All right, hit the hit the audio. Um, and we are good to go. I'm going to start off since I'm the You can You can have a seat right here. >> I'm the town attorney. My name is Jeff
Curts. Um I am going to be the liaison to this committee. Uh but it is your committee. Um with that I'll call us to order and then we will do the pledge of allegiance as it is on the agenda.
So we can stand and the flag is over there. I aliance the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all. >> There were originally 15 members of this committee. Um I think we are down to 12. There are three people who could not participate. Um
and with that maybe the easiest way to do the call to order, it's a little different. Um is for each of you to state your name. Um it sounds like most of you know each
other. Um but uh all right. So, if you want to do well if we could do the the the roll call in that manner. Um, starting I guess down there with Katie. >> Katie cut. >> Okay.
>> You're amazing here. My name's Katie and I'm amazing too. Joe Cecil here. Ashley is here. Karen
Christmas present the present. Amazing. Love it. >> Virginia Standish present and amazing. You could be late. St. John boring. That's usually me. I think it goes again.
>> Okay. So, we have a quorum since we have more than uh nine. Um the the the next thing that we should do um because I I consider that the the
welcome in the introduction um is Gabby is going to administer the oath of office um to all of you charter members because you're all new at this point in time. We're not gonna make you stand up, but
if you raise your right hand and Gabby will lead you through this. >> Hello everyone. My name is Gabby. Um hello. Just repeat after me. Okay. I and then your name. Do solemnly swear or affirm
that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state, and the charter of the town of Loxahi Groves, that I am duly qualified to hold office under the constitution of
the state and the charter of the town of Lockahhatche Groves and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of committee member upon which I am now about to enter. >> Congratulations.
you can sign them. The the next order of business is the appointment of or the selection. It should be of the charter review committee chairperson. Um I don't know whether anybody wants to
volunteer to be the chair, whether you want to have a motion to select the chair. Um, >> you can nominate people and we can have >> I'll volunteer if we can chair. >> Just a little background. I'm in a a
Texas licensed attorney. I used to represent towns in Texas. Pretty familiar with charters. I'm not a Florida lawyer, but familiar with the law. >> Jennifer Stevens. >> Okay.
>> All right. Is there anybody else who's interested? Jennifer, >> just really quick, how long you lived here? >> Marina and Pierce and from Texas originally in Lockahhatche, Texas. >> Locks Texas.
>> And you're a horse person? >> Yes. >> I'm like I'm not I I'm kind of betting you. I'm just like you're new on this. >> Okay. And why did you move here? Um my daughter moved here when she was 17. She um worked for a big barn in Wellington
and said, "Well, I'm not coming back. Don't need to move here." Small child. So >> So you go, >> Right. My husband's a um special education teacher in Texas, retired and I practiced law for almost 30 years. So >> excellent. So And you've sat on boards
before, as you know, I wrote a board and >> I have Okay, brilliant. Because very qualified. >> Wow. If Ally says so, >> then I second it.
>> All in favor? >> Any opposed? All right. Uh, Jennifer, the good news is there is a mic or what I would suggest we do, we'll call these spirit sticks. I don't
know if any of you um watched uh or remember the Bring It On movie um about the cheerleaders and the spirit stick. >> Oh yeah. >> I'd suggest we pass it when you when you as the chairman acknowledge somebody, we pass them the spirit stick and then they
can >> they can speak um and hopefully it'll be picked up on the audio. Okay. So with that I will turn the meeting over to to you. Um
>> do we is this on? >> Yes. Okay. Do um is there an assistant to this? Do what do we >> The next the next item on the agenda is the appointment of the charter review uh committee chair vice chairperson.
>> Any nominations for that? be the right to say yes. >> Yes. Okay. I'm happy to do that. >> Well, there has to be a different faction represent. >> I'm not qualified at all, but
>> anyone else? Very good. Okay. So, what do we want? Uh, anybody second? Virginia not being vice chair. I've done this so many times. That's >> okay. >> That means you're good at >> that problem. Probably prefer someone else. So, let's go with that.
>> Ceciliano. And it's not that I prefer, just I'm feeling like >> she's new. >> We have any Virginia decline. Any
seconds for Katie? >> I nominate Cassie. >> Okay, we have a second for Cassie. >> We have a second. >> How many? Um, is that it? That's all we have are these two then that are nominated. >> Karen, you made the you made the
original motion and Katie seconded it. I just want to get that for the the record. Um there was no second for um Katie Cus. Um and uh Virginia uh
declined the nomination. >> Okay. So that's where we're at procedurally. >> Perfect. So let's um let's take a vote on um Cassie. All in favor say I. >> All against? >> I.
>> Okay. Looks like it passes >> right right now. >> One, two, three, four, six. >> I think there's 11. >> So 10 I think were four and one was against. Does that look right? >> Yeah, there was 11. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Okay. the the Jennifer there there is um the uh additions, deletions and modifications to the agenda or the approval of the agenda is probably in order. We had to get to the point where
um we had committee members that were chairing things. Um but uh that would be the next item to approve the agenda and then uh if it's approved I'll go into the discussion on the charter amendments. So
>> okay so I'll I'll make um anyone a motion to approve the agenda. Actually, I have a question about the order at the time the agenda is taking place because I'm trying to feel a way by setting up it with
the uh what's happening first the um changing the addition or non addition of zoning there there's more background to that that that should come first, right? Hey,
that does that. >> Well, that'll where you're talking >> that that that would be in the that would be in the discussion of the charter amendments. I'll go over that. Um the the agenda the order of the agenda is actually the regular agenda.
One was welcome. Uh the two was the administration of the um oath. Three was the uh selection of the chairperson. four with selection of the vice chairperson and then there's going to be a discussion of uh the charter
amendments. I'll review the process with you um go over uh the areas of consideration. Um and then you guys will have discussion on that at the end of this and I'm kind of getting into
things. Um what we want to do is get direction as to how we're going to proceed with the next couple of meetings. Okay. So, >> did you have any high school? >> It is supposed to be.
>> Okay. >> Pardon me. It's not a charter review committee uh matter >> right to approve the the agenda. >> I'll make the motion. >> You second. >> We have a second from Cassie. All in
favor? I. >> Anyone against? Okay. Unanimous you. Okay. >> All right. The next item on the agenda is the discussion of the the charter amendments.
I've got two handouts um here. The the top one is uh charter review committee important dates. I'm going to start off with that so that some of you understand why you're here and why we've asked you to
meet three times this month. And I'm going in order of what the goal is. If there are going to be any uh charter review ordinances that are presented to
the voters, the next election is on March 10th of 2026. Um, in order to in order to get those items on the the ballot,
it would be um that an ordinance has to be passed by the council and ordinances depending on um how many charter amendments this committee and the council decide to move forward with.
uh and that language has to be given to the supervisor of elections approximately 90 days before the election. I say approximately because the supervisor hasn't come out with her exact schedule at this point in time,
but that's generally when uh the date is to get something on the ballot. In order to hit that date, we need to have second reading of the ordinances on December at the December 2nd council meeting, which puts us first reading on November 18th,
which is usually not a business meeting, but it will be in this case if there are amendments to to consider. Um, because the recommendations of this body would come to the council at their November
4th meeting. Um, which is why we're asking you to meet on uh today, October 22nd and October 29th. Um, >> has to be as a referend we might suggest.
>> Yeah. And and before you can do the referendum, you actually have to pass a an ordinance or ordinances um which would be considered and you develop ballot language um questions for the uh
the electorate to to vote on the very briefly. Um the next the the next um item is the Florida statutes 166031 that covers charter amendments. It's a
very simple process when um the governing body or the town council's involved. It's just what I went over. they have to pass it by ordinance um and have the election
um a referendum election confirming that it's the blue one here. Sorry. So, I just wanted to let you know what you're un what you're operating under and um the dates that are involved um and
let the record reflect that Mr. Herity is here. So, we have all 12 of the uh committee members in place. Um so, with that, that's that's why there's
an urgency to to this. Um we need to get information uh to the council so that they can make a determination as to whether or not they want to move forward with the ordinances. Jeff, uh, very briefly, can we have him just do the oath really quickly with the
>> That makes sense. Yes. >> Right here. Were you'll take two two seconds? >> Yeah. Um, okay. So, I your name
do solemnly swear or affirm that I will protect or that I will support, protect, and defend Yeah, let me just read it. >> The constitution that govern the United States and the state and the charter of town grow. I am duly qualified to hold
office under the con of the state and charter of the town box grows. But I will well and faithfully perform the duties of committee member upon which I am now about to enter. Okay. Sorry, Jeff. >> Okay.
