are standing up. >> It was so much respons. >> Okay. >> JC, >> how are you? >> I'm amazing. >> Alexis, another one. I'm drop today.
My favorite. >> Oh my god. >> Hi. How are you? >> A week. >> That's why I'm such That's why I'm smiling. >> There you go. Thanks for making that helps.
>> Romano going to sift. >> Oh, you have no idea what's in charge. >> I tell you. I got to tell you afterwards. Once Tina gets back, we're going to go ahead and start. >> Yeah. When she gets back, we'll start. >> Yes. How are you?
>> Good. >> I just want you. >> Okay. No, it's gone. It's gone. >> Because I think he'll be able to pop up stuff on the show that I've been following.
You have access, >> Don, if you can also um do the closed caption like you do during the regular council meetings so that we can see it. There you go. Thank you. >> Thank you. Beautiful. >> Do we have We don't have a seat. You're
going to see where I am. No, no, no. Nobody I know. Nobody cares. >> Yes, we do. >> We do care. >> We'll take back seat outside >> from there. That's >> slide one over so we can >> Yeah, of course. Of course. >> Where does she go? She normally goes
right here. >> Tony coming in. >> I think he's not. But I don't he hasn't said no then. Yeah. >> You stay like you're next to him. You're next to >> Absolutely. She knows right over here. >> Really? >> Fernandez and
>> I thought No, you're here next to me, but she >> Oh, she goes on this side. Okay. Okay. Okay. >> I would never take you away from sitting next to >> Oh, no. I'm honored. Please don't ever do that.
>> Thank you. >> Right. Yeah, I think so. I think so. I agree. >> I know next to the chair. >> Protect one extra. duties aren't >> of I get it. Hi Lord.
Hi, gentlemen. >> Hey, >> good afternoon. I'm going to go ahead and call our meeting to order. Are we go were we good for the on live? All right. Uh the call to order. Madame clerk.
>> Good evening. Count commission member Abad. >> Commission member Bennett is absent. Commission member Fernandez is absent. Commission member Matoss
present. Commission member Ruano >> present. >> Vice Chairman Inguanzo >> present. >> Chairman Leoto >> present. Thank you. >> You have quum. >> Thank you very much. If we can all rise, we'll have a moment of silence by
council member JC Fernandez. >> Let's bow our heads. Heavenly Father, we come before you with gratitude for the opportunity to serve our community. Grant us wisdom in our decisions, clarity in our discussion, and unity our in our purpose. Help us to act with integrity, fairness, and compassion,
always keeping the well-being of the residents at the forefront. We ask this in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. Pledge of allegiance. I'll ask our mighty sheriff officer Robin to please lead us. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Uh going ahead to order of business. Deferral, additions, or deletions. Do we
have any deferrals, additions, or deletions? All right. I have one. I just want to uh kind of swap on old business. I've been asked uh to switch around the town clerk's report from B and we'll start off with that one under A just is just a
swap. So that's my motion. Is there a second? All right. Any discussion? No discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. Uh so it'll be switched out on that. Uh any other deferrals, additions, or
deletions? >> All right, we'll close that out. Madame clerk, if you can read the rules regarding public comments. >> Yes. Good evening. So um public comments will be heard as always at the beginning of each meeting and everyone for public comments will be
afforded three minutes to speak. As I always mention I welcome public comments um remote as well. If you are participating via remote, the only thing you always have to do is raise the
reactions icon and raise your hand and we will allow you to speak and you can also as well participate live by pressing hashtag number99 if you wish to speak via phone. Um I always say please
let's follow the proper decorum. No clapping, applauding, verbal outburst and all the questions from the public including the online participants shall be directed to the chair of the charter revision commission meetings. Again, if
you're here now for public comments and you're in the audience, please just approach the podium and welcome and state your name and address for the record. Uh good evening Carlos Andre 14530 Date Pine A Miami Lakes in our
beautiful town. Uh commissioners, thank you. Uh thank you for serving on this board and uh town management. Um I'm here to discuss a few things. I I you know uh stay involved in and in in the meetings and see what's going on. And I know that there's some things on the agenda that I'm going to be talking
about, or better said, they're not on the agenda, but I want you all to please consider them as they come back up and we finalize what's going to go to the ballot. One of them is um we've been talking about the runoff and possibly um a primary. Uh the mayor presented to the
chamber uh you know, last year, and I thought the idea he brought up was excellent about pushing uh the runoff to December to be in line with other municipalities like Hay Alia, Miami. I think it makes sense. I don't like the idea personally of doing a primary and
getting rid of a candidate in August. I rather have all the focus go in in November and if there is a runoff, you just push it to the proper time when everybody comes back from vacation. The other one that I ask please, a commission member that voted to reduce our our seats in the council from 7 to
5, I ask you to please reconsider. And this is why we have a lot of good people that serve on this council. And we've been, you know, 25 years as a municipality. We've had lawyers, accountants, uh, realtors, uh, volunteers, veterans, people that really
just do very well for the community. And I really feel that as a taxpayer, paying somebody $22,000, whatever it is, for that one member to be on the council is is immaterial, as we like to call in the audit world. When you consider the the
amount of time they put into that seat, all the hours, I mean, it's it's literally like $22,000 is nothing cuz they're giving their years of experience, their passion for our town. I just don't see why it would it would
make sense when it comes to money. Um, also highly consider the seats in the committees, all the free labor that you get from the committee members for those folks. Um, I know there's been some, you know, conversation about, okay, well, there is no interest. I disagree. If
there was an interest for this town, we wouldn't have 84 committee members, right? That's 84, discounting seven per committee. There's committees that have more than one member per council member. So, um, I'm sure that if there is no interest, trust me, there'll be a committee member that's going to put
their hat in the ring. All right? You just give it enough time, they'll do it. most of the people that are on the council right now have served on a committee. So, um I I ask you again to to strongly consider that. And not to mention everybody is just very
important. Look, uh a click is much harder to have at 7:00 than at 5. I don't care what anybody says, it's a lot harder at 7. And um again, people bring different experiences. It's good for us as a resident. Someone might be passionate and very good about lobbying in Tallahassee. Well, guess what? I want
that person representing me. Um, you might have someone that's not and then you're stuck at five. So, please just consider bringing this back. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Clerk.
>> Participants online. I only see the board members but again I feel the duty to just make sure if someone is participating online for public comments this is your moment to unmute yourself
and um we welcome public participation but again chair I don't see anyone in the screen um for participation and public comments >> well thank you with that we'll go ahead and we will close public comments for
today. Uh, next we're going to go on to number six, approval of minutes. Uh, council commission members, we had uh was attached on your agenda was the March 12th, 2026 charter revision commission minutes. Is there a motion?
>> I'll make the motion to approve. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> We have a second. Uh, is there any discussion? >> Seeing none, I'm going to call the vote. Is all in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose say nay. Uh motion
carries. Minutes are approved. Now we're going to go on to number seven, old business. And we as uh we changed, we have the town clerk starting off. Madame clerk. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you all board members for making the change. My report
is going to be a short and simple, but last time that um we met was March 12th and I gave a a short report and I stated for the record that we were pending some information from the elections department that I had requested via
public records request. I got the information and um basically the information that was pending was to get some information about voter turnout. I was asked to provide some statistics analysis
so that you can understand the difference between the total number of ballots cast in um August primary versus the runoff. So let me provide it's very simple. Let me go slowly with
the facts. The primary election that was held in August 20th, 2024, the total votes is um was 4,935. Then in November 5th, 2024,
the official general election, the town of Miami Lakes, I'm looking at the race of the mayor. we had um 15,78 votes and then 21 days later per the town
charter was our official runoff election held November 26, 2024 and the total votes were 3,994. So I wanted to provide that to all of you so that you can you know have the
facts analyze the the statistics and the data as well. I think I was asked or at least I looked into the elections calendar, the supervisor
of election which is in their website and I was trying to see how many municipalities are now having election this year. How many participate in the November 3rd general election like Miami Lakes versus
how many other municipalities, if any other municipality participates in the primary, right? Because that is one of the proposals that you all have to vote soon. So the primary election this year is
August um 18th and I see that the municipality of Kisgane is participating as well as Miami Gardens. I just analyzed a little bit more of the information Miami Gardens to the best of
my knowledge and I'm thinking that Mr. Coella. Attorney Coella will probably speak more on this regard, but from the facts of the calendar of the supervisor of election, Miami Gardens apparently
does have primary elections for just like what we're proposing for you to consider. And if for more than whenever they have two or more candidates for one position, they do that in the primary election.
And from from what I see here, Miami Gardens does have a runoff election, but in November 3rd. So that would be like when we are having our general election, Miami Gardens is having their runoff.
That is one municipality that we can see. We al we also understand that Kibiscane municipality again based on what we see in the calendar is participating in the primary election. When we looked at Munich code
and we went to their town charter, it is our understanding that they part whenever they have a mayoral race apparent apparently they do it in the primary election. If they have more than
two candidates and they participate in the general election in November 3rd, that would be like their runoff. But those are the only two municipalities that I can share with you all that are
participating in a primary election from what we understood from reading their town charter. All the other municipalities and we have 34. The vast majority are on November 3rd and then
they have a runoff just like what we do. We have it 21 days later, which this year would be November 24th. We have it with one other municipality.
The majority have it the first week of December or the second week of December. So just to summarize, a vast majority of the municipalities do have their election in November in the
November 3rd and if they need a runoff, they have it after like we do, but they have it weeks later, not the week of um Thanksgiving. And as I stated at the beginning, from what we were able to analyze, two municipalities
do have primary elections and in case they have a runoff, they have it in in November 3rd. >> Any questions on what I stated? >> Councilman, commissioners, any questions? Okay.
