Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:02]

>>> CALLED TO ORDER A MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 10. 3 O'CLOCK.

ACCORDING TO THE COMPUTER. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> (ROLL CALL). >>> DO WE HAVE ANY REVIEW OF

[Item 3]

THE MINUTES OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT OLD BUSINESS WAS MISSING. ITEM 4.1 AND 4.2 THE RECAP OF THE JOINT MEETING AND THE DRAFT VISIONS WERE NOT IN THERE. SO I GUESS -- I SUGGEST WE GO BACK TO THE TAPING OF THE PUT INTO THE MINUTES.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT SAID WE WILL TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THOSE MINUTES IS THAT APPROPRIATE?

>> YES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> OKAY. OLD BUSINESS. ROLES

[Item 4.1]

AND RESPONSIBILITIES. I BELIEVE EVERYBODY HAS RECEIVED SUGGESTIVE WORDING FROM THE

CITY ATTORNEY. >> OTHER THAN THAT I SENT YOU SEPARATELY SECTION 10 THAT WE AGREED WE WERE GOING TO CHEW ON FOR A WHILE. BUT THESE ARE ALL THE OTHER CHANGES TO THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED.

>> OKAY. SO WE ARE OPEN FOR COMMENTS ON THE CHANGES WE WILL TAKE THEM IN ORDER, PLEASE ANY

COMMENTS? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE LANGUAGE HERE REQUIRES A REFERENDUM FOR THE SALE OF RECREATION AND CONSERVATION -- BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT YOU COULD -- THE CITY COULD LEASE THE PROPERTY FOR PERIOD OF UP TO 40 YEARS WITHOUT A REFERENDUM. AND I'VE BEEN STEWING ABOUT THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU CAN DO A LOT UNDER A 40 YEAR LEASE. AND PARTICULARLY WITH CONSERVATION LAND. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF OTHER PEOPLE HAD SIMILAR CONCERNS ABOUT IT THAT MAY BE ON CONSERVATION LAND THERE SHOULD BE LESS THAN A 40 YEAR LEASE THAT WOULD TRIGGER A REFERENDUM? I'M NOT -- HAVE TO CONFESS. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS. BUT THAT IS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT PROVISION THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED.

>> MEMBER DAVIS? >> SAYS THIS LANGUAGE WAS RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, I WAS WONDERING IF MRS. BOCK TO GIVE US ANY INDICATION. I DID NOT GO BACK, AND CHECK MYSELF AND DID THE COMMISSION DISCUSS THE 40 YEAR TURN. WERE THEY JUST REMEMBERING THE CLAUSE 1?

>> THEY WERE JUST MIRRORING THE OTHER CLAUSE THE OTHER CLAUSE 14 RECREATION LAND. I THINK IT'S A WORTHY DISCUSSION TO BRING UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION. AND IF THEY WANT TO SAY NO, WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AND WE LIKE THE LANGUAGE, FINE. IF NOT I THINK YOU SHOULD DISCUSS IT AND SEND A PROPOSAL.

>> TIMMY, MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW AND MAYBE YOU DO. DO YOU KNOW IF ALL OF THE CITY HOLDINGS TODAY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT? I'M THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE LAND THAT THE CITY OWNS DOES THE CITY OWNED THE CORRECT SPELLING?

>> YES. >> BUT YOU HAVE NOT LISTED.

>> YES. >> IT EXPIRES IN 2025.

>> OKAY. SO IF THERE WAS TO BE A RENEWAL OF THAT LEASE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A REFERENDUM.

MAYBE THAT'S FINE AND MAYBE THE COMMISSION WILL SAY THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, BUT THAT'S THE

IMPLICATION. >> IS THAT PROPERTY

CONSERVATION. >> IT'S NOT CONSERVATION I'M

NOT SURE. >> BUT THE 40 RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY AS WELL SO I ASSUME THAT WOULD BE COVERED.

>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE. IT MIGHT BE INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. I'M NOT SURE. IT'S ONLY IF THE -- IT'S RECREATION OR GOLF COURSE. AND IN SOME CASES, IF YOU HAVE A PERSON WITH LAND DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING IT'S VACANT AND IT'S OWNED RECREATION, -- FOR EXAMPLE.

[00:05:07]

LET'S SAY THE CITY-OWNED -- I DON'T THINK WE DO, BUT IF WE OWNED VACANT LAND THAT WAS INDUSTRIAL -- JUST ZONED INDUSTRIAL BUT THE CITY OWNED IT. IT'S NOT BEEN CHANGED, DOES NOT FALL UNDER THIS PROVISION? I WOULD SAY NO BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THAT INDICATES ITS RECREATIONAL CONSERVATION. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ZONING.

>> BUT TO ME, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO REZONE TO A RECREATION -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT COULD HAPPEN OR NOT. IF THEY WERE TO DO

>> THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT THERE. FROM SOME EXPOSURE OF HAD.

>> MEMBER DAVIS? >> I WAS THINKING WELL THE 40 YEAR LEASE REFERENDUM LANGUAGE FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES HAS BEEN IN THEIR QUITE SOME TIME.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BUT PERHAPS WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE CONSERVATION LAND -- I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT TIME OF -- WHAT TYPE OF LONG-TERM LEASE YOU WOULD EVEN WANT TO A LIEN -- ALLOWING CONSERVATION LAND LET ALONE -- IF YOU SAY WE SHORTEN PULL IF YOU TAKE IT DOWN TO 20 YEARS, MAYBE THAT'S OKAY FOR CONSERVATION. I'M THINKING A LITTLE DIFFERENT RECREATIONAL. I UNDERSTAND WE MIGHT WANT TO LEASE OUT THE OPERATION AT SOME POINT. I

DON'T KNOW ABOUT CONSERVATION. >> ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT WAS

WHAT -- (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS). >> SO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INTEREST ABOUT PRESERVING CONSERVATION LAND. AND IF THERE IS THIS LANGUAGE IN IT, IT INVITES THIS NOTION THAT WELL, IT'S CONSERVATION LAND BUT WE CAN LEASE IT FOR A USE.

FOR UP TO 40 YEARS WHICH MAY NOT BE WITH THE INTENT OF THIS IS. SO IT MIGHT BE THAT AS YOU SUGGEST, YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENTLY. THE CONSERVATION LAND WOULD HAVE A SHORTER LEASE PERIOD PERMITTED AS OPPOSED TO RECREATION LAND.

>> WHAT IT -- WOULD IT HELP THIS BODY TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND HELP US UNDERSTAND THE ZONING THAT GOES ON ON THE WATERFRONT NOW AS OPPOSED TO WHAT PERMISSIBLE USES THERE ARE IN CONSERVATION, VERSUS RECREATION? DOES IT HELP SO

THAT WE CAN SEPARATE THOSE? >> YES. I MEAN I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW OF A VIABLE SITUATION IN WHICH YOU WOULD EVEN BE LOOKING AT LEASING COMMERCIALLY, CONSERVATION LAND BECAUSE THE DEFINITION, PRETTY MUCH EXCLUDES ANY SORT OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY FROM HAPPENING. BUT I MEAN I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE AND JUST NOT SURE I CAN THINK OF A SCENARIO IN WHICH IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE, YOU KNOW?

>> OKAY. >> IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, HAD AN EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION IN WHICH I COULD BE A VIABLE OPTION BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE WORTH LOOKING AT.

>> RIGHT. BECAUSE THIS LANGUAGE IS CURRENTLY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RIGHT, SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY I GUESS?

[00:10:01]

>> I COMPLETELY AGREE. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY VALID REASON WHY THAT WOULD EVEN BE, LIKE THE ABILITY TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND SOUNDS -- BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I LIKE THE IDEA THAT IF WE EVER DID WANT TO DO THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO VOTER REFERENDUM. I DEFTLY WANT TO KEEP THE VOTER REFERENDUM IN THERE.

>> IT DELINEATES THE TYPES OF USES.

>> RIGHT. SO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE FOR PLANNING ARE MUCH MORE AROUND THE TYPES OF USAGE. NUMBER -- MEMBER CLARK.

>> I GUESS YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOME DIRECTION TO ME AS TO WHICH OF THESE TWO.

>> CORRECT. >> INTO MY WAY OF THINKING, THE FIRST ONE IS THE BRIEFER VERSION OF IT. IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHARTER AND THAT LEADS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE ABILITY TO REFINE THE DEFINITION SEEMS MORE

APPROPRIATE. >> MEMBER BARS AND KEY.

[00:15:03]

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE EXACT THING MEMBER CLARK JUST SAID.

>> DOES THE COMP PLAN DEFINITION CAPTURE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT

PROPERTIES? >> BECAUSE I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY GRANTS YOU A CONSERVATION EASEMENT MAY NOT NECESSARILY OF BEEN ON THE PLAN.

>> RIGHT. >> AS A CONSERVATION LAND. BUT THEY WANT THE LAND TO BE USED FOR SUCH IN PERPETUITY. SO, I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE -- I MEAN, WE COULD ADD THAT TO THIS DEFINITION. THAT WOULD NOT BE A BAD THING.

>> THAT IS BEEN PLACED IN PERPETUITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR DEEP RESTRICTION.

SOMETIMES THEY ARE RECORDED AS COVENANTS.

>> WE JUST DON'T WANT THAT TO BE -- WHEN SOMEONE IS PRIVATELY PLACED THERE LAND AND

CONSERVATION. >> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE

SECTION? >> OKAY. SO WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY AT OUR NEXT DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLY SITTING IN OKAY. SO, THE NEXT SECTIONS ANY

COMMENTS? MEMBER GATES? >> I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS 11 SECTION 11 WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S NEXT ON OUR HANDOUT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY NEW BUSINESS. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT LATER. BUT SECTION 14, WHICH I NOW -- WHILE I AGREE WITH DELETING AND I THINK WITH MY SUGGESTION, THE LAST SECTION -- SENTENCE IN SECTION 14 AND MOVING IT INTO 11, I'M NOT CERTAIN MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS IT LATER IF DELETION OF THE FIRST SENTENCE ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS IS APPROPRIATE. BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE FORFEITURE OF QUALIFICATION ORIENTED ISSUES, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A PROCEDURE SO THAT MAY NEED TO COME BACK IN. IT'S A THOUGHT. I MEAN THAT'S ALWAYS A PROBLEM WITH THESE THINGS BEING MOVING DOCUMENTS, RIGHT. YOU TAKE IT OUT AND THEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK. SO I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT. AND I DID NOTICE THAT SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO THAT FIRST SENTENCE WAS FOUND IN BASICALLY ALL THE PURE CHARTERS.

>> SECTION 14? >> YES. THE FIRST SENTENCE. I AGREE WITH THE MOVING -- OF THE SECOND -- THE DELETION OF THE SECOND SENTENCE. ALL RIGHT.

>> WELL I HAVE MORE, BUT I THOUGHT -- I THOUGHT IT WAS BETTER TO TAKE ONE OF THE TIME.

>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON 14? SO, EVERYONE IS OKAY WITH LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS? I THOUGHT IT MEANT WE WERE -- I THOUGHT IT MEANT THAT WE WERE TAKING IT OUT.

>> I THOUGHT SO TOO. BUT MEMBER DAVIS WAS JUST.

>> I THINK THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE MAY NEED TO BE IN. THE FIRST -- THE SECOND SENTENCE WE MOVED TO SECTION 11 I'M NOT CERTAIN AS WE GO THROUGH -- WE MAY FIND THAT WE NEED THAT FIRST SENTENCE OF SECTION 14 ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER A MEMBER HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY NEED TO FORFEIT THEIR.

>> MEMBER XHOSA? >> FROM OUR LAST MEETING AT THE NOTES THAT MARGO WANTED TO MOVE IT TO SECTION 11. AND THEN ALSO, WE WANTED TO ADD SOME REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION AS A CANVASSING BOARD OR TO FIND THE JUDGE OF ELECTIONS.

>> UH-UH (AFFIRMATIVE). SO -- SO THE DISCUSSION -- DISCUSSION THAT I THINK YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE THE CANVASSING BOARD ARE NOT.

>> UH-UH (AFFIRMATIVE). >> INTO THAT DEFINED?

>> I CAN SEE -- I DO NOT SEE YOUR LIGHT BUT I SEE THE LOOK ON YOUR FACE.

>> FOR CITY ONLY ELECTIONS. A LOT OF THAT IS REALLY ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY. IN CITY ONLY ELECTIONS, IF YOU ARE STILL HAVING ELECTIONS IN ODD-NUMBERED YEARS THE CITY COMMISSION IS THE CANVASSING BOARD AND THAT'S BY

[00:20:02]

STATE LAW NOT HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR CHARTER. WE ENDED UP CANVASSING THE OFFICE WE USED TO DO IT HEARING THESE CHAMBERS WHEN IT'S EVEN NUMBERED YEAR ELECTIONS AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS HAVING ELECTIONS WITH US, THEN THE CANVASSING BOARD IS SET UP BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITY DOES NOT PARTICIPATE. SO IT'S ALREADY PRETTY MUCH DONE BY STATE LAW AND CONTRACTS YOU CAN SAY -- AND I THINK WHAT MARGARET IS SAYING IS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CITY COMMISSION BEING ABLE TO MAKE MOTIONS AND REMOVE A MEMBER FROM THEIR SEAT OR MEMBER FORFEITS THEIR, WHAT SHE SAYING IS THAT -- AND I AGREE -- IT JUST MEANS ONE SENTENCE. IT'S SAYING THAT OVERALL THERE'S NO OTHER BODY, THERE'S NO OTHER JUDGE. WE AS OUR TOWN AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE JUDGING EACH OTHER AS TO WHETHER THEY SHOULD STAY

SEATED. >> UNLESS THERE IS THERE IS

RECALL. >> MEMBER DAVIS AND FOLLOW-UP WITH MS. SPOCK. SHE IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED SECTION 11 WHICH TALKS ABOUT MEMBERS OF QUALIFICATIONS AND WHEN THEY MIGHT FORFEIT -- NEED TO FORFEIT THEIR SEATS, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO DETERMINE THAT THEY'VE SATISFIED THE QUALIFICATIONS TO ENTER SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE. I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE PROVISION THAT YOU WOULD.2. I THINK IT'S HOW IT WORKS IN MOST CHARTS. MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE MOST ARTFUL WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.

THAT'S WERE LOOKING AT. THAT -- THAT IS WHAT -- I WAS LOOKING THAT WE DON'T HAVE

SOMEWHERE ELSE TO ADDRESS THAT. >> SO IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION

TO DELETING NOT. >> OR TWEAKING IT.

>> SO. >> YOU MEAN THE FIRST SENTENCE?

>> WOULD YOU PREFER ABOUT THIS AND THAT WE CAN MOVE ON FROM HERE. WOULD YOU RATHER IT BE A SEPARATE SECTION OR CAN I TAKE THAT FIRST SECTION AND INCLUDE SOMETHING IN THE TITLE.

>> THAT'S FINE. >> OKAY.

>> ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT? >> NO.

>> NOT BRING IT BACK AGAIN FOR YOUR REVIEW AT THE NEXT MEETING I KNOW BUT I WANT YOU TO SEE

IT. >> (LAUGHING) (MULTIPLE

SPEAKERS). >> YOU CAN TAKE THAT AWAY.

OKAY. SECTION 16. >> TO BE FINISHED 10? I THINK

SO. >> WERE COMING BACK TO 10.

>> WERE COMING BACK WITH TENNIS NEW BUSINESS.

>> I THOUGHT WE ARE COMING BACK TO IT AFTER WE GET THE SURVEY RESULTS.

>> OKAY. WELL, THAT, TOO. I THINK WERE ON SECTION 16, RIGHT?

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> SO, THE LANGUAGE SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION HAS -- BY SUPER MAJORITY VOTE AND FOR ANY REASON -- AND FOR ANY REASON.

I'M FOCUSING ON ANY REASON. IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE WANT TO SAY ? THE COMMISSION CAN GET RID

OF THE MAYOR FOR ANY REASON? >> IF THEY HAVE A 4/5 VOTE?

>> SHOULDN'T THERE BE SOME TEST, YOU KNOW.

>> I AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK. I WAS GOING TO RAISE THAT. I KNOW THAT WE CHANGED IT TO SUPER MAJORITY LAST TIME, BUT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN YOU START LOOKING AND THINKING THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS NOW THAT THE MAYOR IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, -- IT COULD BE A CLOSE ELECTION. WE DON'T WANT ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO SUDDENLY -- ON THE FIRST DAY STATE JUST FOR ANY REASON THEY CAN SAY NO THAT'S NOT WHO WE WANT AS MAYOR.

>> I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE.

>> SO ARE WE SUGGESTING THAT WE MOVE THE SUPER MAJORITY BUT TAKE OUT FREEZE FOR ANY REASON?

>> I THINK -- I THINK IT'S NOT JUST TAKING OUT THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE TO BE MORE EXPLICIT ON WHAT WOULD GIVE RISE -- I MEAN MAYBE IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE REMOVED FOR ONLY THE REASONS THAT A RECALL IS ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY NARROW.

>> WHAT -- TWO THOUGHTS. ONE IF THERE IS EXCESSIVE ABSENT -- EXCESSIVE ABSENCES. WE CAN DEFINE EXCESSIVE ABSENCES. IF THE BUYERS NEVER GOING TO MEETINGS THAT'S NOT GOOD OR IF

[00:25:04]

THERE IS AN -- A CRIMINAL ACT, TELL ME I GUESS.

>> THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED AS.

>> ANYWAY. IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE THIS ONE, I THINK. I DO NOT DISAGREE, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT. YES, THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THE MAYOR THAT'S TRUE. AND IS A BINDING VOTE ON THE COMMISSION, BUT THE MAYOR DOESN'T HAVE ANY MORE POWER THAN THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. AND YOU ARE NOT REMOVING THEM FROM THEIR COMMISSION IS AN ELECTIVE POSITION YOUR VOTING TO ROOF -- REMOVE THEM FROM THE SERIAL LOAN WILL -- THE CEREMONIAL HAD.

>> YOU'RE GOING AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. SO THE LIST CAN BE -- AS WE DON'T HAVE WE HAVE SEEN ONCE OR TWICE A LONG LIST OF THINGS YOU STILL NEED LAWYERS FOR INTERPRETATION IF YOU NEED TO. IT'S UP TO YOU.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW TO GET MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT?

>> EXCESSIVE ABSENCES OR COMMITTING A CRIME.

>> BUT THOSE TWO WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR BEING -- NOT EXCESSIVE ABSENCES.

>> ALTHOUGH, MOST OF OUR CHARTERS -- PEERS CITY CHARTERS TO HAVE THAT. I WAS CAN

ADDRESS THAT. >> MOST BOARDS HAVE THAT BUT

NOT THE COMMISSION. >> MEMBER DEAN.

>> I WOULD BACK UP WITH MS. FOX SET ABOUT YOUR NOT -- SO, I STILL LIKE HOW WERE GOING TO BIND THE FIRST INITIAL VOTE TO -- WITH WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T SEE -- AND I GUESS THAT'S A TERRIBLE THING TO SAVE YOUR NOT A LAWYER IS I REALLY DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING WHERE THE OTHER FOUR WOULD MAKE SUCH AN ACTION I GUESS, AND THAT'S -- LET'S KNOCK ON WOOD THAT THAT SETTING HER UP FOR FAILURE.

>> (LAUGHING). >> I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY SO I DON'T SEE THAT. BUT I GUESS THAT'S NOT -- I DO NOT THINK THAT'S LIKELY. AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT HAPPENING WOULD NOT CHANGE THE VOTING, BUT WE CHANGE WHO'S RUNNING THE

MEETING. >> THAT WAS MY POINT.