>> Um, this committee was uh created by virtue of a resolution. The resolution is uh attached. Um, this is not a complete charter review. Uh the council has given
direction to focus on three potential um areas. They have not made any declaration as to whether whether or what you should come up with. Um so it
may be that in some of these areas you will quickly go through and say no I think the charter is fine. We don't need to amend it. And that can be the committee recommendation. There may be things that you will say well we want to
delve into that and some of them may be relatively simple to deal with. Others will take more discussion as to how you're actually going to formulate this. Um I will be listening to you. I will
try to come up with drafts of um ordinances or language that would amend the the charter so that uh you can review that and see if I've gotten what you want to to change
uh correctly and in a correct format. Um there is no particular rhyme or reason to the uh one two three. In other words, um the consideration of the super majority voting requirements within the
charter um is not was not deemed to be the most important thing. Um uh it is uh the election in terms of office and uh potential to have more staggered elections that is not uh more important
than consideration of the on attorney's role in approving all contracts. Um we can take these items in whatever order the committee uh wants to address. I
suspect that if there are any changes that you want to to get into, uh the the most complex change um would have to do with uh the terms of
office and the elections and the possibility of not having an election every year or possibly extending or reducing the um the length of the terms. um because we're going to have to figure
out what seats get extended or how how to get there if that is something that you want to to entertain. Um most of the other things uh for example, if you don't believe that um something should
be a super majority uh vote, that means that they would require at least four affirmative votes. That's a pretty simple drafting change. I can change four to three pretty quickly. Um or supermajority to majority or just say
majority and say that um if there's a quorum there, something could pass on a two to one vote. Most of the things that we deal with um can actually be passed in that fashion. um a quorum is three
for the council and if the majority of the quorum voted in favor of um something that didn't require a supermajority vote, those two votes would implement the action. Um and with
respect to uh the town attorney's role in approving all contracts, um we can talk about that. But once again, um alterations to to that um either by
fixing a higher dollar amount if if you want to make a change. um it's a relatively simple um change or deletion of it from the charter um is also a
simple thing. Um so I suspect that the the item that is going to take the most amount of discussion if you want to take it up has to do with um the terms and the elections that occur every year. If you don't want to take it up then that's
real simple too. Um, so you have had a chance to to review the background uh materials. Um, I will turn it back over to the the chair uh to lead us through in whatever order um you
want. I'll be here to answer questions. Um, but uh this is an opportunity for you to give us guidance or me guidance. I I would recommend that we start with the third, which is having the town
attorney approve all contracts. I think that's probably the simplest one to get through. Um, I do think I have a couple of questions for you, Jeff, if you can just give us some of the categories of contracts that you're having to review now that that you would say, I
absolutely need to review these versus the categories of contracts that you would say, um, I don't know why I'm looking at this. This is standard form stuff that is not a problem. Anyone should be able to sign. >> Well, there's there's a couple things that to me is problematic and I think
was problematic for former council um when it comes to to the language because it doesn't say you just have to approve the contracts. It says you have to endorse them. that suggests that I'm physically signing or docuigning
every single contract that comes forward. Now, approving the form of the contract, that's relatively simple because most of the operations are form contracts. Um, there is uh form
easements, all kinds of things that we get into. And so if it is simply to approve the form of the contracts, that's that's fine. But then when you recognize, as a couple of the lawyers in in the room will probably probably
recognize that every purchase that anybody makes is actually a contract. We don't think about it in those terms. But what we learned in law school is that if I go and um I order a meal at a restaurant
and I and I get that that was a contract that was established. Um if if somebody makes a um somebody at the town goes to Home Depot and purchases a
screwdriver on the credit card because the old screwdriver broke and they needed one. There's a contract that is formed via that purchase. There are also a lot of contracts that as someone's signing into their software, those like wraparound
contracts that you just hit yes to those are actual legally binding contracts that you're signing essentially. >> Yeah. >> So, and so it is impossible to operate and meet the letter of
this charter provision. >> Draw a line between what's necessary. So, how do we as as a committee decide where it is that it's important that you sign something and where it's not
important necessarily because >> so just just as an initial I would say there's a couple of different ways we could look at it. Number one is going to be a dollar amount. So, we can come up with a a dollar amount, whether that's $1,000 or $5,000 or some amount that we
say that's significant enough that we want the lawyer looking at it. But then we can also include items that have no dollar amount, for example, that may or maybe a $10 amount when you're um giving some sort of an easement to the town, right?
um that have to do with land use or land transfers that we would want the town attorney looking at every single one of those. So, it doesn't necessarily have to be a dollar. It can be a dollar amount >> unless it also has to do with these 1 2
3 4 five things >> and or whatever they are that we would want the lawyer to look at no matter what the dollar amount and it may not even be a dollar amount. It may be >> it might just be an exchange. >> Yeah, it may be something else. um some other consideration. So, so I would say
the first thing we would probably I would recommend certainly that there be some dollar amount threshold. I mean, we don't want him having to go to Home Depot with the you know with the guy like that doesn't make any sense, right? So, >> determine what the
>> it's a it's >> Yeah, no, I understand. Um what is uh sorry um maybe the first thing to do is to to determine not the letter of the law here which I I think agreeing to contracts
while I understand that a credit card purchase is a contract and a meal is a contract with the restaurant that seems like a pretty extreme read of this >> that maybe what we should do is is agree on what the not the letter of the law but the what it was in the intent was
and then we can back into whether that's a dollar amount or a contract structure or some other construct to limit so that that the sort of letter reading of
contract is uh can be of dialed back. >> Yeah. Sure. >> So I think for sure it he should not lawyers don't normally endorse contracts. Normally they approve them as to form. They've looked at it. They
approve the form and then the person at the city responsible to the city then would sign the contract is normally what should be done. So I I would agree with Jeff that he shouldn't be endorsing these contracts. he should be approving the contract, proving as the form and
then having somebody at the city, the city manager, whoever's authorized at the city to sign the contract, then signing the contract. >> Right. >> That would be my >> Yeah. And I to to Sam's comment on
understanding the uh intent of the charter amendment. That's one of the problems with putting things in um charters when you're dealing with regular business because
uh they are this this document is the constitution of uh the town and it is not necessarily subject to interpretation when the plain words are there. So, one of the first
considerations is whether or not this kind of a provision about somebody's duties or otherwise should actually be in the charter. Um, and I agree with the the premise that if you're going to have
something in there, one of the things you would do is you would define materiality of the contract. And part of the materiality may be the amount of of money. What you do have to to realize, and this is one of the dangers of having this kind of thing in a charter, because in order to change it, it requires a
tremendous effort um and sometimes an educational um uh effort to get the voters to to approve things. is what may seem like a good amount of money now in
10 years is obviously with inflation much less um out there. So when you talk about the amounts of of money right now, um under our
ordinances, not pursuant to the the charter, under our ordinances, uh the town manager has spending authority of up to $25,000 per project. So
that gives you an idea of what level um is addressed by the staff. Now within our procurement manual because we have traditional we have in historically been
a very flat organization um and have not had true department heads, those kind of things. um up until up until now um the department head spending authority is
$1,000. That's p pursuant to the procurement manual. Now the procurement manual itself can be changed by uh resolution doesn't have to be changed by ordinance. The $25,000 level has to be changed by ordinance. That means it can
be changed by a vote of the the council but it's an ordinance. So you need two uh readings or two passages of the the item and it has to be advertised. So there's expense involved when you're
going to to change that. The procurement manual can be changed by resolution. That takes a singular vote of the town council and it doesn't have to be advertised. So there's less um uh
there's less problems in um getting something passed and it's relatively easy and simple. I point these things out to you because when you're at the charter level, it's not just the two readings and passage of the the ordinance. It then
requires a referendum. Um so I think Go ahead. So, the language in the charter as it stands now is that everything must come past Juke. >> Uh, I think I I put the charter language
in here and I I don't want to >> all contracts, right? That's exactly what it said. >> Quote it. Um, >> and right. No, >> and and I'm I'm and and so now I mean I read that, but so I'm understanding now