>> Madam clerk, also is did you have the numbers on how much >> the finances? >> Yes. >> The cost of those elections? >> Yes. I don't think that was asked, but that is a very important question. The finance department was our finance department was able to give me some
numbers. In the official general election held November 5th, 2024, which we just had, um the cost was 2,54 because of course we piggybacked. It was a presidential election and the cost was
low. However, 21 day later, for the runoff election held November 26, because it's a standalone election or what we call special election, the cost was $50,000. And to be clear, you said that in the
November election of 2024, there was 15,78 voters, >> correct? and it cost us $2500 approximately. >> And then in the runoff election only 39 almost $4,000 votes but it cost us
$50,000. >> Correct. And let me just um add to that that um the runoff elections of November 26, we had no early voting which if I am not mistaken
back in maybe 12 or another election that we had the year that Mayor Pizzy and Manny Sid, Mayor Sid
were having a runoff. we had early voting because we like to do that. We like to provide the early voting. That would be more money. That's why I'm bringing it up. But in this one that I gave you for 50,000, that's without early voting. >> Without early voting. >> Okay. All right. Any commissioners? Yes,
Commissioner Morano. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um to the clerk, if we were to participate in a primary, would the cost be similar to that of the general election because we're piggybacking on on an election that's already going to take place? I like to always and that's a great question. I
always like to talk with facts. I did not ask that. I'm assuming but I don't like to assume that it would be similar to the cost that we had for the November 5th because we're piggybacking from the county elections. But I don't know. If
you allow me, I will look for that information. I will ask. But I'm assuming that it would be something similar to the 2500 because we're piggybacking. That's our benefit. >> Commissioner Mtos, I did I see your hand up?
>> Any other commissioners? Any more questions on the clerk's reports? Okay. Anything else for us, Madam Clerk? >> No. If you have any other questions, always feel free to email me. I don't mind asking and you know, I like doing
this. This is beneficial for all of us. But no, nothing more to report. Thank you. >> No, thank you very much. This was very helpful in uh in better understanding this and uh in focusing us in our decision-m here. Um so next we're going to move over to the town attorney report. Um I want to say is what I'd
like to have is the town attorney when you go through your report if we can go through each of the sections and to the extent that you know if anyone wants to make any um any motions on any type of language we can do so at this time or if not commissioners is just is what I would ask is that you take it into
consideration and you propose something submit it for the next meeting so we can address it at the next meeting based on these responses from the town attorney. Obviously, I know that we're just getting them now and we're being able to discuss it. So, I'm not necessarily expecting you to come up with an answer right now if you guys want a proposing
motion based on what he responds, but please listen intently. I know he's taken a lot of time uh together with his office in order to get us uh pretty full answers with this. So, Mr. Town attorney, thank you, Mr. Chair. uh all of you have before you a legal memorandum that we uh
provided uh that goes through the outstanding questions uh and gives a little bit of history as to the origin of that question uh and we've done our best to be able to answer it. Uh before I begin, I really do want to give thanks special thanks to Mel Castillia who's here with us. Uh she did a lot of the
heavy lifting and putting this together. Uh I also want to give thanks to the chair. uh we met uh several Sundays ago to go through this uh and and kind of uh brush it up a bit as far as uh what was uh missing and uh and then finalize it
uh recently. So um yes, as as the the chair has said, we we've spent some significant amount of time in trying to put this together to answer your questions uh and help you make your your decision. So I'll start with item number one, obsolete and post incorporation language through the charter. And as I go through this, I'm just gonna I'm not
gonna go read everything that's there. That's that's why it's there for you to read at your own leisure but I'll give you more or less a summary. So with regards to obsolete or post incorporation language it is typical that in many instruments US constitution for instance uh will have language that
is completely obsolete uh completely sometimes even illegal uh but nevertheless it remains there uh and it's important as as it has uh historical context as to uh how it's it's gone on and changed. So these are instruments that the charter as the
Florida constitution as the US constitution are not supposedly easily changed and many times these uh this language that may exist there even though it may be obsolete or outdated I I I believe for historical context it should remain. So that is my recommendation to all of you. Uh as I
finish each item I'm going to open the floor in case you have any questions if that's okay Mr. here uh so that we can just go through them and I can make any changes or answer any additional questions in the future that you may have. >> All right, that first item one is there
any further discussion, questions, comments, commissioners? All right, next we'll go forward. >> Okay, the next one is the definition of a full term uh for term limit purposes. Uh and for this one, we did provide and you'll see in blue the proposed sample
language. Uh this was uh something that was requested back on January uh 22nd. Um and so the proposed sample language as you see there says for purposes of this article, a term shall mean a four-year term to which a person was elected. Service in office pursuant to an appointment to fill a vacancy shall not constitute a term. Provided,
however, that if a person appointed to fill a vacancy serves more than two years of an unexpired term, such service shall be deemed a term for purposes of the section. Term served as a council member and term served as a mayor shall be counted separately and independently. Uh the next steps if you are um find
this satisfactory is uh to finalize and and codify that fullterm section 2.3G uh consistent uh draft a comprehensive term limit language for 2.3E incorporating the two term life limit uh and the two-term lifetime limit and appointed service threshold and a separate
counting for the mayor and council member uh and draft this retroactively uh for any previously served terms count towards the limit of this adoption. Uh those are those are the three things. So uh one of the things that we did discuss is that the term limit would be two
terms within one life. So after somebody has serves two terms, they can't serve any additional uh term in that particular office. >> All right. Thank you. Is there any uh discussions? >> No, but I I do would like to say I do like the wording of it, but but I guess
we're not moving to approve anything now. We're going to wait until the whole >> If you have something you'd like to move to approve today, yes, we can move forward. If you want to take some time and make sure that we've uh you know, the language is how you want it to do it. We can you know, we can wait until the next meeting. Um but obviously there
is the proposed language here and you know, I think as noted in the bullet points here, um you know, it's talking about you know, the retroactivity of how it's going to do. I It's not in this proposed language. It's not in the
proposed language. We would draft that as far as retroactive subsequently and I I only mentioned that because maybe we might might want to consider all that together rather than trying to take motion now. But if you have something you'd like to take now, it's fine. >> Got it. Fine with that. that that's that
those are the one the one things that I those are the few things that I think that you should take into consideration is and although you've already kind of given me that direction but uh keep in mind that your the direction of uh that that this board has provided is that these term limits are meant to provide
for the lifetime of the candidate of the person and also the retroactive application and so what we will do is before by by next meeting is we will work on more concrete rete language. So you will see the red line version in the actual
charter itself. All right. Any other discussion? Any other direction you'd like to have for the town attorney as he moves forward with his uh drafting of this language? Commissioners? Nothing.
Okay. All right. That covers item number two. Right. So, the next one, item number three, is really uh something that would be a very simple ballot question. I think it's and I think it's uh useful uh and and being one that I
I've dealt with in another municipality, recent litigation with regards to what is a a council member or a vice mayor uh or a mayor as defined in the in the charter and what rights that person may have. I think it's good to have consistency and clear definition as to
what is a council member, what is a mayor and what is a vice mayor. Uh so what we would be doing is again uh as it says in the legal funding recommendation where provision is intended only to apply to one of the six at large elected members that's a council member where the is intended to apply to all council
members including the mayor then it'll be a member of the council and where provision accounts to vote um for quorum it will be mayor and use of of the council. So, mayor and council and that would be the the recommendation is we'll go ahead and um when you see it the next
time, it'll be a redline version of all the sections where these terms are uh uh mentioned in the in the charter and and cleaned up for consistency. All right. Thank you. Uh commission members, any
further discussion, questions, comments, or further direction for the town attorney? All right. Seeing none, thank you. Let's go on to your next item. >> The next item are election days and I think we just discussed this a little
bit uh primary uh versus runoff system. Uh and and what I've done for you is and I think the the town clerk pretty much gave you a very good analysis. Uh I did a separate analysis and you'll see it there where I've gone municipality by municipality. The only one as she
alluded to is the city of or the village of Kibiskane that theirs is a hybrid system. Other than that, all the other municipalities do provide for a runoff. Uh the village of Kiscane when it comes to the mayor does provide for an early
August election and also the city of uh Miami Gardens. Other than those two, all of the other cities as you'll see there provide for either an April, March or November election. Although I do see the trend moving more towards November and I
think that and this is just my personal opinion. I'm kind of uh going off the reservation here a little bit, but the fact that there is u definitely an economic advantage to having it in August and November does make sense regardless of the fact that other cities
perhaps just haven't caught on, you know. So, >> all right. Any discussions or comments? >> Sure. Councilman Fernandez. I mean just the fact I mean everybody could do the math but the difference of what it we
would save you know4 something thousands that's a lot of flowers or mulch and that that was that's a joke but well in the reality it would also be a lot more of those Aiden life rings you know which are which are starting to populate the town and we're going those
cost a couple 200 bucks each and you know with 50,000 extra $47,000 and I did a quick calculation uh you know the 50,000 for only about 4,000 residents came out to be about about $12.60 per voter versus the 50, you know, the the
the bigger election where there was um costas 2,000 for almost over 15,000 voters, almost 16,000 came out to almost 16 cents per voter. So just from uh from that aspect it to me it's it's a it's a no-brainer. Um Mr. manager.