>> IT STILL AGAINST WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD CHOSEN.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. >> WHAT ABOUT JUST TAKING THE

SECTION OUT ALTOGETHER? >> ANY REACTION TO NOT TAKING THIS SECTION OUT ALTOGETHER? MEMBER BANKS.

>> MY REACTION IS I SEE I THINK TAKING THIS SECTION OUT ALTOGETHER WOULD BE GOOD. I ALWAYS LIKE LAST -- LESS IS MORE.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> IN THAT SCENARIO, THE ONLY WAY THAT THE MAYOR CHANGES IS IT THAT COMMISSIONER GETS THE MAYOR'S REVIEW FROM HIS

POSITION? >> I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> YOU MEAN FOR COMMITTING A CRIME?

>> YES. NO. >> SO IF WE TAKE THAT OUT COMPLETELY, -- I MEAN I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMUNITY DISSENT ABOUT RECALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THAT ADDRESSED EVEN THOUGH WE FOLLOWED THE STATE GUIDELINES.

IF WE TAKE THIS OUT COMPLETELY, I DON'T KNOW. ARE WE -- ARE WE LIMITING WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR COURSE -- WHAT THEY CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN DO.

>> WHERE IS THE SECTION THAT DETERMINES THE PROCESS FOR REMOVING A COMMISSIONER?

>> THAT'S IN THE STATE STATUTE -- 103 61.

>> OKAY. AND DO WE READILY KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS? THAT'S JUST THE RECALL OF THE SECTION?

>> YOU HAVE TO FILE A PETITION. IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE FIVE OR SIX SPECIFIED ITEMS MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE, WHATEVER THAT MEANS (LAUGHING).

>> THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR. I ACTUALLY HAVE A COPY OF IT. MALFEASANCE MISFEASANCE NEGLECT OF DUTY, DRUNKENNESS, INCOMPETENCE, PERMANENT ABILITY TO PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIESTION

INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE. >> SO, INCOMPETENCE IS PROBABLY -- IS PROBABLY THE MAIN REASON YOU NO LONGER WANT TO MAYOR, GUESS.

>> TAKE OUT. >> I WOULD ARGUE THAT TAKING OUT ENTIRELY ADDRESSES MEMBER DAVIS'S CONCERNS BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE IT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WOULD BE ENACTED AND THEN THE OTHER COMMISSIONER WOULD BE UNABLE TO GO AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE UNLESS ONE OF THOSE DEFINE THINGS THAT YOU JUST ENUMERATED OCCURRED.

[00:30:07]

>> THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR SEATING.

>> (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS). >> AM STARTING TO THINK THE ONLY WAY YOU SHOULD LOSE YOUR SEAT AS MAYOR SHE LOVED YOUR SEED IS A COMMISSIONER.

>> OKAY. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> I AGREE. AND FURTHER, THIS LANGUAGE, AS IT IS WRITTEN HERE IS JUST AN INFESTATION -- INVITATION FOR -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S -- I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WERE TRYING TO DO HERE. I THINK IS JUST INVITING PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I CALL.

>> MEMBER DAVIS? >> I WOULD SAY THAT WE REMOVE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE COMMISSION CAN REMOVE THE MAYOR, BUT WE WOULD STILL, I THINK, OUGHT TO HAVE LANGUAGE IN THEIR THAT IF THE MAYOR IS NO LONGER -- LIKE THE SECOND PART, LIKE IF THE MAYOR IS NO LONGER ABLE TO SERVE, TO BE HIS ABSENT OR HAS BEEN RECALLED, THAT THE VICE MAYOR FULFILLS THOSE DUTIES. I THINK WE WANT TO KEEP THE IDEA THAT THAT STEPS IN RATHER THAN HAVE A SEPARATE ELECTION.

>> OKAY. >> TO HAVE A MOTION STATING

THAT? >> I MOVED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES WE JUST DISCUSSED INCLUDING MEMBER DAVIS IS VICE MAYOR PROPOSAL.

>> AND THE PROVISIONS ABOUT -- FOR ANY REASON.

>> ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION.

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

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? >> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> 13 TWO AYE. >> ELECTION OF MAYOR.

>> NOW I START THIS IN HERE BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THIS THING WHICH SITS ON THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHARTER. OVER TALKING ABOUT ELECTION OF MAYOR -- AND I'M GLAD OUR CITY CLERK IS HERE, TOO. WE TALKED ABOUT OVER THE YEARS. THIS SECTION OF CODE -- OR SECTIONS, ARE COVERED BY STATE LAW FOR THE CHARTER ALREADY. SO, IF YOU WISH, THIS LANGUAGE HERE WITH STRIKETHROUGH'S AND UNDERLINES IS WHAT APPEARS OUR CITY CODE NOW FOR ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE VICE MAYOR AND IS ALSO ADDRESSED IN CHAPTER 2 OF OUR CODE. SO, MY SUGGESTION IS TO INCORPORATE 34-9 THE WAY I'VE

SUGGESTED. >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> YES. I AGREE WITH MS. SPOCK THAT WE SHOULD INCORPORATE THIS LANGUAGE INTO THE CHARTER THE CHARTER BECOMES ABOUT THE PROCEDURE TO ELECT THE MAYOR. BUT WITH CLAUSE C, GIVEN THAT THIS IS NOW GOING TO BE A VOTE BY THE PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FLIP A COIN. IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE WE WOULD HAVE A PERFECT TIE.

>> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SURE.

>> WILL WE WOULDN'T BECAUSE WHAT WE COULD DO IS THE STATE SECTION SAYS IF YOU ARE WITHIN -- 1/4 OF A PERCENT IT'S NOT MEMBER OF BOTHSICKOS BY PERCENTAGE. THEN YOU HAVE TO RECOUNT THE BALANCE MANUALLY. SO I THOUGHT THE COIN FLIP IT CERTAINLY SEEMS APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU'RE FIVE COMMISSIONERS TRYING TO READ SOMETHING, BUT -- BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DO LIKE THE LANGUAGE IN THAT SECTION. IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE CANDIDATE GETS THE SECOND-HIGHEST FOCUS MOST MAYOR. ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE PART WITH OUR CHARTER IRREVERENCE THE VICE MAYOR, BUT NO OBLIGATION TO HAVE ONE.

>> I THOUGHT THE VICE MAYOR WAS BEING APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR?

>> IN SECTION 16 IT SAYS SORRY. I'M SORRY THAT'S ONLY IF THE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

>> MEMBER CLARK? >> YES. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS A PROVISION IN HERE IF NO ONE WANTS TO BE MAYOR THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT.

>> GIVEN THAT WE NOW HAVE TO SAY THEY WANT TO BE MAYOR.

>> (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS) (LAUGHING).

>> WE HAVE A CLAUSE HERE, SECTION D THAT TALKS ABOUT OR DRESSES ONLY ONE CANDIDATE WANTING TO BE ON THE BALLOT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AS IF NOBODY

[00:35:04]

WANTS TO BE MAYOR. >> CAN WE -- COULD WE -- WITH THE COMMISSIONER APPOINT THE CANDIDATE IN THAT SCENARIO.

>> MS. SPOCK HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT HAPPENING.

>> NEVER SAY NEVER, RIGHT. >> RIGHT. INITIALLY SOMEBODY DECIDES -- WE HAVE HAD IT AT THE LAST MINUTE, VERY LATE WE FIND OUT THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON THAT EVEN HAS ANY INTEREST.

>> TRUE. >> BUT YES, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, CAN THEY -- IF THERE'S NOBODY THAT'S ON THE BALLOT, CAN THEY APPOINT ONE

AMONG THEMSELVES? >> YES.

>> AND SO WE SHOULD HAVE A FREEZE SAYING THAT, CLAUSE?

>> IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT?

>> ALL RIGHT. DO I NEED A MOTION FOR THAT?

>>. >> I SO MOVE.

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

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? >> ALL RIGHT. SECTION 17.

FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE MAYOR. MEMBER DAVIS?

>> I JUST HAVE A LITTLE STYLISTIC THING IN THE LEAD-IN, BEFORE THE ENUMERATED SUBCLAUSES, WOULD LIKE TO DELETE THE PHRASE AND BELOW. BECAUSE BELOW IS PART OF THIS CHARTER. I MEAN IT JUST SAYS AS SET FORTH IN THIS CHARTER IT SEEMS EXTRANEOUS IF WERE TRYING TO -- SIMPLE, FEWER WORDS ARE BETTER.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENT? MEMBER CLARK, SO IN 17, PARAGRAPH D I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD BE MAKING EDITS AND COMMENTS, BUT NONETHELESS, THE PHRASE, BY THE COURTS, DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT FITS IN THAT SENTENCE AS IT IS EDITED. THE MAYOR IS THE OFFICIAL HEAD OF THE CITY, BY

THE COURTS. >> YES.

>> BECAUSE BY THE COURTS GOES WITH THE VERB RECOGNIZE. YOU ARE RIGHT.

>> SO WE ARE JUST LEAVING BY THE COURT OUT.

>> I'LL FIX IT. >> OKAY. THAT'S WHO -- THAT TO -- SERVICE OF PROCESS THEY SERVE THE LAWSUIT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SERVED TO THE MAYOR.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT SECTION?

>> ALL RIGHT. SO NOW, WE MOVE TO.

>> I JUST LOST MY PLACE. >> SECTION 25 IS PART OF OUR NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION. AND SO, -- AND SO IS 31, I BELIEVE.

>> YES. IS IT OLD? >> IS ALL THE WAY THROUGH 49.

>> ALL RIGHT. SECTION 25. >> BEFORE WE GO ON, CAN WE APPROVE THE CHANGES IN SECTION 17 OR DID WE.

>> IT'S STYLISTIC. DO WE NEED. >> MAYBE WE DON'T NEED A

MOTION. >> WE NEED A MOTION?

>> I HAVE IT EITHER WAY. EITHER WAY I'M GONNA BRING IT TO THE MEETING NEXT TIME.

>> OKAY. SECTION 25, CITY MANAGERS.

>> ANY COMMENTS? >> MEMBER WARREN.

>> OF THE LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT CITY MANAGER PRO TEM AGREES THAT IF THE CITY MANAGER IS ABSENT OR DISABLED FOR SOME REASON, THAT THEY WOULD APPOINT A CITY MANAGER PRO TEM. I WOULD JUST SUGGEST A BETTER BUSINESS PRACTICE WOULD BE TO APPOINT A CITY MANAGER PRO TEM BY THE COMMISSION AND HAVE IT AS A STANDING POSITION. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE REASONS FOR THAT. ONE IS IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS SO DESIGNATED, THEN THEY ARE PREPPED TO DO THAT IF THE CITY MANAGER CAN PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS. AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER IN THIS CHARTER, THE CITY MANAGER HAS SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO FUNCTION. SO YOU DO NOT WANT THAT -- THE ABSENCE OF THE CITY MANAGER TO BE IN ANY WAY A PROBLEM THE CITY WANTED TO GO SMOOTHLY. SO I THINK RATHER THAN A CASE-BY-CASE APPOINTMENT OF A CITY MANAGER PRO TEM IS LESS DESIRABLE THAN HAVING A STANDARD POSITION AND THEY COULD DO IT ONCE A YEAR OR HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO IT, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A DOZEN MANAGER.

>> IS IN THE CITY HIRING A MANAGER NOW.

>> THAT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE.

>> RIGHT. >> IS GOING TO COME ALONG THESE

[00:40:01]

LINES JUST THINKING THAT MAYBE -- IF WE WANT TO PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER THAT WE CONSIDER RECOMMENDING THAT THEY HAVE A -- OR IN THE ABSENCE OF SOMEONE IN THAT POSITION, SOMEONE WAS IS STANDING EMPLOYEE TO ACT AS THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER SUCH AS A UTILITY WORKER. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG THINGS. SO MAYBE SOME TYPE OF A HIERARCHY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE CHARTER, IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE -- THE CITY MANAGER MAY BE ON VACATION. AND SO, SOMEONE -- I AGREE. DO WE NEED TO BREVARD -- PROVIDE FOR IT. MAYBE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

>> MEMBER KOZAK. >> UP WITH PROVIDE THAT IN THE CHARTER I THINK THIS DOES LEAVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN THAT THEY CAN CHOOSE WHO THEY WANT

TO PUT IN THAT ROLE. >> MEMBER CLARK?

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH TAMMY. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO BE -- IF THERE'S THE DEPUTY THAT WOULD BE A LOGICAL CHOICE IF NOT I THINK THAT FLEXIBILITY IS FINE. MY THOUGHT IS IT NEEDS TO BE A MORE THOUGHTFUL KIND OF THING THAT'S DECIDED UPFRONT IN A MATTER OF RECORD.

>> MEMBERS BEING. >> CAN WE DO TO LINES? THE FIRST LINE WE ARE GOING TO PRESCRIBE THE DEPUTY WOULD BE WHETHER BE THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR SOMEONE ELSE AND THEN ALL OF THAT IS IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A DEPUTY, THEN THEY CAN

DECLARE WHOEVER THEY WANT. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD TELL THE CITY MANAGER WHO NEEDS TO BE AS DEPUTY. I MEAN, THAT'S US STEPPING ON HIS JOB,

RIGHT? >> YES. WHEN YOU PHRASE IT

LIKE THAT I THINK NOW. >> (LAUGHING).

>> WE'VE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THAT

WOULD JUST TELL THE MANAGER. >> I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT

ONE. >> I MEAN, IN MY EXPERIENCE, MR. PARKER MAKES A VERY GOOD POINT. HERE, I THINK THAT -- AND WE'VE HAD TO DO THIS. WE HAVE NOT HAD TO DO IT FOR EXTENDED DISABILITY, BUT WE HAD TO DO IT FOR VACATIONS. WE HAD TO DO IT IN BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGERS AND I THINK THAT IS WORKED OUT FINE THE WAY THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN TOWN GENERALLY WANTED TO. I'M NOT SAYING IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE THAT WAY, BUT I THINK IF YOU LEAVE IT OPEN, THEN.

>> SO LEAVE AS IS? >> RIGHT.

>> WELL, >> BUT THAT WAS IT MR. CLARK'S

POINTS, THOUGH. >> I THINK YOU SHOULD LEAVE IT OPEN. BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE A PERMANENT STANDING POSITION RATHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO BE GONE FOR TWO WEEKS SO LET'S FIGURE OUT WHO WERE GOING TO APPOINT. I AGREE.

I'M SUGGESTING THAT THERE BE A PROCESS WHERE THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED.

>> LIKE AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH YEAR OR SOME SYSTEM SO THAT IS A KNOWN POSITION AND THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY AND THAT PERSON CAN THEN BE PREPPED TO FULFILL THAT ROLE IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY RATHER THAN WAKE UP IN THE MORNING TO FIND OUT THAT YOU'RE RUNNING THE CITY FOR TWO WEEKS AND DID NOT KNOW OR JEANETTE WANTED. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED UPFRONT.

>> YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY SAYING WE HIRE SOMEBODY SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT POSITION BUT IT'S SOMEBODY THAT IS PREPPED AND THEY'RE AWARE OF IT AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY STEP

IN. >> RIGHT.

>> THE END YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY THE CITY MANAGER THE COMMISSIONER WORK TOGETHER ON THAT. BUT IT'S A COMMISSION AS WELL.

>> DO WE WANT IT TO BE SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY A CITY EMPLOYEE?

>> I WOULDN'T THINK SO. >> I MEAN, THIS DOESN'T LIMIT IT THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

>> WELL I GUESS, HAVING BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE WE WERE BETWEEN CITY MANAGERS, THE -- THE REGULAR GUY, IF YOU WILL HAD STEPPED IN ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS HERE AND THERE WAS FINE ON THE SHORT-TERM BASIS HERE AND THERE BUT MAYBE NOT IN THE LONGER-TERM SITUATION. BECAUSE WE CAN'T FORGET, THAT IN A LONGER-TERM SITUATION, HOWEVER THE CITY EMPLOYEE IS, ALSO HAS

[00:45:05]

A JOB. SO, TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THAT DAY-TO-DAY JOB AND PUT THEM INTO LONG-TERM SITUATION AS CITY MANAGER, SOMETHING IS GOING TO GIVE SOMEWHERE. SOMETHING IS LIABLE TO BE DROPPED. SO I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD GET TRAINED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO ASK THEM TO DO IN AN EMERGENCY OR AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. I -- I'M NOT SURE THAT ARISES TO THE CITY MANAGER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, BECAUSE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THOSE PEOPLE CHANGE DURING THE YEAR AS WELL.

SO YOU KNOW, LET'S PRETEND THAT IT'S THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OF THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND HE IS SCARED UP AND READY TO GO AND THEN HE FINDS OUT THAT HE MISCALCULATED AND HE CAN RETIRE

THIS YEAR, RIGHT? >> I MEAN, AND HE'S GONE. NOW

WHAT? >> SO, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN ITS, BUT I ALSO THINGS THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PREPARATION FOR PEOPLE.

I'M NOT SORT ãMAKE SURE IS THAT THE CHARTER LEVEL.

>> THAT'S UNDER DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER MAY BE ONE OF THOSE DUTIES WHICH WE HAVE IN GOD TO HIS MAY BE TO DESIGNATE THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER COULD BE A PERSON IS HIRED OR COULD BE AN EMPLOYEE IN THAT CAPACITY COULD BE ANOTHER PERSON WITH THE CITY. SO THEN AGAIN, AS MEMBER CLARK SAID PRESUMABLY THEY WORK TOGETHER TO IMPROVE WHO THAT IS. SO MAYBE AS THEY ARE IN OFFICE, THEY WILL HAVE SOMEONE DESIGNATED TO SERVE IN THEIR STEAD IF THEY ARE ABSENT OR UNABLE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IN THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES THE APPOINTMENT. IT CAN CHANGE ANYTIME. SO MAYBE, YOU SKIP IT IN THIS PART AND WE GET TO 29 ADDED IS ANOTHER BULLET SAY ONE OF THE DUTIES IS TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO SERVE AS PROTON.

>> RIGHT. >> AND ARE TOLD IF I'M NOT HERE, YOU'RE GOING HAVE TO DO THIS,

>> WOULD YOU STILL LEAVING THE SECTION HERE THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION DESIGNATES THE PERSON OR DO YOU TAKE THAT CLAUSE OUT.

>> I THINK YOU -- WILL THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT.

>> IS STILL THE CITY COMMISSION IS ULTIMATELY.

>> IT'S JUST BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER FIRST.

>> WOULD YOU AMEND THIS LANGUAGE TO REMOVE THE PREFERENCE THEY ARE AND THEN

ADDED? >> I GUESS -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THE WAY I SUGGEST, DURING THE ABSENCE -- OR -- THE CITY MANAGER -- AND I DON'T THINK WERE SAYING EXACTLY WITHIN THEIR WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER SELECTS A DEPUTY CITY MANAGER TO ACT IN THEIR STEAD WITH THE CITY COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.

THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID IN THE LAST SENTENCE HERE. SAYS DURING THE ABSENCE OR DISABILITY THEY GET BACK TOGETHER AND SELECTED A PERSON IS. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT

PERSON IS APPROVED AND DONE. >> AS THE CITY MANAGER PRO TEM.

