Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

>> WE'RE READY WHEN YOU ARE. >> CALL TO ORDER.

[Call to Order]

CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE IN THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL,

MS. MOOTEN, PLEASE? >> MEMBER KOSACK.

>> HERE. >> MEMBER, LASSERRE?

>> HERE. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> HERE. >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> HERE. >> BEAN.

HE SENT AN E-MAIL SAYING HE COULDN'T MAKE IT.

VICE CHAIR CLARK. >> HERE.

[Item 4]

>> ALL RIGHT I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF TYPOS IN THE MINUTES. CAN WE TALK ABOUT THOSE FIRST, PLEASE? MEMBER DAVIS?

>> YES . THEY'RE VERY SMALL.

UNDER SECTION 7 .1, DISCUSSION ON SECTION 10A, IT SAID HE AGREES TO SHOULD BE REMOVED AND IT SHOULD BE HE AGREES IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. JUST CHANGING THE WORD TO TO IT.

AND THEN UNDER TWO SMALL CHANGES UNDER 7 .4, CITIZEN INITIATIVE, SECOND PARAGRAPH. IT SAYS MEMBER MORRISON THANKED MEMBER DAVIS FOR HER WORKED, PAST TENSE.

THE ED SHOULD BE REMOVED. AND ON THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH IT SAYS ABOUT MEMBER LASSERRE, HE BUT SUPPORT, IT SHOULD BE BIT.

BIT INSTEAD OF BUT. >> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO MAKE TO THE MINUTES OR DISCUSSION?

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? >> SECOND.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU, MARGARET.

OKAY. GOING ON TO OLD BUSINESS.

[Item 5]

NOW, KATIE HAS SENT ALL OF US THE SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE. SO WHO WANTS TO START?

MEMBER DAVIS? >> DO WE WANT TO GO SECTION BY SECTION OR PAGE BY -- OR JUST GENERAL COMMENTS AND WE CAN LOOK

AT THE SPECIFIC SECTION SOME. >> I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO SECTION BY SECTION AND GO THROUGH IT THAT WAY.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THAT? I SHOULD HAVE ASKED BEFORE I OPENED MY MOUTH.

ARE Y'ALL OKAY -- >> I THINK IT'S GOOD.

IT WORKS FOR ME. >> ALL RIGHT.

SECTION ONE, CREATION. ANY ISSUES? SECTION 2-5 WE PROPOSED 93 NO CHANGESES.

CHANGES. SECTION 6 WE PROPOSE NO CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARY LANGUAGE. ANY ISSUES WITH ANYTHING THERE? ALL RIGHT. POWERS OF ATTORNEY.

SECTION 7. >> ACTUALLY, MADAM CHAIR, I HAD

A QUESTION ABOUT SECTION 6. >> SORRY.

>> I THOUGHT I RAISED MIDE HAND. >> MY HAND.

>> YOU PROBABLY DID. >> I'M LOOKING AT THE SECTION 6, THE SIDE BY SIDE. AND THE CURRENT LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2 OF 3 INCLUDES THE VERY LENGTHY MEMETES AND BOUNDS, AND THEN IT SAYS PROPOSED LANGUAGE NO CHANGE.

I THOUGHT OUR CONVERSATION WAS NOT THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO INCLUDE METES AND BOUNDS BUT SIMPLY MAKE REFERENCE TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE HAVING A MAP AND BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION.

MAYBE I'M NOT REMEMBERING IT ACCURATELY, BUT THAT'S WHAT I

RECALL. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE A DIFFERENT RECOLLECTION? MEMBER DAVIS?

[00:05:06]

>> MR. CLARK, HE'S CORRECT, HOWEVER -- AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DONE IN CLAUSE B FOR ADDITIONS.

BUT I THINK WHAT'S BEING DONE IN CLAUSE A, WE'RE JUST RETAINING THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY. JUST FOR ANYTHING THAT'S ADDED ON, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE FOR HISTORICAL.

SO THAT'S WHY CLAUSE B SAYS, YOU KNOW, TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN ADDED FROM THE VERY ORIGINS OF THE CITY.

THAT'S WHERE IT'S ALL ON THE -- GOES THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

>> YEAH. BUT THE -- IT'S JUST THAT AS SOON AS YOU ANNEX PROPERTY, THE METES AND BOUNDS IS WRONG.

AND OVER TEN YEARS BEFORE THE CHARTER IS RENEWED AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE -- THIS IS NOT A BIG ISSUE FOR ME, BUT I JUST THINK

IT'S -- >> I THINK THAT WHAT'S IN CLAUSE A, THOSE METES AND BOUNDS ARE WHEN THE CITY WAS FIRST DONE BACK IN WHATEVER THE HISTORICAL SAID, 1825 OR 1921.

IT'S THOSE BOUNDARIES. IT'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT THE DESCRIPTION IN CLAUSE A IS NOT THE CURRENT METES AND BOUNDS.

THAT'S ALL CAPTURED THROUGH CLAUSE B ABOUT WHAT IS ON THE MAP. AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN

CLARIFY. >> THAT'S Y UNDERSTANDING, ALSO. BUT WE CAN PROPOSE WHATEVER YOU

THINK IS APPROPRIATE. >> WOULD IT BE BETTER TO SAY IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES, THAT THESE ARE THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES.

AND THEN IN THE SECOND CLAUSE TALK ABOUT FOR THE MOST RECENT DESCRIPTION, SEE THE CITY CLERK? OR FOR THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION,

SEE THE CITY CLERK. >> THAT WOULD HELP ME A LITTLE BIT. JUST SO IT'S VERY CLEAR TO THE CASUAL READER THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HIRE A LAND SURVEYOR TO MAP OUT THE METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION.

IT'S USELESS LANGUAGE UNLESS YOU'RE A PROPERTY ATTORNEY AND GOING TO SIT DOWN AND DO THAT. AT LEAST THAT CHANGE WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS IN HERE SIMPLY AS A MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD AND THAT CURRENTLY THE PRACTICE IS DIFFERENT.

IF THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO, THAT'S OKAY WITH ME.

>> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH DOING THAT? SO WE'RE OKAY WITH ASKING MS. BACH TO MAKE THAT CHANGE?

>> YEAH. >> I'M MAKING A REFERENCE TO IT.

OKAY. CAN WE JUST HAVE LITTLE VOTES ON THIS SO WE MAKE OUR RECORD CLEAR?

>> OKAY. TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TO INDICATE THAT THOSE BOUNDARIES DESCRIBE THE

ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY. >> SO MOVED.

>> AND THEN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OR CLAUSE TO SAY FOR THE MOST CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES, SEE THE CITY CLERK.

DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THAT? >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITIONS? ALL RIGHT.

SO GOOD ON YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NOW, SECTION 8 HAS NO PROPOSED CHANGES.

MEMBER DAVIS? >> MY COMMENT IS ACTUALLY TO SECTION 7, WHICH YOU SKIPPED OVER.

YOU WENT FROM 6 TO 8. ANYWAY, IT'S A MINOR, JUST A STYLE THING. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS, IN CLAUSE 6 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER CLAUSES, THE BEGINNING OF IT, THE LANGUAGE, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, HAS THE POWER SHOULD BE DELETED.

IT STARTS OUT READING TO OWN AND OPERATE ALL UTILITIES.

BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER CLAUSES ARE STARTING OUT TO DO THIS, TO DO THAT. IT'S JUST A STYLE.

NOT SOMETHING TO CHANGE. >> ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? PLEASE RAISE YOUR THUMB IF YOU'RE OKAY.

>> I HAD ONE ADDITIONAL STYLISTIC THING.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT AS REDUNDANT BECAUSE UNDER SMALL A IT SAYS HAS THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO, AND THEN ONE IS ACQUIRE, BUT THEN WE REPEAT TO, TO, TO, TO.

THAT SHOULD BE ONE OR THE OTHER. >> ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ALL THUMBS ON THAT? >> I WOULD ADD THAT I THINK THAT PARAGRAPH A1 SHOULD SAY TO ACQUIRE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO STRIKE AUTHORITY TO, THE FIRST IS A AND ADD TOO TO ACQUIRE. TO ACQUIRE.

[00:10:02]

IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD TO, THEN TAKE OUT THE OTHER.

>> OKAY. ALL THUMBS? OKAY. SO SUFFICIENT FOR A VOTE?

>> YES, PLEASE. ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MAKE,

WE NEED TO VOTE ON, PLEASE. >> OKAY.

SECTION 8. COMMISSION MANAGER PLAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. WE MADE NO CHANGES.

ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT.

ALL THUMBS UP. >> CAN I JUST --

>> MEMBER CLARK? >> JUST AS A MATTER OF FORMAT, I'M LOOKING AT THE SIDE BY SIDE, AND WE HAVE CURRENT LANGUAGE AND PROPOSED LANGUAGE. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR TODAY MAYBE MY COMPUTER JUST ISN'T PICKING UP.

BUT IT DOESN'T RES READILY SAY E THE CHANGES ARE IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. YOU HAVE TO WADE THROUGH IT TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE CHANGES ARE.

WHEN THIS IS PUT IN FINAL FORM FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO REVIEW IT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL THAT WHENEVER THERE IS PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WE IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE CHANGES ARE.

SO IT'S EASIER TO SEE WHERE THE COMAICHANGE IS MADE.

JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE. IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT.

>> VICE CHAIR, CLARK, YOU RECEIVED AN E-MAIL ON FRIDAY.

YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN E-MAIL ON FRIDAY WITH THE MARKED UP. AND THEN THE ONE I -- I DID.

>> THE ONE I SENT TODAY IS THE SAME, BUT IS CLEAN.

>> I SAW THAT. SO I KNOW IT'S THERE.

BUT IF THIS IS BEING PRODUCEDDED PRODUCEDFOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION,T BE HELPFUL TO SHOW THE PUBLIC WHERE THE CHANGE IS.

THAT'S ALL. >> OKAY.

>> AND THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO SEE THESE CHANGES IN ORDINANCE FORMAT, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY -- THAT GOES WITH THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE READS, WHICH WE WILL SEND OUT.

IT WILL BE UPLOADED EITHER TODAY OR MOST LIKELY TOMORROW TO GO OUT WITH THE COMMISSIONER AGENDA FOR THE 16TH.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE VERY LENGTHY ORDINANCE WITH A VERY LENGTHY TITLE THAT SETS OUT ALL OF THE LANGUAGE FOR THE SECTIONS. ALL OF THE SUBSECTION, STRIKETHROUGH AND UNDERLINE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE CLEAN. THE REASON KATIE PREPARED THIS FOR YOU IS SOMETIMES FOLKS HAVE A HARD TIME READING VERY, VERY, VERY -- OR A LOT OF RED LINES OR STRIKETHROUGHS AND UNDERLINES.

THEY FIND IT VERY CHUNKY AND CHOPPY TO READ IT THAT WAY.

SO SHE PREPARED BOTH OF THEM FOR YOU, WHICHEVER ONE YOU PREFER OR BOTH TO REFER TO DURING THE MEETING, THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING. THE PUBLIC IS ONLY GOING TO BE THE STRIKE THROUGHS AND UNDERLINES AND THE LANGUAGE.

TTHE SECOND PART OF THE ORDINANE IS GOING TO HAVE THE BALLOT

QUESTION. >> OKAY, THAT'S GOOD.

>> OKAY. SO WE SOMETIMES -- BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT -- WE SOMETIMES GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THE WORDING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL NOD OUR HEADS UP AND DOWN IN AGREEMENT ON WHAT THIS BASICALLY SAYS. WHAT THIS BASICALLY SAYS IS THAT WE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF CONTINUING WITH THE COMMISSIONER MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AND WE'RE ALL IN THAT PLACE? OKAY. ARE WE ON TO SECTION 9 NOW? SECTION 9. ELECTION BY SEATS.

PROPOSED LANGUAGE, ANY CHANGES? ANY CONCERNS?

MEMBER LASSERRE? >> PROBABLY NOT INTENDING TO MAKE REAL SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OUR INTENT OR NOT.

HAVING HAD SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE ALL COLLECTIVELY AGREED THAT HAVING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTERS PRESENT FOR THE ELECTION IS PREFERRABLE, THAT BEING THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, IS THE BEST TIME TO DO THAT. WHEN MOST VOTERS ARE THERE WHEN EVERYBODY PLANS ON BEING THERE. SHOULDN'T WE JUST CONSIDER MAKING A CHANGE TO WHERE THE HIGHEST VOTE GETTER WINS THE ELECTION, NOT NECESSARILY A MAJORITY OR 50 PLUS 1? IF IT COULD BE THE HIGHEST VOTE GETTER, WE DON'T HAVE WORRY ABOUT RUN OFFS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE EXPENSE -- THE ELECTORATE HAS SPOKEN AND THE ONE PERSON GOT THE MOST

[00:15:04]

VOTES. AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT KILLS TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE AND MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

>> MEMBER KOSACK? >> I HAD IT RAISED FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND I WAS PONDERING WHAT JOHN JUST SAID.

I'M NOT SURE IF WE SHOULD CHANGE OUR MAJORITY AT THIS POINT IF WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THIS MORE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT IT WAS. SO I WOULD HAVE TO BE CONVINCED OF THAT. BUT MY REASON FOR HAVING THE HAND UP WAS WHEN MEMBER CLARK HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT CAN ANYBODY RUN, CAN YOU INSERT YOURSELF INTO ANY SEAT AND CAN YOU MOVE SEATS, DO WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT ALLITERATES THAT AND PEOPLE KNOW YOU CAN RUN IN ANY SEAT, AND ALSO WHAT THE DDEADLINE IS FOR CHANGING SEATS. IT IS STILL A LITTLE BIT

AMBIGUOUS. >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> MY COMMENT WAS TO MEMBER LASSERRE'S SUGGESTION, ABOUT GOING BACK TO A PLURALITY AS I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. AND THAT -- ESPECIALLY I BELIEVE A SEVERAL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ALSO ARE CONCERNED THAT ONCE YOU GO TO PLURALITY, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE RUNNING IN ONE SEAT, LIKE IF YOU HAVE THREE PEOPLE IN ONE SEAT, THE PERSON THAT GETS THE HIGHEST VOTE MAYBE ONLY HAS 35% OF THE VOTE. AND SO THE MINORITY PARTIES FEEL LIKE THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISENFRANCHISED IF YOU GO WITH H THE PLURALITY. JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. I THOUGHT WE DISCUS DISCUSSED THAT AND HAD REACHED THE DECISION WE WERE GOING TO KEEP IT WITH THE MAJORITY. I WAS AGAINST CHANGING TO

PLURALITY. >> MEMBER LASSERRE.

>> I THINK WE JUMPED OVER IT AT THE LAST MEETING.

WE TALKED ABOUT MOVING THE GENERAL TO THE AUGUST ELECTION.

AND THAT WAS A MAJORITY. THAT'S WHAT WE ACTUALLY TOOK A VOTE ON. I DON'T THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH. AND I JUST -- YOU KNOW, I THINK IF THE MAJORITY -- I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS IS PATENTLY UNFAIR.

YOU HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION AFTER THE ELECTION, AND THEN NO OTHER JURISDICTION AROUND HERE DOES THAT.

THE COUNTY DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT THE STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO ANY PERSON THAT'S RUNNING.

I'M CERTAINLY NOT CONVINCED IT'S THE CASE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING WHENEVER MOST OF THEM SPEAK. AND SO IF THAT PERSON HAS THE MAJORITY OF THE IDEALS THAT THE ELECTORATE ARE SEEKING, THEN THEY DO IT. OTHERWISE YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER ELECTION WHERE YOU HAVE A THIRD, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT I REMEMBER IT BEING, OF THE ELECTORATE SHOWING UP.

I FIND THAT WORSE THAN WHATEVER OTHER ISSUES THERE MAY BE WITH

HAVING IT BY PLURALITY. >> JOHN, COULD YOU JUST -- I'M JUST GOING TO DO THIS MARGARET, AND THEN YOU'RE NEXT.

CAN YOU JUST TALK THROUGH WHAT IT IS YOU'RE PROPOSING, THE WHOLE THING. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING IT AS GROUPS. WE CHANGE --

>> JUST LIKE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ELECTION NOW, WE HAVE THREE CANDIDATES AND ONE SEAT. IT'S JUST LIKE MARGARET SUGGESTED -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD A 40%, 40%, 30%, THE PERSON WITH 40% WOULD WIN.

THERE WOULD BE NO RUN OFF TO GET A MAJORITY OR A 51%.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE AND I'D MAKE A MOTION TO THAT

EFFECT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE

A SECOND? >> IT DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

MARGARET? >> WELL, I WAS GOING TO TALK ON THAT, ON THAT POINT. SO IF THE MOTION IS TABLED, I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT. I WOULD NOTE SEVERAL TIMES, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT MAJORITY, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS

PLURALITY. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> I THINK THE CITIZENS HERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S DONE AT THE COUNTY OR STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, I THINK IT DOES IN A SMALL COMMUNITY, I THINK IT DOES GET

[00:20:05]

THE PEOPLE BETTER CHOICES THAT THEY COULD CHOOSE ONE BASED ON THE MAJORITY AND NOT JUST APLERA PLURALITY.

>> I MEANT PLURALITY. >> MEMBER CLARK?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT OUR LAST MEETING WITH REGARD TO VOTING WAS THE NOTION THAT MAKING CHANGES IN HOW PEOPLE ARE ELECTED TO THE COMMISSION IS TOUGH.