>> Yeah, you should really the the figure that the clerk provided is you you should keep in perspective the fact that with that runoff for the mayors, the council elected not to have early voting. In other years, they've elected to just do a week of voting or modified
uh early voting. Sometimes they do a full two weeks of early voting similar to the November election. So, if you do do a regular for a runoff election, a regular two week uh uh early voting or at least a week, it's going to be
significantly more. And I think that we're probably the reality, the real number should be somewhere in the 70 $80,000 range. >> I I wouldn't >> with early voting. >> Yeah. And I and I I don't disagree one bit and even taking that is that the November vote had early voting and that
included it. that had that early voting period for 2500 bucks. You know, that was incredible. That's that just to me is just I think it's just it's simple. And also the numbers show it. I think the numbers support it. You know, even in the primary the runoff without having
a municipal type of election, we still had more than what we received at the runoff election. >> Yeah. And attendance. And remember, if none of the races draw three or more candidates, there'd be nobody on the August ballot and you wouldn't have any
any expense. It would all be on the November ballot. >> Correct. Yes. And one other just kind of discussion I wanted to have with my commissioners on that topic is um because in listening to what you know during public comments today as well as made me think a little bit about how we
are you know how we propose this language and how we're going to have the the direction for the town attorney is I'd like to think um or first talk to you guys and see what your thoughts are on because I think there's two ways we can run with the primary. Um what I had looked at is one is whether we just have
a if there's going to be more than two electors are going to go onto the primary ballot on for in the primary election in August is whether or not that'll be determinative meaning that in the event that one of them meets the 50% or more
is that the winner or are we simply go or should we draft into it that the top two no matter what they get are going to go into the November My preference, and I'll say it, you know, just to start off with, I think it's probably better to have the top two nonetheless, go from primary, then move it to the November
election because that's the general election. That's when we're going to have a bulk of our voters going to come out and have them go ahead regardless of how many votes they get. Um, rather than having it decided potentially at the August one because nonetheless, it's we're still going to be going forward
with somebody over in the in that the November if they're challenged obviously. So, I'd like to hear from, you know, the other commission if you guys have any thoughts on that. >> I agree. >> Go ahead, Councilman. Councilman Fernandez. >> I agree with you that that um that the
two the two the top two should go whether or not they received the above the threshold of 50%. Yeah, that's my opinion. >> So, so I tend to look at look at it differently though. I So, I'm trying to picture this. So, there's two, three,
four candidates. one gets over 50% why have a second round and at the extra cost the majority of the of the voters they all have the same opportunity to come and vote early late November whenever so so why are we trying to add another round of an election
>> sure so what what I was proposing and you know there were my thoughts at least initially is uh it's not that we're adding is that there's already going to be additional elections anyways it's going to because it would go from our primary election is going to when there's more than two, meaning that there's going to be three or three or
more people that are going to be running. So, if there's going to be three of them, the top two simply would going to go to the November election, that's going to happen anyways cuz there's going to be another ballot going on. So, it's not like we're adding on a whole another election or anything. It's there's already going to be that election happening in November. but
rather at that November election as we even these numbers here you're going from you know almost 4,000 you know almost 5,000 voters you're going up tripling it to over 15,000 voters that are going to be able to make that decision in the November that just happens historically across the board
for all types of elections you're always going to get more at the November general election than you're always going to get at the August but as we see here it's definitely going to be more than the runoff that we current the system may have and just economically the runoff doesn't doesn't matter for me. Um, but I I see your point of what
from what I'm understanding is, you know, why are we, you know, if someone gets the 50% threshold in August, you're saying why why go to force them to go to a November election. >> These are nonpartisan elections. So, we're all going to run together, one pool of candidates, whoever got 50%.
Isn't that how traditionally it's done in in other pl I mean, that's how I thought electors were run. >> Yeah, I think there's I think there was a split. I I had looked at it and I don't remember the municipality, but I know there was at least one of the municipalities that has the at least their initial primary election and they
just take the top two vote getters get moved to the general election. So, but there's there I think there's two two options. And look, I I don't think there'd be anything wrong, you know, if Mr. town attorney if you could have two different types of languages
proposing that aspect of it of where it's a 50% plus or more or I guess it's we'd have to have that language distinguishing what the threshold is going to be >> it always has to be >> or the primary >> it always has to be more than 50%. >> Okay. Yeah. plus one.
>> Well, you I I think some of them have the majority, right? >> Some have, >> but yeah, some have just simple majority and some have 50 plus one. I believe ours was changed, charter was changed to 50 plus one after the 2013 election. >> Yeah, >> I know that because I didn't get the 50
plus one and lost. >> I didn't get the majority by 100 votes. So, >> Well, this is your opportunity to change that. >> Yeah. >> No. Yeah. So, if you could have that to where in the primary have one of them where it's the top two vote getters regardless of the percentage, we'll
carry forward to November, but then having a language that has uh that other option so that way we can all consider that as well. Um that has the if any one candidate achieves 50% plus one
at the primary that they'll be deemed the winner of the election. >> Okay. But in all cases, in all instances, there is a primary >> when there's only Well, in the instances when there is going to be more than two, >> right? No. So, so here's my question.
Let's say you have right when you're going to have more than two. >> If there's going to be more than two, if there's only two, then it goes to November. And if there's only one, then that doesn't even need to go on the ballot. >> Understood. Perfect, >> Mr. Manager. >> Yeah. It it actually is an really good
point that you make because some people will argue that why should we let like considering the the numbers that uh Gina threw out, why should we let 5,000 people decide of a ballot as opposed to 15,000. So this solves that because even
if 5,000 people say of the three candidates, this is the top guy, but these are the top two, they're still going to get the exposure to the top to the 15,000 voters in November. And then that that that kind of, you know, solves that that that argument. So I think it's
a great point. >> So I think having the both options so that we can all we can we can we can see it when it's written out. I think it'll be very good for the full commission to take a look at it. Uh so we can decide how we would want to have that type of language. >> Okay.
>> All right. Chair got a couple questions just clarification. So um if we were to have candidates on the August ballot, >> the certification or the qualifying happens in early August, right? So you would have to move that in order for
them to appear on the ballot. >> Yeah, the qualification would have to change. >> What's that? >> Qualification would have to change. >> Okay. No, I'm Isn't qualification still happen in June? >> No, it's August. >> No, not for the time. Currently, it's the last week of July, first week of August, but I was looking into that when
I was providing the information and doing the research to set the example of Miami Gardens that he stated in the Kiska, the qualifying is much earlier in order for their candidates to be able to make it right. It's like three, four weeks earlier. We can we can we will
work on that. Yeah, >> you have to meet the deadlines for the supervisor elections in order to get the names on the ballot, right? Okay. Other question, >> the August election, we all keep calling it primary, but that's very confusing to me because first of all, the presidential primary is in March, right?
There are primaries in August, but that's not the only thing on the ballot. I'm looking at the 24 ballot here, and you have county elections, you have schoolboard elections, you have, you know, a lot of other elections. So, it's not even the primary election that takes place in August. But my question is, is
there always an election at the county level in August? So the mayor's every four years, the county commissioner is every four years, the school board members every four years, right? But they're not always the same time. So staggered. >> And the judicial elections. >> Yep. >> And judicial. So that's my question is
there's always going to be an election for some other office in August in addition to whatever primary may be taking place um for uh Senate or House. Yeah. Partisan election. >> Right. But that's we can confirm that that there's always other elections taking place for other
>> definitely there's always judiciary >> judiciary and possibly county mayor and possibly county commission school board. >> Yeah. The way that they're all staggered they're always going to have they're always going to run into one of >> okay >> vice chairman in Guansson. I just wanted to clarify, you know, it is a little bit
confusing, but we call it like that because that's how the supervisor of elections they call that >> of Miami date county I'm reading >> okay >> prime they say this I'm reading from from them from their website August 18th
primary election and then they site the municipalities that are having um candidates so that's why we refer and then the November 3rd 2026 election They call it the general election, >> right? Okay. >> We call it general election or special
election. If we have this this year, the town of Miami Lakes is going to have the general election and special election because you're going to have amendments, proposed amendments to the charter. >> So on that point, I guess the March one, they call the presidential primary. So you got presidential primary, primary
election, and general election. Okay. >> Correct. And remember the presidential primary runs a little differently because that's more on those those are just on by party line >> and and I I'll say I know that this discussion has has occurred on the legal side with regards to judges because
people have always said is like you know all the judges are always placed into November in August I'm sorry >> and the November is only used for runoff >> okay >> that only happens when there's a runoff so even if there's only two judges that are running they're going in August for vote and people have always said why are
be pushing them into August when you know they're very critical and you know so there's been a lot of debate there as well. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. >> So that's why like >> so be that that's your area of expertise right the judges. So if there's three judges and one gets over 50% do they still have a runoff?
>> No because they don't they only do it if there's one of if not one gets over 50%. And that's why I said that's why I want to have that language that we can have it. But then that argument comes up is like why are we pushing the judges into the November when there's the larger uh
turnout countywide regarding this because you'll see you'll see it's it's a it's a big difference in the number even countywide of how many people turn out to voting. But look, I I want to see both votes. I want I want to see both types of language and that aspects. Yes. just as a as a food for thought, um more
voters doesn't always necessarily equal a good thing because when we have these elections, especially when we have presidential elections, there's a lot of voters that are there for that one purpose. And sometimes they'll end up checking off other things on the ballot having absolutely no idea of what
they're doing. So, and and I know that we want obviously when we do the math, we want to get more voters out there. We want to see more participation, but I've been at the at the election site and I've talked to voters that are absolutely clueless that anyone that is standing there that gives them one
little piece of paper will grab their vote just because they like your last name or just because you smiled at them nicely or whatnot, but they're not informed voters. So, it's just food for thought. I'm not saying that I'll that I'll vote one way or another, but just keep that in mind because sometimes these smaller elections like our runoff
election where everyone that is going there is going specifically to vote for the mayor of their town, they're going there with a purpose and they are all extremely informed and it may be more valuable than the 14,000 that were there to vote, you know, for the president.
