I WANT EVERYONE TO CONSIDER IS THAT IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, YOU CAN REACH OUT TO YOUR CITY COMMISSIONER SO WE CAN DISCUSS. WE ACTUALLY JUST DISCUSSED THE PROCESS OF ADDING THINGS TO THE AGENDA. WE COME HERE TONIGHT WITH A LIST OF ITEMS TO DISCUSS, WITH CITY BUSINESS.

CITIZENS COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION WITH BUSINESS THAT THEY URGENTLY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF. I'M GOING TO TOSS OUT AN EXAMPLE. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE MEETINGS WERE WE HAD A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS FOR AN ITEM THAT WE WEREN'T VOTING ON, ON THAT SAME MEETING, THERE WAS A WOMAN WHO WAS I WOULD SAY GETTING RAN THROUGH BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS JUST -- IT WAS A TRAVESTY, WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS DOING TO ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS. THIS WOMAN HAD TO STAY THROUGH NON-AGENDA ITEMS, AND MR. ROSS, THEY WANT TO LEAVE AND GO HOME. THIS WOMAN WAS FORCED TO STAY BECAUSE SHE HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES AND SHE HAD TO SIT THROUGH A BUNCH OF ITEMS THAT YOU COULD NOT PREDICT WOULD BE ON THIS AGENDA. SO WHAT I THINK SHOULD GO FIRST OR THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS THAT ARE AGENDAS. WE ARE PRIORITIZING PEOPLE THAT CAME TO SPEAK ON CITY BUSINESS, AND THEN, WE WILL STAY. AND I'M COMMITTED TO STAY AS LONG AS WE NEED. I WILL SIT HERE UNTIL TWILIGHT IF THAT IS WHAT IT

[00:20:09]

YOU CAN PICK A NUMBER. YOU CAN SAY, LET'S DO A LITTLE BIT UPFRONT. I START TO FEEL I DON'T WANT TO PUT WHOEVER IS IN THE SHARE IN THE SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE TO PICK FAVORITES, AND SO, NO MATTER WHAT WE DECIDE, AND I TOLD YOU MY REASONS FOR THINKING THAT WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE THOSE ITEMS. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT THAT WAY. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT STAYS TOGETHER . FOR ITEMS THAT ARE OFTEN AGENDA, WE SHOULDN'T BE PICKING BECAUSE I THINK THE FIRST -- I WOULD CRITICIZE THIS PERSON.

INAUDIBLE ] LET ME MAKE MY POINT CLEAR. WE OPENED THE CITY UP TO CLAIMS OF PLAYING FAVORITES IF WE SAY SOME PEOPLE GET TO GO BEFORE THE MEETING AND SOME PEOPLE GO AT THE END.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CITY ALWAYS STAYS FAIR . THAT IS WHY I THINK ALL NON-AGENDA ITEMS SHOULD GO AT THE SAME TIME, WHETHER THAT BE FRONT OR BACK. I TOLD YOU WHY I THINK THEY SHOULD BE AT THE END, BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHTS ON IT.

LET'S GO TO COMMISSIONER ANTUN.

>> I CAN AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF WHAT YOU MENTIONED THERE. ITEMS ON THE AGENDA SHOULD NOT BE DE-PRIORITIZED .

HOWEVER, I THINK THAT IT IS A FAIR COMPROMISE BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT ON A FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED SO IT IS NOT FAVORITES. THAT GIVES THE CITIZENS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE LISTENING TO THEM AND THAT WAY, IF WE HAVE AN ELDERLY PERSON THAT MIGHT NOT BE STAYING UP TILL 10:00 AT NIGHT, WE CAN GET THAT DONE, AND ODDS ARE THAT WE WILL HAVE MEETINGS WHERE THERE ARE 30 OR 40 SPEAKERS WITH CONTENTIOUS TOPICS, BUT I THINK ALSO, ITEM NUMBER THREE HERE IS GOING TO BE A PIECE OF WHAT CHANGES THIS. IF YOU'RE ABOUT TO DISCUSS WHAT TOWN HALLS ARC, TO ME, A TOWN HALL IS WHAT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR SOME OF THIS TO HAPPEN DURING THE CITY MEETING.

HAVE SAID. THIS ASSEMBLY REORGANIZING ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA AND ALLOWING THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE VOTED ON THAT EVENING -- THERE IS A VOTE THAT IS GOING TO BE TAKEN , AND THEREFORE, THAT IS WHY IT IS PRIORITIZED IN THAT MANNER. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE COUNTY DOES THIS, AS WELL. THE COUNTY DOES HAVE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA OR AT THE END OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS UNUSUAL IN THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY DOES IT. SO, I THINK THAT WE ARE STAYING CONSISTENT

WITH THEM, AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ALL

RIGHT, COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> THE RULE CAN BE FIVE.

HOWEVER YOU PICK THE NUMBER. 10 WAS SO THAT IT WAS THREE MINUTES EACH. AND AS FAR AS THE COUNTY GOES, JUST BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOES SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN THE CITY WILL. I THINK THIS IS FAIR AND MORE EQUITABLE FOR THE CITY. AND WE HAVE HAD ONE SPEAKER COME EVERY MONTH. MR. LORI. I DON'T SEE THEM, BUT HE SHOWS UP AND ASKS FOR THIS, AS DO MANY OTHER PEOPLE.

