Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:06]

WE CALL THE MEETING THE WORK CHAT MEETING. CAROLYN COULD YOU DO ROLL CALL PLEASE. AND FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> I CAN CERTAINLY FACILITATE IT.

[Items 4.1 & 5]

>> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. >> WE HAVE ALL OUR CHARTER REVIEW NUMBERS HERE.

MAYOR, DO YOU HAVE IDEAS ABOUT HOW, WE CALLED THIS, WE BEING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE CALLED THE MEETING TO MEET WITH THE COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING ON JUNE 30, BUT THESE ARE THE PROPOSALS TO MAKE IT IN TIME FOR BALLOT POSSIBILITIES IN NOVEMBER.

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, BECAUSE I THINK THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS WAS LOOKING AT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO IN TERMS OF ANY REFERENDA OR HOW THE SUPERVISOR PUT IT, AND THE CITY CLERK, SHE HAS PROVIDED YOU WITH A MEMORANDUM WITH SOME OPTIONS. THERE ARE COSTS TO CITY ELECTIONS ANYWAY, EVEN IF WE ARE ON THE BALLOT WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THROUGH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE 11 PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTIONS, AND NOW BASED UPON STATE LAW, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE TRANSLATED INTO SPANISH AND PROVIDED THAT WAY AS WELL, THERE WOULD BE ABOUT SIX PAGES OF BALLOT QUESTIONS AND THE COST TO HAVE THAT ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IS $80000 PLUS. WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER BUT IT IS $80000.

THERE ARE OTHER ELECTION OPTIONS. ONE WOULD BE TO PUT THE CHARTER ELECTIONS ON THE RUNOFF ELECTION IN DECEMBER. THERE'S A MALE BALLOT AND JIM BALLOT OPTION AND THEY ALL HAVE COSTS WE CAN DISCUSS. I DON'T KNOW, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ALL THE MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, IF THEY HAVE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION OR NOT? NO. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE RUNDOWN BASICALLY. THERE ARE NOT ANY, WE ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN ALL OF THE VOTING EQUIPMENT ET CETERA SO WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO HANDLE OUR ELECTIONS AND THE BALLOT QUESTIONS SO THE C CITY COMMISSION NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT COST AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND WHAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO DO IN TERMS OF THE BALLOT AND WHICH ELECTION OR WHAT TYPE OF ELECTION YOU WOULD WANT TO PROPOSE SO, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY COMMISSION CHARTER REVIEW MEMBERS WANT TO DISCUSS THIS FIRST BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE BALLOT QUESTIONS.

>> I PERSONALLY BELIEVE WE SHOULD DISCUSS WHAT THE CHARTER COMMITTEE IS DOING, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSION CAN DISCUSS WHICH BALLOT AND WHAT THE OPTIONS

ARE. >> OKAY. >> UNLESS THEY'VE WORKED ON THE

CHARTER AND IT'S HERE SO THAT'S WHAT THE MEETING IS FOR. >> CORRECT AND WE GOT THROUGH, I KNOW AT ONE OF THE LAST MEE MEETINGS, THE COMMISSIONER ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 69 AND THE BALLOT QUESTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED, ANYTHING IS REALLY OPEN AND WRITE FOR THIS MEETING BUT WE FOCUSED ON AND PROPOSED QUESTIONS, WE GOT AS FAR AS I THINK, WELL WE SKIP TO SECTION

[00:05:08]

136 BUT WE STOPPED AT BASICALLY THE CITY CLERK'S DUTIES SO THAT'S 47, 46, 47 AND THEN YOU JUMP TO 136 AND A NEW PROPOSED SECTION 142. THOSE ARE THE PROPOSALS WITH 11

QUESTIONS TOTAL. >> WELL IT'S THE CHARTER COMMITTEE'S MEETING, THEY CALLED IT SO THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH AND TELL US WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.

>> OKAY, YES, SIR. POWERPOINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITH THE CHARTER QUESTIONS?

>> NO, THE ORDINANCE IS ATTACHED TO THE MEMO. >> I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THIS. >> YOU CAN SHARE THE SCREEN. >> HAS THIS CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS

PRESENTED. >> NO, SIR. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

>> TO ALL OF YOU ON THE CHARTER COMMITTEE HAVE ACCESS TO THE PACKET FOR TODAY'S MEETING? THE AGENDA PACKET? IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT UP YOU MIGHT WANT TO BRING IT UP NOW.

WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS WALK THROUGH, WHAT I HOPE TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED FOR THE COMMISSION THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND, I KNOW THAT AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE MORE AT A DETAILED LEVEL ABOUT LANGUAGE THAT WAS SPECIFIC, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVEN'T MISSED OUR POINTS FIRST BECAUSE IF WE CAN TAKE THAT APPROACH, DOES THAT WORK FOR ALL OF YOU I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHEN WE STARTED OUT TALKING ABOUT THE CHARTER THERE WERE A LOT MORE, A LOT OF ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING OR RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSION. A COUPLE THINGS HAPPEN.

ONE IS THE PANDEMIC SO THE JUST US DIDN'T GIVE US TIME TO REALLY GIVE A HEALTHY DEBATE TO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT INITIATIVES THAT WE HAD INITIALLY THOUGHT WE REALLY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. AND THEN ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED IS WE DID GET PUBLIC INPUT ON SOME IDEAS THAT CONVINCED THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WE SHOULDN'T PURSUE THOSE IDEAS. WHAT YOU HEARD FROM US EARLY ON IS NOT THE SAME THAT WERE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY. YOU FOLKS TELL ME IF I GET IT WRONG BUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS THE ITEM AROUND CONSERVATION LANDS AND RECREATION LAND.

