Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

>> THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS CALLED TO ORDER ON MAY 26TH, THREE O'CLOCK.

[Call to Order]

KATIE, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> HERE. >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> HERE. >> MEMBER LASIER

>> HERE. >> MEMBER KOSAC. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER BEAN. HE IS NOT THE WAITING ROOM. >> OKAY.

[Item 3]

AND SHERIFF HILLCOFF. >> APPROVAL OF MINUTES IS THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

TAMMY, WE HAVE THREE SETS OF MINUTES TO APPROVE. MOTION TO BE MADE TO APPROVE

ALL OF THEM OR ONE AT A TIME? >> YOU CAN MAKE TO APPROVE ALL, ASSUMING THERE ARE NO

AMENDMENTS >> DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE ALL OF THE MINUTES OR

DO I NEED TO PULL ONE OR TWO? >> MOTION TO APPROVE ALL AS AMENDED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.

>> VERY GOOD. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OLD BUSINESS. THE FIRST ITEM IS 4.1, WE'LL DO

[Item 4.1]

A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND THIS IS THE DOCUMENT THAT KATIE HAD SENT TO US A WHILE BACK. THIS IS A VERY BIG DOCUMENT. HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO

VIEW THIS? >> I HAD MY HAND UP. >> ONE MOMENT.

I GOT DISTRACTED. WHICH HAPPENS EASILY THESE DAYS.

MEMBER DAVIS. >> THE LARGE PACKAGE THAT WAS CALLED PROPOSED CHANGES AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO THE SMALLER TYPED CHANGES THAT WERE RIGHT BEHIND THE AGENDA IN THE PACKET. AND THOSE WERE NOT CONSISTENT. SO I WAS WONDERING WHICH ARE

THE MOST RECENT CHANGES? >> CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE? >> THIS DOCUMENT IS DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS. THIS THAT WAS BEHIND THE

MINUTES. >> SO IT WAS WITH THE AGENDA PACKET?

>> YES. >> IN FACT, THESE ARE ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE

FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING. >> DOES THAT CALL FOR A REVIEW OF EACH ONE AT A TIME?

>> WELL, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SINCE THE STAFF PREPARED THEM WHICH ONE OF THESE TWO THEY FELT WAS THE MOST RECENT, BUT SINCE THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL, I THINK PERHAPS THIS ONE, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS MORE GENDER NEUTRAL TERMS. BUT I JUST WANTED A

CLARIFICATION ON THAT. >> I CAN HELP. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> I WAS GOING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. >> I HAVE AN ANSWER.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YES.

>> THE CHART OR THE POWERPOINT, THAT WAS CREATED BY KATIE DID THAT FOR US, A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON. SO IT WAS ACTUALLY THE LAST DOCUMENT THAT WAS CREATED.

BUT I THINK IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF UNDERLINE AND STRIKE-THROUGH LANGUAGE, WE NEED TO GO TO THE PARTICULAR SECTION WHERE YOU FIND THAT THAT IS AN ISSUE. BECAUSE IT'S A COMPILATION CREATED FROM THE OTHER DOCUMENTS. I CREATED THE UNDERLINES AND STRIKE-THROUGHS FROM THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND WATCHED THE VIDEOS AS I WAS DOING THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS BEING AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. SO I THINK WE PROBABLY JUST NEED TO GO TO THE SPECIFIC

[00:05:08]

SECTION THAT YOU FIND INCONSISTENT. >> OKAY.

WHEN YOU SAY STRIKE-THROUGH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AGENDA?

>> LOOKING AT THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, LANGUAGE, I'LL JUST TELL YOU LIKE IN LANGUAGE FOR SECTION 21 PARAGRAPH 2, WHERE IT SAYS MEMBER LASERE RECOMMENDED REMOVING SENTENCE TWO, CONSENSUS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS TO INSERT LANGUAGE STATING SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION. OR SECTION 41 AND 44, WHERE IT SAYS RECOMMENDED ADDING A SENTENCE TO THE BOTTOM OF SECTION 41 SIMILAR TO THE SENTENCE BOTTOM OF SECTION 44, SO THERE ARE SEVERAL PROVISIONS, LOOK LIKE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED. FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION 25, CONSENSUS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS TO CHANGE THE CITY MANAGER RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS TO 90 DAYS, THAT DIDN'T GET DONE IN ANY OF THEM. OR EITHER OF THEM. SECTION 29D, MEMBER LASERE RECOMMENDED INSERTING IN ANY CONTRACT RATHER THAN UTILITY FRANCHISE.

SO I WASN'T SURE IF WE WERE THINKING WE WERE STILL DISCUSSING THESE ITEMS. THAT DOESN'T SHOW UP IN EITHER ONE, NOT THIS PACKAGE OR THAT ONE.

AND THEN I ALSO NOTICED THAT IN THIS PACKAGE, IT TENDED TO STILL USE SOME OF THE HE, SHE, YOU KNOW, HE/SHE LANGUAGE, LIKE IN DESCRIBING THE CITY MANAGER DUTIES.

BUT IN THIS ONE, IT HAD BEEN CHANGED TO THE MORE NEUTRAL, USING THE THIRD PERSON CITY MANAGER. SO THAT IS WHY THE TWO JUST WEREN'T CONSISTENT.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME COMPARING THINGS RELATIVE TO WHAT WE

AGREED ON, WHICH ONE I SHOULD FOCUS ON. >> MEMBER KOSAC, IS YOUR

COMMENT ABOUT THIS ISSUE? >> YES. I NOTICED THE SAME THING.

CAN I SUGGEST THE PACKET, YOU KNOW, WITH THE LARGER STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT KATIE PUT TOGETHER FOR US, I THINK THE 2020, CAN WE JUST GO THROUGH IT SECTION BY SECTION.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE IS TREMENDOUS CHANGES AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF RED LINE THOSE ITEMS. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT CHANGED FOR A FINAL DRAFT FOR

READING. >> ANYONE ELSE WITH AN OPINION ABOUT THIS? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IF THE CHANGES THAT YOU RECOGNIZED ARE LANGUAGE AND DETAILED LEVEL AS OPPOSED TO MAJOR CONCEPTS LEVEL? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT BY STAFF AND THAT STAFF COULD GO BACK AND REDO THAT OR NO?

TAMMY, YOU DON'T THINK SO? >> I THINK IT'S BOTH. LIKE THE 90-DAY REQUIREMENT, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THAT WASN'T IN THERE.

>> I REMEMBER MAKING THAT CHANGE SPECIFICALLY. I REMEMBER STRIKING THROUGH THAT. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR PACKET.

>> SO MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THE MOST RECENT, IF YOU DID THAT. AND ALSO LIKE BOTH SEVERAL TIMES WE'VE DISCUSSED ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK, BEING SUBJECT, BEING REQUIRED TO BE MEMBERS OF LIKE THE ICMA AND BEING A CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THEIR CODE OF ETHICS. AND THAT STILL HASN'T MADE ANY DRAFT.

>> OKAY. >> SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AT THIS POINT IS DO WE WANT TO SPEND THE TIME GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH, LINE BY LINE, AND DOING THAT CORRECTION OR DOES THE ATTORNEY FEEL THAT SOMEWHERE YOU HAVE THOSE

CHANGES. >> IT SOUNDED LIKE IN THE MINUTES THAT, AND WHAT I JUST WENT TO THE SAME MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 25TH, IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST WHAT MARGARET WAS SAYING THAT THE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE DOCUMENTS. OR AT LEAST THE VERSION OF THE DOCUMENTS.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES, THERE IS HOLES IN WHAT WE HAVE.

[00:10:04]

I CAN INSERT THE LANGUAGE YOU KNOW, FROM THE MINUTES, RIGHT HERE ON THE COMPUTER WITH

DOCUMENTS I'M WORKING ON. >> WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DISCUSS IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLOWING THE ATTORNEY TO GO BACK AND FILL IN THE HOLES AND STRAIGHTEN THOSE THINGS OUT AND HAVE THIS BROUGHT BACK TO OUR NEXT AGENDA BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AT ALL YET. THAT REALLY DO NEED US TO SPEND THE TIME ON IT. I WOULD RATHER SPEND MORE OF OUR TIME ON THAT THAN REDOING WHAT WE'VE DONE, IF WE CAN GET THOSE HOLES FILLED AND BROUGHT BACK TO US.

DOES THAT WORK? >> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

>> SO I HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT? >> I AGREE WITH THAT. AS LONG AS AT SOME POINT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH I GUESS IS JUNE 4TH, IF WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.

BECAUSE AT SOME POINT I THINK WE NEED TO AGREE THAT THE REVISED DOCUMENT REFLECTS WHAT

WE HAVE DISCUSSED. >> RIGHT. BUT I WOULD LIKE US AT THAT POINT TO HAVE ONLY ONE DOCUMENT THAT WE SEE AS THE DOCUMENT TO BE REVIEWED.

SO IF EVERYBODY IS ALL RIGHT WITH THAT. >> WE'LL GET IT RIGHT OUT.

MEANING, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT AGENDA IS GOING OUT THIS WEEK, RIGHT?

>> THURSDAY AT THE LATEST. >> THURSDAY AT THE LATEST, JUNE 4TH AGENDA IS GOING OUT.

SO WE'LL HAVE THIS WITH THAT AS WELL. AM I CLEAR THAT WHAT IS IN THE MINUTES IN TERMS OF CHANGES LIKE YOU SAID, CHANGES TO SECTION 21, MEMBER CLARK'S CHANGES TO SECTION 25, ALL THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE MINUTES. IF I GO TO THE DOCUMENT TO CHECK TO SEE WHAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE, OR MORE LIKE FIND THE CORRECT DOCUMENT.

I REMEMBER WORKING ON THESE CHANGES MYSELF. SO I THINK IT'S JUST THE WRONG

DOCUMENT GOT UPLOADED >> THERE MIGHT BE A FEW THINGS, NOT JUST THE FEBRUARY 25TH, THERE MIGHT BE SOME THINGS FROM THE FEBRUARY 10TH, OR WHATEVER THE ONE WAS BEFORE THAT TOO.

I'M SURE TAMMY, MYSELF AND OTHER MEMBERS WOULD BE HAPPY TO KIND OF GO THROUGH AND START MAKING SURE THAT THINGS THAT WE WERE EXPECTING TO SEE THERE ARE THERE.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> I LIKE THE APPROACH THAT SHERIFF WILCOX HAS OUTLINED HERE.

BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL SO WE CAN LOOK THROUGH IT, THE WAY MARGARET HAS DONE SO WELL AND IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS THAT DON'T SHOW UP. IF WE CAN EACH DO THAT, AND GET IT TO TAMMY, IT MIGHT JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOTTING THE IS AND CROSSING THE TS AND SAVE A

LITTLE BIT OF TIME WHEN WE GET TOGETHER AGAIN. >> SO SEND THEM TO HER BEFORE

THE NEXT MEETING? >> YES. >> GOT IT.

>> I THINK IT MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT. >> MEMBER CLARK, YOU HAVE YOUR

HAND RAISED FOR ANOTHER ISSUE. >> I HAD TWO THINGS. I WANTED TO MENTION BRIEFLY.

IN SECTION 136, IT'S ENTITLED ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION. AND THIS IS ALL ABOUT GIVING THE COMMISSION THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS. AND I DON'T OBJECT TO THAT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THE CITY MANAGER CAN CONDUCT ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE THAT IS HERE.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TRUNCATE THE CITY MANAGER'S ABILITY (INAUDIBLE) WHATEVER IT IS. WITHOUT GOING THROUGH MORE ELABORATE PROCESS HERE.

I THINK I WOULD ASK THE SAME QUESTION BEFORE, TAMMY I THINK YOU SAID, THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD PRECLUDE IT, BUT WHEN I READ IT, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

MAYBE IT'S TOO MUCH DETAIL. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PRECLUDING THE CITY MANAGER FROM CONDUCTING NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO ISSUES OF CONCERN THAT MIGHT NOT REACH THE LEVEL THAT IS CONTEMPLATED HERE IN THIS SECTION, BUT ARE JUST PART OF ONGOING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT THE CITY MANAGER MIGHT WANT TO TAKE. SO TAMMY, IF YOU FEEL THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT PRECLUDES THAT, THAT IS FINE. OTHERWISE, I WAS SUGGESTING MAYBE A SENTENCE THAT WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PRECLUDES THE CITY MANAGER FROM CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS ON HIS OR HER OWN AUTHORITY.

[00:15:02]

THE OTHER ONE I WANTED TO SAY, ALSO IN THE VAIN, SORT OF THE WAY MARGARET HAS DONE, ONE ISSUE I TALKED ABOUT IN A PRIOR MEETING, THE WHOLE MATTER OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS FOR THE CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY. I THINK IN THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THOSE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS ARE REALLY CRITICAL TO GOOD GOVERNANCE.

AND OFTEN TIMES WHAT YOU SEE IS BECAUSE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, THE SUNSHINE LAW IN FLORIDA, THERE IS A TENDENCY NEVER TO DO THAT. WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE A DISAGREEMENT FESTER. AND IT CAN HURT THE OPERATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, ELECTED OFFICIAL AND THE APPOINTED OFFICIALS AREN'T TALKING ABOUT MATTERS OF CONCERN. OR PATS ON THE BACK, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.

I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. I DON'T SEE IT ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THESE DRAFTS.

MY OPINION IS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A PROVISION IN THE CHARTER THAT REQUIRES ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR THOSE THREE APPOINTED OFFICIALS. JUST BY WAY OF REFERENCE, I DID DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ON THIS. THE FLORIDA CITY AND COUNTY ANAGER'S ASSOCIATION, IT'S LIKE THE STATE CHARTER OF THE ICMA, HAS DOCUMENTS, TEMPLATES FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR CITY MANAGERS. I SENT THAT TO TAMMY.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT GETS INSERTED INTO THE CHARTER, BUT JUST FOR BACKGROUND REVIEW, IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED, THERE IS THAT INFORMATION THAT WOULD SAY HERE IS A TEMPLATE THAT COULD BE USED. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE HAVE AN EXPRESSED PROVISION IN THE CHARTER THAT REQUIRES ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR THOSE THREE POSITIONS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SENSE OF ALL OF YOU ARE, IF YOU THINK THAT IS UNNECESSARY, THAT IS OKAY. BUT I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT. AND I JUST WANT TO GET IT OUT ON THE TABLE AGAIN, IF THERE IS SUPPORT FOR IT, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST A PROVISION.

IF YOU ALL FEEL IT'S AN OVERREACH TO HAVE THAT IN THE CHARTER THEN, YOU KNOW WE WON'T DO IT. I WANTED TO AT LEAST MENTION IT.

>> MEMBER DAVIS. YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> YES.

I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THE FIRST POINT, I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION 136, THAT DOES SAY NOTHING IN THE SECTION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO THE LIMITS OF THE CHARTER OFFICER ABILITY TO INQUIRE INTO MATTERS OF RESPECTED RESPONSIBILITY --

>> I WITHDRAW MY COMMENT. YOU'RE RIGHT. >> THAT IS COVERED.

>> I THINK IT IS COVERED JUST FINE. I'M SORRY.

I APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING IT UP. >> MEMBER DAVIS, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION? >> NO. I DID NOT. I WAS GETTING READY TO LOOK TO SEE IF ANYTHING ALONG THE LINES WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO BE IN THE MODEL CITY CHARTER.

I WAS GOING TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK. I HAVEN'T FOCUSED ON THAT SECTION. SO I'LL BE BACK IF I HAVE ANYTHING TO HELP ON THAT.

>> MEMBER KOSAC. >> I AGREE WITH RICK. AND I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, WE EVEN DISCUSSED WHETHER IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN OR ORAL.

AND I DO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A PROVISION IN THE CHARTER THAT REQUIRES AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOME SORT AND MAYBE DELINEATE HOW THOSE REVIEWS ARE PERFORMED.

I PREFER SOMETHING IN A WRITTEN CONTEXT SO THAT IT IS ON THE RECORD AND IT CAN BE ACCESSED

IF NEEDED. >> OKAY. I WILL JUST COMMENT HERE THAT GOING BACK IN TIME, TO WHEN I WAS ON THE CITY COMMISSION, WE HAD A GROUP OF COMMISSIONERS WHO HAD ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO CONDUCT A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN PUBLIC.

AND ALSO, WE NEVER WERE ABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT ON WHAT THE CHARTER OFFICERS WOULD BE MEASURED ON. SO TO SAY THAT WE'LL DO A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IS OKAY.

BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT GOING BACK AND SAYING THAT YOU NEED AGREEMENT ON WHAT THOSE CHARTER OFFICERS WILL BE MEASURED ON, WHAT ARE THEIR SUCCESS GOALS.

