to order. It's uh 5:15. Um going on to agenda item number two, additions, deletions, modifications of the agenda. Does anyone have anything they would like to add or modify or delete?
>> Okay. >> Nothing heard. Moving on to agenda item number three, approval of minutes stated from our 527 meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Marlor, second by Mr.
Switzer. >> Comments for the public. No. Uh, assistant city manager. Will you call RO? >> Mr. Marlor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Spray? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Lang? >> Yes. Moving on to item number four. uh the ballot language for 9A and sample catchall B uh sample catchall. Miss Meyers, do you want to lead this discussion? So um formatting wise, I did
divide section 8 and section 9 into two separate documents so that the ballot languages for each would be separate. Um 8B should be corrected both in substance of the amendment itself and the ballot language exactly as you discussed it at
your last meeting. So I believe that the only thing that's really new to you is the section 9. Um there are two questions there. Um one is meant to be a sort of catchall. Um and then one is specific to the
charter commission charter review. So on on the catch all basically we would just kind of wait and fill in the blanks with whatever's needed once we're >> once as far as we can right and then
after that ballot there would potentially be another one maybe in April to catch the rest of whatever you come up with. >> Yeah. So I I mean it's just hard to anticipate what the final product is going to look like if if they are going to have individual ordinances on each
single subject or if they are going to do or if it's going to be one document >> amending the charter >> and hitting the highlights. >> So I just >> so I'm preparing it like this just so I can be ready for either scenario. >> Okay.
>> You have done the work and so I want to honor that. But it's ultimately their choice. I mean, it's pretty normal even if you focus in on key things like for example the clerk has its own and >> um and so forth, but I mean you still end up with some administrative stuff
that ends up having to be caught somewhere, >> right? >> Okay. >> But finding a a reasonable and transparent way to put people on notice of it without having to call out anything. I remember um there was a section that uh and and I presented it
in in the the first presentation that kept it not to catch all the uh deliverables. Um there were several administrative style changes that we made um just as as a committee and submitted that through. So I don't know if it would be appropriate if this is
that is that kind of what this would would capture some of those changes. >> But those were related specifically to that topic. They were just elsewhere in the document related to the clerk, right? >> Well, I think we moved I think if I remember right, I have to go back and
look at but we kind of moved some sections around. We didn't necessarily change things, but I think we kind of reorganized some stuff. So, >> but that but if I recall those changes were specific to the clerk, though, so it would make sense they were wrapped up as a clerk item. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> This would be more so for things that you can't tie necessarily to a specific Well, like for instance, in in section 9, you're just deleting language. Um, and you don't want to say why you're deleting it or what you're deleting it with a lot of specificity because there
that may that similar circumstance may be happening in a couple of provisions in the code. We just haven't gotten there yet. >> Yeah. >> Um, but again, that's why I like to have the ordinance pass that shows so the public can check exactly what those sort of catchall changes might be. So, I guess kind of the litmus test at least
that I'm running is is there's a there's a line between actual quote unquote policy change and then administrative change. And just for the sake of transparency to the public, I definitely wouldn't want to use a catch-all ballot
language for anything remotely close to a policy change. Yeah. Substitute. Yeah. Thank you. >> So, do we feel like that nine what we changed in nine was you know, substantive in nature or do we
feel like it was more clerical in nature? >> To me, it's it was resolving a redundancy. So, it >> to me it's more editorial than it is substantive. >> Okay. >> Just because the spirit of this text is
in another section of code. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just for the committee if if that's the way we all see it. I mean, I I you know, I'm I'm fine with the quote unquote catchall. Um, but you know, if we if any of us believe that anything is
substantive in nature and it needs to be specifically called out on the ballot question, then we'll need to talk through that and go that direction, >> right? Like 9A is sub substantial. So that's why as it's going to have its own, >> right? >> Which makes sense.
So, are there other things that we've changed along the way that would be included in this that are not in nine? >> Not in my mind, but I'm making a note to myself to begin keeping an inventory of sections that potentially this is the question it needs to catch. Um, so that
at the end when we are all the way through the charter um and someone asks, give me an example, I can say specifically sections 9, section 11, section. >> Yeah. anywhere we find it. >> And then for 9A is this this is just two
different versions that you're pitching. >> Yes. Well, no, it's not two different versions. Um it's addressing the two different elements of this question. Um the the two piece, at least in my mind, there were there were two parts that
were important to you. whether the city charter shall be reviewed by someone not the commission part one every five years. Um and then whether that the resolution that establishes the committee expressly allows for them to their terms to expire
at the end so that you don't have a double dual offsolding issue. We can absolutely combine them, but I felt like those were two specific elements of your discussion. And so if you don't want to call them out separately or you want to make sure that
at least one piece of that gets passed, that's what I was trying to accomplish by dividing them up. >> In the second version, the second sentence, it's just grammatical this revision names. Yeah, >> I think it might
should be enables the condition and confirms they don't match. >> No, they don't match. >> The first change just doesn't seem to substantial enough for me to consider it
as a standalone valid question. >> Yeah. So I think um first of all I mean if I don't want to I don't want us to purposely separate things and provide it to the commission and you know they kind of like well wait a second why are these
two separated and number two it's like you know depending on how many ballot questions that they're going to be pushing forward we might have to consolidate some you know and and I can capture that you know when when I present whatever it is that we submit as
as an option to do, but I also want to be able to clearly articulate as to why we separated these these two out. Um, but I noticed in 9A I know in 9A we talked about it we changed it to at least every five years and from from
five years. Um, do we feel like that at least every 5 years is kind of captured in the 9A ballot language or um, and I know we talked about it has to be reviewed in its entirety and then you
know 9A ballot language discusses a comprehensive review. Is that uh does that capture what we refer to? For me, for starters, one question and that question should effectively say, you know, shall shall
this section be updated to, like you said, at least every 5 years um in its entirety and the committee terms expire at the end of the review. There's three pieces to it. The first two pieces from my
perspective are a clarification of what was already written and could be construed multiple different ways, right? And it's just clarifying what that what the spirit of this review section is rather than a
substantiative change. So to combine them I think would be in in good taste to just say hey we're just updating this section to make it more clear and understandable and
ensure that the committee terms expire at the end of the review so it's not a long like you're not you're not having to say hey I resign a year later when you want to volunteer for the you know the CRA advisory committee or whatever. I think another point at least that I
see and I don't know you tell me what you guys think is a lot of times you know when there's when there's substantive changes and some may be a portion of that change may be controversial but the other half may not be a lot of times you you split them up so we can kind of call out what hey we
know that this section is going to be controversial like let's split these things up to see exactly >> how one I don't feel like any of these changes are any controversial >> um so I I mean, I would be a fan of of combining all all of these three points
that you mentioned into one, but you know, that's just me. >> Um, so my suggestion maybe to the city attorney would be make sure that the final ballot language captures that it's at least every 5 years in its entirety
and expiring terms. >> Okay, I'm rewriting it now. I think that's pretty straightforward. That's what we're trying to capture. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz when I know when people reach out to me, they're like, "Was it five
years from this date or that date?" And I'm like, "Yeah, I don't know. You have to ask the people that were there. So, while Miss Amy is doing her law stuff on 9A, if we could switch over and
and look at um the other piece of paper that has section or 8B on it that is at the bottom. That's the the ballot language to capture all of eight. Now we know we voted last meeting to move this on. So
>> I'm reopening that. >> Nope. My apologies. >> I'm sorry. Yes. Disregard that. >> It is there. But >> Yep. It's not on the It's not on the agenda. It was 9A in sample this version cuz I remember that we specifically said
there were changes that needed to be made and so just coming back to a thing and made the changes that you guys thought. >> Got it. >> Thank you for keeping us straight. >> Actually want to reopen everything. >> No, absolutely not. I don't want to go backwards.
Not just >> Miss Amy, do you want to do kind of like what we did in eight now? Now now that we've kind of given some direction and do we need to maybe >> do we need to vote on that or >> I know you're just waiting for the next
until you get it before we >> just maybe table the item for the until the next meeting. Yeah, I think we can table it pending uh finalized um you know structure of the ballot language per or the committee's direction.
Everybody's okay with that? >> Yeah, I'll motion to uh table it until the June 24th meeting. >> Okay. Motion to table by Mr. Stra. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Switzer.
>> Any public comment? Okay. Assist me call the role. >> Mr. Spray. >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marlor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. Mr. Langford.