WHAT THE CITY CAN DO WITH THOSE TYPES OF LAND AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE DONE.

SO, WHAT WERE SAYING IS WE WOULD NEVER SELL CONSERVATION LAND. AND WERE ALSO SAYING THAT RECREATION LAND, TO BE THE LEAST OR SOLD, COULD ONLY BE DONE WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND 70% OF THE POPULATION AGREEING WITH IT. DID I GET THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE CHARTER IN MY MIND, AND I THINK EVERYBODY ELSE'S.

>> THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND IT'S ONE THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR QUITE SOME TIME, USUALLY IN RELATIONSHIP TO GROUPS, BUT IT CAN BE A STANDALONE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE MAYOR BE A DIRECT ELECTION AND NO LONGER A STRAW VOTE BY THE PEOPLE.

SO RIGHT NOW WHAT HAPPENS IS THE MAYOR IS A STRAW VOTE AND IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION TO SAY OKAY FINE WILL DO IT OR NOT. SO THE CHANGE IS COME ABOUT OKAY FINE PART GOES AWAY.

[00:10:04]

THE MAYOR IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND WHOEVER GETS THE SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES

FOR MAYOR'S VICE MAYOR. >> NO. >> NO?

>> I THINK WHAT YOU SAID, AFTER READING IT FROM MY RECOLLECTION IS THE SECOND PLACE MAYOR WOULD

BE DECIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. >> DID I READ IT WRONG.

>> YOU DID. >> SO THAT, AND IF IT HADN'T BEEN SAID THAT WAY, I BELIEVE THAT IS OUR INTENT. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. IS THERE A REVIEW COMMITTEE, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BRING UP ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FOR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ABOUT

IT? I SEE NO HANDS. >> THERE WAS THE QUESTION OF THE

QUALIFICATIONS OF CITY MANAGER. >> THOSE ARE, LET ME INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAD FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF ALL OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS. WHAT WE WERE HOPING TO DO, AND OUR TIME CRUNCH DIDN'T HELP US, BUT WHAT WE WERE HOPING TO DO WAS TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF FINDING PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR OUR THREE CHARTER OFFICER POSITIONS.

THE CITY ATTORNEY IS KIND OF DIFFERENT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GONNA BRING IN ESTHER THE ATTORNEY WHO'S NOT AN ATTORNEY, I HOPE, SO WE DIDN'T FEEL THERE NEEDED TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THOSE PREREQUISITE REQUIREMENTS. FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND FOR THE CITY CLERK, AND SOME OF US WHO HAVE LIVED THROUGH OTHER ITERATIONS OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE CITY, THERE WAS A NUISANCE THAT WE NEEDED TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE POSITIONS, WHETHER THE PERSON HAVE ALL OF THEM OR NOT OR WAS WILLING TO COMMIT TO GETTING THEM WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD.

I USE THE EXAMPLE.

QUALIFICATIONS WHEN SHE WAS ELECTED TO BE CITY CLERK BUT SHE GOT IT WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. IN THE CASE OF THE CITY MANAGER, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE LIVED THROUGH SOME WHO DID NOT HAVE PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION AND WHO ACTUALLY REFUSED TO GET IT, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS AVOID THAT. SO, IS IT SAFE FOR ME TOO SAY, I'M ASKING MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IS IT SAFE FOR ME TOO SAY THAT WHAT I JUST SAID WAS TRUE AND ALSO THAT WE DIDN'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT ALL THE DETAILED LANGUAGE THAT WE ENDED UP WITH IN THERE. ONE OF THE BONES OF CONTENTION HAS BEEN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT A CITY MANAGER MUST HAVE MANAGED IN THE PAST, AND I WOULD ASK YOU WHETHER ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH REMOVING THAT SPECIFICITY FROM THE LANGUAGE. IT SAYS IN WHAT WE SUBMITTED IT SAYS THAT THE CITY MANAGER CANDIDATE MUST HAVE HAD AN ORGANIZATION OF 250 PEOPLE OR MORE. DO WE REALLY WANT TO FIGHT THAT? IS THAT A HILL WE WANT TO DIE ON? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY RAISING THEIR HANDS SO I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE OKAY WITH TAKING THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OUT. YES?

>> I THINK THE POINT IS THAT FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU DIDN'T MANAGE 250 PEOPLE, YOU CAN'T GAIN THAT QUALIFICATION LATER. WE FELT IT LIMITED, AND THE TRUTH IS, YOU COULD MANAGE A MAJOR CITY OR A LARGE CITY WITH BUS EMPLOYEES WE HAVE A LOT OF CONTRACT COMPANIES.

WE THOUGHT IT LIMITED. >> IT IS AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THAT PROBABLY IS LANGUAGE THAT CREPT IN FROM A. CITY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO REVIEW.

>> SO IT'S GONE. >> SO WHAT I'M HEARING OR NOT HEARING IS ANYBODY JUMPING UP AND DOWN SAYING WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT REQUIREMENT IN THERE. THE OTHER BONE OF CONTENTION WAS

THAT WE HAD, MARGARET DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. >> THE OTHER BONE OF TO

[00:15:03]

CONTENTION WAS THAT WE HAD ELIMINATED PRIVATE SECTOR PEOPLE FROM OUR SEARCH FOR CITY MANAGER, AND THE QUESTION IS DO WE REALLY WANT TO DO THAT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO RESPOND?

