All right. January 6. United States of America. >> Thank you. Yeah, thanks for that reminder. >> Uh those of you who didn't hear our opening, we are now officially called to order. We start down at the uh my left
end of the DIS with a roll call. Ed, start with you. >> Ed over. >> Thanks. Jim Dunlap, >> Beverly Beverly Milligan, >> Brian Thomas, >> Anita Sarasa, Michelle Churnney. >> So, let the record show all members including the alternates are present
here physically and we do officially have a quorum to conduct our business today. First item of business then is um public comment. All right, seeing none at this point, I'm going to close public comment and move on to a motion for the approval for
the minutes. Please move. >> Hank moves it. >> Second. >> Second by Brian. Any u additions, deletions, corrections from anybody? All those in favor? I >> I >> motion moves unanimously. Member items, as you recall, at the end of each our meeting, we're going to talk about
anything we want to put on the agenda upcoming meeting. And I have CRC member Zuba has asked to talk about um looks like draft ethics inclusion. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> In my aotted time.
>> Oh, thank you. Um, I um had thought about uh making a uh proposal that we include a statement
under the issue of employee or council member responsibilities and the subtext would be the ethics. Um, one of my reasons for um,
being on this charter was to try to urge this to uh, be considered. Uh, you may in looking at my suggestions for those three points feel that this is overkill or that we're doing it already. And I'd
like to point out several things. one that media has had a heyday with our last year here. There have been many crises and some have been good news and others have been not so good. Um but the
image that the media creates has I would say impacted our market. Uh you maybe some of you noticed in last week's news press in the real estate section there was one sale on this island. Now,
you can blame it on the uh issue of the weather or the time of the year and the holidays, but we all know there's an awful lot of homes for sale or for rent. And that a motivation might now might be
to sell up as they use in the term economics meaning that um many folks might not be uh interested in fixing up their homes but uh in selling up because
of the land value. Um that plus the our our image here led me to believe here that this is a good time for us to consider an ethic statement. As I said, you might feel this is um
redactive and maybe um uh overstating the issues. I understand if you do, but we don't have a clear statement in the charter at this point about ethics. And I think there should be so I suggested
three different points. One of course the first item on everybody's agenda anybody who served on any committee or whatever knows exparte communication. We are all asked to disclose any
expparte, meaning any party that has contacted us that might have influence or might have uh some suggestion or might have some uh uh suggestion about a way to vote. We have to disclose that
and we should. This is not stated clearly enough and and and that's why I'm raising it. Number two, um is in the same context that of disclosure that we uh do disclose any
uh any expenses that you have incurred that have been either paid for or uh paid for by others. Once again, it's a question of um disclosing that. I I
believe it's u you know we we're a community of small people with who meet each other accidentally in some instances and we do talk about things and the idea of the expenses has to be made
clear that we we are not to be um given any gifts and that's what this becomes. Um third me is that all council members be required to disclose any conflict of
interest. That's the same as um other points in in both the state statutes as well as our own co code of conduct. Uh the the addition I would make is that sometimes in our approvals of uh actions
on council we are benefiting as a business and if we do we need to disclose that if we don't recuse ourselves uh we we at least need to disclose. In some instances, the common
sense might apply that we don't uh believe it's that important or fixing a road might benefit my business, but that's not really directly benefiting my business. Uh but having some disclosure
of that, I think in an ethics statement is good. Um, I come from Chicago and uh we we uh uh as members of councils in that
jurisdiction or in Oak Park, Illinois, um we were all um subject to the same disclosures and exparte, but uh the state legislature in Springfield, Illinois had one exception that you
could talk about anything you wanted uh with other council members um as long as you were drinking and uh I thought that was an interesting way of uh getting around the uh issue. So obviously there
are a few of us alcoholics then who uh took advantage of that after council meetings to uh uh talk. Um, another uh interesting point is as the fifth alderman was handcuffed and led away for
fraud, uh it became obvious that our uh council was a bit uh crooked and uh um one uh commentator Mike Reicho wrote in his newspaper that the name of the city or
the slogan of the city should be changed from herbs in orto meaning city and garden to dandez mayo you know where's mine and uh the uh the effect of that
has not been felt yet in the council or in Yes. And let's let's not have that kind of mystique on our island here. I know it's not clear that we are doing anything wrong, but the disclosure of
all this is my point and I hope you'll consider it. >> Thank you, Hank. Let me um try to process that a couple ways. baseline legal first. Nancy, if you can just react to whether you feel there is um lack of current coverage or needs to
be revisited, rebolstered, reertified, whatever it is to bring closer to what Hank believes would be appropriate and necessary. Then I'm going to go to the former mayor and the vice mayor to get the practicality of this based on how the operation really runs. councelor.
>> So, I don't have a position of advocacy uh one way or another. Uh what I can inform you of is what the existing uh statute and um code regulations that you have in place that could be um or are
applicable. So first of all regarding the exparte communications you do have an existing um uh code of ordinance section it is section um 34-52
and this does talk about uh communications with public officials. It defines what an exparte communication is. It defines uh provides the definition of legislative action, public official, quasi judicial action,
unrestricted uh communications. That's the definitional side. Um, this particular section of your code, I believe, was um, included as a result of a court case, oh gosh, many, many years
ago that found that um, exparte communications in quasi judicial actions were prejuditial to a private property owner. And in response, the Florida legislature allowed local governments to
create ordinances that would try to remove any kind of cloud of impropriy. And that would be through this disclosure mechanism. And so the town u like other jurisdictions throughout
Florida adopted um this ordinance. And if those of you that watch our meetings at the by the local planning agency as well as the town council, you often hear um before we go into a
quasi judicial uh matter, before we really get to the the meat, the heart of the u of the hearing, there will be a request for disclosure of any exparte um communications that may have
occurred. Um and again that is basically to um respect and preserve private property rights so that the private property owner or their representative get a fair hearing. Um because whatever
the decision is made in that quasi judicial setting is going to have some kind of monetary uh impact on their private property rights. um we oftent times provide the
opportunity to the um developer or property owner to ask a little bit more a little bit more questions. Um for instance, hypothetically um Amy makes a disclosure that she had a conversation with Jason and as a
property owner I can say well Miss Amy um what what did you and Jason talk about? Did you talk about traffic? Did you talk about flood? When did you talk about it? So there is that opportunity to go ahead and and inquire more um
about it and um this does basically remove that cloud um of of the fact that it it may not be uh proper. I will talk um say that I want to give you the definition of what an exparte
communication is and this is any direct or indirect communication in any form any form again could be telephonic could be documentary text messages whether written verbal or
graphic you know thumbs up right um with the town council or local planning agency by any person outside of a public hearing and not on the record concerning substantive issues in any proposed or pending quasi judicial action related to
um administrative appeals, variances, reasonzoning, special exceptions or other uh quasi judicial action um that may take place. um site visits have also been viewed as um exparte uh documents
or communications um because ultimately the example I always use is that maybe there's an issue of whether or not the property is subject to flooding and you think you're going to go look at the property to
bring that information back to the deliberative process and you go to the wrong address and you say, "Yeah, Yeah, I saw a lot of water in front of that green house. Well, this way the property owner can say, "My house is not green, it's blue." Um, so they can have that um
so you know that you have the correct information um in front of you. So I think that's about all I really would like to say about exparte, but I'm open to questions. >> Sure. Let me move on to Anita if you wouldn't mind pining from both your experience as mayor and certainly
sitting on this group whether or not think the current containment of what we have is sufficient or >> I don't think it's sufficient. >> Okay. >> And um interestingly enough Jim I and Nancy I guess I'm since we're in a public meeting I can say this. I was going to bring it up at our next LPA meeting. So, you know, the thing that
Nancy just said, uh the the uh property owner or Nancy could say, "Uh, oh, by the way, Jim, when you went to that house, did you see whatever?" You can ask a follow-up question, but who cannot do that is the public. So, the public
has no way to know when a council member or an LPA member says, "I met with the developer. Uh, I met I met with the London Bay people. Okay, that's your exparte disclosure. But what
did you talk about? How long did you meet with them? When did you meet with them? Did you just meet with them once? That is the developer knows that or the property owner knows that, but the public has no idea and it creates a sense of insecurity and mistrust.
Now, back in the day, we decided to allow for exparte in lie of what the county does, which the county does not allow. Michelle, I feel like I'm ignoring you. The county does not allow for a county commissioner to speak to
any public person or developer about a zoning case. You cannot speak to them. It goes before the county LPA, goes before a hearing examiner, goes before the county commission. that supposedly is the first time they ever hear about it. So when the town became a town, we
had to decide, were we going to utilize that same system and we all agreed it's a small town. We're going to see somebody at the grocery store. We're going to it's it's a small town. And part of the community building that we intended to do was those conversations.