IT'S REALLY KIND OF A FREE FOR ALL. I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE

[00:20:05]

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. I DO. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GO A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY IT. MEMBER KOSAK, YOUR HAND IS

STILL UP. >> IT'S UP AGAIN. IN THAT REGARD, IF WHAT RICK IS PROPOSING, I HAVE NOT SEEN A TEMPLATE, BUT I THINK A TEMPLATE WOULD BE HELPFUL.

SO IT'S A UNIFORM TYPE OF REVIEW. JUST LIKE ANY BIG CORPORATION, YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS OBJECTIVE AND THEN MAYBE THERE IS AREAS FOR SUBJECTIVITY ALSO, BUT THERE IS CERTAIN BENCHMARKS THAT HAVE TO BE HIT AND IT CAN BE VERY BROAD REACHING.

BUT IT CAN AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT. >> ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THAT AT LEAST THE GOALS NEED TO BE AGREED UPON AND THE TIMELINES NEED TO BE AGREED UPON. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? MEMBER LASIER.

>> YES, THANK YOU CHAIR. NOBODY REALLY LIKES EVALUATIONS.

BUT I AGREE WITH RICK, THEY NEED TO BE DONE. I'M HESITANT TO GIVE A SPECIFIC FORM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF WE DO ANYTHING ALONG THE LINES, REALITY IS THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY BE IN PLACE UNTIL SOMEONE COMES ALONG AND REVAMPS THE CHARTER, CHANGES IT AGAIN. MAYBE IF WE JUST SAY THE COMMISSION SHALL REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, SOMETHING, AND THEN THAT WOULD COVER FOUR OR FIVE BENCHMARKS AND LET THEM COME UP WITH THEIR OWN EVALUATION.

I GUESS DO WE HAVE A HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT? >> YES.

>> YEAH. SO I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE HR BE CHARGED WITH PREPARING THAT EVALUATION. BECAUSE WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GOING TO BE REVIEWED UPON AND WHAT THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK ARE THREE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE DON'T WANT TO COME UP WITH THREE DIFFERENT FORMS AND SAY USE THESE FORMS. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT ON THEIR OWN. AS THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS

CHANGE, THEY CAN ADAPT TO THE EVALUATION ACCORDINGLY. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> QUICK PERUSAL OF THE MODEL CITY CHARTER DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT IN THERE. AND I DON'T RECALL SEEING LANGUAGE IN ANY OF OUR PEER CHARTERS, HOWEVER, I WASN'T ESPECIALLY FOCUSED ON THIS. BUT I KNOW WE DO WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT KIND OF HAVING THIS DOCUMENT KIND OF OVER MICRO MANAGING.

I THINK IT'S MANDATED >> THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FORM AND TEMPLATE AND A SET OF GOALS AND WHAT EQUALS SUCCESS. I THINK THE COMMUNITY DESERVES TO KNOW HOW OUR CHARTER OFFICERS ARE BEING MEASURED. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS A GAP TODAY. SO IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR PEER CITIES ARE DOING OR NOT. MAYBE THEY HAVE THIS DONE IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I THINK THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK YOU ALL IS, IS THIS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN PUBLIC OR NOT? MEMBER CLARK, I'M GOING TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR HAND IS UP.

AND YOU'RE MUTED. >> I THINK THE WAY MR. LASIER TALKED ABOUT IT.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TRYING TO BE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE AND TELLING THE COMMISSION HOW TO DO THESE THINGS.

I KNOW IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE THIS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ELECTED OFFICIALS AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS, WHEN THAT GETS ROUGH, IT CAN BE A KILLER FOR AN ORGANIZATION.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY HERE HASN'T BEEN TO DO IT. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT IS NECESSARILY A GOOD THING. I WOULD SAY TO MARGARET'S POINT, I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN IT

[00:25:04]

DOESN'T FIND ITS WAY INTO MOST CHARTERS. BUT I BRING IT UP HERE PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I THINK IT HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING HERE IN ANY SYSTEMATIC WAY AND I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE. SO I LIKE THE WAY MR. LASIER TALKED ABOUT IT, SIMPLE REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS THERE SHOULD BE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS EVERY YEAR. YOU COULD SAY WHEN, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO DO THAT.

BUT THE FACT THAT IT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE IN SOME FASHION. I'M GOING TO BE QUITE SURE UNDER FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW THAT IT WOULD BE PUBLIC. I KNOW THAT MAKES PEOPLE NERVOUS. BUT THAT IS THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT.

IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS AND THAT IS JUST WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. WE'RE DOING THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS AND I THINK THESE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. MEMBER MORRISON. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK CHAIR WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION A MINUTE AGO WHAT OUR VIEWPOINT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE PUBLIC OR NOT. DO YOU MEAN WHETHER OR NOT THE EVALUATION ITSELF SHOULD BE

MADE TO THE PUBLIC TO BE VIEWED? >> I THINK EITHER WAY WOULD BE SATISFACTORY AND MAKING IT VIEWABLE TO THE PUBLIC IS LESS UNCOMFORTABLE FOR PEOPLE.

THAT IS WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT, THE IDEA THAT THE REPORTS BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BUT NOT

NECESSARILY THAT A REVIEW TAKE PLACE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM. >> GOOD POINT.

MAYBE WHAT WE CAN DO IS MAKE THIS A DUTY OF THE MAYOR. FALLS ON THE MAYOR TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE. THAT WAY IT'S NOT THE WHOLE COMMISSION.

BUT THE MAYOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S DONE. THIS SHOULD BE MORE SECTION 17, FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE MAYOR, IF WE WANTED TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE MAKE IT A DUTY OF THE CITY MANAGER TO BE ENSURE THAT HE'S EVALUATING ANYONE.

IT SHOULD BE THE CITY COMMISSION, WE DON'T HAVE A DUTY UNDER THE CITY COMMISSION.

MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT THE MAYOR SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE.

>> IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A READ RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD VISIBLY. IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN UP IN A REPORT.

IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA TO PUT IT IN CHARGE OF ONE PERSON, THE MAYOR SOUNDS GOOD.

AND I BACK UP BOTH. >> ANY OTHER REACTIONS? MEMBER DAVIS.

>> YOU'RE MUTED. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY IT TAKES ME A LITTLE WHILE.

I'M SLOW HITTING THAT UNMUTE BUTTON. I ALSO AGREE WITH MEMBER MORRISON THAT THE REVIEWS THEMSELVES SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC BUT NOT THE PROCESS.

I MEAN, IT SHOULDN'T -- I THINK THAT WILL SQUELCH A LITTLE BIT OF HONESTY AND DIALOG.

I WORRY IF IT'S WRITTEN SO THAT THE MAYOR FEELS LIKE HE HAS TO REVIEW ALL OF THEM.

>> THEY ARE EACH SUPPOSED TO GIVE A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR EACH CHARTER OFFICER.

THERE IS NOT -- >> THERE IS A RESOLUTION. >> IS THERE A FORM THAT IS

CONSISTENT THAT IS USED TODAY? OR NEVER WAS? >> NONE THAT ARE PROSCRIBED FOR

[00:30:10]

THE CITY COMMISSIONERS. THERE IS NO PROSCRIBED FORM. >> OKAY.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT THE MAYOR SHOULD GIVE THE WHOLE PRESENTATION.

I THINK EACH COMMISSIONER GIVES THEIR OWN PERFORMANCE REVIEW BUT IT'S UP TO THE MAYOR TO BE SURE THAT IT'S DONE. THEY RUN THE MEETING AND HOLD THE GAVEL.

IT'S PART OF THEIR DUTIES, TO BE SURE THAT EVERYONE TURNS IT IN.

ALL FIVE I THINK SHOULD GIVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL REVIEW ON A FORM OR HOWEVER IT'S DONE.

AND THEN THE MAYOR IS JUST SIMPLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE IT'S DONE, JUST LIKE CALL

TO ORDER. >> DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THIS?

>> WE COULD JUST WRITE A SIMPLE SENTENCE IN THE MAYOR'S LIMITED DUTIES TO SAY THAT HE WILL

OVERSEE THAT EACH COMMISSIONER DOES THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE. >> DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT POINT? JUST NOD YOUR HEADS. I CAN SEE YOU.

YES. >> MAY I ASK A QUESTION. >> MADAM ATTORNEY.

>> DOES THAT MEAN THAT IS THE ONLY ARTICULATED CHANGE THAT I WOULD MAKE, SECTION 17 ABOUT THE MAYOR ENSURING THAT THE EVALUATIONS ARE DONE NOT SAYING ORAL OR WRITTEN OR ANY GOALS?

OKAY. MEMBER LASIER. >> JOHN, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

YOUR MICROPHONE IS MUFFLED. >> I'M SORRY. I'M READING.

>> SO IN MY INITIAL READ THROUGH THE CHARTER (INAUDIBLE) >> WHAT SECTION WERE YOU

REFERRING TO, JOHN? >> SECTION 17. SECOND HALF OF THE FIRST

SENTENCE. >> IT GAVE THE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY (INAUDIBLE)

>> SO IF WE'RE CHANGING THE MAYORAL DUTIES, DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE UNDER

COMMISSIONER DUTIES TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW? >> TAMMY, WHAT SECTION IS THAT?

>> WHICH TAMMY ARE YOU ASKING? >> EITHER. >> SECTION 10 IS THE POWERS GENERALLY OF THE CITY COMMISSION, OUR FAVORITE SECTION.

>> I SEE THAT AS POWERS, NOT DUTIES NECESSARY. I THINK THIS IS A DUTY.

BUT MAYBE IT WOULD FIT THERE. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF ANY

PLACE THAT SAYS WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE. >> IN ORDER TO FURTHER

[00:35:05]

(INAUDIBLE) >> IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON THAT? NOD. GOOD GOOD. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYTHING MORE UNDER THIS 4.1 BULLET ON OUR AGENDA THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS?

MEMBER DAVIS? >> >> SPEAKING OF SECTION 10, BACK IN OUR JANUARY 13TH MEETING, MEMBER LASIER AND I HAD DISCUSSED THE TIERED PENALTY FOR VIOLATING THE INTERFERENCE PROVISION. IN OTHER WORDS, 10D AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A TIERED OFFENSE INSTEAD OF MAKING IT YOU KNOW, A MISDEMEANOR, AND HAVING TO GO TO COURT, THEN IT WOULD BE ALONG THE LINES THAT YOU KNOW, THE FIRST OFFENSE WAS THE MEMBER GOT A WARNING. THE SECOND OFFENSE, THEY GOT A SENSORSHIP AND THE THIRD VIOLATION WOULD LEAD TO FORFEITURE OF OFFICE.

DID WE DECIDE WE JUST WANT TO LEAVE IT AS IS AND THAT THE PENALTY IS A FINE AND A MISDEMEANOR AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO WILL BE IMPRISONED. I THOUGHT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT BEING A LITTLE TOO INAPPROPRIATE, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.

OR JUST NOT ENFORCED ACTUALLY THAT WAY. >> I'M GOING WAY BACK TO JANUARY 13TH. BUT SINCE WE HAD ALL OF THOSE MINUTES TO REVIEW THIS MONTH.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A RECOLLECTION ON THAT? >> I RECALL DISCUSSING IT BUT

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONSENSUS OR VOTE TO CHANGE IT. >> SO IT SEEMS THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO COLLECTIVE MEMORY HERE OF IT, THAT IT WAS DETERMINED TO STAY THE WAY IT IS. IF THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, WE NEED TO REVIEW IT.

>> MY MEMORY WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT 136 AND REVISIT IT AGAIN.

IF THE OTHER MEMBERS NOW FEEL THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, BECAUSE WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS INTERFERENCE ISSUE SO MUCH. AND IF THEY WANT TO LEAVE IT AS IS, THAT IS FINE. I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT MAKING IT A YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT SEEMED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MUCH.

WHY NOT BE MORE TIED TO THE OFFICE ITSELF AND NOT GO INTO CRIMINAL.

>> OKAY. MEMBER LASIER. >> SORRY.

I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE MINUTES ON THIS. AND WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT

BEING LEGALLY AND PRACTICALLY ENFORCEABLE THE WAY IT IS. >> JOHN, WE'RE LOSING A LOT OF

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. >> >> THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT

PRACTICALITY, OF WHAT IS IN THERE NOW. >> DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUT THAT WITH THE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND BRING IT BACK?

>> YEAH. >> LET'S TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT IT NEXT TIME.

>> DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? >> MADAM CHAIR.

>> THAT MEANS THAT I'M NOT HEARING ANY DIRECTION ABOUT THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE HERE, OTHER THAN MAYBE TO ADD A SECOND TIER, THAT IS NOT THERE NOW, THAT IS NOT AS PUNITIVE.

[00:40:04]

FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT TOO, I CAN TELL YOU THAT JUST FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T. THEN IF YOU HAVE A MSH COMMISSIONER THAT IS OFFENDED ON THE FIRST TIME. AND THE STATE ATTORNEY IS PROBABLY HERE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE THAT. THAT IS THE SAME PLACE SUNSHINE VIOLATIONS GO TOO.

FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, NONE OF IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS WHAT CAN WE DO THAT WOULD BE MORE IMPACTFUL AND PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS, MEMBERS?

>> MEMBER DAVIS. YOUR HAND IS RAISED. >> YES.

>> ON JANUARY 13TH MINUTES, AFTER THE PARAGRAPH, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 3 OF WHAT WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR TODAY'S PACKET. AFTER THE PARAGRAPH WHERE TALKING ABOUT THE PRACTICALITY ISSUE, THE NEXT PARAGRAPH DOES SAY THAT WE SUGGEST THAT A PROGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT AND THAT THE FIRST WOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

SO I GUESS YOU WOULD JUST MAKE A STATEMENT AT ONE OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS.

SO IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN INTERFERENCE. DON'T DO IT AGAIN.

BUT IF YOU'RE OUT THERE PUBLICLY MAYBE. THE SECOND EVENT WOULD BE THE SENSORSHIP OR SANCTION. I THINK THE SANCTION IS ACTUALLY THE SECOND LEVEL.

>> GOOD. >> IF I WROTE IT LIKE THAT WITH THE SECOND LEVEL BEING SANCTIONED, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THE REST OF IT TO CONTINUE WITH PERHAPS A COMPLAINT TO THE

STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? >> DO YOU JUST SAY THREE TIMES AND YOU'RE OUT AND IT BECOMES

FORFEITURE. WHICH IS THE HARSHEST. >> I WOULD AGREE THE FACT THAT THERE IS IN THE CHARTER NOW AND IT IS NOT ENFORCED. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE ABOUT IT. I THINK LOWERING THE INITIAL RESPONSE IS TO RECOGNIZE TO THE CITY COMMISSION, SOMEONE HAS MADE A COMPLAINT THAT THE COMMISSIONER BLANK HAS INTERFERED WITH CHARTER OFFICER BLANK'S EMPLOYEE BY DOING THIS. JUST WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT HAS HAPPENED. THAT IS IT. FIRST ISSUE.

SOMEONE HAD TO HAVE FILED SOME SORT OF FORMAL COMPLAINT ABOUT IT.

FORMAL IN THE SENSE OF FILE IT WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY OR CIRCUIT COURT.

THEY SAID SOMEONE WITH THE CITY, PERHAPS UNDER OATH, I'M NOT SURE, BUT THEY REGISTERED A COMPLAINT FOR CITY COMMISSIONER FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONTACT FOR A CHARTER OFFICER.

SO I THINK THAT IS DOABLE. I MEAN, IT TURNS OUT THAT IT'S CORRECT AND IT'S READ IN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THEN THE SECOND ONE IS GOING TO BE A MUCH BIGGER DEAL OBVIOUSLY. THEY'RE GOING TO SENSOR THAT SAME PERSON FOR THE SAME OFFENSE DURING THEIR TERM. MUCH BIGGER DEAL. THE THIRD ONE IS THE ULTIMATE.

SO THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THERE NOW, IT'S NOT BEING TO MY RECOLLECTION, IT'S NEVER BEEN

FORMALLY ENFORCED. BUT THAT IS IT. >> AND THEN THE THIRD STEP IS FORFEITING. I MEAN, IF THE COMMISSION CHOOSES TO TAKE ALL OF THIS UP IN A FORMAL MATTER, STEP ONE, STEP TWO, THEN THE THIRD IS FORFEITURE.

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> I'VE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION.

THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, FORGIVE ME FOR USING THIS TERM, SORT OF A LEGAL APPROACH TO IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THE ULTIMATE ENFORCER ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS THE VOTER.