>> OKAY SO YOU KNOW MAJOR CITIES IN FLORIDA ARE MANAGED NOW FROM PEOPLE AT THE PRIVATE SECTOR

AND, IN LOTS OF AREAS IN THE MILITARY ALSO. >> OKAY.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT YET. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN I PARTICIPATED IN A SEARCH FOR A CITY MANAGER CANDIDATE IN YOUR SEATS, THE DIFFICULTY WAS OFTEN THAT IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WHOEVER THE CANDIDATE IS UNDERSTANDS THE LEGAL IMPACT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

NOT THE DETAILED LEGAL STUFF THAT YOU EXPECT FROM THE ATTORNEY, BUT TO NO SORT OF GENERALLY WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO LEGALLY OWNED WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO LEGALLY AS PART OF A GOVERNMENT BODY. PRIVATE SECTOR DOE DOESN'T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE.

I DIDN'T HAVE IT AS A COMMISSIONER, I WALKED IN THINKING WE COULD DO CERTAIN THINGS AND I FOUND OUT REALLY FAST WE CAN DO. COMMISSIONERS ARE EASIER TO MANAGE THAN WHEN IT'S A CITY MANAGER THAT'S TRYING TO DO THE JOB ON A DAILY BASIS MISSING THAT INFORMATION. IT'S JUST A COMMENT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE TAKE OUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEIR EXPERIENCE B PUBLIC SE SECTOR.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, NOT SURE WHO THIS IS DIRECTED TOWARD, BUT IF WE TAKE OUT THAT IT HAS TO BE FROM HIGHER EXPERIENCE MANAGING AT LEAST ONE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND WE LEAVE IN THAT THEY MUST BE A MEMBER OF GOOD STANDING OF A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE FOR OBTAINING THAT STATUS. WOULD THAT PRECLUDE THEM FROM

OBTAINING THAT IF THEY ARE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR. >> I'M GOING TO ASK PEOPLE TO CORRECT ME IF I GET THIS WRONG BUT IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THAT ONCE YOU HIRE SOMEONE AS A CITY MANAGER THEY CAN BEGIN THE PROCESS TO BECOME A MEMBER AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS AT THAT TIME SO IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE ANYTHING, BUT WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO IS CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY EITHER ARE A PROFESSIONAL MEMBER OF UP PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION OR

THEY ACQUIRE THAT CERTIFICATION WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIODS. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT AND I THINK LET'S MAKE SURE WERE NOT JUST CONFLICTING WITH THE TIME.

IF THAT QUALIFICATION SAID YOU MUST MANAGE A BODY FOR SIX MONTHS WE CAN'T PUT A 90 DAY TIME LIMIT ON IT. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN SYNC WITH WHAT THE

QUALIFICATIONS ARE. >> IS EVERYBODY ALL RIGHT WITH THAT SO WHAT WERE SAYING IS WERE TAKING OUT A REQUIREMENT, I'M COMING RIGHT AT YOU MARKET, HOLD ON, THAT WE WOULD BE TAKING OUT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PERSON HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

WE'D BE PUTTING IN A REQUIREMENT WITHIN TIMELINES THAT THEY BECOME AN ACCREDITED, CERTIFIED

IF THAT'S THE RIGHT LANGUAGE, OF I CMA. >> I AM FINE WITH THAT SUGGESTION AND I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ONE REASON, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE WERE ADDING THE ICM A REQUIREMENT IS WE WANT THEM TO HAVE IT THROUGHOUT THE TENURE OF CITY MANAGER IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE CODE OF ETHICS REQUIREMENT THAT ARE IN THERE.

SO I'M FINE WITH THEY CAN JOIN AFTER THEY BECOME OUR CITY MANAGER.

>> ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE? IT LOOKS LIKE NO SO THAT WOULD BE CHANGE.

[00:20:01]

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I REMEMBER. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OR

CONCERNS? >> THE ISSUE OF CHANGING SECTION NINE.

>> CHANGING SEATS. >> RIGHT. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, ALL THAT DOES IS PUSH THE QUALIFYING FORWARD THREE MONTHS IS ALL.

>> I'VE HEARD THAT FROM OTHERS. IS EVERYBODY AWARE OF WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT NOW?

>> THE CHANGE THAT WE HAD PUT IN, THIS WAS, WE DO A LITTLE INTRO AND THEN I'LL ASK ONE OR MORE OF YOU TO SPEAK TO IT. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT A RECOMMENDATION, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO AWAY WITH THE GROUPS ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THAT WAS CERTAINLY A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IN 2007 AND THERE ARE MANY OF US THAT HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE GROUPS CARRY WITH IT NO MEANING.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN A CERTAIN GROUP IT DISTRICT TO BE IN A CERTAIN GROUP OR BUCKET. WE DID GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE AND THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT WAS PRETTY CONSISTENT THAT FOLKS DID NOT WANT TO SEE THAT CHANGE MADE STILL GROWING OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION CAME THIS IDEA AND I MEAN ASK, WHO WAS AT THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO WHY WE PUT THIS IDEA IN THERE. WAS THAT YOU JOHN?