Now, that was 30 years ago. We didn't have Facebook. We didn't have any kind of the media coverage that we have now. Nor did we have the complexity of the cases that we have now. >> And so consequently, and it's funny
because I was just having my Rexan Hos who used to be on the council with me and you all probably know her. She was just visiting me and I just had this conversation with her. I said, you know, half these things wouldn't be such a big deal if they had happened 10, 15 years
ago because you didn't have that instant push of media, whether it's social media or regular media, and the the subsequent commentary, which I think is something that is sorely lacking in our disclosures for
exparte now, you know, and I think is something that I I think I've said it to Scott for, you know, I think Beach Talk Radio does a great service to this town with with their productions. However, >> I think that there is a huge slippery
slope. If Scott goes on and talks about something or Dan goes on every Sunday and I've told Dan this too, goes on and you talk about something that maybe leads other council members or the public for that matter to think you have
formulated an opinion on a project or or just in general. It's really difficult. Now, of course, Ed wants to ask those questions, and of course, the public wants to know what you think about something, but in the process of these projects coming forward, the developer
or the property owner, they deserve to know that there has not been an opinion formulated. That's the whole idea. They they deserve to have that free and clear. So, do I think we need to update exparte? Absolutely. And do I think that putting something in the charter, what
this what an ethics statement, maybe this isn't exactly it, but what an ethics statement in our charter would say to the public and affirm to the public is this is something that we hold as as an important value of our
community. These are the standards with which we are going to conduct our business. And I think that's very valuable, especially now. >> Sitting vice mayor, any additional comments to that? No, I just I would echo what Anita says. It's it it is a
very slippery slope and I I think if you have this ethics portion in there that you know it'll it'll hold us it'll hold us to it. So I I I'm all for it. >> Excellent. So um to to be efficient, is
there anybody that has an opposing position or something additional what hasn't been covered so we can see where the will of this commission is? And then I'll direct certainly our member here to work with um council to address some something for us too. >> What do you what do you think Jim? >> I believe that you can't be enough
transparent >> um because there is a responsibility and there's a consequence and they have to be in harmony all the time with how you approach make decisions. It is hard and when one of them gets out of balance,
you try to protect it versus bring it back >> and that's both human nature and the concerns of the stress of what comes over that. >> So, um I can't I applaud Hank for bringing it up and needed for you endorsing it and Scott and doing it too. Anybody feel this isn't something that
we should put in the charter and want to have an alternative opinion? >> Can I add a little bit? >> Um can I just finish one second to make sure we're on track together before we do that because you're going to get the final assignment anyway. Anybody else want to comment on where we are that would feel differently or addition to where we have in that as a
member? >> I just I'm not quite sure about the wording. Yeah. And and number two, >> we will we'll address that or not. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> If we can stay with the concept, the wording does need work and I know you're fine with that. >> Yeah. >> Um and we need some legal help to make that happen so it can be both understood
and enforced, but assume for a minute the concept. Bev. Um yeah I just very quickly um I think that that um while it may be talked about in other parts and other language in other documents this is the charter and and I think we have
to keep in mind really what needs to be in the charter beyond what is existing um as a document as a whole and this is such an important issue that I think it deserves a place in the charter u that's it >> excellent Nancy See
>> okay so I think at the onset when we had our first meeting I think that um I had mentioned to you that um a lot of good things will come up and a lot of discussion will come up and what we what I would hope that we can do is just to
capture them >> and then towards the end before we give our report to the town council I would like to come forward to you and give you options of how you might be able to implement it. Putting it in the charter,
remember, requires a referendum vote. >> Okay? So, it's going to be on the ballot. Amending your ordinance is two public meetings. You can be a little bit more restrictive in there as far as how
a um exparte disclosure occurs. The other document that may come into play which you need to be knowledgeable of as well when you make this decision is the uh procedural rules that has been adopted by the town council in
resolution 23-182. There is a section in there as well that talks about um exparte. I do not have this reference. Maybe Amy can help me real quick, but there's a
section in here that does talk about uh the guidelines for maybe page 21, so section seven that talks about the difference between a legislative hearing and a quasi judicial hearing. And there is a huge difference.
>> Um and so in a legislative hearing where you're talking about policy, there is no uh disclosure requirement. Um, and I don't I don't quite see it here on just first first glance, but again, I
don't want to discourage the conversation. I think it should be put on the list and then I think you could revisit it um right before you do your recommendation. Um, and you may consider of um adding
additional sections to your um to your existing code that talks about well what happens if um you know an adequate disclosure is not made or you go into a little bit more detail as far as what
constitutes a appropriate disclosure. >> Um but on the on the other thing I wanted to share with you too is the practical side of it. >> Um Hypothetically, let's say I am a council member. I don't want to be vice mayor, but I'll be a council member. And
I am out in the community quite a bit and I have people come and talk to me a lot and you know, I'm getting a little older and I forgot. >> Um, that might happen. And then if you have a a very very strict policy,
>> that could be detrimental to that individual. The other is that maybe you're at um a uh event and someone just comes up to you, some random person, you don't really know who they are and they're like, "You should vote against that."
How do you disclose that? I was at a barbecue and uh a gentleman maybe in his 40s approached me and said, "Don't vote for this." I mean, so there's some practical implications to that as well. >> I think that's right. And so I think I'm
hearing agreement. So let the record show, Amy, on the minutes that we're going to revisit this. And there is the will of the group initially to see a section either added to or created about disclosure in our charter. Therefore, codifying at the level that we believe and Hanks represented be necessary to
do. And both the operating elected officials today indicated that we could strengthen this up. They'd have no concern about that. In fact, it would be additive to the process. So we could have that in the minutes. We'll visit that, see where it goes when we get back to the end. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're very welcome. >> When would you like to bring that back?
>> Um, I don't think I think we've got the concept, but we would bring it back um as we after we've gone through the whole charter. Exactly. >> And then if you feel that it's still very very important to you to include in
the list of things going forward. So moving forward from there, I was going to bring this up anyway to Nancy did a great job reminding us that we are collecting a set of recommendations at this point or consensus at this point that we will revisit officially in a
full session and decide in those items we want to codify through a vote that we believe we would recommend directly to council to go through one of the three or four methods that NY's informed us now they will use. I sat through the um Cape Coral session um most recently that
they just uh their individual which somebody introduced me to on the the head of the commission uh representative council and it was interesting to see how um efficient it can be when it's well recommended and well represented and how burdensome it can be when what
did they mean and and is everything now need to go in the referendum. It's a very tall bar when you say it needs to go to the voters. most important things should and the most meaningful and impactful things should. But as NY's indicated several times and their attorney had to do the same, we don't need to go through that process to get
this in place if you all feel it's the right thing to do. So keep that in mind when we're putting our fervor around some of these. We can get them down the council uh through through normal ordinances or resolutions. That being the case, we're going to pick up where we left off uh last time. Um there are a
couple items we left for discussion if you all recall. >> Mr. Chair can I'm sorry to interrupt you but I believe he had two other items. One being the gift law, the disclosure of gifts. >> Um that was also a concern and then also
a conflict of interest. >> Those were the other two. Um, at this point, my my comments, my two cents would just be that um we do have an existing state statute that regulates um the disclosure of gifts um as well as
the prohibition about acceptance of gifts. Um and as far as conflict of interest um that too is there. Uh I think the recommendation or the suggestion was that somehow we should try to strengthen that and you can have
um local regulations that are more restrictive uh than the state statute. Um again I want to point out that you do have the council does have um and I'm not sure about the LPA. I'd have to look at their
rules as well, but they do have a code of ethics already identified in their uh procedural uh policies and rules. Um, and maybe Amy, we can get council u the commission a copy of of their procedural
rules. >> Sent this to you. >> You may have these, you may not. >> Um, but >> it's in paragraph um three and it talks about the code of conduct. uh the code of conduct setting forth what their uh
requirements are and then also specifically a section on uh code of ethics. There is reference there to exparte communications uh which we just talked about and I
believe there is also um reference to conflicts. Um, so that may be a place where we already have some regulations that either are not uh known and need we need a refresher on the fact that they're
existing or if you want to um enhance them. Hank what I was trying to raise Nancy was just that uh given this past year I think it is necessary for the charter to be clear so that all of us
have been in meetings for oh I didn't know that I didn't know I had to do that let's make it clear what we're supposed to do and how we're supposed to act that's all I just put it in the charter >> yeah and I that's what I heard from you and for the moment our placeholder is
going to include all of that and we'll revisit it and amplify it and codify it accordingly. >> Great. Can I just make one comment? It has been a long week. Um, and I did a lot of research on this. We do need to modernize and strengthen the charter. And if you take a look at Santa Bellero
and our other local communities, they do have an ethics provision underneath mayor and council. Um, I pulled one up that I thought was like really clear and stated. Elected officials shall disclose any contractual, financial, or business relationship with any individual or
entity that conducts business within the town or that is subject to town regulation, permits, approvals, or operations. When a matter before the council may directly or indirectly affect a relationship, the official shall abstain from voting or participating in any discussions. The
town shall adopt procedures to ensure disclosures and recusals are handled consistently. >> That was some language from a couple of the other towns. >> Good outline for us to bounce our recommendation against. >> And that that is I have no objection to that if you all wanted to put that in
your charter. But I will tell you that I believe state statute already requires that. And I do know that at our meetings when we do have um conflicts, um elected officials are required to fill out a form 8 um which I think Amy probably has
copies of if if you all would like to see what it looks like. Um so you know again we talked about it at the very beginning how we have um you know the constitution then we have statutes then we have local ordinances and we have
policies and guidance. >> I give you the wrong part. >> Okay. >> Um you know there's different different tiers. So you could have something in your charter that talks about >> um ethics. There's no prohibition about
that. But then you also have these other tiers that might have a little bit more opportunity to implement. Now on the other extreme, I will go ahead and mention it. The city of Naples as well as some other communities have established their own ethics commission.
Um, everyone else seems is governed by the state commission on ethics, including me and probably Amy as well. Um and they have an entire agency created for the enforcement of um
violations of the ethics code, but it is not um I think they have a few more um ethics local ethics commissions um on the east coast of the state. Um I am aware of Palm Beach County they do have an ethics uh commission as well. So I
just share that with you. >> Okay. We do u make sure those that figure she outline Michelle gets into Annie's hand so we can include that in the minutes when we when we prosper our own document towards the end of the process. >> Right. >> All right. Let's move to um a couple
items that we left open from last time. Then we'll move on to five 4.02. Mayor, uh it's page 12 of 205 on your big document. Got some items in there that um member was uh recommending some additional conversation around. So, we
wanted to afford the chance to do that. Again, we spent a good amount of conversation on this to remind those of you that weren't here for the full meeting. And my position on that was we're not going to relitigate these from top to bottom because we made a lot of progress, but there are some additional items that uh we we left open here with
some language we're looking for. Given Michelle a chance to recommend that to us, Michelle? >> Yeah. I mean, the recent events show a gap um in we need to strengthen 4.06 and 4.07. um they've got to cross over and link
each other and I just took a draft which is in your packet just kind of crossing over the two of them. >> And for the public, would you announce what those sections are just so we have those on the record, please? >> Uh the uh 4.07 is the forfeiture of office. >> Okay.