that that means if you guys go and buy pizza for a party for the staff that you then have to approve that >> technically, >> right? And that's why it's ridiculous >> because it's a contract with a credit
card and so how >> I would say that the contract here is not capitalized. So I would argue that like there's not like a real defined line of thing >> because there's no dollar amount attached. >> No, because like we're talking about the
most conservative read of contract and I I agree that you could get there, but like I wouldn't read this and assume that you can't use a an an issue issue credit card without carrying the lawyer with us. >> I would say given the environment that
we're dealing with at this moment, we would have to be really clear on our language for what can and cannot be >> and and and practically >> right we have a we have >> to contract. Do you want to just read the provision
for us relationship? >> Sure. Sure. Section 444D3 of the charter requires the town attorney to approve and endorse all contracts entered into by the town. And so specifically, this provision reads, "Approve all contracts, bonds, and other
instruments in which the town is concerned 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 thereon. So
endorsement means signature. So no contract. Contract means you know offer acceptance and consideration which is the most basic um terms in a contract. And so I mean I think I I I like the idea of a dollar amount. I think that's
um that's an intelligent way to do it. how we how we do it. Obviously, as Jeff was explaining, we don't want to put a dollar amount in the actual charter because that's fixed, that's hard to change, that's expensive, that takes a long time. So, either in an ordinance,
maybe the language in here can be um you know, more generalized as to amount and then the restrictive um words would be in the ordinance or in the procurement manual just depending on how what the dollar amount we want to put in there is. So I I think that's maybe a first
step. Um so >> Virginia, no I did not. Um, so I agree with you on some things, but if you're going to change it, like with that, maybe a dollar amount, you put a um a subsection like subsection A because the
way I'm reading it, and I know your literal interpretation is I can't go to Home Depot and buy a screwdriver, but I'm reading you're you're approving it on form and correctness based on your legal experience. So, it's not saying
you can't go by I know your literal interpretation. I can't. But if we're concerned about the literal interpretation, then perhaps we add a subsection and say uh sales uh point of sales contracts less than
$500 or $1,000, whatever you want to say, are not subject to endorsement by the town attorney. Um that's the way I'm reading it. cuz I'm reading it. You're approving it based on your legal expertise, form, and correctness to make sure that that contract does not subject
our town for a future lawsuit at another time. I know there was an issue that came up and I don't know if you remember it and I have to go back. One of the concerns council had or one of the issue was brought up was when you have a contractor that comes out and it's not approved that they can go ahead and act
on their contract and if something happens it opens up the liability or something like that was brought up. I don't remember it but and that's why they did like a blanket contract for certain jobs. Do you remember that that discussion? >> Um not specifically but
>> I'll get it. But >> that's nice. Now I do have a question. Okay. So my two questions the first one is how does the attorney show approval if not by endorsement and then the second you know question I think we
should discuss later not immediately but to the point of should this be in the charter and if it's not how how is it addressed what is the appropriate way to address the town attorney on this particular matter only other items should remain but this particular matter
you know please advise us on how it could be handled. >> Do you want me to respond at this point? >> One thing I would say quickly is a lot of contracts for will have a a signature block and then below it'll it'll say
approved as to form only with the attorney's signature. So, we can certainly have that added to any contracts with with true, you know, people you're contracting with that are not the one-off type of things we're talking about. And then it would be easy enough I think for there to be a form that he can attach to the contract if
it's not on the signature block itself saying approved to form only that would show that he's reviewed it and approved it. I think that that logistically is easy enough to deal with >> I was looking for >> and and to the point how does the
attorney show approval if not endorsed. Thank you. It also addresses other instruments. So on any form documents we would then would you can let us know we would then see that same signature block that you're approving a form for usage
uh and then also who saw who files the code of non the affidavit of non-compliance would your uh signature be on that for code issues also because I I hear you talk about but it says all other instruments so the question is
no no no all other instruments is on here So, approve all contracts, bonds. >> That's what I'm looking for. Clarification from the attorney. >> Okay. >> Sure. So, real quick, I think instrument
is is a like a deed type document, a deed of trust, some sort of Sure. Yeah. Um with respect to to instruments um it is not talking about every single
letter piece of paper um affidavit of compliance that people go through and have to do as a part of their job. I would agree it is probably um certainly applicable to
uh real estate transactions um deeds easements um if there was a promisary note I mean it says bonds um but if there was some other evidence of indebtedness uh that would be there I think that's
what's contemplated by instruments now within the within the contracts there is forms that have been approved by prior council would be approved by me or whoever's
sitting in this. Um there are purchase orders and so long as the whoever is executing that or has the authority to execute it is operating within the the format of of that
document. It's approved as to to form. They're standard documents. And on those documents, if you're using a standard um document, it's not necessary for the attorney, in my opinion, to actually
sign or endorse um those >> the initial form, >> you're right, the creation of the the form and and having good temp. The only thing I would say is that there are times when you're going to have a form that will have parts to fill out >> and and then we need the lawyer to make
sure that those parts are filled out correctly. >> So, if it's a form where it's just a signature, I I would agree. But if there are pieces and parts, I mean, if you think about like a real estate transaction, you get the standardized forms, but you have to fill in 15 things and you could do it wrong. Right.
>> Right. And so and and like with purchase orders, we we try to get the purchase order sent to the vendor and they execute our purchase order that supersedes things. But once again, I think there's a materiality issue um
that that needs to be taken into consideration if if the committee wants to keep this type of provision in here. From what I've
heard, um Ashley's suggestion that you would reference that, um contracts that the attorney shell, um approve all contracts as specified,
um in an ordinance or resolution adopted by the the council is the way to go because that gives you flexibility. It lets people change things as the dynamics of
um economics and need um uh are out there. Um and that's what I would do if that's what I would suggest if you're looking to change this and not remove it from the charter.
I don't >> so what you're saying is if we want to keep this in then we just would have like other sections we would then make amendments or changes or additions like you have Ashley
um section 4 4D3 subsection A um all preapproved contracts are not subject to endorsement. Is that what you're saying? >> No. No, what I'm what I'm suggesting is to keep keep it simple and and say that
the the attorney will will approve all contracts um uh bonds and other instruments um in in accordance with a duly adopted ordinance or resolution. And then we would we would prepare the
ordinance to be passed and then that could be e more easily changed with dollar amounts or whatnot as you know inflation goes up and >> but we could put in the materiality which goes to the the dollar amount is probably the most important thing.
>> Um but then also if it has to do with the transfer of any real property. >> Yeah. And and if we wanted to specify certain things like if it if it involves the um transfer um or sale well transfer of property or
the acquisition of property um or um transfer of property rights we can we can put something like that in there that those definitely have to have to be reviewed by the attorney >> and and it wouldn't be like a one-off basis. I mean, we would put categories in the in the proposed ordinance. They
would be pretty specific. And I think probably for the next meeting, maybe I can come up with a list of the various types of things that we could put together, give you all a copy, and then you could, you know, add to it, subtract from it, at least give us a good
starting point. Um, does anyone object to the the theory of let's make the ordinate let's make the charter refer to the ordinance? Does anyone object you object to that? Please tell us
can't see this. >> Um, I'm just concerned. I I think the dollar amount is the way to go. And truthfully, I don't think the dollar is going to change that much in the amount of years it would take us to come back and do another referendum that it would
be an issue if we put that in the charter. I think the charter is more binding and I worry about then going back and doing an ordinance and who's going to, you know, what is going to come out of that if we change this first and then go to that. I I don't know. I'm
concerned that um that one or two people are in control of signing all the contracts and we supposed to have backup I think with an attorney so it's not just one person getting to spend the money. >> Yeah.
>> Go through really quickly with us what what it would take if it's in an ordinance. What is it going to take to change that that ordinance again? So we know how difficult will that be once >> if if it is if it is put into an ordinance that means it has to um to to
change it you have to go back to the council you have to have two meetings a first and a second reading um at which it is passed and and approved. Um, with respect to the second reading, there is an advertising requirement. So,
a and a public hearing at which people can come in and comment on it. Um, and there is some expenditure of dollars with respect to um the advertising requirement.