>> RIGHT. >> I WOULD -- I THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE APPROACH TO IT. I MEAN, THE ESSENCE OF WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DESCRIPTIVE ABOUT WHO IT IS OR WHEN THEY DO IT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT SHOULD BE A COMMISSION ACTION AND SHOULD BE A STANDING THING THAT EXISTS BEFORE -- BEFORE THE NECESSITY -- SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO THAT PERSON IS AND THEY CAN CARRY ON THE REGULAR DUTIES AS A DEPUTY. IN THE MEANTIME, HERE'S THE GAME PLAN SET. THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT WHAT IS IT. I THINK IT'S JUST BETTER.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO IN THIS SECTION, IS THERE

ANY CHANGE SUGGESTED? >> WELL, I THINK YOU -- YOU WOULD DELETE WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE AND REPLACE IT WITH WHAT MR. LUSSIER JUST SAID.

>> OKAY. CAN I ASK YOU TO RESTATE THAT AS A MOTION.

>> SURE. I MAKE A MOTION THAT AS PART OF THE DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER THAT THE CITY MANAGER WILL DESIGNATE A DEPUTY MANAGER TO ACT IN THEIR ABSENCE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE DEPUTY. WOULD YOU ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO USE THE TERM CITY MANAGER PRO TEM.

[00:50:01]

>> YES. SURE. >> SO THAT IS GOING TO BE THAT'S IN SECTION 29 UNDER LIST OF DUTIES.

>> RIGHT. >> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.

>> AYE. >> AND JUST TO BE CLEAR DO I SAY SOMETHING LIKE PERIODICALLY OR YOU WANTED TO BE EVERY YEAR?

>> I -- I THINK YOU SHOULD BE DESCRIPTIVE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I HAD ONE COMMENT AND THAT IS INSTEAD OF STRIKING THE WHOLE LAST COUPLE SENTENCES OF SECTION 25 AND PUTTING US UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANAGER SECTION, DON'T WE STILL NEED TO HAVE SOME CLAUSE THAT SAYS THAT DURING THE ABSENCE OR DISABILITY OF THE CITY MANAGER THIS IS THE PERSON THAT STEPS

IN. >> YES.

>> JUST SO THAT IS CLEAR. WE DON'T HAVE THIS ANY MORE THAN THAT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 SO ARE READY TO

GO ON THE CITY ATTORNEY. >> WOULD YOU MIND TODAY MADAM CHAIR IF WE DID THE CITY CLERK SECTIONS 1ST BECAUSE SHE NEEDS TO LEAVE BY 4:30 PM AND THAT I'LL BE TAKING OVER THE RECORDING.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO CITY CLERK SECTION 46. 47 AND THAT SAID. ANY COMMENT ON THAT SECTION.

>> I MEAN THE PREFERRED LANGUAGE IN JUST TAKING OUT THE TERM SHALL.

>> MEMBER DAVIS? >> I -- ACCORDING TO MY NOTES, WHICH I KNOW THAT I TRIED TO WRITE FAST AND I DIDN'T ALWAYS GET -- I MISSED WORDS. I THOUGHT WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THE CITY CLERK TO BELONG TO A PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP AS A CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK JUST LIKE WE DID THE CITY MANAGER SO THAT IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS THEREIN?

>> THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR. >> YES.

>> I KNOW WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION.

>> YES. >> AND I MAY HAVE JUST MISSED

IT. >> YES. I THINK THAT THAT -- JUST LIKE WE INCORPORATED IN WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THAT OF COURSE BY ALL YOUR REQUIREMENTS THE CITY ATTORNEY -- AND I THINK WE SAID -- SHE CAN CONFIRM IS THE CERTIFIED

MUNICIPAL CLERK. >> YES. THE MEMBER OF THESE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CITY CLERKS AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS THE COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS AND I DID NOT BUT WHEN I BECAME THE CITY

CLERK. -- (AWAY FROM MIC). >> (LAUGHING).

>> MY PROFESSIONAL ETHICS WHICH ALSO SPEAK TO MY PERSONAL LIFE AND HOW I CONDUCT MY PERSONAL LIFE. IT COVERS THAT AS WELL, TOO.

>> REST ASSURED WE ARE NOT DISPARAGINGLY WE ARE BEING PROACTIVE FOR THE FUTURE.

>> CERTAINLY. >> TWO THINGS. ONE IS ON THE RECORD-KEEPING, WHICH I THINK IS MAJOR IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF THE CITY CLERK, IS READY REQUIREMENT FOR OUR CITY CODE ABOUT A PERIOD OF TIME --

>> YES. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF RECORDS. THERE'S A STATE -- PUBLISHES EVERY YEAR A RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE TO COMPLY WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. SO WE DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF RECRDS AND THEY'RE ALL COVERED THERE.

>> OKAY. SO ALL OF THAT IS ADEQUATE? THERE'S NO NEED TO REINFORCE THE TIMELINE.

>> NO. >> IN THE SECOND THING I WANT TO SAY IT'S UNDER PARAGRAPH M, WE HAD TALKED A COUPLE TIMES ABOUT THE CITY BOUNDARY. AND I LIKE THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN. BUT I THOUGHT -- IN A DIFFERENT -- IN ADDITION TO REFERENCES,

AN OFFICIAL MAP. >> WE SUGGESTED, I BELIEVE, THAT THE STATE CLERK'S OFFICE MIGHT BE THE KEEPER OF THAT MAP. SO THE ONE STOP SHOP.

>> AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO MAP THE CHARTER -- THE CITY LIMIT LINES ARE CHANGING.

>> NO. THE THOUGHT WAS THAT THE CLERK WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MAP. IT WOULDN'T BE A MAP ATTACHED TO THE CHARTER. WE RECOGNIZE THAT WOULD CHANGE ALL THE TIME AS ANNEXATIONS

OCCUR. >> BUT IF A PRIVATE CITIZEN WANTED TO SAY WHERE IS THE CART THEY KNOW THEY CAN GO TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE HAVE THE MOST UP-TO-DATE VERSION PROBABLY PREPARE IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS BUT YOU'RE THE

KEEPER. >> DID WAY -- WAS AT THAT LIKE

[00:55:13]

ONE OF THE FIRST SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER? TO BE PUT LANGUAGE WILL REVISE DID SHE SAY THAT THEY NEED TO MAINTAIN THE MAP?

>> NO. THIS IS -- I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE SECTION.

>> WE MOVED THERE. >> OKAY. WE ARE NOT

DUPLICATING IT? >> NO. SO I THINK THAT'S -- I MEAN, MAINTAINING THE CITY RECORDS AND BOUNDARIES WAS TRYING TO GET TO THAT POINT.

WE HAVE TO MAKE EXPLICIT, INCLUDING A MAP ILLUSTRATING SUCH BOUNDARIES, SOMETHING LIKE

THAT -- LANGUAGE LIKE THAT. >> I JUST -- I WANTED TO SEE AN EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT FOR MAP AND THERE. I THOUGHT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT.

>> YES. WE DID. >> WILL I THINK THAT'S AN

EXTENSION OF THOSE WORDS. >> I THINK WE NEED TO ADD THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THE WORD MAP AND THAT PRAYS

FOR SURE (LAUGHING). >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CITY CLERKS SECTION? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. CITY ATTORNEY. MEMBER DAVIS?

>> I -- THIS IS JUST A STYLISTIC, AGAIN, KEEPING DIFFERENT CHARTER OFFICES DUTIES KIND OF CONSISTENT. SINCE WE -- IN THE CITY MANAGER IN THE CAR, WE TOOK OUT THE PROVISIONS THAT GAVE THEM ADDITIONAL DUTIES AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. IT SEEMS THAT WE SHOULD DELETE SECTION 32 AS WELL. I MEAN ISN'T THAT SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO CLAUSE -- FOR EXAMPLE 40 7E THAT WAS DELETED?

>>. >> IN CLAUSE 20 9H.

>> WHAT WERE SAYING IS THAT EITHER AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION ARE GOING TO OUTLINE

THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES. >> IS WHAT OUR DISCUSSION WAS ON OUR LAST MEETING WHY WE REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE OTHERS. OKAY. ANY PUSHBACK ON

THAT? >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND MY HAND THE CITY -- WE TOOK IT AWAY FROM THE CITY CLERK.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CITY ATTORNEY?

>> JUST MY COMMENT IS IF WE KNOW IT'S GOOD FOR US WERE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY, RIGHT

BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTRACT. >> RIGHT. OKAY. KEEP IT

SIMPLE. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ELIMINATE SECTION 32 ON THE CITY ATTORNEY?

>> SO MOVED. >> I SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? >> I'M SORRY TO JUMP BACK AGAIN. ON SECTION 46 CITY CLERK, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT DURING YOUR ABSENCE

THAT THEY WILL QUALIFY. >> SO IT'S KIND OF THE SAME.

>>. >> YOU HAVE DEPUTY ATTORNEY? IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT.

>> WE HAVE THAT SENTENCE IN THERE THOUGH.

>> FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. >> DURING THE ABSENCE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY COMMISSION WILL DESIGNATE --

>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT. OUR LAW FIRM.

>> A WOULD WE JUST SAY. >> I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THAT THERE CONSISTENT. I THINK THE CITY COMMISSION IS QUICKLY THE SITTING ATTORNEY TO DO THAT.

IT SHOULD BE A PROBLEM. >> I THINK THESE ARE GOOD AND I'M THINKING ABOUT IT. ARTY HAVE A LAW FIRM THAT THAT SO WE WOULD GO TO. SO I'VE DONE ON MY OWN. IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA TO BE CONSISTENT JUST SO THAT IF -- YOU HAVE ONE APPOINTED.

>> AT THE CLERK SHOULD HAVE ONE APPOINTED A READY TO GO, THE ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE ONE APPOINTED READY TO GO, SO THAT WE DON'T MISS THE BEACH.

>> OKAY. >> I MOVE THAT WE MAKE THOSE CHANGES FOR THE CITY CLERK AND ATTORNEY AS YOU OUTLINED SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY -- (AWAY FROM MIC).

>> WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> ALL IN FAVOR.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSITION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY

[01:00:10]

LAST TIME, TOO, WITH THE ACTUAL FORMATTING OF IT. UNDER CITY CLERK AND THE OTHER CHARTER OFFICERS. FOR INSTANCE, THE FIRST SECTION, IS HER APPOINTMENT -- PRO TEM. THE NEXT SECTION'S POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY SUBSECTION IS APPOINTMENT QUALIFICATIONS AND PRO TEM SUMS SECTION -- SO IT JUST DOESN'T FOLLOW.

>>. >> OKAY. CONSISTENT CATEGORY.

OKAY ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD POINT. WE ARE NOW AT

SECTION 236. >> 136.

>> OH. WELL I THINK -- THE MAYOR IS THE NEXT THING. OKAY.

>> OKAY. GOTCHA. TWO ã230 60 SECTION 236 SELECTION OF VICE MAYOR.

>> SO THAT'S WHERE IT APPEARS NOW IT NEEDS TO COME OUT OF THEIR AND GET INTO THE CHARTER

ANYTHING. >>.

>> WILL DIDN'T WE JUST APPROVE THAT THE LANGUAGE MAKING THE SECOND-PLACE MAYOR AND HER --

DEVICE MAYOR. >> SO DO WE -- YOU WANT ANY

LANGUAGE FROM TWO ã36. >> IT SEEMS TO ME YOU REALLY DON'T NEED THIS, RIGHT, BECAUSE WERE ANNOUNCING IS GOING TO BE THE PERSON.

>> MEMBER CLARK HE. >> JUST -- I THINK WE TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. I JUST WANT MAKE THIS OVERALL STATEMENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- THE CHARTER OUGHT TO CONTAIN ALL OF THE KEY PROVISIONS THAT DEAL WITH THE ORGANIZATION AND PURPOSE AND DUTIES AND SUCH OF CITY GOVERNMENT. AND THAT YOU DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE KEY ELEMENTS THAT ARE FOUND IN THIS CODE AND OUT OF THE CHARTER. I THINK YOU'VE GUIDED US IN THAT WAY SO FAR. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE IT BECAUSE IF I'M A CITIZEN OF THE -- READ THE CHARTER I WOULD EXPECT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW THE CITY IS SET OUT TO DO ITS BUSINESS. AND I SHOULDN'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO GET A LEGAL OPINION TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M MISSING. SO AS A GENERAL RULE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WE KEEP THE PROVISIONS TO BE IN THE CHARTER. NOW, THERE'S SOME ASPECT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT, I SUPPOSE YOU CAN SAY HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CASES, BUT I THINK WE ARE TO GET EVERYTHING IN THE CHARTER, NOT BIFURCATED.

>> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> MEMBER ARSON.

>> WERE BACKING CITY CODE SECTION WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT IF THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON WHO WISHES TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR, THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A MAYORAL ELECTION AND THAT THAT PERSON WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE APPOINTED TO BE MAYOR AT THE CITY'S ANNUAL -- WHATEVER MEETING THEY HAVE. BUT IN THAT KIND OF SCENARIO, THEN WE DON'T WANT NECESSARILY -- THERE'S NOT A SECOND-PLACE PERSON TO BE APPOINTED VICE MAYOR. AND IN YEARS WHERE THERE ARE ONLY TWO CANDIDATES THAT ARE RUNNING -- DO WE REALLY WANT A CANDIDATE THAT DOESN'T EVEN WANT TO BE DEVICE MAYOR TO AUTOMATICALLY BE

DEVICE MAYOR HE. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> WELL, BUT SECTION D SAYS THAT THEY CAN CHOOSE ANY COMMISSIONER NOT APPOINTED AS THE MAYOR TO BE VICE MAYOR IN THE CASE.

>> DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU. >>.

>> NO. DOES C. THE NEXT ONE. THE LAST SENTENCE.

>> OKAY. I THOUGHT WE HAD TAKEN THAT OUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THAT SECTION BEFORE.

>>. >> NO JUST THE FLIP OF THE

COIN. >> OKAY. SO WHERE HAVE WE

LANDED. >>.

>> WHERE ARE WE AT THIS POINT? MEMBER CLARK, YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS ENTIRE SECTION WERE SOME PIECE OF IT?

>> WELL, I -- I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT.

>> I'M SUGGESTING THAT THE KEY ELEMENTS IN THE CODE BE -- (AWAY FROM MIC).

>> I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTERB& DUPLICATING SOMETHING.

[01:05:01]

>> I AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WINNER AND THE SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES WE ALSO HAVE TO AMEND THAT CHANGE. SO THEY ARE

NOT IN CONFLICT. >> THE CHARTER GOVERNS.

>> -- IF I MIGHT, MADAM CHAIR? MY THOUGHT -- WILL FIRST WAS WE STARTED GETTING INTO THE MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR AND HOW THEIR CHOSEN. I KNEW THEY WERE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 34 AND CHAPTER 2. I THINK WE NEED TO GET RID OF -- AS A CITY, CHAPTER 34 ALTOGETHER AND I THINK THE CITY CLERK AGREES WITH ME. ALMOST ALL OF IT IS COVERED BY STATE LAW WERE DUPLICATING LANGUAGE FROM STATE LAW AND IS PROVIDED TO STATE LAW WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS PROVIDED -- CANDIDATES GET THE CITY LAWS, THE STATE LAWS.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR CHAPTER 34. SO I THOUGHT TO GIVE YOU ALL 34 TO SEE WHAT PART C-SECTION I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW FILING FEES WITH REGARD TO WHICH FEES YOU PAY, TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

THAT'S ALL HANDLED BY STATE LAW. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN CITY CODE. AND THE PARTS THAT WE DO NEED I THINK SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER, WITH REGARD TO OUR ELECTIONS.

>> WHICH ARE SAYING WE ARE RECOVERED?

>> YES. FOR THE MOST PART I CAN TELL YOU -- SO FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE HOLD OUR ELECTIONS. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER.

>> NOTICE OF CANDIDACY, ALL OF THESE HAVE TO DO WITH QUALIFYING. AND THAT'S COVERED

BY STATE LAW ALREADY. >> A MICRA.

>> SO SECTION -- ARE WE SKIPPING DOWN TO 34.

>> WE ARE IN CHAPTER 34 NOW. SO THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT TO DO -- SO FAR WE HAVE THE MAYOR AND

VICE. MY SUGGESTION IS. >> CAN I GO BACK FOR JUST A SECOND BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL LIKE WE RESOLVE COLLECTION OF VICE MAYOR. DID WE AND I JUST

MISSED IT? >> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE

WERE STILL ON. >> RIGHT. I THINK THAT WHAT MEMBER CLARK IS SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING HERE IF WE DON'T HAVE IT IN THE

CODE. >> I THINK WE ARE READY HAVE IT AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER WE LOOKED UNDER THE MAYOR PROVISION, TALKS ABOUT WHO

BECOMES VICE MAYOR. >> OKAY.

>> IN CLAUSE C AND D. >> SO HAVE I MISSTATED YOUR

CONCERN? >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I THINK SHE HAS ADDRESSED IT.

>> OKAY. SO WE ARE GOOD WITH THE.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING NOW TO CHAPTER 34. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TO ME, IS THAT WE HAVE CODE AND STATE LAW TO FOCUS ON THIS WHOLE -- ALL THESE COMPONENTS

OF THE ELECTION. >> PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM AND THAT'S WHY CAROLINE ON STREET ADDRESS SHE WAS THE TELL YOU -- FOR THE MOST PART I THINK CHAPTER 34 CAN GO AWAY AND BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY CHARTER AND ANYTHING THAT IS -- WE JUST DEPEND ON STATE LAW. OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE FLORIDA ELECTION CODE IN CHAPTERS 97 THROUGH 106, NOT ALL OF THE PROVISIONS PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTERS APPLY TO MUNICIPALITIES. SECTION 100.3605 GIVES MUNICIPALITIES THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THEIR CHARTER OR THEIR CODE. AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH STATUTE. SO FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GLEAN -- AND THIS IS MY SEVENTH YEAR AS CITY CLERK THAN THIS WILL BE MICE SIXTH ELECTION IN 2020, IS THAT THE -- THE CITY ABOUT 27 YEARS AGO MADE SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE CHARTER BECAUSE THE ELECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN APRIL AT THAT TIME. SINCE THEN, WE NOW HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS IN OUR ELECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER SO THAT EVERYTHING IS KIND OF RUNNING ON THE SAME -- THE SAME VALID. IT'S LESS CONFUSING AND YOU HAVE BETTER VOTER TURNOUT WHEN EVERYBODY IS DOING THIS CONSISTENTLY. SO, THE -- YOU KNOW, THE CODE VERSUS STATUTE ANOMALY ARE TO DO WITH THE CITY CHARTER SECTION IS 34.4 B. WEDGE -- SO THE CITY OFFERS A PROVISION OF STATUTE 9909 WEDGE -- SO THE CITY OFFERS A PROVISION OF

[01:10:02]

STATUTE 90 909573 WHICH DOES NOT EXPRESSLY APPLY TO MUNICIPALITIES, BUT IT CHANGES THE POSITION DUE DATES FROM 28 DAYS RECEIVING THE FIRST DAY OF QUALIFYING TO 'S 15 DAYS PROCEDURE QUALIFYING. IT MAY HAVE MADE SENSE 27 YEARS AGO, BUT TODAY, WITH MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS NOW, DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT'S APRIL VERSUS NOVEMBER NOW.

ANOTHER CONFLICT IS -- I'LL TRY NOT TO DO ALL THE STATUTE STUFF, BUT IT'S THE REPORTING DATES. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE REPORTING DATES. OUR CODE SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO REPORT FOR THE CAMPAIGN TREASURER REPORT THE 18TH OF THE FOURTH DAY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE GENERAL AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS. BUT THAT DOESN'T WORK TODAY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT -- IT DOESN'T COVER ALL OF THOSE REPORTING DATES IN THE GAPS. SO, THEY RECOGNIZE THAT FROM 1998 AND THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE LAW, BUT THEY DO HAVE A DIVISION OF ELECTIONS OPINION IT'S 9803 I THINK WHICH CHANGED THOSE REPORTING DATES TO THE 25TH DAY, THE 11TH DAY IN THE FOURTH DAY WHICH COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THE REPORTING PERIOD.