>> And I apologize 4.06 is >> I believe it's vacancies. Correct. >> So you're addressing all of that in these recommendations. We actually in the last meeting agreed to bring the additional language in on 4.06. Yes. Now what we need to do is connect 4.07 back
to the items that we have considered violations. >> Absolutely agree. >> Good. >> And they can be added in and be included or is there language in 4.07 that you want completely redone? >> Um 4.07 I just had some minor modifications that will click back over
to uh 4.06. We already added in. We haded to strengthen the violations last time which to included death, resignation, forfeiture of office, right? We've already added those in. Excellent. Now 4.07 basically states if there is violations be because of
section 4.06 then this is the process. >> All right. Let me give the members a chance to react to any of that before we agree to put that in our initial outline here. So anybody has comments on Michelle's recommendations? >> I would agree with Michelle. >> Everybody in the same place? I like the way she thinks.
>> Excellent. >> Very very organized. >> You good with that, Michelle? Good to go. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. So, we'll make sure and codify the our next set of recommendations. Amy, you've got that. >> Um, may I ask a question? >> Of course. >> So, it looks like you are taking out the
opportunity to be heard at a hearing. >> Yeah. >> Is that is that accurate or am I misinterpreting that myself? >> Well, the the draft Oh. Yeah, we took out remember the due process conversation. >> Yeah.
Okay. >> So, that's where we are. >> Okay. I I may have concerns about that as we as we go forward >> and we're going to benefit from hearing this. >> Right. Okay. >> So, just to be clear, you want these recommendations added to your next
>> That's correct. >> You got it. >> All right. So, let me go to 4.05 on compensation. And Scott, I'm going to call on you here again because you did have a reaction and um I found out that trying to get some of these copies of stuff that I was requesting from the
other municipalities that have this in place during the holidays was not not an IQ test that I passed. >> Um but in any event, the issue is this, unless um Nancy overrules this. If we um
if we don't put a um a fixed salary for the two categories in the U charter, then we will need to put some sort of a process in place by which to recommend compensation adjustments from time to time which will then need to go to
council themselves for adoption. >> Right. So you're you and I'll give Scott, I'll give you just a second here to react to this because that does mean there'll be a conversation about their own pay with them. Even though it wouldn't occur until the next regular scheduled election, the whole thing that
we we talked about last time, there still is that tension that goes with giving yourself a raise. Yeah. >> In the public forum. So before I move any further with bringing that other conversation more detailed into the u into a vote for us or a reaction from
us, I want to make sure and get Scott's reaction to any concept that would include that process. >> Well, as I said in the last meeting, I I don't want the council to determine their salary. It's it's just there's too much stress in this especially in this
day and age, you know, with Facebook and everything else when, >> you know, our town's struggling financially and then you give yourself a raise. That's just not good good politics. It's not >> welcome to politics. >> Yeah. Um I'm I am in favor of the blue
ribbon committee to to get it off off of us. But I if you're going to put a salary in there, I I think the coal should stay. >> That's true. I just I I believe it. >> And again, Nancy, I'll go back for process because this was an important moment as I read through the other. >> This is going to be your guys' decision.
This is just my recommendation. >> And that's that's what we're looking for because you'll have to eat this cooking. >> Yeah. >> Um was I factual or is there an alternative to saying if we don't define this, then somebody that defines it for us, we'll need to recommend it and go through ordinance to get it implemented
into um operating. >> Okay. So, I do want to comment on the uh ordinance language, the existing language that is in an ordinance. Um, it did come up, I believe, at the at the last council meeting possibly
when we were talking about appointments and the ability to wave the uh receipt of any type of salary or or benefit. Right? So, to back up, I will tell you that in section 2-9 of your current code
of ordinances entitled compensation, uh there is language that says all council members except the mayor shall be paid $1,200 per month. The mayor shall be paid $1,400 per month. Um, period. And that language
is outdated because that language was in effect in your code of ordinances before the change was made to your charter. Um I will also share with you that I did commit to council that I would bring back and I'm working with Tisa Olivivera
with on it uh to bring back some an ordinance that would allow for the waiver of any type of receipt of payment or other benefits. So, I just bring this up as an example that even though you have this charter language, you do have
the ability in your ordinances to um be more specific and to provide more guidance uh administration of that compensation. >> So, if the ordinance is outdated,
whatever that language is, 4.05, 5 assuming the colas are properly adjusted and I know they haven't been to date but they will be going forward. That language would supersede because it's the base from which that was all calculated. >> The charter would would override this. Yes. And I just want to share with you.
So the proposed language that we're playing around with right now is that all council members including the mayor shall be paid as provided in the town charter. >> There you go. >> Okay. any council member, including the mayor, may elect to wave receipt of
payment or any other benefit related to service on the town council. So that you're going to have that in your ordinance already. So then the question is if that gets adopted, which we hope will get adopted before the appointment is made, um you know, it kind of begs
the question, do you need any more changes in your charter? Uh but the inclusion of a um blue ribbon committee >> uh you know you could put it in your charter or you could perhaps put it in your ordinance. You could you could say
in your charter that um the town council shall provide for the creation of a blue ribbon committee consisting of blah blah blah you know x number of people whatever and then you can flesh that out in your code of ordinances. So let me get my peers to react to this because
the flying ointment as it sits right now the point of contention is we can certainly recommend doing that. When that happens then there is a process that by default is put in place that the blue ribbon commission has a recommendation which needs to go to the
governing body from which they will then react through ordinance to adopt or not. So creating it is not the challenge. Processing it after the recommendation is a challenge if we choose to remove this. Let me start down here with Ed. Give me your initial reaction to that knowing the process if you would please.
>> I just a little confused because either way, blue ribbon committee or not, it it's always going to go back to the council. >> If it's in the charter and we therefore codify the charter, which the referendum did if you saw we have our markup in there, that's their fixed salary. They
don't have to deal with it except for cola and that comes automatic. So, they're not involved again in their own compensation because it's outlined in the charter. >> Yeah. And that's uh the discussion we had last month. I was I was in favor of the cola, but the but the blue ribbon committee, it would still come back to
the council. >> It would. That's why I'm trying to get your reaction to >> do we do we go that route or do you like it codified in the charter and specifically called out as their salary? >> I'm more in favor of the cola. >> Okay. So called out with cola in the charter.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. >> I would favor the blue ribbon committee. Well, first of all, I I don't favor salaries at all, but I said that before and I didn't get very far with it, but uh um I think it's a great honor to
serve and that public service should be called forth, not um your checkbook. But um given that uh the opinion of other members, it would seem that uh there will be compensation and I would like to
see it in the hands of a blue ribbon. Okay, microphone. >> Um, I think I I like to see the blue ribbon. >> Okay. Thank you, Brian. >> Yeah, I'd also be in favor of the blue
ribbon. >> Okay. >> The problem with the blue ribbon committee is that the council will appoint the blue ribbon committee. So, the council is going to influence the people who will make a decision about their salary. It it has bad optics publicly. So, I'm not in favor of that.
I think if we're I I would leave the compensation exactly as it is in the charter. >> Okay. Michelle, where's your head at this point? >> What I can I ask a question? How when was did the ordinances get updated? Because there's this isn't the only
topic that doesn't match. >> Well, the ordinances they we try to get them or updated, but they're oftent times not. What about if we added on there that they would be reviewed and I'm going to
throw it out maybe every five years versus waiting for 10. >> Yeah. Um the blue ribbon commission would be assigned on some sort of chronicles basis. It's either two years or four years that's currently in place in the
marketplace that they do this because it's not worth $500. It needs to be something meaningful and needs to be revalidated to market conditions, all this stuff. So there would be some gap in there between those not on it being on a regular basis or prescribed basis but not not not too frequent.
>> But you're talking about ordinances in general. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Let's not devolve into that quite yet if we don't mind because I want to get your opinion on this particular topic just so we get a little bit of a will of what's going on here. >> I honestly don't know what the answer is on this one.
>> Okay. >> I I I'm torn on this one. >> Okay. I am um in favor of the blue ribbon and part of the reason is is I think we deserve to know um the marketplace. Um this is a very dynamic situation
notwithstanding the call to service that Hank talks about. Couldn't agree more philosophically around that pragmatically um this is a big commitment on lots of levels and I believe that there's a reality check whether we choose whether they choose to
adopt that or not. Again referencing Cape Coral in the last 6 months or nine months what they've gone through up there. Um they chose as you'll see and if you watch their session to leave things as they are with their salary bases. Um but I think that has some backstory to it too relative to the will
of the people. So at this point I'm hearing enough members favoring the the blue ribbon to have it come up as a more formal discussion. get the language that I've asked for from the others for us to look at and then we can have a more formal vote or recommendation to council who at that point can tell us that we
were completely off base or um thank heavens for somebody taking a look at it however it happens to work out. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I think >> can I ask a question? Um Mr. Chair, did did we ever provide what the current
base is because the language that's in section 4.05 5 is based off of 2016 numbers. I I get very concerned when specific numbers >> in our packet is the adjusted to date cola. Okay. Later on, you'll see that in
there. It's a little over 20,000 for council and something else. But >> it's because the process was not followed in historical practices here. It's been followed of late, so there's been adjustments. We can't relitigate any of that. But those do reflect the baselines that were in effect under
which the current salary was based from. >> Jim, just so you know, there's another issue that's been at foot too, which is that there have been town managers who have not given Amy, maybe you'll agree with this, or maybe you won't. Uh, they've not given COLA raises, but have
given merit raises. their raises have been based upon merit not and I think if if what I understand is correct that as recent as Roger Hearnstat that's how he managed increases in pay not by cola I
have met with the current town manager and the HR director so they are implementing both of those under normal and professional practices that I think we're all pretty used to and the HR individual did a great job of showing me what the extrapolation would be with the colas going forward and all that and
that is in your packet and for those in the public um the whole the whole write up that she did is in there and compares at least at that moment in time some of the other peer group salaries of mayors and council people. So I think that was cleaned up Anita thank heavens and I
think Will and his team are doing it the right way. >> Um what would you like in your notes about this? >> I will be bringing back um examples two other examples of blue ribbon commissions and how they operate. We'll get our team to formally flush some of that out and at the wrap up towards the
end of this we'll u have a formal vote on whether or not to include that to council. >> Do we have to add in here the benefits the insurance >> or just benefits compensation and benefits? How long have the council been getting healthc care benefits? >> Just a year or two.
