Does everyone everyone has an agenda in front of you? Hopefully. It looks like we have a quorum. >> Gotcha. Ready for the pledge, everyone. I pledge allegiance to the flag to the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> I say it the original way. >> I could say it in the Latin English.
>> Well, go ahead. >> Part getting up and down. >> Just don't know why we have to say it at a committee meeting. I found it odd. So, we'll just do a quick roll call. Jennifer Stevens here. >> Gabby, I'll take it. >> Yeah, I can. >> Oh, you'll do it. I forgot. Sorry.
>> You're good. Um, Jody Jansen, >> Katie Cus, Christine St. Yeah. Uh, Christine St. John here. >> Cassie Sitchi here. >> Jennifer Stevens here.
>> Karen Plant. Sam Hery, Alli Daly, Ashley Bruce, Joe Siciliano, Virginia Standish, Katie Lakeman,
Francine Ramalia, Jeff Curts, >> I am present. >> And then Gabriel Crossell, I'm present. Perfect. Okay. So, um we basically had three
items on the agenda last time and um we let's start with the easy one. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um are there any >> that would be that would be approval of the um agenda and if there are any
additions, deletions or modifications you can talk about that. So it would be appropriate to have uh an approval of the agenda at this point in time. This is essentially the same thing as additions, deletions, and modifications.
Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Yeah. The agenda first. >> I thought we left off number two last. I thought we were going to pick up
number two first. Oh, sorry. Then the first one that we are picking up on is uh I don't remember exactly what it was on the last agenda, but it is the it's suggested to be the terms of office and the elections. That was the item that we
really didn't get to in any sort of discussion. Um the other two there was uh consensus on. Um and uh one we decided not to move forward on. So the the concept is let's talk
about the terms of office and elections um and get direction on that and then the other ones we should be able to wrap up pretty quickly I think >> about the one we were working on where four to hire four to fire we were talking about that like literally in the
middle of the sentence when we left >> that's number two here it is there's a draft provided for uh the change. Um and I anticipate that taking a very very short time. I think the discussion on
terms of office and elections will uh potentially take us a long time if we're going to discuss a a change. So it's my strong suggestion that we do that one uh first. So, we that's the one that we did
not get to at the last meeting. Um, except with like 10 minutes left in the meeting. >> Sounds good. >> Any other >> a second. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> All opposed? Okay. All right. So that passes and then um >> there's no one here from the public so I don't think we have to worry about public comments at this point. >> Perfect. >> Approve.
>> There are Oh, sorry. There are no minutes this time. I was out sick last week, but by next meeting I will have them for you guys. I promise. >> Thank you. And no public comments. Nobody here. Okay.
So, let's move to the regular agenda discussion of the terms of office and elections. If you'll recall, the issue that we're just generally discussing is do we want to move the election cycle to where it's every other year in even
numbered years or do we want to keep it in every year basically, which is what it does now. There are a there were a couple of years that there weren't, but for the most part it's an election, you know, almost every year. Um, and then if
we do want to move it to even numbered years because we'll get better turnout potentially and the cost is less. I mean, there are some good reasons to do that. Um, also, you know, some disadvantages to doing that in in that
we may have to go to longer terms. Um, like a four-year term. I think it would be >> Did you map out the two-year term, Cassie? >> Yeah. to even decide if we want to if it's
worth trying to do it. We we generally have to realize, you know, there's a lot of sort of math and moving around involved. If if nobody wants to even move it and just leave it the way it is, then we can >> yeah, >> take a vote on that and move on. But I'm
happy to hear comment on your thoughts on that. If you wanted to go to a two-year term and you wanted to not have an election every year, I think the way to do it would be having
all five members elected and during the same year and then you'd have all five uh skip a year and everybody out there. That would be the only way that I could see two years working. If if you went to a two-year term and you did a three
three of them um one one year and two of them the other, obviously you're going to have the potential for an election every single year. And I'm not sure that you've accomplished much um in that circumstance. uh if you wanted to see
fewer elections and um more time for council to work together without the pressure of an election, um the
easiest way to to do it um would be to go to four-year terms. and have elections um every two years. Getting there, it'll take some steps, but let's my suggestion is we talk about
it from a conceptual standpoint as to where you want to end up. If you wanted to have maintain the three-year terms, but you didn't want to have an election every single year, then the the easy way
to do it is to restructure one of the one of the seats um so that you would elect three council person one year, two council people another year, and skip a year. Um, so there was a a sheet that
was produced and um it was based on Christine St. John's suggestion that we should go through the the history of the elections. I've got that for you here and it shows the the history of um the elections. the
bold um names mean that they won the election or that was the year that they were um appointed. Uh and when you go all through this, there have been three
elections of the 19 potential elections. Um where there was no election because there was a qu there was only one qualifier for one or both seats. Um two of those I think occurred in seat five,
which is the the seat that stands alone. um and and doesn't have anybody uh going there. Uh there is a question in in my mind and maybe some of you uh might remember back to 2008
when Dennis Lip um who was a member of the original council uh and then he was elected um in 2008 for a full three-year term.
Uh but I don't have information as to whether he was opposed or unopposed. Um, otherwise I think this is pretty accurate as to uh to the history on things and it shows that somewhere
between 75 and 80 80% of the time you're going to have um uh an election the chance of an election that that year. There's always going to be a seat open. Um, but there are circumstances where
there's only one qualifier for a seat and they automatically ascend without the necessity of a of an election. Um, >> does anyone have any any questions about this or or kind of generally? Go ahead.
>> I did the original one and I included I'm sorry I >> Yeah, go ahead. Oh, >> excuse me. they included total votes cast and um one point I noticed and Jeff just said
between 80 75 and 80% of the time uh there is an election which in my mind and uh it's 25% there isn't so the cost of the election could be theoretically uh decreased by 25%. If if you're
talking about we can't do it because we can't afford it. And that's pretty sad if that's the excuse for any election. Um the other excuse was low voter turnout.
And in the last um presidential or national election there were 650 votes and in the 2021 uh our own election there were 720. So that just proves that theory that we
have low voter turnout. So I I could go on for another couple of things >> arguing that they're or trying to argue for it. the council wanted us to look at it and so we were try weighing the the positives and the negatives to the
various elections. Traditionally the negative is that in the off years there are less voters. Certainly if you have information to the opposite we absolutely want to hear that because then this may all be a moot point if that makes sense. But nobody's sort of
advocating for it though I don't think so. Go ahead. answer that question. When there's a presidential election, some usually we have a higher turnout. Statistically, we always have a low turnout. So, I don't even think that's a valid argument that
increasing it is going to get a higher turnout. >> But that's what I'm saying. Nobody's arguing that giving you the points. In general, >> I don't think extending it, you know, expanding waiting two years for an election is going to increase the voter
turnout. uh that doesn't seem to justify that argument. And to the point of the cost with our budget at what 8 to1 12 billion dollars, I certainly hope we could afford a small election every year. And I'd question if we couldn't. So I I don't see a reason to change it.
I think it's great at three years. You know, I think three years is enough. >> I think that >> I just want to say thank you for doing that that additional research. Um, and it's I think it's helpful. I was curious because you mentioned the two years were
the presidential election years. So, more people would obviously want to turn out and vote when there's a national election. How about the other the other years when there was like no national election? >> If I could, one of the things that may be confusing to people is that the
national election the the real national election happens in November. As we all know, the our municipal elections are always in March. So, what what it coincides with is the primaries,
and the primaries are sometimes essentially uncontested uh by the time it gets around to to Florida. So, that's not going to drive voter turnout. where the argument that some people make with respect to voter
turnout is that if you moved your elections to the November time period when that's when your governors are elected and your senators and your um presidential elections, you will get a
higher turnout. And that's generally true. Those elections get higher turnouts than municipal elections. The the contraargument to that is that what you get in those elections are
people who are not as concerned with municipal issues and not focused on that and they're focused on other things and therefore they may be a less informed voter. and the people that come out for the municipal elections are specifically
interested and therefore are arguably a better uh informed voter. I'm not taking a position or suggesting a position one way or another. But those are the arguments that you generally hear with respect to voter turnout and the idea of
March versus November. I think historically um I believe the the most votes that were ever cast uh was back in I'm trying to think when it was
um in might have been in 2016 when 2016's on that election on that notice it didn't reference that, but two 2016 there was actually an election um because that's when McClendon beat
Rocker and uh Browning beat Gonzalez and I believe there was 889 uh votes cast in that election. >> That wasn't on >> that wasn't on your list. >> Yes, it is.
