Yeah. All right. Calling the meeting to order at 5:16. Sorry, a minute late there. Um, so are there any additions, deletions, modifications to the agenda? I I will say that um we are expecting Miss Ward,
>> correct? >> And we were going to the plan was to to add that to the agenda. I believe she confirmed that she's not here. So maybe we consider making that a fluid agenda item that, you know, we can kind of plug her in as appropriate when she shows up.
>> It's kind of like pausing up wherever >> she should be here type thing. Yeah, she's supposed to be here. >> So, whatever we're working on when she comes in, we'll pause. >> Yeah. >> Listen, you know. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> If you guys are okay with that if somebody wants to uh somebody wants to
motion that in a second. >> I also it do we want to do them individually or? >> No, we can do them all the same. And and it just dawned on me eight. We've got to finalize the the ballot language for eight >> and then uh and and nine. So if we want
to if we wanted to add eight to item four uh to finalize review eight or the bot language for eight and uh press from there it's up to you whatever youall want to do. Um okay so and then I also
would like to consider just briefly um sharing something in regard to a section we have coming up. Um, I'm happy to do it at the end just prior to public comments. Uh, what section would it be?
>> Uh, one second. I have to look at that. It I think it's 15. Is that the um vacancy section? >> 15. >> Yeah. I don't have copy in here. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, it just be a I I want to share an >> something else. >> No, an anonymous email that I received, which is kind of bizarre in itself, but it it's
in regard to vacancy. So, I just want to read what I received and give you guys something to think about as we lead into section 15, which will probably take another, you know, few meetings, but got it today. I want to just read it today.
So, it's out there. >> Yeah. >> Well, I I don't know who did it. Literally, it's a random random Gmail. though. >> Um, so do you want to just uh >> like I'm okay just doing it at whatever
point. >> Okay. >> Is the rest of the commission or committees okay with >> I just want to be able to read it off tonight and put >> Sorry, I'm just a little bit lost as to what you write in terms of what's being added to the agenda. >> Yeah. So >> for section 15 >> Yeah. So he he's just wants to share an
email that that pertains to section 15 that he received um just for consideration. It's not a discussion or or anything like that. It's just simply information sharing. Um so there's that. There's adding um to agenda item number
four. It would be a finalized review of section 8 and nine because we're going to review the ballot language in addition to finalizing nine. And then there would be the fluid um the fluid item for Miss Miss Ward if
whenever she whenever she arrives. So those are the three um the three modifications as of right now. Does anyone else have any any sort of modifications or additions or deletions?
>> Not here. >> Okay. >> You need a motion, sir? Um yeah, if you want a mo motion for the uh so I think we would just have the information sharing maybe um as the new section uh the new item three. Um and then uh the
the fluid would obviously be would be fluid and then we would add uh finalized review of section 8 and nine um on four. Um if that would if somebody wants to make that motion that would kind of be the the plan there. >> I'll make a motion to go ahead and make
those changes. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? Sorry. >> There's a motion in a second. No public commentary. Um, >> Jennifer, I'm sorry. >> Miss Jennifer. Yes, ma'am. >> Was a second. >> Uh, Mr. Marlor was a second. >> Mr. Tucker was the uh was the motion.
>> Thank you. >> And uh if we could just just a kind of a quick administrative if if we could just make sure we're kind of sitting up and because these mics are uh we we kind of have to talk up a little bit. So, it'll help Miss CJ with the minutes uh when she goes back and reviews that. So, um
I'll try to police myself with that as well. But, uh Miss Jennifer, would you mind call >> I don't mind at all. Mr. Tucker? >> Yep. >> Mr. Marlor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Scay? >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langford? >> Yes.
>> Thought you'd like that >> passes accounted for. >> All right. So, um moving on to the so that be the new item number three. Um over to Mr. Scray for information sharing. >> Okay. So um
I I forwarded this to CJ for recordkeeping purposes. Um but basically today at 3:35 I got this email. It literally says it's from anonymous and it's just a random Gmail. So
yeah, I mean some people I guess don't want to be on record knowing who said what. So that's fine with me. Um but I read it, I thought on it, I said to myself, I think the best way considering vacancies is a few sections away is just
share it. You guys can digest it over the next, you know, several weeks and think about the larger picture of of how vacancies occur and are are filled when we get to that section. Um, so this email reads, "First off, I truly hope
Commissioner Judy Tinder keeps healing and getting better. Nobody doubts she cares about Linhaven and wants to serve the city. But this is bigger than one person. Being a commissioner is serious business. They're making decisions on budgets, contracts, growth, and city
issues that affect all of us. People deserve to know the folks up there can fully follow what's going on and stay engaged in the job. We've had commissioners deal with health problems before and we supported them. We've also had commissioners attend remotely or
miss meetings because of work, military duty, or family obligations. That ain't the issue. The concern is when temporary situations become long-term. Residents have publicly seen agenda items have to be reexplained before votes. That's not
gossip. That's happened in meetings. Compassion matters, but accountability matters, too. Seems like this is exactly the kind of thing charter review ought to discuss before a bigger issue comes up later. That's the intent in entirety of the email. Like I said, I forwarded
CJ so it's on public record if anybody wants to look at it. Um I read it. I read it again. I thought, how does this apply to the charter rather than them saying? And then I went in the last hour or so and I looked through the charter,
saw section 15 vacancies, looked at it, thought, "Yep, that's probably where it'll come up." So, what's the best way to do this was my thought was share what was sent to me. I don't know if citizens
reach out to you guys. Probably not like this, but maybe on Facebook or something. Um just something to digest, you know, for section 15 is what uh how vacancies get created and and closed
um >> in in the city. >> Are they having an issue with how vacancies are filled? I'm not reading into >> I I read exactly what was written. >> Yeah. The way I understand it is they don't think that she is uh fit to >> serve >> serve uh because of her physical
condition. That's the way I understand. >> I mean, I also capable, >> but I also read in here, you know, about they've had um we've had other commissioners miss as well, which is true. >> And the part that stood out to me is is
that um uh a temporary situation becomes long-term. So, I wonder if it's not so much that commissioners not been able to attend in person, but are we normalizing remote attendance
>> versus physical attendance, >> which can be different. >> Yeah. Which I mean that was my given first thought was >> which was not in the in there to begin. >> Yeah. I didn't find anything about that. So, >> and let me ask you two real quick questions. What did we do during co
>> I don't know the answer to that. I wasn't here. I think that email is really premature because she was in the hospital two weeks ago. Let me come. >> And the second question is is the state statute address I know she's not
employed. Reasonable accommodations. >> It's another great question. >> Yeah. >> Well, I I know that there may be some reasonable accommodations that are necessary. Um I I know that not all of those laws apply the same way to employees as they do to public
officials. So, I could do the research. I don't know off hand. >> Yeah. I I think this is just like you said, I I think it's really for your child. >> I I think as of right now, we just need to digest the information and and when
it's appropriate time for that discussion, we'll have that discussion. >> Um, is there any way I believe we we would be able to get a copy of that email, right? >> Um, yeah. if you received it in the course of business, which it sounds like you did that. Yeah, it's public record.
>> If you wouldn't mind forwarding that over if you haven't already. Um, but thank you for sharing that information. So, um, Miss Ward is here and thank you so much for coming. Um, so we kind of added a fluid agenda item there and, um, so, uh, if you'd like, uh, are you're
you're we're done with that, uh, that item. So, if you'd like to present, we're ready for you. If if not, we can we can wait. out just some numbers so that you guys >> absolutely >> we have seen you >> want to stand I don't care sit or hand
sit down. >> Where you sit? >> Okay. Here. Come sit by me. >> One on the table. >> Oops. >> If you want to be on camera up close. If you don't, sit back here. >> Back there behind you guys. >> Okay.
>> It looks like it's still for you then. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, so what I passed out was just a little bit of voter data that we had collected. Um the city of Panama City is doing the same thing. So some of the statistics that you'll see on the back
is from Tallahassee that um the city of Panama City had gathered. So I just put that on here um just to just so you would have it um because Tallahassee did move their elections back in 2000. So they they moved them quite a long time
ago. So they've got some good stats you can look at. Um but basically I went back and looked at your voter turnout. So, I've listed that here for the city elections for Linhaven for 2025, 23, and 21, and then 2019.
Um, and then listed the primary and general turnout so that you can kind of see the difference. There is a little bit of anomaly for 2021, and I noted that that was a special countywide referendum that the school board put had put on in 2021. So, that wasn't your
typical city election. However, you see that it was still at 18.88% 88% turnout um for that one because it did take place in April. Um I put the cost down here. So I think some of you I've
already spoke to, but the cost from 2025 for the one early voting site which was Monday through Friday 8 to 5 were the runoff and the regular election was 31,000. So that again one early voting site, one
election day site for the city. Um, and then also the terms that would require extension are listed right underneath. So it would be extending the terms like what 16 16 months. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I continually come up with about a
year and six months depending on if they were elected in April or May and if they end up in an August or a November. >> Yeah. So if you did push your election date to coincide with the countywide, they would move to even years versus now they're on odd years. So you are
extending your terms quite a bit. Um so mayor and seat one and seat 2 would move to 2028 instead of 27 and then seat three and seat 4 would move from 2029 to 2030. So the uh if you don't mind, I just had a quick question regarding the primary
and general election statistics there. >> Yes. >> Um are those only Linhaven voters? >> Um so some of those are I can go back and kind of drill down and see what information I have. Sometimes when it's a countywide election, we didn't
necessarily run reports for only Linhaven, and it's hard to go back and look at past information unless we archived it during that that specific election. So, some of that may be just Lin Haven, but I can get you an answer if that's important to you. >> No, I I was the reason I asked is is I
was I was looking on at the statistics on the uh on your website there and and it it didn't allow me to extrapolate just Linhaven. it it just did it by precinct and you might have some unincorporated Bay County mixed in with Linhaven. >> Yeah, you won't be able to look on our
website and drill down to just Linhaven. Even on the municipal elections when you go, it's going to um do the turnout for all of the cities that had elections on that timeline. However, for most of the elections, we have archived reports where we ran special reports for the
city or by, you know, by precinct. So, we can kind of pull it that way. So just for numbers wise, these these numbers under the primary and general elections are kind of an an asterk beside that then. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. But the numbers obviously under
the city election, that's that's 100% accurate numbers. >> Everything except for that 2021 um where that was that special countywide referendum. It just happened to the you know coincide with the election that we already had going on for one day. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> And then one other quick question. I'm sorry. The 31,000 for the cost. I know you you mentioned that was for the early voting site and the one election day. Is that just for an election or is that for an election and a runoff? >> That was for both. >> For both. >> Yeah. They were about 15,000 and some change each.
>> Okay. >> And I think when I looked back, you can see that think five out of the last eight elections resulted in a runoff. So more than not, Linhaven ends up in a runoff. And then uh just to confirm what you're
pitching for an idea of extending terms, >> that's just your pitch. I mean, we could come back to you and say, "Yes, we're willing to switch, but on a different timeline." >> Mhm. >> Right. >> That's just if you move to the evenear timeline.
>> Yeah. Somebody has to be extended and it has to fall. Yeah. So, >> I think you might could shorten depending on when you put it into effect. Yeah, >> for for the rest of the committee after I don't want to take up uh Miss Ward's
time while we discuss this, but there's a handout here that I prepared three kind of possibilities and I'd like to go through that with you guys. Um if you want to stay for that, you're welcome. We can do it after you ask more questions or I can kind of explain to you what I've researched and came up
with. Now, um there is one correction on this though. If you go to the um second page, it's current and proposed alternate a at the footer, it says extend appointed mayor by 2 years and 9 months. That
needs to be changed to 1 year and 6 months. I miscalculated and that was 2 years and 9 months was the term from when he was appointed to when the new election would be. So if you can just strike out 2 years and 9 months and write 1 year and 6 months.
