Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

>>> CALL TO ORDER CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, SEPTEMBER 28 2020. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO 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.

COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> NUMBERLESS THERE.

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

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

>> YOU ARE NEW TO, AMY. >> SHE IS HERE. >> VICE CHAIR.

>>HERE . >> CHAIR? >> HERE.

>> WE HAVE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I AM GOING TO ASK SHOULD GIVE US BEFORE WE START OUR AGENDA

ITEMS. >> YOU ALL PROBABLY ARE AWARE BY NOW THAT GOVERNOR DESANTIS HAS LIFTED THE COVID RESTRICTIONS. JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING.AND SO WITH REGARD TO I WILL TOUCH ON MASKS FIRST. BASED ON THE GOVERNANCE ORDER, THERE CANNOT BE FINES OR PENALTIES, BUT I TALKED TO A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS TODAY ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT THIS CAME UP ON THE MEETING OCTOBER 6. THEY ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE EMERGENCY ORDER ON THE AGENDA AND THEY WILL EXTENDED UNTIL NOVEMBER 6. AND IS GOING TO SAY MANDATORY MASKS. IF I'M ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE PENALTIES AND FINES, WE HAVEN'T ISSUED PENALTIES OR FINES YET.

SO WE HOPE PEOPLE WILL ABIDE BY THE ORDER AND CONTINUE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THAT'S HOW WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE MASKS. WITH REGARDS TO MEETINGS, CITY AND COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ALL OVER THE STATE HAVE BEEN TALKING OVER THE MONTHS ABOUT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WHAT THIS ALL MEANT IF THE GOVERNOR LIFTED THE ABILITY TO MEET VIRTUALLY. IT COULD BE ALL OR SOME YOU VIRTUALLY RIGHT NOW.

PHYSICAL QUORUM IN THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED, BUT THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE IS A THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1 THERE'S A PHYSICAL QUORUM THAT WILL BE PRESENT VERY THAT'S BASED ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 20 ã193 HERE THAT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY RESCINDED IN THE NEWS ORDER, WHICH IS 444.

AND SO WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY. SO TODAY WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY.

AFTER OCTOBER 1 FROM A PURELY LEGAL STANDPOINT, I THINK WE GET A PHYSICAL QUORUM 4 AT LEAST FOUR BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT AND OTHERS THAT ARE ATTENDING BY ZOOM, HOWEVER, AND ALREADY HEARING BACK FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND AT LEAST TWO COMMISSIONERS.

I EXPECT TO TALK TO MORE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT.

MEANING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THEIR BOARDS TO MEET AT ALL VIRTUALLY.

JUST LIKE THE SAID CITY COMMISSION IS HERE 100 PERCENT IN PERSON AND TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ON SPEAKING IS DONE HERE IN THE CHAMBERS. SO THAT'S HOW I THINK IT MAY GO. THE OTHER THREE COMMISSIONERS MAY SAY HECK KNOWN.

THEY MAY BE SPLIT, BUT BE PREPARED THEY MAY DECIDE OCTOBER 6 THAT ALL OF US HAVE TO BE HERE AT FUTURE MEETINGS. AND THAT IS GOING TO BE FOR ALL BOARDS.

>> DO TAMMY AND I HAVE TO BE THERE THURSDAY? >> NO.

THEY HAVEN'T RULED YET. SO I AM SAYING NOW.> OKAY. >> WEDNESDAY IS THE SPECIAL

MEETING. SO NO, YOU DO NOT. >> THAT IS STILL THE 30TH?

>> YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

MS. DAVIS? >> DID THE COMMISSION EXTEND OUR TERM?

>> NO. >> ARE WE ONLY AUTHORIZED TO SEPTEMBER 30?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. ON OCTOBER 6 AT AND 10 ASKED THEM THAT.

IT DIDN'T MAKE IT ON THE AGENDA AS A RESOLUTION, BUT I WILL ASK THEM TO DO THAT IS A FORMAL MATTER AND IT WILL BE IN WRITING ON OCTOBER 20. SO WE HAVE OTHER MEETINGS IN OCTOBER WE WILL BE FINE. I DON'T THINK WE ARE SCHEDULING THEM BEFORE OCTOBER 6. WHICH

[00:05:04]

WOULD BE NEXT TUESDAY. I'M DOUBTING WE HAVE ANY CHARTER REVIEW BEFORE THEN.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? MS. DAVIS.

SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A COMMENT TO THE MINUTES.

QUITE A FEW, ACTUALLY. UNDER 5.1 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT A MOTION BEING MADE BY ME AND IT SAYS TO ADD OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONS, I HAD GONE BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO THREE TIMES AND THAT IS NON- WHAT I PROPOSED IN THE EXACT LANGUAGE I SAID IN RESPONSE TO THE CHAIRMAN ASKING ME TO READ IT WAS "AND I WILL IN ALL RESPECTS OBSERVE AND IMPLEMENT." AND SO THAT LANGUAGE I JUST READ, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID TO REPLACE THE WORDS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AFTER CONSTITUTION. AND THEN IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH WHERE IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION ON 142, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE THE PROVISION OF THE CLAUSE I WAS ASKING TO ADD REFERENCES NOT JUST THE PETITION FIND BY 10 PERCENT, BUT BEFORE THE REFERENCE TO 10 PERCENT IN THE MINUTES AND ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE COMMISSION OR.

BECAUSE WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS ADD THE LANGUAGE ABOUT BOTH WAYS TO AMEND THE CHARTER.

REASONABLE TYPOS ON PAGE 2. ONE IS CHANGING A WORD SPELLED GH.

SHOULD BE A T AT THE END OF IT FOR THE WORD BROUGHT. FURTHER DOWN WE TALKED ABOUT ELECTION DISCUSSION RESUMED. IS HIS PLURALITY AND IT SHOULD BE PLURALITY VOTE WHERE.

THERE IS AN AGE IT NEEDS THERE. AND THEN UNDER NEXT MEETING WHERE IT SAYS WAS CHANGES, THAT SHOULD BE WAS CHANGED. I AM HAPPY TO SEND BOTH TYPOS TO MS. NEWTON AND SEND THIS TO HER FOR ACCURACY. THEY ARE JUST SMALL TYPOS THERE.

>> OKAY. MS. DAVIS, OF THOSE CHANGES, ARE YOU WILLING TO MOVE FOR

APPROVAL? >> WITH THOSE CHANGES I MOVED TO A APPROVE THE MINUTES

>> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.

