I know. No, believe me, we all do. >> Thank you. But I got the answer that I want. >> Can I get you into the computer? How are you going? As I told him, I'm telling you, no, this was accurate as as four hours
ago. Okay. >> I just realized other things that I didn't put. So, mine is accurate. The whole is accurate is the one in the >> connect. Sure. >> You're going to try not to hang up a job.
Hold on a second. Let me log in first. >> Then I can >> Yeah, >> you're going to be helping him. We're going to see if this is better whenever a real motion gets drafted or >> discussed and it's it's going to happen.
So, we're going to put it over there. >> How are you? >> I'm just saying that that's a heck of a >> public. Yeah, I think that would be would look better like to see it. No, visually. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I had this and I wanted
that, >> but that's not 100% correct. >> Okay. So, I just realized >> Oh, actually, no. I'm going to send you That's all I'm going to share. Okay, that's fine. is the C. I wanted you.
I have an accurate one because I was writing if you could see. >> I noticed I noticed Good evening. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order if we can have a the roll call, please.
>> Good evening, >> Commission Member Abad. Present. >> Commission member Bennett >> here. >> Commission member Fernandez is absent. Commission member Moss >> present.
>> Commission member Ruano >> present. Vice Chairman Inguanso >> present. >> Chairman Leoto >> present. Thank you. >> Chairman, you have quorum. >> Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Uh I'm going to ask uh we stand and we'll have a moment of silence and led by a town
manager. >> Lord, please guide this commission to do the people's work and examine the constitution of our town, the town charter, and do those things that are most productive and better for the
majority of our town residents. And I'd also ask that we take a moment of silence to recognize those service members and public safety personnel that have died in the line of duty. >> Amen. >> Amen.
>> Thank you, Mr. T manager. If I could have uh Commissioner Woman uh Ruano please lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Going to the next. The order of business, deferrals, additions, and deletions. Is there any for today? Seeing none, we'll move forward uh to
public comments. Madame clerk, >> good evening. I see some participants on remote. Welcome. We don't see anyone in the podium here in council chambers. So, as I always state, welcome to our
meeting and thank you for logging in. Please let us let us know if you want to participate and I see one in particular with the hand raised. it if you can please allow that um participant to speak and welcome
to the meeting. Please state your name and address for the record. It's the phone number. >> Yes. >> Good evening. >> Okay. 8465 Mes if the charter is our constitution. >> Good evening. I'm going to go ahead and
>> hold on one second. >> If we can have the roll copy, >> the charter reads that the purpose of government is the protection of the govern, not the governing. Yet, this group sails through the citizens bill of
right and is focused on the protection of the governing, accepting what appears to be guidance as to what motions to make offered by a council member. It is self-evident and undeniable that our rights are granted by our creator. Therefore, the government derives power
from the consent of the government. So, how is it possible that when we go before the council to express our thoughts, we're subjected not only to only three minutes but cut off mid-sentence? Because efficiency now is more important than the input of the people. How is it possible that proper
notice is not given to the people that will be affected by a zoning change as per town ordinance? How is it possible that an elderly resident who is hearing impaired goes before the planning and zoning board and is told that she only has three minutes when she is protected
by the Americans with Disabilities Act and is therefore granted four minutes. This is clear indication that we have lost our way. So rather than focusing on the protection of the governing or administrative side of the charter, go back to the citizens bill of right and
ensure that our rights are reviewed to define the consequences of the continual disregard of the protection of the govern. It is our 25th anniversary as a town and it is our 250th anniversary as a nation. So we ask that a question on
the ballot determines whether we want to remain incorporated because when government becomes destructive of the reasons for its creation, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government that lays its foundation on
such principles and organization that guarantees the protection of our rights. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. Anyone else who has the hand raised and is willing to participate, welcome to the meeting. >> Good afternoon. May I just wanted to
state for the record that I would It's JC Fernandez. I can state my address if you'd like. 7963 Northwest 163rd Terrace in the beautiful town of Miami Leaks. Um, just wanted for the record that I'm going to be on Zoom. I'm not in town.
>> Thank you, Council Member Fernandez. It's noted. And for the record, I do want to also welcome Commission Member Tony Fernandez. Welcome and thank you for being present. Anyone else for public comments? Remote, it is the
opportunity now just state your name and address for the record and we welcome you. I see other participants that picked cell 10 and I see another number. Please let us know. It is the moment to unmute yourself and we welcome your
public comments. >> Right. Nothing else, Madame Clerk. Uh we're going to move forward with the agenda. Uh next is the approval of the minutes. Has everybody had the opportunity to review the January 22nd, 2026 uh commission meeting minutes? And
if so, do I have a motion? >> I'll move it. >> I'll second it. >> Yeah. Motion a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All oppose say nay. >> Seeing none. Motion passes. >> All right. We're going to go on to the old business. Uh we're going to start
off with the town attorney's uh report on the proposed changes. These were the items that we discussed discussed at the last um meeting. And so if we can have uh the town attorney please uh go through. We'll begin with section 2.3A. >> Okay.
One thing I' I'd like to say, um, Mr. Chair, and thank you for, uh, allowing me to to speak on these on these items, uh, and thank you to the rest of this commission, is that, uh, a lot of these items, as as I as I went through them, uh, your this your
actions and and and resolutions were all proper uh, in the way that you you made them. Um, one thing that I I suggest uh that would be the the correct way to move forward uh would be that you know these items are are brought we will
eventually based on your resolutions bring them back and you will have a full vote. Um the chair and I were speaking and I I think the chair you your thoughts were were good on this point. uh you have a lot of I mean cuz you're an excellent lawyer so you have a lot of uh great points as far as grammatical
issues that probably would require some kind of an omnibus type of action and we can do that certainly at the end we don't have to be going through those uh and as far as the substantive ones we can address them and then u you know bring them back later in a format that would be fitting of a of a ballot
question but that being said um with regards to uh 2.3 uh A uh which is election and term of the of the office. Um on on this one
I I I think it it it may merit a little bit more of a of a of a discussion because the the concern is and could be is if you decide as a board that you want to switch from 7 to 5 and it seemed that that was the motion that was made
and the the motion that passed. There's several ways that that can come about. Uh, one of the ways that you were considering was changing one of the seats from a four-year term to a two-year term and and certainly before that term begins, you can make that
change for that particular seat. Um, >> sure. U, Mr. Town attorney, I'm sorry to interrupt. Sure. Um, I just I'm I'm following my list that I had and I had as the very first issue that was addressed right before that one about the numbers. Um, there was a question from Commissioner Fernandez about uh
removing the applicable items that the town had undertook shortly after incorporation that are no longer applicable, that type of language about the removal of that, whether that should stay in or whether it should be removed. Um, that was considered in that aspect. I had that as the first question. If we
can address that one first and then we'll get to the other. Sorry. >> No, that that's fine. And if if possible perhaps just to make sure that I don't skip over anything, just bring up the items and then I'll I'll give my my answer on them. Yes, the answer is yes, you can do that.
But but typically that's not really something that you see in most most charters. They they remain that language even if it's something that passes over from generation to generation. And I don't think it's a bad thing because that creates kind of a history as to why there are certain things. I'll give you
an example. in a municipality act, let's call it, uh that was very similar to to uh the town of Miami Lakes in which the ordinances of uh Miami Dade County were adopted at
time of incorporation, right? Um there was a question as to whe whether the fact that the code was silent on a particular type of uh development, okay, we'll call it development X. uh whether
that meant that you could use Miami date county code. Well, the only way that we were able to figure that out is by going through the history and looking back on it. So, sometimes that history is is useful and it was discovered that no that all the prior uh county ordinances had been abolished, but had it not been
able to tie in the charter with the code and and so on and so forth, that answer might not have been so so apparent. So, my suggestion would be that I don't think it's necessarily the best idea. Sometimes it's good just to leave it there even though you may think that it's it's antiquated or no longer
relevant. There could be some relevancy towards in the future. So I could you change it? Could could we do something to say anything that's no longer relevant? I mean you would have to really go one by one because what's relevant to you may not be relevant to somebody else. U certainly you can do that. Does that answer the question
>> for next? >> All right. And then I would just recommend is if anybody has any uh items like that that they'd like to see, there may be some of them that we may want to consider is to bring it up as a proposal as a motion to say, "Hey, look, I'd like to strike this language and then we can
address it at that that time." Um, sure. Commissioner Bennett. >> Sure. Um, one of the and back I'm going back to 2016, we did leave all the incorporation language even though it was obsolete in the charter strictly as reference. It just like I said it gave a continuity to the charter to allow us to
understand where we came from and how we built it. >> Okay. >> So that that's that's what we that was that was what we decided then. Of course, this is 10 years later and that's all. That's why these things get heavy after a while. >> Not a problem. And I think that's in line with what the town attorney said. So that like I said it's just a
recommended if anybody sees anything that you think hey look that's absolutely obsolete we need to remove it just propose that language that strike all language so that way we can address it at a future meeting if you unless you have something for today. So I think that addresses that first issue unless you have anything more Mr. Town attorney on that one first issue
>> John I think the second matter is about providing the opinion on how to handle the reduction of the elected officials uh and if you had any proposed language. So that was the matter that I think you were addressing initially. >> Okay. So, so on that point and and I'd love to hear from from the manager on
this on it's there's there's many ways that you can skin the cat on this one. If you do want to go from 7 to 5, you can do that. One of the ways that's that's can be done is simply by attrition which means that when you have the following election let's say bless
you for 2028 you say you you you state or for 2030 you state that the the two seats or you signal out two seats that are running for that particular term are no longer going to be reelected. Right? So basically the the the person who
holds this current seat has run out their term and that's it. the seat is not up for for reelection and it disappears. Um that that's a clean way. Now, the argument to that and I've heard from several um residents and council members is that well then all of a
sudden maybe you'll have an election where you're used to having three seats and now you only have one seat for election. Is that really proper? Is that the the consequence that you want to have? And I don't know that that's something really for for us I think to to further flush out. Uh the other way is uh what had been suggested that you
have the regular election but then that person only serves two years and so that seat after two years would disappear and so the following election it wouldn't those seats would no longer you know you know be available. Um I'm not sure how one really is very different from the other one as far as attrition is
concerned. Um I propose that to you and I don't know Mr. Manager if you have any thoughts on that. Yeah, I think that the reason that this was put together when uh we went over this with council member uh JC Fernandez
was that you I think you had one of two options for that transition. Either have a seat do a two-year term and announce it far enough in advance so that people know what they're getting into years in advance or have a time period where you
have six council members. And I think that that is functionally it doesn't really work as well. So that's why this was put together when we sat down with council member Fernandez and did it this way. Now the ones >> by attrition though, >> huh? >> You could also do it by attrition where
two years just the seat doesn't come up for re-election as well. >> But then you're going to be you're going to be off like you said three in one year, one in another year. So it's going to it's going to be a little off. So that's why I think it was proposed uh to do it like this. Now, the one thing that
I was looking at was that based on the term limits of the council members that are currently in office, the years for the transition that are in here may be a little, I guess, aggressive, right? Because the the
council members that were most recently elected in 24, if they were to do two eight year or two four-year terms and do eight, it would the trans it would be in 32. So, we may want to look at the uh time period instead of November of 2030
to make the change or the transition in 2032. That way, nobody that was elected in 24 expecting the ability to go to uh two four-year terms would be uh would be harmed. So, that's that's just something
for for the this commission to consider. And that's an easy change. we could just change this to 32 and and then the transition would be with seat number five instead of seat number six. >> Okay. I really appreci appreciate that uh explanation and that clarification.
Um given that does anyone Yes, Commissioner Bennett. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Um through the chair to our town attorney. Okay. So, let's assume now because I like gaming these things out. Let's assume that the item to change it from seven seats to five
seats fails at the ballot and now that the town has elected not to go to a five share. That's why we need the remaining um wordage uh verbiage in the charter because then it reverts back to the original verbiage. Am I correct?
>> All the things related to seven seats to five seats has to then be reversed. It's basically whatever you decide uh and is the ultimate bat language is what's going to be sent to the electors. So they'll decide. So if if it's not seven they don't decide to to shrink to five
seats then it's the language as is. >> Correct. And it it's the language that remains in the in the charter and that's another reason why the original language needs to be remain in the charter. >> Right. I I I I I I think that all of the language pertaining to that change, right? The the the change from 7 to
five, the transition and all of that has to be contained in one question so that it's either all up or all down. >> Correct. That that was my point. >> And there there's limited to 75 words >> because ex Well, that's the whole point. See, now we've got we I mean, if if you all remember the last meeting was pretty convoluted after a while and getting
what we want in 75 words is going to be a chore. Well, that's why I I made the I I preface before I said anything that once you've decided and taken a look at all the substantive changes, you this is going to come back and we're going to come back with a valid question of how
this is going to look like. So, we're not going to deal with how it's going to look like now. That's going to be dealt with later. >> Correct. You haven't put it in your legal ease that will be on the ballot. I understand it. We'll be looking at that. >> And m Commissioner Ben, I I I think I understand your point. And what you'll see is like what I've in today's when we're going through there's certain
designations that say a specific number and I'm going to be proposing that we actually go to percentages and that'll alleviate any concerns of what regardless of what number we have it's going to be and it's pretty standard either majority or supermajority 2/3 vote which is kind of standard in a lot of other uh provisions that I think
would make it easier across the board rather than have a specific number because that'll just >> yeah when I see the the specific language it'll be easier to interpret what's going on. I agree. But anyways, I just wanted to put that that put that forward because I wanted that stated on the record. Um I I've in meeting some of
our um citizens, I've heard people outraged about it and they've even uninccorporating and all that. And I said, "No, don't throw out the baby with the bath water, that kind of thing." But they, you know, they they you know, they reacted because they felt like they were taking away the representation. And I
said, "Well, anyway, I just want that on the record." Thank you. It's it's duly noted and and like you know I'll just close off on that topic real quick is that as as he stated is you know the way the language is and it's going to be specific to one question of just reducing that number but it'll be tied to any and all
references that may relate to that reduction as well but we'll get that within the 75 questions at the end. Again like I said all those questions are going to come before us and we'll finalize it as a commission uh what that final language is going to be and we're going to be the ones comfortable with what's going to go forward over to the
members. Yeah. And one last thing, Mr. Attorney. Um, are compound questions allowed in the the ballot if it was a compound question, more than one part of the It has to be a single up or down. >> Single subject. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Any
other questions on how to handle um you know I I duly note that there's that that suggestion that you made as to moving to 2030 to 2032 to allow the current ones that were elected in 2024 that would would have otherwise been affected in 2030 to serve out their full terms. Um I think I I don't know if
anybody has ready for a motion to move that today, but I'm fine with if we want to think about that and address it at a at the next meeting. I think might be better um since it was just suggested today. All right. Seeing nothing else. Anything else on that matter, Mr. Town Attorney?
>> No, nothing else, Mr. Chair. >> All right. I have the next discussion item I have on here is going into 2.2G, right? Two 2.3 2.3
>> 2.3g 2.3. If I'm not mistaken, this also deals with the term of office and that change and how that would affect the definition. >> So I I think both of these would have to be in in one question. Um so so it's it's the same thing
essentially and I think if if going to the fix that the manager proposed going to 2032 would alleviate any issue with the term of office. But I think we I think it went a little bit further not just to deal with the attrition aspect of it, but I think it was just the general sense of what they
were what was consolidated in uh making that it was removing the consecutive language and the serving of the eligible to serve two years. uh what I have here was that uh
defining how we would define a full term in that context or in any context uh to include you know if if say uh you know using example the current mayor is that he served half of his term and then came in whether or not that would constitute
a full term or what would constitute a full term and you're going to look at to see how that has been addressed in if it has in other uh municipalities or if you had suggestions for us in that. Okay, I will come back. Okay, give me one sec.