>> Um it's on the second page. What was the uh correction? >> It uh changed 2 years and 9 months to 1 year and 6 months. >> 1 year and 6 months. >> Yeah. So, so basically what I've prepared, I've gone through and kind of pitched three ideas which are actually
different. Well, two of the three are different from what Miss Ward has given us. What I'm proposing is what I believe to be the fairest possible transition and providing the most democracy to our citizens, which is to extend the already
elected seats of seat 3 and seat 4, which is Tinder and War, by 1 year and 6 months. So, their next election would occur in um 20 2030. And then we'd still hold our April 2027
election knowing that if this referendum passed, whether it be in November or passes on the same ballot in April, the three people that the voters choose, they would choose people knowing there's a possibility that those three people
will serve for 5 and 1/2 years as opposed to the normal four. That maximizes what the citizens get to decide on. Um, proposed alternate A is what Miss Ward has pitched. It extends the appointed mayor by 1 year
and 6 months and it extends the already elected seats by 1 year and 6 months each respective to when their original elections were. Um, in order to change that, it would have to be on the August or November ballot.
The original proposal I made can be on any of the three ballots in order to function. >> Yeah. >> And then the proposed alternate B I like to call chaotic choice is to hold all five seats in November of 2028. >> Interesting.
>> Because why not throw a chaotic option in there? So I I think it's definitely important to look at, you know, how this would affect if whichever the decision would go, but I also want us to consider
the data first and determine if this is something that's even feasible or something that we want to do or we want to uh send to the commission before we really go too far in depth in the how it would occur if the change went into
place. So, just to kind of, you know, keep that at the forefront of our minds to to really analyze the data and determine, you know, what's best for Linhaven um before we get too far into how how we would make it happen. But it is important to look at.
>> I think one thing I want to say too is as an individual citizen and and Nina knows this cuz I absolutely hate the idea as an individual citizen, but sitting here in this chair as a member of this committee, it's not about what Ryan wants. It's about what the community wants and what's best for the
community. Um, I conducted a poll on Lenova neighbors which of course has citizens and non-citizens in it. There's no way to decipher that out. But the results largely were that people would prefer to have city elections in November. Now, like Chairman Langford
said, that is one piece of the data. There's so many pieces involved and you're trying to weigh out all the pros and cons. Um, for me as a member of this committee, I I have to set aside what I personally individually believe is best
for the city and put forth a potential proposal for the commission to consider because that's what they asked at that meeting. I don't know, I forget if the other four of you were there or not, but they've effectively accepted her request to look into this and and look at what
that proposal would look like. So, I feel like we're charged with delivering a solution to the for the commission to consider, which is, hey, don't change it, but if you do change it, this is what it should be. You know, I feel like
that's what we as a committee are charge charged with delivering back to the the commission. >> How makes you feel? >> Uh, they listened to her proposal and they directed that we would look into it. Um, so that that's that's what
>> let's say let's say Jamie cuz he's he already have been around 8 years, right? What if he doesn't want to go another year and a half? >> He would resign and we would follow whatever the vacancies policy is. >> So it's that's far down the road though. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's funny you mentioned that cuz I got a whole other option other than all these. But um I I I kind of tend to disagree on the fact that we should provide them with two options. I think the purpose of this committee is to evaluate the data, look at what we need
to look at and say this is our this is the committee's recommendation just like any other recommendation we make to them. They can either throw it in the trash, they can amend it, they can take it as it is uh or whatever. I I don't think at any point this committee
provides the commission with option A and option B. I think the intent of this committee is to evaluate the data and make a decision based on how we vote and what direction that we >> I think option A is don't change. >> Okay. >> Option B is if you want to change this
is what we think is the best >> possibility. So that's what I meant by saying these are your two options cuz there's always option A which is don't change the chart. Right. I think option B is what we're saying is if if you're if you're wanting to pursue this and put
on the referendum after we've done all of our research, this is what we think that looks like. Uh we could even say, you know, we as a committee, we think you should not take this option, but we wanted to prepare it in case you felt differently. Cuz what I would not want
is to deliver them, you know, hey, we think this is a bad idea. And then they're left to do all the work if they disagree with us or they send it back to us and they're like, well, we disagree with you. Come up with something, you know. >> Well, we they would also have the
opportunity like they we do not have war is to have a joint workshop. I mean, we could >> Yeah, that's true. >> We could offer them, hey, you know, we don't think this needs to change. and they say, "Well, actually, we think it does, and we want to have a joint workshop to discuss what it is all that
what all it is that you what what led you all to that decision." Right. >> Um, so there's there are other options, but I mean, I'm open to to whatever everybody else thinks. I my stance on it is is that that that we we will vote on it and we'll we'll provide them with a direction or or recommendation rather.
Um, and it's up to them as to how they how they go with that. I don't know how everybody else feels about it. >> That's important. So, I um I said I'd talk to Panama City's Charter Review and although I talked to them, I got their minutes and I talked to the clerk again
today and they decided, as you said, that they're going to go to the even years. They don't have terms, term limits. >> Correct. >> And they voted not to have term limits, and they're going to vote on the mayor as a two-year term. So the only
difference we have is of course we have term limits for the two eight years plus inclusive of any part ter terms that are in there. So that's >> it's two consecutive terms >> inclusive any of any partial terms. So in reality it comes down to it could be
anywhere from 10 max 10 to 12 years depending on if you were appointed a partial and if you're second term was in this case for example with Jamie see um he'll it it could be a maximum of 11 and
1/2 years for him because if if we were to go forward and extend his term and he chose to fulfill that term it would end up being about 11 and 1/2 years that consecutive that he will have served. >> The only thing that concern 9 and a half n and a half from Panama City and and
I'm going to go to Amy on this one. >> Panama City attorney said if you can do this, but if you want to change the election cycle again, you can do it by ordinance and just keep changing it.
>> So they could go back to odd years. >> Yes. >> Now we have term limits which should conflict with that. Well, it actually says in our charter when we do our elections. It's not just an ordinance. If you go look at section 31, it states what
>> it's in your chart, but I'm not I'm just saying like changes. >> It is in your charter, but state law also allows actually this particular change to be made by ordinance without a >> even though it's in your charter. So, >> an ordinance is technically correct without the voters
>> just to change the date, just to change the election dates. You can do that. Now, one last thing and then we'll shut up. Sam brought up at the meeting, I don't think, and I'm almost going to quote him. I don't think we should be giving ourselves an additional 15 months
and that's why he passed it back to this committee. So it's CD my favorite pilot thing >> which is why when I looked at this for example and I I I know we'll get into this more later but when I looked at the possibilities that's why I want to it if
we end up pushing something forward the only way I could support it as a committee member is if it gave the most opportunity to the citizens to choose the maximum number of people representing them in this process of changing. I I wouldn't be able to um
feel comfortable as a committee member if we said hey we're going to extend you know four or five people's terms in particular when the people didn't even choose one of those people the fellow commission members did you know so for
me it comes down to as a committee member is is if we do proceed I want to maximize the public input on who's getting extended you know if they vote to um like if Sam were to run again and
they would vote to uh vote him in knowing he's going to do 5 and a half years after the four years he already did. That's the voters's choosing, not the commission, not us. Right. So that's kind of where I'm at in that regard. >> And I said I'd shut up.
>> I agree. Please don't keep I agree with the chairman. The data supports that if you went to an even year during regular elections, you're going to get more people out. >> Yeah, you're going to get higher turnout, but is it going to be engaged turnout? >> Right.
>> Is it going to be a lot of people undervoting? >> So, I'm glad you brought that up because I I did have a question regarding the primary and general elections. Um, >> do you have a number for under votes for that? It's on the back page. If you turn
it over in the back, I just pulled a quick example that had a super high number of undervotes and that was for the 2020 general election. That was a presidential year. So, we had roughly 14,000 under votes for a board of county commission race. Um, and then looking
back at 2025 Linhaven, you had 47 undervotes. So, it was 1.5% of your voters undervoted in the city when you're looking at 14% under vote. But, that's one. >> Can we be Can we be after the county? on a ballot, right? So, it could be potentially even more under votes for a
city race. Yes. >> Are there any cities that are on the November schedule already? >> Yeah. Well, now we have Panama City Beach and Callaway have moved. So, this will be their first year this year that >> this fall. So, we wouldn't actually know how bad the under voting in a city race
would be until they have one of their elections. >> But, I did list um several cities that are in our area that have already moved. Um and you'll see that Destin Fort Walt Beach Crest View Pensacola Tallahassee. So if you wanted to go and research their boat,
>> you can look at those cuz they've already moved to their countywide timeline. Um and then this will be our first year, like I said, for the beach and Callaway. And then Panama City's um charter review, they've recommended, like you said, to move theirs, but they're going to put it on the ballot in
November for the voters to decide. So if you are going to move your date, I mean I would recommend you put it as a referendum. I think that's what >> you know you're planning to do. So that way you are letting the voters decide if they want to move their election.
>> Can you share um a brief history on how Len ended up with the April super voter date? >> Yeah. >> As opposed to whatever we had previously. >> Yes. Let me see. I think I listed. So, the city election date was voted to be changed back in September of 2003. So,
your elections were September 9th of 2003 and then it was a special referendum election where there was a whopping 3.04 turnout that decided to move your election to April. >> So, we were in a fall odd year election cycle.
>> So, you were not on the countywide line. Correct. Odd year. >> Correct. Amazing. Um, how many cities got moved to that same spring odd year? >> All of them. All of the cities because they were all different timelines and so all of the cities voted and I brought a
copy of the referendum that was on the ballot if you want to look at that. Um, so they voted to go to a countywide municipal super Tuesday. Um, and the only reason why I'm bringing it up to you now is because we've already had two
cities move and then Panama City is intending to also possibly move. So, there's no Super Tuesday element anymore. Get everybody in April. >> Who won't be voting in fall? If if if we move, who will be left in not fall
elections? >> Parker, Springfield, and Mexico Beach. >> And they all vote when? >> April. >> Okay. So, they're basically in the same situation as us. They just haven't >> determined if they're going to move or not. >> Address them. >> Yes, they have their effort is to move
them. Obviously, >> to me, if we're going to move some cities, it makes more sense to move all just for voter limited voter confusion. >> Okay. >> Um we had this this was the first spring
that we only had Springfield on our municipal Super Tuesday and the news didn't mention it at all. Nobody knew there was an election. We sent sample ballots to every voter. So, their turnout was about the same as it typically is, but you just didn't get
the attention because it was only one city, one day. They don't have early voting. So, it's very limited exposure. >> So, obviously, we have uh I believe the the primary for this is coming up is August 8th through the essentially the
18th is the election day. So, >> yes, >> looking at the primary and the general, which is November 3rd, but the early voting start in October 19th, and then we would have our own election in in April for for Linhaven. What would be time? I'm I'm thinking
timing wise, if if this were to need to be on on a referendum, when is the earliest and when is the latest? So, latest being for the April election, right? That referendum would be on that ballot. if I could get like that drop dead date really for for when you would
need to hear from the commission that we're going to put that on there and then the earliest and I guess it would be the middle date then for the general as well. >> So to get something on your April ballot it would be the February qualifying I don't have the dates in front of me >> their first meeting in February would be
the drop dead date. >> Yes. So it it goes by candidate qualifying. >> It's the Friday following their Tuesday meeting. >> Okay. So >> I think I've given these dates but I don't have them. >> So one feeb they need a decision. That's that's >> yeah if you want it to go on the April
and then June 12th would be the deadline to get something on the August ballot which >> the first meeting would be 9 officially. >> Yeah. So there's no way that >> but to get it on the November ballot it would be the week of August 20th right after the primary. We start coding the
ballot for the general. And if we do the referendum, Amy, they have to have a first reading, a second reading with a vote and then public commentary and all that good stuff. >> They don't have to. I feel like for transparency, it gives the public some reassurance about this is what they are
proposing. This is how they are proposing to change the charter and this is the ballot language that will implement that charter change if approved. You don't have to do it that way. You could just go ahead do the ballot language first and the ordinance can follow either when it's approved or at any time in the interim. I I don't
feel like it's as transparent because everybody might be like, "Yes, gung-ho. Let's put it on the agenda on the ballot." And then they see the charter change and they feel like the rug has been pulled out from under them or it does more or less than what they were expecting. So just for transparency and
to avoid that disconnect, I like to have the ordinance done before the ballot language, but it's not required by >> in the environment watching these these folks now. >> They want as much transparency because they they feel like >> they've just come out of a a small hole.