I THINK THIS IS PART OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS. I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BY YOUR NEW RULE, GOING WITH THE PRESIDENT THAT TWO PEOPLE MAKES A CONSENSUS TO APPROVE IT FOR THE NEXT THING, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE MAKING FOR DISAGREMENT BETWEEN TWO OF US. MAYBE WE CAN PUT THAT ON AS PART OF THE CHANGE , AS A RESOLUTION. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THAT.

>> VICE MAYOR. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WOULD DISAGREE. I MADE IT THROUGH A BUNCH OF LONG MEETINGS, AND I WILL STAY HERE ALL NIGHT LONG. I DON'T CARE. IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME A BIT. SO WHENEVER PUBLIC COMMENT IS, IT CAN BE THE BENDING -- BEGINNING. I'M HERE TO SERVE. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN HERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. I HAVE NO OTHER REASON , SO, IN MY OPINION, I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WAITED MONTHS TO SPEAK , AND WAITED MONTHS FOR THEIR TIME TO BE IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THEIR ITEMS WERE BROUGHT HERE. THEY MADE THEMSELVES WELL KNOWN. IF THERE IS A SPECIAL SEPARATE

[00:25:09]

HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON A WEDNESDAY OR FRIDAY. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO BE HERE AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS, WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN. SO I DON'T

HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT IN MIND, IT SOUNDS LIKE -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT HERE. WE DID JUST SAY THAT IT TAKES TWO PEOPLE.

DO YOU AGREE? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME IDEA?

>> I THINK SO. >> OKAY. WELL, IF WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS, THEN WE PROBABLY NEED TO VOTE ON THIS. THE FIRST ITEM. WITH THAT IN MIND, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE TO KEEP IT THE SAME. WE DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE TO GO TO THIS 10 PERSON AT THE FRONT MOVE. JUST TO CLARIFY WHY I THINK I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS IS JUST TO USE THE MUSIC AS AN EXAMPLE. THAT WAS SOMETHING WHERE WE HAD A NUMBER OF OFTEN AGENDA ITEMS. IF YOU SAY FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED, AND LET'S SAY 10 BOATHOUSE BOYS, PETER AND -- THAT PUTS YOU IN A POSITION WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE , EVEN IF YOU SAY IT'S NOT PLAYING FAVORITES, IT OPENS US UP TO THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT. THAT IS WHY I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH

[4.3 CITY COMMISSION - TOWN HALL MEETINGS - Consider conducting City Commission Town Hall meetings on the third Tuesday of each month. If approved, the Town Hall meetings will not occur during the months that the City Commission meets as the Community Redevelopment Area, which is quarterly on the third Tuesday: January, April, July and October. This item is placed on the agenda at the request of the City Commission following discussion at their May 21, 2024, Regular Meeting.]

CONDUCT TOWN HALL MEETINGS ON THE THIRD TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH. IF APPROVED, THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS WILL NOT OCCUR DURING THE MONTHS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETS AS THE CRA BOARDS. AS YOU GUYS ALL KNOW, SINCE I BECAME MAYOR, WE'VE BEEN HAVING WORKSHOPS ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH, AND THEN, THE THIRD TUESDAY IS AN OPEN MEETING SOMETIMES WITH RCRA BOARD AND SOMETIMES OTHER THINGS. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD SAY, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, IT WOULD SAY THAT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A TOWN HALL MEETING. WHAT I WILL SAY ABOUT THAT IS IF WE OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION HERE IS -- BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS IS, EVERY MEETING THAT WE HAVE IS A TOWN HALL MEETING, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS.

EVERY MEETING WE HAVE HAS OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. WE OFFER THREE MINUTES TO EVERY CITIZEN. WE ENCOURAGE IT. WE HOPE PEOPLE COME AND MAKE THEIR VOICE HEARD HERE. THAT IS SOMETHING I'VE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED. I HOPE WE CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE IT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL MEETING TO DO THAT IN. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION HERE. COMMISSIONER AYSCUE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT AN ITEM THAT COMES ON THE AGENDA.

IF IT IS PUT ON THE AGENDA, AND IT IS VOTED DOWN, HOW LONG OF A TIME FRAME BEFORE IT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK UP? CAN IT BE BROUGHT BACK UP THE NEXT MEETING?

>> YES. >> SO YOU CAN JUST CONTINUE?

>> WE GENERALLY DON'T DO THAT.

>> IF TWO COMMISSIONERS CONTINUED TO SAY THEY WANT THE SAME ITEM BACK ON THE AGENDA EVERY SINGLE WEEK -- WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THERE IS A 3-2 VOTE. WE DON'T NEED TO BRING IT BACK FOR SOME TIME FRAME. THAT NEEDS TO BE A DISCUSSION.

IF THEY BRING IT UP AND THEY SAY, WE WANT TO BRING IT UP AGAIN , WE ARE GOING TO GET STUCK IN THE SAME THING WHERE IT'S ON THE AGENDA EVERY SINGLE TIME. SO WE HAVE A 3-2, IT GETS VOTED DOWN, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SOME TIMEFRAME THAT THEY CAN BE BROUGHT BACK.