>> Yes. Okay. Moving on to item number five. Uh we're going to continue the review of chapter 10. Hopefully we can get through that and then uh if so, we'll we'll get on to 11. So, we
had a Mr. Stray and I had a good discussion back and forth. That was that was a healthy uh I I enjoyed that. So, >> and because of that discussion, I did send in to CJ, which she put in here, recommended via email. I I took into account some of your concerns and kind
of amended this to address those concerns. So you'll see that in this section that is highlighted and said recommended via email. >> That is essentially what I'm proposing is a A and a B to replace the the former
proposed A only. >> Okay. >> And and my intent there is it addresses the concerns you had and clearly dictates the authority that the commission has and the authority that
they do not have. Um, and it separates out the protocol section into its own section. So, um, I racked my brain and tried to my small brain that is to try to come up with some some different verbiage and stuff and I I did a little
bit of research and um, with with some help of my of some of my friends, I was directed to read section 108 of the employee handbook. I don't know if any of you guys have looked at
the employee handbook and section 108. >> What's that? >> Must have missed that. >> Missed it. Okay. Well, good cuz I've got it brought up. So, >> yeah, if you read it. >> Uh, so section 108 is actually the city commission and the management and
employee relations. So, in the city handbook or the employee handbook, it describes exactly what we're talking about, right? Um, and it says, um, glasses here. Um, the city commission here, well, some of this stuff I'm like,
man, that really belongs in the charter, but says the city commission hereby delegates the responsibility of management to the city manager and his or her staff. In addition, the city commission delegates to the city manager full authority to operate the city of
Linhaven within established policies and procedures. The city commission, and this is where it starts getting into what we're talking about, the city commission shall not bring pressure to bear either directly or indirectly on the city manager in the performance of
his or her job duties. And the city manager shall operate the city of Linhaven in a manner that best serves the needs of city of Linhaven. City commission understands it must go through the city manager for information from his or her staff to make sure
proper protocol is followed. City of Linhaven's general expectation of its employees will include but are not limited to those established by this policy. And then it goes on and basically says, you know, it it lists out some some things as to what the city
manager, you know, can and would do. Um, so I saw that I was like, okay, well, that's directing the the commission to go to the city manager before going to any employees. But I think the spirit of what you were trying to capture is is
that one commissioner or mayor, commissioner or whatever cannot go directly to the city manager and and direct things. They they must do it as a as a body. >> I'd like to ask questions about that since the assistant city manager is here. I think she will be familiar.
>> So that that handbook, who produces that handbook? Like like who has the authority to change the contents of that handbook? If it's policy, we bring policy back before the commission. If it's procedures, we can do that within the office of the city manager.
>> Okay. So, what he just read off, if the commission, let's say a commission said, "Hey, we want to change this and they vote to change it and remove some of those provisions out of that handbook, you would just update it to remove whatever." We go back to the you would
go back to the charter because if if you're saying can the commission change its policy? Is that what you're saying? >> Can they remove that information from the handbook? >> They can. Yes. >> So they have the authority to remove it.
>> Right. Okay. Um >> it doesn't change the form of government. >> No. No. >> The action doesn't change the form of government. If they removed it from the handbook, would that would that change kind of how the government operates? >> So, >> so what specific ones are you thinking
that >> remain if you don't mind? Um >> I mean this for me it's it's policy 108 108 I >> 108. Yeah. which is the relationship between the commission and the city manager. So
the um so a lot of the provisions will keep um but let's say in the scope let's say they went through and they modified the scope to remove some things like uh for example the sentence the city commission understands
it must go through the city manager for information from his or her staff to make sure proper protocols followed. Let's say they got that sentence out. Um, and so now the commission that voted to remove that has an expectation that they
can individually just go ask the staff for information. >> That doesn't change the form of government. >> No, it doesn't change the form of government. Does it change how you guys operate? >> It'll just require education of the commissioners every time they ask. You don't need to bring that in take formal
driver. >> In my opinion, two-way street. This says this is the way you're going to run my company. The handbook, if I'm an employee, >> it's to educate the employee.
>> I'm being educated. >> So when a commissioner comes to me, I can say, "Hey, it's got to go through city manager." >> Yeah. So I guess I so I watched the presentation by Comm Commissioner War last night on the
YouTube for reasons and um I I found it quite valuable and I actually typed down a lot of what he said and so I was kind of thinking today with with this section 10 and what I proposed and one of the things he talked about was that the the
charter may restrict authority and and I'm kind of at the point where I'm wondering is that kind of what this this proposal does? And that's what I'm thinking is I think what it does is not necessarily that it restricts their authority, but
it clarifies how their author authority is derived. that their authority is derived as a body rather than individuals and and I think that piece of it that element there is absolutely appropriate for the citizens to put in their chart.
Um, so as long as I I personally feel like as long as we are trying to preserve that specific element to to declare that their authority is derived as a body, not as individual members, I would be happy with altering this if you
guys feel it necessary to ensure that it says at least that but not more than necessary. if you feel like some of this is is um policy and not charter material. >> I I like the updated what you what you
sent in and I do appreciate it because because it does capture some of the things that I was I was worried about to include performance evaluations and performance feedback and corrective actions uh or corrective direction to the city manager. Um, I had kind of come
up with some stuff. It basically the the last sentence was was a catch-all, but you've kind of bulletized it and I'm good with either way. But, um, it would say nothing herein shall prohibit comi commissioners from requesting information, conducting inquiries,
raising constituent concerns, or performing their legislative oversight duties. >> We said the same thing in different ways. >> Exactly. So that's all I was going to say. You just bulletized it and mine was just word soup. So um I I'm you know I I
don't have any reservations that >> I mean that's really the goal for me in this section is to not >> I I don't want to make make it harder for the legislative body to legislate. Right. >> What I do want to do is prevent what we've had in the past three or four
commissions that I've been here for. Um, which is at times an individual member of the commission may, you know, feel like they can do something that really that's not the intent of the commissioner role. And I I just want to
capture that in the charter so that way it it's very clear and and it is enduring and it's not going to be something that's changed because the commission flavor of the year decides that it can do so.
>> That's what we're trying to prevent, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, and then item B, I separated that out just because I I mean I think I talked pretty well through this last meeting, but it it effectively puts in place what Congress and the state
legislature already do, which is to set their their meeting protocol, decorum, things like that. The current commission is utilizing um protocol that was passed via resolution in 2024.
And so I mean how many people have we changed out since then? Do they even know what it says? Um yeah, >> I will just say from my experience that one is tricky from my perspective because
they it's man you've got mandatory language here. They shall adopt or reaffirm and they it's sometimes just hard for them to actually accomplish even if they want to and they're all aligned. So I have experiences with other local government
authorities. The new mayor comes in new rules of forum. He wants to change things up a lot and he can't get enough consensus in 45 days to get those rules. But he can get some of it >> which is why I said existing rules and protocols shall remain in effect until amended or replaced by majority vote if
>> but it says shall and it does require a mandatory duty of the commission. And I'm just for if you have for a commission that has three newbies on it that are still trying to get their seed legs. Maybe it's an easy thing to reaffirm what's already there, right? Until they understand that they don't want it. And I want them to always have
the ability because it is always their ability to set their own rules whenever and and on whatever time frame they want. And I I know that when I when this mayor came into office, I mean at our first meeting, he he said, "Here are all the changes I want to make to the rules of decorum." and I made all of those
rules and they were sent to him and never presented but again that was his prerogative to request and it's his energy to move it forward and it's his meeting to facilitate >> but that's never been passed via ordinance or resolution or anything
>> the requirement that they do so no there is a code provision already that says the commission may set their own procedure >> right but what what what can you clarify what you just said >> so every so >> so when the newly appointed mayor commission Dave came in. He said, "I want to change the rules of procedure
and the following week." And I said, "Okay, that's your project to do. Here is a resolution that makes these changes so that you can go into the commission and sell it." >> And it was never >> it's never moved beyond that. So, >> but it's not time to move. >> But I'm correct that they're still following the 2024 resolution.
>> They are. >> Okay. That's what's still controlling until they >> I think what the concern you're bringing up is that for example come April 2027 there's three seats up let's say all three get replaced brand new people um
for sake of example cuz I like examples okay one two three you're the three new commissioners and mayor commissioners okay >> and you guys decide hey like we we want to change these and you're you're working on Right. And you get you just
with with Jamie and Judy, you just can't figure out a set of protocol that you guys agree to um within the 45 days. So the concern then is what? >> Mine is that they don't if they're not going to change anything. They can't
come to consensus. The existing rules still exist. They're not sunset in any way. And then my concern is that I as the one who is has the duty to tell them, all right, welcome to office. you have 45 days to to review your rules, understand your rules, and tell me how
you want to change them and get everybody on board. >> Okay? >> And that is really really difficult in those first 45 days to create that requirement, that legislative requirement for your commission. That's all I'm >> Do you understand the spirit of what I'm trying to do here?