>> Yeah. You can't overinform at this point >> and and right now they're they're trying to be extremely transparent. So I think that probably be the way they would go. Just my opinion. No, that's a good point. I think those three dates that you provided, instead of us calling that a decision point, that's really a
transmittal point that they need to inform your office of of that. So, >> yeah. I mean, our date would be obviously earlier. >> Absolutely. Especially if we're going to do a first reading, second reading. Yeah. All that. So, we'll But thank you for those those dates. Um like for the
November ballot, I feel like our date is like probably our our second July meeting at the absolute latest. >> Yeah, this would be something like the nonabalorum that that's going to be super indepth that we would want to provide them as much time to discuss if
we have joint workshop, public workshop, whatever, you know, needed to occur. So we would walk that date back pretty pretty significant. I I do I I personally think the November we we absolutely could as a committee achieve
the November day. I think it's pushing. I think uh the April date is 100% realistic. That's more than enough time for us to work through this issue. Even if we win at the same pace as the non-edorum, um I don't feel pressure to push for the
November date based on what I've pitched. you know, it can be on any ballot and the voters will have the same outcome of knowing we're picking three people knowing that if this question passed, they would serve five and a half years as opposed to four years.
>> So, I I think the the reason I asked the question is is this is covered in section 31 primarily, right? And we're on section >> 89. Yeah, we'd have to bring it forward and that's >> and 11 >> and 11. Yeah, but the meat and potatoes are in 31, right? Uh actually I think 11
is where you set your term limits and the election shall be in the odd years is what 11 says. >> Yeah. 31 is really just uh I felt like it was repetitive of what is in 11 >> and I was actually going to ask you can we condense down to 11.
>> It confused me too because that article is called elections but the meat of what you're talking about here is actually in section >> regarding how commissioner >> Yeah. because my thought was take take what's important out of 31 and move it to 11
>> because why why have things in two spots? >> I think just miss word out of respect for your time um if if anyone else has any questions for Miss Ward um regarding the data or follow on questions that she's provided. Is there anything else
that that you would like to go over? Um, yeah, I did want to speak to the runoffs because how we talked about this. Um, and what Panama City has done or is proposing makes sense. Um, because if you if you're going based on voter turnout and that's what your goal is to
increase voter turnout, you really don't want to have your vote ever decided in a primary. So what Panama City is doing is if there's more than two candidates, they have a primary in August and then
the top two go and get decided in November. If there's only two candidates, it bypasses the August and goes straight to the general election in November so that the winner is always chosen in November. So that's how they rewrote their runoff. Um, and to me that
is a good option. I think that's how Tallahassee does it as well. That way you're not because if you have your vote decided in the primary, you can look at the turnout. The primary is not much higher than what your city election is currently. So if you're going to keep it in the primary, there's really no point
in changing it in my opinion because you're really not gaining much turnout. Um but if you're really looking to to get the higher turnout, then look at, you know, moving that runoff language and changing it. So, if I understand you correctly, you could have two candidates
>> vote in a primary. One of them could receive 51% of the vote and win. You you could, but you wouldn't want to do that. >> Yeah. So, currently how it's written, if only two candidates, then there's no possibility of a runoff. Somebody's getting over 50% if there's only two
people, right? >> Um, but if there's three candidates Yeah. If there's three candidates voters Yeah. And it's a tie. And I think you're you I think you have a tiebreaker. I can't remember. Some cities draw straws. It's crazy what not sure what yours is,
but um Yeah. So if if it's more than three currently if nobody gets over 50% in the April election, the top two go to a May runoff. >> Sure. >> But we would not want to do a runoff after the November election. >> Right. >> Right. Because then you would have
nobody show up in December for a runoff election. So, I have I definitely don't propose that. >> It definitely makes sense to me what she you know what she's saying. The the one downside I already saw to it though was um you know Florida is a bipartisan
state, right? We have a rule where in Florida you we have closed primaries, meaning as a no party affiliated voter, you you are not allowed to participate in a primary. Um that would be a downside to this is that we would have
to as a community educate people to understand that you know in local elections in fall there may be a need for you as an NPA or an independent or a libertarian or whatever other party you identify by to participate in that
primary because your ballot will have tangible matter on it just like we will in August. I mean, uh, any NPA voters in August will have a ballot that has only our referendums on it in Linhaven,
unless there's something at the county or state level referendums as well. >> Yeah. So, I just want to interject a little bit because we are a close primary. However, based on our registration numbers, we are majority Republican in this county. Every elected official currently is a Republican um at
the county level. So, if we look back at 2024, all of our local contests, county commissioners, school board, um, states attorney, everything became a what's called a UPC, which is a universal primary because only Republicans were running. It opens up the primary. So,
everybody got to vote on it and they were all decided in August. So, it can get a little uh weird because of that universal primary just because we are, you know, primarily Republican with our voter registration numbers. Um so,
typically we we have a UPC on the August ballot. Um like this year we will have more than likely we'll have a county commission race um or either you know we have a couple schoolboard races as well. Those are nonpartisan. So, those will be
on everybody's ballot in the primary. >> Um, and then we'll have, you know, Republican and Democrat primaries as well. But typically in Bay County, everybody will have something on a primary ballot, even if you're no party affiliation. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Any of the other cities that you said are voting in April or are they looking at changing? >> Um, so currently Callaway, Panama City Beach have moved to November. They do not have a runoff. So theirs was kind of cut and dry. They just go straight to
November. No matter how many candidates they have, they have winner take all. They don't do ward specific voting. They just winner take all at large. Um >> Panama City is going to have the referendum, but no other cities are looking at it that I'm aware of. I know
Mexico Beach has asked in the past. Um but they have an election every single year and a runoff every single year. So there's this interesting >> years. Damn. There any other questions for Miss Ward? >> How often do ties happen?
>> How often do ties? >> I have not seen one. I've been in the office for 16 years and I've never seen a tie. So, >> there's a movie about it called Swing Vote. Watched by >> Well, I know when I first started um a mayor won by four vote. We don't That's the closest. We had a schoolboard race
that was one vote different and we did a recount and it didn't change. Sorry. >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> I like the ends of this cuz it does increase voter turnout, not engagement, which I know Ryan and I really wish the community was better at.
Do you before other cities moved their dates and when the elections happened, do you know of any other efforts that were put in to increase voter turnout and engagement? >> Um,
the only thing that I would suggest is what Linhaven already does. Linhaven has early voting. Some cities don't. So, I mean, that would increase voter turnout in my opinion. and then sending every voter a sample ballot, which I kind of I don't want to say forced, but in my
contract when I came in, I moved for all the cities to at least send a sample ballot instead of the law just requires that we either send the sample ballot or publish it in the newspaper. And to me, nobody's looking at the newspaper. So, um, that's the two main things that I
think that just voter education and then also just working with the cities, which Lin Haven is always really good about putting signage, advertising in your newsletters, water water bills, social media, things like that. Um, to me help, but
>> you're never going to get 100% turnout. >> Yeah, but I guess that's some of these numbers. >> Yeah. I mean, some of the if you go look around the country, some of the highest turnout for municipal elections, I mean, there's some cities that have up in the 90%. But they're very small communities.
The larger cities that when you get up to our size and even larger, I mean, you'd be happy with 70%. I mean, I'd be happy with 40%. >> Yeah. Um, age also has some, you know, something to do with it because the
older population are the ones that turn out. If we look at by age range, >> you know, the 60 plus age range, we're looking at 80% voter turnout, 85% turnout, but then you have to average in your, you know, 18 to 35 range and it kind of
>> you I mean, I analyzed our last election data pretty heavily. Um, and I mean what for me what was telling was in in the May runoff. Um, I was I was one of the I was more older number voter in the May than the April. In the April run off it
was so bad that at 34 years old at the time I was like the 135th youngest voter. I mean like at 34, >> you know, the the number of voters under 20 was less than a dozen, I believe. I
mean, yeah. And then in the runoff, it was a little bit better. There was a little bit more younger turnout, and I think that was because more active effort was made to get them to turn out. Um, the youngest voter was Chairman Langford's daughter. >> That was her first ever vote. Um I've
seen issues >> and there was there was maybe >> there was maybe 25 voters in like the 18 and 19 range. We have more than 20 I mean what was Mosley's graduating class this year? Think about that. >> Well,
we had we had a voter somehow >> somehow everybody found out that that was her first time voting and everybody in their class. I was like, "Oh, what are you doing?" >> Do you have data on demographic turnout versus spring and
fall elections? >> I don't need exact numbers, but I mean, is there more turnout across the demographics in fall versus spring? >> Um, I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can definitely run the report.
>> Yeah, I'd be curious to see what that looks like. is is is the turnout, you know, is it um what is that called? Um where everybody kind of roughly turns out the same. It's just every category increases the same
amount or is it skewed where you know younger voters are turning out in more abundance in fall? >> Does anybody have any other questions for Miss Ward? >> I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for coming and talking to us.
So, >> as she as she makes her way out, I I just wanted to be respectful of her time, but we kind of have two options here. We can we can choose to move this up and discuss
um you know potentially at the next meeting or we can leave it on schedule and discuss it when we get to that section >> which is 11 correct >> I believe. So I I think whatever changes
occur in 11 is going to affect 31 >> and and we're we're going to have to go to 31. Oh, >> we're we're going to visit it out of section 11 and not wait for 31, >> which I mean we literally have begin review of chapter 11 on this agenda.
>> I don't feel like we need to dig into it tonight. I think this was more of an informative session. I think we can start digesting individually and when we get to 11, we get to 11 >> since we're not pushing for an August.
Yeah. And I just wanted to bring it up just for for us to kind of discuss and and and think through that. Um >> that's the way we need to be doing these things. >> Yeah. I I agree. I mean, we're at a a deliberate, you know, approach, taking a deliberate, you know, methodical
approach. I I respect the charter in its entirety to a high level. So, I want to make sure we we maintain that methodical approach, but um I don't want to jump Yeah. I don't think I don't think just following the organic path for this
topic. Um I think that leads to most likely it ends up on that April ballot if it ends up on the ballot at all. >> Okay. And and I think that's perfectly fine for our community because you know that's a viable ballot to have a
referendum on and I would imagine that we will have additional things for that ballot as well. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. >> All right. So, um, back to the, uh, back to the agenda there. So, we we finish up
the info sharing from Mr. Gray. Um, we finish up with Miss Wards. So, I guess we'll move on to the new agenda item. We'll call it five, which would be approval of minutes. Does anyone want to make a motion to
approve the minutes? Moved second >> by Mr. Gray, a second by Mr. Marlor. There's no public for public commentary. Miss Jennifer, would you mind calling the role? >> Uh, Mr. Scragg, >> yes. >> Mr. Marlor, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes.