WE HAD THIS IDEA THAT, WELL, MAYBE RATHER THAN MAKE RADICAL CHANGE, WE INCH ALONG A LITTLE BIT.

AND I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT THAT.

I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR BEING VERY CAREFUL ABOUT CHANGING THESE PROVISIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S A POINT SORT OF IN FAVOR OF MEMBER DAVIS' VIEW ON THIS, NOT TO MAKE THE CHANGE THAT MR. LASSERRE IS PROPOSING.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, I UNDERSTAND THE VIRTUE AND SIMPLICITY OF A PLURALITY APPROACH TO IT.

BUT I THINK WE'RE BETTER SERVED IF WE MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WITH MAJORITY SUPPORT ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY ELECTED.

I RECOGNIZE THAT MAY TAKE A LITTLE ADDITIONAL TIME.

BUT I THINK IT'S MY VIEW IN THE LONG TERM THAT'S A BETTER

APPROACH. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?

>> OKAY. I AM TORN BETWEEN BOTH.

BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE RUN OFF SITUATION HERE IS ABYSMAL IN TERMS OF THE VOTER TURNOUT.

I AGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH ANY WAY TO CAUSE THAT TO BE BETTER.

YOU KNOW, AND NOT HAVE OTHER DOWNSIDE IMPLICATIONS THAT ARE KIND OF WORSE. THE INTERESTING THING TO ME -- AND IT CERTAINLY HAPPENED WHEN I WAS ELECTED.

I DID NOT WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

THERE WERE FOUR PEOPLE IN THE RACE.

I CAME OUT SECOND. BUT I DID WIN THE RUN OFF ELECTION. I WALKED AROUND WITH A LAND SLIDE VOTE OF 500 PEOPLE WHO WERE THE ONES THAT ENDED UP PUTTING ME IN OFFICE. THAT'S AN ABYSMAL RECORD, REALLY. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU FIX IT BY SAYING THERE IS NO RUN OFF AND YOU TAKE THE TOP VOTE GETTER AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE.

DO MORE PEOPLE SHOW UP THEN? I DON'T KNOW.

I DO THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE HERE AND TO LET IT KEEP GOING FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS THE WAY IT IS IS OF GREAT CONCERN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. DO ANY OF YOU SEE IT AS A PROBLEM, OR IS IT JUST ME AND JOHN? IF IT'S JUST ME AND JOHN, THEN WE'LL GO ON.

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER, JOHN.

>> I'VE SEEN IT FOR THE LAST EVER -- 27 YEARS I'VE BEEN VOTING. IT'S UNFORTUNATE IT HAPPENS EVERY ELECTION YOU END UP WITH A RUN OFF.

IT'S ABYSMAL. IF WE DON'T HAVE A WILL TO CHANGE IT NOW, MAYBE IT WILL COME AROUND IN SEVEN TO TEN YEARS AFTER THREE MORE ELECTIONS LIKE THIS.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, I CAN SEE SOME VALIDITY TO THE POINT THAT MEMBER LASSERRE IS MAKING AND YOUR CONCERNS.

IF ANYBODY COULD SEE THERE'S A POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE RUN OFF SYSTEM WORKS, I WOULD SAY I SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE RUN OFF SYSTEM WORKS.

I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU GUYS THAT I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE BETTER. I AM NOT SURE I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF DOWN SIDE TO WHAT MEMBER LASSERRE IS PROPOSING.

I GUESS THE ONLY THING I AM A LITTLE BIT HESITANT ON, IS IT'S A PRETTY BIG CHANGE. WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON IT BEFORE WE WERE TO MAKE A DECISION, I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE THERE BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. EVENTUALLY THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT ANYWAY, I GUESS. I'M NOT SURE.

I THINK IT'S WORTH THE DISCUSSION.

>> REMEMBER, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE IS WHETHER TO PUT THAT

[00:25:04]

KIND OF A CHANGE ON THE BALLOT OR NOT.

WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT CHANGE WITH OUR VOTE.

>> YEAH, AND COULD I ADD, I THINK WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE COMMISSION AND THEY'LL HAVE FURTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE MATTER AND THEY'LL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT GOES FORWARD.

THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. I THINK THIS IS -- IF WE DON'T START IT, THEN IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.

ALL WE GET ARE THE COMMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN.

THE GENERAL PUBLIC HASN'T HAD A OPPORTUNITY SPEAK ABOUT THIS.

TO BE HONEST, THEY'RE NOT SITTING AROUND THREE AND A HALF, FOUR HOUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES.

>> BURST MY BUBBLE. >> I DO THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'RE JUST THE FIRST STEP.

>> MEMBER DAVIS? YOU'RE MUTED MARGARET.

>> SORRY. THOUGHT I HAD CLICKED THAT.

MAYBE I DIDN'T PRESS HARD ENOUGH.

I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR EXPERIENCE IS EXACTLY WHY I'M OPPOSED TO GOING TO THE THE PLURALITY IN TS SITUATION. UNTIL FLORIDA APPROVED RANK BASED SOFTWARE FOR SARASOTA AND IT CAN GO INTO EFFECT.

THAT'S WHAT RANK BASED VOTING IS DESIGNED TO DO, TO ALLOW PEOPLE -- IF THEIR SECOND CHOICE IS NOT THE PERSON WHO WON 40% OF THE VOTE BECAUSE THEY WERE DOWN IN THE 30S, BUT IT'S SOMEONE ELSE, LIKE APPARENTLY SEVERAL PEOPLE CHOSE YOU AND SO WHEN THERE WAS A RUN OFF YOU WON, UNTIL WE HAVE RANK CHOICE VOTING I THINK THE MAJORITY WITH A RUN OFF IS NECESSARY IS THE MOST FAIR THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.

AND ALSO, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SECOND CYCLE SINCE VOTING WENT TO THE NOVEMBER GENERAL DATE.

MAYBE, YOU KNOW, A RUN OFF, IF WE HAVE A RUN OFF THIS TIME OR THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, I THINK IT GOES TO WHAT MEMBER LASSERRE SAID BEFORE, MAYBE WE NEED TO GIVE TIME FOR THIS TO GET DONE AFTER THE 2007 CHARTER WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH.

>> MEMBER KOSACK? >> I AM HESITANT TO MAKE THIS CHANGE LIKE MEMBER MORRISON SAID, BECAUSE WE HAD DID HAVE QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC INPUT. I DON'T HAVE THOSE E-MAILS IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS SECTION WAS ALREADY -- MY PHONE IS GOING OFF, I'M SORRY -- FINISHED.

BUT I'M CONCERNED WITH MAKING THIS BIG OF A CHANGE THIS LATE IN THE GAME WHEN LAST WEEK WE DID HAVE QUITE A BIT OF INPUT.

IF I RECALL,I,I, THE RATIONALE S WHEN THERE IS THREE CANDIDATES, THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IN WANT TO SEE DEBATE BETWEEN THEM AT THE RUN OFFS AND IT WAS A HEALTHIER DEBATE CYCLE AND IT SHOWS MORE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES. YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE LOW TURNOUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME FOR US TO

PROPOSE THIS CHANGE. >> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YEAH. I AGREE.

NOT TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID BEFORE, BUT I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS NOW JUST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED A LOT IN THE COMMUNITY.

AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS OCCURRING WITH THE COMMISSION AT THE JOINT MEETING OR IN SOME OTHER FORUM. MAYBE THE COMMISSION WOULD FEEL ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY AND THERE WOULD BE A MORE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND IT WOULD LEND CREDIBILITY TO MAKING A CHANGE. I CAN'T SUPPORT IT TODAY, BUT I THINK MR. LASSERRE MADE THIS POINT, THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY AT THAT TIME TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER.

I WANTED TO MAKE THAT OBSERVATION.

>> MEMBER LASSERRE? >> I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.

THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS WE GOT WERE REGARDING SPLITTING UP OF GROUPS AND GOING CITYWIDE -- AT LEAST MY RECOLLECTION.

MORE OF A PROCEDURAL QUESTION, CAN THE CITY COMMISSION TAKE UP A MATTER OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE RECOMMEND? IF WE DON'T VOTE ON THIS AND THEN THEY DECIDE IT'S IMPORTANT AND THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, CAN THEY DO IT?

[00:30:03]

I ASSUME THEY CAN'T. >> OH, SURE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THAT'S WORTH KNOWING.

THANK YOU. >> AND MY QUESTION IS CAN WE PUT A CONDITIONAL KIND OF A THING OUT THAT SAYS WE'RE REQUESTING THAT IF AND WHEN RANKED VOTING IS APPROVED IN FLORIDA, THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD GATHER TOGETHER AN INTERIM REVIEW TO COME UP WITH AN INITIATIVE TO% PUT ON THE BALLOT.

>> YES. >> WHY TO DON'T WE HAVE THAT OFFICIALLY DOCUMENTED IN WHAT WE PRESENT ON THEM? IF YOU WOULD VOTE ON THAT, THAT RANKED VOTING.

IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WANT AS A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION ON ITS OWN, THEN YOU WOULD ALL -- YOU ALL THINK THAT RANK CHOICE VOTING IS REALLY THE BEST METHOD?

>> THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT. >> YES.

>> DOES THAT WORK FOR ALL OF YOU IF WE HAVE THAT AS SORT OF A CONDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONDITION? THAT IF RANKED VOTING IS APPROVED FOR THE STATE THAT WE WOULD SUGGEST AN EMERGENCY, IF YOU WILL, OR AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW BE DONE TO SEE ABOUT PUTTING AN INITIATIVE ON THE NEXT BALLOT? DO I HAVE THUMBS UP?

>> OKAY. TAMMY?

>> JOHN'S WAS KIND OF IFFY. >> I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WE JUST DID. WE'RE NOT ENDORSING RANKED CHOICE VOTING. I THINK WE JUST SAID WE -- OBVIOUSLY, THIS HAS BEEN THE TOPIC THAT'S HAD THE MOST DEBATE AMONG US SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT.

I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY HEALTHY AND GOOD.

>> I DON'T WANT US -- >> IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TELLING THE COMMISSIONERS, IS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SEE AS A PROBLEM, THE LAST CHARTER COMMISSION DID AS WELL.

WE AGREED IT WAS A BIG PROBLEM -- IT IS A PROBLEM. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SEE IT ADDRESSED.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT MAYBE RANKED CHOICE VOTING IS ONE OF THOSE ANSWERS. MAYBE MOVING TO THE GENERAL TO THE PRIMARY, I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. IF WE'RE TELLING THE CITY COMMISSION, THEN THUMBS UP. IF I'M TELLING THEM I HAVE A RINGING ENDORSEMENT FOR RANKED CHOICE.

>> NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING, YOU GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, YOU JUST SAID IT MUCH BETTER.

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW,

THE CHANGES FROM GROUPS TO SEAT? >> THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE.

WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF YOU DID ALL AGREE THAT MOVING FORWARD YOU WANTED THE CITY COMMISSION TO CHANGE THE ELECTION, THE GENERAL ELECTION TO AUGUST AND RUN OFF IN NOVEMBER, THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT JUST THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES BECAUSE OF THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE SECTION 9 THAT SAYS THAT THEY DECIDE THE MANNER AND DATES OF ELECTION BY ORDINANCE. THEY DON'T DO IT THROUGH A CHARTER. SO I'M GOING TO NOT SHARE THAT WITH THEM AT THIS TIME AND SAY THAT WE'LL KEEP THE SAME NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER RUN OFF DATE.

>> RIGHT. I WOULD SEE THIS TOPIC COMING UP

IN OUR WORKSHOP WITH THEM. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> GOT IT.

YEAH. >> IS WWE'RE DONE WITH SECTION .

SECTION 10. POWERS GENERALLY CHARTER OFFICERS. DO I SEE ANY HANDS?

MEMBER KOSACK? >> LET'S SEE.

THE LAST SENTENCE UNDER A, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE REFERENCE FOR THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

I THINK WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE INSTRUMENT THAT RICK PUT FORTH FOR US TO REVIEW. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF AGREED UPON INSTRUMENT THERE SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED THAN JUST AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION?

>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WHAT WE REALLY NEED AGREEMENT ON IS THAT IT TAKES PLACE. AND THAT IT DOES OR DOES NOT NEED TO TAKE PLACE IN PUBLIC. I KNOW THE CITY'S HUMAN

[00:35:02]

RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HAS MULTIPLE FORMS THAT CAN BE USED.

AND THE FORM ITSELF IS IN MY MIND, AGAIN, MY OPINION, IS NOT NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT IT SAYS IT'S DOING.

SO THE DIFFICULTY THAT I HAD WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMISSION WAS IMIMGETTING THE OTHER COMMISSIOS TO IMR AGREE TO USING THE SAME METRICS AND THAT NEVER DID HAPPEN.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THOSE METRICS ARE SHARED ACROSS COMMISSIONERS TODAY EITHER. IN MY MIND, THEY KIND OF SHOULD BE COMING STRAIGHT FROM THE VISIONING SESSION THAT THEY START EVERY YEAR WITH. BUT THAT'S ME.

SO I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER IT SHOULD HAPPEN OR NOT, AND WHETHER IT HAS TO BE IN PUBLIC OR NOT. IF IT'S NOT VERBALLY IN PUBLIC, IS THERE A DOCUMENT THAT SHOULD BE A PUBLIC RECORD? MEMBER CLARK? I LARGELY AGREE WITH WHAT THE CHAIR JUST SAID. HOWEVER, I THOUGHT WE HAD A REALLY GOOD IDEA ON THIS POINT. I THINK IT WAS MR. LASSERRE'S IDEA TO HAVE THE MAYOR COORDINATE THE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR THE THREE CHARTER OFFICERS.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT HOW THEY DO IT. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY DO IT AND TO LEAVE TO THEM HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH IT.

I REALLY THOUGHT JOHN'S IDEA ABOUT HAVING THE MAYOR COORDINATE THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD THING.

AND I THINK HE CAN OR SHE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD SOLUTION.

BY THE WAY, I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THIS DRAFT.

MAYBE I MISSED IT. THAT'S BEEN WHERE I AM.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT THIS, OTHER

THAN TO SAY IT SHOULD HAPPEN. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT MEMBER CLARK JUST SAID.

JUST TO WHAT YOU WERE SPEEK SPEG TO EARLIER, I THOUGHT WE HAD CONSENSUS THAT WE FELT LIKE REVIEWS NEED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC RECORD BUT THAT THE REVIEWS SHOULDN'T TAKE PLACE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER

IT, LEAVING OFF ON THAT. >> THEY'RE PUBLIC RECORDS BY LAW

ANYWAY, YEAH. >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT FOR MEMBER CLARK THAT CLAUSE 17C INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MAYOR AND DOES INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SEEING THAT THE MEMBERS DO THE ANNUAL -- THE PERFORMANCE IF I UNDERSTAND MS. BACH IS TELLING US THAT THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER THE SUNSHINE ACT WOULD BE A PUBLIC RECORD?

>> YES. >> THAT'S JUST THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IS TO MAKE SURE -- I AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PRESCRIBE THE FORUM, BUT I WOULD TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE AND THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO THE COMPLETED

EVALUATION. >> YES IT IS A PUBLIC RECORD UNDER FLORIDA LAW WITHOUT QUESTION.

>> WHEN WE SAY THAT THE MAYOR WILL COORDINATE, THAT MEANS THAT THE MAYOR HAS TO BE TOLD BY THE CHARTER OFFICER THAT, YES, EVERY COMMISSIONER HAS GIVEN ME AN EVALUATION.

>> I DIDN'T WRITE THAT TYPE OF SPECIFICITY.

>> WHEN WE SAY COORDINATED, OUR CURRENT MAYOR IS GOING TO ASK WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THAT. IS THAT NAGGING AT THEM, MAKING SURE THEY'VE DONE IT? IS IT ACTUALLY SEEING A DOCUMENT? OR IS IT BEING TOLD BY A CHARTER

OFFICER THAT YES, IT WAS DONE. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE A DOCUMENT THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE.

>> OKAY, MEMBER KOSACK. >> UNDER SECTION A, SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE REFERENCED IT AS THE MAYORAL DUTIES, SHOULD WE ADD CITY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD COMPLETE AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW AS DIRECTED BY THE MAYOR SO IT REFLECTS BACK TO THAT

[00:40:06]

PASSAGE? >> OKAY.

SO THE MAYOR TELLS THEM TO DO IT.

RIGHT NOW, THE MAYOR HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY OVER ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER. WE KNOW THAT, RIGHT? SO THE MAYOR TELLS THEM THEY HAVE TO DELIVER AN EVALUATION BY

X DATE. >> WE ADDED THAT LANGUAGE IN 17C THAT SAYS THE MAYOR HAS TO ENSURE THAT EVERY COMMISSIONER COMPLETES AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

SO WE HAVE PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE MAYOR.

>> OKAY. >> IT SAYS ENSURING, SO HE CAN DO IT HOWEVER WAY HE WANTS, IF HE WANTS TO PLUG THEM OR ASK THE CHARTER OFFICE IF IT'S DONE. I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO TIED THEIR HANDS ON HOW THEY GET IT DONE.

>> OKAY. >> SO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE AS IS?

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. >> I THINK FOR A CHARTER, MY TWO CENTS IS THAT WE'RE NOT WORKING FOR SPECIFICITY HERE.