>> Great point. >> Because it's specific, right, for those for those people. So, it isn't just a matter of coming out to vote for one person. >> Is your microphone on? >> It >> Oh, okay. Sorry, the clerk was looking at me. >> Mr. Chair, on that point, Madam Clerk,
do you have the statistics for the November the previous mayor's election because that is a good point that Commissioner Ron raised. The November 3rd of 24 election was a presidential election. So, you had 15,000 people voting, you know, so many of those perhaps only came out for the president
and then also voted for the mayor. But do you have the pre Well, I guess is our election for mayor always in a presidential election. It's every four years, right? So Oh, okay. All right. >> I can provide I don't have it with me. >> No, no, it's okay. >> But I can get that information. >> No, I answered my own question. It our
may we elect our mayor >> every presidential election >> every four years. So in 24 the last one was 20, the last one was 16, the last one was 12. So okay. So it's always going to draw out a large number of voters for that election. >> Yeah. But look, it's one thing that I
always advocate for amongst my friends and you know people that are around me is trying to educate people. I've always told people uh I I'm not going to get into their politics or what they feel. I always tell people is just go out don't just put something out on the don't just don't check a box just because you want
to check a box. Check a box because you've looked into it. I personally put out a lot of information on my social media for my friends and colleagues for them to get to take a look at and to read up on uh before you make a vote. you know, I've I I strongly believe in having informed voters are going to be.
So, I agree with you 100% on that aspect of it. Um, you know, numbers don't always mean it, but I think it does make a difference to an extent. So, people feel more, hey, look, you know, I took a I participated. hopefully, you know, as we see is a lot of people get more
invigorated with elections when they start seeing things actually happening to them, whether good or bad, you know, and and and so to that extent it can be good, but I also want people that just get out there and vote. I think it's very important. It's a civic duty. It's
an opportunity that we have that many in across the world that never have had that opportunity to actually have a real election and make a difference. So, no, but I I think that's going to be great and uh you know, looking forward to the language from the attorney on on this information on item four. Um, do we have
any other questions, discussions on item four? All right, seeing none, Mr. Town attorney, we'll go to move to item number five. The the next item on here is item number five, the recall petition. So you asked
us to look into this and and I believe that it was with concern that Miami date county provides for 3%. Usually the as provided by statute 1361 um and again can be changed but um for populations of 500 or more the petition must be signed
by 15% of the total number of registered voters. Um, so Miami date home rule charter does provide for something less but really Florida statute and as we know Miami date home rule charter can kind of uh override in some instances um
statute uh but in in this case we should follow 100.361 and it should be 15%. And it makes sense 3% would be a very small number of of electors that would have that power to be able to initiate a recall given our population size.
So open to any questions you may have on that. Yes, sir. Commissioner. >> So, but had we discussed that 10% before? Isn't that what we have right now? 10%. I'd have to go back and check to see
10%. >> 10%. If it is 10%, then my suggestion would be to change it to 15%. Putting it out there. And I think the more the better. >> Sorry. Can you repeat that again? >> If it is 10%, my suggestion would be to
change it to 15%. >> And the total number of vote voters registered >> it is it is to at 10%. I've confirmed that. My suggestion would then to be change it to 15%. >> Right. But the total number of registered voters at this point in time,
>> yes, I I would change it to 15%. I understand that part, but how many total registered voters do we have in the >> adun? I have not have that number. >> Madame clerk, >> we have I think I read um an hour ago 21,000. >> So, state statute
>> they said requires a minimum of 15%. >> Yes. >> All right. And we currently have it at 10%. >> Mhm. So just doing rough numbers. I mean always let me go back to what I said. Miami
date county charter can always change things. Um sorry guys I'm getting tongue tied. It's been a very long day. Miami date county charter sometimes has provisions in it that are different than what are applied to other counties or other municipalities as provided by state
statute especially when it's it's it's a not a general law but it's a special law but however municipalities can always be more restrictive than what is provided by statute. So at 10% it's more restrictive at 3% it's more restrictive. We cannot be go to 20% or 25% that would
not be allowed and we'd be preempted by state statute. So, we could keep it at 10%, but my suggestion is always if we're allowed to be 15%, I think that's that's a a better scenario for a town of our size. That's just my suggestion.
>> All right. And just number-wise, rough numbers, obviously doing based on the estimate of about 21,000 registered voters, that'd be 2100 versus 3150. >> Correct. >> And that obviously rough numbers, >> right? >> Not exact numbers just to give idea for
the commission members. Um >> and sorry and that's uh section 2.7 that we currently have in that area. >> Yes. >> All right. Is there any other questions now for the town of any discussions
from the commissioners? Is I'm going to go ahead based on what we've heard here. I think this is a simple one that we can uh make for 2.7. I'm going to make a motion to adjust 2.6. 7 from the 10% to the statutory number of
15%. Yes. And that'll be uh to Yes. to change it from 10% to 15% in section 2.7 recall. Is there a second? >> I'll second >> for discussion. >> All right. We have we have a second. Uh
discussion items. Mr. Vice Chair. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I just want to be clear because I know we had asked this question earlier and I think it's the first item that you addressed on the um you know obsolete language but so Mr. your town attorney. So this the
15% is the state required. >> Yes. For state for state offices. So if it applies for state offices, it would apply to municipal >> for state office. Okay. Okay. So that doesn't necessarily mean that it would trump whatever it is that we have. >> Correct. I would not suggest that we go
greater than 15%. As we could be challenged on that. Um but less than 15% 15% or less is fine. It's more restrictive. And it's an interesting correlation based on the number of voters that have come out. When you when you figure the
15% is more in line with what some of the activity has been in some of those elections with the number of people that have come out >> on the runoff primaries >> at 10% 15% is in my >> well 3150 is in line with in either of
them on both of them because we had 3,900 and 4,900 at least in the 2024 election. Yes. >> Yes. Commissioner Rano. >> Yes. Thank you. And I'm I may not have been here when when this was discussed
originally. Um this is for a petition to potentially recall someone. So I don't know why we would want to raise that number to make it more difficult. I think that considering the amount of voters that come out in an election, it would be I guess unreasonable to think
that you would need that same amount of signatures to petition for a recall that will then have its own election cuz it's just a petition. It's not like it automatically removes anyone from office. So, I feel that 10% is is reasonable and regardless of how much
the voter role increases, it's still the same percentage, right? So I don't I mean I feel that 15 is perhaps a little bit high considering that someone has to go out and gather all of these signatures. It's not the same as an election. It's more of a grassroots
effort to if it were ever to happen and it's never happened in in Miami Lakes, but if it were ever to happen, I would rather leave the number at a more reasonable amount than than continue to raise it because it's almost like making these petitions impossible. >> Understood.
So I so I tend to agree with Miss Dwano on this issue in the sense that we're talking about 15% of the total registered voters. We know clearly that's not the total of engaged voters, right, that are going to come out and vote. My other concern in actually even voting for it is that we have an item
under new business proposed by Commissioner Bennett. I know he's he's not here that addresses that issue. So we haven't discussed that other item, but we're wanting to make a vote on the language now. You know what I'm saying? So, I'd rather first make sure we go through that item. If you want to vote
on it, we'll vote on it. But, um, I mean, I think we should consider that before we take a vote. I'm changing the language. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. >> I'm so sorry. I've got to follow up. >> Vice Chair. >> So, the county is at 3%, right, Mr. Attorney?
>> Yes. >> All right. And then and then I just want to be clear because your first bullet under legal findings says that the statutes um you know that govern this provision states that a recall petition must be signed by by 15%. So I'm I just I'm I
just want to be clear must or at least by I go back to the statute but it probably say at least by let me let me double check that for you. Yeah, because if it's must be signed by 15% of the total number of registered voters, then don't
we have to comply with whatever the state says and it has to be 15%. >> Well, this is this is for so so two things. One, this is for state officers, not for municipal. But again, the statute is is I I would want to be in line with what the state applies its own
officers. That's >> I guess what's confusing me about that first bullet, it says that this is for municipal officers. >> Yeah. and your first line. That's how I understand. >> Florida statutes governs a recall of municipal officers, but municipalities with population of 500 or more, which is a town of Miami Lakes, a recall petition
must be signed by 50% of the total number of registered voters. >> Let me double check that for you, >> right? Cuz if that's what it says, then I think I mean you would guide us, but I think that that's what we would have to do. >> I would agree. >> All right. which is probably not the case because
if the county is at 3% then >> yeah but there the county is not a municipality. True. This section is for municipal recall. >> Okay. >> So just so this is for municipal elections. >> Yes.
And it says in um in a municipality or district of 25,000 or more registered voters, which is the case of we're at what? 20 21 so or less. So in a municipality of 10,000 but but fewer than 25,000 registered electors, the petition must be signed by at least
a,000 or 10% of the total number of registered electors. >> Okay. >> So 10%. >> So where we are is in line with what the statute. >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. No, >> no, with that clarification. Yeah, that changes cuz that and that was the purpose why I was doing cuz as I was reading the memorandum, I understood it
that the 15 was also the must. That was what I was proposing. >> But I'm glad we took a look at this. >> Yeah, Commissioner Ruano is like you need to give up that CPA and just start getting into the legislative piece. >> 10%.
>> All right. Any further discussion? I will say is uh you know before I vote is I'm going to be voting you know against my motion you know given this new information with regards that it is in line now with the statute. Um any other discussion item from anyone else. All right I'm going to call the vote.
All in favor say I. >> All against say nay. Nay. >> The naysay have it. The motion fails. >> So to be clear Mr. Chair the >> the provision retains status quo. That's correct. >> Okay.
