Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:09]

>>> CALL TO ORDER. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL

[Item 3]

. >> DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE PRIOR MEETING?

>> YES. >> THAT WOULD BE THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

>> OKAY. THIS IS TRICKY BECAUSE I'VE LOST MY LITTLE --

>> OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> ON SECTION 5.2, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE COMMENT ABOUT MEMBER DAVIS, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

THAT SENTENCE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

GRANTED, IT'S BEEN SIX WEEKS SINCE OUR MEETING.

MAYBE LONGER. BUT I THINK IT'S POWER OF PETITION. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT I WANTED TO ADD IN POWER OF PROCESS.

INTERNSHIPING IT'S POWER OF PETITION.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER CHANGES? SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES -- I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE AMENDMENT.

>> OKAY. >> SECOND FROM MR. MORRISON.

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? >> ALL RIGHT.

MINUTES WERE APPROVED. >> AND NOW WE GO ON TO OLD

[Item 4.1]

BUSINESS AND THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS A RECAP OF THE JOINT MEETING THAT WE HELD WITH THE CITY COMMISSION.

SO I'M GOING TO TIME BOX THIS DISCUSSION AND SAY THAT LET'S TRY TO DO IT WITHIN 20 MINUTES IF WE CAN.

AND IF NOT, IF IT'S GOING ON, WE'LL EXTEND THE TIME BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE ANY OF YOU WHO HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT MEETING OR WHAT YOU TOOK AWAY FROM IT TO LET US KNOW NOW.

>> ONE THING THAT STUCK OUT IN MY MIND IS THAT SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS SAID IF IT AIN'TED BROKE, DON'T FIX IT, AND RECOMMENDED THAT WE ADOPT GET TOO CAUGHT UP IN THE WEEDS.

MAJOR CHANGES. THE SECOND ITEM WAS DALE SAYING HE DID NOT THINK THERE WAS OVERSTEP OF POWERS AND BOUNDARIES, OF COMMISSIONERS INTO ADVISORY BOARDS OR STAFF, THAT HE FELT THINGS WERE WORKING SMOOTHLY.

THOSE ARE MY MAJOR TAKEAWAYS. >> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE?

MEMBER DAVIS. >> I ALSO FELT THAT THE TWO THINGS THAT STOOD OUT THE MOST WAS WHAT MEMBER COZAK SAID BUT I ALSO NOTED THAT IN CONTRAST, MEMBER KREIGER SAID THE OPPOSITE THAN THE CITY MANAGER AS FAR AS HE SAID THAT IT'S ONLY RECENTLY THAT THERE HAS BEEN A REAL PROBLEM IN KNOWING WHAT WE'RE COMMISSIONER DUTIES VERSUS STAFF.

SO THAT WAS ONE THING THAT I NOTED.

ALSO THAT SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS WERE IN FAVOR OF GOING TOWARDS GROUP ELECTIONS, AVOIDING RUN OFFS.

AND IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE GET TO THE ELECTION SECTION OF THE CHARTER. CERTAINLY HAD A STRONG -- THERE WAS A STRONG VOICE FOR THAT. AND THE OTHER THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS THAT THE TALK ABOUT -- THAT WENT ON QUITE A WHILE ABOUT NEW COMMISSIONERS, THERE WAS ALL THIS RELIANCE ON STAFF AND THEY LEARN FROM STAFF AND LEARN FROM STAFF AND THAT SEEMED TO BE-I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ALL DONE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS BECAUSE WE KNOW THE COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GOING DIRECTLY TO STAFF.

SO WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION LATER TODAY MAYBE WE CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED.

MAYBE THE CITY MANAGER GIVES THAT AUTHORITY.

ANYWAY, THAGS WHERE MY -- WHAT I CAME AWAY WITH.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> ANY OTHER FEEDBACK FROM THAT

MEETING? >> ONE BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE AND I THINK, LYNN, YOU STARTED IT AND LYNN KICKED IT OFF, WAS TO GET THESE MEETINGS VIDEOED FOR THE PUBLIC AND I THINK THAT WAS

A GREAT STEP THAT JUST HAPPENED. >> RIGHT.

[00:05:02]

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT THAT MANY OF THEM SAID, COMMISSION MEMBERS, SAID THEY DIDN'T THINK THERE WERE MAJOR ISSUE INNS SORT OF IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FACTS IT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THOUGHT THEY DISCUSSED A NUMBER OF ACTUALLY PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES IN TERMS OF VOTING SO ATTEND, I WAS NOT QUITE SURE THAT, THAT COMMENT IF IT'S NOT BROKE DON'T FIX IT REALLY WAS EXACTLY A TRUE REFLECTION OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT BECAUSE I THINK THEY DID BRING UP A NUMBER OF KEY ISSUES.

JUST AN OBSERVATION. >> IN TERMS OF ELECTION TYPE --

>> YEAH. >> MY NOTES WHAT I STARRED WAS FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CITIZEN SURVEY BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THEY SEEM TO RESTATE SEVERAL TIMES.

TO REITERATE GETTING RID OF THE GROUP ELECTIONS SO THAT WE HAVE TAKING CARE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION THE RUNOFFS, MAKE SOME REVISIONS REGARDING FLORIDA ELECTION LAW TO REVISE WHAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY AND TO CONNECT WITH WHAT THERE IS AND THEN ALSO REALLY JUST HOUSEKEEPING. I DON'T THINK THAT, AGAIN, KIND OF REITERATING IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME HOUSEKEEPING AND I THINK ADVANCING THE AGENDA, SOME OF THE LANGUAGE REVISIONS THAT WERE SUGGESTED -- I WANT TO ECHO THE VOICE CHAIR'S STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW WE SAID IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT BUT MAYBE SOME THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION COULD BE FIXED. COULD BE BROKE.

YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE BIG THING THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT WAS THAT I THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA BASED ON TALKING TO THEM TO CHECK AND GET FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY STAFF SOMEHOW.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE SHOULD STILL DO.

WE COULD MAKE OUR OWN AS YOU ARE SAY AND SEND IT SPECIFICALLY TO THE CITY STAFF ANONYMOUSLY. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME INPUT FROM.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT I KNOW ONE OF THE GOALS GOING INTO THE MEETING WAS TO GET A GENERAL CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR APPROACH IS GOING TO BE IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PUT THESE ISSUES ON A VOTER REFERENDUM AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THAT EVERY SINGLE COMMISSIONER SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH WHATEVER YOU GUYS THINK IS BEST, I THINK THERE WAS A GENERAL TONE AMONGST ALL OF THEM THAT SEEMED TO BE PRETTY SUPPORT 9 IN RECOGNITION OF WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING TO BE.

>> RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> MR. CLARK. >> I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT.

THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION AT OUR TABLE ABOUT I THINK WE WERE GENERALLY PLEASED AT THE NOTION THAT WHATEVER WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD TAKE THAT AND PUT IT OUT FOR REFERENDUM AND THAT WAS A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE I FELT OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING BUT AS I THINK ABOUT THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE COMMISSION TO BE A RUBBER STAMP.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE RECOMMEND SOMETHING, I EXPECT THEM TO GIVE IT A CRITICAL REVIEW. I EXPECT US TO STRONGLY DEFEND OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY EXPECT THE COMMISSION TO TAKE EVERYTHING WE'VE SAID AND JUST SAY, GOOD, PUT A STAMP ON IT AND PUT IT OUT THERE.

I EXPECT THEM TO GIVE IT THEIR OWN CRITICAL REVIEW AND MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS THEY THINK ARE NECESSARY.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO STRONGLY ADVOCATE WHAT WE RECOMMEND BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PUT THE COMMISSION IN THE BOX OF SAYING WHATEVER IT IS WE GIVE THEM.

JUST WANTED TO RUBBER STAMP. I WANTED TO JUST MAKE THAT

POINT. >> ANY REACTION TO THAT?

>> I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS NOT A RUBBER STAMP AND IT WAS JUST THAT THEY WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE IT AND DISCUSS IT AND PUT IT FORTH AT LEAST FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE IT AND MAYBE DISCUSS AND GET FEEDBACK ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT POLICY SETTERS AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SETTING POLICY.

WE COULD BRING RECOMMENDATIONS UP FROM THE CITIZENS AND STAFF AND OUR POINTS OF VIEW BUT I THINK IT DESERVES A VIGOROUS REVIEW PROCESS BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> I AGREE THAT IT IS A VERY RIGOROUS PROCESS AND I THINK THE REASON THAT WE HAD THAT ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH IS BECAUSE THE LAST COMMITTEE, THE ISSUE WAS THAT SOME OF THEIR IDEAS WERE EVEN HEARD FOR ANYONE TO LOOK AT NOT EVEN THEM.

[00:10:03]

THEY JUST DIDN'T PICK IT UP AT ALL.

SO LAST YEAR, I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT THAT I THINK WE'RE ASKING THAT THEY REVIEW IT AT A FUTURE COMMISSION MEETING AND HOPEFULLY WHEN THEY DO THEY'LL PUT THEIR THOUGHT INTO IT AS WELL BUT I THINK WE'RE ASKING THAT THEY TOOK AT IT WHEN WE

FINISH. >> ANYONE ON THE LINES?

>> JUST MY OWN SUMMARY OF THAT DISCUSSION.

I BELIEVE THAT PRIMARILY WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR IS BIAS ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION THAT THEY WILL BE OPEN TO WHAT WE RECOMMEND GIVEN THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE WE HAVE PUBLIC INPUT ON THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS SO THAT IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THEY ARE JUST RULING IT OUT OF HAND.

SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE HOPING WILL HAPPEN.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SURVEY RESULTS. SOMEONE SAID THAT WE HAD -- WE WERE GOING TO GET A COPY OF THAT.

DID WE -- WERE WE ABLE TO GET A CITIZENS SURVEY? IS THAT OUT SOMEWHERE THAN JUST MISSED IN.

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> WE'LL GET IT FOR YOU

>> PLEASE. THANK YOU.

>> THERE'S A RECAP ON THE CITY WEBSITE.

JUST THE -- >> OF THE CITY.

2017 AND 2018 HAS THE DASH BOARD.

>> YES. IS THAT WHAT WE'LL GET OR --

>> NO. I'LL GET YOU THE --

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AND THE SURVEY AND CITY STAFF TALKS TO US MORE ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT WAS YOU.

>> I'LL TURN MY LIGHT BACK ON. RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE THAT INPUT FROM THE STAFF BEING THAT THEY ARE CLOSEST THERE. WE CAN GET A REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY IF WE JUST GET AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE STAFF TO RESPOND AS POSSIBLE. 1 IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC IF NO OTHER INPUT IS -- I'LL HAVE FOUR VERY GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT BASICALLY WILL PROMPT RESPONSES AS TO WHAT WITH YOU FEEL IS -- WHAT DO YOU FEEL WE'RE DOING RIGHT AS A CITY AND WRONG AS A

CITY. >> SO THEY'D BE OPEN ENDED

QUESTIONS. >> RIGHT.

IT COULD ACCEPT TYPED ANSWERS. >> PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO FIND OUT FROM THAT SURVEY IS THAT IN OUR JOINT MEETING A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE CITY MANAGER FELT STRONGLY IF THERE ISN'T AT LEAST A NOTABLE AMOUNT OF OVERSTEP BETWEEN CITY COMMISSIONERS AND HOW THEY DEAL WITH CITY STAFF, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR IF THE CITY STAFF HAD THE SAME

PERCEPTION OF IT. >> AND MAYBE DEFINE OVERSTEP.

IN TERMS OF THE ORGANIZATION'S STRUCTURE.

THIS IS REALLY NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT ANYONE'S POLICY ISSUES OR PERSONALITIES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR.

>> ABSOLUTELY. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PROCESS.

NOT THE PEOPLE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

>> RIGHT. >> I THINK THAT THE CITY STAFF DEPARTMENT HEADS IS WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS SURVEY OR

ALL CITY STAFF? >> I WAS GOING TO GO FOR ALL AND

[00:15:02]

I COULD KEEP IT -- I WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP IT ANONYMOUS.

I COULD PUT TWO LIKE LEADING QUESTIONS THAT YOU COULD QUANTITY IDENTIFY KIND OF A GENERAL IDEA OF WHO YOU ARE IF YOU'RE A DEPARTMENT HEAD OR IF YOU'RE NOT AND THEN WE COULD USE THAT I GUESS TO SLICE AND DICE THE DATA TO SEE IF -- MY KEY IS

I WANT THIS TO BE ANONYMOUS. >> I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'LL GET A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INPUT.

>> WILL WE AS A COMMISSION OR WHATEVER WE ARE, COMMITTEE, WHOA,

>> THANK YOU, GOD.

>> I'LL HAVE THE DRAFT READY TO GO IN TWO WEEKS.

WE'LL HAVE TO APPROVE IT. >> THAT WILL BE AN ITEM ON OUR NEXT OTHER AGENDA. EXCELLENT.

I THINK A LACK OF CLARITY MAYBE ABOUT WHERE THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE THAT WE COULD SPEND SOME TIME ON THAT. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE IT MAKES SENSE? SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMENT?

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL TURN THAT BACK TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

[Item 4.2]

A DRAFT REVISION. SO WE'RE LOOKING FIRST AT SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 8. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE UP THERE ON THE SCREEN SECTION 1.

CREATION. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE FEEL WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT?

>> SO WE PAY THEM TO TAKE ALL OF OUR -- THERE'S EDIT ERRS NOTES AND THERE'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. SO IT'S THERE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU ANSWERED ALL MY -- IT ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS. IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO SEE ESPECIALLY THE RESULTEDS FOR VOTE FOR CONSOLIDATION FOR THE CITY AND ESPECIALLY HAVING SOMETHING CALLED NO MAN'S LAND.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANT? >> NO.

>> OKAY. WE JUST KNOW WHERE IT WAS.

>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

ROAD AND NORTH OF LIME STREET. >> OKAY. SO DO I HEAR ANY MOTIONS TO EITHERED CHANGE OR LEAVE THIS ALONE?

>> I HAVE ONE. >> YES.

SO THE FIRST SENTENCE STATES THE CITY OF FERNANDINA WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1825 AND BOLL LUSHED AND REESTABLISHED IN 1921GY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE. IS THERE ANYTHING WE'VE FOUND IN

[00:20:30]

THE DOCUMENTATION THAT EXPLAINS THE REASON FOR CHOOSING FERNANDINA BEACH AS THE NAME FOR THE CONSOLIDATED AREA VERSUS

FERNANDINA? >> I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING.

AND WE DIDN'T LOOK -- I DIDN'T -- THAT'S NOT TO SOMEDAY

I SAW EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE >> YES.

>> I'M SURE THERE'S SOMETHING THERE BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT.

>> THEY HAVE RESULTS IN BOATING BUT DIDN'T HAVE ANY BACK UP MY DAD'S OLDER BROTHER EUGENE WAS A MEMBER OF THE JAYCEES.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY DID THAT STRICTLY FOR MARKETING

PURPOSES. >> TO GET TOURISTS HERE.

THE PEOPLE WE ADOPT WANT ANYMORE

>> THAT WAS WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND.

THEY WERE OF THE MIND OF INCREASING -- I MEAN, INCREASING

THE -- >> RIGHT.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE ONE CHANGE. ANY OTHERS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH THAT CHANGE?

SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?

>> ANY OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE GO TO NOW WEALTH GO TO BOUNDARIES.

>> OKAY. AND BECAUSE LEGALLY SPEAKING THAT'S NOT REALLY A CLEAR WAY TO SAY THAT YOU MUST DO SOMETHING.

AND MANY TIMES WHEN WE USE SHALL IT'S NOT A MUST.

JUST AN IS. SO WHERE I FIND IT AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THESE ARE ALL GOING TO -- THESE WOULD ALL GO ON THE BALLOT. JUST CHANGING SHALL TO MUST OR IS THEN THEY WILL JUST BE DONE BY WORD.

THEY WOULD NOT GO TO REFERENDUM. >> OKAY. SO EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS DOCUMENT EXCEPT FOR SUBSECTION A, ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES, THAT HAS NO CHANGES TO IT HAVING BEEN MADE AND THE REST OF IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALL BEEN CROSSED OUT UNTIL THE VERY LAST STATEMENT SAYING CURRENT BOUNDARY RECORDS ARE KEPT IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW UPON REQUEST. AM I READING THAT RIGHT? IS THAT THE WAY EVEN IS READING IT?

>> SOME AN LEXATIONS WERE INCLUDED AND MANY, MANY, MANY WERE NOT. SO ANNEXATIONS ADD TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARIES AND SO THOSE ARE KEPT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

>> OKAY. ON SUBSECTION B DO WE NEED THE WORD ADDITIONS AS THE HEADER OR USE THE UNDERLINED SECTION AS B.

WE KEEP THE WORD ADDITIONS AND IT SEEMS WE MIGHT NEED THAT IF IT'S ONLY -- JUST A MINOR CHANGE.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> OKAY. IF WE'RE STATING THAT THE CURRENT BOUNDARY RECORDS ARE KEPT IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SO THOSE WILL BE FLUID TO REFLECT CHANGES THAT DO HAPPEN, SHOULD WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT AND HAVE LANGUAGE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES ANNEXATIONS MAY BE MADE AND THE CURRENT

BOUNDARY REQUEST? >> THAT'S FINE.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE MEETING BUT SHOULD WE PUT IN HERE A STIPULATION THAT THE

[00:25:05]

CLERK'S OFFICE MAINTAIN A MAP BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE PROBLEM WITH GOING LAST IS MY THOUGHTS WERE KIND OF THE LAST THREE.

I WAS THINKING THAT AGAIN SINCE THIS IS CALLED ADDITIONS AND WE'RE TRYING TO NOTE THE ORIGIN LULL BOUNDARIES ARE NOT THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES. MAYBE WE INCLUDED SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT THE LAND CAN BE ADDED TO THE COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT DO THAT. THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. AND THEN ALSO I DO THINK THAT MAYBE WHEN WE DO THE CITY CLERK'S DUTIES WHICH ARE LATER TODAY THAT WE DID WANT TO ADD THAT THEY -- SHE WILL KEEP THE OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES AND WE COULD ADD IT THERE.

>> IN. >> THEY'RE PRETTY UP TO DATE.

>> JUST A SUGGESTION. >> MY ONLY CONCERN WAS YOU HAVE TOO MANY CHOICES, THIS IS TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE ACTUAL CITY BOUNDARY AT A GIVEN TIME AND MORE LIKELY THE CITY CLERK'S RECORDS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE ACCURATE SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT'S THE ONE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO JUST AMEND MY EARLIER STATEMENT. IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD THIS LINE I'M FINE WITH KEEPING THE HEADER ADDITIONS.

SO IN IS THE WAY I'M NOW THINKING ABOUT HOW IT WOULD LOOK. WE HAVE THE HEADER ADDITIONS.

WE HAVE THE LINE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WHICH SAYS THAT WE'LL MAINTAIN ANNEXATIONS HERE AND AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE AND THEN THE ONE THAT SAYS THE CURRENT MAP IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

SO IT WOULD BE THREE LINES. THE HEADER.

THE FIRST LINE WE TALKED ABOUT. AND THE SECOND LINS IS.

>> JUST A DETAILED QUESTION. THE APPRAISER AWES OFFICE IS -- THIS IS A CITY CHARTER. DO WE REALLY THE AUTHORITY -- ARE WE DICTATING SOMETHING OR JUST PROVIDING INFORMING?

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A POINT OF INFORMATION.

AND THE QUESTION COMES DOWN TO DO WE WANT ONLY ONE DATA SOURCE OF RECORD IF YOU WILL TO BE NAMED IN THE CHARTER?

>> I THINK WE DO. >> YEAH

>> I THINK IF THERE'S A DISCREPANCY AND SOMEBODY GOES HERE AND THEY GO TO THE COUNTY AND IT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED, IT WENT RIGHT HERE AND SAID THIS WAS A BOUNDARY, I THINK IT OPENS US UP AND WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE

IN HERE. >> THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

AS I'M HEARING IT, IT WOULD STILL BE SUB B AND ADDITIONS AS THE HEADER. THERE WOULD BE ONE LINE THAT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW THAT THE CITY IS PERMITTED TO ANNEX ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES. AND THEN THE CURRENT BOUNDARY RECORDS AS THE SECOND LINE ARE KEPT WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND AVAILABLE TO VIEW UPON REQUEST.

>> DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE? ?

>> YES. >> I MOVE IN FAVOR OF WHAT SHE

JUST SAID. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. WE HAVE SEVERAL SECONDS.

>> WHO SAID SECOND FIRST? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR?

[00:30:01]

/IN SITUATION? -- MOVE TO OPPOSITION.

SECTION 7. POWERS OF THE CITY GENERALLY.

AND WE HAVE AS PART OF OUR DOCUMENTATION, WE HAVE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE SUGGESTING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR

SUBSECTION B. >> SO MAY I, MADAME CHAIR.

>> YES, PLEASE. >> SO I READ THROUGH THE SECTION AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT KATIE HAD TAKEN FROM OUR NOTES IN DISCUSSING THESE SO I GOT TO BE AND I THOUGHT I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN I READ IT.

AND HEARD YOU ALL AND OUR COMMISSIONERS SAY OVER THE YEARS THAT THESE THINGS SHOULD MAKE SENSE TO THE AVERAGE PERSON.

>> YES. THEY SHOULD.

>> SO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY THERE IS THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE HOME RULE AND I BELIEVE, AND THAT THESE ARE SOME OF THE POWERS THAT WE GET FROM STATE LAW.

> IS THERE ANY REACTION TO THAT?

>> AND I AM NOT -- DO NOT BE SHY ABOUT CHANGING MY WORDING.

I JUST TYPED THAT UP AS -- >> SO I HAD TO READ B AS WELL AS

THE NEW B SEVERAL TIMES. >> OKAY.

>> BUT I GET IT. WHEN I READ IT RUN THROUGH IT I

GET IT. >> IT CAN BE -- AND HAVE PEOPLE LEARN WHAT IT IS.

THAT WAS MY MAJOR TAKEAWAY. >> WHATEVER YOU ALL THINK.