TO MY WAY OF THINKING, IF WE ARTICULATE THE PRINCIPLE IN THE CHARTER THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE

[00:45:03]

INTERFERENCE AND THERE IS A WAY TO REPORT THAT FORWARD, THEN IT SEEMS IT'S UP TO THE VOTER TO SAY YES OR NO, THAT IS A VIOLATION. SO AND SO SHOULD BE NOT ELECTED AGAIN. AND I KNOW THAT IS A SOFTER APPROACH THAN WHAT WE'VE CONTEMPLATED. BUT I JUST FEAR IF WE SET UP THIS VERY ELABORATE MECHANISM FOR ENFORCEMENT, THAT IT WON'T HAPPEN, OR NUMBER TWO, IT ENDS UP TYING THE PROCESS IN SUCH KNOTS THAT IT FALLS ON ITS OWN WEIGHT. SO I AM NOT SURE WE'RE BARKING UP THE RIGHT TREE ON IT. I MAY VERY WELL HAVE A MINORITY OPINION OF ONE ON THIS.

BUT I WANTED TO SHARE MY VIEW ABOUT THAT. THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, THE MORE I THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO ARTICULATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERFERENCE, BUT I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU DEAL WITH THE REPERCUSSION IS THROUGH THE VOTING PROCESS RATHER THAN

THROUGH A COURT PROCESS OR SOME OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION. >> IF I COULD SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU JUST SAID RICHARD, IT WOULD BE YOUR THOUGHT AT THIS POINT TO SAY ALL WE NEED IN THE CHARTER IS TO SAY THAT THOU SHALL NOT INTERFERE AND THEN IF SOMEBODY INTERFERES THERE ISN'T REPERCUSSION UNTIL AND IF THE VOTER KNOWS THAT THEY INTERFERED AND VOTES THEM OUT?

>> YEAH. I THINK THE WAY MR. LASIER TALKED ABOUT IT, HE HAD A STEP ONE, MAYBE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT EXACTLY, REPORTING IT FORWARD SO THAT IT IS MADE PUBLIC, ARTICULATION OF IT, I THINK THAT IS GOOD. I THINK FROM HERE ON OUT, IT SHOULD BE A POLITICAL DECISION ON THE PART OF THE VOTER, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS

EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR THAT PERSON SHOULDN'T BE ELECTED. >> OKAY.

MEMBER DAVIS. >> WELL, WHEN I FIRST RAISED MY HAND I WAS GOING TO SAY WHAT MEMBER CLARK JUST SAID THERE AT THE END, WHICH IS THE VOTERS NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE. SO I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT INITIAL RECOGNITION BY THE COMMISSION, KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEING A FIRST STEP.

OF COURSE, THE CHARTER ALREADY SAYS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO INTERFERE.

SO MAYBE WE AT LEAST HAVE THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE RECOGNITION, THAT WOULD HELP INFORM THE VOTERS. I DO WORRY IF WE TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS IN THERE OUT AND ALL THAT THE PENALTY IS RECOGNITION, THEN SOME VOTERS WILL THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING IT EASIER ON THE MEMBERS. IT'S JUST A PERCEPTION.

TAKING WHAT LITTLE PENALTY THERE IS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S NEVER BEEN

PURSUED. >> WE ARE IN FACT LOWERING THE PUNISHMENT FOR THAT, AND I THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING REALLY. THE THIRD WOULD BE A FORFEITURE. YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER.

>> OKAY. MEMBER KOSAC. >> I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT IT'S NEVER BEEN PURSUED AND IT'S IN THERE LEADING ME TO DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT IF WE TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY AND JUST LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, THERE WILL BE SOME FEELING THAT WE'RE REMOVING SOME KIND OF PUNISHMENT OR ACTION. I LIKE JOHN'S APPROACH OF THE

[00:50:06]

THREE STEPPED APPROACH OF RECOGNITION, ADMONISHMENT AND FORFEITURE.

THAT WAY WE'RE REMOVING THE PROSECUTION PIECE OF IT AND THE IMPRISONMENT AND WHATNOT.

MAYBE THERE IS A FINE ATTACHED TO SOMETHING IN THERE, IF WE WANT TO MONETIZE IT IN SOME WAY. I THINK THERE IS A SITUATION THAT IT'S DEEMED IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BE RECOGNIZED THAT IS PUT OUT THERE THAT THE PUBLIC IS AN AWARE OF IT AND IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IS HAPPENING AND THEN THROUGH DISCUSSION COMES UP AT THE NEXT VOTER BALLOT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE RECOGNITION AND YOU KNOW, HAVE

A TIERED APPROACH TO IT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO MEMBER MORRISON.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH MR. KOSAC. I SEE WHERE MR. CLARK IS COMING FROM AND I DO APPRECIATE THE POINTS THAT HE MAKES. I FEEL LIKE HAVING TO WAIT, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP, SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY TO WAIT THREE YEARS UNTIL THE VOTERS CAN WEIGH IN ON IT, IT COULD BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. I THINK IT'S PRETTY UNLIKELY THAT THIS PROVISION IS EVER GOING TO REALLY BE PUT INTO PLACE AND TESTED, BUT I DO THINK THAT IN THE TIERED APPROACH THAT MEMBER LASIER IS PROPOSING SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD

SOLUTION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. >> ALL RIGHT. DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO DRAW UP THAT THREE-TIERED APPROACH OR NO?

>> YES. RECOGNIZE A VIOLATION SANCTIONED BY THE COMMISSION

AND FORFEITURE. >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> THIS CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, WE'LL DISCUSS IT IN A MINUTE, BUT ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT I SUGGESTED FINALLY, I KNOW I FIRST TALKED ABOUT IT WAY BACK IN EARLY FEBRUARY, FOR SECTION 11 IS ALLOWING ANY MEMBER WHO IS BEING CHARGED WITH GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC HEARING IF THEY WANT IT.

SO THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS TOO SO THEY COULD MAKE THEIR CASE. AND AGAIN, THE PUBLIC COULD HEAR IT AND MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION. I THINK THAT WOULD WORK WELL AS

WELL. >> I SAW ALL OF THE HEADS GO UP AND DOWN.

>> SECTION 11. OKAY. >> MR. BEAN HAS HIS ICONS ALL FIGURED OUT ON HIS ZOOM MEETING. OKAY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

MEMBER DAVIS. >> IS THIS WHERE WE SHOULD DISCUSS THE LANGUAGE THAT I HAD CIRCULATED, ON SECTION 11, BACK ON THE FEBRUARY 10TH MEETING WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE KIND OF ETHICS RELATED ISSUES. I CALLED OUT ONE OR TWO AND SEVERAL MEMBERS SAID I THINK IT'S MEMBER CLARK WHO SAID I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT LANGUAGE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I DIDN'T DO IT IN TIME FOR THE FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING. I CIRCULATED IT THIS MORNING. I DIDN'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT OR IF THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT.

OR IS THAT VIEWED AS NEW BUSINESS. I DON'T KNOW.

BECAUSE IT'S A FOLLOW-UP FROM A DISCUSSION FROM BEFORE. >> IT'S OLD BUSINESS IF IT'S

SECTION 11. >> DO WE HAVE SECTION 11 AVAILABLE?

YES. >> IT TALKS ABOUT THE QUALIFICATION AND CONVICTION OF FELONIES. IT SAYS THE MAYOR, OR ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION WHO VIOLATES ANY STANDARD OF CONDUCT OR CODE OF ETHICS ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR PUBLIC

[00:55:02]

OFFICIALS MUST FORFEIT THEIR SEATS. THIS IS LANGUAGE SIMILARLY FOUND IN DESTIN AND A COUPLE OF OTHER PEER CHARTERS. TO GET THE CONCEPT OF ETHICS OUT THERE. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE

DRAFTING A FULL CODE OF ETHICS, ARE WE? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE MADE THAT DECISION YET. SO THAT WAS ITEM ONE OF WHAT I WAS CIRCULATING THIS MORNING.

ITEM TWO DEALS WITH THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 11A ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CONTRACTS AND SERVICES. I LOOKED AT ALL OF THE OTHER CONFLICTS.

I JUST SUGGEST BASICALLY THE SAME CONCEPT, BUT MORE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND ALSO MAKING IT CLEAR THAT A WILLFUL VIOLATION CONSTITUTES MALFEASANCE AND THEREFORE WOULD BE ALSO GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE. ADDING TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE ABOUT THE SENTENCE OF THE WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION BEING MALFEASANCE. AND THE THIRD THING I WANTED TO SUGGEST IS THAT, AS I JUST MENTIONED, ANY CITY COMMISSIONER THAT IS CHARGED WITH CONDUCT THAT CONSTITUTES GROUND FOR FORFEITURE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE TO HAVE A NOTICE PUBLISHED AT LEAST A WEEK IN ADVANCE.

I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE THEM DUE PROCESS. AGAIN, THAT IS A HOLD-OVER FROM A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO THAT I SAID I WOULD GET THE LANGUAGE TO Y'ALL.

MEMBER KOSAC. >> THANK YOU MARGARET FOR ALL OF YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU SENT TO US. IN LOOKING AT THIS, THE SINGLE PARAGRAPH THAT WE HAVE NOW IN SECTION 11 IS VERY SPECIFIC TO ME. MY MIND WHEN I READ IT, IT KIND OF LAYS THINGS OUT, YOU CAN'T HOLD MORE THAN ONE OFFICE. IN THIS NEW LANGUAGE, I'M NOT SURE, 11B, THAT SEEMS SO BROAD, IS IT ENFORCEABLE, WHO ENFORCES IT.

HOW. WE DON'T HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED OF WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE FORFEITURE OF A SEAT.

AND THEN 11C, THAT RELATES TO WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING. 11A, I'M FINE WITH HAVING MALFEASANCE IN THERE. BUT I'M UNCERTAIN ABOUT 11B BEING VERY VERY BROAD.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT ADDING THAT ADDITIONAL SENTENCE TO 11B. AS FAR AS 11A, THE LANGUAGE THAT I PUT OUT WAS SUBSTITUTE THE EXISTING SENTENCE. AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THESE ISSUES AND LET YOU KNOW HOW OTHER CITIES ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SEVERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT WHAT GIVES RISE TO FORFEITURE OF A SEAT, I DO THINK YOU NEED TO ADD THAT SECTION 11C ALLOWING THEM DUE PROCESS.

I THINK AT A MINIMUM YOU NEED TO DO THAT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> WHO MAKES THE FINDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION HERE?

MECHANICALLY HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? >> VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF 11A,

[01:00:02]

WHICH IT CURRENT READS, WHICH WE MOVED FROM SECTION 14, OR SOMEWHERE ELSE.

THE CITY COMMISSION ITSELF IS THE JUDGE OF THE ELECTION AND THE QUALIFICATION.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, CAN A CITIZEN DO THAT? >> THE CITIZEN MIGHT RAISE AN ISSUE, THE CITY MANAGER MIGHT RAISE IT WITH THE COMMISSION. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW IS THE EXISTING PROCESS DONE? IF THERE IS SOME INSIDE DEALING.

>> WE MADE A CHANGE TO SECTION 10. I'M TRYING TO FIND IT RIGHT NOW, ON THIS TOPIC. I'M SORRY, I KNOW WHERE IT IS. UNDER SECTION 136.

BECAUSE IN SECTION 10, THE VERY LAST SUBSECTION SAYS THAT INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES UNDER THIS SECTION ARE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 136 AND THEN 136 SAYS CHARTER OFFICERS, CITY COMMISSIONERS CAN BRING THE COMPLAINTS. I THINK ADVISORY BOARDS IS IN

THERE DOES THAT WORK? DOES THAT MEET THE NEED? >> I THINK IT ANSWERS MY QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHO POINTS THE FINGER AND MAKES THE ACCUSATION AND THEN SO THAT IS HOW THAT WOULD, THE ISSUE WOULD BE EXPOSED. AND THEN THERE IS WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW 136 TO INVESTIGATE AND FIND OUT IF THERE IN FACT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE WORDS WRITTEN HERE. AND THEN YOU GO FROM THERE. SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

>> OKAY. IS EVERYBODY ALL RIGHT WITH THAT? DO YOU NEED AN OVERALL OVERVIEW REVIEW OF WHAT HAS JUST BEEN STATED?

>> WE DO NEED TO KNOW MADAM CHAIR, HOW, BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WERE DIFFERING

OPINIONS REGARDING THE LANGUAGE THAT MARGARET PROPOSED FOR 11B. >> MARGARET, COULD YOU GO

THROUGH AGAIN WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IN 11B, PLEASE? >> 11B, THIS WOULD BE ADDING ANOTHER SENTENCE. SAYING THAT IF THE MAYOR OR ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION VIOLATES ANY STANDARD OF CONDUCT OR CODE OF ETHICS ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS, THEY MUST FORFEIT THEIR SEAT. SO JUST BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENS'S SURVEY INDICATED PEOPLE DON'T TRUST THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENT, SO IT SEEMED LIKE MAYBE WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO ADD SOME TYPE OF ETHICS STANDARD HERE, THIS WAS A BROAD ONE WITHOUT GOING TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT I THINK 2007 COMMITTEE HAD TRIED TO DO, WHICH IS BE MORE SPECIFIC OR HAVE, I FOUND THIS LANGUAGE. I JUST WANTED TO POINT IT OUT THERE FOR THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER. AND THAT IS WHY YOU KNOW, I TYPED IT UP SO YOU COULD READ IT AND LOOK AT IT, IF PEOPLE WANT TO VISIT IT AGAIN ON JUNE 4TH, THAT IS FINE. IT WASN'T UNTIL I WAS REVIEWING THE MINUTES THAT I'M LIKE WAIT, I NEVER DID DO THAT. I SAID THE LAST TWO MEETINGS I WOULD.

>> IF I COULD ASK ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THIS, MADAM CHAIR.

>> YES, MR. CLARK. >> BACK TO MY QUESTION ABOUT THE MECHANICS OF IT.

I GUESS THIS IS PROBABLY FOR YOU, MARGARET. IF SOMEBODY MAKES THE ACCUSATION THAT SO AND SO WHO HAS VIOLATED ONE OF THESE PROVISIONS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE

[01:05:01]

DOING SOMETHING CONTRARY TO THE WORDS WRITTEN HERE, THERE IS A CHARGE MADE, IT SEEMS TO ME, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS PROCESS AND HAVE IT IN HERE LIKE THIS, THERE SHOULD BE A STEP LIKE A FINDING OF FACT. BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY MAKING A CHARGE AND IT COULD BE UNFOUNDED AND YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING AND HAVE A BIG HULLABALOO AND TARNISH SOMEBODY'S REPUTATION, IF IT'S A VENDETTA OR SOME REASON. SO IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS, THERE SHOULD BE A STEP ARTICULATED WHERE THE COMMISSION, I SUPPOSE IT'S THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE. OTHERWISE IT'S A VENDETTA AGAINST SOMEBODY.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOOD. I'M IN FAVOR IF THERE IS AN ETHICAL VIOLATION, WE NEED TO HAVE A PROVISION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTING BASED ON TRUTH RATHER THAN SOMEBODY'S ALLEGATION.

>> MAYBE THE LANGUAGE HERE, WHICH I JUST TOOK IT WORD FOR WORD FROM TWO OF THE PEER CHARTERS, MAYBE WE SAID FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE STANDARD CONDUCT FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 136. WE CAN MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT

IT HAS TO BE AFTER AN INVESTIGATION. >> YES.

>> ARE YOU FOLLOWING THAT TAMMY? >> YEAH.

THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. SOME WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. >> PEOPLE LIKE THIS CONCEPT.

BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY FEEL IT'S A LITTLE TOO, YOU KNOW, OTHERS MAY FEEL IT'S TOO BROAD.

I'M JUST TRYING TO OFFER UP AND NOT RECREATE THE WHEEL TOO MUCH.

>> EITHER WE DO IT OR WE DON'T. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, THEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS THAT HOLDS WATER. I'M FEARFUL ABOUT FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

THAT THEY CAN BE VERY VERY DISRUPTIVE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL OR INSTITUTION.

I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT. FOR ME TO DO IT, I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT WITH SOME SAFEGUARDS BUILT INTO IT THAT ENSURE WE'RE DEALING WITH FACTS

AND NOT SOMEBODY'S >> IT COULD BE AN INVESTIGATION OR IT COULD -- I GUESS ONE THAT IS MORE SERIOUS WOULD BE A FELONY. AND WE ALREADY HAVE A FELONY

FORFEITURE. >> OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF HANDS RAISED. EXCUSE ME. MEMBER LASIER.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO DRAW EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO CHAPTER 112.

FLORIDA STATUTES. CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

AND SO INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THAT PARAGRAPH AND IT PROVIDES PROCEDURES, SAFE HARBOR, YOU KNOW, WHISTLE BLOWERS, SUPERVISORS, IT'S GOT A LOT INTO IT.