[5.1 DISCUSSION & VOTE: ELECTION RUNOFFS: This item is placed on the agenda at the request of Members Bean and Lasserre.]

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MARGARET. OUR FIRST ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS THE ELECTION PROCESS. BEING THE IDEA ON THE TABLE IS TO MOVE THE CITIES GENERAL ELECTION DATE TO COINCIDE WITH THE COUNTIES PRIMARY DATE. THEREFORE MAKING THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE THE CITIES RUNOFF DATE AND ILLUMINATING A SEPARATE RUNOFF ELECTION THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST. I BELIEVE I STATED THAT ACCURATELY?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS IN EXACTLY THE BOTH OF THEM BUT I PROPOSED IS A SIMPLIFIED MANNER OF COMBINING PARAGRAPHS B AND C INTO ONE PARAGRAPH AND STRIKING THE MAJORITY OF C AND JUST STATING IF THERE ARE MORE THAN TWOCANDIDATES , THEY WOULD HOLD AN ELECTION AT THE PRIMARY LEVEL.

THAN ANY 22 CANDIDATES WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL. THERE IS NO COINCIDING UNLESS THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO CANDIDATES. THE GENERAL ELECTION WOULD BE

HELD WITH THE COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTION. >> RIGHT.

I DON'T SEE THAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN OUR PACKAGES WHAT I PROVIDED, WHICH IS AFTERWARDS.

YOU CAN SEE A RED MARK OF A CLEAN VERSION.>> THE RED MARKUP IS YOURS?

[00:10:03]

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> TO YOUR RED MARKUP, MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? SO IT IS POSSIBLE BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT DOES HAPPEN, BUT IF THERE ARE LANGUAGE I THINK IS FINE WHERE IT SAYS IF THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO THEY'RE GOING TO GET IN AUGUST ON PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT, IF YOU WILL. BUT SOMEBODY COULD GET MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE VOTE IN THAT ELECTION IF THERE ARE THREE CANDIDATES. IT IS POSSIBLE.

SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO PROVIDE WE WON'T HAVE A RUNOFF IF THAT HAPPENS.

LET'S SAY WE GET ONE CANDIDATE WITH 50 PERCENT +1. WE GET ONE CANDIDATE THAT HAS 35 PERCENT AND THE OTHER CANDIDATE HAS THE REST OF THE VOTES.

ARE WE INTENDING THOSE TWO CANDIDATES, EVEN THE ONE WHO GOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT IS

GOING TO GO TO OUR RUNOFF? >> AND CAN BE UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT THAT WAS MY INTENTION. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IF THE OUTSIDE THAT.

I WOULD THINK MOST WOULD AGREE IT SHOULD GO TO THE RUNOFF, THE GENERAL.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANYBODY. MY INTENTION WAS IT, FOR THE

TWO TOP VOTE GETTERS TO GO TO THE GENERAL. >> I CAN COMPLETELY SECOND WHAT MEMBER LUSSIER JUST SAID. AGREE WITH THE TOP TWO VOTE GETTERS MEN REGARDLESS OF IN THE PRIMARY WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL CODE I BELIEVE THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE THAT

CHOICE. >> THAT WAS INTENTIONAL. >> OKAY.

SO THAT PART I DID NOT UNDERSTAND. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO

THESE? MS. DAVIS? >> I HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF COMMENTARY. FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO THINK MEMBER WAS SARAH FOR HIS WORK ON STARTING TO PUT THIS PROPOSAL FIRST IN DRAFTING. I KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO START DRAFTING RELATIVELY NEW CONCEPT. AND TO APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS AND I DO THINK WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED APPROACH WITH THE TWO CANDIDATES WHEN THEY ARE MORE THAN THREE. THE TWO THAT ARE THE TOP VOTE GETTERS AND WHAT I LIKE TO CALL THE INITIAL ELECTION GOING ON TO THE GENERAL ELECTION. I LIKE THAT CONCEPT QUITE A BIT BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE HAVING LONG LAME-DUCK PERIOD AND ALSO THAT MEANS THE WAY THIS IS STRUCTURED, EVERYBODY EACH SEAT WILL BE ELECTED ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION DATE WHEN WE FOUND THE MOST VOTER TURNOUT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND HAS BEEN EVERYBODY'S CONCERNED.

AND SO FROM THEN I DO FIND A LOT MORE TO SUPPORT IN THIS PROPOSAL AND SOME OF THE PROPOSALS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE. BUT I STILL HAVE CONCEPTUAL CONCEPT AND WOULD LIKE TO RAISE IN DISCUSSIONS AND I ALSO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE ISSUES. I APPRECIATE NUMBERLESS AIR DRAFTING SOMETHING. THIS WAS DRAFTED TO THE CURRENT CHARTER LANGUAGE AND I WOULD PREFER IF WE HAD STARTED, IF WE START WITH THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO CHANGING THE CONCEPT THE GROUP OVER AND WE WORKED HARD IN MAKING THAT LANGUAGE A LOT MORE CLEAR.

THERE FOR ALL WE WOULD NEED TO DO IS REVISE PARAGRAPH C. BUT LET ME GET MY CONCEPTUAL CONCERNS. THERE IS A VERY SHORT TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THE QUALIFYING, THE END OF THE QUALIFYING PERIOD IN THE SO-CALLED PRIMARY ELECTION DATE WE ARE TALKING ONLY ABOUT A FEW WEEKS. IS WHY THINK THAT THEREFORE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER EARLY VOTING, WE ARE TALKING WITH EARLY VOTING ARE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE WEEKS.

THAT IS NOT A LONG TIME FOR VOTER EDUCATION AND IT MEANS CANDIDATES ARE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING WHICH FAVORS INCUMBENTS AND WELL-FINANCED CANDIDATES AS FAR AS IT'S A SHORT TIME FOR BEING ABLE TO GET A LOT OF GOOD NAME RECOGNITION AND VOTER EDUCATION. IS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THIS ON THE PRIMARY ELECTION DATE BECAUSE THE CHAIR HAS TALKED ABOUT PEOPLE HERE CALL WITH THE REPUBLICAN PROGRAM.