>> I THINK IT WAS. I WAS PLANNING TO COMMENT ON THIS, I SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND I WASN'T ABLE TO PULL IT UP BUT I SEE THE POINT AND WHILE I THINK WE WANT TO KIND OF LIMIT THE MOVING AROUND WITHIN GROUPS AND WHAT THAT CAUSES, FIRST OF ALL I'D SAY WE DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE NEWER MODEL THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS CALLED BUT IT WAS ANOTHER TYPE OF VOTING. WE FELT IT WAS TOO EXTREME TO ADOPT THAT MEASURE AT THIS TIME SO OUR HOPE IS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE AND THERE WAS GENERAL CONSENSUS WITH THAT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON ANYONE'S BEHALF, BUT OVERALL I FEEL THAT THE CONCEPT WAS WELL RECEIVED OR REASONABLY WELL RECEIVED BUT THERE ARE ISSUES OF IT BEING ENFORCED AND I THINK IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA THEY HAVEN'T COME UP WITH A METHOD FOR THE MACHINE SPEAK MODIFIED BUT WE DID ASK AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME MEANINGFUL REVISION AND THIS WAS IT, ON REFLECTION BACK, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT COULD MAKE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO RUN UNABLE TO RUN AND FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE QUALIFYING DATE AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE THE INTENTION TO DO THAT. THE WAY WE PRESENT THAT UNFORTUNATELY MAY CREATE THAT SCENARIO. I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT.

THAT WAS AN UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCE THAT CAME FROM THE I WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE A 90 DAY QUALIFYING. FOR SOMEONE TO RUN FOR THE GROUP OR SEAT OR WHATEVER THEY'RE

CALLED. >> OKAY SO ARE WE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD TAKE THAT LANGUAGE

OUT. >> AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IF IT CREATES AN ISSUE WHERE SOMEONE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO QUALIFY AND I WOULDN'T WANT THAT.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO ADD ONTO THE QUALIFYING DATA. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE

CONSISTENT. >> CAN I GET A THUMBS UP IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH TAKING THAT OUT? AND IF YOU'RE NOT? ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT.

>> OKAY, YOU STILL COUNT. >> THANK YOU. AS YOU KNOW, I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE THEY ASKED ME TOO PARTICIPATE SO I'M NOT SURE THAT I SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TO

VOTE ON SOMETHING. >> IT'S A WORKSHOP. POLICE SAY WHAT YOU THINK.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. >> COULD YOU EXPLAIN, I THOUGHT ONE OF YOUR ORIGINAL GOALS WAS TO ELIMINATE GROUPS AND ELIMINATE RUNOFFS AND VACANT SEATS FOR FIRST, SECOND, THIRD,

HOWEVER MANY SEATS, WHAT CHANGE THAT. >> YOU ALL KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT

[00:25:04]

THIS SUITE THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ME WHEN I GO BACK BECAUSE I PROBABLY AM

GOING TO VOTE, GO ROGUE ON YOU. >> THEY CHANGE THEIR MINDS. THAT'S A SHORT STORY.

>> THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT ON THE IDEA OF DOING AWAY WITH GROUPS, AT A HIGH LEVEL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS EVERYBODY RUNS FOR HOWEVER MANY SEATS THERE ARE, RIGHT, YOU JUST RUN FOR COMMISSION AND THE TOP VOTE GETTERS, IF IT'S ONE SEAT, TOP VOTE GETTER, IF IT'S TOO THE TOP TWO OR THREE BECOME COMMISSIONERS. THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED

PLURALITY VOTING. >> THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. >> THAT IS NOT APPROVED IN SOUTH

FLORIDA YET. THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. >> CHOICE VOTING.

>> I'LL MENTION THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS.

THAT'S WHAT WAS JOHN WAS REFERRING TO. WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THE STATE VOTING MACHINES ARE NOT SET UP AND THE STATE HAS NOT AGREED TO ADJUST THE SOFTWARE

FOR THAT TYPE OF VOTING. >> DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN. >> RANK CHOICE VOTING IS WHEN EVERYBODY'S RUNNING FOR THE COMMISSION AND WHAT HAPPENS IS RIGHT NOW FOR EXAMPLE YOU SEE IN EXAMPLE WE HAVE SEVEN CANDIDATES I BELIEVE SO THERE ARE THREE SEATS, SEVEN CANDIDATES.

EVERYBODY RUNS. THERE'S NO SEATS APPROVED, YOU JUST RUN FOR COMMISSION.

WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE VOTING IS THAT IT ALL HAPPENS IN THE SAME ELECTION.

IT'S JUST HOW THE MACHINES CALCULATE THE VOTES. SO THE TOP VOTE GETTERS WOULD THEN STAY IN THE RACE, AND WHEN I SAY TOP LET'S JUST TAKE THE FIRST THREE VOTE GETTERS, THERE'S THREE AVAILABLE COMMISSION SEATS, THOSE VOTE GETTERS STAY IN THE RACE AUTOMATICALLY AND THE BOTTOM THREE WOULD THEN AUTOMATICALLY DROP OUT AND ALL OF THEIR VOTES

WOULD GO TO THE TOP VOTE. >> YOU FORGOT ONE STEP. WHEN YOU DO YOUR BALLOT YOU RANK PEOPLE FROM ONE THROUGH SEVEN SO 123-4567 SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, MY UNDERSTANDING IN THIS IS DONE IN EUROPE A LOT, THE SEVENTH PERSON GETS DINGED. THE BOTTOM ONE GETS DINGED AND THEN THEY RECALCULATE USING THE VOTES FOR THAT PERSON, 23456 AND SEVEN AND THOSE VOTES GO TO THE

REMAINING ONE. >> IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED FORMULA BUT THE POINT IS YOUR RANKING AS A VOTER OF POLES, YOUR RANKING YOUR CANDIDATES AND THE BOTTOM CANDIDATES ARE WEEDED OUT BECAUSE THEY RECEIVE THE FEWEST VOTES AND NOT UNTIL THE TOP VOTE GETTERS GET THE 50% PLUS ONE AND ONCE YOU HAVE THE THREE VOTE GETTERS WITH 50% PLUS ONE YOU ELIMINATE UNTIL HE GETS THAT POINT BUT THERE STILL COULD BE, LET'S SAY THE THIRD PERSON ENDS UP WITH LESS THAN 50%.