Uh, >> is is that is that will that be then the three to two just regular majority vote? Yes. >> And is and that's primarily your concern. Uhuh. >> What they got? >> So I mean when you have the majority of
people speak a certain way in a meeting and they still vote a certain way. >> It concerns me that they are not listening to us and that's why I'd rather see it in the charter. >> Yeah. And and if I can just understand the the process for the charter review committee
and the proposal to change the charter, it looks like every 10 years there's a charter review committee. So every 10 years we would be able to conceivably if the dollar amount were in the charter change the dollar amounts and 10 years
is a long time. I don't know about you guys, but the properties used to go for 200 around me and now they're like a million and that's only a couple years. Um or or it's where the the council has specified that we want X, Y, and Z to be
considered for the charter because that's what we are, right? We're like a special body. There there is a there is a mandatory charter review and then there is a charter review that can be done at any point in time and the council does not
have to um go through and have a charter review committee. Um they can propose an ordinance at any time to um uh be subject to the referendum. And there's also the petition process um through
which uh members of the public can uh move forward on a charter amendment. >> If you could clarify the tools that the town has to work with starting with the charter is not it is my understanding and if I'm wrong uh the the charter is
an overall guiding document. It is not supposed to be specific as to dollar amounts or should I mean isn't the dollar amount supposed to be elsewhere in a municipality and I'm just asking this the charter is the overall guiding document the specifics go somewhere else
has always been my understanding >> well there's a and that you are correct that that's generally the way things work and that's because there's a hierarchy the charter is above a regular ordinance an ordinance should not conflict with the charter
provision. Um, and just as a resolution should not conflict with a uh with an ordinance that has been passed on the subject. Now, there's lots of things that we do,
you know, to to make things function um that are not necessarily encompassed by the charter specifically or an ordinance specifically or even a resolution. There are policies that um you get down to
because there's just operations on ongoing uh there. So, but the charter is the the charter is the highest thing. It's like as I said, it's like the constitution and just like uh the constitution with statutes, they have to
comp they have to comport with the uh the charter. So, >> so I'm sorry. So would it then just make more sense for us to have sort of the the areas in which we think you or
whoever our town attorney may be at the time should you know be looking into and signing off on these on these contracts. and then somewhere else but on a case- by case basis have the council decide what that dollar amount
may be or have a dollar amount suggested by us because I feel like it's okay. Yeah, that's what we're doing is we're coming up with what our recommendation to the council would be is for example, we come up with the document that says we're going to recommend that we change
the charter to then reference instead of saying approve all contracts, we're going to say repro approve all contracts in the ordinance. Then we create the ordinance, a proposed ordinance for the council with our proposed dollar amount of materiality with our proposed types
of contracts that he must review no matter the dollar amount. So like deeds and real estate transfers and then we would propose that to the council for them to vote on the change to the charter. Now once that's changed and if
they what I think tell me your first name again. I'm sorry. Karen when what I think what Karen's concerned about is that can they just then very easily go change that again with a 3 to2 vote to say well now we we can do anything over a million dollars and we don't need the
attorney's review and I think that's her concern and so then I think what we could maybe do to alleviate that concern is make that a supermajority item where it has to be a 4 to1 vote to change those dollars amounts would that be >> but I'm confused how a dollar amount is
going into the charter. >> It It's not. That's what we're saying. It's not >> She wants the dollar amount to go in the charter. >> Sir, and then we're going to return. >> Yeah. do the job that this is doing it.
>> And I I understand, but this the way this reads is just my lawyer mind is saying this is almost impossible to actually do in practice. And so what we're trying to do is come up with the most secure way to make this actually
doable to be actually com somebody could actually comply with this um legally. I mean there's no way there's I mean there's no way If you if you wanted to, the answer is from a a technical literal
interpretation, absolutely not. Um there are thousands of dollars that are put on um the uh credit cards or the purchasing card. Um,
and there's no way that I or Glenn or anybody else would even have known about that. Um, it is only at the time that somebody reviews somebody, I should say. The the the the
purchasing cards are given to very responsible people. um and it is a a means for them to um acquire things that they need quickly um and and efficiently.
So, but within their dollar spending limits, which is generally $1,000, um they can go out and and buy things and um the manager um or the attorney would
never be aware of that specific purchase. Um, we're not going to not we're not going to sit there and say, "Oh, Craig, I'm I'm gonna I need to I need to approve um this particular piece
of equipment that costs $300 that you know, uh, >> you're acquiring." >> So, is the primary concern I just want to get back to what the the primary ask is here. The primary concern is this legal definition of contracts. That's
like that's the whole thing here. >> Well, >> well, but that's the the reason that we're talking about it is because is it just that people use credit cards and >> those are hard to track and they're technically contracts? Like what was it? That's the only example we've used so far. And we I think we all agree
>> that the attorney needs to review like >> what I as a business person would consider a contract. >> And so I don't think there's like an issue from that perspective. So the question is just is the issue what is it what are we actually reviewing like that
you just it's I appreciate it's not practical for you to endorse like what would you even endorse at Home Depot >> right >> our continued example like it's not asking you to sign it it's just asking you to endorse that it's legit there's actually there while I agree from a
legal standpoint there is a contract it isn't written on the slip it's not it's an implied contract based on the use of the credit card which presumably you did review as like in terms of who is able to have the card. So like I I'm a little like this seems like a lot to do about
what ultimately is nothing unless I'm missing something there. I I think it all goes to to the materiality because um whether we're talking about a credit card, whether we're talking about a purchase um order
and a and a purchase of I'll give you an example, okay? A purchase of a copier um you know, one of those machines there for $10,000.
Okay, you buy it and there's a service agreement um that's associated with it. Is it necessary for that purchase um to be reviewed by the attorney?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. And so and so what is the attorney what is the attorney looking at? he is looking at a uh a form document with some warranties and things like that. Now, in actuality, what happens is generally those things would
have been purchased off of a state purchasing contract. And so, you're you're making sure that um that contract is in is in place. Um, do you want
that contract to actually be signed off on by the attorney? Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I'm gonna say point of order.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, >> no. Well, let you said in your business. So if you are if you are purchasing equipment, if you are purchasing chairs, if you are purchasing tables in
your business, do you have your attorney review that purchase? No. Not using a credit card. Like a big contract then? No. Like a purchase order? No. A a service contract? Yes. A contract like
what? From a business standpoint, I would determine I would label as a contract. I agree with you that now my definition sounds like you know when you see it, you know, but like there's a that's but I my main question is are we that is the crux of the question here is
that accurate statement because the rest of this seems totally fine. you have to review bonds and and bonds and other instruments and contracts in my definition of contracts that like that seems totally reasonable.
I don't see any issue with this statement except that I will allow the lawyers in the room, the the room to say that contract has a broader definition than what I would put on it. >> Yeah. So, real quick and then you've had your
hand up for a while. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just one quick thing. A contract is is any agreement between two people or businesses that exchanges consideration.
That's a contract. And so, for example, when you when one of your people log into the computer and they go on to the software that you use and you have to click yes to that contract that you agree, you've now agreed to a contract. And part of what we're saying is Jeff
should not have to or the town attorney should not have to agree to that, review that, and approve that every time someone pulls it up on the screen. And this is actually quite a big deal because there are some organizations that actually do require their attorneys to review those because
um it can really subject the organization to problems. So the those are all there's a lot more things than just going to Home Depot. There are a lot of other types of contracts. Yeah. Thank you. Um just quick yes or
no. Did you write the recommendations on these uh excl what we were given where >> yes I I wrote this entire document I think the recommendation section is it was intended to be um need your input
and direction >> okay so it states that um the majority of municipal charters do not contain these provisions so if we stop it completely what would we need to protect ourselves
>> what would you need to what you what you have it is it is true that most most charters do not contain that language that I'm talking about. Um and
what you have is you have ordinances, resolutions, policies that give direction um to your management team. And so what you have to protect yourself is your
elected officials. >> So I think kind of to Sam's point, I think we all who have businesses or have run businesses have a general understanding. I I understand legally what a contract is, right? You go to buy a home to Home
Depot and buy a screwdriver, you've entered into an agreement contract, right? But I think for the purpose of of this conversation in contracts, instead of putting a a monetary amount in there, because to your point, things change,
perhaps it's us adding verbiage in there that further defines what types of contracts are required for your involvement. And to your point with the emails, like any company that I've ever worked
for, everyone in the corporation is using specific software or specific email servers or whatever to log into. And the very first time that that gets set up with the company, someone is reading that that agreement. So I think
that he should be responsible for. But every single time someone clicks to log into it, he's already read it and he's already approved it. So, I don't know if it's >> right, but if it's something that's going to be potentially legally
detrimental for someone to log into, then I think you should be reading it, right, to protect the town and town employees. And I I I think that is something that should be done. >> Well, they typically send you an email telling you that they're updating their
stuff. Wait, wait. I'm sorry. >> No, no, I'm >> sorry. I if I could just continue. One of my concerns is with the, and forgive me if I'm saying this incorrectly, but you not wanting to oversee credit card purchases, which I
get can be a bit monotonous, is that I recall in a recent meeting, in a budget meeting, there was a line item for I think Publix for some huge amount of money for what was it? Lunches or something.