[00:15:11]

WITH REGARD TO THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU KEPT THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD AT LEAST SAY IF THE CANDIDATES GO TO IN ELECTION ON THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION THAT WE FIND THAT IS THE "INITIAL ELECTION IN" SO THEREFORE WE CONTINUED TO TALK IN THE CHARTER.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN INITIAL ELECTION AND NOT PRIMARY ELECTION, WHICH UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES AND ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT NOMINATING PARTISAN FOR POLITICAL PARTIES.

AND SO JUST TO AVOID THAT VOTER CONFUSION. I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.

AND FINALLY, LIKE I SAID, I'M GLAD THIS APPROACH DOES AWAY WITH A LONG LAME-DUCK PERIOD, BUT IN THE VERY ãIT'S A MUCH LONGER TOTAL CANDIDATE ELECTION PERIOD THAN OUR CURRENT PROCESS IT AND AGAIN, I FEEL THAT COULD DISCOURAGE LESSER FINANCE CANDIDATES OR POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FROM RUNNING. AND AS WE KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED BEFORE ABOUT DO WE NOT ãABOUT NOT LIMITING GOOD CANDIDATES AND THAT IS WHY WE DON'T SEPARATE BY INTERREGIONAL AREAS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BROADEST CANDIDATE WILL. AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING WE FEEL COULD POSSIBLY DISCOURAGE CANDIDATES WHO IN THIS IS A MUCH LONGER PERIOD AND THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPETE FOR MONEY. OF THE SAME PEOPLE ACTUALLY, AND VOLUNTEERS WHO ACTUALLY ARE RUNNING IN THE STATE, COUNTY. IS MY CONCEPTUAL SPIRIT AND WOULD BE HAPPY ãIF WE KEEP THIS CONCEPT WHERE SOME OF MY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CHANGES.

BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING OF THE FIRST ELECTION, THE INITIAL ELECTION, I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE LET IT BE SAID AT LEAST PRIOR 30 DAYS BY ORDINANCE, WHICH THE FLORIDA STATUTE ALLOWS THE COMMISSION EXEMPTS THE INITIAL ELECTION DAY 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE. AND IT CAN BE THE SAME AS THE PRIMARY ELECTION DATE.

IF THEY WANT TO MOVE IT THERE BECAUSE THAT SAVES MONEY, THEY CAN DO THAT.

BUT THAT IS A COMMISSION KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE BUDGET THAN US. UITE FRANKLY, I'M JUST NOT HEARING A LOT FROM CONSTITUENTS I TALKED ABOUT WANTING TO CHANGE OUR ELECTION PROCESS.

AND SO WITH THAT I WILL LET THE DISCUSSION GO FORWARD ON CONCEPT AND THEN I AM HAPPY TO GET SOME OF MY LANGUAGE CONCERNS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW LONGER SAY THE WINNER WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES ON THE GENERAL ELECTION IS WHO IS ELECTED TO THAT SEAT. SO WE NEED TO ADD A SENTENCE LIKE THAT IN.

SO THEY'RE A LITTLE TECHNICAL THINGS LIKE THAT AS WE GO THIS APPROACH.

THINK SOME WORDS MISSING I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

MS. KOZAK. >> I THINK CAN SEXUALLY, MARGARET, I RAN THROUGH A LOT OF THE SCENARIOS ALSO. ISN'T THERE STILL A POSSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE A LONG LAME-DUCK DOOR AND HAVE A TERRIBLE INCOME AND THEN TWO PEOPLE RUNNING AGAINST THE TOP TWO VOTE GETTERS ARE THE NEWCOMERS. AND AND SO THAT INCUMBENT WOULD STILL BE A LAME-DUCK ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND WOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE ELECTION. IN MY RIGHT WITH THAT?HERE IS STILL THE POSSIBILITY OF A LONG LAME-DUCK IN THAT SCENARIO? I HAVEN'T HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. I SPOKE TO A COUPLE COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO SOME RANDOM CITIZENS AND I'M JUST SHOCKED ãI'M NOT SHOCKED.

IT COMES UP AGAIN AND AGAIN HOW IT DEEMS THE PRIMARY IS A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY WITH THE REPUBLICAN ELECTION AND PEOPLE ST. PAUL, FLORIDA HAS A CLOSED PRIMARY ELECTION AND OTTOMAN IN CA AND I CAN EVEN VOTE OR AM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT AND I CAN EVEN VOTE.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THAT AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THERE IS NOT HUGE TURNOUT IN THE NASSAU COUNTY ELECTIONS HELD IN AUGUST. THE OTHER THING THAT KEPT

[00:20:01]

COMING UP IS SO MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT SWIMMING TRAVEL. AND IS JUST BEFORE SCHOOL STARTS. WE ARE STILL THE MOUNTAINS, WE ARE STILL HERE, WE DON'T VOTE MOST PRIMARIES THERE THAT WAS A CONCERN I HEARD FROM CITIZENS HEARD CONCEPTUALLY, I STILL GO BACK TO THE VACUUM SITUATION BECAUSE I THINK RIGHT NOW WITH THE FORMS WE HAVE HAD WITH EACH ONE, AND GET TO KNOW EACH CANDIDATE BETTER AND BETTER. AND EVEN WHEN YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHO A CANDIDATE IS, WHEN YOU SEE THEM INTERACTING AND BRING THE SAME QUESTIONS, AND GET TO KNOW THEM BETTER. AND IF YOU LIKE WAY BACK IN THE BEGINNING IF WE ARE ALREADY CUTTING ONE OUT OF THE PIE, MAYBE THAT PERSON WOULD BRING A LOT MORE TO THE TABLE IN THREE, FOUR, FIVE MONTHS UNTIL WE GOT UP TO THE ACTUAL ELECTION. IF YOU LIKE HAVING IT SO SOON IN THE YEAR, IT REALLY DOES DISQUALIFY SOME POTENTIAL NEW PEOPLE FROM GETTING INTO THE GAME AND BRINGING A FRESH FACE, MAYBE. THE OTHER THING WE TALKED ABOUT IS I DO THINK CHANGING SO SOON AFTER WE CHANGED IT JUST AFTER A COUPLE OF ELECTION CYCLES WE ARE GOING TO CONFUSE THE CITIZENS AGAIN WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING AND WHY WE ARE DOING IT.

AND WE KEEP MOVING THIS THING OVER THE ROUND FOR THIS WILL BE THE THIRD MOVE IN A HANDFUL OF YEARS. I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE.