>> I MEAN -- I WOULD DEFER TO THAT AND NOT HAVE US TRY TO DEFINE IT OURSELVES AND I THINK THAT 1 THROUGH 5 WAS TO STATE THEM. STATE THOSE -- BASICALLY THE PROVISIONS OF HOME RULE. I DO LIKE THE ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE BETTER THAN THE MODIFIED LANGUAGE.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND IN RELATION TO WHAT MEMBER SUGGESTED, THIS SECTION 166.021 IN THE FLORIDA STATUTE IS THE DEFINITION OF HOME RULE?

>> I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD BE -- BECAUSE MY OTHER QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH WHEN THEY MAKE CHANGES.

IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S -- SO THIS IS HOME RULE.

-- AND TO THEN ENACT ORDINANCES, PLANS AND RESOLUTIONS WITHOUT PRIOR STATE APPROVAL. THE SPECIAL WALLS OF -- YOU USED TO HAVE TO GO TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE HOME RULES POWERS ACT. WE PASS THEM AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT -- THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW OR ARE NOT PREEMPTED.

IF YOU WANT, I CAN TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO MAKE THIS CLEARER. I DON'T KNOW THAT MAKES IT CLEARER FOR SOME PEOPLE. ALL RIGHT.

[00:35:23]

DO WE IS ARE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE RE-I DIDN'T KNOW

VERSION OF SUBSECTION B? >> SO MOVE.

>> I SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.

SECTION 7. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> SURE. SECTION 8.

COMMISSION MANAGER PLAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

>> THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY TRYING TO BE HELPFUL TAKE OUT LEG LEGALESE.

>> OKAY. SO THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- OKAY. I SEE OKAY.

I ASSUME IF ANYONE HAD A CONCERN OR DESIRE TO TALK ABOUT A DIFFERENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

>> IT WOULD BE. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

I KNOW THAT SOME -- THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ON MAYBE CHANGING TO A DIRECT ELECT MAYOR. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DIRECT ELECT VERSUS A STRONG MAYOR?

>> YES. VERY MUCH SO.

>> WE COULD HAVE A DIRECT ELECT AND NOT HAVE A STRONG MAYOR WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ALL OTHER LAYERS OF ADMIN SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS OR NO? THAT'S STILL PART OF THE COMMISSION MANAGER PLAN.

>> WHEN WE GET DOWN, THERE'S ANOTHER CHARTER PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT OUR -- WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO OUTSIDE OF THIS CHARTER LOOK AT CHAPTER 34 OF OUR CODE THAT DEALS WITH ELECTIONS. SO I KNOW -- SO, NO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PLACE. ANYONE ON THE LINES?

>> YES. MEMBER CLARK.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SECOND THE EDITS.

OTHER THAN THAT, I LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S HERE.

>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE?

>> I'M NOT HEARING SOMETHING WHICH IS A DESIRE TO CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IS THAT A CORRECT HEARING ON MY

PART? >> YES.

>> OKAY. HAVE ANY OF YOU SPOKEN WITH ANYONE WHO MIGHT PREFER A

STRONG MAYOR? >> WE DID GET THAT INPUT FROM

THE PUBLIC FROM ONE CITIZEN. >> AND FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, CAN WE TALK ABOUT WHY WE DON'T WANT TO PURSUE

THAT? >> I THINK IT REALLY GOES AGAINST PRY -- GETS PRIMARILY TO THE SIZE OF THE CITY NOT ONLY THROUGH FLORIDA BUT -- A STRONG MAYOR IS NOT A FORM GENERALLY

USED FOR A STEW OF THIS SIZE. >> A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH COST BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A STRONG ELECTED MAYOR THEY GET A SALARY AS IF IT'S A FULL TIME JOB BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE. IN ADDITION TO THAT YOU'LL HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR OF SOME TYPE.

[00:40:40]

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY COUNTY IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA THAT HAS A STRONG MAYOR WOULD BE DUVALL, THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAYOR THERE ALL DUE RESPECT TO HIM OF COURSE AS IT CHANGES THEY CLEAN HOUSE SO AH TO SPEAK SO FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO MAINTAIN SOME CONTINUITY AMONG STAFF SOMEONE MAY TAKE IT AS A MANDATE TO GO GET RID OF EVERYBODY FOR WHATEVER REASON AND THEN THERE'S NO ONE TO DO THE WORK.

I DON'T THINK THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS BROKEN.

I THINK THAT OCCASIONALLY YOU HAVE UNPLEASANT OUTCOMES AND DECISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE BUT SO IS LIFE.

>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID.

I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT RUNNING AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THE CITY GOVERNMENT EVEN A RELATIVELY SMALL ONE LIKE FERNANDINA IS NOT ALL THAT EASY. THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEXITY TO IT AND A LOT OF DISCIPLINES INVOLVED.

AND THE CHANCES OF LECHEING SOMEONE THAT COMES INTO THE OFFICE WITH THAT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND IS ALSO A GOOD POLITICAL LEADER IF YOU WILL IS NOT VERY HIGH.

AND SO I THINK YOU'VE ALL SAID THAT IN SO MANY WORDS BUT FOR ME THAT'S A REAL FUNDAMENTAL POINT AND IF YOU GO WITH THE OTHER APPROACH THEN I THINK YOU MIGHT END UP WITH A REALLY BRILLIANT MAYOR WHO KNOWS HOW TO RUN ALL THOSE ORGANIZATIONAL THINGS BUT IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY LIKELY AND I THINK IT COULD DO REAL DAMAGE.

SO I THINK THE CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS PERFECT.

SO WE'RE LIMITING OUR COMMENTEDS ON THIS SECTION TO THOSE WITH SLIGHT AMENDMENTS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS PUT FORWARD ON SECTION 8. CORRECT?

>> I HAVE -- THIS IS JUST A NITPICKY THING.

AS WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT SECTIONS COMES UP EVEN MORE.

WE'RE VERY INCONSISTENT IN THIS CHARTER WITH WHEN WE CAPITALIZE COMMISSION AND CAPITALIZE CITY AND CITY MANAGER.

ET CETERA. AND SO IF WE ARE MAKING SOME OF THESE LITTLE CHANGES FROM SHALLS TO IS OR WILL MAYBE IT'S A GOOD TIME TO ALSO GET CONSISTENT WITH OUR CAPITALIZATION AND PLACES.

>> I THINK IT'S MORE RECENT. THE WAY THAT I SEE THE SO HOW WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO SEE IT THEN? WE CAN JUST DO THAT FLOUT. CAPITALIZE OR NOT?

>> CAPITALIZE. >> COMMISSION AND CITY?

>> YEAH. WHEN WE GET INTO THE NEXT SECTIONS AGAIN I KNOW THIS IS JUST IN THE WEEDS BUT IF WE'RE FINKERING WITH SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE, WE MIGHT AS WELL WE ALL. SOMETIMES WE SAY CITY COMMISSION AND SOMETIMES WE SAY COMMISSION AND I'M JUST SOMEBODY THAT LIKES INTERNAL CON ZIPS NITTYCY NOT THAT IT CHANGES THE SUBSTANCE.

>> IT SHOULD SAY CITY COMMISSION I WOULD SGLA MAYBE MAYBE IF EVEN HERE YOU WANTED TO DEFINE THAT'S THE CITY COMMISSIONER AND THEN FROM THEREAFTER IT'S ALWAYS REFERRED TO AS CITY COMMISSIONER CAPITALIZE PERHAPS THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT.

>> YEAH. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

[Item 5.1 (Part 1 of 2) ]

[00:46:48]

>>> I HAVE SOME MINOR REVISIONS ON THAT.

WE CAN JUST GO SECTION BY SECTION AND JUST DISCUSS IT.

I CAN BRING BACK THE LANGUAGE TO USE.

>> THAT'S GREAT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

IT SEEMS MOST EFFICIENT. >> EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT?

>> SO OUR FIRST SECTION IS SECTION 10.

COULD YOU JUST GIVE US A SUMMARY OF WHAT THIS SECTION 10 AND 10 A

ARE ALL ABOUT? >> THESE ARE THE SECTION 10 ARE THE POWERS OF THE MAYOR. AND THE COMMISSIONERS.

AND THIS IS WHERE IT DEALS WITH THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS DEAL, THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE OR CITY STAFF AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS OR INQUIRY CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 136. 10 A IS ABOUT THE REFERENDUM FOR CITY OWNED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.

AND LET'S SEE. AND ADDED TO THAT, THAT WILL ALREADY BE ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION IS TO ADD CONSERVATION TO THIS.

CITY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND CANNOT BE SOLD OR LEASED FOR 40 OR MORE YEARS WITHOUT A REFERENDUM.

WHAT I'LL DO IS IN THE NEXT MEETING, I'LL ADD THAT WITH ANY OTHER CHANGES YOU MAY HAVE TO 10 A SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S PROPOSED TO THE CITIZENS.

10 B IS THE GENERAL POWER TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE BONDS THAT'S DERIVED FROM FLORIDA LAW DIRECTLY IF THE SO THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. THAT'S SECTION 10.

>> TAMMY, IN THAT DESCRIPTION, I APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD BE ADDING THE CONSERVATION TO SECOND IT.

BUT IN THAT REGARD HOW DO WE DEFINE CONSERVATION LAND.

LAND SO DESIGNATED OR LAND DESIGNATED BY RESOLUTION OF THE

COMMISSION? >> IT'S ZONED AND IT'S LAND USE AND ZONING ASSIGNMENTS ARE CONSERVATION UNDER OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> SO IS IT NECESSARY TO SO DEFINE IT?

>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION

[00:50:02]

10? >> SO I JUST -- I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT SECTION 10 SUBPARAGRAPH D WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE PENALTIES AND IT SETS UP A FINE FOR $200 AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING A CHANGE TO THESE PARTICULAR WORDS BUT I WAS THINKING BACK TO THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE CODE OF ETHICS AND YOU REMEMBER ONE OF THE TALKING POINTS WE HAD WAS WELL IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE AND THAT SORT OF LED US TO SAY THEREFORE MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE IT AND I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THAT LANGUAGE THINKING WELL HERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN OUR CHARTER THAT IS IN HERE BUT ONE MIGHT ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS ABOUT ENFORCEABILITY ON THIS. AND IT JUST GOT ME THINKING.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CODE OF ETHICS TODAY BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE WHICH HAS THAT SORT OF ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE IN IT. IT JUST MADE ME THINK AND TRY TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BUT TO MY WAY OF THINKING, YOU KNOW, IF IT WORKS HERE, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE SOME CODE OF ETHICS LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A WHOLE ENFORCEMENT APPARATUS TO IT THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL JUST TO ARTICULATE THAT.

>> OKAY. >> I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THINK THOUGHT IS ABOUT THAT BUT I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS SOMETHING WE SHOULD TALK BITTY. PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE'S

REFERENCE HERE TO THAT. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS ON SECTION 10 AND 10 B IN PART BECAUSE I THINK SECTION 10 REALLY GOES TO THE ROOT OF THIS ISSUE.

THIS IS THE LANGUAGE WE NEED TO HAD SPECIFY THE DELINEATION BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT WHICH IS THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE.

AT LEAST THAT'S WHERE AS I READ OUR CHARTER IS WHERE IT HAPPENS.

SO I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS AND MAYBE I SHOULD BREAK THEM UP.

I'LL TELL YOU THE FIRST THING I WOULD ASK MS. BACH IS SECTION 10 B. IS THIS LANGUAGE REALLY NEEDED? ISN'T THIS COVERED IN A2 WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE POWERS OF THE CITY? DOESN'T THAT TALK ABOUT THAT WE CAN BORROW MONEY AND DO BONDS AND THEN ALSO OF COURSE WE SAY WE CAN DO ANYTHING THAT THE CITY CAN DO ANYTHING UNDER STATE LAW.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING ARE WE REQUIRED WITH BOND COUNSEL OR SOMEBODY SAY WE SPECIFICALLY NEED THIS LANGUAGE IN HERE BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW I KEEP GOING THROUGH THIS TRYING TO GET RID OF BARRIE DONE ADAPTCIES. 10 B GENERAL POWER TO BORROW SEMEN NOT NECESSARY. IT'S COVERED ALREADY IN STATE LAW AND UNDER 10 LITTLE B, YEAH. IT'S REDUNDANT.

THAT'S ALREADY -- THAT'S ALREADY SET.

>> WELL, IN 7 A2 ALSO SAID THAT YOU CAN ISSUE THAT THE POWER THE CITY HAS THE FULL POWER TO ISSUE AND SELL BONDS.

>> YES. >> SO.

>> THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. >> I DID NOTE THAT THIS LANGUAGE WAS ADDED IN 2007 SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY THOUGHT -- I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE -- BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY REDUNDANCIES -- THAT'S THE EASY THING THAT I HAD.

2007, THEY HAD LANGUAGE AND I BELIEVE ALSO I FOUND IT IN SEVERAL OF THE PEER CITIES ABOUT KIND OF MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION CAN GIVE ITS VIEWS AND DISCUSS WITH THE CHARTER OFFICERS INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. SO THEY CAN'T DICTATE IT, THEY COULD EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS. SO THAT WAS LANGUAGE THAT 2007 INCLUDED IF WE WANT TO TRY TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE COMMISSION REQUEST AND CAN'T DO. AND ON IN SECTION PARAGRAPH C THERE, I TOOK DETAILED NOTES. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE RESPECTED CHARTER OFFICE THAT THE MAYOR

[00:55:01]

AND COMMISSIONERS CAN COMMUNICATE WITH AN EMPLOYEE, MAYBE HERE'S ANOTHER PLACE WE CAN TRY AND MAKE THAT DE-LYNNATION -- DELINEATION A LITTLE BIT CLEAR, IS IT GRANTED AT THE GIBBING OF THE COMMISSION AND THEY HAVE BLANKET AUTHORIZATION ON CERTAIN ISSUES? I'M THINKING MAYBE THIS IS WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS ARISING.

WHAT IS THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND HOW FAR DOES IT EXTEND?

>> AND I ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CLARK THAT WE PROBABLY WANT TO VISIT THIS LANGUAGE IN D ABOUT IN ORDER TO DO SOME ENFORCEMENT.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY SO SOME OF THIS STUFF IS A LITTLE BIT ABOVE MY HEAD BUT WHEN I READ SECTION D, SECTION LITTLE D, IT TALKS ABOUT IF A VIOLATION OCCURS WHAT THE PENALTIES ARE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT AT LEAST FROM WHAT I CAN TELL IT DOESN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT WHO DETERMINES A VIOLATION ACTUALLY HAS OCCURRED AND HOW THAT PROCESS TAKES PLACE.

>> JUST TO THAT EXACT STATEMENT, THEY HAVE LITTLE E OVER ON THE NEXT PAGE. IT SAYS INVESTIGATORS OR INQUIRIES SHALL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 136 OF THIS CHARTER. THEY DO HAVE A PROCESS FOR THAT.

I THINK B SHOULD BE AHEAD OF A OR A SHOULD BE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH AND B SHOULD BE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDERNEATH SECTION 10 SO IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE CURRENT SECTION B, IT SHOULD BE FIRST. SO PROVIDE FOR POWERS GENERALLY AS A TITLE AND THEN TO TALK ABOUT DEALING WITH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE THROUGH CHARTER OFFICERS REQUIRED.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR ME TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO LAWYERS SAYING DO YOU MIND IF I TALK TO THIS PERSON.

I THINK THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF NOTICE THAT THEY NEED AND GOING BACK TO A, DICTATING THE REMOVE OF -- HAVING ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE CHARTER OFFICER ABOUT THAT WHEN DOES IT CROSS THE LINE? THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT AND GRAY AREA. I THINK YOU JUST LEAVE IT.

IN FACT ORIGINALLY I WANTED TO STRIKE IN ANY MANNER BUT I THINK WE KEEP IN ANY MANNER BECAUSE IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE CONVERSATION WE HAD BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER AND THE CHARTER OFFICER AT ALL. SO FURTHER I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE COMMUNICATE, EMPLOYEES WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CHARTER OFFICER.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY MY SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS OTHER THAN PROBABLY SOME GRAMMATICAL CHANGES AS WELL.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT LITTLE D AGAIN AS WELL.

I READ THIS WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR IS MY POINT BECAUSE I READ THIS AS IT LOOKS -- TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRST VIOLATION AND HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP BY A COMMISSIONER AT A COMMISSION MEETING IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU WERE JUST LIKE READING THIS WITHOUT HAVING ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION

[01:00:03]

AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD GO TO A VOTE AND IF VOTED OUT BUT WHAT'S NOT SPECIFIED FIRST OF ALL THAT'S NOT CLEARLY SPECIFIED AND SECONDLY, IS IT -- IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IF THE COMMISSIONER IS BEING BROUGHT UP GETS A VOTE IN THAT OR NOT AND IS IT MAJORITY? I GUESS IT WOULD BE 60% A MAJORITY BASED ON OUR RULES. YOU GOT THE FIRST WARNING BUDDY AND THEN THE SECOND ONE. DOES A COMMISSIONER BRING IT UP THE SECOND TIME. I WANT TO KNOW WHO BRINGS IT UP.

MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR IN

SUBSECTION B. >>> JUST GOING FOR CONSISTENCY AND FORMATTING IF WE DROP SECTION 10E BIG B DOES THAT REFORMAT WHAT'S ABOVE IT SDM IT JUST SEEMED ODD THAT SECTION 10 CAPITAL A WAS INSERTED IN THERE AFTER ALL THE GENERAL TOWERS UP THERE AND THAT JUST MIGHT BE A LEGAL WAY THAT IT'S PUT IN THERE. THE FORMATTING SEEMED VERY

CONFUSING TO ME. >> THE TITLES WHERE IT SAYS POWERS GENERALLY WITH ALL THE SEMICOLONS, THOSE ARE INHERITED FROM LONG AGO. I DON'T THINK WE CHANGED ANY TITLES WHEN WE WENT THROUGH CHARTER REVISION IN 2007.

>> WHEN WE GET TO CITY MANAGER WE HAVE ALL IN CAPS CITY MANAGER THAT DEFINES THAT. DID I MISS THAT SECTION?

>> I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THEY -- >> OKAY. SO IT'S IN THERE.

OK OKAY. EN IF YOU WANT IN THE FUTURE I CAN LEAVE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

THAT CAN SOMETIMES TAKE UP A COUPLE OF INCHES ON YOUR PAGE.

I JUST TAKE THAT OUT WHEN WE CUT AND PACED SO YOU HAVE -- PASTE WHERE HAVE YOU THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE WE HAVE HERE.

BUT YOU MAY WANT ALL THE HISTORY AND SECTION HEADINGS.

>> SO AS FAR AS THE WRITTEN PERMISSION I THINK IT COULD BE UP TO THE CHARTER OFFICER'S DISCRETION TO MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT. I KNOW IT MAY SEEM TEDIOUS BUT

IT'S IMPORTANT. >> OKAY. IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIND

[01:05:17]

A DIFFERENT PLACE IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE IT DOES JUST COME OUT OF THE BLUE. IT'S SORT OF LIKE STREAM OF

CONSCIOUSNESS. >> IT COULD BUT IT ALSO AT LEAST IN MY BELIEF WHEN I PREPARE THE 75 WORDS OR LESS FOR THE BALLOT QUESTION, THEN IT'S SOMETIMES LARD TO EXPLAIN TO THE VOTERS THAT WE'RE MOVING THIS TO ANOTHER -- THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY DEBT THAT WAY BEFORE. YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. YOU MAY NOT BANTI TO ANSWER IT.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT CURRENT PRACTICE IS.

>> OKAY. >> SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A COMMISSION MEMBER AND A CONSTITUENT CALLS A DEMOTION MEMBER AND SAYS I'VE GOT A BROKEN CURB OUT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. IT'S JUST A CONSTITUENT CALL.

IS. CURRENT PRACTICE HERE THAT THE COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD CALL THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY MANAGER WOULD THEN DEAL WITH THAT WITH THE STREETS DEPARTMENT OR WOULD THE COMMISSION MEMBER UNDER THE NORMAL PRACTICE THAT'S GOING ON HERE CALL THE STREETS DEPARTMENT AND REPORT THAT

INFORMATION? >> THEY DO IT BOTH WAYS.

I THINK THE CITY MANAGER HAS GIVEN THE COMMISSION THE -- ALL FIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS BLANKET APPROVAL TO CONTACT THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT THEMSELVES.

THE STREETS DEPARTMENT. >> OKAY.

>> BUT SOME COMMISSIONERS STILL CHOOSE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER AND DON'T REALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THE

DEPARTMENTS. >> SO IN THAT CHARACTERIZATION THAT YOU JUST MADE, IS THERE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE KINDS OF INQUIRIES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BROKEN CURB, OKAY, THE COMMISSION MEMBER CAN CALL THE STREETS DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY BUT IF IT'S A MATTER OF POLICY OR BUDGET OR A BROADER ISSUE THAT HAS RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND THAT SPECIFIC INCIDENCE, IS THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMMISSION MEMBER SHOULD REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION OR DOES THAT BROADER POLICY KIND OF QUESTION, IS THAT ALLOWED TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE DEPARTMENT? HAD.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S CLEAR FROM THE CITY MANAGER WHO MAKES THE AUTHORIZATION OF WHAT IS MEANT BY THE AUTHORIZATION.

>> IN MY MIND IN THE PRACTICAL WORLD, THAT DISTINCTION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE CALLING TO REPORT A CONSTITUENT ISSUE YOU WANT A STREAM LINED RESPONSE SO WHATEVER IS THE FASTEST WAY TO GET A RESPONSE BACK IS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN.

BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BROADER ISSUE OF POLICY THAT HAS RAMIFICATIONS THEN THAT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER.

NOW THAT'S JUST MY PROJECTION. THAT DISTINCTION I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. OTHERS MAY NOT AGREE.

>> I MEAN, IN PRACTICE, THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THAT DON'T DO THIS. THEY'LL USUALLY RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S A POLICY ISSUE. AND THEY WILL EITHER CALL THE CITY MANAGER, EMAIL THE CITY MANAGER, OR CALL OR EMAIL ME TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE DEAL, THAT OR ISN'T THIS SOMETHING THAT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THIS LANGUAGE DRAFTED NOW DOES IT TYPICALLY WORK OKAY?

IS. >> EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDSES WHAT IT MEANS. YES.

>> WHICH IS SORT OF CON SINS WITH --

>> EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS.