>> Vote against himself. >> It's not the first time in the last or the last time that I'll vote against myself. >> I don't want to know. Not not on the dice. Not on the record. >> You did it just for discussion purpose. >> Absolutely. No, but no. Yeah. Honestly, it was it was a good discussion to have
and we were able to take a look at it. And look, I'm not one to say that I'm always right in making my motions and I'm willing to take uh the hits and people are just >> I'm gonna go back to what I said though. Wait, because I'm thinking about this. >> So, if if the statute Okay, and I'm I'm
taking a we're taking a hard look at this, right? If the statute says that municipalities are between 10,000 but fewer than 25,000 is 10%. But in municipalities or districts of 25,000, it has to be signed. It has, you know,
by says the petition shall be signed by at least a,000 or 5% of the total numbers, whichever is greater. So, here's my thoughts on this. Since we're not going to have another charter review commission for another 10 years, we're at how many? 20
21,000 >> as of the official runoff election of November 26, 2024. What I have here is registered voters 21,93. That's the last election we had. >> You're going perhaps more.
>> You're exactly and we may have others that may increase and push that number. So perhaps and I can come back to you with some language, some language that just clarifies that it's you know a minimum of but not you know something that aligns the the charter to the statute.
>> Yeah. >> If you're okay with that. Yeah. And I think and I think what I was going to what I was actually was going to now you're saying that is maybe even taking out a percentage amount but rather referring to the statute. >> Yes. >> And deferring to statute as to what the amount is. >> Right. That would align it.
>> Correct. Because then we have then we have the the two aspects of it where it's going to be the either the thousand or you know the the 10% depending on what it's going to be. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So if you can get some language that you could propose to us for the next meeting. >> Absolutely. Because if we don't do that, then we're we're creating a situation
where a charter would be >> inconsistent with the statutes here. >> Yeah. >> And then we'd have to do a petition. >> No. So So proposal for language to align with state to have it to align with state statute. >> Okay.
So I'm glad we had this discuss this discussion. >> See, look at that. See, there was a purpose for my motion. I have to get the win somewhere. >> All right. Um All right. Anything else on item five from the commissioners? Mr. Town attorney. Anything else on five? >> No.
>> All right. Let's go to item six. >> Item six is interference with administration. This is section 4.2 B1. There was proposed sample language that we we placed here. Um and and and basically this is there was some inconsistency with regards to uh all
town employees and currently the assistant to the town man to the town mayor is an employee of the town. However, he is not directed by the town manager but rather by the town mayor. So the proposed language kind of just you brushes you know that that part off.
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Mr. Manager. My only concern and I have I I agree completely that the carve out for the uh two individuals that work for one for the mayor, one for the council. I have no issues with that. Um the one thing is the second bullet under legal
finding and recommendations. I disagree wholeheartedly with that. I don't find it to be unnecessary procedural hurdle. I think it has worked well for it not to have a single individual member of the council go rogue and uh start conducting
um investigations where it should be as a result of the entire council uh considering if the situation and thinking that an investigation is appropriate uh or and and I think that that language should remain in the um in
the uh language or should in the charter. Okay. Uh, Mr. Town Attorney, can you expand upon why that you had that recommendation of that removal? Because I could see some instances where I may want to do it, but I just want to hear from you first before I delve into it.
>> So, your your concern is the phrase in accordance with a resolution adopted by a town council >> to have that necessary procedure. Correct. Because for instance, if it says except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations. So any member of the council can say, "Oh, no. I was just
inquiring from a town uh employee and I get have the right because it's an inquiry and it's just an individual going and making those inquiries." And and my biggest concern is accountability, right? And I've always uh made this point to the members of the
council that I have worked with since I started, which is if they go directly to a member of my staff and I'm not even aware of it, right? And it could be some mundane inquiry, right? They could trying to find out about some project or
or what have you and they c they don't get it. The council member goes for a second time directly to that staff member. They don't get the information. they cannot hold that member, that staff member accountable. They can hold me accountable, but in the meantime, I
didn't even know that there there was an issue, there was a question, there was something that the uh council member wanted or information that the council member wanted. So for accountability's sake, I believe that this language here is meant to be, you know, significant in
inquiries and significant investigations whereby the entire council votes to think through resolution votes to um make an inquiry, make an investigation and then that allows the members of the council to to go and do their their due
diligence with staff members >> through through the chair. May I ask a question of >> Absolutely. Member Ronaldo, the reason for that language was based on a a motion that you made. Um, according to what I'm reading here in the background, um, that was to remove that language.
Based on the explanation that the the manager has given, does that satisfy you or do you still believe that it should be removed? >> No, I I still believe that it should be removed and I think that any inquiry should be made by any council member to any staff member at any point. It's not about accountability. It's not about
holding anyone accountable. Ultimately the manager is the one that can hold staff accountable if if staff has done something wrong. However, in my tenure as a council member sometimes I had difficulty acquiring information because
when I sat on the deis I no longer became I was no longer a citizen of the town and I could no longer just walk into the building department and say you know how does my neighbor apply for a fence permit? I couldn't do those things. So to me, anything that hinders the possibility of a council member
asking a question, it's not directing staff, it's not requesting for any special reports or projects or anything like that, but asking a general question. Hey, by the way, the construction on 82nd Avenue, you know, do you know when they're going to start
milling the street? There's no reason why a council member cannot ask those questions because we are the direct contact to the constituents, council members. I say we, I still feel like I said up here, but council members are the direct contact to the to the constituency and they should not lose
the right to communicate with staff. Not direct, but communicate with staff and ask any question at any point to anyone that's walking through the hallway. I feel like that um that hindered a lot of the work that that had to be done or maybe created an
unnecessary you know issue where the manager had to know every single question that was being asked. It makes it very difficult to work in that manner. So that's why for me at least in my experience and you know in in during
my tenure we had a a a procedure where anything that I needed to ask any person any staff member was copied to the manager as well right like I would email a a a staff member and copy the manager in my email and that was sufficient but
I did not want to lose my right as a taxpayer. Anyone that sits on the Dis is a taxpayer. So if I have an issue with anything in my home, I should be able to walk into any department and ask a question like anyone else. And I felt like I had lost that right because of language in the charter that was
intended for the council's members not to direct staff but not to not to give the not to create an inability to ask a question. So that's that was my reasoning for for that for that request and I I I stand by it because I lived it and I do think that it's very important
and it wasn't the case with this town manager and it wasn't the case >> I was going to say because I'm available 24/7 and and you you there's no way you could have gotten faster information even if you asked the person directly. We never had an issue where I couldn't communicate with him or any of anything of that sort. Nor did I ever have that
issue with a previous town manager. But just in the same fashion that a council member can go rogue, a town manager can go rogue. And you do not want a town manager to alienate information from the council by having a provision in the town charter that prevents council
members from having access to staff. So, it can go either way. I just feel like it's it it's sufficient to say that there can be no direction, but to not be able to inquire, I think just takes it a step too far. >> No, I I appreciate that. And what I'm going to ask is I'm going to ask the town manager if you could give a quick
response to that as well or give some more background information. But right before you do that, I would like the town attorney um if you can while he's while he's responding, if you can take a look at um some of the issues that she's addressed. I don't know if how quickly if maybe you
could try to at least see if what do other municipalities are doing um in that context because look I I I I see how that could you know she could be you someone could interpret this she can even request a permit from someone from the town and deal with it because she's doing it in her own in her own
individual capacity versus her official capacity and maybe it's it's uh something language that we have to put in here that they can't contact them in their official capacity to give that ability to where she can and hey look I'm I'm I'm putting up papers out in front of my house you know I should be
able to go and find out with the building department hey look where am I with this but I do want to hear from also the town manager on the operational side of this and give some time to the town attorney to take a look at these >> yeah obviously never ever did I ever
expect 100% I I agree that each and every one of the elected members of the council are still residents of this town right and they have their own individual as residents their own individual inquiries about their own property and so forth. But once it became that the
member of the council is acting as a representative of the town and trying to solve a problem for for a resident and and so forth. Um and listen, it it's not only for accountability for the town manager, right? It it's it's also for
the staff member. the staff members. You can't imagine you can't imagine the the uncertainty and the the feel of intimidation even if it's unintentional, right? just by virtue of the fact that it's an elected member of the council.