>> So do we have to add that compensation and benefits? >> It would seem appropriate to me. Yeah. Thank you, Michelle. I think that's good catch. All right. Isn't that um Yeah. Fabulous. Okay. Let's move on then to
uh section five. We're up to that takes care of old business to date. Let's go to section five. Section 5.01 elections. And this article five is nominations and elections subtitled terms of office. Let's start with the first one. And as been our practice, we'll get reactions
voluntarily from everyone um if you have those in each section. The regular election of the members of the town council shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as to coincide with federal and state election dates or as otherwise provided by general law. The time period
that candidates must qualify shall be from noon on the 50th day prior to the election to noon on the 46th day prior or as adjusted by holiday or leap year. anything for the good of cause on that particular one? >> All right, I know the seems fine. Okay,
group's passionate enough I'd hear from you right away. So, I think we're good. >> There was a sigh before I hit my button. Um, so we did we did have a little bit of an issue uh regarding the qualification period. If you recall in
view of the recent recall, >> um there is no place that we could find what the uh qualification period would be required to be. Um ultimately the supervisor of election did
um ask council. Council refused to um or did not provide them with a qualification period for a recall election. Um I believe that ultimately the uh supervisor of election did
identify a qualifying period and did so based on some um language that was in the existing interlocal agreement between the town and the supervisor of elections. >> Right. So politics notwithstanding it
was solved. Well, and I believe the supervisor of elections office, it's somewhere in that 70 days now to get on ballot. So the 46 50 days to 46 days doesn't apply any longer. >> No. Oh, so we're overridden by that
then. Excellent. >> We no longer hold our own qualifying here. The supervisor election does the election. We'll strike that last sentence and include one that says as per supervisor election something along those lines you guys could craft so that we're consistent
with what we required to do anyway >> or we could be more specific in our interlocal agreement with our supervisor of elections. I don't know that it needs to be in the charter per se. Um or it
could be perhaps in an ordinance as as well. Um I think I had the conversation with the chair um about how this process works. And if you recall at the very beginning ultimately the matters
presented to the electorate for the charter review uh or for changes to the charter um we're very limited by state statute. We have to use 15 words only 15 words to
describe the topic and then we have 75 words to kind of describe what this is all about. And the eth the uh electorate will only have the ability to say yes uh or support or no no support or reject
accept reject. So it's really difficult sometimes to take more complex topics and fit them into that. And for that reason, sometimes some topics are not appropriate to put in the charter and
can be fleshed out in detail um in an ordinance or in other places. >> Sure. But I don't think that restricts us if we adjust that last sentence to be consistent with the lee county or the supervisors elections whatever happens to be at the time. We're not in any way
um trying to put something in place more restrictive or needs council action. We're going to follow the law of the people that now oversee our elections. >> Yes. And I believe that Florida statute also does provide some flexibility and I'll do a little more research on this that when things are outdated that you
can remove them from your charter >> good without even having to go to the electorate just because they're no longer applicable. >> All right, let's keep moving. 5.02 commencement of term. The term of a member of council shall begin at the first council meeting following the
general election. I don't have a better idea than that. >> No, but that there's an issue now with with an appointed member. Is that going to be covered later in the charter? >> I don't think that's on our >> because what we don't define is term
>> um terms of office. You mean on down below? >> We we define >> the topic at hand right now. >> It it Yes, the topic at hand. >> So, let's deal with that right in the next one, Ed, if we can on 5.03 3 because I think this just says when you're elected you start first meeting after that and that's been our practice
and seems to from the members that have joined in that fashion give them time to get oriented up to date and ready for the first meeting >> right I agree >> so now terms of office this we can have some fun with this then the terms for all council seats one two three four and
five shall be for four years pause for effect no member of the council sell shirt serve more than two consecutive full terms after one year out of office. Candidate may re-qualify for any vacancy. Mr. Ed,
>> uh, did you want me to comment on the terms? >> You had a question about is that clear enough to define terms of office dealing with the situation we're in at this particular point? it is if there was just nothing but general elections, but I think when you start getting appointments that the
water gets pretty muddy when it comes to this. Um I believe in our charter somewhere it says that the appointed council person would serve until the next election and then at that time that's correct. Exactly. >> They would have to determine if it would be again for four years or to fill out
the rest of the term. >> The term. Yeah. >> So a couple things. We did get a legal opinion on that on Monday and Nancy can go through that for you more detail if you weren't watching that real time. But something else that >> Scott wanted to speak. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yes. Uh, thank you. Um, so we we went
over this um obviously yesterday and there was a question that we wanted to kick back to you guys. is that appointment does it is it to the next election or would it be better like in other towns you're just taking that
person's seat so you fill out the rest of his term. So the one thing that we were talking about is is if Dan or I something happens to us this year they there'll be four seats up. If something happens to both of us all
five seats will come up. Is that what we want or do we want the person that we appoint to fill out the person's term? >> And certainly there's other scenarios we can create like what if it's a week before the next election and all that kind of stuff we should chat about here
which is why I'm glad you're bringing it up. I did read some other charters as part of the role in doing this and they are there is some consistency in how they try to deal with at least the first thing and that was do you serve out the term? It specifically says in these
other two charters, 24 months or less, you serve out the term. More than that, you flip to the next general election and therefore it's codified by the voters. >> So, that's an alternative that I saw in two of them that's been working for them in both real practice and conceptually. So, I throw that out for some reaction
because we include language like that and it clears up a whole bunch of what they're dealing with. Right. >> Right. >> What do you guys think about that? >> I agree with that. >> Okay. I I too agree with that. >> Yeah, I like the idea.
>> So that doesn't include an appointment period. It >> does not. >> Yes, I would agree with that. >> Great. >> Well, I might lose all day, but I don't agree with that. >> Go ahead with what you would like to see and lose. >> I think that it should be until the next
election for an appointed position. And I think it's very important that the person that sits on the count council is chosen by the voters of the community. >> Yeah. And I'm not I don't think we're suggesting at this point anything other than elected, >> right?
>> It's between elections. >> It's between elections is the issue. If somebody's appointed, so you're suggesting if it's 5 days before the next election, they should run. >> Well, I think if if it was five days, they would just wouldn't wouldn't appoint somebody. Well, you know, true,
but nobody would be running yet either. So, what I'm trying to do is say, is there a chronological boundary we can put on that gives us some cover for those scenarios? I agree we can create any environment we want with this, but is there some some uh chronological period we can say if it's this much this
far to the next election, say a week, 10 days, a month, six weeks, pick whatever you want, then they will serve out the remaining term. or if it's not 24 months or less and they start with that, they have to be they serve out the remaining term. If that was clear at all. >> Yeah, I understand what you're what
you're saying, but my I I still maintain that the uh whoever sits on the council should be elected by the voters. >> Sure. >> So, there shouldn't be any appointments. >> Oh, there should be appointments, but until the next election. >> So, if I can draw everyone's attention
back to section 4.08, 08. Um that is where the term of the set appointment shall be effective until a successor is chosen at the next regular election. So that language is there >> seems to >> and that is currently being enforced in
our current practice. >> Yes. >> I think I think historically that's been >> you agree. Yeah. you just serve until the next election and then someone is selected is elected. Um and then it is a
full term going back to the five 5.03 unless you all have a recommendation to change. >> So that would protect what Ed's concerned about clearly what we all care about having the voters behind the people that are making the decisions on their behalf. >> So if it says the next election, we mean
the next election regardless of time of appointment or condition or cir circumstances. It's the next election. Yeah. >> So in the case that we have right now, it means November >> of 26. Yes. This year. >> Yes. But then the real question is in November
is seat what was Jim seat four? >> So in November does seat four get filled for four years or two years? >> Right. And that's where I think it has to be defined in the in the charter
>> that because we want to stay on the same rotational basis that the charter already outlines. >> So I don't know. >> So I I have a question. So let's say somebody resigns in December of this year. The next election wouldn't be for
>> four more years. >> Two more years. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> So that that next election wouldn't we just wouldn't create an election November of 27. We'd wait till November of 28. Is that correct? >> Yeah, >> that's a good point. Yeah. >> And that did happen when John
Mullholland died. >> Terry Kaine served for quite a while. I think three years. >> Okay. >> Or two years something. Yeah, it was a while. >> So Ed's question is what are they running for?
um the remainder of that term or a regularly elected four-year council person. So Nancy, you had to go public on this on Monday. So give us some context and rationale because you did rule on this. >> Um yes, as far as the um in my opinion,
my interpretation of 5.03 is that it is a four-year term. Um the other I think where I would like to see perhaps some clarification or recommendation from the commission would be on 4.08.
>> Um because there it does talk about the governor appointing an interim counsel if um additional council members are um uh unable to continue to serve. What I
do not see is that um the opportunity or the option to have a special election that you might want to do that as well. >> So before we get to that, I want to finish the other topic up and make sure that we are aligned around it. Um the
concern that was raised appropriately by Ed was staggered elections. >> Um we certainly had those today 23 32. Um NY's position uh under the current charter, it's the one we're talking about, just for an example, was that
what would change if we >> sorry, >> uh let the full year four-year term for appointed run and run for what office you're running for four years, like situation now, the only difference would be is your 32 would become or your 23 would become 32. It's still staggered.
It's still every other one. You just got a different seat that's up in this particular category than the one would have been up in two years. >> I I agree with Ed. That was my first thought. You know, the the electorate should not have to wait three and a few years um uh in order to elect a p elect
somebody that they want in that spot. I I agree with you. The the concern is the staggering. So what happens you know if somebody else goes and it's now 41 how do we protect the 3223
>> Mhm. >> And that is what Ed said raising too. >> So that's why I'm thinking that it could be um a special election. Now if if you look at 4.08 8 which Amy has pointed out to me there is reference there to a special ex
election that could be held but there is some qualifiers on that in the event that a majority of the members are removed the governor shall appoint the council you may want to open that up and just have the ability to have a special
election without having the governor having to intervene in the instance that you have a majority of the members um being removed. >> And I think if we want, as we all do, the will of the people to be most currently connected to the people
sitting in these seats, um we should allow them afford them an opportunity by a special election to fill so we have to keep our staggered and to keep the most concurrently >> uh supported folks in office. Uh I don't I can't somebody can let me know what they think the ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch
ch ch ch ch ch ch challenges would be of the special election or the logistics but it seems like the right way to involve the electorate. >> Biggest challenge is money. >> Well understood. >> Um do you want to comment on the budgetary impact of it? >> I say the the la the recall election we
just had cost just a little over 17,000 >> 17,000 >> 17,000 because we were not on a ballot for any reason other than that. So, if there were a special election to fill the term left, the balance of the term
left by Jim's departure in November when there's already an election, would there not be any additional charge for that? >> The cost would be different because we're already scheduled to go on that ballot with the two seats. Now, we're going to have three seats on it. >> But then the question is, do we have any
authority to have a special election for this? That's what I'm suggesting that perhaps you put into 4.08. >> Yes, but that would have to be on the referendum in November. So, it wouldn't help us out of our current fix.