WE PUT ONLY WHAT WE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY PUT.

AND SO I THINK JUST DIRECTING THE MAYOR IN A SPECIFIC WAY, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES THAT COME THROUGH THAT IT WILL GET DONE BECAUSE IT'S MANDATED BY THE CHARTER IF

IT'S APPROVED. >> OKAY.

>> ANY FURTHER CHANGES ON SECTION 10? MEMBER DAVIS, IS YOUR HAND UP FOR THIS?

>> SORRY I JUST FORGOT TO LOWER IT.

>> NO PROBLEM. SECTION 10B.

ANY CHANGES? NONE.

YES, MARGARET? >> I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT 10A BEFORE WE GO TO 10B. IS.

>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

>> I'M SURPRISED YOU WANTED TO SKIP OVER 10A.

>> WHAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW IS THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT ABOUT THIS BIG AT THE BOTTOM OF MY SCREEN.

SO I'M SORRY, I MISSED THAT. ALL RIGHT.

10A. >> QUITE ALL RIGHT.

MY ONLY COMMENT HERE IS IN CLAUSE 4, SINCE WE'RE HAVING BOTH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION LAND POINT BACK TO THE COMP PLAN, AND IT SAYS MEANS LAND OR PLACES WITH A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE WORD RESPECTABLY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM TO THINK THAT IT HAS A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, THAT MEANS IT'S A RECREATIONAL FACILITY AND COULD TIE BACK TO THE CLAUSE 1 REFERENDUM.

I WOULD LIKE TO HELP CLARIFY IT'S TWO DIFFERENT --

>> OKAY. >> -- DEFINITIONS.

>> GOT IT . RESPECTIVELY AFTER CONSERVATION.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> JUST A FORMATTING THING.

MAYBE I JUST DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. MOST OF THE OTHER SECTIONS SEEMS TO LIST AS IN A, B, C, D, AND THIS ONE IS LISTED AT 1, 2, 3,

4, IS THERE A REASON? >> THERE'S NO REASON THAT WE DID IT. WE WERE FOLLOWING THE NUMBERING SYSTEM THAT WAS PUT IN WITH THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AND THEN JUST FOLLOWED IT TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.

I HAVEN'T TAKEN A WHOL HOLISTICW OF THE DOCUMENT TO RENUMBER IT T. IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR A VOTE OR THE ELECTORS -- THEY DON'T VOTE ON THAT TYPE OF THING.

>> I MEAN, I WOULD THINK IF WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS CONSISTENT THAT THAT WOULD BE AN EASY THING TO TRY AND GO AHEAD

AND MAKE CONSISTENT AS WELL. >> SURE, NO PROBLEM.

>> OKAY, IS THAT ALL WITH 10A? 10B.

WE DEBATED THAT LANGUAGE. ANY ISSUES THERE?

MS. BACH? >> IT'S NOT -- BEFORE I FORGET, YOU ALL HAD -- JUST GOING BACK TO SECTION 9 TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION REGARDING QUALIFYING DATES.

SO THE RESOLUTION NUMBER EVERY YEAR THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTS A RESOLUTION SETTING THE QUALIFYING DATES, AND THAT'S CONTAITAINED -- THAT REQUIREMENS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY CODE. IT'S NOT IN THE CHARTER.

SO EVERY YEAR THEY SET THOSE DATES, BUT WE SET THEM ABOUT THE

[00:45:02]

SAME TIME AND IT'S A ONE-WEEK TIME PERIOD.

THIS YEAR, QUALIFYING BEGINS JULY 13TH AND ENDS AT 5:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY, JULY 17TH.

SO CHANGING SEATS CAN BE DONE NOW, CAN BE DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF QUALIFYING. ALL THE WAY UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 17TH. YOU CAN SWITCH WHICH SEAT YOU'RE RUNNING FOR. NOW, THERE COULD BE, SOMEBODY COULD -- I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS THIS PAST WEEKEND -- THEY COULD DO THAT, HOWEVER DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT -- THERE ARE SOME CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATES THAT NEVER PUT A SIGN OUT.

IF THEY HAVE ANY TYPE OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING, IT HAS TO INCLUDE THE GROUP NUMBER. IF THEY CHANGE GROUP NUMBERS -- AND WE HAD ONE CANDIDATE DO THAT THIS TIME, MS. MINSHEW, IF SHE HASN'T CHANGED HER POLITICAL ADVERTISING, THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION CODE. I'M NOT PICKING ON HER, AND I'M SURE SHE'S DONE THE RIGHT THING. BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THAT GROUP NUMBER. IF YOU WERE IN GROUP ONE AND THEN ON JULY 16TH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT BEFORE QUALIFYING ENDED YOU NEVER CHANGE YOUR POLITICAL ADVERTISING, YOU CHANGE TO A DIFFERENT SEAT, YOU COULD BE IN TROUBLE WITH THE ELECTION CODE AT THE STATE FOR NOT HAVING ACCURATE POLITICAL ADVERTISING.

DOES THAT HELP? >> MEMBER KOSACK?

>> YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE THAT. AND MY COMMENT WAS THAT DO WE NEED TO HAVE THAT IN SECTION 9, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A DATE CERTAIN ON IT, BUT SHOULD WE REFERENCE THAT DOCUMENT OR SAY YOU CAN SWITCH UP UNTIL QUALIFYING DATES JUST FOR CLARITY? AND I'M THROWING THAT OUT FOR DISCUSSION. WE HAVE NOTHING THAT SAYS WHAT DETERMINES WHAT SEAT YOU RUN IN BECAUSE THERE IS NO

DETERMINATION. >> RIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE A REACTION

TO THAT? >> I HAPPEN TO AGREE WIT WITH TI ON THIS. IIT SEEMS IF THERE'S NO DATE AND PEOPLE CAN CHANGE ANYTIME, THAT IT AFFECTS THE CREDIBILITY OF IT. AND ALTHOUGH THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT ESTABLISHES A DATE, I'D FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER IF IT WERE ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER AND I TOOK THAT TO BE

TAMMI KOSACK'S POINT. >> SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTS QUALIFYING DATES BY RESOLUTION AND THAT CANDIDATES CAN CHOOSE WHICH SEAT THEY RUN FOR? OR WHICH SEAT THAT THEY -- THAT'S A CHOICE.

ANYBODY THAT RUNS FOR COMMISSION CAN CHOOSE JUST TO REITERATE THAT IT'S AT LARGE AND ALL OF THAT?

>> JUST THAT THEY MAKE A FINAL DECISION AS TO WHICH SEAT BY THAT DATE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED.

>> OKAY. >> SO IT'S AN EASIER WAY TO SAY IT. BURT THERE'S A DEADLINE, AND BY THAT DATE -- AFTER THAT DATE YOU CAN'T CHANGE.

>> OKAY. >> ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO MAKING THAT CHANGE? MR. LASSERRE.

>> I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION SO TO SPEAK.

WE ARE BASICALLY SAYING JUST A QUALIFYING DATE, DEADLINE, IS THE SAME DAY YOU CAN'T SWITCH YOUR SEAT AFTER THAT WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I'M ALL FOR REDUCING THE GAMESMANSHIP OF MOVING AROUND GROUPS OR SEATS.

BUT WE'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE IS ALREADY IN PLACE. I ASSUME IT'S THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS THAT WOULD ENFORCE THAT AND NOT ALLOW SOMEBODY TO QUALIFY FOR A DIFFERENT SEAT. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING NOW, LET'S MAKE IT LONGER. A LONGER TIME PERIOD.

NOT THE QUALIFYING DATE, BECAUSE THEN EVERYBODY CAN RUSH IN THE DAY OF AND MAKE THEIR CHANGE. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO AFFECT WHAT

WE'RE TRYING TO DO. >> DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION?

>> MAYBE SC 60 OR 90 DAYS THEY L HAVE SELECTED THEIR GROUP OR SEATS. 60 TO 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF QUALIFICATION. SOME TIME PERIOD LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE IT'S LIKE WHAT HAPPENED RECENTLY.

SHE DIDN'T WAIT TILL THE DAY BEFORE QUALIFIC QUALIFICATIONS SHE DID IT WELL IN ADVANCE. THAT'S OKAY.

I GET THAT. ALL THE CHANGE AT THE LAST MINUTE IS WHEN THINGS GET KIND OF UGLY POLITICALLY LOCALLY.

>> I SUPPORT THAT. IF YOU MAKE A MOTION TO 60 OR 90 DAYS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS, BUT I'D

SUPPORT THAT. >> THEY MUST CONTINUE TO -- IF THEY STAY IN THE -- I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO RUN FOR CITY COMMISSIONER, THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE TO RUN FOR THAT SEAT

[00:50:05]

AND MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION NO LATER THAN WHICH IS IT, 60 DAYS OR 90 DAYS BEFORE THE END OF QUALIFYING?

>> I WOULD SAY 90. YOU KNOW, AT A POIN AT THIS POIL BE MAY, APRIL, JUNE 12TH. THAT'S AMPLE TIME, SUCCMONTHS SIX MONTHSBEFORE THE ELECTION. IDIIDEALLY YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO RUN ANYWAY.

>> I THINK THAT'S GOOD. >> SO MOVED.

I MAKE THAT MOTION THAT WE LIMIT THE CHANGING OF SEATS TO -- YOU SELECT YOUR SEAT NO LATER THAN 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE H END OF QUALIFICATION, YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT AFTER THAT.

>>I SECOND THAT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> OKAY.

THE AYES CARRY. >> NONE ARE OPPOSED? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MAKE THAT CHANGE AND YOU'LL SEE THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOW LET'S -- WE'RE BACK AT --

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> OKAY.

NOW WE'RE BACK AT 10B. CORRECT?

>> YEP. >> WE DELETED THAT PARAGRAPH.

ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? I SEE NO HANDS, SO THAT'S A GO.

SECTION 11, QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS, ET CETERA.

SOME LANGUAGE CHANGE THERE. MEMBER DAVIS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. BACH.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE MEMBERS SEATING TO POSSESS BEFORE FOREGOING QUALIFICATIONS, MEANING ANY ONE VIOLATING A PROVISION OF CLAUSE A, INCLUDING A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS? BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT TO STRESS THAT WHEN WE TALK TO BOTH THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ADDING ETHICS PROVISIONS.

>> GOOD QUESTION. NO.

I DON'T CONSIDER A VIOLATION OF SECTION 112 -- AND WE DON'T SAY NO LONGER -- LET'S SEE. PRIOR TO FORFEITURE, I'M SORRY, NOW I SEE THAT LANGUAGE. YES, I SUPPOSE THAT COULD BE AN ARGUMENT. THAT A VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 112.

>> THE RESULT I THINK WE WANTED WAS TO HAVE A HEARING IF THEY

WERE VIOLATING ETHICS LAWS. >> WITHOUT YOUR OWN ETHICS, CODE, YES. ACCUSED OF NOT MEETING QUALPHICS, EITHER WHEN THEY'RE ABOUT TO TAKE OFFICE OR WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE. WE COULD HAVE A RESIDENCY CHALLENGE, RIGHT? SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIVE IN THE CITY ANYMORE AND SAYS THAT THEY DO.

>> I MEAN, I WAS FINE WITH THE RESIDENCY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT VIOLATING THE NO PROFIT, YOU

KNOW -- >> YEAH.

>> OR VIOLATING THE ETHICS STATUTE ALSO GOT CAPTURED INTO PUTTING YOU INTO THE POTENTIAL FORFEITURE AFTER A HEARING.

>> WOULD YOU WANT ME TO CLARIFY THAT EVEN MORE? IT WOULDN'T HEARD IF WE SAID ACCUSED OF MEETING QUALIFICATIONS AS PUT FORTH IN SECTION 4A ABOVE?

>> IF YOU WOULD SAY ANY OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

OF CLAUSE A. >> YEAH.

OKAY. >> IT SAYS FOREGOING, SO I NEED TO OVERDO IT. RIGHT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS YOUR TRANSP INTERPRETATION.

>> NO, THAT IS -- I DON'T HAVE -- YEAH, USE FOREGOING IN THE BEGINNING. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A STRETCH.

DON'T FORGET, WE DON'T HAVE OUTSIDE AGENCIES OR OFFICERS OR INTERPRETERS. WE'RE SOLELY IN THIS TOWN THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO ENFORCE OUR CHARTER.

SO IF SOMEBODY BADLY ENOUGH THROUGH THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND DISCUSSION WANTS TO TAKEOONN A FUTURE COMMISSIONER FOR ETHICS VIOLATIONS, THEN I THINK THIS IS -- THIS GETS IT.

>> WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, TAMMI, IF THERE'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED AND THE STATE FINDS THE PERSON GUILTY?

>> IF THERE'S AN ETHICS VIOLATION FILED, IT'S FILED WITH

[00:55:02]

THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS.

AND THEY HAVE A COMPLAINT PROCESS THAT'S ONLINE.

ANYBODY CAN FILE A COMPLAINT. AND THEN THE COMPLAINT IS FORWARDED TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR AND THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. AND THEN AFTER THAT, THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION THAT'S DONE BY USUALLY A LAWYER THAT WORKS FOR THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS. A LOT OF TIMES THEY COME IN PERSON FROM TALLAHASSEE OVER HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT. THEY THEN WRITE A REPORT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS.

THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS HOLDS A PUBLIC HEARING WHETHER OR NOT THE INVESTIGATOR FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE OR NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A VIOLATION. AND THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS TAKES THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR'S ANSWER ALL INTO CONSIDERATION AND THEY MAKE A RULING.

AND THEN IF THEY MAKE A RULING AND THEY FIND THE PERSON GUILTY OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE, THEN THEY HAVE A PENALTY AND FINES PROVISION THAT'S REALLY LIKE A SLIDING SCALE DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY AND SUCH.

THEY'LL GET FINES AND UP TO AND INCLUDING REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE CODE, TOO, FOR THINGS LIKE VOTING CONFLICTS, ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS THAT YOU MIGHT PROFIT FROM OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS MIGHT PROFIT FROM.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE ETHICS CODE THAT IS A FELONY FOR BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST AND IT'S VERY SPECIFIC.

IT'S NOT BROADLY INTERPRETED AT ALL.

AND THAT'S -- IF YOU REMEMBER IN FLORIDA, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ANDREW GILLAM, THE FORMER MAYOR OF TALLAHASSEE WAS ACCUSED OF. AND HE WAS PROSECUTED, OR AT LEAST THE PROSECUTION PROCESS WENT THROUGH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE CONVICTED OF A FELONY UNDER

CHAPTER 112. >> OKAY, SO THE WAY WE HAVE

WRITTEN THIS LANGUAGE TO DATE -- >> IS GOING TO GET EXACTLY WHAT

YOU WANT -- >> AFTER THAT PROCESS?

>> NO, IT CAN HAPPEN CONCURRENTLY.

THE VIOLATION OF THETURATE, I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY FILES A COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS, IF THEY DO THAT'S TOTALLY SEPARATE YUM FRUM FROMWHAT WE DO.

>> WHAT ARE WE BASING IT ON? PURELY OUR INTERPRETATION OF

SECTION 112? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

RIGHT. AND WE'RE SELF-POLICING HERE.

WE'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU -- IF YOU'RE ACCUSED OF NOT MEETING THE QUALIFICATIONS -- SO THE EXAMPLE IS AN ETHICS VIOLATION, AND YOU MAY HAVE TO FORFEIT YOUR SEAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OR YOU VIOLATED CHAPTER 112.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING AND IF SOMEBODY SAYS -- IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THEY SHOULD FORFEIT THEIR SEAT, THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY.

IF THAT PERSON WILL ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT LEAVE THEIR SEAT, THEN THEY'LL BE -- IT WILL GO TO COURT.

A JUDGE WILL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD DUE PROCESS.

WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GIVING THEM DUE PROCESS, WHETHER THEY HAD DUE PROCESS AND THEY'LL MAKE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COMMISSION'S VOTE WAS VALID AND THAT PERSON SHOULD FORFEIT THEIR SEAT.

WHEN THEY TAKE OFFICE, REMEMBER, WE TAKE AN OATH.

TUTHAT SAYS THATWE'RE GOING TO S OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND OUR LOCAL CHARTER AND CODE OF ORDINANCES.

SO THEY ARE ANY CANDIDATE THAT RUNS FOR OFFICE, ANY CITY COMMISSIONER WHO IS CURRENTLY IN OFFICE, IF THIS PASSED, IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO AND THEY'RE AGREEING TO DO IT.

YOU'RE NOT TAKING AWAY FROM ANYBODY.

THEY'RE AGREED TO BE BOUND BY THIS PROCESS.

>> MY CONCERN OR MY QUESTION, JUST SO ALL OF YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M -- HOW I'M HEARING THIS IS WE MADE A DETERMINATION DURING OUR EARLIER DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WOULD NOT WRITE OUR OWN ETHICS CODE IN FERNANDINA, THAT WE WOULD DEPEND ON THE STATE'S ETHICS CODE. SO MY QUESTION WAS, REALLY, BEING GENERATED FROM OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE ETHICS CODE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THE STATE'S INTERPRETATION.

AND THIS LANGUAGE GIVES US THE ABILITY TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE

STATE MIGHT HAVE DONE OR SAID. >> NOT REALLY.