>> Okay, back. Okay. Yep, that's what I said. Put the link. He wanted to make sure that it was definitely on the record that he was going to come back. So there's no excuse. All right. The next item uh that I have
is a little bit further >> is the research of the language regarding term limits and the application uh retroactively as well as the resign to run clauses. 2.5 B3.
Is that it? No. Well, that's four. 2.5 B3 is forfeite by absence. >> Looking at >> No, I'm sorry. Procedures. Correct. See, I'm running on off the minutes of what the discuss that the question was
uh that you're going to research and bring language regarding the term limits whether they apply retroactively and uh Commissioner Bennett had asked about the resign to run clause and terms. Okay. with with regards to because as as far as what I have and I
reviewed with with Castillia was the issue of resign to run. Um, the way that the resign to run clause works is that if you decide that you want to run, for instance, you're a councilman and you want to run for the office of mayor,
then at the point that you decide that you want to run for the office of mayor and before qualifications ends, you need to submit your resignation letter. Now, the resignation letter doesn't have to be effective as of the date that you sign the letter. It can be effective as
to a future date but it cannot be past the date that you would assume the next office in such a way that you would not be a dual holding dual offices of a council member and a mayor. So so long as the resignation is for that date then you can go ahead and sign it under the
law too that resignation date is irrevocable. So once you've signed that uh letter you cannot go back you can't go back to your your seat. So I think that that was a question that was posed that that's the answer with regards to resign to run. Um what was this the next question? >> The other was about the language
regarding term limits. If we were to impose these term limits such as the four-year uh terms, the two four-year terms, whether that would apply retroactively uh to former members of the commission or whether that is only for future uh
elected offices. >> No, that that would apply retroactively. So if you have someone who has already served uh their full two four-year terms, then they cannot serve a subsequent four-year term. >> Okay. Anybody have any further questions on
those any of those issues? All right. Feel like I'm taking an exam. Well, you're passing so far. >> So far. All right. The next I had on here is
Well, chemistry doesn't need any interpretation. It's pretty very clear. Either it could either there was a chemical reaction or there was not. All right. Um, all right. getting into section 2.5. Uh the B3 is uh if you want to go ahead
on that item. >> 2.5 B3 is >> procedures. >> Oh, we did B3 >> C2. Sorry. Correct. >> C2. Okay. Um, >> all right. And Mr. Chair, if if you can
I mean, I'm seeing the language that we suggested to change. What is the uh the query? What's the question? >> Trying to go back on seeing which one that was. I know Commissioner Bennett, I know you had looked at I believe you were referencing it. Is that correct?
>> Yeah. proced. >> This is the one with regards to the vacancy and the nomination by the mayor. >> Correct. >> All right. All right. I see it. Okay. So, you already addressed that piece. Sorry. C2. So, I think all the C's were addressed.
>> Yep. and through those discussions then I had and I don't see it here on the agenda but we had discuss I had here marked in that's in the minutes was in section 2.7 the recall uh they were going to research see what percentage was required to initiate a recall in
Miami date county. >> What's the question again? How what's the percentage? >> The percentage needed cuz here in ours in 2.7 it says 10%. >> Right. >> And the question was made as to what is required in for the county. >> We we'll have an answer for you before
the end of the meeting. >> You'll take a quick look at it and let us know. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll table that discussion. Let me know when you're ready. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Just one quick question. When the percentage is calculated, are we talking percentages of population based on the um u uh the
population or the electors? >> Voters. >> I I just I understand that. I just want to be clear. It's a it's based on 10% of the electors, not just the population. I it it seems like an, you know, a completely obvious question, but it's not. >> Well, I think well 2.7 currently says
the minimum number of electors of the town which shall be required to initiate the recall petition. So, it's already in the charter. It's of the electors. >> Okay. >> But the question is what the percentage that the county uses visav what we currently have as 10%. >> Correct. We'll get you an answer before. >> Okay. >> The end of the meeting.
>> Perfect. All right. Is there anything else, Mr. Town attorney, that you have that you'd like to share with us? >> No. I just hope this is going to be a great meeting. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Yes. Um
trying to help here. One of the sections that we deferred for tonight as per motion was um section 2.5 B some page I'll tell you right now
2.5 C 2 it's the letter E of the agenda under section seven of old business >> this is a one six months or more if
remaining on the unexpired terms. In my notes, I'm following my minutes. That's a section that per motion. Um yeah, defer discussion on February
12th and that's in the screen for everyone's um convenience to follow. Correct. Let me go through the motions. >> Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Um, the resign the resign to run clause in our what is that
the section we're dealing with here? 2.5 C2. No. >> 2.5C2 is that the proposed recommendation was to be read that if 6 months or more remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy should be filled by special election to be scheduled at the first
possible date available by the Miami Day County Department of Elections. Um, >> and then there was a an amendment. Uh, sorry, I'm trying to because this was one that had multiple motions within.
>> Correct. >> So that is why motion failed. >> So then commission member Fernandez made a motion to defer. >> Yes. for tonight. And um
so has anybody had any decision cuz we're going to uh defer until uh to think about it. So I don't know if anybody has had further thoughts on that aspect of this was than the resigning language. >> Commissioner B.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Once again, um, as far as res resignations and all that, yeah, I mean, this is all, you know, within acceptable limits. What I am, the only thing that raises a red flag to me is the, um, resign to run, uh, language. I think it needs to be
specified that they must resign prior to qualifying to allow any anybody else who wishes to run for that seat so that the seat doesn't become vacant for just appointment. >> That's state law. Yeah, hold on. Well, what I what I'm assuming and what I want
to ask the the town attorney is I I think what Commissioner Bennett is asking is that if we can make more string if we can affect the state law restores resign law to force a candidate or to force a current member
to resign earlier than is what's required in state law. I would be very cautious about doing that because you you do have certain intrinsic rights almost property rights in your elected
office. So if you you by doing that you might be a it's already a field that's covered by by state law. Um and and b by doing that you might be affecting somebody's interest and property interest in their elected office. Right.
>> I would advise against that. >> And then my argument to that would be if they choose to resign to run, don't they give up those property rights? Isn't that intrinsic in they're deciding to give up their office? >> In which case, >> so so the law, what it's the law, all it
says is that prior to you running for is that all the law is basically you can't have two offices at the same time. So, if you're going to run for the next office, you got to resign from this one because by the time that you you hold office into into your new office, you you've already have to have it vacant. So, the resign to run says, okay, just
make sure that your your letter says that you're no longer going to be that officer prior to the date that you're going to assume the new office or lose. >> All right? By the way, >> and let let me in and a hypothetical again. Can you imagine any type of language that would allow an individual
who wishes to run for the vacancy that the person who resigned to run did could run for that seat? You can't run for an occupied seat. Is there any type of language you can imagine that would allow somebody to run for the open would be would be the open seat?
>> I'm I'm not sure I understand the question. Let me let me see if I can kind of I think I'm understanding because I'm recalling the last question. Um not not necessarily that I'm necessarily agree but it's okay is I'm recalling the the conversation and it was or the discussion and uh what he was
asking is um if a person doesn't file the resigner run until the time that the day of qualifying >> last day >> the last day of qualifying. it would effectively almost it gives a very short
period of time depending on when they actually file it for someone to try to file to run for their position if there's an unexpired term and that's where this language was going into and that's what Commissioner Bennett was trying to see whether or not we could have the individuals resign force them
to resign in advance so that way we wouldn't have a special election or an appointment pro or because he was trying to avoid the appointment process from what I recall in the discussion >> state law requires 10 days prior to the first day of the qualifying period. So, they have to submit the uh resignation
letter. It could be effective later on like election day, but it's has to be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the first day of qualifying. So, by the time qualifying even starts, they've already submitted this irrevocable uh resignation letter.
>> Okay. So, that opens up I'm sorry, the 10day window in which and it has to be somehow notified that that occurred. I mean, he can't then just keep that quiet so that anybody who chooses to run for the now open or will be open seat has the opportunity to do so. No, >> Mr.
>> So that goes to another issue because now I'm understanding your question. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. >> And your issue is about how that seat becomes now appointed I mean open and it's either subject to appointment by the council or vote. And I think we already dealt with that in a prior section. the the co the charter deals
with that inspire section that that depends on how much and how long is the term of that seat uh >> can I open if it's if it's less than I think half the term or more than half the term and how it gets appointed by the mayor or if it goes to a special election. >> Sure.
>> Oh, I'm going to hear to vice chair first. >> Mr. Chair, thank you. >> Mr. Town attorney. >> No, I don't think that's it. I think where he's going to the commissioner is which is a a valid question. So, you have a uh councilman
>> who um wants to run as a state rep. He turns his letter in 10 days before qualifying. What the manager just explained. The commissioner's question is the seat that that councilman we know is going to vacate cuz he has to resign from it. He's already turned in his
letter of resignation. Can we hold an election for that seat? If that person technically is still in it, he's resigning. We know he's going to resign probably effective election day, right? Because that's what most people do, right? Can we hold an election for that seat because we know
it'll be vacant the day after the election day. We >> we had that discussion the last time and again that goes back to the rule of how long is left in the term of the person. So if we go back to that rule and I'm not sure where where it is. >> Well, but I think what he's asking Mr. Attorney is can we do something here to
fix that? Forget what's already written. Can we put something in the charter that says, "Hey, if that happens, if somebody resigns their seat, right, and they have a year, two years, three years, whatever is left in their term, can we have an election for that seat?" I >> I'm saying you can, but that's dealt with in the vacancy section. That's
that's what is contemplated in the vacancy. >> No, it's not. >> No, >> it's not. No. Let me try one more time. >> Not ahead. Yeah. >> Okay. It would be the same thing if let's say u mayor prior mayor Manny Sid uh his his term hadn't been expired and
he had two more years and he decides that he wants to run for mayor and he resigns to run. You you would go back to the section same thing that happened with Mayor Diegas's seat. Mayor Diegas had two more years left. >> Right? So let's use that example. Mayor Diegas, >> we know he resigned his council seat to
run for mayor, right? He had two years left in that seat. >> When was the mayor's election? was 24, right? >> 24th. >> Could we do something in the charter to change it so that if when Councilman Diegas resigned from his seat to run for
mayor, can we do something so that somebody could run in November of 24 when the election's taking place that he's running for mayor so that that person can be elected for either the remainder of the term or somehow the term gets
restaggered? >> The answer is yes. But I I believe if we go back to the minutes, I think uh Commissioner Fernandez brought something up related to that and it dealt with the issue of of vacancies and how the vacancy is is filled. >> It's a vacancy.
>> Yeah. So, let me let me Right. So, let me let me let me chime in because I was the one that brought up the the the issue originally, right? So, my intent in bringing up the issue is is to do precisely what um what Commissioner Bennett is is speaking about, right? And
it's to put something in the charter to to require that when that happens, there be a special election for that seat, right? Not whatever the other mechanism is for filling the seat, be be it appointment or or then a subsequent
election. the the uh my intent was when that council member or mayor gives their notice prior to 10 days um before the the last day of qualifying that that
automatically trigger a special election for that seat at the next general at the upcoming general election. And I I think to quell some of your your uh initial reservations. So our our deadline for opening qualifying and
closing qualifying is is in the charter and it happens before about two and a half weeks before the county's deadline for for >> Right. Exactly. But it No, no, but it happens 2 to 3 weeks before the county's
deadline for placing items on the November ballot. Right. So, we open qualifying, we close qualifying, and and there's still two and a half, three more weeks before the the supervisor of elections closes that
there be no more items added to the November ballot. So there's sufficient time e even if the resignation came towards the end of the process, there's sufficient time to announce >> to give notice and announce it, open if
necessary a special qualifying period, close the special qualifying period and still be in time to place that seat on the November ballot. >> Right. My point is what if it was the last day of qualifying that they decided to >> Well, Commissioner Ben, I I think what Commissioner Fernandez was saying is
that I I we would need to find out actually is whether or not you can reopen up and create a special qualifying period. We can create what it would require is a special qualifying period and then you have really a special election that is concurrent with your election with your regular general
election and that way you don't have extra money spent >> but it will still be a special election for our for all intents and purposes for legal intents and purposes but for >> you have to have at the same time. >> Yeah. And and I would say that it's happened before in this in this town that me and when Michael Pizzy uh was
arrested we had to have a special election. We have to run and we have a special qualifying period in a pretty different kind of a snap. It was a so so the question going to to what you're saying commissioner is vacancy. What is a vacancy? And a vacancy can't be for residing to run for
something else. You're giving up that seat. You're creating that vacancy and that hole that needs to get filled. And and that's kind of covered in section 2.5. If you want to add something very specific to an elected official wanting to run for an office that is outside the the the town of Miami Lakes, that's
fine. We can do that. We can we can tweak it. That's >> Well, but that can be contemplated. Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm going to go back to the chair statement because I think you captured it right. I think the question, Mr. Town attorney, is we need to check to see if the scenario that the manager
just described. So, Councilman Dieg resigns his seat, even though it's not effective until election day to run for mayor. Can we put can we open a qualifying period for somebody or some people to run in the council seat of
Diegas and their names appear on the ballot as part of the general election? >> Yes. even you sure you you if if you decide that you want to create a process like that, the problem is is that you would probably find yourself running into a very short period of time where you're going to have additional people that are going to be able to qualify.
That's that's the problem you're going to run into. >> Yeah, Mr. >> So, going to what Mr. And I'm sorry, going to what the town manager said, that's where you would need to create a new qualifying period. >> That's that's the problem you're going to run into. and and some of the county and state offices, even though they get
elected in November, cuz when it's like a council member running for mayor, it's all the same timelines and everything, that's a little less complicated. But when it's somebody from that holds elected office in Miami Lakes running for a state or county office, they actually, even though the election is November, they don't take office until
January. So, it gets a little more convoluted, but I think that the answer, and I believe that there are municipalities that do exactly what you do. So, it's a matter of we can do some research, go back and find one and then bring it back to you next time. How other places do that where when it's an
announced, you know, irrevocable resignation, how do they get that election handled in that election even if it's going to take play, you know, be effective a little later on. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> You're going to have to find >> I'm sorry, just Mr. Commissioner.
>> Yeah, that's that's that's really Yeah, it's it's going to require a new qualification period. Okay. To be fair, go right ahead. >> Right. Yeah. What I want to basically go back to the Pizzy suspension and then eventually he came back. The people who ran for mayor, you know, ran for for the seat that was vacated because of the
suspension knowing that if he was acquitted that they'd have to give up their elected seat. That that's that's the issue that we had to deal with when when that happened. I was also I ran for mayor also at that particular election also. So, we knew that going in that if
if the said if he was acquitted and we just have to find I'd like to see some if we can get some language just to see what it looks like. >> And I think that's what the T manager was saying is that we'll come back. We're going to defer again. I believe is uh just continue the deferral. I don't think we need to take a motion on it. Um because I don't think we've retaken it
up just yet. Uh but we'll defer to get some language if you know the proposal. Mr. Town Manager, Mr. Town attorney, if you guys could take a look at it, see what what's been done otherwise. cuz I cuz I I I think I've I think this discussion was a little bit better than what we had because we have some more information and and the way I'm seeing
it is that um it'll still be special election language within our charter. It'll just simply coincide with a general election. So there's no additional. So it'll be uh from what it sounds like it'll be a new qualifying period that we set. We work with the elections department that'll have the
qualifying period. However, we'll request that the election occur co it would coincide with the general election time period. So that way we're not incurring additional costs and we're making it all a part of it. >> It it'll be seamless to to the voters. They won't even know. They just see
another another question or another race on the ballot at the same time as uh the regular ones, but it will be considered a special election. It'll just be concurrent with the general. And I think that we can find a way for that to happen. >> Perfect. I want to thank everybody that because that was one of those convoluted
questions that we wanted. Thank you all >> and thank you ma madam clerk for reminding us that we had that deferred matter. All right. Is there anything else that we deferred or that I'm missing? Mr. Town attorney. Madam clerk. >> Yes.
um 2.5 C 4 >> of four four and correct 4 C6 or C6 and seven >> correct >> I think the old >> and that would be deferred that I think would definitely go in again because it
said those would be proposed deferred until we get the proposed language on section two was drafted. So I think that'll just coincide all of that will be deferred again. So we'll address those two four and six or two four 2 six
and seven. Yeah. All right. Anything else that I'm missing I've skipped over? I don't believe so. Oh, one last minute. Actually, I just see it here. is uh the we had asked the town manager you're going to go back and
make the calculation on the amount that is uh currently given and that will be given starting uh October uh this is in section 2.6A 6A the amount that's currently listed as 400. You said that it was currently at 8.44 and you
were going to provide us with the updated number of what it would be come October because the new adjustment that would occur at that time so we could include that number >> that because what we use is the Bureau of Labor Statistics the
inflation the CPIU number for uh Miami Fort Lauderdale West Palm Beach. It's it's a regional uh inflationary number, but they put they come out they come out with it every two months and the one that comes out in August is the one that
we use for so we go even through the entire budget process and we have a guesstimate because we know the June number and we use that as a placeholder but then it's really until August right before we go into our September budget hearings that we finally plug in the
final number because we don't know it until it comes out usually like uh uh actually in into September like the September the 9th or 10th. So it's the end of August. It's as of the end of August and it comes out like within the first uh 10 days or so of September.