>> No, it wouldn't. Not your current. But if it happens um down, you already have addressed how it would be resolved. >> It's a good example of stimulation, but it's not correctable with our current process. >> I think you need to look at how do we
prevent a 41 staggering. >> Exactly. You do you do not want that? >> No, we don't. >> Well, can't we put language that says if a resignation or other vacancy creates a situation where we no longer have our 32 staggered that that seat most recently
vacated would be a um would be put out for a special election and therefore get it for the remaining of the term of that seat. So we protected the 3-2 splits. >> Let me throw something out. What I was going to put the recommendation currently our seat numbers go by
alphabetical order >> and that's not really what the other areas do. >> That means addol number four, huh? >> Well, you actually um it's determined by the number of votes >> in the election >> in the election process. So um seat one
would have the most votes to and then you stagger them that way. If we went to that model and we had a resignation, could we not extend somebody's term so that the replacement one would come up for the next election
or it would clear up the question of the balance of a term. So right now we'd be saying if you're running in November and you declare for seat four, you're running for seat four, seat four has two years left. And so that kind of goes back to I want to direct you um thank
you for bringing that up. It's in section point section 4.01 PNB uh where the designation is by seats. But oftent times when you have seats designated it's because there are
district elections and not at large. And that can get a little bit more confusing. I'm going to defer to Amy for more historical um how this has been handled. >> Well, and it is super confusing the way it is, but it is the seats like coming up in this coming March or uh November,
sorry, will be seats one, two, and now four. >> And those three seats, A, B, and Candidate run. And that's the last name, the initial of the last name. When they win that, A would get into seat one, B would get into seat two, and
C person would get into seat four, >> regardless of how many votes, >> regardless of how many votes they got. >> But that's not what the people the people didn't vote because you're Amy and you get on first. I go on second because if we both go on, that's not what the people vote for. Going alphabetically, in my opinion, is not
fair to the voters. Tell me what the value and the purpose is with the numerical designations at all. >> They're at large elections >> to my understanding is it's strictly to get the staggered. So you have the 32 moving. >> We can do that other ways though. >> You can
>> your term is this is your name. This is your term. >> Yeah, exactly. And that's why I was trying to defer over that versus alphabetically order. Go with what the voters asked the vote. Total votes. >> We're working really hard to work around these numbers. I guess I'm asking the team if they're not there,
>> don't we clean up the approach and then do the staggering that we're starting to suggest around here and have all that go away so nobody has to figure out both what seat number they're voting for, which one they're running for, and what it matters which one you get. >> I'm confused.
>> Well, Hank, you you'd be in seat five no matter what. >> That's Scott. So let's start with that and just work backwards. Does anybody feel passionately about the relevancy of these numbers? What they're supposed to represent and the value they have? >> No. No.
>> No. >> All right. So then be prepared. We'll start clean with that at least for our initial process. And now we want to protect our staggered seats. Let's go to that topic next. So current situation was happening. It doesn't in this
particular case affect the staggered seats. It just affects when the next stagger winds up. Well, there's 23 32. They're still staggered and you get that offset. But the damage is what Scott talked about if we lose more than that and now we're off cycle. So the language I think we need to look for or at least
some concept around is how do we protect when there's more than the staggered that is available so that we can protect the terms that there isn't a full fouryear for I would suggest to start with the most recent one that became available would then become uh a
two-year term or whatever the next election would be to keep that one staggered with the three that get their four four years out of it. So let's start with that as a concept. Uh, I agree with Hank. I'm a little confused right now, but um >> that's what we're here for.
>> It's the numbering that that's kind of throwing me off in my opinion and just using this current example that we have. >> Um, the election would would just
fill out what Mr. Adult's term was. Um, and Scott's scenario, I guess I haven't really put any thought into that of how we could handle that. >> And I'm trying to broker a recommendation that you have to pick one of those seats to not give an automatic
four-year re-election to is a starting point. Let's beat that to death for a moment and see where that doesn't work. If you're the fourth one that falls off, the remaining term of your seat is what you're running for uh or appointed to wherever the case happens to be, it
protects at least the integrity of those offcycle elections. Tell me how that feels to you all. >> So then you'd have to change 4.08 because you could write you could do 4.08 and just say if the fourth person, however you want to
word it, that replacement would fulfill his >> remaining term. remaining term, not until the next election >> or hers. Yeah, >> that's right. I agree with that. Scott, >> does that follow? Do you follow that, Michelle? >> That's I'm concerned about having
anybody longer than two years serve that hasn't been voted by. >> No, no, this wouldn't cause that >> that wouldn't cause the regular election cycles maintain. >> Okay. >> One would be actually less. >> So, >> they would serve the remaining of that term, which would be less than four years. Maybe by a day, but maybe by a
month. That happened in the case of Joanne Champ. Summer Stockton resigned almost at the end of her term. Joanne Champ was appointed. She had to run in the next election. She was only there for I don't know how but it was a short period of time.
>> Go ahead. Sorry. >> Well, the point is is that they're appointed. So, you know, the cost involved in reelection if any. Um um that's going to happen anyway if you want to run again. there's some cache uh with getting appointed and that is you
get to say reelect on your campaign signs that's a benefit. Um so you know if you were going to if you you're going to have to run anyway >> of course >> at some point um to get on council. So it's a it's a wash.
>> But do we have Thank you. Do we have any disagreement with at least a concept here that that happens that that dislodges the staggering of our 32 that most recent appointment or the opening would be um
>> appointed to and for the remainder of the term would have to run for the remainder of that term not the fullear term that's normally afforded. >> I agree completely with that. I think Nancy I disagreed with what you said that it starts a new term. I don't think
it starts a new term. It you are let's say that you're appointed, Jim. You're appointed >> and you have to run in November. And if you then the real glitch now is in November, >> there are two four-year seats and one
two-year seat. How do the three people that are elected get put in those zones? Now, if we were still back in the day where I was going to run for seat one, uh Jim was going to run for seat four,
somebody else was going to run for seat two, I would have four years, Jim and seat four would have two years. Exactly. >> But we don't do that anymore. So >> again, why would you if you had a four two and a two, whoever had the most votes would get four years. >> I we could you could say that, but I think we need to
>> spoke. That's who they wanted to represent. They should have the four years, >> but we don't stipulate that now. how people are assigned to the seats. >> Yeah. And back to Michelle's uh refinement of of her recommendation there. Um this the seat numbers I'm
trying to get out of our vernacular and get back to the people's decisions. >> And it certainly is a way if you have three people running and you rank them on one, two, three, and we have two four years in a remaining term, which we're saying could happen now in a supermajority, that's who gets the
two-year term. >> The lowest vote, >> the lowest vote count. What happens if there's three people running for three seats and they're all unopposed? You'd still have to run, >> right? So, it would be the the third place finisher in that still getter.
>> You'd still get tally. >> See, that seems fair. >> Yeah, >> I like that, too. >> It seems reasonable, but I haven't figured out the glitch to that one yet. >> But we have we have time. We have time because we're dealing with First of all, we got to get that architecture out of our minds. That stuff's gone. Now, we
have a concept of voters's preference. It's the longest terms because that's where it sits. And by the way, the two-year person has two years to earn the right come back for four years with the voters's preference again. >> And the appointee has the right or the, you know, because there are there are
terrible things about being seated because you have to cast votes. And so those votes, >> they change opinions too. >> They change opinions too. >> I think that's everybody feel pretty good about at least landing on that right now. >> So if we have three seats in November, we only have three candidates sign up.
We'll valley we'll tally the toe we'll tally the votes according to this recommendation for the next charter and it will be four year four year two-year if that was the remaining term >> the votes of whom because the so's office probably wouldn't even hold an election at that point >> what do you mean >> seats
>> three seats three candidates you win >> that's right but then the town assigns oh you're the town >> but we don't have a number of votes because we didn't hold that election then >> what do you mean you don't have it you can look on Lipa And I mean on on the elect and it tells
>> you run on opposed. We had that happen with Alan Mandel and Joe Kazinski I believe. >> Yes, that's right. They >> there was there was two seats, two candidates. No election held because they were unopposed. >> Oh, so if three people and no Oh, that's a good point. You wouldn't have >> We have three seats coming up in
November. If we only get three candidates, >> they will not hold an election for that. >> And I'm going to throw it out. Then why then the uh we could put other conditions. for example, longest year residency. >> Yeah, I just think
>> or put another trigger behind it. >> I I'm got to be the people. But again, then if we go back to a prior recommendation here that the most recent one with the least remaining term, that's the limit
that they run for. I don't see a problem with that at all personally because you knew who you were being appointed to. you knew the term that was left, you're running for that remaining term and then work your whatever to deserve the full amount. >> Yeah. >> And doesn't that >> I think it would default to that
>> under that condition. Under that condition, I think it would default to >> So, let's give a real life example >> since you've put your name in. The real life example is John runs. >> Hold on. I don't think we've sent out applications yet. So, nobody >> Okay. Well, he spoke at Monday's
meeting. It's public. We haven't received any. So John runs, Rebecca runs both for reelection and now you decide to run in November because you were appointed. >> So John and Rebecca would get the four-year seats and you would get the
two seats. >> Absolutely. That's the way I see the scenario. >> That's interesting. I I don't know how you I don't know how you embody that here. Well, I'm back to my the most recent seat that was appointed because they're
not normally maturing seats. They're seats that are being appointed because of an absence should be um representing that they will run if they run after appointment for the remaining term of that seat they have. And what if they change their mind sometime between the
time they're appointed to the time the election Scott changed his mind. What if somebody changes their mind and says either I am going to run or I don't want to run. Then what happens? >> Whoever decides to run in that absence or that gap knows that it's a two-year
term they're running for andor if that person is appointed and we're into that two years. It's for the remaining part of that term because it's less than 24 months that I suggested before. So the the baseline agreement would be that's the term of that particular office.