>> I do. I don't know how to force it as a city attorney. That's what I'm also trying to say. >> Do other cities that you've seen do anything like this? Organically it happens with every change in command. Um sometimes it passes, sometimes it doesn't. Yeah. So >> or sometimes it doesn't happen like you
just observe illustrated. >> So but I the desire was still there. That wasn't it. It's just >> it chose either not to pick that battle which is his decision to make. Um I I I can't guess. I just creating a
legislative mandate. It's a good idea. I just don't know how to carry it out. And I do feel some responsibility as a city's attorney to advise them and help facilitate that. And I'm just see the space. >> Would you would you feel better if it said the commission shall review its
meeting rules and protocols within 45 calendar days following spring and blah blah blah and affirm their understanding, you know, of of those rules. >> I would be satisfied with review. >> Review. Okay. I don't want them to have to sign an affidavit that they
understand, acknowledge, and agree to fall. I don't want to do that. >> Would it would it um I would My concern with that is they say, "Hey, you sent it to them." Yep. I reviewed it and they halfassed it. They didn't
really give the effort it deserved. And they don't talk about it up here. >> I concerned with every document. Let's be honest. >> That is just a sign. Is there a way to to capture this that it it has to be an agenda item within 45
days? So that way the members of the public, we can say, okay, they're they're saying that they reviewed it and they understand it. And even if they're not swearing on an affidavit, they're at least saying, hey, we went through it, we reviewed it, we understand it, you
know, and then it's doesn't have to be voted on, but it's a discussion item. it has to be discussed and then they can move on and at least members of the public then say, "Okay, I can hold them accountable to the rules because they had that agenda item."
The way I see it playing out in real life is that it gets put on the agenda every January if they have a November election or every May if they have an April election, June if that's after runoffs or >> it gets put on the consent agenda as a
you know either motion motion to confirm rules of procedure. >> So unless somebody pulls it off unless somebody is paying attention unless somebody pulls it off it gets confirmed procedurally it it does what you're what you want it. they voted on. >> Have they reviewed it? Have they thought
it through? I don't I don't know if it accomplishes that. >> That's where that my answer to that would be we'll find out. >> Um, you know, your your code already allows them to set their own rules anytime they want to. And I I think that's appropriate because sometimes it takes a long time to even make a little
change and get them get consensus on it. >> I've got one question down here. It looks vague to me, but investigating matters relation. >> Which section are you in? >> She's asking >> very bottom >> very bottom.
Let's say you like Hey, you're the city manager for example. It says investigating matters within the commission's authority. Yeah, let's say that you got sexual harassment
and it's not the city manager, >> then it's then it's the city manager's role to do that. >> That's yeah, >> but they wouldn't be able to because that's not within their authority. >> But they don't believe that >> what they believe their authority is and what their authority actually is or sometimes
>> their authority is whatever this document says it is. >> And anything that we don't say it's not Right. But you've got to remember that they're sitting out there thinking we have something. We're going to
investigate because we got to talk to the city attorney. They're going to go right past us >> or they disagree with what the city attorney's opinion is as to the limits of their authority and they talk about it. >> Okay. So, if we strike that out, what do we think that could result in that they
no longer >> I don't think we strike it out. I think it's we just define it. We got to find what's >> but it isn't that they have to the city manager is the person that handles these investigations unless it's the city
manager. I I look at I look at that as a lot less um intrusive is not the right word, but I look at it as in a more simple rate, right? Like I'm thinking investigating matters within the commission's authority would be
equivalent to commissioners requesting information regarding constituent concerns. Like let's say for example um my trash was out my trash can was out beside my driveway and it didn't get picked up, right? And for whatever
reason I decide to call Commissioner Perno and be like, "My trash wasn't picked up today. Why?" Well, Commissioner Perno goes to the city manager or whomever and says, "Hey, I got a I got a constituent that their
trash wasn't picked up. He lives on Louisiana Avenue. Is there any reason why oh our truck broke down before that we'll pick them up tomorrow? Like that's the level of investigating I was thinking about >> with that example. What this what this would do is if the city manager at that
time said, "Hey, you're interfering with my duties as a city manager because I'm trying to do daily operations and trash service to falls under daily operations." That's not an acceptable response because it's absolutely within the authority of a commissioner to
address constituent concerns, right? You know, that's where I was kind of coming from. >> I think it's appropriate for a commission to elevate commissioner concerns, but the role of a commissioner in my mind is governance. It's not it's not resolving that concern. It's bringing it to the attention of city
manager who can then >> ideally commissioner Perna would give me the number to the trash department and say, "Hey man, just call then like I'm not your I'm not the problem solver and I'm picking on you cuz you're here." But um that that was but that was the way
that I was reading that like in investigating that >> and we already have referring constituent concerns within the last sentence. So that's why I'm saying like I'm >> I didn't want to take I didn't want to unnecessarily take something away from the commission if there was some lawful
reason for them to need to investigate a matter. >> Yeah. I I didn't want them to >> which if we need to clarify I'm happy to clarify. I don't oft I I would have to say let's wait until the next meeting because I would need time to figure out what we need to clarify unless you have a a suggestion.
>> I'm looking at the mitigation of risk. >> Yeah. And if a commission thinks that, hey, we should get involved in this to mitigate risk, they're going ask city manager, which >> which has the opposite effect. >> Yeah. Has the opposite effect. Now you
got five people investigation >> and that's the person the city manager and that young lady right there should be talking to. >> Miss CJ, did you say that's ahead of that administrative authority of the day-to-day operations clarifies that point? Well, but nothing in the section shall
prohibit the commit commission from acting as a body from doing all of these things. >> I mean, in my mind, the commission's authority is govern. >> Yeah. >> And it is not administration, but I don't know that that the fight seems very foreseeable to me
that it says right here, I can investigate things within my authority authority, >> but as a body has made it so or I have deemed it so >> but as a body, not as an individual. >> Right. It says as a body, >> how do you investigate something as a body? If you're off,
>> they want to fight to bring something to the whole commission's attention that I have to tell them. I've already told them individually, and now I have to say publicly, this is not within your authority. Leave it alone. I don't mind being the bad guy, but I don't want to embarrass them. >> Yeah. >> And I and that's that's the result that
is forced. And I hate that. I don't want that >> for me or whoever sits in the chair. Are there are there any matters that commission would appropriately investigate as a body that if we don't say this that they would lose the
ability to investigate? >> Well, they always have the in ability to investigate the city manager. They have the ability to investigate things related to governance. So, if they want to do some new land use regulation, they have the ability to investigate that.
Whether that's talking to Panama City or going out to see that kind of development they're hoping to bring that that type of investigation I feel like is absolutely appropriate but I don't know that it is elevated to them from a constituent. It's something they should do in order to make a good governance
decision. To me that is part of the job anyway and goes without saying. So, can we can we kind of walk through what actually happened um and just kind of >> play the lit test with that with based on our verbiage? Right. So,
>> if we think back, you know, >> I know we don't we don't want to relive this, right? But >> anyway, >> Miss Vicki, Miss Vicki was the city manager, okay? and whatever allegations were made this that and another the
commission as a body decided to take a week to >> invest >> investigate they what however it is they did that right they interviewed employees I I don't know what it was that they did right and we don't know what it was they did because that cannot
be discussed at this time right due to pending litigation but I guess my question is is that if we think back to that process of how the how the body >> investigated, right? Can we can we com
take that specific example since it's pretty recent and fresh and apply it to this section and if that was struck through there, would they still have the ability to do that? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. So, >> it's not in the charter now and they
have that. >> Yeah. So, on that same token, >> when the former police chief >> um went through all of that stuff, >> correct, >> the commissioners at the time obviously were investigating to some degree because they needed to make,
>> you know, at least some kind of decision based on liability with insurance or whatever, right? Um, same scenario. they can still do their governmental functions even if this sentence is not in here.