These these staff members high and low from highest portions of our staff even to entry level staff members. They they get concerned, they get intimidated when when they are not for casual conversations but for significant inquiries, questions, uh anything
dealing with town related issues. Um they get they they get anxious and and I'd rather be the buffer for them. and and and and I think that council member Ruano will agree with this and former vice mayor um Tony Fernandez I'm sure
will too. The fact that things went through me man that that never caused any any delay. She as well as any other elected officials whether it's people who like me or didn't like me I I treat them all the same. Doesn't matter. I I I don't
care. I'm I serve the council, you know, at their pleasure, at their will, and and I get them information on the moment. And in fact, I think that when it comes from me, I make sure that they get the information sooner better than later because I I I I want them to be
able to serve our our residents, and I know that they're the conduit for that, and I want to make sure that they're being responsive to their constituents, which are my constituents and our constituents. So, I make sure that they get that information this as soon as possible. >> Yeah. No, and and look, I I I don't
think this is a it didn't it definitely didn't sound like anything. It was personally you and I understand your response but you know what I I think of is when none of us are here when it's different town manager different council members that are going to be sitting at this dis uh how they're going to
interact you know because this is going to be at least 10 years before it's going to get reconsidered um you know substantively and so you know I'd like to you know to see kind of because I I could see those issues or even someone taking a very strict reading of this
while your expectation is like no that they can you know that the council member can go ahead and you know say hey look it's it's your own house that you're dealing with it's not in your official capacity but someone can turn around be like no no no this is not what the the charter says the charter specifically says a council member it
doesn't exclude their personal capacity or their own personal issues and they may try to take a hard line on it and it can turn into a suit or a big battle unnecessarily so if we can have better language I think it'd be it'd be good for us >> 100% And I agree. And I could tell you that I was unfortunately, and it didn't
happen often, thank God, but unfortunately once or twice in the in the seven plus years that I've been here, I've had to use this because there were nefarious intent. There were uh instances, thankfully, not many, that
they uh elected officials that wanted to, I guess, for lack of a better term, stir the pot and and were were violating this and I had to invoke this and unfortunately I had to use the shotgun approach and and you know
reassert this uh language to the entire council because I didn't want it to be targeted but it was useful in at least once or twice uh throughout the last seven plus years. >> Yeah, I agree. Any commissioners? Do you guys have any thoughts? Um yes,
Commissioner. Just as a final thought, the language reads that in accordance with a resolution. So that would mean that if a council member wants to make an inquiry to a staff member, there has to be a resolution. I just find that to be absurd. It's just it to me it seems
too much. Anything that's voted on as a as a body and is approved as a body is sufficient to allow a council member to inquire about any any given thing. And yes, during the years that I served, there were instances where this
particular item was weaponized for whatever reason through misunderstandings or whatnot. But it's something that I feel really it like you said, this is our only chance in the next 10 years to make this adjustment. So, I'd love to hear the council members
perspective on it. guess maybe we can reach out to council members before obviously before we do anything with this but just to hear their perspective of how how the work flows and whether it's something that they feel the ones the the members that are on the council now if it's something that they feel
could make their job a little bit easier because the manager has a job but the council members have a job as well the mayor has a job as well so it it I I feel that it's it's something incredibly important because we won't be able to touch it for another 10 Sure. JC Fernandez, give the town attorney a
few more minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, no, I I I do think the specifically the language here that says in accordance with a resolution adopted is a little bit overbearing. Um I haven't had necessarily an issue with communicating
with with the manager. Sometimes I without realizing or without remembering I will reach out to an employee regarding uh let's say now they were doing the the drainage project in front of my house. I I reached out to Omar and
then he has to remind me that it has to go through through the manager. But the answers do come once I I reach out and and you know the communication has been good. So, I haven't been affected necessarily and negatively. But but specifically to what this phrase reads,
I do think it's a little bit overbearing. I think that that that is a little bit too much. But aside from that, I would say that the communication I I haven't had any negative um uh communication with trying to get answers from staff through the manager.
>> So, I I I looked at I'm sorry, Mr. Her, if I may. So I took a look at a few cities that would be like more or less like you know around the same time of incorporation as Miami Lakes. Uh the first one Dural uh says that except for purpose of inquiries and investigations made in good faith the council its
member shall deal with the officers employees of the city of course under direction supervision of the manager solely through the manager. Uh so that one removes the resolution. Uh Miami Gardens though um has a resolution except for the purpose of inquiry and investigation made in good faith and in accordance with the resolution adopted by the council. Uh the city of Cutler
Bay uh also does except for purpose of inquiries investigation made in good faith and accordance with the resolution. Uh city of Pinerest uh also has the same language of resolution. Uh city of Palmetto Bay does not have a resolution. Council members may make informal inquirs of employees but no council member shall give orders
publicly or privately to employees. uh and also similarly Aventura except for purpose of inquiries made investigations made in good faith. The commissioner members shall deal with city officers. So it doesn't have the resolution language. So it's a mixed bag of cities that have very similar charters to ours. Uh some with the resolution language,
some without. Do any of them they I know you just went through them pretty quickly, but did you see anything with regards to removing any kind of individual in individual capacity like making explicit that that in an individual capacity the council members can have
those discussions? >> Well, they're all pretty similar in the sense that for I I'll go backwards now from Aventura. Sure. Except for the purpose of inquirs, investigations made in good faith, the commission or its members shall deal with city officials who are subject. So, so this one is removes the resolution just allows it.
Right? So, we'll go backwards. Uh, Palmetto Bay also removes it. Uh, Pinerest. So, except for purpose of inquiries, investigations made in good faith in accordance with a resolution adopted by the council, the council or any of its individuals, members shall deal with village officers, employees who are subject to direction and super
the manager solely through the manager. So, that one's very similar to ours. Is that is that the >> Well, it was more of you know kind of separating out between the official business aspect versus individual because this the way this language I read it here someone someone could you
know wants to have a heavy fist say yeah you're calling about this something that you're dealing with yourself that is not necessarily in your position as a council member it someone can say hey look you can't even talk to someone over at the town because this says a council member you are officially a council
member you're elected You can't talk to anybody that is at the staff level period with that unless you're going through the town manager. >> Well, Miami Gardens is identical to ours in that sense. It says, you know, for except for purpose of of inquires, investigations made in good faith and of
course with the resolution adopted by the council, the council and any of its individual members. So that's the word that you're looking for, the individual member. >> Well, not necessarily individual member, but their individual capacity versus their official capacity and communication. >> Well, this this one doesn't say anything about official, right? This one doesn't
say anything about official capac individual. >> I was wondering if you saw anything distinguished. >> It does not. No. >> No. >> Mr. Chair, may I ask a question? >> Mr. Vice Chair, first >> Mr. Attorney, currently there is a resolution. I mean, I'm looking at the current language and it references a
resolution adopted by the council. Can we What does that resolution say? Can we pull that up? >> So, yeah. uh >> resolution carves out those issues that were >> so that's resolution 22-1823
um and again remember resolution is just a uh how can you say this you know this more than >> it's the intent of the council at the time >> at the time right that's what you have >> the intent of the council in the time of 20 2022 uh was that it says u I'll just read
section two authority to perform good faith investigations pursuant to charter 4.2b for the purpose of carrying out and exercising their legislative and executive duties. The council and the town manager shall have the continual authority to conduct good faith investigations and inquires of the town staff and the town mayor, I'm sorry,
shall have the continuing authority to conduct good faith investigations and inquiry of the town staff. The town council and the town mayor shall be prohibited from ordering or providing any instruction to town staff as provided the town charter. A violation of this provision of the town charter may result in violations of removal from office. So,
>> all right. So, it clarifies that in their official capacity as an elected official, they can't. But if Commissioner Fernandez needs to pull a permit because he's changing the roof in his home, >> he's he can do that, right? Because that's not his official capacity as an elected official.
>> So, that concern I think is interest >> that was per the resolution. However, we have now the opportunity to >> this up and incorporate some resolution. I I think this original language which I was a part of I I think the intent was
for it to be a significant event like for instance the there's allegations that the manager is doing ABC and the council says we need to inquire we need to find out what's going on whether the manager or a sta uh something going on in the staff that they're abusing
overtime or whatever that council will say let's I want to I'm going to pass a motion or a resolution saying we're going to conduct an investigation as to these allegations that are out in the media or out in the public and we want to conduct an investigation. I think that was the
intent of the original language for it to be something significant, not about, you know, a drainage project, right? >> Yeah. What I would I what I think what I'd like to see is uh obviously it's not going to be I don't think we're going to necessarily have language for today, but
I think it'd probably be drafting two different types of languages and more in line with what you read from what I heard you read from the resolution and have it more in line with that and so that way that'll become and have a version that includes the language and then a version that obviously has
excluded this language that we've been talking about. Uh um I would also ask that you know the language with regards to solely through the town manager I'd put in there or their design in the event that the town manager is out. You know you don't want to get into a situation where you know he's on
vacation or something he's out of >> I always designate somebody to be the acting town manager even if I'm out for a day because I'm going to uh you know I'm going to be out. >> Correct. >> Then and I always put in my designation that they have the full authority of the office of the town manager. Yeah. So
they whoever's acting in my place has complete and full authority. But but I see what you're saying since it's charter language. It says specifically the town manager just your town manager or designate. >> No 100%. I think that the language could be massaged to find that happy medium for >> because if you strictly construe it then
that would mean that you don't have the authority to delegate >> to designate. Yeah. >> And and that's why I would ask >> but there is a diff in a different part of the charter does does talk about me designating uh somebody to act in my behalf >> to act on your behalf. Yeah. But so
yeah, but I agree it's better stated correctly. >> Yeah. >> Trying to give you more power here >> directly in the chalk. >> I'm giving you giving you more power to to distribute your power. >> We'll I'll work on that. We'll we'll bring that back.
>> Yeah. And >> thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Commission Rano, do you think that'll cover what you're with at least at least one of the drafts? >> I we can take a look at them. I think that in in hearing it over and over and over again, I think that we maybe would I think that I guess the the the trick
of it is where it talks about questions that are being made in good faith. Who what is what is the bar for a good faith question? Who determines that and when when does that line get crossed? Right? So maybe that's those are the issues that we've had, right? Because it says
that you can make any kind of inquiry in good faith. So, you know, a phone call to whatever the I don't know, public works department to find out when are they going to finish my road is in good faith and should not have to go through the town manager. So, maybe that's where
the I guess the trick is that even though it says in good faith, there's nothing that that that allows the council member to I guess exercise that. And I don't know if that's fixable, right? Because I've seen that all the other charters there may not be any other way to word it. But maybe you can
kind of think of something that >> Yeah, I think what you get into is it's it's a slippery slope. Unless you're going to have a very hard line or if you're going to be a little bit more on the gray side, you're it's always going to be a slippery slope. >> That's why to me the hard line is not giving direction or not telling a staff member what to do.
>> And that's any question or any inquiry to me is in good faith because it's just an inquiry. There's there's there's nothing everything here is public record. any member of the public can come in and walk into any department and ask any question. So it the council member should not be limited in that
capacity because it's just it's the way that it is. >> And I think that's why I want both versions with and without the type of language. And I think town attorney, did you have anything? No, what I was going to say is, and I'm sorry for interrupting you, is that what you just said is is consistent throughout all of
the the samples that I just saw, which are pretty much all the cities that are more or less incorporated on the same time that we did, that there's kind of a gray area as far as do you need a resolution to talk or to give instruction or or to ask a an inquir,
but as far as giving direction, there's a there's a hard line there that you cannot. There's that separation between staff and the and the council. And that's definitely missing or it's not it's absent from our current version. Yeah. So we could just u incorporate something like that and we can get some language that we can take a look at.