>> Another blue ribbon committee. This is why these conversations matter so much. But I'm trying to balance the integrity of the sequencing we have and make sure that the voters have the greatest opportunity to impact the people
representing them the soonest they can. And the other reason I think that's a good suggestion with the running for that particular term is because you'll have a body of work then that you don't have today by which they can predicate additional opinions about you on. So, point of clarification,
um, are we staying with uh, uh, what Michelle had to suggest, the the the two-year uh, somebody with the lowest amount of votes is going to run again. >> No, because if it's three for three, you won't know that. That's gone.
>> Okay. Well, that I think we still >> I thought we were >> I still like the voting. Um, and I'd like to I've always tried to manage with don't react to incidences, look at patterns. >> I hope that this is just an incident and what we just went through.
>> It's happened. It's happened multiple times. >> Okay. But it would technically we could protect against it, but I still think I still hope that when we go to our next election that we have multiple candidates that we can choose from.
>> I agree. And I believe that the right of the seat should still go by the amount of votes and then we put conditions in for backup if there's three for three as Amy said. >> And you're suggesting it only occurs in an appointment.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Amy had brought up just unopposed. When when there's three candidates unopposed, then there's a problem. >> No, not an appointment. >> Right. And what Michelle's suggesting is we can document for that should that be the case. We haven't gotten to that yet,
but if that's not the case, there's a ranking for the terms. >> Yes. >> I I like that. >> So Amy, are you 100% sure could could the S so SOE's office if if we ask that that those three unopposed people still have vote counts?
>> Oh, no. They won't do it. >> They won't do it. They just won't. There's no reason to hold an election. There's not a challenge. >> Well, if it's in our charter that the top the top two vote getters get the full term and the third, >> but that's that is when using the
example of Jim, when Jim would take the two-year term because there's you can't go by voter preference vote, the amount of votes. >> It's in that case when Jim would have would be taking the two-year term, >> you know what you're running for, >> right? But in the event that Jim got more votes than another candidate did
when that wasn't the case, then then it would be someone else taking that two-year term. It would be whoever got the least amount of votes. >> Yeah, I think that I think that's >> right. >> That's manageable >> because you're ultimately reflecting what the public wants. >> What do you
>> Who's on first? >> Yeah. Well, if I understand correctly that the the conversation at hand is eliminate the seat numbering. >> Yep. Adds no value to my mind this point. I haven't heard an argument. >> Correct. M maintain the staggered terms. >> Yes. >> Uh and then in in the event of a
situation where someone doesn't complete their term, the appointed person would fill out that term. >> Well, the appointed person has to the next election. The conversation is how long are they running for? >> Got it. So you're suggesting in that example they wouldn't they wouldn't
complete the term of that seat. They would just be in that seat until the next election >> until the next election. >> And then when that election comes what they're running for is the is the the expression of that term as it was originally designated. >> Isn't that what you said? >> Are are you essentially saying then a p
whoever the candidates are in in November would have to >> declare >> declare which seat >> seat that they're running for? >> Yeah. the two-year or the four-year term is what you're >> talking one of three people say I want the four-year term >> that's not what we're sure
>> can I can I >> okay so what what we're talking about is okay again using the example of of Jim um being appointed let's just say Jim gets appointed so he is going to be on the ballot along with whoever else is on
the ballot running for three spots normally it would be two but this time it's We know that one of the spots will be for two years in this instance, but uh uh okay. So now we've got three
candidates running. We know that it's going to be four four two years, but we're going to decide who gets the two years at the end by the amount of votes they get. That's the only that's the only concept of the seats that we're going to stick with.
>> Okay? So let's say uh one gets 500, one gets 375 and one gets 90 94 whatever. So the 94 is going to is going to have to run again in two years. They get that spot. Now the only time in this instance
the gym would have to run again is in when when there's no competition. There's only three people running for those spots. In that instance, there would be no election. In that instance, Jim gets the the stop
because there's no voter ballots to there's no we don't have any numbers. So Jim would of course have to defer to that spot that two-year spot. Does that make is that clear? >> Kind of makes sense. But the fly in the ointment is the appointee, whether it's
Jim or or somebody else, serves until November and decides, >> well, I don't this gig isn't any fun for me. I'm not even going to run for election. >> So, you get three new people running for election. >> Which one would get the two years? >> The one who got the least amount of
votes. >> But what if there's no vote? >> Yeah. >> Well, that's I mean, >> there's the fly. >> Then they would be asked. I mean, so all of us could could express interest in the four or twoyear term.
>> Why not? >> Can I make a recommendation? This is a big one and I think we've come up with some great ideas. I think we park it and bring it back up in the top of the agenda for the next meeting because I think this one needs a lot further thought. >> Frank,
>> just a question. I mean, there's no um good basis for just allowing the people to um serve for the life of the the term even though they were appointed. >> The the basis would be the existing language >> already.
>> So, you could solve everything by taking out that one. >> They'll serve the remaining term when they >> appointed. Exactly. >> Whether it be three years and 364 days or two years or one month and we should consider that. Yeah, >> understood. Um, but I want to make sure
everybody's clear. What we also talked about is it's a long time >> that the will of the people don't have their fingerprints on the candidate. It does clear up the maturations here. >> Um, but just know that the reaction may be from people that ultimately have to
approve this that I'm not letting anybody be appointed to a semifold term without running for election. >> And that's completely completely appropriate, >> right? Not not the mix apples and oranges, but I I think we just went through that with a recall, did we not?
>> Explain. >> Uh well, we're referring to the will of the people, right? Um we had an election and then I guess a subsequent will of the people decided something different. >> Well, that's true. >> That's true. >> That that's what the recall does. Yeah,
that's true. >> So, I didn't mean to ignore your recommendation, Michelle, at all. It's a good one because this is our first chance to chew on this new piece of meat, if you will. >> So, the opinions we express both passionately and and and pragmatically here, they'll matter as we think about
it and come back with the topic dour. Um, I want to allow, as you both indicated and recommended, a lot of time for this because while we can't change what we have now, what we have now is causing us to change what we're going to do going forward. And that's when we
should do it is when we have a contemporaneous situation. We know the consequences of our decisions. We can see the outcomes and we ought to be deliberate about making sure that we prevent that or deliberately do something next time so nobody's confused. >> So I'm going to park that unless there's
another opinion somebody wants to get on for a processing. >> I do just before it's parked. Um I'd like to get an answer what the town would have to do to call a special election. I mean, if you could bring that back when we leave the parking spot, that's fine, too.
>> Okay. I I >> And can you also verify about the three for three only whether or not there's flexibility? And I know SOE can tell you that because if you have um four running and one drops out um now you have three for three. So they're they still have
the election because it was scheduled. So, let's just codify that if we can with the SOE and make sure we know >> if one dropped out, if the ballot was already printed, that person would still be on the ballot and would still have an election. There we are. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you very much. That was
That is why we're together. I think the chemistry was good. >> Clear as mud. >> And so, it's a document we're working from. >> Didn't we all agree that the vacancy um does not create a new four-year term? >> Does not. I think everybody well we'll
come back with our but clearly I think it's >> tell Nancy she was wrong. >> Well that's okay that's fine. Um so then what we would do in section 5.03 we would say that um that it doesn't I think we'd have to
amend it there because >> that's where um >> yeah I think that's where I'm working from. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> All right. I got it. >> Let's do a hopefully less controversial one. Um 5.06. I don't know what happened to four and five, but we'll assume that
they were unelected. >> Nonpartisan. Yeah. >> Not all elections for officers of the town. >> Correct. >> For officers of the town shall be conducted on a nonpartisan basis without any designation of political party affiliation. >> Amen.
>> Shall I move on quickly? >> Yep. >> Yep. 5.07. Multiple candidates. In the event that more candidates qualify for election than there are open seats, those candidates shall participate in the regular election and the candidate or candidates receiving the most votes
cast shall be elected to the open seats. Context here obviously I read these other charters and what went through before is sometimes you have runoffs. They're expensive. They're contentious and all that stuff. So here we're just going through top three, you win, away we go. That was brilliant back in the day.
>> Adam for mayor of getting that in. I think that solves a lot of confusion. >> It was >> anybody feel differently? Nope. Do >> you know to the original council only one person was elected to the outright in the first election? >> It was Ted Ted Simons was elected and the other four seats all went into
recall elections. Not recall into >> 5.08 recall. >> The qualified electors of municipality shall have the power to recall and to remove any elected official of the town as prescribed by general law. >> Well, we know that works. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> It 09. We'll need a little history on this from you on here in a minute. >> Oh lord. >> Town canvasing board. The town canvasing board shall be composed of a town council member selected by town council who is not a candidate for re-election, town manager, and the town clerk who
shall act as the chairperson. At the close of the polls on any town election or as soon thereafter as practical, the canvasing board shall meet at a time and a place designated by the chair and shall proceed to publicly canvas the vote as shown by the returns then on
file in the office of the supervisor's election. The board shall prepare and sign elections. The board shall prepare and sign a certificate containing the total number of votes cast for each person or other measure voted on. The certificate shall be placed on file with
the town clerk. Asking you to hear for some history in a second. I can tell you again looking at the other charters that I've been doing in between these meetings and watching that um and even looking at the last election and I don't know if it was in the spirit of our friendly relationship le county at the time or not but there was an
overwhelming vote by the populace to do this locally versus many of the other municipalities have this done by the supersire's election certifying the election sending us back for adoption. Anita, >> uh, this has always worked for us and and I have never served on the canvasing
board. Uh, Amy would be the better person to give you history on this because I know she's done it multiple times. >> Well, and since we've entered into the interlocal with the county, we do not act in this fashion any longer. The county is gets the canvasing board
>> even though >> acts as the canvasing. We show up at the county supervisor of elections office that night and they look at us like how you here. >> So Nancy let me ask our charter says something contrary. So does the interlocal agreement supersede the charter?