>> I believe it was education purchasing from Publix. Like I don't know what that number was if anyone remembers but so my point is you're trusting people to use their credit cards and you're saying they're trustworthy people but what kind of
education are they getting at Publix? >> Okay. I don't think that was for education per se. That if you're talking the largest purchased I, you know, and the largest purchase that we made last year, I think from Publix was $1,500 or
so, that was for gift cards that go into the Thanksg um deal. So, that would have been that would have been the big um purchase. Now there are when you talk about educational items there are times when
the staff is brought in for a lunchon um and during the lunchon there is an educational presentation made to them and so that might be the explanation for that. So
>> that wouldn't that be an outside vendor and wouldn't they they're getting built through Publix? >> No. No. for example, >> or that's getting expensed through public. >> Okay. For example, we brought it we I I I just I want to answer her question.
>> Yeah. >> I'm just saying we're talking about credit cards and him approving them. He's oversight. >> Okay. Can we get the recording back on? >> Okay. All right. um with I'm just going to answer to that very specific question because it's one
of the things when you're talking about education what probably that item was um we had 24 employees come in and I can remember sitting through emergency management
um films that were presented to go over with the entire staff elements of how we would handle an emergency. mergency management. You gathered everybody in and when you have 24 people there, we probably spent a
couple hundred on the lunch that But no, but that but you're Yes. And and Yeah. Yes. Yes. And there and there's Right. Yes. So,
>> and real quick, I I guess the question is we need to first decide, >> does everyone think that Jeff should be overseeing every >> Don't don't think of it as Jeff. >> Well, the attorney, it could be an outside attorney that's charging $500 an hour, it could be
>> the like if Jeff goes somewhere else and we hire an outside attorney, >> then they that outside attorney would have to approve every single purchase, everything that we're doing. Now, I don't I don't dispute what Sam's saying here. I mean, I think I think we're we
could quibble a little bit about the language and that's not what it meant, but ultimately we want it to be clear so there's no doubt and so that people, you know, don't get upset and there's, you know, not lawsuits or there's, you know, things don't happen. We're very clear on
what the requirements of the lawyer are and what they aren't. Is >> right. That's what so so we can define that in the charter which to me doesn't make a ton of sense. What I would personally recommend is that we amend
the charter to refer to an ordinance which then can be changed with a supermajority vote which then addresses Karen's issue with a simple 3 to2 can change it. Well, it would have to be a 4 to one to change it. Um that's what my
thought is. Does anyone think that that won't work? >> So, yeah. Okay. >> It it sounds to me like there is consensus at this moment that there should be language in the charter
referring to this issue. I think there sounds like there is consensus that we want to have a reference to an ordinance that would deal with the specifics of what should be um included. Now in this
in this um charter provision we would identify certain types of contracts um you know for example the the bonds and um the the real estate transactions that
they would all have to be um reviewed regardless of their materiality. Okay. So if that if that's consensus direction, um then
if you want to task Jennifer and I to work up something or Ashley and I to work up something, I'd be ha or just me to work up something for the next meeting so we can uh we can move on.
Virginia. >> So Lauren, that mean that that goes with what Ashley had originally proposed, but there was also the section on super majority to address to changing it to a 4 to one for the ordinance for to
address Karen's concern that she brought up on spending. But um my my question on this, you know, you're saying namespecific documents. Should there not also be a phrase in there to or as determined by town attorney to
leave it open if there document comes up we haven't put in the charter because things change in the world things are so that's my concern >> I don't >> got I I just to clarify I think what you're saying is that you would also
like um like the town attorney to have the right to review whatever he would like he or she would like to review in the event There's a question. Is that is that what you're saying? >> Okay. >> Right.
>> The but he he he must review these things. He may review everything, but he must review these certain categories. Is that >> I think I think one I my my concern about I'm sorry.
No, I was just wondering how things make it to your desk. Is there a specific person that decides Jeff has to see this? There's A, B, C. What's important? What who decides what makes it to you? Now,
>> what um it is it is it is the it's the manager and the department heads. That is an excellent question because my understanding is the town attorney is equal to the town manager. So correct.
>> So why would the town manager be directing you as to what to review? I would that's what I'm trying to ask here by putting that sentence in. I would think that's the role of the town attorney to say these are the documents I want to make sure I'm reviewing. >> Okay. Now you're you're talking about
two different things. The question was how do things get to me? How things get to me are by the people who are actually doing the work, making the purchases, entering into the contracts, asking for what do we need in this or that
circumstance. So the way the way things work with an attorney, okay, um we represent our client. In this case, the client is the town, the corporate
entity. All right? Now, the town has uh a town manager that manages the administrative side. So, in order for me to know about something that is going on, a purchase, they don't run every
single purchase by me. they they make determinations as to well we need this particular thing um they might need to software whatever it happens to to be so
they then direct the purchasing agreement to me so that's how things get to me I am not overseeing the entire operation and administration of the town that's the town manager's responsibility
It's not it's not a I am not a co-manager or anything like that. No town attorney is. We get things from our client and the client is made up of the council and the
town manager and the folks that are under the town manager. And that's how things get to us. And those type of things already have a dollar amount cap and or they have been approved or or asked to be looked into by council. >> There are there are policies that are
set up to guide um the actions of the people that work here, including the town manager. Yes. $25,000. Right. said, "Hey, look, Blackbot or whatever
it is we're using, is it working? Let's switch gears." And >> well, the >> and that's how it's been. >> Yeah. Typically, typically that would would go up the chain on that particular example. Um, we need to get a better accounting system in. So, we're going to recommend a change to the council
because that might cost more than $25,000. Um, and the council has the ability to say, "Oh, we're going to change the spending authority of the manager." Um, and say they could say, "We're going to
allow the manager to spend up to $100,000 or >> My question is, sorry, Jeeoff, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just feel like, okay, so now we're moving to budget. I'm just trying to figure out how the dollar amount can be worked into the language
where we can separate some put something in the charter and then leave something out, right? Like >> I think the I my understanding of the suggestion or the consensus is that you weren't going to put a dollar amount in the charter
>> because it's already there. >> No, because it's not it's not there. >> There's no dollar amount in the charter. The charter says everything. What we want the charter to now say is all of these things in the ordinance. And then we're going to create an
ordinance which is going to have all the things the lawyer needs to review >> which is not going to include minor credit card charges, right? It's going to have a a dollar amount that we'll talk about. Anything over this dollar amount. >> Well, actually the council will end up
making this >> we're going to recommend obviously. So, so then we'll put that in the proposed ordinance is the proposed dollar amount of an amount we believe is material. Okay. And then other other types of agreements. And then the one other issue
I think that would need to be taken up is potentially in this ordinance is how do we make sure and and I don't know how you do it now Jeff or the other um town council would do it is how do you go and audit and make sure that you actually did review all the contracts and there
wasn't some errant contract that was signed for $100,000 that or a deed was transferred that you didn't nobody knew about. How how does that >> does anyone go through and look at those things? Well, you have you have you have checks and balances in there. Um, your
finance folks are going to be doing that and there's actual audits that they will take a sampling of materials. They don't look at every single one of them. Um and then uh if the
if there was um something that somebody was aware of that somehow this contract got executed and um it didn't go through the the required protocol. Um
an auditor may catch it. The town manager, if they know about it, is supposed to tell the auditors about it. The remedy, as you're probably aware, is ratification um after the after the fact. Um and you
put that out there and say, "All right, we went through this contract. It exceeded the the purchasing authority. We would like you to ratify um that action." >> That pretty much answered my question. I I'm not crazy about the dollar amount at
all being in the charter, but you know, I I just feel like I don't know. I just I just don't like that idea. >> Yeah. Can I can I make a suggestion that we move on to another item because these
are supposed to be scheduled for for two hours. I think we've got enough direction to >> to come back. The only thing at the end is whether or not you want me to come up with it or you want me to work with one uh committee member. >> I don't think I don't think we need a
motion to move on to the next. I think we'd need a motion if we were going to recommend approval of something. But yeah, >> so >> um let's move >> what's the next item that you want to take up? >> Let's go to the supermajority voting requirements within the charter.
