This morning we have a new face here, Emily Norton, who's a deputy county attorney for Leyon County, is going to be working with us today. Uh, Chassity Ostein is out of country, I think you said. So, we're going to have a bit of a I
want to give you a little bit of a refresher of what we're going to do. Uh, as usually as usual, we have the consent calendar and then public comment and then we'll continue on to general business. So, if anyone has if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to uh
have comments, be sure to fill out the cards. I think they're on both sides of the room for that. So, just importantly, today the county commission brought us back together for one item, just one item. So, we won't be uh I won't be acknowledging anything
else that's brought up except on discussion of this one topic. Um, before we get started, is is Vince gonna be arriving to make us up? >> He's running late, but I >> you want to get started? >> Oh, he's out in the lobby.
>> Okay. All right. Well, we we'll made him he's going to give us a recap on um basically how we got here again today and um some of the policy decisions and options we have. >> Okay. Waiting in the wings is county
administrator Vince Long. Good morning. >> Vince, when you're ready, if you if you could give us kind of a recap of um where we are, what's happened since we last met, what the board has directed us to do. >> We'll do. Good morning, everyone. Right.
>> Good to see you. You thought you were through, huh? No, no such luck. Uh well, let us get back up to speed. I think probably everyone's been paying uh close attention uh anyway, but you'll recall that um at your last meeting, the committee considered uh the proposed
charter amendment focused on programs uh and funding targeting communities affected by historic uh racial discrimination. You recall at that time that staff presented information on recent state and federal actions uh limiting uh DEI
related uh activities. Um and we know again this is a lot of this is is um repetitive for you at this point. Uh with those considerations in mind uh and after um extensive discussion uh the committee uh did not advance a proposed
amendment to the board um as a recommendation although very close vote. I think it was like a 99 vote uh obviously just to get everybody back up to speed. Uh following that action, the board um asked staff to bring back additional uh analysis on the proposal.
Uh that was presented to the board in April. Um and that analysis also detailed um some additional uh state and federal developments including the passage of uh Senate Bill 1134 and u uh
some recent uh federal executive order um uh federal executive order orders uh targeting DEI efforts. Uh in light of these imp implications, the board during their discussions directed staff to uh develop a framework um to address
historic harmful public policy decisions in a way that is um based on geographical areas and is consistent with uh state and federal laws and did not jeopardize state and federal funding. So, we presented an agenda item to the board that it's in your
materials. All the substantive information uh that we presented to the board is in your materials. Um and again, uh what it um says uh is that uh what it includes is the county's comprehensive uh and ongoing efforts um
to do just that. uh to address vulnerable populations through um numerous policies and programs and partnerships and initiatives and investments and all of which you'll see in your your item on a geographic basis and in a way that doesn't jeopardize state or federal funding and is
consistent with um the law. So again, it was pretty exhaustive. you have all that uh information. Um and again, these these efforts of course just to reiterate are being implemented uh today under the board's existing authority uh with no uh need
for uh uh any um additional authority if you will in in a u uh in a articulated through a county charter. Um uh that said the board uh considered uh options at that time uh whether the board wished
to advance a charter amendment which um somehow further uh clarified or articulated what we do on a geographical basis and again consistent with the law and that sort of thing. the board chose not to do that, not to advance a board initiated uh charter amendment at the
time that considered that, but they did want to I think in in in just an abundance of deference to this committee um have this issue uh brought back to you uh so that you can consider what the board considered uh in terms of the efforts and uh as well to consider if
there is anything else that the committee uh wish to um uh advance. uh uh again consistent with this framework that we've spelled out here today. Again, uh uh addressing harmful public policy decisions in a way that is
geographic um not uh race-based or anything of that nature. Um and u and again, we've we've certainly laid all that out in the information that's before you today. So, that's kind of a background that gets everybody up to speed. Uh again, all the information is
presented in the item and um with that, Madam Chair, I'll hand it back to you. >> All right. Thank you. Uh so that's what we're considering today. As I said, it's the one and only issue that we're going to take up today. So I don't anticipate us being here the whole three hours, but
we have three hours, so we have a lot of time, a lot of room for discussion. First, uh staff is going to uh introduce the item. Then we're going to have a a vote uh as follow we're going to hang on. First, we're going to be doing I need a
a motion on consent item. Uh which is approval of the February 19 meeting minutes and also um receipt and file of public comments at that time. So >> move second. Second. Do >> I hear a second? Motion's been made and second to accept the consent calendar
consent item agenda. Uh, and now we're going to have public comment, too. So, I I do have one card up here. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to call a vote on accepting the consent item. All in favor of acceptance of the consent agenda from February 19th, please say I.
I. >> Opposed? No. Thank you. >> All right. Chair, >> one question. Do we have a quorum? >> We do have a quorum. Yes, we do. 11 me 11 members would make a quorum. >> Uh we have uh 16 in attendance. So that
would be nine votes. >> Okay. Thanks, Commissioner. All right. Um first up, we have public comment. And I think anyone who's not gotten a card to sign in, please do. Uh
these are in order of receipt. We have uh Stanley Sims. Pardon me. You're up there. All right. Hey, can't see out of the back of my head. >> My name is Stanley Sims. I'm at 1320 Aenddale Way. Um I was privileged to
observe the conversation at the county commission meeting. I don't know it's because I don't have a life or I just get into things like this, but and from what I heard from them, they were not saying no. They just wanted to make sure that they
wasn't putting themselves at risk. and and and I even have an issue of concern by labeling this harmful public policy.
I I I don't see anything harmful about acknowledging that things have happened in our community that has caused us not to be wholesome or wholesome or
more together than we should. And so I'm challenging you, asking you humbly as possible is to not make this about something that
is not. What this is is about acknowledging that there were some actions made that have caused us to not be that all American city or
county that we want to be. This is not about making anyone else greater or lesser than anyone else.
This is not about placing a value on a area or a program or a person. This is a public policy
that we will love thy neighbor. Lord, help me today. As thyself. That's what all this is about. It's not about color, not about class.
that we will love thy neighbor as >> Mr. Sims, you have 30 seconds. >> Is that Baptist or primitive? >> Okay, 30 seconds either way.
>> Thank you. >> All righty. That's right. That's me. It's my job over here. Uh, next up we have Serenity Williams. Please give your name and address for the record, please.
And you have three minutes. >> All right. Y'all don't care about short people up here. All right. Um, hi. My name is Serenity Williams. Um, I am a proud resident of the Lake Jackson area in district 3 in our uh, county. Um, and
this comm community, this committee is back today to review what responsibilities belong in the charter. Long-term assessment, transparency, and accountability are exactly the kinds of structural governance uh functions charters are designed to support.
Historic infrastructure placement, transportation decisions, and developmental patterns affect affected AC access to economic opportunity in different parts of Lyon County. Evaluating those long-term impacts is a
reasonable governance function. This framework does not mandate spending, create quotas, establish preferential treatment, or override state or federal law. It creates authority for assessment and public
review, which is exactly where the in the charter is supposed to be. Advancing this framework simply allows draft charter language to move forward for public and commission consideration. No programs or approp appropriations are created by this vote. If harm was
created, structurally, the authority to address it belongs in the charter. I urge you all to please push forward this amendment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Darelle Picket, your name and address for the record,
please. Uh, greetings. I am Darcel Picket. Um, I am a resident in district 2 of Leyon County. Um, thank you for having us here and, uh, taking a moment to, uh, carve out time for your day to address this very important amendment. Uh, public
policy decisions have learned to long-term effects. When those effects persist across generations, governance should respond in a long long-term way. Dual projects displace communities such as Smoky Hollow without equivalent long-term reinvestment.
The the results of that disruption have economic and social effects that remain visible and present um day community conditions. any future ordinance or imple implementation process of this framework would would still be required to comply with all applicable state and
federal law. This geographically based data uh informed frame framework is focused on community conditions and policy impacts not identity based uh preferences. Uh this amendment creates authority not mandates. It strengthens long-term governance without creating
legal or fiscal risk and I urge you to advance it. As a resident in district 2, I ask the committee to approve the proposed charter amendment um for recommendation to the board of commissioners. Thank you for your dedication to the people of Leyon
County. Thank you. Oh, I apologize. I am a resident of Lyon County U district 2. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um Brian Stringer Good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon.
>> All right, let's speak to each other. We still neighbors, >> right? Um what we're discussing here today is is is not about politics. It's about ideology. I want to be clear. I'm not here to
create division. here to cast a vision. And what we're discussing today is whether Leyon County is willing to create a permanent structure of accountability that survives these election cycles we go through. Changing
administrations and shifting political parties right now. We already know that our neighborhoods are in commu in in our community are experiencing some concentrated poverty, some infrastructure gaps, and some environmental burdens, housing
instability, and limited access to opportunity. The county's reports have acknowledged this reality and there's been some money already been, you know, allocated for the Southside and French Town and 32304. But that just illuminates the
fact that these areas are experiencing major disparities. But the real question to this is what happens five years from now, 10 years from now, may maybe 20 years from now when my kids go to college, what what's happening then? Will will these issues
continue to be tracked, measured, or publicly reviewed or or even addressed? Or will accountability simply depend on who happens to be sitting in office at that time? This is why this amendment matters. This proposal does not create
quotas. It does not mandate spending. It does not establish racebased preferences or DEI programs. What it does is create a reoccurring process for community impact assessment and public reporting. And honestly, that's what good
government is supposed to do. The charter already includes system for audits and ethic oversightes and accountability because quite frankly, transparency creates trust in the community. Because if policies help create
disparities over generations, then their responsible governance requires us to evaluate whether those impacts still exist and whether current investments are truly changing outcomes. This is bigger than one issue, bigger than my neighborhood,
bigger than this administration. This is about whether Leyon County is willing to institutionalize transparency, continuity, and accountability for future generations. And quite frankly, I believe our community deserves nothing less. I
didn't tell you before. My name is Brian Stringer. Although I am the executive director of Capitol Area Justice Ministry, I'm standing here on behalf of myself and my community. There are people in my community that don't have the access or resources to come sit at a table. >> And I've been remiss in telling you you
have a your time is up. I'm sorry, but I appreciate your comments very much. Thank you. >> I wasn't watching the clock, so how could you? Right. Is there anybody else in the audience that uh wishes to speak at this time? And I know you all received uh from Nikki yesterday some uh
comments also that you've got in your computers somewhere. All right. Um we're going to be h I'm going to hand this over to staff to sort of introduce the item officially. Not sure who's doing that. Is that okay, Nikki? And after that um we'll have a discussion.
Okay. Thank you. >> Good morning. Nice to see you all again. Um, very briefly, um, building on the the background that Vince provided earlier, um, the board requested you guys to reconvene specifically to consider whether to advance a charter
amendment, setting forth a framework to address historic policy decisions enacted by the board that specifically focuses on geographic areas without reference to race or any other protected class and complies with state and federal law. The materials in front of
you uh document the county's ongoing work that already fits this framework uh through countless policies, programs, and targeted investments which focus on the highest needs uh in historically underserved areas in our community. These efforts are datadriven, strategically implemented, and
consistent with best practices. And as noted by Vince, they have been implemented under the board's existing authority without any charter amendment. But today the board wanted you all to consider whether a framework framework should be advanced as a charter amendment.