AND THEN THERE IS THE NOTICE OF CANDIDACY. THE CITY HAS A NOTICE OF CANDIDACY. IT LARGELY REFLECTS THE EXACT SAME THING IN 99.021. WHICH I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANT FOR OUR CODE SECTION TO SAY THE SAME THING THAT THE STATUTE SAYS. IT HAS JUST A FEW MINOR TWEAKS THAT I SUSPECT THAT THE PEOPLE AT THE TIME THAT WERE THE COMMISSIONERS AT THE TIME JUST WANTED TO PUT -- IT WAS IMPORTANT THEN, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY, WHILE WE ARE TRYING TO CARVE ALL THOSE THINGS DOWN IT DOES NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

>> SO THOSE ARE THE CONFLICTS AND I THINK THAT'S IT. YES. THAT WAS THE LAST CONFLICT.

>> SO, CAN WE HAVE -- CAN WE REMOVE THE REDUNDANCIES AND HAVE THOSE ISSUES IN THE

CHARTER? >>.

>> I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> I SO MOVE THAT WE ASK FOR

THAT TO BE DONE. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. >> SO NOTED.

>> ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION? >> ALL RIGHT. MEMBER DAVIS?

>> THERE ARE MORE PROVISIONS IN THE CHARTER REGARDING ELECTIONS AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS AND WE MAY WANT -- IT MAY BE A GOOD TIME TO REVISIT WHEN SHE MAKES THESE CHANGES WILL BE START WORKING WITH ALL THE OTHER ELECTION.

>> UH-UH (AFFIRMATIVE). >> I'M TRYING TO -- WHAT WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT -- I FORGOT NOW, BUT WE HAVE SECTION 9, FOR EXAMPLE ON THE ELECTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT THAT'LL BE GOOD TIME.

>> L2 THE ELECTION. I'LL TELL YOU TENTATIVELY WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THIS MONTH WILL BE IN MARCH EVEN IF WE SET AN EXTRA DATE.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE NEW BUSINESS

SURVEY? IS THAT CORRECT? >> COULD I -- I KNOW WE ARE MOVING ON FROM THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO PLANT AN IDEA ON THE ELECTION SECTION 34 ãSIX. THE TITLE IS CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING PROHIBITIVE RIGHTS AWAY. WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE IS FINE. I CAN JUST TELL YOU IN A PRIOR LIFE, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WHERE YOU HAD CANDIDATES FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS THAT WANTED TO USE MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AS CAMPAIGN FORMS. SO THEY WOULD GO TO A LOCAL POLICE STATION AND THEY WOULD HOLD HER CAMPAIGN RALLY WHERE THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING WITH A CITY BUILDING AND IT WAS EXTREMELY DISRUPTIVE BECAUSE WHAT HE DID IS IT MADE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH THE CITY WAS ENDORSING THE CANDIDATE. AND I JUST WANTED

[01:15:10]

TO THROW OUT HERE -- AND IT MAY HAVE NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE HERE. SO THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE AROUND A LOT LONGER THAN I HAVE CAN SPEAK TO THAT. BUT I THINK SOME LANGUAGE IN THIS THAT BASICALLY PROHIBITS PEOPLE RUNNING FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS FROM USING CITY PROPERTY AS CAMPAIGN LOCATIONS. THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE A BUILDING -- LIKE THE LIBRARY OR A REC CENTER THAT HAS A MEETING SPACE THAT THEY CAN RENT OUT A NEWS. THAT'S WHAT I'M NOT -- THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT OTHER PROPERTY THAT SOMEHOW MAKES IT APPEAR AS THOUGH THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE ENDORSING A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE AND I THINK THAT'S DISRUPTIVE. SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. IF EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE IT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE HERE AND IT WILL BE, I CAN ACCEPT THAT. BUT AS I SAY, MY OWN EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS THAT CAN BE A PRETTY SERIOUS PROBLEM.

>> SO MAYBE YOU CAN EXCLUDE PARKS AND RECREATION SO THE PEOPLE CAN HOLD IT AT A PUBLIC PART OF THEY WANTED TO OR LIKE YOU SET AT THE REC CENTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING SPACE FUNCTION I THINK -- IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO ROLL THOSE OFF LIMITS. BUT OTHER BUILDINGS.

>> MEMBER LUSSIER. >> I WAS GONNA COMMENT. I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. BUT WE ARE PRETTY WELL RESTAIN -- RESTRAINED IN A CASE IN 2016 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURSE.

>> THE READ CASE? >> YES. THAT APPLIES TO ANY TEMPORARY SIGNS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE CONCLUDED. THERE IS A PROVISION IN FLORIDA LAW ABOUT STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT HAS THIS BECAUSE IN THE READ CASE, AS ATTORNEYS, WE READ THAT CASE AND DECIDED THAT IF YOU HAD TO READ THE SIGN, -- AND SO CALLING OUT A POLITICAL SIGN A REAL ESTATE SIGN HAVE TO READ IT, THAT YOUR VIOLATING FIRST AMENDMENT. AND THEN IT BECOMES CONTENT SPECIFIC, NOT CONTENT NEUTRAL AND IT'S A VIOLATION. I THINK THAT THE FINDING THAT THE CITY HAD ITS TEMPORARY SIGN CODE REWRITTEN AND THERE ARE PLACES IN THERE TO:REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND THINGS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM KEEPING THIS. I DON'T KNOW THAT PERHAPS CHAPTER -- MAY BE CHAPTER 34 WON'T COMPLETELY GO AWAY. IT'LL JUST BE TINY. BUT I -- I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT IS A BAD THING. IT'S BEEN HELPFUL HERE IN AT LEAST TELLING CANDIDATES THAT HAVE ENSUED IS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE THEIR SIGNS JUST STUCK ANYWHERE ALONG THE STREETS.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT MORE THAN SIGNS.

>> AM TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING A CAMPAIGN REALLY.

>> I DO. AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE ON MUNICIPAL PROPERTY OTHER THAN PROPERTY THAT EXISTS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS.

>> YOU HAVE -- CAN YOU GIVE ME HINTS ON WHERE I CAN GO TO FIND PROVISIONS LIKE THAT?

>> NOW. >> OKAY. WELL I DID NOT KNOW IT MAY BE IN DES MOINES YOU WORKED ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT

NOW. >> AS I SAID, IT --

>> UNNATURAL BE EASY TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

>> I THINK YOU'RE THE PERSON. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> WAS -- IT'S UP TO EVERYBODY IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE THAT IS MY THOUGHT.

[Item 5.1]

>> IT WON'T TAKE THAT LONG. >> WE ARE ASKING THE CITY

ATTORNEY TO DO RESEARCH ON IT. >> OKAY. NO PROBLEM.

>> NOW WE HAVE A DRAFT SURVEY THAT WAS PREPARED FOR US BY MEMBER BEING.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> CAN YOU WALK IT -- WALK US

THROUGH. >> IS THERE ANYWAY YOU CAN PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN IF YOU FOLLOW ALONG IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET IS PAGE 19.

>> WILL TRY AGAIN. >> EVERYONE HAS A COPY OF THE

AGENDA IS. >> BUT AS WE PULLED THAT UP, I CAN GIVE A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT WERE LOOKING AT. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE PAST USE GOOGLE FORMS. IT'S A GREAT TOOL. IT'S A FREE TO USE TOOL YOU CAN COLLECT DATA FROM PEOPLE AND THEN ANYWAY YOU WANT TO USE IT. IT CAN COMPILE IT FOR YOU IN BAR CHARTS AS YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT. YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE DATA AND SLICE IT UP DIFFERENT

[01:20:03]

WAYS. WITH THAT THERE ARE SEVEN QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY. IT'S DESIGNED TO BE OPEN-ENDED SO WE CAN COLLECT DATA. IT'S DESIGNED TO BE ANONYMOUS. THAT'S THE TWO CONSTRAINTS I WAS WORKING FROM OF WHAT WOULD BE PUT ON HERE. I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH SINCE THERE IS NO -- OH MY GOSH. THERE IS RIGHT THERE, FOLKS IT SAYS THIS IS OUR SURVEY DRAFT THAT WERE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE. SO I AM COMPLETELY OPEN TO ADJUST THESE QUESTIONS. BUT THE ONE THING YOU WON'T SEE ON THE SURVEY IS ASKING FOR WHAT YOUR NAME IS SPECIFICALLY. WHAT WE DID ASK FOR IS HOW LONG YOU HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING FOR THE CITY. THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WHETHER IT'S LESS THAN TWO YEARS, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW LONG YOU BEEN AROUND THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE YOUR QUESTIONS. -- THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION JUST FOR THE GENERAL CITY STAFF. AND THE OTHER THOUGHT I HAD WAS TO MAKE IT QUICK. WE CAN ENCOURAGE RESPONSES IF IT'S QUICKER TO FILL OUT. WE DON'T WANTED TO BE TOO LONG THIS IS A YES, NO, OR MAY BE. IT'S MORE ENGAGING ADVERSITY STAFF DOES THE CHARTER AFFECT YOUR JOB DAILY. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER BUT WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.

>> DO YOU FEEL THE CHARTER WORKS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED?

>> AND THEN THE LAST COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ARE OPEN ENDED. IT WILL TURN INTO BIG BLOCKS WHEN

YOU TYPE INTO. >> WHAT DO YOU FEEL THAT THE CHARTER DOES CORRECTLY WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT HOW THE CITY OPERATES? HOW CAN THE CHARTER BE IMPROVED AND ANYTHING ELSE WOULD LIKE TO LET THE CRC NOW? AND THE CRC IS DEFINED IN THE OPENING BLOCK OF AT THE TOP. SO IT'S NOT JUST SAYING THE RIGHT THERE. SO WITH THAT, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. I'LL YIELD BY TIME TO THE CHAIRWOMAN AND ANY QUESTIONS I'LL TAKE

THOSE AT THIS TIME. >> I HATE THOSE WORDS. MEMBER

XHOSA. >> SO I THINK FIRST OFF THANK YOU, BRADLEY, FOR GETTING THE BALL ROLLING.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> YOU GOTTA PUT IT OUT THERE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> I THINK WHEN YOU ENGAGE IN A SURVEY, THERE ARE TWO PARTS OF THIS PROCESS IN THE FIRST PART IS WHAT ARE WE SEEKING? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT WERE LOOKING FOR AND THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE ISSUE. THE SECOND PART IS HOW DO YOU BUILD A MEANINGFUL

SURVEY. >> RIGHT.

>> AND THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SURVEY AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION WE GET BACK, THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK, DO WE WANT A DICHOTOMOUS ANSWER DO WE WANT A LIKERT SCALE WHERE YOU HAVE ONE THROUGH FIVE AND YOU HAVE THINGS RATED?

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHO OUR AUDIENCE IS AND WHO WE ARE SENDING THIS TO.

>> DO THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT OUR CHARTER IS.

>> DO THEY KNOW WE HAVE A CHARTER, WHAT IS IT? HAVE THEY READ IT.

>> IF WE WANT THIS TO BE MEANINGFUL, I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT TIME INTO IT AND REALLY MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME PRE-SURVEY EDUCATION AND MAYBE GET DEPARTMENTS EXCITED ABOUT FILLING OUT THE SURVEY AND WHY, WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO GLEAN FROM IT WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO WITH IT. AND WE HAVE -- THERE'S SO MANY SPECIFICS ON HOW TO BUILD A SURVEY. I'VE GOT PAGES OF NOTES ON ANY OF THOSE THINGS I JUST DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO. DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WERE LOOKING FOR OUR BUILDING THE SURVEY? OR WE DO THEM ALTOGETHER?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST THOSE ARE ALL CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS THAT IN THE EVENT WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS I THINK AS A COURTESY, LET THE CITY MANAGER CHARTER OFFICES HERE NO THAT I THINK THOSE FOLKS OUGHT TO KNOW THAT WE ARE SERVING THEIR EMPLOYEES JUST SO IT'S NO

SURPRISE TO ANYBODY. >> THE IDEA OF DOING THIS IN MY UPDATE -- THE ONE CONCERN THAT WAS EXPRESSED IS IT? HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT IT'S A LEGITIMATE

SURVEY? >> MEMBER MORRISON,?

>> THIS -- NOT TO GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES BUT IT GOES TO THE COMMENTS BUT FROM WHAT I RECALL, AT LEAST ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS THAT MADE US CHOOSE TO THE DISCUSSION THAT CAME UP OF THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH CITY COMMISSIONERS INTERFERING IN THE DAY-TO-DAY JOB TASKS OF CITY EMPLOYEES. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS THE PRIMARY QUESTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HESITATED TO ADDRESS THAT SECTION. SO WHETHER OR NOT -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AND STUFF, THEY ARE VAGUELY SUGGESTING THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING FOR. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD FLAT-OUT HAVE A QUESTION THAT SAYS YOU FEEL LIKE AT ANY POINT IN TIME THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONER HAS

[01:25:09]

NEGATIVELY IMPACTED YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM YOUR JOB OR INTERFERED WITH WHATEVER THE

WORDING OF IT IS KEY. >> BUT I THINK THAT IS -- IT THAT'S ONE OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT WERE LOOKING FOR WE SHOULD JUST ASK.

>> MEMBER LUSSIER. >> I AGREE COMPLETELY. AND THERE MAY BE A WAY TO WORD IT WOULD BE DO YOU FEEL THE CHARTER APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSES

YOUR MANAGEMENT LEVELS? >> SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

THESE EMPLOYEES ARE -- I'M HESITANT TO ADDRESS IT IS TALKING AT ABOUT THE CHARTER IS THE IDEA THAT WERE GOING TO GET THIS TO AS MANY EMPLOYEES AS POSSIBLE OR CERTAIN AUDIENCE

THAT WERE TRYING TO SOLICIT. >> OR HAVE WE GOTTEN THAT FAR.

>> WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IS OUR RATIONALE FOR GIVEN BRADLEY THE INCITEMENT TO DO THIS WAS JUST THE DISCUSSION WE HAD HERE. SO WE ALL KNOW AS MUCH AS WE ALL EACH NO. MEMBER BEING.

>> THANK YOU. SO, THE FIRST THING I WANT TO COME I GUESS, FOLLOW UP ON HIS RED BUT MY SCREEN UPON THE -- LIKE THIS VISIT -- WE COULD GO THROUGH IT NOW AND ADJUSTED TO GATHER JUST TO GET THIS WRAPPED UP TO ANSWER HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S LEGITIMATE, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO MAKE A SURVEY LEGITIMATE A RANDOM SAMPLE THE EQUAL LIKELIHOOD OF ALL POSSIBLE OPTIONS. THE SECOND ONE IS IF YOU LITERALLY GET EVERYONE. I WAS PICTURING THE -- WOULD LITERALLY GET HOLD MOST EVERYBODY WROTE. WE COULD PROBABLY FEASIBLY GET A

RESPONSE FROM ANYBODY BACK. >> THE THIRD THING IS SOME OPEN ANY CHANGES AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SAYING THANK YOU TO ME ABOUT GETTING THE BALL ROLLING. THAT WAS THE INTENTION.

>> IT IS. >> ANY CHANGE WANT TO MAKE WE

CAN CHANGE ANY QUESTION. >> I THINK THAT MR. BEING HAS BEEN EXTREMELY GENEROUS TO VOLUNTEER HIS TIME NOT JUST THIS TIME, BUT ON PRIOR OCCASIONS. AND VERY WILLING TO TAKE FEEDBACK. SO THANK YOU.

>> I -- I JUST THINK IT'S HARD TO WORDSMITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN A MEETING LIKE THIS. I WONDER IF MR. B MAYBE THIS IS ASKING TOO MUCH BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE A LOT HERE, BUT I WONDER IF YOU COULD TAKE THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAD MAYBE TAMMY COULD PUT HERS -- ARE NOT THAT'S POSSIBLE OR NOT JUST BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING THEM RATHER THAN TRY TO SIT HERE AND

DO IT. >> WELL IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO WORK A SUBCOMMITTEE IN THIS.

>> I WAS ABOUT AS GORY SUBCOMMITTEE BECAUSE I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK OF ANYONE IN A SPECIAL ROOM WHERE WE COULD DISCUSS THESE THINGS BECAUSE --

>> I WILL PARTICIPATE IN THAT. >> I WOULD LOVE TO BE ON THE

SUBCOMMITTEE. >> OKAY.

>> MEMBER DAVIS. >>.

>> JUST REAL QUICKLY, I WAS WANTING TO GET A SENSE IN THE CITY CLERK HAS LEFT. I DO THINK -- AND I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYBODY SAID INCLUDING APPRECIATE MEMBER BEING STARTING THIS. SINCE WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ISSUE, COULD WE ASK THE QUESTION ON WHICH OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS THEY WORKED UNDER WOULD THAT BE -- OR DO YOU IN THE CITY CLERK HAVE SUCH A SMALL STAFF THAT THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED.

>> THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFYING BECAUSE I HAVE ONE.

>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS AFRAID THAT THAT MIGHT BE. I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW IT WOULD HELP IF WE THOUGHT THERE WAS A PROBLEM UNDER THE CITY MANAGER VERSUS

THE CLERK OR SOMETHING. >> OKAY.

>> AND UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO MY SEARCH I CANNOT SERVE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

>> TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF A PROBLEM EXISTS OR IF THERE IS A PATTERN OR PERCEPTION OF A PROBLEM. AND THEN, IF EMPLOYEES ARE CLEAR WITHOUT A REMEDY A GRIEVANCE AND ARE THEY COMFORTABLE WITH UPWARD FEEDBACK. IS THAT SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE ARE

SHOOTING FOR? >> I THINK THAT SOUNDS

REASONABLE. >> YOU ARE SAYING IF -- WE ARE ASKING HAVE YOU HAD A PROBLEM AND IF YOU HAVE HAD A PROBLEM, HOW DO YOU RECTIFY THE PROBLEM TO SEE IF THE ANSWER AT THE WAY THAT THE CHARTER INSTRUCTS?

>> BY DEFINITION THEY SHOULD. .

>> MY MIND WAS STILL ON. >> MS. DAVIS?

>> SORRY. >> MR. CLARK?

>> TWO THINGS. I THOUGHT MAYBE DOING A -- AND I THINK MAYBE TAMMY RECOVERED THIS IN HER COMMENTS BUT A PREAMBLE THAT WOULD DESCRIBE FOR EVERYBODY WHAT THE CHARTER IS AND WHAT ISN'T. I'M FEARFUL, A LITTLE BIT THAT THIS CAN TURN INTO A RANT GRINDING WHEN ASKED ABOUT

[01:30:09]

SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY. AND THUS NOT REALLY WHAT WERE LOOKING FOR. SO I THINK SOME SORT OF A PREAMBLE THAT WOULD DESCRIBE THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT IT IS WE ARE ASKING MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO SET THE STAGE FOR THIS.

>> OKAY. WHAT I HAVE FOR SUBCOMMITTEE, THE NAMES I HAVE RIGHT NOW ARE TAMMY COSETTE, MR. MORRISON AND MR. BEING. IS THAT IT?

>> IS THERE A NEED TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BE ENGAGED IN INDOOR AS A REVIEWER?

>> CAN WE DO THIS ELECTRONICALLY OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A PERSON.

>> NO. IT HAS TO BE IN PERSON. BECAUSE IF MORE THAN ONE OF YOU NEED BEATS IT HAS TO BE A

SUNSHINE LAW MEETING. >> SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE?