>> Okay. So I had made the motion at that point that we withdrew um and pending this result. I I I'll tell you is I'm not going to make a new motion. I think we just leave it the number it is is >> agree because it's a perpetually changing number. >> Yeah. >> I I was just seeking to try to update it to have whatever is new. But given your
explanation, uh I'm not moving forward with anything else at this point. All right. Um on old business, we have those matters that we're going to be deferring. Uh I don't see anything else that we have for discussion. So we're going to go to section 8 items for on
the action agenda. Let's get to article three. All right. We're going to begin with uh section 3.1, the town manager. Uh, do we have any discussion items or any proposals from any anybody here on the commission? >> Yeah,
>> I'd like to make a proposal for discussion of a possible modification of the council manager form of government to a council controller or elected manager form of government. >> But that's not under 3.1
>> section is town manager, isn't it? >> Well, it is about the town manager. It's the it's the description of the town manager. So you're you're you're looking to change the form of government and that I believe was a prior section. >> Yes, I know. But it it's under the definition of the manager, his roles and duties.
>> Yes, that goes to roles and duties. I I don't believe it'd be appropriate to change the form of the of the of the of the form of the government for the the town in this section. Mr. Town attorney, >> no, the the form of the town is is dealt
with, I believe, in section one. >> Yes. um which is it calls for a town council, town mayor. The the the problem and again you can have a town the way that the systems work,
government systems in the state of Florida is that you can have a strong mayor or you can have a council uh manager form of government or you can have a hybrid. But it's usually it's going to be one of those two. It's going to be a hybrid.
what you were discussing which is picking someone to be a town manager to elect a town manager if I remember right and tell me if I'm wrong uh commissioner is so that the town manager would be an elected person well that's kind of what in a strong mayor form of government you
have because what you were asking for is something you can't do you you can't pick someone outside the town boundaries of Miami Lakes and elect that person to serve the town that's that's illegal you can't do that anybody that you vote, you can only vote within the municipal
limits to serve here the town as in in in one of those roles either as as an elected official >> that just becomes a condition to run for the seat just like our town or excuse me um the county election is an elected position. The one the department the tax
collector correct is elected and in no way is a tax collector or the election supervisor a mayor of Miami date county. >> No, but they have to live in Miami date county. >> I understand. So, and what are the conditions that we make? >> I'm sorry for interrupting you. And then it's a constitutional office created by statute. >> Okay.
>> So, the statute creates that office that's then filled by the electors of Miami date county. So, the way that statute and the constitution works is that the Miami the town of Miami Lakes as an incorporated municipality, right, can choose its own form of government and can pick its governing board from
the electors that live in the town of Miami Lakes. >> Yeah. >> Right. So if you want a strong uh if you want a manager form of government that's elected that that's a strong mayor essentially it's the same thing >> disagreeing. >> Okay. >> You call it you could call it a strong >> Okay. Give me one second. Let me let me
get control here. Is I think there we have two different issues going on right now. First I I want to get us back on the section uh 3.1. And from what I'm hearing from you uh Commissioner Bennett is that you want to change the form of government. Form of government is section 1.2. As I stated before, I have
no problems with going back and reviewing these. Um, if that's what you want to do and you have a proposal to change that form of government, we can have that full discussion at that time. I would say for the next meeting, provide us provide the clerk with your draft of what you would of of what you
would like to have to change that form of government and we can have that full discussion at that point. Now if you want to change the duties the administrative because this is article 3 administrative the duties and responsibilities of the town manager I think that we can discuss in this section but if you want to have change
the full form of government and have it as you were explaining the town manager leading which I I think when we had that discussion as I had also mentioned that sounds more as a strong mayor initiative um is to have that proposal and we'll change it in the form of government but
that'd be section 1.2 to not in the section 3.1. So I welcome if you want to make that proposal to have it at that time. But if there's anything that you want to discuss as to his duties that we want to either enhance or specify in section 3.1 is that's appropriate for what we're discussing today.
>> Okay. In the interest of uh Commission Harmony, yes, I will defer this argument. I'll put under old business um I'm assuming section 1.2. I want this commission to discuss this. It's something that is not revolutionary. It's been done before and uh as I said I
I provided some information to our town clerk discussing it. Um >> sure and and I completely understand. Look and we we did have that discussion under 1.2 form of government. I recall we had a very robust conversation and I'm not uh against rebringing it up if that's if that's what you would like. I
would definitely though like is that if you are going to make a proposed change rather than just as a discussion item is to have a proposal of what you would like to have a motion to do that and then that way the discussion can flow from that aspect of if you could share it with the town clerk in advance of the other one we'll make sure to add that
into uh the agenda so we can have a full discussion and that way that all the commissioners >> I think it's reasonable as I said I was hoping that the discussion and then provide a proposed change based on our discussion of the commission but that's okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. All right. Uh going back 3.1
uh do we have any discussions changes that are being proposed for 3.1 from any of the commissioners? All right. Uh seeing none, we're going to go to 3.2 is the town manager appointment removal. Do we have any discussion brief
discussion items? And and let me clarify is what I'd like to do so that way we we move along. I it's not that I don't want to have discussions before a motion. I'd like to limit the discussions uh to be very succinct. If we have some initial questions or whatnot, not to have too much of a robust discussion, but I
definitely want to focus us on having uh proposed mo or motions that have proposed changes or languages or modifications and then that way we can have the more in-depth conversations once we have that motion. And that's really the intent uh of this so that way we can move forward. Uh but I'm not
going to be calling all discussion. is just I just like you everyone to just be more limited and more targeted in how we have this these discussions that'll lead to a uh pretty quickly to a motion uh that we can fully discuss uh so we all know where we're moving forward. So on
to section 3.2 town manager. Anybody have any either discussion items? We'll start off with discussion items. I >> I just wanted to clarify. So being that you mentioned what Commissioner Bennett mentioned was 1.2 should isn't it appropriate at 3.2 to as well since it talks about appointment removal of the
top of the town manager. >> Well, it it what I see it as is if we change the form of government to create something like that, I think it'll have an effect on these others, but I think we need to have that first change to be able to get to here. I think if we're changing here without it having without
changing the form of government, um it may be done differently. But uh you know the appointment and removal process because if it's going to be an elected if we're going to change the form of government then we're changing the 1.2 aspect of it because it wouldn't be there would we would have to do a strike
all of the appointment or removal because you couldn't report and really remove except as otherwise provided by law of an elected official. Is that correct Mr. Attorney? >> That's correct Mr. Chair. >> You have anything else? Okay. Yeah. And and once again,
>> it go it goes back to my original thought. It it as far as the appointment you can set up, I mean essentially an elected position unless there is a case of malfeasants, misfeasence, you know, or lack of a duty, that would be cause of removal. Short of that, um they there
wouldn't be a cause for removal except a recall. Okay? Like any other elected position. Now, um I uh once that's how I see this this little this change. Now, I guess we'll have to discuss at at a later
meeting. I'm willing to accept that because I I'll go through this. But that's one of those cascade issues that would set up if we did decide to have that particular thing. It's mostly I'll be honest with you, it's mostly for discussion only because it is something
that has uh some nuances that improve and there's also some nuances that make it more convoluted and complex. I understand that. But I figure that this commission could come up with some language that would make it work. >> Sure. And and I think what is important like I what I was getting to and I and I I'm not trying to uh to minimize any of
your you your desire to have a discussion is that I'd like to have it targeted to emotion. um not just to have a open discussion on a specific topic that may not ever lead to a motion, rather to have a mo have a proposed language that we're either modifying,
deleting, uh or otherwise changing so that way we can have a focused discussion on exactly what is being done to the charter and so that way we know what the effect is going to be. That and that's really what my intent is to do that. So that way it's not just hey look we're just talking about a whole bunch of items and you know having an open
discussion where uh we're here till 11:30 11:45 which I know uh not a lot of folks were very happy with that or it's you know became a very difficult so that's why I'm seeking to have it just more let's get the motions and then we can have that full discussion. Um I have
a two quick questions um for the town attorney and town manager is that in section 3.2 to the second sentence. Is the town manager shall be removed by majority vote of the council? Um, is that language appropriate as a shall or
should it be a may? This I I believe it when I'm reading I think it should be may be removed by majority vote of the council. >> Agree with you, Mr. Chair. It should say may it should not be a shall. >> All right. So I'll make a motion to
modify that language in the second sentence uh from the town manager shall removed strike that and it should be the town manager may be removed by a majority vote of the council. Is there a second? >> I'll second for discussion.
>> All right. Second uh discussion items. >> So I I would definitely be inclined to to support this. If it's part of a of a more comprehensive item that deals with other housekeeping type issues, I would not be uh in support of this. If the
intent is to bring this as a standalone question to the to the electorate, I don't think it's substantive enough of a change to to warrant a question on the ballot. uh if if it can be incorporated or if there's a substantial number of
other items to change within this section and it can be lumped in there, I I I would support it. But um absent that, I wouldn't present this to to the electors. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Town attorney, you have an opinion on that.
>> You repeat the question. Well, there his his question is what he's asking is or he's his discussion item is more of uh that he would like to he would be in favor of this if this is more of a more omnibus uh just general changes when the question goes to the ballot rather than
being its own individual question on the ballot with regards to the changing the m of shall >> so so there's a bunch of housekeeping things that may fall under one category like what you were talking about last time about when you they made reference
to council member to change it to members of the council. All of that can probably be all >> wordsmith. >> Yeah. Wordsmith into one ballot language, >> right? And that that >> one ballot question >> to not not to cut you off. >> But the my my intent was very much that,
right? If if that change and and perhaps others like it can be incorporated into one question, then I would be supportive of that change. But if changing it here would require a a single B question for this one word, it I don't feel it's
important enough of a change. >> So what I what I think would be helpful to move the the process forward um is that there's there's two sets of issues that you are dealing with um as as a commission, right? You're taking a look at this document and you're saying
seeing things here that need to be changed. They're they're they're grammatical in nature, but some of those grammatical issues in nature can be substantive, right? So, some of them are just a little comma here, comma there, but some of them make a difference, right? The shall and the may that that's
an important thing. Um, so I think if you can, for the record, address it, but move on. Let us come back with with something that's going to cover everything, right? Uh, and is going to be included in whatever changes we're going to make. So, because and again, you're going to see this whatever
changes you make now, you're going to see them again because we have to vote on the language. >> Does that make sense? >> I'm going to go to you just a second. I just want for clarification to make sure I understood what you're saying. Are you saying that we do vote on this or we just don't vote it on this point? >> Address it. Hey, look, we need to change it. What do you think? Change it
>> and then Yeah, vote on it. Hey, look, we want this to be changed. This >> and then we'll figure out how we're going to incorporate. >> Exactly. >> Okay, Commissioner Bannon. >> Okay. This is a question for our attorneys on this. So now we're changing um I guess a tone in this thing a shall
versus may. Does in the law does shall and may absolutely mean the same thing >> because you know it doesn't it there's a there's a certain amount. So how does that change this? Because I could substitute will as opposed to shall and
may which you say will be removed. >> Right? So the way I see the difference is that in the context of of removal of of the manager we're talking about here, if it were to say shall be removed, >> we shouldn't be talking about this.
>> Let's talk about removing the clerk. So it would soon say No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. >> You're say commission chair. You can go with commission. >> I'm going to talk about myself. I'm not going to talk about myself. >> You're doing a lot worse on this test than you were earlier. is let's assume that it was talking about
yeah it would require three4s vote to remove someone from this from this governing body. All right. So that way you would want it not may because you you may is it could maybe it's less you want that to be shall but when you're
talking about something passing by simple majority well already by the law you have to pass it by simple majority. So to say shall by you know majority doesn't really make a lot of sense made by simple majority but it could be more than a simple majority that are going to vote for the removal. Does that make
sense? Oh, let me let me try let me let me let me let me try to see if I can >> I apologize. >> What the town attorney is uh has put into very legal ease uh terms is the way I've always read it and the way I read contracts and write contracts is you
will use a shall when something must be done at every single time all the time and which is like it says in the first sentence shall be appointed by a majority of the council because you have to appoint a town manager. However, you don't always have to remove. You're not required to remove them every single
time, but you may remove them. And in the event that that they're going to be removed, then it become then it's going to occur. It's kind of like the way that you're you're not mandated every, you know, when you get a town manager that you're going to remove them, but you may remove them by that way. Uh, and that's
kind it's just kind of a wordssmith aspect of it that I've always seen it. I don't know if that helped any, but in my mind, >> can I can I offer one recommendation as an alternative >> that instead of shall or may just leave the shall and say the town manager shall only be removed by a majority of the
council >> seems I don't know. I'd have to read the rest of of what the charter says about removal process. >> No, I I think because the spirit of the spirit of the sentence is that you need a majority to remove the manager, course, >> right? So it's just a matter of figuring
out what the best way to say that. >> So So it mean non- lawyer if if I read that. So then the town manager can't resign. The town manager can't be removed by the governor. The town manager can't be removed by a by a judge.
If it's sha only. >> Yeah. That's where I that's where I got a little hesitant. >> I don't mind that. Yeah, you you'll forgive me obviously as another non- lawyer, although I've read a number of contracts and there was always the shall in will and the may
that tends to change the context of the of the contract that a lay person can get caught in. And that's one reason why I I bring that up. The adding of the word only might be fine. However, once again, there has to be rules like malfeases, misfe. You can't do it, you
know, just because you don't like them. You have to do it because there's actually some problem that needs to be addressed. >> Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to, but I think I think that you can remove a a a manager for any reason, not only because
they did something wrong. If the will of the council is to go in a different direction, regardless of whether the performance is there or not, there should be a mechanism by which you you can do that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Because that's nice clarification. Go ahead, Chairman. Mr.