>> Absolutely. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. All right. Um is there any other questions on this item six? Seeing none, let's go to item seven. Okay, Mr. Chair. Uh this next item is
with regards to the council seat reduction. Uh and this is uh in line with what you've requested uh to reduce the uh town council from 7 to 5. Um and there's a couple of suggested uh models. Uh one is the attrition model and the
other one is the the model of um limiting the the seats. I think that's the model that you were advocating Mr. Manager. >> Yeah. through through attrition with one seat having that um that 2year uh you know well announced in advance that two-year term instead of a
four-year term. So it could it could cut off and you never have that position where you have even number of um elected officials. >> Well, I I I don't think that's the attrition model. That's the abolition model. the the second version, the attrition model, it just it you
everybody serves out their term and when their term ends, then it's going to be gone. >> Right. And that's where you I think that's where you end up with the difficulty of having a a two-year period where you're going to have a even number of council members. >> Correct. >> Which I would I wouldn't recommend from my experience that I've seen. I wouldn't
recommend having that because it could it could be problematic. >> Okay. All right. Um, anyone have any if you guys have taken a look at the two different model of the models of the language uh commissioners any
discussion? I know there's obviously there's been a lot of discussions and debates and you know we've had public comment on this aspect. Um, and look, if someone wants to make a motion today, we can make the motion today. If you guys want to think about and a little bit more and bring this up at the next
meeting, um, I'm happy to do that as well. But if there's any discussion you guys want to have, comments, >> I'll just put on the record that I I disagree with reducing the council to to five. So none of the languages are going
to work for me because I I truly believe that we should keep our council as it is. >> Okay. >> And once again, I agree with Miss Rouan on the >> he agrees with Commissioner Rouano once again >> through the chair. Yes, Councilman
Fernandez. >> I I' I've actually have pondered it and you know, I'm I'm on the fence. I I'm leaning towards I I know that I'm not a voting member, but I'm not sure if if uh I I what I'm afraid is that in the
future, and this is no no jab at our present mayor, but I'm afraid that he that if he lined up with two with two other members that he could have control of of what the the agenda would would move forward with. So, I'm just saying I have thought of it. You know, I I know
that it was my I brought it up, but I'm you know, I'm leaning towards the other way. I don't I'm not suggesting that you guys vote again, but I just wanted for the record that that's that's the way I'm feeling. >> All right. Anyone else have any other
comments they'd like to add for today? So, I'll say is, you know, it I'm definitely going to look into the languages. Um, you know, I think having the opportunity for the for the town to make a vote on it, I think is because I've heard both sides and I agree. Look,
I think there's strong arguments either way. And I'm hearing, at least from what I'm hearing, there's it's it's a split, you know, and so what I'd like, you know, I'm going to be uh at this point at least to be proposing that we include the language. Now, whether it passes or
it doesn't pass, you know, that's going to be up to the town. But I I I've heard enough from a variety of people where I think it's important to at least give them the opportunity to see what the town really feels about it. Um, you know, there's us here and if it dies, it dies. And if it if it passes, it passes, you know, and get and hearing from the
different folks. Um, I think it's just figuring out what the language is going to be and maybe that'll influence people to say, "Yes, I want to do it because I think it's great or no, I don't want to do it because I see the effects. Uh I I I like where we are right now and I don't want to change it. Um and and and let me tell you, this is what I truly
feel about all of the questions that we have. You know, while we're proposing them, it's only us that are sitting up here at this dish right now that are making this decision. It's really ultimately what our town's folk really want to hear. What is it that they want for our community for the next 10 years?
So, you know, while I may vote in favor of something, it's not necessarily, hey, look, that's my position when I go to vote at the ballot box. It may be a I want to give the opportunity because there's enough people that are bringing this issue up. There's us that have been tasked with representing uh each of you
know as being appointees but representing our tone folks as to hey look these are issues that we've have been thinking about. So just because we're putting up something it doesn't mean that I don't want anybody in the town that's maybe even listening thinking that simply because we vote in favor of something it's some a position that we're going to necessarily when
we're in the privacy of the ballot box of taking that position. but rather it's given the opportunity. It's figuring out, look, does the town like it or does the town not want it. That's a great thing that we have with this charter revision commission aspect. Um because in addition, the council members may come up with their own that they're
going to add in as questions. You know, there may be some things that maybe even conflict or give other options as to how we move forward. So, um you know, I I still feel that we should have some type of language in there and put it up to the voters because I think it's clearly it's it's something that's there as
we've seen. I I think I've heard more debate from amongst us, but also from those that have come up and spoken during public comment has been on this issue as to whether or not we're going to reduce it from seven down to five. All right. So, um what I would ask just
like I've asked in other ones, uh I'm going to be reviewing some type of some of the sample languages. Um I think we have two good ones here, maybe even some modifications of it. But please, to the extent that you guys have any that you want for this or any other items for the next meeting, please submit them in
advance to the clerk. So that way she can share it with all of us. So that way, one, we can get it on the agenda specifically, but secondarily is so that way we can uh so each of the council members have time to take a look at it in advance uh so we can do it. And remember, our next meeting is going to be next week. So
all right, anything else on item seven? All right, let's go to item eight. Item eight, uh, Mr. Chair, is a resign to run. Um, as explained of section 99.12 of Florida
statutes governs the resign to run requirement. Um, basically, uh, you know, any person who's elected for a municipal officer and cease to qualify for another public office, doesn't matter what it is, has to resign from the current office prior to qualifying
for the other office. If the t if especially if the two offices in the case of the two offices would overlap. The resignation is effective upon the date the person qualifies for the other office not on the date the letter is submitted. And that's that's an important uh point. Uh the resignation
letter may be submitted in advance with a future effective date tied to that to that qualifi qualification. Once the resignation is submitted, it becomes irrevocable. That's how Florida law sees it. Uh so the idea I believe was and and I I think from what I remember is the
issue of the resign to run the vacancy uh and and to figure out how it can be concurrent so that the the person if they did resign to run somebody there there could be an election for that seat at the next regular election from what I understand is what you were looking for.
Yeah. And I I just want to kind of not correct but just be clear that the resignation is effective upon the date the person qualifies for the other office. Right. So the actually the date that they would assume the other office not qualifies correct for right you're
right. Right. >> Correct. >> But the qualification date once they qualify then it becomes irrevocable. That's the effective date of the irrevocability. >> Correct. >> Irrevocableness. They both sound pretty. >> All right. Any discussion, questions?
>> And and there is proposed language there. I'll read it into the record. It says, "In the event of vacancy of the office of the mayor, council member arises from a resignation submitted pursuant to section 99.012, 012 Florida statutes resigned to run. The vacancy shall be filled by special election to be held concurrent with the next regularly scheduled general election of
the town provided that the vacancy occurs no later than 90 days prior to the qualifying period of such election. The town clerk shall upon receipt of the resign to run resignation immediately notify the Miami county supervisor of elections and open a qualifying period for candidates to qualify for the vacated seat. If vacancy occurs within
90 days of the qualifying period, the vacancy shall be filled prior to section 2.5 C1. What what is currently the qualifying period? Madame clerk >> qualifying clerk >> qualifying starts the last a week of
July, first week of August starts on a Monday, last Monday of July and it goes straight for seven days because it finishes the following week, first week of August on a Wednesday at noon.
Okay. And Mr. Ton, why did you put the 90 days? Is that something statutoily or is that just a number that you place there for now that you have to do it 90 days prior to? >> Sorry, that's a number that I placed there for now. That's why it's within block. >> Okay. But it we could do shorter than 90 days.
>> Yes. >> Okay. The reason why I'm asking because 90 days prior to the November election would be right at the very beginning of August if I'm doing my calculations in my head right. >> Sure. So, and then and then you'd be forcing a potential runoff situation if
there's more than two candidates because you wouldn't be able to make it to the primary >> the August state. >> We can propose a shorter date. >> Yeah. >> But in any event, it doesn't seem even with the current qualifying periods if someone were to go to run, they wouldn't
be able to hit that primary date. Correct. If they file a run, resign a run at the end of July, >> right before qualifying, they wouldn't be able to hit the August 18th. >> Well, if they did,
>> you would we wouldn't be able to open it up and have if there was like four people that wanted to run for it >> in that qualifying, you wouldn't be able to hold it on that no on that August date. >> It would have to roll to the November with a potential runoff then situation.
We're we're going to have we're going to have to modify our qualifying dates to be more in line with the county like in June. If we if you proceed to go with the >> uh August for the races that have three or more candidates, you we're probably going to have to,
>> you know, push our qualifying back a month or so to be in line with the county and state. >> The qualifying dates are set by the town. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. I understood it was under >> by ordinance. >> By ordinance. Okay. >> Yeah. So, so the qualifying dates is is not uh you know set in stone. It is
fluid. >> Okay. Just the council then would have to be modified based upon the changes of the charter obviously. >> Correct. >> To give it enough time. Okay. So, we would be able to make it flexible enough potentially.
Okay. And I know that you have here at least in your proposed language, and I'm not looking to make a motion just yet to re to to move forward on this language. It'd be um they'll be concurrent with the next
regularly scheduled general election. Could we would that include a primary election as well in >> Yeah. Again, when it says general election of the town, it's it's our election. So, it's not the general election. It's our general election for municipal. Okay. So, we Okay. Got it.
So, it's not referring to the November. >> It's not referring to the uh elections department general election. It's referring to the town's general election. >> Got it. All right. Any further discussions or questions?