>> ALL RIGHT. AND WE ARE CLEAR.

>> EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT. >> MEMBER COSETTE WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE OF THE MEETING AS WELL, RIGHT.

>> YES. >> I CAN'T REMEMBER. I KNOW YOU ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY AT THE COMMISSION MEETING, BUT WOULD IT BE USEFUL TO TRY TO GET THE INPUT FROM THE CITY MANAGER OR SOMEONE ON THE STAFF AS TO THE QUESTION OR

NO. >> I -- I'M NOT SURE. I GUESS MY PERSONAL OPINION WOULD BE THAT THE MORE WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT HAVING EMPLOYEES FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING SET UP THE BETTER OFF WE ARE IN THE BETTER OFF THEY ARE. I THINK.

>> OKAY. SO, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO -- I'M WONDERING IF ANYBODY EITHER HERE ON THE COMMITTEE OR ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS KNOWS OF SOMEBODY WHO IS AN EXPERT AT SURVEYS AND CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THAT SURVEY IS A VALID SURVEY OR NOT? IF YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY, WOULD YOU SEND ME THEIR NAMES, PLEASE AND MAYBE WE CAN GET THEM ENGAGED FOR AT LEAST THE MEETING OR ONE

OR TWO MEETINGS. >> WELL WHAT WAS THE -- WHAT WAS THE TERMINOLOGY USED THAT WAS THE COMMISSIONERS CONCERNS? WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A VALID SURVEY I DON'T KNOW THE TERMINOLOGY.

>> YES. WHAT IS IT THEY MEANT BY THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT?

>> I WAS TRYING TO AVOID THIS. >> 1586 CANOPY DRIVE. WHEN MS. PHIL COUGH YOUR PRESENTATION ABOUT THE WORK AND THE PROGRESS THAT YOU HAVE MADE THUS FAR, AND SINCE I AM AT YOUR MEETINGS, I WAS IN THE LOOP ALREADY ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND TO TAMMY'S POINTS, BEGIN WITH THE END IN MIND. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO FIND OUT. SO, I'M HEARING THAT THIS QUESTION OF -- I HAD THIS DISCUSSION THIS MORNING WITH THE CITY MANAGER. THE QUESTION OF DEFINING THE PLAY BOX THAT THE PLAYGROUND THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONERS RN, AND DO THEY VIOLATE THAT. GOING INTO THE PLAYGROUND AND CITY STAFF. AND BE AWARE, THAT THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS. OKAY. AND I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THAT BUT WE WON'T GO THERE. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO FIND OUT. NOW MY QUESTION TO MS. PHIL COCK ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES, WHO WAS GONNA FORMULATE THE QUESTION? HOWDY QUESTIONS PHRASED IS MONUMENTAL BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE TAKEN SURVEYS AND YOU CAN BEND ANY SURVEY TO MAKE IT SAY WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY SO THOSE ARE MY TWO CONCERNS. HERE'S MY OTHER CONCERNS AS YOU TALK THIS OUT MY OTHER CONCERN IS TO YOUR POINT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW IF A COMMISSIONERS ACTIVITIES ARE IMPEDING A STAFFERS ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOB, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. IF I, FOR EXAMPLE ASK ASPIRIN FORMATION DOES NOT TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO. AS WE HAVE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. I'M ASKING FOR INFORMATION.

AND THAT STAFFER HAS SOMETHING ELSE TO DO, THAT COULD BE TAKEN AS IMPEDING THEIR JOB. THAT

[01:35:07]

COULD BE INTERPRETED BY THAT STAFFER. BUT I, AS A COMMISSION, HAVE DONE EVERYTHING CORRECTLY. SO, HOW YOU PHRASE THIS AND WHAT YOU WANT TO FIND OUT IS IS CRUCIAL.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF ME? >> GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> I AGREE WITH WHAT WAS SAID AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT HAVING BEEN IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE -- I WORK IN TWO DIFFERENT CITY MANAGERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS WELCOMING TO ME AS A COMMISSIONER, TO TALK TO IN THIS CASE, HIS STAFF, BUT, HE ALSO ASKED TO KNOW THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING AT A TIME. AND THERE'S GOOD REASON FOR THAT. THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, I'VE GIVEN THE STAFF MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF THEIR TIME -- EVEN IF IT'S ASKING FOR INFORMATION ASKING FOR INFORMATION IS A TIME-CONSUMING ACTIVITY AS WELL. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH THEM I, AS THEIR MANAGER WANT TO KNOW THAT THAT IS HAPPENING AND WANT TO KNOW THAT IF, IN FACT, THAT JEOPARDIZES ANY DELIVERABLES AT THIS PERSON HAS UNDERPLAYED. IN THE OTHER SITUATION, THE OTHER CITY MANAGER THAT I WORKED WITH -- IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, HE DID NOT CARE WHO WE SPOKE WITH FOR HOW LONG OR ABOUT WHAT. BUT, THERE ALSO WASN'T AN EDICT FROM THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE BUT SAID THESE ARE OUR PRIORITIES. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE ARE WORKING ON FOR THIS YEAR.

THIS COMMISSION HAD DONE THAT. THEY SAID THESE ARE OUR PRIORITIES. SOPHIA, IN MY ATTEMPT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR GET INFORMATION GO USE UP A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME FROM A STAFF MEMBER, AND THE CITY MANAGER IS UNAWARE OF THAT WHILE THERE HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO THIS DELIVERABLE OVER HERE, AND IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRIORITIES, HUMAN NATURE SAYS THAT WHILE A COMMISSIONER FEELS VERY CONFIDENT ABOUT BEING ABLE TO TALK TO CITY CHARTER OFFICERS, AND SOME FEEL VERY CONFIDENT ABOUT BEING ABLE TO TALK TO EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES DON'T FEEL SO COMFORTABLE IF THE ANSWER TO A COMMISSIONER IS SORRY, I CAN'T DO THAT. THEY ARE -- THERE IS AN INTIMIDATION AND A FEAR FACTOR INVOLVED IN THAT. THE RIGHT THING TO DO WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO THEIR CHARTER OFFICER AND SAY IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT ME TO DO. BUT WHETHER IN FACT THEY KNOW TO DO THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE ALTOGETHER. MEMBER KAWASAKI.

>> ALONG THOSE LINES I KNOW WE WRESTLE WITH WHAT'S AN EGREGIOUS REQUESTER WHAT IS A DESCRIPTIVE REQUEST VERSUS JUST WHAT IS AN INQUIRY. SO WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE -- WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT MAYBE A CITY MANAGER HAS A BLANKET -- SAYS IT'S OKAY. SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT TO OPEN. IS IT FEASIBLE TO ASK THAT ANY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -- WHATEVER IT IS, ANY CONTACT IS PUT IN WRITING IF IT'S TO A STAFF MEMBER OR THE CHARTER OFFICER. THE CITY MANAGER IN THE CHARTER OFFICER IS COPIED. AND IT'S IN WRITING AND IT'S IN THE LOOP THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THE SITUATION.

>> WELL, AND I DO THINK THAT THAT IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY. I GUESS AT THE FIRST REASON THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EVEN DOING SUCH A SURVEY WAS TO SEE IF THIS WAS A PERCEPTION THAT THERE IS IN THE COMMUNITY OR IF THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM. SO, WE DON'T WANT TO FIX A PERCEPTION BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT NEVER GETS FIXED.

>> TO YOUR POINTS, I WAS GOING TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHEN WE HAD THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION JILL HORTON WAS CLEAR CHOICE AND HE DOES NOT THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT. AND HE MIGHT BE RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO.

>> RIGHT. I THINK THAT MY REASON FOR BRINGING IT BACK IN THIS GROUP WAS AT OUR JOINT MEETING, IT WAS STATED BY SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUE. IT WAS STATED BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT THERE WAS. AND THEN ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO SAID THAT

[01:40:05]

THERE WAS NO ISSUE ACTUALLY WENT TO THE VERY NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND SAID I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SO IT FEELS LIKE A DISCONNECT TO ME. IT

COULD BE NOTHING. >> EVEN TAMMY SAID IN OUR MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME THAT IT'S A RULE THAT'S GETTING BROKEN EVERY SINGLE

DAY. >> WILDERS THAT TO.

>> SO I THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH -- THERE'S ENOUGH OF A CONCERN OR ENOUGH OF A RUMBLE IN THE SYSTEM, IF YOU WILL, TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT. BECAUSE IF, IN FACT, IT'S A LACK OF CLARITY IN THE CHARTER, WE NEED TO FIX THAT.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, WE HAVE THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. BRADLEY, DO YOU WANT TO BE IN CHARGE OF GETTING A MEETING TOGETHER?

>> AM I ALLOWED TO? >> YOU JUST WORK TO MY OFFICE.

>> ALL WORK TO YOUR OFFICE. >> IN THE WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IF I CAN BE THERE, I WILL BE THERE. AND IF I'M NOT THERE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE WHEN WE GET IT SCHEDULED. OF THE THREE OF YOU, SOMEBODY JUST TAKES SOME SUMMARY NOTES ABOUT WHAT YOU

TALKED ABOUT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WHY CANNOT MINUTES OF THAT MEETING.

>> IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD DO IT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING THAT WILL HAVE TOGETHER -- THIS IS GOING TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE IF WE CAN GET OUT THERE AND GET BACK.

>> I WAS THINKING IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS WE COULD GET THIS THING DONE. SO I WILL REQUEST THE CONFERENCE ROOM. I'LL SEE WHEN THAT'S AVAILABLE.

>> THE CONFERENCE ROOM HERE -- AND THIS PLACE GETS BUSY. IT JUST HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE, MY OFFICE HAS A CONFERENCE ROOM.

>> WHAT YOUR NOTICE TIME. >> JUST THE DAY BEFORE. 24

HOURS. >> FOR THE PUBLIC?

>> 24 HOURS IS THE ABSOLUTE LEAST.

>> WE HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH -- I'M JUST MAKING SURE I KNOW THIS I CAN'T EMAIL THEM.

>> NO. >> JUST EMAIL ME AND I'LL EMAIL EVERYBODY AND ASK YOU NOT TO REPLY TO ALL.

>> GOT YOU. SO YOU WILL SEE AN EMAIL FROM ME THROUGH HER.

>> THROUGH ME. >> ALL RIGHT.

[Item 5.2]

>> I HAD A LOT ON SECTION 11 FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROVISION THAT KIND OF DEALS WITH WHAT MIGHT LEAD TO FORFEITURE OF OFFICE. AND SO, I LOOKED AT ALL SEVEN AND

PRETTY DETAILED. >> ALL SEVEN OF THE PEER CITY CHARTERS THAT DEALT WITH THIS. AND THERE WERE SEVERAL LANGUAGE CHANGES OR ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS THAT WERE INCLUDED. I THOUGHT WE MIGHT CONSIDER. AND WHAT IS BEHIND MY THINKING ON THIS IS I ALSO LOOKED AT ALL THE SURVEY RESULTS THAT TIMMY SENT TO US. AND IN SEEING HIM

EVEN IN THE 2017 SURVEY, >> IT WAS BACK IN 2017 AND I GOT WORSE IN 2019. AND SO I'M THINKING PEOPLE HAVE THIS PERCEPTION THAT THEY THINK THERE'S AN HONESTY PROBLEM IN OUR GOVERNMENT THAT MAY BE THIS IS WHERE WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THEM AND AT LEAST CAPTURE SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT ARE IN OUR PEER CITIES. CHARTERS.

FIRST WAS 2007, THEY HAD AGREED THAT -- TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT -- THAT IN ADDITION TO -- WITH THE LAST SENTENCE HERE ABOUT IF THEY'RE CONVICTED OF A FELONY THAT THEY HAVE TO FORFEIT -- BUT ALSO, IF THEY FAIL TO SATISFY THE QUALIFICATIONS -- IN THE PROVISION. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY NO LONGER ARE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OR THEY -- AND DON'T QUALIFY AS AN ELECTORAL ANYMORE. OR IF THEY HAPPEN TO ENGAGE IN ONE OF THESE -- FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST PROFIT CONTRACTS. SO I THINK THAT THAT LANGUAGE, WHICH WAS PRETTY SMALL, CHANGE THAT IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY 2007. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY -- AND THAT IS FOUND IN THE OTHERS. ONE THAT WAS -- AGAIN, MAYBE

[01:45:02]

THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY EXAMPLES, BUT SINCE IT WAS IN THE -- IN FIVE OF THE SEVEN, HE OR CITY CHARTERS I THOUGHT I WOULD RAISE IT. IT'S KIND OF WHAT I THINK FROM MY WASHINGTON DAYS AS NO REVOLVING DOOR ABILITY. AND IN THIS CASE THE LANGUAGES BASICALLY PROHIBITS ANY CITY COMMISSIONER FROM HOLDING ANY COMPENSATED CITY OFFICE OR CITY EMPLOYMENT WHETHER IT BE APPOINTED OR JUST AN ACTUAL JOB UNTIL THEY BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR. SO THAT THEY ARE NOT LIKE OKAY I'M IN HERE. I'M GOING TO BUILD UP A HUGE BUDGET AND I'M GOING TO GET THIS JOB OVER AT PARKS AND REX. AGAIN, NOT SAYING ANYONE'S DOING IT. BUT THAT IS A PROVISION THAT IS IN -- ALMOST ALL OF THE PEER CITY CHARTERS. AND OFTEN -- IN MY WASHINGTON DAYS. IT WAS OFTEN LOOKED AT. I WILL KEEP GOING OR WE CAN TALK ABOUT THESE ONE OF THE TIME.

>> I THINK THEY'RE BOTH GOOD SUGGESTIONS.

>> ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE TO THAT EVENT BUT FORTH SO FAR?

>> NO ISSUES. >> IF YOU NEED TO SEE A BE

HAPPY TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU. >> OH YEAH.

>> THEN, THE -- THE OTHERS, ANOTHER ONE, THAT IS -- AGAIN, IS FOUND IN ALMOST ALL OF THEM IS THE FORFEITURE OF YOUR OFFICE IF YOU MESS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS UNLESS THE COMMISSION -- THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER IT TO BE EXCUSED. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A SERIOUS SURGERY AND ILLNESS. AND GENERALLY, IS FOR CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS ONE THAT LIMITED IT TO ONLY THREE. AND IN FACT ONE SAID IF IT WAS FOR WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD THAT YOU WOULD BE CONSECUTIVE. SO, I DON'T KNOW.

WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT WITH THE MAYOR POSITION WE FELT THAT IF YOU'RE MISSING A LOT OF MEETINGS -- SO THAT'S -- I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE. I HAVE A HARD STOP AT 5 O'CLOCK MEETING. SO, MEMBER CLERK, IS WILLING TO TAKE OVER RUNNING THE MEETING. SO GO FORWARD AND

DO GOOD THINGS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU ALL. >> SO I DON'T -- AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE FEEL. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN -- I DO NOT KNOW HISTORICALLY IF THERE'S BEEN AN ABSENCE ISSUE. BUT IF WERE LOOKING AT THIS WERE TRYING TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE PEOPLE AND TELL THEM WE ARE TRYING TO -- WEATHERBY A PERCEPTION -- I JUST WANTED TO RAISE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE FIND IN OUR PEER CITIES THAT THE LEAGUE HAD POINTED OUT AS

BEING A PEER CITY CHARTER. >> IN A PARTICULAR CASE, I KNOW SEVERAL OF THE CITY BOARDS IN SEVERAL CITY BOARDS JUST PAST MAY BE SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING A LAW HAVE ADDRESSED THAT ABSENTEE ISSUE IN THEIR OWN BYLAWS. AND I THINK IN MOST CASES IT'S THREE ABSENCES WITHIN A YEAR IS A REQUIREMENT FOR CITY BOARDS. I FEEL LIKE IF THE CITY COMMISSION IS HOLDING BOARD MEMBERS SAID STANDARDS IT'S FAIR THAT THEY

BE HELD AT THE SAME. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S CONSECUTIVE. WE HAD THREE AND A CALENDAR YEAR.

>> THAT SAID. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY OLDSMAR, YOU FORFEIT IF YOU MISSED THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS OR ANY SIX WITHIN A YEAR.

>> I THINK MOST OF THE BYLAWS READ LIKE -- THERE'S EXCEPTIONS TO LIKE MEDICAL CONDITIONS. SO

IT'S JUST A FEW -- RIGHT. >> SO, AND MAYBE, AGAIN, GOING TO THAT END, AGAIN, TELLING THE PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAID WERE PUTTING IT ON THE CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS SO AS WE -- BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT HERE. INSTEAD OF -- IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE MAKING NOTES FROM THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE READ. I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONVERT THIS TO NOTES THAT IF YOU'LL AGREE I CAN RING BACK AS PROPOSED LANGUAGE. SO, I'M UP SO FAR ON WHERE I GET THE -- FROM PEER CITIES, SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE ON THIS ABSENTEE THOUGH AS MEMBER DAVIS SAYS, IT'S THREE ABSENCES FOR DEAL HAVE A PREFERENCE SO I CAN PROPOSE

[01:50:02]

THAT IN LANGUAGE. >> MR. DEAN HAS HIS LIGHT ON.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THAT BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS I DISAGREE WITH THE LET'S HOLD THEM TO THE SAME STANDARD AS HER BOARDS OVER DOING BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, FOR CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS MEANS THAT IN ORDER TO BE REMOVED, THAT'S TWO MONTHS OF JUST NOT BEING AROUND. THAT'S A LONG TIME. SO THAT'S EXCESSIVE. LET'S CHANGE IT TO

THE SAME STANDARD. >> MEMBER MORRISON I OVERHEARD HIM SAY IT SHOULD BE THREE IN A CALENDAR YEAR JUST LIKE THE BOARDS.

>> I AGREE. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. QUESTION, IF I UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE CURRENT REGULATION WORKS ONLY PERTAINS TO OFFICIALLY SCHEDULE MEETING SO SPECIAL MEETINGS OR EXTRA MEETINGS.

>> RIGHT. >> DON'T COUNT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OKAY. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE

OF THE BOARD. >> I HEARD THREE AND WAS PRESENTED AS A MOTION BY MEMBER BEING.

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

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. >> OKAY. THE MOTION PASHAS.

-- PASSES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION DO WE NEED TO SAY SOMETHING WORTH SAYS HOLDING OF MORE THAN ONE OFFICE NOT PERMITTED, DO WE NEED TO QUALIFY UNLESS THEY ARE PRO TEM DESIGNEES BECAUSE IT WOULD TECHNICALLY BE PULLED INTO

OFFICES FOR SHORT-TERM HEARING. >> WE DO -- IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FLORIDA, WE HAVE A PROHIBITION OF DUAL OFFICE HOLDING, BUT PUBLIC OFFICER DOESN'T INCLUDE ANYBODY. FOR EXAMPLE, I COULD NOT SERVE AS THE CITY MANAGER PRO TEM AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE POLICE CHIEF CANNOT, BUT THE FIRE CHIEF CAN. SO JUST -- SO THAT

IS CLARIFIED. >> IT'S CLARIFIED. I THINK UNDER STATE LAW. I WILL GO TO THIS AND IF THE MANAGER TRIED TO PUT, YOU KNOW, ME OR THE CITY CLERK IN THAT OFFICE I WOULD SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT.

>> OKAY. OKAY. I HAVE A FEW MORE (LAUGHING).

>> YOU'RE DOING GOOD. KEEP GOING.

>> I'M TAKING NOTES. ALL RIGHT.