>> No the the it doesn't really it's not really contrary and this is where the word smithing um becomes very um u important. So, what this is saying is that you shall have a town canvasing
board, >> but it doesn't um it doesn't necessarily uh prohibit the interlocal agreement and providing for an alternative canvasing
board. >> In other areas, the town does not um get involved because it's got potential conflict. the camy board, the county clamy board should be handling it. >> And I'm just trying to get to I'm trying to find the actual language here at the end of our documents where this was
voted on and what would the amendment that was put on the ballot to specifically call this out. Uh exactly to your point, Michelle, in many other communities, they're trying to eliminate all the conflicts. They put it there. The vote by the populace, albe it 10 years ago, was completely the opposite.
And they wanted it done here. >> I mean by big time. So, I just want to understand any context we're not thinking about. Obviously, for an arms link, it makes sense. Give it to them. They don't have any dog in the hunt. They'll send us back the legitimate uh results and we don't have to worry about it all. And it's practically working
that way today. >> And all those canvasing board meetings and the accuracy and logistics testing all those are always open to the public. We're invited to them at all times. Um we as the town like the town manager myself and a member you can go to any
one of those meetings at any time >> and also now everything's electronic. >> Yeah. >> So it's not like you've got a box full of votes that somebody's carrying around in the back of their minivan. >> Then do we need 509 at all? >> Which has happened. >> It doesn't sound like it's pertinent 509
any longer. >> Anybody opposed to recommending its removal? I think it could still be pertinent and that the you could still have this board that goes downtown to the office of election to see that. Of course, we would see it sooner by going to Levo because as soon as it comes up,
we're going to see it. >> So, I don't I don't know. It probably is not pertinent. >> Let's uh let's assume we're going to go that route because I don't see a downside. We have a working protocol today and so far there hasn't been any no problem >> charging that, right? >> But let me just say something. by putting this on the referendum to take
it out of our charter, you could have the public say, "Oh, no, no, no. We want to keep it there." >> Isn't that the way it should work? And then we'll have the followup conversation about the interlocal. >> Okay. >> And just like I said, I've been down to the SOE's office on election night. There's not much to see.
>> No, there isn't. >> It's a bunch of computers and >> they print out just flying past you. and not being part of that office. You're not allowed past the the sectioned off areas. So, you're not allowed anywhere
near the machines, the ballots, anything like that. You stand in the back and watch. >> Well, let's try not to complicate it then. And if it gets complicated by the folks, then that's what the folks want us doing. And we'll uh I think that could be and council could react to this, too. when it gets up to them about
whether or not they want to remove it or to leave it as it is. We're just recommending. >> All right. 3:35. Want to check the um numbness of any body parts here. As I always down at India about her father and we have section six still scheduled
today, which of course goes to the powers and duties of our town manager. Does the will to continue on and plow through that? >> I think we can get through the manager. >> We can get through. >> Okay. Anybody opposed? Let's go. >> Um, I am good. I'm feel like I'm always bringing something up, but I wanted to
bring a topic up. We don't have a deputy town manager listed down here. >> We used to and the duties of the backup. So, I that's a piece that I think we just need to acknowledge. >> Okay, let's plow through our main dude
or whoever it happens to be and then we'll um as you're recommending put some backdrop in there. And I I guess I'm going to kind of ask on that. I I think I need a little more background perhaps from Will or the assistant today to make
sure that we don't develop something that's not harmonious, efficient, or productive from what is working. So I think I owe you some feedback on how it's set up today so we can just modify it if we need to just so we're not superseding because I haven't talked to him myself about that at all. So, you
okay with that, Michelle? I'm going to find out what what they recommend in bringing back. We can react to that. So, it's a real working solution. You good with that? >> Yep. >> Okay. Article six, town manager, section 6.01, appointment and qualifications. The council shall appoint a town
manager. The town manager shall be appointed primarily on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications. >> I think the word primarily is so weird in there. Yeah, >> it's like mostly you should judge him on his abilities.
>> So shall be appointed on the basis. How's that sound? >> It's a nice catch. >> Scott, you've been through this. Is there anything there that um causes you any heartburn about us currently set up and the process you just went through a couple times? >> I actually think it's a good process.
>> Good. >> Yeah. I think uh we we found the you know by you know, knock on wood so far so good. But I think we we chose the right person. >> Okay. Well, check with you on 6.02 because you went through this too. >> The council may remove the town manager
for any reason by affirmative vote of at least three members of the council. If the vote is less than unanimous by all council members, the town manager may within 7 days of the dismissal motion by council submit to the mayor a written request for reconsideration. Any action taken by the council at the
reconsideration hearing shall be final. reaction from our team here. >> I was part of a nonunanimous uh motion to remove a town manager and I totally forgot about this. >> So they came back and said, "Can I
please plead my case and get another vote?" >> He did not. He did not. But they could. They could have. Yes. >> I have three comments. Um, first of all, where it says uh motions within seven days in the dismissal motion by council submit to the mayor a written request.
>> Nancy, the mayor has no executive authority to submit. It would be council, would it not be? >> Yes, it would. >> Well, that that is correct, but I I need to kind of slow you guys down a little bit. Um, first of all, I want to go back to 6.01 know one and just uh point out
to you that in the procedural rules that town council has adopted there is a process um that is much more detailed on how they go about um selecting the town manager and as far as the interview
selection process. Um, as far as the removal, um, I think you'll find in other charters because of, um, due process rights, um, the ability to, uh, make a statement,
um, as far as, uh, dismissal. I mean, if there's an accusation that they have done something unlawful or inappropriate um as the basis for the dismissal, I think that they are going to be entitled to some type of hearing or opportunity.
And I believe that that reconsideration is is probably geared towards that. >> Yeah. But what what Michelle is saying is that it says that this should be submitted to the mayor. a mayor and >> well the mayor is the ceremonial um head
of the town. Um oftent times when we're served with um a lawsuit it would be directed to the mayor. >> That's true. >> Um all the all the comes to the mayor. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Or the clerk. >> Or the clerk. >> Or the clerk. One or the other. >> And we encourage staff, anybody who's
watching that if you ever get a pro approached by a process server that you immediately um send it to us. Um, you know, and there's a whole set of rules related to that where you could actually wave it and I could or Amy or uh Will could accept service of process on
behalf of the mayor. But again, those are more uh litigation rules. >> And then my second one is I think it should be majority to remove a town manager vote, not three. Oh, a super majority.
Well, you know what? Gosh darn it. I agree with you because it is it has happened several times twice because of a hurricane where three people vote out the town manager and then three new people are elected in relatively short
order. Um that is super majority. That's >> how many does it take to hire them? >> Three. >> We need to book in. You're allowed to come. You have to go. Because think of that one vote either way if they weren't in favor of hiring.
>> But hiring is not usually a political thing. And firing every single time has been political. >> Sure. >> Well, not every single time. I'm just thinking about that one manager, Amy, who had the wife with the issue. Do you remember what I'm talking about? >> I wasn't here, but I do remember.
>> How do you guys feel about supermajority down here? >> I think it just needs to be a majority. I think it needs to be a super majority. >> Okay. >> Majority too. Majority. >> Majority. Okay. >> Your third item.
>> We don't get our way. >> Third item. Your third item. >> Nope. You've I >> I got them. Okay. Great. Anything else on 6.02 then, Amy? >> No. >> 6.02 is good the way it's written. >> Thank you. >> You like that? I'm asking. uh
pragmatically I think uh the mayor is protocol and appropriate to get these requests according to Nancy. Just want to make sure we close that out. All right. 6.03 powers and duties of the town manager. Town manager shall be the
chief administrative officer of the town and shall implement administer all ordinances, resolutions and policies adopted by the council and shall perform such duties as may be required by the council or law. Hopefully those are the same. The town manager shall be
responsible to the council and shall have the following powers and duties. Number A, letter A, the hire or fill existing positions and when a town manager deems it necessary for the good of the town service, suspend or remove town employees except as otherwise
provided by law or this charter. To direct meet to direct and supervise the administration of all employees, departments and agencies of the town except as otherwise provided by this charter by law. C to attend all council meetings and held the right to take part
in discussion but may not vote. D to ensure that all laws, provisions of this charter and acts of the council subject to enforcement by the town manager or officer sub subject to the town manager discretion and supervision are fully executed.
E to submit to the council and make available to the public a complete report on the administrative activities of the town as of the end of each fiscal year. F to make such other reports as the council may require concerning the
operation of the town departments, offices, and agencies subject to the town manager's direction and supervision. G to keep the council fully advised as to the condition and future needs of the town and to make written recommendations
to the council concerning the affairs of the town. and H to perform duties to perform the duties of town clerk in addition to the duties town manager during any period of time so appointed by the council.
One last one, sorry. I to perform such other duties as are specified in the charter or as may from time to time be assigned by council. Every job description has that one. All right, open it up for conversation about what's missing, what needs to be
strengthened or perhaps >> so can I also add um so I mentioned that the rules of procedure do you have more detail regarding the appointment the interview process of how that individual is selected. Um the powers and duties
are also uh embedded in the employment contract. Um there are two uh employees or entities two people that count town council gets to hire and fire. One is the town manager uh as you see for the
appointment and the removal um based on these duties and responsibilities. There is a contract that has been negotiated and signed which has a lot of the day-to-day details in it. I'm going to
skip over 7.01 but I'll go to 8.01. 01 which is my position here. My position as a member of the vos law firm. The law firm is the firm that is hired by the town and I work for the law firm. I do
not work for the town but the law firm. So I kind of indirectly work for the town. Um but again the duties and removal you can see that in comparison to the town manager um our paragraph or our section in your charter is very
small short. Um again we do have an employment contract in effect with the town that sets forth all the details of what our duties and responsibilities are as set forth in 6.03 03 for the town
manager. Um, you know, my we haven't gotten to our section yet, but my recommendation is that um we have no changes to 8.01. Um, because we do abide by the contract
that has been negotiated. Um, and you know, Becky, my boss, Becky Vos, will say that we we believe that we are here to serve. um we will do as directed by the council. We work with the town manager and his
staff. We do not work for them. Um and we believe that we are here um at your pleasure. We are attorneys for a day. If you don't like us, we don't want to be here. Um that's kind of our philosophy.