So to help uh your consideration today the item outlines uh a number of options. One being a proposed uh revision to the charter preamble. Another is any alternative direction that the committee may want to provide today. Uh the committee may also choose
not to in to advance any charter change today. That decision is entirely within your discretion. Um so with that we're available to any answer any questions or provide any more context to help uh your discussion and decision today. >> Okay thank you Nikki. Okay well we're
going to open up the floor for discussion. Um I know we have one person who has asked to be recognized but uh Dr. Stoble um okay uh you have I know he has a
presentation others uh can also on this it's going to be a discussion among all of us uh so you were the only person that I had have heard from at any rate uh who has a specific presentation so if you could you know hold it to you know
as briefly as you can and then we will have a conversation okay thank Thank you everyone. I first want to just um say I appreciate everyone for having the willingness to reconvene this committee. I know everyone has busy schedules and uh to be back here talking about this just shows the significance
of this moment. Uh so I did put together a brief presentation just to kind of talk through a proposal for a it will be a option three committee direction on a way we could go forward with what the commission has kind of given us a directive to do. So since February I've
been working and trying to come up with language that uh adheres to some of the advisement we got from staff and particularly the county attorney. So, revisions you'll see in the latest proposal submitted and if somebody uh there's some documents that have the language on it. If you could pass those
out, I really appreciate that. You're going to see um the language and eligibility structure has been changed. It's been refined to remove any potential protected class eligibility to ensure that this is fully permissible under the law. You'll also see there's
no funding structures built within the charter amendment that's being proposed now. is simply more so a strategic approach that has a geographic focus uh where the framework is going to be built to address localized community needs and
then of course we're focusing on making sure that it's legally compliant. >> So really this is no longer about simply historic harms. We're looking at impact assessment and accountability and that's the approach that we're moving forward with. The idea here is that there were
policies put forth, there were practices put forth in this community that were later determined to be unconstitutional or unlawful. They have lingering impacts and we want to build into our charter a recurring mechanism uh that will allow
for the county to investigate, have a public review, and then decide how it wants to move forward. So why this is needed? We want to be able to acknowledge the disparities exist in the legal framework. We want to make sure that we are
mitigating the lack of accountability that is already kind of built into the charter. And by that what I mean is there is simply just no mechanism in the charter which says hey a decision was made 20 40 60 years ago. It has caused this outcome and there's no requirement
to go back investigate and do it. We're relying on the goodwill of our current commission and our current staff. But that may or may not always be the case and that's why we're saying the charter is an appropriate place to lock that mechanism in. So the amendment just creates continuity, transparency, and
recurring public review. So recurring assessments, commission review, informed decisions, and public reporting. Those are the key elements. What you will not find in this, there is no reparations. I want to make that clear. Uh there's no DEI
programming here. There's no race-based eligibility and there are no funding mandates. So no preferential treatment of any group and this keeps us fully legally compliant. Stop. >> And lastly, I want to say why this belongs in the charter. Then I'm going
to stop there. So the charter, if you look at the preamble of the existing charter, it speaks to the need of having a home rule charter so that we can have a more efficient operations within our local government. Well, with that foundational basis to have more
efficient operations, it requires you to know where mistakes have been made, where public policy has veered off course in the past and to identify what could be done to correct that. So, this process that we will be building this framework if we were to advance it, it would establish oversight or it would
establish a framework for investigation and evaluation of what has already been done. and then it cements that long-term continuity across political and administrative changes. So again, we're no longer relying on the goodwill of our current commission, which is great, and
our current um staff who are great. We're putting this in our charter so that it is a I wouldn't use the word perpetual, but it is a ongoing framework. So I'm going to stop there and we could take uh we could have more discussion about it.
>> Thank you, Dr. Stubel. Um, so now I'd like to open this up for conversation among all members of our committee. And um, just to be clear, uh, this proposal is for an amendment to the charter, not just addition to the preamble language.
So there's two different options there. So do I hear any comment? >> Okay. >> I need a motion for discussion. All right. Um, do I hear? >> Make a motion for discussion. Okay. >> Okay. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to open it to discussion. All
those in favor signify by saying I. I. And those opposed, nay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Murray. >> Thank you. Uh thank you Dr. Shrible for the presentation. Um so for your what you're proposing here, who oversees this
whole process if it was implemented into the county charter? Like is there a board that's formed or is it oversaw by the county commissioners themselves? Is there financial implications of starting a you know committee or a sector of the county government to oversee these kind
of actions? So I just wanted to hear your thoughts on that and you know if it was passed what happens then? >> Excellent. >> Yes. So in this situation because uh in our purview we could we can't really get into the policy side of it. I've left
that open for staff and the commission to kind of decide what how the framework is implemented. But with but it does recall it does require that every four years um that there would be some some type of formal investigation that is
then the results of that are turned over to the commission and then they will review it put out public um kind of have a public process in which they review it and then from there they will decide how they respond to it and then the data from that um impact assessment will be
recommended to be used or utilized in county decision-m but there is no uh no automatic financial implications. It would be the commission's discretion. So, uh that was based off the adisement we got from the county attorney and from
staff in previous discussions. That seemed like the best way forward. >> Madam Chair, point of order. I I if I'm not mistaken that was not for to the intent from staff I believe not to get a motion for discussion but it was to ask
for a motion on what option that we wanted and then we have the discussion after that. >> It wasn't to have a motion for discussion. You always do that but we wanted a motion on which option you you know someone wanted. >> I'm glad you're here with me. So do we need to do this again?
>> Yes. >> Yes we do. Right. Motion. Well, we don't >> There's no option. >> Option one or option two. Um >> option two is to advance to an amendment addressing.
>> Option one is to take no further action. >> Those are the two. >> Option two. >> Option two. >> Um >> right. So making a motion for option two. Do I have a second of the motion? >> Second.
>> Motion's been made and seconded for option two. >> Sorry guys. Um >> in in discussion >> now we have discussion. >> Um just so I understand um >> where is uh the the language for option
two is the language on page 12. Is that right? So option two is for the committee's discretion to determine what if you do propose a charter amendment what that language is. So the item does provide uh
some proposed preamble language. Um however if you want to have alternative language such as uh the language provided by member Strobble uh that can be captured under option two but it'll it will be up to the committee to specify.
Um, Miss Hatch, but would that not mean that we would have to amend item two to accept the recommended language? >> Um, in this discussion, you can specify what this the language that you're
capturing in this um motion for option two, and then you would vote on it after discussion. So option two really just opens us up for discussion on however we would want to proceed with any amendment if that's the way we go. Okay. All right. So I
have uh three people in line to speak at this point. Um Joey Davis, I think you're up first. >> So and I may have been reading ahead just a little bit, but in some of your um information here, you're talking about specific areas of Lyon County. yet
in the sample ballot language it doesn't specify areas of Lyon County it would just be for Leyon County. Can you speak to that and clarify that? >> Yeah, again uh to not be over prescriptive. We have left some generalness in that. So the idea is that
we know that the issues exist in areas of Lyon County but we are not aware of all the issues that exist. So, um I didn't want to be over, um prescriptive to say it has to focus on these areas. So, in that proposed ballot language, if that's what we go with, it leaves it
open where we can focus on wherever issues may arise that are resulting from past policy. >> So, more of an evergreen kind of language there that Yes, sir. Okay. So, one other issue there. So, it seems um that the sample language here is aimed
at a reporting process and then allowing the commissioners to to deal with that. The county's given a lot of information about what the county is doing in these areas and in these spaces to rectify situations. Is there a specific reporting process
already within the county? How is that dealt with currently within the county as far as reporting issues that you're seeing and how the how is it put before the commissioners to deal with it? >> That yeah, welcome to your introduction of being a county commissioner there. So
each one of it would depend on the program and so as we showed you there in in in what we've presented to you, it's exhaustive the number of programs and policies and initiative and project that we have. each one of them have separate reporting requirements. Uh I I could
tell you that I don't think that there's there's not a comprehensive um survey or an evaluation tool that goes out to somehow measure historic harms and then to the extent to which those are being addressed globally. Each one of them are
specific and they have different reporting requirements uh that come back to the board again that are very comprehensive and take place year round. >> So what I'm trying to get at is how is what we're looking to put in here with
charter language es especially dealing with the reporting aspect of it. How is that different? How would that change what the county does? Is that something that's doable? How is how would it change and what would be the cost of of putting that together?
>> We don't know. We would have we would we would defer to the to the author here today and try to understand that better. Again, we need to emphasize this is not done in any other county. So again, there's really no example that we can use for this. we would have to if this
was something that that the committee wanted to advance um the the charter amendment that that sort of looks like what Dr. Strobble has um ad um has um identified here. Then we would take the component parts of that. We would bring
it back an agenda item to the board after you conduct your public hearings and we would try to do an analysis on what what does it really mean? What does it really entail? We know generally speaking what it entails this this survey that's done every or the assessment that's done every four years that sort of thing and when policy
options would be brought back to the board and how they would consider that. So, but I couldn't tell you, you know, the cost of that and and specifically at this time. >> Right. Thank you. Uh Barry Wilcox, I think you're up next.
>> Bruce, could you walk us through a real world scenario with this assuming that um we we propose a charter amendment uh your charter amendment to the board that the board puts it on the ballot, it gets approved. Say we form a task force or a
committee of some sort to investigate a specific geographic area. There are findings there. I mean, what does this look like? And can you use a real world example of how this might play out? Because there's a lot of very generalized language we're discussing right now. I'd love to know how in your
mind this this plays out specifically. >> Absolutely. Um, I think we could just use an example of we look at um, uh, perhaps a urban renewal project or something that happened um, early on in the county's development where people
were displaced, right? Um, and there is still a lingering in indicators. um when the county would uh authorize this investigation uh through the purview of the staff and the commission, how they determined it would go forward, whether that be they uh convene a commission a
committee to look at it or if they have staff do a special um report, they would publicize that information and say this is what we found. Uh these are the indicators that we were looking at and here are some suggested actions and some that were already taken, some that are being proposed as new actions that we
could take. the commission would then have a public review of that information and then they would say how they were going to move forward. Uh and they could do that through resolution, ordinance, however they saw fit. So the the idea and the reason I'm staying very general is because we've been advised that we
don't want to get into the policy aspect of it. So um the idea here is that the commission staff and whoever they appoint or convene to carry this forward are going to have are going to refine that process and I would hope and trust that they would do it with public input
in the process. So yeah I'm I'm intentionally being a general so that we leave it to the the staff to kind of build the the we create the framework and then they build the process within it. Hope that answers your question. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, as a courtesy, uh,
County Commissioner Proctor is here and wanted to make a comment on this point, which might get right back to him. >> Good morning, members. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, uh, all due respect to protocol, um, I wanted just to respond
to the question, uh, is there an example? And um this effort um responds to Senate Bill 1134. You know what that is? Um institutional necessity, the date
of which the counties put money to address poverty and so forth. But the question is, is there an example that we would have in place to address geographic um patterns that have gone unressed that
um may be assessed to impact that region. And this morning in a public uh not public but a private meeting of um citizenry, the issue of um uh annexing North Meridian
came up and the issue of um Centerville Road and in the Centerville Road discussion uh noting the failure of annexation to occur in the Pimton Road community. just
before you go to cross uh Interstate 10 on Centerville and how the city uh limits if you will uh the city's uh inclusion of citizens has bypass
um communities there on Pimton and enclaves of African-American citizens. You go across um the neighborhood on the left and all that is in the city. You cross Interstate 10 and Mount um Hebrew Church
came up. Uh there is Buckhead, a community I know something about. It's in the city and the church on the left is an African-American Baptist church. It is not in the city. It strangely city
limits uh bypasses this African-American church. and you get to um uh Kilarn's entrance um right there on the corner. I'm trying to think of the name of it. Um what's that thing name?
Garden View. Thank you. Garden View. Exactly. Right. You get the Garden View and the city limits resumes. So based upon the geographic uh specific policies which in this region differ
significantly uh it would warrant to mean uh some review. Secondly, um annexation and examination which is growing uh all week. I've been in conversations and you
too probably and issue annexation it's not a bad one but if you got pipes that go past uh um Ox Bottom heading northbrook
all the way up Bannerman and the pipes are right in the middle of the road. Gas is down there. Sewer is down there. Electric is down there. Water's down there, everything. And the question of whether or not on the left side of the
road, the west side of the same street, can you tap in and call that city and annex it in that city limit? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that all the pipes are right there. It's just a matter of tapping in.