I HAVEN'T READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTER. BUT IT'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE AND IT COVERS A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT COVERED. IT PROVIDES A PENALTY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK MAYBE WHAT WE DO IS LIKE LAUREN SAID, DON'T REINVENT THE WHEEL, THIS HAS

EVERYTHING WE NEED. >> >> 112.317.

>> MEMBER BEAN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TWO QUICK POINTS.

FIRST, A QUICK QUESTION, BACK TO MEMBER LASIER'S POINT, WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER THE CITY IS UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTES. DON'T WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT ETHICS.

AND YOU'RE SAYING YES. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABIDING TO THE ETHICS.

MEMBER CLARK'S POINT, I WOULD BE HESITANT TO -- JUST BACK TO THE MECHANICS OF HOW THIS WOULD WORK. ANY COMPLAINT OR ANY TRIGGERING OF THIS MECHANISM WOULD TRIGGER AN INVESTIGATION. NOW SO IF YOU WANTED, SO I'M PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE.

WHAT IF YOU WANTED TO JUST AS MEMBER CLARK SAID, SOME SORT OF LIKE VENDETTA, YOU WANTED TO CAUSE A STIR. YOU COULD INITIATE THIS MECHANISM.

EVEN IF WE HAD THE INVESTIGATION FIRST, YOU COULD SAY OH, WELL THAT COMMISSIONER IS UNDER INVESTIGATION. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE JUST, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT OURSELVES, WE NEED TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL, IN ORDER TO TRIGGER ANY

[01:10:01]

KIND OF ACTION. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE CITY SPINNING WHEELS TAKING CARE OF THESE COMPLAINTS. I KNOW WE HAVE LOTS OF REQUESTS.

AND I LIKE TO SECOND WHAT MEMBER LASIER SAID, STATE OF FLORIDA HAS VERY STRONG ETHICS.

IF WE'RE ALREADY FOLLOWING THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US MAYBE REFERENCE THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT. AND THEN WE COULD SAY WE WILL, WE CAN REFERENCE IT IN PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWING THIS HERE AND THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN FIND IT.

OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M WITH MEMBER CLARK. >> I THINK THAT IS A REALLY GOOD CHARACTERIZATION OF IT, IF MR. LASIER, COULD WE MAKE IT ALL WORK UNDER THAT STATE

STATUTE? >> I HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT EXTENSIVELY.

BUT I KNOW 112 IS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

IT PROVIDES THOSE INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURES AND THINGS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER.

THERE IS MORE THAN THAT. THE WHOLE CHAPTER 112 HAS SIT DIFFERENT PARTS.

SO MAYBE -- I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. WE WERE ON THE SUBJECT A LITTLE BIT. I DIDN'T STUDY IT MORE CLOSELY. I THINK HAVING SOMETHING LIKE WHAT MEMBER DAVIS HAD SUGGESTED IS A GOOD IDEA. I THINK REFERENCING THIS IS THE, I MEAN, THE PUBLIC KNEW IT WAS THERE, MAYBE THEY WOULD BE FILING THEIR COMPLAINTS.

COMMISSION FOR ETHICS. >> OKAY. MEMBER BEAN, YOUR HAND IS STILL UP. TAMMY, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TELL US THE WAY THE STATE DEFINES AN

ETHICS BREACH. >> THE CITY COMMISSIONERS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER THE STATUTE. AND THE STATUTE, WHICH HAS SEVERAL SECTIONS COVERS GIFTS, VOTING CONFLICTS, CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CITY, LIKE WE DID IN SECTION 10.

MUCH OF WHAT IS IN THE STATE LAW IS REPEATED, SYMBOLIC APPROACH, REALLY.

A LOT OF TIMES THEY HAVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT IS HIRED TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS AND WE'RE TOO SMALL TO DO THAT. ETHICALLY, I THINK CHAPTER 112 COVERS IT AND WE REFERENCE IT IN SECTION 11. AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT COVERED BY STATE LAW, SECTION 10, INTERFERENCE WITH CITY STAFF. AND SO IF WE CAN SEPARATE THOSE TWO SECTION 10, IF THERE IS, I THINK WE CAME UP WITH THE TIERED APPROACH AND WE KNOW IT'S INVESTIGATED UNDER 136. I DON'T MEAN TO OVER SIMPLIFY IT, BUT IF YOU WANT MORE DETAIL WITH REGARD TO HOW AN INVESTIGATION TAKES PLACE, WITH REGARD TO SECTION 10 VIOLATIONS, INTERFERENCE WITH STAFF, THEN WE CAN DO THAT. OTHERWISE, WE HAVE THE PROCESS FOR ETHICS AND I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T DO OUR OWN. I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE TIME.

CERTAINLY NOT BEFORE THIS ELECTION IN NOVEMBER TO GET A CODE OF ETHICS OUT OF US.

>> I HAVE SOMETHING BUT I WILL WAIT. MEMBER CLARK.

>> WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE MADAM CHAIR, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

>> OKAY. I HAVE ONE HAND RAISED. LET'S SEE.

MEMBER MORRISON. >> I WAS GOING TO COMMENT THAT I'M OKAY WITH THE IDEA REFERENCING THE EXISTING STATUTES THAT MEMBER LASIER AND MEMBER DAVIS WERE MENTIONING.

[01:15:02]

I FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW, IT'S WORTH NOTING, YOU MADE THIS COMMENT TO MS. BACH.

THIS IS A LARGE GESTURE. THERE ISN'T AN ETHICS PROBLEM IN OUR COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.

THERE HASN'T HISTORICALLY BEEN AN ETHICS PROBLEM. EVEN IF THE SURVEY FROM THE CITIZENS MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT THEY DON'T TRUST THE COMMISSIONERS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE IS A LEGITIMATE ETHICAL CONCERN.

>> I THINK JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT, BASED ON SOME COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE PAST, I THINK THAT THERE IS NOT REALLY AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ETHICS VIOLATION. ESPECIALLY AROUND VOTING CONFLICTS. I THINK THAT IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE.

I WILL ASK YOU, IF WE LEAVE ALL REFERENCE AND ALL ALL REFERENCE AND OUR CHARTER TO THE STATE CODE OF ETHICS AND WE TRY TO BE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE EVOLUTIONARY PHASES OF RETRIBUTION, WITH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY PUT TOGETHER IN OUR PRIOR DISCUSSION, IN THAT TIERED APPROACH, DO WE WANT TO MAYBE FURTHER DEFINE SOMETHING THAT IS IN THAT STATE CODE OF ETHICS FOR OUR RESIDENTS SO THEY UNDERSTAND REALLY WHAT THAT MEANS? GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT. COME BACK ATMINUTE. WE'RE STILL MISSING MEMBER BEAN. SO WE'RE STILL MISSING MEMBER BEAN.

BUT LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE YOU KNOW, WE MADE A DECISION ON 4.1 AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE ATTORNEY GO BACK AND WRITE IT UP WITH WHAT WAS IN ALL OF THE MINUTES. AND THEN WE PROCEEDED TO TALK ABOUT IT FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF. WE HAVE AN HOUR AND A HALF LEFT AND WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AT ALL YET. SO I'M GOING TO ASK IS ANYBODY GOING TO HAVE APAPLEXY IF WE SAY WE'RE DONE WITH 4.1? SO NOW WE'RE DONE WITH 4.1.

[Item 4.2]

AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CITIZEN INITIATIVES, 4.2. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO START?

>> I'M THINKING MEMBER DAVIS MIGHT. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> I HAVE MY HAND UP. >> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY.

Y'ALL WILL RECALL THAT I RAISED THIS, THE IDEA OF INSERTING A DIRECT DEMOCRACY TYPE PROVISION INTO OUR CHARTER AT THE FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING. I HAD LANGUAGE PROPOSED.

AND IT WAS CIRCULATED IN ADVANCE. MEMBERS FELT THEY WANTED MORE TIME TO DIGEST IT AND LOOK INTO THE ISSUE. WITH THAT IN MIND, I DID MAKE A FEW MINOR TWEAKS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AS WELL AS I WENT AND LOOKED AT NOT ONLY THE MODEL CHARTER PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE, BUT ALSO 22 CITIES OF THE SAME, APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SIZE AS FERNANDINA BEACH HERE IN FLORIDA. AND LOOKED AT EACH OF THEIR CHARTERS AND THEIR TYPE PROVISIONS, DENOTING WHICH ONES ACTUALLY DO CONTAIN A RIGHT FOR CITIZENS TO BRING PETITIONS TO INITIATE ORDINANCES OR TO CALL FOR REFERENDUM ON THEM.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS GIVEN AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE FEAR THAT THE THRESHOLD FOR

[01:20:03]

THE PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS NEEDED TO BE SET FAIRLY HIGH.

SO IN THE CHART THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AT THE END OF LAST WEEK TO YOU, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT OF THE 22 CITIES, I PULLED ALL 20 THAT WERE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, GAVE US IN THEIR TABLE WHEN THEY MET WITH US LAST OCTOBER. SO I USED ALL OF THOSE 20 CITIES AS WELL AS TWO ADDITIONAL CITIES THAT WERE CONSIDERED PEER CITIES FOR THE 2007 CHARTER REVIEW. BUT WEREN'T ON THAT LIST THAT THE CITY GAVE US.

PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY WERE SMALLER, EVEN SMALLER THAN WE ARE.

SO OF THOSE CITIES, I GAVE YOU A SUMMARY SHEET, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT 75 PERCENT OF THEM CONTAIN THIS PROVISION. SO WE ARE IN THE DISTINCT MINORITY IN OUR CHARTER NOT HAVING THIS PROVISION, AS WELL AS OF COURSE, THE MODEL CITY CHARTER RECOMMENDS THIS PROVISION. AND WHAT WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING IN AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGE OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS, THE MODEL CITY CHARTER USED TO BE 15 PERCENT. AND NOW THEY ACTUALLY LOWERED IT IN THE MOST RECENT, WHEN THEY REVISED IT INITIALLY IN 2003 AND THEN THEY DID THE 2011 SECOND PRINTING, THEY REVISED IT TO FIVE TO TEN PERCENT. AND ALSO COMMENTED IN THEIR COMMENTARY SAY THAT THE THRESHOLD FOR, THAT YOU NEED TO RECALL A MEMBER OF OFFICE SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE THRESHOLD FOR INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AND INTERESTING FOR FLORIDA, THAT THRESHOLD IS TEN PERCENT. SO THEY ACTUALLY WOULD BE ADVOCATING A FIVE TO TEN PERCENT LEVEL. I KNOW A LOT OF MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE THRESHOLD BEING TOO EASY. SOME OF THE CITIES ARE SMALLER THAN WE ARE.

OF THE 16 CITIES OUT OF THE 22 THAT HAVE THIS PROVISION, THE MOST POPULAR IS 15 PERCENT.

THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE NEEDED FOR SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED VOTERS.

IT'S ACTUALLY REGISTERED VOTERS, UNLIKE SAY LA, ON THEIR PROVISION IT'S A PERCENTAGE OF THOSE WHO VOTED AT THE LAST ELECTION. THE PROVISION AS I'VE DRAFTED IT IS BASED ON TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS. AND ONLY TWO HAD A 20 PERCENT THRESHOLD. ATLANTIC BEACH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, ATLANTIC BEACH BACK IN 2014, THEIR THRESHOLD WAS 25 PERCENT AND THEY HAVE SINCE LOWERED IT TO 16 PERCENT, AFTER A PARTICULAR EFFORT TO HAVE A REFERENDUM FAIL. SO THE PUBLIC FELT THAT THE 25 PERCENT THRESHOLD WAS TOO HIGH. SO THEY ACTUALLY LOWERED THEIRS.

I DID ASK KATIE TO REACH OUT TO THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO FIND OUT HOW OFTEN THESE PROVISIONS WERE USED, IF THEY HAD ANY DATA FOR US. BUT OF COURSE, THAT WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF MARCH. AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT KIND OF HAPPENED.

I IMAGINE THE CITY, I DON'T KNOW, THAT REQUEST PROBABLY JUST KIND OF FELL BY THE WAYSIDE. IN TRYING TO FIND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, THE ONLY GOOGLING ARTICLE THAT I WAS ABLE TO FIND WAS ABOUT THIS ATLANTIC BEACH EFFORT THAT FAILED IN 2014.

SO THE IDEA IS THAT IT'S A SELF EXECUTING PROVISION, THE CITIZENS, FIVE PEOPLE HAVE TO FORM A COMMITTEE AND BE THE ONES KIND OF IN CHARGE AND THEY HAVE TO GET THE APPROPRIATE FORM FROM THE CITY CLERK AND GET THE PROPER NUMBER OF SIGNATURES, NAMES ADDRESSES, WHICH HAVE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. JUST LIKE OTHER PETITIONS TO

[01:25:08]

RUN FOR OFFICE. AND ACTUALLY BE CITIZENS, THE COMMITTEE HAS TO PAY FOR THAT CHARGE FOR THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. IT ONLY APPLIES TO ORDINANCES, NOT LEGISLATIVE OR STATUTORY TYPE CHANGES. ONLY APPLYING TO ORDINANCES.

THE PROCESS FOR REFERENDUM IS QUITE SHORT TIME FRAME, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SUSPENDED, YOU WANT, THE CITY HAS TO -- I MEAN, THE COMMITTEE, THE PETITIONER'S COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE TO ACT FAST. I WOULD LOWER THAT TO 30 DAYS, WHICH MEANS QUICKER THAT THE CITIZENS WOULD HAVE TO BE READY TO GO. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN REALLY FAST, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE PROVISION IS STANDING IN LIMBO UNTIL THIS IS HANDLED.

I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE CHARTERS SO THAT Y'ALL WOULD HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IS BEING DONE. I MADE A NOTE OF THE POPULATION, SO YOU CAN SEE THE CITIES ARE BASICALLY THE SAME SIZE AS WE ARE. MANY OF THEM DO HAVE A 10 PERCENT THRESHOLD. THE FIRST THING WOULD BE WHAT TYPE OF THRESHOLD WE WOULD WANT. PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO START WITH A HIGHER 20 PERCENT.

>> WE HAVE ALL HANDS EXCEPT ONE RAISED. LET'S MAKE THE COMMENTS AND SAVE THE DISCUSSION UNTIL WE ALL HAVE OUR COMMENTARY. I'M GOING TO COMMENT IN ORDER

OF WHEN I SAW YOUR HAND GO UP. MEMBER MORRISON. >> I SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I WANT TO THANK MEMBER DAVIS FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT IN, COMPARE THE OTHER CITIES AND WHAT THOSE THRESHOLDS WERE. AFTER THINKING ABOUT THIS A LOT, I I TO THINK THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCORPORATING A MEASURE LIKE THIS INTO THE CHARTER.

I FEEL LIKE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE, AND WHAT I KNOW ABOUT IT, AND WHAT I FEEL LIKE PERSONALLY IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT THE 20 PERCENT THRESHOLD IS WHAT I FEEL LIKE I'M THE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH.

BUT I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THE REST OF THE MEMBERS HAVE TO SAY TOO.

>> MEMBER KOSAC. >> I ALSO NOT ONLY JUST FOUGHT THROUGH THIS, BUT DID A LOT OF RESEARCH OF DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND A BROAD SIZE AND DIFFERENT STATES.

A COUPLE OF THINGS REGARDING THE THRESHOLD THAT I FOUND INTERESTING, FIRST, LET ME BACK UP TO THE MEETING THAT I WAS NOT THERE, I BELIEVE IT WAS MEMBER LASIER THAT MENTIONED, MAYBE BEING THAT THE THRESHOLD SHOULD BE HIGH SO THAT IT DIDN'T BOG DOWN GOVERNMENT OR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GET IN THERE AND CHANGE THINGS AROUND.

I THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THAT. THEN I STARTED TO DO RESEARCH, I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA WE HAVE AN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROVISION ALSO. AND THEIR THRESHOLD FOR SIGNATURES IS ONLY EIGHT PERCENT. AND EIGHT PERCENT OF ALL QUALIFIED VOTERS, BUT EIGHT PERCENT OF THE VOTES PASSED IN THE LAST ELECTION. SMALLER POOL OF PEOPLE THAT HIT A THRESHOLD. AND MY HOME STATE OF NEW JERSEY, IT'S THE SAME THING, TEN PERCENT OF VOTER TURNOUT OF THE MOST RECENT ELECTION. THAT IS DONE THROUGH SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES UP THERE. SO THE OTHER THING, REGARDING THAT, I UNDERSTAND THE CONS OF THE THRESHOLD AND THE ARGUMENT THERE. BUT I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THE CONS OF SAYING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS MIGHT ATTEMPT TO CHANGE WHAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE DOING CAN BE REVERSED AND BEING A PRO BECAUSE ANYBODY, BIG INDUSTRY, ANYBODY CAN COME IN

[01:30:02]

AND PUT FORTH SOMETHING. SO IF THERE IS A GROUP THAT HAS MORE MONEY OR MORE ORGANIZATION, OR HAS MORE GROUPS, THEY CAN ALSO PUT SOMETHING FORTH.