>> Mr. Switzer, >> yes. >> Mr. Langford, >> yes. Motion passes. So, >> um, before we get into the the next finalized, I'm sorry, >> moving eight before nine. Well, we're we're going to finalize review of
section 8 and nine. I was going to ask, would it be okay if we took a five minute restroom break? >> I apologize. >> Second that been drinking this is the water. >> Second that. I apologize.
name in their county. So, you got to call the county. >> Yeah, it it's a shame. I drove over to the guy's house and the grass is literally weeds were six feet high at >> I don't know how it >> How large of a lot is it? >> How How large of a lot? >> About uh 2 acres.
>> It's a lot. Got to get goats. >> All right. Well, we're resume. Thank you. Thank you guys for your for your patience there. Um so, moving on to finalized review of section 8 and nine. Um so, Miss Amy um pointed out that she
added the word new in section C there >> and I kind of >> or 8 C. >> Yeah, two things. So in 8B um in the version it looked like the word department was missing from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. So I added that word which I feel which I
checked was consistent with what Blanchard had proposed to you. So it just got missed. Um, and then in C, I added the word the city shall not acquire new because I feel like I talked about that and that was u, if I did wrong, I need you to call me out on it
because I repeat that new word in the ballot language that is on the other side of that page. >> We did talk about it in that instant. I think >> we did in the discussion. I I remember we're like, well, was Chief Blancher going to type up this entire list of
current surveillance stuff that we have now and have that approved or is it, you know, whatever. But, uh, I just wanted to point out those two things. Um, and if everybody's good with that, then we can we can move on to the ballot language for 8. Um, if not, then we can
discuss it more. Well, I think the word new doesn't need to be in there because we added the sentence about replacing existing resources due to them not being serviceable. >> I think that was the tradeoff. >> Oh, I didn't put that in there. I didn't see it.
>> It's on page 10 of the PDF of our agenda. >> I missed it. Okay. So, mine is missing that. Okay. >> Yeah. So, that was the trade-off was rather than saying new, we said that they could it's a one for one replacement. you know, if if uh if uh
the much to Davis's dismay, if the ALPR stops working, they're allowed to replace that one ALPR, >> okay, >> without telling everybody in the whole wide wide world for two meetings. But if they want to add an additional ALPR, then that's new technology and they have
to. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, it's Yeah, it's not it's not that it's not Yeah. specific to surveillance. Take that out of there.
>> What was what word? >> I new is also in the ballot language. You may want to keep it there because I don't get into all of the replacement stuff, but if we change the ballot language to get into replacement statement >> again, we've got the 75 word. So,
>> I see you need to leave it there. >> Were you maxed out already? >> No, we're at 62. So, we have we have some wiggle room. >> Yeah. I just I miss I just missed that. >> So keep it there. >> Well, first sign off on the language of aid. Um and then we'll move to ballot
language. >> So as long as we have that sentence for replacing and service not uh you know no longer serviceable. >> Yeah. Got it. >> This paragraph does not apply to the replacement of existing resources that are show.
>> Yeah. As long as that's included, then we can get rid of the word new in the first paragraph. >> Yeah, it is. So, I think um probably where we're where we're at is we're okay with adding the word department in section B or or
paragraph B. So, 8B in front of uh law enforcement. Do you see that there, Miss CJ? >> Actually, I don't know if you have the soft copy of what Miss Amy has. >> Right now, it says Department of Law Enforcement or it says Florida law
Florida Enforcement. >> Oh, yeah. The printed copy has the word but the digital one doesn't really >> in 8C. Can we add in that list monitor, track, collect, analyze or retain? Can we add share in there?
>> Up to go your policy. >> What would what explain further your >> for purposes of this section? Surveillance technology is broadly defined to include tools that monitor, track, collect, analyze or retain information
regarding members of the public. I want to just share. >> Do you want share in the charter amendment or the ballot language? >> Because I track I tracked exactly your charter language. >> Do you have a device in mind that can
share but can't do these other things? That was exactly my question. >> Um, no, I just want it covered. >> So, to that point though, is that you're talking about something even a computer that's involved with surveillance? I can't sure. >> I mean, a computer would already be
covered. If they want to buy more computers to do surveillance with, they would have to put public notice saying, "Hey, we're buying more computers that are gonna support our surveillance processes >> specifically for surveillance."
>> Um, just attached to the surveillance process at all. >> Yeah. I don't see what I don't see what uh Sher would would add to this, but >> Well, you can't really I didn't
because >> because the city right now is sharing >> entertainers >> my information with 1,500 other agencies >> but they're doing that with technology that's already covered by this definition right >> that's what I'm saying >> they're doing that with computers David
and computers are already covered so that's why I asked not not to I'm a devil's advocate but what device do you feel exists or could exists that could share something without doing any of these other things. I mean to me
>> what's computers and not tracking you know you could >> analyze or retain cover computers. >> Okay. Um you know what we're we're at a point >> if you don't want it then we can not add it. I >> and and you're more than more than welcome to make a motion uh to to add
the word share if you'd like >> and um and we can go from there. >> Okay, I'm going to make a motion to add share. >> Okay, there's a motion to add the word share in uh paragraph C after the word analyze. Is there a second?
>> There's no second heard. Motion fails. >> Thank you. Are there any other discussions regarding what's in the agenda packet? So we discussed that the addition of of adding the word department. Can we agree
that that was clerical that was a clerical error in nature and not a substantive error or do we need to do you all want to make a motion to add the word department? And I consider it a
>> scribes there. >> Okay. Um and then um so Miss Amy, it sounds like we kind of want to stick to what's in the agenda packet there with the addition of the word department. >> Okay. Y >> in there. >> Um >> my form does look a little bit different
because it's got to be in legislative format. >> Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot to mention that. Um so the meat and potatoes of section 8 is done. Um we can move on to the discussion of the ballot language. Um
does anyone have Miss Amy's provided two two options here for ballot language um associated with section 8. If you guys want to take a second and read over that and we'll discuss it. AB and AC are two separate issues of
correct. >> They are. >> They're not. It's this or that. >> It's these are not option. This is I'm sorry. One option for each section. I'm sorry. Well, I suppose I could have done one question for both sections BNC. I did not do that. Okay. >> They were different enough that I felt
like they should live alone. I think 8B is missing a word. So, should the charter be amended to require that the city ensure the city police department are aligned? >> It could be is >> like but what what is aligned?
Policies, procedures, behaviors. >> I feel like we're >> policies and practices is what your charter amendment speaks to. So, should we say that in there? >> I mean, we have the word count to do it. >> So, that ensure the city police
department policies and practices are aligned with state law and recognized best practices. >> Is it best practices in there, not the word policies and practices? >> Like, so Jamie, my job, let's be like, I need the document to that I'm comparing
and what I'm comparing it to. And that's kind of where my my brain is at for that. >> And so 8 C we'd strike the word new. >> Mhm. >> Well, it's up to you. >> I would like to strike it because it doesn't wouldn't match. >> Then we need No, it doesn't speak to
replacement at all. So, we might need to place that back >> or place it in there somewhere. >> Yeah, >> because it doesn't distinguish, right? Valentine language applies to everything >> except to replace uncserviceable equipment or something to that effect.
>> I mean, you could just say some that uh this would not apply to the replacement of existing resources determined no longer. >> That's more work than I think we have available. I think we're limited to about 13. >> We can do that. So for purposes of this
section, surveillance technology is broadly defined to include tools that monitor, track, collect, analyze or retain information regarding members of the public but not replacement of existing resources. >> Yeah, >> that will work. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeah, that that works
>> in common terms. It makes sense to me. Um, so are there any suggested changes to 8B and 8 C or on the the ballot language for 8B and 8 C that we've not already already heard?
>> No. >> No. Okay. >> It does. >> It's replacement. If it's additional, if they get three new officers and they need three new cameras, then yes, it potentially could. >> Miss Amy, I think we uh I think we motioned and voted on the resolution for
the ballot language in the previous um submittals. Is that what you >> I didn't provide you a resolution. I only provided you. >> Okay. >> I provided you the form of resolution just to see. I didn't ask you to write on it. And I think I think if I remember right, some of the last submitts it was kind of the same process once we kind of
I think we voted on on the language and then you packaged it up in a resolution and sent it towards the committee. >> Yeah, I think that we don't need to see the specific resolution as long as it's including the ballot language and the changes, >> right? >> Um so with that, um does anyone want to
make a motion to finalize the or or to approve the ballot language as we've discussed tonight? and um authorize that for transmission to the commission once we're once it's time. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. Okay. So, a motion by Mr.
Switzer, a second by Mr. Scay. There's no public commentary. Miss Jennifer, will you call the role? >> Mr. Switzer, >> yes. >> Mr. Scra, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes. >> Mr. Marlor, >> yes. >> Mr. Lang,
>> yes. Motion passes. So, we're good on the ballot language. Um, is do we need to go back and formally close out section 8 with a motion or vote? I think we're >> I think you're good. >> I think we're good on that.
>> All right. So, that completes section 8 um with both the ballot language and the and the charter there. So, moving on to section nine. Um, so
we left off um in section 9 and we discussed that there were there were a couple things and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but you know the intent was to go at least every 5 years on the charter review. Um, I was speaking with Miss Amy a little bit beforehand and I
couldn't remember I I I know there we discussed about the the committee that actually does the charter review. um and saying, "Okay, well, like right now, let's just say if we're let's just say we're done with the charter review tonight. Tonight's going to be our last
meeting, right? Everything's been submitted to the commission. Everything's done. Is this committee still in effect or I I kind of want us to talk through, you know, like for instance, um the previous
charter review committee, right? They they reviewed the charter. Um the commission wanted the charter to be reviewed for the city clerk position, right? They appointed all new committee members to do that um for whatever
reason. Um but before that happened, if one of the old one of the old charter review committee members would have wanted to serve on the planning board or the financial review board, could they have done that? because they're technically still on the charter review
committee >> even though it's over. I don't think that's the what's the end point in of our work. What's what when >> is it convened or not? Like once it's convened and they start going like for like for example let's say whenever we
as a group decide and vote on we're convened and the commission has no further the last thing we proposed to them they worked it through. It's gone to referendum. We've effectively stood down. We've ended our assignment. We're no longer members of this committee at
that point. The committee still exists, but it's in it's in its uh hibernation phase until the commission stands it back up, which is following either the 5-year timeline or sooner as they see
fit. Um I actually thought of maybe instead of saying five years saying prior to every third election cycle because then it's you know two years two years and then it's that you're basically getting thing things charter review amendments and referendums on it
every third election cycle there could be referendums or sooner if they see fit. >> Cuz I know there was some debate about when the five years starts. So I am really glad that the chairman brought this up because I do feel like as
not as amended but as written it does there is an interpretation where the intent is that charter the intent of this provision is to set up the committee by resolution and that the committee lives for 5 years >> and I think the intention is that I
think the charter get reviewed every 5 years by a committee that is not the commission >> is what I think the real intention is. Yeah, I believe that is the spirit of what Linhaven citizens wanted when they passed this originally. >> And so I would like to suggest and you can see it on the page that had the
section 8 language moving the every 5 years to qualify >> specifically the review >> and not the appointment of the committee. >> Yeah, >> that's not what you did at your last meeting, but I would like to suggest that to avoid that alternative
interpretation. So I had came up with this charter shall be reviewed by committee appointed by resolution of the city commission prior to every third election cycle or sooner as advised by the commission starting with the 2027
election cycle which we may need to change to 2028 if we do that. um being the first counted for scheduling. And then we could also add in a sentence to the effect of um when the committee
votes to stand down their released of their commitment to the committee or something to that effect cuz I mean I like for example let's say I I'm going to pick on Tommy. Let's say when we're done Tommy says you know what that got me fired up. I'm ready to be a
commissioner. So now he has to formally, you know, resign from this board. Or if David says, "Hey, this got me excited. I want to be on the planning committee, >> you know, or commission." Then he has to, you know, >> I I feel like when we're done with our
business, that's when we say, "Hey, we're we're done. >> We're moving on to language in there." >> Yeah. I don't think it's I don't think we need more >> never ending. So there's I don't expect to have I don't I feel like I'm not entitled to have a seat on this
committee the next time it comes back. >> I agree. >> Yeah. You know I So two things. I I I know where you're going with the every third election cycle. I I kind of I'm more partial to the every five years and then we could debate, you know, when the fiveyear clock starts and stops and all that, but
>> or we could even state when it starts. >> Yeah, exactly. Even better, right? Um but the the whole resolution you know that the the the committee could be appointed by resolution. The resolution could state that this committee will be dissolved upon completion of the charter
review. >> Um and we wouldn't have to put in the charter. Now by doing that you might have five different people up here by the time and and it might get lost. So, you know, you could just say another sentence in here that that, you know, the resolution would would terminate at
the completion of the charter review or something like that. >> So, it doesn't happen that way, >> right? So, however we want to go, I just I just want there to be a delineation between obviously, you know, the charter's reviewed every 5 years, which is what it says now, but you know, we're
saying at least every 5 years, >> and then delineating that the committee once the charter review is complete, the the committee is stood down >> their term is >> correct. >> So, the appointees will yield their appointment at the conclusion of their
review. something like that >> where the term shall their term shall expire >> shall expire from the review. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm I'm okay with that. >> I agree with that. >> The appointees terms shall expire at the conclusion of their review.