That's another concern. But regionally regionally the the the distinction of annexations by the city uh that stops at Wilson Green that citizens who live south of Wilson
Green but inside of U Capitol Circle within the urban service area. These people buy city utilities but they are not annexed into the city. So they will not be voting uh in the
election of August and November. They pay the same as everybody else rate but they can't vote. Um and this ask is there geographic specific uh occurrence of policy
differentials and you would be with intelligence at in this room now. You would be hardressed at least not to be puzzled by why Tilman Funeral Home
is not on central sewer. and with respect to sewer and piping from 15 16 mi north of here. But the people who live across the street from the sewer treatment plant,
theirs is placed in their backyards because the city does not encompass and include pipes to serve homes with a density as close as you are in home uh related um of standards are as close as
the chairs around this table. The density is there but the pipes are not. Why do people who live across the street from the sewer treatment have no access but the people who live heading toward Georgia's line they do.
So to the question that was asked and thank you madam chair for a few moments to just to say I I would think geographically from which this language has been postured that those are concerns viable
and need a review and perhaps um an answer or response or action which Dr. Strobble has not specified but maybe the future will offer its own set of responses.
So I just want to offer those two things uh that I see and have noted over the years um as geographic distinctions. And to make sure that you're very clear, I want to make sure that you know
that across the street from Southwood, which is inside the city limit, inside of Capitol Circle, the African-American community is right there by that little graveyard coming up the hill. That is not the city of
Tallahassee. They can't vote. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, now clearly geographical distinctions, it's not as simple as it sounds, and it's an issue that's been going on for a lot of years
on the county commission. Thank you very much. You bet. Uh, coming up next, we have uh Chanty Haynes and Dr. Lewis, then Linda Bon Edwards, and then Dr. Robert Robertson. >> Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Good
morning, everyone. Uh, good afternoon. I'm sorry. Um to our county administrator uh you're right some of us have been following this issue uh Mr. County administrator and I also followed the vote of the commission as well on this issue. There is a reason why this
has come back before this committee um today. It's not an easy topic to discuss or to to deal with. U probably one of the reasons why our vote was 9 to9 uh when we took it originally. Uh, I
believe we had a a slide that said why this should be in the county charter. Uh, I I want to give some reasons why I think it does not belong in the county charter. uh I will be uh voting against
option two and I would I would prefer option one but I'd like to give some of those reasons why in that in the material that we have before us and that was given before staff gives us countless um items that are led by the
county and where millions of investment to address historic harmful public policy decisions all of which are datadriven and strateic ically implemented and community focused. A charter isn't to get the government to
do what we want them to do. It serves to define governmental authority and their powers. If this group, we will recall we previously rejected other amendments mandating health care and food
insecurity functions in the charter. The same in my opinion the same princip same principle applies here. Once we get one specific issue into the charter it can create uh
pressure to classify other priorities in the same way which in my opinion would be drifting from a governance framework into a list of initiatives. So examples from uh in my opinion duplication of
efforts you know for example the southside action plan various sense of place plans small business development support and etc. I'd like to ask what more specifically should be should be done to be achieved via this charter
amendment. That's I mean question staff whatever uh madam chair what's more specifically should be done I mean we have in our material the things that the county is currently doing what else more
specifically could be done and those are my comments again I will be voting against option two thank you so much >> thank you um Dr. Lewis next. >> It's ironic
that on this very day in 1956, two students from Florida University refused to give up a seat on a bus here in Tallahassee.
On this very day, this very day, next month, 40 years ago, the NAACP sued the county for single member districts because people around the same table before us
would not approve single member districts. We won that lawsuit and over $280,000 worth of illegal fees were paid to keep me off the county commission.
We sit around this table today. Talking about the same thing. The same thing. Have we not moved? We have moved. We got three black people on the county commission now. That's progress, but that's not enough
progress. My family owns 655 acres, albeit in walk in Jefferson County. 200 of those acres were taken from my family
because we didn't have a voice at a table like this. I'm a pharmacist. I'm going move into what I really want to talk about now. I don't I don't we dispense prescriptions. I don't think it's the role of this
chartered roof view commission to be as prescriptive as we're trying to be. We're not we we're supposed to make policy and recommend that policy to the county commission to approve that policy
and then implement that policy. We can't develop a department or process around this table to implement the policy that the county commission does. They will appoint an advisory
committee or some other kind of committee and they will come back with the recommendations to do that with a budget as well. So for us to try to do that around this table is premature I think at best and not the role of the charter review
commission. Our role is to recommend a charter change. That's our role. It's their role as the county commission to implement that if the people of Tallahass Leon
County that is say yes. That's our role folk. I want to commend these young people who've come forth with a very viable, a very needed,
and a very prescriptive policy recommendation to us. I didn't have that opportunity when I was their age. I said to somebody this morning, I'm 77 years old. I'm making no
about it. And because of that, I've seen a lot of changes in Tallahassee, but we started people like me, and this is not about race, but it is about race because this government, this government
that I served and you elected over the past 200 years did not treat everybody the same. They didn't. And you got to admit that first and be sensitive to that and then see
how do we make the rectification for that. We've seen some numerous things that the county is doing and I applaud them for doing that. But that does not come close
close, not even minuscule close to the impacts that have set us back to where we are. I live in Bond subdivision, Saxon Street. Every lot in there was cut up to be 50
feet wide and 100 ft deep. You can only build a shotgun house. Do y'all know what a shotgun house is? Thank you, sir. Now, the people of Bond subdivision did not develop that policy.
The government did and allowed the developers to do that. That was a policy decision. And what happened through the prescriptive part of it, you ended up with 50 foot lots so those developers
could make more money. So today I'm asking this commission, this charter committee that is to be open-minded, to be prescriptive with policy
and see if we can help continue the direction that Leyon County government is going and make Tallahassee and Leyon County a much better place for everybody. I got some specific things when the time comes come back to, but I just want to say that now. Thank you.
Thank >> Thank you. Uh thank you, Stanley. Uh Dr. Robertson, you're you're up next and then uh Daryl Jones and Howard Kesler. >> I have >> Yeah. Hey,
>> good afternoon everyone. I have some questions um about the the language. So a community impact assessment. So there are other assessments that happen in the community like a community health assessment and typically uh an
assessment has like outcomes that you are looking to assess to then go on to make some type of implementation plan to address with a budget with a group of people. So this language is very specific about a community impact
assessment. what outcome like measures are you looking to address with that assessment? I I'm just trying to figure out that part. >> Excellent question. Um while again, while I'm I'm capable of defining all
that, the the challenge being that this is a it's a democratic process, right? So when I think community impact assessment, I'm thinking we're I'm focusing on longstanding uh historic uh challenges that issues that have challenged communities or adverse circumstances that have been in place in
communities for a prolonged period of time and we want to get to the root causes and and through that assessment. However, I think that the reason it is in that general language is so that it could be sent to uh the commission and uh the voters, they will decide and then the commission and staff would then uh
be a little more intricate and specific on what outcomes they're looking for. I didn't feel comfortable coming to you all with they should look for outcome A, B, C, D, and E. I didn't feel that that was that was the place of this committee. So, I I wanted to leave it general, but just to
answer your question, in my vision, it's looking at long-term longstanding disparities and disperate impacts on particular communities across Lyon County. >> But like, so there's in this community, they already conduct a community health
assessment to look at long-term issues on health. Heart disease followed by cancer, followed by stroke, followed by diabetes. And every 5 years there's uh required an assessment to then go on to
establish a plan a community health improvement plan to address by different subcommittees. So when we put in a charter to do a community impact assessment on policies that impact what is what I'm
trying to see. So like when you say a community impact assessment and you wrote this, what evidence-based framework for this type? So like a community health assessment would encompass a map evidence-based framework. So when you propose this community impact assessment, like what
framework are you speaking of? Like can you give an example of things that have been looked at in a community impact assessment that you're talking about on like these types of historical policies? I'm I'm not sure I follow your question. I I guess because if you're asking me
for my own like my research perspective, how I would conduct the research, I could give you that, but I don't I don't think that's a >> could I inter could I interrupt maybe to help you out. There would be many many more steps if we approve this charter
amendment. Uh it will go through three public hearings that we will all be expected to attend. and then it will go uh I mean if the county commission accepts it too. So then there I would assume that there will be many opportunities for the public for any one of us to be there to speak to specifics
on this but we're really pretty broad base on that as as Dr. Stbil has gone has been painstakingly trying to make it as uh abroad as possible at this point. So, a lot of these questions, I'm not sure you could you could have an opinion as we could all, but
>> I don't I don't know how we vote on a community impact assessment if we don't know what like outcomes you're you're trying to address. Like there's already a community health assessment for example
plan. So, we are voting on a generic community assessment on all things. >> That is your that's up to you. >> Okay. Go ahead >> again. And it's it wouldn't be at that point the staff, county, and whatever partners they bring in would define it
further. I just didn't feel it is appropriate to define it further on this end because we are only sending it forward to say this is the framework that we're building to say that the county is going to do recurring assessments ac um look at for impacts across the community. Um and then that
will be publicly reviewed and then the findings will be applied as appropriate. So to kind of go off what Commissioner I'm sorry what member Lindley chair Lindley has said it is not appropriate for me to say we should have this specific
research model. I just wanted to say that we have a framework that will allow us to assess and understand there are community health assessments but this is to putting it in the charter. um it gives that authority to the it puts that authority to continue and have it recurring in the charter so that no
future group uh would simply be able to ignore it or avoid it. >> Are there current assessments now that the county conduct on a regular basis for programs or anything? Yeah. >> Yes. We so we regularly uh perform um
evaluations uh programmatic evaluations and um provide feedback for the board on any number of programs. Again, you you've got what's before you in your item is just a it's literally dozens of
programs and policies and and all of which have different reporting requirements. All of them have different revenue restrictions on what money can be used for and how all of them are measured differently um in terms of of how we report and evaluate progress on these things. So they're all very specific. They're all very data driven.
They're all very targeted. Again, um so yes, we do on on virtually all of these. The I think the issue is is one of you know a broader assessment that's something that we again we we don't do today.
Thank you. I mean, I just asked because like I've done many assessments at the local level, at the state level, but typically when you conduct like an assessment on a community, like you have a generic what you're trying to ac
assess and then you look at different data sources to get at that. So, when we say a generic community impact assessment, I was just trying to get a better understanding of what you wanted to address. No further questions. >> Right. Thank you. Um Daryl Jones and
then Dr. Kesler and Dr. Robinson. Um Oh, you're back up. Uh respectfully, um Miss Von Edwards was in line and I ignored >> and she put her placard down and she put it back up. But I'll def But I'll but
I'll defer. >> Okay. >> But I'll defer. >> Okay. Do I'm sorry. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I uh in the original vote I voted against um putting forth the amendment, but today I'll change it. And
the reason why is because um I've had some time since then to re to reflect on my own lived experiences uh as it relates to um public policy issues in the past. I
didn't grow up in Tallahassee or didn't grow up in Florida, but I grew up in a small rural West Tennessee uh county near Memphis. And when I reflected on the things that happened to me growing
up and looking at that community now, it became much clearer to me. The things that um Dr. Lewis mentioned this morning were very real. The things that uh Commissioner Proctor mentioned were very
real to me and it lets me know that there are ongoing harms when it comes to wealth building in certain communities when it comes to home values as a specific thing that could come out of an
assessment uh on an ongoing basis. I I I'm not certain. I can't point to specific policies perhaps um but I do know that there are some anecdotal things that have happened um that that area along uh Centerville Road, what are
the home values on either side of that road and and and and how did a policy a zoning policy how did that affect home values? What does that do to our community? And so when I when I think
about those things and in some instances I don't believe that the actions that were taken necessarily were intentional. I just think they they they may not have even been thought
about. Oh, here's an area where we can put a water treatment plant. Let's put it there. It just so happened that that the people living around there were of a particular race, but that was a good location for it. And perhaps the
consideration was not even given when when those lots were designed on Saxon Street. I I I can't I don't know what the consideration was other than maybe economic for uh the developers. So I I I I think that sometimes when we try to
label things as happening in a discriminatory fashion, perhaps the impact was there and perhaps that impact continues continues even to this day. And so because of that, again, just
taking um a a much broader view of of what this amendment could do is is is the reason and is what has led me to change my vote because I it's it's it is as as Dr. Strobble has mentioned larger
than a single issue, but much but a much larger comprehensive one. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thanks very much for your tolerance. No, no, no problem. Gladly to glad to defer. >> Well done. >> Um,
like you, I also did not vote for it the last time. However, and this is where we as individuals and particularly for me as an elected, I it forces me to take stock of what I
know are my values. and the things that matter to me. And subsequently, it informs such that the I would hope that I provide um consistency in my perspective because
although circumstances may change, my values certainly do not change. And so although I am aware that right now presently for example it's just a given that
every year or semianually we're going to take stock of the Alice report and unlike and and I can tell you as an individ as an elected my jurisdiction stretches all the way from Fort Braden all the way to James S.