Vice Chair, >> I think if we read through the end of the section because um Commissioner Bennett, I know we spent some time on this 10 years ago and we specifically added some language for some uh mechanisms in this area and there's an
ordinance in place right now that kind of dictates this whole section of the charter. So, I think maybe a lot of what is being discussed here right now can be addressed in the ordinance. Um so, Mr. Attorney, I'll look at you and see if what your opinion is on that, but there is an ordinance and perhaps the
ordinance can get into some of the more specific items that we've been discussing. >> Well, keep in mind that the ordinance must comport with the charter. So, if we make the change in the charter, the ordinance has to be modified to comport with that. It doesn't work the other way. It's not like you would draft the ordinance to really affect the the
charter. You can't do that. That it it doesn't flow that way. Um, so I I you know, you we're in the discussion item. Uh the motion is right now to change from May to from shalt to May. Um Mr. Town attorney as you what would be your recommendation uh from a legal
perspective obviously in in that language? >> No. >> If it were to remain the same >> if it were remain the same and what commissioner to Fernandez mentioned well if it says shall be removed then what
does that mean? That is can can that means that the governor can't remove him or another entity? Well, no, because then that statement would just be frustrated by a superseding law that says that the governor can remove the
manager. Um, I tend to agree with the point that you brought up, Mr. Chair, that really it shouldn't say shall, it should say may be appointed and may be removed. Well, shall be appointed by a majority vote of the council, I think, makes sense, but may be removed because it doesn't have to be removed. It's not
something that has to happen. >> Correct. And that's where I was trying to get at. >> But but wait, but but maybe so if a majority of the council votes to remove him, he may. He doesn't have to be removed. >> No, the action is they may remove him by that by a majority vote
>> as opposed to >> they have to remove >> that they have to remove >> either way. He's removed. >> Well, it no it's more of that they have to remove them >> and they don't have to remove them. >> It would mean that every manager has to be removed at some level, >> right? So >> and that's not necessary
>> chair commission. >> She did a much better weather of >> commission simple there >> if I may. The only entity the only body that can appoint the manager is the council. >> That's shall but the council doesn't
have to remove the manager and the council isn't the only person that can remove the manager. >> So me >> that's true. Yeah because the court can come in the circuit court can enter in an order that could remove the individual. >> Exactly. Do we need to enumerate those um other mechanisms in our >> those are provided for by law and
otherwise? >> Yeah. >> As provided by law should be added then right is always as provided by law. >> Okay. >> Okay. So
we have the pending motion. Any further discussion? All right. So all in favor say I. I. I. >> Any opposed? I >> have to say no. Does anybody want to poll or we're good? I think we there was only one note. Correct. Okay. I I wasn't sure if there
was I didn't hear all the Yes. All right. Madam clerk, you got that? Make sure that we have the language of the clerk. We're just >> of the motion. All right. Anything else on 3.2? All right. Seeing none, we're going to move to 3.3. Powers and duties of the
town manager. Does anybody have any specific duty or do we want to take it all together? Any discussion items or any any discussion initially or any motions? Right. Seeing none, we're going to move
over to section 3.4. Start off with any discussions from anyone, any items. All right. I'm let me open up my computer here cuz I have I I I have a proposal that they're going to put up to rewrite
uh to better write section 3.4. I didn't like the way it was worded. I think it was a bit convoluted um and to make uh and as you guys see up on the video screen, uh this is the language that I'm proposing to just simply replace it. It incorporates to an
extent, but I just did a replace all to make it a lot cleaner. is that in the event of his or her temporary absence or disability, the town manager may designate a qualified employee of the town to serve as acting town manager to perform the duties of town manager. The
town manager shall make this designation by filing a letter with the council. In the event the town manager does not make this designation comma is unable to make this designation due to the nature of the temporary absence or disability comma or if the
person so designated is unacceptable to a majority of the council comma the council may comma by majority vote of the council comma appoint or redesate comma if appropriate comma another qualified town employee. Period. The
acting town attorney or I'm sorry, the acting town manager, I should say, and I think I I wrote that wrong. I was thinking in my head wrong, shall serve until the town manager returns from such temporary absence, comma, the temporary disability ceases, comma, or as
otherwise determined by the council. And that is my motion to replace. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right. There's a second. Any discussions? >> Yeah. Okay. Uh once again it goes back to the 2016 commission uh meeting qualifications um arbitrarily selecting
somebody in town staff. I believe a town manager has to have specific qualifications um certifications from I I can't as a PC I can't remember now the thank you you know so do we do we allow him to appoint anyone
or just the ones that are qualified for the position? Well, this language proposes that it be a qualified person. So, they would they would have to have the qualifications for a town manager to begin with uh to be appointed in that position. >> Is that in the language?
>> Yes, it's I kept a qualified employee in both the designation by the town manager as as well as if the council were to replace them with someone they would be by a qualified employee. >> So, in both another qualified employee. Okay, I understand. I see it now as a
qualified employee. Yes, >> I understand that now. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Yes, Commissioner question just come to the vice chair. >> What would happen in the event that there is no qualified employee on staff? >> And that I
have a town manager that makes sure that they always have a qualified. >> He liked that, right? the the qualifications in the previous section that talks about the qualifications of the manager are really >> general.
>> They're broad and general and generic. So the the determination that an employee of ours is capable of serving as the acting town manager, I think that's left to the town manager. Let me ask is there an ordinance that
covers specific qualifications of a TAN manager? >> No, there there's the ordinance talks about the process for selection like about the resident committee and so forth, but it doesn't necessarily say you got to have this many years of experience, this kind of degree, this,
you know, those kinds of things are more it's it's broad and >> so it's up to the council to determine what thoseifications are going to be. Okay. So even with the with the certifications there aren't any either even from a maybe from statutory there's no nothing that dictates it other than what the council
>> there's an industry standard which is thema credentialed manager but even just to become that you have to be a manager or an assistant manager for a certain amount of time you have to have a certain degree and and it's not an easy thing to attain so to cons to think that we would have uh let's say a uh
department director that may have attained that already it's it's it's it's more difficult very difficult. >> So what you're saying is that that that certification should not be even a prerequisite for the town manager and in many instances probably isn't a a prerequisite because
of the way that you have to obtain it. >> Some town or some municipalities do require it, some do not. >> I did not have it when I came here, but it was part of my employment agreement that I should uh seek to attain it. And I'd like to brag a little bit. I just attained it uh about a week or two ago.
So, so >> not going to point himself again as even active. >> So, it is not an easy thing to to to attain. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, then all right. So, now we're talking about we're assuming a disability. He'll return to the post of
town manager. He has appointed a temporary town manager at such. Should we have a time limit at which they'll serve until a another town manager may be appointed by the council? >> Yes. And that's why I put in the uh in the language is I put in that last or is
otherwise determined by the council to give the ability because in the prior language it didn't have that language of determination. Uh it just simply said when the disability shall cease or servant they return. Um, so I added that that was one of the added language that I put or is otherwise determined by the
council because I think they should be in an appropriate determination as to hey look this is not something that we could go further with and it it's either the disability is not going to return or the individual is not going to return or the disability is not going to cease and that's why I added that last language uh
that last part part of the sentence. >> Okay. And then you want the town council to have that power. You don't want spec anything specific as a time limit in the in the charter itself like 90 days or >> I think it'd be best to leave it in the determination of the council because they may they may say something that's
so significant they say hey look within 2 days or a week we're making a determination this is really bad the person's never going to come back and the disability is not going to cease so they can make that determination other ones they can say hey look you know he's rehabbing or he or her is rehabbing
there they can come back it's going to be maybe 69 90 days out and we don't want to prescribe that. I think it would be best best served us to leave that to the discretion of the council. >> Okay. Finally, Mr. Attorney, in our the current contract that our town manager has, what is the provisions in the
contract? In other words, he has a disability. They council says, "Okay, he's gone now. Let's get somebody else right in there immediately." what what are the provisions contractually to hold that position for the current town manager that he may recover from illness
or I don't think it you know >> I'd have to take a look at the contract I'm sure there's a there's a provision there for disability and for for removal >> so we're going to need that you know in other words for the so that the town council would have to know how much time they would have to wait under contract
in order to decide if they need to remove him from from the position and bring in somebody Yeah. Well, yeah, that well that would be within the discretion of the council at that point and that's what that language is is broad enough to to giving them that authority and also gives them that designation in the event or in the event that even the town
manager doesn't think that they should be removed. The first portion that I put in there is that the town manager does not make this designation. They say, "Hey, look, this person's lacking the capacity or has some some significant issue, but they don't want to appoint the acting because they feel that they
can want to move forward." the council can make that determination, I believe, uh, to move it. I think it's going that's it's a pretty serious situation. I don't I don't see it except in the extraordinary circumstances of type of disability or anything >> through the chair.
>> One second. And then I'm almost done. And then now we're dealing with the American Act. Now we're dealing with the American Disabilities Act. In other words, if he's considered disabled, can we remove the job? >> In other words, you know, we have to deal with that law also in this case, wouldn't we? Yes, absolutely. Well, I
think that all goes back again to the discretion of the of the council in making their determination. I'm I'm I would like to believe that they would listen or at least uh take into account the recommendations of the town attorney at that point in town.
>> And I'm sorry, Mr. But also remember that there's there's a difference and there's a there's a nuance, right, with regarding someone who is an employee at will and someone who has a contract. He's a contractual he has a contract with with a with a town and in that
contract it delineates what happens if there is a disability. So that's that's something that he can contract away. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh Councilman Fernandez. >> Uh thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. I just Oh, and and it disappeared the language. But I just
wanted to um to really I have and and the the the word where it says temporary absence, should it be qualified as to what that means? Because what I'm what I'm wondering is if if the manager and
of course I'm seating more power to the manager in what I'm going to propose, but let's just say for instance that he just wants to take a a Friday off. Would he have to write a letter to the council and have the council uh decide on whether or not he can take a Friday a
Friday or Thursday, Friday and and and the weekend off? Does does that make sense what I'm saying or am I interpreting that that language incorrectly when this is temporary? >> And and let me respond to that is I I understand that question and that's the reason why and this one actually is a more clear designation as to the may
versus shall is in the first line is that the town manager may designate a qualified employee. So, it'll be up to the town manager if he believes that his duties need to can be covered or they cannot be covered. Uh, he's going to make that determination. And if he fails to do it, again, the language is in there that allows the council to move
forward and make that designation in his absence. Yeah. Or >> I actually was going to recommend that that be changed from May to shout. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Because it would be responsible for me even for for a day off. Everybody, whether the seven bosses that I have or my staff, they should always
know who's who's sitting in the seat. >> Sure. And the reason why I I wouldn't, you know, I'm not going to take the the change it as the shall, but I understand your position, meaning is that if you decide you're going to be gone half a day because you're going, you know, you're you're you're you have to take care of a doctor's appointment, but
it's, you know, you're going to be in a waiting room, it's nothing significant. You're just going for a regular checkup. Technically, you know, what con what's going to constitute your absence, even a temporary absence. Um, I don't want to have someone interpret it that you have to designate somebody by letter for even for a short period of time when you're
still going to be available to perform your duties nonetheless. And I think it's best to leave it in the discretion of the town manager to determine when it is that they're going to. And then if they don't and the council believes, hey, look, we need to have somebody here because you're fail to for whatever for
any of these numerated reasons that it be done that way rather than force you to designate every single time you may be absent. If you're going to lunch, technically it's a temporary absence from your duties. And I wouldn't want you to have it.
That's the point. It's give you the discretion as town manager currently or even in the future any other town managers to have that that that discretion to determine when they're going to. >> Does that answer your question, uh, Councilman Fernandez? >> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'm I'm clear with it. Thank you. Thank you for clearing
that up, >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, I I I did have a have a question and more more uh more questions to follow. Um I I me personally, I want to take a little bit more time with with this item. And what
I'm concerned about is the potential for abuse by a council deciding that, you know, maybe there's a maybe there's a manager who's owed severance and we can't fire him for cause, but if we incapacitate him and promote somebody
else and put him on on ice in the freezer, then we can have somebody else that we appoint to be the the town manager and just, you know, leave leave him at home. So, I I I want a little bit more time to look at that. I would love to see what the town manager's contract
says as far as compensation and disability and and all of that aspect before deciding what to what to do for this. >> Yeah. I I would just uh point you to that this is limited to a temporary
absence or disability. Um and and and when and just from a legal standpoint, you know, determining whether or not a person's incapacitated is actually a legal determination. It's not even a doctor's. The doctors make the recommendations of a courts and you can't be legally determined to be incapacitated until a court has said has agreed and said, "Yes, we agree and
we're removing these person's rights, whether it's full rights or limited rights." And that's that's handled through the probate courts. >> Right. I'm I'm more concerned with the first part, the temporary absence, because as you so eloquently made the case for a few minutes ago, going out to lunch could be framed as a temporary
absence, right, under the the right circumstances. So, if you word smith that, a temporary absence would still trigger everything in this in this event. So, I don't I don't want the town manager going to lunch getting us a you know, a new second town manager all of a
sudden. And yeah, that that's my concern. No, I I understand your concern. Um I I don't have a lot of these things. I guess you could say I'm not I'm not going to say that it's the perfect wording. You know, you could read a lot of these things into it, but then that's you know, that's what we as a town
entrust within our council members that they're going to be reasonable. And if we think that they're otherwise, you know, there's provisions to remove the council and change that that process up. And look, the great thing that we have in this town that I always see is we have a very vocal community um that would definitely come out and force at
that meeting when that count council wants to make those types of decisions to designate somebody to be temporarily absent from during lunch. >> Sure. Commissioner Bennett. >> Yeah, like I said, and that goes back to my original statement of putting some type of time limit on this. In other words, 30 days, 15 days, two weeks,
something like that in which you know his absence requiring if >> my employ my employment agreement says 90 days. I just checked. >> Okay. >> 90 days. >> So that that's what the that's the what he says there. So So he has a 90-day period in which we have a provisional town manager in his absence. And at that
point it does the contract immediately say you no longer perform the contract and it's now it's not terminated. Just there's a provision there for dis uh what do you call it with retirement benefits and so on and so forth at that point. Am I correct in that? >> It it actually says that the contract is
terminated. >> Okay. That I I figured that that would be it. Okay, thank you. That's okay. That's what we need to know, >> Mr. Chair. Remember, when we're looking again at the charter, we're looking at, you know, kind of this is the overarching documents, the constitution, but everything can kind of be described more
and more detail either by ordinance, in many cases it is, or in the case of the manager, by contract. So, his contract then further defines what that disability might look like, uh what that time frame might be. Um, and if you want to put it into the charter, you can do
so, but only understand that then if the future councils want to modify it, they would not be able to do so because their hands would be tied. So, you know, it could have unintended consequences. >> And that's my point. You see, do we want this power delegated to seven members of
our community or do you want the community at large to basically that's what our charter deals with our contract with the people of Miami Lakes. That's why our charter is and that if that if we're going to make any changes, why it has to go to a vote before them. That that's why I'm trying to say is do we
want that power solely the discretion of the council or do we want at least have some general provisions in the charter that gives them a a framework to work with? >> Yeah. And and if I'm understanding your your your your comment is that this is
giving the framework to first and foremost have the town manager make that designation and it's more of a secondary as to whether or not the council likes or is approves of whoever it is there and it sets that framework and going to what the town attorney said is that I
don't want to be overly prescriptive uh because you don't you also don't want to bind the council and say hey look you know this guy wants to give the X and now we have a negotiating point where we could have gotten them and they're like, "Hey, look, I'm not going to go with 15 days." You know, that's just too short for me or even 60 days and but I wanted 90 days, but the charter says 60 days.
Now, that's no longer a decision point unless they even want to give less than what the charter be more prescriptive of that. And that's why I wouldn't be I I I wouldn't want to change or put a specific number in this instance because I don't I I don't think it's that big of a not that it's not that big of a deal,
but I don't think I have less concerns that a council's going to go rogue. um because I think there's a we have a lot of stopgates already uh you know amongst the members of the council and obviously with this community that'll come out in full force against it.
>> But then you could put in basically um a f in other words if the contract is up say in 2028 this would be effective the the next year 29 or 30. I mean we can put an effective date on this too if we're concerned about any conflict between the charter and his contract.