>> Expire or terminate. >> Simply put or terminate. >> It it makes it more f finite. There's no question when we're concluded that >> well I will say you may think you're done and it goes up to the commission and they don't like it. They want to
throw up all over whatever has been given to them and they want to remand it back to you. >> I'm saying when it's done though that's such a thing. >> So Miss CJ if if we have resolution in that second sentence there. Yep. We'll have to undo that strike through there. That >> one back in.
>> Yes ma'am. I also like to add, man, I need new glasses. Anybody got a good optometrist that doesn't have a threemon weight? Well, the problem is I call around and they all have 90day weight. um after the five years or so that at
least every 5 years um I'd like to add from the completion of the last review. >> Can we make it a whole new sentence so that we've got the review and the appointment not running on the same schedule? >> We Yeah, I'm Yeah, I'm not literally uh
locked on that. um or or sooner as advised by commission. >> Got it. >> And if you want to literary that I'm fine with it. >> The intent is is that the the charter will be reviewed at least every 5 years.
>> The commission will appoint the committee to do it and the committee will appointees will terminate their seats at the end of the review. >> Let's do three sentences then to hit those three points. >> A low in the park for you. So what a low in the park.
Look at that. Hit the Google. >> I haven't I haven't read uh I haven't read um Shakespeare in a long time, David. I feel like that's where I would find those words. >> I am Google.
And we can >> temporary calm quiet interval in a storm. That doesn't happen. There's no >> a quiet interval in a storm. >> Quiet. >> Is that what you trigger? >> A quiet interval in a storm.
>> Well, you like low, you know, just like >> words like like old English. >> The act of soothing someone to sleep. A lullaby command meaning listen or pay attention >> the words of my chartery
>> we'll we'll pay somebody to come in dressed like that roll out the parchment >> oh yeah I call around all these optometrists I mean the last time I went you would have an appointment. >> I had to go to Destin. >> I know she said that if I would have
just taken you already. >> The problem is I don't know what I got going on days for never. >> My dentist always wants to do that too. Schedule 6 months out. Hey, it's Tuesday whatever. >> Asking three weeks before I might have a
better idea and three weeks before it rolls up. It's like you got a dentist for like cool I guess I got to cancel all that other stuff I >> 3 months what I got three months ahead. I kind of hate that.
>> Next time they say that say must the grim reaper decide sooner. >> Exactly. It may not be back >> and then you get charged from a city plan. >> You didn't let him 24 hours in a minute. >> You capitalize city money >> further down probably should capitalize
there. >> So that's everything except for the uh the time the 5-year clock starting at the completion of the previous review. >> Okay. Here's my viewers. I think you can put it in
now because it's already tempo. I think the first time it was put in maybe it didn't make sense or something but >> at least every 5 years from the last review from the conclusion of the last review.
>> Sure I did this all my professional life years but I had 33 years with the state. >> Yeah, it was judiciary. Second, >> do we need to say like fully >> in its entirety? I was just thinking entirey.
>> So after reviewed in its entirety, >> it should be undertaken. >> It should be completed by shall be >> conducted completed. >> Conducted. We don't like the word undertaken. We want a different
>> Undertaker. >> Well, it goes with expire and terminate. You know, Undertaker. >> So, you're saying >> I just keep thinking of that WWE. That's what I say.
>> Oh, I missed those. >> Conductor. >> You can be conducted. >> It sounds pretty much like conductor. >> It's good. >> Uhhuh. And it's >> conductors of democracy. >> Redundant
is that >> maybe a little bit redundant, but >> there's an extra there's an extra period before the >> after commission. Put it in the fridge. >> What are you looking at? um appointed by resolution of the city
commission. There's two periods there after commission. >> Yeah. And it takes a part. >> It's warm now. My house doesn't get cold water in the summer. Water line's too shallow.
Probably need to back space that too extra per There's an extra space and yeah to the right right there >> I think one extra space that's just because of the the >> the amendment that I didn't >> gota
>> the alignment >> okay so that's uh so if everybody wants to review 9 9a there >> this is just referring to the general charter review >> yes sir or
>> again looking at >> I'm sorry >> poor Panama City because theirs was every 10 years neat >> they hadn't done it in 30 years >> you can imagine the headaches they have uh that being said they added
a part of the charter review or um in case where it says for instance uh as needed or sooner as directed by the commission. So you've got changes in state statute that affect our charter.
What do we do? >> So if you have if there is changes to state law that make that are inconsistent with what is in your charter, your charter is that charter section, the piece of it that is inconsistent with state law is essentially uninforceable >> and it's no longer of any force and
effect. Just because it exists on paper, >> um it doesn't matter. So if there's if it's still four years until it >> but not the whole section, just what conflicts >> just what conflicts. So if it doesn't get amended for four years, you're okay. If the charter the fact that it's
inconsistent, you can't rely on it. The state law will always trump it. >> Just makes their jobs harder. >> So would the commission then when it says sooner, could the commission put a committee together to address? >> Absolutely they could.
>> They can right now. I mean, I don't even think they need to, right? They could say, "Hey, we're we're we want staff to go through and take all the state law corrections." And I mean, they don't need a committee. They could do it themselves. >> That is not the way the
>> or they could stand up the committee three years. >> Not the way the charter is written because they want it to be they want the review to be conducted by someone other than the commission. >> Correct. Oh, gotcha. Understood. >> Yes. They have that authority. Yeah, >> they're delegating it here to someone
else, >> which hey, good opportunity for people to get involved >> and you won't have to delegate it to >> it. If nobody else wants to, we might be back here in 5 minutes. >> You can get rid of it or I mean will do whatever they do. >> Sometimes it's real stupid.
>> The reason I brought that up as well to it >> the Santos has calling for special. I'll delete it from the version I get to >> for add. >> Yeah, >> that's going to throw a monkey wrench in everybody's budget. >> Yeah, >> it's going to be assessment city if it
passes. >> Miss CJ, would you mind a seven item? >> Assuming it passes. >> Do you want to see all the model caps? >> Uh, just just not necessarily just so we can see nine and nine. Yes, perfect. Right there. >> Okay.
>> I don't know what this means. No. >> All right. So, if we could just kind of review what's on the screen for 9 and 9 a Everyone's reviewed that. Um, is there a uh is there a motion? What's there?
>> Motion by Mr. Stra to approve charter changes. I'm paraphrasing. Yeah. >> To approve what's up there. >> Um, we would still be expected to get ballot language for these. >> So, uh, yeah, I I definitely think it's necessary on 9A. Um, on nine, I probably
would have just sort of included in a global when you're doing a comprehensive change to the charter. I usually have one ballot question that just sort of allows for general and conforming changes, clarifications, and it doesn't call them out specifically. your change to nine I would put in that sort of
omnibus ballot that very general catchall um but 9A I think is probably appropriate to call out um because setting up a charter review committee was so important at the last charter I think you want to give some reassurances that you're not taking it away >> right okay so
>> so do you want to restate your motion >> yeah so my motion is to proceed forward with um include uh preparing ballot language for the charter review 9A um in directing to include the change to
section 9 in an all-encompassing ballot um referendum at a later date because I know we're going to have more of that stuff >> and I I can I can give you a draft of what that catch all provision looks like. >> I can we keep like a running tally
almost because I'm I'm sure we have some others. >> Uh yeah, you could >> so far. Can you please repeat that motion? >> Um, yeah, I was going to say my my motion is to proceed with our changes to section 9 um allocating that the change to section 9 specific
>> changed it. >> What? >> You just changed it earlier on. You said to proceed with preparing ballot language for 9 and approve changes to section 9 in its entirety. >> Make a motion to approve such language. >> I don't remember what I said the first time. >> Can you say that again?
to proceed with preparing the ballot language for 9A and approve changes to section 9 in its entirety for and that's as far as I got >> a later referendum. >> Thank you. >> Okay,
>> there's a she was tricking me. >> There's a motion by Mr. Scra. Is there a second? >> I'm just going to second it. >> Second by Mr. Marlor. You got a path to read what's in it. Poor Miss CJ. She's going to have to replay that again. There's no public for public commentary.
Miss Jennifer, will you call the role? >> Mr. Gray? >> Yes. >> Mr. Marlor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Mr. L? >> Yes. Motion passes. >> Is it okay? We have another twominut
restroom break. >> I suppose you got clothes for that. Here she is. any drink way too much water today. Um, okay. So, we finished up with nine.
We're um we're going to address ballot language for nine at the next meeting. Um, so we're going to begin review of uh section 10. Um, Mr. Scra, I believe you had some uh some additions there for the separation
of powers and administration. Um, do you want to do you want to discuss that? You're talking about what's already there. >> Yeah. Today, yeah. Um, first off, I want to say that um I did a lot of research into a form of government and you really
city our size really only got three options. What we have >> what we have which is commissioner commission manager plan where we have a legislative body that uh appoints a city manager to run the day-to-day operations. you have a weak mayor system
which um effectively uh I might get this wrong Amy if I'm wrong correct me but effectively the the commission appoints uh a weak mayor to have some some
administrative duties over the city and then you have a strong mayor which elected and basically takes place of the city manager. Um, commission manager plan is by far the most popular throughout the state of Florida from what I found and and even into further
portions of America. Um, except in certain cases of certain size cities which don't apply to us. Uh, a lot of large cities tend to have different forms of government than what we have. I think what we have is great because it
covers the trifecta of government that we have in our nation. Um, you have a legislative body, you have that legislative body appointing somebody to run the day-to-day and so you have a little bit of a check and balance there. Uh, I think to move to anything else,
any other kind of system would be premature for a population of what 25,000. Um, I don't think we need a full-time anybody up there on that dis except for the city manager. Uh, as far as 10A, what I'm proposing
is, um, I feel like there's in the past almost 6 years that I've lived here, June 1st will be 6 years, I've seen, um, you know, three mayors. I've seen
two city managers. I've seen what, 10, no, maybe a little more than 10 commission members. uh started with, you know, Dan Dan Russell and and Pat
and Mayor Marggo Anderson and uh Commissioner Tinder up there and we've had, you know, a lot of changes. Um I've seen a lot of conflict arise at times in in multiple administrations like all
three of these forms of administrations that we've had kind of conglomerate. And what I think what it comes down to is that the legislative body needs to remember that it's a legislative body and it's not somebody who's in a position of running day-to-day
operations in the community. So what I'm proposing here is effectively some language that does two things. The first thing is it sets in the charter that respect of that city manager um commission relationship
and that it it lets the body know that neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of duties by the city manager or by city employees under the manager supervision. And also that administrative authority and day-to-day operations of the city
are vested exclusively in the city manager. So we don't have any of our Congress members of our city basically trying to tell the executive department of the city what to do. Uh they can go inquire, they can ask questions, they
don't need to be giving direction because there are five of them. They you know I I don't want an office space thing where you know Tai Ferris says man I got six bosses you know I got the city manager plus five other bosses. No, the
city has one one boss, a city manager. That person has five bosses. And that's okay cuz that's the form of government we have. The second sentence or section here um basically similar to kind of
what Congress does is whenever there's a um new member of the of the commission, the commission shall set um meeting rules and protocol within the first 45 days after that appointment or election.