YEAH. >> OKAY. DO WE THINK THAT THE

COMMUNITY KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS? >> NOT REALLY.

BY JUST READING IT. >> AND I THINK TO JOHN'S POINT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECORDS AND SOMETHING THAT'S TANG TO BELIEVE BE ABLE TO SAY SHOW US THAT THIS DEB IF SOMETHING COMES UP THEY WANT SO SAY HERE'S AN EMAIL FROM THE CITY COMMISSIONER WHERE IT WAS GIVEN PERMISSION.

THAT'S THE APE OF INFORMATION THAT I THINK OUR FELLOW CITIZENS HAVE GROWN TO EXPECT AND ANTICIPATE.

YOU KNOW. >> I THINK TO ADDRESS SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER -- EXCUSE ME, MEMBER CLARK THEY USE LANGUAGE

[01:10:12]

IN THIS 10 C WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE MAYORS AND THE COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERE OR DIRECT THE CONDUCT BUT THEY HAVE AN EXCEPTION SAYING SOMETHING ALONG THE LINE, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS SO THAT'S NOT ON POLICY SO THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKE A CONSTITUENT INQUIRY.

AND ALTHOUGH MAYBE IT'S ALSO TRYING TO ADDRESS INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO BAD BEHAVIOR TOO BUT I'M NOT REALLY SURE BUT IT TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT THEY COULD MAKE CONSTITUENT INQUIRIES. THAT WAS LANGUAGE I SAW IN SOME

OF THE PEER CHARTERS. >> AND THAT GOES BACK TO CHAPTER 136.

>> THEY DO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY IN HERE RIGHT.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THEY TRY TO DO IS MAKE IT MORE CLEAR AND BY THAT REFERENCE TO SECTION 136 I THINK THEY'VE GOT THAT ABILITY IN THERE. IF THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON THERE'S PROCEDURE OF HOW IT'S DONE.

CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZES IT BY RESOLUTION AND THEN IT BEGINS.

IF THEY JUST WANT TO DO THEIR OWN INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION I WOULD RATHER NOT PUT SOMETHING IN HERE THAT GIVES THEM SOMEHOW THE PERCEIVED AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO THROW OUT FROM PAST EXPERIENCE ON THE COMMISSION SOMETIMES IT WORKS BETTER FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO STAY OUT OF THE STAFF CONVERSATIONS ALL TOGETHER.

AND THAT IS EVEN IN AN ATTEMPT TO STREAM LINE CITIZEN REQUESTS.

IT'S HUMAN NATURE THAT OUR DEPARTMENT AND CITY STAFF DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CITY STAFF KNOW THAT THE CHARTER OFFICERS WORK AT THE FAVOR OF THE COMMISSION.

IF A COMMISSIONER WERE TO GO TO A CITY STAFF PERSON AND SAY I'M JUST LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ON X, Y, Z, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TELL ME THE HISTORY OF WHY WE ARE THE WAY WE ARE TODAY AND THEN THE NEXT TIME THAT EMPLOYEE SEES THAT IS THAT A COMMISSION -- WHERE IT'S BEEN PRESENTED AS A SOLUTION THEN THEY'VE NOT GIVEN DIRECTION TO THE CITY EMPLOYEE PER SE.

BUT THEY HAVE USED THE CITY EMPLOYEE'S KNOWLEDGE TO GO FORWARD WITH A SOLUTION THAT IS REALLY THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY MANAGER. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> SOMETIMES IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY EMPLOYEES AT ALL UNLESS IT IS A SPECIFIC ISSUE RATHER THAN A BLANKET KIND OF AN APPROVAL SO THAT THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY CLERK, WHOEVER, WHATEVER OFFICER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THAT EFFORT IS ALL ABOUT.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION WHEN YOU TALK TO WHERE'VE YOU'RE TALKING TO. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT.

IT USED TO BE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY STILL DO THIS BUT IT USED TO BE WHEN AN ELECTION IS HELD AND I DON'T KNOW THERE'S AN ORIENTATION GIVEN. OKAY. IT USED TO BE THAT EVERY NEW COMMISSIONER HAD AN ORIENTATION WITH ALL THE

DEPARTMENT HEADS IN THE CITY. >> DON'T TAKE IT SGLERNL THAT'S

[01:15:08]

WHAT HAPPENED. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO SOMEWHERE WE SHOULD CAN WE CODIFY A NEED TO DO THAT?

>> ORIENTATION? >> OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT

DOESN'T GO IN? >> YEAH.

UNDER THE CITY SOMETHINGERS RESPONSIBILITIES THEN MAYBE WE CAN ADD A LINE. SO I GUESS MY INPUT FOR WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE FORMALIZE PROCESS THERE. BECAUSE OFTEN A CITY EMPLOYEE IS GOING TO THINK I'M TAKING DIRECTION FROM THIS PERSON REALLY. SO A CITY EMPLOYEE THAT IS IN AN ENFORCEMENT ARM OF OUR CITY SAID THAT A COMMISSIONER CALLED THEM AND SAID THAT YOU NEED TO ISSUE A CITATION OR A VIOLATION TO THIS CITIZEN. I'M CALLING YOU AS A CITIZEN.

NOT A -- >> YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT HAT OFF

CAN YOU? >> I'M JUST SAYING I'M THROWING THAT OUT THERE FOR YOUR DISCUSSION.

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT YOU THINK BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS AND THAT EMPLOYEE CAME TO ME AND SAID WHAT DO I DO.

>> OKAY. >> NOT TO THEIR BOSS.

>> THAT'S A PRIME EXAMPLE OF EXACTLY WHAT HAVE YOU TO AVOID AND MAKE NO INEWE WENT DOE. THEY JUST CAN'T TALK TO THEM WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CHARTER OFFICER.

[01:20:48]

>> ABOUT WHAT I TOLD THE EMPLOYEE AT THIS TIME TOLD THE EMPLOYEE TO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER.

>> OKAY. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT ON WHAT MEMBER ECHO ZACH SAID.

THAT I THINK IT'S SORT OF TEMPTING TO SAY WELL THERE'S THESE OPPORTUNITIES THAT CAN PRESENT THEMSELVES WHERE YOU'RE REALLY JUST SORT OF ASKING FOR INFORMATION AND FINDING OUT WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, SAY A COMMISSIONER WANTS TO GET THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S OPINION ON AN INTERPRETATION OF A SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT YOU'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO ANYTHING OR TO CHANGE ANYTHING. YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR INFORMATION BUT I THINK ALSO IN DOING SO THAT CITY STAFF MEMBER ALREADY HAS JOBS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES THAT SHE'S WORKING OR HE'S WORKING ON AS PART OF THEIR DAILY ROUTINE AND IT'S GOING TO BE SAY SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEVOTEEED TO SORT OF PRIORITIZE THE -- TEMPTED TO SORT OF PRIORITIZE WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR, THE REQUEST OF A CITY COMMISSIONER ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE SORT OF ALREADY DOING AS PART OF THEIR DAILY JOB AND SOMETIMES THAT PROBABLY IS AN UNFAIR SITUATION TO PUT CITY STAFF IN.

>> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> I JUST DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SHUTTING THE DOOR ON THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONER TO MAKE AN AN INQUIRY REGARDING A CONSTITUENT ISSUE. I JUST THINK ABOUT IN MY MIND WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS THE COMMISSION IS BASICALLY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY AND THE CITY MANAGER CHARTER OFFICERS ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE. I DON'T KNOW THESE FACTS HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN EMINENT HARM OR SOMETHING BUT CERTAINLY THEY ARE A CITIZEN AND DON'T WANT TO FORECLOSE THE NEED TO IF THEY HAVE TO ACT AS A CITIZEN WOULD.

OR THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IS DECLARED OR -- WHATEVER SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY SO LISTED IN HERE UNDER D THAT IT IS A MISDEMEANOR.

DOES THAT NEED TO BE PUT INTO THE CODE OR IS IT OKAY THE CHARTER WE CREATE A MANIED IN THE CHARTER OR PUT THAT INTO THE

CODE ORDNANCES. >> WELL, I THINK YOU NEED TO KEEP IT IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BECAUSE THE --

>> SIT IN HERE? IS THAT A VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE. IF THEY ARE -- IT CALLS IT A

MISDEMEANOR. >> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE $200 CAME FROM. THAT MUST BE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE FROM THE 20S BECAUSE OUR CITY CODE IS $500 FOR SIX MONTHS IN JAIL FOR A FIRST VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE.

I'M LEGALLY CONCERNED AND PRACTICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHATEVER ENFORCEMENT PROVISION YOU PUT IN HERE BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT IT'S NOT DONE. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF SOMEBODY IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY A CITIZEN A COMMISSIONER A CITY EMPLOYEE WHOEVER THAT THOUGHT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THIS AND THEY WENT TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE NOTHING IS GOING TO

[01:25:01]

HAPPEN. IF THEY GO TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE COURT A COMPETENT JURISDICTION OF THESE MATTERS TO FILE CHARGES, NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OWN CHARTER WHICH IS --

>> AND THAT'S WHERE WE COME IN ALMOST AS A SECONDARY.

IT WOULD NOT BE A PRIMARY SOURCE OF GETTING INTO -- WHATEVER. I TAKE OUT ALL THE OTHER STUFF ABOUT MISDEMEANOR FINES AND I WORK UP SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT EXPLAINS WHAT'S SANINGED BY THE COMMISSION.

>> BUT AFTER WHAT MEMBER -- MEMBER MORRISON SAID ACTUALLY IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT INFLUENCING. IT'S ABOUT TAKING TIME AWAY FROM PEOPLE'S JOBS WHICH IS VERY KEY. IF I'M WORKING AND SOMEONE WHO'S NOT MY BOSS ASKS KNOW COSOMETHING THE FIRST THING YOU GOT TO DO IS RUN IT BY BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE TIME.

YOU WANT YOUR BOSS TO KNOW THAT PART OF YOUR TIME WORKING ISSEN UP BY THIS OTHER TASK AND THE OTHER WAY THAT I CAN THINK OF TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS IS TO MAKE SURE EACH --

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. THE TEST CASE FOR THIS.

AND WE ALSO -- CLARIFY WHO WAS BRINGING PEOPLE UP FOR REVIEW IN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS $200 FINE OR $500 FINE.

>> MEMBER DAVIS. >> IN FOLLOW UP TO THE DISCUSSION THAT MEMBER -- AND MS. BACH WERE HAVING ON THE PENALTY LANGUAGE, I WONDERED WHY WE COULD NOT HAVE A SERIES LIKE AFTER CENSURE AND IF YOU WERE CENSURED ONCE OR TWICE OR

[01:30:01]

SMETHING THAT YOU WERE FORFEITED.

YOU WOULD FORFEIT YOUR OFFICE. THAT ACTUALLY --

>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THREE TIMES, SOMEONE IS GOING TO TELL YOU I'VE GOT TO BRING IT UP IF YOU DO THIS AGAIN OR AN EMPLOYEE BRINGS IT UP AND IT'S -- IT MUST BE REPORTED.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY BETTER THAN THREATENING TO FINE $200.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANY GOOD. >> RIGHT.

>> BUT THAT IS KIND OF THE ULTIMATE PENALTY I THINK.

>> MEMBER MORE LIZSON SGLIFS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING JUST SAID AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON THIS ISSUE, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANTED ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AND I THINK IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH CITY STAFF BECAUSE MY GUT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IS SORT OF WHAT TAMMY HAS SAID IS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM AND CITY STAFF HAS A HARD TIME BEING ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO EXPRESS THE DIFFICULTY AND FRUSTRATION THAT THEY HAVE AND I THINK THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S WORTH SPENDING THIS TIME ON

GETTING IT RIGHT. >> WHICH BRINGS ME TO SHOULD WE CIRCLE BACK ON THIS SECTION AFTER WE GET THE RESULTS OF THAT

SURVEY? >> I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE

SENSE. >> BECAUSE THAT SURVEY WOULD TELL US IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE.

I THINK THERE'S A PERCEIVED PROBLEM THAT -- DOES THAT MAKE

SENSE? >> ALL RIGHT.

HOW DO YOU FORMULATE THE QUESTIONS.

THAT'S EQUALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S BEEN DONE AND STAFF HAS HAD TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON CERTAIN MATTERS AS A RESULT OF THOUGHTS DIRECTIONS WHICH IT MAY NOT BE SPECIFIC LIKE I WANT YOU TO FIX A CURB ON ELM STREET.

IT'S DIFFERENT. IT'S AN I WANT YOU TO THE THIS POLICY AND UNDERSTAND THIS TERM TO MEAN THAT AND THEREFORE THAT CHANGES THE WAY A LOT OF THINGS OR NOT SOMETHING SPECIFIC IN

GENERAL. >> SORRY ABOUT THE SIDE BAR.

>> OKAY. GOT IT.

>> IS THERE ANY COMMENT THAT WE'VE MADE SO FAR ON THIS SECTION THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE NOW PRIOR

[01:35:01]

TO DOING THE SURVEY? >> WELL --

>> SORRY.

>> AM I ALLOWED TO TALK? >> OF COURSE.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO ON 10 C, IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S CONSENSUS AROUND WANTING TO TAKE THIS LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT KINDS OF APPROVALS ARE -- AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THE QUESTION AND RESULTS AND CONSIDER IMPLICATIONS ON THIS LANGUAGE BUT I WOULD SORT OF LIKE TO GIVE TAMMY THE ABILITY TO TAKE A SHOT AT IT.

>> THANK YOU. I WILL.

>> ALL RIGHT. LY.

AND SOME OF IT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT INSTRUCTIVE TO FUTURE CITY COMMISSIONERS. I WON'T BE WORE I DID BUT THE ROLE IS I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK WE ALSO SAID THAT SUBSECTION B, LITTLE B --

>> DELETED. >> IS DELETED.

YES. >> I HAVE THAT.

>> AND BIG B. >> 10 B, SECTION 10 B --

>> GOT IT. OKAY.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO -- >> YEAH.

CIGARETTE REFERENCE. >> YOU'RE GOING TO EXPAND SECTION 10 A TO CLARIFY HOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION

IS. >> YES.

YES. >> OKAY. SO THE REST OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT MAKE SURE THAT I'M SAYING THIS ACCURATELY, PLEASE, ARE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE'VE SEEN THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY TO REALLY ADDRESS THE FINAL LANGUAGE.

WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT I HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF PEOPLE AND REALLY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT OR IF WE DID, I MISSED OUT.

THE VIOLATION SECTION, REINFORCEMENT SECTION, SUCK SECTION LITTLE D. QUESTION WAS HOW DOES THIS GET TRIGGERED WAS SORT OF WHAT I HEARD ASKED.

WHO IS BRINGING THE COMPLAINT. HOW IS THIS COMING FORWARD.

SO ARE WE SAYING WITH THIS CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT IT MUST BE A CITY COMMISSIONER THAT BRINGS THE COMPLAINT FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS. >> ANY VIOLATION BY A MEMBER OF

THE CITY COMMISSION. >> BY THE COMMISSION.

BUT WHO CAN BRING THE COMPLAINT FORWARD.

CAN I CITIZEN DO IT? >> THAT'S WHAT --

>> YEAH. GOODNESS.

OKAY. MEMBER -- >> THAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING.

WHEN I FIRST READ 136, I THOUGHT WOW LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE BUT TO ME IT WAS VERY CONFUSING THAT IT WAS NOT YOU TO A CITIZEN.

THAT WAS JUST BY THE COMMISSION. MAYBE I INTERPRETED THAT

INCORRECTLY. >> WELL, I THINK IT'S UP FOR

CLARITY. >> IT IS.

I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IT COULD BE CITIZEN, CITY STAFF, CHARTER OFFICER FOR SURE BECAUSE IT'S THEIR ROLE BEING STEPPED ON

HERE BASICALLY. >> 136 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL AUTHORIZE INVESTIGATIONS BY RESOLUTIONS

>> BUT LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A SNARE OWE AND NOT THAT -- SCENARIO AND NOT THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN SO AT OUR JOINT MEET, THE COMMISSION, THE CITY MANAGER SAID HE DID NOT FEEL LIKE THIS SECTION WAS BEING VIOLATED. I JUST SAID I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEING VIOLATED ALL THE TIME AND WHAT IF A CITY EMPLOYEE -- I'M JUST TO SEE IF YOU WANT TO PROVIDE FOR THESE POWERS, A CITY EMPLOYEE FELT LIKE MAYBE IT WASN'T THEM BUT A FELLOW DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR WAS BEING -- AND THEN THE CHARTER OFFICER OR CITY COMMISSIONER CAN BRING THAT TYPE OF --

>> OKAY. I'M SORRY. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> MY COMMENT I'VE WITHDRAWN. >> OKAY.

>> I WON'T TAKE ANY TIME EITHER. JUST BACK UP WHAT MEMBER KOSAK SAID. THANK YOU.

>> REGARDING THE COMMENTS AT OUR MEETING, THERE IS NO VIOLATION AT ALL SO HE DOESN'T SEE IT AS A PROBLEM.

AND -- I FORGOT. I WAS JUST THINKING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WHY HE DOESN'T SEE IT AS AN ISSUE.

[01:40:02]

THAT HE'S GETTING APPROVAL. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH. OH, I KNOW.

EMPLOYEES. TWO THINGS.

NUMBER ONE, I THINK ANYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT MAY BE A NONCITY RESIDENT WHO IS BEING AFFECTED BY IT, THE IMPROPER COMMUNICATION.

SO I THINK ANYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING IT AND I DON'T KNOW EMPLOYEES I THINK EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND KEPT ANONYMOUS. IF AN EMPLOYEE WANTS TO BRING IT FORWARD IT SHOULD BE DONE ANONYMOUSLY PERHAPS THROUGH THE CHARTER OFFICER. THAT'S JUST THROUGH THEIR ROLES.

SMAS JUST SOMETHING WE ADD TOE THEIR ROLES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES. >> THAT GOES INTO THE WHISTLE

BLOWER SECTION. >> ACTUALLY, ON THAT --

>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE COMMISSION OR TO THE CHARTER OFFICE? IS.

>> CHARTER OFFICE. IF I'M AN EMPLOYEE APPROACHED BY A COMMISSIONER IMPROPERLY, I BRING IT TO EITHER MY CHARTER OFFICER OR A CHARTER OFFICER AND THEY ADVANCE TO A COMMISSION SO IT'S PRESENTED ANONYMOUSLY. AND THEN THAT'S MY TAKE.

I WOULD FURTHERED SAY THAT WE DON'T LIMIT IT TO ONLY RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, THAT IT BE ANYONE AFFECTED BY THE IMPROPER

CONTACT. >> OKAY.

>> SO YOU'RE -- >> I'M GOING TO NEED SOME DIRECTION ON THAT BECAUSE SOME OF YOU SAID JUST THE CHARTER OFFICER OR CITY COMMISSIONER. I MEAN, AND THEN IS IT EVERYONE

OR IS IT NOT EVERYONE? >> WELL, I MEAN, HERE'S -- ON A LAND DEVELOPMENT MATTER SOMETHING -- IF YOU'RE -- IF THE COMMISSIONER IS TALKING TO STAFF ON SOMETHING THAT THE ONLY PERSON I GUESS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING UP THAT IMPROPER COMMUNICATION WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER, I GUESS.

BUT THEY MAY NOT BE A RESIDENT. IT MAY BE A COUNTY DEVELOPER OR WHOEVER. IT COULD BE SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT A RESIDENT. SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE ANYONE CAN BRING THAT COMPLAINT. I MEAN, I'M NOT TRYING TO INVITE ANYONE TO RETALIATE AGAINST THE COMMISSION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND I CERTAINLY GUESS IT COULD BE ABUSED BUT I THINK THAT IF THE COMMUNICATION IS HELD THEN THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE NO MATTER IF IT'S GOING TO VIOLATE A CITY RESIDENT,

EMPLOYEE, OR NONRESIDENT. >> I GUESS

>> EITHER ONE. SO IF IT'S ONE OF TAMMY'S EMPLOYEES IT WOULD BE -- IT WAS DALE'S EMPLOYEE -- IF IT'S A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, WILL THEY CAN BRING IT UP. MAYBE THEY BRING IT TO THE CITY

MANAGER. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS). >> ANYBODY CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY MANAGER OR OTHER CHARTER OFFICER.

>> OKAY. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO LIMIT WHERE NONRESIDENTS CANNOT BRING IT UP. IT AFFECTS

PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTS. >> SO -- AND THE ONLY THING I FEAR I'M SENSITIVE TO THIS KNOWING THAT US THREE CHARTER OFFICERS WERE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT IS IF YOU HAVE SOME -- AND WE DON'T RIGHT NOW, BUT IF YOU HAVE SOME ROGUE CITY MANAGER IN THE FUTURE AND IF EVER REALLY BROUGHT THEIR COMPLAINTS TO THAT PERSON, THEY MAY NOT BRING FORWARD SOMETHING BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE VERY NATURE OF WHAT THEY CALL IT ON ROGUE BECAUSE THEY BRING THE COMPLAINT TO THE CLERK OR THE ATTORNEY --

>> WHAT IF THEY BRING THE COMPLAINT ALL THREE?

>> I THINK WERE MAKING THIS TOO COMPLICATED. I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO THE CHARTER EMPLOYEE TO

WHICH THEY ARE. >> WHOEVER'S EMPLOYEE IS BEING

-- YES. OKAY. >> I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE SITUATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. WHO WOULD THEY -- THE AGGRIEVED CITIZEN, WHO DID THEY

TAKE THEIR COMPLAINT TO? >> I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T OFFER ANY SUGGESTIONS. I THINK THE CITY MANAGER ORY CHARTER OFFICER. SO IF I LIVED OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS DIRECTION -- LIKE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CLAIM, AND THERE'S -- AND I'M UPSET ABOUT THAT. I WANT TO BRING MY COMPLAINT TO SOMEONE. IT SEEMS

TO BE BEST A CHARTER OFFICER. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. I WILL FIGURE OUT SOMETHING FOR SUBSECTION D WHERE CHARTER OFFICERS OTHER COMMISSIONERS SOMETHING SIMPLE IT WON'T TURN INTO A WHOLE PAGE PROCESS.

>> OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE THE CHANGE AS WE AGREE ON AT THIS POINT AND

[01:45:05]

BRING THE REST OF IT BACK TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION.