ANYWAY, CITY OF SARASOTA THEY ADOPTED THIS METHOD IN 2007. THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS FOR ALL OF THOSE YEARS TRYING TO GET THIS.

THIS IS PASSED APPROVED VOTING METHOD BUT THEY CANNOT ADOPT IT BECAUSE THE VOTING MACHINE SOFTWARE IS NOT UP-TO-DATE. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I THINK OVERWHELMINGLY THE GROUP WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THAT TYPE OF VOTING. THAT SOMETHING WE COULD PUT INTO PLACE AND IT WOULD BE THERE FOR NOT UNTIL THE STATE CATCHES UP. OTHER CITIES ARE STILL LOOKING AT THAT BUT WHAT THEY ENDED UP DECIDING ON IN THE END WAS REALLY BECAUSE THE JUNGLE PRIMARY OR PLURALITY WE HAVE THREE SEATS, SEVEN PEOPLE RUNNING, THE TOP THREE VOTE GETTERS NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PERCENTAGES GET ELECTED. SIMPLE AS THAT.

THAT'S CALLED PLURALITY AND SOME CALL IT A JUNGLE PRIMARY. AND GET RID OF GROUPS AND THE RUNOFF. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FELT OVERWHELMINGLY AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY FELT THAT IT WAS PROBABLY TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE. IT WASN'T UNANIMOUS.

>> IT WAS 127. >> IT WAS NOT SPLIT. IT WAS SOMETHING THEY THOUGHT

[00:30:02]

WAS TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WE NEEDED TO TAKE MORE BABY STEPS SO WE ENDED UP WITH GETTING RID OF SEATS, GETTING RID OF GROUPS AND CHANGING THE NAME BUT IT STILL

MEANS THE SAME THING. >> SO BASICALLY WE SAID. >> YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND FROM

WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY VOTED. >> AFTER PUBLIC FEEDBACK. >> , YES, JOHN.

>> THANK YOU. ONE OTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AND IT WAS QUITE VIVID WAS REGARDING KEEPING THE GROUPS AND GETTING RID OF THE MAJORITY REQUIREMENT SO IS NO LONGER 50 PLUS ONE WITHIN THE GROUP AND WE HAD A LIVELY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND IT WAS A VERY CLOSE VOTE AND I CERTAINLY RUTH SUPPORTED THAT. THAT WOULD GET RID OF RUNOFFS AND KEEP THE GROUP, WOULD SATISFY THE OBJECTIVE TO THAT AND THE TOP VOTE GETTER AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH THAT. OUR VOTE WAS RIGHT ALONG BUT IT FAILED. I WOULD THROW OUT THAT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT CHANGE.

>> THE OTHER THING I WANT TO PUT FORTH IS WHEN WE HAD INITIALLY PROPOSED WHAT WE CALL THE JUNGLE ELECTION, WE PUT THAT OUT THERE AND THIS ISSUE ELICITED THE MOST FEEDBACK FROM CITIZENS.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER OF E-MAIL THAT WERE READ INTO THE RECORD BUT IT WAS EASILY OVER A DOZEN AND CORRECTLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT I THINK 90%, 99% OF THEM IF NOT ALL OF THEM REALLY WANTED TO KEEP IT WITH THE SMALL AND KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THE RANKS. WE LISTEN TO THAT AND WE REBOUNDED.

>> WHAT WAS THE REASON AND LOGIC? >> I'M GOING TO TRY TO REMEMBER ALL OF IT AND IN CASE I DON'T THEY WILL CHIME IN. THERE WAS ONE COMMENT MADE THAT GOING THE ROUTE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WOULD BE THE PERSON WITH THE MOST MONEY TO WIN.

THEN THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT, IT WAS OVERWHELMING TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE CANDIDATES AS OPPOSED TO BEING ABLE TO LOOK AT TWO OR THREE FOR ONE SEED AND THEN TWO OR THREE FOR ANOTHER SEAT. THAT WAS. HE MUCH THE JUST OF THOSE CONTEXT WHEN THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IN 2007 TALKED ABOUT GOING TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT ELIMINATING GROUPS AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT ELIMINATING GROUPS NOW WAS TOO SOON ON THE HEELS OF THE FOUR-YEAR TERM.

SO, AT ANY TIME YOU ALL GET TO DECIDE TO PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT.

CORRECT. THEY COULD DECIDE AT ANY TIME TO PUT ANY OF THESE I IDEAS ON THE

BALLOT. MARGARET? >> AS FAR AS YOUR LAST PLAN TO CLARIFY I'M SURE THE COMMISSION BY ORDINANCE COULD PUT ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS WITH OUR INPUT, BUT AS FAR AS THE VOTING, I WILL SAY THAT I FOR ONE, WHAT WE HAD THE INITIAL WORKSHOP WITH THE COMMISSIONER. AT THAT TIME IT WAS KIND OF IN OUR MIND AND OF COURSE WE HAD MANY MONTHS AFTER THAT TO THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

I BEGAN FEELING THAT THE JUNGLE ELECTIONS ARE DISENFRANCHISED FOR THE MINORITY MORE THAN BY HAVING THE RUNOFF WHERE BECAUSE YOUR SECOND PICK MAY END UP HAVING ON THE FOURTH PERSON AND THAT'S WHY RIGHT CHOICE VOTING IS SO GOOD. WHILE I KNOW IT'S EXPENSIVE TO HAVE A RUNOFF I DO NOT THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO CITIZENS EXERCISNG THEIR NUMBER ONE