>> To be honest with you, I don't think the commission had the authority to investigate the police chief because the police chief does not work for the commission. >> The police chief works for the city manager. >> I would agree. >> So, >> the commission could absolutely invest
this investigate the city manager, but they don't have the authority. No, you could you could go, but I'm just saying to the extent that the commission had to make a decision because there was like a there was like a labor attorney involved or something, right? >> So, there was no decision for the
commission >> other than to terminate the employment of the city manager prematurely because or due to lack of action. They saw that. >> I will share that at least one of them though. Uh >> well, they investigated it because they
thought they had the authority because the charter said the commission has the right to ratify or advice and consent on the appointment. So they implied that I have the authority then to weigh in on the termination >> and that the child the charter was
silent on that. And so I took to get the position that no, you do have a role in the appointment. you have no role in determination. >> But so again, what is it? What are the limits of your authority, right? >> Um >> you don't they don't always know and
they don't always agree. >> That's a great example. >> Um but he he implied authority from what was in the charter that he actually had. >> So what I understand is that I would be comfortable removing the sentence because the the actual authority that
they have is already derived elsewhere. Okay. All right. >> So, CJ, if we could just strike the entire bullet that's investigating matters, >> please. >> Is everybody Is everybody okay with that? Everybody's Everybody's good with
that? >> Yeah. Let's do it. >> And we'll kind of if if everybody's okay with with section A, then that's the the bottom half of the example of A with that would be those three bullets. Well, the bottom half is there's a where it
ends with nothing in the section. >> The sentence we both wrote. >> Yeah. So, we'll kind of in a sense slap the table on section A and move move on to B if everybody's here with that. >> Yeah.
>> So, I read I read B. I read what what was in here and and then during commissioner war gave that presentation last night and I was like golly is this policy or is this framework now? So I kind of >> today too after that >> that's why I was asking the questions
I've been asking. >> Yeah. You know cuz so for example he said ask these questions. Does it define who has authority and what what authority they have or do not have. And to that I say yes. It would define the authority that they have or do not have
to the aspect of it would it would not only say that they have the authority to set the rules but they would compel them to do so when there's a new member. >> Okay. And then the other thing was does it organize government? No. And does it
establish accountability? I believe yes because again it compels them to review it when there's a new member on the commission. Um and then the final test if this provision were removed tomorrow or in this case it just never existed would
the structure of Linhaven government change? No. Would Linhaven still function under the same governmental framework? Yes. Would elected officials still possess the same authority? Yes. Would accountability relationships remain unchanged? No.
So, I mean, I don't know if it's like is it you got to have 25% yeses. So, that's why with talking about it earlier, I think we kind of went backwards. We started with B and then backtrack. So with B, I I would be
comfortable with reworking B to address the concerns of this the city attorney where we're not mandating that they have to work through it and adopt or reaffirm, but rather what I would like to see is that even if it ends up in the
consent agenda, there's an acknowledgment that it was reviewed after a new member is formed. >> The new member portion. >> Yeah. Because for example, if the one currently 2024, let's say it's 2029 and
it still hasn't never been changed, I would like to know that even if it's through the consent agenda that the entirely new commission that would not exist today >> would be you know or sorry 2031 in 2031
that they would have all affirmed through even the consent agenda that they had reviewed the rules and protocols. that at that point it's like a a what seveny old document. >> Yeah. So I'm I'm trying to understand the the problem that we're that we're
trying to solve here in and I guess in my mind is is the intent to ensure that new members of the committee review current protocols and procedures or is the intent to ensure not only that occurs but sitting commissioners or
andor mayor whomever also re-reviews almost like ethics training which I think is required annually. >> It is. Um, is that kind of the >> I would say it's more the second new and a re-review because if you're if you're going to limit it to only the new ones,
then it kind of negates the necessity for even consent agenda item. >> Okay? >> But again, I'm approaching this entire section as a body, not individual commissioners, but as a body, have they reviewed because there's a new member, have they reviewed the protocol
>> um after the new member joined? And if it's as simple as put it on the consent agenda within 45 days, is is everybody good? Everybody had time to review it? Yes. Okay. Boom. What would that agenda packet look like CJ as far as if that's
if the policies and protocols are on the consent agenda for everyone to say that they reviewed? Is the is that agenda going to be 700 pages long? No, because that that is on the agenda of every single meeting. I have it as the third
well the page immediately behind your agenda cover >> right >> as your meeting protocols and participation protocols. >> So it's a copy of the resolution from 2024 >> for the behavior portion of it. Yes. >> Okay. So I'm asking for the entire thing
to be reviewed though. So a portion of it is reviewed every meeting technically. It's there for everybody to read. The agenda packet would would have the whole resolution with everything attached to it. It's not a long document. >> Okay.
>> No, it was only three. Was it three or four pages? >> Okay. I didn't know if it was like No, >> if we were saying policies and protocol like >> like a big book. >> Yeah. We tell you the whole entire employee handbook here or you know that
but it's just the I think what your intent is the meeting protocol right is that what your goal of it >> it's the rules of decoration I think >> to me if like I'm just picturing starting a new jump
>> this kind of seems like on boarding >> it doesn't seem like uh and I might be wrong doesn't seem like a chart thing. It seems like a pumble thing. >> Well, it's a David, how do you hold the commission accountable?
>> It's six pages. Well, as much pressure as you can, there's going on. >> So, what if we if we don't do this, what they don't get to manually review is the introduction, the definitions,
um the generalized system participation procedures are not included. Visual electronic aids and handouts is not included. Authorized time for public comment is not included. Special circumstances is not included.
Um this little sentence that says the board chair may wave any of these procedures in their discretion relevant to special circumstances. What is included is the citizen decorum
guidelines which talks about public participation and ends at the at number nine. So >> the commissioners get that they get elected or >> the 70 agenda
>> 60% of this is not included in every agenda. And to me, that's the 60% that a new member of the commission and don't >> definitely needs to review. And if the newest member of the commission is is
four years away, that means that the rest of the commission hasn't looked at that thing in four years. You know, >> we don't know that. I mean, >> we don't reaffirming that they did. >> Yeah. >> It's compelling them to at least say through the consent agenda. So, we have
consistency. >> It's accountability. It's saying, "Hey, you voted on the consent agenda which said that you reviewed this because there's a new member on the commission." >> I mean, do they do we do we also need to
have them vote on the consent agenda that they're required to show up for every commission meeting? That's going to be in a different section and we'll talk about that. I I just throw that up as you know, I mean, I guess what I'm saying is it's like where where is the I
I'm all for accountability and and yes, there needs to be an official vote and things, but it it almost kind of would seem if if we're going to put that there, we're kind of opening up Pandora's box to, you know, what else should they have to vote on to ensure
that they're compliant with? >> That's all I'm saying. I I I'm agnostic at this point. I I kind of hear some some differing, you know, opinions or whatever and I want to make sure everybody's heard from. So, Mr. Marlor, Mr. Tucker, do y'all have what are
y'all's thoughts on section B? Uh, I don't know if it's charter or if it's ordinance. I'm leaning more toward ordinance because it is it's a policy of how the condition
operates and if it's it's in the charter then if you want to change it a special >> you don't have to they can call for referendums anytime they want
>> and so can the citizens with a 10% >> petition No, >> but so Commissioner Perl, for example, was originally elected >> 2019, right? So that's seven years ago, right?
Theoretically, I know Pat would never do this, but theoretically he, let's say the 2024 resolution was not in effect. Let's say it was from when was Mayor Kelly elected? >> 1960s. I don't know. I know he served for a
long time. Let's say the protocol hadn't been updated since Mayor Kelly's first year was mayor. It's a long time. So, a a commissioner who's been on the commission for seven years, we get a newly appointed mayor commissioner, right? And you just as a citizen, you
have to assume that he knows that protocol that's been in place for a long time. And there's no method of holding him accountable. Um, but this would introduce a method of accountability, saying, "Hey, every time there's a new member, you're you're through the
consent agenda, you're affirming that you've at least reviewed it." And if for something happens and he violates it, you could say, "Hey, you affirmed that you had reviewed it." So you you're aware of the protocol,
so why'd you violate it? Put us in any legal bind. I didn't understand it. No, anybody can be an elected official. So, >> yes, exactly. >> As long as they're an adult and a res, right?
>> I mean, and you all can change it all to >> 16. No, no, that's change 16. Hey, we want more youth, right? Okay. So, so here here's here's kind of where we are with section B. Mr. Stra's already volunteers volunteered to take
the feedback from Miss Meyers and go back and and reward section B as needed. Um I I would ask that if if if everyone is okay with with that, fine. If anyone is just hard stance on, hey, I don't
believe section B needs to be in here, then please make your voice heard just to save Mr. Stra's time or >> No, I just uh I just want to strike out B completely and let's move A forward. >> You want So
>> I want to strike B completely. I'm I'm reading the room that it's not probably necessary or appropriate to be in a charter. So I'm comfortable striking B. And let's move A. >> Okay. >> Is everybody motion?