But I'm I'm not I I I I >> But but that's I went I went back over and I did check all those things and um uh it was that that was the large largest number and I think and and I I do think your
information has it. I think the lowest number of votes we ever had was like 350. uh before in 2025. >> Yeah. And so that's the that's the range of magnitude. Um and I think
it it would probably take a deep dive to see whether or not the particular primaries in various elections were contested to see whether or not the presidential election had any impact on on that. Um
>> so uh the low is 354. If you take up top, oh no, we're on your whip side you haveund, 884 registered voters, 552 inactive. So
quick math, 1300 change registered voters, and we had uh 354. That's a pretty good percentage. And that's our lowest. >> That's the lowest turnout. I'm not saying that. Yeah.
>> Thank the line saying that for a small community, lots of gross has a high turnout. >> I don't she had a comment down here. >> Convenient. Is that right? Can you hear me now?
>> Yes. >> Um, I don't I don't think it's so much turnout uh as far as what I'm understanding as to why the council wants us to look at it. I feel like it's more that because there's an election every year that the dynamics on the
council changes every year. Then there's a learning curve for the new guy to catch up. And then so we sort of lose our long-term vision and stability in in the process and I think that in
considering a longer term limit would help for us to you know see projects through as opposed to somebody getting cut off in the middle then they got to learn again then they got to catch up with the curve then they but you know I feel like that is more the the drive for
a longer term not so that more people are going to vote. I I mean, I like that the I like that people vote. I like that we change council members, but I I personally think because there's an election every year. We're just spinning. We do a lot of
spinning after every election and then it's catchup and then we move and then guess what? Here we are. Now we're going to start campaigning and then you know, so that's those are cost savings. cost savings. I I don't think that I don't think it's a question that we can't
afford it. It's why why would we why not move it to every every time there's a primary in the November and and save some money. I mean, that's we're always trying to save money, right? >> I think that what Joe stated is the rationale for the the change. That is
the primary rationale. um because you get into the situation that she described where you have people coming on board um and then you move right into to budget and they haven't had much of a
background on what is uh been happening or the rationale for for certain decisions. Um, and then right after you get done the budget, you have this little time period and guess what happens um on November 12th or something
along those lines. Um, it's qualifying for the next election. So this year uh there will be two seats up for office and you'll have you know people get into
that mode and basically from December until March the council's in a different dynamic because they are running for office and I don't I've been around municipalities
since 1986. six um in a representational capacity. And there is a difference between how people react and what gets done with a pending election versus um the remainder of the
the year. That's the primary argument for a change. If the if the committee doesn't buy into that argument, then make the recommendation for no change. But it's not the the argument I don't
think is based on cost so much. There's approximately I think we budget about $20,000 a year for an election. Um, as Virginia pointed out, $20,000, while real money is not
the make it or break it with respect to um our little municipality, we have enough money to have an election every year. Um, it is the uh the issues that Joe brought up. That's the point of
consideration on which I at least think you should make your recommendation one way or another. um people will vote in this town. >> Uh to counter that, there's a lot of repeat offenders on this list and far as
catching up. I think they're everybody is on the ball, you know. So, sorry, as far as what happens in council, it's what's happening at the moment. and and and sure I mean, yeah, it's there are
quite a few people that are are here regularly. It doesn't take away from the fact that if they want to continue, they're going to go into campaign mode. And so that ch in my opinion I've seen it happen then it changes their
priorities as far as what gets done and and you know fiscally responsibly or what gets done you know kind of waving the flag. But if you add another year to their
term, it allows for them to have a longer term vision as opposed to real quick. We're not necessarily saying add another year to their term because there is a way in which we could keep the three-year terms and just switch it
around a little bit to where you have an election one year, an election one the next year, and then you skip a year and then election. So that would be sort of an in between thing. Otherwise, we would have to move to fouryear terms and then you could go to every other year with an
election of three and then two. Okay. >> Every other year, >> I I see some head shaking. Tell me what you're thinking, please. >> Tony, >> I'm liking the three-year term. The four year, it just leaves eight years for somebody. I just think it's too long to
be comfortable. Okay. The two years is ridiculous because you takes a year to learn what you're doing. I think then you only have a year. So I think the three years good, but I do like have a year off where you don't vote. >> And and um is Karen right
>> Katie? I'm sorry. Car my head. Tell me what you were thinking. You were shaking your head too. Okay, perfect. I just want to make sure you had an opportunity to talk. Go ahead. Um, so I would like to direct your attention. I don't know if it's
going to work. I'll try. Let's see what happens. Could have been >> okay. Is that better? Okay. So on page three of our agenda on under item one, excuse me, this is page three. Yes, page
three of our agenda. Uh page one of the issue under the potential inter alternatives include um I'd like to start with number two. Uh and let let's maybe we can kind of eliminate some things to get to where we're trying to
go. So number two says have all five council seats up for election at one time. Discussion needed on length of by term but obviously such a system could work with any length of term. Um it seems that would be utter chaos. You know we're talking about learning curve
doing things. So it seems like number two um is utter chaos. And again I apologize. I don't know if we need is this just discussion or motions or I >> think we can just discuss for right now and then we can you know kind of sort of take a vote at the end.
>> Okay. >> And if you if anyone thinks that number two is a good idea which to clarify it's to have all five seats up for election in the same year. Does anyone think that's a good idea? Start with
>> I think we can rule that one out. >> There's no support for that. So that's easy. So number two is leaves. >> Excuse me on number one. Number one is incorrect. The last couple of words and see if you're only once in
your group. >> That's correct. >> That you that there was a mis. So, so to reiterate on on the number one, it's it should say the current system of election every year with three-year terms and two seat year one,
two seats selected in year two and one seat in year three. >> Yeah, it's a 221 >> ction every year. So, go ahead. >> One is our existing system, >> one is one is our existing system.
So it's number one versus number three. >> Well, >> it's also number four, but I think we've already Let's look at number four, which is the expansion of the length of term to four years. Is anyone in favor of that? Okay. So that we can rule out number
four. So really we either need to keep it the way it is or we need to go to um one year, two seats the next year and then no election the third year. Make sense?
>> Yeah. >> So we either need we at least every third year there's no election. That's a that's a separate question. >> So that would be that would mean
uh there's there's a time when we're going to go to the national election or the primary and then there's a there's another one. >> Well, no. I I think there's it's two separate questions. the I don't think
>> it's March >> at this point in time. It's March. I don't think there is any um stated desire that I've heard to go to November. Um if I've misconstrued that, let me know. If anybody thinks it should
go to to November. Um but otherw I think the the question is uh between 1 and three with elections remaining in March and unless I misspoke for you. >> So I've heard one person give a
plausible reason why we're considering this. What I think you need Joe gave a reason why she would consider the thought that thought process thinks is going on. So the question you need to ask I tried to
but I tried to give an idea what your what's the goal and I looked at I'll pass this out. It's only half done this. Can I pass that half done one? >> Of course you can. >> So this what I did is
page but you >> it's the first half because you guys decided you didn't have the four year two year. So, you don't need that one. >> So, I'll try to explain my chicken scratch. And then you've got to understand, you got to ask yourself because Joe's the only one that gave an idea what we thought why we want to
change it. Virginia gave another idea what we thought we shouldn't change it. So, you need to ask, are we changing it because we want to get more people? Are we changing it because we want more we don't want to have elections? Do we have election fatigue in this count in this town? Do you see it with your neighbors?