I SEE IT AS WE'RE SAYING OUR ETHICS CODE IS THE SAME AS THE

[01:00:01]

STATE'S. THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE IT -- WELL, WE'RE SAYING IT THROUGH YOU HAVE TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS AND BE ETHICAL. I GUESS WE'RE SAYING THERE'S ANOTHER LOCAL PROCESS. IT'S JUST WE'RE NOT WRITING OUR OWN CODE. WE HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE STATE. THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT, ANYWAY. MARGARET AND JON, YOU'RE

ATTORNEYS ALSO. >> JON, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP AND I KNOW YOU DO, TOO, RICHARD. I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

JON? >> I'VE BEEN READING A LOT OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS LATELY WAITING FOR THE ONE I'M WANTING TO SEE COME THROUGH. THE GOVERNOR SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALL THE TIME REMOVING PEOPLE FROM OFFICE FOR DOING ALL KINDS OF BAD THINGS. AT WHAT POINT DOES THE GOVERNOR GET INVOLVED? EITHER ONE CAN REMOVE SOMEBODY.

I FEEL LIKE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE A LOT LESS HYPERLOCAL ON ENFORCEMENT OR IF SOMEONE HAS IT OUT FOR SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE OF A MUTUAL -- I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT'S THE PROCESS INVOLVING THE GOVERNOR?

>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW.

I'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, IF THERE IS SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION IN THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR -- I DON'T KNOW OF IT.

BUT I WOULD THINK THAT LET'S SAY IT'S SILENT, RIGHT, AND WE KNOW A LOT OF PLACE WHERE'S IT SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GOVERNOR CAN DO THINGS AND THERE'S NO PROCESS. SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN -- THIS I DO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH -- IS IF WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND SAID COMMISSIONER X HAS VIOLATED THE CHAPTER 112 AFTER TAKING OFFICE AND HAS DONE SOMETHING UNETHICAL, THE COMMISSION DECIDES THEY WANT TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION AND A HEARING AND ALL OF THAT, AND SO THEY DO THAT AND THEY FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER X IS GUILTY OF VIOLATING CHAPTER 112. REGARDLESS IF THERE'S A COMMISSION ON ETHICS STATE ACTION.

THE COMMISSIONER REFUSES TO LEAVE OFFICE AND ACCEPT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THEY SHOULD FORFEIT THEIR SEAT UNDER THE CHARTER. THE CITY THEN HAS TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE A DECLARATORY ACTION IN THE COURT TO ENFORCE OUR CHARTER. AND IF THAT DECLARATORY ACTION COMES FROM THE JUDGE HERE, IT WILL BE A STATE COURT JUDGE, AND I TAKE THAT -- I WOULD THINK I WOULD TAKE THAT ORDER TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND PLEAD WITH THE GOVERNOR TO HELP US TO ENFORCE THIS LOCAL FORFEITURE. THAT'S THE PROCESS I WOULD SEE

IF THERE'S NOT ONE WRITTEN. >> MEMBER CLARK, YOU HAD YOUR

HAND UP. >> NO, I TOOK IT DOWN.

>> OKAY. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS? ARE WE HAPPY WITH THE WAY IT'S BEEN AMENDED? CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT -- OH, SORRY. MEMMEMBER KOSACK.

>> AFTER LISTENING TO ALL OF THAT, IF A COMMISSIONER IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY, MISSES THREE MEETINGS, ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE LISTED, HE OR SHE MUST FORFEIT THEIR SEATS PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.

BUT THEN PRIOR TO THE FORFEITURE, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC HEARING. HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH A TIMELINE ? IF THEY'RE CONVICTED ON A FRIDAY AND THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING IS A TUESDAY, THEY HAVE TO FORFEIT THEIR SEAT ON A FRIDAY, HOW DO THEY HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE NEXT

COMMISSION MEETING? >> THAT'S A TOUGH ONE, THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. I'M NUT NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULDP THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE, THAT THEY FORFEIT THEIR SEAT BEFORE

THE MEETING. >> HOW ABOUT IF WE CHANGE THAT

FORFEIT THERE TO SAY SUSPEND? >> OKAY.

>> THEN THEY HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THEY MUST -- INSTEAD OF JUST SAY SUSPEND THEIR SEAT --

>> YEAH. >> OKAY.

>> MEMBER CLARK? >> FORFEITURE.

>> IT JUST MEANS THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE OR SERVE WITH THE COMMISSION WHILE THEY'RE WAITING FOR THEIR HEARING.

>> MEMBER CLARK? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE HERE TALKS ABOUT THE HEARING. IS IT IMPLICIT IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT SOMEBODY ACCUSED OF A FELONY OR MISSING THREE MEETINGS AND THERE'S A HEARING AND THE COMMISSION DECIDES, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T REALLY MISS THREE MEETINGS OR THEY DIDN'T REALLY COMMIT A FELONY, IS IT CLEAR THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO

[01:05:05]

SAY NO, THIS PERSON DOES NOT HAVE TO FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE?

>> NORMALLY WHEN YOU SEE LANGUAGE LIKE THIS IT WOULD SAY THERE'S A HEARING REQUIRED AND AFTER THE FACTS ARE PRESENTED THEN A DECISION IS MADE. THIS READS LIKE, WELL, THE DECISION IS MADE. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT A SUSPENSION. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING. BUT DOES IT FOLLOW -- IT FOLLOWS LLOGICALLY BUT IT'S NOT IMPLICIT IN THE LANGUAGE, UNLESS YOU SAY IT IS. THAT THEN THE COMMISSION MAKES THE DECISION. I WONDER IF THE WHOLE THING WOULD BE CLEARER IF YOU SAID THERE HAS TO BE A HEARING.

IF SOMEBODY'S -- IF A COMMISSIONER IS ACCUSED OF ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS, PROCEDURALLY THE WAY IT HAPPENS IS THERE IS A HEARING, THE COMMISSION CONS CONSIDERS THE FS

AND VOTES. >> MEMBER KOSACK SOME.

>> AT THE HEARING THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES THE OUTCOME OF THE SUSPENSION. IF THEY DEEM -- T THANK YOU BE RESEATED. THEY'RE NOT GONE.

>> OKAY. YOU ALL HAVE DONE GREAT JOB.

SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST COMPLICATED OR DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. I'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE IT DRAFTED BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING FOR YOU TO LOOK AT SOMETHING.

>> AND THEN VOTE ON IT? >> YEAH.

>> THEN. >> HOW ABOUT WE DO THAT?

>> OKAY. WE'LL COME BACK AND VOTE ON THAT AT THE END. YES, MA'AM.

MS. KOSACK? >> WHEN ANY VACANCY IN THE COMMISSION MUST BE FILLED, WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THAT?

HOW IS THAT BUILT? >> THE VACANCY IN THE CITY COMMISSION MUST BE FILLED UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR ELECTION BY VOTE OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

THEY LITERALLY -- SOMEBODY IS APPOINTED TO FILL THE SEAT BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> THEY JUST PICK A CITIZEN AT LARGE THAT THEY ALL AGREE UPON?

>> YES. THAT MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A CITY COMMISSIONER. NO FELONS, MUST BE A

RESIDENT,ÐICAL. >> THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE

PAST. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT SECTION AND CAN GO ON TO SECTION 12? SALARY OF MEMBERS.

WE JUST SAID THEY'D GET ONE. ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOOD WITH 12.

13, LIMITATION ON SUCCESSIVE TERMS IN OFFICE.

>> NO CHANGE OTHER THAN HOUSEKEEPING.

>> NO CHANGE. HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES ONLY.

SO UNLESS SOMEBODY STOPS ME, I'MSUI'MASSUMING YOU'RE GOOD.

SECTION 14. JUDGE OF ELECTION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS. PROPOSED LANGUAGE, SECTION 14

BECOMES RESERVED. >> YES ANY PLACE WHERE WE REPEAL AND DELETE ALL LANGUAGE WHERE A SECTION EXISTED BEFORE WE

RESERVE IT. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE DELETED THAT.

ANY ISSUES? OKAY.

>> WE JUST MOVED IT. >> WE DELETED THIS SPOT.

>> RIGHT. BECAUSE WE MOVED IT TO SECTION

11, RIGHT? >> SECTION 15, HOW VACANCIES ARE FILLED. THAT'S ALSO RESERVED NOW.

WE JUST PUT THAT UP THERE. SECTION 16, THE MAYOR.

SELCTION AND PROCEDURE AND TERM.

ANY QUESTIONS, CHANGES? OKAY.

MEMBER DAVIS? >> I HAVE JUST A SMALL POINT.

CLAUSE E, SO WE JUST -- SINCE WE'RE ADDING THIS NOW TO THE CHARTER, PULLING IT OUT OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAKING IT DIRECT VOTE, SHOULD WE CHANGE IN CLAUSE E THE 2018 TO 2020?

>> OH. IT STARTED IN 2018 THOUGH.

WE STARTED TO HAVE OUR MAYORS SERVE IN 2018.

I MEAN, I THINK -- I GUESS -- WELL, I WASN'T REALLY ASKED, SO I COULD JUST SHUT UP. I THINK YOU ALL CHANGED THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR GETS IN OFFICE, BUT YOU DIDN'T CHANGE WHEN THE

[01:10:02]

MAYOR STARTED THE TWO-YEAR TERMS.

>> IT'S FINE, IT JUST SEEMS SILLY TO REFERENCE PAST DATES.

COME AND GONE. THAT'S FINE.

>> MEMBER KOSACK? >> I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY.

>> I DON'T RECALL WHY -- MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN REFRESH MY MEMORY -- UNDER CURRENT LANGUAGE, WHY DID WE REMOVE SECTION C? BECAUSE WE NOW ARE SAYING THAT THE VICE MAYOR -- BECAUSE HE'S THE SECOND VOTE GETTER AND SO WE NOW ACTUALLY HAVE A CHARTER, HOW A VICE MAYOR IS CHOSEN, BUT THEN HE OR SHE -- THE VICE MAYOR MOVES IN TO SERVE? IT TALKED ABOUT THE REMOVAL IF NEEDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. THIS 1C THAT IS TOWARDS THE BOTTOM HERE, THE OLD C THAT'S BEEN DELETED, MY MEMORY IS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT LENGTH. THAT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE ELECTING THE MAYOR, DESPITE THE POWER THEY HAVE, YOU DIDN'T WANT THE CITY COMMISSION TO GO IN AND SAY BY A MAJORITY VOTE WE DON'T LIKE YOU ANYMORE, YOU'RE OUT OF HERE.

>> OKAY. >> THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER IT TOO.

>> I REMEMBER IT NOW. >> MEMBER LASSERRE.

>> I AGREE WITH MEMBER DAVIS ABOUT STRIKING 2018.

PUT A PERIOD AFTER ELECTION AND THEN THAT ISSUE IS RESOLVED.

BUT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH F, APPOINTEES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS NECESSARY. IF YOU HAVE THE ELECTION, THE MAYOR OR VICE MAYOR ARE SELECTED AND WE HAVE A COMMISSION --

>> THE MAYOR JUST LOST THEIR SEAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE -- THAT PARTICULAR POINT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. MAYBE IT SHOULD BE STRICKEN.

MAYBE I'M READING IT WRONG. >> IT'S PARAGRAPH F UNDER THE

MAYOR'S -- >> THAT'S RIGHT.

THE POINTI APPOINTEES WILL SERVS MAYOR UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL

ELECTION BY THE CITY. >> WHEN THERE WILL BE -- OFFICIALLY BECOME THE MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR.

I GUESS THAT'S WHAT'S I'M SAYING.

THEY WANT YOU TO WAIT UNIT THE -- THEY'RE GOING TO BE POINTED THE NEXT ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING, CITY.

>> RIGHT. >> THE TWO YEARS.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING IS WHEN EVERYBODY TAKES THEIR OATH

OF OFFICE. >> RIGHT.

ONCE THEY'RE ELECTED THEY STEP IN AND THEY'RE THE MAYOR, VICE

MAYOR? >> YES.

MAYBE THAT WORD APPOINTEES -- WHILE THE VO VICE MAYOR IS APPOAPPOINTED I GUESS. I THINK THE TERM APPOINTEES IS PROBABLY THE ISSUE HERE. I SHOULD --

>> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.

THE EXISTING MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR WOULD CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THE NEXT REORGANIZATIONAL MEETING, RIGHT SOME.

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

I THINK THE EXU EXISTING MAYOR D VICE MAYOR COULD CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THE NEXT REORGANIZATIONAL MEETING.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE HAVE DELETED THE STRAW

MAN. >> THERE'S NO STRAW BALLOT

ANYMORE. >> THAT'S A PRETTY BIG DEAL.

OKAY. ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THAT

SECTION? >> SECTION 17, FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE MAYOR. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND THEN TAKE A BREAK. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, YEUJ YOU HEARD ME SAY I'MG TO TAKE A BREAK.

EVERYBODY'S GOOD WITH THIS, THUMBS UP? ALL RIGHTY. LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AT 4:25, PLEASE.

O SAY ABOUT ALL OF YOU.

OKAY, WE'RE BACK IN SESSION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO A LITTLE BIT FASTER THA THAN WE H. SO WE HAVE SECTIONS 18, 19, AND

[01:15:06]

20 ARE SHOWN AS RESERVED. NO ISSUES.

>> 20 IS BEING ABSORBED INTO SECTION 11 AND RESERVED.

YEP. >> SECTION 21, ADOPTION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS, ANY ISSUES?

>> THERE YOU'LL FIND WE CHANGED TWO THIRDS OR ACTUALLY MARGARET AND KATIE DID. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE CREDIT.

CHANGED TWO THIRDS TO A SUPER MAJORITY, THAT'S FINE.

THAT MEANS FOUR OUT OF FIVE. >> ALL RIGHT.

NO ISSUES? >> A COMMENT ABOUT THE

FORMATTING OF THE 1, 2, 3. >> WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT AS A

ONCE OVER. >> OKAY.

>> MOVING ON. SECTIONS 22, 23, AND 24 ARE RESERVED. 25, CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT, TENURE OF OFFICE AND QUALIFICATIONS.

WE MADE SOME CHANGES IN HERE. IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THEM?

MEMBER KOSACK? >> DID WE DISCUSS THE CITY COMMISSION MUST APPOINT THE CITY MANAGER BY A SUPER MAJORITY OR

IS IT JUST MAJORITY? >> TO APPOINT THE CITY MANAGER?

>> YES. >> IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO BOTH APPOINT AND TO TERMINATE ANY OF

THE CHARTER OFFICERS. >> ANY ISSUES?

MEMBER LASSERRE? >> I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE TO A SUPER MAJORITY, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY, BUT

SINCE WE'RE NOT. >> OKAY.

MOVING ON, 26, 27, 28 ARE RESERVED.

29. POWERS AND DUTIES ENUMERATED.

THIS IS THE CITY MANAGER AGAIN. MEMBER LASSERRE?

>> I JUST I THOUGHT WE HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD APPOINT A CITY MANAGER PRO TEM, SO THE TERM PERIODICALLY, DOES IT MAKE IT -- I KNOW IT DOESN'T MEAN OPTIONAL, BUT WE WANT THEM TO DESIGNATE THE CITY MANAGER PRO TEM, AND IF IT CHANGES, THEY JUST NAME SOMEBODY ELSE.

WE DON'T WANT THEM TO DO IT PERIODICALLY, WE WANT TO DO IT

ALL THE TIME. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY IDEA FOR HOW WE CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE?

>> JUST DELETE THE WORD. PERIODICALLY.

>> OKAY. >> EVERYBODY GOOD?

>> FOR PRO TEM? AND THAT WOULD BE FOR ALL THE CHARTER OFFICERS, TOO, JUST SAYING.

>> YEAH. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. JON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING

ELSE? >> YEP.

ACTUALLY I DO. I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE -- THAT'S AN OPENING PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS THEY HAVE THE FOLLOWING

POWERS AND DUTIES. >> OKAY.

>> COLON. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE? MOVING ON.

SECTION 30 IS RESERVED. SECTION 31, CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES. MEMBER KOSACK?

YOU'RE MUTED, TAMMI. >> DARN IT.

SORRY. YOU AND I DISCUSSED ABOUT FORMATTING THIS TO MATCH THE FORMATTING OF THE CITY MANAGER AND ALSO THE CITY CLERK. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CITY ATTORNEY LANGUAGE? MOVING ON. ATTORNEY PRO TEM.

OKAY. WE TAKE OUT THE WORD

PERIODICALLY AGAIN. >> YEP.

>> ALL RIGHT. AND TO SECTION 33 -- OH, MEMBER

CLARK. >> MADAM CHAIR, I HAD MY HAND UP

ON 32. >> I GOT YOU.

OKAY. >> ON THE CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM, DIDN'T YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENTS THAT IT'S REALLY HARD TO HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM? I THOUGHT WE DECIDED NOT TO MAKE THAT REQUIREMENT THERE. MAYBE I JUST DON'T RECALL THE

CONVERSATION. >> I READ THE MINUTES AND IT WAS ACTUALLY MR. LASSERRE WHO MADE THE ARGUMENT, THAT THERE COULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM THAT AFTER MR. LASSERRE'S COMMENTS THERE WERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. WE JUST MOVED ON.

THERE WAS NO VOTE AND WE JUST MOVED ON TO THE NEXTTION.

>> SO I THOUGHT -- I AGREED WITH HIM ON THIS POINT.