>> I SO MOVE. >> I WILL SECONDED.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY. SECTION 16.

>> (LAUGHING). >> (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS).

>> 14. >> MAY I ASK, PLEASE WHAT TIME

ARE WE SCHEDULED TO END TODAY? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER -- WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER MEETINGS.

>> 11. (LAUGHING). >> WHENEVER YOU ARE READY.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER

MEETINGS TODAY. >> BEFORE WE GO TOO MUCH

[Item 6]

FARTHER, THEN, WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE. WOULD ANY OF YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SO FAR AND WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO DOCK ABOUT.

>> COULD YOU COME IN PLACE. >> I JUST WANT -- SANDRA KERRY, FERNANDINA BEACH WHILE 55 FOREST DRIVE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GIVING TOO MUCH TIME DID THIS SECTION. I THINK THIS IS IN LINE -- IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF THE HINGS THAT ARE BEEN PLACING -- TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. THEY ARE ã BUT JUST TO LISTEN TO THIS AND I'M READING SOME OF THE CHARTER AND THINGS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, IT CLEARLY SPELLS OUT RIGHT NOW IN YOUR SECTION 10 -- AND IT SAYS ALL -- ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS LIKE ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION A GIVES CLEARLY WHAT THEY CAN DO. IT TALKED ABOUT FIRST OFFENSE GRANTS WERE SANCTIONED BY THE COMMISSION, SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE VIOLATION OF COMMISSIONERS TERM SHALL CONSTITUTE A MISDEMEANOR. AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION VIOLATOR SHALL BE FINED IN AN AMOUNT 200. I AGREE, THAT SOUNDS KIND OF PETTY. DEPENDING WHAT IT IS OR BE IMPRISONED FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS OR BOTH.

AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL. SO I MEAN THERE'S CLEARLY, IN PLACE A PROCEDURE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS. BUT I DON'T SEE IS A PROCEDURE FOR EMPLOYEES. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH ABOUT CITY COMMISSIONERS NOT GETTING ãNOT DICTATING TO EMPLOYEES WHAT TO DO WITH THERE BEING A FINE LINE ABOUT WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. BUT -- AND YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS GIVEN THEM PERMISSION. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS NO FOLLOW-UP, THOUGH, WERE TRAIL OF -- DISCUSSIONS.

IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD, IT NEEDS TO BE -- THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR DELINEATION OF WHICH CHARTER OFFICER. IS IT THE CITY ATTORNEY? IS IT THE CITY MANAGER? IS IT THE CITY CLERK. SO IT'S NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE CHARTER. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THE CALLING THAT THEY KNOW -- THAT THE PROCEDURE BE SPELLED OUT.

IF THEY HAVE A CLEAR CONCERN, COMPLAINT, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, WHO THEY WOULD CALL AND THEN THE PROCEDURES SPELLED OUT OF HOW IT'S CARRIED OUT.

THERE'S A CLEAR SPELLING OUT IN THAT SECTION 136 THAT IS MENTIONED HERE, ABOUT HOW A HEARING IS TO BE CONDUCTED AND HOW IT HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN 15 DAYS. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IT ALSO SAYS THAT IT SORT OF PROVIDES FOR THE COMMISSION TO BRING THAT HEARING BOARD. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHICH WILL HAVE WITNESSED WHERE IT INVOLVES A COMMISSIONER. I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS SHOULD THAT COMMISSIONER BE RECUSED -- OF COURSE IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO -- AN INVESTIGATION ABOUT HIMSELF. HE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF JUST LIKE YOU WOULD FROM ANY ZONING MATTER IN WHICH HE WAS INVOLVED OR ANYTHING ELSE. I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO GET VERY DETAILED ON THOSE SECTIONS BECAUSE I THINK THE PUBLIC IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, WHETHER IT'S JUST THE APPEARANCE OR WHAT, BUT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ZERO DOWN.

THE OTHER THING I LIKE TO MENTION THAT IS IN A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS AND BUSINESSES, THERE'S A WHISTLEBLOWING SYSTEM WHERE AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS A PROBLEM OR IS IS AGAIN CALLED THAT BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THEM BEING AFRAID OF REPERCUSSIONS OF LOSING THEIR JOB. THERE'S COMPLIANCE SOFTWARE OUT THERE ALL OVER THE PLACE WITH THE SO THAT THE EMPLOYEE DOES NOT HAVE TO FEEL -- ZERO LOSING HIS JOB BUT HE SEES SOMETHING WRONG HAPPENING AND HE CAN PICK UP THE PHONE AND BE KEPT ANONYMOUS. AN INVESTIGATION CAN BE HELD.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE LEFT OUT TO -- LOOKED AT, TOO.

[01:50:10]

>> I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD POINTS AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, SECTION 36, -- SIX -- SECTION 136 TALKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES AND IT DOES SAY, -- IT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL AUTHORIZE AN INVESTIGATION BY RESOLUTION. THAT COULD BE OF ANY CITY EMPLOYEE, A CHARTER OFFICER, AND -- BUT IT -- BUT IS MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY

COMMISSION. >> (AWAY FROM MIC).

>> I KNOW. >> IT IS IN SPELLED OUT.

>> EXACTLY. SO, THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL AUTHORIZE INVESTIGATIONS BY RESOLUTION.

I KNOW, BUT I REALIZE EVERYBODY DOESN'T THE RESOLUTION HAS TO BE PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE.

THAT'S WHY DOES THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT HAS TO DECIDE TO AUTHORIZE INVESTIGATIONS. SO JUST KEEP 136 IN MIND. THIS, THOUGH, I MEAN I DON'T THINK IT'S CLEAR EITHER SECTION 136 DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPLY FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE AN INDIVIDUAL CITY COMMISSIONER. I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BUT I DON'T THINK IT COVERS THAT WAS

INTENDED TO. >> OKAY. BUT, HOW ELSE COULD BE USED TO HELP ENFORCE SECTION 10 IF IT DOESN'T COVER? BECAUSE SECTION 10.

>> REFERS TO IT? >> SUBSECTION 10.

>> IT'S GOT TO BE A VIOLATION BY CITY COMMISSIONER.

>> RIGHT. OKAY. THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED WITH 136. AND IN LOOKING AT THIS, I WILL -- AND YOU SHOULD ALSO -- LOOK AT 136 BEFORE YOU DECIDE ON THE FINAL LANGUAGE BECAUSE MAYBE WE NEED TO COMBINE THE SECTIONS REALLY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS AT THE VERY END. IF WE COMBINE 136

AND 10, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. >> OKAY.

>> SO OUR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT IS TO REVIEW 136. HAVE YOU HAD A DISCUSSION ON OUR NEXT

AGENDA. >> YES. IT'S UNDER HEADING GENERAL PROVISIONS AND IS LIKE 137 IS DEDICATION TO THE STREETS AND GENERAL STATE LAWS TO APPLY. AND IT'S LIKE -- BUT IT SAYS HERE -- AND I -- IT WAS FIRST APPEARED IN THE CHARTER

IN 1921. >> SO THEY HAD ON THEIR MINDS A

LITTLE WHILE. >> ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE ARE

GOOD THERE. NOW, THE QUESTION. >> I'M SORRY. WE ARE NOT

MOVING TO 14 YOU. >> ONE CAN ASK THE QUESTION FIRST. IS -- IS IT -- WERE -- DOES IT MEET WITH EVERYBODY'S NEEDS AND ABILITIES TODAY TO FINISH ALL OF WHAT'S IN OUR PACKETS? SO 14, 46, 33, 31, 25, 17? -- 16? CAN WE ALL

KEEP GOING UNTIL WE FINISH? >> LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

>> YES. BUT I MOVE WE TAKE A

>>> WE HAD A SITUATION VERY RECENTLY WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS GETTING READY TO TAKE

[01:55:01]

ACTION TO ME, TO BE THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT HAMSTRINGS THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO TAKE SOMETHING FORWARD THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND INVESTIGATED BEFORE VOTE IS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS IN THERE. AND THEN -- THAT IS SECTION 2 AND I THINK EXECS WENT TO.

>> SECTION 287 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS AND SAID.

>> THIS WAS AN ESCORT OF ORDINANCES. THIS IS SECTION 28 ã86 ABOUT PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES AND HOW SOMEONE IS BRINGING UP AND INVESTIGATED BUT NOT SECTION OF THE CODE IS SHALL NOT APPLY CITY COMMISSION PRELIMINARY TO COMMISSION ACTION. IF THERE'S SOMETHING UPCOMING ON THE AGENDA WOULD NEED SOME FURTHER LOOK AT WHICH WE'VE HAD THIS SITUATION, FROM WHAT THIS SAYS IT SHALL NOT APPLY TO CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS. IT SOUNDS TO

ME LIKE. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A BOAT TAKEN WHEN SOMETHING -- THERE WAS MORE INFORMATION NEEDED.

>> YOU HAD A PARK ISSUE 100 PARKS CAN SEE THE CITIZEN WANT TO BE ON THE AGENDA. THIS IS FOR AN EXAMPLE. AND HAD A CITY COMMISSIONER WHO HAD SOME THINGS THAT WERE DONE WITH STAFF AND OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS AND THINGS THAT PROBABLY NEEDED A CLOSER LOOK AT. THIS IS A SITUATION THAT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE MERITED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THAT. BUT ACCORDING TO YOUR CURRENT CODE, IT SAYS THAT IT SHALL NOT APPLY TO CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS PRELIMINARY -- I I ASSUME THAT MEANS BEFORE COMMISSION ACTION. IT IS HAMSTRINGING THE COMMISSIONERS ABILITY TO ENFORCE, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK INTO A MATTER THAT

LOOKS -- NEEDS LOOKING INTO. >> A BEAUTIFUL ACT THAT

SECTION. >> I KNOW. I JUST DON'T HAVE

ANY COMMENT. >> THAT WAS THE MAJORITY -- IF I REMEMBER A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION ¦

>> TO WHAT. AT THE MEETING, BUT AT THE TIME OF THE PARKS MEETING, UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSIONERS VOTED ON IT. IN THAT INTERIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT HOW THINGS WERE DONE, A LOT OF THINGS WERE PRESENTED BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT NIGHT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE MERITED FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

>> SO THEN, THE WAY -- I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T HAVE A SECTION 2 IN FRONT OF YOU AND FRANKLY, THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, IT'S HELPFUL TO SEE THOSE CROSS-REFERENCES TO THE CODE, BUT THE ONLY THING IN THEIR PURVIEW HERE IS TO CONSIDER SECTION 136 OF THE CHARTER.

WHICH IS HOW YOU DO IT ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE SITUATION YOU'RE TALKING

ABOUT. >> RIGHT. THIS IS PRETENDING

-- INVESTIGATIONS. >> IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE WAY OUR CHARTER IS WRITTEN NOW UNDER SECTION 136, WHAT HAVE TAKEN A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ALSO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION LIKE THAT DONE. AND IF YOU ARE IN TO SECTION 2 OF THE CODE IT GIVES, FOR EXAMPLE OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES OR CITIZENS THE ABILITY TO BRING A COMPLAINT INTO AN INVESTIGATION.

>> WELL, YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT -- AND I KNOW YOU WENT ON AND EXPLAINED IT OBVIOUSLY, A CITY COMMISSION CAN AUTHORIZE AN INVESTIGATION BY RESOLUTION AND OF COURSE, THE RESOLUTION HAS TO INVOLVE THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS. BUT IF YOU HAVE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR OR A PART OF THIS, THAT YOU DON'T WANT THE INVESTIGATION, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, YOU DO NOT HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES AGAINST HER. YOU SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO INVESTIGATE OUTSIDE OF THAT BECAUSE -- OR YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE WHAT HAPPENED HERE. IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS WAS LOST BEFORE IT EVEN GOT ON ARRIVAL AT THE COMMISSION MEETING. AND THAT WAS NO INVESTIGATION. THERE STILL HAS NOT BEEN. AND THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY WHO LOOK AT THIS AND ARE ABSOLUTELY AMAZED THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN. I MEAN, THAT KIND OF MONEY TO BE SPENT THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR EQUIPMENT, CRACKS THAT WERE NOT RESUBMITTED, TALKING ABOUT FUTURE IMPACT THESE -- I MEAN ALL THIS -- THIS IS NOT RIGHT ONTO THIS BUT IT IS IN THE SENSE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO LOOK INTO THIS AND INVOLVES A COMMISSIONER, YOU REALLY ARE KIND OF STUCK.

>> THAT'S TRUE. >> YOU NEED A LOT OF CLARIFICATION. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE THE WHISTLE BLOW SYSTEMS FOR THAT REASON SO THAT, YOU

[02:00:03]

KNOW, IF SOMEONE HAS A QUESTION, THEY CAN BRING ABOARD WITHOUT FEAR OF ANYTHING COMING

BACK ON THEM. >> OKAY. SO WHAT I HEAR IS THAT THERE IS A GAP AND THE PROCESS FOR INITIATING AN INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION. OUR -- OUR CHARGE WOULD BE TO SEE WHETHER THAT GAP EXISTS AND THE THINGS THAT

WE TALKED ABOUT IN SECTION 10. >> YES. BECAUSE SECTION 10

MENTION SECTION 136. >> IN SECTION 136 WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE READING TO TO SEE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE COMBINED WITH 10. IF SECTION 136 ALSO WOULD ADDRESS THIS KIND OF ISSUE, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT STAYS AS PART OF THE CHARTER. BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A GAP IN A PROCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY TO STICK -- SPEAK TO THEIR COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE UNDERSEA NECESSARY AND WHETHER THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THE COMMUNITY OR NOT.

>> AND I THINK -- HAVING BEEN APPEAR, THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN I EITHER AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WHAT EVERYONE WAS SAYING WHEN THEY CAME TO THE COATING BUT THERE WERE OTHER TIMES WHEN I DIDN'T. AND I HAD TO VOTE WHAT I FELT WAS RIGHT.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PROCESS ADDRESSES IN THAT. SO, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, THING, AS WE READ THROUGH 136 TO SEE IF THAT COULD APPLY.

>> WILL GOES BACK TO THE THING I SAID EARLIER, THAT IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU CANNOT HAVE A COMMISSIONER WHO IS INVOLVED IN A POTENTIAL ACTION NOT RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE IF HE'S NOT REQUIRED TO RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN YOUR CODE, THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EVER GET THE ACTION TAKEN THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKING.

>> OKAY. LET ME JUST RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN I SAT ON THE COMMISSION, I SAT ON THE COMMISSION WITH A DOWNTOWN BUSINESS PERSON AND MANY OF THE VOTES THAT WERE TAKEN AFFECTED DOWNTOWN. WHEN I GREW UP, ADMITTEDLY IT WAS A MILLION YEARS AGO, BUT WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, IT WAS CONSIDERED REALLY, REALLY WAY COOL FOR BUSINESS PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WHEN I SERVED WITHOUT LOCAL BUSINESS PERSON, HIS BUSINESS WAS HURT DRAMATICALLY EVERY TIME PEOPLE THOUGHT HE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF AND THE LOSS THAT HE COULDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF. SO, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICALITIES OF THAT LAW, BUT WE RELIED ON THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TELL US WHETHER HE COULD OR COULDN'T -- SHOWED OR COULDN'T.

>> BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT SAYS HE MUST RECUSE

HIMSELF. >> THERE CAN'T BE. THE STATE LAW PREEMPTS THE CITY'S ABILITY -- AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WERE HOME RULE IS PREEMPTED AND THE STATE SAYS WHEN CITY -- MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AFTER RECUSE OR -- WE CALL IT ABSTAINING OR ABSTENTION FROM VOTING -- AND IT'S IN CHAPTER 286 I THINK IT'S 286.2 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, IT SAYS THAT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, YOU HAVE TO VOTE UNLESS YOU HAVE A VOTING CONFLICT TWO 112.3143 WHICH IS FINANCIAL GAIN OR DETRIMENT.

PERIOD. >> RIGHT. AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT -- AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST FINANCIAL. IT TALKS ABOUT USING THEIR OFFICE IN ANY WAY TO GIVE SOMEONE ELSE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

>> OH GOSH. THAT'S A FELONY IN FLORIDA. THAT'S UNDER FLORIDA LAW, TOO.

>> IS UNDER FLORIDA LAW, BUT IT'S NOT -- IS NOT ENCODED IN YOUR CHARTER OR YOUR

ORDINANCES. SO THERE WAS NO. >> NO. YOU CAN'T OBVIOUSLY INCORPORATE ALL OF FLORIDA STATUTES INTO YOUR CODE, BUT IF IT'S LACKING IN SPELLING OUT TO CITIZENS OR IT SEEMS TO HAMSTRING COMMISSIONERS OR WHATEVER COMING DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO OR DO AN INVESTIGATION, YOU CAN EXPAND IT. YOU JUST CAN'T OVERSTEP IT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. YOU CAN EXPAND YOUR ORDINANCES, YOU JUST CAN'T OVERSTEP THE FLORIDA

STATUTES. >> I GUESS I'D HAVE TO KNOW MORE. I HAVE TO HAVE MORE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE -- I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO COME INTO -- I THINK WE'VE MET BEFORE IN MY OFFICE. COME TOY OFFICE OR CALL ME TO TELL ME WHAT THE SPECIFIC FACTS ARE THAT YOU TALKING ABOUT SO THAT I CAN --

I CAN SEE. >> I MEAN I'M CONCERNED RIGHT

NOW. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND DOING NOT.

>> WELL I'LL SEND AN EMAIL WITH ALL THE PERTINENT AREA SOME TALK ABOUT.

[02:05:13]

>> YOU ARE THE LEGAL EXPERT SO YOU BE THE ONE THAT NEEDED TO LOOK AT IT. BUT I'M POINTING OUT IN THE CODE, DOESN'T -- IT SORT OF SEEMS TO STOP A COMMISSIONER FROM DOING CERTAIN THINGS WHEN THERE IS A NEED TO FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION.

>> OKAY. >> AND WILL REQUEST THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY COME BACK WITH AN OPINION ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO -- IS THAT EVERYBODY?

>> OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND? >> SECTION 14. JUDGE OF

[Item 5.1 (Part 2 of 2) ]

ELECTION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS.

>> I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS, BUT I THINK THE SECOND SENTENCE BRINGS ME SOME PAUSE. CONVICTED OF A CRIME HE COULD BE A SPEEDING TICKET. I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT THAT'S NOT TO PRECLUDE ANY MISDEMEANOR. BUT SOMETHING RELATED TO DISHONESTY, THEFT, OR A FELONY, I THINK THAT THAT IS CAUSE FOR REMOVAL. BUT I MEAN THIS SAYS ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME WHILE IN OFFICE SHALL THEREBY FORFEIT -- AND OF COURSE IT SAYS HIS OFFICE -- OR HIS OR HER OFFICE. BUT IT --

ANYWAY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S. >> YOU'RE SAYING EVEN

JAYWALKING. >> RIGHT. I THINK WE WOULD HOLD THEM TO A HIGHER STANDARD, BUT TELLING THEM THEY CAN'T DRIVE 40 MILES AN HOUR AND 35 IS -- IT'S GROUND FOR REMOVAL. SO CLEARLY, IF THERE IS A MISDEMEANOR INVOLVING A, YOU KNOW, AN ACT OF DISHONESTY OR PETTY THEFT OR WHATEVER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THEY ARE, BENEFITS SOMETHING INVOLVING DISHONESTY, PERJURY, THAT SHOULD BE -- THAT IS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL FOR SURE. AND THAT A FELONY WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. BUT I DON'T THINK ANY

CRIME OR A CRIME. >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> NO. >> I SAID ON. SORRY MAC.

WETTING MY THROAT BECAUSE WE START A NEW SECTION, I HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT THOUGHTS.

THE -- THE FIRST WAS WHETHER THIS LAST SENTENCE THAT MR. LUCERO WAS JUST MENTIONING, WHETHER THAT WOULDN'T BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN SECTION 11, WHICH TALKS ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HERE IT SEEMS LIKE SECTION 14, I REALIZE THAT IT SAYS JUDGE OF ELECTION QUALIFICATION MEMBERS BUT WE ALSO HAVE SECTION 11, WHICH IS BASICALLY ON QUALIFICATION MEMBERS. SO I DID NOT KNOW IF IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO MOVE THAT LANGUAGE, IF WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS KIND OF READ BETTER, FLOW BETTER, THAT WAS ONE THOUGHT I HAD. AND THEN, GOING -- GIVEN THE -- CITIES -- WHAT WE'VE HEARD CITIZENS KIND OF HAVING AN INTEREST ON ETHICS ISSUES, I WAS THINKING WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IF WE KEEP IT HERE, AGAIN, THIS COULD GO HERE AS FAR AS QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OR MOVIE TO SECTION 11, LANGUAGE, THAT WOULD ALLOW A COMMISSIONER TO FORFEIT OFFICE IF THEY VIOLATE ANY STANDARD OF CONDUCT OR CODE OF ETHICS THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS -- OFFICIALS, I SHOULD SAY AND ANOTHER PROVISION, WHICH -- AND AGAIN, THAT'S -- DUSTIN HAS A LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT AND ANOTHER ITEM IN THE DESTIN CHARTER, WHICH GOES TO THIS, -- AND I THINK COCOA BEACH AND SOME OTHER PEERS HAVE IT TWO, GULFPORT HAVE LANGUAGE THAT NOR FORMER OR ELECTED CITY OFFICER -- YOU BASICALLY -- THE REASON THE CITY OFFICERS IS BECAUSE THE MAYOR SEPARATE FROM A COMMISSIONER SHALL HELLO JUDGMENT: HE COMPENSATED OR APPOINTED CITY ãMAKE A COMPENSATED APPOINTED CITY OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT UNTIL AT LEAST ONE YEAR AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TERM FOR WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED. SO AGAIN, TRYING TO GET SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS REVOLVING DOOR YOU SERVICE COMMISSIONER THEN YOU IMMEDIATELY GO GET A PAID POSITION. SO THOSE WERE JUST SOME PROVISIONS. DEALING WITH THE ETHICS ISSUES MIGHT BE BETTER IN SECTION 11. IT JUST DEPENDED WHETHER YOU WERE KEEPING THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD LOOKING THROUGH CHAPTER 112, IN REGARDING PUBLIC OFFICERS, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE THE -- THEY ARE CODE OF ETHICS, I GUESS. AND SO, TO BE A REFERENCE TO ANY VIOLATION OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE ITEMIZED IN 112. IT INCLUDES

[02:10:02]

PROVISIONAL GIFTS, ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS INVOLVING BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST. THESE ARE THINGS THEY ARE HELD TO BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT SAYS -- YES. SHOW FORFEIT ALL PUBLIC THE RIGHTS BUT DOESN'T SAY REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THAT IS A GOOD STANDARD TO START WITH IS WHATEVER THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED.