I don't know. You need to ask yourself that. So when you look at this chicken scratch the first one and please I'm not an Excel person at all. Uh it shows the current term 2024 we had one and three come up. 2025 we had two and four come
up. The E is an election. Okay. Next year we're going to have five come up. E is an election. >> And what's that mean? Yes. Could you explain when you say excuse I don't understand one? >> Oh those are seats. I'm sorry. I I'm sorry. I think I'm ADHD.
>> Okay. the seat numbers. >> So, I did the seat numbers 1 3 2 4 and five. So, I'm trying to I'm trying to show you how it works. Basically, I'm trying to show you how it's distributed. That was my goal. Uh what what how many elections each year? And if for some
reason, like two years ago, we had a majority in that some people weren't happy with. So, we had to wait a year to flip that majority to another majority that some people are happy with, some people might not be. So I wanted to show the the distribution of the flips if you
don't happen to agree with whatever majority opinions ever decision are currently sitting on council. So this is the current and if you kind of follow my thought process. So then if we look up at the top 2026 is this year coming up.
Seat five is up. Now I didn't take into account the seat that was vacated and all that other stuff. That's too confusing for for me even. So just think of it as we didn't have anybody vacate and we are standard election. Then you go then 2027 seat one and three is up
against >> 2026 you're saying there's only one seat. >> I'm not talking about the vacant this year. Well there'll be more but just hypothetically say there was no vacancy. Okay. and we didn't have somebody leave
and we have a full council and we have one seat coming up in March which would have been seat five. Okay, don't think about what's actually going to happen. I just want you to look at how the numbers run. Ask yourself what are some other reasons why you would consider this
what's important to you? Because remember whatever we do and whatever they do, they have to sell to our taxpayers, our residents. So the the thought process of this is every year there's an election. So you got to ask yourself, is there election fatigue? Do you see it with your neighbors? Is that
something important? Joe gave a great point. They want to have more people with somebody so you're not maybe skip a year so we have more people that know things. Um but then there's the other opposite that somebody says, well maybe they don't agree. Let's just say seat
two, four. Okay, so we'll say in 2026 five gets elected. five agrees with seat two and four. So now we have seat two, four, and five that have an opinion that differs from somebody else because we're all people. We all have different opinions. You only have to wait one year
to try to flip that major majority possibly because the next year you would have two seats come up. We'll just say say the two seats come up, they come unopposed and nothing changes. Then you have the following year two and four would come up. So you would skip a year if you don't agree with two, four, and
five. Okay. But that so that's just that one. Now let's flip down to the the one the proposed one combines. So they talked about combining the year the the numbers and when you combine them like we'll
combine seat one three and five and we're going to talk about this year. If we vote on it the question is do we extend seat five? This would be a four-year term. You taking Joe's consideration, moving the seats to four years.
Seat five comes up this year. Do we extend that seat one more year and combine them with seat one and three or do we shorten >> saying order to get into the new cycle of having three one year, two the next,
somebody the one person's term is going to have to get extended. the person elected in that seat is only going to be there for one year because of the vacancy the perfect time to do it if we're going to do it and they'd actually be >> so that's just the seat but the point of
that whole one the second one four years is you're looking at election every other year which was brought up there is a three-year flip if you don't agree with whoever's in there and you don't like it so think back to the different elections we've had won two years, one
one year. >> I think we've already ruled that out. >> So the question is instead of a one year to change, maybe Christine doesn't like who's up there right now. So she needs to wait one year to to go out and really campaign or maybe run because she wants to get him a seat. Whereas if you do
this for a year and you combine the odd number seats, you're looking at a three-year flip and an election every other year. That was my point. Don't get into the old numbers. I'm going to confuse you because I my point being is either an election every other year and
then a threeyear flip you don't agree with who's in who's the majority or an election every year evenly distributed with a one year if you disagree and we took out I I don't think the math's right either sorry Cassie because um
we've already ruled out the fouryear so it' only be the three-year there's no way to mathematically He has a two option. >> We have took number three. No, we took number I thought we took number two and number four. I'm not talking about
seats. I'm talking about on the agenda. >> Well, number one is what we already have, >> right? >> And number and number three is >> not two year. >> Yeah. I think >> with with respect here, here's where it
comes down to in the in the end. If you if you wanted to um consider the change and you're only and you're going to keep the terms at 3 years, you're going to have a situation in
which three people are elected or uh one in one cycle and two people are going to be elected in another cycle. um depending on whether the
the voters are, you know, thinking I'm voting for a team. Um which you you don't know. Um, you might have a situation where you've elected three like-minded
individuals and for that three-year period, if they remain likeminded for the entire time period, they they combined will um have the have the power. >> Okay.
>> No, no. Well, yeah, but I mean for for mo for most decisions that's that's what it that's what it be and and they would be the operating majority. Now that that's got a couple
presumptions in there that you voted in a team and that the team sticks together. Um uh I'm not going to comment on uh uh how that has worked here or there or anywhere, but I think you can you understand that those things don't
always last that that long. And then the other thing is that you're thinking well that the the two people are necessarily on the other team. It could actually be a situation, I don't think it's ever happened here, but it could actually be in a situation where there
were two team members, if you will, and they got joined by three. Um, and you've got a a you know, very solid super duper majority. Um, I think what it what it really comes down to on this, if you
and I'm I'm saying this because I don't think you should consider so much the the outcomes and how people will or will not vote because this is to totally hypothetical at this point in time and and you don't have any
idea whether or not these teams are going to to be in power and you know we don't have uh people run by party and all those kind of things. So, so you guys make make the decision. So, it really comes down to whether or not you
think um the current system is working just fine or you want to interject what would arguably be a little more stability um so that people could get things done because they would have um those
interactions in place and they would know each other better. >> Um Virginia, to your point, number three, you're right. It says every two years. There there actually should be a number five on here. And >> the number five should there should be another choice which is really the one
we're considering which is to have three seats one year the next year and no election the third year. >> No, that's what this is. >> No, that it says two seat has changed. >> No, no, it says have three seats elected in one election and two seats elected in
another act election. This would eliminate having an election every year unless you combine that with the change to the the two years. So >> take out the election unless >> and this would this would be regardless of you if you went to a four-year term
or three-year term um you would have uh um that alternative. So on a three-year term you'd have elections two out of three years, not not all three years. isn't >> on a three-year term,
>> you would have you would have elections >> every you'd have two out of the three years being an election year. So, I'm going to throw a monkey wrench in. But isn't there also a way to
eliminate um three the 32 possibility by having the having it one of the chairs rotate like I know I read I was reading it last night and I can't remember the town that does it. They but it it it basically it
it it rotates. So, it's three two and then Seat number one falls into this one. >> So, so that >> there's a way to do it >> that seat five has a term of three years in one election cycle and the next
election cycle it has a a two-year term. Something along those lines is what you're talking about. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It would the seat would rotate. >> Okay. Well, but I've I've never seen it. I'm just thinking about the theory. Um,
but >> I'm sorry because I and I would I had it all printed out and then forgot. >> I think there there probably is a mathematical way that you could have that occur and you could do rotation of
of seats. And so, but I think it would come down to uh a combination of threes and twos. >> Okay. I mean, I'm just saying if there's a concern that three is going to run run the train off the road. >> Sorry.
>> Right. Go ahead. Okay. >> It seems like it's two or three issues. So, the first issue I'm saying is do we want twoyear terms, threeear terms, or fouryear terms for our elected officials? And I think we've already ruled out that we want three-year terms.