>> OKAY. >> WITHOUT A MAJORITY OR

[Additional item]

SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. >> I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I AGREE WITH THAT. LET'S DO AN ASIDE HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS ADDITIONAL ITEM. BASED ON -- I THINK WE OPENED OURSELVES UP TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS BASED ON THE FIRST ITEM. VICE MAYOR I DO WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD SAY , WHAT DO YOU THINK A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME IS TO LOOK

[00:30:01]

>> I THINK YOU STEPPED IN IT IN THE FIRST ONE. IF IT TAKES THREE COMMISSIONERS TO BE ON THE AGENDA, THEN YOU HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO VOTE YES. IF YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT. YOU CAN KEEP PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA.

>> SO WE HAVE TO PUT A TIME PERIOD, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO STEP ONE AND PUT, IT TAKES THREE COMMISSIONERS. LIKE MR. ROSS KEPT SAYING. WE WERE BASICALLY SAYING IT TAKES THREE COMMISSIONERS. IT WOULD EITHER DO EITHER OR TO STOP THIS FROM CONSTANTLY HAPPENING UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT. OBVIOUSLY, IF SOMEBODY VOTED NO, THERE IS NO NEED TO BRING TO THE NEXT MEETING. THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE NO AGAIN.

>> I SEE THE PROBLEM. YOU CAN END UP IN A CIRCULAR LOOP HERE.

WE DON'T WANT TO USE OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES TO CREATE CERTAIN LOOPS WHERE NOTHING IS EVER HAPPENING. I'M USING MY POWER OF THE GAVEL. LET'S GO BACK TO NUMBER ONE AND JUST SLIGHTLY VERIFY THAT FURTHER. IT DOES TAKE THREE TO LEAD A WORKSHOP AND GO TO -- IF YOU DON'T HAVE THREE IN THE WORKSHOP, WHY WOULD WE EVEN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA? OTHERWISE, WE ARE SETTING IT UP TO FAIL TO BEGIN WITH.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY. DO WE AGREE THAT IT

TAKES THREE ? >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. FIRST OF ALL, YOU CAME WITH A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. ALL FIVE OF US KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO GET IT THROUGH. AND SO IF IT FEELS IN ONE MEETING, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOMEONE BRINGING IT UP AGAIN OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS PUSHING THE LIMITS OF CREDIBILITY. I THINK THAT IS A BALONEY ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT IS AN ARGUMENT -- NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY RULES, BUT YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. IF TWO CITY COMMISSIONERS THINK SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT, THEY SHOULD PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. YOU CAN PUT IT DOWN. VICE MAYOR YOU'RE ALSO SAYING THAT IF THE CITY MANAGER PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AND IT GETS VOTED ON, THEY CAN'T BRING IT UP FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME? THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

>> WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE WHERE IT TAKES THREE TO LEAD A WORKSHOP, WE WOULDN'T NEED ANY TIME LIMIT ON ITS. THAT WOULD CUT OFF THAT

ARGUMENT. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THAT WHEN PEOPLE -- YOU MAY BE IN THE MINORITY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, OR YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ON THE COMMISSION. WHO KNOWS? VICE MAYOR I BELIEVE PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY IS ESSENTIAL. WITH THREE VOTES CONTINUALLY, IT TRIPLES ON THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. AND I THINK IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO SAY THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME

BACK MONTH AFTER MONTH . >> COMMISSIONER ROSS, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, WHY DOES IT MATTER THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

>> I'M NOT FINISHED. YOU KEPT SAYING THAT -- YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I THINK YOU SHOULD GET ONE CHANCE. YOU CAN BRING IT UP TO THE CITY COMMISSIONER. I THINK THE CHANCE OF IT COMING BACK AGAIN ARE MINUSCULE. THE CITY COMMISSIONERS DON'T DO THAT. I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES , THAT THEY WON'T CONTINUE TO DO THAT. I THINK TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IS INAPPROPRIATE. VICE MAYOR

>> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE . >> I DISAGREE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD BE IN HERE DISCUSSING THESE ITEMS. THIS COMMISSION HAS DISCUSSED MANY OF THESE ITEMS BACK IN NOVEMBER. THEY CODIFIED SOME OF THIS IN DECEMBER. SO, I MEAN, TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK UP, OR THAT TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT AN ISSUE WILL CONTINUE TO BRING IT UP SO IT JUST KEEPS GOING AND IT KEEPS GOING AND IT KEEPS GOING -- I SEE THE POSSIBILITY. AND, YOU KNOW, IT ONLY TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS DUG IN ON AN ISSUE TO CONTINUE IT. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. BAYOU, COMMISSIONER, SO WHO IS TO SAY THAT IF YOU BRING IT UP, AND COMMISSIONER ANTUN BRINGS IT UP AND CONTINUES TO BRING IT UP, AND THERE ARE THREE THAT SAY NO, I MEAN, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE TO MOVE ON. I JUST DISAGREE . WE NEED TO HAVE A MAJORITY. WHEN I WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT OF SAYING, ALL OF THIS NEEDS TO BE IN THE OPEN. ALL OF IT THIS NEEDS TO BE AN ASSUMPTION. THERE NEEDS TO BE A MAJORITY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD WORK. I MEAN, I STAND ON THAT.

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. VICE MAYOR

[00:35:03]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU. I THINK YOU COULD BE THAT THE TWO PEOPLE AND PUT A TIMEFRAME ON IT IF YOU WANT TO SO IT DOESN'T COME BACK ON. I MEAN, WE CAN PUT A THREE MONTH TIME PERIOD, OR SIX MONTH TIME PERIOD, OR WHATEVER, THAT THEY COULD BRING IT BACK UP. I WAS IN THE MINORITY FOR A WHILE. I NEVER PUT ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA. WE HAD WORKSHOPS.