SO I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THAT WILL LEVEL ITSELF OUT. AND THIS REALLY IS A SITUATION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY AND THE VOICE OF THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT CAN PUT SOMETHING FORTH.

SO I DO THINK HAVING THIS IN THERE IS IMPORTANT. AND THEN YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE THRESHOLD GOES, I THINK THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO HIGH THAT NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING WITH IT. SO WHY HAVE IT IF IT'S UNOBTAINABLE.

I THINK IT'S STRINGENT ALL OF THE STEPS EVERYBODY HAS TO GO THROUGH.

THE OTHER THING THAT I FOUND INTERESTING IS MANY PLACES SAID JUST BY THE EXISTENCE OF HAVING THE PROCESS MADE THE LEGISLATORS MORE RESPONSIVE AND IT NEVER REALLY GOT TO THIS FINAL SITUATION OF THE REFERENDUM OR THE INITIATIVE. SO JUST HAVING THIS THERE IS ALMOST LIKE A FAIL SAFE MEASURE. AND THIS WAS ALMOST USED AS THE LAST RESORT. SO THIS FIRST STEP ALONE COULD CAUSE MAYBE THE COMMISSION TO RELOOK AT ISSUES AND SEE WHAT TRULY DOES MATTER TO THE CONSTITUENCY.

AND IT WON'T, THAT ELIMINATES THE COST OF THE ELECTIONS AND THE BURDENSOME PROCESSES PUT FORTH. THAT IS STUFF THAT I FOUND INTERESTING.

>> MEMBER LASIER. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'VE ALSO GIVEN THIS ONE A LOT

OF THOUGHT. >> JOHN, YOU NEED TO LOOK RIGHT AT US.

BECAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR YOU WHEN YOU LOOK ANYWHERE ELSE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. NO PROBLEM. THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS A TERRIBLE TRACK RECORD ON CITIZEN INITIATIVES (INAUDIBLE) GO TO THE FARMER'S MARKET ON SATURDAY. YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY TALKING TO ONE ORDINANCE OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR ANOTHER. THAT IS WHAT GIVES ME THE MOST PAUSE.

EVERY ELECTION YEAR WE'VE GOT TO VOTE ON AN AMENDMENT. IT SHOULD BE DOABLE.

IT'S KIND OF A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO GET SOMETHING DONE. (INAUDIBLE) THROW A STRAW BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT CAN BE NON-BINDING BUT A LOWER THRESHOLD, JUST KIND OF GET THAT VOICE STATED BUT NOT BE BINDING ON THE COMMISSION. GIVE REFERENCE, THE CITY OF

[01:35:06]

JACKSONVILLE HAS STRAW BALLOT. AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE PETITION (INAUDIBLE) THAT IS HOW THEY GOT THE ADDITIONAL GAMBLING PUT INTO DOG TRACKS. IT CAN BE USED, YOUR POINT IS WELL MADE, IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THE BUSINESS INTEREST OR THE POLITICAL INTEREST THAT

YOU ARE THINKING THAT WOULD UTILIZE THIS EFFORT. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> YOU'RE MUTED. >> YOU'RE MUTED, RICHARD. YOU SAID SOME BEAUTIFUL THINGS

THERE, DIDN'T YOU? >> NO. LIKE THE OTHER COMMENTS, I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT MARGARET HAS DONE. IT'S INTERESTING. AND LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, I'VE GIVEN A LOT OF THOUGHT TO THIS KNOWING THAT IT WOULD BE A KEY DISCUSSION POINT.

I HAVE TWO BROAD THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. ONE IS CONCEPTUAL AND ONE IS MORE OF APPLICABILITY OF WHAT CITIZEN INITIATIVE WOULD BE. I SHOULD SAY I DO UNDERSTAND THE POPULARITY OF CITIZEN INITIATIVES, PARTICULARLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHEN THERE IS SO MUCH CONTENTION AROUND VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT.

IT IS A POPULAR FEATURE. I UNDERSTAND WHY A LOT OF COMMUNITIES HAVE BUILT THESE INTO THEIR CHARTERS. CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS ISSUE A LITTLE BIT.

WE LIVE IN SOMETHING THAT WE CALL A DEMOCRACY. BUT IN POINT OF FACT, WE HAVE WHAT IS REALLY CALLED REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. WE ELECT PEOPLE AT THE LOCAL STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL TO REPRESENT OUR INTEREST AND THEY GO DO THEIR THING.

SOMETIMES WE LIKE THEM, SOMETIMES WE DON'T. AND THEN WE VOTE THEM IN OR OUT OF OFFICE, BASED ON WHAT THEY DID. THE COMMUNITIES IN NEW ENGLAND HAD TOWN HALLS. THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS WOULD BE WHOEVER SHOWED UP AT THE ANNUAL TOWN HALL MEETING AND THAT GROUP WOULD VOTE UP OR DOWN THE BUDGET OF THAT COMMUNITY.

THEY DEBATED IT, MADE A DECISION. THAT WAS ABOUT AS CLOSE TO PURE DEMOCRACY THAT YOU COULD GET. WHERE THE VOTERS ACTUALLY GOT TOGETHER AND MADE POLICY DECISIONS. THEY DIDN'T ALWAYS RELY UPON THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DO THAT. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES. WHEN WE INTRODUCE THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE INTO THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME WE'RE GOING IN A RATHER DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AREN'T DOING A GOOD JOB OR THEY MAY NOT BE RESPONSIVE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY NEED TO CHECK ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND THAT IS WHAT BRINGS ABOUT THE IDEA OF A CITIZEN INITIATIVE. THE WAY THIS PARTICULAR DRAFT IS PUT TOGETHER, IT APPLIES TO ANY ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY WOULD CONSIDER. IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE, IF I READ IT, THERE IS NO CHECK ON WHEN THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE COULD BE PUT FORTH. I DON'T LIKE ORDINANCE NUMBER 422, I CAN PUT TOGETHER A PETITION, ROUND UP THE VOTES, ROUND UP THE SIGNATURES AND I HAVE GOT MYSELF A REFERENDUM ON THAT ISSUE. I WOULD THINK THAT A MAJOR ISSUE THAT OUR COMMUNITY HAS TAKEN ON THAT DIDN'T ACCOMPANY WITH IT A LOT OF CONTROVERSY. IF EVERY ISSUE THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL IS GOING TO RESULT IN A CITIZEN INITIATIVE, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO MOVE THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD OFTEN. YOU'RE GOING TO BE SAYING HERE IS WHAT THE COMMISSION DID, 20 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THAT.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO GEN UP A PETITION, CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND WE'LL PUT IT OUT TO THE

[01:40:01]

VOTERS. SO IT STOPS THAT WHOLE PROCESS. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT IMPLEMENTED. YOU GOT TO GO BACK AND SUBJECT IT TO THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

I UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT IT HAS. IT'S IN MY VIEW, IT'S A CHILLING EFFECT.

BUT I JUST HAVE TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING.

AGAIN, WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU DO A CITIZEN INITIATIVE, YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING TO THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS WE'RE GOING TO PUT A CHECK ON EVERYTHING YOU DO AND THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, WHICH GETS TO MY SECOND POINT, THERE IS NO REAL, THIS IS A VERY BROADLY WRITTEN PROVISION HERE. IT APPLIES, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, TO ANY ORDINANCE. ALTHOUGH INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT EXCEPTS OUT BUDGETARY THINGS. SO IF YOU WANTED TO SUBMIT A CITIZEN INITIATIVE ON A TAX RATE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS MAYBE YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE A CITIZEN INITIATIVE ON, THIS LANGUAGE DOESN'T PERMIT THAT. IT JUST PERMITS IT ON ORDINANCES. BUT IT DOESN'T RESTRICT THE ORDINANCES THAT YOU COULD SUBMIT AS A CITIZEN INITIATIVE ON. NOR DOES IT SUBMIT WHEN YOU DO IT. SO IF THE COMMISSION ENACTS AN ORDINANCE, DO YOU HAVE 6 MONTHS TO PUT TOGETHER A CITIZEN INITIATIVE, DO YOU HAVE TWO WEEKS OR FOREVER? AND IN WHICH CASE IF IT'S FOREVER, THEN VIRTUALLY EVERY DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION MAKES THAT IS IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO A SECOND GUESS ON THE PART OF A CITIZEN INITIATIVE. SO I HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE CONCEPTS. I UNDERSTAND THE APPEAL OF IT. I KNOW WHY IT'S OUT THERE.

AND I KNOW WHY SOME PEOPLE VIEW THIS AS A WAY TO MAKE GOVERNMENT MORE RESPONSIVE.

AND IN SOME RESPECTS, I THINK IT DOES THAT. BUT I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO RESOLVE IN YOUR OWN MIND THAT IN THE LONG-TERM, THIS IS A WAY TO MAKE THE CITY BETTER.

I THINK EVERY DECISION THAT MOVES THE COMMUNITY FORWARD IN A POSITIVE WAY, ALMOST IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LOT OF CONTROVERSY. YOU'RE INVITING CITIZEN INITIATIVES EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND AND THUS THE COMMISSION BECOMES, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LESS EFFECTIVE. I THINK IN MY MIND THESE ARE KEY ISSUES.

I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT THIS PRETTY CAREFULLY.

BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU INTRODUCE IT PARTICULARLY WITH A LOWER PETITION SIGNATURES, IT COULD HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON MOVING THE CITY IN ANY PARTICULAR DIRECTION.

AND IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A VOTE FOR STATUS QUO I THINK. PARTICULARLY IN THE PETITION NUMBERS ARE LOW. SO I'LL STOP TALKING AT THIS POINT.

>> OKAY. MEMBER BEAN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I WOULD LIKE TO START BY SAYING SOMETHING I THINK WE ALL CAN AGREE ON, MEMBER KOSAC HAS A VERY NICE CAT. WE'VE ONLY SEEN ITPLE OF TIMES.

BUT THEN FURTHERMORE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I HEARD A LOT OF GOOD POINTS.

I CAN SEE ALL SIDES. THIS IS ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS.

IN THEORY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PERFECT CHECK AND BALANCE. I AM A HUGE PROPONENT OF OUR PUBLIC BEING CHECKS AND BALANCES ALL OVER THE BOARD. IF THERE IS NO CHECK ON CITY COMMISSION POWER EXCEPT FOR VOTING THEM OUT, WHICH IN ITSELF IS A RECALL, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THESE CHECKS AND BALANCES. HERE IS A NUMBER, TO PILE ON WHAT MR. VICE CHAIR CLARK SAID, IF WE DID 20 PERCENT, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST NUMBER THAT I'VE HEARD THROWN AROUND HERE, OF OUR VOVOTES, ARES VOTERS, 2,16 VOTERS, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. BUT IT'S NOT THAT MUCH WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

ON FACEBOOK, WHICH IS WHERE, EVEN WITH THIS COVID-19 SITUATION, I HAVE BEEN RECENTLY, IN A SITUATION WHERE I AM PERSONALLY COLLECTING CITY PETITION SIGNATURES.

AND WITH THIS COVID SITUATION, WE'RE ALLOWING PETITIONS TO BE SIGNED ON FACEBOOK.

TO MEMBER CLARK'S POINT, ANYTHING CONTROVERSIAL REALLY DOES BUILD UP A LOT OF

[01:45:01]

FOLLOWING, ESPECIALLY ON THINGS SUCH AS FACEBOOK. WE'LL GET SOME SORT OF MENTALITY ON THERE AND I JUST WANT TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE AND SAY WHAT IF EVERY CASE, SEEMS TO HAVE AN ASSOCIATED FACEBOOK POST ON ONE OF THOSE LARGE GROUPS WHERE PEOPLE GET RILED UP AND DISCUSS AND WHAT IF THERE WAS A LINK TO A PLACE WHERE YOU COULD SIGN A PETITION. IT WOULD BE EASIER THAN YOU THINK.

EVEN WITH A SEEMINGLY HIGH THRESHOLD TO MAKE THAT EVERY TIME.

BECAUSE I CAN SEE ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE OF WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS DOING.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC. BUT I CAN THINK ABOUT ISSUES WHERE A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC OF PEOPLE WILL SIGN IT ONE TIME. AND EVEN IF THE COMMISSION IS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING EITHER WAY. THAT BEING SAID, THE ONLY WAY I WOULD SUPPORT THIS IS IF THE NUMBER WAS THAT 20 PERCENT. BECAUSE IF 2,000 PEOPLE, IF YOU CAN GET THEM ALL TO AGREE ON SOMETHING, THAT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING WORTH DOING.

SO I WOULD SAY IF THE NUMBER WAS 20 PERCENT OR HIGHER, I COULD SEE IT THEN.

BUT OTHERWISE I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH VICE CHAIR CLARK WAS SAYING.

>> OKAY. SO NOW EVERYBODY HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AND WE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION. I WOULD LIKE US TO TRY TO TIME BOX THIS DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA AND I KNOW THAT THIS ONE COULD TAKE UP ALL OF THE REST OF OUR TIME. WE ONLY HAVE 2 MORE MEETINGS SCHEDULED.

WE HEARD AT BREAK THAT THERE IS A CONCERN THAT WE WON'T BE FINISHED IN TIME FOR THIS YEAR'S ELECTION IF WE GO AT THIS PACE. SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ALL TO SAY YOUR COMMENTS, AND MOVE ON. LET THE NEXT PERSON SPEAK AS I CALL ON YOU.

PLEASE DON'T TALK FOREVER. MEMBER DAVIS. >> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT IN RESPONSE TO MEMBER CLARK'S CONCERNS, IS THAT YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO RESPOND, IF THEY'RE REACTING TO SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION DOES, THEY HAVE TO REACT WITHIN 30 DAYS. THAT MEANS WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE FILED THE PETITION WITH THE FULL 20 PERCENT IN THE PROPER FORUM. AND ALSO, MEMBER KOSAC TALKED ABOUT, SOME OF THIS IS VIEWED TO HELP STEER, LIKE A STEERING MECHANISM OF THE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY THAT WE'RE IN. AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE COMMITTEE TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION OR THE REFERENDUM REQUEST.

SO THAT IF THEY WORK WITH THE COMMISSION AND THEY CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THE FULL STEP. BUT IT IS A QUICK TURN AROUND. THE REASON THAT FINANCE PROVISIONS ARE EXEMPTED, FIRST OF ALL, THE STATE REQUIRES REFERENDUM ON A LOT OF BONDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ALREADY. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY THE MODEL, CHARTER AND OTHER CITIES EXEMPT THEM IS BECAUSE YOU DO NEED TO HAVE THAT CONTINUITY IN BUDGET PLANNING.

YOU CAN'T BE PUTTING BUDGET ITEMS ON HOLD. THAT IS WHY FOR THE CONTINUITY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT IS WHY THOSE ARE EXEMPT OUT.

RELATING TO THAT, I WANTED TO ASK, DOES THE CITY SET THE WATER UTILITY RATE?

>> YES. >> THEN I WOULD SAY THAT NEEDS TO BE CARVED OUT AS WELL IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPH. I WASN'T SURE WHETHER IT WAS DONE OR NOT.

THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE. IT CARVES OUT FOR EXAMPLE, EMERGENCY ORDINANCES.

YOU CAN'T OBVIOUSLY BE TRYING TO SUSPEND THOSE. I'M TRYING TO ANSWER SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAD FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, MADAM CHAIR MAN.

CHAIRWOMAN. >> MEMBER KOSAC. >> I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. REMEMBER MEMBER BEAN, YOUR CONCERN, AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK THERE CAN BE A PROVISION PUT IN THERE THAT ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES ARE NOT ACCEPTED, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DEEM IMPORTANT. IT SEEMS ARCHAIC IN THIS DAY

AND AGE BUT I THINK IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. >> I THINK THE WAY IT'S

[01:50:02]

WRITTEN, IT'S IMPLIED THAT IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING, THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TO GET THE FORM FROM THE CLERK. BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD LANGUAGE MAKING THAT MORE SPECIFIC. BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT YOU KNOW, THAT WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO ACTUALLY SIGN THEIR FULL ADDRESS AND ALL THAT THAT DOES MAKE THEM THINK MORE ABOUT WHAT

THEY'RE DOING. >> AND I THINK THAT IS PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE TOO, I THINK IT HAS TO BE ONE SHEET PER PERSON AND IT HELPS TO VERIFY ALSO.

THAT CAN ANSWER THAT. IS THERE A WAY TO MAYBE HAVE A TIERED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR THE INITIATIVE OR THE REFERENDUM, IS ONE DEEMED MORE PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE THAN THE OTHER? I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. AND THEN I DID LOOK AT A FEW MUNICIPALITIES AND I THINK EVEN GUIDELINES OR TIPS FOR CITIZEN INITIATIVES AND HOW TO PUT THIS FORTH.