>> No, that you do want threeear terms. >> We do. Everybody said they don't want two and they don't want four. >> So the next threeear terms is what we're going. So what is the next? So the next question would be do we just leave it the way it is or do we change it to
where um there's three one year two the next year and then no election the third year and then the next year would be three again and then two and then no election. just
>> uh yeah. Well, she was recommending to the council to at least consider of of three year one year, two or three >> two seats the next year and then no
election in the third year. >> The first of number number three >> good. >> Um I I don't know what to do. Um, I liked your idea of um, uh, the variety, right? You can have more kind
of a variety of opinions on the council if the the more turnover, if you will. I feel like if it's a three and then a two and then no um, no election, I like the idea of a quiet year, but at the same time, I feel like more than half the council at one point is going to be
almost like what Joe what you were saying like more than half the council is going to be campaigning. So, it's almost like even even louder. You know, they're all campaigning almost, you know, three of them instead of two. So, um, that might be more disruptive if it's just three, two, and then no
election versus what we have right now, which seems to be working. I don't know if there was an instruction from the council or thoughts beyond what we've come up with here as to why we're we're considering this or is it just in general? >> I think they it waseneral. It was just
because it's it's disruptive to have an election every year. >> Yeah. I >> that's >> I think I think I think if you >> I mean that's what that's what the thought was. >> I think if you >> No, I think I think it's coming all of this is coming from council. They're the
ones that that said consider this or don't consider um those things. That's why they limited it to to particular items. Um, I suspect that they get the idea that it
is hard to accomplish something when you've got a changing landscape every year. Um, and ultimately from their perspective, I suspect that they are uh running with the hopes of accomplishing something.
>> Point out the obvious having listened to too many council meetings, been to too many. The problem with council is they can't establish prior priorities and focus on them and they're blaming the elections for that. I'm going to be very blunt. I'm happy to
say it in public at a town meeting. They need to get their priorities down and they need to focus. You're saying here, let's have three seats in one election, which there's going to be a learning curve for three of those three people. Uh, something's just not making sense
here when I listen to this and I don't think >> these are all bit of arguments. Yeah, >> go ahead, Kazzy. >> I agree with Virginia. Is it broken and who perceives that it's broken? Is it working? And I go to all the meetings as
well and like I said, there's priorities. Are they accomplishing that? I I don't see it but I just was trying to propose some ideas so people could have >> what this committee's responsibility is to make a recommendation. You don't make
a decision on the issue. The council will take your recommendations. They will um make a decision um on how to move forward or not to move forward. They want your input. Um, and so I think you should give them the best advice
that you collectively have. >> Sorry, I just want to say that I agree with the priorities, but I wonder if if the priorities are shifting because the landscape is constantly shifting. I I I I I mean I sit in the audience regularly
and listen and it I don't know that it's not priority driven so much as as I just I feel like there like you said after an election then it's budget and then budget and budget and budget and budget and budget
and then then there's only a very limited amount of time for them to get to the meat of what it is that they're we're trying to you know do for their constituents. Listen, I don't All I want is for the town to get be in
a position. My recommendation would be for the town to be in a position where we have given our council members the best opportunity to have long-term vision. And and I feel like with an election every year that sort of that gets a
little lost and and they're they're they're short term. very very focused on what's going to happen next and when that seat changes and who's coming in that's um >> I will point out to those who haven't been to the meetings there was a a
recent SWOT analysis and one of the issues was a lack of establishing priorities consistently which is why I'm focused on that issue um so I think it requires any member of council and any me member of staff to start working
together to establish those priorities and new members coming in should be reminded like I get your point, Joe. Exactly. I think the focus needs to be council needs to be strong. Staff establishes priorities, you know, with council and they stay focused on that.
Welcome to the team. This is what we're working on. Give us your input. That's what So, >> so what I hear from Virginia is status quo. If you if somebody wants to make a motion to that effect. >> Well,
>> well, I Any seconds to leave it the way it is? Second from Cassie. Well, let's just take a a show of hands. Who wants to leave it the way it is? >> Okay. And and then to change it to three, I'm
sorry. It it's helpful for the for the record especially I'm sorry >> for for Gabby >> have 10 >> why don't why don't we do a voice vote on there's a motion to maintain
um the current election cycles with uh three-year terms um and that's having two open seat two two seats one year two seats another year and one seat on the
third year. There's been a motion by Karen Plant. I think it was seconded >> by Cassie Suchi >> by Cassie. Um, and so now Gabby, if you could do roll call, that' be helpful. You vote a or nay on the issue.
>> Jansen, not >> we can. You're going to abstain. She's abstaining. Okay. Um, St. John, >> Suchi,
>> Stevens, >> Yay. >> Clamp. >> Uh, Daly, >> Bruce, >> that's Yay. Yeah. >> And then Sicciliano, >> Sandish, >> Lakeman.
>> Okay. So, we're going to keep it the same. >> So, that's the recommendation. Strong recommendation. and we can move on. >> Perfect. >> Thank all for the discussion. It was very informative to think about.
So the second >> the second issue that we had t talked about was um the amendment related to the majority vote to remove charter officers. We had basically voted on that last time that
we were going to recommend that the charter officers can be removed by a majority vote. Currently, it's a super majority and we were we were recommending that they change that to just a majority. And if you'll look at the language, this is the proposed language.
We're just taking out the word super. Everybody understood, >> not page five of So, so we had talked about this last time and and basically voted to take out the super majority to remove a charter
officer. Make sense? Okay. >> And so I think that that was the direction that uh I received at the last meeting. I will point out that it's my understanding at last night's workshop
meeting there was some discussion of rather than having it be by majority eliminate the provision from the charter entirely.
Um and uh that would then leave it to the the council. um uh if they wanted to have a situation. All right, let me back let me back up just so you understand the and I'm not
I'm not advocating this is something that I think was mentioned last night was >> Are you talking about >> remove that entirely from the um from the charter? Yes. the town manager, for example, when
negotiating for contract that that be part of her negotiation or his negotiation, whoever it is, instead of it being part of what's in our charter, that it would be whatever gets negotiated with the town, whether it's majority, super majority, how that
person gets removed. Yeah. >> And if if you if you if you took it out if you took it out entirely, um there would and the contract didn't
specify one way or another, you could actually get into a situation in which um a majority of the quorum could take the action because in the absence of any language that says a
minimum of four or a minimum of three. We have quorum requirements. The general quorum requirement is three members of council and actions can be taken on the affirmative vote of two of those three people. That's so
that's the that's the consideration. So I think the question for the for you all is do you want to leave it in the charter? that you want to leave the reference in the charter or do you want to take it out entirely? And if you do want to leave it in the charter, does
this language work? >> I'm sorry. >> If there's a quorum, then in affirmative it could be just two, >> right? Then >> yeah, >> then I I suggest we leave it in the
charter. One other thing I think we should strike the word only in this too. Charter officers will be removed from office by a majority vote. >> You don't need the word. Sorry. >> I agree that you don't >> grammar. Uh
>> I think that this is an important provision. I mean there a lot of a lot of thought goes into hiring you know charter officers. I think a lot of negotiation also goes into that. So I don't know that just you know two or three people showing up to a meeting >> right >> are that's not fair I don't think um I
would say leave it in and if the charter so my I guess my question would be the charter officer is free right to negotiate stricter or no >> no it's in the charter they're not in the charter negotiate >> they they couldn't go to anything other
than in that's in here and that's that's the that's the issue with all things in the in the charter Um, and we'll talk about it a little bit when we get to the next item. What we're essentially doing in the next item, and
this is I think we got the direction correct. And thank you to to Jennifer for assisting with the ordinance, but it it goes to it goes to this point. >> We're we're not moving on. >> I'm not moving on. I'm justating the point that >> if you have it if you have something in
the in the charter, you have to follow the charter. So what we're proposing in the next item is in the charter we're going to say the rule is going to be set by resolution or ordinance um which is the same thing as if it was
not in the charter. >> So So does anyone want to let me back up really quickly too. One of the other things that was mentioned last night during the um during the meeting was to have other officers other than the city
just the city or town manager to be a charter officer. >> Right. Correct. So where we would add in the town clerk for example would be a charter officer >> last night. Last night meeting the
council brought up similar to, >> you know, Todd bringing up take it out al together. It was also brought up that we should add recommend possibly adding other members to that. Virginia,
>> yeah, I don't I don't understand the reason why a council person would even suggest losing control of negotiations. I mean, you set the rules in place and I I realized there was this flippant what I think flippant argument made was, "Oh,
if that rules there, we won't get many people coming." It's always some excuse or some reason. We make the rules, they want to apply, they can apply. And quite frankly, there's towns that operate quite efficiently with the town clerk being the town temporary town
manager till someone comes along. I I just felt it was a very weak argument. And I think yes, I thought what was strong was encouraging the town clerk to be acknowledged as a charter officer and then I would even throw the finance
director in because that gives them all their own separate um departments. I mean >> I'll report directly to council. >> Yes. >> So right now those those members those people would report to the town manager is that how correct now?