>> Yeah. I motion to strike B completely and move the final version of A forward. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Motion by Mr. Scra to um remove section B completely. Second by Mr. Marlor. Uh is there any discussion from
the public? None heard. Assistant city manager, recall the role. >> Mr. Spray. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marlor. Yes, >> Mr. Switzer. >> Yes, >> Mr. Tucker. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langford. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So then would it be safe to say that we won't have an an a 10 A. It would just be 10 since there's no B now or >> Yeah, that that's correct. But so on the version I'm looking at, there are two A's. And I want to be clear, y'all. The second and the second half, the bottom
half the final version. >> It's on there. I just wanted to confirm your motion was to strike section B and move section A forward. >> Yeah, the the final version where we remove that one bullet item. >> Yes, that's up there.
>> There you go. >> And obstruct >> and as far as it would stay as a or not be a I mean it >> well you've got a paragraph that remains intact the form of government or the way
up here. >> No, no, no. That that stays intact. >> So that stay We could label that A and then all of the new stuff B because they are somewhat different. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay.
>> So, do I need to read? >> No, that's an editorial change. >> Editorial change. I will say that I do like I like the idea of holding them accountable for things like that. I wouldn't I don't know that I dismiss be in hand. I don't
think I was doing that. But we're like I go about I go back and forth on this all the time like we're the cheated on lover, right? We're so we are h we have our protective instinct. >> We'll talk about just a second. So we we've we've voted on this already. So,
if this is something that we're going to reintroduce to the committee, there's a process that we have to follow to to reintroduce that. We can't >> we can't reconsider. >> Yeah. >> If you want to reconsider. I mean, >> I don't I don't want to reconsider. I just want to share a thought.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I don't I don't want to add it back on there. I'm fine with with the the first and second. >> Okay. I just wanted to keep us I just wanted to keep us in line. I appreciate >> an inspiring speech. >> Yeah. I'm just saying we're we're like that guilted lover where we're like, "Oh
my gosh, we got to kind of >> like I I I challenged myself to like how why am I doing this? Is it because of what happened? Is that normal somewhere else?" >> Yeah. >> So turn how much it's going to cost.
>> All right. So for the for the purposes of of this particular agenda item which includes both 10 and 11 is it safe to say that we're uh then so we voted on strike and B are we ready to are we
ready to vote on 10 10 section 10 with the new A and B being finalized so Miss Amy could we just your motion was to strike so us right and move A forward. Yeah, >> but a is now different in the charter,
>> but she I mean she will still have to prepare ballot to put it in legislative form. I'm going to give you a version that looks just like let's say format ballot language. >> So my question is is based on the motion and what the charter now says with 10 A and 10B. Are we are we good to move to
section 11? >> Yes. >> That was all I just wanted to make sure we weren't terrible. >> I just want to make sure we weren't speeding there. So all right moving on to uh well it's the same agenda item but it's uh section 11
um creation of uh elections term members and term limits there. So um so this is kind of uh capturing Miss Miss Nina came and and gave us a a pretty good presentation. Um
I think we all had some our chance to ask Miss Miss Ward some uh some questions there. Um you know just that that's just talking about the elections uh which this is kind of a this this section 11 is kind
of talking about multiple things but elections are are part of it. Um, I uh I can't I have a I got some ideas on on how I how I feel
about the whole election piece. Um, you know, I I uh I've mowled this over for for weeks and talked to multiple people about, you know, which direction, you know, we may potentially go in Linhaven.
read I don't know how many Facebook comments, polls, different things, just kind of trying to get a sense of what people were were wanting or not wanting. Uh what's the pros and what's the cons if we move elections to Nove? Well, it's
not even November. Uh it's actually >> August if it's three candidates November if it's too big. >> Yeah. Um, so I I don't my I'll just my my take on it is I I I want to leave
elections where they are in in April and and that's it's really it's really for multiple reasons. Um but you know the argument that you know elections should be moved to either August or November
addresses really kind of two major major prompts, right? Number one is to quote unquote increase voter turnout. Number two is to save money. All right. So, I'll kind of, you know, address both of
those. Um, first, the the voter turnout. Um, we don't know if if more or less Linhaven voters vote in primary elections versus April municipal elections. We don't have that. We don't even have
those available. They don't they can't break out. Why I asked Miss Ward, there was no specific way to break out Linhaven voters. It's the primary elections was was broken out by districts. Those districts contain both
Linhaven voters and >> Yeah. But every voter has a voter ID and if you know if they vote it in the election, you can compare it to registration. And it is it complicated to figure it out? It sure is. But >> can it be done? Yes. this the statement is is we don't know if more or less Lind
Haven voters per the data vote in primary elections versus municipal elections. Um I look at the quality over quantity. That's where it comes down to me. Um the under votes in primary
elections versus municipal elections. Um people who come to vote at municipal elections know why they are there to vote. They know who they're going to vote for. Typically, the under votes are extremely low in a municipal election.
You go to a primary election, the under votes are very high, >> especially down ballots. >> Yeah. Um, and the the other part for me was was voter fatigue. Um, I think voter fatigue is a thing. And here's here's kind of where I'm at with the voter
fatigue. In the 2020 primary election on the ballot for a Linhaven voter, they were there to vote for a county judge for group one, school board member for districts for the their appropriate district, but one,
two, and four was on the ballot, a state attorney for the 14th judicial court, a state representative, a superintendent for schools, board of county commissioners for district 3, a state committee man, and a state committee
woman and then we would have obviously a Linhaven either commissioners or mayors or whatever in addition to any sort of >> referendums that would be on the ballot. So in 2022
uh 2 years later there was a US senator, governor and lieutenant governor election, attorney general, commission of agriculture, school board district 2, state senate district 2, state representative district 6. So when I talk about voter fatigue, I like to know
100% exactly not only who I'm voting for, but effectively who I'm voting against and why. Um, I want to look at all of the candidates that's running for whatever seat, whether it's the commissioner of a agriculture or whether it's for commissioner of seat whatever,
right? It it so when I'm when I'm sitting down and I'm having to do research on all of these candidates under all of these seats, it becomes it becomes a little bit overwhelming. Um, right now we have it where Linhaven
elections are on their own. The candidates are very are very open, very outfront. We've had uh candidate forums um here within the city. Um I haven't had 15 yard signs in each yard. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um so that's I don't want to belabor the point, but that's where I'm going with with voter fatigue. We're we're now taking a municipal election, which I 100% believe that municipal elections are the most important
election in all of elections. >> Voter fatigue is financial, too, because if you're now putting city elections in now, that's additional candidates that you need to decide if you want to put your hard-earned money to support. Also, if you want like how many were in that
one? Seven >> in the 20s. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 eight in 2020 and then seven in 2020. >> So let's say eight positions and then now tack on three more. So you have 11
yard signs in your yard because of the people you support. >> Yeah, that's >> it gets a little daunting. >> And also the cost we have to think about too the cost of the candidates. Is it going to cost Glen Haven City candidates more money to run in a fall election
than it would in a spring standalone election? And I believe the data will point if you research it to yes because it's a free economy and the cost to get materials, the cost to get ads, it will all increase because there's only so
much to go around and the demand will be higher. And I think that is something we should not discount. My concern I have is that we've already determined that the commission can absolutely set the date without us.
What I would like to approach is that if this if this committee would entertain it is to say and if we all feel this way is to say we feel it's in the best interest of Lynhaven citizens to not switch the
elections. However, if you are going to forgo our recommendation, this is what we recommend you do in order to make it as fair as possible for the citizens should you decline to follow our recommendation and move forward to
switching it to fall because of what I talked about last meeting where we want to try to ensure that the constituents if they have to switch are electing people knowing that those people are going to serve an extended term. terms yet, right? And knowing which terms are
going to be extended and when it goes effective because what I would not want is I would not want for the commission to say, well, the charter committee said not to switch it. We want to switch it. So, let's go ahead and now April 2027's election is November what? 6, 3rd,
whatever it is. And all of a sudden, that election just got smoothed up, right? Or on the inverse, we're going to put an effect of a year and a half from now. So now we have two people who were elected for four years and one who was
appointed that will serve an extra year and a half. So I think I I have a hard time believing that the commission would on its own accord make a a charter change without it deriving from us.
>> But they legally can change the dates of the election. >> They can't they can not. They this one they have sent to you for a recommendation. >> So if our recommendation is to not change it and they disagree with the recommendation that's where I'll call this my citizens insurance policy. >> Gotcha. Right.