Um and it shall be approved by the majority of the commission. What this does is that's a precedent that this legislative body at least by a majority will agree to how it will conduct business toward the toward the city and the citizens and amongst itself cuz
we've seen a lot of uh conflict and infighting that I think could be reduced by them agreeing to how they'll function. Some examples would be um the meeting conduct rules. You know, rather
than letting one person, you know, say how that's going to go, all five of them can can that their their first act as a complete commission can be to say, "Hey, we're going to set rules in place. We're going to review the current rules. We're going to talk
about any possible changes, and this is what we're going to put forth." That way the citizens, the city and the commission all are on the same even keel of expectation of this is how city of Linhaven commission meetings will be conducted. You know if they want to
change public commentary to two minutes they will have voted on that and agreed to it. If they want to say you can only talk about what's on the agenda they will have voted on it and agreed on it. If they want to say um you know you can bring visual aids to the podium
you they you know you can do that. If they want to say hey you can address individual members of the commission instead of the chair they'll have voted on that if they want to say how agendas get set they can vote on that you know so that's kind of where I'm at. I mean, Congress
literally does it. That's the first every Congress that's set up. That's the first thing they do is they go through their protocol. That's usually bill number one for that session. So, that's kind of what I'm pitching there. I I see like where you're where you're
going with this. Um, and I I don't disagree with it. I think there there are going to be some administrative challenges with this. Um, number one, you know, we have those name tags up there has seat one and seat two and seat
three and seat four and then that one says mayor. Um, that mayor pay is different than the commissioner pay. Um, so effectively if if what you're proposing goes through then we need to
we need to make the mayor's pay as the same as the commissioner's pay. No, there's additional duties that the a mayor commissioner that should say mayor commissioner >> and there's duties that the mayor commissioner has such as um I believe they sign
>> what financial stuff they sign the checks there are additional duties that warrant the mayor commissioner role having additional duties and they are charged with running the meetings. So that separation of the fact that they are a mayor commissioner, they have all
the same duties and responsibilities of a commissioner, but they have an extra set of duties, right? Um because a lot of people don't realize that the mayor commissioner in meetings can make motions and second motions without passing the gavl. There's this
misconception that they can't. They have all of the duties and responsibilities and authorities of another commissioner. they are in fact a fifth commissioner. So I don't think we have to change um their pay or anything like that. I think
we have to remember that they're a fifth commissioner and they get paid to do a little bit of extra work. So Miss CJ, do you how setting the agenda for the meeting? Um it's all five going to going
to set the draft agenda for that if this were to be in here. How would you how would you do that? Well, what what has happened in the past is that they had met with the city manager and discussed that individually each with the city manager. >> Okay. >> And then the city manager feeds that
information to me. How it'll work in the future with the city. I guess they would do the same. >> They can define it with that second sentence. They will define as a commission how they can set their agendas. They could say, "Hey, any commissioner that wants an agenda item, it will be put on the agenda as long as
they want it on there. you just have to inform the city manager because when it comes to the meetings, if the other commissioners don't want it, they can vote to delete it, right? So, but the let let the legislative body define how they're going to set their agenda. Just
set the facts in place that they need to agree on how they're going to do business and they're going to set those rules and protocols in place. um and that they're not one person in charge or five bosses. They're a collective body.
I think that's what they forget sometimes. Who whoever's up there, it doesn't matter. I think sometimes the people in governing positions forget that they're a body, not individual members. >> But is this going to change anything by adding those sentence? the the first in
my opinion, the first sentence is going to put in place a an expectation that an individual member of the commission going to the city and interfering is something that the rest of the commission can hold them
accountable against. Right. >> Priority. >> I mean, is it? It's happened and nothing happened about it. I agree. It shouldn't, >> you know. And the second sentence is an actual actionable item that they they would need to produce within 45 calendar
days of somebody being elected or appointed. They would need to have an agenda item that says, "Hey, we're going to re-review our rules and protocols of of our committee or commission and we need to make any changes we want to make and vote on it and move forward."
>> I hold on one second. Yes, ma'am. with the city manager. Um, they would send emails and she would decide what went on and what didn't go on the agenda. Currently, they'll send emails for adding agenda items and they put on
they their request is respected and it's up to them whether they want to go. >> Okay, Miss Amy. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you want to? >> So, it would depend on who they're working with as a city manager, I guess. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Amy. >> With regard to the separation of powers,
I will say that other local charters that follow the um manager commission form of government have similar language. Um I know Panama City Beach has that sort of no commissioner directs anybody uh subordinate to the city manager. And I think it is good to set
that expectation and to allow for the other other board members to hold people accountable. It it has become necessary. >> You said subordinate to the city manager. subordinate to the city manager. So, anyone underneath the city, of course, they can direct the city manager. He is their employee. Good. >> But they can't direct and what I
understand this provision to do is they can't direct anyone subordinate to the city manager. >> Right? For example, a single member of the commissioner like Sam, Sam can't go to Miss Hodgeges and say, "Miss Hodgees, you you need to do XYZ." That that's direction. What Sam could do is he could
go to Miss Hodgeges and say, "Hey, I I'd like some information on this topic." And then when he when he gets whatever information and he asks questions and what would this look like, how would that affect you? He can do all of that. But when it comes time to actually be direction to go to the city manager and
say hey I would like the you know assistant city manager to do this and then the proper answer for the city manager would be is great. We'll put it on the agenda and you can discuss it with the rest of your legislative body. Yes sir. In the same, so in the same
vein, it would could be interpreted that the city manager will not interfere with the new clerk, right? Is that what that's saying? >> Um, I mean, there's a separate clerk
section, so we would probably have to talk about that. Now, there's a city commission and there's a city manager section that we haven't gotten to yet that we could potentially look at that there as well. >> They'll be city manager and city clerk will be peers. So, the city clerk will
not be subordinate to the city, >> right? He will not be >> but he's a subordinate to the the city clerk is a subordinate to the commissioners. >> No, he his direct report direct report. >> Right. So, the >> and of course subordinate. So a current
example is that the city manager and the city attorney are effectively peers. So so the city manager goes to the city attorney and says, you know, hey, uh, I need you to do, you know, I need you to pull this, you know, start this case or
what, whatever, right? Something legal. Um, if the city attorney feels like that's a violation of of what they're supposed to be doing, they have five people they can talk to >> about it and say, "Hey, city manager is asking me to do this." And if it's
something that requires them to say yes, you can do this, then that's a vote and it needs to be on an agenda. >> It comes in part of the city attorney's report. >> Yeah. What's that? >> I would get do it in the city attorney's report, >> right? and hey, the city manager asked me to do XYZ. Is the commission okay
with that? And if the commission's okay with that, they should make a motion. There should be a second a vote and done. No walking forums, no head nods. Like, you know, it's business. >> So, my question on this on the the first
half here, um, and Miss Miss Hodgees, I guess this would be more directed towards you. So, >> Mhm. >> the commissioners have a uh an evaluation of the city manager annually, right? Correct. >> And I'm assuming there's some there's a
there's a feedback that happens prior to that, right? >> Um I would think that that evaluation process conflicts with this first paragraph. >> I I would not. >> Okay.
>> Because the city manager is a direct report to the commission. >> Okay. Therefore, they have the the responsibility to provide feedback and to provide that evaluation to the city manager. >> Okay? >> It would be in conflict if the
commission was evaluating me, for example, >> or any of the staff subordinate to the city manager. That would be inappropriate. But to evaluate their own report, it would not be >> even if they're doing a 360 and they want information from subordinates
doing that evaluation of city. >> Um >> I mean to me if I were commissioner what I would say is hey city manager in order to do to conduct your performance review we plan to get you know input from all of your
>> uh directors. um this is the way we're going to acquire that. You know, please inform them and and have them participate. And you know, maybe the director, you know, maybe there's like an online thing or something. They fill it out and they send it direct like a form they fill out and send it directly
back to the five commissioners. So, you're saying that they would have to all do the same. They would have to vote on this process. >> Yeah. And say, "Hey, we all want to talk to the department heads and figure out how Miss Hodgees is performing as city manager." So they formally vote on that
and then then they would be allowed to >> execute their their plan. Because what we have right now, for example, and I'm glad you brought up the the city manager review. What we have right now is five city managers evaluating the city manager five different ways. >> You mean five commissioners?
>> Five, sorry. Five commissioners evaluating the one city manager five different ways. So, I mean, imagine in your own professional career if you're being evaluated and set and and giving expectations by five different people
and oh, by the way, >> 6 months from now, one of those people is gone and there's a new person in there, right? And now you're going to be evaluated by that person. This is just that's it's way too complex. There's no
reason that in modern society that the legislative body can't get together and say, "Hey, this is how smart goals, right? This is how we plan to evaluate our city manager. Let's put some goals in place and we vote on them in different areas, right? Everything's put
in place. They vote on it. And so for the whole next 12 months, they know that's what they're being evaluated against. So 12 months from now, even if one of those commissioners swaps swaps out, they can look at this and say, "Okay, even though I don't like it, this is what they were held to. I can review
against this criteria." I don't know if any of you guys have ever been in a position where you've had to do that, but to to collect a new subordinate and you have to review their work and and you don't know their work very well. But if you're given something saying this is what they're being evaluated against,
>> it's a little easier to do that. What I would hate to see is like city manager comes back and says like, "Well, you know, you rated me a three in this area and that that you know there there you you never told me that I was getting evaluated that way."
>> Just for clarification, that's exactly what has happened. >> Oh, I know. >> I developed No, no, no. I developed matrix for the commission. They all reviewed and approved and modified >> and they identified expectations and
then they all used the same >> but they didn't have to they could have told you we're not doing that >> right >> I was >> I don't want that to be insist >> but they did vote they did accept now it still has subjective
>> components because you're going to do a rating and you're going to do a rating and what's important to you might be different. So it's still going to have us there never will be 100%. >> There was some attempt to do some matrix work however good or bad.
>> Yeah. And I'm just I'm a firm believer in capturing best practices while while they're in play. And and I feel like that's what we need to do for consistency in our community because I don't know about you guys but I don't like volatility in my community.