>> Oh no. there was a change in the charter, it immatily affect his contract. And then that that'd be a discussion that the town attorney together with the council are going to have to say if it's going toily affect because he he has rights in his contract. They'd have to renegotiate that contract if he's willing to do so. Correct. And then he could
>> That's why we would have to provide some type of effective date of this so that when his contract is up, it this would go into effect so we don't have that conflict. >> I'm trying to prevent lawsuits. We've already gone through plenty. I want to try I'm trying to find ways to prevent lawsuits. >> Absolutely. I agree 100%. But that, you
know, I think we only need to have some some type of provision on dates if we were to put in some uh limiting any anything that would materially affect his contract. And I don't think we've reached that in in the current language that's being proposed. So, is there any other discussion items? Sure, Mr.
Manager. Um, uh, chair, where it says in the third line down by filing a letter with the council, the the the practical way, the real way that I I, uh, notify them is by uh, electronic mail. So, I think that there should be a provision
in there that says or by electronic mail. >> Okay. Um, I think we we had another pro we had another section where we had some language and I think we should mirror that. And I all I was doing there was just mirroring the language. I know that that was something that I was just going to bring up to recommend changing to add
that as another possibility because that's the practical that's the way that I >> I'm fine with that. Um what was the do you madam clerk do you recall the language that we had on that? >> Yeah, it was official channels. I I proposed it. I I can look for the minutes, but I think we formal communication because I
in my section last meeting, I think I wanted a formal email >> from the mayor communicating. >> Yeah, I think we left it as a formal communication. >> I can look at the minutes, but I think we said something to the effect of formal communication, whatever means.
>> I think you all mentioned that emails are used now, but in 10 years maybe emails are not used anymore. You could just say in writing and then that's that's broad enough where it could cover several different forms of communication. >> It just becomes official when the town
clerk receives it. I think I >> Are you fine with that? >> Yep. >> Well, that in written form. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion to replace in the current language. This is going to be motion 2B
is to modify the language from fil by filing a letter to be by what was the language again. >> By a formal by a formal communi by formal communication. >> Yeah. In written form >> by a formal written communication by
>> it that has to go through the town clerk because she's the the keeper of all the documentation. >> Yes. No, that that that doesn't change. >> Okay. I just >> Oh, it'd be with the council. It' be fine. >> I know, but usually has to be official. Has to go through the town clerk to be considered. I'm assuming it has some way has to get through the town clerk,
>> Mr. Town attorney. >> Well, manager, >> whoever has the answer. >> Should the council or should it be with the town clerk? >> He needs to notify the the the council if there's a there's there's going to be a a temporary vacancy, right? So, the communication has to be with the council
because the council has to then make a decision. That's what this the the section says. But yes, um, Commissioner Bennon is correct. All communications should include the clerk. >> Okay. But do we need that language here in this provision with or is with the council sufficient?
>> No. I mean, the clerk is the keeper of all any public record, right? >> Yeah. >> But she doesn't have every public record. If there's a public record request, she always all the time has to go to the department that's handling it or the individual that's handling it and get the public record. So, she's the
custodian, but she doesn't have it. >> Sure. >> So, what I normally do, I send an email to the council and I CC uh all town staff and everybody knows, everybody's on the same page and they know when I'm going to be out and who's going to be the boss, >> right? So, with the with the council,
it'll be fine. So, the motion is to u replace the language filing a letter with language that says by formal written communication. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Any further discussion on that language? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. Now we're back on the main motion. >> I I would like to um to the chair, would you be open to removing the second instance of
uh temporary absence? So not the first temporary absence at the beginning but the one that starts with um the council may it's like the third >> where he's unable to make the designation due the nature of the temporary absence or disability.
>> Exactly. remove that temporary absence so that the rest of that paragraph can only occur in the event of the disability but not in the event of the temporary absence because if there's a temporary absence the the manager isn't
disabled and is able to designate someone I I can't imagine a a situation where the >> well I well I can I'll tell you the reason why I kept it in there and what my thoughts were is you know it's it's very unfortunate is you know my My initial thought came to what's happening
to Saman Guthri's mother and the event something were to happen to him and he wouldn't even be able to because of his temporary absence to do anything. She's not dead. She's out there. But that's the reason why I kept the the nature of the temporary absence. Um
that's not a disability, but it is a temporary. We have we have the sheriff's office over here, Mr. Manager, if you need an escort out to your vehicle. I hope that addresses what I was saying. Okay. If your concern is them that I
can't help you there. All right. Any other discussion items? All right. I'm going to call a vote on amending the language. Is all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. And so as amended, the language passes. Uh now
we're going to go to 3.5 bond the town manager. Any discussion? Any discussions or any proposed amendments? Seeing none, we're going to go to section 3.6, the town clerk. >> Anything?
>> Yeah, I would like to address that. So, >> so looking at the whole charter, it seems to me that the town manager, the town clerk, and the town attorney are charter officers, right? I'm not. So I I don't see why the town clerk should
be beholden to the town manager. I think it should really just like the town attorney and the town manager, they should be beholden to the council. So I would like to make a motion that the town clerk shall be appointed by the town council. And whatever else you want to
>> I second that. >> All right. So we have a motion and a second. now having a discussions. >> I'll start. >> First of all, I'd like to have a annual Gina, you know, festival for her hard work for the town. So that as an
appreciation because I've I've known her for years now and she's one of the hardest working people I've ever seen. Um, as far as the the town, uh, Commissioner Abbot has made a good point that, you know, it's it sets up the uh an individual chain versus u the the
commission the council itself deciding for the town attorney as a town manager. It's reasonable to to accept something like that because the position of town clerk is to basically maintain public records and so on and so forth which is
essential for the historical patterns and for making laws. uh or ordinances even in the town of Miami Lakes. So, uh that provision um would be something that I think could be beneficial. Um I don't know if there's specific
qualifications for a town clerk, you know, um if there if there there's special duties and capabilities. I'm not familiar with the the job description. So, I I really couldn't go beyond that. Just as a point of clarification and and I should have asked for it when we
called for the me for the vote. Um, Commissioner Abad is or what you're proposing is that the language because I I and and please keep this in mind as we're proposing modification that please provide us the language. What I'm guessing, what I would like to think is you're you're saying is to utilize the
first sentence under 3.7 town attorney, but replace individual attorney or law firm with the council shall appoint a town clerk to act as town clerk under the search terms, condition, qualifications, compensation. Mr. I just want to
qualifying. >> Is it going to go what I just stated right now? >> Mr. Fernandez, >> I I I have something else that I want to address. That's >> got I just want to clarify for you. That's why you're So that way, Madame Clerk has language that she can use for the motion. Okay. Go ahead. Now,
>> I I I wanted to request that the deputy town attorney uh either issue an opinion or have a sidebar with Commissioner Guanzo over the discussion that we're having on this item since his wife is the town clerk. >> On conflict,
I can just recuse voting. >> I mean, if you feel like if you feel like you'd like to recuse yourself, you can recuse yourself if you feel uncomfortable. That's fine. Um, that's fine. >> Yeah. And and I I don't know if the town has any of the specifics. My understanding has always been that while you may recuse yourself from a vote, you
can still participate as in discussion if you so choose. Is that correct? >> No, you should remove this. >> Oh, you remove. Okay. That's how you guys have the process. Okay. Okay. I remove myself. Is it okay if I go to the kitchen or just
>> take a walk outside? >> Um, Mr. Mr. Attorney, I mean, I I don't mind him participating in the discussion. He can give his opinion as a commission. >> I think he's recused himself. That's a choice that he's made. Well, you can't vote, but what you can't just like our commissioner Fernandez. No,
>> I mean, council member Fernandez. >> The way I've always interpreted uh the rules as far as in as far as recusing yourself when you have a conflict, you shouldn't participate. You should just remove yourself from the days and then come back after the vote has taken place. >> As you wish. >> Yeah. And and I just want to put on the
record that I I hold both of them in very high regard. And that's that's in no way a reflection. It's really more to protect them against anything that may arise during that conversation. >> I mean, I I understand his his position and I'm not going to argue with it. That's that's fine. That's something that is for each individual elector.
However, you're talking here about the actual overarching town clerk, not the position, not the person. >> Sure. >> All right. Any further discussion on the motion as has been presented? Um, well, actually, let me have a question for the town attorney or the town manager if you
guys know. Um I know uh Commissioner Rouano had just made a mention that it seems the village of Palmetto Bay has language uh that the council appoints the village clerk. Do you are you aware of if what's the practice amongst the municipalities?
>> The the majority of the municipalities that I know of the council appoints the the town clerk. >> Yeah. In the town manager. >> Yeah. City that's the way it works. >> I know that municipality. >> Go ahead. Mr. Commissioner Mitt. >> Yeah. I could if Commissioner Abad could
bring back some languages of what he want to propose at the next meeting of what how he wants to change this particular I like to look at the language of that. >> No, no, I I'll give it to you straight. So it I I just wanted to reflect and be similar to what the town attorney does, right? He's also appointed by by the c
by the council. So I think it should read the town clerk shall be appointed by the town council. The council shall appoint the town clerk under under such terms, conditions, qualifications, and compensations as may be established by the council. >> It really mirrors the town attorney
>> and just Yeah, just mirror that same just changed >> and that was the motion that >> Yeah, he clarified that that's the language that he was utilizing for. >> I just want to make sure that was the motion that's on the floor. Okay, >> sure. Yes, >> I'll second that. >> No, we already had that. Yeah, we I had
clarified with him that that was the language that he was utilizing for his for the language to to replace it. Um, let me ask Mr. Manager. Under this process, I have one question for you and then I have a question for the town attorney. Under this process, uh, what
would you see as any challenges uh, in having the council appoint rather than the manager select? >> Yeah. working for the town clerk. We have a a hybrid position which is the deputy town clerk because the deputy
town clerk wears two hats. Uh the deputy town clerk is also the assistant to the town council. So for chain of command, you know, lines of uh authority, uh the deputy town
clerk would work for the town clerk then and not be under my direction. So, if a town uh a member of the council needed something and they weren't getting it, who who do they hold accountable? Do they hold me accountable or do they hold
the town clerk accountable? Is is probably not going to happen. is probably I'm probably overthinking it, but that chain of command um has to be considered about whether that deputy town clerk then will report to will be an employee of the town clerk or will
continue being a an employee under my chain of commit. >> Okay. And in just reading 3.6, Mr. Town attorney, uh obviously we'd have to modify further language in 3.6 six. If
this, you know, this this provision would be to pass, um would we have to take that up as together as the motion or would how or do we need to specify additional motions to incorporate those changes? Um because it's, you know, it goes further down is that the town clerk
shall report to the town manager. I don't know if that occurs in these other instances where the town clerk is appointed by the village council. Do you have any insight in that? >> So if if the >> how the reporting lines happen, >> right? So the town clerk is appointed by the by the town council. They report to
the town council just similar to as the town manager reports to the town council and the town attorney reports to the town council. >> Town council is my supervisor. >> Yes. >> I mean I have to work with the manager. >> I definitely do have to
>> I do I have to >> and with the clerk as well. >> Yeah. Work working together. But I I'm more focused just on the kind of the language that's in 3.6 ICS and how it how it functions in the other ones. Do the other ones have it that the town clerk is appointed by the council but still reports to the town manager or do
the clerks then only reporting directly to the town council >> through through the chair. >> Yes. Give me one give me one second. >> Absolutely. >> That's I I understand the nuance and I guess it's an important nuance. Uh I can
go back and take a look at what are the majority of the cities for us to make a decision. >> Yeah. What what the reportings So this one's Palmetto Bay, right? >> There's Palmetto Bay and then >> Pinefest. >> Yeah. Which are the cities that were all
incorporated around the same time. So maybe Madam Clerk. >> Thank you, Chair, if I may. I think council member JC Fernandez wants to speak and if I may, I want to say some words as well. >> All right. Do you want to go after him?
Okay. Council Councilman Fernandez. >> Thank Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. And and I and I don't mean to interrupt anyone. Let me just be clear. I I there's really no other way for for you guys to to know that I that I'd like to say a few words. So, if if I I just don't want to to seem like I'm being
rude. So that said, I I did I I liked um Commissioner Abad's um the the the language that he's proposing until I I heard the the difference of the chain of command. I I think that that might uh pose an issue. I I just wanted to to
make that known. I I don't know. You guys you guys will will make the decision there, but I I think that if it was up to me, I' I'd probably leave the language the way it is. That's it. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Just for a question if I may.
>> Sure. >> Um, is the town clerk contracted employee? >> No. >> Okay. That's what that would that be is at this position. >> We would have to would we have to contract put her a contract similar to our town manager? >> No. The town manager also has is an
employee of the the city, >> but contracted, >> but it's contract versus at will. I think that >> he's through a contract, but he is receives a W2 from the from the town. The town clerk does not have a contract like the attorney or the town manager. >> That's what I'm trying to say. >> It's a very different hybrid position.
I'm just like an employee. But if I may, >> you're not just an employee. >> Thank you for the nice words. I just want to say um I've been in the town for 14 years. I did not start as a town clerk. I moved my way up.
>> Reading section 3.6, which I have read many times. Um I honestly feel that it's a great section as it is because I feel that it's a structure that I have always stated that I feel that I work under a check and balance.
It keeps me honest and it keeps me I'm forced to collaborate with the town attorney and the town council, but I'm forced to collaborate and work with the town manager. I don't
feel that the town manager, the former one, and Mr. Peterman are my only bos are my I feel that he's my boss just like I always state that I feel that I have seven bosses the mayor and the
elected officials the council members. So I do feel that this hybrid whoever wrote this 25 years ago I thought it was it's great compared to other municipalities which are my colleagues my friends and I
always see a lot of them would stress that they have to only report to the council and to say the mayor and the council members. Um I think that the town clerk of the town of Miami Lakes is in a privileged position. I stay within
my lane and I don't favor the manager and I don't favor the mayor and the elected officials. I treat them all the same. I collaborate. So, I think the hybrid position as stated in the charter, it could be improved, but I do
think that it it forces me it forces the town clerk, whoever does this job, to stay within the lane, like I always say, to work and have a good relationship with all the charter officers and with
very important the elected officials. I serve I always say I serve the elected officials but I work hand inand with the manager whoever that person is. I think that benefits the town. That's why I don't play games and I stay within my
lane. I do see that it could maybe it could benefit if I report to the council. I don't know. It depends. But I think that in this particular town again, it's it's been a pleasure to work with both the same.
>> Thank you. So, I'm going to what I'm going to do real quick is I I just for to clarify taking everything in account and it's not that I'm I'm not stating that how I feel on the original on the on the motion just yet, but just to make sure we're avoiding future motions. What I'd like
to do is just to amend your motion, your original motion to to have that we take the language of the entirety of 3.7 and simply replace the words town attorney or law firms with the town clerk. So it mirrors it. So that way we're just
dealing with so we can handle the whole entire motion whether it's up it goes forward or fails. But just so that way it mirrors. So, my motion is going to be to mirror the language of section 3.7 uh but to refer to the town clerk rather than the town attorney. Uh that's my motion.
>> Second. >> All right. It's been motioned and this seconded. >> Yes, Mr. Town attorney for discussion. >> We've just been having a little sidebar here. It looks like, you know, a lot of cities, maybe the majority of them u have it as the the clerk reports to the council, which kind of makes sense.
She's a charter officer just like the manager and the attorney. I understand her her feelings, but taking that to account, it it does make sense legally. Um, if you'd like, you can defer this item and I can bring back uh a survey of what other municipalities have, you
know, how this is broken up. That would help that would be helpful. >> Okay. Um, well, right now we're on depending on the motion. We'll get back to I think when when we get to the main motion once we get to that. Uh the current motion is just to adopt the language that's under 3.7 and obviously modifying it to uh reflect the town
clerk rather than town attorney. Is there any discussion on that motion just on the modification of the language? >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Should we defer this until he brings back the language or should we just should we vote this up and down now? >> M mr chair if >> Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Fernandez.