>> YES. LOOK AT THE DESTIN LANGUAGE.

>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> YES?

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON SECTION 14? -- I HAVE A QUESTION, TO ME.

THE COMMISSION SHALL BE THE JUDGE OF THE ELECTION AND QUALIFICATION OF ITS OWN

MEMBERS. >> WHAT IS THAT MEAN?

>> YES. >> IS THE CANVASSING BOARD. SO

THAT WHAT THAT MEANS. >> THAT'S ONLY MEANS.

>> THAT'S ALL IT MEANS. >> BECAUSE I COULD READ THAT A SEATED COMMISSIONER COULD RULE ON THE NEWLY ELECTED COMMISSIONERS ON QUALITY -- UNQUALIFIED. I COULD READ THAT.

>> YOU COULD READ THAT THERE. >> BUT THE CANVASSING BOARD FOR THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT THAT IS, THE SEATED COMMISSIONERS, WHEN THERE'S AN ELECTION, FOR OPEN COMMISSION SEATS, THE SEATED COMMISSIONERS ARE THE ONES WHO SAID AND REVIEWED THE ELECTION RESULTS, THUS CANVASSING BOARD. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT HAS TO BE THE COMMISSION BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO THE PEOPLE FROM THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS I WOULD THINK THE CLERK OF COURTS WOULD WANT TO BE INVOLVED IF THEY'RE NOT. SO IT'S AN INDIFFERENT -- IT'S AN INTERESTING PROCESS WHEN YOU SEE THAT PEOPLE WERE HELPING WERE GOING TO STAY WITH YOU WERE NOT REELECTED THAT'S KIND OF DEFLATING AT TIMES OR WORSE THAN THAT. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE AN ACCEPTED WAY OF DOING THINGS.

>> IT IS. >> OKAY.

>> THAT IS STATE LAW. STATE LAW SAYS THAT OUR CITY COMMISSION IS THE CANVASSING

BOARD. >> YOU WANT TO VERIFY THE

COMMISSION SHALL BE THE JUDGE? >> HUSSEIN.

>> I THINK THE CANVASSING BOARD MIGHT BE A TERM BETTER KNOWN THE JUDGE OF THE ELECTION

QUALIFICATION. >> I CAN MAKE THAT A LITTLE

MORE MODERN. >> PLEASE.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR HER TO CHANGE TO REFLECT CANVASSING BOARD AND TO USE THE STATE LANGUAGE FROM THE ETHICS CLAUSE?

>> IN ADDITION -- THIS WAS ACTUALLY EMBEZZLEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK ANY FELONY -- THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST.

>> ANY FELONY AND ANY CRIME OF A MISDEMEANOR INVOLVING DISHONESTY OR THEFT SOMETHING

LIKE THAT. >> IS THERE A CATEGORY

MISDEMEANOR. >> I SHOULDN'T PUT IN THEIR

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE. >> MORAL TURPITUDE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. THERE'S A DEFINITION ON GOOGLE.

>> I'M SURE. YES. I MEAN. >> THAT WOULD BE.

>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD WANT SOMEBODY THAT IS STEALING, EVEN IF IT'S $100.

>> WHAT ABOUT VIOLENCE? >> YES I AGREE. BALANCE.

>> THAT'S NOT GOOD EITHER. >> AND CHANGE THE PRONOUN I

THINK. >> OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE CHANGES WE ARE RECOMMENDING THERE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR CHANGES? ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE AS DISCUSSED.

>> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSITION.

>> VERY COOL. SECTION 16. THE MAYOR. WHEN ELECTED THE PROCEDURE IN TERM.

>> MR. CLARK? >> WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION FROM TIME TO TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE MAYOR SHOULD BE ELECTED AT LARGE IN COMMITTEE OR ELECTED BY THE COMMISSION. THIS LANGUAGE IS THE COMMISSION. AND I JUST WANTED TO REFLECT A LITTLE BIT ON THE DIFFERENCES, AS I SEE IT. I THINK THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE UNDER THE COMMISSION MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHICH WE AGREED THAT WE HAVE HERE.

WHERE YOU HAVE A MAYOR ELECTED AT LARGE FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT THEY CAN EXERT MORE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. THAT'S A PLUS. BUT THERE IS A NEGATIVE TO IT AS WELL. AND NOT -- IN THE NEGATIVE COMES ABOUT BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMISSION MANAGER FORM OF

[02:15:02]

GOVERNMENT, THE MANAGER REALLY OPERATES AND ACCESS THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, RUNS THE CITY ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS DOESN'T MAKE POLITICAL DECISIONS BUT EXERCISES ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL. IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN YOU SEE A MAYOR ELECTED AT LARGE, THERE'S A PRESUMPTION ON THE PART OF MOST PEOPLE THAT THAT PERSON IS REALLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF THE CITY AND RUNS IT. AS A MATTER FACT, OFTEN PEOPLE THAT ARE ELECTED THAT POSITION THINK THE SAME THING. AND SO WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS YOU BUILD IN THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN AN ELECTED MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER,, WHICH WE DECIDE WE WANT THAT FORM A GOVERNMENT.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A BAD IDEA, BUT I DON'T THINK THE IDEA OF MAKING A MAYOR ELECTED AT LARGE COMES WITHOUT SOME CHALLENGES THAT ARE BAKED INTO WHAT THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT --

>> MEMBER DAVIS? >> I THINK I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK ON THAT AND NOTE THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PEERS CITY SAYS IN ELECTED MAYOR -- THAT THE LEAGUE GAVE US HAS AN ELECTED MAYOR AND AS WELL AS BEING THERE ALL COMMISSION MANAGER FORMS AND THE ACTUAL DUTIES OF THE MAYOR IN THOSE ARE STILL VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, ONE OR TWO, GIVE THEM A FEW EXTRA DUTIES LIKE ONE -- ONE DOES REQUIRE THAT THE MAYOR TO MAKE AN ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY -- ACTUALLY VILLAGE

(LAUGHING). >> TECHNICALLY. REPORT IN A STATE OF THE BUDGET, REPORT THE CITY MANAGERS WHO PREPARES THE BUDGET AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I THINK THAT RESIDENTS LIKE THE PERSON THAT IS REPRESENTING THEM TO THE PUBLIC AS KIND OF THE HEAD OF THE CITY TO BE SOMEONE THAT THEY CHOSE. THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO, JUST IF WE KEEP THE CURRENT PROCEDURE THAT SECTION 16 SAYS WHEN THE MAYOR IS ELECTED BUT IT DOES NOT SAY HOW. IT DOESN'T COME OUT AND SAY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS A VOTE (LAUGHING) AND IT WILL BE ONE OF THEM. SO I THINK THAT YOU WOULD NEED A LITTLE CLEANUP IN THIS LANGUAGE. MAYBE THAT LANGUAGE WAS ONCE THERE BUT IT'S NOT ANYMORE. HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY REMOVE THEM AFTERWARDS. BUT -- BUT I -- I ALSO REVIEWED THE 2007 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, HAD AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ON THIS AND THEY HAD RECOMMENDED DIRECT ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AS WELL. AND SO THAT THEY HAD SOME VERY GOOD DISCUSSIONS ON

THE PROS AND CONS. >> MEMBER LUSSIER.

>> APOLOGIZE IF I'VE NOT BEEN FOLLOWING THIS, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WHENEVER YOU HAVE A STRAW BALLOT THAT -- THE GOAL IS TO SELECT TWO SHOULD BE SELECTED AS MAYOR AND THE COMMISSION IS ALWAYS HISTORICALLY FOLLOWED THE RESULT OF THE STRAW BALLOT.

IT'S NOT BINDING ON THE COMMISSION.

>> SO NOT -- IS THAT NOT BEEN THE CASE RECENTLY.

>> JUST FOR VICE MAYOR. >> MAYOR HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STRAW POLL VOTE. VICE MAYOR HAS NOT BEEN.

>> I MEAN, AS A BEEN A PARTICULAR PROBLEM?

>> IT WAS UNCOMFORTABLE. >> I'M SURE.

>> ALSO UNCOMFORTABLE TO ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR VICE MAYOR THAT THE COMMISSION

GOOGLE OVERTURN IT. >> THAT'S WHERE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT MAYBE PUTTING IT INTO THE CHARTER THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW. IT WILL BE A

BINDING SELECTION. >> WELL, I THINK.

>> BUT THAT WOULD AFFECT -- THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT VICE MAYOR.

>> VICE MAYOR IS NOT REFERENCED IN OUR CHARTER.

>> AFTER THE 20 -- 2007 CHARTER REVIEW IS WHEN THAT HAPPENED. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO TALKED ABOUT IN 2007 TALKED ABOUT IT WITH A NEED TO HAVE THE PEOPLE MORE ENGAGED IN WHO THEIR MAYOR IS.

>> OKAY. >>.

>> THANK YOU. >> MY ARGUMENT -- IT'S KIND OF A MIX OF WHAT WE HEARD BEFORE. I WANT TO BE OPPOSED TO MAKING THE STRAW POLL LEGALLY BINDING ALREADY. BUT I DO LIKE THE SYSTEM WHERE WE TAKE A COMMISSIONER AND OUT OF THE COMMISSION AND IT'S NOT LIKE A SET SEAT. IT WOULD CHANGE THE INCENTIVES OF HOW WE RUN FOR OFFICE. IF ONE OF THE SEATS IN PARTICULAR ãMAKE IT WOULD CHANGE HOW PEOPLE RAN, I GUESS,

[02:20:03]

FOR OFFICE. HE WOULD RATHER HAVE A -- I, PERSONALLY, WOULD RATHER HAVE IT'S ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE WEIGHTED EQUALLY AND THEN YOU TAKE ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU, THE PEOPLE, VOTED FOR AND THEN YOU MAKE THEM MAYOR. I WANT TO BE OPPOSED TO MAKING THE STRAW POLL BINDING AND NOT HAVE THE COMMISSION VOTE AGAIN TO DECIDE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WE -- YOU WANT PEOPLE -- YOU DON'T WANT -- ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T CHANGE THE GROUP SYSTEM. BECAUSE AT THE GROUP SYSTEM, ALL THE PEOPLE YOU MIGHT WANT MY JUMP IN THE MAYOR'S SEAT AND THEN WE WOULD LOSE SOME TALENT, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. YOU WANT TO KEEP IT SO PEOPLE RUN AND THEN LATER ON HOPEFULLY THE CRCME DE LA CRCE, YOU VOTED THOSE FIVE TO BE YOUR MAYOR.

>> WHAT I THINK WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO DO IS I HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU SECTIONS OF THE CODE TO BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE, UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING, IN SECTION 16, JUST GOES INTO IN CASE -- IF CASE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE.

>> ON WHAT? SO I PROBABLY NEED TO INCORPORATE 34 ãNINE INTO HERE. AND WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SEE NOTES ACCRUED OUTCOME ARE WE GOING TO COME BACK TO SECTION

10. >> IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE.

>> WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR ME TO PROVIDE THAT SECTION 34-9 WITH SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR 16 IF WE HAVE ALL THE COMMENTS FORTUNATE.

IT SOUNDED TO ME THAT THAT IS UP TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE STRAW BALLOT STAND. AND IT NOT BE SO STRONG.

>> WE DO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. >> AM SORRY?

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER -- (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS) (LAUGHING).

>> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE REFERENCE TO THE CODE 34.

>> ãNINE? >> ãNINE. IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT STAYS IN THE CODE OR GOING TO PUT THAT LANGUAGE NOT JUST A REFERENCE TO THAT BUT ACTUALLY PUT THE LANGUAGE OF THAT BECAUSE AS WE KNOW THE CHARTER IS A HARDER THING TO A MAN AND IF THE CODE COULD JUST EASILY BE -- WE WOULD NOT WANT.

>> WE WOULD REALLY HELP PEOPLE TO BE ELECTED OR GET THESE ROLES IT SEEMS TO ME IT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER. RATHER THAN JUST -- IT'S ONE THING TO REFERENCE STATE STATUTE.

>> NO. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT 34 -- REMEMBER EARLIER I WOULD SAY WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT PROBABLY CHAPTER 4 -- 34 AS WE WORK ON ELECTION SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE CITY CODE. THE CLERK AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES.

>> OKAY. >> MOST OF THE STUFF REGARDING ELECTIONS EXCEPT FOR THIS IS ALL STATE LAW. AND WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO. SO THAT IS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IS IN THE CHARTER?

>> IN TERMS OF HOW THE MAYOR IS CHOSEN.

>> BECAUSE THE MENTION OF STRAW BALLOTS.

>> YES. I THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE CHARTER. SO I'M GOING TO COMBINE THE SECTIONS AND GIVE IT MY BEST SHOT AND BRING ABOUT WILL REVIEW SECTION 10 AGAIN.

>> AND AM WONDERING FROM -- DO WE MAKE REFERENCE -- THE SET ALSO STAND IF THERE IS A STRAW

BALLOT FOR THAT? >> IS HANDLED IN CHAPTER --

>> IT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE. AT MOST -- WITH ONE EXCEPTION WAS IN HERETO. SO, LET ME JUST COMMENT ON THIS HAVING BEEN IN THE MIDST OF IT. THEY ARE -- IT APPEARS THAT FROM LOOKING AT THESE WORDS THAT THE MAYOR'S POSITION IS PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, IT -- IS NOT A FORMAL ROLE AT ALL OTHER THAN TO RUN MEETINGS. THAT'S -- AND CEREMONIAL DUTIES. AND THAT, IN REALITY, IS NOT HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE.

SO NOT ROLLED WITH THE LANGUAGE THE WAY IT DEPICTS IT AS --, THERE ARE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE WERE LEGALLY, THE MAYOR HAS TO DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY. NOW, TRUST ME ON THIS ONE. I WOULD KNOW A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND MUST THE HOUSE WAS FLOODING, IF I SAW IT COMING. BUT YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. BUT YOUR NAME GOES ON IT. SO THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT -- WE WERE IN A SITUATION

[02:25:06]

DURING THE TIME THAT I WAS ON THE COMMISSION -- WHEN I WAS MAYOR, WHERE WE FIRED A CITY MANAGER. AND WE WERE WITHOUT A CITY MANAGER FOR QUITE SOME TIME. DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WAS RUNNING THE CITY. CALLING A PART -- UPON THE MAYOR QUITE A BIT DURING THAT TIME PERIOD FOR COUNSEL ADVICE, ETC. SO THEY WOULD GO BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION SAY WE NEED TO DO THIS. THIS IS THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE TO DO. WHAT WE

GONNA DO ABOUT IT? >> IT TYPICALLY DID NOT INVOLVE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY. WE HAD TO MAKE DECISIONS QUICKLY. EITHER PUT IT ON THE AGENDA RIGHT AWAY OR SOMETHING ELSE SO THAT ALL IN SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL SET OF DECISION-MAKING AND A DIFFERENT -- AN ADDITIONAL SET OF RESPONSIBILITIES. THE WAY IT HAPPENS TODAY, IS WHATEVER IS NOT UP FOR REELECTION, THEIR NAMES, WITH THEIR PERMISSION, GO INTO THE POT TO BE ELECTED MAYOR.

I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE THAT THAT ALWAYS BRINGS THE CREAM OF THE CROP TO THE ELECTION FOR MAYOR AT THE STRAW POLL TIME. SO JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. I KNOW THAT IT'S -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO A STRAW POLL, THAT'S KIND OF THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO IT. BUT IT -- IT DOESN'T ALWAYS SEEM THE BEST FOR THE CITIZENS, FOR THE CITY. LET ME GO FIRST TO

MEMBER KOZAK. >> SO HOW DO WE AVOID THAT?

>> I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE. SO WITH THE STRAW POLL, STILL IN THE PICTURE, I'M NOT SURE

HOW WE DO THAT. MEMBER DEAN? >> MY ARGUMENT BACK TO THAT.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO ARGUE. >> I DO WANT TO ARGUE -- I'M NOT TRY TO ARGUE AND TRY TO BRING UP ALL POINTS. I COULD SEE EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE.

I GOT TO. >> I CAN SEE EITHER SIDE BUT LET'S TO A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE. LET'S SAY -- LET'S SAY THAT COMMISSIONER WANTED TO RUN FOR MAYOR. OKAY WANT TO BE THE MAYOR. UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO LEAVE HIS OFFICE TO DO THAT. YOU CAN JUST LATER ON BECOME IT. BUT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE IT SO IT WAS A STANDARD SEAT THAT WAS ONLY OFF TWO YEARS AFTER HIS FOUR-YEAR TERM, HE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A TWO YEAR BREAK IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. AND THAT WOULD -- SO YOU MIGHT SEE AN INSTANCE WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE HAVING TO LEAVE OFFICE IF THEY WANTED TO OH, YES, RUN THE MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE --

>> AND TAKE ON ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

>> ARE ADDITIONAL. >> EXACTLY. THEY WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE OFFICE TO COME BACK AND DO THAT WHICH MIGHT NOT -- WHICH, IF YOU -- IF YOU ARE IN THE OFF TERM -- I'M SAYING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE 2/5 WOULD BE AT THE OFF YEARS THAT YOU WOULD NOT GET TO RUN FOR MAYOR IF YOU WANTED TO.

>> AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT YOU KEEP IT TO YOUR MAYOR.

>> APPEARS IT IS GENERALLY HAVE IT AS A FOUR YEAR, JUST LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> RIGHT. IT WOULD BE TAKING ONE OF THE THREE SEATS WE HAVE THE THREE THAT ARE UP AND JUST RE-IDENTIFYING ONE OF THOSE AS MAYOR.

>> SO RATHER THAN -- LET'S USE REAL PEOPLE. COMMISSIONER RON IS UP FOR REELECTION. IF YOU WERE TO DETERMINE THAT HE WOULD RATHER RUN FOR MAYOR, THAT HE COULD JUST DECLARE THAT UNDER.

>> NO WELL UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM HE WOULD HAVE TO WITHDRAW FROM HIS SEAT.

>> UNDERSTAND. >> WILL IT.

>> WE COULD ALLOW HIM. >> HE'S RUNNING FOR REELECTION.

SO COULDN'T HE JUST SAY INSTEAD OF RUNNING FOR MY SEAT, I'M GOING TO RUN FOR MAYOR?

>> YES, HE COULD, BUT THEN SOMEONE ELSE COULD -- I'M THINKING -- I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT SO MUCH BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE AN EASIER SITUATION. I WAS THINKING THAT THIS COMMISSIONER WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.

>> HE SAYING COMMISSIONER LONDON BRIDGE COULD NOT RUN IN 2020 FOR MAYOR SO HE COULD

WITHDRAW FROM HIS SEAT DO IT. >> IS BRINGING -- LET'S BRING

THE MAN HIMSELF. >> IF WE MAY ASK, WHAT IS THE

PURPOSE. >> (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS).

>> 1586 KENNEDY DRIVE AND I UNDERSTAND THEM RESIDENT TO ADDRESS BECAUSE I'M HERE TO OBSERVE. BUT SINCE I'M GONNA RUN FOR MAYOR (LAUGHING) I FEEL THIS IS GERMANE. NOW, WHAT I WAS INSTRUCTED -- AND TAMMY, PLEASE TELL ME THAT FIRST OF ALL, ONLY TO -- ONLY THE TWO COMMISSIONERS NOT UP FOR ELECTION CAN RUN FOR MAYOR.

[02:30:06]

>> AS. >> THAT'S NUMBER ONE. IS THAT

CORRECT. >> YES.

>> SO I HAD THAT RIGHT. >> THE OTHER THING I WAS TOLD WAS THAT YOU LIKE -- SO LAND CRIGGER AND MYSELF, YOU LET THE CITY CLERK AT A CERTAIN POINT NOW WHETHER YOU ARE RUNNING FOR MAYOR.

>> YES. IT'S NOT -- I'M NOT AUTOMATICALLY RUNNING FOR MAYOR.

>> RIGHT. OKAY. SO, THAT IF I SAID NO, AND THE VICE MAYOR WAS RUNNING, THEN HE WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE ON THE STRAW BALLOT AND BY DEFAULT, WOULD BE MAYOR. CORRECT? YES.

>> NOW MY SECOND -- AHEAD, TIMMY.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT'S NOT AT ALL TRUE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IS

A BELIEVE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. I'D

LIKE TO UNDERSTAND. >> SO I HAVE SECTION 34 ãNINE AND THIS IS LANGUAGE FROM 2006 SO NOT MINE. BECAUSE THE WINTER GETS THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION FOR MAYOR AN APPOINTMENT BY COMMISSION AND THE LOSER GETS PRIMARY CONSIDERATION FOR THE VICE MAYOR POSITION (LAUGHING).

>> I'VE BEEN READING THIS WHILE YOU BEEN HERE.

>> THAT'S A VISIT TIME IS A FLIP OF THE GOING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. THE WINNER GETS A MAYOR IN THE LOSER OF THE FLIP OF THE COIN IS VICE.

>> NO. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. IT SAYS ON THE OCCASION THAT ALL ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES COULD REQUEST THAT THEIR NAMES NOT BE PLACED -- SO IF YOU AND VICE MAYOR CRIGGER, CURRENT VICE MAYOR CRIGGER SAY WE DON'T WANT OUR NAMES ON THE BALLOT THAN THE CITY COMMISSION, AFTER AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING WHICH MEANS NEW COMMISSIONERS ARE NOW SEATED OR ELECTED COMMISSIONERS, THEY WILL THEN CHOOSE, AMONG THE FIVE OF YOU WHO IS THE MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR. AND YOU WILL GET A VOTE AS WELL. THAT'S IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO WITHDRAW. IF THERE'S ONLY ONE NAME REMAINING, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT HAS BEEN TURNED IN TO THE CITY

COMMISSIONER AS THE WINNER. >> SO IF I UNDERSTAND, I DO NOT HAVE TO DECLARE -- ONLY HAVE TO DECLARE IF I DON'T.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE BALLOT. I WAS TOLD THE OPPOSITE. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS HERE.