>> Gotcha. Because I believe personally and individually as I said before that it is in Lynhaven citizens best interest to have April elections. >> However, as a committee member I want to make sure we're also doing everything we can to protect the citizens. Um, and
knowing that it is up to the commission to decide ultimately if those dates change or not, I would I would want to take a stance of let's let's recommend not to change but say but if you are going to change this is the best possible solution
>> which is >> which is to uh hold an April 2027 election for the three seats >> knowing forgo our recommendations. >> Yeah. If you're going to forego our recommendation to not change, >> this is how you should change to be fair
to the citizens, which would be to hold the April 2027 election knowing that those five or three positions would be for five and a half years and then the other two would be extended out a year and a half um organically. >> So like what So what other two would
that be? uh it's work and and um tenders because you have to extend like you have to I mean technically we could say and correct me if I'm wrong I mean but could we say that these three
will be elected in April 2027 and they'll be for 5 and a half years but those two would still go up in 2029 and they would be for an abbreviated term to get on site You could you could do that. >> We could do that. >> Those elections.
>> Yeah. So, our final April election if they were to ignore what we think is recommended would be that it would um be April 2020. >> So, I asked this last time, what happens if they don't want to do it? >> If they what >> if they if Jamie and Judy don't want to
extend >> I mean they can resign and then vacancies policy takes out. >> Yeah. And then and what is that? So the the commission chooses >> so the the current vacancy policy is >> we're not there yet but just because yes the current vacancy policy is any
vacancy in the commission may be filled until the next regular municipal election by vote of the remaining members of the commission provided that if such vacancy is not filled within 30 days after it shall have occurred appointment to fill such vacancy shall be made by the governor of the state of
Florida and provided further that vacancies resulting from a recall election shall be filled in the manner here after prescribed. So effectively, let's say Jamie said, "You know what? No, I signed up for another four years. At the end of that four years, I'm resigning. You know
there's a year and a half left." Well, at that point, that's April 2029. If he resigned April 2029, they would appoint somebody who would then serve until November 2030.
So, I I kind of want to finish my okay my spiel and and what we'll do is we'll we'll go around the room and hear everybody's spiel and we'll we'll figure out kind of what our recommendation needs to be regarding the voting stuff or the the election stuff and then if
there if there are some subsequent uh insurance policies as Mr. Scurry mentioned then maybe we could talk through some of those things to to provide. Um on the still on the voter turnout there, my final point was the partisan versus nonpartisan discussion. Um, obviously we're a nonpartisan we're
nonpartisan uh representatives here in Linhaven, but we're we're combining a nonpartisan election and a lot of times with a partisan election, whether it's US senators, governors, uh, commissioner of agriculture, I think, is is a partisan uh, position as well as the
attorney general, >> um, state senator, state representative, etc. So, my fear is is that the partisan conversation is going to increase and then candidates are going to go to doors and be like, "What are you a Republican or Democrat?" They're probably going to
ask anyway. >> Yeah, there you go. We got one right there. So, >> um, you know, we just kind of have to, you know, individuals or candidates or whomever will just kind of have to explain, hey, this is nonpartisan. But that's just that confusion there would would increase in my opinion. Um,
finally the the second prong that I was talking about was the was the financial savings. So that was the the voter turnout piece. And then the second piece is the financial savings. Um, and number one for me is how much should democracy cost?
Some people gave their lives for it. Um, so to me, I I don't think there's any any price tag of a fair and free election. Um, I think that's money that that we have to spend regardless of how much it is unfortunately. >> When you say free, are you like freedom?
Not free of >> free. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Fair and free. Maybe a freedom of election, not free monetarily. Sorry. Um the second piece is is that you know although although it may look like a more
streamline streamlined process if we moved it to November because everything is together some would say well it's more efficient. Um I would point to way the way we elect the president of the United States. Um, we have the electoral
college that we use to determine who wins the the president of the United States. We don't do by majority vote or whatever. Um, I looked and there's there's 11 different alternatives that has been discussed um and proposed to
elect the president of the United States. Of those 11, a large majority of them are way more efficient than what we're doing now. Um, but what we're doing now is what we've always done. It's worked and we're not going to change it. You know, again, I'm talking
about at the electoral at the pus level, not Linhaven. My point is is that we have systems in place, albeit they may appear as inefficient. I would point to the judicial system and due process. It's a very lab, you know, and you know,
it's very, it's a very laborintensive process, but it's the most fair that we could have. Is it as efficient as it could be? It's probably not. Does it need to change? I would absolutely argue no. Um, so that's just that's just my
take on it from the financial savings aspect, whether it's efficient or inefficient. We already have plenty of efficient inefficient examples within our government, both at the federal and the state level. Um, I don't think that uh I don't think that being more
efficient results in cost savings is something that we need to do for elections. I'll close with that. I'd like to hear from everybody else, but that's my take on elections. >> Um, I'll keep mine brief because I already obviously shared a lot, but I
would say is in regard to the insurance policy. I mean, there's there's three or four different ways you could carve out those depending on if you want to do electing for extended terms or electing for abbreviated terms to get on the cycle as quickly as possible. But I mean, you're if you're extending
electing for extended terms, you're talking five and a half years. If you're electing for abbreviated terms, so you're four minus one and a half. So you got what? Two public. So three two two and a half years. you're electing for two and a
half years. Um, yeah. So, there's we have a few different options, but I I also for many of the same reasons that Chairman Langford said, believe that it is in the best interest of our community to maintain spring standalone elections,
even if it costs 15,000. Um, if we don't like the runoff procedure and the cost that comes with runoffs because we've had a lot of runoffs, um, hey, I have a proposal on how we could change that to reduce the number of runoffs we have. Um, and if that's something that we want
to entertain, maybe we keep the April elections, but we put a referendum for changing the runoff procedures, right? Um, we can entertain that. So, I would just ask that you guys consider that if we don't want to move or if we want to move forward with recommending them to
not change it, that we at least consider the possibility of offering an alternative should they choose to ignore us. And that's what I have to say. >> Okay, Mr. Schmidzer, you want to >> Yeah. >> Go next. >> Um, we did a lot of research. I don't
have all that. I appreciate all of that. Did a lot of work on that. open my eyes on some things for sure. My um the reasons I are too that I don't support changing it. Number one is
I don't want to extend those two seats. Um, and I and I'm not going to vote on a situation if they don't want to do it for health or burnout or whatever that I
take away a opportunity for someone to vote. So, I'm I for those two reasons, I'm don't support it. I'm not against look, you know, you know, if the plan B or whatever
um doesn't include those other those two things, then looking into that. That's just my it's kind of maybe myopic. Maybe in the long term it works best for everyone to have them on the same dates, but that's that's where I am.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Marlor. >> Yeah. So the frustrated side of me looks at it as voter turnout. It's very frustrating the lack of voter turnout. I don't necessarily think the answer is to change it because of the reasons you've stated and I've looked into it some
myself. Um I think it's fair to either extend or people that put their time and effort into being elected to the commission having to shorten their term either. So um for those reasons I'm against switching.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Finish this up. >> I am still thinking that April's the way we're doing it now. Extension has always given me heartburn and my heartburn is not near as bad as
Panel City's heartburn. They're trying to come up with language to educate the public how they're going to extend their commission. And as of last Friday when I talked to the treasurer again, she said we still
don't have language. So may I address somebody in the audience? Is that okay? >> Sure. >> Sure. >> Uh what's the appetite among the commission members? And if you feel like well we don't know that's okay of just saying
hey we're going to extend our term for 15 16 months. Would you like to educate the public on that or what's that? >> Commissioner Fo, if you wouldn't mind, would you would you mind talking and just so if there's anyone watching at home, they could they could hear this
just me personally because I'm turned out. So, I don't I don't I don't get to run again unless I run for another office. Um, and I have a two-year waiting period. So now my 2-year waiting
period becomes a 5year waiting period if I want to get into another seat. And you know, I'll be pushing 70. So I ain't I ain't looking looking I'm not looking to be too much moving in that in that period. So So for
me, I can't I I I can't tell you. But for uh um uh for for these these two seats one and two, I mean it would be Sam's second term, you know, and if he if he ran, you know, and there'll be new
people coming in for for that other seat. And then of course there's the mayor seat. So you have an appointed mayor who may be running again and you have other people who may be running. It might entice someone to come out of the woodwork who's a strong mayor candidate
to to go for a 5 and a half year term. And that's my angle on looking at it. Now, I don't know how the other two commissioners feel sitting sitting back halfway through their term watching people come in with an extra half a term
basically, you know. So, uh, are we are we extending their their terms as well or they're So, you know, we're kind of in a pickle there. So, it's it's it's but if you're going to go to the if you're going to go to the the election