HOWEVER, I COULD'VE PUT ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE IT'S FAIR IF TWO PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS IT. WE HAVE THE WORKSHOP. THAT IS THE WHOLE REASON WE HAD THIS IN THE OPEN, SO THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR IT, AND IT'S NOT CLEAN, AND IT'S NOT SMOOTH, AND IT'S NOT REHEARSED. NONE OF THIS IS REHEARSED. NOBODY TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. IT'S ALL WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. AND EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT'S ON THE AGENDA, NONE OF US HAS SPLIT FROM EACH OTHER. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. SO THE REALITY IS, THAT'S HOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO COME TO A WORKSHOP AND IT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN VERY EFFICIENT WHEN IT COMES TO A WORKSHOP. THESE COMMISSIONERS OR THE MAYOR SAYS, HEY, WE PUT IT ON A WORKSHOP AND ON A WORKSHOP, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN PUT IT ON THE WORKSHOP FOR IT TO BE DISCUSSED AND ONCE WE DISCUSS IT, THEN IF TWO PEOPLE OR MORE SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO VOTE ON IT, AND THE NEXT MEETING, IT CAN BE BROUGHT UP AS A TOPIC TO VOTE ON, AND THEN WE VOTE ON IT. IT IS EITHER YES OR NO AND THAT POINT. I BELIEVE THE SYSTEM IS

WORKING CORRECTLY. >> SO WE ARE AGREEING?

>> VICE MAYOR, YOU ARE SEEING -- SAYING THAT TWO PEOPLE PUT IT FORWARD WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME?

>> I'M SAYING THAT THE TWO PEOPLE -- TO PEOPLE HAVE TO BE IN A CONSENSUS IN A WORKSHOP TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

>> UNDERSTAND. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER

ANTUN. >> COMMISSIONER ANTUN'S LIGHT

IS ON, TOO. VICE MAYOR >> VICE MAYOR

>> I WANTED TO WAIT FOR THE OTHER ITEM. IT CAN AT LEAST GO TO THE AGENDA. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID RESEARCH IF THERE IS A 30 OR 60 DAY PERIOD FOR IT TO GO BACK ON THE AGENDA SO IT IS NOT CYCLICAL. I CAN RESPECT YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER ROSS.

WE SHOULD NOT PREVENT SOMETHING GOING ON TO THE AGENDA . I THINK WE MIGHT GET THE SAME ANSWER. WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT ONE MEETING AFTER ANOTHER.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. COMMISSIONER ROSS .

>> THE REASON I KEEP BRINGING THIS UP IS BECAUSE THE CONSTITUENTS KEEP BRINGING IT UP AND BRINGING IT UP. SO, I MEAN, I GET EMAILS. I GET PEOPLE STOPPING ME. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? I READ IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. SO THAT'S WHY I BRING IT BACK. AS YOU POINT OUT, I'M GOING TO BE HERE FOR THE WHOLE TIME. THIS IS NOT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF MY TIME. IT IS THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONSTITUENTS' TIME. THERE ARE CONSTITUENTS THAT HAVE A TOUGH TIME STAYING HERE FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING. SO. WE DON'T THAT?

>> JUST TO CLARIFY HERE, WE DO NEED TO TAKE ONE FOR THE PIECE OF ACTION ON 4.1, AND THAT IS, ONE OF TWO OPTIONS HERE, WHICH IS EITHER -- VICE MAYOR, HE SUGGEST IT TAKES TWO, BUT THERE IS A TIMEFRAME. COMMISSIONER AYSCUE, YOU SAY THREE.

>> I'M ALLOWING THE MAJORITY TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> THAT IS GOING TO KEEP THE MEETINGS -- THE MEETINGS THAT WE ARE DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE CITIZENS OF FERNANDINA BEACH -- IT'S GOING TO KEEP THEM OFFICIAL. IF WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY MOVING IT OUT OF THE WORKSHOP, YOU DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY TO VOTE ON IT. IT IS GOING TO GET VOTED DOWN.

I MEAN, EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL, IF THERE'S NOT A MAJORITY TO MOVE IT OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, IT DOESN'T MOVE. IT NEVER BECOMES A PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT, IT JUST MOVES FORWARD. I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT LEGISLATION TO A VOTE THAT WE AT LEAST KNOW THAT IT HAS VIABILITY. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE VIABILITY COMING OUT OF THE WORKSHOP, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VIABLE. WE ARE SIMPLY DOING NOTHING OTHER THAN -- IT HAS BEEN WORKED THROUGH. THE MINORITY HAS SPOKEN. THEY BROUGHT SOMETHING. THIS IS THE MINORITY ON THE WORKSHOP. ONLY ONE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BRING IT FORWARD. I'VE BEEN IN THE SUPER MINORITY ON WORKSHOP ITEMS. I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE WHEN THEY COME IN AND SAY, I THINK I WANT THIS, EVEN IF IT

[00:40:01]

THERE'S NO SENSE IN PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA IF IT IS GOING TO FAIL. I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE OF DOING IT. TO ME, THAT IS TRANSPARENCY. THAT IS SHOWING THAT WE WORKED THROUGH IT. THE MINORITY HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT IN A WORKSHOP, AND IT IS NOT MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SAID SO. AGAIN, I JUST LOOK AT THE STATE LEVEL. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. IF IT DOESN'T MOVE OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, IT'S DONE. IT'S A DEAD MOVE. THAT IS THE WAY I LOOK AT IT.