>> OKAY. THOSE ARE PRETTY CONSISTENT AND THEN I FOUND A FEW THAT TWO OR THREE THAT -- AND THEY GO MORE TO OUR ETHICS TYPE OF ISSUES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WANTING TO DO, MORE ETHICS. THE LIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE SAYS THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN PROFITS OF ANY CONTRACTOR SERVICE. BUT AGAIN, ALL THAT HAPPENS RIGHT IS THE CONTRACT IS VOID. WELL A LOT OF -- SEVERAL OF THE PEER CITIES ACTUALLY MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THAT PROVISION CONSTITUTES MALFEASANCE. AND THEREFORE IS GROUND FOR FORFEITURE. SO WAS TRYING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE MADE TO THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN'T PROFIT FROM YOUR POSITION IN OFFICE. SO ãAND LET'S SEE. ANOTHER WHEN DID IT -- WILLFUL VIOLATION IT WAS MALFEASANCE.

AND THEY HAD TO BE REMOVED. BUT IT IS ONLY WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THEY DID KNOW ABOUT IT. THAT WOULD BE LIKE THIS. THIS IS A VOID CONTRACT. SO I THINK WE WERE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE DO WITH THE VIOLATION OF SOME OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS, THE IDEA OF TRYING TO MOVING TOWARDS BEING CONSIDERED MISFEASANCE OR MALFEASANCE SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT FAR JUST LEAVE THIS LANGUAGE REGARDING THE CONTRACTS THE WAY IT IS. AND THEN, DESTINED -- HAS SIMILAR LANGUAGE THAT WENT DIRECTLY TO STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR THE ETHICS. AND THEY HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT ANY COMMISSIONER VIOLATES THE CODE OF ETHICS ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THEY VIOLATE -- THEY FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE. SO, I KNOW THAT YOU AND THINK ABOUT THAT HERE SO I WAS GOING THROUGH A LOT OF THESE AND JUST HAVE IT ALL IN THIS ONE SECTION HERE AND YOU GET FORFEITURE. AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU STILL

[01:55:04]

QUALIFY TO HOLD OFFICE. >> THE PENALTY IN THIS CASE IS

HIS RECALL? >> IT SAYS FORFEITURE. AND THAT'S WHY WE TALKED EARLIER -- YOU'RE NO LONGER QUALIFIED TO HOLD OFFICE IN ESSENCE? AND THAT'S ALL WE TALKED ABOUT INPUTTING THAT LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN SECTION 14 IT TALKS ABOUT THE COMMISSION IS THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT OF FORFEITURE.

>> IS THE ONE THAT MAKES THE DECISION?

>> IF YOU'RE CALLING IT MALFEASANCE, YOU CONSIDER SUBJECT TO RECALL OR YOU COULD

GO TO THIS WAY. IN ADDITION, >> BUT IN THOSE CASES, WHO WOULD HAVE TRIGGER THAT? WHO WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE RECALL?

>> YES. IF YOU CENTER SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE, INSTEAD OF GOING JUST TO RECALL, THAT WOULD BE

THE COMMISSION. >> AND THERE IS A LOT -- YOU WILL GET TO THIS WE TALK ABOUT SECTION 136 IN A LITTLE BIT, SOME OF THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE.

AS I THINK WE ALL KNOW NOW, THE INTENTION OF THE CHARTER IS TO BE BROAD ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN INTERPRET SOME OF WHAT -- IT'S THE TOWNSPEOPLE THAT ARE POLICING THEIR TOWN AND THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. SO BY FORFEITURE, THE LEGAL CONCEPT IS THAT NOTHING HAS TO BE DONE.

IT'S AUTOMATIC. AND NOT MEMBER IS AUTOMATICALLY NO LONGER PERMITTED TO SERVE AS A COMMISSIONER. IF THEY REFUSE TO STEP DOWN, THEN WHAT I WOULD DO -- AS THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY, I WOULD HAVE TO -- IF THEY REFUSE TO SIT DOWN, THE OTHER MEMBERS, BY VOTE, THAT SAME PERSON IS REFUSING TO STEP DOWN COULD ARGUE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE THEM. RECALL AND REMOVAL ARE DIFFERENT THAN FORFEITURE. SO IT HAVE TO -- I THINK, THAT PERSON WOULD NOT LEAVE, WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, FILE A DECLARATORY ACTION TO HAVE A JUDGMENT IN PLACE THAT ENFORCES OUR CHARTER.

>> WHO WOULD AUTHORIZE YOU TO DO THAT? OR WOULD IT BE ABOUT.

>> IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE A VOTE OF THE MAJORITY IF THAT IS TO HAVE A JUDGE BASICALLY JUST

EXECUTE THAT ORDER. >> SO THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS IT BASICALLY COMES BACK TO THE COMMISSION TRIGGERS THAT PROCESS?

>> THEY CAN AUTHORIZE YOU TO DO IT OR WHATEVER THEY DO. BUT YOU'D BE THE BASIC KICKOFF IF

YOU WILL. >> YES.

>> I WILL SAY THAT SOME OF THE CHARTERS THAT I LOOKED AT DEALING WITH THIS ACTUALLY -- AT LEAST TWO OF THEM GAVE THE ACCUSED COMMISSIONER THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT LEAST -- TRAVEL PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T IF YOU WANTED TO GO THAT EXTRA STEP. BECAUSE EVEN HERE, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE LANGUAGE WE ARTY HAVE ABOUT THEY MUST FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE

FOR FAILING -- FELONY. >> THIS IS A REQUIRED STEP IN

THE PROCESS? >> UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

>> IF THE COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED TO VOTE TO BANISH SOMEBODY, TO TAKE IT TO COURT, AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE IT TO COURT, A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A HEARING MAKES SENSE TO ME SO THAT PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. THERE WAS A

STIPULATION FOR THIS. >> THEY HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING

ANGUISH. >> BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FORFEITURE SITUATIONS. WE ARE TALKING -- I'M CONFUSED ABOUT.

>> IF SOMEBODY IS JUST ABSENT AND STOP COMING TO COMMISSION MEETING DO THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING OR IF THEY'VE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT MALFEASANCE.

>> SO FAR WHAT I HAVE IN MY NOTES IS THAT THE AUTOMATIC REMOVAL OR FORFEITURE OF OFFICE HAS TO DO WITH HAVING UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, NOT HAVING A LEGITIMATE ILLNESS FOR THREE TIMES IN 12 MONTHS. THE OTHER IS PROFITING FROM CONTRACTS, PERHAPS THAT MIGHT NECESSITATE A HEARING, AND FAILING TO QUALIFY -- IF THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE DISTRICT.

>> RIGHT. SO, >> AND THE FELONY AGAIN.

>> BUT MOVING OUT OF THE DISTRICT WOULD BE -- I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE IS A -- OTHER THAN THE PROFITING FROM A CONTRACT, WHAT WOULD THE -- IF WE ARE NOT -- IF WERE NOT

[02:00:05]

PROVIDED FOR FORFEITURE OR RECALL OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BASED UPON MALFEASANCE -- WHICH I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT WE ARE YET, THAT THESE ARE MORE AUTOMATIC THINGS. I'M NOT SURE

YOU NEED A HEARING. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. IF THERE AUTOMATIC THINGS YOU DON'T NEED HEARING. IT'S WITH THE JUDGMENT EXERCISE --

>> I GUESS THE ONLY THING IS WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO -- IF THE COMMISSIONERS VOTE NOT TO DO IT, DO YOU WANT THE PEOPLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECALL?

>> MY -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO FIT.

>> YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A RECALL OF ITS WITHIN ONE OF THOSE SIX CATEGORIES.

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

>> SO THE HEARING, THERE'S SOME STUFF IN THERE THAT COULD BE JUDGMENTS AND IF IT'S A PROFIT OFF A CONTRACT. I CAN JUST IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE LET'S SAY THEY DON'T LIKE SOMEONE.

THEY COULD MAKE A CASE OF HOW THEY PROFITED IN THE CONTRACT MAY BE BY SOME OTHER WAY AND THEN THEY DISAGREED THE HEARING OR THEY MOVE OUT OF THE CITY. THE GUY SAYS MY ADDRESS IS IN THE CITY. I'VE LIVED IN THE CITY MY WHOLE LIFE. AND THEN THE ARGUMENT IS LIKE I'VE SEEN

YOU OUTSIDE THE CITY BEFORE. >> MY PARENTS LIVE.

>> (LAUGHING). >> NO. IT'S --

>> THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. >> I'VE SEEN PEOPLE WITH TWO

ADDRESSES. >> RIGHT.

>> SO I THINK WHAT BRADLEY IS BRINGING UP IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY ALL THINK BUT I'LL JUST SAY IT AND THAT IS IT BECOMES THE CIRCUS, A POLITICAL CIRCUS AND ONE COMMISSIONERS GETTING PICKED ON. THE CHANCES OF 4/5 COMMISSIONERS PICKING ON JUST ONE IS PROBABLY NOT IN OUR LIFETIME, BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

AND HAVING A HEARING, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK THAT THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO BE HEARD AND OFTEN

TURNS INTO A MASS. >>. AND IT NEVER WORKS FOR

THAT PERSON. >> WELL, I THINK -- LIKE A LOOK AT THE CHARTER AND I THINK THEY'RE ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC HEARING BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO

HAVE IT. >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> WILL THAT WOULD BE. >> YES. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> SO I GUESS, YOU WANT A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH? I'M SORT OF HEARING THAT IF SMEBODY IS PROFITING FROM A CONTRACT, WE ARE GOING TO NEED EVIDENCE OF THAT. AND THERE WILL BE HEARING OR ANY OF THE REASONS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. NO I DID NOT MISS FOR MEETINGS.

YES YOU DID, YOUR CHAIR WAS EMPTY.

>> I GUESS THEY SHOULD HAVE A HEARING NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

>> THAT WE DON'T COME UP WITH -- WE ARE NOT ADDING TO THIS MALFEASANCE OR WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE HEARING WILL DETERMINE.

>> OWN ANY CASE THE COMMISSIONER HAS THE OPTION OF A PUBLIC HEARING IF THEY CHOOSE

TO DO THAT. >> BUT THAT THE PURPOSE THAT I HEARD FOR FORFEITURE ARE PRETTY AUTOMATIC OTHER THAN LET'S SAY THEY ARE PROFITING FROM A

CONTRACT. >> AND HAVE THE OPTION.

>> I THINK THAT'S FAIR. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING IF THEY WANT TO EVEN IF IT'S NOT GOING TO GO IN THEIR FAVOR.

>> WHERE THERE IS DISCRETION BEING EXERCISED ON PROFITEERING FOR A PUBLIC CONTRACT THE PERSON SAYS WILL I WASN'T REALLY PROFITING FROM ANYTHING AND THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND SOMEONE SAID YOU DID SO THERE'S JUDGMENT GOING ON. THERE'S A DECISION BEING MADE. ALL THE FACTS NEED TO BE LAID OUT. YOU DON'T WANT SOMEBODY UNFAIRLY ACCUSED OF SOMETHING. BUT WHERE IT'S AN ABSENCE OF BEING VERY CLEAR, THERE'S LESS OF A NEED FOR

HEARING IN THAT SITUATION. >> OKAY.

>> I WONDER IF ON THIS IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THESE ARE INTERESTING IDEAS, BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME DIGESTING ALL OF THEM AND MAKING SENSE OF IT IF YOU COULD WRITE THEM UP AND WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT BEFORE MAKE THE FINAL DECISION?

>> YES. I MEAN YOU'RE SAYING HAVE TMA --

>> I WAS THINKING TMA DRAFTED SOMETHING BUT.

>> I PROBABLY WOULD SEND TO YOU FIRST TO MAKE SURE I CAPTURED YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE I SENT IT TO THE GIRL. ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR LIST?

>> YES. >>.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR RESEARCH. TO FIND ANY OF THOSE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PROVISIONS ON GIFT THAT WERE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE STATE.

>> NONE. >> NO. NO I DID NOT LOOK AT MIAMI'S -- THEY HAVE THE CODE OF ETHICS PREAMBLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THAT ONE. I JUST DID GO TO THAT ONE I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE SEVEN PEER CITIES THAT THE

[02:05:03]

LEAGUE HAD MENTIONED TO US. >> THERE IS STATE LAW. IT'S PRETTY STRICT, TOO. I MEAN, PRETTY MUCH MY ADVICE, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW THE THRESHOLDS ARE AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A LOBBYIST THAT YOU KNOW THE NEXT DAYS COMING TO ASK FOR CONTRACT FOR THE COMMISSION, IF IT'S UNDER $25, IT'S FINE. ANYTHING BETWEEN 25 AND $100 YOU HAVE TO REPORT AND YOU CANNOT ACCEPT ANYTHING OVER $100. VALUED AT OVER $100.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WAS SECTION 11. HOW ABOUT SECTION 12, SALARY OF MEMBERS.

ANY COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? >> IS.

>> DOES EVERYONE KNOW WHAT THE SALARY IS KEY.

>> ITS ANNUAL. >> ANNUALLY IS $12,000 PER YEAR. SO THAT APPROXIMATES TO ABOUT $500 PER MEETING.

>> THAT'S BEFORE TAXES. >> OKAY. AND IN ADDITION IT SIGNIFICANT HERE. IN ADDITION CITY COMMISSIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE EVEN THOUGH THERE PART-TIME IN THE CITY'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN AND PER EMPLOYEE, -- THIS IS ROUGH BECAUSE THE CITY PAYS 100 PERCENT OF THE EMPLOYEES BASE COVERAGE SONY JAMEL COMMENTS ABOUT $10,000 A YEAR PER EMPLOYEE. SO IN ADDITION TO THE COMMISSIONERS SALARY, IF THEY PARTICIPATE IN OUR PLANNER GETTING A BENEFIT.

>> AND IS THAT REPORTED CHINA NINE.

>> NOTE OR PAID AS A W-2 EMPLOYEE.

>> W-2. >> THAT'S RIGHT. YOU GET A

W-2. >> W-2.

>> WILL THE PROVISION OF THIS BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION CAN ESTABLISH THEIR SALARY AND BENEFITS BYPASSING THE LAW.

>> AND I CAN TELL YOU THEY HAVE NOT RAISED IT AND AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER.

>> OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS ABOUT 12 WILL TAKE THAT. HOW ABOUT SECTION 13, THE ONE THAT TAKES YOU ON SUCCESSIVE TERMS IN OFFICE?

>> THIS IS TERM LIMITS. WE HAVE TO AND FOUR-YEAR TERMS IN EACH TERM CITY COMMISSIONERS FOR YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF TWO. EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

>> HEARING NO COMMENTS. >> IS MY LIGHT NOT ON.

>> I'M SORRY. (LAUGHING). >> WELL, IT'S BECAUSE I LOOK AT THE -- I TAKE TIME TO LOOK AT ALL THESE CITIES YOU KNOW HOW FAR WE ARE. ACTUALLY, IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN WE FIRST -- THE FIRST MATERIAL WE WERE GIVEN TERM LIMITS ARE NOT IN FAVOR IN THE SEVEN THEY ARE PRETTY COMMON IN THE 2007 FELT THAT THEY COULD DO AWAY FROM THAT. THE VOTERS REJECTED AGAIN. I UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT THAT LET THE PEOPLE SET THE TERM LIMITS I KNOW AT THE FEDERAL EVER LEVEL CAME OUT THERE'S A BIGGER PUSH FOR TERM LIMIT AND I FEEL LIKE GIVEN THAT WE ARE A GROWING COMMUNITY I FEEL THAT WE -- ONE OF THE REASONS ALSO TO GET RID OF TERM LIMITS WAS THE FEELING THAT WE HAVE A SMALL POOL OF PEOPLE WILLING TO SERVE SINCE WE ARE A GROWING BUT THE CLERK IS GONE.

>> I CAN TELL YOU THE PROBABLY TOY THE SAME THING WE HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING CANDIDATES TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE. SOME BOARDS -- BUT REALLY FEWER NOW I HAVE A PROBLEM SOLICITING VOLUNTEERS. WE HAVE NOT ISSUES FINDING PEOPLE FOR ELECTED OFFICE. IT'S UP TO YOU. IT ACTUALLY FAILED TWICE. IT WAS ON THE BALLOT TWICE SINCE 2007 AND FAILED BOTH TIMES. THEY ARE A MUCH DIFFERENT COMMUNITY THAT WE WERE OF ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE BEING HIT ON SO, I WOULD TRY TO FIX SOME OF THESE I'D LOVE TO SEE GONE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL PASS AS

[02:10:19]

MY TWO CENTS PARTICULARLY COMMON MINUTES IN NOVEMBER ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

>> TERM LIMITS DAY TO TWO SUCCESSIVE TERMS.

>>. >> WE DON'T HAVE A TOTAL

MAXIMUM. >> THAT THE ONLY THING I GUESS I WAS LOOKING AT, IS SORT OF JUST -- THAT'S WHAT -- ARE YOU OKAY WITH TAKING OFF THREE SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OFF ONE OR TWO KEY.

>>. >> I TAKE THREE YEARS BECAUSE I GET SOME THROUGH. I GET SOME THROUGH TWO FULL CYCLES.

>> AND THEY CAN BE APPOINTED EITHER.

>> RIGHT. TIMMY, DO WE NEED MOTIONS ON 12 AND 13?

>> YES I. >> THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 136, ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> A MAN I JUST -- I DI RESEARCH. I LOOKED AT DIFFERENT STATES, DIFFERENT CITIES AND DIFFERENT STATES. DIFFERENT CITIES IN FLORIDA. I CANNOT FIND WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND I THOUGHT THIS WILL BE EASY. I'LL LOOK AND I'LL HAVE IT SET UP INTO

SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS. >> THERE'S NOTHING. THAT REALLY WE ARE SETTING IT OUT LIKE THAT.

>> I FOUND TWO THAT USE LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO OURS.

>> OKAY. AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT BOTH OF THOSE ALSO GAVE CITY MANAGER AND ANY ADVISORY BOARD THE RIGHT -- THE POWER TO CAUSE AN INVESTIGATION.

>> OTHER WAS NOTHING, I GUESS, THAT MEMBER DAVIS AND I FOUND THAT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU A PLAYBOOK FOR HOW THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND HEARINGS AND ALL OF IT. IT'S DONE BY THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AT THE TIME. AND THE PROFESSIONALS THAT SERVE THE CITY, TOO, TO PUT TOGETHER AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING, PROPERLY ACCESS THE

PRUBBERBANDED INVESTIGATION? >> NOT IN THE TIME I'VE BEEN

HERE. NOW. >> BUT IT'S BEEN IN THE CHARTER

FOR A LONG TIME. >> IF THIS PROVISION WAS NOT IN THE CHARTER, COULD THE COMMISSION AND THE STATE MANAGER CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION? THEY DON'T NEED THIS TO.

>> NO. RIGHT. YOU ARE CORRECT. THEY DON'T NEED THIS TO DO IT, BUT I THINK THAT THE REASON THIS APPEARS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT -- I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT STAYING IN HERE.