I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS? OKAY. I GUESS IT IS MY TURN. MS. DAVIS?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I THINK MY SUGGESTION IT WILL BE SET 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE THAT THE INITIAL ELECTION WOULD BE 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE FOR THE COMMISSION SAID AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE GENERAL WHAT ADDRESS SOME OF THE LONG PROCESS FOR THE LIKE A SAID, THEY COULD BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 30 DAYS IF THEY WANT TO SET IT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DATE. IF WE COULD DO IT THAT WAY, I PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. BUT FORCING IT TO BE ON THE PRIMARY DAY.

THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE LONG TIME PERIOD. I KNOW THIS IS NOT A COST ISSUE BUT WHAT THAT GUARANTEES IS WE WILL HAVE THAT EXTRA ELECTION AND THEN WE GO TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. WERE AS IF WE STICK TO THE NOVEMBER WE WILL ONLY HAVE A RUNOFF IF WE HAVE ANOTHER EXTRA PERSON THROWN IN THEIR. OR IF WE DON'T HAVE THE 50 PERCENT. THAT RUNOFF ISN'T A GUARANTEE EVERY SINGLE TIME.

IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CRAPSHOOT. >> WE ARE ONLY GOING UP THREE ã OR ONLY CAN HAVE THAT INITIAL

ELECTION IF YOU HAVE THREE. >> OKAY. MR. MORRISON?

>> I DIDN'T GET TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAST MEETING BUT I'M FEELING LIKE I SHOULD CHIME IN HERE TO GET EVERYBODY A FEEL FOR WHERE I STAND ON IT. YOU KNOW, LIKE I USUALLY DO, AND THINK I WILL DEFER TO SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS ON THE BOARD AS FAR AS THE TECHNICALITIES OF HOW THE LANGUAGE IS PUT TOGETHER. BUT JUST AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL,

WANTED TO EXPRESS I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IDEA. >> MS. BRIAN, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? NO? OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS?MR. LUSSIER. >> I DO HAVE A COMMENT.

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. I THINK THE PRIMARY USED TO BE EARLIER THAN AUGUST 30 USED TO BE IN JUNE PRETTY THINK IT USED TO BE EARLIER THAN AUGUST. WAS VERY EARLY.

I CAN SEE GETTING BEHIND EITHER THE COINCIDE OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION BUT NO LATER THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAYS PRIOR TO THE GENERAL. SO IT LEAVES IT TO THE COMMISSIONS DISCRETION TO CHANGE IT. I THINK 30 DAYS IS PROBABLY TOO CLOSE. AND THINK 60 DAYS IS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE.

BUT IF YOU COULD SAY IT WILL EITHER BE ON THE PRIMARY IN AUGUST OR 60 DAYS PRIOR TO NOVEMBER, WHICH TAKES YOU TO ã I GET IT TAKES YOU TO SEPTEMBER.

[00:25:04]

I THINK THAT IS ENOUGH TIME TO HEAR AND VET CANDIDATES. I WOULD ALSO SAY THE CANDIDATES THIS TIME AROUND BEGAN A CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY AFTER OR IN EARNEST.

THEY WERE CERTAINLY ANNOUNCED WELL IN ADVANCE OF EVEN THE QUALIFICATION PERIOD , BUT THEY BEGAN THE CAMPAIGNING RIGHT AFTER THE PRIMARY. THIS TIME AROUND AND I THINK THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH DOING THAT. I DON'T KNOW THIS WOULD AFFECT

THAT IN ANY WAY. >> I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS I THINK NONE OF THE OTHER SUGGESTIONS HAVE ãI WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION 2: INITIAL ELECTION.

THERE WASN'T ANYTHING I HEARD HER BUT I DON'T THINK WE COULD TALK TO.

>> ANYBODY ELSE. MS. DAVIS? >> A FOLLOW-UP TO HIS COMMENTS FOR INSTANCE A RUNOFF CURRENTLY IS JUST ABOUT 30 DAYS AFTER THE GENERAL, THAT'S WHERE I CAME UP WITH THE 30 DAYS BEFORE THE GENERAL. BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE MILE IS USUALLY 30 DAYS AFTER AFTER THIS AN ACTUAL ELECTION IS WHAT THEN LEADS TO THE RUNOFF ON THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE. THAT'S WHAT I DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE TOO LONG OF IT AT THAT A

MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT PROCESS. >> ANYONE ELSE?

OKAY. MS. COSETTE? >> I HAVE ONE STATISTICAL THING AS AN FYI BUT NOT SO CANNILY, THEIR PRIMARY WAS IN SEPTEMBER. AND THEY HAD A 26 PERCENT TURNOUT AND THE LIMITED TO AUGUST IN 2008 AND TURN OUT WAS 28 PERCENT.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT CAUSED THE MOVE FROM SYMPTOM OF AUGUST, BUT THEY DID GET A HUGE JUMP IN

TURNOUT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MY ONLY COMMENT ON THIS IS THE SAME IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING.

I WOULD LIKE US TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO CONTINUE THE CONCEPT AND IDEA THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS ANONPARTISAN ELECTION . WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY WHEN PEOPLE STILL REFER TO THE PRIMARY. THEY STILL REFER TO IT AS A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.

I HAVE DIFFICULTY MOVING OUR NONPARTISAN ELECTION TO COINCIDE WITH IT.

SO I THINK IF I'M READING THE ROOM CORRECTLY, I'M IN THE MINORITY ON THIS SO I WON'T BEAT IT TO DEATH. BUT I FEEL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT, WHEN IN FACT, IF WE COULD IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE GO TO A PLURALITY VOTE, WHICH WE PRETTY MUCH HAD AN GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THAT BE IN THE RIGHT WAY FOR THE CITY TO GO. THIS WOULD BE A MOOT POINT.

EXCUSE ME, MARGARET? YES? >> I DON'T THINK WE SUPPORTED

PLURALITY VOTING AND. >> OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

WHATEVER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. HOWEVER YOU LABEL IT. IT IS NOT WHAT WE DO NOW AND IT'S NOT SEEDS AND IT'S NOT GROUPS AND IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR RUNOFF ALTOGETHER IF WE COULD DO THAT. IF IN FACT WE CAN DO THAT IN THE NOT TOO TERRIBLY DISTANT FUTURE, I WOULD PREFER THE CITY WAIT UNTIL THAT COULD HAPPEN TO NOT INTRODUCE THIS KIND OF CHANGE, WHICH JUST THROWS AMONG KEY WRENCH INTO THE VOTING PROCESS THE WAY WE HAVE ALL COME TO KNOW OR HATE IT. OR LOVE IT. HOWEVER WE FEEL ABOUT IT.