AND IT IS DAUNTING. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL BE USED FREQUENTLY. I THINK IF IT'S USED, IT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

AND TO ANSWER RICK, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE TIMELINE, MARGARET, YOU ANSWERED IT A LITTLE BIT, IF THE REACTIONARY THING TO SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE, THERE IS A SHORT TIME FRAME THAT IT HAS TO BE FILED. THE ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IS, AND THE TIMELINE TO GET IT SET UP TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE HOOPS AND ALL OF THE STEPS FOR THE NEXT BALLOT IS VERY SPECIFIC. AND I MEAN, FOR ANY OF YOU GUYS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS OR SAT ON BOARDS, IT'S LIKE HERDING CATS. YOU'VE REALLY GOT TO HAVE STRONG VOTER PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THIS. THE PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK, THEY'RE DOING A FACEBOOK THING. DO THEY EVER FOLLOW THROUGH WITH ANYTHING? DO THEY EVER REALLY GET INVOLVED AND DO SOMETHING? MAYBE.

AND EVEN SOME OF THOSE GROUPS, IT WAS A TOUGH GO. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE IN THERE. MAYBE HAVE A TIERED PERCENTAGE. THE LAST NOTE IS LET'S MAKE SURE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT QUALIFIED VERSUS REGISTERED VOTERS, THERE CAN BE DIFFERENTIATION THERE. AND ALSO IS IT A PERCENTAGE OF OUR REGISTERED AND QUALIFIED VOTERS FOR PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED IN THE LAST ELECTION.

AND WHICH ELECTION WOULD THAT BE. >> THE LAST DRAFT QUALIFIED REGISTERED VOTERS. IT KEEPS THE NUMBER HIGHER. ON THE TIERED PROPOSAL, ONLY ONE STATE OF THE 22 -- EXCUSE ME, ONLY ONE CITY OF THE 22 I LOOKED AT HAD THAT.

INTERESTINGLY, IT'S ONLY A FIVE PERCENT THRESHOLD OR REFERENDUM.

IN OTHER WORDS, TO TRY ABSOLVE SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE, BUT 20 PERCENT FOR A NEW INITIATIVE.

THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT I FOUND OF THE 22 THAT I LOOKED AT THAT HAD THAT TIER.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. I WANTED TO ECHO A POINT THAT MEMBER LASIER MADE A WHILE AGO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF SOMETHING WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LAST REGULARLY SCHEDULED GENERAL ELECTION, NOT THAT WE HAVE SPECIAL ELECTIONS FOR IT, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE COST

ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING A SPECIAL ELECTION. >> MEMBER LASIER.

>> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS YOU COULD BE TALKING ABOUT UP TO TWO YEARS.

SO IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE STOPPED AN ORDINANCE, THAT IS A LONG TIME.

THAT IS WHY THAT THEY, THE MODEL, YOU KNOW, CITIES DO DIFFERENT WAYS.

BUT MOST OF THEM DO PROVIDE FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION IF DURING THE PERIOD THAT THEY HAVE A

REGULAR ELECTION. >> WHAT IS THE COST OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION TYPICALLY?

>> I THINK IT'S 25,000. >> A LOT OF MONEY. >> NOT QUESTIONING.

IT'S ONE MORE REASON FOR THE COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE TO WORK TOGETHER TO TRY TO RESOLVE

THE ISSUE. >> COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, MEMBER LASIER.

>> SO I WAS LOOKING AT THE NEXT FORTHCOMING CITY AGENDA AND THERE ARE FOUR UP FOR REVIEW OF VARYING INTERESTS. I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM ALL, BUT THEY RELATE TO EVERYTHING FROM WHETHER OR NOT DOGS SHOULD BE RESTRAINED IN PARKS AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE PROBABLY REZONING, IS A BIG THING THAT MOST LIKELY, THOSE ARE ORDINANCES, IS THAT RIGHT

[01:55:08]

TAMMY? >> YES. >> YEAH.

SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT THIS IS GETTING TO THE HEART OF. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO GIVE CITIZEN INITIATIVES (INAUDIBLE) THAT IS WHERE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MOST LIKELIHOOD OF PEOPLE VOTING. YOU'VE HAD THREE BITE AT THE APPLE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. I KIND OF SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A PETITION, THOUGH.

IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PUT OUT, I THINK THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW CONCEPT BEING DISCUSSED IN THE CITY. I THINK IT HAS A LOW CHANCE OF APPROVAL IN THIS ROUND.

TO BE HONEST. I THINK IF IT HAS ANYTHING BUT THE HIGHEST STANDARDS IT WON'T.

BECAUSE IT'S A NEW CONCEPT TO A LOT OF VOTERS. THAT IS IT.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO JUST TO RESTATE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF, TELL ME WHERE I GET THIS WRONG, BECAUSE I'M SURE I WILL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A VOTE BEING TAKEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON AN ORDINANCE THAT A COMMITTEE IS FORMED TO OVERRIDE.

TRUE? >> SO IF A COMMITTEE IS FORMED TO SAY WE DON'T LIKE THAT ORDINANCE THAT WAS JUST PASSED, AND WE WANT TO HAVE THAT OVER RIDDEN, THEY CAN DO THE PETITION PROCESS AND HAVE THAT PUT ON A SPECIAL ELECTION REFERENDUM.

IS THAT TRUE? DO I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY? >> THE COMMITTEE FILES TO BE THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GET THE 20 PERCENT OR WHATEVER THE THRESHOLD IS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 PERCENT, OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS TO SIGN ON THE PROPER FORM AND THEN THE CITY CLERK HAS TO AUTHORIZE THAT YES, INDEED THE 20 PERCENT PETITION REQUIREMENT IS SUFFICIENT AND THEN THE COMMISSION HAS TO MEET AND OVERTURN IT. AND IF THEY DON'T, THEN IT GOES TO THE, GOES TO A VOTE OF THE PUBLIC. AND AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO 15 DAYS BEFORE THE VOTE TO THE PUBLIC, THE PETITION ORGANIZING COMMITTEE CAN WITHDRAW THE

REQUEST. >> BUT DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF GATHERING PETITIONS, THAT

ORDINANCE IS LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED? >> SUSPENDED.

YES. THAT IS WHY THEY ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS TO REACT.

>> THE PETITIONS SIGNED AND CLEARED. >> THE OTHER THING THAT THIS WOULD CREATE IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A CITIZEN GROUP GET PETITIONS, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO PUT AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED ON THE CITY COMMISSION AGENDA.

IS THAT TRUE? THEY WANT SOMETHING TO BE MADE INTO CITY LAW.

>> YOU CAN EITHER CHALLENGE AN EXISTING ORDINANCE OR ONE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED OR ANYTHING.

THERE IS NO LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF TYPE OF ORDINANCES THIS LANGUAGE WOULD ALLOW

CITIZEN INITIATIVE >> WELL, THE LIMITS RELATED TO EMERGENCY ORDINANCES AND

CERTAIN TYPES OF FINANCES. >> OTHER THAN THAT. >> HIGHER LEVEL NOW.

SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHEN WE COMMUNICATE THIS TO THE PUBLIC, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE GIVING THE COMMUNITY, THE CITIZENS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THE FOLLOWING PROCESS, WHICH IS FORM YOUR COMMITTEE, GATHER YOUR PETITIONS, PRESENT

[02:00:06]

IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION IF YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU WANT, YOU PRESENT IT TO THE PUBLIC FOR VOTE. RIGHT? SO WHEN WE COMMUNICATE THAT, WE'RE SAYING TWO THINGS WOULD TRIGGER IT. ONE IS THAT SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY DON'T LIKE AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED.

AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, FOR WHATEVER TIME PERIOD WE DETERMINE BETWEEN THE FORMATION OF THAT COMMITTEE AND THE REFERENDUM, THAT ORDINANCE IS OVERRIDDEN.

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. SUSPENDED IS A LEGAL WORD, I KNOW.

OVERRIDDEN IN MY MIND. THE OTHER THING WE'RE TELLING THEM IS IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GET ON TO THE CITY'S AGENDA, YOU HAVE THIS PROCESS THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW TO DO THAT. SO THOSE TWO THINGS ARE BRAND NEW TO THIS COMMUNITY, RIGHT? AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON YOU ALL NOW, JUST BECAUSE WE'VE ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, CONCEPTUALLY, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT CANNOT DEAL WITH THIS? DOES NOT WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN? OKAY. WE HAVE ONE. MR. CLARK.

WE HAVE TWO, MR. LASIER. KIND OF. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE MR. BEAN IS HALFWAY TOO.

FOR THE REST OF YOU, OR FOR THOSE SQUOOSHY ONES, CONCEPTUALLY THE IDEA IS OKAY

IF THE THRESHOLD CHANGES, IS THAT TRUE? >> NOT TO MR. CLARK.

MR. CLARK IS DEAD SET AGAINST THIS. >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY

THRESHOLD CHANGES? >> WE'VE IDENTIFIED 20 PERCENT IS WHAT WE WERE READING IN OUR DRAFT DOCUMENT. BUT THERE HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT EITHER LOWERING IT OR

RAISING IT. MEMBER LASIER. >> TWO OTHER COMMENTS TO MAKE, THE OTHER ORDINANCES THAT I READ HAD A SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, CITY CLERK SELECT THE PETITION. THROW THAT OUT. I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT THE REFERENDUM IDEA. I LIKE THE STRAW BALLOT. IT MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE.

WE'RE STUCK WITH A PROBLEM. I DON'T LIKE THE REFERENDUM. (INAUDIBLE)

>> SO IN YOUR OPINION THAT SECOND PART OF IT WITH THE ORDINANCE SUSPENSION IS A

SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM? >> YES.

>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE THRESHOLD, I WOULD PREFER LOWER THAN 20 PERCENT, BUT IF 20 PERCENT IS WHAT GETS THIS THING MOVED, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

[02:05:16]

THERE HASN'T BEEN TREMENDOUS PUSHBACK OR PROBLEMS WITH IT. I CAN SHARE A SCREEN OR MAYBE SEND IT TO SOMEBODY. THERE IS SOME GOOD LIKE UNDERSTANDABLE, ABOUT WHAT CAME FROM ARIZONA, WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR CHARTER, THERE ARE EASY WAYS TO PUT THIS FORTH THAT IS VERY UNDERSTANDABLE AND NOT AS CUMBERSOME AS THE LEGALESE MIGHT BE IN HERE.

>> OKAY. MEMBER CLERK. >> I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT THE REASON WE DON'T HAVE RECALL IS BECAUSE FLORIDA STATUTE DICTATES THAT, WHAT THAT PROCESS IS. SO THAT IS WHY IT'S BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR CHARTER.

SOME OF OUR PEER CITIES STILL HAVE IT. BUT THAT IS NOT NECESSARY.

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> I WANTED TO KIND OF PICK UP A LINE OF REASONING THAT MR. LASIER STARTED DOWN IN TERMS OF APPLICABILITY, WHAT KINDS OF THINGS WOULD LIKELY END UP BEING THE SUBJECT OF A CITIZEN INITIATIVE. AND ONE AREA WOULD BE ZONING.

I'M ON THE PAB. AND ALL ZONING ISSUES ARE ULTIMATELY ENACTED BY ORDINANCE. WE LOOK AT CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE.

AND THERE IS A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO THAT ARE ENACTED BY ORDINANCE.

A LOT OF THOSE GENERATE A FAIR AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY. AND I WOULD SAY BUT NO CREDIT DUE TO ME, THE PAB OVER THE YEARS HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME THAT HAPPENS, THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. YOU'RE GOING TO BE INVITING PEOPLE TO SUBMIT PETITIONS OR INITIATIVES TO EITHER STOP AN ACTION GOING FORWARD IN THAT REGARD OR SLOW IT UP TO THE POINT THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY MAKE THE KIND OF CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE.

ANY TIME YOU DEAL WITH LAND USE OR PROPERTY ISSUES, IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE, THEY CAN BE VERY, NOT ALL OF THE TIME, BUT MUCH OF THE TIME IT CAN BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

I THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY THE SUBJECT OF A CITIZEN INITIATIVE. WE JUST LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF CHANGES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION. THEY WERE FOR THE MOST PART VERY PROFUNCTORY KINDS OF THINGS. IN A FEW INSTANCES, THEY WERE. YOU MIGHT NOT THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE THE THING THAT WOULD GENERATE A PETITION. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS JUST SO MUCH EMOTION THAT GETS WRAPPED UP IN THESE THINGS THAT IT WOULD.

I THINK THE EFFECT OF THIS, I'M SORT OF MAKING THE POINT I MADE BEFORE, IT'S GOING TO JUST BRING EVERYTHING TO A HALT. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO ARE GOOD THINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY. BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING IS GIVING UNDER THE SHADOW OF SOMEBODY SUBMITTING A PETITION AND STOPPING EVERYTHING IN ITS TRACKS.

I CONTINUE TO HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT THIS CONCEPTUALLY. SOME OF MY MISGIVINGS COULD BE ADDRESSED IF WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BE MORE PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT APPLICABILITY.

WHAT KINDS OF ORDINANCES WOULD WE BE DEALING WITH. WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD THAT WOULD MAKE A CITIZEN INITIATIVE, ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

I DO APPRECIATE THE 30-DAY REQUIREMENT THAT MARGARET HAS TALKED ABOUT IT.

THAT MAKES IT BETTER. BUT STILL IT'S CONCERNING WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DRILL DOWN AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY THE KINDS OF ORDINANCES THAT THIS WOULD APPLY TO, I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE IT REALLY DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS I KNOW THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS. PARTICULARLY AS WE'RE BEGINNING TO LOOK AT A NEW COMP PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ALL OF THAT IS IN THE FORM OF

ORDINANCE AND IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO DO. >> MEMBER KOSAC.

>> I THINK THAT RICK, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. AND REALLY INITIALLY WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, I WAS CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE OUT HERE EVERY OTHER DAY PUTTING SOMETHING FORTH THAT THEY WANT TO GET MOVED. IN GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT IT AND SITTING ON (INAUDIBLE) I'VE BEEN TO THE PAB MEETINGS. IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME PEOPLE

[02:10:01]

THAT ARE USUALLY ATTENDING AND VOCALIZE THEIR VIEWS, EITHER THE COMMISSION, IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT COMES UP, IT MIGHT BE AN AFFECTED PARTY THAT RAISES A VOICE.

WILL THEY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN 2,000 OTHER PEOPLE TO PUT THIS FORTH.

I THINK IT'S MORE COMPLEX THAN PUTTING FORTH A PETITION. AND DO WE HAVE 2,000 PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO STAND IN CONSENSUS WITH THEIR OTHER 1999 PEOPLE.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN SOMEBODY PUTTING FORTH AN IDEA AND I JUST FEEL THAT YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF THERE IS SOME WAY TO HAVE A SCOPE OF LIMITATION ON WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT FORTH.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GETS TOO CUMBERSOME. MAYBE THAT CAN ELIMINATE WHAT JOHN SAID. I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN OUR

TOOLBOX FOR OUR CITIZENS. >> THINK ABOUT ISSUES LIKE BEACH WALKS.

THERE IS A LITANY OF ISSUES HERE THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONTROVERSIAL IN REACHING DECISION ON THOSE IS GOING TO BE TOUGH. WHATEVER YOU DO, WHATEVER DECISION THE CITY MAKES, THERE IS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY WHO FEELS AGRIEVED.

>> HOW DOES DESTIN AND COCOA BEACH SURVIVE WITH A 10 PERCENT ISSUE? THIS BROAD LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE IN THE INTRO ON WHAT IS CARVED OUT AND WHAT IT APPLIES TO IS IDENTICAL FROM THEIR CHARTERS. SO I MEAN, I THINK TAMMY IS RIGHT THAT THAT IS JUST NOT -- I MEAN, IT'S REALLY USED AS A NEGOTIATING TOOL AND ONLY REALLY DRAMATIC CIRCUMSTANCES.

I MEAN, YES PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY. BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS SUCH A DETAILED AND SPECIFIC PROCESS I THINK IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THE WAY THAT YOU KNOW, THE ARMAGEDDON THAT YOU'RE

ENVISIONING. >> WHY DO YOU SAY IT'S A NEGOTIATING TOOL?

>> HOLD ON. >> FOLKS. >> EXCUSE ME.

>> EXCUSE ME. >> I'M SORRY, MADAM. >> MEMBER CLARK WAS NOT FINISHED WITH HIS STATEMENT. SO CAN WE GO BACK AND GET THAT, PLEASE.