Rickards High School and that means the diversity of title one families that I serve looks like our community. That is beyond race, color or class. It is about
circumstances, right? And so here now I know that this is intended to provide a cure and but at the same time because I'm really sensitive to this because at
present I have um uh amendments that will be coming to the electorate a half cent sales tax and here as of as of Tuesday we'll be recommending to the Lyon County Commission a millage rate increase that
we're able to provide for teacher sal teacher and staff salaries. So because I believe in what we're attempting to do here to provide a cure to address what we know beyond
what we now do in terms of our activity and actions there there's not a year that passes by where we do not take into consideration our Alice population. There's not a time we do not take into consideration through the committees that already exist throughout our
government. There's an intentionality of the citizens advisory committees that presently exist to address what we what what we know are those things we want to cure. So now my advice to my colleagues and
particularly to our author is here now knowing that providing a cure has been a standard and staple of our way of work presently now you have to worry about getting it passed
right and one of the things that I become sensitive to as a school board member who now has two ballot referendums words matter Uh, okay. So, as you know, and I don't think
you can get more loquacious than Daryl Jones, I got a word and an opinion on everything. But I also know that the modesty of words is often times most effective. So, as we talk about what this looks
like moving forward potentially, I'm certain that I can speak for everyone around this table because if we do, if those persons are moved to vote for it, nobody wants to vote for anything that will not pass. I don't believe in pirate victories and
I don't believe in doing things just for the sake of doing it. I would hope that we would be most concerned about its passage if it is our intention to provide cure for all families in our community, right? Regardless of
geography or race, but that we will continue to show as what is a continuing community value and that is to provide a cure. And so I want you to think about that as we have our deliberations going forth. And I would just say like the
kids say, KISS, keep it simple, right? And subsequently, I think that we can move beyond all of our stories. And and thank you, Dr. Lewis, for providing us a teaching moment without the formality of a classroom or or a whiteboard, but a
teaching moment nonetheless. And so if based upon what we've said here and what I've heard in the questions and comments, if it's our intent to always be a community that provides a cure, then we got to make certain that it leaves this room, leaves that dis and then hits the ballots and there the
voters can decide whether or not providing a cure is a community value. Thank you. >> Thank you too. Uh next up, Dr. Kesler and then Dr. Robinson over here and Ryan Ray. Dr. Kesler,
>> thank you. >> Thank you. I think this is a a very important potential charter amendment. But I want to get I want to ask a question before I begin what I want to say and the question goes to Mr. Long.
uh and it pertains to that these things are being addressed. These things that we're trying to cure are being addressed at the present time. And my question is at each and every step in our county
government when a decision is being made, are the people thinking in terms of how will this adversely affect certain groups of
our community going forward? Is this taking place right now? Madam Chairman, yeah, I I'd have to just say, you know, I think the democratic process dictates that it does. I mean, we have numerous agenda except that we
don't wait for an assessment to be done. We do it in real time and commissioners are elected and and voted to address those hard issues in real time every day. And that's why we do analysis when on any issue that comes up. You won't find many counties that do more thorough
analysis than we do in terms of looking at all of the issues and trying to determine what we're looking at. And I mean, the county attorney and I were just having a a conversation off to the side here. We don't and we don't just look at what was illegal. I mean, I think the language here speaks to making
a determination that something had to be determined to be illegal for us to take action on. We look at issues that may just be disproportionate. We may look at issues that may be just vulnerable populations. We look at all kinds of things. Um so it's something we do on an
ongoing basis. It would be again we we we would um have to go through just just almost endless policies and programs and initiatives to show the extent to which we currently do that. Do
do we do an assessment though? Now I have to be very clear. Do we do an assessment that's of the nature that um that Dr. Shrobel is advancing? we we don't we don't do that uh assessment. So, um anyway, I hope that helps. >> That does help and it does clarify and that's points I think it should point
everyone in this room to getting on board and making sure this gets on the on the on the ballot so that it can be voted on. Uh so uh you know we we've seen the the placement
of undesirable uh infrastructure and businesses in in certain areas uh in the past and uh and what we're trying to cure at least going forward is that this doesn't persist.
Uh, we never see the um I think you were very gracious and kind and in that it just so happened that there was a certain population of people there. Uh I don't see it that
graciously. I see it that there was an intent in the past to place infrastructure that would be considered undesirable in the neighborhoods where people were
less able to resist it and more able to be taken advantage of. And that's what we need to cure. Uh you know it's gone on for centuries. When I was a commissioner in Wakulla County, which wasn't that long ago, there was
still a major subdivision there with discriminatory language in it disallowing people of certain race or color to buy a house in that area. It's been cured.
But you know, leaders change, politics change, board members change. That's why this needs to be in the charter. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Thanks very much. Uh Dr. Robinson, Temple Robinson. >> Good afternoon. I I think most of us about all of us here believe in the concept of what we're
talking about. And as committee member Jones said, if we put something forward, we want to try to put something forward that would pass that is broad enough
that the um the ick factor for certain voters would not be triggered. But also what I see missing here, it says historic public policies or governmental
practices practices later determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional. Well, sometimes it's not something that you did, but it's something maybe that you didn't do. So we may want to look at not only
practices and policies but also omissions because some things happen by benign neglect and it may not be unlawful or unconstitutional. things happen that we do or don't do
just simply may be unethical or unkind >> or just not nice. All right? And there's no law against it. So
the concept of this I think is is is meets with my Judeo-Christian upbringing. All right. But I do say that I want us to be real careful. We have a lot of press here. We want our
constituents, our friends to know that everything that happens may have some racial outcome, but all actions are not necessarily racist. Okay? So, we want to
be real careful when we look at Highway 20, >> right? >> Right. And access to health care. >> Okay. And you look at the demographic out there. >> That community has their flag up. Hey,
what about us? >> And then we go out Banaman Road. It's beautiful. But we got people living on Banaman Road can't get to the main road because their road the the their house is on a dirt road and when it floods
they don't have access to health care cuz they can't get out. So I love what we're trying to do. I still think we got to put some more time into it so that when it's worded
that ick factor of historic public because I can I can see historic public policies that are later determined to be unethical and unconstitutional. Once you say historic something we did back then to them whoever them are okay
>> they >> and they and those we don't want the commissioners to fail when they put this on the ballot if it goes to the ballot. So I just think that as we look forward as we go forward and have these discussions we need to start thinking
about the word smithing. That's it. >> Okay. I I'm just I'm I'm not sure I'm correct on this, but I think if you wanted to make um a friendly amendment to, you know, that's something that can be considered at some point, too, on what we've got
before us right now. All right. At this point, we have Ryan Ray, Chanty Haynes, and then Katrina Tugerson coming up. >> Thank Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Chairwoman. Um >> yeah, I think knowing that I'll be short. I'm I'm for this. Um, I supported
it the first time. I'm looking forward to supporting this good plan again. Um, I think knowing the community in Lyon County, this is probably likely to be the most popular thing on the ballot. Um, I think it'll be uh actually unlike the sort of consolidation question, which I think will be unpopular and
divisive. This will be super popular and kind of bring people together. I think this has a possibility to be the thing that gets the most votes on the county ballot this year. Um and I think um I encourage my fellow members to keep this important conversation by u joining me in voting yes. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh John C. Haynes up next. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, if if if I can, can I ask uh the county administrator a question uh and all due respect to our former county one of our other former county commissioners uh Dr.
Lewis uh about you know it is our job to do policy. Uh I just like to ask do other county commissions or other counties that deal with this charter process do they deal with policy issues when they get together and work on their
charter is >> generally not. I mean we again that was day one together right we talked a lot about that. So generally not it's structural. I mean go going to Commissioner Lewis's point about districtricting fair game in a charter. That's structure. Do I want to create at
large more at large seats? Do we want to do something else? Policy is again boards are authorized and and and have the ability to develop policy. Um and um again so generally you don't see it. It's generally um more um uh issues of
of governance, structure, authority, power, those types of of broad issues. >> Thank you, Mr. Administrator. And that takes me to my second point. We there we've talked about not making this a DEI issue, but as much as we talk that it's
not, I I've listened to every comment and it just keeps coming up almost every other comment. You know, it it is race. you know what about how we I mean you know what was done back then it we are this is about race and I mean you know
in Senate Bill 1134 I mean you know you know and it talks about that but you know that duck if we hit it you know and it quacks like a duck >> it's a duck we going to say it's not but it is but we're saying here around this table you know and I just wanted to bring it up that we keep talking about
that it's not race but race keeps coming into this conversation even though we say that it should not be. And my last my last point uh for those that have the right to speak at this point in time around the table, uh my last point is if
the harms are historic, why would our assessments be reoccurring? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks very much. Uh, Miss Tugerson, >> thank you. >> Can you hear me?
>> I think so. Um, >> I just want to um I I too voted against this, but I want to say thank you for bringing clarity. I voted against it because I didn't understand the clarity of what was going on and and you you stood in the gap, what all of us have
been doing for our community for years. So, thank you for that. Um, I also want to say thank you to the county. I have been standing in the gap from the business perspective. Um, right along with Mr. Jones and making sure that we fill the gap in what we're doing and
bringing that disparity through the county component. Um, right following along with um com um board member Kesler, it is pigging back on some of the things he said, but Mr. Haynes was
the the very last one. And I'm going make a comment towards what you were just saying. We hate that we're talking about DEI, but the whole world is. So, I think it's okay that we're talking
about um um DEI or changing the language and addressing it. This is the way that we know to do it without saying DEI. We took DEI out of the language. Well, I didn't take it out. Let me rephrase that. The DEI was taken out of the
language so it wouldn't be offensive to anybody, but the times that we're we're in and things that are going on is h is making us have conversations. So, I don't think it's wrong for us to have the conversations that we're having because we need to address them. We also
got to address we got things coming up in this community even that's going to hurt the business community as far as the MWSBE office. So, we have to address that and have language for that as well. So, talking about this, the county is doing an amazing job. I work right along
with them um pretty much I want to say the Capitol City Chamber work right along with him with Shinkton's office just about every day. But at the same time, uh Mr. Vince Long, his team is not going to always be in place. He just happened to have a heart for what he
does. But why we I'm not gonna always be in place. I I say I'm gonna retire every day. every day and all of us around here are experts. Mr. Lewis, we it's an honor to have him sitting at the table, but he's still living to tell the story. So, I
think it's um I voted no the first time because I didn't have clarity. But today, I'mma vote yes because I think we should continue to have healthy conversations at the time where we're not mad, we're not fighting against each other, and it's good, clean, and healthy. and for the business community
and I'm g just say this we having a conversation so till I'm I'm talking to the greater Tallahassy chamber every day I was doing it prior but we are seeing things coming down the pipeline and we cannot just sit and not allow our community to come together and have
healthy discussions about it because every day I wake up when I convene the Capitol City Chamber of Commerce back together I wasn't ashamed of who I am or being a black woman but I took the worst African-American out so that I can serve the whole community. And that's what we
are doing. And when we serve the whole community from a good heart, it makes impact. And that's why we're able to have conversations right along the side the greater Taylor has chamber to help everybody get it right from the business perspective. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Um, Slate Murray, I think you're up next then. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. >> Um, Ministry Long, uh, a point you have in here, um, you know, about investment
that goes into impoverished communities through Blueprint. Um, Blueprint was recently renewed, right? And so if you were to extrapolate the funding that'll probably go into the infrastructure of these impover not the same impoverished neighborhoods but impoverished neighborhoods around our community, you
know, it's going to be hundreds of millions of dollars if you take it at, you know, what we did previously. So I think the money is going to be going to these communities um one way or another to improve upon infrastructure, which what I'm hearing from everyone has been like a main concern about historical
wrongs. So you could argue that that funding in some mechanism is going to improve that kind of infrastructure. Um so I think the countyy's doing a good job in you know supporting some of the infrastructure wrongs um and improving them in these impoverished communities. So I just wanted to point that out to
the committee um that there is money for infrastructure that is going to these efforts and we'll continue to go to because blueprint was renewed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, doc or Henry Lewis, I think you're up next
if you were Yeah. still in the queue. >> Yes, I am. >> Couple of things I want to respond back to committee member Haynes's comment. I did talk about our role as a policym body, not a procedure developing body.