>> I AGREE. I CAN AGREE TO THAT.

>> OKAY. NOTED. VICE MAYOR STURGES SAYS IT TAKES THREE TO MOVE FORWARD. YOU SAY IT TAKES TWO TO MOVE FORWARD. AND I HEARD HIS POINT EARLIER. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD AGREE WITH -- I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER AYSCUE AND VICE MAYOR STURGES THAT IT TAKES THREE TO MOVE FORWARD, AND I WANT TO REITERATE THAT IT ONLY TAKES A SINGLE PERSON AS A SINGLE PERSON DOES A SINGLE COMMISSIONER CAN PUT ANY ITEM ON A WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSION TO MOVE IT FORWARD OUT OF THAT WORKSHOP. IT SHOULD TAKE A MAJORITY TO MOVE THAT FORWARD.

THAT IS KEY. I THINK ANY ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED. I THINK ANY ITEM WE BRING FORWARD, IT WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. IT TAKES A MAJORITY TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO THE NEXT LEVEL. IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO LOSE A VOTE AND THEN VOTE ON IT AGAIN. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT. MR. ROBINSON.

>> AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA -- IT IS MORE FINESSED AND RESEARCHED. THE STAFF HAS LOOKED AT IT AND PEOPLE MAY CHANGE THEIR MIND. ALSO, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE WORKSHOP, AT LEAST THERE HASN'T BEEN IN THE PAST. AT THAT TIME, THE PUBLIC CAN COMMENT ON IT. I THINK THE TWO PERSON RULE GOING FORWARD IS APPROPRIATE. AND THAT IS WHAT YOU AGREED TO NOW. NOW, YOUR FLIPPING AND SAYING IT'S GOT TO BE THREE. VICE MAYOR STURGES

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE STATEMENT WITH BRADLEY BEING NEXT TO ME -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY MEETING WE'VE HAD WHERE WE HAVEN'T HAD PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO SAY.

>> COMMISSIONER SQ. >> TO YOUR POINT, I HAVE NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER OF THERE BEING PUBLIC COMMENT FOR WORKSHOPS. I DON'T. MUCH LIKE THE REST OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS, WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE THE REASON WE HAVE THE WORKSHOP -- SO THAT WE CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER. THAT IS THE REASON WE HAVE WORKSHOPS IS BECAUSE OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. WITHOUT THAT, WE HAVE NO NEED FOR THE WORKSHOP. WE HAVE THE WORKSHOP TO -- FOR US TO WORK THROUGH ISSUES. THAT IS WHY IT EXISTS.

IF WE HAVE TIME LEFT OVER, ABSOLUTELY. I'M HERE. MIGHT AS WELL COMMENT ON IT. LET'S ALLOW THAT. I'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE AND IT WAS IN THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, AND STILL IS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT PUBLIC COMMENT AND BEING HERE THE WORKSHOP -- I'M FINE WITH IT AS I AS WE WORK THROUGH THE ISSUES THAT WE WORK THROUGH. THAT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, HOW WE WORK THROUGH THOSE, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE IT IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT IS GOOD LIKE THAT. BUT I'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH HAVING PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOTED. WE HAVE CONSENSUS THERE. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH FOR BRINGING THAT ON. >> SO NOW, IT IS PRETTY EASY TO DO. WHAT DID WE JUST HAVE CONSENSUS ON?

>> WE HAD CONSENSUS ON DISH WE HAVE A MAJORITY DURING A WORKSHOP. IF YOU PUT IT ON A WORKSHOP, IT ONLY TAKES ONE.

LET'S REITERATE HERE. LET'S REITERATE WHAT HAPPENED. WE DID SAY IT TAKES TWO TO PUT SOMETHING STRAIGHT ON AN AGENDA

AND THAT STILL APPLIES. >> HOW DOES THAT APPLY IF WE JUST SET IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A WORKSHOP AND IT NOW HAS TO BE

THREE? >> COMMISSIONER ROSS, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. THERE ARE THINGS THAT GO STRAIGHT TO THE AGENDA. YOU SEE THAT EVERY TIME. NOT EVERYTHING ON THIS AGENDA IS GOING TO BE IN THE WORKSHOP.

>> THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT TWO CITY COMMISSIONERS CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AND FOLLOW AND HAVE A WORKSHOP AND NOT FOLLOW THE FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAWS POINT I CAN'T CALL UP ANYONE OF YOU AND SAY, HEY, LET'S PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA.

I CAN'T DO IT.

[00:45:06]

] >> THAT THERE IS A PRECEDENT OF TWO COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING AN IDEA AND THAT GOING STRAIGHT INTO AN AGENDA. AS YOU KNOW, DURING OUR MEETINGS, OUR STAFF WILL ASK US HOW WE FEEL ABOUT CERTAIN TOPICS AND OF TWO SUPPORTED THERE, THAT IS HOW THINGS CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE AGENDA. I'LL SAY THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF MINORITY RIGHTS IS ANY SINGLE COMMISSIONER -- THAT'S WHY WE STARTED THE WORKSHOPS. WAS TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, AND AS YOU KNOW, WITH SUNSHINE LAW, WE CAN'T CALL EACH OTHER. WE CAN SEE HOW EACH OTHER FEEL ABOUT THESE ITEMS. WE PUT IT STRAIGHT ON THE WORKSHOP, AND ANY SINGLE COMMISSIONER -- ANY ONE PERSON DOES ANYONE OF US CAN PUT SOMETHING ON HERE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, AND THAT'S WHERE THESE ITEMS CAME FROM TONIGHT. I PUT ITEM 4.1 ON THIS AGENDA.