>> WELL, I WAS PRETTY CLOSE, THANK YOU, THOUGH, MADAM CHAIR. I UNDERSTAND WHAT MARGARET IS SAYING. BUT I STILL THINK THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT GENERATE A LOT OF EMOTION, NO MATTER WHAT DECISION IS MADE, THERE IS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY WHO FEELS AGRIEVED. I KEEP SAYING THE SAME POINT, BUT I THINK IT'S TRUE.

IT'S HARDER TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. THEY WILL TRY TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO STOP THE CITY FROM DOING THAT. I AM MENTIONING ANY OF THE ISSUES REGARDING BEACH OR BEACH USE. BEACH WALK-OVERS, PARKING AROUND BEACHES. THOSE ARE TOUGH ISSUES TO DEAL WITH.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE IS THROW ANOTHER POTENTIAL STEP IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING SOMETHING DONE. WE HAVE A CITY COMMISSION THAT WAS ELECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS TO REPRESENT WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THEY'RE MAKING ACTIONS ON CITY STAFF AND THE EXPERTS AND WHAT NOT TO HELP GUIDE THEM IN THAT PROCESS. WE HAVE CITY BOARDS THAT ARE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE BASED ON THE SAME KIND OF SITUATIONS. AND IT'S A LITTLE CONCERNING TO ME YOU KNOW, TO HEAR LIKE WHAT MEMBER DAVIS SAID TO REFER TO THIS AS BEING SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE USED AS A NEGOTIATION TOOL. I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY, IT'S NOT THE INTENT OF IT. THIS IS GOING TO TURN INTO SOMETHING WHERE ACTIVIST GROUPS ARE GOING TO COME TO THE TABLE WHEN ORDINANCES ARE TRYING TO BE PASSED AND TRY TO THREATEN THE COMMISSION OR ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS SAYING IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT THIS THE WAY WE LOOK AT IT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CITIZEN INITIATIVE, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE POINT OF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME, IF

[02:15:02]

THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT IT HEADS IN. >> FROM THIS SEAT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS. I THINK IT NEEDS A WHOLE LOT CONVERSATION. I MEAN, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A COMPROMISE.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT MEMBER LASIER IS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE STRAW VOTE, COMPROMISE APPROACH BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW PRETTY MUCH THE SAME PROCESS TO GET THE INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT. IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY. SO WHAT THAT DOES, THOUGH, IS IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE DESIRE TO BE ABLE TO SUSPEND AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN VOTED ON BY THE COMMISSION. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT, TO BE HONEST.

I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF THAT, BUT IT DOES APPEAR TO ME THAT IT MIGHT ANALYSIS PARALYSIS AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AND GOVERN WITHOUT FEELING LIKE EVERYTHING THAT IS DECIDED ON HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING UNDECIDED THE NEXT DAY.

I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE IN SAYING TODAY THAT I'M EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS.

IF WE NEED MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS, THEN I THINK WE OWE IT TO THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AND OURSELVES TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON IT. AND MAYBE GO OFF AND DO HOMEWORK ON, NOT YOU MARGARET, YOU'VE DONE YOURS. GO OFF AND DO HOMEWORK ON WHAT MAYBE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HAVE THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY PLAY AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THEIR GOVERNMENT, IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEIR HOME. I THINK IF THAT IS THE INTENT, THEN WHO WOULD ARGUE WITH THAT? IF THERE IS SOME WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT CREATING PARALYSIS WILL WORK, LET'S GO RESEARCH THAT, EACH OF US AND COME BACK AND SEE WHAT WE THINK AT THAT POINT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I DO NOT WANT THIS RUSHED CONVERSATION TO BE THE BE ALL,

END ALL ON THIS ITEM. MEMBER DAVIS. >> MAYBE TRY AGAIN WITH THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO GET A SENSE OF HOW FREQUENTLY THE PROVISION IS USED IN THE CITIES AROUND OUR SIZE, OF THE 20 THAT I LOOKED AT. OF THE 16 THAT HAVE IT.

>> I THINK THAT IS FAIR. I THINK SOMEBODY MADE A COMMENT.

MAYBE IT WAS BENJAMIN. WE DO HAVE A VERY ACTIVE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF EXPRESSING OPINIONS AND IN TERMS OF GETTING ENGAGED. THEY DON'T ALL SHOW UP FOR MEETINGS. BUT THEY DO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS HAPPENING.

UNFORTUNATELY, MORE AND MORE OF THEIR INFORMATION IS IN CONTRAST.

THERE IS A REACTION TO WHAT SOMEBODY TOLD THEM WAS DONE AND WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT WAS.

FOR EXAMPLE, DID YOU KNOW THAT OUR MAIN STREET DISTRICT THE REASON WE WANT TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES IS BECAUSE I HAVE GOTTEN AHOLD OF ARABMONEY AND I WANT TO BUILD A CASINO ON THE WATERFRONT. ME PERSONALLY. I MEAN, THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT THEY TAKE ON A LIFE OF THEIR OWN. IF SOMEBODY HAS A PRECONCEIVED NOTION ABOUT SOMETHING TO BEGIN WITH, THEY WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING NEGATIVE THAT THEY HEAR ABOUT IT TO REINFORCE THEIR OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND FIRST AND FOREMOST AS A GROUP, ALL OF US HAVE CONSENSUS ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS. WHAT IS THE END RESULT WE WANT? AND THEN BACK UP.

AND SAY WHAT IS A GOOD WAY TO GET THERE, FROM ALL OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN SO FAR AS WELL AS THE HOMEWORK THAT WE DO. DOES THAT SOUND APPROPRIATE?

HAVE I OVER-STEPPED? >> IF THAT WORKS FOR US, WE CAN GO ON TO WHATEVER IS DEEMED TO

[02:20:08]

BE THE MOST IMPORTANT NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. >> I THINK WE HAVE DISCUSSED

[Item 4.3]

SECTION 10A. THAT IS NEXT. I THINK WHAT WE DO IN THE INTEREST OF TIME IS FIND OUT WHAT THE MEMBERS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WITH THE 70 PERCENT OF VOTERS. MINIMUM 70 PERCENT. DO YOU SEE THAT IN YOUR PACKETS THERE? 70 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED TO APPROVE A SALE OR A LONG-TERM LEASE IN EXCESS OF 40 YEARS OR MORE, IN ORDER TO PASS.

RIGHT NOW IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY. 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE.

>> OKAY. >> LOOK AT US, JOHN. >> THE NEW LANGUAGE IS

CONFUSING? >> CONFUSING. SHOULD THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CHARTER BE AMENDED TO STATE THAT LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH WOULD BE MORE UNDERSTANDABLE, I THINK YOU KNOW, SOMEONE IS GOING TO READ THE FIRST PART OF IT.

MANY PEOPLE WILL NOT READ THE WHOLE THING. STATE LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. HOW CAN THAT BE? AS IN STATE OF FLORIDA LAND.

I THINK YOU NEED TO STATE THAT LAND, TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD STATE.

I THINK THAT IS MORE CONFUSING. MAKE IT VERY VERY CLEAR THAT YOU'RE CHANGING IT FROM 50 TO 70. BECAUSE I THINK FOLKS MIGHT COMPLAIN LATER THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THAT HIGH. THIS IS ONLY GOING TO COME FORWARD ON A DRASTIC EFFORT.

I MEAN, THE CITY IS NEVER GOING TO SELL A PIECE OF THEIR PARK TO PUT UP AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THERE WOULD BE COMPLETE PANDEMONIUM IN THE STREETS IF THEY PROPOSED TO PUT A PARK, I MEAN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN CENTRAL PARK OR MAIN BEACH. I SAW SOMEBODY ON SOCIAL MEDIA, I THINK THE CITY WAS TRIMMING BACK PALM TREES OR SOMETHING. IS THAT ANOTHER HOTEL GOING UP NEXT TO THE PUTT PUTT. NO. OF COURSE NOT. I KNOW THAT PEOPLE, THERE IS DISTRUST OUT THERE. MAYBE IT'S WARRANTED. I DON'T THINK IT IS.

ANYWAY, I THINK 70 PERCENT IS AWFULLY HIGH. IF IT'S EVER GOING TO GET TO THIS, THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S A VERY DIRE SITUATION OR CIRCUMSTANCE, AND IT PREVENTS MAYBE A GOOD POTENTIAL SALE, SAY IF NORTH FLORIDA OR WANTED TO BUY THE GOLF COURSE, PRESERVE IT FOREVER. THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY WENT THROUGH THIS EFFORT. FIVE VOTES OF THE COMMISSION. 70 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET FIVE COMMISSIONERS AND 50 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS.

IF IT DOES GO FORWARD, THEN I DO THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED INTO STATE.

>> MEMBER BEAN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. DOES REQUIRING A VOTE OF 70 PERCENT FOR SOMETHING, DOES THAT ITSELF, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A 70 PERCENT VOTE TO GET IT

CHANGED? >> SO THE WAY THAT COMMISSIONER ROSS IS PROPOSING IT, NUMBER ONE, THE STATE OF THE LAW IS THAT IF IT DOESN'T SAY OTHERWISE, IT'S 50 PERCENT PLUS 1 OF THE VOTERS, IT TAKES TO PASS ANYTHING. THAT IS ON THE BALLOT THAT THE CITY PROPOSES. COMMISSIONER ROSS IS PROPOSING THAT AT THE FIRST LEVEL, THE CITY COMMISSION, WHEN THEY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WITH BALLOT LANGUAGE, THAT IT BE A

[02:25:02]

UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT AND THEN ONCE ON THE BALLOT, IT WOULD REQUIRE 70 PERCENT OF THOSE THAT CAME OUT TO VOTE TO PASS THE REFERENDUM FOR SALE OR LEASE OF THESE LANDS. CONSERVATION LANDS.

>> CONSERVATION AND RECREATION. >> THAT PROVISION, WHICH IS GOING TO REQUIRE A 70 PERCENT VOTE TO OVERTURN, DOES THAT PROVISION ITSELF, IF WE PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER, WILL IT TAKE 70 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE TO PUT IT ON AS OUR NEW RULE? AND THEN FOLLOW UP IS COULD SOMEONE OVERTURN, INSTEAD OF GOING STRAIGHT FOR THE SALE, COULD THEY GO FOR THIS PROVISION AND SAY LET'S OVERTURN THIS FIRST WITH A 50 PERCENT VOTE AND THEN WILL IT TAKE 70 PERCENT TO REMOVE THIS RULE.

BY NATURE IF WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE 70 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE, THE CHANGE OF THIS

RULE SHOULD BE A 70 PERCENT VOTE. >> YOU HAVE IT RIGHT, YOU'RE BELIEVING IT RIGHT. NO, IT ONLY TAKES A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

IF THIS PROVISION IS PUT INTO THE BALLOT QUESTION, IT ONLY TAKES IT THREE OUT OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO HAVE THIS LANGUAGE AS A BALLOT QUESTION.

AND THEN IT WOULD TAKE 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE OF THE VOTERS TO ADD THE PROVISION TO THE

CHARTER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MEMBER DAVIS. >> I THINK MEMBER BEAN. IF IT'S IN THE CHARTER, THAT IS A PRETTY LONG INVOLVED PROCESS TO AMEND THE CHARTER. I DO FEEL THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LAND THAT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT TAKING 70 PERCENT OF THE VOTE. AND IN FACT, I WAS WONDERING DID WE AGREE THAT YOU CAN DO LONG-TERM LEASING OF CONSERVATION LANDS? BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER HAVING A VOTE ON THAT. I PERSONALLY AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY LEASE ON CONSERVATION LAND. I THOUGHT ABOUT THE MONEY THAT I HAD DONATED TO THE CITY'S CONSERVATION FUND AND I WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT THE LAND THAT IS BEING BOUGHT WITH THAT COULD BE LEASED TO SOMEONE TO TRY AND MAKE A PROFIT FROM THAT.

THE THINGS THAT MS. GIBSON MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING, IT SEEMS TO ME YOU DON'T NEED A LONG TERM LEASE, YOU JUST NEED A LICENSE TO USE IT OR A MAINTENANCE OR SERVICES CONTRACT. NOT AN OUTRIGHT LEASE. I DO SEE CONSERVATION LAND IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE RECREATION LAND. BUT AS FAR AS 70 PERCENT, AS MEMBER LASIER SAYS, THIS COMMUNITY FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT NOT SELLING THAT LAND AND PUTTING A HOTEL ON CENTRAL PARK THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT TO GET

THE 70 PERCENT THRESHOLD. THAT WOULD JUST MAKE IT CLEAR. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> I AGREE. I THINK IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THE CITY WOULD EVER WANT TO SELL CONSERVATION OR RECREATION LAND. BUT I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN 20 YEARS FROM NOW OR WHATEVER. SO I HAD THAT LITTLE KIND OF THING THAT KEEPS GNAWING AT ME ABOUT NOT COMPLETELY THINKING I KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE FUTURE IS GOING TO GO. SO I HATE TIEING EVERYBODY'S HANDS COMPLETELY.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY, THINK ABOUT THIS IN THE INVERSE, SO WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO MAKE SURE 70 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE VOTE FOR SOMETHING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS WANT TO VOTE FOR IT. BUT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THAT SCENARIO IS THAT ANYONE VOTE ON THE COMMISSION COULD STOP SOMETHING FROM GOING FORWARD YOU COULD HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS SAYING IT'S IN THE ABSOLUTE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO DO THIS, AND ONE PERSON COULD STOP IT. OR YOU COULD HAVE 30 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS SAYING THIS IS A BAD IDEA AND THEY COULD STOP SOMETHING.

[02:30:01]

SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SUPERMAJORITY LANGUAGE. SO THAT SEEMS MORE IN LINE WITH REALITY.

SO IN THE CASE OF THE COMMISSION, SUPERMAJORITY MIGHT BE FOUR OUT OF FIVE, OR IN THE CASE OF THE REFERENDUM, MIGHT BE 60 PERCENT AS OPPOSED TO 70. BUT IF NOBODY WANTS TO DO THOSE KIND OF CHANGES, I WOULD END UP VOTING FOR THE LANGUAGE THAT WE SEE HERE, BECAUSE I THINK CONSERVATION LAND SHOULDN'T BE SOLD. I DON'T THINK RECREATION LAND SHOULD BE SOLD. THE ONLY THING THAT GNAWS AT ME IS NOT KNOWING FOR SURE WHAT KINDS OF SITUATIONS WOULD PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE CITY IN THE FUTURE.

BACK TO YOUR POINT MARGARET ABOUT LEASING THE LAND, I THINK THE SCENARIO THAT KELLY GIBSON TALKED ABOUT IN PART WAS LIKE THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY, IF THEY WANTED TO LEASE THE PROPERTY FOR TREE CONSERVATION PURPOSES AND IT WAS IN THE CITY'S FINANCIAL INTEREST TO DO IT, THEY WOULD TAKE IT OVER, BUT THEY WANTED TO DO IT THEIR OWN WAY, OR WHATEVER.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE IS A SCENARIO LIKE THAT THAT WOULD COME ABOUT.

I AGREE WITH MARGARET, THAT COULD BE HANDLED THROUGH A LICENSE OR A LEASE THAT IS NOT 40 YEARS, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. SO THERE IS A LITTLE PART OF ME THAT DOESN'T WANT TO COMPLETELY FORECLOSE EVERY POSSIBILITY. MAKE IT TOUGH TO DO BUT I'M NOT SURE I'M SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS ARE THAT WOULD PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE CITY. SO I WOULD VOTE FOR THESE RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE I THINK

IT'S BASICALLY THE RIGHT IDEA. >> MEMBER MORRISON. >> I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SAID, ESPECIALLY IN TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE, THE CITY, THE WAY EVERYBODY'S ATTITUDES ARE, I THINK THE IDEA OF RAISING THESE THRESHOLDS WOULD BE POLITICALLY POPULAR AND WE WOULD HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING APPROVED. I THINK THE 70 PERCENT THRESHOLD, WHILE I PERSONALLY THINK THAT YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY SEE, PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE THE NECESSITY TO CHANGE IT FROM WHAT IT IS NOW. BUT I DO THINK THAT WITH THE CLIMATE THAT WE HAVE THAT IT WOULD BE POPULAR. I DON'T REALLY TAKE EXCEPTION TO IT. BUT I DO AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK I TAKE EXCEPTION TO REQUIRING UNANIMOUS APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION. WHILE BEING SOMEWHAT REALISTIC TO THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY UNLIKELY THAT HARDLY ANYTHING IS CONTROVERSIAL AS CONSERVATION ISSUE WOULD BE UNANIMOUS IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION.