>> Yes. instead they would report directly to council. >> Yeah, I I will I will weigh in to just give you my position on this and I haven't talked to anybody about it.
If you go to a situation in which you have the town clerk as a charter officer and and hired by the uh by the council and the
finance director as a charter officer hired by the council, you are going to lose cohesiveness. Um, everybody is human
and if you've got three people or four people who um report directly to to council, um, you're going to have fingerpointing as to why things didn't get done. You're
not going to have ultimate responsibility in any one person or the operations. um you're going to get into situations where if you're if you're thinking about that then in my mind if I was dra tasked
with drafting it up I would say the town clerk is responsible for the town clerk's employees. So the town clerk's going to submit a budget. The finance director is in charge of the finance employees. the finance director is going to submit
a budget and what are you having the town manager manage because they don't control the clerk's activities. They don't control the finance um department's activities. And so you say, "Okay, well, they're in charge of um the public works
department." And if you're thinking about this logically and you're saying all these different departments need to report directly to the council, why would you not say that um the public works director should also not be a
charter officer and report to the um to the to the town uh council. And what you end up with is you no longer have uh town council, town manager form of government.
It is it is there are provisions in the charter that say your baseline is going to be um a council manager form of government. manager is going to be in charge of all the employees.
Um, and when you start adding people that are no longer responsive to the town manager, it is a completely different form of government and the town um the manager council form of
government. >> What does Florida state statute say about the town clerk's position? What does it say about it? >> What does Florida State statute? How does it regulate town clerks?
>> Um, are you I'm not sure what you're speaking of. I don't know that the I don't know that there is a state statute on the town clerk. >> Well, I'm thinking that needs to be researched and presented to council. like we may we may not even need to add
it here but uh I'm still with the you know I I agree with let's remove only and let's keep this in here. I believe the no one is supposed to be directing the town clerk is my concern. So that's for a town council meeting. I'm just
bringing that up to you now. there. I believe there's some uh state statutes and he ask town. >> I don't I don't believe that there is. I don't believe that there's a a statutory requirement to have a town clerk, but I could be wrong. >> Yeah, I would I would say review that with your town clerk.
>> It's not in 166. I'm pretty sure of that which is the governing statute. But um typically there is there are are times when town clerks are um charter officers. There are there are towns that
the town clerk acts as the the town manager. you know, um, >> but you don't but you don't have, uh, you know, state statute, as far as I'm aware, does not mandate that you have any particular
provisions. You do not have to have a council manager form of government. You can have a form of government which is typically referred to as a commission form of government where you elect your road superintendent. You elect your
treasurer and they're in charge of the finance department and you elect uh a mayor who's in charge of the administration. Um and everybody gets a department. Um, so I don't believe that there's anything that specifically says
that town clerk has to exist within a municipality. >> Is there anything that says at the moment that if there was such an emergency like Virginia brought up that the council couldn't just vote her into that position, >> right?
the clerk like let you know for whatever reason we lost the manager and in an emergency the council could say well let's ask the clerk if she wants to fill in. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So so there's nothing really that would prohibit I mean
I've because council is supposed to you know determine what staff is doing and then staff tells their staff how to get that done right. The That's the idea. >> The town council is supposed to give
direction to the manager, >> direction to the town attorney >> and public works. >> No, >> public works does not fall. He he gets his marching orders from somebody in >> staff and the manager >> all goes
>> manages all of those employees. >> Okay. and and that is the um council manager form of government that is the predominant uh form of government for municipalities in the country especially smaller ones.
>> I I think the concern is that especially like the finance director having the ability to report directly to council if if everything goes through the manager potentially and I'm not saying it's
potentially everything's filtered manager so that that advice which I going I think the um the town finance director give
independent advice about how the town is spending their money. Um, I think we have we can look at this for next time and maybe do a little bit more research about what other towns do and what those job descriptions are of the town clerk, whether there are any statutory
requirements in the state of Florida and look at this. But I think we all agree that it should stay in the charter, take out the word only and take out the word super. >> Does that make sense? like to make a motion that we keep the
language that says the charter officer shall be removed from office. Strike the word only by a majority vote of the full council upon demand by a charter officer. Public hearing shall be held prior to such removal.
>> Okay. For purposes, Virginia made a motion in >> Karen. >> Karen, sorry. I'm terrible with names. I apologize everyone. Karen second in >> Gabby, if you could roll cousin
>> um Jansen St. John Suchi Stevens >> agree. Lamp daily Bruce Siciliano Sandish
Lakeman. Okay. And then I'm at what what goes in the bucket of what a charter officer is? Does that make sense? >> Okay. Well, by by next time that would
be up to the council to give direction as to whether or not they wanted you to continue. I think we've resolved that that issue, >> right? I just had heard last night that they wanted us to look at that. So, >> if they if they direct us back, we're going to be really running short on time
because November >> it'll be a short issue it's going to be there. So, we'd have to have like a special meeting on the 5th or something. us. Anyway, we'll talk about that. Let's see. We got >> So, our final issue is what
town attorney to what contracts the town attorney would be reviewing. And I think if I recall last time, we were in agreement to at least tweak the language. Right now, it basically says he has to review
everything, which from from the standpoint of just having been a town attorney before. And and don't think of it as Jeff, think of it as an outside firm charging $500 an hour, okay? Because that that's what
could be happening. Um, do we want them to re review every single contract and every single transaction? And I Virginia want to say something? I think from last time it sounded like
we were in agreement that okay yeah we don't want him to them to review everything but we want him to review the important things and so then we have to determine what are the important things and so um I took the liberty of drafting up an ordinance which would basically
take that out of the charter and put it to an ordinance and the ordinance would give the categories of items items that um the town lawyer would need to review um before they
could uh be moved forward. And if you basically go to section three on page 8, it would be any contracts with a total value exceeding an amount um set forth in a resolution adopted by council. So
that might be it that's one of those things that really depends on the times. If we put $5,000 now, you know, in five years, they may want to move it to $10,000 and we don't want to have to do a whole new uh resolution to do that. Um, >> and I think our suggestion
>> I mean I mean a whole new ordinance to do that. I'm sorry. >> And I think our suggestion was $10,000 the >> uity anything above 10 10,000 or more it would get reviewed >> and we weren't going to put that in this ordinance though. the and also remember
the town staff or town manager can can do things up to 25,000 as long as it's already you know allocated in the budget. So this would be presumably lower than that but also
it includes um things that are approved under the annual budget. So, if it's if it's something that's already been allocated and already been approved under the budget, then presumably, you know, the town could go ahead and go forward with
whatever that is. What we're really concerned about is we don't want the town agreeing to some agreement that puts it in a bad legal position. I mean, the lawyer's not going to be commenting in any way about the
dollar amount being spent. They're going to be commenting on the legal language of the contract. And so if it's for some small amount or some routine matter, then you know, presumably it's there's not going to be a whole lot of um uh
potential liability. If it has to do with conveying or require um acquiring real property, an interest in real property, purchase, sales, leases, easements, any of that, no matter the dollar amount, we would want the lawyer to look at those. Yeah. >> We want to make sure those are