And I think if we get too prescriptive in trying to develop the procedures to implement the policy that we pass, that's not our role here as a as a committee. In my estimation, quite frankly, uh when we started this, there was no
Senate bill. You remember that? This bill passed while we were in panel as a committee. So had that bill not passed, we would not be having a lot of discussion we're having right now on the same issue. And I think uh the
individuals who brought forth this were working on this long before Senate Bill 11 whatever it is passed in that regard. Uh I mentioned about the bus boycott uh in in uh 1956.
Uh, nine months later, the federal judge ruled that the the bus system in Tallahassee unconstitutional. I hope nine months later somebody rules this bill unconstitutional in that regard as well because in my
estimation it is uh you know when we pass the constitution and we got about to celebrate 250 years. Uh a lot has changed but the fundamentals of that constitution uh has
not changed and we have people now trying to uh change the fundamentals of our constitution and we should not let that happen and when that does happen we should try to fight that and reverse it back in that regard.
In a sense, this is about race, but uh in a bit bigger sense, it's about the people of Tallahassee being treated fairly, equitably, and have the same opportunities that everybody else did.
Uh it is bigger than just the words on this this page that being proposed for us. uh commission me committee member Jones uh was very accurate when he said words
matter and I think the wording in this the document right now I'm going to I have some problems with I was one who if you remember I did not support this the last time either but I am going to support it with some changes coming
forth right now and I don't know when the proper time is but I came to this meeting with my proposed changes. Uh so I don't know if this is the proper time to start. >> The proper time is now. I mean this is on the table.
>> Let me let me go first start with the staff recommendation to us in our in our agenda packet. Uh uh in the proposed ballot title are the words citizens charter review committee required? Because that takes up four words right
there. Now you're editing. >> No, no, no. I'm I'm passing that for real. >> Kidding. Okay. >> Is it Are those words required in the ballot language? And will the other items that we pass have that same
charter review committee language in it in the title? >> You are right because every word counts. >> Yes. >> 75. >> But for the title it is uh 15 >> 15. That's four of the 15. that's off. >> While it does provide, you know, good
context on the ballot to, you know, know where a request um did originate from, uh we'll we will confirm whether it is required. And if this does uh get advanced, we'll provide all that context at your public hearings. And and if it
does, I want to propose the ballot title language to read affirmation of the county commission's commitment to historically unserved areas and vulnerable populations in our community, removing the words citizen
charter review and committee as a as the title language for this proposed ballot title. affirmation of county commit county's commitment to historically underserved area areas and vulnerable populations in
our community. I think that's 14 words if I count correctly including the the A. >> So just for context uh the title that you're looking at that is specific to the preamble proposal within the item.
However, that title can still be used if you wanted to apply it to the proposal being presented by member Strobble. Uh that's an option as well. >> So, technically though, uh in the ballot language, the charter review committee
is not putting forth the language. The county commission is putting forth the language. No, it's uh it's for the committee to decide uh what that language is and then as you approve it in your public uh hearings, it will be presented to the
board for their final approval. >> Okay. >> All right. And so uh I would like should I make a motion for that or or that's going to be taken care of at the staff level?
>> It could be a substitute motion or a friendly amendment. This motion is on the ballot language. I'm on the title language right now. >> I would think that would be a a friendly amendment. A substitute motion would be more all-encompassing, wouldn't it?
>> Is that a friendly amendment? >> I offer it as a friendly amendment to read again. affirmation of county's commitment to historically underserved areas and vulnerable populations in our community.
Period. >> Yeah, I'd like to know that too. >> I'm in I'm in the title >> page 12. >> Page 12. I'm sorry >> of the packet. >> Okay. >> The packet page. I'm sorry. >> This is a ballot title.
>> Okay. So would you repeat that please? >> Affirmation of county's commitment to historically underserved areas and vulnerable populations
in our community. Um, >> so accept the friendly amendment. Okay, >> that's if you >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. All right. Secondly, I'd like to propose a second firmly amendment to amend the ballot language
to end at the word uh historic public policies or governmental practices. Period. and removing the words later determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional >> on the sample ballot.
>> On the sample ballot as proposed by committee members struggle. >> Say it again. >> On page 12 as well. >> No, I'm on >> What page is that? Sample ballot. >> It is also available on the screen. >> On the screen. >> It's on the screen there. No. Right.
>> So on the screen we're we're I'm proposing to uh >> end the chart amendment language at the word practices in the second to the last line and delete later determined to be unlawful or
unconstitutional. >> If you're deleting later determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional. >> Yes. >> And it practices >> accepted. accepted. >> Does that includes benign neglect? That
includes omissions >> and all of that. Yes. >> All of that. Just put >> in any intent. Yeah. >> Okay. Let me let me restate open my amendments. Title. It shall read, "Affirmation of county's
commitment to historically underserved and vulnerable populations in our community." Period. And in the proposed ballot language uh on the screen, everything except uh the
second to the last line deleting the words later determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional. >> Is everybody clear on that? Thank you. All right.
Pardon me. >> Accept that. >> Accept. Yes, sir. >> I now propose the ballot language and the sample b uh ballot language as previously indicated. I can get a second.
>> Second. >> Well, I don't know that you need a second on that. You're we're just back to uh >> friendly amendments on the original proposal >> within both the language and the title. >> Got it. Got it. Okay. Right. We have
other people who wanted who are up to speak on this. I'm not sure if you're I still have um Joey Davis, Howard Kesler, Daryl Jones, uh Dr. Robertson. Okay. Um, Joey Davis,
>> am I speaking to the amendment? >> You're speaking to whatever you want to speak to. >> I like the way you think. >> So, uh, you my thinking coming into the meeting has definitely changed a good bit during the conversation. I I like
the idea of providing a reporting mechanism that catches issues that intentionally or unintentionally were were caused. Um I do think that it's um
entirely the job of the commission to evaluate the decisions that they make or were made in the past and how they have affected people. white, black, purple, pink, doesn't matter. Um, I do agree with the
statement of of we need to make this uh try to word smmith this so that people understand the intent and don't get caught up in certain words of of of what is presented to them. Um I to your point regarding why is this a continuous
process if we're saying historic um I I think that's a word that we need to consider removing from the language of the of of the um uh amendment because it's entirely likely and this wording should be
evergreen. This is going into our charter. This isn't this isn't something to address one issue in the past and that's it and and we're going to move on. This is something to keep us not only address that but keep us from making mistakes in the future and um
it's entirely foreseeable that we will make mistakes in the future. I think something for us all to consider is no matter what we put into this as as it pertains to what we've talked about so far, it still all comes back to the
commissioners from the standpoint of there's nothing in here that says that they have to do anything about any of those situations or to what level they do them. It's to them at that point to fix that. This ensures that those issues
are discussed, talked about and put before those commissioners because in the end they are the ones who should be held responsible for whether or not certain things are addressed. I one question regarding the the um the
amendment. Uh, are you not concerned to the extent that we may water down the intent of the of the charter amendment if we remove those
lines? Basically, if we're if we're saying that, you know, this this is any intent that is affected, we then make it so broad that it becomes difficult to to act for the for a commission to actually put into practice.
Excellent question and I totally agree that and with you as well as uh committee member Jones that you want something that's going to pass and I'm trying to I guess a avoid buzzwords that would trigger certain individuals to not
want to support what we're trying to do here in that regard. And I'm sensitive particularly to your word historic. Uh, I think that might be a word that I would agree to take out as well. Uh, because that might trigger things that we would not want to happen in that
regard. So, if that's a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment, I accept it. >> Wait a minute. >> What? Maybe we just >> so are we I'm not you two are having a there but >> where
>> to to remove historic >> you're kind of backtracking a little bit and saying you're kind of having second thoughts on pulling that out. >> No no I I think >> or that it might >> water it down. No, the question was to whether or not removing the uh later
determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional would then makes make it so broad that it becomes difficult to to put into practice. That was a qu that was just basically a >> policy question for actually for either of you having been former commissioners.
>> Right. >> Right. So, >> right. it would be figured out. Vote against it and I >> Okay. Well, then I make a motion that we uh amend the language to remove historic from the the >> remove historic.
>> Yes. >> Public policies >> or what do you just word historic? >> Yeah, just the word historic. friendly amendment. Yeah, >> accept. >> Well, you do accept it. Oh, I thought
you said accept. Okay. All right, we're good. All right, then. Uh, member Daryl Jones, I think. >> If I may defer yet again, I do believe those two ladies cards up were up before
mine. But and >> Okay. Well, Dr. Robertson, thank you. >> So, it >> I'm feeling so chivalous. >> You are. You are. And honestly, I kind of am trying to keep my eyes on the left and the right and the straight. I'm sorry if I if I'm getting out of order.
>> How about it, Dr. Robertson? >> Okay, a legal question to legal. So earlier before we started the conversation on the removal of the word historic that is the word that was giving me a little bit of pause because like when we look at
data to address whatever it is in any geographic region I think the assessment should be to continue to address contemporary things too. That was the only thing that was one of the things that was going to need pause. So, with the removal of the word historic, is
there any problem with the current um state statute that was passed or any of the federal things that were were passed from a legal standpoint? >> Miss Norton, you want to weigh in on that? >> So, are we talking about just the sample
ballot language or the sample amendment text? Well, I want to make sure that um for the sample ballot language that we're proposing since we're we're here and we have it that if we were to vote to
approve this that it's not in any direct conflict with the state statute or any federal regulation or any other federal thing that's going on, executive order. So I can look at I'm gonna actually cross it out and then look at it because it just happened. So if you give me a
second, but um all I'm going to be able to answer is on its face and not necessarily anything that relates to what impact is made as a result of that or what actions are taken as a result of that and how that would be treated. >> Okay. You need to read
Okay. So, hold on. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um, Linda Bond Edwards. Well, >> yeah. >> Thank you. I I do, as a m as a matter of fact, the um on my little paper here, I
had made the exact changes that um committee member Davis and committee member Lewis recommended. But I also want to address the specific question that um Mr. Davis addressed and as to
whether or not any of those changes perhaps might water it down. I think the words adverse community conditions puts it you know is is a s or saving words if you will to make it more
effective. It's also it also gives um a level a level of breath uh to what's being proposed because it doesn't identify what has to be what the adverse condition is. It allows um someone who
may uh question whether or not this is being fulfilled to identify what that adverse action is. So I I think it it actually gives the breath that I think we're looking for. um in the language. I
also think that with those changes that this um sample ballot language should be I hope empowering for citizens that not just of
a particular any citizen really. uh if they believe that that some action or some uh policy or practice by uh the county has a particular adverse impact on them that this provides an avenue for
them to bring it forward >> to challenge it. Right. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. Uh >> yeah, certainly got a comment >> just to follow up now that I've read it through. Um, so it's it's very broad
now. I I don't know if we can pull it up on the screen, but just if if you're reading this, it now says um review and response regarding adverse community conditions related to public policies or governmental practices. And so we
I mean, as your member said, words matter. So then we're looking at well, what is an adverse community condition? What does that mean? How is that defined? Is that any adverse community condition uh related to any governmental policy, any governmental practice? So, I just I would definitely have some
questions um not necessarily uh related to DEI or the bill, but more questions about what direction we're providing in general to the commission. >> So, ju just to add on to that a little bit, we're we're trying very hard obviously um to give this committee as
much latitude as possible. So, I don't want to ever, you know, it seem like we're trying to defend too much here. We've given you a lot of a lot of guidance, the best guidance we could throughout the process. But because, let's just say it the way it is, because we're trying to avoid this issue so much of historical
crime, we're taking words out. Now, it's applies to everything. I can tell you, and I think everybody here knows, anytime the county commission makes a decision, there's half the people are feel adversely impacted by the decision. Um so um it's going to become a problem
in terms of what are you assessing? What is your assessment assessing? Is it um every motion that prevailed um at a county commission meeting that had an adverse impact on someone because it would be all of them. Um so uh again I
think that that's the only um guidance that I would have for you or something to consider in terms of the the removing um of the language. Again I understand what the committee's trying to do in and being sensitive to the language. Uh we
are as well but again you could very quickly get to a place where I think we're going now which is um it becomes difficult to to determine what you're trying to assess. Um anyway, that's all I have.