>> So 3.6 Six does include uh some of the responsibilities of the clerk which I don't necessarily want to leave out. So it includes the tow the town clerk shall give notice of council meetings to members the public the the minutes it it does break down some of the
responsibilities of the office that are unique to the office. So, even even though I second I seconded your um your amendment, I I would urge you to reconsider because I don't want to leave those components out of it.
All right. So, this is going to be another fun one. So, but I'll make I'll keep it very simple and I'm going to very very direct it this time is so I'm going to file a motion to amend my motion to add the second sentence that the town clerk shall give notice of all
council meeting to its members and the public and shall take meaning of of the council proceedings. Add that sentence into the language of the town attorney. >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion on adding that
language? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none. All right. So, this one's passed and I'm writing better ways of following these out. So, going back to the original modification so that it mirrors what's in 3.7 now with
that additional sentence. Now, we're on to that of modification of that language. Are we fine with that? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I >> seeing none. So that now we're back on
the main emotion. And so now if we want to discuss deferrals, I don't know. I know Commissioner Abad, I think you had you were you wanted to say something. >> So So I just wanted to address the town clerk and I don't think the intent is, you know, I I think it's just just your work ethic and the way you choose to
work with other people, right? whether um whether the council appoints a clerk or whether you fall under the town manager, you're going to do the same job. I think it's just setting forward a path for future. I mean, we're not going to be here forever. You know what I'm
saying? For the next town town clerk. Um, and as far as the chain of command that the town manager brought up, I mean, it's it's like everything. He has an assistant town manager. That assistant town manager, I don't think it's reports to the council, but he but he does. You know what I'm saying? So, I think it would be a similar thing.
>> Yeah, I brought it up just as something that has to be determined. It's not a I didn't mean it to sound like it it's an obstacle, you know, just we just have to decide whether the deputy town clerk is going to be under the uh the clerk's chain of command or the manage.
>> So, so like I said, my my reading and my understanding is that all three of you are charter officers of the town, and I just figure it should all align. All three should be appointed the same way. That that was that's just my view. Commissioner Fernandez. >> And I I just also wanted to put on the
record uh for the benefit of the town clerk that I think regardless of what the structure was, I'm sure the town clerk would do a fantastic job and and report to whomever she needed to report to and and um continue to be the best town clerk in
all of Miami Date County. However, whenever um and I had the same thought process when we you know we spoke about the mayor's position and and the manager's position before this and the responsibilities of the council that whenever we look at this document, this
document has to work for the good town clerk and for the bad one and for the good council and for the not so good one and for the good mayor and the not so good one. And so I I always like to reframe it because although you do a fantastic job and there are absolutely
no issues um with with the way that you do your work, there could be situations where we we don't have as good of a manager and as good of a of a clerk. And I just want to make sure that uh the best interests of of the residents are are supported. And I think having the
town clerk's position report directly to the council achieves that. So thank you. All right. So, I know that there was a recommendation a little earlier, two and a two interior or interceding motions before from the town attorney asking if we wanted to consider deferring this to
further so he could get a survey or do we want to, you know, and I don't know if anybody has a motion for that or any further discussion. >> Well, I'd like to motion to defer. I'd like to see some of the language from other towns just as a reference point or if the town attorney wishes to provide some language just so I can review how
he wants to do this. As as uh Commissioner Fernandez says, we're not worried about great workers. We're only worried about the ones that don't do their job. >> So, there's a motion to defer to the next meeting. Is there a second? >> Right. Seeing no second, the motion fails.
One second. All right. Seeing that and seeing any any further discussion on the main motion. Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Seeing none, uh, the motion passes. >> Mr. Chair, are we done with 3.6? Yes, we
are done with 3.6 if we want. >> Let me go. I was going to tell you now. >> I know he's comfy. >> I know. We're going to take turns recusing ourselves. >> All right. Thank you. Uh so now we're on
3.7 town attorney. Any discussions, questions as to 3.7? All right. Uh we're going to go now 3.8 expenditure of town funds. Any discussions or any rec motions? Seeing none, we're going to move
forward. Section 3.9 town boards and agencies. Any motions or discussions? >> I'd like to make I'm sorry, a motion for discussion. I reviewed this um and um as far as the appointment of boards um I'm
I'm not totally clear on the language that they're trying to put here deem advisable from time to time. I'm just I'm I just like to get some clarification if I can on what what is the the intent of 3.9.
The way I read it and you know I'll defer obviously to the town manager as well as the town attorney. The way I read it, it's kind of it just puts into the discretion of the council to determine what they believe is going to be advisable and because they'll establish or terminate them as they deem
appropriate such as I, you know, I think as a as a good example would be the blasting committee. That was something that was deemed to be advisable by the town council to establish and they created a that one. Uh the blasting committee that's moved forward and is doing great work on behalf of the town. Um
that's my sense. I don't know if town manager or the town attorney if you guys have any further uh information you could provide as to that def you know what deemed devisable means >> or should be ready to mean >> the only thing that I was is that under
the mayor the mayor has the authority to create committees of the council so the nomenclature obviously is a little different this talks about boards and agencies >> my apologies I I use a bad example >> no no but there's a little bit of conflict because in the previous section
under 2 uh whatever 2 point uh wherever it talks about the duties of the mayor it talks about that the mayor has the ability to create town committees and I think let me double check it may be with the approval of the council
>> A3 mayor may create subject count subject to council approval okay committees of the council >> yeah so what is a town board Mr. Town attorney, >> I I tend to agree with sorry,
>> I tend to agree with what the the manager just said. There's there's a already in in the code, it provides for committees and it provides how the those committees are are created. They're created by through through the through the mayor. Um
>> would that be like the planning and zoning board? Planning and zoning board would be an agency would be a a board would be has quite judicial powers. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I I I making the >> term boards and an agency is a little bit different than correct. >> So
>> correct. This charter commission, right, is is something that would consider a board or an agency. >> Okay. But then let's say the blasting commission that was or the blasting committee >> that that would be considered a committee and not necessarily a board. >> Yes. And that and so I withdraw that. Is
there a difference is there a difference in powers and duties between a board and and uh >> so the way that I would see it if I may Mr. Chair is that I would see a board like the planning and zoning board has quasi judicial powers. In other words, >> they say that's not a variance. It's not
a variance and it's illegal and the only way that you can have any relief is you know filing a a suit in circuit court. >> You know if we would have a a code compliance board instead of a magistrate would be something similar, >> right? So a committee basically would just provide recommendations to the town
council. More of a a recommendation type board, >> right? That's what the committees do. Yeah. They don't have the authority to enact anything. They just make recommendations of the council because I said I want and so what I'm guess what I'm taking is that it seems that the boards and agencies are ones that can
almost act independently of the council subject to the charge given by the council. That's how I would I would interpret it given also the fact that in a separate section the mayor has the ability to create committees committees which are advisory in nature. >> Right. >> Right.
>> Yeah. >> Right. Commission Fernandez. >> Yes. I have a I have a question on uh on a topic that was quite uh enjoyable earlier. In your opinion, should this be the council shall or the council may establish?
>> I would say may Look at you being the attorney. >> Can you go to California and take the brother? >> All right. >> Miss Fernandez, make make a motion. Yeah. >> Change that. >> I'll make a motion under the uh the same conditions as before.
>> Second it. >> All right. There's a motion. Anyone have any discussions? Madame clerk, did you get that? Change the word may to shall >> or shall to may. I'm sorry. The council may establish a terminate. >> All right. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I. >> All oppose. Seeing all opposed. Uh seeing none. Motion passes. All right. Anything else on 3.9? All right, guys. We're going into now
article 4 legislative uh section 4.1 council meeting procedures. Uh we'll start with section 4.1a meetings. Any discussions items or motions?
I had one question that I kind of wanted to I wanted to ask first for the uh town attorney is um under there there's no provision. It only talks about special meetings and regular meetings. However, what about emergency meetings? Um, emergency meetings in my experience are
situations that would normally be less than 48 hours. >> No. Um, >> well, it could potentially be under less than 48 hours versus a special meeting. >> So, that's why it says it there. It says upon no less than 48 hours notice to the public or such shorter time as the majority of the council deems necessary
in the case of an emergency affecting life, health, property, or public peace. >> Okay. Okay. So, you would say that would that emergencies would be covered under that term for a special meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. That's what I want. I just wanted that clarification. >> All right. Does anybody have any other questions or
>> Yes. I I >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> I have one note and that's just to to dog 4.1A. um in the item uh to reduce the number of council members to also change in this section uh that a special call
meeting may be held upon the call of only four council members. I would yeah >> it'd be just a major what I would recommend is have rather a majority rather than a specific number and that gives us that flexibility regardless of what happens otherwise.
>> So would your motion be to have a majority of the council member? >> Yes, it would. They use that term two in C right below it. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh so there's a motion. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second. All right. Is there any further discussion on that change? Seeing none, all in favor? I >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. All right. Any other discussions on 4.1A meetings?
All right. Seeing none, we're going to go to 4.1B, rules and minutes. Any questions? Any motions? All right, seeing none, we're going to go to 4 C 4.1 C, quorum and voting. I think that has a similar uh language
change of to four or more and just change that to a majority. I'll make that motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any any opposed? Seeing none. Uh motion passes. Any other discussions on 4C quorum and voting? All right, seeing none, we're going to go to 4.1D, meeting time limits.
Uh, any questions or discussions? >> Can I provide an opinion? I think it should end at midnight and everything else should be stricken, but that's just my opinion. Can we move that to 900 PM? >> Second. >> Thankfully, they don't make motions.
Yeah. You weren't here in the early 2000s and when the meetings went till 2 2 a.m. I was there sitting him. >> I I've been at the county ones where they've gone till 4:35 in the morning. >> Yeah, those are those are fun ones. All right. Is there anything uh any motions
for 4.1D? Okay. We're going to go now to 42 prohibitions. Let's start off with uh 4.2A, appointment and removals. So, I would like to make a motion that we strike the word accept the town clerk
from 4.2. >> All right. There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Just a moment. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to read this again if I may. >> Well, right now, let's see what I second it. >> So, second for discussion. >> Yes. >> All right. We have a second and so we're
if you guys want to take a look at that and then we can discuss. Second was uh Bennett. Commissioner Bennett. >> So, so I just want to clarify the only reason why I think it should be removed is because the town clerk will no longer be under the town manager.
>> Yeah. But I believe that the town clerk will still be an employee. I think you need it now more than before. >> No. Well, under the current removal, you would be striking other than the town clerk. >> But the town clerk because it says removal of any town employee. the town
clerk even though it's being appointed by the count by the council still is a town employee. >> Well, what they if if we were to leave it in, it would say that the council could not remove the town clerk. >> Ah, >> they wouldn't be in the position to remove the town clerk. >> No, I think what
>> if it were to remain in correct to align it that it's the council's going to be the decision, >> right? Because the following sentence says whom the town manager or any of his subordinates are empowered to appoint. So she will no longer be empowered for you to appoint. So I think that should be you know strengthened.
>> Sure. So that's the discussion and I think you know and just you know as I'm sure that some people are thinking I think that would be uh while we're making the motion here it wouldn't be an individual question rather it would be tied to the the change of the town clerk's position and when we get to that
to that answer it would just be combined but we're making the motion here to make sure that that gets also changed there. >> Okay. So that wouldn't be in the question that would be presented to the voters. It would just basic do you want the town clerk to be appointed by the town council and then after that charter to reflect that change
>> and then a change of events occurs but we don't have to publish those change of events. Am I correct? >> Well, I think the changes would be published but it wouldn't be in the question. >> Oh, it wouldn't be in the question. Okay. >> Yeah, it wouldn't be in the question. That's what I was saying. >> The edits I believe would be Am I Am I correct, Mr. Attorney? >> Correct.
>> The edits would be there. However, it wouldn't be in the question. The question would be it not that it would be this but it'd be you'd be modifying the position of the town clerk to be appointed by the comm the council and to by interineation make all the other changes that relate to that change. >> Okay.
>> I just wanted just from the mechanism to make sure that that we get that. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. Motion passes.
All right. Anything else on 4.2 prohibitions? All right. 4.2A, sorry. Uh, now go to 4.2B. Interference with uh administration. Is there any discussion items or Commissioner Fernandez?
>> I have one on that. I maybe and not that there's been a a problem with it before, but maybe we should clarify. Um, so the council has the the deputy town clerk is also the council's assistant and the
mayor also has an assistant and neither of those two things. So it it says except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations made in good faith and in accordance with a resolution adopted by the council, the the council and any of its individual members shall deal with
uh town employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager. So in theory, if a council member was to go ask their assistant to make copies for them or do
some other clerical task without going through the manager, that would technically be a charter violation. And the same thing goes with the with the assistant. So I I I would want something to clear that up just so that it's not an issue.
>> Mr. town attorney. It's interesting. He's Commissioner Fernando appoint. It can be further clarified. Um the the the language says who are subject to the direction supervision of the town manager. Now, I assume the
deputy town clerk won't be under the direction or supervision of the town manager. Will be under the direction of the town clerk >> if that item passes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Right. >> May maybe you can add the word solely under the direction of the supervision of the town manager. >> Well, what I think we may want to do is
defer this one to be to bring it back because I I think there may we may want to re review based on what you're just saying because I think it completely makes sense, but I don't want to try to come up with something very quick now. um to discuss uh or to to modify it now because I I do think I I understand
exactly what you're saying because you know his you know the assistant to the mayor is a town employee and even when it says you know the last sentence however and no individual council member shall give orders to the town or to the town not that one but as you were stating he wouldn't be able to direct him hey look can you help me get this or do anything like that because then it
would be a violation of the town charter I think we just need to probably look at that language a little better and make a proposal unless commissioner Bennett you have proposed lang language you'd like to >> No, no, I have no proposed language at this time, but I do have a question under obviously under interference administration. So, let's I like to game
these out. So, let's assume a council member's uh neighbor wants to get something modified and he has to go ahead. Would he then if he were to direct uh uh the town the building department to approve this, that would be a violation of what this is intent?
>> I I think that's a violation of state law. >> I I I I get that. Well, well, once again, I I I'm I'm gaming this out for a reason. >> No, no, I understand what you're saying. >> I don't see any penalty associated if you do this. >> Well, I think what they're stating is that that's a violation of state law, which has its own penalties.
>> I understand that, but it I'm I'm trying to say is that, you know, when the interference with administration, there's no penalty in our charter at any of any >> it would be a violation of this and then someone can go move forward to uh re to to deal with that issue as it states in
the next one. any willful violation of the section by the mayor or council shall be grounds for his or her removal from office by an action brought in circuit court by the state attorney of Miami date county. >> Okay, >> there there is a punishment that can be immediated out as a result of that >> and that's my that's my point. So in other words, the only remedy for this is
to basically go to court >> by the state currently but that's in section two if you want to propose something to modify that. >> Well, I just that's what I'm trying to say. I I just want to understand this as opposed to basically um some type of willful violation uh triggers an
automatic resignation something like along those lines. >> It would be an automatic removal rather than resignation. But I I understand >> but but what but the but the the governing body that has the authority to remove it is we're not talking a recall at this point. We're talking a judge's order or does it have to come from the
governor? The current reading of it, the way I would read it is that num is that Roman two that just follows that Roman one that we're on right now uh is the one that provides I guess the sword to uh to deal with any
of the violations. Now if you know if you want we want to have any disc if you want to have a discussion or proposal to amend that portion >> uh I think we'll do it at that at that point. >> Accepted. But I think as to one, I think it might it probably be best that we just uh make sure that we have it on for
old business uh for next meeting. And if any of you guys have any proposed language that you would like to revise, um really really appreciate it cuz I I I I see 100% what you're saying and I agree that we just need to modify this language. >> We'll take a stab also from staff's perspective and exempting the the uh
deputy town clerk as well as the mayor's uh assistant. >> Yeah. And I and what I would suggest is kind of more have rather than specifically identifying a deputy town clerk, it's probably maybe the the specific office of the town clerk because that may ex
that may expand in the next 10 years. Who knows? Um but to allow for that. So you're not specifically designating what positions are going to be but rather just whoever falls within the town clerk's uh purview. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Before we move on to another
section, I wanted to make a motion to remove the language that says in accordance with a resolution adopted by the council. I'd like it to read simply except for the purposes of inquiries and investigations made in good faith because there are often times accounting
>> uh the first okay the second sentence >> where it says in accordance and in accordance with the resolution adopted by the council. >> Yeah. Well, I think what what where I was asking to defer is to Yeah. the whole entire section just re you know come with proposals of what we would
want to have read into it completely. I think revising the whole entire thing rather than just trying to one do one or two sentences is probably be best. So I think you could incorporate that in that. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Absolutely. All right. Uh so if nothing further on on B1 uh going to B2 now um
is there any motions or discussions that we want to have? >> I like discussion for a moment. Just a clarification. Mr. Attorney um obviously we're going to they want we're recommending the circuit court or the state attorney's office. So this would be a civil matter. So the evidence would have to be in a court trial of the preponderance preponderance of the
evidence versus reasonable doubt. Is that what we're dealing with here? A criminal or civil um infraction >> under two. >> Under two. Yeah. >> It's going to circuit court. No, I didn't say criminal court. I said circuit court. I was just curious, is this a civil infraction where the
evidence is a little bit more general versus a criminal court which is >> No. Well, the the way that it's written is is for it to be considered a a criminal ground because it would be the removal by action and it would be for an action brought by the state attorney. >> So, yeah.