So, I don't think that there's any need to really go into more detail um as far as the town attorney and I will say really the same thing. I I don't know how Will feels about town manager for a day, but um but he does have a contract
and his contract does have uh and I fortunately I don't have a copy of it here, but there's a lot of detail in there that really address things. So, I mean my and we can have Will here to discuss it, but I don't really know that
any additional changes um would be would be needed. You mentioned that you get them here and then you you can appoint them and then you remove them. Well, it talks about the vote to remove them, but there's nothing about the vote
specifically to appoint them, but that's probably in the contract, right? because the contract would have to be approved by a majority. Yeah. >> So, you know, I I just kind of want to share those overriding thoughts. And if
I can just very quickly, the the person in between that is the town clerk. Um, and in your charter, the town clerk does is appointed by the town manager and basically works for the town manager.
Um, and in some municipalities, the town clerk is the third employee who is hired by the council. >> And you know, her duties are primarily um identified in section 7.01. Uh, I'll briefly defer to Amy if you
want to say anything about that. Um, if not, I kind of see these three kind of going together. >> So, let's hold on that then and go back 6.03. And I'm just learn Let me run a couple parallels. So there's a contract that both organizations have. So contracts, we can still terminate the
employment and pay out the contract. I assume it's just the normal way it would work. So that's always the discretion of the council. So we haven't removed that. I have not seen the contract. Not seem assume if any of you have. Is it your uh at least suggestion that we look at that to be reinforced or comforted that what
here is aligned with that? Um certainly we're trying to find discrepancies and disagreements on what the charter is saying is happening and what may be negotiated outside the charter. >> So I I don't have our contract in my hand as well.
>> I I get that. But in other cities um and other municipalities just as the powers and duties of the town manager are set forth here in much more detail than they are for the town attorney. Some other charters that I have looked at also have
the town attorney's duties and responsibilities set forth in a little bit more detail. Okay. >> However, the contract says that your scope of employment is to fulfill the duties and responsibilities as included
in the charter. So, I believe that his contract will probably have the exact same things that we have in the charter. Um, you know, I think ours probably will have the same, but you don't really have that much for us. Um, you know, but in
other cities that we do represent, we fulfill all the duties and responsibilities in the charter. >> All right. Reaction from the team. That was a good preamble there. >> Go ahead. It strikes me that um what
Nancy is saying is consistent with normal operations of the beach. That is that if you have a contractual obligation, it is assumed that the responsibilities that are outlined in the charter are fulfilled in that
contract and that we shouldn't mess with it. >> And the contract may include additional >> situations or responsibilities that are contemporaneous with whatever's going on at the time. So I think u >> you like it like it is. >> Yeah. Beverly
>> uh my only thought and I don't really have much more other than the thought is uh and it's only for previous um having having experienced a number of different town managers is the concept of transparency. there was a lot of distrust I think of certain town man
managers and uh that had a lot to do with transparency and the I don't know if it's transparency as much as a you know a reminder that the services to the the the town of residents of Fort Myers Beach that sort of thing >> um
>> and I don't know that's all it's just a thought I don't have a specific comment I just want to plant that seed >> right >> does excuse me um on the town manager contracting not for today but just for clarification. Uh does it specifically state in there
on their ability to remove suspend people and if that's the case do we follow that in practice because from an HR standpoint that's not typically how things work. I I don't know right off hand and I don't want to just shoot from the hip, but um I'm sure there's a
clause in there about notice. Um you know, if if he chooses to resign that he'll give us x number of days or months notice so that it doesn't leave the town um in limbo. And I think ours probably has the same thing in there.
>> That's great. But, you know, the one thing, and I'm going to emphasize this a couple times, um, is that doing it this way, you have a lot of flexibility. >> Um, contracts are not ordinances. So, you don't even need two two readings,
right? You can just bring that to a council meeting and you can make the change and it can be implemented immediately. Putting it in your charter. >> Yeah. >> If things happen and you don't like it anymore, you're kind of stuck with it. >> Not amendable. So, you're giving away a
lot of flexibility um by making a lot of changes in it. >> Being too specific and and I hate to say it again, but honestly, some of these other provisions that we've talked about, um it would be my recommendation that you consider
other ways to achieve what you want to accomplish rather than changing your charter because again, we're going through a referendum. Um and you can do a referendum. You don't have to wait 10 years for a charter review committee. You could do a referendum at the next
election if needed. But >> and when we have a recap, that inventory will in my mind kind of self-categorize. Like it's probably not broken, but we do want clarity with something else, some other action of council, and ask them to listen to our will or our
recommendations to put that in place. Yes. >> Versus the referendum. And I think you're going to guide us through that when we get that basket at the end. Okay, let's continue on. Nita, >> um, uh, just a comment on the town managers and transparency and whatnot. I
think that Fort Myers Beach forgets that the town manager is only the employee of the five council members. That the town manager does not belong to the town belongs to the council just like Nancy is the council's and is the council's
uh, attorney, not anybody else's. And uh so the relationship is really only I mean really only important between those those entities even though the town manager of course has a much more public persona and I mean I think Will is doing
a great job. He's he's he's out there. People are meeting him and that will help for his longevity here in the town. >> Youard my apologies for my tardiness. We were talking about >> We were just talking about you, Will. >> 16 texts into you. >> Brought my contract, which I carry with
me everywhere I go. >> Oh, we do. And well, let me finish with Michelle and then Will, it's perfect timing. I can tell you the the will so far will mechanic count measure for the record. >> Yeah. Okay. We'll be um NY's cautioning
us that you are codified by contract to align with the charter. don't over specify the charter so that we can add those duties in the contracts as needed from time to time. But let me get on Michelle for um a wrap-up reaction here. >> My response was going to be I think we should have Will take a look at the town
manager position. Amy should look at the town clerk and we need to get feedback. Um Will, we don't have Tracy's position in the charter. >> Do we or should we have that added? >> I do not think so. I think she's uh
although vital I believe to the position I know in the past as as Sarah said they have had deputies and then there's times when they haven't I felt it was necessary. I think I I see her as the >> an elevated role the other town staff but under my direct supervision. I don't
think it needs to be added to the charter specifically >> but I would just give his I looked Will's feedback on this page >> of course. Will one clarifier on that answer if I may. >> Yes sir. Um, is it the expectation, belief, or normal practice that if
something happened to you, she's in your role? And if that's the case, shouldn't we codify that natural evol elevation in our charter? So, that's an expectation of the hire and the performance and all that and there isn't a wellpicked or we wouldn't have and all that stuff.
>> I think that's that's uh that's a a very good question, uh, Jim. And what I what I would say is um yeah I I think it could be codified in the charter and maybe a degree of there is a uh you know as as a temporary you know until a new town manager is selected >> continuity codify that in the charter as
opposed to just >> or could it be in a a a policy and procedure manual that you have for the staff? >> It's in her duties and responsibilities of that position already. So that may be enough which uh I don't have with me right now but of course I will provide I already sent Jim I sent you my
contracts. you have that you can share it with the >> great >> um or I can get it to Amy she can share it with everybody so we do it appropriately sorry but and I'll do the same thing with I'll do the same thing with with Tracy's uh job description with the deputy town manager's job description I think it's a it's
definitely something that I would recommend the commit committee look at as a potential inclusion >> is this working for you as you thought about for Myers Beach and I might like to work there but I got to find out what those people are going to expect of Did this define it to a degree that gave
you enough uh enticement to apply obviously and not so much specificity you couldn't shape it in your own capabilities in the moment in time? >> Yep. That's pretty much how I would uh summarize my thoughts on it. Yeah, it's it's it's broad enough. I felt I'd have
the uh flexibility and the authority uh to do the job uh in a way that I saw fit, but it's also uh clear enough in um you know that uh as far as direction comes from the council. Um and you know other than that I think it had
everything I needed. >> It's clear to you who you work for. >> Clear. >> Okay. >> It's very clear. >> Yep. So, let me book end Michelle's comments here because I think as these topics come up for our next meeting, having some feedback from you. I think Nancy, you did a great job with the attorney one, Amy, it'd be good to get
some contemporary feedback from you about how the job has evolved or what you'd like to see either dealt with or left alone. And I think that feedback matters to the way we discuss it. So, next time forward that to us. We'd love to have it. >> Anything else from Will from the team?
>> Did you get all the compliments we talked about earlier? So, make sure you heard all those or you nailed >> I missed all that. >> You're doing a good job. >> They're on the record. Very proud of you. >> I I will, you know, I'll I'll consolidate some notes and stuff like that on my thoughts on the position so far for all of you and have Amy
distribute it as well as the other materials that might be helpful. So, thank you. >> Anything else on your mind about our >> No, I I appreciate everybody's time and volunteering for this very important matter. Um, it's uh I'm looking forward to results. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you.
>> All right. So, according to my agenda, we have done a bang up job today getting these two things taken care of. Thank you for sticking it out. I love the conversation and the chemistry of the group. And I think we're flushing out and stopping at the places where it's hard, not obvious or
has real consequences that we need to make sure and consider all the points of view. And again, remind everybody public otherwise we are recommending body uh just like the LPA. So, in the end, this will go to the people that have to make the laws for us. our next meeting date, Tuesday, February 3rd. Can I put it back
to Nancy to wrap up? >> Yeah. Well, no, you can wrap up, but I I just want to have some clarification here. So, we we talked about the town manager, we talked about the town attorney, but we kind of skipped over the town clerk and >> because we haven't gotten a coming up
the next agenda and she's going to give us some feedback so we can take that in consideration before we talk about it. >> All right. >> Being prepared we thought would be good. >> You have feedback? I have no feedback. >> It's pretty straightforward. Um, as far as what her duties and powers are, so
I'm not sure how much discussion is really needed. >> We'll find out when we get there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I got four o'clock. I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Move. >> Second. >> Second. Uh, I I I >> Thank you very much. Thank you.
Appreciate you.