>> are looked at and good. and any contracts related to developer agreements or amendments in reference to land use or zoning approvals. We want the lawyer to look at that contracts requiring bond issuance or other financial in instruments. Um any
kind of debts, you know, we would want the lawyer to look at those. So, we're really just putting items into two different buckets which are important and not important routine. Um, and I mean the dollar amount's a little bit um
I mean it matters for sure, but but if if the town if we say let's said five you have to review every contract over $5,000 and it's just a routine contract. It could be a contract for a million dollars and that doesn't mean the lawyers the lawyer is not going to make
a judgment on the dollar amount and whether that's a reasonable dollar amount. He's going to be looking at the legal language in the contract to make sure that it's, you know, there's not any gotchas in there for the town. Go ahead. I I'm no lawyer. Um, but I don't
see the word franchise in here. Is it covered when we enter into franchises with, you know, waste management or is that is is that so intergovernmental? I mean, does that fall under something else or don't we
sign a don't we? Yeah. Typically with franchises what you do is you do that by ordinance. >> Each okay each one is >> establish the authority franchise within an ordinance >> and you would have to over you would have to read through that contract >> and then within the ordinance there
might be you know a form agreement of depending on >> just just checking. Go ahead Cassie. Sorry. What was their rationale for removing no contract with the town shall take effect until his or her approval is
endorsed therein? Where >> uh I'm sorry, back to page six, the stricken words, the stricken line. It says approve strike all. So it's in that paragraph. Go down to no contract with the town shall take effect until
Israel approval is so endorsed there on you struck that. what was your rationale for striking that? >> Uh because remember what that is is that the endorsement means that you're actually signing off. You're physically signing on the on the contract. Um and
number one, um we didn't want it to apply to all contracts. Didn't want to have to physically sign the contracts. And uh I question the legality of that kind of provision as to third
parties. If you enter into if the town enters into a contract with somebody and they deliver services and then it turns out that it wasn't signed by the the town attorney, you're
not going to be able to say, "Oh, that contract is void." Um, so >> is aren't you aren't you conflicting? >> I think it is. I think it is >> not signing but approved >> endorsing this. That's what endorses
what I >> think was no contract take. So what you're saying is approve form and correctness of all these things that you were going to resolut and you're saying here that uh it's not going to it >> because because
>> can take effect even though you haven't approved it yet >> because that that provision says and shall endorse on each his or her approval of the form and correctness thereof. No contract with the town shall take effect until his or her approval is
so endorsed. So that all goes to the endorsement. The approval of the form and correctness of the contract still has to to be there. >> No contract will take effect by you. Does it not need to be? That was my question. >> We need you to put that in there or not.
No, it >> it complicates the whole >> I don't think it's I don't think it's enforcable, but um you know, because I've I've seen situations where where uh folks have entered into contracts and
then the lawyer on the back end has said, "Oh, well, we didn't endorse that one." And you go like, "What?" Well, so yeah, but so with respect to the approve the form and correctness, there will be a form contract
um that that would be out there and >> well, not necessarily a >> always a form contract. There could be >> No, but contract >> well >> that just means >> how it comes over in this form, >> right? Well, yeah. And I'm also thinking
about when we have form contracts out there um for uh professional services or something along those lines and it doesn't and it does not rise the level of the materiality. They're using that form.
>> The the form is approved. Don't need to review the business aspects of that. Virginia Okay, so I have three questions and
let's start with forms because as we all know there's plenty of boiler plate forms out there. I work in real estate. I am always told the only person that can change this contract is the other party or their attorney.
So there are times where the attorney must review a boilerplate form. Um >> Oh yeah. >> Yes. what's in the ordinance. >> Okay. If >> it's more than a certain boundary. >> Okay. Um that kind of leaves wiggle room
for a lawsuit. But um the next question is on page six in the area where there was strikeout. It says and shall endorse uh hold on. Sorry, my eyes are and shall endorse on each his or her approval of
the form that struck. Um my question is the town has many forms. Who's reviewing these forms that they're legally correct is and if we talked about this last time when the forms are reviewed we want to know that the town attorney I would
think anyone want to know the town attorney has reviewed that form for legal sufficiency to be used by town staff and is there somewhere where you put your you know not that you have to review every form but just saying I have reviewed this form and it can be used
it's legally sufficient or or are we having my My final concern is are we having the unlicensed practice of law by staff members? And that's a huge >> that is a huge concern for me because
here on page seven, delegating routine contract approvals to designated town staff. So my question is under Florida law, kind of like what I asked you about town clerk, when is it they are acting as attorneys and when are they not? >> I think you came up with a great
example. You're a real estate agent, >> right? >> You have the PLA bar form that you fill. >> Yeah. You get the form and you fill it out. >> But we know it's been approved by attorneys. >> It's been approved by the attorney, but
you fill it out. >> You execute that contract or you have you fill it out. It does not necessarily go to uh the buyer or the seller's attorney because this is a standard form
and I as a real estate agent I as a real estate agent understand this form well enough that I can help you fill it out and you put your and you put yes the blanks. You put the the John Hancock on it and boom, we've got a legally binding
contract and it says these things >> but you have but that but there has not necessarily been because it would be cost prohibitive on every freaking offer um to have your attorney
unless it's a really big number and a lot of those kind of things. But on a standard uh standard normal couple hundred,000 offer on a on a house, you don't go to your attorney and say, "Wow, can you check out this form and charge me $500?" >> We all instruct them to review any
contracts with their attorney. >> Yes, they do. But you do, but they don't. And you still have them sign that contract. And the reason is because it is a form contract >> attorney. Yeah. And that's exact that's exactly that's exactly what I'm I'm
going to >> question is how do we know that form was approved by the attorney that they're using >> right >> that you know the top of the form says >> that was and I don't see that address
here >> we could certainly do I mean do you understand what she's >> I I I I do understand I I think I understand what you're Okay. You're you're you're perfectly okay if on the form contract
um we have uh >> you're the attorney. >> Yes. Yes. I I am on on purchase >> which has been approved by town council >> approved by the town attorney. >> Yeah.
>> No no she's referring it to the uh seal instead of the CIL. make sure they're >> Yeah. >> No, it's fair. It's a fair question. >> It's a fair and elapsed days where now we're getting to >> and that's and that's why that's why
we've left in the language that says approve the form and correctness of contracts, bonds, etc. Tal is concerned >> it's gonna >> Yeah. So >> whoever it is that form to be handed to
a town attorney has approved that form to be used in our staff is not single mom. >> Are you asking like practically like where are the approved forms housed? wants to make sure there are pills that
have been legally approved for use. >> Okay. >> That that would be distributed through my office. Those kind of things. But that does not mean that I'm going to you don't need the language in there. I mean that's that's what it means by approve
the form and correctness of contracts. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Promise of contract. >> Yes. And he's going to approve the form and correctness of it. And just so you're saying I just want to make sure you're saying here and now this covers everything this town every legal
document this town would use. No, >> there there there are certainly >> with the it there will be um there's a purchase order that um is approved that for the majority of of contracts is
going to be there, but I don't physically have to nor my predecessor had to physically approve that purchase order and sign off on that um there are there are circumstances
where it's going to be routine purchases of items usually with credit cards and stuff like that where where no there is an underlying contract as as part of the um
the uh the purchase that's made um that is not reviewed by the uh by the attorney. Right. >> And that and that's why we go to the materiality issue and say if that purchase for goods and services is above
an amount defined in a resolution and the reason we want to do it and defined in a resolution is to take care of um changing circumstances and and inflation without having to change the the ordinance.