Okay. >> So, there it says there are three um three sections of the charter that require four affirmative votes of council to make the decision. So, our question is whether those supermajority
requirements we want to keep in place. >> Yeah. And you've and you have kind of proposed a a fourth >> with respect to contracts. >> Yeah. Proposed a fourth. So, um, let me go through and
>> the I maybe take them in in reverse order. um land use and and reszoning issues. Uh what the current charter says is that if you're going to change the future land
use map designation or a change to zoning designation for any parcel, that requires uh four votes. Um that's an unusual um provision. Um, I'm not saying that
it's a bad provision. It's an unusual provision. Um, and the the tendency is, and this may be what the I think this is what the founders wanted, it freezes you somewhat in in place as to how you
want the the land use uh map to be. Now, there's a there's a there's a companion provision in the code of ordinances that requires uh four affirmative votes for just about any change to the uldc, which
is the >> Let me ask is there anyone who thinks that we need to change that part of the charter to have a 3 to2 majority? Anybody? Or do you think it should stay a four to one? Stay a four to one. Raise your hand.
So, you think it should go to a three to a two? Okay, fair. Is there anyone else who thinks it should go to a 5-0? >> Well, >> okay. So, so I think
I understand. So, I think as our committee is concerned, it looks like we're going to recommend that that stay the same. >> And that's an easy >> Do I have a Do I have a Okay. And then the And then the next
one. >> So the >> we can do it again at boonies, too. >> So the next one, the town council by not fewer than four affirmative votes may elect to provide for compensation and increase in such comp compensation by ordinance. Um no such ordinance
establishing or increase in compensation shall take effect until the date of the commencement of the term. Um >> right now there is an ordinance that establishes uh the level of pay. Um and so that can
that can be altered by the process that is described in here. The alteration is it requires four um affirmative votes and then it doesn't become effective. it's not it's not ratified or subject to
a referendum, but it doesn't become effective until the next election. >> Um, so arguably what it does is it becomes an election issue. Um, if people have raised their salaries and I meant
to take a look at this, but I don't think there has been an increase in compensation since 2016 or something along those lines. >> And that's for the council itself. for the council itself. >> But not for employees. >> Not for employees. >> City just for the council. >> Just for the council. >> Okay. >> So, so
>> just to understand that's the background on that. >> Okay. And part of the recent history is I guess council voted not to increase that. But so if we keep this in the the charter, council can then give
themselves an increase if they choose to. My concern is that it reads to the way I read this is that some people may not get the increase until the next election.
Say we had a council person come in you know recently. So if there was an increase does that mean that person you know not everyone is going to get the increase the way this reads? What the way it the way it works is if the council passed an
ordinance and they passed it in December and they said we're going to make instead of $750 a month we're going to make $1,000 a month. Um then the effective date of that ordinance the
would not be until um March 11th. of the following year. >> So, and and it would but it would apply to every everybody who was elected at that point in time. Uh and no, I'm
sorry. And I I meant everybody who is seating sitting uh sitting at that point in time, regardless of the date they were elected. They could have been elected on March 10th. They could have been elected um two years earlier um and
they would be getting the the raise. So every apply to everybody. I think that's your question. >> That did not answer my question. You you're going backwards. My question is after the election. Okay. Yes, this is in place. I just want to confirm because
this language seems like it could leave somebody out. Um and my concern is that if there's a compensation in place, anyone who's willing to get up there and take that seat should be getting that money. Yes. No matter what. So, as an example, we the election takes place and
two months later a seat gets vacated. Somebody sits in that seat. Well, are they going to receive compensation or do they have to wait to the next real election? As of as of March 11th, if you are a council person in my example,
you will make $1,000 a month instead of $750 regardless of whether you were appointed uh elected five years from now. If they don't change it again, you're still making $1,000. All you're trying to limit in this is
selfdealing, right? that you're not that four council members don't get together and say like, "Hey, we should each make a million dollars a month." And they all agree and they get paid the next month, right? >> Yeah. There was a town that actually did that, >> right? Like I mean, it's clever, but
it's it's back to our contracts. It's the letter of the law, but not the spirit. But the So, I think I from my perspective, that's the issue. I I wonder why is there a reason that this especially since one of our other points is that there's an election every single
year. So like this you every year you can have a raise because every year the town council can vote to give themselves a raise and by March there's a new election so it comes into effect. That's >> they yes they could do that.
>> So it doesn't So my question is like what's what's the concern with this? like is it limiting in some way or >> the the reason it the reason it is in here um and listed it's not that anybody requested it or anything like that it is
one of the places in the charter where there is a supermajority vote is it there's no the fact that is it is on here does not mean um that >> just we're just reviewing everywhere there's a supermajority >> everywhere there's a supermajority
>> understood No, no, no, nobody nobody raised this issue or anything like that. It's just one of the supermajority provisions. There isn't there is an argument um uh that everything should be
by majority vote because that's what democracy is is about. Um, and I don't mean to bring up national politics or anything, but you've got the situation in in the Senate where um the United
States Senate where it takes 60 votes to move most things along and people are going, "Well, what the heck is that about?" Um, there are reasons for it and most of the reasons are similar to this. This is trying to maintain stability
within the organization. and they're saying these are really important things. Um, so don't take my comments as going one way or another. The reason this is in here, it's one of the places in the charter uh that there is a super majority.
Does anyone if Raise your hand if you'd like this change to a majority to be able to change their own pay? We have one >> into a 32. >> Yes. 32 majority. >> Okay. So, we have two and it
>> Okay. to say it >> and then how many want to keep it a supermajority. Okay. So, it looks like we have >> there there's a consensus to to not deal with that one. Once again, that reduces our discussion. >> Yeah, that's fine.
>> And and having to write anything, which is all good in my view. >> Okay. And then the the final one on this list is the charter officer shall be removed from office only by a supermajority vote of the full council. Upon demand by a charter officer, a
public hearing shall be held prior to removal. So that's the the last um section where it's required a supermajority. So anyone have any thoughts on that? >> Go ahead. Um,
I I don't see any problem changing this to 32. I'm just going to say I because this gives the council. I mean, I understand sometimes this three, but this one uh it just seems it's been hard with a
4-1. So, that's the only reason I'm suggesting on this particular issue. I'm in the minority here, but I would have no problem changing that to a 32 majority. >> Anyone else? >> Same thing.
>> I agree with Virginia. It's three to hire, four to fire. So it should be either equal across the board because it just seems I don't I agree with >> oh >> just to clarify the charter officers
does it say charter charter officers is it is it council members >> it's the it's the town it's town manager and the town attorney. So, >> okay. So, so all of you in favor, unless you need more clarification, which I'm
we're happy to have more discussion, is everyone in favor of removing this from the supermajority to where a 32 vote just a majority would be required? How many agree with that? 32 32 Ashley 32 or do you want it to be
a super majority? Okay. Okay. So then it looks like he would like to keep the supermajority. You didn't vote. What would you like to keep the supermajority? >> Yes. >> Okay. So you repeat >> right now the charter says basically
three to hire, four to fire. >> Yeah. It doesn't. Do you have to have a supermajority to fire them? >> I just like >> that's what the charter says right now. >> That's what it says right now. What we're proposing is to change >> 3 to five.
>> Three to five. >> It actually the charter actually I don't I that's what I'm that's what I was going to look at is to whether it says three or whether it says I'm not sure. I'm not sure. It speaks to
hiring, doesn't it? Yeah. Because I honestly don't know whether whether you need three or whether you just, as I said earlier, a lot of things if you have three people there and that's a quorum and two of them vote, they get there. So,
um, but I'm four or it should be in four. Yeah, it takes three because it takes it is on page seven of 19. It says the charter officer shall be appointed by a majority vote of the full council, which
means it takes three um and shall serve at the pleasure of the council. And then it says the charter officer shall be removed from office only by a supermajority vote of the full council. and >> and and so my understanding is we would be recommending
>> to take that out of the supermajority and make it >> just a majority to be able to um fire them. Is that what is that my understanding? That's what most people raise their hand for.
Sure. No. So So it would be three to hire and three to fire is what we're recommending. Raise your hand if you agree with that. Okay, good. Um, >> okay. >> Did somebody count there? >> It's It's all but two. Ashley, would it Did you Three to hire, three to fire is
what we're recommending. Okay. So, that would be But you you think it should stay the supermajority. Okay. So, we have one that says stay the supermajority. And Sam, I didn't >> Okay. So, we have two out of 12 that would >> Yeah, that's what we'd be recommending.