>> It'd be a Yeah. So, and and I agree in that I would I would read it as the same way given that it's a willful violation of a charter just like if it was a willful violation of any other state statute and if it is being brought by the state state attorney it' be a criminal prosecution is the way that I would it would be inter and I would see
it as being interpreted and taking it with that would be is that while it's in circuit court just so you know the criminal courts fall within the circuit courts but they also have county court and criminal circuit court is just the the level of punishment that can be meed out um and So, it'd be in circuit court
and in and if it's a criminal matter, it's obviously is going to be beyond a reasonable doubt. >> Right. All right. And and basically now we're dealing since it'll be the state attorney's discretion if she chooses to um file the complaint in court. I I don't think I think she has discretion at this point. You know, they they bring
the evidence to her and she decides not to file any charges. It it dies there. Am I correct? >> Yes. Yes, because the state attorney would have to make a determination as to whether or not she believes he or she would believe that they have sufficient evidence to be able to support the vi the willful violation because willful
it's not only a vi violation but it has to be a willful violation um which it which is a high legal standard >> and so basically it's a malfeasance of some sort >> beyond malfeasence beyond yeah it's a you know willful violations that they intention they intended to violate not
that it was hey look you know I you know I saw someone walking down the down the hallway at least under the current language and I asked him hey look can you go get me a cup of coffee and then now it's a you know did he intend to violate this no as opposed to what you exampled of saying directing a a I
wouldn't say a building official because it brings up other things but saying hey look you know I need you to go get my dry cleaning clothes >> you know or do anything like that that is just absolutely you know it would be a clear violation >> okay and and just one last thing I'm sorry so malfeasants this is this is a
beyond malfeasance which is defined as willful malf >> I believe will I believe mal willful is a much higher standard yeah >> okay >> but I will defer to the town attorney >> completely agree with you chair >> all right so any proposals on to two All
right we'll move over to uh section 4.2C to C holding other office. Any discussion items, motions? All right, seeing none, we're going to go to 4.3 ordinances. Uh we'll start at
a uh does anyone have any discussion items or just any discussion items or motions? All right, seeing none in 4.3A, uh we'll go to 4.4
emergency ordinances. Uh we'll start there with the first paragraph and a if does anyone have any recommendations, discussions? >> No. >> Yeah, I do. Well, I just one quick question. >> Sure. >> Have we had any ordinances challenged in
court? I mean, as far as to my knowledge, we have never had an ordinance challenged at any given time. >> No. >> Okay. that I'm aware. >> All right. Uh go to 4.4B is uh what I'm going to I'm going to make a motion here is in
the second line to replace no less than five members with a 2/3 uh 2/3 of the members is to replace that language. So that way we're not dealing with a number-wise rather we're going to the percentage and 2/3 is generally considered a super majority. The
language is up on top. Uh it's posted up there that I had proposed. Uh is there a second? >> A second. >> There's a second by the vice chair. Any discussion? >> Yep. Just that that be bundled in the same item that reduces the number of council. >> Sure. >> We have that Mr. Town attorney.
>> Yes. >> Perfect. All right. Any other further discussion on this change? Seeing none. Uh all in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. All right, going to C, effective date. Anybody have any question, discussion
items or any modifications? Seeing none, we're going to go to D. Same on repeal. Any discussions, motions? Seeing none, is uh we're going to go to E, emergency appropriations.
Any discussions or motions? Seeing none, we're going to go to section 4.5, the annual budget adoption. Anybody have any discussion items or motions? Seeing none, we're going to go to 4.6 fiscal year.
Any motions, options? Going to 4.7 appropriation and amendments during the fiscal year. So, we'll start with A, supplemental appropriations. Any motions or discussions? Seeing none, we're going to go to B,
reduction of appropriations. >> Um, yeah, I would like Commissioner Bennett. >> Yes, I'm sorry. I'd like to bring this up for discussion for reduction of appropriations. Uh, once again, is this the twothirds majority if they decide to reduce the um the appropriations that
have been already give provided? Is that is that what how I'm reading this? I don't see the two-thirds. I don't. It just says uh they'll be reported to the council and the council shall take such action as it deems appropriate. And I think that it just simply implies that it'll
be just a majority vote like any other action. >> Simple majority vote to remove. Okay. So, all right. All right. Okay. I'll withdraw. I'm done. >> Okay. Not a problem. Any any other discussions or motions on B? Seeing
none, we're going to go to 4.8. Uh, and go to a >> I >> Yes, Councilman Fernandez. >> Yeah. May I add something there? >> 4.8A. Yes. >> 4.8A,
if I may. Um, so and I think the intent as I discussed it with the manager, I think at one point there was difficulty uh getting the mayor at the time to sign to sign
this. So after um I'm suggesting that it that it reads in the event that the mayor is unable to authenticate any ordinance resolution or charter amendment within 10 calendar days from the effective date then the vice mayor shall au authenticate. If the
mayor and vice mayor are unable to authenticate then any member of the town council shall authenticate. I yield back to you >> Mr. Deputy CL, do you have that? Oh, we Oh, we have it here, but okay. We don't.
Um, so what can you read? Can you, Madam Cler, can you read the language and where it would be amend? >> Right. Section 4.8, it's keeping exactly the same language, but then to add the following. In the
event that the mayor is unable to authenticate any ordinance, resolution or charter amendment within 10 calendar days from the effective date, then the vice mayor shall authenticate. If the
mayor and vice mayor are unable to authenticate, then any member of the town council shall authenticate. >> That's the addition. That's the recommended addition. Oh, there it is. >> Oh, there.
>> I think so. I know we don't have a motion yet. I I think if anyone's going to entertain a motion to to make this modification, I think we need to as to that last one. And if the mayor and the vice mayor can't within because the thing is is that
we don't have a time limit set for the vice mayor to sign. >> Keep it consistent with the date. >> Yeah. >> All right. So I'll do this. I'm going to make the motion to adopt this language or to move to add this language that
event that the mayor is unable to authenticate any ordinance, resolution or charter amendment within 10 calendar days from the effective date, then the vice mayor shall authenticate within
>> five >> five calendar days and then period >> from the effective date from the effective date. So, but you couldn't do it because you already given 10 days to the mayor. >> So, you need to give him another five days for the vice mayor. >> So, then it'd be 15 days from the
effective date, >> right? >> Well, you would do it within their with shall have 15 or five days to authenticate because you had the first Yeah, because you're going to need to give the first 10 days no matter before the effects
or Yes. Then the vice mayor shall authenticate within the following >> trying to think of on the fly. >> Was that? >> Yes, >> Mr. Chair. >> I'm sorry.
>> From the date the vote was taken. >> No, but it wouldn't be Oh, you within 15 days of the day vote being taken. It wouldn't even though there overlaps. Okay. Yes. Correct. I see what you're saying. >> Yeah. It took me a second. I'm reading in my head. >> I don't read so well.
>> So, if you guys want to type that out and I'll get to you in just a second, Commissioner M through the chair. I have a question. >> Sure. Okay. Because it it happened it's happened to me once in my tenure here with a town where the mayor and the vice
mayor did not want to sign a resolution. So, what is the remedy? >> Well, I think that last sentence is if neither of them do it, then any member of the commission, >> right? Sorry, I I can't read. >> I don't know if you I don't know if you're going to that or if you were just trying to say that.
>> No, no, that's that's fine. That's that's >> okay. >> I Yes. Shall authenticate within 15 calendar days of the effective date. Yeah, we'll have we'll have a discussion. Okay.
>> But I would just want to get the motion so that way we can move it forward. >> Mr. Chair, can you ask if they put back? Is that what they're doing now? Okay. >> Yes. And if you guys can highlight the lang the the all the full language that was being amended so we can read that
separately. So and then that and then if the mayor and vice mayor are unable to authenticate then any member of the town council I it just be of the council you don't have to have town council shall authenticate
so remove the word town >> is the word unable >> it's not >> unable thank you >> I yes so the mayor are do not I just put do not authenticate.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Implies that they didn't sign, right? >> Yes. Uh so let's do this. Yeah. So with that language, yeah, since we're revising the language on the fly, um in the first sentence, in the event that the mayor does not authenticate
and then also with the vice mayor does not the mayor and the vice mayor do not. So that way it doesn't go to abilities. So that way we get the motion correct from the beginning. And then in the sec in the last line,
I don't know what happened there. No, no, no. Not there. Not there. In the last line, if the mayor and the vice mayor do not authenticate. Yes. Last line. All right. So, let me read it again in
its entirety. So, the motion is in the event that the mayor does not authenticate any ordinance, resolution, or charter amendment within 10 calendar days from the effective date, then the vice mayor shall authenticate within 15
calendar days. Put 15 in parenthesis. So mirrors and and type it out. >> I believe Mayor D, I guess would like to speak. >> Sure. I'll give him one. Let me get the motion pass. Yes. >> And we'll move forward. >> And >> so 15 typed out parenthesis 15 calendar
days of the effective date. If the mayor and the vice mayor do not authenticate, then any member of the council shall authenticate. That is the motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. All right. Well, second
uh we'll open for discussion. We'll begin first with the with the Mayor Diegas. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be brief. Um I was just going to propose maybe making it 15 days for the mayor to go ahead and sign in the event, for example, it's just that, you know, a
mayor is on an extended trip, for example. You know, um I understand where the manager is coming from with this. Again, as as the town attorney pointed out, there was a situation in which the you know, a mayor and a vice mayor chose not to uh sign off on a an ordinance
adopt or resolution adopted by the council. Um, but I think just making it 15 days and then five additional days for the vice mayor to sign is more than enough time, but just, you know, just allows us to perform our duties. It was simply that, just proposing extending
the date a little further, >> right? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Commissioner Medit. >> Okay. So, basically, again, I like to game these out. So, in this particular circumstance, we had a um a five a 5 to2
vote where the mayor and the vice mayor did not vote for a for an ordinance and but it was passed by the general counsel and then they when it went to sign it into law essentially, uh they refused. That's what this is supposed to remedy. Am I am I correct in that that gaming it
out? >> I mean, I'm just going to say, how does this apply? In other words, there would have to be some reason why a mayor and a vice mayor chose not to sign something that was passed by the council. What else would it might it be? >> They may not be like I think as commissioner or mayor Diegas had just
mentioned, you know, someone may be on vacation. I think what he was saying to have 15 days would be if someone's gone for 2 weeks, it just gives them the ability to come back and sign the sign the document. Um, >> but you don't envision some type of hostile type of effect. In other words, they I I I mean,
>> oh, I I I look, I you you can you want to game it out? Of course, it would it would take into those accounts. If the mayor and the vice mayor were on the losing side of that motion that passed that resolution or whatnot, uh, then yes, you know, they would they would say, "Hey, look, I don't want to sign it." and they could go forward, but then
it would still go deferred back to the c any other member of the council which obviously had voted in affirmatively for it, which allowed it to go forward. >> That that's that's why I wanted to game out that I I'm I don't remember this particular passage last time we we
discussed in 2016 that we placed it in there. I'm sure there was a reason why it was placed in there. I just don't remember it the reason why at that time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Is there Is there a motion to modify the timing
or no? We keep it at 10:5. >> Well, to 15 for the mayor to submit. >> Yes. What mayor Diegas proposes is it would read resolution or charter amendment within >> 15 days. >> 15 calendar days from the effective
date. Then the vice mayor shall town decate within >> 20 calendar days. I think that's what he meant. 15 and then 20 calendar days. >> Sure. Just point of order. Um while I appreciate our mayor Diegas weighing in on that, is that considered a public
comment? It's he's not a part of the board. Um do we include his opinion at this level? >> I mean, once again, >> including his opinion, yes. It's not a recommendation. It takes one of our commission members whether or not I and and in my opinion, I'm always going to
recognize the mayor or any other council member that would want to speak specifically on an item and I will always address them as it want this is something that they can get from their point of view and I think they'll bring help us bring some uh operational clarity. >> Would that be public comments then? I
mean once again he's not a part of commission. >> No, it's invited. It was something that I authorized. Uh the town clerk told me that he wanted to speak and I asked and I authorized him to speak on the matter. >> Is that >> I believe that's in the prerogative, Mr. Attorney. >> That's in the prerogative of the chair
of the chair. >> Okay, that's what I need to hear. >> Mr. Chair, may I ask a question? >> Sure. >> To the town attorney, is there a reason why we wouldn't do it for that period of time? Is do ordinances need to be signed within a 30-day period between one
council meeting or Okay. There's no reason that >> there's no prescription for that. >> The other I I mean I'm not opposed to it, so I'll make a motion. But the other question I have on timing, so we have um 15 days. Well, we'll make the motion. We'll see what happens. We have a period of time for the mayor, a period of time for the vice mayor. Should there be a
period of time for the council if it reaches that point? So, right now, it's uh 10 days for the mayor, an additional five days for the vice mayor should there be. But you you you could put something that uh but in
no not to exceed 30 days. >> 20 days, right? Yeah. At no point shall the time limit exceed 20 days. Something to that effect >> because that in my mind gives a if there's something really controversial that the mayor doesn't want I mean it's an ordinance that's been approved by the
council. So there shouldn't be. But do we if we don't put a time period for the council, does it give any of them the opportunity to say no, I don't want to sign it? >> You know, >> right? I I think you need to it needs to be 20 days. Yeah, I think I think I I agree with you. I would give like a a
stop cap of 20 >> at the end. No later than >> Yeah. or not to exceed 20 days. >> But can I clarify though because >> Yeah. I I know we don't have a motion, but I know I I want to talk this out before we get there.
>> So, just to be on the same page because I think your intent is to make a motion, right? to make it what the mayor suggested 15 20 then it will be 25 days right want to be >> days >> I mean I I you know I was asking the
question about the council should we do that before >> I or anybody else formalizes a a motion does it make sense to do that I'm just I'm wondering >> from an operation I think from an operational standpoint you know madame clerk is you know do you think within
having that outside date. Do you think that would help you out at least to push it? >> I do like the not to exceed x amount of days. It's a pressure that the council members will know that one of them needs
to sign >> in default by the mayor not being able to or by the vice. >> I like that pressure. >> I I just got a a sudden bout of heartburn around this issue. So the the budget is an ordinance,
right? And usually the budget gets passed within a very very tight window to the time that it needs to be published. If you have a mayor or a mayor and a vice mayor that disagree with the
adopted budget and run out the clock and then you don't have a budget, it's a it's a backdoor way of vetoing the budget. >> Yeah, you can't do that because if you if you were to do something like that, you'd be violating state law and the
ramifications for the town would be bad. Um, so if you want to put something there, uh, I don't know, unless this violates the law, but the law cannot violate. >> Let me ask you this is what would be the timing for the signing of a budget. Is
there what what does the statute say with regard to >> it's it says of when you have to transmit the budget by and you have to transmit the budget I think by the end of by September 30th. It has to be so it has to be with the state I think by October 2nd or >> Yeah. It always gives you a couple days.