um you then that they uh those contracts above a certain amount would be um physically related. I >> I think that's I understand what Virginia is saying. It should the word be unless defined by ordinance versus as
further defined because because here it seems like you're approving this as defined by ordinance. You should be approving everything anyway unless there's an exception, right? Is that what is that what we're trying to do? >> No, we're doing the opposite. >> Doing the opposite. We're saying ones
that improve. >> You're trying to define the one >> define the important categories of documents there needs to review. >> But he do everything right now, >> right? And we if he don't want him reviewing everything right now, >> right? >> Because in real in realistically
in a little bit in your mind, you have to take Jeff being a town employee out of it. You have to understand that Florida expensive. >> It's very expensive. We don't want them reviewing every single contract. We want them reviewing the importance. >> I don't correct me if I'm wrong. I don't
think that's what Virginia is saying. I don't think we care about to use your example going to Lowe's and buying a hammer. That's not what we're talking about. I think and we're not I think I think the clarity that is being sought
is the definition of the word form. Is it this is the right kind of form or is this the correct content in the form? And I think that what Virginia's wants to make sure, correct me if I'm wrong, the clarity is
is that every form that staff is using for those important contracts, have you reviewed that template, that form template to make sure the content of that template to be used has been verified to be legally sound and that
it's not going to open us up to a lawsuit or a lean or anything like that. I think that's is that what you're asking? >> Yes. And and and that's why I use the real estate example. It's the same it's the same sort of thing with the with the with the content. I don't review
blanks or how they're going to fill in the blanks and what they're going to to be doing. >> It's not. But I think the question is is it or should it be written somewhere in here that you will review the initial form templates for accuracy of content
of verbiage. So from a from a legal perspective, when we see the words the form, approve the form and correctness of the contract, it doesn't matter if it's a template or if it's something that, you know, John's
Engineering just sent over and his form of contract. It's either one. But what we can do I think is in this language with our buckets of what's important is we can add in um
a category of documents which are preapproval of standard form agreements that are routinely entered into with the town >> and it has you know some demarcation of it's been approve right
>> some approved we can certainly I think add a sentence into the buckets of both >> and and the reason I bring this up is in the previous years gone on with their own forms and don't and that is my concern is that the town attorney is
aware every form that's being used and forms being used that the town attorney not perfectly legitimate concern and it's easy enough >> yeah and that's not a problem and I think we can add that in. Any any
other questions about what should be added in? >> Any ordinance should it also say or resolutions implementing this provision shall be approved by and then the last
words are we talking like a majority majority? It's a little an affirmative vote. Uh, I don't really know. Is that like everybody there or >> that's that's the typical language that that we have in there and it matches some of the
>> So, no fewer than it's just confusing to me. I don't know if we can clean up that last >> the reason what it's saying is you need four votes um to to approve that particular ordinance. So you don't get into we didn't say supermaajority
um or supermajority of the entire council. You just you need four members of the the folks which means that if you have a supermajority and there's only there were only four of them that showed up and that's a quorum.
3-1 is a super majority. Yeah. But >> yeah, you're just saying four votes and there's there's other language in the in the charter with respect to some of the other um provisions that mirror this language. So it's consistent as to uh
what we're doing. the entire time. >> It's the I think it's the same as I said it was. It's the same language that we have for some of the other or vote type things.
And so one of the things you want to do in a charter, now I think it's I think it's crystal clear that you need four votes, not three. Um, but you don't, as much as possible where you're trying to
get the same point across in a charter, you want to use the same language so somebody doesn't get in there and say, "Well, why did they say wood there and shell there?" and try to make an argument. um uh when the whole thing is
yeah, it's four votes that you you need to approve that. And what's that what that's doing is saying is that there's going to be not just consensus but you know real consensus on what needs to be reviewed
or not reviewed. Cassie. >> Um, okay. I just had a concerns. You're talk about similar members of the full council because otherwise you're saying whoever's there. So that implies that if there's five
there has to be four. But if only four show up there's three. And if >> but it should be also because that's >> not if I go back >> I had one more question.
Um is it easier because if you're talking about buckets and listing the whole crux of the problem is with these contracts is these insignificant things. I'm sorry. I'm I'm just generalizing. Um
page eight when they list the buckets. So my the whole crux is is is insificant ones like how how can we be assured you're covering all types of contracts issues
or whatever. Wouldn't it be easier to identify the ones that you think are insificant because those seem to be the less and then we know if we use any at all and then ex accept these it be easier
and then we don't have the um concern something that maybe was a developer agreement or something but I think I think a covers those because a covers all five excluding routine operational purchases
approved under an budget. So this basically covers any other contract over that it has to be approved. >> And the reason >> sometimes contracts related to land use zoning approval intergovernmental
um real property conveyance those could be $10. You know a lot of those could be zero dollar but we still want him to approve it. easements are are real property interests.
>> Um we use the uh example of going into home detail. So all of us are under the same contractor or situation as top employee. If you sign up for let's say AOL service
and you get a little thing before you can get past whatever all of us facing that same contract. Is there anything in contract law or a term that means like specific to the town or you
know that there's every contract is >> right and that's what we're saying there's and I think you're going to talk about the things that you want to
uh want to review. Um and not the oddball situations. The oddball situation, the really oddball situations that might not be covered somehow in here. Probably somebody's going to ask and and say, "Oh, can you
take a look at this?" Don't make the assumption that, you know, people are going to do something wild and wacky and crazy and just go, "Okay, that's not on the list for the attorney, so I'm not going to have him review it." The
opposite the opposite is the the um I think the reality of the situation when people get nervous, they want the attorney to look at it. Um and this doesn't say
that the attorney is not going to review um things. The this is this is saying the attorney has to review these these type of things because we can see some some level of exposure.
>> The attorney can review >> can review anything and and if it's requested >> but they must review these things. >> Yeah. We are >> well >> but I'm saying if staff has thing that comes out and they're like should we
have this or should we not make that >> well they need to look at the ordinance and and see if it into one of these buckets if it's over a certain dollar amount >> or if they're or if they're not Sure. They go, they go, "Town attorney, do you
need to review this or not?" That put it on the pile. Um, but you know, >> I say I say November 5th is going to be a lot better when my uh where the
executive assistant parillegal shows up. >> What What should be changed? I'm cur I'm totally confused. >> No problem. I'm just going to review back what so originally the
every review every must review every contract and must sign off on every contract. There's if if it's for a dollar, if it's for a million dollars, they have to review everything.