>> Yeah, thank you for that. I mean, yeah. All right, we have Mr. Jones, if you would like to add to this. I have some thoughts on it, but I'll wait till everybody else has spoken. >> So, one of the things that I think is
why this why well, for me, let me just speak for myself. What excites me about being on this committee as well as being elected is that as we think about democracy, right, we as the members of this
committee and me as a member of the school board and the members of the Leyon County Commission, we are a representative democracy here. Now with this potentially going to the public, we will then realize direct
democracy for all of our deliberations. Right? We are bringing as members of this committee, we're bringing forth the influence potentially of those who appointed us as well as our own particular
perspectives which will then tailor what what what we've done in this whole process is been emblematic of what has been our points of view. But ultimately the direct democracy born
of our neighbors when they go to vote for this that will be how we will then set forth our values as a community and that is what is most excite has been most exciting because this will more than likely to be our last meeting of my having been here with you all. Now what
I also enjoy about this is the process. Many of you have heard me quote Derek McGee often when he Reverend Derek McGee when he says, "I cannot unsee what I have seen and I can't unknow what I what is known." Well, here now with this
community assessment, those electeds cuz see what we what we want to do and if you notice there's a reoccurring theme. We want to make certain that the values that have been expressed by our current administration endure.
Who would have ever thought that you'd have school board members who would support charter schools, but there are communities where they believe in taking public tax dollars and giving them to private industry. Right? So here now we are making certain that the things that
we hold sacrian and that is being expressed now through the work of this current administration and this current das will endure because as I've said before we will one day have a pharaoh who knew not Joseph and here and now we are ensuring that the way the things
that we hold dear to us now no matter who's elected even when commissioner proctor will be enjoying his 50th year on the commission right? The values that we hold dear to us now will be expressed. And so this is really
a legacy project, right? And here now we have the opportunity for our voters to say, right? And that's what's most important here for for all of our words and that's why word smithing has mattered to us because we want to make certain that our
voters will see themselves in that language and that in this in this exercise of direct democracy we can continue to maintain those sacrosan values that we do provide cure that we think about this some of you
have been here long enough to remember we had an opportunity to bring a biomass plant here. >> Yes. >> Right. Yes. >> And and for all of the intel that was telling us that that was the the potential adverse effects to our environment and to our own quality of
life and well-being. Those few shekels of silver were not going to be worth it for us. Here now we say again through this language that we will not make decisions that provide adverse conditions. Right? And if we need to word words smmith that further at the
behest or the guidance of the county administrator, I think we ought to take that on as well. But that we make certain that future electeds and future commissions will make decisions that hold the safety and the quality of life
for all citizens and make certain that we do not make decisions that are adversely continue any historic uh mistakes that we've made in the past. But moving forward in our community, we continue to hold certain things sacrian. So that's
why I'm excited about what we're doing here. I'm excited about the assessment that is done because here and now we are reminding ourselves of where we are, what we're doing, and that we will as a as a doctor will appreciate that we'll do no harm.
And that's critically important. Not just the cure, but moving forward. we as as the as they as the doctors take their oath that we do no harm. So this is exciting exciting conversation and whatever else we need to do before we finalize it. Not just that it will pass,
but that our neighbors will see themselves in this opportunity for direct democracy to vote to ensure that we that the values we hold dear as a community will endure beyond our our own tenure here and beyond the careers of
the persons who are currently elected. >> Thank you. >> Uh Linda Bond Edwards, are you still in the queue or yes, comment? >> Still in the queue. I have a question for Mr. Long as it relates to the statement that he just made about um the
breath of the adverse uh community conditions. Does this committee need to provide guidance on what that might mean? or if this passes in the county's implementation of it, can the county put
some parameters around what those adverse community uh conditions are? >> I frankly I I think that's what the commission was looking for this committee to tell them. Uh and and again, so again, I'll I'll start by
saying, you know, we from a from a county standpoint where we where we needed a little bit more, you know, guidance from you all is what what a charter amendment would would look like. Again, given that there's not one in existence like this, what would it what would it be? We wouldn't have per se had
a had a problem with the way it was originally, you know, written if that was what the way the board wanted to advance this to the county commission. Again, it we would have advanced it just that way. You're getting very quickly to a place where it is um where ambiguity
and the vagueness of it could become an issue even legally. I don't want to speak to that. That's something that Emily and Chassity will will take a look at. You have to tell the voters what they're voting on. >> That's right. >> Um so, uh again, so that's the only time really you're you're hearing us sort of
sort of perk up uh a little bit. Um it it it it could be that um and I'm not suggesting that you you go back to this, but it could be at least the way it was written earlier that um it may have been more clear of what you you were trying
to address and and and because you're not just voting on the ballot language, you're also with the motion on the floor, the way we've taken it is that it's this sample text here which Dr. Strobble has provided some some clarity, some some some some guidelines for us.
Now, whatever you do, one of the things we'd have to clean up too is make make his um language here and purpose and assessments and public policy impact. We'd have to make it um consistent with whatever you all decide on the ballot language, too. So, we would remove that that language that you all remove from
the ballot language in this other information as well, just to make it consistent. Um um but yes, Miss Edwards, again, I I think that's really what the board was was looking for when they said for this board to go back and review based on everything you know about what we
currently do on a geographical basis, on a data driven basis, investments, programs, policies, what would such a such a uh a charter amendment look like? and and that's what we were um um again uh to to receive from you all today
whether whether it's something that you wanted to advance um or or not. >> So just a follow-up question if I may. So is that something that could could go if there is one and I it's been a minute since I looked at the charter. Is there
a definition section in the charter or somewhere where this could be defined or some examples of adverse community conditions or does it need to be defined specifically in this language?
>> Yeah, there there there's there's not um a definition section. What we would have to do is take the preamble uh or not the preamble, the ballot language and then create a section in the charter which um you know
>> very very closely reflects what the what the voters voted on and memorializes that in our charter. Um and that's what we would that's what we would do that that would be the effort. >> Thank you. But it is safe to say that by keeping the word adverse in there, we are handing the board of county
commissioners a real problem probably day in and day out. I mean, excuse me. I understand. I just feel compelled to weigh in here on this particular piece of this. Um,
if we're saying adverse, I mean, as is, you know, this comes up every every single meeting on every single topic. We had a a hellacious county commission meeting where the wild bird folks were fighting the feral cat people and it was adverse to somebody or another.
Everything is going to have an adverse re reaction. I almost feel like you should delete adverse and keep later determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional. It would be cleaner. U but you know that train has left the station. I guess unless you're
this is really getting out of control with me talking I know but >> to interject uh >> just quickly interject quickly if if we adjusted adverse and place it adverse policies
between two and policies because the reaction is to the policies of government but the dispar community conditions is what you're really talking values the disparit community conditions that have resulted from adverse
policies. I like to suggest your consideration of adverse being placed in front of the policies. >> Well, subjective I don't know. I don't see how that changes it quite honestly.
Um, we have some other people lined up to speak. Uh, Max Hurley, you haven't spoken yet today. >> Did anyone else want to speak about the adverse condition issue? >> Well, Dr. Robinson, did you wish to speak to that? Are you changing topics? >> I was just going to speak to it at
large. >> Okay. Well, my my concern is that I'm concerned that we're watering down a product here and this is going if it went before the ballot like this, most people wouldn't know what
we're talking about. And I think we we I know what we we know what we're trying to say and we're trying to say it in an acceptable way and make sure that we have the right number of letters and the right number of words, but I think we run the risk of watering down the
product because uh public reporting and board county commissioners review and response regarding adverse community conditions related to public policies and governmental practices. It's not timestamped. You know, I could come up and say, well, you know, you put
sidewalk on this side of the street, but you didn't put one on my side of the street. So, then the question is, how do these concerns come before the assessing body? Who weighs it to say what what even needs to go before the commission. So, I just think we maybe need to slow
down, remember what we were trying to look at, and if we don't want to use the word historic, pick another word because this could this could reflect something that happened during the Revolutionary War. This could happen something that
happened during the Civil War. It could something happened during the Civil Rights time. Somebody could have annexed some farmland from somebody else. So, historic public policy I mean, we're going down a slippery slope here. Now, I think we need to we
know what we want to do, those of us who think we need to pass this, but I think we need to slow down in the wording and really think about what we're saying here. >> All right. Um, Mr. Hurley, you're up next.
>> Thank you. Um, we are a community who knows our history and honors our heroes. We name streets after them. We build statues to them. And who are our heroes in this community? Our heroes are the people who
build community and the people who stand up against injustice. And I just asked you all in this room, where were you in 1851 when Florida State University was created? Where were
you in 1887 when FAMU was created? Where were you in 1948 when Tallahassee Memorial Hospital was created? Where were you in 1985 when Koka was created? Where were you in 1989 when Blueprint
was created? In 2026, I'm going to tell everyone that I was in the Leroy Cullins Main Library in meeting room A when I voted yes on the Lyon County Community Assessment
Amendment. and I hope you all join me. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Uh Dr. Robertson, >> I'm back to my question. What do we want? Like I want to hear because we've done a lot of word smith and I want to
go back to the person that proposed it. >> I want to understand like what is it that we want the pe the commission to consider for the people to vote on? like what is the ultimate like outcome that you're trying to get at so we can better
understand this because the words have gotten a little muddy here. >> Thank you. >> May I add a question to her question and I guess how how would the how do you how would we
decide came before the assessing body whoever is doing the assessing? How do you what what what are we picking? >> Excellent. Um, so great questions, Madam Ch. >> Absolutely. >> Uh, great questions. Um, similar I I think I'm going to take that second part
first. Similar to how we were given directives with this committee, for example, if there was a a committee form, we saw the commission say, "Here, here's something we want you to look at." And then give that that gave us also some leeway to consider other things. I can imagine a process like that. But to avoid getting into those
policy specifics and being too prescriptive, that is not in the language. We leave that up to the commission and staff to determine on their own. Uh to your question, Dr. Robersonson, I think, um I I accepted the amendments uh because I believe they
have the intent on helping. I'm worried, however, that with both of them, it may make us a little too general. So, I don't know if uh with the people who made the friendly amendments, if you're willing to withdraw one, but I don't know if we could take both out. If we take out historic and the
unconstitutional, it leaves it open to anything anyone perceives as adverse. So that's my my only concern going forward is that we need one or the other or we need a replacement of of something. And that's what I'm I'm open to at this point, but we I don't want to leave it so general that uh it it loses its
intent. So I offer that to the commission. >> And you're kind of saying if you return historic to it, >> but you accepted the amendments. He accepted the family because he doesn't want the product watered down. >> So uh um
one suggestion is uh to replace adverse with damaging community damaging >> it's a synonym >> and I again I I understand the concern about words that may uh trigger voters the wrong way. just from my experience
and what's happening in my inbox on a day-to-day basis that there's nothing we could do to hide from that. People are going to find something to be upset about. Uh so I I don't want to be overly or or what we call uh unnecessarily uh compliant with stuff that is not is
not intended to be enforced. We do have to make some decisions and send it to the voters and it'll be a job of the commission and the people too who care about this to explain to people what's going on also. Uh, so I I still offer that we could change words. Uh, um, but we have to do something to make it just
slightly more specific. So I still offer that to the committee. >> So I'm asking, so typically in assessments, the outcomes of assessments, you identify a adverse things through the assessment, right?