[01:20:01]

YOU SAID SOMETHING IN SUPPORT OF THAT, THAT IT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT GIVEN THE SIZE AND EVERYTHING TO DO THAT.

SO I WAS PERSUADED AT THE TIME THAT A CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM

WASN'T REALLY THE THING TO DO. >> MEMBER LASSERRE?

>> YEAH, I THINK BOTH THE MANAGER AND THE CLERK, THEY BOTH HAVE DEPUTY POSITIONS IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AT LEAST THERE USED TO BE A DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WHO WOULD BE LIKELY TO MANAGE A PRO TEM, AND SAME WITH THE CLERK.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE A DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY. TH.THIS WOULD BE SOMEBODY FROM N OUTSIDE FIRM. UNTIL THERE'S A NEED WE'D HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY, I DON'T THINK WE'D HAVE A PRO TEM.

I KNOW YOU HAVE FOLK WHOSE SIT IN WHEN YOU'RE NOT AVAILABLE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DONE -- THIS MIGHT BE MORE PROBLEMATIC

THAN THE OTHER TWO. >> WELL, I LOOK AT IT SORT OF THE OPPOSITE WAY. IT'S MUCH EASIER TO REPLACE ME THAN THE OTHER TWO. YOU CAN CALL AN ATTORNEY IF YOU NEED THEM TO HAVE LAND USE EXPERIENCE, TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. I WOULD GO WITH WHATEVER YOU ALL LIKE. WHAT I'D PLAN TO DO IF THIS PASSED, WAS I WOULD DEAL WITH ONE OF THE FIRMS -- I USUALLY HAVE FOUR OR FIVE LAW FIRMS THAT ARE PREAPPROVED IF YOU WILL AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH FISCAL YEAR THAT I HAVE A SET BUDGET.

I THINK IT'S $40,000 OR $50,000 FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

WITHIN THAT BUDGET THEN I CAN CHOOSE WHICH ONE OF THOSE FIRMS TO USE BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE.

IF I WAS TO HAVE TO HAVE A PRO TEM APPOINTED OR AT LEAST IN PLACE, I WOULD JUST CALL UP ONE OF THOSE FIRMS EVERY YEAR AND MAKE SURE THEY COULD STEP IN IN CASE OF MY DISABILITY OR --

>> IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE -- ARE THEY APPROVED BY THE CITY

COMMISSION? >> YES.

THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY FISCAL YEAR. ONE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE ASSIGNED AS PRO TEM. BUT IT WOULDN'T BE -- LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, IT WOULD NOT BE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON.

THAT IS TOO RESTRICTING FOR SOME OF THE LAW FIRMS.

>> WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING WE'D LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE THERE THAT SAYS THAT THAT LIST DOES EXIST, APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION? AND ANY REPLACEMENT FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR A TEMPORARY TIME PERIOD SHOULD COME FROM THAT LIST?

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH.

>> WORKS FOR ME. >> I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. CERTAINLY THAT WOULD WORK.

>> ISN'T THAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? >> THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN,

YES. >> MEMBER CLARK, YOUR HAND IS STILL RAISED. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> YEAH, THERE IS JUST A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY ROLE AND THE CITY CLERK AND MANAGER.

THEY HAVE FUNCTIONED THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THE DAILY FUNCTIONING OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT.

YOU CAN'T CONTRACT THOSE OUT EFFECTIVELY.

THE CITY ATTORNEY IS A FUNCTION -- TAMMI YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH ME, OBVIOUSLY. THAT'S A FUNCTION THAT YOU CAN CONTRACT. IT'S RELATIVELY EASY TO DO THAT.

>> I HAVE NO OBJECTION WITH WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUTIS ABOUT HAA LIST. I'D HATE TO SEE A CITY PAY A RETAINER FEE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO HAVE THAT BACKUP

AVAILABLE. >> THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO TAKE OUT THE REQUIREMENT ALL TOGETHER.

I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE EASIEST THING TO DO AND IT GIVES THE CITY COMMISSION THE MOST FLEXIBILITY, WHAT THEY DO IN CASE, YOU KNOW, -- A PRO TEM, IF THEY TERMINATED MY CONTRACT THEY WOULD NEED SOMEONE TO STEP IN WITHIN TWO WEEKS TO BE ABLE TO COVER COMMISSION MEETINGS AND HEARINGS AND HANDLE SOME OF THE CONTRACT WORK. SO THEY WOULD DO THAT ANYWAY.

>> THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE WITH TAKING IT OUT ALL TOGETHER IS THAT THIS IS A LIST THAT YOU HAVE STARTED THAT I'M NOT SURE WAS IN PLACE PRIOR TO YOUR COMING TO FERNANDINA.

>> OKAY. >> AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS HOW DO WE CONTINUE THAT IF WE DON'T PUT THE LANGUAGE HERE?

[01:25:06]

>> YOU CAN PUT IT THERE. >> ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS LANGUAGE HERE THAT SAYS THAT A LIST OF POSSIBLE TEMPORARY REPLACEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> OKAY. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM

WITH DOING THAT? >> OKAY, IT'S DONE.

>> CLARK, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR HAND UP.

DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING -- >> NO, SORRY.

I APOLOGIZE. NOPE I'M DONE.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO ARE WE DONE WITH THAT SECTION ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY? MOVING ON, WE GO TO QUALIFICATIONS. SECTION 33.

ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON, 34-38 ARE RESERVED. 39 AND 40 ARE RESERVED.

41, POLICE DEPARTMENT. COMPOSITION AND AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF. ANY ISSUES?

MEMBER LASSERRE? >> THERE'S A T TYPOGRAPHICAL ERR

IN THE FIRST SENTENCE. >> OKAY.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

42 AND 43 ARE RESERVED. 44, FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPOSITION AND AUTHORITY OF CHIEF. ANYTHING THERE? WE GO ON TO SECTION 45P PUBLIC UTILITIES.

WE'VE MADE THAT SECTION RESERVED.

46, CITY CLERK. APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS.

SEEING N NO HANDS RAISED, WE'LLO ON TO POWERS AND DUTIES ENUMERATEDDED FOR CITY CLERK. MEMBER DAVIS?

>> JUST A MINOR STYLISTIC THING AT THE END OF M TO ADD AN AND AFTER THAT SEMICOLON BEFORE THE LAST CLAUSE.

NO SUBSTANCE THERE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT SECTION? YOU GUYS ARE GOING A LOT FASTER

NOW. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT STATEMENT

ONE MORE TIME? >> SORRY.

I GUESS THERE'S A LIST OF CLAUSES FOR HER DUTIES -- CURRENTLY IT'S A SHE -- SO AT THE END OF CLAUSE M, AFTER THE SEMICOLON I WOULD ADD THE WORD AND BECAUSE N IS THE LAST ONE.

>> GOT IT. >> OKAY.

SO THE NEXT FEW SECTIONS ARE RESERVED AND NOW WE'RE AT 58 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. ANY CHANGES?

MEMBER DAVIS? >> I KNOW I'M THE ONE THAT THOUGHT THAT SECTION I THINK IT'S 61, THE ONE WE DELETED WAS A BIT REDUNDANT. BUT AS A RESULT I DID PICK UP TWO THINGS IT TALKED ABOUT THAT PROVISION THAT WE DELETED I THOUGHT WAS REDUNDANT. IT DID TALK ABOUT RECORDING AND RECONCILING. SO I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT CONCEPT INTO THE LAST SENTENCE OF 58, WHEREBY IT SAYS THE CITY COMPTROLLER IS CUSTODIAN OF ALL MONEY.

I WOULD ADD THE WORDS, RECORDS, COMMA, RECONCILES, INVESTS AND DEPOSITS. SO THAT WE GET THE OBLIGATION TO KEEP RECORDS AND TO RECONCILE THE FUNDS.

>> OKAY. JUST ADDING THAT ONE WORD, RECONCILES?

>> AND RECORDS. >> RECONCILES.

>> SECTION 61 WE SAID THE COMPTROLLER HAD TO KEEP WITH THE MONEY, MAKE SURE THEY'RE PROPERLY RECORDED, RECONCILED AND ACCOU ACCOUNTED FOR. I WANTED TO GET THE RECORDEDDEDD

>> THAT'S SECTION 58. >> YEP.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL LOOK AT SECTION 59, BOND. MEMBER KOSACK?

[01:30:08]

>> I'M ON 60. >> SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> LAST SENTENCE, THAT PERIODICALLY IS A LITTLE BIT TROUBLESOME AGAIN. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC THAN HOW OFTEN THEY MUST REVIEW?

>> JUST TAKE IT OUT. >> OR TAKE IT OUT.

>> I'M JUST TAKING IT OUT. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT COMING OUT? OKAY.

>> MADAM CHAIR, COULD I GO BACK TO 59?

>> SURE. >> CAN WE SAY ON 60 -- SORRY --

>> GO AHEAD. >> OKAY, NOW YOU PEOPLE ARE GETTING OUT OF CONTROL. 60.

>> YES. 60, I JUST WANT TO SUGGEST THAT THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS THE COMPTROLLER MUST UPDATE SOUND WRITTEN POLICIES. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE PROPOSED AND APPROVED BID BY THE COMMISS. IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THAT

BECAUSE -- >> DIDN'T WE JUST TAKE THAT OUT?

>> NO, WE TOOK OUT PERIODICALLY. >> OH,.

>> THE COMPTROLLER MUST PROPOSE -- WE SHOULD TAKE OUT

REVIEW, THAT'S KIND OF SILLY. >> COMPTROLLER MUST --

>> COMPTROLLER MUST APPROVE -- COMPTROLLER MUST PROPOSE AND

CITY COMMISSION MUST APPROVE? >> COMMISSIWHICH ARE APPROVED BE

CITY COMMISSION. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> DOES THAT WORK? >> YEP.

>> ALL RIGHT. MEMBER LASSERRE?

>> SO BOND. WE TOOK OUT THE BONDING REQUIREMENT AND MADE IT FOR A LIABILITY POLICY.

SO I D I THINK THE NAME SHOULD CHANGE TO COMPTROLLER LIABILITY.

THE WAY IT'S RIN WRITTEN, IT SHOULD --

>> I KNOW -- >> SHTIO -- I'M SORRY.

>> GO AHEAD. >> PROTECT THE CITY WITH THE CITY NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED OR NAMED INSURED.

>> BOUWHAT I'M THINKING IS THAT I'VE ACTUALLY HAD THE EXPERIENCE NOW, PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURERS WILL NOT NAME ANYBODY

AS ADDITIONALLY INSURED. >> OKAY.

>> SO IT SHOULD BE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY TO PROTECT THE CITY,

IS THAT ENOUGH? >> SURE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE NAMED INSURED.

>> WELL, IT'S THE PROFESSIONAL THAT'S THE NAMED INSURED.

AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CITY WOULD BE THE ONE TO MAKE THE CLAIM. IT'S JUST WEIRD BECAUSE THE COMPTROLLER WORKS FOR US AS AN EMPLOYEE.

IT'S THE SAME THING WITH LEGAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE, RIGHT? THE LAWYERS, THE NAMED INSURED AND ANYBODY THAT WE MAY HARM WOULD BE THE ONE THAT'S A CLAIMANT.

THAT ARE NOT NAMED INSURED OR ADDITIONALLY INSURED.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE THE CLAIM AND THE INSURANCE COVERS YOU. THIS WILL COVER HER BUT PAID FOR

BY THE CITY. >> AS NAMED INSURED, THE NAMED PERSON IS THE CITY COMPTROLLER, NOT THE CITY?

>> RIGHT. MUST HAVE INSURANCE FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY TO PROTECT THE CITY.

>> OKAY. ARE WE GET GOOD WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON.

WE'VE DONE 60. CORRECT? SO NOW WE'RE AT 61. COLLECTION OF TAXES, LICENSE FEES AND ALL MONIES BLUNGING TOO THE CITY.

THAT LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED. 62 PAYMENT OF MONIES AND PROCEDURE. ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES THERE? ALL RIGHT. 63 IS STILL RESERVED.

64, FINANCIAL REPORT SUBMISSION TO COMMISSION MONTHLY.

ANY CHANGES? 65-68 ARE RESERVED.

69, HOW CONSTITUTED. ANY COMMENTS?

[01:35:05]

ALL RIGHT. 70 IS RESERVED -- MEMBER DAVIS.

YOU'RE MUTED, MARGARET. >> STARTING WITH 69 FROM HERE ON, WE DIDN'T REVIEW THOSE SECTIONS.

IS IT FAIR FOR US TO GO THROUGH THESE NOW? I MEAN, WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT --

>> PROBABLY NOT. >> -- THESE SECTIONS.

UNTIL WE GET TO 136. >> DIDN'T WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF

THEM, NO? >> I DIDN'T THINK WE DID ANY UNTIL 136. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM NOW, BUT I WILL TELL YOU I DID NOT DO A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THEM.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THEY WERE NRV N NEVER ON NEW

BUSINESS. >> TAMMY, WHAT'S YOUR ADVICE ON

THIS? >> WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT SCHEDULING SOME MORE MEETINGS AND KEEPING UP THE MOMENTUM.

SO TODAY WE NEED TO -- IT'S UP TO YOU.

WE NEED TO GET TO CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IF YOU WANT THIS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE 2020 BALLOT.

I'M NOT JUMPING AROUND, I'M NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THE VERY SHORT AGENDA. BUT I THINK THAT WE WENT THROUGH -- WE DO NEED TO SEE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT 136 I THINK IS THE VERY NEXT SECTION. THEN I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU DECIDE ON CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM SO I CAN PREPARE FOR THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I ASSUME IT WILL BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO PUT ON THIS GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IF YOU DECIDE TO MAKE CHANGES AND ADD IT. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, IF THIS WILL HELP AT ALL, I WENT THROUGH -- WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR, ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IS THE BALLOT IS VERY LONG AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY SOME REFERENDUM QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTY, MAYBE THE SCHOOL BOARD WITH REGARDS TO TAXES AND TAX INCREASES. SO WE WILL HAVE -- AND THERE MAY BE SOME -- I THINK THERE MIGHT EVEN -- YEAH, STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE BALLOT.

WE'LL BE AT THE VERY END WITH OUR BALLOT QUESTIONS.

I PROPOSE 10-12 BALLOT QUESTION AND NO MORE FOR THE BALLOT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS MOVE, WITH YOUR INPUT, IF WE CAN, MOVE -- I USED TO GO IN NUMERICAL ORDER.

SO FOR SECTION 1, FOR EXAMPLE F WE ST,THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST BAT QUESTION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY. WITH A BIG LONG BALLOT FOR EVERYBODY, LET'S PUT THEMOTOR TT IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FIRST AND FINISH OUT THE 11-12 AT THE BOTTOM, LIKE SECTION 1, FOR EXAMPLE, CORRECTING THE ACTUAL DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE CITY WAS FORMED AND PUTTING SOMETHING LIKE SECTION 9 OR 16 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOWARDS NUMBER 1.

SO LET ME TELL YOU THE SECTIONS I THOUGHT I WOULD ADDRESS.

I HAVE 11, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR 12 REGARDING CITIZEN INITIATIVE IF YOU ALL DECIDE ON SOMETHING. THE BALLOT QUESTIONS FOR THIS TIME THAT I THOUGHT WOULD COVER SECTION 1, SECTION 7, SECTION 9, SECTION 10, SECTION 10A, SECTION 11, SECTION 15, SECTION -- WELL SECTION 15 -- 14, 15 AND 20 ARE GOING ABSORBED INTO 11.

ALL FOUR OF THOSE SECTIONS WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN ONE QUESTION.

SECTION 16, SECTION 17, SECTION 21, SECTION 25, SECTION 36, AND THEN IF YOU WISH TO ADD SECTION 145 ON THIS ONE FOR CHARTER REVIEW, EVERY SEVEN YEARS, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION DEALING WITH CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IF YOU CHOOSE. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A PLAN? ARE THERE ANY OTHER SECTIONS YOU REALLY HOPED WOULD GET ON THIS

BALLOT? >> DOES ANYONE FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANYTHING LEFT OUT OF THIS GO AROUND THAT SHOULD BE THERE?

>> ALL RIGHT. AWESOME.

>> SO WE'RE GOOD? >> I'M WORKING ON DRAFTING.

PLEASE, I'LL TELL YOU AHEAD OF TIME, FORGIVE -- IF I SAY PLEASE ASK THAT AGAIN, I'M CALLING IT SECTION 11B, REDUX.

SO I'M TRYING TO WRITE THAT RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD MEET YOUR

APPROVAL. >> OKAY.

[01:40:01]

SO SINCE I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS AND WHAT THEY ARE COMPLETELY MEMORIZED THE WAY YOU DO --

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO GO BACK? >> NO, CAN YOU JUST STATE WHAT THE BIGGEST CHANGES ARE THAT WE'RE MAKING? JUST WITHOUT GOING THROUGH IT. YOU KNOW --

>> LIKE -- >> THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

WE'RE MAKING. >> THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WE'RE MAKING IN MY OPINION IS SECTION 10A.

NO SALE OR LEASE OF CONSERVATION LANDS AND NO SALE OR LEASE OF RECREATION LANDS WITHOUT A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION. AND 70% OF THE VOTERS' APPROVAL.

THE NEXT BIGGEST WOULD BE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT.

AFTER THAT, I WOULD SAY SECTION 11 REGARDING -- YOU'RE PUTTING SOME MORE TEETH INTO MISBEHAVIOR OR BAD BEHAVIOR BY CITY COMMISSIONERS AND FORFEITING THEIR SEATS AND HAVING A HEARING. WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT BEFORE.