And I don't want you to take this as advocacy for for anything, but I do want to tell you a story. >> Um, when I was uh when I first came down to to Florida, um, I was an assistant city attorney in Delray Beach and then I
became the city attorney in Delray Beach. Um, and that was 1990. I became the the city attorney in the 10 years before that from 1980 to 1990.
Uh I think this I think the city had had at least 10 managers because they had there was a constant rotation at that point in time. Um and that was managers and interim managers.
So, they ended up hiring Dave, uh, Dave Harden, and Dave was actually their second choice. Um, they couldn't reach a deal with their first choice. Uh, it was over a couple thousand dollars. Um, and the council said, "No, we're going to
take a a hard position on that." And then after they they hired uh Dave Harden, they passed a um they passed a a supermajority provision with respect to uh having to
keep their uh their manager. Um they asked me at the time um well, do we think we should have that for the uh the attorney? Um, and I was young, confident, and not thinking about my
future at all, which has basically been my life. But, um, I told them that I didn't think for an attorney it made sense because of the nature of the attorney relationship. Um, that it would
be very uncomfortable if you were serving the minority rather than the majority of the the council. Um, and so when they asked me about it, I said shouldn't it shouldn't apply to uh the the attorney. And so they ended up
passing an ordinance um and having a uh a supermajority requirement. Um, it passed in referendum, I think probably based on the community's experience prior and Dave was there for
over 20 years. Um, he's he stayed on. Um, he's claimed as a very good manager. When I knew him, I thought he was a very good manager. Um, and then they they they got rid of um, Mr. Harden. I can't.
It was sort of like a a It was not a firing. It was a It was a a retirement, but it was kind of like a time to go sort of thing. And then the the council
um then passed another referendum uh saying it should only be a majority of people, not a super majority. And I think in the 10 or so years since then and I may be off by a little bit they
have once again again gone through a cycle of of managers and and had a a number of people there. I tell you that story not to advocate just to give you the rationale probably with the founders and the rationale for uh provision uh
along these lines is to grant stability especially in a situation in which you have elections every single year that could swing the balance of power. Um once again not not meant anything other
than a an old war story. Um but to give you some background on why this might have been passed. >> Understood. Anyone else have comments? >> Sorry. Maybe we should go both super majority on it should be the same.
That's what I think >> to hire and to fire. May I just my fear about that would be it's a little bit it's a little bit tough to find qualified people who would come to a small town
for a lower experienced city attorneys for it's obviously a lower amount of pay than you know some of the bigger cities getting someone who's very experienced. Um, I don't know, but I'm I'm happy to hear any other comments, but I
definitely think they should be able to say, >> is is that on the >> But if they're really bad, then you should have if someone is very bad at their job, you would expect that the majority of the people would be against
that, right? Like Well, but what you're trying to avoid in in supermajorities is like some vindictive action and you're trying to avoid like constant turnover.
And so I listen I honestly I'm just arguing my point is >> thank thank you Jeff for that um you know that that observation. I think that that's nice for us to pause and and think about things. I would like to know
a little bit more about um just because I'm maybe you ladies know um but the process of hiring the charter officers um I know that we just kind of went through it recently with you but if you could tell us like do I guess my question would be like just like for
like the not the town attorney but other people is there somebody already lined up to consider before there's a vote to terminate or is there just a vacancy where if you terminate somebody there's a vacancy see what do we do? Um can you
can you speak to that process a little bit so we can understand the stability aspect? >> Okay. Um let's let's talk about it from a a town manager standpoint. Um
generally um if folks are adhering to the uh provisions of the sunshine law, it's going to be very rare that you have
legitimately had somebody lined up to take uh the position before you take the action of removal. Um, and I say that for for a couple reasons. Um,
first, uh, the the decision has to be made before most responsible potential candidates would put their name in. You know, it's it's not what Well, all
right. So most >> just for time sake, can you just kind of give us a one, two, three, four steps? >> Okay. >> Yeah. the the the steps are that at um
any meeting um if you had a super majority of the the council or if you change it to a majority of the council um they could vote to uh end the contract that they have with the the
town manager. Um what I was speaking to was the idea that you would have somebody lined up First of all, because of the sunshine law, those people up on the dis, the the council people should not have been
coordinating with each other on something that they would vote on. Um, so for them to have communicated that there's going to be an opening and who the successor is going to be, uh, that would suggest the
possibility of a a Sunshine Law violation. Not necessarily coincidences do happen or opportunities do happen but the other thing >> there could be just something like for example um the town and and I don't wish
that a town manager becomes ill and has to resign. What's the next step that there's a vacancy? What happens next? Once you once you get to and what I was going to was most people who would be candidates to do the replacement,
they're not going to make it known to the elected officials that I might be available to your your town. That's not the way the business operates. What when there is a vacancy, what you do is you usually have a period of time in which
you solicit um uh applicants to put their applications in. >> So, you post the job, right? >> Yeah. You post the job. Generally, it's going to be out there for at least 30 days because very often when you're
looking for town managers, you're looking almost all over the country. um and they get the applications in. Um then there's an interview process typically very often that's going to there's going to be individual interviews with the the
council people and then a group interview. Um it's not unusual for um you to uh on the folks that you have chosen to interview that you have invited them to to come to the town. You
put them up in one of our local hotels and you give them a tour so they understand what they're getting into. Um, and then you make a a selection. That process usually takes at least 90 days if there
has not been any forewarning. And by forewarning, I mean, well, the manager could say, um, I'm going to retire or I'm going to resign and do something else and I have to give you 60 days notice of that decision. So, you've got
some lead time. But usually the if it's a termination situation where somebody has been fired and and removed, there's a gap um and there's an interim that would be appointed. It could be an interim from uh the staff or uh an
interim where there's there's other there's organizations that'll supply temporary managers in there. So I think that's the the general process. Um it could be done much much quicker. It could be take longer. And then just um
again, thank you for um clarifying to this for me. The the generally the term of the contract for the charter officers, I guess for you, for town attorney or the town manager, how long is their contract usually or is it open-ended?
>> Um I think the my my experience um and this is not necessarily a survey of everywhere. um it's in the 3 to 5 year uh range. What because what you're
what you're doing, as I said, very often the the searches are expansive and you're asking somebody to potentially relocate um to your community or near your community. So, there's a big investment in by that person um in taking the
position and they usually want some sort of longer term stability. So, >> our current contract, my current contract ends on January 31st of 20, 2027 and um the manager's contract is up
on September 30th of 26. They were short-term contracts this time. That's an unusual circumstance. >> So, the two situations we had in the past few years, we did have a manager and assistant manager. assistant manager took over for the town manager if the if
the current town managers because we do not have an assistant manager. Uh just I realize we're talking town attorney and but for the manager um there are services that can you can either designate someone within the existing staff to service interim usually as town
clerk um or some other person that's willing to fill that while a search goes on and you know >> for that process. >> Yeah. And there's a provision to do that within the charter that >> so that that begs one other question. So would the renewal of a contract be
considered a termination or a hiring? Would that be subject to the 3 to2 vote to renew a contract or subject to the 4:1 to not renew that contract? >> Um if it if it's the natural expiration
of the the term um it's a 3 to2 vote to renew. So that goes back to the question of the your concern which was it should be four to one to hire. >> I think they should >> because it's considered a hiring when
you renew a contract. Does that make sense? >> So is it four to one? No, I don't want that. >> It's 3 to2 to renew but it's four to one to fire. >> It's three to two to hire. >> Yeah. >> Or renew. >> So contract
>> in in my let's to clarify things. my circumstance. Okay. on January 31st, 2027. Right, Karen? If uh
my my term would end and if they had not renewed if we had not renewed the relationship with a a new contract, um then I would no longer be employed here and there would be no vote on that
matter. to hire my successor, whether they did it before or after I left, whether it's a firm or an individual. That would currently take a 3 to2 vote. During during the course of my um
contract until January 31st of 2027, if they wanted to get rid of me, it's a 4 to one vote at this moment. That's the charter amendment. Okay, we only have a few more minutes. So maybe we think about this and come
back to this next week on that section. Okay. Oh, we can do that. Does anyone have any other questions, comments about that before we Okay, let's >> Is it three to two to hire, fire, and renew?