>> Fant. >> Yeah. The only reason I'm asking this is just again I'm not saying I'm against or for or whatever. I'm just saying if this if this were to be in the charter, you know, thinking through let's say I'm a I'm a commissioner and you're the city manager and I say, you know, Miss Hajes,
you're performing great over here, but in this area, you know, your interpersonal communication skills are are not where they need to be with the department heads. You know, you really need to focus on, you know, maybe some professional leadership courses, the bonks, you know, this these categories or whatever. That's where I'm saying is
that, you know, when I'm providing that feedback during that that annual evaluation, >> you're one of five. >> What's that? >> You're one of five, >> correct? And is that directing the performance or the duties of the city manager if I'm doing that through an
evaluative process? That's all I'm I'm just trying to figure out. >> In that case, that is the role of the commissioners. The challenge is when you have multiple supervisors, you're one >> of five. Meaning if everybody else
decided that that matrix or that um metric was great and you're the only one and you said hello, I might take the read that >> you might have the problem and not >> sure. Yeah. Yeah. So are you maybe wanting something in there that kind of
>> like the word independ >> like direct >> everything is very broad is what I'm saying it shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of the duties by the city manager like that that is all like very 30,000 foot and
and I think that there are going going to be instances where either it's the mayor developing an agenda or or saying hey Miss CJ, you know, this item needs to be before this item or or or whatever, there are going to be instances where >> they're directing
>> they're directing an employee what to do. But the commission for the examples you provided, like let's say they the commission says, you know what, we we like that the mayor commissioner has final say on the order of agenda items. So in their rules and protocols, they
would put that in there >> and then for the whole rest of the until somebody else is appointed, they would or elect it that they would have empowered a member of their own body to be tasked with that duty. They can't do that because that resolution that you're
talking about or those rules conflicts with the first paragraph. You can't say, "Hey, Tommy, you can't direct this person what to do." And then I create a resolution saying, "Hey, Tommy's going to be the one to direct this person what to do." >> So you can put in something that says,
for example, neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of duties by the city manager or by city employees under the city manager supervision unless authorized to do so by a majority vote of the commission. >> Even then, it feels inappropriate.
>> Yeah, >> I I feel like it feels inappropriate. Aren't we just trying to stop the commission from getting their hands into >> getting out of their lane? >> Operations. >> Yeah. >> So, you get you need the word operations in there. >> It's already in there
>> individually. >> Day-to-day operations, administrative authority and day-to-day operations of the city are vested exclusively in in the city manager. >> Maybe it needs to be explicitly day-to-day. >> It needs a >> Yeah, it's there.
>> But there's a couple of things I've got the word interfere. Neither. >> I wish there were another word because who defines and what interference is. >> Well, I was just talking to this person
that works the sewer department. I wasn't interfering in it. See where I'm going with that? >> How about directly interfere? >> Exercise any authority. It's >> exercise authority. I would be fine with that. >> That would make it that would tell you.
You just can't tell them what to do. >> But I I would say they can't do it individually or collectively, not even with the resolution. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Miss CJ, if a commissioner needs a document or or a public record for
something that is coming up for a vote or something like that, let's say that Commissioner Warick says, "Hey, Miss CJ, you know, we're going to vote on this coming up. Can Can you give me all of the how many water bill accounts we have? Right.
How and I know I'm being very literal with this, but is that directing you what to do or directing you to do something? >> No, because I am the public records clerk. >> Yeah. >> If um >> and that's part of the scope of the job.
So that's just asking for information. If they went directly to Ashley Williams, for instance, and said, "Give me um a list of all your APS from this time to that time," >> that would be inappropriate. They would need to direct that through me. >> Okay.
>> To get that, >> they'd have to be very literal. >> Okay. >> Even more than what you're saying. >> Yeah. And I'm again, I'm just I'm just playing I'm just playing through these scenarios that could happen. And I don't want somebody to do to literally do
something innocent and then they get in trouble because it's a charter viol. Well, you directed that person what to do. Like no, I'm >> I think it would be direct them to do their job at certain point. So we're trying to clarify things. >> Correct. Like to me an example of
interfering with the duties of the city manager is Okay. So, like let's say Chris says to Ty, "Hey, you know, we have all this sod Sheffield needs to be resolded, right? Let's go ahead and resod Sheffield because we've already
acquired the the sod and we have it available, right?" And a city manager or not city manager, a commissioner said, "Hey, >> I I live over by Kinsaws Kinsaw first." That's interfering. Like, that's an example. Or if they said
>> or if they said, "Wait a second. This sod was purchased through a purchase order to sod le poor park. We can't you can't just go start soding other parks." >> Yeah. >> Is that interfering? Is that directing
>> or is that correct? >> Or is it correcting? Even even with them asking Ashley Williams for example, anyone can ask anyone for information in the city >> and then it's just that she has to then direct it to me. So even the commissioners can ask for information
>> from anyone else in the city. >> If a commissioner goes to Kiki and says, "Hey, um I need some financial data um like the governor's proposal today to call a special session. I need some financial data to know how much money we
get that's tied directly to homesteaded properties. Um the they're requesting information. They're inquiring. That's their duties. We've talked about elsewhere in in the charter or we will I forget what section it is, but we'll talk about the duties of a commissioner
and what they have to do. Um, and that's a power that we as citizens give them to do that is to acquire and obtain the data that they need to do their job that we've elected them to do. Now, if they said, "Hey, Kiki, um, you know, hey, we
we need you to, um, you know, >> move money, >> move money, and anything like that, her responsibility to the city is to notify the city manager. if she doesn't feel comfortable, like let's say it's like she feels like it's a whistleblower
situation, there's three people once that referendum passes that she could report that to, you know, um >> well, but do you think that if >> in the section where we define the powers and authority of these
administrative like department heads or whoever that that will answer the question and separation of powers? Well, we don't define the authority of department ads, but we will define the authority of the commission >> and specifically there's a section
that's unique to just the mayor commission. >> Will that will that will doing that um result in what you're trying to do here? uh as long as we agree to make it that way like I don't know how you guys would
feel about you know changing changing that um >> but it does need to say individually and or collectively >> individually or collectively >> exercising authority with the performance of duties by the city
>> I have a comment >> yes ma'am >> back to your comment about if you were to tell Mr. Mr. Ferris, for example, I'm correcting you because you're putting the sod in the wrong place. I'd advise staff that that's when they should just be polite to the commissioner, report to the city manager because that's for the
city manager. If Mr. If Tai got a direction from the city manager to put it at Sheffield, that's the direction he follows. >> So, I don't think the commission has the authority to correct. Um,
>> and that could be seen as being I think even if they see something illegal, would this would this conflict over would this conflict with section six where it says um all powers of the city except as
otherwise provided by this charter or by the constitution of the state or vested in the city commission. and except as otherwise provided by this charter or by the constitution of the state, the city commission may by ordinance or resolution prescribe the manner in which any power of the city shall be exercised. I don't think it conflicts
with that because elsewhere in the charter we'd be telling them what they can and can't do. And so that this section would basically reinforce that, hey, in section uh 10 we told you you can't do that. So they couldn't pass an ordinance or resolution and said yes we
can. No, you can't because it's in the charter. It's not that. >> Okay. >> So, that David is where we spell out what what the city commission can and can't do >> on the six. >> It's in six. Um I mean, it's one of
those things where yes, we went through six, but if we change something in 10 that we feel like needs us to revisit six, I mean, if they're linked together, we can always go back just like we reach forward in labor sections. Um the mayor duties though, the mayor
commissioner duties specifically are spelled out in um section 11 which no sorry not section 11 where was it? Uh section 18 which we will eventually get to.
So the other thing that the last sentence there in the first part of this it ends in city manager um and it should say pending pending the referendum with the city clerk. I mean city clerk would be added there and then
I guess it would be the city attorney. >> No, I think it's I mean the way I've lived through it in Panama City Beach, all administrative authority is vested in the city manager, right? Um he is the one who hires and fires and makes all of the employ. >> No, no, I'm saying appoint. They appoint
the city manager, but they also appoint the city clerk and they appoint the city attorney. >> Right. >> Right. But the city attorney and the city clerk don't have administrative authority or dayto-day >> operations over all of those. So the
city clerk would have would have authority over their own the treasury maybe HR I mean the clerk is the treasur matter expert but >> the city manager ultimately is the one who runs the dayto-day. >> Sure. Yeah. So potentially introducing a
sentence to this to cover who the clerk is responsible for and delineating that they have the responsibility for their own. >> Yeah, that's all that's all I'm saying. I mean, if the city clerk passes, then I mean, you really have, you know, you get the city manager, you got the city
clerk/treasures, what they're talking about. So, I mean, you will have some sort of administrative authority over the treasury department. >> Yeah. >> Um, do you think we get 10 on the August ballot or 10 comes later? >> Uh, I think 10 comes later.
>> So, we can add the sentence and delete it out if for some reason the cl doesn't pass. >> Yes, ma'am. Does that fit better with what you're thinking? I just changed some of the words. >> Um, it would be in the last sentence up at up top in the black text.
>> Right down to the right to the right to the right. There we go. Right in there. So, that's where I was talking about the adopt resolutions and appoint a chief administrative officer to be known. >> So, that's all I'm saying. >> That's specific to the form of government. It's not necessary to
mention a city clerk or a city. >> Okay. Okay. That's all. I I was just just curious if we're saying that we're appointing the city manager. Are we also appointing? >> You are, but it's not necessary to do that there. This is specifically to the form of government. And so, it's important to mention call out city
manager as the person. >> Would it be appropriate to put it at the end of the first paragraph of a for delineating out the clerk and their separated duties? I don't think so. I don't think it's necessary, but this is your charter.
>> I have a question. >> Is that kind of where you put >> Having a soft mayor? Are we required to call the mayor a mayor commissioner or can we just say mayor? >> You can just >> I mean in these in these documents >> you can call him just the mayor. Ryan is
right. He is technically a mayor commissioner because his vote doesn't count more or less than anybody else's. >> It's a weak mayor sense. It already it already says it already says it in 17. Whenever the term mayor is used in this charter, it is understood to refer to the mayor commissioner. >> You're already covered.
>> So you can say, >> yeah, we got to remember we don't have a soft mayor. We don't have a weak mayor. We we have a mayor commissioner. If you want to call him a mayor, he's still, you know, currently Dave, Dr. Dave Lowry, mayor is mayor commissioner. >> Well, yeah, I'm just talking
specifically on this. Yeah, >> it's I don't know if it's like an old school thing or >> Well, section passes on >> section 17 um covers that the shortened abbreviated version. We're covered there, but I just stressed the
importance because there's been mentioned that it's a weak mayor. It's not it's not a weak mayor. We don't have a weak mayor system. It is a manager commission plan. So, it's a mayor commissioner. But if we say mayor, that's that's where 17.
>> It doesn't change the form of government just because. >> So this kind of for me muddies the waters even more when we say nor any commissioner shall individually or collectively exercise any authority with
the performance of the duties. Performance of duties. >> I didn't I didn't say collectively. Collectively is not in the version I sent out. >> I know. I'm just saying. added that because as she was saying before, you would have more than one. You want to cover both sides of it. >> No, because that's the intent of this is
that the body is supposed to provide direction and guidance to city manager. >> Explain to me like when you say more than one, are you talking about if they held a vote and directed? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, >> so how is the commission going to hold a vote and say, "Hey, Ty, you have to put some No, they can't do that." And they
already can't do that. This section doesn't need to further correct it. >> We're not talking about tie. We're talking about the city manager that says with the performance of duties by the city manager >> or city employees under the city manager
supervision. >> Get rid of collective because that's the whole point. They should only be directing the city manager collectively. >> Yeah, but this is for interference is what I thought they don't direct. when we change the terms. >> It's it's so far removed from what I
sent up. I would like to start over. >> The intent of this is to say that no one commissioner or mayor commissioner can individually direct a city manager to do
something. If Commissioner War goes to to Chris Lightoot and says, "I need you to do this." Chris's response should be, I can put it on the agenda and we can get the rest of the commission to vote on. >> That is a true statement. The other part that was built into this though was that the no individual no individual
commissioner and this is where I think no individual commissioner individually or collectively shall directly subordinate to the city manager. If we need to separate these out to fulfill that, we can do that because I don't want something to get lost
>> in the words of the intent of what this is about, which is that that's a legislative body and it needs to act like it. >> Oh, do you understand what you're saying? >> Yeah. And there are two pieces. Both things are true. There are two concepts built into what was presented. >> Yeah.
So neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of duties by the city manager. Period. And all I just want to make sure I I want to talk to the commissioners individually about this. So hey this is
in the charter. Can you can you tell me that this is not going to prevent you from doing something that you should only do whether it's a performance evaluation whether it's a or whatever. I mean, we can't have a team performance evaluation. I get there's a standardized format and a matrix that's that's used
or whatever, but you know, if if I'm talking to a subordinate, I'm going to give that individual feedback and tell them what they need to do to increase where I think that that they they fall on that on that matrix. That's all I'm saying. And by doing that, I cannot effectively provide that feedback and
that evaluation because the charter says that I can't do that. I can't tell you that you need to improve your interpersonal communication skills. >> You can you can absolutely tell them that. It's just not an effective direction unless it comes from a majority of the commission >> and the majority of the commission would have already agreed on how that review
process will occur and that agreed upon and voted on review process can include a subjective section or a section that says hey these these are individual commissioner goals that we each individually have because I don't expect
them to agree on 100% of everything. I'm okay if the tw 20% of the review is allocated to them individually because that's the value they have on the commission is 20%. >> Ideally, the commission will discuss the evaluation
publicly. Not all of them do because it's awkward. Mhm. >> So, sometimes it's just they each do it individually and the city attorney or consultant synthesizes it into one document that is then distributed to each commissioner and they can choose to put it on the agenda to discuss it or it
just becomes a public record and that's the end. >> Yep. >> No, I'm I'm all for the spirit of what this says. >> Play with a couple of words on there. Would it make a difference where you say authority over the operational duties of
the city manager? >> I I don't know. I I don't know just letter of the law like what it's you know are we going to get a commissioner in trouble is is what I'm for a charter violation when they're they're really
honestly trying to do the right thing. They're not telling Chris I need you to go buy a new slide for Port Park, right? they're not they're not doing that's we we get that right but this in my opinion is very
it's it catches everything and I don't know I don't know where to I don't know how to write that I don't know what words to use um I don't know maybe all the commissioners might say yeah it's fine I don't have a problem with it whatever or they may say no well if that's the case then the agenda is going
to be 50 items long because everything that we got to discuss now it's got to go on the agenda now it's got to be a vote and there's a discussion there's all you know it's like man this is are we >> I mean if they have a problem with it I'd ask for actual real world examples provide me a real world example of
something you currently do that you think this will now prevent you from doing >> I just talked about the performance evaluation that's one >> how many do you need me to provide >> two more I I work in government contracts I like three of everything >> then provide me three instances of where
an individual commissioner or mayor has directed the city manager to do Okay. So, uh overtime, >> okay, >> for the city manager for the special event, right, >> for Martin, >> right? They individually gave direction
to her to pay for overtime instead of holding a public vote. >> Not one commissioner, well, actually, I think only four responded because the email was in one commissioner's spam box and they didn't see it. Um, but that was
individual direction where it should have come before the public meeting. Okay. >> So, there's there's a second right off the top my head. Um, >> what was the first one? >> He said the evaluation.
>> Well, I'm providing him three and he's going to provide me three. He's going to provide me three examples where they've directed this. >> You gave me one, I gave you one. I'll I'll wait for your second. >> Uh, second one was agenda. Hey, Miss CJ. This has got to go. Or Mr. Lightoot,
this this mayor Woodfoot mayor. Hey, this is the agenda needs to be moved to. We're going to talk about this first. So, that's that second. All right. That's my >> same topic agenda. Commissioner Warick asked for an agenda item to be put on the agenda and the mayor direct city
manager to not put it on there. Okay, >> there's your second. >> This is good. I think >> Come on. You guys definitely come up with the third first. >> I'll bring the third the next week. >> No, it's And that's what I'm saying.
There there are and >> and it really happens more with the employees >> subordinate to the city manager. >> Wow. >> I feel like we have gotten so skewed >> Oh, yeah. by previous administrations on
both sides >> that couch. >> We're trying to put in the world. >> We're trying to put in the word into >> these this document. Can you please just be honest? >> Guardrails and guidelines. Yes. Guard rails and guidelines. That's the theme
of this committee. >> We're more than >> I just asked I just asked AI use up about 100 gallons of fresh water. Um, >> there goes you can find a >> example. A commissioner could say, "Hey, I'm hearing drainage complaints over on Minnesota Avenue,
you know, can can you go look into that?" >> Okay, >> that's direction. What they could not say, they could say that. That's fine. What they could not say is, "Hey, public works director, send your crew out there and get that fixed. >> Get it done." Yeah. >> Right. They can say it to Chris. Um, can
you go can you look into this? You're not telling him to fix it. What they couldn't say to Chris is, "Hey, >> send the crew to go fix that." >> Okay, I'm glad you brought this up because this would this would be in this would not be okay for this. All right.
They cannot they shall in individually exercise any authority with the performance of duties by the city manager. >> Right? >> So, the city manager sitting there checking his email, right? Mayor Lowry walks in and says, "Hey, resident called and said their ditches
are overflowing on Minnesota. >> Can you check on >> Can you check on it?" >> Yeah. >> Is that providing direction or to that city manager? >> No, you're asking them to do you're asking them to to check into something and come back with you with information. >> So, in in my mind, based on what we
talked about earlier, the city manager say, "Oh, sorry, Mayor Lowry. I'll put that on the agenda. You guys have got to vote on it." And if it's >> doesn't need to be it's it doesn't need to be because it's an inquiry. It's not >> that's where we're going. Okay. Well, it's an inquiry. It's not interfering.
It's not providing direction. It's like man >> that's that's why I don't that's why I'm I'm worried about this is because well I wasn't interfer I wasn't interfering. It was just an inquiry or I was I was ask you know it's like >> says it's not. >> So maybe we need to spell out some
examples. Well, exercising authority instead of Lowry going to Chris, >> he would go to the public works guys and say, "Hey, this is what we're going to do." >> That that's where the exercising authority over
>> Mr. Chairman, I think we need to table this. >> Yeah, let's go home. >> Not getting anywhere. >> I think I think we need >> I think we're getting burned on it. >> Yeah, >> we need to start it. >> That's the whole thing. What I would ask of you guys, the fellow
four committee members, is to take that section and digest it for the next meeting and maybe come up with some examples to include in that section of of like things that are are allowed
versus not allowed because I find that in in some city charters when you provide those examples out, it gives a little bit of a legal direction as to like, hey, does does what happened fall in more with this example of what's
allowed or what's not allowed? I mean, ultimately, if it's if it's something the city manager disagrees, they have four other people to go to and talk about it. >> Yeah. And they could say, "Hey, this city this commissioner told me to do this. I think they're interfering. I
need the full commission to discuss this." Yeah, I think definitely we we got some things to chew on and uh and so motion to table it until the next meeting. So Cory can go take another second. I know that's what you're really
asking. All right, motion to second. I don't think we need I don't think we need a vote on that. >> All right, so moving on to item number six, public comments. >> Do we need to vote on it to table it? >> No. Well, technically you can if you don't want to walk in boron, but
everybody understands the direction. It's late. It's fine. >> So, I'll resend my motion and it will just be an open item for the next meeting. >> My second. >> So, there's no public comments. Speaking of next meeting, um, so for the agenda items, it sounds like we're we're
waiting on ballot language for section 9 now, right? We're done with eight, right? ballot language for section 8, ballot language for 9A, and a and a sample ballot question for the catchall.
>> Well, we we voted that you're that you're good to proceed with the resolution for eight. We don't we don't need anything back for that. Nine, we're we're we'll we'll expect ballot language for nine. >> Um >> 9A specifically. >> 9A. >> Yeah. 9. Yeah.
Um and then we'll continue discussions of chapter 10 and 11 uh next meeting. Um so there was just to since it's it is a public forum there was a comment that I prevented something from going on the agenda. I I did not prevent anything
from going on the agenda. I I don't do you want to expand on that? >> Okay. So, I had asked at the last meeting that we put an agenda item in place for this meeting for Miss Ward to be present. >> Correct. >> When I asked why when the agenda came out, I asked why that wasn't on there
and CJ said that the agenda was created with the chair. So, we discussed it in the last meeting because Mr. Lightfoot said that Miss Ne Ward had not confirmed for this meeting. So I said, "Okay, well, if she hasn't confirmed, if if she does confirm in the meantime, then we'll
just do a addition to the agenda and put her at the top of it during the next meeting." >> And on the inverse, if she had had the agenda item like I request it and she didn't show up, we could have just deleted it. >> Sure. Um, and so when I got the email
that she did confirm, I said, "Well, this is what we discussed at the last meeting. I don't want to as one person make a decision, right? >> Apparently, you have the authority to do so, though. >> Well, we discussed it during the meeting last time. But anyway, so that's why I said, well, we're just going to continue
like we proceeded like we discussed during the during the meeting that we'll make an addition at the meeting and and have her speak. So, I just wanted to clarify that that I didn't prevent. for for clarity. Let's say between now and our next meeting, Tommy emails and says, "Hey, you know, a commissioner reached
out to me or city manager reached out to me. It's a hot topic for whatever reason." Kind of like I did with the uh city manager residency stuff. Hey, I want to get this on the agenda. >> If if I email CJ, Chris, Amy, and say, "Hey, I want this on the agenda."
>> Is my understanding correct that it will be on the agenda or is it up to you? >> No. So what I would want to do is is during the addition deletion modifications of the agenda have that have that added and it'll be voted on and then it'll be it'll be added.
>> So the only thing So you would like that the only things on the next agenda for for next meeting are the two things we just said which is ballot language for 9A and catch all and continued chapter 10 and 11. And if we want something add it wait for additions, deletions and
modification. >> Correct. Unless you guys know of something right now. That's So that's that's why usually when we get to this for next meeting, I'll always say, "Okay, for for next meeting and it's it's for Miss CJ as well, so she can go back as she's drafting that to say, "Oh, well,
>> I think I think I was a little bit caught off guard because I said it at the last meeting." So when it wasn't on the agenda, I was like, "What do you mean it's not on the agenda?" We literally I said it at the last meeting. Right. >> Yeah. And that's that's when Mr. Lightfoot spoke up and was like, "Yeah, she hasn't confirmed for for the next meeting." We
>> Well, if he spoke about at the meeting, though. >> Yeah, he did. >> Yeah, he did. Okay. I didn't catch that. >> And that's why I was like, "Okay, well, if she does confirm between now and then, we'll just we'll do an addition to the agenda at the >> To be fair, I was operating off of additional information that the night
prior out in the hallway, she told me she looked at her counter, told me she was available." So, >> yeah, no worries. Just wanted to clarify that. >> Yeah. I just I just wanted to I just wanted to put that out there and clarify cuz I didn't I couldn't comment on the post because I didn't want to be a subject.
>> Okay. Does anyone else have anything for agenda items for next meeting other than that what we discussed? >> Okay. >> Uh so the next meeting CJ or >> I mean can I just confirm so it's valid language for 9A and to continue chapter 10 and 11 and catch all
>> sample catchall. Correct. Thank you. >> The 10th the 10th and the 24th discussed. >> Yeah. >> 10th and the 24th. Is everybody I know you I'm good with those two. It's when we get to July that I would like to make
some changes. >> I'm good with that. >> Okay. So 10th and the 24th and we're still good on the city calendar right those. Okay. >> All right. Uh if there's nothing else we'll adjourn. Thank you.