Like you don't typically go in and say you're going to do an assessment to look at adverse things. Like an assessment in itself using data will determine the good things, the bad things, the in between things, right? So when you say we're going to tell them we want to look
at adverse conditions, like that's the problem when you take out that word. So if it was an assessment, the assessment is going to tell you the things that's working in the community, the things that's not working. So I'm just like wondering what is the intent of the assessment?
>> So it's not only to look at and I think I understand some of the questions you said earlier now. It's not just the community conditions alone. I'm also looking at their association with policies that cause them so that we could come up with policy remediation or remediation of said conditions. So I
think that's important and that's why originally it said historic policies because I was thinking that policies that happened in the past we would have some time to show that there was a ongoing or a longstanding adverse condition um versus if we just leave it
how we kind of altered it. People could say that they have an adverse condition to something that was decided a few weeks ago and there's not enough data to actually verify that. So, I I still offer we may want to uh withdraw one of those amendments or offer a replacement
of one of the words that was stricken. Uh I got a suggestion for damaging, but I'm still open to more community to more committee discussion and we still have some time. So, you don't have to rush it. >> Well, we do have time. >> Well, if you would um I hear you saying
that you would really prefer to put historic back in and not accept the friendly amendment. I mean that would get us back to a more honest place >> to be withdrawn rather than kick it out. Correct. >> Well, >> may we substitute the word previous
>> previous public policies? Past public. >> Past either way. >> Past, >> but >> no. What do you mean? I'm sorry. >> Well, even that I mean previous is a week before last. I mean, I don't I don't think I think honesty says I think honesty demands we keep the word
historic in there because that's where we started with this. I mean, this amendment is going to rise and fall on a lot of things, but just to honestly to me water it down to take out historic I think is just like everyone will say
what what the heck do they mean by all of this? You know, we have to have some clarity. We can't be so timid. Um, I think Doc Mr. Jones said we want modesty of language, but we've gotten so modest that I think people might not know what the heck we're doing here. So, to me, I
would give historic back in in a heartbeat. And you could leave adverse or take it out, but >> I would keep it. >> I'm I'm fine to fine to take that out if if that's what you prefer. >> Yeah. But it's, you know, it's your proposal and we're going to vote on your
proposal as well as the language, the title as well as all of this material that we have attached to it. >> So, okay. What? >> Well, and and let me clarify because I don't want anyone to interpret >> or translate my words.
>> When I talk about language and modesty of language, I want it to be clearly understood by anybody who votes on it. And so when we talk so when we talk about communication and you're a longtime journalist, semantics and syntax matters, word choice, word order,
right? And so we've got a lot of >> big words in there. And that's why I said my the most important instruction I said was keep it simple. >> Well, clarity matters also. >> Yes. So that's so I did so I didn't so I that's why I made no recommendations
relative to the word change. I just want to be clearly understood by anybody who was going to vote on it. >> I didn't say to water it down. I just said to be clear. >> All right. Um, are you up next?
>> I I think so. Uh, Chanty Haynes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, um, you know, there's a reason why again this is brought back to us. The first time it was 99. The commission is sending it back. Um, and we've gone now 2 hours and sounds like we could go a
little bit longer. Uh, but I would, Madame Chair, I would like to propose, uh, move a substitute motion on page 12, uh, which is already listed, table two, the proposed ballot title, proposed
ballot language, uh, to the preamble. Uh if if you could all go to page 12, I would like I move uh a substitute motion which is listed in our handout. It's table two proposed ballot title and battle ballot language.
>> The entire thing as it's written there >> as it is written there. I will propose I will move move a substitute motion. >> I hear a second on the substitute motion. Failing that substitute motion dies. We're back to the original motion
as amended. I'm not sure what your position is on >> historic. >> I'm good with historic at at this point. I believe that gives it the it it keeps the framework. Uh and with the with the
rest of it, I think this is ready to move forward if the rest of the committee um sees it. >> Uh and the county administrator had a comment on that. Is that correct? >> I I think the movement might have passed. The only thing I was just going to add, I think the the preamble language that was discussed previously, I just wanted to point out just to help
the committee, I heard a lot of conversation about we want to memorialize values. We want to memorialize make sure that we're addressing issues that it's not just the the administration that's in place today, but the preamble is the part of a charter
document that is an expression of your values. the the the without getting so specific which I think you're having difficulty on the specifics here on the other one which again you can see here reads shall the preamble of the Lyon
County Charter be amended to affirm the county's commitment to addressing the needs of historically underserved geographical areas and vulnerable populations of the community while preserving the county's existing framework for local self government's community values and citizen empowerment. Just wanted to be clear so
you guys understood what the substitute motion was. Provide clarity there. Thank you. >> Wait, wait. I'm confused. >> Yeah. >> Well, you all I mean, we didn't get a second just to taking the pramle. I mean, if if that's something to
reconsider. >> Yeah. But >> I I guess if I may I >> Yeah, please. I guess the confusion for me is that but the proposed ballot language says talks about shall the preamble of the Leyon County Home Charter be amended. So
>> I guess I I wasn't quite sure where we what the recommendation was. That's why I was waiting on someone else to say it. >> There's there's two ways to amend a charter. You can amend the preamble or you can have a charter amendment that
goes into the body of the document, I think, which is which is Dr. Strobble's uh proposal it all the only thing we were illuminating in the item because we've heard this committee talk about memorializing what's happening now we're memorializing what's making sure that it's not transient making sure that it's
in place when as you did uh uh commissioner Jones or committee member Jones as you said with your um uh with your previous language that >> human dignity >> the dignity that again you're expressing that this again this this preamble Just
another option for the committee would be to establish those values in the words that are expressed here in terms of addressing the needs of historically underserved geographical areas which is consistent with all of our analysis with everything that we do today. Again, um
would would give you that option. That's all I wanted to just point out there. And um and again, Madam Chair, I'll hand it back. >> All right. Do we have any more comments? Dr. Kesler. Thank you.
So, uh, two things. One is on the, um, on the adverse, uh, discussion. >> I don't look at it as being that difficult a thing. And I think that
we're leaving it pretty much in the hands of the commission to basically sort that out with maybe a prioritization. So, I'll go back to medicine where you have a differential diagnosis
and you can have a differential diagnosis and it can have 50 things. Okay? But maybe the first five of those things can kill somebody if you don't make the right diagnosis or rule it out. Okay? So we leave that up to the
the commission and the administrator to have that discussion and come up where where the you know where the rubber hits the road the most important things. You know it's not our job to get down into those weeds. The other thing is I
don't know what people feel about before the word um adverse the word potential. Um, I just bring it out just as a point of interest. >> All right. As a point of interest, but I
I don't hear anything. I mean, is that it's just adding language, but you have a certain number of words to stick to, too. >> Yeah. >> I just Yeah. Dr. Robinson, >> I'm sorry. I I want to make sure that when I vote, I'm making an informed decision. If we could please go back to
the proposed ballot title. I think and maybe I've I got lost in the sauce here. The proposed ballot title. >> Change that. >> Just change it. Affirmation of county's commitment to historically underserved
areas. >> We ch we stop ch we was affirmation of the county's commitment to historically underserved areas. Period. >> Period. getting rid of as proposed by the charter. I believe that's correct.
>> Reformation of the counties of county's commitment to historic underserved areas and vulnerable populations. Yes. >> And vulnerable. Yes. And vulnerable in our community. You're correct. We just deleted the as proposed by the charter review committee. >> Okay. And vulnerable population.
>> And vulnerable population. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Right. And now, well, what we had previously, you saw the ballot language. >> The ballot language different from the preamble, which we've already
>> by the uh county administrator's comments. >> Yes, I was being rather clear. Okay. All right. So, >> got one more. >> On the title, >> we're getting the title back up there. a affirmation of county's commitment to historically underserved areas and
vulnerable >> populations in our community. Period. >> That's the title. >> The proposed ballot language right now. Would you like me to read it again? >> Yeah.
Shall the home rule charter of Leyon County, Florida be amended to provide for a recurring community impact assessment process, public reporting and board of county commissioners review and response regarding adverse community conditions related to historic public
policies or governmental practices. Period. So those are the two things we're voting on. and >> and then it would need to be clear uh what this actual amendment that you're voting on. So the two options that you've discussed are whether it's the
preamble or the amendment detailed by uh committee member Strobble and provided in his handout >> but the preamble suggestion went down. It's not the preamble. It's the charter amendment, the language of the title,
and then you also have the sample, this text that goes with it, >> right? >> What the actual I mean that's >> how the charter would be amended. >> Yeah, that's >> we would just have to make this, let me just clarify real quick. We would just have to make this text that's been
provided here consistent with the ballot language that you ultimately prove. And we can do that. >> It's all this. So, we're going to really be voting on three things and I think we can do it in one vote. >> I've I've had this for a while. I know. I know you're and
>> that's okay. This is the question that this was I don't know if you can hear me again, Jake. Terry, this was the question that I had before. We've had about a two and a half hour discussion on the actual ballot language, not actually on the information that's going in the charter itself as I understand it. Is that is that correct?
that go you you on both these they go together but we would have to basically take what what Mr. Strobble um proposed here and from that we would have to form what would be if approved by the ball lines what would go into the charter >> right so for a variety of discussions
what we have here it seems to suggest that we're asking voters if they want the charter to provide for this and what that means as I understand it is that it would lay out or mandate or organize the
structures and I'm going to be brief but when it says says here the community impact assessment process to me it doesn't necessarily mean the assessment itself. It means as it could be as simple or complicated but it could be as simple as saying every two years this is
who does what and what assessment etc and stop right there or it could be something that is much more exhaustive. The second one is public reporting. There isn't any information to say what that public reporting looks like or how it is etc. and the board of committee
commissioners review and response. It we're not asking the voters or or anything to say that they know what it is. They're saying that they think that there should be they should be in the actual charter. So, with regards to
that, all of what we've changed is great for the language for the people to vote on whether or not they want to do it. But we may want to I want to know, are we going to be able to get to or should we? because maybe to uh Mr. Lewis's point, we should not be in the in the
position of laying out procedure, >> right? So, >> I'm pretty sure that's the job of the county commission, >> right? That that's what I understand. As we're going through this, I just want to make sure and remind that I think what you had attempted to do, brother Shu, and I voted for this before, and I think
this is why I'll vote for it again, is to just give the voters an opportunity to say, should it be addressed or not? >> Yeah. >> And yes or no is the answer. That's how I understand it. Is that right? Is that correct?
>> Yes. Uh should the charter be amended to provide for these things? >> Yes. That's all that's all it is. should it be in there or not? >> And depending on the detail, the specificity in your question, that will guide what that new section would entail in the charter.
>> Okay, that's what I really want to understand. So, if they were to say yes or no, who then goes in and lays out each parameter of these things listed, for example, is it this committee that supports? It's it's the county that
does. >> We do. Yeah. And and we're assuming that if you do this, you're also adopting >> what's in there. >> I got that. I just wanted to I I needed for that to be a little more clear for me to make sure that I understand that after just asking the voters, do you
want this considered in the charter that then >> the you the comm the commissioners, everybody else, you're going to figure out how to address these things and put it in based on that and and based and put in the charter.