>> IT SAYS IN THE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE, WHICH YOU ARE, NOT WISHING TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE POSITION OF MAYOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION THAT HIS NAME BE DELETED.

>> NOT WISHING TO BE. SO YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY ON THEIR.

>> THAT SOUNDS UNUSUAL BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT IN ORDER TO GET ON THE BALLOT THERE WOULD

BE MORE THAN 30 DAYS. >> THEY DO. A YEAR NOW.

THAT'S WHY THIS CHAPTER -- THIS WHOLE CHAPTER REALLY NEEDS TO GO AWAY IN OUR CODE.

>> RIGHT. >> WE SHOULD NOT BE ãWE SHOULDN'T BE -- AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS THAT STRAW -- THAT STRAW VOTE IS NOT

BINDING. >> RIGHT. ASK THE CITY

COMMISSION. >> OKAY.

>> WILL THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>> A MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE WE GO FORWARD, TOBY WAS DRAFTING, IS -- WHAT IS THE PURPOSE -- OR WHAT ARE YOU ALL THINKING IS BEHIND YOUR PURPOSE? DO YOU WANT THE STRAW BALLOT TO BE

BINDING ONLY. >> YOU WANT THE MAYOR TO HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITIES OR YOU LITERALLY WANT ANOTHER SEAT OF THE COMMISSION SET ASIDE FOR

THE MAYOR? >> I'M NOT SURE WE'VE RESEARCH

CONCLUSIONS WHAT GOT IT. >>.

>> BUT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS WE JUST HEARD, UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER SOLUTION THAT I HAVE NOT CONSIDERED YET, BASED ON THE TWO OPTIONS OF CREATING A SPECIAL SEAT THAT WE CALL THE MAYOR'S SEAT AND MAINTAINING A STRAW BALLOT WHERE WE COULD -- THE OTHER THING I LIKE IS LIKE THE CONSTANT -- I LIKE SHAKING THINGS UP. SO EVEN WITH KEEPING FOUR-YEAR TERMS, WE COULD HAVE TWO-YEAR MAYORS WHICH I BELIEVE IS BETTER TO HAVE A CONSTANT FLOW OF -- A CONSTANT FLOW IS BETTER. SO I WOULD VOTE THAT WE MAKE THE STRAW POLL BINDING. AS THE THING I WOULD DO TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT. I WANT THE STRAMPLE TO HAPPEN.

>> NOT IT -- WE WILL CALL IT A POLE. WE WILL CALL IT NO LONGER A STRAMPLE WILL CALL IT THE BINDING POLE. AND THAT IS WHAT WILL DO. (LAUGHING).

>> AND THAT'S MY STORY. >> MEMBER CLARK?

>> I JUST WANT TO SECOND WHAT HE SAID. I THINK THE STRAW POLL IDEA MAKES THIS, BUT I WOULDN'T CALL IT A STRAMPLE. I WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF THE ORDINANCE AND PUT IN THE

CHARTER. >> I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE MORE PEOPLE ELIGIBLE FOR THE VOTE. I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK TO.

>> MORE CITY COMMISSIONERS ARE MORE JUST GENERAL CITIZENS.

>> NO MORE COMMISSIONERS. >> WELL, I MEAN YOU HAVE IN COMMON ãI GUESS INCUMBENT IS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE YOU ARE INCUMBENT.

IT SAYS INCOMPETENT ãINCUMBENT WHO ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ELECTION.

[02:35:06]

>> EVE GOT AT LEAST TWO YEARS I MISSING SOMETHING.

>> IF THEY'RE NOT UP FOR ELECTION THAN THE ONLY PEOPLE ARE.

>> IN THE MAYOR THAT WAS ELECTED EVERY TWO YEARS WE DO HAVE ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS SO THAT ADDRESSES THE COMMENTS.

>> BUT WON'T THEY ALL BE ELIGIBLE AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT CYCLE IF YOU STARTED -- THE MAYOR IS CHOSEN AT THE MEETING AND NOT BY ABOUT -- THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THE POLLS.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE VOTING FOR -- IN THE 2020 ELECTION, THREE OPEN SEATS. THERE'S NOTHING THIS REVIEW COMMITTEE IS GOING TO CHANGE, RIGHT ONE IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION AND TO OPEN SEATS. SO OUT OF THAT ELECTION, WE ARE SET UP RIGHT NOW TO PICK OUR MAYOR AT THE BALLOT BOX. SO HOW COULD WE CONSIDER -- OR DO YOU WANT SOME OF THAT FOR -- WE DO NOT KNOW WHO'S GOING TO GET IN THOSE SEATS.

>> THAT'S WHY THINK THEY SET UP. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT ANOTHER WAY THAT -- ARE YOU THINKING OF ANOTHER WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE MORE -- OKAY.

>> OF ONE OF OUR ASSIGNMENTS MIGHT BE TO THINK OF ANOTHER --

>> IT MAY BE SOMETHING -- THAT'S WHY I'M -- I'M SAYING I CAN WORK ON IT, SOME GREAT IDEAS AND GET SOME DRAFTING GOING AND EVEN BE ABLE TO BRING IT UP IN THAT FORMAT WITH STRIKEOUTS AND UNDERLINES NEXT TIME. AND THEN BRING IDEAS FORWARD, TO.

>> COULD YOU FORWARD A COPY OF 34 ãNINE.

>> I WILL. I'LL DO THE WHOLE CHAPTER.

>> IT'S ONLY SIX SECTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT IF WE

DECIDED? IS THERE ANYTHING? >> WE DECIDED THAT THE MAYOR WILL BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE IN A BINDING VOTE, BUT NOT AS A SEPARATE SEATS.

>> AND THEN YOU WANT ME TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE REGARDING VICE MAYOR AND MAKE THAT BINDING AS WELL, THE SECOND HIGHEST VOTE-GETTER?

>> YES. PLEASE. >> NOT THE LOSER.

>> THE SECOND. >> YOU CAN DO AWAY WITH THE LOSER JARGON. THE MAYOR WILL SERVE A TERM OF TWO YEARS, THAT'S STILL OKAY.

>> UH-UH (AFFIRMATIVE). >> IN THE CITY COMMISSION MADE BY THE MAJORITY VOTE, BASICALLY REMOVE THE MAYOR FROM OFFICE AND APPOINT SOMEBODY ELSE.

>> IT DOESN'T SAY WHY. >> YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE THE POWER, THE COMMISSION THE POWER TO REMOVE THE MAYOR THAT THE PEOPLE ELECTED.

>> NO. >> NOW.

>> OKAY. >> NO.

>> WILL SHOULD BE. >> WELL, JUST EMPLOYED DEVILS ADVOCATE, TO PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE BECAUSE MY FIRST THOUGHT IS TO NOT LET PEOPLE OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I'M THINKING OF A HORROR STORY BECAUSE THIS GUYS RUNNING THE METEOR GAL. THIS PERSON IS RUNNING THE MEETING AND THEY COULD -- THEY COULD BE RUNNING A TOUGH MEETING AND YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE. THERE DOES NEED TO BE A NUCLEAR OPTION YOU CAN BUS THE MEETING LIKE A FOUR TO ONE VOTE.

>> YES. I SAY FOUR TO ONE, BUT THE MEETING IS NOT FUNCTIONING, THERE NEEDS TO BE A SUPER

MEETING OPTION. >> OR THE MAYOR IS NOT

PERFORMING THE OTHER FUNCTIONS. >> RIGHT. EXACTLY.

>> ARE COULD BE OTHER CAUSES. AND I GUESS WE SHOULD ALIGN WITH THOSE MIGHT BE. THAT WILL

CAUSE THEM TO DO THAT. >> MEMBER LAZEAR.

>> ARE WE GOING TO KEEP THAT IF IT'S A TIE THE TIME.

>> YES. >> PLEASE.

>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT IN VERY MODERN CHARTERS THEY'RE STILL DOING IT IN THE NFL. THEY HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF ANOTHER WAY.

>> I THINK IT'S GREAT. I LIKE THAT BETTER THAN CHOOSING BY LOT BECAUSE I THINK THE

FLIPPING COIN IS MORE FAIR. >>.

>> THAT'S GREAT. >> OKAY. SO IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH COMING TO ME COME BACK WITH THOSE?

>> TAMMY IS NOT COMFORTABLE COMING BACK WITH SOME PAUSES ã CAUSES FOR REMOVING THE MAYOR.

BECAUSE OF SO OPEN ENDED WITH NO DIRECTION. IT IS DANGEROUS TO GIVE ME THE COVER CHARGE.

>> (LAUGHING). >> DO WE FEEL THAT THERE NEEDS

[02:40:03]

TO BE -- I MEAN -- >> I THINK IF YOU HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE, JUST MY TWO CENTS, JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

>> OKAY. IT COULD BE ANYTHING. IT COULD BE SOMEBODY THAT USES VULGAR LANGUAGE. THERE'S NO WAY TO ARREST THAT PERSON AND THEY COULD JUST BE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND FOUR OUT OF

THE FIVE SAY THEY'VE GOT AGO. >> GROSS. SPELL NOWHERE IN HERE TO REFER TO THE SUNSHINE LAW IN VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE HAS SOME THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT AS WELL AS A PROCESS FOR ISSUING A COMPLAINT, ETC. ETC. I THINK THAT THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT. IF WE CAN BE.

>> YOU MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF REMOVING THE MAYOR?

>> REMOVING THE MAYOR, WE HAD AN EARLIER CONVERSATION ABOUT A.

>> OF SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATIONS. >> YES. FOR CONVICTIONS OF

FELONIES. >> SO IF WE CAN SEE WITH THAT

LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE, TOO. >> GOT YOU. WHAT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S NO REFERENCE AT ALL TO THE VICE MAYOR IN OUR CHARTER. AND SO I WOULD THINK THAT THIS MIGHT BE A PLACE, YOU KNOW, HERE THAT WE HAVE -- THAT WE CAN REFERENCE THE ELECTION OF HIM -- AN APPOINTMENT. AND THAT IF THE MAYOR IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE, SEEMS TO ME THAT -- ANY REASON THE MAYOR CAN'T SERVE, EVEN TEMPORARILY FOR OFFICE MAKE IT

EXPLICIT THAT THE VICE MAYOR. >> WOULD STEPS IN AND MOVES

INTO THAT ROLE. >> OKAY. SO WE ARE GOOD WITH

THAT ONE. >> SECTION 17. FUNCTIONS AND

POWERS OF THE MAYOR. >> BEFORE WE GET THERE I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE WHAT WE DECIDED ON 16.

>> SO YOU'RE MOVING THAT WE ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT ONE.

>> YES. >> OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSITION? THANK YOU

MEMBER DEAN. >> SECTION 17, MEMBER CLARK.

>> OKAY. I HAVE A COMMENT ON THE FUNCTION POWERS OF THE MAYOR AND ON MY WAY TO ONE OTHER POSITION. BUT HERE'S THE ESSENCE OF IT. WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS IN THIS DOCUMENT TO DEFINE WHAT THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS IN THE MAYOR ARE GOING TO BE, BUT THEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS SECTION 17, WE SAY -- OR THE CURRENT CHARTER SAYS OTHER SUCH DUTIES AS MAY BE CONFERRED UPON THE MAYOR BY THE ACTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. AND IT SEEMED THAT -- IT SEEMS THAT THAT OBVIATES WHAT THE ROLES ARE. SO I DON'T LIKE THAT. THAT OTHER LANGUAGE. IN THAT SECTION AND JUST SINCE HAVE GOTTEN HE FLOOR ON THAT POINT, THERE IS THE SAME KIND OF A PROBLEM THAT I SAW WITH RESPECT TO THE DUTIES OF THE CITY CLERKS, I GUESS THE VERY LAST SECTION IT TALKS ABOUT OTHER DUTIES AS MAY BE REQUIRED AND I MAKE THE SAME POINT ABOUT THAT, I THINK THAT'S OPEN-ENDED LANGUAGE AND IT JUST LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND MAKE A ASSIGNMENTS OF DUTIES THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARTER. YOU COULD HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY SO LONG AS YOU MIGHT SAY SOMETHING LIKE AS CONSISTENT WITH THIS CHARTER. SO IF YOU THOUGHT OF SOMETHING -- THE COMMISSION THOUGHT OF SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOMEBODY DO THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARTER, THAT'S OKAY BUT I THINK WE SHOULD AVOID OPEN-ENDED LANGUAGE ON A DUTIES AND ASSIGNMENTS.

>> AND I GUESS WHEREVER IT WOULD APPEAR, TAMMY.

>> THAT ASK YOU TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AS WELL.

>> IF YOU WILL AGREE IT WOULD JUST BE A STRIKETHROUGH AS I SEE IT.

>> YES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> MEMBER KOZAK. >> WOULD THIS BE THE AREA WHERE YOU ARE REFERRING TO THAT WE SHOULD ENUMERATE EMERGENCY DUTIES OR ANY EXCLUSIVE DUTIES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR THE MAYOR -- OR THE MAYOR MIGHT HAVE? DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY?

WHEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL DUTIES. >> WHERE IS HAD STATED, TAMMY, THAT THE MAYOR IS THE ONLY PERSON LEGALLY DECLARED -- CAN LEGALLY DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY. IS THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> IT'S NOT TRUE ANYWAY BECAUSE IT PASSED A RESOLUTION -- AND ORDINANCE.

>> WHO DOES. >> THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT -- EMERGENCY OR IT CAN BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR -- I MEAN, WE HAVE DECLARED STATES OF EMERGENCY BEFORE AND WE COME BACK AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AFTER THE

[02:45:04]

EMERGENCY AND THEN WE FORMALIZE THE RESOLUTION AS AN ORDINANCE.

>> THE DOCUMENT ITSELF REQUIRES THE MAYOR SIGNATURE OR NO.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. >> SO I'M NOT SURE.

>> IN SPIRIT, AT LEAST, THE MAYOR IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DECLARE.

>> BUT THAT'S -- ISN'T THAT TRUE WITH THE CITY COMMISSION? BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE

. (LAUGHING). >> YEAH, THE MAYOR IS NOT -- NOT IN OUR TOWN DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY -- NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT, BUT NOT WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSION VOTE EITHER NECESSARILY UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

>> RIGHT. UH-UH (AFFIRMATIVE). >> NUMBER --

>> I GUESS I JUST WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF MAYOR ARE, YOU MAY BE LITTLE BIT MORE FORMALLY NOTED HERE SO THAT -- WE STRIKE THAT ONE -- WHICH I AGREE WE SHOULD DO THE SECOND HALF OF THE FIRST SENTENCE. MAYBE WE SHOULD KIND OF LIST MORE FORMALLY THOSE DUTIES AND POWERS THAT EXIST UNDER THE MAYOR BECAUSE IT'S KINDA LIKE WHAT WE DO FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY. THAT'S JUST ONE BIG PARAGRAPH. MAYBE IT SHOULD

BE. >> CAN YOU READ A, B, C, D AND

LEAVE IT LIKE THE OTHERS ARE. >> MEMBER CLARK HE.

>> TO ME, IS THERE ANY STATE LAW ON EMERGENCY POWER DECLARATION.

>> NO. >> 'SOR OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE ASIDE FROM THIS CHARTER LANGUAGE ABOUT THE EMERGENCY POWER.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> ALWAYS JUST BY RESOLUTION?

>> HOW DOES THE POWER. >> IT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE

RESOLUTION. P >> THEY -- I KNOW. SO -- I KNOW IT SOMEWHERE. I JUST HAVE TO FIND IT. I JUST HAVE TO FIND IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO IS THAT THE ONLY QUESTION WE HAVE ABOUT THIS PARAGRAPH IS WHETHER EMERGENCY POWER SHOULD BE ADDED OR NOT? YOURS OR SOMETHING ELSE?

>> WELL, I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE MAYORS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY, BUT IT COMES WITH A CERTAIN BODY OF AUTHORITIES. FOR EXAMPLE, ABILITY TO APPROVE BIDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OR OTHER -- I MEAN PICTURE YOURSELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISASTER. THE LOGIC IS SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO -- RIGHT.

>> THE MAYOR STEPS IN. THERE'S SOME LOGIC BEHIND IT BUT USUALLY THERE IS LAW THAT PRESCRIBES THOSE POWERS PRETTY CLEARLY. THAT'S WHY MASKING TAMMY I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA TO HAVE THE MAYOR HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE CERTAIN -- CERTAIN DUTIES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES. >> LOOK AT THAT. I WAS JUST REMINDED THE VICE MAYOR IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 ã36.

>> SO IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE. >> YES.

>> OKAY. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH ON.

>> I DO. I DO. I WANT TO SEE WHAT EMERGENCY POWERS.

>> BUT OUTSIDE OF THE EMERGENCY POWERS, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAYOR HAS.

>> WHAT TYPES OF THINGS DO YOU WANT TO SEE LISTED, JOHN.

>> OH, WELL, THE -- I MEAN, THE MAYOR SHALL PRESIDE AT ALL MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE MAYOR SHALL PERFORM DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICE THAT USE THE TITLE --

IT'S A PARAGRAPH. >> JUST MAKE IT FULL --

BULLETED. >> BUT THEY DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO. IT WOULD BE MORE CLEAR.

>> OKAY. >> ELECTED HAVE VETO POWER.

>> SO. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO GO FORWARD WITH THOSE CHANGES AND ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING THEM BACK.

>> SO NOTED. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? >> I'M SORRY WHO MADE THE

MOTION. >> MR. CLARK.

>> AND WHO SECONDED. >> ALL RIGHT WE ARE RUSSIAN READY FOR SECTION 25 CITY MANAGER. APPOINTMENT, TENURE OF OFFICE MANAGER PRO TEM. ALL

RIGHT. >> AM SORRY MEMBER CLARK.

[02:50:16]

>> JUST TO THROW AN IDEA OUT HERE. MAYBE THIS IS A STRETCH, BUT NONETHELESS THROWN ON THE TABLE AND THAT IS UNDER THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE COMMISSION CONDUCT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT REPORT DIRECTLY TO THEM. AND A LOT OF THIS GETS OVERLOOKED OR DOESN'T HAPPEN. AND THAT CAN BE A VERY BAD THING IN THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE ISSUES OR PROBLEMS THAT DEVELOP BETWEEN THE ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE COUNTY OFFICIAL AND IT CAN BE PRETTY DAMAGING.

SO, WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT WAS ADDING A SENTENCE THAT SIMPLY SAID THAT THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEYS, CITY MANAGEMENT AND CITY CLERK BEFORE LIKE DECEMBER 31, SOMETHING LIKE -- IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LONG IN DETAIL BUT JUST TO ARTICULATE THAT PRINCIPLE.

>> WITH DEBBIE IN THIS SECTION ARE USING QUICK SOME NOT SURE.

>> I WOULD PROBABLY PUT IN THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> WHERE THERE POWERS AND DUTIES AND SO FORTH.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT MULTIPLE. >> RIGHT.

>> I -- I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. THE BIG QUESTION IN THE PAST HAS BEEN WHETHER, IN FACT, THAT NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING OR VERBALLY ONLY BECAUSE OF BEEN COMMISSIONERS IN THE PAST, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THERE MIGHT BE AN ABUNDANCE OF REASONS WHY THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT IN WRITING, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DID NOT WANT -- THE EVALUATIONS.

>> YES. >> SO ARE WE SAYING THAT A VERBAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW IS OKAY OR WE SAYING THAT IT MUST BE IN WRITING?

>> I. >> I DIDN'T INTEND TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT THAT BUT I CAN SEE THE POINT THAT YOU'RE MAKING.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>>. >> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET LOTS OF VIOLATORS IF YOU FORCE IT TO BE IN WRITING OVER THE YEARS. I MEAN SOME JUST -- I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT NOT ON THIS CURRENT COMMISSION OF COURSE, SOME JUST ARE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THAT IN A WAY THAT -- IF I THINK BACK TO EVERY CITY COMMISSIONER THAT I'VE KNOWN SOME JUST AREN'T. THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. THEY WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO START.

SO. >> WHAT IF THAT'S A.

>> (LAUGHING) (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS).

>> I'M JUST SAYING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE.

>> WHAT IF IT'S. >> I'LL USE MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE. THE MOST I'VE EVER MANAGED WAS ONE PERSON.

>> SO WHAT IF IT'S A STANDARDIZED FORMAT THAT A 360 REVIEW, BUT SOMETHING THAT IS.

>> WE HAVE THOSE. WE HAVE THOSE FORMS THE END WE -- I'M JUST SAYING THAT SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD, I THINK -- WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO ARTICULATE TONIGHT, HAVE HAD PRETTY DECENT REASONS FOR NOT WANTING TO PUT THEIR EVALUATION IN WRITING. AND AS A CHARTER OFFICER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IF -- ESPECIALLY IF THEY DID NOT MEET WITH ME ONE-ON-ONE, BUT MOST OF THE TIME THEY MET WITH ME ONE-ON-ONE. I DON'T KNOW.

>> COULDN'T THERE BE A GROUP EVALUATION AND THERE MAY BE COMMENTS AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSION MEMBER THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE TO ONE OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS AND THEY CAN STILL DO THAT, BUT THERE'S A PIECE THAT IS WHAT THEY VOTE ON AND FORMALLY SUBMITTED.

>> WILL RESPOND TO THAT. >> SO VICE CHAIR, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SPECIAL MEETING WHILE THE COMMISSION GETS TOGETHER AND DOES A GROUP EVAL IS A WHICH ARE TRYING TO -- IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> YES. I -- I GUESS THERE'S NOT -- THERE'S NOT A PROVISION IN FLORIDA LAW TO OF CLOSED SESSIONS TO BE EVALUATIONS. HAS TO BE DONE IN PUBLIC. THE SYLLABI THEY DO IT. THEY WOULD HAVE A MEETING AND DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AND THEY WOULD VOTE ON WHATEVER THEY THOUGHT.

>> I DID NOT REALLY INTEND TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT IT. I JUST THOUGHT THEY OUGHT TO --

[02:55:01]

AT SOME POINT NEAR THE HAVE TO SAY THIS IS HOW I THINK YOU DOING BECAUSE IF THEY THINK

THAT. >> WE DO. WE DO IN OUR RESOLUTION. WE HAVE A IN A RESOLUTION BUT IS NOT IN THE CHARTER OR AN ORDINANCE.