cycle that that that the c that coincides with the county, you know, that's that's what you have to do. You got to you got to get on the you got to get on the same page with them at some point. So, you either do it now or you do it, you know, you do it for the next term and it's going to do the same
thing. Um, but but the supervisor of elections was here and she even stated somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 people voted and and they voted in the national election and the the national election was fine. But when it got to
the county commissioner seats, there was 14,000 empty ballots out of 70. The people only showed up to vote for the national election and they had no interest or
left that left that particular um line item or or or election result, you know, unchecked. So, are we doing the right thing overall? You know, because and that's the other thing, too. If you guys I know
I know a couple people here have I know you've run. I know I know there's people who aspire to run or whatnot and and I've I've done two elections. Do I want my signs out with the with the presidential signs and the and the and and the congressional signs and what
you're going to you're really going to be fading to the back or like who's that you know. So that's another thing that you know that we we go around locally and solicit campaign dollars, try to get the impact to get people in there. So
you got to look at it from that point. It's it's small town politics, small town election. Yeah, the turnout's not going to be the same, but people who care are going to come out and vote, you know. So, so it's it's about getting it's about it's about getting to the people in your town that want to help
make a difference and be on your side in those respects and and come back with good service to take care of them. So, you know, and my my overall thing is if we're going to do it, let's do it and see what happens. If we're not, stay stay the course, you know, and make sure
that that we're, you know, that we keep the culture we have and, you know, okay, let's try to get 500 more people or a,000 more people to vote. You know, 3,000 people, yeah, it's not a great turnout, but, you know, there's there's 14 or 15,000 voters. So, you know, you
you you got to try to move the needle. It's as bad as a a bad weather day will keep the turnout low. you know, here, you know, it's it's one of those things. But in a national election, it won't. But but will those people really really vote, you know, for for that for that
for that local election? So, some of y'all got to y'all got to think about before we put it to the people and and that and that's what I'm was saying. If we if we put it out there on referendum, it's a savings. Okay. But do do the people really understand where it's
going there? you know, so that's that's that's where we got to we got to make we got to make that decision and either, you know, it's ultimately up to the people to decide. It's the way we're going to word it. So, and and and you know, and I've seen us word these
referendums where they're they're one-sided to the point where we want, you know what I mean? So, so it's it's something to consider in the referendum that you know that that you know that it's going to be a national election, but is it going to really focus on the
the the the local election side of things? Is it going to cuz we're going to there everybody's going to fall to the back kind so in the local >> that's my feelings. Um, >> thank you, Commissioner Pero. I'd like to let him finish up and then we'll go
to >> 100%. >> April, you're right. I also think that Hey, Pan City's running through a problem. Let's see what happens. Let's see what happens with the publicity of
the additional 15 months where they're going to keep trying to be quiet and just say, "Oh, by the way, John just got an additional 15 months. We'll see what happens with that. More importantly, what the turnout is. So, we've got somebody, let them be the
>> guinea pig, >> the guinea pig. >> And >> yeah, maybe it goes super super well and then >> they're like, actually, that's a great idea. That future commission decides to do it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I do want to say after
hearing everybody speak, um, the way to So, what I would like to say is, hey, we I would like to I'm not going to make a motion. What I would like to do is that we recommend as a committee not change it. But we put a caveat in there. But if
you decide to ignore our recommendation, what we recommend is that you make it effective that the April 2027 election for those three seats would be for a 5 1/2 year term to 2032. So that way the citizens are electing it. And then those
two seats still go to the April 2029 election that they're meant to for 5 1/2 years till 2034. So that way everything is in the hands of the voter knowing I'm voting for these people knowing their five and a half year term and there's no
mandatory extension for anybody currently in office. They would all have to vive for their seat. That's my proposed final proposed alternative vote that I would say we should attach should the commission vote to ignore our recommendation not to
change it. I'm of the notion that I don't think any terms get if if the our recommendation was ignored and they and they wanted to go ahead and put it on the ballot and the voters, you know, uh affirmed that
um I don't want anyone's um term to get extended, they would be required to resign at the completion of their term and that seat would be filled via via our vacancy procedures. The reason I'm going to say no to that is because the vacancy procedures puts it back on the
commission to choose the replacement. And it's healthier as a community to allow the citizens to elect replacements. And what I just proposed does that by saying their term organically ends when it's meant to end.
And because you can't shift from April to November without doing one of two things, either an abbreviated term or an extended term. But I would rather say if we're going to extend the terms, let the voters decide. I think the reason abbreviated terms is is a less viable
option is because like Pat said, a longer term maybe you get better candidates. Now, if they're only going to run for 2 and 1/2 years, are they, you know, what if we get nobody to even file >> because gez, I don't want to do that for two and a half years and then have to
run two and a half years. A year of that is running for reelection. you know, >> big and expensive undertake. >> Yeah. So, again, I don't want them to change it, but knowing that they can ignore us, I do want to offer the healthiest possible
alternative. Do you think it would be prudent for us to maybe approach the commission and and inform them of of our recommendation not to change and ask for guidance that that if they that they do
want to change? to kick it back to us and we will provide alternatives. >> You guys want to do that. >> I just don't want us to I just don't want to unnecessarily do a lot of work if if it's not required. >> Don't patch the solution up to solution
is not necessary. I'm so I'm good with that because basically we would ask them to effectively vote on if they want to send it back to us for a November solution. >> Yes. If they say, "Hey, we voted 3 to two to send it back to you guys for a
November solution." Then we know at least the majority of the commission wants to change it. >> Sure. >> And if it that doesn't happen, then we're moving on to section 12. There you go. >> And they may or may not have that information at hand that you provided
tonight. If you can inform them and mention things that go on. >> Yeah. And I mean that would be something that, you know, this is my own personal take. I do not want to ever speak for anyone else on this committee without an
official vote. You know what I'm saying? So, you know, >> can we include that or vote on it? >> However, I mean, I I just I just want to be as transparent. I I don't want to get up there and say something that Dave Switzer said and he's like, "Hold on. I didn't I didn't sign do their own due
diligence. Yeah. So, what I would say, and if you guys are okay with this, what I would say is that um >> whether you'd like to either come to the meeting that Chairman Langford would present this and share your individual committee member thoughts on why you
voted how you did or if you're not wanting to attend it that you create prepare a written statement to provide to the commissioners in advance so they at least understand individually why we all came to the conclusion. I did my best to type it down. I'm sure CJ did
too. But it means a lot more coming out of your own own mouth. Or that they know you wrote it yourself. >> Sure. >> Let me ask one more question. Commissioner Pero, you're turned out. >> Yes. >> This will be done in April.
>> You're you're fine. Okay. Uh so the question is and voted in and voted out. >> So, give me an extra year and a half, I'll take it. >> But away from that, so if and I'm just
thinking about what you said. If they had to resign or they they had to run their term and then the commission was toward to appoint to appoint they couldn't appoint my charter commissioner Po because he's already turned out and he has way two
years. >> Cave he cannot because of partial terms but some of them could be >> right >> because partial terms. >> See what I'm saying? >> Well, he could be appoint he could he could go directly from a commissioner to a mayor's. He could do that.
>> Yeah. But but he couldn't be reappointed to his same seat because >> he can't be reappointed to the same. >> But he could be appointed to Sam's seat because it's a different seat. >> He'd be filling a partial term. That's correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, can I answer your question? I wasn't sure what it was. >> Yeah. That's
>> that's why I'm trying to say let's leave it in the hand of citizens if they want to switch. I like your solution. I like chairman Lberg which is for us to say we don't think you should change it and we all share why. But if you do vote to if you guys want to have a vote and discuss
and tell us that we you're no we want to change it then we'll go work on what is the best solution for the community. >> So >> So with that is anyone want to make a motion on section 11?
I'll motion that we recommend to the commission that we advise not to change the election dates. Um but if they desire to change the election dates, allow us opportunity to create a
transition solution that's fair for the community. >> Did you get all that, Miss CJ? >> Okay. So I recommend that we or I motion >> that we recommend not to change. >> However, we ask for them that if they do
desire to change by majority that they send it back to us to create a solution for a transition change. That's later in another section >> to provide a you >> a a solution that's fair for the community.
>> Wait, but to provide a transition about that transition. >> Uh yeah. So to provide a transition that we should feel as fair as we can. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm not sure either. Okay.
>> You feel cut off? No. I finished. pretty straightforward. It's just fair. My frustration, but I'm being tested. >> Tommy wants it to just say fair. F A I R, not fairest.
>> I think I'm okay. >> Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor by Mr. Scra. Anyone needs to review that motion? Miss CJ's been so kind enough to have it on the screen. Uh, do is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right. There's a second by Mr. Marlor. Is there any public discussion?