>> I THINK THE ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR --

>> SECTION 16 IS THE NEXT ONE, REGARDING THE MAYOR ELECTION.

>> OF THE REST OF THE CHARTER, WE HAVE NOT YET TALKED ABOUT TODAY, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT FOLKS FEEL IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO WANT TO BE ON THIS FIRST GO AROUND? BY THAT I MEAN DONE IN TIME FOR THIS YEAR'S BALLOT.

MEMBER KOSACK? >> I THINK THE SEVEN-YEAR RENEWAL OF THE CHARTER WOULD BE IMPORTANT.

>> THAT'S 145. >> MEMBER LASSERRE.

>> SEVEN YEARS IN ORDER TO HAVE A YEAR TO COMPLETE IT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT.

>> OKAY. YOU START A YEAR AHEAD OF THE

ELECTION. >> OKAY.

>> NO, THEY'LL INSTITUTE A CRC EVERY SEVEN YEARS AND THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THIS RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE MAKING READY FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON THE EIGHTH YEAR, IS THAT WHAT IT IS? IF SO, DO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT SO WHEN SOMEONE READING IT WHEN WE'RE ALL GONE KNOW WHY WE SELECTED SEVEN AND NOT NINE OR

WHATEVER? >> I THINK WE SELECTED SEVEN BECAUSE IT WAS A LOT LESS THAN TEN.

I DON'T THINK WE WENT THROUGH THAT LOGIC IN OUR HEADS.

>> I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. YOU INSTITUTED SEVEN YEARS SO THEY HAVE ROUGHLY A YEAR TO BE READY -- WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE

HAD. >> RIGHT.

>> SO I THINK MAYBE WE SAY THAT SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHY WE'RE

SAYING SEVEN. >> OKAY.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S IN 145.

MEMBER CLARK? >> MADAM CHAIR, YOU'RE ASKING FOR COMMENTS ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF SECTIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON 145. >> LET'S FINISH WITH 145 AND THEN, YES, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED TODAY, THAT WE BELIEVE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH OTHER THAN CITIZEN INITIATIVE, WHICH I ALREADY HAVE, THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT TODAY.

MEMBER DAVIS? >> I HAVE A COMMENT ON 120, BUT

I'LL WAIT. >> THIS IS HOW I RESOLVE THAT, MR. LASSERRE AND OTHERS. SO WHAT I SAID WAS INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT ELECTION YEARS AND ALL OF THAT, ELECTION YEARS RIGHT NOW ARE IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE PROPOSAL WAS SEVEN YEARS.

I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT THAT'S JUST A COMMON PRACTICE, SEVEN TO TEN YEARS. YOU DON'T USUALLY SEE EIGHT OR NINE AND YOU DON'T SEE FIVE ORE SIX.

SO WHEN YOU SEE CHARTERS THAT SAY THEY'LL BE REVIEWED EVERY SO OFTEN, IT'S EITHER SEVEN OR TEN. I REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN OTHER THAN THAT. I HAVE SEEN A 20, BUT THAT'S TOO LONG. SO I SAY AT LEAST ONCE EVERY SEVEN YEARS, THE CITY COMMISSION MUST APPOINT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IN AN ODD NUMBERED YEAR.

THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE YEAR BEFORE AN ELECTION.

OF NOT LESS THAN SEVEN MEMBERS FROM THE CITY ELECTORS TO REVIEW THE CHARTER AND PROPOSE ANY AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS WHICH MAY BE ADVISABLE FOR PRAYSMENT PLACEMENTON THE ELECTION BALLOT.

[01:45:01]

ELSE? >> HE SAYS YES.

MEMBER DAVIS? ON WHAT'S CURRENT LLY LISTED AS 145, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT INSTEAD OF IT BEING A NEW SECTION 145 THAT WE PUT THIS AS LANGUAGE IN SECTION 142 WHICH IS CURRENTLY RESERVED. I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR IT. BECAUSE I FEEL THAT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE THIS LANGUAGE BEFORE THE SAVINGS CLAUSE. AS WELL AS BEFORE WHEN THIS CHARTER BECOMES EFFECTIVE. WHICH IS SECTION 143 AND 144.

AND ON SECTION 144, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE WOULD LIKE THE CHARTER REVIEW AMENDMENTS TO BE ON PART OF THE REGULAR EL ELECT, I'M WONDERING WHY SECTION 144 TALKS ABOUT IT BECOMING EFFECTIVE WHEN IT'S VOTED ON AT A SPECIAL ELECTION.

>> OH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. YEP.

>> THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS.

>> MEMBER CLARK? >> MY COMMENTS ON SECTION 120 IS THAT APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT NOW?

>> LET ME JUST MAKE SURE. JON, DO YOUR COMMENTS ADDRESS

ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO.

SECTION 144, MEMBER DAVIS' COMMENTS.

BUT I WOULD SAY ON 144, CHARTER SHALL TAKE UPON THE RATIFICATION BY A MAJORITY BUTE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH PERIOD AND STOP

IT THERE. >> OKAY.

ARE WE ALL DONE NOW WITH 144 AND 145? MEMBER CLARK? SECTION 120, SALARIES AND COMPENSATION, THIS IS A MINOR THING.

IT TALKS ABOUT THE CITY COMMISSION SETTING BY ORDINANCE THE SALARY OR COMPENSATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT HEADS, THE CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER AT THE CITY MANAGER OUGHT TO SET THOSE SALARIES.

IT'S IMPORTANT THERE BE AN ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE MATTER OF COMPENSATION AND WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE. IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE CITY MANAGER. I THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD SET BY ORDINANCE THE SALARY AND ASSUMPTICOMPENSATION, BUT I DONK THE COMMISSION SHOULD SET SALARIES FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS.

>> I THINK WHAT THEY DO SET -- >> IS THEIR OWN.

>> IS THEIR OWN. BUT THEY ALSO SET THE SALARY

RANGES. >> THEY DO, BY ORDINANCE.

>> THAT'S IN THE FORM OF AN ORD ORDINANCE.

EVERY YEAR WHEN THE MARKET STUDIES ARE DONE F FOR SALARY, E

COMMISSION DECIDES ON THAT. >> AND THEY APPROVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IN THE BUDGET, WHICH INCLUDES THE EXACT NUMBERS FOR SALARY AND BENEFITS EVERY YEAR BY RESOLUTION.

FOR EVERY DEPARTMENT. >> I UNDERSTAND THE SALARY RANGE DECISION. BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL SALARY DECISION ITSELF AND WHAT THE NUMBER IS.

AND I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS BEST TO BE ALIGNED BETWEEN WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING, SUPERVISING THAT INDIVIDUAL, THAT'S WHERE THE SALARY COMPENSATION DECISION SHOULD BE MADE. AND WHEN YOU DIVORCE THAT, THEN I THINK IT JUST -- DOESN'T WORK AS WELL.

I UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE -- PRACTICE MAY NOT MIRROR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THIS. FOR MY MONEY, I WOULD NOT INCLUDE DEPARTMENT HEADS IN THIS SECTION.

I THINK THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO DEAL WITH THE CHARTER OFFICERS AND THE COMMISSION MEMBERS THEMSELVES.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TAKING THAT REFERENCE OUT OF THIS CLAUSE? ALL RIGHT.

CAN WE DO THAT? >> YES, JUST TAKE OUT DEPARTMENT

HEADS. >> MR. LASSERRE?

JON, YOU'RE MUTED. >> YOU'RE MUTED, JON.

>> I HAD COMMENTS ON SOME OF THE OTHERS.

121, 122, 1251 125, 137 IF WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THOSE.

>> I'LL GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, IS THERE ANYTHING

[01:50:03]

OTHER THAN THE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS TODAY? ARE WE READY TO ADDRESS THE

CITIZENS' INITIATIVE? >> I MEAN, I'VE GOT A COUPLE -- THEY'RE VERY QUICK COMMENTS ON THOSE SECTIONS.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT -- NOTHING REALLY SUBSTANTIAL.

I MEAN, SO 121 -- I'M SORRY, I HAD NOTES.

IT SAYS THE WORD HIS IN IT, I JUST WANT TO USE SOMETHING MORE GENDER NEUTRAL. SECTION 122, IS THIS NECESSARY? YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BONDS FOR THE COMPTROLLER.

DO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS IN HERE? I GUESS I WOULD RAISE THAT

QUESTION. >> ANYBODY SEE A BURNING NEED FOR THAT IN HERE? MEMBER KOSACK, IS YOUR HAND

RAISED? >> NO.

>> OKAY. >> DELETE THE WHOLE THING?

AND RESERVE THE SECTION? >> NO, UNLESS YOU THINK IT NECESSARY, IT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSIONER OR MANAGER SHALL -- IT'S REALLY NOT EVEN A COMPLETE SENTENCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S TRYING TO -- WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED IT. IT'S NOT BEING DONE.

I GUESS THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT ANYWAY.

SO WHY -- >> THEY DO.

>> OKAY. THAT'S COMING OUT.

>> LET'S SEE. 125.

IS THAT NOT HANDLED BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' OFFICE?

>> LET'S SEE. HOLD ON.

>> DO YOU LET THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS HANDLE THAT?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S OUTSOURCED BY THE CITY TO THE SUPERVISOR OF

ELECTION. >> THE CITY COMMISSION ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO HAVE THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS ASSIST THE CITY WITH THAT.

OF COURSE, THE CITY CLERK HAS A MAJOR ROLE.

>> OKAY. >> THEY'RE NOT APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THEY'RE HIRED BY THE -- I MEAN, YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT THERE.

>> I GUESS THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT WHOEVER THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS HIRES. I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO -- IN READING IT IT WAS WONDERING WHY WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT.

IF IT'S THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER

AND EASIER -- >> THIS IS ALL REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. POLL WORKERS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THOSE.

WE DON'T NEED THIS IN THE CHARTER IF YOU WANT TO BE --

>> ANY OBJECTIONS TO TAKING THAT LANGUAGE OUT? OKAY. WE'LL DO IT.

>> THE LAST ONE WAS 137, ON DEDICATION OF STREETS.

I KNOW WHY THEY HAVE THIS, THEY DON'T WANT STREETS THAT AREN'T BUILD TO STANDARD. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I'M WONDERING IF IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER. THEY WON'T ACCEPT A ROAD FROM A PLAT UNLESS IT'S PASSED INSPECTION.

SO I JUST QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NECESSARY.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY GOES AND SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT YOUR STREET BECAUSE OUR CHARTER SAYS IT HAS TO BE PASSED BY ORDINANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EVEN DO

THAT. >> THEY DO.

>> OKAY. >> BUT IT'S BY RESOLUTION.

IT'S BY RESOLUTION. I WOULD RECOMMEND IT SAY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION AND THAT WE KEEP THE SECTION.

IF I EVER HAD A DISPUTE WITH A DEVELOPER THAT SAID THAT SOMETHING IN THE PLAT LANGUAGE SAID THAT THE CITY ACCEPTED THE STREETS, I COULD AT LEAST GO BACK TO OUR CHARTER.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE HERE. SAY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY.

THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE BURNING NEED TO CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE DOWN HERE TODAY? ARE WE READY TO TALK ABOUT THE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE? DID EVERYBODY DO THEIR HOMEWORK? I DID. OKAY.

MEMBER KOSACK? >> I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP THIS SUPER BRIEF. I WAS CONCERNED WITH THE PARALYZING OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT IF WE DID PUT THIS FORTH I SHARED A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS. RATHER THAN JUST TRYING TO START AN ARGUMENT ONE

[01:55:01]

WAY OR THE OTHER, I PIGGYBACKED OFF OF MARGARET'S RESEARCH AND I CHOSE THE SIX CITY CLOSEST TO US IN POPULATION AND THEY WERE DESTIN, COCOA BEACH, MINIOLA AND WILTEN MANNER.

AND I PULLED THEIR CHARTERS AND SPECIFICALLY PULLED THE SECTIONS REFERRING TO THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.

AND I PRINTED THOSE OUT. I CALLED E EACH OF THOSE CITY GOVERNMENTS AND I SPOKE WITH THE CITY CLERK OR CITY MAF MANAGERSO GET A LITTLE BIT OF A FEEL FOR HOW THIS ARTICLE SETS THE OPERATION OF THEIR GOVERNMENT. I WAS SURPRISED AT THE LENGTH OF TIME A LOT OF THESE HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS.

WILTEN MANOR HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE 1973.

THE CITY MANAGER HAS BEEN THERE FOR 16 YEARS AND SHE SAID IT'S NEVER BEEN USED BY CITIZENS FOR EITHER INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM.

MINIOLA, CLERK HAS BEEN THERE FOUR YEARS AND SHE SAID THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING BROUGHT IN HER FOUR YEARS THERE.

COCOA BEACH HAS BEEN UP SINCE 1998.

AND THE CLERK SAID IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN NO PETITIONS NOR REFERENDUMS AND IN 35 YEARS THERE IS NOT BEEN ANY CITIZEN PETITIONS OR REFERENDUMS BASED ON ORDINANCES.

THEY ALSO JUST COMPLETED A CRC COMMISSION REVIEW IN 2018 AND THEY RECOMMENDED NO CHANGES TO THIS PARTICULARITYICAL.

THAT MADE ME THINK THERE WEREN'T ANY EXCUSES ABOUT IT.

OLDSMAR, IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS AT LEAST 10 YEARS AND THE CLERK SAID THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW CHALLENGES THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE AND ADVOCATES FOR THE CITIZENS. LASTLY, DESDESTIN, THE CLERK THERE, HE'S BEEN THE CLERK FOR 12 YEARS.

HE'S BEEN IN THEIR CITY GOVERNMENT FOR 20 YEARS.

AND IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1984.

THEY HAD ONE INITIATIVE THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH WITH CITIZEN PETITION AND IT HAS TO BE WITH THEIR WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS. AND I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THESE PEOPLE IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ZONING OR DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, AND I'M THINKING COCOA BEACH AND DESTIN WOULD HAVE ISSUES AND THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE HAD NOTHING.

THE DESTIN CLERK SAID THE TWO THINGS THAT ARE REALLY THE SAFEGUARDS ARE THE PERCENTAGE OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED AND THE SECOND THING IS THE EXEMPTIONS, WHICH IS LISTED, USUALLY, UNDER THE FIRST SECTION OF IT. SO MY REASON FOR PROVIDING THE DESTIN ARTICLES, IT'S A BOILERPLATE OF WHAT THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE PUTS FORTH WITH A FEW MINOR CHANGES BASED ON WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU WANT. I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE WE CAN USE THIS AS THE BASIS FOR SOMETHING FOR US TO DISCUSS.

AND IF WE WANT TO BE PRETTY STRICT WITH THAT 20%.

THAT IS MUCH HIGHER THAN EVERYBODY.

IF WE WANT TO PUT 20%, THAT'S A THING WE DO.

I FEEL LIKE WITH OUR CITIZEN SURVEY WHERE TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY WAS AN ISSUE, LET'S PUT THIS TOO PEOPLE AS A TOOL.

IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT -- IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED, SO I THINK OUR THEORETICAL FEARS OF IT MAYBE ARE UNWARRANTED. SO THAT'S WHAT I GOT SO FAR

THAT'S IT >> MEMBER LASSERRE.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED.

IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT BEING USED AT ALL.

ONE INSTANCE OF THOSE SIX PEER CITIES IN ALL THE TIME IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS. I QUESTION THE NECESSITY OF TO.

I THINK SOMETHING WITH A MUCH LOWER THRESHOLD LIKE A POLL OR STRAW VOTE AT ANOTHER ELECTION IS NONBINDING AND GETS THE POINT ACROSS AND IT WILL BE AN EASIER THING TO GET OUT THERE.

YOU GET AN OPINION OF THE FOLKS WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT SOME BINDING REQUIREMENTS ON THE COMMISSION.

I FEEL LIKE THESE TH THRESHOLDSE GOING TO GET DOWN TO NOTHING AND

[02:00:05]

YOU'VE GOT BASICALLY MOB RULE. THAT'S NOT WHAT EVERYBODY INTENDED OR WANTS. I DON'T SEE WHY TO CRACK THE DAM AND JUST LEAVE -- I THOUGHT WE ALREADY VOTED THIS WASN'T GOING TO GO FORWARD IN THE WAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MEMBER DAVIS? I WANT TO THANK MS. CO K OS OSAI TALKING TO THE CITY CLERKS.

I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE REASONS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED MANY TIMES.

I FEEL THAT GOING A STRAW POLL IS EVEN MORE MEANINGLESS IN THE WAY THAT YOU'RE -- NOW YOU'RE HOLDING AN ELECTION FOR SOMETHING THAT REALLY HAS NO MEANING.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCES.

SO I'D RATHER HAVE A TOOL THAT REALLY MEANS SOMETHING TO THE CITIZENS. IF THEY WANT TO USE IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WHAT I WORKED ON IN MY HEAD AND I DID NOT DO PEER CITY RESEARCH, BECAUSE I GUESS I'M SPEAKING FROM HAVING BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, AND I'LL JUST USE MY OWN EXPERIENCE FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF VERY ACTIVE CITIZENS.