BUT WE KNOW WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. WE DO KNOW THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT THE PRIMARY AND WHO CAN VOTE IN IT AND WHO CAN'T. AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS EVERYBODY CAN VOTE IN IT. AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS NO ONE BUT REPUBLICANS CAN VOTE IN IT. SO IN MY VIEW OF THE WORLD, AND I WOULD HOPE I CAN SAY THIS THE SAME WAY IF I WERE A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, WHICH I'M NOT. BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE IT WOULD SAY THE SAME WAY SOME JUST GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAY. I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP FOR THE PRIMARY ARE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE IT HAS HISTORICALLY

[00:30:03]

BEEN A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. I DON'T SEE THAT CHANGING IF THE CITY IS NOT COMMITTED TO DOING ANY KIND OF EDUCATION ABOUT THIS CHANGE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING.

SO I WOULD THINK IT DISENFRANCHISES A WHOLE CHUNK OF PEOPLE FROM VOTING TO MAKE THIS CHANGE. AND AGAIN, I HOPE I CAN BE MAGNANIMOUS AND SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF MY PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT THE ELECTION AND BUT I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT.

THAT IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT IT. AND I AM READING THE ROOM.

SO I WILL STOP NOW.ANY OTHER COMMENTS?>> AND THINK YOU DESCRIBE EVERYTHING I WAS TRYING TO PUT FORTH WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE MEAT ON THE BONES.

AND I THINK YOUR CONCERNS ã THOSE ARE THE CONCERN I HAVE. AND EVEN CAME ACROSS SEVERAL PEOPLE IN TOWN WHEN I WAS MAKING PHONE CALLS WHO ARE IN THEIR HEART OVER THE VOTE BY THE ISSUE OF THE VOTE DEMOCRATIC. AND THEY ARE REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. SO THEY CAN VOTE IN THAT PRIMARY.

THAT IS HOW STRONGLY IT HAS BEEN INGRAINED THAT REPUBLICANS CAN VOTE IN THOSE PRIMARIES.

AND THINK YOUR WORD CHOICE IS SPOT ON. IF IT IS COMING THROUGH THE RANKS, WHICH IT IS HAPPENING ACROSS THE NATION SLOWLY AND LITTLE BY LITTLE AND WE HAVE SARASOTA THAT ISDOING IT IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER CHANGE THAT COMES ACROSS WE CHANGE THIS AGAIN AND WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANGE , IT'S LIKE IT'S A CRAPSHOOT OVER THERE ARE TOO MANY CHANGES. I CAN'T SUPPORT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH.

>> OKAY. >> IF I COULD COMMENT BUT IF I AM READING THIS CORRECTLY, THEY APPROVED VOTING IN SARASOTA BY REFERENDUM CHARTER CHANGE IN 2007, WHICH IS 13 YEARS AGO.

AND THEY STILL CAN'T USE A METHOD BECAUSE THE STATE IS NOT APPROVED ORCERTIFIED .

SO UNLESS WE ARE WILLING TO WAIT FOR SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET AND THEY'VE BEEN WAITING FOR 13 YEARS FOR IT, I DON'T SEE ANYREASON. I THINK WE CAN RECOMMEND IT BE LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE , BUT AS IT STANDS NOW I THINK WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS GROUP NOT MEET AGAIN FOR EIGHT YEARS. I THINK THAT WAS PLENTY OF TIME TO ALLOW THIS TO DETERMINE IF IT WORKED OR NOT AND MAYBE GIVE THE STATE SOME TIME TO GET THE VOTING EQUIPMENT TOGETHER.OF SARASOTA HAS BEEN WAITING 13 YEARS, HOW LONG WILL WE HAVE TO WAIT AND WHY WOULD BE PUT OFF SOMETHING THAT CHANGES SOMETHING MEANINGFUL TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT VOTERS CAN READ WHEN IT COMES TO THE SUPERVISING ELECTIONS OFFICES TO DETERMINE IF THEY CAN VOTE OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW.

>> SEAN, THAT IS REALITY. >> I UNDERSTAND. AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE HERE TODAY. SPOKE NO, WE ARE NOT.

BUT WE ARE HERE TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT WHATEVER GOES ON THE REFERENDUM.

SO MARGARET? >> FIRST, I AM A LONGTIME REGISTERED REPUBLICAN.

AS FAR AS THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ISSUE, I FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO.

BECAUSE THEY LOOK OVER OUR JOB IS ABOUT ALL THIS IS AND NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS.

AND DOESN'T AFFECT ME PERSONALLY, I DO FEEL THE WAY THAT YOU DO.

AS FAR AS VOTING, NOW THAT MAINE IS GOING TO BE USING IT IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, I THINK THERE WILL BE MORE AND MORE MOVEMENT OF THE AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE HARDER TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO DEMISE SARASOTA AND OTHERS ONCE IT IS BEING USED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. KIND OF WANT TO POINT OUT THAT DEFINITELY, THAT IS DEFINITELY A MOVEMENT AND INCREASED POSSIBILITY FOR CHOICE VOTING, ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT THERE YET.

>> OKAY. I THINK WE PROBABLY STARTED SAYING THE SAME THINGS OVER AND

OVER AGAIN. SAID DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE

ADDITIONAL POINT THAT HAS NOT BEEN STATED. >> I'M NOT USED TO LOOKING AT

LIGHTS ANYMORE. I'M SORRY. >> THIS IS A NEW POINT.

WE HAVE NOTSAID YET . I THINK IT MIGHT HELP ALL OF OUR THOUGHTS ON THIS.

IF WE ARE THINKING ABOUT DISENFRANCHISING A PORTION OF THE POPULATION, FOR THIS UPCOMING ELECTION IN OCTOBER 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION THERE WILL BE EARLY VOTING.

YOU CAN COME IN FOR TWO WHOLE WEEKS BEFORE THE GENERAL AND YOU CAN VOTE.