And that's not logistically, practically in any way, financially feasible. So what we're doing is taking that part out of the charter, pointing the charter to an ordinance, and that
ordinance is basically going to say the town attorney is going to review these different types of agreements. anything over a significant dollar amount to be determined by um resolution which the town council will do a resolution. So be maybe 5,000 10,000 whatever they come up
and we can make a recommendation to that. Um so he's going to review anything over that dollar amount no matter how um what kind of contract it is. But then even if it's under that dollar amount or for no dollar amount,
if it has to do with real estate transactions, um intergovernmental transactions, bonds, debt servicing type agreements, leases, easements, those he's going to approve. And then we're gonna add in one more bucket into
this list, which is he's going to basically have a a list of uh form town documents that are attorney approved, such as purchase agreements and whatever else would fall in there. We can put
some are you ask me to take the language that contract out of the charter or We have to convey the town attorney set for
>> correct. Okay. >> Correct. >> There still would be language. >> The language of the charter the new language set would say approve the form and correctness of contracts, bonds and other instruments in which the town is concerned as further defined by ordinance or resolution adopted by the
town council. Any ordinance implementing this position provision would have to be approved by affirmative vote of no than four members of the town council. So that's what the new charter would say and it would point to this ordinance and this is the proposed ordinance along
with the one other item we would have. >> Make sense? >> Why would we just leave it in the charter and then say with these exceptions? Well, you would need to put the exceptions in the in the charter
>> would be just pretty much a, right? Because that's what we were talking about before. >> It seems so >> in my mind anyway. I don't understand why this whole ordinance wouldn't just be a because B doesn't fall within A. >> If you didn't have A, then that may if
it's a real property transaction for Z or less than the dollar amount chosen, then that wouldn't be included in that. That's why we need the different >> we need to cover these different areas. Well, then with these exceptions, it didn't it's a lot harder to change it
than >> right in the event we think of another bucket or we come up with something else which it's a lot easier to do that in ordinance than it is to change the charms creating a >> right
>> and that's dollar amount even in the because that amount could change easily. >> Yeah. And and one of the things about all these charter amendments is um you do want to keep it simple and not
complex. And that's the problem with listing everything in there. Um because the if the council approves it, that doesn't make it a charter amendment. It has to go to the voters. the voters are going to take a look at this um and
they're going to look at it quickly and it's going to be it's going to be up to the influencers in the community which includes the the council um to say this
is a good thing or or a bad thing. Um and that's how that's how typically these things get done. if if everybody had goes into the level of detail that we're going into,
um it's nothing it's not going to pass. There's no way it's going to pass. And and so, you know, there is there is something about keeping it as simple as possible. And if you if you stuck all this item in the that's in the ordinance in the
in the charter amendment to kind of try to explain it, you're I think you end up wasting wasting time. So I thought
what what led us to this point that all of a sudden we had this issue of concerned about a hammer for clothes that's I'm just but we we've been in town since 2006 and we've never had a problem in all
those years about all these because this language has obviously been in there since we were in town. So what led us to being concerned about having to to make it what you say more easily changeable >> because people started asking about very
particular types of you know whether whether there was whether whether there was signoffs and then you got into the discussion when uh Glenn was the the attorney as to well what does that in what does that include and the reality
was that no Glenn had not signed off on all purchase orders um and those kind of things. He hadn't reviewed it. Nobody expected him to do that. He didn't expect to do that. And so what you get to is when somebody's going to look at that charter language and say, "Are you
adhering to that charter language? Are you adhering to the literal interpretation of that charter language?" The answer was no. And so and so we are we are loosening the legal version verbiage. So, so, so it we're we're
we're having it be practical. >> What I'm saying it's all of us is we have to be able to make that people understand what caused this to change. Is this something because there's a lot
of lack of trust in government anyway? So, what caused that? What is the protection that we have? Because I think that's everybody's concern is the protection. So those are going to have to be arguments that council you relate to council so that they can relate to
people so that the people. >> Yeah. >> Because I'm confused even sitting here and then she brings up something she brings up something. It's like what's caused all this? So that's my >> it's it's it's because >> it's it's I think it I think what the
problem is you're all reasonable people >> and you go and you go of course of course Jeff doesn't have to or the town attorney doesn't have to review a $50 purchase at Publix or a $200 purchase at
um Lowe's um or you know any of any of those kind of things. And no, we don't really want him to specifically review the um repair contract, you know, when they're putting new tires on the the
truck, all those kind of things. Cuz that's stuff that everybody does every day. And of course, we don't go to the lawyer and ask for that. But the language
when you understand what contract is covers all of those things. And so I understand it's difficult for you because you're going that's not reasonable and you're you're viewing it with a reasonable or rational
um perspective. But the the charter doesn't say, "Well, accept all that stuff that we, you know, understand that nobody's going to have their attorney review." And and because and that's why I said
in in my experience, the majority of charters don't include this language. Some of them do, and it is It's antiquated. It goes back to
uh a time where there was snail mail and you could think about things and you know, nobody nobody thought of uh the very particular language. They're thinking of contract in the sense that
you would think of a contract. There's a document that I need to have my attorney review. not not as well. Every purchase is a a contract under the UCCC. >> Yeah. >> And just so you know, when I drafted this,
I've been general counsel for a number of companies and I thought to myself, what kind of contract, if they brought it to me, would I say, "Oh my god, why are you giving this to me?" versus what kind of contract would I say? You mean you sign that without me
looking at it? And that is literally the lens through which I looked at these types of buckets because um you know that's really what we want him looking at. And again, remember he's not looking at the dollar. He's not looking at the blanks we're filling in of the dollar
amounts. He's not approving that so and so could spend $500,000 on this. He's looking at the form of the contract. That's it. So, um, realistically, we just want to make sure that there's not a big gotcha out there for the town on a
big dollar amount. And that's what a covers. Anything over that small dollar amount, he's going to have to look at. And then any other, and we're calling them high consequence contracts. That's the definition up here. And these all fall in we we consider all these high
consequence contracts. And if there's any other types of contracts like I had other ideas and thoughts and worked on this for many hours going through looking at my old files of what kind of things we looked at and this is really
what we you know what I came up with and then Jeff even added in a couple >> we had good discussion about it was productive >> specifically related to the town. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. But I I think this makes it more realistic
and and able to be followed which the current one is not able to be followed to the letter. So >> I think it's great. We have attorneys on the field. >> So um we only have 10 minutes left. Did
we get a motion on >> I was just going to ask >> um and is the motion would be also adding in that other um >> standard >> standard form contracts that there would be a basically like a database of
standard form contracts that will be pre-approved by you know town council >> vernacular sir She said that >> I'm going to make a motion. Yeah, >> I'm going to make a motion that we
approve um a recommendation related to the town attorney review of contracts with the exception of adding in um we'll make it paragraph F. um on page eight below section three that will
include um the town attorney's approval of standard form contracts for use within the town such as town purchase orders and approve standard.
>> Yeah, I mean we can use IE like examples. It's fine. >> Did you get all that Gabby to take? Did we have a second? >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Second. Second by Joan Alley.
>> Do we need the roll call? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Jansen St. John Sichi Stevens >> a >> Clint or plant sorry >> Dailyy
Bruce Siciliano Sandish Lakeman. >> I have the g. So any shoes? I think that was it. I I think that's it on the confirmation of the
next meeting date. Um I want to say I think you guys have done a great job. I think we have wrapped things up and unless the council directs us to come back and look at any particular issue. I
don't think there is a next meeting date. If there were, if they did, if the council does do that, we're going to get together >> on November 5th if that's acceptable to the
>> There's you guys finished up. I don't think there is anything for you to do. >> Um, and that's why I'm very thankful and appreciative of the work that you have put in. I think you all did a good job. Um and this will be presented to the
council at the November 4th meeting. You will all get a copy of the final drafts um uh of the materials that is presented to to council. We will present this in
an idea format for them. um the final draft of an ordinance um would come to them on their November 18th meeting that they would have to have and then we would pass the second reading in December. Um what we are
proposing to them is uh two changes. Um no on the third one the third one you decided status quo was the recommendation. They will get all your recommendations but there are two
changes that we are proposing to them. They are relatively simple um and they are not bound by anything. They have the ability to um add subtract all that kind of stuff.
Um but I will tell them that you guys were a very effective committee. Uh and if they direct us to come back um as I said uh it's going to be very short notice. It'll be November 5th. There
will not be any backup materials. We'll just go from whatever they talked about to uh presentation. So I want you to keep that potentially on your on your calendars. Uh, and the reason for that is
whatever comes out in November 5th, we would have to get to them by November 17th, which really means a turnaround of like three days. So, I appreciate your indulgence with that on that. >> Sorry. supposed to be convened.
You're the town attorney. Just I'll throw it out there. >> Yeah, I'll think about think about I'll think about whether or not approval of the minutes is really necessary. We have an obl we have an obligation to to keep minutes, but I don't know that they have an obligation to have them approved. Um,
in this circumstance, that would be probably my recommendation. What I would suggest on the the minutes is that the clerk's office circulate them. Um, and
that uh you all can you all can make the individual comments, not a group comment, but individual comments on the on the minutes to the the clerk. the clerk can then if there are suggested changes he they can either say oh yeah that's absolutely right I remember that
or where they can go all right let me go check because all these things are recorded and produce the the minutes um and I I do not think it is a worthwhile
endeavor for us to get together um you know Um and uh if we uh if we have the November 5th meeting, obviously you'll have an opportunity to do that. Um and
if I end up thinking about it some more and decide that you have to reconvene, um I will buy pizza motion.