MANY MORE THAN OTHER CITIES DO. WHEN WE JUST COMPARE OUR SIZE, WE'RE MISSING THAT LAYER OF DYNAMIC SORT OF FEELINGS ABOUT IT. AND WE DO TEND TO HAVE A MICROCOSM OF VIEWS IN THIS CITY THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE DIVIDE THAT EXISTS EVERYWHERE. I HATE THAT, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO SMACK OF ANYTHING PARTISAN.

AND ANY OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE MADE.

WHAT I DO LIKE IS THE IDEA OF HAVING SOMETHING POSITIVE PUT ON AS A CITY INITIATIVE. SO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE SAME SORT OF PROCESS THAT MARGARET HAS DE DEFINED ALREADY.

TO HAVE A CITIZENS' INITIATIVE THAT GOES OUT AND SAYS WE WANT TO DO X, Y, AND Z AND THIS IS THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AND WE'RE GOING TO GET IT AS A REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT.

I THINK THAT'S A HUGE STEP FORWARD FOR FERNANDINA.

WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY HEAR WHEN YOU'RE IN THE TRENCHES IS A LOT OF REASON WHY THINGS CAN'T HAPPEN.

THAT TO ME IS A WAY OUT OF THE TRENCHES AND THE LANGUAGE OF WHY WE CAN'T DO THINGS, WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

MY FEAR IS A VERY REAL ONE ABOUT GOING INTO PARALYSIS MODE IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THE IDEA OF ALLOWING THE TAKING AWAY OF A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION. TO ME, THAT'S THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS DOING AWAY WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY DID, WE GO TO THE POLLS AND GET RID OF THEM. AND THAT WE'RE LOSING.

I THINK HAD WE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A LOT OF THE CHANGES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ALREADY, LIKE DOING AWAY WITH GROUPS, ET CETERA, IF WE HAD THAT RANKED VOTING CAPABILITY NOW, WE WOULD BE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO STOP ALL THIS DIVISION THAT WE SEE IN THE COMMUNITY. SINCE WE CAN'T DO THAT, I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT PUSHING FORWARD WITH A CITIZENS' INITIATIVE THAT LETS SOMETHING NEW HAPPEN AS OPPOSED TO GOING BACK AND UNDOING SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.

WE HAVE SOME CONFUSION AND I'VE HEARD ABOUT IT FROM OUR CITIZEN FEEDBACK. I HEAR ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, REALLY DOWNTOWN. WE HAVE CONFUSION BETWEEN WHETHER A COMMISSIONER HAS LISTENED TO ME OR WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER AGREED WITH ME. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF

[02:05:02]

COMMISSIONERS WILL LISTEN, BUT BUTTHEN THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND PUT THAT THEY'VE HEARD IN CONTEXT WITH OTHER INFORMATION THEY HAVE AND WHAT ELSE THEY'VE HEARD.

THEY DON'T ALSO VOTE THE WAY WE WANTED THEM TO.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DIDN'T LISTEN.

IF THEY HAVE A PATTERN OF NOT LISTENING AND THEY JUST TOTALLY DON'T REPRESENT THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM THEN WE HAVE PUT IN RECOURSE FOR THAT INTO THE LANGUAGE.

WHAT I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO TRY IS LET'S SEE IF THIS POSITIVE APPROACH WORKS FIRST. ONE OF THE THINGS THE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE COULD DO IF IT TAKES OFF IS GO BACK AND CREATE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THE OTHER HALF OF THIS INITIATIVE.

MEMBER MORRISON? >> I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

IN THIS SCENARIO, SAY, -- SAY THEY'RE ABLE TO GET 20% OF THE ELECTORATE TO SIGN PETITIONS OR WHATEVER FOR A NEW ORDINANCE TO BE BROUGHT? AT THAT POINT THE COMMISSION WOULD EITHER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, OKAY, THERE'S 20% OF THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

MAYBE WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER IT AS AN ORDINANCE OURSELVES AND MAYBE THEY VOTE IT IN.

IF THEY DON'T, THEN IT GOES TO AN ELECTION FOR REFERENDUM?

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. >> DO YOU THINK THESE ARE THE TYPE OF ISSUES COULD COME UP, COULD WAIT TILL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION FOR THAT TO HAPPEN? DO YOU THINK WEALD WE WE WOULDO SPEND $25,000 ON A SPECIAL ELECTION?

>> DERN DERN IT WOULD GO TO THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW.

>> I THINK IF THERE'S 20% OF THE POPULATION THAT WANTS SOMETHING AND THE COMMISSION IGNORES THAT, SEEING AS HOW WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE 8% IN A RUN OFF THAT ACTUALLY ELECT PEOPLE.

SO IF WE GET 20% THAT WANTS SOMETHING TO HAPPEN AND THE COMMISSION IGNORES IT THEN THEY'VE GOT A DIFFERENT KIND OF

A PROBLEM. >> I THINK I FEEL LIKE I COULD

BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. >> MEMBER DAVIS

>> ON THIS PROPOSAL, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO USE 20%, GIVEN IS THAT FLORIDA STATUTE ALLOWS THE CHARTER TO BE -- ALLOWS A PETITION INITIATIVE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER TO BE DONE WITH JUST 10% OF THE ELECTORATE.

I GUESS WE HAVE SHOWN OUR CHARTER HAS THINGS IN IT THAT OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT THINK BELONG IN ORDINANCES.

WHY WOULD A CITIZEN GROUP CHOOSE TO DO IT THROUGH PETITIONING FOR AN ORDINANCE AS OPPOSED TO JUST AN AMENDMENT OF A CHARTER WHICH ONLY HAS A 10% THRESHOLD UNDER THE STATE LAWS?

>> I THINK THE -- IF THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO MAKE SOMETHING GOOD HAPPEN AND HAPPEN FAST, THEN CHOOSING THIS PROCESS WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME THAN WAITING FOR THE CHARTER PROCESS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED.

>> IF YOU PETITION FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT IT WOULD GO ON THE NEXT GENERAL REFERENDUM UNDER STATE LAW.

AND YOU'RE SAYING YOUR PETITION PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE

HAPPENING ANY FASTER >> YOU JUST PROVED MY MOTHER'S POINT WHEN SHE TOLD ME NOT TO ARGUE WITH AN ATTORNEY.

>> I WAS NOT A COURTROOM ATTORNEY.

I'M THINKING ABOUT THE STATE STATUTE

>> I THINK THAT PROCEDURALLY IN WORKING THIS OUT IS THE SECOND STEP. WE HAVE TO COME T TO AN AGREEMET FIRST AND FOREMOST. RALAST TIME WE VOTED DOUND THE E INITIATIVE THAT'S BEEN WRITTEN. THIS TIME WE WANT TO DECIDE

[02:10:01]

WHETHER WE WANT TO PURSUE ANYTHING OR WHETHER WE'RE JUST DONE WITH IT. SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS, FIRST AND FOREMOST, ON DO WE WANT TO PURSUE IT AT ALL.

I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE CHART BECAUSE THERE'S A BUNCH OF YOU.

MEMBER CLARK? THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS IT SEEMS TO ME. I THINK THERE'S SOME WISDOM IN WHAT THE CHAIR HAS OUTLINED. I ALSO SEE SOME PITFALLS DEPENDING ON EXACTLY HOW THE LANGUAGE IS DRAFTED.

I THINK WE HAVE A MECHANICAL ISSUE HERE.

I'M WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE I COULD MAKE AN INTELLIGENT DECISION WITHOUT SEEING SOME PRETTY WELL THOUGHT OUT WORDS ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND HAVING A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. I CAN SEE SOME LANGUAGE WE HASTILY PUT TOGETHER THAT WOULD SET US BACK AND NOT MOVE US FORWARD. I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THAT.

DO I THINK THERE'S SOME POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING THE WAY THE CHAIR HAS OUTLINED THAT WOULD BE POSITIVE AND GOOD AND BE AN AVENUE FOR THE COMMUNITY? I'D LIKE TO THINK SO. BUT I'M JUST NOT -- IN MY OWN MIND I WORRY ABOUT EXACTLY THE PRECISION OF THAT LANGUAGE AND WANTING TO SEE THAT. I THINK WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE MECHANICAL LOGISTICS OF SAYING ARE WE PREPARED TO TAKE ANOTHER COUPLE WEEKS AND WORK ON THAT. YOU COULD ASK FOR A VOTE RIGHT NOW AND I COULD SAY I'M WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT.

I COULDN'T VOTE ON SOMETHING DEFINITIVE OR SAY HOW I VOTE ON

THE LANGUAGE AFTER I SAW IT. >> MEMBER KOSACK?

>> YSTLES ALSO GOING TO SAY THAT I WOULD SUPPORT WHAT YOU WOULD PUT FORTH AS A FIRST STEP. I THINK WE NEED TO PUT SOME POSITIVES OUT THERE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD RECOMMENDATION. MY FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS IF WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES THEN I FEEL LIKE THAT 20% MIGHT BE TOO HIGH FOR THE REASONS MEMBER DAVIS PUT FORTH. IF THEY CAN AMEND THE CHARTER BY 10%, THEN I THINK 20%, WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.

I CAN SUPPORT DOING IT HALFWAY AND I AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK THAT WE NEED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT OUR LANGUAGE IS GOOD FOR THE PROCEDURE OF IT AND IT'S VERIFIED AND MAKE SURE THERE'S

NO LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS. >> MEMBER LASSERRE?

>> WELL, WE CAN'T PUT WHATEVER WE WANT INTO THE CHARTER, THINGS THAT DON'T BELONG THERE INTO A CHARTER.

I KNOW THAT THE 10% -- IF THEY PUT OUT TO A VOTE AND RESTRICTING TO 10% BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MUCH IT TAKES TO AMEND THE CHARTER, BUT THEN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE CHARTER TO BEGIN WITH THAT OPENS UP THE CITY TO A LEGAL CHALLENGE AS WELL. WE NEED TO TAKE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THAT. WHETHER OR NOT THEY PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO STOP ALL ZONING CHANCES FOR EXAMPLE.

THAT WOULDN'T STAND UP AND YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT.

I THINK DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF THIS.

IF YOU GET 20%, THAT'S GOING TO BE HEARD.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PUT ANYTHING BINDING OUT THERE.

WE'VE HAD RECORDS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ON THIS STATE. THIS WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS POPULAR BUT IN REALITY IS BAD GOVERNMENT WILL GET THROUGH.

EVENTUALLY. IT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP TO DO IT AGAIN.

>> OKAY. I DON'T BELIEVE BASED ON THE OKAY THAT I'M HEARING THAT WE HAVE A MAJORITY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE A VOTE ON THAT TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE SHOULD PURSUE THIS IDEA ANYMORE. I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION WE NEED TO ANSWER. DO I HAVE A MOTION THAT SAYS WE PURSUE IT MORE OR DO I HAVE A MOTION THAT SAYS THIS IS IT,

IT'S OVER? >> I'LL MOVE TO PURSUE IT

FURTHER >> SECOND

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MEMBER CLARK?

>> YEAH, JUST A QUESTION FOR TAMMY BACH.

[02:15:04]

SO I KNOW WE'VE BEEN UP AGAINST SCHEDULE AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET SOMETHING IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION SO THEY CAN VOTE ON IT, THE ELECTORATE CAN VOTE ON IT.

HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LANDMARK KIND OF THING HERE. AND WE'RE NOT READY TO VOTE TODAY. HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE TO HORSE AROUND WITH LANGUAGE AND STAY ON THE SCHEDULE WE NEED TO HAVE IN ORDER TO GET THIS ON THE BALLOT?

>> WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE AGENDA AND ALL OF THE MATERIALS FINISHED BY TOMORROW FOR THE JUNE 16TH AGENDA.

KATIE AND ARE GOING TO GO HOME TONIGHT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE CHILDREN. BUT WE WILL BE IN BRIGHT AND EARLY TOMORROW BEGGING THE CITY MANAGER TO KEEP THIS ON THE JUNT

WITH YOU >> I DON'T SEE HOW WE HAVE TIME TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S AS IMPORTANT AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. HOW DO WE HAVE TIME TO DO LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND DO JUSTICE TO THIS ISSUE? UNDERSTANDING THAT SCHEDULE YOU JUST OUTLINED, I'M PROBABLY WITH MR. LASSERRE ON THIS. I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF SOMETHING THAT'S A BLUNDER. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT SOUNDS REALLY APPEALING. I JUST -- I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT HAS UNINTENDED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.

I FEAR THAT HERE IF WE'RE NOT REALLY CAREFUL WITH LANGUAGE

>> YOU'RE GOING TO BE, FOR THIS, ESPECIALLY WITH HOW YOU ADDED TO THE CONVERSATION THE REALITY THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF CITIZENS AND THEY'RE NOT ALL IN AGREEMENT ABOUT HOW THE CITY'S RUN THAT ARE VERY INTERESTED AND VERY INVOLVED IN THE CITY.

WE GAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THEY MAY WANT TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

IT'S SOMETHING I THOUGHT ABOUT. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO CALL ONICAONKATIE BECAUSE SHE FOLLOWD PROCEDURE AND I IGNORED HER.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU COULD ASK, IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE, MIGHT LEAD TO LOOK AT IT FOR THE 2022 BALLOT IF YOU CAN ASK THE COMMISSION TO EXTEND YOUR TIME AND MAYBE SPEND A COUPLE MORE MONTHS ON THIS.

>> DID EVERYBODY HEAR THAT? >> I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT SHE

SAID. >> SHE SAID THAT WE COULD ASK FOR THE COMMISSION TO TO EXTENDE TIME TO LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND PUT WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH, IF WE DO, ON THE 2022 BALLOT.

>> 2022? >> YES

>> IN OTHER WORDS THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER CHANGES IF WE CONTINUE TO MEET AFTER TODAY THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSED FOR THE 2022 BALLOT. I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS -- IT'S NOT AN UNWILLINGNESS ON OUR PART TO WORK OUR TAILS OFF TO GET THIS DONE. IT'S WE VE WE ARE WORKING BACKZ WARDSFROM THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.

THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS WANTS IT BY AUGUST 10TH, SO WE'RE GOING WITH -- AND NOT ASSUMING THE CITY COMMISSION CAN HAVE SPECIAL MEETINGS. THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE -- THERE'S ALWAYS SOME WAY, RIGHT -- THE OMWAY I CAN SEE ONE YOU COULD GET BALLOT AND INITIATIVE LANGUAGE DEPENDING ON HOW MANY MEETINGS IT TOOK YOU DO DECIDE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT MR. BEAN BE INCLUDED -- IS IF YOU ASKED THE CITY COMMISSION TO HOLD A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BEFORE THE END OF JULY TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE AND ESSENTIALLY WE COULD HAVE -- WE COULD HAVE A THIRD READING OF THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH ADDS ANOTHER BALLOT QUESTION AND A LITTLE BIT TO THE TITLE. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

WE COULD SEE IF THE CITY COMMISSION IS WILLING TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT COULD BE, I THINK, YOU WOULD BE WORKING ON. BECAUSE WHAT I'M DOING IS YOU MAY BE THINKING IN YOUR HEAD, WELL, AUGUST 10 FOR THE SUPERVISOR, WOW, THAT'S 20 DAYS. BUT FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, FINALIZING IT AND PUTTING IT IN THE FORMS THAT THE SUPERVISOR REQUIRES, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A

LOT OF HAND AND WE TIME TO DO I. >> MEMBER CLARK?

[02:20:05]

>> JUST AS A VARIATION ON THAT THEME.

FT WEIT WOULD SEEM WE'D HAVE TOE MORE OF A DEFINITIVE IDEA ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT. HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND HERE'S A CONCEPTION UAL OUTLINE. MAYBE WE MENTION THAT WE BE WE E TALKED ABOUT THIS AND SEE IF YOU CAN GET A READ FROM THE COMMISSION IF THEY HAVE AN OPINION.

RATHER THAN DO THE OTHER THING. USE THE JOINT MEETING AS A WAY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND SEE IF THERE'S SUPPORT ON

THE PART OF THE COMMISSION. >> THE 2022 ELECTION WILL HAVE IN IT MORE CHANGES IN THE CHARTER THAN WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TO DATE. RIGHT? WHEN WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ARE MOST CRITICAL FOR TODAY, THOSE WERE THE ITEMS WE BELIEVE NEEDED TO BE DONE IN TIME FOR THIS YEAR'S ELECTION.

WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS IN THE CHARTER THAT WE SAID EARLIER WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH YET. WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW. IT'S MY EXPECTATION THAT ANY CHANGES WE DEFINE TO THE REST OF THAT CHARTER AS WE MOVE FORWARD WILL BE ON THE 2022 BALLOT. THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS BEING PART OF THAT IS THERE. DO WE WANT TO PURSUE IT ANYMORE AT ALL? REGARDLESS OF THE TIMEFRAME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THAT AND I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. OKAY.

LET'S CALL THE ROLL FOR A VOTE >> MEMBER DAVIS?

>> YES >> MEMMEMBER KOSACK?

>> YES >> MEMBER MORRISON

>> NO >> MEMBER LASSERRE

>> NO >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> NO. >> CHAIR?

>> YES. >> WE HAVE A TIE.

>> IT FAILS. >> IT'S FAILED BECAUSE WE HAVE A TIE. SO AT THIS POINT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT A CITIZENS' INITIATIVE IN THE CHARTER.

AND WHAT WE NEED TO PLAN FOR NEXT IS A COMMISSION WORKSHOP.