>> AND IT'S ALSO, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IS SUGGESTED MORE THAN IT IS PRESCRIBED. SO IN RECENT YEARS, VERY RECENT YEARS, RECALL HEARING -- I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND HE KNOWS HOW I FEEL. THAT IS NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR THE COMMUNITY.

>> RIGHT. >> OF THE COMMUNITY IS CRUISING ALONG FAT, DUMB AND HAPPY THINKING EVERYBODY'S HAPPY WITH THE CITY MANAGER. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE PERSONAL EVALUATIONS LOOK LIKE. THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THEY? IF THEY SHOULD, THEN THEY EITHER HAVE TO DO IT IN A PUBLIC SESSION WITHOUT JUST SAYING I'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION OR THEY HAVE TO DO IT IN WRITING. BECAUSE EITHER

WAY, IT'S PUBLIC. >> MEMBER XHOSA.

>> I THINK ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXPECTS THINGS AND WANTS TO GROW, NEEDS TO HAVE DETAILED PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. ANY BUSINESS, ANY -- I MANAGED 1500 PEOPLE. AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON GOT A YEARLY EVAL. THE SITUATION OF THE BOSS AND WE HAVE THE SUNSHINE LAW. SO OUR BOSS IS THAT IF WE EXPECT EVALUATIONS, THEY ARE PUBLIC IS UNCOMFORTABLE IS THAT MIGHT BE, IT'S THE POSITION THAT WE WILL ALL BE IN. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE GROWTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY TO SEE.

>> WE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CHARTER MEMBERS QUICK SALES.

>> SO, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMISSION. AND I CAME RIGHT OUT OF A CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT. IT WAS MY FULL EXPECTATION THAT EVERYBODY WAS SUPPOSED TO DO PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. AND I DID.

>> AND I ASKED THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT I SERVED WITH TO CONSIDER DOING THE SAME THING OR TO USE -- WE DEVELOPED OUR PLAN FOR THIS COMING YEAR. AND WE HAD ONE FOR LAST YEAR.

I EVALUATED THE CITY MANAGER ON THE PLAN FOR LAST YEAR AND WHETHER WE GOT THE WORK DONE OR NOT. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD DO THE SAME THING ON THE COMING YEAR.

AND WHAT I HEARD BACK FROM TWO OR THREE COMMISSIONERS WAS OH, WE WOULD NEVER DO IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT.

>> NOW, THIS IS WHERE THE DISCONNECT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE COMMISSION, THE CITY STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY, I BELIEVE. BECAUSE FOR DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT'S THE SAME THINGS ARE IMPORTANT AS ANOTHER COMMISSIONER DOES, IN THEIR MEASUREMENT OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS, SURELY MAJORITY RULES, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO USE SAME PLAN, I WOULD THINK. YOU PUT IT TOGETHER. SO HER HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT KIND OF PUSHBACK AMONG COMMISSIONERS IN THE PAST. ABOUT DOING THIS KIND OF THING.

THAT'S JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

>> WELL, GUESS. >> I GUESS THE SHORT ANSWER IS IF THAT REQUIREMENT IS THEIR DUTY UNDER THE CHARTER, IF THERE UNCOMFORTABLE MAYBE THEY SHOULD RUN FOR OFFICE. I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT YOU KNOW THE DUTIES ARE SPECIFIED I GUESS THERE ARE TWO WAYS, RIGHT YOU EITHER DO IT IN WRITING OR IN PUBLIC. AND I THINK IN PUBLIC WOULD BE -- I THINK WOULD BE LESS ATTRACTIVE OPTION FOR THE CHARTER OFFICERS.

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. >> EITHER WAY IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE. BUT I'D RATHER SEE THEM WRITING THAN THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE'VE DETERMINED THAT A STATEMENT ABOUT THAT WOULD GO IN A DIFFERENT

SECTION? >> COMMISSION DUTIES.

>> SECTION 10. >> IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH

ADDING. >> MEMBER LUSSIER.

>> YES. I GUESS WILL THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BEING A LITTLE TOO DIRECTIVE TOWARDS COMMISSIONS. I MEAN, YOU HAVE FIVE PERSONS AND THEY'VE ALL EVOLVED OVER YEARS AND THEY DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. SOME DO ALL IN WRITING AND SOME WILL DO VERBAL. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD WANT TO TELL THEM HOW TO DO THEIR JOB IN THAT REGARD. I THINK THEY NEED TO MAKE AN EVALUATION AND JUST LEAVE IT THERE.

[03:00:05]

>> YES. >> BECAUSE EITHER WAY, IF YOU DO IT VERBALLY OR WRITTEN, IT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC.

>> THEY ARE ULTIMATELY GOING TO IMPROVE THEIR CONTRACT ANNUALLY I ASSUME BECAUSE IT SAYS LOVE A

CONTRACT. AND SO, >> IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ANNUAL

DOES IT. >> IT DOESN'T.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE THAT IT SHOULD BUT I DON'T NEED THAT WE NEED TO TELL THEM HOW TO DO IT

IS MY POINT. >> OKAY. IS IT OKAY, THEN, WITH THAT COMMENT, JOHN, WITH SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEING AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

>> WELD YEAH. IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT -- THE COMMISSIONER HAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE CHARTER OFFICER IS BEHAVING, I THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW.

>> OKAY. >> I MEAN THAT -- I THINK

THAT'S INCUMBENT UPON THEM. >> SO DOES THAT LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THEY WILL BE IN WRITING EXCEPT.

>> NO. >> IF IT'S VERBAL.

>> THEY NEED TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

>> TO THE PUBLIC. QUICKSILVER IS JUST.

>> IT BE DONE AT A PUBLIC MEETING.

>> SO ANY KIND OF VERBAL EVALUATION MUST BE DONE AT THE PUBLIC MEETING.

>> OR A WRITTEN EVALUATION IN A PUBLIC RECORD.

>> OKAY. >> YES. TAMMY.

>> NO. MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IF IT'S A PUBLIC VERBAL NOT WE HAD THE

CONVERSATION. >> SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF IT.

>> MEMBER CLERK? >> SO I THINK MY MOTION IS THAT WE AUTHORIZE DME TO DRAFT PERFORMANCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS AND COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING, THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF EXACTLY HOW TO DO IT, BUT IT SHOULD REQUIRE AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR THE

THREE CHARTER OFFICERS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND? >> AND WITH THAT, I'M ALSO HEARING TO WRITE IN WRITING OR IN PUBLIC.

>> YES. >> GOT IT.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSITION?

>> OKAY. SO LET'S GO BACK TO SECTION 25, WHICH IS THE SITTING MANAGER DESCRIPTION.

THAT'S WHAT WE GOT TO THIS. >> ANY COMMENTS?

>> WHAT IS IT MEAN WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS DEEMED TO BE A REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE

CITY? >> IT SHOULD JUST SAY REGULAR FULL-TIME. IF WE WERE GOING TO -- AS OPPOSED WE HAVE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES, TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES,

FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME. >> ISN'T THAT IMPLIED A

REGULAR? >> PRETTY MUCH.

>> YES. >> INDUSTRY DID -- I MEAN THE CONTRACT SAY, BUT SO DOES THIS. THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE CITY THINGS AS OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE IN TERMS OF BENEFITS.

>> TV IS NEUTRAL AND SAYS CONTRACT HERE BUT THE CITY MANAGER IS AN EMPLOYEE, IS NOT

A CONTRACTOR -- >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> IT'S AN EMPLOYER. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> BUT HE IS A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE.

>> YES. >> SO, SO, WHERE IS -- I'M NOT

SEEING THE WORD CONTRACT. >> IN THE MIDDLE OF THE

PARAGRAPH. >> OKAY. GOT IT.

>> THIS WAS A WORDSMITHING THING. IT SAYS THAT IT MAY ESTABLISH A CONTRACT WITH THE

CITY MANAGER. >> HE WILL.

>> IT'S REALLY NOT AN OPTION. I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE UNDER CONTRACT.

>> I'VE GOT A FEW OTHER WORDSMITH.

>> SO YOU SEE ALL THESE DO WANT TO BRING THIS OUT JOHN ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT SECTION SO IS THERE ANY NEED TO SO THE BASIS OF THE PERSON SHALL BE CHOSEN BASED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUALIFICATIONS.

>> WITHOUT REGARD TO POLITICAL BELIEF NEED NOT BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OR STANDING AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT. SO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS STATEMENT IS TRYING TO DO. BUT, WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY OUTLINE THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE ARE

LOOKING FOR IN A CITY MANAGER. >> PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE?

>> I'M THINKING THAT WE NEED TO ADD SOMETHING THERE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAD CITY MANAGERS BROUGHT IN WHERE SOMEBODY IS CAMPAIGNING MANJI -- MANAGER OR SOME SUCH

[03:05:01]

THING RATHER THAN BEING QUALIFIED. MEMBER LUSSIER.

>> OH -- SORRY. MEMBER DAVIS. I'M GOING THE WRONG WAY.

>> I'LL HAVE TO PULL BACK. I HAD SOME OF THE PEERS CITY CHARTERS ACTUALLY DID HAVE MORE SPECIFICATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS LIKE THE TYPE OF EDUCATION AND MAYBE HOW MANY YEARS THEY SERVED, WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE 21 OR OLDER. SO WE MIGHT WANT TO READ YOU SOME OF THOSE THINGS I DIDN'T GO THAT ROUTE OR MAKE A CHART THAT I KNOW THAT SOME HAD PRIOR MANAGERIAL -- IN ADDITION AND CRIMES IN THAT TYPE OF THINGS.

>> MEMBER DEAN? >> WE DO HAVE A BARRIER TO -- HE OR SHE HAS TO BE SELECTED BY THE COMMISSION. SO I WOULD BE HESITANT TO POST TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS ON HIGHWAY COMMISSION DOES HER JOB. MAYBE IF WE PUT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT ON IT. HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT WILL MAKE THE SELECTION. SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT -- TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE OPTIONS UNTIL MAKE THE BEST CHOICE THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. WE WANT TO ADD SOMETHING I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT .

>> (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS). >> MEMBER CLERK?

>> I -- I GENERALLY AGREE WITH WHAT MR. DEAN SAID. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO ADD LANGUAGE, THE KEY THING IS ABOUT HAVING SOME EXPERIENCE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. BUT IF YOU GET MUCH PAST THAT, YOU COULD JUST SEE HIM -- YOU COULD MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. YOU COULD SAY SOMEBODY HAS A MASTERS DEGREE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THAT. UNDER TYPICALLY GOOD AT THE JOB. I WOULD CAUTION ABOUT TRYING TO BE -- ABOUT THOSE QUALIFICATIONS. THE FURTHEST I WOULD PUT ABOUT -- MAKE SURE THEY HAVE SOME -- SOME EXPERIENCE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR FRANKLY, IF THEY WERE A STATE AGENCY.

>> ,SO IT COMMISSIONER COULD BE CONSIDERED.

>> KNOW -- WELL, IF THEY HAD THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS AS WELL.

>> I DON'T THINK -- WHEN I SAID LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE I WAS THINKING YOU'VE WORKED IN A -- ADMINISTRATIVE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ELECTION.

>> MEMBER LUSSIER. >> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT -- I AGREE WITH THAT REGARDING THE MANAGER THEMSELVES, SOMETIMES IN THE PAST WE HAD HOMEGROWN CANDIDATES THAT HAVE BEEN BUSY WITH THE COMMUNITY AND INVOLVED THE COMMISSION ANOTHER ACTIVITIES WITH THE CITY THAT ARE VERY -- MAYBE THEY DON'T NEED THE PROFESSIONAL DEFINITION OF THE CITY MANAGER. BUT THEY MAY ALSO FIT THE BILL. I WOULD HATE TO PRECLUDE ANYONE FROM THAT FROM BEING CONSIDERED AS MANAGER OF PARTICULARLY WANT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T DO IT ON AN INTERIM BASIS. SO FOR MANAGER LEAVES FOR ANOTHER JOB USUALLY YOU'VE GOT A SEARCH PERIOD OF 6 TO 9 MONTHS OR LONGER I NEED SOMEONE ON AN INTERIM BASIS TO FILL THE ROLE. OFTENTIMES IS SOMEONE THAT'S JUST FAMILIAR -- NOT NECESSARILY SOMEONE THAT'S A PROFESSIONAL MANAGER YOU DON'T BRING SOMEONE FROM OUT OF TOWN FOR 6 TO 9 MONTHS. I WANT TO KIND OF PUSH THAT OUT THERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY A GREAT PERIOD OR WITHOUT A TENURED CITY

MANAGER RELATIVELY SPEAKING. >> SO, IF YOU RECALL BACK TO 15 YEARS AGO. SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE ARE A SMOKE. SOMETIMES WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT EVERYBODY I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS SAY THIS IS THE RIGHT PERSON TO DO THE JOB. AND THAT'S IT.

>> A LOT OF THINGS WE KEEP -- ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE ARE A SMALL COMMUNITY POPULATION WISE BUT WE ARE A COMPLICATED COMMUNITY. THERE ARE FEW COMMUNITIES AS SMALL AS OURS WHO HAVE A GOLF COURSE AND AIRPORT.

>> THE END MAJOR INDUSTRY AS WELL. WE'VE GOT A LOT GOING ON FOR A SMALL TOWN. AND TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN HANGING AROUND AND INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY, SOMETIMES THAT'S NOT

A SKILL SET THAT IS NECESSARY. >> MEMBER KOZAK FOLLOWING SOME OF JOHN'S LINE OF THOUGHT WE WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROCESS SPECIFICALLY LIKE

[03:10:02]

TO HAVE A COMMITTEE WHO IS THE SEARCH COMMITTEE HOW MANY CANDIDATES DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE WE WANT TO GET SPECIFIC WITH THAT AND THEN FINALLY, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT ENUMERATED WHAT THE GROUNDS WERE FOR REMOVAL MIGHT BE. WE HAD THE PROCESS REMOVAL BUT NOT THE GROUNDS. DO WE NEED TO SAY WHAT THAT IS.

>> OLDER CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND THEY CAN BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME.

>> AND HAVE BEEN. >> ANY OTHER RESPONSES TO ANY

OF THESE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. >> AWARDED WOODLAND?

>> I HEARD LOSS OF SPECIFICITY WITH REGARD TO QUALIFICATIONS AND HEARD NOT SO MUCH.

>> SO, SO DID I. SO, IS THERE -- I MEAN THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL, JUST AS THE ATTORNEY HAS THE FLORIDA BAR, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION WORLDWIDE FOR CITY MANAGERS. AND IT'S I CMA. THEY HAVE SEVERAL STANDARDS THAT THEY ARE CITY MANAGERS, IN ORDER TO BE DESIGNATED AS AND I CMA AS A MANAGER, HAVE TO LIVE UP TO. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO WITH THAT TO SAY THAT EITHER THEY ARE A MEMBER OR THEY MAKE A COMMITMENT TO BE A MEMBER WITHIN X AMOUNT OF TIME OR DO WE NOT CARE ABOUT THAT? AMBER CLARK?

>> WILL AT SOME POINT I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE LITTLE FAITH THE COMMISSION WILL DO THE RIGHT THING. I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO GO TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD. THE ONLY THING I WOULD INFER IS FOR ME THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE PERSON HAS TO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING A LARGE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION ALTHOUGH THIS IS SMALL, THIS IS A PRETTY ROBUST ORGANIZATION. I THINK SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE SOME EMPOWER -- COMPARABLE EXPERIENCE WE HAVE TO BE TO PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT THE REST OF IT. I THINK THE COMMISSION WILL SORT IT OUT.

(MULTIPLE SPEAKERS). >> MEMBER DAVIS ON THE I CMA, MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT, WE DO REQUIRE, OBVIOUSLY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BAR IN GOOD STANDING. AND WHEN WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION, OUR WORKSHOP IN THE KIND OF RAGE THE CODE OF ETHICS ISSUES STAFF MEMBERS ALL POINTED OUT WELL, WE ARE ALL GOVERNED BY A CODE OF ETHICS UNDER THE ORGANIZATIONS. AND SO THE ESTIMATE WAS THE ONE THAT THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO IF WE REQUIRED THEM TO BECOME A MEMBER OR MAINTAIN THAT, AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE HAVE THEM BE SUBJECT TO THE CODE OF ETHICS. I'M JUST GETTING TO WHERE WE HAVE CONTINUED TO WANT TO HAVE SOME ETHICS CONDUCT REQUIREMENTS. THAT MIGHT BE ONE WAY TO AT LEAST GET THAT IN THERE.

>> OKAY. >> THE POINT I WOULD LIKE THE MOST SO FAR IS FROM -- I LIKE MEMBER KOZAK'S POINT ABOUT IF THE CHARTER IS GOING TO REQUIRE ANYTHING, I THINK IT SHOULD REQUIRE LOOKING AT ENOUGH CANDIDATES LIKE MAYBE THREE OR MORE CAN SAY PICK THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU SEE. BUT OTHERWISE, I'M OF THE MINDSET THAT -- THAT THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE STANDARDS. I AGREE TO BE STANDARDS. STANDARDS LIKE EXPERIENCE IN EDUCATION I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE STANDARDS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WRITE THEM DOWN I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED ON WHO IS APPLYING SINCE WERE NOT A GIANT TOWN. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REQUIRE HOW MANY PEOPLE WE NEED TO LOOK AT BUT MAYBE NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING SPECIFIC AS TO WHO WE GET.

>> MEMBER LUSSIER. >> AND JUST TO REFERENCE BACK TO THE LAST SELECTION PROCESS AND BEFORE THAT WHEN THE LAST CITY MANAGER WAS LIKE OUR LEFT

-- I CAN'T RECALL. >> LET GO.

>> AND SO THERE WAS A PROCESS WHERE I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE CANDIDATES FOR THE INTERIM POSITION TWO OF WHICH WERE LOCAL I WAS ONE OF THEM IS THAT THERE WERE THREE PROFESSIONALS WHO APPLIED AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW YOU NOTICE WHETHER THEY WERE LEAVING OR MAYBE THEY WERE

[03:15:03]

IN BETWEEN JOBS. I THINK THEY WERE VYING FOR A FULL-TIME JOB. THAT WAS THE REASON FOR VIEWING. AND THEN THEY HAD AN EXCELLENT JOB. HE WAS ONE OF THE LOCAL GUYS HIT A BANK ROUND -- BACKGROUND IN BUSINESS AND BANKING. AND THEN OUR CITY MANAGER WAS SELECTED AFTER A

PERIOD OF TIME. SO. >> THERE WAS ANOTHER CITY

MANAGER IN THERE. >> WAS THERE?

>> NO. JOE WAS AFTER. >> AFTER DAVID. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN THAT WAS A PERIOD OF -- ANYWAY. I WOULD SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A GIRTH OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES THAT APPLY. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY SURVEY AND SEE THAT.

I THINK THE CITY MANAGERS. >> WANT TO BE A PART OF

FERNANDINA. >> SO IT'S -- I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM HISTORICALLY FINDING CANDIDATES. VERY GOOD, QUALIFIED ONES. I DO WANT TO CREATE A PROBLEM.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN AN ABSENCE OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. I THINK THE CHOICES WERE NOT NECESSARILY MADE WITH THE SAME SET OF PRIORITIES. THAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE. AND -- AND THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, IN MY OWN HAD ABOUT HAVING SOMETHING THAT DOES MORE TO DEFINE QUALIFICATIONS. BUT IF THAT'S NOT THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE, THEN WE WILL PURSUE THAT MS. KOZAK.

>> I JUST PULLED UP CERTIFICATION AND THEY HAVE SOMETHING WHICH WE LIKE BECAUSE IT'S VAGUE BUT YOU CAN USE IT ANYWAY (LAUGHING) BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS VAGUE THAN HOW

VAGUE IT IS NOW. >> ,YOU KNOW, THAT WE -- WE WORDSMITH THIS IT SAYS QUALIFIED BY COMBINATION OF EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE AND THEY MAY BE REFERENCE SOMETHING IN LOCAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OR SOME TYPE OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OR SOMETHING, STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY, I THINK WE CAN PUT MORE IN THERE WITHOUT HAMSTRINGING THE APPLICANT'S.

>> OKAY. IS EVERYONE ALL RIGHT WITH THAT?

>> I LIKE THAT. >> THE END CAN I ADD IN THEIR -- BECAUSE A LEAST A COUPLE OF YOU SAID THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER -- I MEAN, MORE THAN ONE CANDIDATE, MUST REVIEW -- JUST SO THAT IT'S -- EVEN IF IT'S JUST

IMPLIED. >> I WOULD NOT SAY A NUMBER. I WOULD SAY THAT THEY MUST CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE.

>> OKAY. >> HOW ELSE WOULD I DO IT? OTHERWISE I'D HAVE TO INSERT A NUMBER, RIGHT.

>> OKAY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS.

>> AM GOING TO DO MY BEST. >> OKAY.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE TAMMY TAKE THAT FORWARD FOR THAT SECTION.

>> I MOVED TO HAVE TAMMY TAKE FORWARD TO THAT SECTION.

>> SECOND. >> I SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY I.

>> I. >> ANY OPPOSITION.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOW WE ARE AT SECTION 29. IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD

ON THIS ASSIGNMENT TODAY. >> WITH HASTE.

>> OKAY. SECTION 29, THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. ANY COMMENTS?

>> JUST MAKE A GENERAL NEUTRAL. >> YES. I HAD SOME EDITS, BUT THEY ARE MINOR. I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM TONIGHT. THEY ARE VERY MINOR.

>> YOU WANT TO SEND THEM TO ME, JOHN.

>> SURE. >> I -- I HAVE SOME PALPABLY

FOLLOWING THAT SAME CATEGORY. >> OKAY.

>> YOU WILL PICK THEM UP ALREADY.

>> MS. KOZAK? >> ANYBODY ELSE WITH ANY OTHER

CHANGES? WE JUST PENDING. >> RECENTLY SCRIVENERS TYPE

THINGS LIKE GRAMMAR. >> OKAY.