HE GIVES PEOPLE THE IDEA THAT THEY CAN, ON THEIR OWN, FOR EXAMPLE THE CITY COMMISSIONER CAN COME TO THE COMMISSION SAY LOOK I THINK SOMETHING'S HAPPENING. PARKS AND RECREATION SOMEBODY'S TAKING MONEY. WE WANT TO FIND OUT IN THE CITY MANAGER WAS NOT RESPONDING. THEY CAN DO THAT IS A BODY AND WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH GET AN INVESTIGATOR AND HAVE QUESTIONING AND ALL THAT. I DON'T IT'S A BAD PROVISION. IT JUST DOESN'T NEED TO BE, IT SEEMS, FLUSHED OUT, ALTHOUGH, IT SOLD. SO YOU SHOULD -- SORRY. I ACTUALLY, GIVEN WHAT WE DISCUSSED LAST -- AT LAST MEETING, I ACTUALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF THE CITY MANAGER AND ANY ADVISORY BOARD -- TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. BECAUSE SINCE THE ADVISORY BOARD IS CITIZENS GROUP WE KNOW SOMETIMES THEY MAY FEEL THAT THE CITY MANAGER OR THE COMMISSION ARE NOT SO THAT THEY COULD THEN DO AN INVESTIGATION. I HAVE NO IDEA. AND THEY FEEL LIKE -- SO, THAT'S THE ONLY THING -- LIKE I SAID THAT I SAW THAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR LANGUAGE AND ONLY TWO OF OUR PEERS CITIES EVEN HAD INVESTIGATIONS PROVISION.

>> ALL AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THE ADVISORY BOARD CAN TRIGGER THIS INVESTIGATION.

AND DO WE HAVE TO HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO WHAT THE PROCESS IS WHAT WE, LEAVITT SOMEWHAT VAGUE IN THEIR THAT THEY -- IS OUR PROBLEM WITH ENFORCING SUBPOENAS AND STUFF THAT WE

[02:15:03]

DON'T? >> I KNOW THAT THE ONE -- ONE OF THE TWO CHARTERS THAT I LOOKED AT CONTAINED THIS PROVISION AND DID HAD A SENSE THAT ALLOWED ENFORCEMENT BY THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. BUT IT'S DIFFERENT.

>> NO. IN FLORIDA, IT WOULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT. I CAN TELL YOU HOURS WON'T.

>> NOT THAT THEY ARE BAD, THEY'RE JUST OVERLOADED.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY ARE WE LEANING TO EXPANDING THE INVESTIGATIONS CLAUSE IS BECAUSE I WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE THAT -- TO BE THE DEVILS ADVOCATE HERE, WE ARE -- I DON'T KNOW IF NECESSARILY THAT ALL CITIZENS BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO: INVESTIGATION AND I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE POWER, EVEN IF WE SAY THEY DO TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA. I DON'T THINK WE COULD -- I DON'T THINK WE DO.

>> NO. >> I THINK WE MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOT PUT THAT IN OUR CHARTER. INVESTIGATIONS ONLY FOR THE

CITY COMMISSIONER. >> HOW ABOUT CHARTER OFFICERS.

>> AND CHARTER OFFICERS. >> I AGREE WITH THE OPTION OF

HAVING ADVISORY BOARDS. >> JUST A THOUGHT TO THINK ABOUT HERE. SO THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, THE INVESTIGATION COULD BE MANDATED BY THE COMMISSION OR A BOARD AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER OR ONE OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS. SO WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME HERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S CLEAR SEPARATION OF RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE CHARTER ORGANIZATION -- OFFICERS IN THE ORGANIZATION. YET WE SET UP A PROVISION THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS ANY OF THOSE ENTITIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. MY QUESTION IS MORE OF A PROCESS, NOT GOING TO THE SUBSTANCE BUT THE PROCESS, IS SHOULDN'T THIS REQUIRE A PROCESS WHERE THE INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION IS THAT WE WANT TO DO AN INVESTIGATION, BUT THEY HAVE TO CHALLENGE -- IF IT'S AN INVESTIGATION OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT COULD GO THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THROUGH THE CLERK AND OTHER DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE CITY

MANAGER? >> THIS IS NOT WRITTEN THAT PARTICULAR WAY IT ALLOWS THE CHARTER OFFICERS TO BE CIRCUMVENTED -- THAT DOESN'T

SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT. >> I DID NOT REALLY LIKE THAT BUT THAT IS A GOOD POINT. THAT DEFINITELY COULD.

>> I HAVE -- I DO NOT KNOW -- IT'S STILL ON. OKAY.

>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION? >> THE ONLY ISSUE -- I THINK THE ADVISORY BOARD WOULD BE GOOD IN THE PUREST SENSE THAT THING IS THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE GONNA COST MONEY AND THEY DON'T HAVE A BUDGET. AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO SPEND THE CITY'S MONEY WITHOUT THE CITY COMMISSION. SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU WANT AN ADVISORY BOARD TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO SAY OKAY.

>> THEY CAN DO THEIR JOB AND ADVISE THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> YES. >> THEY CAN PASS A MOTION. ANY ADVISORY BOARD CAN PASS THE MOTION. THEY CAN PASS MOTION AND THE CITY COMMISSION MAKES

THE DECISION. >> TO ME THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE? THE BOARDS COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION ONE OF THE CHARTER

OFFICES. >> OKAY.

>> BUT IN EITHER CASE IT WILL FUNNEL THROUGH THE RESPECTIVE OFFICE. I'M NOT SAYING WERE NOT GONNA DO IT. TO MANAGE THAT INVESTIGATION.

>> OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ONE?

>> WHAT WE JUST SAY? >>.

>> SO LET ME JUST SAY WHAT I HAVE WHAT I'M TAKING US MY ORDERS UNLESS YOU ALL CHANGE IT WITH YOUR MOTION. FROM THE LIST THAT MEMBER DAVIS GAVE, I AM GOING TO LOOK AT -- WELL, THE 2007 LANGUAGE THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE PROPOSED PROHIBITING COMMISSIONERS -- FORGIVE MY NOTES. I MAKE ROUGH NOTES BUT I KNOW WHEN I GET IN THE LANGUAGE PROHIBITS COMMISSIONERS FROM NOT BEING PERMITTED TO HAVE A COMPENSATED POSITION FOR AT LEAST A YEAR AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE. FORFEITING -- A COMMISSIONER

[02:20:08]

FORFEITS THE RECEIPT IF THEY MISSED THREE MEETINGS WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD. -- DID YOU SAY EXCUSE -- DURING OUR DISCUSSION THAT THAT'S A SAD EXCUSE.

>> I USE THE TERM UNEXCUSED AND WE HAVE THAT -- THEY WANTED THAT TAKING OUT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE REALLY HAD THE STOMACH FLU.

THEY DID GO TO THE DOCTOR OR THEY NEEDED A DOCTOR'S NOTE OR WHATEVER. THE SAME LANGUAGE AS

THE BOARDS? >> AND IS LEADING OUT EXCUSE DRAWN EXCUSE. IF YOU MISSED THREE MEETINGS, ACCESS A ROLLING 12 MONTH PERIOD.

>> I THINK BASED UPON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE -- I THINK WE SHOULD DO CALENDAR YEAR. AND THE REASON WHY IS WE -- THE EARLIEST WE WILL SWEARING CITY COMMISSIONERS WILL BE NOVEMBER.

SO YOU KNOW, FROM THE TIME YOU START YOUR TERM THAT'S LIKE 13 MONTHS. IF WE DO IT CALENDAR

YEAR, THAT WILL BE EASIEST. >> NO PROFITS WHILE IN OFFICE AND I'M SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE CITY OF BALTIMORE AND I'LL BE LOOKING FOR SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS, TOO. BUT REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE ARE NOT WORRYING ABOUT MALFEASANCE.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT ONE OF OUR ELECTED COMMISSIONERS COMMITTED MALFEASANCE MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE, ANY OF THOSE, BUT IT WILL BE AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE OF YOUR PROFITING FROM A CONTRACT YES?

>> AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THIS LANGUAGE AGAIN -- SO WE CAN PLAY WITH IT. THAT'S FOR SECTION 11. NONE FOR SECTION 12 AND 13, I DID NOT HEAR ANY CHANGES. 136, WE ARE ADDING CITY COMMISSION OR CHARTER OFFICERS. SHOULD I TAKE OUT THAT INVESTIGATIONS BY RESOLUTION? I WOULD SAY SHOULD BE RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION SO -- BUT I'LL PUT SOMETHING IN ABOUT CHARTER OFFICERS CAN INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION.

>> ARE JUST THAT THEY -- WHO HAS THE POWER.

>> YES. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. I'LL MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ADVISORY BOARD THROUGH

THE CITY COMMISSION. >> WELL FRANKLY, THAT'S THE POWER THAT THE CITIZEN WOULD HAVE AS WELL.

>> SURE. SURE. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> DO WE NEED TO MOVE OR DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU.

>>. >> WHAT SHE SAID.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> RIGHT. YOU'RE MAKING A

MOTION? >> I MOVE.

>> (LAUGHING). >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> THE SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR.

>> I. >> ALL OPPOSE.

>> MOTION PASSES. OKAY. >> THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA, MR.

[Item 6]

CHAIR IS PUBLIC COMMENT. >> YES, MA'AM. PLEASE GIVE

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> AND AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, MR. SHERROD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD WILL TALK ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING DATES AND ALL OF THAT?

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS SUE AND TML EVENT OR FOR BROOME STREET AND I WOULD JUST LIKE CLARIFICATION ON A COUPLE OF ITEMS IF YOU DON'T MIND. WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT -- IF NO ONE WANTS TO BE MAYOR, THAT THE COMMISSION CAN DECIDE WHO THE MAYOR WILL BE, HOWEVER, I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER PART THAT SAYS THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR MAYOR, YOU HAVE TO BE A SITTING MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION? SO, IF NO ONE WANTS TO BE THE MAYOR, AND THEY DECIDE WHO AMONG THEM SHOULD BE MAYOR, COULD THEY OPT TO NAME SOMEONE WHO HAD JUST BEEN ELECTED TO THE POSITION OF MAYOR?

>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE INTENT.

>> YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?

>> YES. >> HE PRECLUDES IT IN THE OTHER STATEMENT. THEY HAVE TO BE A SITTING MEMBER.

>> I THINK SO BECAUSE NO SITTING MEMBER WANTED TO BE MAYOR.

>> WE WANT TO MAYOR THE DOESN'T WANT TO BE MAYOR.

>> BUT WE WANT A BRAND-NEW MAYOR.

>> BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO OPEN IT UP. HOW CAN YOU -- YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF IN THOSE TWO PARTS OF THE CHARTER THEN. SO HOWEVER YOU DO THAT.

>> I HAD A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY MANAGER PRO TEM ALSO. AND THIS WENT BACK

[02:25:02]

TO A POINT THAT CHAIR PHIL CONFEREES. IT'S ONE THING IF YOU'RE APPOINTING SOMEBODY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR DURING THE REORGANIZATION MEETING WHATEVER TO ASSUME THE POSITION OF PRO TEM. BUT, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'RE SITTING -- A CITY -- LET'S SAY THE CITY MANAGER EITHER QUITS OR DIES OR SOMETHING AND YOU GO OFF AND YOU HAVE A SEARCH COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE FROM 6 TO 9 MONTHS IN ORDER TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION. THE PRO TEM IS NOT COVERED UNDER THAT. HOW DO YOU COVER THE PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE VACANCY IN THE POSITION UNTIL THE TIME TO FILL IT? I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PRO TEM -- THE CITY MANAGER COULDN'T APPOINT SOMEONE TO FULFILL THAT DUTY, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> IT WOULD TAKE A VOTE OF THE COMMISSION TO DO THAT. AND TO ME, THAT'S A DETAIL THAT I THINK WE CAN RELY ON THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A REASONABLE DECISION.

>> BUT IT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THEN, THAT WHAT -- THE DUTY THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN UNDER THE CITY MANAGER ONLY APPLIES IF THAT PERSON IS STILL IN POWER. CORRECT?

>> WELL I THINK IT WOULD TAKE -- IT WOULD TAKE AN EXPLICIT VOTE OF THE COMMISSION.

>> IN TERMS OF LIKE THE COMPOSITION OUTTHINK THE PRO TEM RECEIVES ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO AT THE OFFICER WOULD HAVE. SO IF THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDED TO HIRE THE PRO TEM AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE THEY MAY BE THE MOST QUALIFIED TO TAKE THAT ROLE, FOLLOWED BY A NEW CITY MANAGER, THEY GO BACK DOWN TO THEIR FORMER POSITION OR

WHATEVER. >> BUT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED.

>> NO. I'VE USE THE CITY MANAGER WERE TO ROOT NO LONGER BE IN OFFICE THAT THE PRO TEM VALLEY BILLING TEMPORARILY UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION HIRE SOMEONE TO -- AS AN INTERIM BASIS. IT COULD BE THE PRO TEM .

>> OKAY. AND ON TERM LIMITS. I KNOW THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO MESS WITH ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE AND I UNDERSTAND WHY. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT CURRENTLY, THAT YOU HAVE TO SET OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A TERM. IN OUR CASE, IT'S FOUR YEARS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO SIT OUT FOR FOUR YEARS. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WHEN THIS WAS FIRST WRITTEN, WE WERE THREE YEAR TERMS. NOW IT'S FOUR YEARS. SEE OR TALKING ABOUT IN OFFICE FOR EIGHT YEARS, OUT FOR FOUR, THAT'S 12 YEARS. AND THEN COMING BACK. I MEAN, IS THAT REALLY NECESSARY? I MEAN, CAN YOU -- SAY IF YOU SIT OUT TWO YEARS BECAUSE THE ELECTION IS EVERY TWO YEARS. HIS TWO YEARS LONG ENOUGH AND SHOULD THAT BE SPECIFIED IN THE CHARTER?

>> IT'S NOT SPECIFIED NOW. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS THREE.

>> IT SAYS THREE. IT IS JUST ROLLING OVER FROM WE HAD BEFORE.

>> OKAY. AND IT ESSENTIALLY WORKS AS A TERM.

>> SO IT DOESN'T SAY THREE YEARS AS A TERM IT JUST SAYS THREE YEARS.

>> AFTER WE LEAVE OFFICE. IT'S A LONG TIME TO HAVE SOMEBODY TO SIT OUT. NO, WE DID HAVE -- WE HAD A PROFESSOR WHO CAME IN AND STARTED WITH US DURING ONE OF OUR MORE TURBULENT PERIOD'S OF TIME YEAR. WHO -- WHO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION THAT ONCE YOU SERVE TWO TERMS, YOU CAN'T RECYCLE BACK IN.

>> BUT I JUST THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE EITHER TWO YEARS OR FOUR YEARS -- WHATEVER YOU DECIDE I THINK IT SHOULD BE SPECIFIED.

>> IT SAYS THREE NOW. >> YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE

SOMETHING OTHER THAN THREE? >> YES.

>> I WOULD WORK. >> ANYBODY ELSE? IS THAT IT?

>> AND I HAVE -- I SECTION 36, I THINK 136 IS A REAL HORNETS NEST. AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INVESTIGATIONS. YOU HAVE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, YOU HAVE WHAT I WAS INVOLVED IN REGULARLY IN MY JOB, WHICH ARE ADMINISTRATIVE DIARIES THAT, TO ME, WERE NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL OF INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE WERE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE

[02:30:08]

LOOKED INTO. IF I WERE THE CITY MANAGER -- THIS WOULD BE PART OF MY JOB. IF I THOUGHT SOMETHING WAS GOING WRONG IN A CERTAIN DEPARTMENT UNLOCKING A WAY TO BE AUTHORIZED TO GO IN INVESTIGATED. I'M GOING TO GO IN AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. AND I WONDER WHETHER THERE IS INTO NEED TO DEFINE LIMITS ON WHAT KIND OF AN INVESTIGATION IT IS THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CHAPTER -- WITH THIS SECTION.

>> THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENT. ON THE NOTION OF SUCCESSIVE TERMS, WE HAVE THREE YEARS WAS THE SUGGESTION, GO FOR, ONCE THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

>> ONE TERM. >> DON'T FORGET.

>> DON'T FORGET IT HAS TO BE A VALID QUESTION. THAT'S -- THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I SAY.

>> SO WE DON'T CHANGE IT -- PUT IT ON THE BALLOT I HAVE TO ADDRESS IT IN THE SECTION THAT'S DEALING WITH TERM LIMITS SOMEHOW, RIGHT, IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE VOTERS BUT WE

CAN KEEP IT AS IS. >> YOU CAN KEEP IT AT THREE.

>> YOU CAN KEEP IT AT THREE. >> WHICH EFFECTIVELY MAKES IT

FOR. >> AND THREE IS A FOUR-YEAR

TERM. >> UNLESS IT'S A CARRYOVER.

>> IT WAS NOT PLACED IN THEIR IT WAS JUST A CARRYOVER THINKING THAT'S ENOUGH CHANGES.

>> IN THREE YEARS, SOMEONE COULD BE APPOINTED TO FILL A COMPLETE TERM THE FOURTH YEAR.

THEY COULD GET A LITTLE BIT BEFORE -- YES.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LEAVE IT AS IS.

>> SECOND. IT'S ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. MOTION PASSES. OKAY.

PUBLIC COMMENT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> YOU HAVE SOMEBODY. >> WELL.

>> OKAY. I'M MARGARET. I DON'T TURN MY NECK AS WELL AS I SHOULD. ANYWAY, I'M MARGARET KIRKLAND. THERE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I WANTED TO COMMENT ON AND -- IN SECTION 10 A, WE WERE DISCUSSING A PERIOD OF NO MORE THAN 40 YEARS THE LEASE. I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO OR WHY IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND. IN FACT, THINK IT COULD BE A VERY BAD THING. IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE LEASING IT FOR ONE PURPOSE AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE LEASING IT FOR ANOTHER, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DEGRADE YOUR ENVIRONMENT. SO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. NOW, IN TERMS OF THE MARINA, PERHAPS WE NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND THE DESIGNATION TO -- TO RECREATION. SO THAT IT WOULD BE UNDER THE -- YOU KNOW, SAME RESTRICTIONS, BUT YET WE CERTAINLY MIGHT LEASE PARTS OF THE MARINA, BUT I CAN IMAGINE A SITUATION RELEASING OTHER CONSERVATION LANDS.

CONSERVATION LANDS OFTEN -- MOST OFTEN -- UNFORTUNATELY IN MY OWN HEART WOULD LIKE FOR ALL CONSERVATION LANDS TO BE MANAGED AND LEFT AS IS. BUT THAT'S NOT THE REALITY OF THE WAY THE WORLD OF CONSERVATION WORKS NOWADAYS WITH LAND TRUSTS. WHEN LAND IS CONSERVED MOST FREQUENTLY UNLESS IT IS VERY SENSITIVE LAND IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAN MOST FREQUENTLY, IS USED AS SOME KIND OF PASSIVE PARK. AND THAT'S VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH THE SECOND DEFINITION THAT'S GIVEN HERE. FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND IF WE TALK ABOUT DEFINITIONS, I WAS LIKE TO BE SPECIFIC. I WOULD PREFER THAT ONE. IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE RELATES TO THE SURVEY. I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT 40 MILLION SURVEYS IN MY LIFE, BUT NO, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON SURVEYS OR SURVEYING METHODOLOGY. BUT I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID HERE, EVERYTHING THAT TIMMY SAID, IF YOU HAVE VERY GENERAL QUESTIONS YOU GET

[02:35:06]

RESPONSES THAT DON'T RELATE TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. THEY MAY NOT EVEN RELATE TO THE QUESTION AS YOU PERCEIVE THE QUESTION. SO DEFINING WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND FINDING STRATEGIC WAYS OF ADDRESSING THAT IS IMPORTANT. I'M GLAD YOU GOT A SUBCOMMITTEE GOING ON

THAT. YOU. >> ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE 40 YEAR LEASE, I THINK SINCE THE BOARD WAS TO AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS GOING TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE REWRITE ON THAT SECTION.

>> THANK YOU. >> WITH FEEDBACK.