SAME THING FOR THIS PROPOSED INITIAL ELECTION. THERE WILL BE TWO WEEKS EARLY VOTING.WHAT SAY YOU ARE GOING ON ELECTION DAY OR TRAVELING, THERE ARE TWO WEEKS EARLY

[00:35:07]

VOTING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. IN SO MANY DAYS OF EARLY VOTING WE HAVE FOR OUR CURRENT RUNOFF SYSTEM FOR THE ANSWER WOULD BE ZERO. THERE ARE NO DAYSOF EARLY VOTING. AND WHO DOES THAT AFFECT , IT IS THAT THIS FRANCHISE.

IT WOULD BE PEOPLE WHOM I HAVE WORKED ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION ENSURE THAT THEIR BOSS MIGHT GIVE THEM TIME TO GET OFF AND GO WORK. BUT IF YOU ARE WORKING A 12 HOUR SHIFT ON A RUNOFF DATE, THERE IS NO WAY FOR YOU TO CAST YOUR BALLOT AT ALL ON THAT DAY.

THERE IS NO FEASIBLE DAY TO GO. THE REASON I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THEDISENFRANCHISEMENT IS . AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE EARLY VOTING FOR A REASON AND WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AS A CITY.

>> MAYBE YOU JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. IN OUR VOTER TURNOUT PERCENTAGE IS VERY CLOSE TO WHAT THAT NASSAU AND MARY PERCENTAGE IS CURRENT MAYBE HAVING AN EARLY VOTING PROCESS FOR THE PRIMARY. AND WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THE RUNOFF.

SO THEY ARE NOT MISSING THE DAY. IS JUST THAT ONE DAY BUT WE HAD TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RUNOFF TO CAST ABOUT THAT. WE JUST SOLVED ALL THE

PROBLEMS. >> JUST THINKING OUT LOUD. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ELECTIONS ARE SET BY THE CITY COMMISSION. SO WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO DECIDE THAT BASED ON ãTHEY HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS, I WOULD THINK? THAT'S ON THE TABLE NOW. I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACT VERY QUICKLY.

THE PAST THEY'VE DETERMINED IT WASN'T IMPORTANT TO HAVE EARLY VOTING.

>> SO THE BUDGETARY REFERS TO THE CHARGES FOR THE SUPERVISOR ELECTION TO SUPPORT EARLY

VOTING. >> MY POINT IS THEY HAVE ON THE OPTION ALL ALONG TO HER HOLD EARLY VOTING AND SO FAR THEY HAVE DETERMINED THAT THEY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT OR THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT OR THEY DECIDED NOT TO DO IT. WHERE THEY WEREN'T AWARE.I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON WOULD BE, BUT THEY HAVE NEVER HAD IT.

>> I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD. BY THIS PROPOSALS, THE CITIES RUNOFF IS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE ANYWAY FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. SO BECAUSE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WE WILL HAVE EARLY VOTING FOR CITY COMMISSION BECAUSE THERE IS EARLY VOTING FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. THAT'S THE WAY THE SUPERVISOR SETS IT UP.

SO THAT IS HOW THIS COULD BE SET UP TO.>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING EARLY VOTING FOR A RUNOFF THAT WOULD BE AFTER THE GENERAL. IT'S LIKE WE KEPT IT LIKE IT IS IN THE CITY COMMISSION RATHER THAN HAVING IN ELECTION DAY THEY HAVE AN EARLY VOTING PERIOD FOR THAT, WHICH IN A CITY THIS SIZE ãI DON'T KNOW BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT FOR YOU

ALL TO DISCUSS. >> YOU WERE ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> I THINK I JUST WAS AGREEING. RIGHT NOW IF WE PAY TO HAVE EARLY VOTING IN OUR FIRST PRIMARY IN AUGUST THEN WE HAVE EARLY VOTING IN OUR GENERAL IN NOVEMBER.

SO WE STILL HAVE TWO EARLY VOTING PERIODS, AND WAS AT A COST DIFFERENTIAL AND WE HAVE EARLY VOTING IN OUR GENERAL IN NOVEMBER AND MAYBE THAT IS IT. IF THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR ONE SEAT AND WE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A RUNOFF ROUTE AND WE MAYBE HAVE ANOTHER

EARLY VOTING IN THE ELECTION. >> IT WOULD BE THE ONLY MATTER ON THE BALLOT.

AND SO THEREFORE YOU HAVE MINIMUM ãOF A BARE MINIMUM COST OF ELECTION.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS BUT I CAN'T COMMENT TO IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT WOULD BE A SPECIAL ELECTION WITH ONE TIME. BUT AGAIN, THAT IS NOT UP TO US

TO FIGURE OUT. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. AND I WOULD ANTICIPATE THERE BE DISCUSSION ON IT THAT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE MARGARET WAS GOING TO MAKE AS A RECOMMENDATION, PARTICULARLY AS IT THE CANDIDATE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION WHO WOULD BE ELECTED. I DON'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN MY DRAFT FORM.

[00:40:02]

SO I WOULD JUST MOVE THAT THE RED LINE PROPOSED WITHIN PARAGRAPH, SUBPARAGRAPH B WITHIN THEIR BE MOVED TO APPROVE THOSE MODIFICATIONS AS SECTION 9, LEAVING A AS WRITTEN AND ADDING THE LANGUAGE THAT SAID AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTIONAFTER ELECTION .

>> I HAVE A MOTION.O WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MARGARET?

>> I JUST WANT CLARITY AS FAR AS PARAGRAPH A, B AND DEAN. ARE THESE TWO BE AS WHAT IS STATED IN THE CURRENT POWERPOINT PROVISION OR IN THE LANGUAGE, THE MARKED UP LANGUAGE WHICH MR. LUSSIER DISTRIBUTED? HE DISTIBUTED LANGUAGE IN TALKING IN TERMS OF GROUPS. I JUST WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE EXTENT OF WHAT IS

BEING PROPOSED. >> THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN THE POWERPOINT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. I'M NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES. THAT IS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE GROUP. I DID MAKE A PROPOSED. MY MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY REVISIONS. A WOULD REMAIN AS IT IS PROPOSED AND WE VOTED ON IT AND APPROVED. MY CHANGES WOULD BE TO THE EXTENT IT DOESN'T ãSO I HAD COMMENTS ABOUT THE FIRST SECTION. GROUP 1, TO AND THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE. I MADE A GENERALIZED COMMENT AND I BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS HERE BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS. I WOULD INCORPORATE THAT

LANGUAGE INTO MY MOTION AND ADD TO. >> I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE IT BE WAS MANY SEVERAL MONTHS AGO HAD BEEN REVISED TO REFLECT CURRENT CANDIDATES.I THINK ALL THE TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF FEET AS WELL. AND THE GOAL YOU NEED TO DO IS

MAKE CHANGES TO SEE. >> I PROPOSED ELIMINATING SEAT AND INCLUDING IT WITH D BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT SAID ELECTIONS FOR THE GROUP SHALL BE HELD AS FOLLOWS, WHICH IS ãOKAY.