>> Right. All right. Um >> and Mr. Chair, again, this will be included in the red line version that we again discuss at at the next meeting. >> If you all want to me to continue working on it, give me one second. Let me read through
it. This proposed language is complicated. It's complicated when we're reading it. If you were a voter looking at it, it's complex. If there would be a way to fine-tune it further, >> simplify it. We can
>> I mean I don't I don't know that you can't but when >> is up to the task >> when when we're talking about it and it's complicated the average person going to >> show it to a noner >> I love you
>> we'll work on words smithing >> yeah I remember last time the charter review remember that we they did some instructions there was like some um I remember the department of clarisel de cardina the communications
trying to provide some educational information. I remember that vividly. We did like a pamphlet um you know it's costly. It was costly but it was trying to help the residents
to inform them what it meant because the language yes not a lay person will not you know will be lost with this. It is very technical, >> but we can do that. >> Every question can't be one line or two
necessarily, but this is one where the majority of people are going to go, "What? I don't know how to answer this question effectively." >> No, I Mr. Chair, if I may, I know that 10 years ago, the town did develop a voter's guide, right? So you took every
question, you put the actual ballot question and then you did a very expansive explanation of what you know what dissected really what the question was >> in English and in Spanish. >> Yes, Mr. Chair, I do have a question to
the town attorney because I'm I'm still a little confused. Okay, so let me throw out a hypothetical here. So it's the last day of qualifying, right? um someone
someone who is a current council person now says he's going to run for mayor, right? So, it's the last day of qualifying. So, when they qualify clerk, they have to submit their letter of resignation that day to you. Correct. Effective. So, here's where I get
confused because the state law allows the effective date to be up to election day. Correct. Actually, I think it's up to the day that they take off will take office. >> Up to the day that you take office. >> The day before, right? >> Okay.
>> So, help me out. What day would that be for our mayors? That would be November. >> When do they take office for mayor here? >> They take office after the elections have been certified. >> Yeah. So, like December. And that brings
another point that well >> yeah that's another question that's >> can I finish can I finish my question then so here's what's throwing me off is the 90 days because the question right now says that um that the there'll be a special election provided that the vacancy occurs no
later than 90 days prior to the qualifying period for such election that the but that the election provided that the vacancy occurs no later than but the vacancy doesn't occur in that case in that hypothetical until the day
of the swearing in which is I don't know December 1 or whatever date >> well I I I think it be it definitely can be better worded I think the intent was is that the vacancy is created >> by the letter of resignation >> by the letter of resignation because you
no longer are entitled to this you won't be >> revocable right so what's the 90-day reference like why is that >> no the 90 days is just boxed placeholder >> placeholder. So you have and that's why it was my initial question because we could shorten it to either 45 days or even 30 days or something like that. He was just using
as a 90 days as a reference because you want to have a little bit of time prior to the general election to be able to have a qualifying period to allow people to qualify and have some sense of okay campaigning. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> So we can change around the 90. That's
why I think it's a place anything for today. >> But >> and Lorenzo, let me just ask you this question because >> this I'm confusing about this as well. So, it's election day, right? What's uh what was the election day last year? November 8th or whatever. November 5th.
Anyway, it's November 5th, 2024. Um, in our case, a sitting councilman was running for mayor, but the councilman's seat, Mayor Diegas, held his seat on November
5th still. So, there wasn't a vacancy on election day because that's always been my understanding that the state doesn't allow an election to take place when someone's hold you can't have two people in the same seat, right? >> Okay. So,
so there was another question that So, what you have before you are the questions that were left open for us to kind of brush up. There were other items that we kind of agreed on. And what we talked about in order for this to work is that we would adopt a model very similar to like the city of Haley or
city of of um Miami where basically you have an election but the the vacancy is is is not there because the person doesn't take the seat until >> January. >> January. Okay. Okay. And that's how those cities do it that you Okay. All right. Great.
>> And what's good is and I'll say >> that's how Miami does it. >> Okay. >> And and what I will say is that the better thing of that aspect of it is that when we draft the question, these two items would be falling I I would say is probably have to be within that one question because they're interrelated to
each other. Correct. They they would have to be together because one and I guess to uh vice chair in Guanso's point that that's your confusion, right? Because one would not work without the other. We didn't. Yeah. >> Right. Yeah. >> Okay. But it's comforting to know that
there are other cities that have this. Great. Because I'm 100% supportive of this. >> Yeah. Miami does. >> Okay. Beautiful. Yeah. Great. >> Vice Chairman, we also need to be innovative and and be the forefront of some some type of things. >> Let's do it. >> Just not on this one. Good to know that
that other cities have tried it. And >> I'm just going to throw this out there because we want to be innovative. I >> and somebody on this days is going to kill me. I when I was reading and researching about the uh city clerks, the town clerks, and whether they're they're appointed, I ran into one city, the city of North Miami elects their
city clerks. I think that might be a great idea. No, I'm kidding. All right. So, sorry we have not opened reopen public comments, sir. All right. Um,
>> so we'll continue word smithing this and bring it back. >> Yes. Yeah. I think is, you know, addressing that vacancy issue, the just the wording and the vacancy and maybe some other type of word as well as maybe even looking at a shorter peri I would definitely think of short a little bit of shorter period of time. So that way we're not running into all of a sudden
having to have a qualifying period all the way in May. Um to so that way we can hit the primary. Um you know yeah if we're yeah if we're looking at prior you know 40 90 days prior to August you you're looking already at the
beginning very beginning of June to be able to file. >> Okay. >> Or no May. >> Okay. >> May. Yeah. Beginning of May. Sorry. So yeah. Yeah. So, if we could take a look at that, you know, I think it'll be a good to make it clear about that that's that resigned to run uh vacancies that
are created at that time. So, the the very last one uh item number nine is really uh it's an omnibus uh housekeeping and it's just uh for issues that deal with scriers, errors, sufficiency, um so that we can just clean up the u the the charter. I'm not
sure that there's I think all of you would be in agreeance on this one. All right. Assuming >> a scrivener's error is an unintentional error that is made >> with a comma.
>> Correct. Yeah. Scriveners, lawyers, we like to come up with very big words or at least we we we pull big words that are already out there and just utilize them when nobody has any other use for them. >> Yes. It was back in the days when when lawyers charged per uh each time that
they had to type on a typewriter because you had to rewrite the entire document. >> There there were actually positions in the old days before they had copying that were called scriveners. They would when you had to make a copy of a document there'd be people in offices that they were scribed they they would
actually there was a novel called Bartleby the Scriber that was uh that was about some guy that that was his job. >> All right. Any other questions on item nine? All right. Now we have gone through the
town attorney's report. Thank you very much everyone. Um and you know we look forward to hearing you know follow up on for the next next week's meeting on to these issues as well as uh proposing some more the language the hard language that we can go forward and looking at
all the different motions >> certainly >> it happened. All right. Um All right. We're going to go to item eight. Uh new business. Um there was two items here. Uh Commissioner Bennett had uh proposed each of them. He's not here to discuss
them. Um I don't know if uh you know we want if someone wants to is is any of the other commissioners I don't know if you guys are have some thoughts on it. Um Mr. Town attorney any recommendations on how to handle since it is Commissioner Bennett. Did we
just >> I mean they made it to the agenda so I would defer them to the next meeting. I'll make a motion. Does the deferral require a motion or >> It does require a motion to make a motion to defer. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Second. Commissioner Ruano. All right. Any discussion on the deferral? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, uh, the motion carries. The mo these items will be deferred to our next meeting date. Um
with that is u madam clerk when uh just for the matter of the record when is our our next meeting the actual date is the 2 >> yes April 29th 6:30 p.m. I think it's a week out from No, it's less than a week out. It's next Wednesday, >> right?
>> Just a recollection to everybody. Um just a reminder is is you know, we'll hear back from the town attorney on these items that he adhere, but I believe if uh if we can also have proposed language for any other items, uh Mr. Town attorney, uh that we can
start getting hard considerations uh to the extent you can have some of these questions that we've already voted on. >> Certainly. um you know we can begin that process because I think we're getting into that in that section and I ask the commissioners if you guys you know any of these items here that you know that there were recommendations of language
that we didn't formalize today. If you have anything please submit them in advance so that way they can be shared over to with the town clerk so that way we can all take a look at and we can have a very meaningful conversations at our next meeting. uh please do so. And if there's anything else in the in the in the charter that you want to have
reviewed, please also bring that up at that time. Um so we can you we can really move forward with wrapping this up. Let's not, you know, to the extent possible, let's not get too much more into brand new things that we haven't discussed. But I'm not going to say don't, you know, uh because as we're
looking at, especially with all the new changes uh that we're proposing now, we're starting to see how it's all jelling together. Um and also if Mr. town attorney if we can get that red line. >> I think or I don't know if you're going to be working maybe work with the town clerk >> uh to be able to get kind of a redline
draft of at least what's what's already been voted on. >> Sure. >> So we can uh start sharing it you know with all the edits obviously the scriers errors and everything like that. >> Sure. >> You know to the extent that we can get that out to everyone. >> All right. >> I'd like to ask a a personal privilege. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> At the next meeting I'm going to be in
Tampa if it's okay with all of you if I may appear via Zoom. I have no objection to that. >> Thank you. I'm having knee surgery the day before. So, there's a 50/50 chance that I'll appear via Zoom. I'm going to appear no m I'll be here no matter what.
But I'll I'll probably be maybe via Zoom. If I feel able to, I'll be here with my walking as long as nobody makes fun of me. >> Unacceptable. We want you here in person. >> No, absolutely. Please, you know, uh, obviously wishing you the best for the
surgery on Tuesday and looking forward to seeing everyone there. And one last thing I want to just take a personal point of personal privilege while I don't know him personally is looking forward we got the NFL draft and our hometown hero, Mr. Fernando Mendoza. Let's fingers crossed for his draft motion. Now, I don't know him
personally, but you know, his story is great >> and uh, you know, let's see, let's see what's going going forward. Uh with that we stand adjourned >> sir. >> Look at that.