Thank you so much, >> Linda Bond Edwards. >> Just one one final thing. Thank you. Would it be helpful in any way in terms of putting parameters around these adverse community
um conditions to specify that the condition should impact health, welfare, safety or economic impacts? would it be helpful at all? If it doesn't, that's fine. But it
it kind of gives some guidance and, you know, maybe kind of closes it in a little bit so that it's not so broad. But if the intent is to leave it broad, leave it broad. But if you want to have something for people to shoot at when they talk about adverse conditions,
>> well, and you could see, I mean, in some of Dr. Strugil's language he does have how it affects housing and neighborhood planning environmental and resilience and so forth. I don't know if that's >> deep enough but it >> that's that's fine. Again just trying to
>> just not leave it hanging out there and I'm and I'm >> again perfectly happy with uh leaving it broad but if we needed to narrow it that would be a way that we could narrow it. >> We're good where we are. try not to get in the weeds any more than we already
are. >> Are you ready to call? What' you say? >> Dr. Robersonson. >> Yeah, I this question is for legal. Is there a definition in Lyon County for historic public policies? Like when we're talking about this adverse community conditions related to
historic public policies? Are you asking if it's in our charter already or anything? >> No, I'm asking does the county in any kind of way like are there historic public policies that have been determined to be unlawful
in Lyon County >> without doing an assessment? I don't know the answer to that. >> All right. If there's if there are no >> Okay. Yeah. >> Well, there's Hold on.
>> Um, okay. Hang on a minute. We have one more comment. We have two more comments down there. Um, >> she still >> You still had questions and you still have questions? Yes. >> Yeah. I I want to make sure because we've done a lot back and forth with words and then it's referenced in our
package about the current laws and policies. So we're going to do an assessment on historic policies related to current policies. Now I'm trying to understand are there any implications
related to the current laws that have been passed now and the authority of the county to conduct the assessment on historic policies when current policies are in place. I want to understand like
are we putting something forward that can be done legally. I I want to make sure like I want to make sure that we're putting something forward if we vote yes. I want to make sure we get it right
if we vote yes as a committee so it could be done because if there is something legally wrong I >> Carrie. Yeah, you have a >> I I guess I'm You're asking >> a respon >> I I just want to get clarity on the
question. Um >> I'm asking the attorney >> I'm sorry. >> Let me let me make sure I understand. Are you asking are we putting ourselves in jeopardy? >> I am. Okay. I'm asking like are I want to make I want to make sure that the words that we're considering in the vote
like based on what has been written in the package is this sound in conjunction is it even allowable to be done the way that it reads if it were to pass. >> So with so I I will I will caveat this
with I'm doing an on the-fly view of what this language is. That's just not how legal analysis happens. I'm gonna have to dig in. Chassity's gonna have to dig in. Like that's that's a process. Okay. Um so with that being said, um you
know, this language talks about historic public policies or governmental practices. That doesn't mean nothing, right? That means something. So we're we're then going to have to review what are those adverse community conditions related to those historic public policies. We'd have to figure out what those historic public policies or
governmental practices are. So if there's not a list, if there does if there isn't a definition of those things, part of the analysis is trying to determine what those things are and if they exist. And then >> because if they didn't exist, this would be a mute point. Right.
>> Right. >> And there's always the risk of unintended consequences no matter what we do here today. >> I'm not saying they don't I'm saying you have to do a review. I just wanted to make sure that we understood that when we voted on this that there's another
determination on what would constitute a historic public policy and you're saying that there is an analysis a legal analysis that needs to be done. >> Okay. Um you asked uh to call the question. Was that correct?
>> Our question. Uh, we could skip that and I could just uh go ahead and ask for a roll call vote on what we've got before us. >> Madam Chair, just point of order. Um, that that was a good question. I mean, so I mean, are you saying uh are you
asking for or suggesting a legal analysis before you take a vote? I mean, that that's a very good question. >> Yeah, I am because >> motion's on the floor right now. question. >> Well, the motion's on the floor, but I have a question. Wait a minute. Now, Madam Chair, I have the floor at this
point. Now, I madame chair, I asked the question. Are you recommending >> I'm not sure on that point. >> I I have the >> It's the discretion, >> Madam Chair. My question is >> All right. And that >> Thank you. Are you The question The
question was was I'm trying to clarify. Are are you recommending through you madam chair that the question was are you recommending or was the recommendation made of of a legal analysis before we took a vote and that's that that was my question. What
the question that like that changes the whole thing because >> because when I asked the question about what defines a historic public policy and she said that that there is a a legal analysis that would need to be
done to identify if not saying that there was or wasn't but if there were historic policies like I don't know how I can vote on a question where I don't understand what is going
to be defined as a historic policy. That's why I asked if that was already defined with Lyon County, whether there were historic policies that adversely affected communities. >> Well, that is a consideration in your vote.
>> I think we're ready to take the vote. Uh I'd like to have a roll call vote on We've got the suggested ballot language. We have the suggested uh title of the amendment and you'll also be voting on this material that is attached to
the suggested ballot language. >> Excuse me. >> Um pardon me. >> Is that what we're voting on right there? >> Is that what we're voting on? >> It's Yeah, it's the >> with the line through it. >> That's it.
That would be the ballot language for the question. Uh then the >> Well, I was going to do all three at once. >> Both the title. >> Can I mean I can do that. The title >> as well as the ballot language. Pardon me.
>> As long as we know what we're what what what each piece reads or is on the screen. Otherwise, >> yeah, >> one motion. It is all one motion. I mean, what you're reading is the essence of what we've been talking about. You already have a change on the title. You
know what the new title is that we read? >> Is in. >> Historic is in. Okay. I'd like I take a roll call vote on this, please. We're ready to >> I still don't see what all we're voting on. That's all I That's all I want to
see. >> I want to vote, but I we've made some changes. And so >> Vicki is going to walk us through specifically every single >> So it's going to be this is a three component motion. The first component being the proposed ballot language that is what is reflected on the screen um as
revised by the committee in addition to your >> ballot lang right there. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that was the this is the ballot title. >> Ballot title. Yeah, >> ballot title. And then the which the proposed section would be
developed based on the handout provided by me member Strobble which is printed and provided for you. >> Got it. >> You have a title, you have the proposed language and you have the additional material. All three are part of the same motion. So will there be because there
this document the sample amendment text still contains the language that we struck in the in the sample ballot language. Will that also be automatically struck from this document if you look at purpose >> on the front of this document?
>> Yeah, it would be. It would be. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Answer that. Yes. All right. We're going to take a vote now. Who's calling the role, please? Joey Davis, >> yes.
>> Linda von Edwards, >> yes. >> Liz Ellis, >> yes. >> Max Hurley, >> hi. >> Daryl Jones, >> yes. >> Howard Kesler, >> yes. >> Henry Lewis,
>> yes. >> Sllayton Murray, >> no. >> Ryan Ray, >> yes. Jamal Robersonson, >> no. >> Temple Robinson, >> yes.
>> Bruce Troble, >> yes. >> Jared Terry, >> yes. >> Katrina Tugerson, >> yes. >> Barry Wilcox, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Haynes, >> no. >> And Chair Lley,
>> yes. The motion passes uh with uh 14 in the affirmative. >> Okay. Uh there are some next steps for us. Our work is not done. >> We have
>> public hearings might be done for today, but if it's not done, >> uh Nikki, would you like to bring us up to state on what you all need to get on your calendars next? >> Yes. And um this will be very quick, but to give you guys an idea of uh what is to come now that you have advanced this
to your public hearing process, um the public hearings have been scheduled to take place on Tuesday, June 30th, Thursday, July 16th, and Thursday, July 30th. All of which will begin at 6 PM and be held here um uh right here in the
program room at the library. Uh just a reminder, uh the committee may consider and approve further revisions to the proposed title language um that you approved today at any of your public hearings. Um and then once uh those
three public hearings are concluded if uh you know with affirmative vote to continue to advance, it would continue on to uh the board's final public hearing on uh August 6 August 17th uh for their their final approval.
I will uh be sure to follow up with an email with all these details uh so that way you have them. Uh >> but I want to ask a question. Is it is our presence required at all of these public hearings? And will we participate or will we just be sitting there listening to commentary from the public?
>> Uh a quorum would be required. Uh and yes, there will be an opportunity to receive public comment, but yes, there will be a vote that is conducted at each and every public hearing to continue to advance it through the process. >> A quorum of whom? >> The committee. >> Us. We have three more meetings. In
other words, >> three public hearings >> at six o'clock here in this same room. public hearings to hear and then we will vote at each time on whether to keep >> go forward before it goes to the BOCC.
Did you not plan on that? >> Well, I mean I'm going come if I can, but you know, >> we have to have a quorum. >> Yeah. Well, they put one of me. Um, so we've had the vote and I was just sitting here thinking about the Creek
and the Muscogee and the Mkasuki tribe and and yeah, it's probably some of all of us and how does what Lyon County may or may not do bleed into over into what
the federal government did? I mean, this this could get real murky before it's all over. I mean, I've already voted, but I just wanted to just share. >> Yep.
>> Well, what side are you on? Correct. >> Yeah. >> As does the federal government. So, yeah. Well, I >> Well, now didn't you just say that it had gotten feckless or watered down and then
you >> sharing I'm just sharing. >> You can't be halted between two. You halted between two opinions. >> No buyers remorse and slowly I voted. I had to pick a side. So, but I'm just saying >> and Commissioner Proctor want to have a
a last word. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh members, uh I congratulate you on behalf of Board of County Commissions for your services. If others were here, they would also say to you, um how delighted we are for the sacrifices
uh intellectual capital that you've expended. Uh I also say that uh as one of two of Florida's longest serving county commissioners of 29 and a half years that this has been one of the highest level um most intellectually
engaging topics uh with civility that I have ever ever ever witnessed. And um I'm in awe uh of you today um and the level of um of um energies which uh this
community has. Um also, um I hasten to say that on that 99 vote that the county commission received previously, it was the respect of the minds that uh
occupied the seats at this table that uh a a 99 vote uh was such a and our community was um in awe because we knew of the weighted members here and the
county commission was frozen uh because uh 1134 um Commissioner Lewis Senate Bill 1134 is a discussion occurring across the state and we did not want uh for the
train to leave the station without uh the the uh luggage the baggage the packages of your your insights being shared and with this commission on this particular issue so
that you would take a second look and history would not record that we languish in a dead heat. You came back and we're grateful. So I extend to you just on pure longevity of uh 29 and a
half years my high respect uh for what you've offered. Um to God be glory. Thank you so much. And I will be asking our commission uh at some time in the fall uh to recognize uh this great body.
This is a tremendous panel. Don't miss what and what you represent. A tremendous panel and the Dr. Strobble who whose continuing effort for us to reach understanding and understanding is something that you um to reach it. It
doesn't come easy. But we have been advised and above all by getting get understanding and sir for your continuing efforts that we wrestle this important point that we achieve it as best we could. Um great salutes to you.
Thank you all. God bless. >> And before we leave uh >> well one quick question one one comment. The sunshine law applies. You guys are not to be speaking to each other at all about this. You can speak to your friends and family, but not to each
other. >> Yep. >> I just want to offer an apology to member Haynes. We got I got a little testy over here. I cut him off during his speech and I apologize for that. That wasn't a professional. >> Point of personal privilege. Today is Barry Wilcox's birthday. So, everybody
wish him a happy birthday. As Max said, I hope you all remember where you were on my >> birthday. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted I just wanted to reciprocate the tremendous uh compliment to Commissioner Proctor. It was the commission's wisdom that sent this back to us. This is a
really difficult and thoughtful conversation. I just want to say thank you to everyone for being here. And I also want to thank you, Madam Chair, for doing a tremendous job stewarding this very worthwhile conversation. Thank you. Thank you all. >> And may I say, Madam Chair, that uh I think our county administrator said that
no other county has done something like this. >> That's right. >> And it's appropriate hopefully county is the first county of the 67 to start this and this spreads throughout the state of Florida as well. >> Yeah. I would also like to say thanks to
um the county staff uh for providing us with information that we needed um to the county administrator, to Miss Hatch, and um county attorney Ostein in her absence, and to you, Miss Norton.
Thank you all so much for just, you know, keeping the guard rails wide enough to allow us to do what we needed to do, but narrow enough so that we don't get into too much trouble. And maybe especially to Nikki who's been just on this non-stop day after day, week after week and
>> been a great asset to me. >> You'd be like, uh >> oh, she does. Yeah. >> No stone unturned for this girl's life. >> All right. Thanks everybody and we'll see you on June 30th, 6 o'clock.
>> We can't talk. waiting throwing chair. Hey,