Yeah. >> Every year is a little different, but it's usually like the 3rd or 4th of the of October. >> So I So I think what the Commissioner Fernandez is is referring to then is in the event that it gets passed on the 29th and you need to transmit it by the 30th and they don't sign those dates go
out the window and then then what penalties are suffered by the town and the state law says and I'll I'll quote from state law. says, "Every ordinance or resolution shall upon its final passage be recorded in a book kept for that purpose and shall be signed by the presiding officer and the clerk of the
governing body." But it doesn't say what if not what if they don't or what if they refuse to or what if they can't. Well, if >> it doesn't have >> Okay, >> if I if I may through the chair, um the the charter reads that the mayor and the
town clerk shall authenticate by their signature and we've had the shall and may conversation all night long. That's a requirement. So, I I what is I mean, what is the consequence of violating the charter? If you're a mayor and you do not sign
an ordinance, then that's a violation of the town charter. So, I understand that we're trying to put in all of these safeguards, but it clearly says that the mayor and the clerk have to sign it. Doesn't matter whether they agree with it or don't agree with it. If it's something that passed on this day, it has to be signed.
>> I mean, we can give them an an extended window of time to do it, but I don't think that we have to continue to say if the mayor doesn't want to and the vice mayor doesn't want to and the council doesn't want to, that's just not an option. It's it's a mayoral duty. >> Yeah. >> And commissioner one is 100% correct.
So, I don't know why we should be leaving. >> Yeah, but but it it could be that the mayor or the vice mayor are really unavailable. They're not here. They're not present. They can't sign it or they're incapacitated. So then who signs it? >> Yeah. And then I think that's kind of there might be interrelated, but I don't
think they're dependent upon each other because I think there may be an instance where oh well the the way the current language just simply doesn't prescribe a timeline. And I think that was the original intent. I know we've we've moved it forward to you know thinking of all these other position these other options which I look they're very valid
because I think we do need to have these discussions um and but I think the original intent was simply just to get a timeline as to when it needs to be signed. >> So I I have a I have a question that may appease everyone an ordinance that passes is already
passed by by the body. How about having the clerk and the town manager sign it? And then that way it's not a person that voted for it or didn't vote for it or whatever. And we just give that power to the manager. And as we discussed at Nauseium before, we always have a
manager. And when we don't have a manager, we have a a a an appointed manager, a temporary manager, the disability manager, and a manager at all times. Right? So maybe doing that and then that way we remove the potential for politics or the potential for this
you know trickle down of you know if this person doesn't do it within this time and that you know that that would be my preference. >> Yeah. So let me ask you Mr. town attorney. I I don't know if there's any provisions that require the the mayor or, you know, if we're
proposing even the the the vice mayor to sign it to sign because these are going into ordinances, resolutions. Um, obviously the town clerk generally I've always seen it always the mayor and the town and and the clerk of whatever body it is both because the clerk is the one that records it. It's their
acknowledgement that they've received it and it's been filed. >> Correct. So the way that the the statute reads and we were going back and forth two two things to keep in mind. One is the what he was what the the manager was reading was 166.041
which is the Florida statute with regards to procedures for the adoptions of ordinances and resolutions. Uh, number five above what he what the manager read is that it discusses that a majority of the members of the governing body I'm going to read it to you because I think it it it helps with what we're
talking about. >> What statute does is it append? >> It's uh 166.041. >> Sorry 16 or 166 >> 166.041. Okay. And then you got to go down number three. This is number four. Then
66 041 and then it's 4 a it's number five. Okay. So number five says a majority of the members of the governing body shall constitute a quorum. An affirmative vote by majority of the quorum president present is necessary to enact any ordinance or adopt any resolution except that
twothirds of the membership of the body of I'm sorry of the board is required to enact an emergency ordinance on final passage. The vote of each member of the governing body voting shall be entered on the official record of the meeting. All ordinances resolution passed by the governing body shall become effective
not may uh within 10 days after the passage or as otherwise provided the hearin. So 10 days after it's it's voted, it's already effective. It's along the length. >> And then you read and then I think it's important to read number six that follows. >> Then every ordinance or resolution shall
upon its final passage be recorded in a book kept by for that purpose and shall be signed by the preciding officer. The preciding officer would be whoever is presiding the meeting that is the mayor uh and the clerk of the governing body. And again I think that's important that
that word governing body. So the presiding officer of the governing body. So that's why it can't be the manager. It needs to be the mayor. >> Yeah. And I and I think what the in in seeing this now cuz I I pulled up the statute as well. Um the way I read it is the signature on
the ordinance or resolution is more of a ceremonial act because it's already effective by either the 10 within 10 days or the other. So >> yes, but it's prescribed by statute so it has to happen. >> No, no, I understand that it has to happen. Um, >> what if what if it doesn't?
>> Yes, that's exactly once again. That's why >> that's why I'm trying to game this out. So, we have to just put some type of provision in there. >> Law is silent, too. >> I I know. Can we compulse them? I mean, do we have to grab them by the hand and ping the paper and have them scratch it
in? >> No. Listen, the presiding officer you can have in an instance. So, who is a presiding officer? Or you can have in in a meeting the vice mayor be the presiding officer. You can have the person. I mean I think that the way that this is written is that it's the
presiding officer who presided over the passage of that particular ordinance. >> That being said, I mean I I have seen other instances where the vice mayor may sign something or it's >> well I I think there's room in our charter for that because under the duties of of the vice mayor, the the
vice mayor can do anything the mayor >> correct, >> you know, can do. So that's already provided for. >> Yeah. And and so you guys know the seven, I don't know if you read into seven, but that one gives us the authority. Says by future ordinance or charter amendment, a municipality may
specify additional requirements for the adoption or enactment of ordinances or resolutions or prescribed procedures in greater detail contained therein. However, a municipality shall not have the power or authority to lessen or reduce. >> Yeah, that's the enabling clause.
>> Yeah. So, how about we just leave it as is? >> Yes, we we we can make it we can put more conditions. We can't just give less than what's provided in statute. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to just keep this as is. >> All right. Well, we have the motion
already that is currently sitting to modify it. So, I think what you're asking is to isri Well, I think it'd be a vote down >> of the current motion rather than a strike all of the pending motion. All right. With you, can we call the question? >> I I would agree.
>> Yeah, you can call the question. >> All right. >> So, let me just make sure. We have two amendments. One was by Vice Chair Inguanso following the recommendations of Mayor Diegas. I don't know if somebody
>> I I didn't get a second on that. >> Okay. So, that mot never made the motion. >> Yeah, he never made the motion. He had just discussed it, but I didn't catch it as a motion. No motion. >> So, right now it just sits on tenant. >> Then we do have an amendment by No, I don't have another amendment.
>> Or did I miss somebody's amend motions? >> Yeah, it's just the original motion to add the language that we made >> that as presented. >> So, if no further discussion or suggestions or amendments, uh, all in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Any. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> No. >> Right. Let's just go ahead and pull. Madam Clerk, >> Commissioner Bennett, >> I'm sorry. Would you read the motion again, please, from the beginning? >> It's the motion by a chairman Sodto,
which was seconded by Commissioner Abad to add the language within 15 days, correct? Which you I think you have >> the the total amount. Can we put it back up and I'll read it? I'll read it in time. >> In the event that the mayor is unable to
authenticate any ordinance, resolution, or charter amendment within 15 days, I have here >> 15 calendar days >> here. It's it's it's it's up top. Okay. >> Madam clerk, I'm sorry. In the event that the mayor does not authenticate any
ordinance, resolution, or charter amendment within 10 calendar days from the effective date, then the vice mayor shall authenticate within 15 calendar days of the effective date. If the mayor and vice mayor do not authenticate, then any member of the council shall
authenticate. That was the motion. >> Okay. Coun. Commission member Bennett. >> Yes. >> Commission member Fernandez. >> No. >> Commission member Abad.
>> No. >> Commission member Matoss. >> No. And thank you for putting it back up. Commission member Ruano, >> no. >> Vice Chairman Inguanso, >> no. >> Chairman Sto,
>> yes. >> Okay. The motion does not pass. >> All right. Uh, anything else on 4.8A authentication. All right. We're going to go to 4.8B recording. All right. Seeing none. 4.8 8 C
availability of enactments. Discussions, motions, seeing none, we'll move forward. 4.9 Tax Levy Assessments and fees. Any discussions or motions? Seeing none, we're going to go to 4.10
independent audit. >> Yes, I'd like to make a motion um to make it a time certain audit. In other words, what who would bring this up as an audit is what I'd like to discuss with uh this commission. >> When you say a time certain, can you be a little bit more specific what it is that you're moving?
>> Basically, who determines when any type of independent audit becomes necessary? Is it the commission? Is it the manager? Is it the people of Miami Lakes? >> What So, what language are you proposing? Um, the language I'm going to
propose thinking on the fly because like to be I'll be honest with you. I expected us to do three. I didn't know we were going to do four tonight. I didn't remember seeing that. So, okay. I didn't review it completely. But as far as the annual independent audit, what triggers that? I
would I I'd um I would probably like to >> Sorry, >> Commissioner. May I vice >> I think they're gonna answer it as well. I think we're required to by the state for the budget. >> So, Florida statute 218.39 annual financial audits requires that uh the
audit be complete within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year. >> Okay. That that that's why and once again it's not part of this and so I don't think the average person might know it's part of Florida statute. You're saying? >> Yep, it is. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, no no motion.
>> Okay. Anything else? Anyone else? 4.10. All right. Imagine that we're going to 4.11, the last one. Borrowing. Any discussions or motions? >> Yes. Oh, I I'd like to discuss this for a moment. Okay. Obviously, borrowing.
Let's talk about when we have a bond. Is that considered borrowing? And if it is, you know, it says approved by the majority of the council. I thought it had to be a vote on the people from the people. >> Correct. So, there's two types of bonds. If I may, Mr. I was going to defer to you anyway. I I apologize.
>> Please. >> Um, so there's two types of bonds. One is when you have a general obligation bond in which you are using the full faith and credit of the municipality. >> In other words, adalorum taxes. Uh, so for those it requires a referendum. The
the council can say that they want a bond, but it's got to go out to the people to vote and there's a whole process and and so forth. Now, there's other types of borrowing that don't that does not necessarily require um a referendum. And I'll give you two
examples of ones, right, that that this that the town has that did not require a referendum. One of them is we have revenue bonds for our storm water uh improvement. Uh those were revenue bonds and they're tied to the storm water fee that that people that that we pay.
Another one is the bond I believe on this building. Uh it was tied into gas. Um, and then we also have a line of credit that we have for emergency purposes and again that was also passed by an ordinance of of the town
>> council. >> Okay. I'm sorry. And then so and going on to that um is there any limit to the amount that the town can borrow under the no referendum type bonds? >> It dep Well, yes. It depends on the revenue stream uh that that you're going
to tie it to whether it can be repaid from that revenue stream or not. >> Do you know what percentage it might be? Is it like >> Oh, I I don't know. That's that's why typically for a lot of those issues, we obtain bond counsel. I mean it's it's a very specialized area of the law and it
really depends on what you're you're borrowing for and and the purpose and >> well for example and once again um our parks you know there we wanted a bond for the parks as opposed to what is there any type of once again scenario in
which the town council can borrow money and circumn the the will of the people in a vote to suddenly improve the the parks beyond what we already do. I I don't understand. >> It's a good question. It's valid. And
and the answer is it really it it the the town council can only borrow against if if they're going to do something that's that's a revenue bond if there's revenue to support it. So if we had, let's assume a park, right? And there was some kind of a fee that was
associated with a park that was commonly, you know, given and and we can tie that fee to the actual use of the park for the improvement. and there's that nexus then I suppose so but arbitrarily capricciously the council decide hey we're just going to go ahead and use you know our storm water bond
monies to improve park and and and build baseball fields no you can't do that answer the question >> yes that answers the question and and as the town manager at a previous meeting was indicating that certain revenues are earmarked specifically for certain things and they can't redistribute those
revenues even if there's an excess of one revenue to make up for a deficit in a different uh category. So yeah, that's that's what I want. That was the question. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Any emotions or amendments
for 4.11 borrowing? All right. Seeing none. All right. So we finished through our agenda thankfully. Look, it's not even 10:00. And uh so what I want to discuss is two things right before we adjourn is obviously is for the discussions for the
next meeting. I'm just trying to look through um you know just briefly I I think we'll be fine in addressing article five six maybe even seven. Um if you guys are fine with that and obviously if we're if any of them take
much longer we can obviously just go ahead and defer any of those items uh to a future meeting since we do still have some follow-ups that were coming up from this meeting. So if you know we're going let's plan for discussing sections articles five six and seven and obviously with anything that anybody may want to bring up to discuss at the next
meeting. Uh madam clerk if you can remind us when the next one is that we have scheduled >> February 26th. >> And so Mr. Mr. Chair, I definitely support being as ambitious as as you would like for the next meeting because I'm going to be out of town and I'm going to be on Pacific time. I'm going
to be joining by Zoom. Uh but that means that the meeting starts at 3:30 my time. So go go as late as you'd like because I got all the time in the world. >> All of you guys I think uh you know I think our sheriff's officers start following the town manager. May have to
follow Commissioner Fernandez on >> Mr. Chair >> and I will be participating uh via Zoom too because I'm >> I thought you were following him out >> 26. Okay, >> Mr. Chair, just the the meeting in March again. What was that date?
>> The 12th. >> Yeah, I think if it was March 12th, I'll be I'll I'll attempt to if it is on the 12th, I'll attempt to join you. I'll be in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean uh on the 12th. >> Starling works wonders. >> Yes, I know. That's why I'm counting on that. I might be attending that
remotely. >> Oh, yes. It's February 26, March 12th, >> March 26, April 9th if needed, April 23rd as needed. And I'm just doing this for the viewers, for the residents, so that they know it comes out in the Laker as well,
but just double checking. 26, March 12th, March 26th, April 9th, and April 23rd if needed. >> Can I can >> Sure. One sec, Commissioner Moss, >> the way that this was handled tonight
with the verbiage up on the screen so we could see it as we were making the amendments, >> very helpful. >> At least for me, was 100% easier. Um, and I appreciate all the effort that went into making >> I I have to say that was Castillia's idea. >> Yes. >> So, thank you very much to for the
suggestion and and and just for the next meeting is what I highly recommend is for the commissioners, if you guys have already motions, you know, as we're preparing to make these uh the new sections or even going back to any of the other ones, including the ones that were deferring, if you guys do have proposed language, uh please share it
over to the clerk so that way they have it ready and available so they can post it up online. Um, so and they can so we can see it up on the screen and they can see it online. Yes, Commissioner. I >> I just wanted to do a clarific because I don't know if I'm having bias more and I know we all want to go home. So on 4.4B when you and I know we passed the motion
and everything >> 4.4 B that you put 2/3 that that's what we voted on. >> Yes. >> So was your intent to say let's say assuming that it passes the five council members the intent is for four out of the five to approve it, right? A super
majority would be 2/3 and it would be >> it has to be four or five because >> that that was the intent. >> Yeah, you'd have to have at least the super majority though the two/3s >> that was the intent 66%. >> All right. Nothing else further that we are adjourned to the next meeting. Thank you
very much everyone and thank you everyone for joining us online. This one.