>>. >> SANDRA KERRY 1255 FOREST DRIVE. ABOUT THE SURVEYS, ONE THING I WANTED TO SUGGEST I THINK YOU HAD A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FLOOR LEAKING I LOOKED ONLINE AND I SENT A LEAGUE LINK TO MS. KOVACH THAT THERE'S MANY MUNICIPAL RESEARCH SURVEYS THAT ARE DONE BY THAT ORGANIZATION. I'M SURE THEY WOULD BE A GREAT RESOURCE TO YOU AND TRY TO PUT THAT TOGETHER. SO RATHER THAN TRYING TO JUST -- IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO GO TO SOMETHING THAT DEALS ONLY WITH MUNICIPALITIES.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION ABOUT THE SURVEY I KNOW YOU'RE DIRECTING IT TO THE CITY STAFF, BUT I THINK AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED IT SITUATE STREET. ANY SURVEY THAT IS GEARED TO ONE POPULATION IS NOT GOING TO BE PERCEIVED AS LEGITIMATE. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE -- AND I'VE SUGGESTED THIS BEFORE -- YOU SHOULD HAVE INPUT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL THAT THEY PERCEIVE AND ARE THEY AWARE OF THEIR DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE CHARTER. DO THEY FEEL THAT THEIR DUTIES AS A COMMISSIONER ARE BEING -- YOU KNOW, PROHIBITED BY THE WAY THINGS ARE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW OR IS THERE AN OVERBEARING SITUATION OR YOU KNOW OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES? THERE'S TWO SIDES OF THE THING IT SEEMS THAT WERE ALWAYS LOOKING AT JUST WHAT THE CITY THINKS IS THEIR PERCEPTION OF BEING STOPPED FROM DOING THEIR JOBS. BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO, I THINK, I NEED, IF YOU WANT THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AND TO REALLY LOOK AT IT FROM VALID -- OBJECTIVELY YOU SHOULD HAVE ONLINE CITIZEN SURVEY. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY IF YOU PUT A QUESTION ON THE CITY CHARTER AND IF YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT IT COVERS THE END YOU KNOW GO -- HERE IS A LINK. SEE WHAT THEIR IDEAS ARE IS PROBABLY A LOT OF GOOD THINGS OUT THERE THAT

PEOPLE COULD COME WITH. >> THE ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION YOU TALKED ABOUT SECTION 29 UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY POWERS. IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, YOU DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY SUBSECTION H 29 AGE, WHICH IS TO PERFORM SUCH PUBLIC DUTIES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS CHARTER OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. IS THAT CORRECT.

>> YES. >> AND I GUESS BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED REDUNDANT BECAUSE SUBPARAGRAPH THEY HAD THE SAME SECTION TO SEE THAT THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES ARE ENFORCED. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THERE'S ONE VERY CRUCIAL WORD IN THERE THAT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN OTHER PARTS OF YOUR CHARTER. THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR INSTANCE, IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, THERE IS A NEED FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO ACT UNDER THE RESOLUTIONS, GIVEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION. IF YOU TAKE OUT SUBSECTION H, YOU'RE REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE. IT'S NOT COVERED UNDER PARAGRAPH -- PARAGRAPH 20 9A. SO THANK YOU AND LOOK BACK AT THAT ãFOR -- I DON'T.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION 20 9H, IT SAYS " -- THAT YOU WANT TO DELETE.

>> TO PERFORM SUCH OTHER DUTIES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS CHARTER OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED OF HIM BY ORDINANCE OR LESS SOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. SUBSECTION A OF THAT SAME SECTION, WHICH YOU FEEL ALREADY COVERS THAT DOES NOT MENTION RESOLUTION.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM DOING HIS JOB UNDER THE EXISTING LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY, BUT NOT UNDER RESOLUTION. RESOLUTION IS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK BACK UNDER YOUR SECTION 10 WHERE YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE -- THE ADMINISTRATIVE BEST OCCASIONS, IT SAYS THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL

[02:40:03]

AUTHORIZE INVESTIGATIONS BY RESOLUTION. YOU'RE DOING AWAY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I THINK THE OTHER TWO CHARTER OFFICERS I UNDERSTAND YOU DID AWAY WITH THAT SUBSECTION FOR BOTH OF THEM. SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER PUTTING RESOLUTIONS BACK IN.

>> OKAY. THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE -- YOUR POINT ABOUT THE COMMISSION INPUT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE HAD WAS WITH THE COMMISSION.

SO WE MET IN THIS ROOM AND THEY ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US THEIR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS SO WE HAVE HEARD FROM THEM. AND ALSO AS YOU MIGHT RECALL WE SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE SURVEY IT WILL BE A PUBLIC MEETING AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO ATTEND THAT.

>> I THINK IF YOU HAD A SURVEY THAT WE SHOULD BE A -- BROAD ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS CITIZENS, COMMISSIONERS, EVERYBODY SO IS NOT PERCEIVED AS JUST BEING SKEWED TO ONE POPULATION.

>> WE HAVE SOLICITED FEEDBACK FROM DIFFERENT PLATFORMS FROM THE COMMUNITY.

>> BUT TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE DATA AND LOOK AT IT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IN WRITING.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>> OKAY. TIMMY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SCHEDULES.

[Item 7 & 8]

>> USE. OUR NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 25. THAT'S OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, IT WOULD BE THE FOURTH TUESDAY THE END OF MARCH. AND I WANTED TO SEE AS OUR GOING. WORK ON A GOING ALONG HERE AND SEEING HOW OUR MEETINGS ARE GOING. WHETHER YOU WANTED TO KEEP US MEETING ONE MEETING A MONTH OR DO YOU WANT TO INCREASE IT TO TWO.

YOU WILL WANT TO START LOOKING AT THE 6 O'CLOCK EVENING MEETINGS AT LEAST ONE ORGAN HAVE TO INVITE PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND SPEAK. THE CHARGE FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, AS YOU KNOW IS THAT THEY HAVE VALID QUESTIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER 2020 BALLOT BY JUNE.

>> THAT WOULD MEAN YOUR LAST REGULAR MEETING WOULD BE THE LAST MEETING IN MAY. BUT DON'T THINK OF THIS AS -- BECAUSE I SET IT TO THE COMMISSION AND THEY AGREE, ALTHOUGH IT MAKES FOR A MUCH LONGER COMMITMENT, PERHAPS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE PROVISION OF THE CHARTER. THERE ARE SOME THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DISCUSS. THERE ARE SOME THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE BUT MY MENTIONING TO THEM AND I'M NOT OBJECTING, YOU MAY WANT TO DEAL WITH SOME OTHERS AFTER JUNE. YOU CAN LEAVE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE TABLE TO RECOMMENDATIONS. LET'S THEY WERE MEETING ONCE A MONTH UNTIL NOVEMBER AFTER EVERY SECTION AND YOU GAVE YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS BY NOVEMBER. I COULD -- WELL YOU WANT TO HAVE WHATEVER -- THAT'S WHAT WERE DOING SOME OF THE METEOR THINGS NOW, SO THAT THOSE AT LEAST -- THOSE OF THE THINGS THAT VOTERS ARE MOST INTERESTED IN. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT SOME OF HER HOUSEKEEPING STUFF. SO, I THINK WE CAN GET ALL THOSE. I KNOW WE CAN GET ALL THOSE DONE BY JUNE. IF WE HAVE SOME LEFT OVER AND YOU WANT TO MEET, WE CAN END UP WITH PROPOSED CHANGES THAT IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT WANT TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION, THEY CAN BE HELD UNTIL THE 2022 BALLOT. WITH OUR FOUR-YEAR ELECTIONS WERE NOT HAVING AS MUCH TURNOVER. SO IT'S NOT LIKELY BE IN DANGER OF THEM SAYING OH NO.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME THOUGH THAT WE ARE TO TRY TO GET IT ALL DONE.

>> THAT'S MY IDEA. AS LONG AS THIS CHAMBERS IS OPEN, AND I DON'T HAVE THE SCHEDULE HERE TO START GETTING, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS A MONTH ALTHOUGH WE CAN IF YOU WANT TO,

I JUST HAVE TO SEND THAT OUT. >> I WOULD JUST OBSERVE I THINK WERE MAKING PRETTY GOOD PROGRESS.

>> BUT. >> PEOPLE ARE STUDYING THE

AGENDAS COMING PREPARED. >> INDEED.

>> BUT ALSO I THINK THERE ARE SOME MEATY ISSUES.

>> I DO NOT THINK WERE GOING TO FINISH THIS IN THREE MORE MEETINGS. IF YOU THINK ABOUT

IT MARCH APRIL MAY. >> A CODE OF ETHICS I WANT TO BRING UP THE RIGHT TO DO PETITION AND THEN RECALL.

>> THERE'S INITIATIVES. >> AND THAT -- BRAND-NEW -- THOSE ARE BOTH BRAND-NEW THINGS IN THE WAY OF ELECTIONS.

>> I STILL THINK THERE'S SOME MEATY THINGS TO COVER.

>> I THINK THERE ARE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MAINTAINING THE SCHEDULE WITH THE GOAL OF COMPLETING HER WORK BY JUNE. AND IF WE HAVE TO ADD ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO GET IT ALL DONE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT WITH REGARD TO THE EVENING MEETINGS, IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD FINAL -- NOT GET TO THE POINT THAT WERE VOTING ON THE FINAL THING BUT WHEN WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF OUR GENERAL DIRECTION SO WE CAN TELL PEOPLE WHAT IT IS AND GET FEEDBACK. IF WE WENT UP NOW I THINK WE ARE -- I THINK WHEN

[02:45:08]

YOU DO IT, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE LATER.

>> OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW. >> SO WHAT I WILL DO THAT IS JUST A COUPLE WEEKS AWAY. AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING BESIDES BRINGING BACK -- I I SORT OF RECAP? SO AT THAT MEETING, AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING, I'M GOING TO BRING DATES THROUGH MAY THAT THIS CHAMBER IS OPEN AND THE TIMES IT'S OPEN INCLUDING THE EVENING TIMES. SO THAT WE CAN PLAN MORE MEETINGS. OR AT LEAST, WE COULD MARK THE CALENDAR THAT SAYS THAT WE MAY -- THAT'S ALWAYS DONE WITH OUR PLANNING BOARD. NOW WE HAVE TWO MEETINGS A MONTH ARE ON THE CALENDAR SO NOBODY ELSE CAN TAKE IT.

BECAUSE EVEN OTHER OUTSIDE AGENCIES ARE USING THE CHAMBERS. I'LL BRING DATES.

I'LL BRING CHANGES TO -- THE EARLIER SECTION STARTING WITH SECTION 10. THOSE CHANGES WILL COME TO YOU IN MARCH. I WILL HAVE THOSE READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING. BUT FOR SECTIONS 11 AND 12, 14 AND 136, I'LL BE ABLE TO BRING SOME OF THE -- OR ALL OF THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

WE MAY NOT BE DONE. SO I GUESS I NEED TO KNOW WHAT SECTIONS YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO. I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO DO ELECTIONS SECTION 9.

>> SECTION 9, WERE GOING TO DO THAT IN MARCH, RIGHT?

>> NOT THE END OF THIS MONTH. >> RIGHT. SECTION 13, IF I

RECALL IS ANOTHER. >> DID YOU JUST SAY -- 'S CHECK

WHICH ONES WE'VE DONE. >> (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS).

>> SEND OUT A DRAFT OF -- AT THE NEXT MEETING BUDS THE ONES I JUST SENT FOR NEW BUSINESS 11, 12, 14 AND 136? THOSE ALTHOUGH JUST LIKE -- AND I MAY HAVE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES DONE. I JUST DON'T MAKE PROMISES. SECTION 10, THE ELECTIONS ISSUES,

>> THE ELECTIONS -- I CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL MARCH. WITH THE CITY CLERK I'VE GOT TO GET --

CHAPTER 134. >>.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AND TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT.

>> SURE. >> MAY BE SINCE WE BEEN DOING

-- WE CAN DO 20. >> OR MAYBE WE CAN MOVE THROUGH LIKE THE -- BECAUSE MAYBE THERE WILL BE -- WE WANTED TO DO THE METEOR STUFF.

>> RIGHT. THAT MAKES SENSE. >> OKAY. SO MAYBE WE SHOULD MOVE TO THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COMMISSION ITSELF. IN THE PLANS. AND

THEN. >> MERELY DID 13. WE DID 13.

>> WE HAVEN'T DONE NINE. NINE IS THE BIG ONE WITH THE ELECTIONS. THAT'S IN MARCH.

>> NINE AND THEN 20 AND 21 WE DID NOT DO.

>> WE KINDA DID 20, >> YES.

>> WE DID 70, RIGHT. >> WE DID.

>> THE MAYOR. >> WE DID SECTION 20 -- SECTION

21 -- 20 AND 21. >> WE DID ALL OF CITY MANAGER,

ALL OF CITY ATTORNEY. >> SO THEN YOU GET TO A BUNCH

OF THE DEPARTMENTS. >> I DON'T MIND GETTING THROUGH 39 TO 45. THOSE -- THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN 2007. DEPARTMENT SAID WE DID NOT NEED TO HAVE UNDER HERE. THIS IS BASICALLY FIRE. I THINK YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THERE SO THE COMMISSIONER CAN'T JUST CONTRACT WITHOUT THE CITIZENS VOTING (LAUGHING).

>> THE COMPTROLLER. >> OF TIMMY?

>> YES. IF YOU PUT FOR NEXT MEETING -- IT'S HARD FOR ME TO RELATE TO THE SECTIONS WITHOUT HAVING THEM DEFINED. BUT IF AT THE NEXT MEETING, YOU COULD OUTLINE LIKE THE SECTION IN THE

TITLE. >> OKAY.

>> AND RANK ORDER THEM IN TERMS OF WHICH YOU THINK ARE THE MOST WE NEED PUT THEM ON A PAPER AND WILL SEE IF WE CAN DIVVY THEM UP I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE HEADED, RIGHT.

>> I WAS. >> I WAS TRYING TO DETERMINE

FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >> WHAT WE CAN.

>> 39 TO 45. >> THAT'S NOT GONNA TAKE LONG

20 AND 21. >> I'M JUST NOT.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT ALL DO AT THE NEXT MEETING? BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> I'LL CHECK OFF WHAT WE'VE DONE. I'LL GO BACK TO WHERE I HAD SECTION 10 A, SECTION 10

[02:50:12]

I'LL BRING BACK THE CHANGES THAT WE DISCUSSED. EVERYTHING OTHER THAN ELECTIONS. HOW

ABOUT THAT? >> 10? I THOUGHT 10 WE WERE HOLDING UNTIL WE GET OUR SURVEY?

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'LL BRING THE ELECTIONS -- THERE WERE SOME OTHER SECTIONS IN THERE THAT I MADE SOME CHANGES TO. THAT'LL GIVE US SOMETHING TO DISCUSS. I'LL MAKE SURE WE

FILL AT LEAST TWO HOURS. >> I DON'T WANT TO CALL THIS.

>> I AM HAPPY TO RAISE THE PETITION AND REFERENDUM. I JUST THOUGHT THAT.

>> THE CHAIRMAN HAD ORIGINALLY SAID SHE WANTED TO DO NEW THINGS TOWARD THE END IS WHAT I

THOUGHT. >> WE WILL RECALL AND

INITIATIVE CITIZEN CONDITION. >> BUT RECALL, PUT PETITION AND

REFERENDUM BECAUSE RECALL. >> IS COVERED.

>> IT STATE LAW WE CAN DO ANYTHING THERE.

>> WE COULD AND THAT'S WHAT THEY USED TO DO AND THAT WAS TAKEN OUT.

>> WE WANT TO GO BACK AND PUT IT IN?

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT CITIZEN INITIATIVE.

>> WE DEFTLY HAVE TO. >> WHICH SENDING ME ANY NOTES OR CITIES THAT YOU SAW THAT YOU LIKE.

>> I WILL. IT'S ALMOST ALL PEER CITIES HAVE IT.

>> AND THEN YOU SEND THAT TO US .

>> THAT WILL BE IN THE PACKET. OKAY. SO TO ME, THAT'LL BE A MEDIAONE.

>> THE NEXT MEETING I AM GOING TO BRING BACK FOR UNDER OLD BUSINESS, I AM GOING TO BRING BACK SECTIONS 11, 12, 13, I THINK 14 WAS IN THERE AND 136. OKAY. I'M GOING TO.

>> ALWAYS THAT'S RIGHT. WE ARE STILL THINKING ABOUT THE LEAST. 10 A IS CONSERVATION LAND.

WHEN AM I BRINGING THAT BACK HE.

>> THE NEXT MEETING. ON FEBRUARY 25?

>> PERFECT. I AM BRINGING THE -- THE ONES, THE FINALISTS, IF YOU WILL. OF NOT SECTION 10, NOT THE ELECTION STUFF, BUT ALL THE OTHER STUFF IN BETWEEN CITY MANAGER MIKE CITY MANAGER OR ATTORNEY. THE ONLY THINGS THAT WILL BE LEFT OUT THERE ARE SECTION 10, WAITING FOR THE SURVEY. THAT'S THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE ELECTIONS, JUST TO GIVE CAROLINE AND I A CHANCE TO -- WE MAY -- I MEAN, I'M HOPING -- WE NEED TO BE SHOOTING FOR THE END OF MARCH FOR THAT. MUST BE SET ANOTHER MEETING.

>> THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO DO ALL THAT YOU SAID BUT PROVIDE THE OVERVIEW OF EVERYTHING THAT'S LEFT TO DO.

>> SURE. >> AND WE CAN TAKE A SHOT AT

TRYING TO ORGANIZE THAT. >> HAVE YOU LOOK AT.

>> WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A ROUGH DRAFT BIAS CERTAIN DAYS WE HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE WE HAVE TO TAKE A FINAL VOTE.

>> AND THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF --: WHEN JOB TO DO WITH SCREENSHOTS THAT I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE CHARTER HAS A TABLE OF CONTENTS WHICH SETS THE SECTIONS OUT. IT HAS REFERRED SECTIONS UNDER A HEADING. SO THAT THERE IS AN IDEA OF WHAT WE ARE DOING.

>> AND ALSO FOR THE NEXT MEETING ARE WE BRINGING BACK SURVEY -- WERE GOING TO GET.

>> SURVEY SUBCOMMITTEE. >> WILL HAVE THAT DONE BY THE

18TH SO CAN BE ON THE AGENDA. >> PERFECT.

>> SO WE WILL HAVE A FULL MEETING. FOR FEBRUARY 25.

>> YES. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> ONE THING BEFORE WE ADJOURNED I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE LIFESTREAM IS THAT WORKING. IT'S ONLY 41 SECOND DELAY RIGHT NOW IS WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SCREEN.

>> THE ISSUE GOVERNMENT HAVE -- SO KATIE NEWTON WILL BE BACK MARCH 17. SHE STARTED COMING BACK TODAY A LITTLE BIT PART-TIME. SHE IS STILL NOT ABLE. THAT WAS THE MESS WITH THE MINUTES. AND PROBABLY THIS BECAUSE CAROLINE WOULD KNOW THAT. AND SHE WOULD BE LIKE CALLING UPSTAIRS AND FINDING OUT OR DOING SOMETHING. I DON'T HOW TO DO THAT.

>> I THINK THAT'S QUICK. I WAS COMMENTING ON HOW FAST HE WAS GOING UP ON THE SCREEN. THAT WAS MY POINT. THAT'S THE COMPANY SWAGGART REPORTING THAT WE PAY GOOD MONEY, TAXPAYER MONEY TO HAVE THAT DONE AND TO THEN HAVE IT.

>> IT SOMEHOW KNOWS -- IS VERY COOL. I WANTED TO SAY THAT THANK YOU AND GOOD TO GO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.