THEN I WOULD MODIFY THAT TO MAKE MY CHANGES TO SEE. NOT STRIKING IT, KEEPING IT AND

KEEPING THOSE REVISIONS WITHIN THEIR. >> AGAIN, I THINK YOU SHOULD LOOK AT PARAGRAPH C IN THE POWERPOINT CHANGES IN THE CLEAN COPIES.

>> OKAY. I AGREE. IT MAKES NO CHANGES, I THINK, TO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE BUT I WOULD MODIFY THE MOTION TO KEEP A AND B AS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AND MODIFY MY RED LINE TO KEEP PARAGRAPH C IN THE LANGUAGE FOLLOWING IT WITH NO CHANGES TO

D. >> WE HAVE A CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND? YES. MR. MORRISON IS INDICATING YES.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS SEASON, COULD YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?

>> MEMBER LUCERO. >> YES. >> MEMBERMORRISON .

>> YES. >> VICE CHAIR BEING. >> YES.

>> MEMBER BRIAN. >> WE CAN'T HEAR HER. OKAY.

SHE IS SAYING YES. >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> NO.

>> MEMBER KOZAK. >> NO. >> CHAIR.

>> NO. >> MOTIONCARRIES . SO THE LANGUAGE, IF YOU FEEL IT IS ALL CAUGHT UP, MAYBE YOU COULD WORK WITH MS. BOTTS TO MAKE SURE THAT LANGUAGE IS WHAT

YOU BOTH INTENDED IT TO BE. MS. DAVIS? >> I WILL REWRITE PARAGRAPH C WITH A PROPOSED LANGUAGE BASE KEEPING THE CONCEPT MR. LUSSIER HAS DONE AND I WILL SEND IT AND THEN SHE CAN FORWARD IT ON OR WORK WITH MR. LUCERO. IS THAT AGREEABLE?

[00:45:06]

>> VERY GOOD. AND SO WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS THE CITIZENS

[5.2 DISCUSSION & VOTE: CITIZEN INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM: This item is placed on the agenda at the request of Members Davis and Kosack.]

INITIATIVE. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START THIS DISCUSSION?

MS. DAVIS? >> I AM HAPPY TO DO SO. I APOLOGIZE.

I THOUGHT THE CHART OF THE PREVALENCE OF CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROVISIONS IN LAST MEETINGS AGENDA PACKET WOULD BE IN THIS ONE.

SO IT'S NOT THERE. . BUT I DID SEND OUT A SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE CITIZEN PETITION INITIATIVE PROPOSAL I HAD.

MAINLY THE REVISED LANGUAGE, WHICH IS TAKING OUT THE REFERENCE TO THE ABILITY TO USE THE INITIATIVE PETITION PROCEDURE TO AMEND THE CHARTER SINCE WE AGREED LAST MEETING TO PUT A REFERENCE TO THAT IN 142. WE DID NEED TO HAVE A SECOND PLACE.

IN THE ALSO, A REVISED TO CHANGING QUALIFIED VOTERS TO REGISTERED VOTERS BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE MORE CLEAR FOR THE CITY CLERK AND THEREFORE THE COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIALS TO KNOW WHETHER SOMEONE IS A REGISTERED VOTER CAN QUALIFY AND NOT BE REGISTERED.

BUT THE BASIC CONCEPT AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IS I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE THE IN IN THE BULL CITIZEN SURVEY IN GOVERNANCE ON THE TRUST AND IN FEELING THE CITY ASK IN THE CITIZENS BEST INTEREST. AND SINCE RESEARCH HAS SHOWN, INCLUDING A SUMMARY AND A NEW S NEWS AND WORLD REPORT IN A 2016 ARTICLE, CITIZENS ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR GOVERNMENTS WHEN THEY HAVE CITIZEN INITIATIVES, DIRECT DEMOCRACY PROVISION.

SO THAT HAVING A CITIZENS INITIATIVE PROVISION IN OUR CHARTER OVER 70 PERCENT OF OUR PEERS IN THE 20 CITIES CLOSEST IN FLORIDA HAVE ãWOULD START TO SHOW WE HEARD THAT COMMENT IN THE CITIZEN SURVEY AND ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT. AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT GIVING THEM THE RIGHT TO PROPOSE INITIATIVE AND NOT TO SEEK TO REPEAL EXISTING ONES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED AND ARE THEREFORE CAUSING ORDINANCES TO BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THERE IS A BOAT. AND AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PREVIOUS COMMENTS AND HAVE TRIED TO DO THINGS TO MINIMIZE THE COST OF THE CITY OF DOING THIS, PUTTING MOST OF IT ON THE PETITIONERS.

AND ALSO SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE SPECIAL ELECTIONS FOR IT.

AND IT WOULD ONLY BE GOING WITH THE ORDINANCES WERE THERE AT TIMES IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO AMEND IN ORDINANCE THAN TO HAVE IT GO TO THECHARTER . AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND TO READ THROUGH AND HAD QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOME OF THE

TIME IN AND HOW IT WOULD WORK. >> ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? ANYBODY? DOES EVERYBODY HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I MOVED TO A. THE LANGUAGE I PROPOSED AS A NEW SECTION 148 THE RIGHTS TO PROPOSE

INITIATIVES ON ORDINANCES. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND. >> I WILL SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD SAY WHY I MAY NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, I WOULD SUPPORT IT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO TAKE A VOTE ON .

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> MS. NUISANCE, COULD YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?

[00:50:07]

>> MEMBER DAVIS. >> WHY QUICK MEMBER KOZAK. >> YES.

>> MEMBER BRIAN. >> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> YES. >> MEMBER LUSSIER. >> YES.

>> VICE CHAIR BEING. >> YES. >> OKAY.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MARGARET. THANK YOU, JOHN, FOR ALL THE

WORK YOU BOTH DID ON THESE. >> NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF THE

[5.3 CHARTER REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO DATE]

CLEAN VERSION AND THE CHANGES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENT OR REACTION TO THOSE?