[00:35:04]

RIGHT IN A DEMOCRACY WHICH IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE THAT CAUSE SHOULD BE A FACTOR.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WHERE I CAME OUT.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE COST WHICH WE ALL CAME DOWN WHERE MARGARET IS NOW SORT OF, BUT OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE COST OF A RUNOFF WHICH IS ALMOST ALWAYS A BYPRODUCT OF GROUPS WHERE YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE RUNNING, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIALLY MOVING THE CITY'S GENERAL ELECTION TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION TIMEFRAME FOR THE COUNTY AND THEN THE CITIES RUNOFF ELECTION WOULD BE WHEN THE GENERAL ELECTION HAPPENS. THE CONCERNS AND FEELINGS THAT PREVENTED US FROM RECOMMENDING THAT WERE THAT THE CITY IS NOW NONPARTISAN BODY AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DIRECT ANYBODY TO THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE IT PARTISAN TO MOVE TO THE PRIMARY TIMESLOT.

SO, WHAT WE ENDED UP SAYING, AND AGREED UPON WAS THE FACT THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF A RUNOFF, THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON THAT WE WOULD MAKE THE CHANGE.

>> CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? >> YES. >> OKAY, CHAIR, THERE IS CONCERN THAT VOTER TURNOUT ON THE ELECTION IN DECEMBER ARE DRAMATICALLY LOWER COMPARED TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION AND ALSO TO THE PRIMARY SO WE HAD SOME DATA TO BACK THAT UP BUT YOU KNOW, THAT WAS AS BIG OR BIGGER CONCERN THAN THE COST. COST IS CERTAINLY A FACTOR AND WE'D ALWAYS LIKE RESPONSIBLE SPENDING BY GOVERNMENT AND BY ELIMINATING THE POTENTIAL IN EQUITY BY HAVING A MUCH, MUCH SMALLER ELECTORATE SELECT WHO'S GOING TO SERVE THEM ON THEIR CITY COMMISSION SEEMED TO BE HIGHER WEIGHT EVENING COST. THE COST SHOULDN'T MESSILY BE A FACTOR BUT IF YOU COULD KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE, UNLIMITED AIDING UNNECESSARY CAUSE AND HAVING MORE VOTER TURNOUT THAN THAT SEEMS LIKE A NO-BRAINER. I THINK YOU ALL WOULD AGREE WE'VE STUCK WITH THAT THROUGH THE DISCUSSION AND TRIED TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE AS MUCH AS WE COULD. BUT ANYWAY THE END RESULT WAS A SUGGESTION THAT I MADE THAT WE INADVERTENTLY EXTEND THIS OUT 90 DAYS, EXTEND THE QUALIFYING. OUT 90 DAYS.

>> WE HAD TO TIED VOTES. THIS IS ONE OF THEM. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABOUT THE 90 DAYS. >> I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY SAY

THAT WAS A PROBLEM. >> TO THE EXTENT THAT IT EXTENDS THE QUALIFYING.

I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT WITH THAT IN MIND. IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT AT THE TIME

I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE MADE THE MOTION. >> I THINK THERE WAS CONCERN BY MORE THAN ONE COMMITTEE MEMBER THAT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID AND THIS WAS ONE WAY TO TRY TO DO THAT. I THINK AS LONG AS WE HAVE THESE GROUPS WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE

CONSIDERING MOVEMENT. AND WE STILL HAVE GROUPS. >> AND I STOOD UP JUST TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS ABOUT WHAT CHANGES WE MAKE. AS YOU KNOW THE ORDINANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AS WRITTEN AND AS PROPOSED AND WHAT I WOULD DO AT SECOND READING IS I WOULD RECOUNT THE CHANGES AND LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO THEIR.

THEY'RE PRETTY MINOR. THEY DON'T AFFECT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE AT ALL.

THEY DON'T AFFECT THE TITLE. THE 90 DAYS IS NOT IN THERE THAT I REMEMBER BUT WE COULD SEND

[00:40:08]

THAT BACK FOR ADVERTISING OR AT LEAST IT WILL BE PRETTY SOON. THERE IS AN OPTION IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE PUBLIC NEEDS ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING AFTER THE CHANGES YOU CAN ALWAYS SCHEDULE A THIRD

READING. >> THERE CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE SO WHY WOULD

THEY NEED ANOTHER READING. >> JUST GIVING YOU THE OPTIONS. YOU CAN EASILY PASS THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING BY STATING THESE ARE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND EMOTION WOULD BE IF YOU APPROVE IT THE WAY THAT I SUGGESTED IT AND I'LL SHOW THAT TO YOU IN A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THEN YOU WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE OR WE MAKE A

MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE. >> IF WE ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO COME IN IT WOULD CHANGE THE

ORDINANCE OF THIS COMMITTEE HERE. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>> IF YOU SAY SECOND READING HAVE A PUBLIC AND LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND THEY SAY WE WANT

TO CHANGE THIS CAN WE CHANGE IT. >> SAME THING.

>> WE DON'T NEED THESE GUYS THEN. >> SO WERE GONNA STRIKE THAT

WHOLE SENTENCE. >> YES. >> JUST CHECKING.

>> IS EVERYBODY UP ON THE SCREEN OKAY WITH EVERYTHING SO FAR? COULD THEY ADD SOMETHING TO THIS, I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF THEY AT SECOND READING DECIDED THEY WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING COULD THEY DO THAT OR DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME FROM OUR RECOMMENDATION OR COULD THEY TAKE SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED AND INCLUDED AS PART OF.