[Item 8]

>> RIGHT, TO GO OVER -- >> THE REST OF THESE

>> THE CHANGES WE'LL BE PROPOSING FOR THE NOVEMBER

BALLOT >> YES

>> IS THAT IT, KATIE? >> IF EVERYONE CAN SEND ME THEIR

AVAILABILITY >> FOR WORKSHOPS, SO WE HAVE ONE

MORE MEETING AFTER TODAY. >> WE CAN'TWE CAN HAVE ONE MOREG YES. I WAS LOOKING TO SCHEDULE -- TO, PLEASE, KATIE'S E-MAIL REGARDING YOUR AVAILABILITY.

BECAUSE WE WOULD SCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING TO CONTINUE OUR WORK AND ALSO HAVE A WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE OTHER THING, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WE COULD USE IS AN OFFICIAL VOTE OF THIS BODY TO FORMALLY REQUEST FROM THE CITY COMMISSION THAT SAYS, UNLESS YOU WANT YOUR BOARD TO SUNSET AT THE END OF JUNE -- DID WE DECIDE THAT WAS OKAY AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MEET AT THE END OF JUNE, BY THE END OF JUNE?

>> YES >> OKAY.

>> SO WE'LLVI WE'LL HAVE MORE MS COMING UP, BUT PLEASE GET YOUR AVAILABILITY TO KATIE. SHE SUGGESTED A COUPLE OF DATES IN THE LAST E-MAIL. CHECK THAT OUT AND GET BACK TO HER WITH YOUR AVAILABILITY, PLEASE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE OLD BUSINESS?

MEMBER DAVIS? >> I WAS WONDERING IF WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING?

>> THE ETHICS CODE? >> PREAMBLE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT

[02:25:07]

TO CALL IT. DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GOING TO

DISCUSS THAT AT ALL? >> CERTAINLY IF THE GROUP WANTS TO, WE WILL. MEMBER CLARK?

>> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A COMMENT AFTER YOU DONE WITH THE REGULAR

BUSINESS BUT BEFORE WE ADJOURN >> I HAVE THE LANGUAGE FOR

SECTION 11B >> TAMMY'S GOING TO READ THE LANGUAGE FOR 11B THAT SHE PROMISED TO GET DONE BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING. SPHWHRA

>> WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET IT UP ON THE SCREEN HERE.

SLIDE IN THAT PRESENTATION OKAY, WE'RE DOING A SHARED SCREEN SO YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT I'M PROPOSING FOR SECTION 11B, THE COMMENTS WERE CHANGED TO SUSPEND AND INDICATE THAT A FORFEITURE DOESN'T HAPPEN.

WHILE I'M WRITING YOU'LL SEE I WROTE IN TEN DAYS BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THE CITY COMMISSION TO DELAY GIVING THIS PERSON A HEARING WHO IS JUST SUSPENDED THEIR SEAT OR SUSPENDED THEIR SERVICE. AND TEN CALENDAR DAYS AND IF IT'S THAT SERIOUS THAT WE'RE HAVING A HEARING FOR A CITY COMMISSIONER, WE'LL HAVE A HEARING SET WITH A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION, SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING.

I'M HAPPY TO, AS YOU'RE SITTING HERE TO -- IF ANYBODY WANTS TO

WORDSMITH, I HAVE IT UP. >> ANYBODY WANTING TO COMMENT ON THIS? I CAN'T SEE YOUR HANDS WITH THIS

NEW SCREEN. >> MEMBER CLARK IS RAISING HIS

HAND >> NO, I DON'T NEED TO, I'M

SORRY. >> OKAY

>> I'VE GOT SOMETHING BLOCKING IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT READS A HEARING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION IS ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES. >> A HEARING COND CONDUCTED IN

ACCORDANCE -- >> YAIVMENOKAY, I GOT YOU

>> THANK >> IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A HEARING

CONDUCTED IN -- >> HEARINGS MUST BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH -- OR WHATEVER -- MUST BE -- A PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S -- YEAH, THAT

>> OKAY. GOOD CATCH.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO JUST GO TO MY OLD SCHOOL LEGALESE.

A HEARING HEREUNDER IS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SERIES OF THE CITY'S' RULES OF PROCEDURES FOR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

I KNOW WE TRIED TO GET AWAY FROM THE HEREUNDER, SOMETIMES IT

WORKS >> YOU CAN REPLACE IT WITH BETTER LANGUAGE, BUT YOU'RE GETTING YOUR POINT ACROSS.

I GOT YOU. >> IT LOOKS LIKE --

>> I THINK IT'S GOOD. >> OKAY.

>> MEMBER CLARK? >> I THINK THE LANGUAGE IS GOOD

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO GET BACK TO KATIE AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD NOW DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO BRING UP ANYTHING IN

PARTICULAR? >> YEAH, I HAD ONE THING I

WANTED TO MENTION >> THAT'S WHAT --

>> OKAY. SO ON A PERSONAL FRONT, MY WIFE HAS ACCEPTED A JOB IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA.

AND AS A RESULT, WE'RE MOVING. THIS IS A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO ME. WE HAD NEVER ANTICIPATED LEAVING FERNANDINA BEACH, BUT THERE YOU ARE.

THE SCHEDULE FOR THIS HAS BEEN ACCELERATED MUCH FASTER THAN I HAD EVER ANTICIPATED. I'VE GOT ABOUT ANOTHER MONTH

[02:30:05]

HERE AND I'M GONE. AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE I'LL SUBMIT A RECOGNITION TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE CHARTER COMMITTEE. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THIS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ ABOUT IT OR HEAR ABOUT IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE. JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS SAYING THAT WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU HAS BEEN JUST A REAL PLEASURE.

THIS IS A GREAT COMMITTEE. ONE OF THE BEST I'VE EVER SERVED ON. YOU ALL ARE VERY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. I THINK WE HAVE A VERY GOOD PRODUCT HERE. I KNOW WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO THE WEEDS AND ARGUING ABOUT SOME THINGS, BUT OVERALL IT'S BEEN A VERY THOUGHTFUL GOOD PROCESS. I WISH YOU ALL WELL AND GOOD LUCK WITH I IMPLEMENTING THIS. ALL I WANT TO SAY

>> THANK YOU, AND LET ME SAY THAT THAT REALLY SUCKS.

I HATE TO SEE YOU LEAVE FERNANDINA, I REALLY DO

>> I'LL BE AROUND FOR A LITTLE WHILE LONGER.

THE GOOD NEWS IS I CAN CALL YOU ON THE PHONE.

>> I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU TO IT. MEMBER KOSACK?

>> WELL, RICK, I'M ALSO SITTING HERE CRYING, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE US, AND MARY GRACE, TOO.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHORT COMMITMENT TO OUR CITY

>> WELL, IT'S A GREAT TOWN. AND THE ONE THING ABOUT IT IS IT'S A TOWN WORTH FIGHTING FOR. YOU'VE GOT ALL THE RIGHT ATTRIBUTES HERE. PEOPLE SAY THE TOWN HAS CHANGED A LOT, WHICH I'M SURE IT HAS. BUT IT'S A JEWEL OF A PLACE.

AND I THINK THE WORK YOU'RE DOING HERE WITH THIS CHARTER, MY SENSE OF GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE CHARTER STUFF YOU'RE DOING IS NOT JUST A BUNCH OF LEGALESE, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAINTAINING THE QUALITY HERE. I SENSE THAT COMMITMENT FROM EVERYBODY ON THIS GROUP. IT'S BEEN REALLY -- I THINK IT'S BEEN A REALLY IMPRESSIVE TIME. A LOT OF IT DUE TO THE CHAIR

>> I'VE ENJOYED IT. IT'S ONE OF THE COMMITTEES I CAN COME OUT THE OTHER END AND SAY I ENJOYED IT.

ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO SAY IS THAT I THINK THE REASON FOR IT IS IN THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN TODAY WHERE NOBODY CAN SEEM TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT CALLING EACH OTHER NAMES, WE HAVE AVOIDED THAT. EVEN THOUGH WE AS A GROUP HAVE VERY DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT HOW TO GET THINGS DONE AND IN FACT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. I APPRECIATE THAT FROM ALL OF

YOU, THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. >> DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC

[Items 7 & 9]

COMMENTS? >> JUST THE ONE E-MAIL

>> WE GOT EARLIER? SO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE ANYTHING ON ETHICS, WHAT'S THE GROUP'S TAKE ON THAT? MEMBER LASSERE?

>> I APPRECIATE THE POINT OF VIEW.

I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE SENTIMENT EXPRESSED IS MORE THAN VALID. IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO ADOPT. BUT I THINK DON'T THINK THE CHARTER IS A PLACE FOR IT TO EXIST.

IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE PART OF THE POLICY OVERALL IN THE CITY.

AND PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT MANUAL.

AND MAYBE PUT ON THE WALL AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY AND IT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PLACE IN HERE OF THE CHARTER. I WAS LOOKING FOR WHERE CHARTERS ARE ADDRESSED, THERE'S COUNTY CHARTERS.

ANYWAY, THE COUNTY CHARTER, HOW IT'S FORMED AND HOW IT'S SET UP AND HOW CERTAIN THINGS ARE DONE. MATTERS OF POLICY LIKE THIS, I MEAN, ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AS PART OF THE CITY'S CULTURE, I'M NOT SURE IT'S HOW IT'S RUN. AND I MEAN IT F IN A VERY RESPECTFUL WAY. I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN POLICY MANUAL AND THEIR MISSION STATEMENT AND OTHER AREAS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF PUT PUTTINGT IN THE -- IT WOULDN'T BE WRONG, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE.

IT SHOULD BE IN OTHER PLACES >> MEMBER KOSACK?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT OF VIEW THAT MEMBER LASSERRE IS PUTTING FORTH. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ETHICS WAY BACK WHEN, I LOOKED AT CITY CHARGERS AND I HAD PULLED A CITY CHARGER FROM PHOENIX AND IT

[02:35:04]

ALMOST HAD THIS BLAH BLAH, ALMOST VERBATIM.

I THINK A LOT OF THIS MAY HAVE COME FROM ANOTHER CHARTER SOMEWHERE. I THINK THE INTENT IS THAT THE CHARTER IS THE OVERARCHING DOCUMENTS.

IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN SOMETHING THAT'S CODIFIED SOMEPLACE. I WONDER IF IT COULD BE A PREAMBLE TO THE CHARTER OR AS RECOMMENDED CAN IT BE INCORPORATED INTO SECTION 136 BECAUSE THAT DOES GIVE US INVESTIGATIONS AND VIOLATIONS. IS THIS LIKE A SUBPARAGRAPH THAT COULD GO IN THERE JUST TO HAVE THIS ADDRESS.

>> MEMBER DAVIS SOME >> WHEN I READ IT IT TOOK ME BACK TO A VERY EARLY MEETING. IN PARTICULAR I THINK IT WAS MEMBER CLARK WHO LIKED THE IDEA OF A BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THIS IS ALONG THOSE LINES. I REMEMBER I ASKED THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES WHEN SHE WAS SPEAKING TO US DID THEY SEE THINGS LIKE THIS.

SHE INDICATED IT WAS THE TYPE OF THING YOU WOULD PUT IN THE PREAMBLE. YOU DIDN'T SEE BILL OF RIGHTS.

YOU COULD PUT IT IN AS A PREAMBLE.

I THINK IN 201 2007 HAD TRIED TT SOME TYPE OF PREAMBLE.

I WONDER IF JUST LIKE THE INITIATIVES, IS THIS KIND OF COMING A LITTLE TOO LATE NOW IN THE PROCESS AS WELL.

I DO CERTAINLY AM VERY SYMPATHETIC AND EMPATHETIC TO THESE POINTS, THEY DO REMIND ME OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHRARYLS

AGO. >> IT DOES.

WHEN I WAS ON COMMISSION, I ASKED THE COMMISSION I SERVED WITH TO ADOPT A CODE OF ETHICS. I MEC PRETTY MUCH GOT THE SAME ANSWER WE GOT WHEN WE BROUGHT IT UP IN OUR WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COMMISSION NOW. IF YOU REMEMBER CORRECTLY THAT INFORMATION WAS SORT OF LIKE BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, I THINK WERE THE EXACT WORDS THAT WERE USED.

AND TALKING IN TERMS OF WHAT IT -- THE POSSIBILITIES THAT IT CAN LEAD TO. SO THE PARTICULAR ONE THAT WAS SHARED WITH US, I LOVE THE LANGUAGE.

BUT IT'S ALSO UNENFORCEABLE. BECAUSE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT HONESTY, FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE CAN PLAY WITH THAT WORD TILL THE COWS COME HOME AND YOU NEVER REALLY GET ANYTHING SETTLED WITH IT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT ENFORCEABLE IN MY MIND. I ALSO REMEMBER AS AN EXAMPLE THAT WE HAD A COMMISSIONER IN THE PAST WHO WAS A BUSINESSMAN IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THAND WHEN ANYTHING WAS VOTED ON FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WANTED HIM TO RE RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING BECAUSE HE WOULD BENEFIT OR NOT FROM A PARTICULAR CHANGE. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT PEOPLE BENEFIT REGARDLESS IF THEY VOTE FOR SOMETHING GOOD IN THE CITY WHILE THEY'RE ON THE COMMISSION.

SO THAT -- SOMEBODY SAW THAT AS A VIOLATION OF ETHICS.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY MANAGER WERE TELLING US WHEN THEY SAID BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. SO I AGREE THAT IT MIGHT BE A PREAMBLE OR IT MIGHT BE A CODE THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPTS ON THEIR OWN FOR THE WAY THEY'LL OPERATE.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE CHARTER. MR. CLARK?

>> WELL, THIS TAKES ME BACK. WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS AT THE FRONT END. I THINK THERE'S A CASE TO BE MADE FOR IT. I WOULD JUST OFFER THIS.

WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY IN ENFORCING A CODE OF ETHICS. AND MY OPINION ABOUT THAT IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE KEY ISSUE.

I THINK IF YOU HAVE AN EXPRESSION OF ETHICS OR A CODE OF ETHICS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, IF IT'S SIMPLY ARTICULATED, WHETHER IT'S BY RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION OR IN THE CHARTER ITSELF, I THINK THERE'S VALUE IN THAT.

[02:40:02]

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE ENFORCEMENT CLAUSE. IN EFFECT, THE VOTERS END UP ENFORCING IT. IF YOU HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS AND IT'S ASSERTED SOMEBODY HAS VIOLATED THAT, THEN THAT'S GERMANE IN SOMEBODY'S ELECTION IT SEEMS TO ME.

SO I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE IN HAVING AN EXPRESSION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE CODE OF ETHICS AND IN IMPORTANCE FOR CITY GOVERNMENT.

I DON'T THINK THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT AN ENFORCEMENT APPARATUS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO IT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. MY DIFFICULTY WITH THIS RIGHT NOW CAN NOT CONCEPTIONALLY, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE WE RAN INTO WITH CITIZEN INITIATIVE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TIME TO THRESH THIS OUT AND GET GOOD WORDS ON A PAPER THAT MAKES SENSE AT THIS POINT. SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO MOVE ON IT RIGHT NOW.

CONCEPTIONALLY IF WE HAD IT IN A PREAMBLE OR EXPRESSION THAT A CODE OF ETHICS IS AN APPROPRIATE THING TO HAVE, I COULD SUPPORT THAT IF WE COULD GET IT DONE WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME WE HAVE

>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT RICK SAID SO ELOQUENTLY.

I COULD NEVER SPEAK SO NICELY. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MOVE FORWARD ON IT, IF WE EVEN HAVE THE TIME.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? I'D LOVE TO SEE IT IN THERE, EVEN IF IT IS THE ASPIRATIONAL LANGUAGE.

I THINK THAT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THERE. HOW DO WE MOVE ON THIS AND WHAT

DO WE DO WITH IT? >> OKAY.

LET ME ASK A QUESTION. TAMMY?

>> YES, MA'AM >> WHO WRITES THE OATH THAT THE

COMMISSIONERS TAKE? >> IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE CODE OF

ORDINANCES. >> WHAT IF WE CHANGED THE OATH THAT THEY TAKE WHEN THEY'RE SWORN IN TO INCLUDE SOME OF THIS

LANGUAGE? >> WE COULD

>> HOW DOES EVERYBODY FEEL ABOUT THAT?

>> WE COULD SUGGEST IT ANYWAY. >> WHO, JON, DO YOU THINK COULD TAKE STAB AT CHANGING THAT OATH LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE SOME OF

THIS, JON, DO YOU THINK? >> I JUST LOWERED MY HANDS.

THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR IT TO BE CONTAIN CONTAINED.

MAYBE IT'S A START. I GUESS -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING FOR THE CHARTER COMMITTEE TO DO OR NOT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE A STAB AT IT AS A CITIZEN OR WHATEVER.

SEND IT OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND LET HER DISCUSS IT WITH THE COMMISSIONS AND IF THEY WANT TO ADOPT IT AS AN ORDINANCE I'D BE HONORED I HAD A HAND IN IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO TRY THAT, JON, THANKS FOR VOLUNTEERING. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS TONIGHT?

KATIE, TAMMY ARE WE GOOD? >> WE'RE GREAT, YES

>> I'M NOT HAPPY WITH YOU, RICK, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE DID REALLY WELL TODAY. YOU FELL DOWN ON THE JOB.

>> ALL RIGHT, I'M SORRY. >> THANK YOU ALL.

MEETING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.