MS. KOZAK? >> ONE QUESTION WE WERE DISCUSSING IS WHEN I WENT TO THE CLEAN VERSION I DIDN'T SEE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 142 WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHERE WE HIGHLIGHTED 166. THAT IS THE BIGGEST THING I FOUND FROM IN AN AMOUNT THAT SECTIONS FOR THE STARTER OFFICERS THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH ONCE WE WANT TO GO THROUGH AMNESIA.

YOU GOT THAT? WE ARE GOOD?

THE DIFFERENCE. IS THAT OKAY? >> I THINK I CHANGED IT IN THE

POWERPOINT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO SHE WILL CHANGE THAT.

MARGARET? >> SIMILARLY IN SECTION 8, WE VOTED LAST WEEK TO CHANGE THE WORD REGULATION TO RESOLUTION. THAT CHANGE WAS NOT MADE IN EITHER THE POWERPOINT OR THE CLEAN COPY. AND SO I WOULD REQUEST WE DO THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR

VOTE OF LAST WEEK. >> WE ARE GOOD WITH THAT ONE? >> WHAT SECTION IS THAT FOR?

>> THAT WOULD BE SECTION 8. AND IS ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTED IN THE POWERPOINT SAYING REGULATIONS.

BUT WE HAD VOTED TO CHANGE THAT EVERY THREE MINUTES AND 44 SECONDS ON THE VIDEO.

WE VOTED TO CHANGE THAT TO THE WORD REGULATION TO RESOLUTION. >> GOT IT.

>> AND THEN TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE MINUTES AND CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE IN BOTH THE CLEAN AND THE POWERPOINT OF THESE VOTED ON IT IT LOOKS LIKE AROUND 10 MINUTES AND 13 SECONDS ON THE VIDEO. MEMBER LUCERO SUGGESTION OF THE WORD CONSTITUTION BEMADE PLURAL . AND AS AT THE END OF THE WORD CONSTITUTION.

AND IN THE LANGUAGE I HAD PROPOSED WITHIN THE MINUTES INSTEAD OF SAYING INSTEAD I WILL SUPPORT THE LOSS SO THAT I WILL IN ALL RESPECTS AND IMPLEMENT THE LAWS OF THE STATE

OF FLORIDA. >> THAT WAS WHAT WAS AGREED TO. SO THOSE CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WE HAD VOTED ON LAST WEEK. AND WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE CHANGES TO 142 NEEDING TO BE MADE. I JUST HAVE A MINOR TECHNICAL THING. MINOR TECHNICAL THINGS LIKE ONE OF THE RATIONALES IS MISSING AND STUFF. AND I WILL SEND THOSE COMMENTS TO KATIE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT

SUBSTITUTES. >> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY CHANGES TO WHAT IS SHOWN? MS. KOZAK?

>> I THINK THAT IS A GREAT IDEA. I CAN DO THE SAME THING WITH MY MINOR FORMATTING THINGS TO KATIE. BUT ONE THING UNDER CITY MANAGER SECTION 29 AND IN THE LATEST CLEAN COPY UNDER POWERS AND DUTIES, J WAS DROPPED OFF.

[00:55:09]

THAT WAS ABOUT THE EMERGENCY POWERS. I DON'T RECALL US DELETING NOT SO THAT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN AN OVERSIGHT BOARD LAST WEEK'S CLEAN COPY WENT THROUGH WITH THE EMERGENCY PLACES CITIZENS IN DANGER, BLAH, BLAH.N THIS WEEK'S CLEAN COPY STOPPED AT

NIGHT. >> KATIE IS JUST TELLING ME IN A SIDEBAR THAT WE AGREED TO TAKE THAT OUT OF THE CHARTER BECAUSE WE HAVE A REGULAR ORDINANCE OR THAT.

>> OKAY. I DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT. OKAY.

THAT'S IT. >> THAT'S IT? >> YEP.

>> ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYONE? SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TAMMY AND MARGARET OWING SOME CHANGES TO KATIE, YOU ARE GOOD? ALL RIGHT. COOL BEANS.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS NEW BUSINESS. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY? OKAY. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. TO BEHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ?

[8. NEXT MEETING DATE]

WE DO NOT. DO WE NEED ANOTHER MEETING? >> NO.

>> WHY NOT? BECAUSE UNLESS THERE ARE NEW THINGS BUT HONESTLY, UNLESS THERE ARE NEW THINGS, THE ONLY THING I HAVE ON MY RADAR SO TO SPEAK IS WHAT JOHN IS GOING TO PROPOSE FOR THE VERY IMPORTANT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 9. I THINK WE ARE ALL INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT AGAIN AND NOT HAVING IT FINAL AND KATIE AND I SENDING IT OUT THE DOOR TO THE REFERENDUM. BUT WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE WE DO IS THAT BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT TUESDAY. WELL, TOMORROW SOMETIME. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU?

>> IT IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM MARGARET TO YOU TO ME AND THEN TO YOU.

>> IT IS GOING TO TAKE A FEW DAYS.T DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BY NEXT TUESDAY. CAN ASK THE CITY COMMISSION THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY HAVE ONE MORE PROPOSE TO DO BUT WHETHER THE CALL IS HERE TO SAY IT LOOKS GREAT, MEETING ADJOURNED, WE SHARED THE LANGUAGE WITH YOU ONLINE VIA EMAIL AND THEN IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS, CHANGES OR WHATEVER, YOU SEND THOSE TO ME. DO NOT REPLY ALL BUT SEND THOSE TO ME.

AND THEN WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THAT WAY.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS WORKABLE FOR THE REST OF YOU? YES? OKAY. SO WE ARE GOOD?

>> YES. I WILL STILL ASK THE CITY COMMISSION JUST FOR FUN TO EXTEND THE COMMITTEE UNTIL THE END OF OCTOBER. AND IF WE NEED ANOTHER MEETING

WE WILL HAVE ONE. >> OKAY. I THINK FUN IS A BIT OF IT EXAGGERATION, BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. IT HAS BEEN MY PLEASURE TO SERVE WITH ALL OF YOU ON THIS COMMITTEE AND I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU HAVE PUT INTO IT. AND ALSO, THE FACT THAT YOU PUT YOURSELVES OUT THERE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE THAT GREATLY. NOT MANY FOLKS DO ALL THE TIME, BUT EVERYBODY HAS AN OPINION. SO IT IS GOOD YOU'

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.