>> I JUST WANT -- I'M SORRY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I NOTE THAT AT THE END OF CLAUSE AGE IS THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT MR. -- MEMBER CLARK DID NOT LIKE WITH RESPECT TO THE MAYOR. SO DO WE WANT TO REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE.

>> I THINK WE DO. >> OKAY. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT

A LITTLE BIT MORE. >> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING IN EACH OF THE OFFICER SECTIONS OKAY.

>> MEMBER CLARK HE. >> SO, UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH G IT'S SAYS STATE MANAGER KEEPS THE -- FULLY ADVISES ãAN ANNUAL BUDGET. I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT THE ANNUAL BUDGET IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHAT THAT MEANS BUT THERE IS ANOTHER

[03:20:10]

COMPONENT THAT IS PRETTY STANDARD PRACTICE IN THE BUSINESS AND IT'S IMPORTANT.

AND I THINK THEY DO THIS WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, BUT IT'S ARTICULATED AS A SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WITH REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES.

IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT. AND I SEE THAT'S ONE THING THAT CITIES OFTEN FALL DOWN ON. I'M NOT SAYING WE ARE, BUT IT'S ONE PART OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. AND IT'S REALLY NOT CAPTURED WHEN YOU SAY ANNUAL BUDGET.

>> SO WE SHOULD SEE ANNUAL BUDGET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS?

>> WE DID IT FIVE YEARS AND WE DO OUR STATE REQUIRES THAT.

>> OKAY. BUT IT'S TO MENTION. >> WHATEVER THE STATE MAY BE

CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. >> IT'S FIVE YEARS.

>> MEMBER DAVIS? >> WELL I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT SECTION 71 OF THE CHARTER GOES INTO MORE DETAIL THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS TO SET FORTH.

I DON'T KNOW AGAIN -- DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THIS IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES OR NOT? THAT'S NOT REALLY. MAYBE WE COULD TAKE LANGUAGE FROM THAT?

>> OKAY. >> ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES IS THE TITLE SUBMISSION TO CITY COMMISSION.

>> IS ONLY ANNUAL AND I KNOW MEMBER CLARK IS SAYING MORE BUT I'M SAYING HERE IF PEOPLE LOOK AND THINK THAT THIS IS WHERE THE BUDGET REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS ARE, THEY NEED

TO ALSO LOOK AT 71 AND 72. >> I THINK WE SHOULD PUT IT BOTH PLACES. I THINK WE SHOULD ADD CIP OR IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN BOTH PLACES.

>> OKAY. >> SHOULD WE SAY THAT OUR WORK WITH THE CITY CONTROLLER IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET?

>>. >> IS UP TO YOU GUYS.

>> IS REFERENCING. >> THE REFERENCE.

>> DOES THE CONTROLLER REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD POINT.

>> OKAY. SO WE HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THAT, BUT THEY ARE MINOR. IS THAT A FAIR

ASSESSMENT? >> YES.

>> IS EVERYBODY OKAY. YOU HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND? >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> SECTION 31, CITY ATTORNEY, APPOINTMENTS AND DUTY.

>> THIS WHOLE SECTION NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN.

>> (LAUGHING). >> I THINK HE'S GETTING.

>> I WAS JUST KIDDING. >> I WILL TELL YOU I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ASK BUT UNCLE HADN'T ASKED THE CHAIR IF I MIGHT SAY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THIS OVER THE YEARS AND MORE RECENTLY AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT I DO THAT I DON'T THINK IS INCLUDED AND I COULD NOT THINK OF NO I DID NOT REALLY LOOK FOR GRAMMAR CHANGES I LOOKED FOR SUBSTANCE. THAT IT WOULD -- THAT I WOULD CHANGE. I THINK IT CAPTURES IT.

>> ARE YOU CHANGING ALL THE PRONOUNS TO SHE? (LAUGHING).

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE GENERAL GENDER-NEUTRAL EVERYWHERE.

>> OKAY I ASK ABOUT FORMATTING? THIS IS SECTION LOOK COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE

OTHER SECTIONS? >> SO IT'S NOT JUST ME.

>> YES. >> RIGHT, WITH THE.

>>. >> THE SENTENCES AND THE ONES,

THE JEWS, LIKE WHAT? >> IT SHOULD BE.

>> WILL MAKE THAT CONSISTENT. >> I MOVED TO MAKE IT TIMES NEW

ROMAN FONT. >> JUST GETTING.

>> IF WERE GOING TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER, WE SHOULD

DO SO HERE, YES? >> I THINK THERE IN -- WE HAVE

THEM, AREN'T THEY? >>.

>> SECTION 33. >> AND HAVE TO BE A MEMBER -- BE ADMITTED TO ALL COURTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

>> ALL COURTS. >> JILL NOTICED SOMETHING STRANGE UNDER SECTION 33? THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.

>> THAT'S A MISTAKE. >> WHY IS THIS HERE?

>> IT'S NOT MY ACTUAL. >> THE WHOLE CHARTER, JUST ã

OKAY. >> I THINK THE CUT-AND-PASTE

PROBLEM. >>.

>> OKAY. SO THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN SECTION 33 GET RID OF THE POWER.

>> YOU HAVE TO BE ADMITTED TO APPELLATE COURTS AND SUPREME COURT? IS THAT REALLY.

>> NO. IT JUST SAYS ALL COURTS OF THE STATE.

>> OKAY. THAT WOULD NOT. >> AS THE SENTENCE.

>> THAT'S IT UNDER QUALIFICATIONS.

>> THE SECOND PART IS JUST A MISTAKE.

[03:25:02]

>> THE SECOND PART IS SECTION 45.

>> IT'S A CUT AND PASTE A PROBLEM. 46 BELOW IT.

>> MEMBER DEAN. >> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM, BUT JUST BEING A LAWYER THAT'S ON THE BAR, THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE IN ALL COURTS IN THE STATE SUCH AS LIKE THE SUPREME COURT?

>> ANY LAWYER CAN GO THERE. >> YES.

>> IF YOU'RE ADMITTED TO THE STATE BAR.

>> ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT MAKING IT MANDATORY TO HAVE THE ATTORNEYS BE ABLE TO PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN THE 11TH CIRCUIT?

>> THAT'S A SEPARATE CIRCUIT. >> I HAVE THEM, BUT.

>> IT MAY -- YOU MAY -- THE CITY MAY BE SUED IN FEDERAL COURT. THEY MAY NEED TO APPEAR. I'M MORE LIKELY TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL BUT IT MAY BE -- I MEAN IT SAYS IN ALL COURTS OF THE STATE WHICH I THINK INCLUDES THAT.

>> IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE THE CIRCUIT COURT, COUNTY COURTS, APPELLATE DISTRICT COURTS, AND IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. BUT THE 11TH CIRCUIT, I HAD TO APPLY FOR IT AND THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, HAD TO APPLY.

>> WHY IS THAT? >> BECAUSE THOSE BARS, THEY CALLED THE BARS OF THOSE COURTS THEY REQUIRE A SEPARATE -- THEY -- MONEY.

>> NO. IT'S LIKE 100 BUCKS. AND YOU APPLY TO THEM. THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE

IN GOOD STANDING. >> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF

RULES, TO. >> YES.

>> I MEAN IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY SHOULD HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT. IT KIND OF SAID THAT ALL COURTS OF THE STATE NOT REALIZE THAT THE FEDERAL COURT.

>> COMING, IF YOU WANT MY OPINION, THE CITY DESERVE SOMEBODY OF THAT CALIBER. I THINK YOU DESERVE SOMEBODY BOARD-CERTIFIED BUT I WOULD NOT -- THERE'S ONLY 200 OF US. SO I WANT TO LIMIT YOURSELF THAT MUCH, BUT HAVING SOMEBODY AGAIN, WITH THE COMPLEXITIES AND HOW WE HAVE MATURED I THINK THAT BEING AVAILABLE TO PRACTICE AND SIGN A PLEADING IN FEDERAL COURT, BASIC PLEADING, I DEFEND BANKRUPTCIES, YOU KNOW, THE CITY GETS FILED BANKRUPTCY FILED, I SUBMIT CLAIMS FOR UNPAID UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT. >> AND ALSO, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT -- NOT A REQUIREMENT THE BOARD CERTIFICATION IS PREFERRED.

>> OKAY. IT'S A BIG DEAL. HE WORKED HARD TO GET IT.

>> YES. >> ANY OTHER CHANGES.

>> OKAY. I THINK I WILL PUT IN THEIR THAT YOU EITHER HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED TO PRACTICE IN THOSE COURTS ARE YOU NEED TO GET THAT CERTIFICATION WITHIN SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING.

>> OKAY. >> IS AN APPLICATION.

>> THAT'S ALL IT IS. >> THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL COME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS THE END AN EXPLANATION OF WHY SHE.

>> (AWAY FROM MIC). >> WE OF MOTIONS. THE MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?

>> I. ANY OPPOSITION? >> ALL RIGHT. CITY CLERK, SECTION 46. APPOINTMENT, TENURE OF OFFICE AND TEMP PRO TEM. MR. CLARK?

>> TWO THINGS. ONE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ICM A LANGUAGE FOR THE CITY MANAGER, THERE IS A SIMILAR ORGANIZATION FOR CITY CLERKS.

>> CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK. YES.

>> AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH D, IT SAYS THE CLERK COUNTERSIGNED ALL CHECKS AND REVIEWS ALL CHECKS ARE IN COMPLIANCE PURCHASING POLICY AND PROCEDURES. MAYBE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE HERE, BUT ISN'T THAT A CITY MANAGER FUNCTION?

>> THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK SIGN EVERY CHECK THAT GOES OUT OF THE CITY.

>> BUT THE CITY CLERK ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES.

>> COMPLIANCE WITH CITY PURCHASING POLICY AND PROCEDURES?

>> HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. I

FOUND IT UNUSUAL. >> LESSEE.

>> I DID NOT SEE EARLIER BUT PURCHASING POLICY AND PROCEDURES IS CAPITALIZED.

>> OKAY (LAUGHING). >> AND IS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE

ELSE THAT I KNOW OF. >> OKAY. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT I SAW THAT I MISSED, BUT THAT IS ONE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> MR. CLARK'S COMMENT ABOUT ICM A, I THOUGHT WE WERE NOT GOING TO ADD THAT SPECIFIC CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OR

ARE WE? >> MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD.

>> THE LANGUAGE VAGUE LANGUAGE. >> OKAY. SO I SHOULD BUY THE CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> YES. >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> YES. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THAT SAYS TO PERFORM

[03:30:17]

DUTIES, REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION IN SUBPARAGRAPH E, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT WAS IS IN J, ABOUT FILING SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES ON FIS -- AUTHORIZED BY THE -- IS IT THE CITY MANAGER NOT YOU THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE.

>> NO. AND IT'S NOT TRUE EITHER BECAUSE THEIR RECORDING NOW. SO MANY DEPARTMENTS RECORD THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS AND MY DEPARTMENT RECORDS DOCUMENTS FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S NOT REALLY APPLICABLE ANYMORE. AND THE MAYOR DOES SIGN OFF ON THOSE.

I THINK THE MANAGER, IF YOU GIVE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY WELL.

>> WILL THAT MAY BE, MAY BE EITHER J'S IN THE WRONG PLACE. IT SAYS ALL LIENS AND IT WOULD

BE FILED BY THE CLERK. >> ALSO KNOW THAT YOU REALLY

NEED THAT. >> SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE FILING THEM IF WE HAVE AUTHORIZATION, BUT ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WERE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T DO THINGS THAT ARE ONLY A RESOLUTION TELLS YOU TO DO.

>> RIGHT. >> SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THOSE ARE GETTING DONE, BUT THERE'S THAT. ALSO, IN -- JUST TO REITERATE THAT WE WANTED TO ADD IN SECTION 47 ABOUT THE CLERK IS GOING TO MAINTAIN THE OFFICIAL CITY BOUNDARIES.

>> MAKE IT SECTION E OR WHATEVER?

>> RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> OKAY. >> GOT IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS EITHER SECTION 46 OR 40 7P.

>> WELL, MEMBER DAVIS. >> WELL I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THE LAST CLAUSE M, ARE WE GOING TO LEAD THAT.

>> YES. >> AS WELL AS A LANGUAGE AT THE

END OF E. >> YES.

>> I'M HOPING THAT WE WILL BE ADDRESSING BY INCLUDING LANGUAGE FROM THE CLERK.

>> STATE LEVEL SAYING SOME. >> EMC. I GOT THAT.

>> OR QUALIFICATIONS. BECAUSE THAT SOUNDS LIKE A MASSIVE WORD IN ITSELF (LAUGHING) THAT

UNQUALIFIED, RIGHT. >> YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT'S A LOT.

>> WOW. WE DID IT (LAUGHING). >> IF ANYBODY OUT THERE IS

STILL WATCHING THIS. >> (LAUGHING). THANK YOU.

>> SO NEXT WEEK -- NEXT MEETING.

>> MEMBER KOZAK, I FORGET WHAT OUR SUBCOMMITTEE IS CALLED, IT.

>> DO WE NEED TO BROADCAST SOMETHING -- SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP SOME OF THESE LARGER ISSUES AND GARNER A LITTLE MORE PUBLIC INPUT SO WE ARE THE VOICE OF

THE PEOPLE? >> AND HOW DO WE DO THAT.

>> WELL, I THINK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH QUITE A BIT OF IT. I THINK THAT WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY COMES BACK WITH -- AT THE NEXT MEETING, THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE AND ALSO THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO DO SOME SORT OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT, BUT WE ARE ENGAGED WITH THEM WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT'S COMING NEXT, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING INTO.

SO, I'M ASSUMING THAT WE COULD DO THAT AGAIN THROUGH SOME SORT OF A VIDEO. THAT THE IT DEPARTMENT MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP THEM WITH TO PUT ON OUR WEBSITE.

>> HAVE WE HAD ANY REQUESTS TO GROUPS THAT ARE.

>> NO. >> NO.

>> I KNOW -- IS SO IMPORTANT, YET IT'S PROBABLY THE LEAST ATTENDED.

>> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD PUT JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE NEWS LEADER.

>> FOR THE OBSERVER THAT. >> WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS AND THAT WHAT OUR AGENDA LOOKS LIKE FOR THAT MEETING.

>> AND ALSO ASK FOR MORE INPUT. BECAUSE WE HAD A FLURRY OF IT AND THEN IT DIED AWAY.

>> YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE THE PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS TURNED INTO AN ARTICLE THAT WAS GREAT.

THERE WAS A WEBPAGE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING HER MINUTES AND AGENDAS AND

ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETINGS. >> UH-UH (AFFIRMATIVE).

>> SO I WONDER IF A VEHICLE TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

>> A PRESS RELEASE OR SOMETHING THAT GOES INTO THE PAPER THAT SAYS ALL THAT.

[03:35:01]

>> OKAY. >> WERE CERTAIN TO GET MORE

EMAILS. >> I THINK IT DID WHAT WE

WANTED IT TO DO. >> RIGHT.

[Items 5.2 & 8]

>> IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN ASK MARY HAMBERG TO DO.

>> YES. OKAY. >> I'LL GET WITH HER TOMORROW

AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. >> OKAY. THE ONE OTHER ITEM ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY IS EMAILS. I'M LOOKING FOR AN ASSISTANT TO APPROACH AND RESPOND MR. CLARK.

>> I'M RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE I'M ON THE AGENDA. SO, WE WERE GETTING THESE EMAILS, ACTUALLY, SEVERAL. AND I WAS SITTING THERE TRYING TO FIGURE HOW TO RESPOND BACK TO THEM. AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK FOR ANYBODY. AND IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME, THAT IF PEOPLE TAKE THE TIME TO WRITE TO US WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. IT'S NOT MAY BE A HUGE DEAL, BUT I THOUGHT WE OUGHT TO AGREE TO MAYBE HAVE -- MY SUGGESTION IS TO ME OR HER STAFF WOULD MAYBE JUST RESPOND TO THE EMAILS, THANK THEM FOR IT AND INDICATE -- IF I SENT AN EMAIL TO SOMEBODY AT LEAST SOMEBODY ACKNOWLEDGES. I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT. AND THEN ANY OF US I WANT TO BRING IT UP IN A MEETING AND TALK ABOUT IT

WE CAN DO THAT? >> BUT I WOULD LIKE THE FACT THAT WE WERE GETTING THOSE AND PEOPLE TOOK TIME TO WRITE IT. I JUST DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO WRITE AND THEN HAVE NO RESPONSE GO BACK.

>> SURE. >> MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO FORMALLY INTRODUCE GABBY. SHE'S TAKING OVER FOR KATIE AND SHE WORKS WITH US PART-TIME IN THE FINANCE AND LEGAL DEPARTMENTS. SHE WILL BE THE ONE THAT RECEIVES THE EMAILS.

YOU HAVE A COMMENT. >> YES. I GET ALL OF THEM TO THE CRC EMAIL AND THEN I FORWARD THEM OUT TO GUYS LIKE KATIE SHOWED ME HOW TO DO. AND THEN I GOT YOUR EMAIL LIKE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD RESPOND. SO I CAN COME UP WITH A DRAFT RESPONSE FOR YOU TO GO OVER AT THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I CAN WORK ON THAT. BUT AS SOON AS HE TOLD ME TO RESPOND I JUST CAME UP WITH YOU KNOW THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE -- WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS AND THEN WITH THE DISCLAIMER FROM THE CITY AND SEND IT OUT.

>> I THINK THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> JUST TO SAY THEY RECEIVED IT.

>> THAT WAY WON'T GET LOST IN CYBERSPACE. IT'S THANK YOU I'M IN RECEIPT OF YOUR EMAIL.

>> RIGHT. >> AND THEN MAY BE WHAT MIGHT BE A REALLY GOOD IDEA IS TO -- THIS IS HOW I WOULD END IT ANYWAY AND OUR NEXT MEETING IS

SCHEDULED FOR. >> YEAH.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO IN THEIR RESPONSES, SO WHENEVER YOU GET THEM OUR NEXT MEETING

IS SCHEDULED FOR. >> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

YOU COULD PUT A LINK TO THE WEBSITE.

>> YOU COULD JUST GO TO THAT. >> AND I ALSO THINK WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT STATING THAT IT IS BEING FORWARDED TO THE MEMBERS IS IMPORTANT, TO SO THAT THEY

KNOW. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> OKAY. >> SO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION WHICH IS THE REVERSE OF THAT. IF WE GET A SPECIFIC, AN INDIVIDUAL EMAIL FROM A CITIZEN, SHOULD WE BROADCAST THAT TO THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> JUST SEND IT. >> SEND IT TO US.

>> SEND IT ON TO ME. AND WE WILL GET IT TO THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY

OTHER BUSINESS? >> I DO HAVE -- BECAUSE NORMALLY WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND SECTIONS. DO YOU THINK THAT GOING OVER THIS NEW LANGUAGE IS GOING TO TAKE UP OUR NEXT MEETING?

>> EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

>> MIGHT I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION?

>> SURE. THERE WERE -- WE CAN FIND IT TO ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SECTIONS, LIKE SECTION 11, QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS, SALARY OF MEMBERS, BUT I MAY BE PUT AS SAY, YOU KNOW, I WON'T SAY WE HAVE TIME TO GET TO IT, BUT TENTATIVELY BECAUSE NOBODY'S REALLY STARTED DOING -- SOME HAVE, WORDSMITHING. I THINK THOSE SECTIONS ARE KIND

OF. >> OKAY.

>> JUST SPOKEN A COUPLE OTHERS THAT -- SO WERE NOT LEAVING IT AND WE SAY OKAY. WELL IF WERE

SO LUCKY. >> IT IS NOW 5:15 PM AND WE ARE FINISHED BECAUSE IT ALL LOOKS GOOD. YOU KNOW?

>> ARE WE -- TO HAVE SPECIFIC SECTIONS FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

>> I'M GOING TO PUT IN SECTION 11, SECTION 12, THIS IS UNDER CITY COMMISSION, QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS, HOLDING OFFICE SALARY OF MEMBERS, AND I DID NOT KNOW -- SESSION 13 IS TERM AND ASK TAUGHT ME TO THROW THAT IN THERE? IS THAT TOO MONSTROUS?

>> IT'S SHORT SECTIONS, YOU EITHER WANT TERM LIMITS FOR YOU DON'T.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD THROW IT IN.

[03:40:01]

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I THINK WELL I THINK WE TALK ABOUT IT HAS NO CHANCE OF IT PASSING, BUT I THINK WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT.

>> TO PUT TERM -- TO GET RID OF THEM.

>> I KNOW. WE'VE DONE IT TWICE ON THE BALLOT NOW IN ITS FAILED .

>> ESPECIALLY GENERAL ELECTIONS.

>> (LAUGHING). >> BUT YOU KNOW. I JUST WANT THEM -- SOMEONE TO SAY WERE THEY THINKING.

>> I THINK WILL HAVE A GOOD MEETING. AND IF WE HAVE TO, I CAN GUIDE YOU INTO SOME -- WE

CAN GO INTO SOME OTHER THINGS. >> ARE WE DOING SECTION 136

NEXT WEEK, DO? >> THAT ARE NO. YOU WANT TO?

136 COME INVESTIGATIONS. >> I HAD WRITTEN DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER THAT THAT IS WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO REVIEW.

>> SOMEONE SAID HOMEWORK. >> I HONESTLY DON'T THINK THAT WERE GOING TO BE HAGGLING. I DON'T THINK WERE GOING TO BE HAGGLING OVER THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PREPARED FOR -- NOT THAT IT'S JUST -- I THINK THAT Y'ALL ARE PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME PAGE. SO WHEN I PRESENTED, OTHER THAN SAYING MAYBE IT WILL SOUND BETTER THIS WAY OR THAT.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY. 136.

>> ANYTHING ELSE. >> CAN YOU SEND OUT A SUMMARY

OF THAT? OF THOSE ITEMS. >> SURE.

>> AND I WILL SEND YOU CHAPTER 34 AS WELL.

>> OH YEAH. AND THE SURVEY. >> EXACTLY.

>> THE SURVEY. >> THE SURVEY?

>> YES. BUT IT'S NOT COMPLETE. IS IT?

>> THE DASHBOARD. >> 17 PAGES LONG OR 12 PAGES

LONG. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? >> SOMEBODY SAID YOU DID NOT HAVE EVERYTHING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.