ANY ONE PERSON CAN PUT IT ON THERE, BUT IF YOU PUT SUMMING ON THE WORKSHOP, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE A CONSENSUS -- IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE, THEN WHY WOULD WE SEND IT TO A FUTURE MEETING TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON IT ? IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT WITH STAFF AND STAFF FINDS IT'S THE OPINION OF MORE THAN ONE COMMISSIONER, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR IT TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE AGENDA OR IT BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WORKSHOP TO AGENDA. IF THAT IS THE CASE, I THINK FOR IT TO LEAVE THE WORKSHOP AND GO TO THE AGENDA, SHOULD TAKE THE MAJORITY. OTHERWISE, WHAT'S THE POINT OF US EVEN TALKING? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THERE.

WITH THAT IN MIND, COMMISSIONER ANTUN.

>> TO THE POINT YOU MENTIONED, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR INFORMATION TO COME OUT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

IF THERE IS A MINORITY IN THE WORKSHOP, THAT COULD CHANGE.

>> PUT IT BACK ON ANOTHER WORKSHOP. IT ONLY TAKES ONE PERSON TO DO THAT. IF THAT'S THE CASE.

>> I FEEL IT IS DIFFERENT, AS COMMISSIONER ROSS POINTED OUT, WHEN YOU HAVE IT ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS AS BLACK-AND-WHITE AS YOU ARE

MAKING IT. >> OKAY. WITH THAT IN MIND, IT IS NOT A CHANGE TO SAY, AGAIN -- IT'S NOT -- ACCORDING TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE WHERE SOMETHING HAS LOST A VOTE IN THE WORKSHOP AND THEN MOVED FORWARD. THAT HAS NEVER OCCURRED AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WE SHOULD KEEP THINGS THE SAME. AND WE WILL DO THE SAME THING. IT ONLY TAKES ONE COMMISSIONER TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION. TO LEAVE A WORKSHOP, IT TAKES A MAJORITY VOTE TO MOVE THAT FORWARD . TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA -- IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ON THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED AGENDA, YOU HAVE HAVE TWO. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS HOW WE HAVE OPERATED THIS WHOLE TIME. THAT IS HOW WE HAVE OPERATED AND HOW WE WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE. I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR THAT TODAY.

>> LET ME POINT OUT, THOUGH, THAT WHAT THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT IS GOING TO GO TO A RESOLUTION. SO ALL OF THIS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS COMING THROUGH A WORKSHOP. WE AGREE ON THIS. IT IS GOING TO GO INTO THE RESOLUTION. THERE'S GOING TO BE PUBLIC COMMENT ON IT. ALL THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW -- THERE IS A MAJORITY COMING OUT OF THE WORKSHOP. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS. TO YOUR POINT, SOMEONE MAY CHANGE THEIR MIND, BUT THAT MAJORITY MAY MOVE IT OUT. THE VOTE MAY BE DIFFERENT. SO, AT LEAST THE MAJORITY MOVED IT

OUT. >> OKAY.

>> SO THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION ON THIS MOVING FORWARD. AGAIN, I WILL REITERATE . THANK YOU FOR HOLDING UP THAT NUTS. THERE WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM WHEN WE BRING IT FORWARD AS A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ASKEY. THIS WILL COME IN A RESOLUTION IN A FUTURE MEETING NEAR YOU. I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY HERE ON ITEM 4.1.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ONE MORE TIME?

>> WE ARE BACK TO 4.1. THE CITY IS GOING TO PREPARE A

RESOLUTION AND BRING IT UP. >> YES HER. IT WILL COME FORWARD IN A FUTURE MEETING. AND THEN ITEM 4.2, THAT IS NOT GOING TO COME FOR A VOTE IN THE FUTURE MEETING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THE MAJORITY THERE. IN THE FINALLY--

>> 4.2, WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THIS MORE? THIS IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF PUBLIC

COMMENT NOT ON THE AGENDA. >> NO.

>> AND YOU ALREADY AGREE THAT ANYBODY WHO COMES TO THE STAND -- TO THE PODIUM -- EXCUSE ME -- CAN ASK A QUESTION AS

[00:50:03]

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

>> I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS. I THINK SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, A LADY CAME UP HERE AND KEPT ASKING QUESTIONS AND HE SAID, THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION. MAYBE I'M WRONG. I MEAN I AM 72 YEARS OLD. AND A LITTLE FUZZY, BUT THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION. I SPECIFICALLY -- YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID TO HER THAT YOU CANNOT ASK A QUESTION.