THE CITY COMMISSION HAS THE OTANI OF AUTHORITY. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE

CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FIRST. TO DO THAT. >> I HAVE ONE MORE.

>> IN SECTION 11D WOULD THERE BE A TIME. WHEN THAT MEETING HAS TO BE.

>> A TIME. >> IN OTHER WORDS THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE HEARING WITHIN TEN

DAYS, 30 DAYS? >> YES, LEGALLY YES YOU CAN. >> WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS TALKING ABOUT IS THE COMMISSIONER WHO MISSES THREE MEETINGS AND HE'S ASKING IF WE

COULD ADD A TIME. IN THEIR. >> I HAVE TEN DAYS IN THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH. IT SAYS A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE HELD WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS OF THE VERIFIED WRITTEN COMPLAINT OR REQUEST FOR HEARING SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> BUT THAT'S THE SENTENCE BEFORE AND THEN IT SAYS IN ADDITION SODAS THAT TEN DAYS

APPLY. >> YES, I CAN CLARIFY THAT SO THE TEN DAYS APPLIES TO ANY OF

THEM. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. >> SURE.

I JUST DON'T, YOU COULD WAIT TWO YEARS TO HAVE THE HEARING. >> MS. DAVIS, MARGARET, SPEAK.

>> I'M USING THE ZOOM RAISE HAND AND I KNOW THIS IS A TRICKY SET UP HERE.

I WAS GOING TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HE WAS ASKING COME OF THE LANGUAGE IN 11B REGARDING THE MISSING THREE MEETINGS DOES SAY CONDUCT THE HEARING AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT STEP FOUR HEREIN MEANS THE HEARING DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS ABOUT BEING TEN DAYS, BUT I ALSO THINK MAYBE WE NEED, IN THAT SAME SENTENCE ABOUT THE HEARING, THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE SAID BEFORE THAT IT HAS A HEARING AND ISSUES A RULING REGARDING FORFEITURE BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF IMPLIED THAT IT GETS FORFEITED IF THEY MISSED THREE BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR.

THE ONLY THING THAT'S CLEAR IS THAT THEY GET SUSPENDED AND HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING.

>> IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT, IT'S JUST THE LANGUAGE IS NOT QUITE CLEAR.

[00:45:06]

>> IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH TAMMY MAKING THAT CHANGE. >> WOULD YOU FORFEIT THE SEAT

ONLY IF THE CITY COMMISSION VOTES THAT WAY. >> CORRECT.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THE NEXT STEP WILL BE THE SECOND READING, WHEN IS THAT

GOING TO BE. >> JULY 21 IS THE SECOND READING.

>> AND WHEN IS THE DECISION COME ON WHICH ELECTION THAT'S GONNA BE JULY 21 ALSO.

>> WE CAN HAVE AN OFFICIAL DECISION BY RESOLUTION, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE CITY CLERK ASKED FOR BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT ABOUT WHAT YOU ALL ARE

THINKING. >> ABOUT THE TIMING AND COST AND WHEN WE MIGHT DO THIS.

>> I DO THE MAIL BALLOT, PERSONALLY. >> I AGREE WITH THE MAIL BALLOT. I BELIEVE WERE MOVING INTO A RUNOFF IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW RUNOFF IS GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT DROP IN OUR PARTICIPANTS AND MAIL

BALLOT WOULD GO TO EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY WOULD GET IT. >> AND THE OTHER ADVANTAGE OF A MAIL BALLOT ALLOWS THE VOTER TO CONCENTRATE SOLELY ON CHARTER REVISIONS.

IT'S NOT CO- MINGLED WITH CANDIDATES, REFERENDUMS, IT STANDS IN AND OF ITSELF AND AS THEY SAY, IT CAN READ THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND TAKE THEIR TIME AND THEY JUST ALL OF

IT SO IT'S A VERY FOCUSED WAY TO DO THE VOTING. >> I DID E-MAIL IT TO EACH OF YOU APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES AGO, IT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS JUST A FEW MOMENTS

BEFORE THIS MEETING BEGAN. >> SO IF YOU ALL JUST GOT THAT E-MAIL WITH THE SUPERVISOR INFORMATION ON COST, WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED IS THAT THE COMMISSION GO WITH THE OPTION TO

DO A MAIL BALLOT AND THAT'S JUST FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS. >> YES.

>> FOR THE PRICE OF 25760. >> SO WHAT YOU FEEL. >> I AGREE.

>> SO ANYBODY WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? >> ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE. >> I DO. >> I'M IN A PUT SOMEONE ON THE SPOT POTENTIALLY BUT WHERE WE GO FROM HERE? THAT'S RHETORICAL TO START IN THAT WE HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT PUTS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IN PLACE AND SOME SETS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ON JUNE 30. WE HAVE A MEETING ON JUNE 30 SO THEY CANNOT MEET AFTER JUNE 30 OR CONSIDER ANY OTHER CHANGES. WE GOT THROUGH WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, WE DID GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO SECTION 69 AND SOME OTHERS, IF YOU REVIEW THE POWERPOINT AND THE SIDE-BY-SIDE, ANY OF THE OTHER CHANGES LATER WITH HIGHER NUMBERS ARE REALLY LIKE CHANGING COME OF THAT WAS DONE BY KATIE AND PREPARING FOR THE SECTIONS TO REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. SO WE ARE LEAVING THE REST OF THAT CHARTER UN- REVIEWED AND NO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES. I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT NONE OF THOSE ARE BIG SUBSTANTIVE DEALS OR ANYTHING, BUT IS THERE ANY DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO GET THROUGH COMPREHENSIVELY THE REST OF THEM IF YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DECIDE AND EVENTUALLY BY RESOLUTION DECIDE THAT WILL HAVE A MAIL BALLOT, DO YOU HAVE AN INTEREST, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THESE FOLKS IN TERMS OF THEIR SERVICE, BUT DO YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN EXTENDING THEIR TIME, THEIR T TERM. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THEM, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED OR NOT, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD TAKE US NO MORE THAN THREE MORE