None heard. Assistant city manager, we call the role. >> Mr. Scra, >> yes. >> Mr. Marlor, >> yes. >> Mr. Switzer, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes. >> Mr. Langford, >> yes. Motion passes. Um,
as far as I know that motion was really narrowed down to the election piece of section 11, which is the date, >> the dates. Um, also within section 11, there's term limits. Um, there's
qualification, etc. So um is there any any feedback that anyone has suggested changes uh or anything else in the remainder of that section? So, so where is
when you say there's qualifications? >> I'm not immediately following Kansas certification and election returns here elections be held Tuesday. I'm sorry. Uh, commissioners who shall be qualified as here after I'm sorry I shouldn't I
shouldn't have said qualifications. It that was a a misspeak. >> I do think there is a separate section speaks to quality. at 12. >> Yes. 12. Okay. >> Yeah. 12 right below it. >> I have no further requested changes.
Very happy with the way the term limits are written. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, with that, there's doesn't seem to be any uh >> there's an 11 A. >> Oh, yes, there is an 11 A.
Okay. So, everybody's good with 11. Uh, we we agreed that we're going to based on Mr. Stra's motion uh with the election. We'll just move on now down to 11 A. Uh, is there anything else in 11 A? I
>> do have a question here. Okay. So, it says 1,500 per month for each commissioner. What are they actually making today after those cost of living adjustments per month? >> I'd have to actually >> What? You can't quote that off the top? >> I
That's my problem is how many years will go by to the point where somebody picks this up in 2040 and it's like commissions are only supposed to be making 1,500 per month. Now I have to go through and track how many costs of a living adjustments everything. So my
question is is there a mechanism Amy that this and and maybe we are the mechanism but these numbers should be updated every time there's a charter review to reestablish that baseline of what they're making at that time. >> You are the mechanism.
>> Okay. So my my request is that we ask the city to get that data for our next meeting and we reestablish the baseline um for what they're actually making having followed this section for the
sole purposes of keeping it relevant and and chronologically accurate for the time that we're existing. I agree. Just for the just for the sake of having to track 174 of cola. >> Yes, ma'am. Miss Hob,
>> the problem is by the time you take this to the commission, we will not know if there's a cola. In other words, we can give you the number today with what a commissioner is making and what the mayor is making. But if they decide to
approve a cola, then that changes October 1st. >> Okay. Can we include an effective date such as like today or whenever we vote on it? Effective June whatever it will
>> just so that way at least citizens have a starting point of where to start counting from. >> I understand what you're trying to do but um the assistant city manager is right. >> No, I think that is and but at least if you add the date, people would know, okay, I have to go back to what they were making before October 1st. So
starting June 2026 they were making this much is data he he would provide us and then okay I got to look in October 1st and see if there ah there was okay to increase it by this much and and now 5 years from now when they do this again
they would reset it again at that time. >> Yeah. >> Well you always going to have that delay. >> Yeah. Yeah. But >> right >> but at least it's a little more manageable >> connect to it then it's a little less >> Yeah. cuz I actually tried to go through and figure out what they're supposed to be making without asking. I wanted to see if I could as a citizen do it
myself. I don't know the answer. I don't know if I'm right. And I think that the commissioners currently are making somewhere in the neighborhood of like somewhere between 1,800
and 2,000. But I don't know if I even found you, you know. And that's that's where I got to the point where I was like, "This is too damn hard. There's a there's an easier way to do this and I felt like the easier way was if we're going to require fiveyear updates then every five years 11a needs to be
updated. >> That's my proposed change. How do you guys feel about that? >> I'm good. >> Hey, when you started with all those years ago was 1250 the base or has that changed?
>> It was updated. It was updated. I was like, but it's when I started it was 14 something. >> I mean, I'd have to go research it. You'd have to go >> for I forget what it was. >> No, it was it was less than
>> I know that they did they did an increase by ordinance right before I started. >> They did another they had to change it. We went about a year or so and then they had to change it to a referendum. So
they used to vote like Congress and give themselves raises glorious the only way to do it. >> I'm not asking how much you make as a commissioner, but what's a soft number that you think probably what an average is up there.
>> Well, they all make the same amount except the mayor makes more. >> Yeah, it's not right about 1750 and the mayor's at 19. That was close on my lowend guess then, >> but don't quote me. I'd have to like
>> typing it down. >> Yeah. So, I mean, to me, it's a it's a minor change, but it's something that will avoid headaches for citizens who are engaged in inquiring. So, I think >> I would like to just table 11 until the
next meeting for the purposes of obtaining the correct numbers effective June. What what's our next meeting? 24th. >> Yeah. So, I guess I'll motion to table section 11
until June 24th pending updated paid rates from uh the city. >> Miss CJ, did you get that or do you need it repeated? touring fish market in Tokyo at the time of your next meeting.
>> Okay. So, there's a motion by Mr. Scra, a second by Mr. Tucker. Is there any public commentary? None heard. Assistant manager, will you call the role? >> Mr. Gray? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Marlor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Langford? Yes. >> And I always like to do what we can do already. It's I mean, whoever >> whoever said the pledge of allegiance also,
>> yeah, Judy said she got elected. She didn't even know they got paid. >> So, they they knew if they saw their name that they were giving pledge of allegiance that they would >> regardless. >> Okay. So, that finalizes item number >> that finalizes item number five. Thank you, Brandon.
>> Moving on to item number six, uh, public comments. Any public comments? None heard. Okay. Um, next meeting, uh, so for our agenda items, and correct
me if I'm wrong, but we're waiting on, um, >> you will get the legislative format for 10. >> Okay. >> And ballot language for 10. >> Okay. >> Do you need the salaries to do whatever they want or do you want it to? >> I don't know.
>> No. Um you could >> it just needs to be filled in to 11 in my opinion. >> Yeah. If you just want to send it to Miss CJ and then she could put that in the in the draft um charter and then we'll just review that excuse me during our next meeting and we'll be able to close out 11 and include that as of
6:20. >> Yeah. Um so with that uh let's see here. Let's look to let's look to 12 which is qualifications of members prohibited
interest in city contracts prohibiting former members from employment. Um 13 is reserved and then 14 is judge of all elections.
Um do you guys want to plan on 12 13 and 14? Because there's nothing in 13. All right. That's it's just reserve. So we would effectively be looking at 12 and 14. >> So my question is what do we think we have left in 10 and how long do we think
that will take >> we pushed forth and voted to approve 10A. >> Yes. So 10 it was done. All we're waiting on is for ballot. >> Wait a format about >> Okay. So 10 minutes y and then 11
another 10 minutes at most 12 13 14 I don't I can tell you now I'm not going to have any recommendations to change. So I think I would like to include at least 15 as well. >> Okay. >> If we don't get to it we don't get to it. But I also don't want to get to the
end of 14 and be like well we're done. >> Right. Right. >> Is everybody good with 12 through 15 next meeting? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is there anything else that anyone needs or wants to add to the agenda for next meeting outside of that?
Okay, Miss CJ, are you good without 12 through 15 for next meeting? Um, all right. Uh, dates are you you got the same calendar as Mr. Light, but I'm assuming, right, you'll be able to
>> either he or I will I'll be back from my vacation, so if he's gone, I've got it. >> Okay. Are are we looking at the 24th? >> Yes, ma'am. That was that was the date. Uh >> that was the date we're looking at. Has there been any changes that we would need to move that? Miss Myers, you said
that you would not be here. >> I won't be here, but I can have Rob or another attorney from my office come and take notes. >> Okay. You had July. I would like to cons us to consider some changes because there's a lot of meat
>> in those in in these upcoming sections and uh I think it would just be prudent that all five of us be present. >> So I know so first of all we're good on on June the 24th. >> Everybody's good on that. Um so kind of
leaning forward into July that would put us at correct me if I'm wrong July 8th and 22nd. Are those the two dates? Correct. >> The 15th would be the 15th. The commission meeting is the 14th. >> Thank you. 15th and the 29th. >> I have no obstructions with the 29th.
However, I would not be able to be here on the 15th. >> Okay. And so, let's let's kind of we're moving at a pretty blistering pace here. I'm not I mean we agreed to two meetings a month when we
first started this um with July being a holiday month, people's out of town, vacations, etc. Are you guys okay with just doing the one meeting in July? >> We're more than halfway done. >> Oh, absolutely.
>> We can do one meeting. >> Yeah. So, do we just want to tenatively plan? I'm sorry, Miss Kiki. What was those dates again? 15th 29th would be your regularly adjust >> the 29th >> 29th. >> Is everybody okay with us just doing one meeting in the 29th and and calling it
good for July? Okay. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yep. >> No worries. >> I'll send you all a picture from Alaska. >> Okay. So, that covers the uh next >> that covers the next meeting agenda and
our future dates there. So, agenda item number eight is journ. Thank you guys.