>> No, right now it's 3 to two to hire or renew a contract. It's four to one to fire someone and terminate a contract. That's what the charter says now. So the question is, do we want to change the charter to where it'll be 3:2 to also
terminate a contract? Everyone in favor of that, please raise your hand. Okay, so it looks like we have 10 in favor. And if you're opposed to that, two opposed. Okay. Okay. So the recommendation then would be to change
the charter to have a 3 to2 vote to it's no longer in the supermajority basically right to terminate a contract of of a um office officer charter officer. >> So we've gotten through that one. Let's jump to the third one really quickly. We'll try and get this done as fast as
we can. This is a little bit more complicated I think the terms of of office and elections because >> yeah I think you're all aware of the the the situation and for for timing I think
we just want some direction um as to currently two people that two council persons are elected one year two council persons are elected the next year um and one person is elected the third year. Everybody
serves a three-year term. There's a maximum of two three-year terms that um can be served. Um although if you're appointed, I think uh the way it works is you could actually get two two terms of your own. So you could serve
potentially more than six years. That aside, um it's the idea of there are elections every single year. Now what you have to understand um is that things go through
cycles during for a municipal year and a fiscal year. We are about to it's no on November 12th through the 18th is going to be the qualifying time period for the next election.
So once people qualify and decide whether they're going to run or not, that puts a different dynamic on moving forward and handling business because people for those months are in election mode. So they're focusing on getting
elected. Um and uh it's just a it's just a different environment. Um, and then you have an election in March and you have an a potentially a change in the council, a new council person or persons
coming on board. Um, they may be totally new to the process and so there is a learning curve that begins in April where they get um adjusted to things. Then just as they've had a a few meetings, we go into our budget season
um which is basically June, July through September and and then we're coming up on November and we're back into election season.
That's the that's the realities of this. So there is very little time for people to worry about the business and have stability that they know that the
actions that they are going to be taking. Say for example um an ordinance comes up in uh December and is passed in January. Um, and if you get new council people in that very same action, that
may be the the the item that gets reversed. So, there's not a lot of time for regular business developing those things. That's the argument or that's the reality of the situation that we deal with. And some people would suggest
that what you need is a longer time period in which there is no election so that you can build a consensus and have a consistency of of action. Um, and >> one thing I would say too to that end and then we can have a little bit of
discussion is that I did a little bit of research on this and it does look like a lot of towns have it every other year, even number of years and they coincide with more state and national elections because we end up having a small election, a very low turnout and you
>> well it costs money but it also um you know you don't have a good representation of the town voting on on that issue. because they're not going to the ballot for Right. Exactly. And so, so the question first off is should we
move the elections to even number of years and if we do then we'd have to decide 10 other things. So the first question would be whether and we can have more discussion in next week but does everyone want to see this go to
every other year in even number years so that there's less voter fatigue and a little more stability like Jeff said and if that is the case then we can kind of go down the track of what you have to do to make that happen because I can we I don't think we can do it with three-year
terms right so if we have a three-year term >> well yeah >> it would make it difficult So, I don't I think mathematically impossible, but so we'd have to change it to a 2-year term or a four-year term. And so, that'd be another thing we'd have to recommend. >> And then there, you know, are some other
things underneath that that we'd have to look at. And then we'd have to look at how do we transition each seat >> from the three-year term to the two-year or the four-year term and in what time frame. So, that's essentially the issues we need to go through and decide and recommend.
>> Yeah. So in the next five or 10 minutes or however much time you want to devote to it tonight, I hope it is >> give a consensus as to whether or not you want to see a change or whether you want to remain um the the same and then
we can go into the details as um she mentioned there. >> I'm just going to give you mathematically the way it is now, what could occur and then you guys can decide. It wasn't really done for um the
even years being the municipal big elections. But if you have the way it's done right now, it says if you currently have it now, you have one year feasibly where you could have a simple majority for against whatever some people or whatever. So let's just say we have
group A and a lot of people don't like group A's opinion. They only have to put up with it that simple majority group A for a year. Okay? If you move the terms to four years, now you're looking at being stuck with and we've had it on both sides because we had it a year ago
and now some people think we have it now as well. So if you go to a four-year term, now you have two years overlapping where you have that group that maybe doesn't agree. So it was it it was done every year to limit that as one year where somebody you don't agree with
could be taken out of office possibly. If you choose the terms and you move that person that sits by himself like coming up, we have that one person that one election coming up and you move them to either the other ones that have three then you
have three years of a group that you might not agree with. So it was the way it was done mathematically and how you do it. If you change odd and evens, you're going to change it around. But the way I did it mathematically in the simple form the way it's set up right
now, it left one year for somebody you didn't agree with where you could replace in an election. If you go to >> or somebody that you >> if you go to fouryear terms exact either way, I'm just trying to do a general. If
you have one, so if you go to fouryear terms, it leaves a two-year pocket before you can if you don't agree with that that majority of people that happen to be in there. Two years to replace them because that's just the way it mathematically works. And then if you if
you take that person that is just by itself and you either put it with these people or this group that has threeear, then you have a threeyear term. That's the way it's set up and that's what I was told is discussed. It's however you agree on either side. Go ahead. >> And while I agree with you that that's
how it was set up for for it to be our little small town idea, what I see happening is voter fatigue. I see it being costly to us. I see very low voter turnout and how, in my opinion, if we
went to a longer term, it would allow long-term vision instead of short-term stumping. Everybody constantly in election mode. Um, but it could be easily done. Now granted, it wouldn't leave the single seat out, but you could
do three and two every two years. It would still leave the switch and you could rotate those two and three so that you have a different group in. I mean, because voting is still voting, like it's whether you somebody you like or somebody you don't like, they're still
going to get in on the odd seat, right? It isn't I don't know. I just feel like nothing. >> I think you're >> okay. To me, this is all very complicated. I don't know why we can't just >> vote for town council every two years
and if we like you, you can stay for another two years and if we don't like you, you have to leave and someone else comes in. >> No. So, so that I mean that's an option I guess but but but that would realistically that that
is a bit difficult because there is some value to sort of institutional knowledge of of what's going on in the town and to have a complete turnover of the entire town council every two years which could happen. I I think that would really
create some problems. That's just my two cents. Um, but I I get the point and maybe maybe the recommendation is we do two-year terms and it's, you know, staggered somehow instead. >> I mean, we want to love all our council
members. So, if we love you, >> you're going to stay for another two years, but yeah, maybe we stagger them. So, >> and there may be people who don't also don't want to run because three or four years is too long of a commitment. Um, I can I can see that happening as well. So
definitely things to to think about. >> You had a two. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um I I know we're a very small community, what 3,200 people and to come up with a the very small percentage of people that are willing to run. I mean this was supposed to be 15
of us and we couldn't even do that. I don't think you should um penalize somebody that gets all fired up to run because I know a couple of council members past and present uh as an example got on because they got really
ticked off about code enforcement and figured out the only way to change it is to get on council. So why have that person sit on their hands for long any longer? I think it's perfect the way it's set up right now. And I detest the use of the term voter fatigue. I
consider voting a privilege and I will exercise my privilege daily if I have to. And I think we all agree with you because we're here, but in general, I think people that just the turnout numbers themselves, and we can do some
research, but that speaks for themselves. You're going to get much lower turnout in the even number years than the odd number year. I mean the odd number years and the even number years. >> Thank you Ashley. So sorry we're almost done. >> One one quick thing. Um and I think um
good night. Um also and I tried to get into this and research more and more of our properties are being sold to people that are seasonal. You know, very wealthy horse people. They're not going to be around here anyway. they're not um
citizens of the town to be able to to to vote or run. So that contributes I believe to the low v voter turnout. Okay, we're we're we're at 602. I know we're supposed to run to six. Why don't
we why don't we table this for next week that section? We could just do one. How many people just >> I didn't see you. Did you put give your hand up?
>> Yeah. I mean, I I understand the point, but it's going to make it difficult. So, >> yearly. It's yearly. So you don't want to do that year. >> No, you run for three years.
>> The focus when they are in like the bigger picture. >> Understood. >> That sounds like we're just over 50%. >> What we did I don't feel like we had enough discussion about that. Let's may
maybe come back next week and we'll we'll start with that one since we got so little done. We >> 22nd or two weeks, I'm sorry. >> Gotcha. Okay.
>> I'll buy some more options with respect to the to this one so everybody understands how how it could work. >> The other ones get some work with Stevens on >> is everybody okay with that if
right okay and and I can send you um just some sample language as well if that helps. Okay, perfect. >> Thank you dear. >> Right, right, right.
Thank you everyone. Yes, we Yes, we're we're adjourning. >> Thank you. really enjoyable.