MEETINGS TO COMPLETE THE WORK AND TAKE OUR TIME. >> WHAT'S THE FEELING ON THE

GROUP. >> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN SOME OF THE MEETINGS WE'VE HAD BEFORE AND I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING THE CONSENSUS VOTE, THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP IS THAT WE'D BE WILLING TO INVEST THE TIME TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE CHARTER IF THAT'S ALL WHAT

YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO. >> DO WE HAVE TO BRING IN A REPLACEMENT.

[00:50:03]

>> YES. >> SO WILL HAVE AN EVEN NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

>> THE ONLY THING I COULD SAY IS THAT IF WE COULD DO THIS IN THREE MORE MEETINGS AND FINISH THESE BY AUGUST, YES IT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE HE MAKES UP THE SEVEN PERSON AND IT'S NICE TO HAVE AN ODD NUMBER, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED. DEPENDS ON WHO YOU BRING IN.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY GREEN AND MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD IDEA.

>> I WAS JUST IN A POINT OUT THAT THE RESOLUTION OF 2019 PRETTY MUCH CREATED OUR GROUP, THE COMMITTEE IS COMPRISED OF SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS WHO WILL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

THE COMMITTEE IS PROVIDED.

ADOPTED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION IS THERE ANYTHING, IF WE CONTINUE WHICH, I THINK THEY'RE RIGHT WE SORT OF ALREADY SAID WE'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT, IF WE DO CONTINUE, IS THERE ANYTHING WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME MORE? KEEPING IN MIND THAT WHATEVER, IF WE DID DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION WOULD GO ON

THE 2022 BALLOT. >> IF WE GET SECOND READING, DO THE TIMES CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S A

MALE IN BALLOT. >> WE WOULD CONDUCT A MAIL BALLOT ONLY ELECTION IN 2021 SO THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS THE ADDITIONAL TIME THEY NEED TO

COMPLETE. >> SO WE PUSH THE WHOLE PROCESS BACK AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE, WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS WE HAVE A SECOND READING THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

IF THERE GONNA KEEP WORKING. >> JUST TAKE IT OFF. YOU HAVE OPTIONS.

YOU CAN TAKE IT OFF, YOU COULD POSTPONE THE ORDINANCE PENDING FURTHER AMENDMENTS, IF YOU'RE GONNA BAIL OUT, MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS THAT IF ORGANA DO A MAIL BALLOT WE DO THE WHOLE CHARTER. ALL THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TIME NOW.

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SET READING. >> WHILE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO, WE'VE COME BACK TO SECOND READING AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE IT.

>> WE CAN BUNDLE EVERYTHING. >> SO IF WE WERE TO EXTEND YOUR SERVICE, WHAT DATE WOULD YOU RECOMMEND WOULD BE THE EXPIRATION DATE, THE TERMINATION DATE?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK. >> I'M JUST ASKING. >> THIS DARN PANDEMIC, FOR SOME REASON IF WERE PUT BACK SOMETIME, I WOULD'VE NORMALLY SAID SEPTEMBER 30, NO PROBLEM, BUT WE DON'T KNOW. I WOULD RECOMMEND THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.

WE KNOW WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MAIL BALLOT IN 2020. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL

WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE A CANDIDATE UP. >> OKAY.

>> I'VE GOT A GOOD FEELING, EXCUSE ME, IF I COULD JUMP IN, I HAVE A GOOD FEELING THAT WE WILL BE WRAPPED UP BEFORE THE ELECTION. AGAIN IF WERE SHOOTING FOR SEPTEMBER 30, THAT'S STILL ALL WELL AND GOOD AND I HOPE WILL GET DONE BY THEN.

>> LET'S JUST DO IT FOR SEPTEMBER 30. >> OKAY.

SO I'LL BE BRINGING BACK FOR PROCESS THE 2019 RESOLUTION AND EXTENDING THE DATES THAT WERE AMENDING THAT AND THEN AT SECOND READING WHEN WE EXPECT THE SECOND COMMITTEE, I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY TABLE IT AND COME BACK AND REDO BOTH OF THE READINGS.

>> DID WE DECIDE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS. >> IT'S UP TO YOU.

I CAN'T HELP HURT. >> I THINK IT'S A BAD TIME TO BRING SOMEBODY IN IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THAT COMMITTEE.VED BE SURPRISED IF THERE'S ANY TYPOS.

>> ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT. >> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> SO A QUESTION, RICK HAS SOME REALLY GOOD INPUT, IF WE ARE TABLING THE SECOND READING AND TABLING THE AMENDMENT SO FAR, SHOULD I ASSUME THAT WHATEVER WE HAVE PUT FORTH THUS FAR, THAT'S

GOING TO STAY AS IS. >> I'M HOPING, THE COMMISSION EXPECTS US TO MOVE FORWARD.

[00:55:36]

DO YOU WANT TO REHASH. >> THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO THINGS.

SO WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND IT, WERE GOING TO DO THE SECOND READING IS THAT ALL RIGHT.

>> YUP. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE YET BECAUSE THEY'RE

NOT DONE. >> OH, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU ALL. YOUR GOOD PEOPLE. EVEN YOU.



* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.