I WANT TO CHANGE THAT TO YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS RIGHT NOW, ANYONE COMES UP HERE DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THEY CAN ASK A QUESTION OF THE CITY. ANY CITY COMMISSIONER, OR TO THE MAYOR, AND YOU CAN JUST SAY, THEY ARE GOING TO ANSWER IT AND ANSWER IT OR NOT ANSWER IT. THEY CAN SAY, I DON'T WISH TO ANSWER THAT, OR I'LL GET BACK TO YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, THE PUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO USE THEIR THREE MINUTES IN ANY WAY THEY CHOOSE. IF THEY WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS, THEY'RE WELCOME TO DO SO. IN THE PAST, THIS COMMISSION HAS ANSWERED QUESTIONS. I'VE ANSWERED QUESTIONS. I HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS HERE BEFORE. YOU HAVE, TOO. YOU HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS. I HAVE NEVER STOPPED ANY COMMISSIONER FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS. THAT ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE -- I DON'T KNOW WHY . I BELIEVE THAT TWO COMMISSIONERS DID LATER ON IN THE MEETING ANSWERED THAT QUESTION LATER DURING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. AGAIN, FREEDOM OF SPEECH INCLUDES THE FREEDOM NOT TO SPEAK. SO THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO TALK, COMMISSIONER ROSS. WITH THAT IN MIND, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO TALK, BUT AGAIN, CONSTITUENTS ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO USE THEIR THREE MINUTES IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. SO I AGREE WITH YOU THERE.

>> SO FINALLY, FOR .3. TOWN HALL MEETINGS. LET'S DISCUSS

THAT. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS.

>> SO THE IDEA FOR THIS CAME FROM OUR REPRESENTATIVE IN U.S.

CONGRESS , AARON BEAN, WHO HOLDS IN PERSON TOWN HALL MEETINGS. THAT WAS THE INSPIRATION FOR THIS. I THINK IN SOME REGULAR PB OF TIME, IF INSTEAD OF HAVING A WORKSHOP, WE COULD HAVE AN OPEN FORUM WHERE PEOPLE CAN TALK AND ASK QUESTIONS IN ANY MANNER THEY WANT. WE CAN TRY IT ONCE OR TWICE AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK AND NOBODY SHOWS UP, NO NEED TO CONTINUE. I THINK IT IS AN INTERESTING IDEA. I THINK THE CONGRESSMAN'S IDEA IS A GOOD IDEA. I THINK WE SHOULD MODEL AFTER THAT. AN OPEN FORUM WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME AND TALK TO THEIR CITY COMMISSIONERS IN PUBLIC ON THE RECORD. THERE'S A RECORD. AND I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. THAT IS MY IDEAL.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE CONGRESSMAN FOR HIS EXCELLENT WORK.

BELIEVE HE HAD OVER 20,000 COLLINS. I WOULD SAY THAT I ALREADY DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, COMMISSONER ROSS, BUT THE SECOND FRIDAY OF EVERY MONTH, I HAVE AN ASK THE MAYOR SESSION ON OUR LOCAL COUNSEL WHERE I HAVE CONSTITUENTS COME. AND THEY DO. WE HAVE HAD GREAT TURNOUT.

IT'S A VERY INTIMATE SETTING. WE'VE HAD UP TO 16 PEOPLE.

THEY COME AND ASK WHATEVER IS ON THEIR MIND. I SIT THERE AND WE DISCUSSED ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT TOPICS. THAT IS THE COUNCIL ON AGING. I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE EXACT EQUIVALENT TO WHAT CONGRESSMAN AARON BEAN IS DOING. IT IS HIM AS A PERSON IS CHOOSING TO DO THAT BECAUSE HE BELIEVE IT IS GOOD TO GET OUT WITH THE CITIZENS. WHICH, AGAIN, I ALSO DO. I GET OUT WITH THE CITIZENS AND DISCUSS . FURTHER THAN THAT, WE DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO OUTREACH. I WOULD SAY THE FRUIT -- CLOSEST EQUIVALENT TO WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS WHAT I DO WITH THE COUNCIL ON AGING. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANY OTHER CITY COMMISSIONER WHO WISHED TO DO SUCH A THING -- I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL ON AGING WOULD OPEN THEIR DOORS TO YOU. YOU CAN HAVE THE TOWN HALL WHERE YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS. YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO THAT. IN FACT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE IT, IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO DO THAT, TOO. I HAVE DONE THEM EVERY MONTH SINCE I HAVE BEEN ELECTED MAYOR AND IT'S BEEN A GREAT EXPERIENCE. INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHAT WE DO

EVERY DAY. >> SO I'LL TAKE IT AS A NO TO

THIS IDEA. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE, NO.

LET'S TALK TO COMMISSIONER AYSCUE.

>> I KNOW WE ARE RUNNING SHORR' DOING THE SAME THING. MY EMAIL

[00:55:07]

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SEND IT OUT TO THE WORLD. WHATEVER RESPONSE I GIVE YOU IS THERE. IT'S ALL THERE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD WE NEED TO COME TO THE CHAMBERS TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE COMMISSIONER? YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE I STAND ON AN ISSUE? IT IS PRETTY EASY. JUST CALL ME OR EMAIL ME.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> COMMISSIONER ANTUN. I-I WANT TO TRY THIS IDEA. I HAVE IT IN MY CALENDAR TO BE HERE THEN ANYWAY.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS .

>> AGAIN, AS WE STARTED THIS MEETING WITH, IT'S THAT EVERY SINGLE MEETING -- EVERY SINGLE MEETING THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY COMMISSION -- EVERY MEETING, WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC. WE HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS. EVERY SINGLE ITEM WE VOTE ON, WE DO PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT THEN AND THERE. EVERY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A SECTION AT THE END OF THE MEETING WHERE WE LISTEN TO ALL COMMENTS, AND WE HEAR IT. IF THAT IS NOT A TOWN HALL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. EVERY MEETING IS A TOWNHOME. WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE MEETING TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT IS NOT IDEAL. IT'S NOT A GOOD USE OF TIME. IN FACT, BETTER USE OF TIME IS WHAT I DO WHERE I GO AND MEET WITH THE CITIZENS, AND WE INTERACT THAT WAY. WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE A WHOLE OTHER MEETING . WE DO WORKSHOPS. WE HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. IT IS MY OPINION ON THAT. COMMISSIONER

AYSCUE. >> QUICKLY, ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS THAT I SEE IS , FOR INSTANCE, SAY I'M A CITIZEN AND COMMISSIONER ANTUN, I COME UP AND SAY, I UNDERSTAND YOU GREW UP IN NEW YORK. WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ON THE DONALD TRUMP CASE? THE LOSSES THEM UP THERE. HOW DOES THAT WORK? I MEAN, SPOKE TO ME, THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO CITY BUSINESS.

>> SO YOU WOULDN'T ANSWER THAT?

>> YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IS WHAT I'M

SAYING. >> I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO HASH OUT NATIONAL POLITICS WHEN WE ARE WORKING ON CITY POLITICS.

>> AMENDMENT TWO IS UP ON THE AGENDA. IT IS GOING TO CODIFY IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU HAVE FISH HUNTING AS A RIGHT. THAT WILL OPEN UP A LOT OF VOTING PLACES. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT IT? HOW DOES IT AFFECT OUR DOWNTOWN PARKING WITH

TRAILERS AND STUFF? >> IT WOULD PROBABLY AFFECTED A

LOT. >> OKAY. SO I ANSWERED YOUR

QUESTION. >> I THINK WE COULD HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING IF WE HAD SOME SPECIAL TOPIC THAT MIGHT GARNER DEMAND FOR A SPECIAL MEETING. WE ALL KNEW THAT THERE WAS A SOUND ORDINANCE ISSUED. WE DEBATED THAT OVER SEVERAL MEETINGS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. JUST AS EASY, MANAGEMENT AT THAT TIME COULD HAVE SAID, HEY, LET'S HAVE ONE SPECIAL MEETING JUST TO TALK ABOUT IT. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. HOWEVER, YOU CAN CALL THAT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. SPECIAL MEETING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY TOWN HALL. I DON'T THINK WE NEED THEM ON A RESIDUAL BASIS. I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE

CALLED WHEN IT IS NEEDED. >> OKAY.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> WHAT WE TALK ABOUT OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS WE WANT TO INVOLVE THE PUBLIC. WE WANT EVERYONE INVOLVED. WE WANT TO DO ALL THESE THINGS. THERE IS NOTHING MORE PUBLIC THAN AN OPEN FORUM WHERE EVERYONE CAN COME AND SPEAK. IT MIGHT NOT WORK OUT AND NO ONE SHOWS UP .

THAT'S FINE. WE CAN CANCEL. I THINK IT IS AN IDEA WORTH TRYING. SEE IF PEOPLE TO COME AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THEIR CITY ON THE RECORD, ON THE CAMERA, AND IT IS RECORDED.

WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. THEY ARE NOT

[01:00:01]

RESOLUTION. >> NOT BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID

EARLIER. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE SAID

EARLIER. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE, ARE YOU GOING TO SET UP YOUR OWN TOWN HALL? ARE YOU GOING TO SET THAT

UP? >> I CAN DO THAT. I HAVE SIX MORE MONTHS. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. SURE. I CAN DO THAT.

GREAT IDEA. TIM POYNTER USED TO DO THAT EVERY MONTH. IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY. THAT IS NOT THE SAME.

THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE CITY COMMISSION SITTING APPEAR IN A PUBLIC MEETING AND BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VOTERS.

>> PLEASE, NO APPLAUSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER ROSS, WE DO THIS EVERY MEETING.

>> WE DON'T DO IT EVERY MEETING.

>> I BEG TO DIFFER. WE DON'T DO THIS EVERY MEETING. THESE ARE SPECIFIC TOPICS. WE DO IT TO SOME DEGREE. THIS IS AN OPEN TOPIC. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WHATEVER YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT IT HAS TO DO WITH CITY BUSINESS. THERE IS NO

CENSORSHIP. >> REALLY QUICK, LET ME CALL US BACK TO ORDER. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROSS, WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS CENSORSHIP. OKAY. REALLY QUICK -- THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT GETTING ANYWHERE. THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT GETTING ANYWHERE. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

COMMISSIONER ROSS, WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS ANY TOPIC RELATED TO CITY BUSINESS -- WHAT IS AT THE END OF THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A POINT IN TIME WHERE EVERY CITIZEN CAN COME FORWARD AND USE THEIR THREE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT ANY TOPIC, AS WE CLARIFIED EARLIER, ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE TOPICS AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. EVERY SINGLE MEETING, WE HAVE THIS POINT YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A SEPARATE MEETING WHERE YOU CALL IT A PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED. WE NEED TO KEEP OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS PUBLIC. WE KEEP THEM OPEN. WE'LL HEAR EVERY CITIZEN THAT COMES FORWARD. WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M HEARING NO CHANGE ON SADDAM. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TOWN HALL. WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.