SO THAT IS MY OPINION. >> MEMBER KOSAC. >> I THINK GOING OFF OF WHAT JOHN SAID, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A DIRE SITUATION FOR THIS TO EVEN COME UP, THEN I AM ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PROPOSED, AS FAR AS THE 70 PERCENT AND THE UNANIMOUS VOTE. AND I THINK IT'S NOT JUST POLITICALLY POPULAR, BUT IT'S RESPONSIBLE. AND IF THE THE THING THAT IS GNAWING AT HIM AS TO WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN DOWN THE LINE, POLITICAL CLIMATE, I THINK WE NEED TO STEP UP AND MAKE THIS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. FOR THE FUTURE. SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT LANGUAGE.

SECOND, I THINK YOU RECALL WHEN KELLY WAS THERE, THERE WAS ALSO QUESTION ABOUT THE LEASING AND SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLY DEFINING OUT WHAT THOSE LEASES CAN BE OR AT LEAST REFERENCING THE LDC, WHAT THE USES ARE THERE. SO MAYBE THAT WOULD APPEASE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HAVING A LEASE IN THIS SECTION. SHE WAS SAYING THAT THE DEFINITION FROM THE LDC WERE PASSIVE. AND MAYBE THOSE WERE ENUMERATED OR THAT SECTION OF THE LDC WAS REFERENCED. I THINK THAT IS IT.

>> MEMBER DAVIS. >> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE TREE CONSERVANCY AT THE

[02:35:02]

FEBRUARY -- SORRY FOR MY DOGS BARKING. THE FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING THE TREE CONSERVANCY SAID THAT CONSERVATION LAND SHOULD NOT BE LEASED FOR ANY REASON.

THEY WERE AGAINST THE LEASING PROVISION. WITH RESPECT TO CONSERVATION LAND. I THINK THE CONSERVATION LAND SHOULDN'T BE LEASED.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS MOST OF THE TIME IT WOULD BE FOR PROFIT REASON.

BUT IF YOU WANT THE RIGHT TO LEASE WITHOUT GOING TO THE VOTE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE MUCH SHORTER, I THINK IT SHOULD BE FOR A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD. BECAUSE I THINK YOU NEED TO SEE IF THAT PRIVATE ENTITY THAT IS LEASING THE LAND, ARE THEY USING IT PROPERLY.

I WOULD AT LEAST WANT IT MUCH SHORTER THAN 40 YEARS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE RIGHT TO LEASE

THE LAND WITHOUT REFERENDUM. >> MEMBER BEAN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

UPON HEARING ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS, I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS GOOD AS IS. I LOVE CONSERVATION LAND. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE SELLING IT. I AGREE IT SHOULD BE AS HARD AS POSSIBLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. SO LET'S KEEP IT LIKE IT SAYS, 70 PERCENT.

I'M IN. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT?

>> YES? ALL RIGHT. GOOD.

>> I WILL MASSAGE THE LANGUAGE. I DON'T THINK THAT COMMISSIONER ROSS IS MARRIED TO HOW IT SAID, BUT WHAT IS IT IN IT. I'LL MAKE IT TO WHERE IT SOUNDS BETTER.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO ADDRESS NEXT? WE HAVE ABOUT 12 MINUTES TO SIX RIGHT NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US END AT SIX.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ENDING AT SIX AND CUTTING

OURSELVES SHORT HERE? >> OKAY. SO JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS,

[Item 4.4]

THIS WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, I DON'T THINK THE NEXT SUBJECT ON THERE, SECTIONS 25 AND 29 WOULD SHOW MEMBER CLARK'S SUGGESTED LANGUAGE. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST NOTE IF

THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, IF ANYBODY OBJECTS. >> HAS EVERYBODY LOOKED AT

MEMBER CLARK'S LANGUAGE SUGGESTION? >> AND IF THERE AREN'T ANY OBJECTIONS, THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY CHANGES THAT WILL HAPPEN TO 25, 29, THEY WILL JUST REPLACE THE OTHER LANGUAGE. WE TALKED EARLIER, I THINK MEMBER DAVIS BROUGHT IT UP THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE LEFT OUT IN OUR REWRITING IT. THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED.

BUT THIS WILL REPLACE IF THERE AREN'T ANY OBJECTIONS, I GUESS >> ANY OBJECTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD JOHN. >> OKAY.

I HAD A COMMENT THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE CLEARED UP WHEN WE GET THE REVISED VERSION BACK OUT. THERE WAS A SLIGHT DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER PRO TEM BEING REQUIRED, HE MAY ASSIGN SOMEONE BETWEEN 25 AND 29, ON THE VERY FIRST DRAFT WITHIN THE AGENDA. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

THAT YOU KNOW, THERE IS DUTIES BETWEEN 25 AND 29, THERE WAS A SLIGHT DISCREPANCY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OR NOT. MANAGER PRO TEM.

I THINK WE INTENDED IT TO BE A REQUIREMENT. NOT HE CAN, HE MAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> MEMBER BEAN. OH, YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO.

OKAY. >> I READ IT AND I THINK WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT MEMBER

LASIER MADE, I AGREE IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. >> ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT? >> ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD ON THAT?

>> YES. SO FOR THE LAST PART, IS WELL, SECTION 9, THERE MAY BE SOME COMMENTS BETWEEN 58 AND 67. WE PROBABLY CANNOT FINISH SECTION 9.

BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS, AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT AND THEN BEFORE, WE NEED A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT AND LOCK DOWN THE NEXT MEETING DATES TOO.

AND I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT. BUT WE HAVE SECTION 9 AND THEN SECTIONS 58 THROUGH 67, WHICH I

[Item 5 (Part 1 of 2)]

THINK IS GOING TO BE HOUSEKEEPING. BUT MAYBE WE NEED TO KNOW FROM THE MEMBERS. I MEAN, WE HAVE HAD, WE HAD A LOT OF INPUT FROM MEMBER TAM, I

[02:40:02]

KNOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, REGARDING THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW ELECTIONS CAN BE CONDUCTED. AND I THINK THAT THE FOCUS OF OUR CONVERSATION HERE IS WHETHER WE KEEP OUR GROUPS OR SEATS SINCE WE DON'T HAVE DISTRICTS.

WHETHER WE GO TO SORT OF LIKE I THINK THEY CALL IT A JUNGLE PRIMARY WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET -- WINNER TAKE ALL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE TO WIN A SEAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WAS PROPOSED SOME LANGUAGE WE SAW WAS NOT BY ANY OF THESE MEMBERS OR STAFF, IS THAT IF YOU HAVE THREE SEATS LIKE WE DO COMING UP, THE THREE HOT -- ANYBODY CAN RUN FOR COMMISSION. YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY. THE THREE TOP VOTE GETTERS WOULD GET ELECTED. NO RUNOFFS. JUST THE TOP THREE.

AND IT COULD BE 18 PERCENT. 23 PERCENT. AND DEPENDING ON HOW MANY CANDIDATES RUN. BUT YOU COULD CERTAINLY GET ALL THREE SEATS FILLED WITHOUT HAVING 50 PERCENT OF THE VOTE FOR ANYONE CANDIDATE. AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES. SO JUST SOME THOUGHTS. IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE GOING IN. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO PROBABLY SCHEDULE THE NEXT MEETING TO PREDOMINANTLY TAKE CARE OF THIS, DEPENDING ON WHERE WE ARE.

[Item 7]

>> SO THE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA ARE JUNE 4TH AT 5, FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

SO THAT WILL NOT BE A DISCUSSION. >> I THINK WE SHOULD GET SOME BUSINESS DONE, IF WE'RE COMING TOGETHER. BUT WE CAN ONLY HAVE IT GO FOR

A COUPLE OF HOURS, IF YOU WANT. >> ALL RIGHT. AND HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> REGARDING TONIGHT, KATIE HAS BEEN MONITORING. PUBLIC HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN PERSON. ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS HERE IN PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE AND WILL GET TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE HAS BEEN A ZOOM PHONE CALL THAT PEOPLE CAN MAKE THAT KATIE HAS AND NOBODY HAS CALLED IN TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS, E-MAILS ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED. WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY E-MAILS FROM THE PUBLIC.

JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT NOT WITH REGARD TO OUR FIVE O'CLOCK JUNE 4TH MEETING.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD MUCH PUBLIC INPUT TONIGHT. >> JUNE 4TH AT 5.

AND JUNE 8TH AT 3. DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? MEMBER LASIER, YOU AND MR. BEAN. MR. DAVIS. DO YOU ALL WANT TO SPEAK?

GOODNESS, YOU DO. >> NOT REGARDING THE MEETING DATE.

THOSE DATES ALL WORK FINE FOR ME. AT LEAST AS FAR AS I KNOW.

I WAS GOING TO SPEAK REGARDING SECTION NINE. >> I CAN HOLD IT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS HOUSEKEEPING PART OR IF WE WANT TO HOLD OFF UNTIL THE PUBLIC HAS FINISHED THEIRS.

>> LET'S DO THAT. MEMBER BEAN. >> I'M ALSO SECTION NINE.

>> I CAN WAIT >> FOR UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> THE DATES ARE FINE WITH ME. AND I ALSO WANTED TO SPEAK ON SECTION 9.

>> OKAY. MEMBER KOSAC. >> IF WE ARE MEETING ON JUNE 4TH FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, IF WE COULD DO SOME BUSINESS, MAYBE WE COULD CONVENE EARLIER BEFORE THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE.

>> IT'S AVAILABLE. >> OKAY. >> THEY'LL SEND THAT OUT FOR US EARLIER. ALL RIGHT. MEMBER CLARK.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF THE DATE. I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ABOUT THAT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO ALSO SAY IF I READ THE MATERIAL CO CORRECTLY, IT SAYS FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON JUNE 8TH. I HAPPEN TO LIKE THAT GOAL. I AM IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO POWER THROUGH AND GET THIS TO FINAL RECOMMENDATION AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.

IF IT MEANS MORE MEETINGS IN A SHORT TIME FRAME, I WOULD RATHER DO THAT THAN LET IT DRAG

OUT. >> ANYBODY HAVE A REACTION TO THAT?

>> >> I TOTALLY AGREE. >> MEMBER BEAN.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT TOO. IF WE COULD PUT A SECOND MEETING NEXT WEEK.

SECOND COMMISSION MEETING. WE PROBABLY CAN'T DO THAT. >> CANNOT DO THE 2ND.

[02:45:02]

>> HOW ABOUT WE ASK TAMMY AND KATIE TO SEND US ANOTHER DATE THAT IS A POSSIBILITY OR A

COUPLE OF DATES THAT ARE POSSIBILITIES. >> YEAH.

AT LEAST FOR DISCUSSION. WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO AND WHAT MAY BE MODIFIED IF WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING DATE IN THERE IS HOW MUCH INFORMATION YOU ALL GET BETWEEN MEETINGS.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT YOU RECOMMEND. THE BULK OF THE WORK IS GOING TO BE WITH THE THINGS NOT INCLUDED THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AND MOVING FORWARD, I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT MANY LANGUAGE CHANGES FROM WHAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY.

>> WE HAVE THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE, REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND POSSIBLY SECTION NINE. THOSE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK TO SECTION NINE, MEMBER DAVIS.

[Items 5 (Part 2 of 2) & 8]

>> YES. I THINK THAT THE WAY SECTION NINE IS WRITTEN IS PROBABLY THE MOST CONFUSING PART OF OUR WHOLE CHARTER. I HAD TO READ IT MANY TIMES TO FIGURE OUT, ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT GROUPS. AND YEAH, IT'S THE WHOLE CITY.

I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS VERY DIFFICULT. I LOOKED AT THE PEERS AND TWO OF THEM DO EXACTLY WHAT MS. BACH WAS MENTIONING, HIGHEST VOTE GETTERS FOR THE NUMBER OF SEATS UP ARE ELECTED. I NOTICED THAT ALL OF THE PEERS USED PLURALITY AND NONE OF THEM USE A MAJORITY AND A RUNOFF PROCESS LIKE WE DO. THEY ALL USE PLURALITY.

I THINK AT A MINIMUM, WE MIGHT WANT TO GO TO PLURALITY. BUT I DO THINK IT'S VERY EFFICIENT TO DO AWAY WITH THE IDEA OF YOU KNOW, THREE DIFFERENT SEATS, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE CITY WIDE. IT DOESN'T SEEM, I DON'T SEE THE LOGIC IN THAT.

>> OKAY. MEMBER BEAN. >> 30 SECONDS OR LESS, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SECTION TO ME. I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT HERE.

I'M ALL ABOUT EFFICIENCY. AT A MINIMUM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS MOVING OUR GENERAL, LIKE SIMILAR TO THE COUNTY, OUR GENERAL IN AUGUST, WE HAVE AN ELECTION, IF THERE IS A RUNOFF, A NEED FOR ONE, HAVE IT DURING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. I WOULD SAY THAT IS PROBABLY A BETTER WAY. I HAVE THE SAME NUMBER THAT MEMBER DAVIS LOOKED UP EARLIER, $25,000 FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION THAT WE HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL. SO IF WE WANT TO AVOID THAT, WE COULD HAVE OUR ELECTIONS AND THE POSSIBLE RUNOFF ELECTION DURING PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED ELECTIONS. I WOULD SAY LET'S PUT OUR FIRST ELECTION IN AUGUST AND IF THERE IS A NEED FOR RUNOFF ELECTION PUT IT IN NOVEMBER. BUT I AM OPEN TO OTHER THINGS.

>> SO YOU WOULD KEEP THE SEATS? >> RIGHT. I WOULD SAY, I MEAN, THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE TO FIX THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE, RUNOFF INCURS BOTH LOW TURNOUT AND A $25,000 CHARGE. THE EASIEST WAY TO FIX THAT PROBLEM THAT I SEE IS TO MOVE THE ELECTIONS FORWARD IN TIME. AUGUST AND NOVEMBER. WHEN THERE ARE BOTH TURNOUT AND AN ELECTION ALREADY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM SOME OTHER WAY, I WOULD BE OPEN TO HEAR IT. I'VE HEARD ONE GOOD SOLUTION FROM MEMBER DAVIS.

BUT IF WE DO NOTHING ELSE, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. BECAUSE IT WOULD SAVE MONEY AND

EVERYONE'S TIME. >> RIGHT. MEMBER LASIER.

>> I'M KIND OF LIKE MEMBER BEAN, I WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO GET ADOPTED.

IF IT'S THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, THAT IS FINE. WHAT I WOULD RATHER SEE IS DOING AWAY WITH THE GROUPS AND DOING THE JUNGLE ELECTION. WHATEVER IT WAS CALLED.

TOP THREE. THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. BUT IF WE ALL THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO MAKE ON THIS ROUND, I WOULD GO ALONG WITH SOMETHING. BUT I DO BELIEVE WHAT WE HAVE

IS NOT THE BEST. >> MEMBER KOSAC. >> THE LAST CHARTER COMMISSION DID ACTUALLY CHANGE IT TO CONCURRENT ELECTIONS TO INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT.

SO I THINK TO ANSWER BRADLEY'S POINT THE JUNGLE ELECTION WOULD BE THE WAY TO ELIMINATE THAT.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE LAST CHARTER COMMISSION ALSO PUT THAT FORTH AND IT DID NOT GAIN

[02:50:03]

TRACTION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. SO I GUESS WE HAVE TO THINK

THROUGH WHAT IS REALLY GOING TO GAIN SOME TRACTION. >> OKAY.

MEMBER CLARK. >> I AGREE WITH WHERE MR. BEAN WANTS TO GO, FOR THE REASONS HE ARTICULATED. JUST A QUESTION FOR BRADLEY, THOUGH.

ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT AN ELECTION IN AUGUST WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GONE?

DOES THAT PRESENT A PROBLEM? >> CERTAINLY THE ELECTION, AUGUST ELECTION IS NOT AS HIGH OF A TURNOUT AS THE GENERAL ELECTION. BUT THE ELECTION IN AUGUST IS CERTAINLY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER TURNOUT THAN OUR RUNOFF ELECTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR US TO PUT OUR EYES ON SOME LANGUAGE, I'M HEARING, I THINK WHAT I'LL DO IS DRAFT UP SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR SECTION NINE, JUST TO LOOK AT. EVERYBODY RUNS AT LARGE, AND ELIMINATE THE RUNOFFS. THAT WHAT WILL BE AT YOUR NEXT MEETING ON JUNE 4TH.

TALK TO CITY COMMISSIONERS TOO. THERE IS NOTHING THAT PREVENTS YOU INDIVIDUALLY FROM TALKING TO CITY COMMISSIONERS TO SEE WHERE THEY MIGHT LAND, SO YOU'RE NOT SPINNING YOUR WHEELS FOR NO REASON, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE WHAT YOU PROPOSE.

SO I'LL HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU TO LOOK AT. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? NO. YOU'RE ALL SET. ANYBODY ELSE WITH ANYTHING, BEFORE WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.