Call our meeting to order. Good evening everyone. >> Good evening >> madam clerk. >> Yes. Commission member Abad >> present. >> Commission member Bennett >> here. >> Commission member Fernandez um did
no Tony Fernandez. I'm so sorry. He I just wanted to say for the record he'll be joining us later tonight. He excused himself with myself. Commission member Matoss >> present. >> Commission member Ruano >> present. >> Vice Chairman Inguanso.
Chairman Lelay Sto >> present. >> And let the record reflect that council member JC Fernandez is also with us. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. If we can all rise for a moment of silence
and I will lead us. Uh first I want to uh acknowledge and ask that we all pray for former council woman Mary Collins who passed away uh this past week. May we all keep her in our prayers. a great woman in our
community who did so much for us and is the namesake of a great um building that we have dedicated to her out on the west. May her and her family find the peace and joy in knowing that she gave so much to our community. As for the
commission, you know, we we continue as we hopefully conclude our deliberations on the questions that we will be uh voting on and preparing to send to uh the voters of Miami Lakes. May we in
this process endeavor to be clear to have the interest of our community out there uh and that we continue to just strive to do the best for our community giving them the options as to what is that they want for the next 10 years. In
your name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. >> Next, I'd like to have uh Officer Robin Ammon to please lead us in the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. You may be seated. Next, I call on uh opening for order of business any deferrals, additions, or deletions to our agenda.
>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add an addition. >> Commissioner Bennett. >> Yeah. Uh the addition will be um some discussion and possible addition of one additional charter amendment um basically entitled proposed charter amendment establishing eligibility
removal standards quasi judicial board members. Um I'm sorry for the lateness of this but it just came to my attention that there was an issue that I think this commission should at least address. >> Okay. Um is there a second to that
motion? I'll second it. >> All right. Any discussion? I I don't know, Mr. Chairman, is or Mr. Town attorney, is there is this the opportunity to address the question or we just will address it when it comes up?
>> It's completely up to you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. All right. So, just real quick before we move forward on addressing it is uh I had reviewed the submission that you had made for this charter revision uh amendment. Um the question I have for that I wanted to discuss is before we
put it on the agenda. It appears to me it seems to be nearly identical in substance to the item that you had previously brought before the commission that we had addressed uh with regards about how to remove uh quasi judicial
members and that item had failed. Um and so I'd like to know how is this any different than that item. >> Okay. I'm not familiar with what you're describing. I don't believe I brought this up. This is something that I consider new. >> Yes. No, this was an item.
See, one second. At the May 4th, 2026 meeting, you had a amendment that you had made for establishing a petition process for the removal of appointed officials that I read in substance to have to be nearly
identical to this one. While it's not exactly word for word, but it still concerns that same item. And in that item, uh, we it it was moved. However, the motion failed. uh
one to five and you were the sole uh member that voted in favor of that one at that meeting. >> That was the addition of a petition process. This is not a petition process. That's the substance of it. This is different than that. >> Mr. Town attorney.
>> Sure. And as you're reviewing it, I just want to read into the record from the minutes from the May 4th, 2026 meeting on this is a this was on old business uh item number two which was entitled charter
amendment proposal establishing a petition process for removal of appointed officials. Um, second paragraph of that reads, "Commission member Bennett explained the genesis of his item and stated that his amendment was brought forward because he was concerned that the people's will is
not being addressed. He alluded that at council meetings, the will of the people is being ignored. He stated that he wants the appointed individuals that are working at the behest of the town council to also perform duties that are the will of the people." To this effect, Commission Member Bennett made a motion
to adopt a charter amendment that would allow for public petition according to the rules that are laid out for the elected members in order to remove an appointed official within a committee within the council itself. >> And in rebuttal to that, that's the
>> Give me one second. Give me one second. >> Okay. And then further down, Commission Member Bennett then read into the record part of the guidance information or guidelines he had sent to the town clerk Inguanzo who she shared with the commission via email. Commission member
Bennett read the following. Whereas the town of Miami Lakes operates a charter that established appointed boards, committees, and administrative officers to carry out central government duties at the behest of council members. And that was the motion that was
seconded and then thereafter failed. Do you want to go ahead and respond real quick? >> Yes. Once again, that would be a petition process. This is not a petition process. This is setting up a qualification board to make sure that individuals that are on quasi judicial boards have the qualifications as
stipulated in the Florida statutes. Our current board is made up, you know, our three members of our um zoning board is made up of an attorney who has a suspended license. We have a fireman and we have somebody who sells cars.
>> Um and yet they they are considered qualified to deal with the quasi judicial u housing uh blending and zoning. So since we don't have any specific qualifications listed anywhere, I feel it should be part of our charter.
Okay. Right. Mr. Town attorney, do you have an opinion at this point or >> should we Look, what I'll do is I'm just going to go ahead and call it for a vote. If it moves forward and we place it on the agenda, I think we can have a further discussion as to whether or not it's appropriate at that time. So that way we can move forward and it gives you
a little an opportunity to review it. >> That's fine. >> Okay. So I'm And is there any other discussion from any of the commission members on this? >> All right. Uh all in favor of adding this to which agenda item I would say let's take this up
first I would ask that we'll do this I would like to take this up before we go into the town attorney report even though it's not an under old it's not an old business item but if any if um commissioner Ben if you have no objection. >> I I don't see objection. I see section 8
items for discussion or action. So, >> I do, but I'd like to take it before the town attorney's report. >> Fair enough. >> Is that fine? >> I agree. That's acceptable. >> Okay. All right. So, all in all all in favor of taking up this item uh prior to the town attorney report, uh say I
>> I. >> All opposed? Nay. >> Motion passes. It's been added now under I will have it before the town attorney report. All right. Now, will any other order of business?
All right. Seeing none, uh we'll close order of business and we'll move forward with public comments. Madame clerk. >> Yes. Good evening and welcome to the meeting. And all I want to state, as I always do, welcome to the meeting. If you're here in council chambers, you
just approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. And if you're watching from home and you wish to participate in public comments, all you need to do is raise your hand by clicking on the reactions icon and selecting raise hand. NIT will allow you
to speak. And as well, if you're using one of the many numbers that we provide in the agenda to call in and to listen to the meeting, but you still want to participate via phone, you can do so. We welcome you. All you need to do is raise
your hand by pressing #99. NIT will allow you to speak. And again, if we're you're here for public comments, please just approach the podium, state your address, your name and address for the record, and welcome. Good evening everyone. Uh Stephen
Hersburg, chapter 199. Uh so as always, thanks for your work. This is hopefully going to be your last meeting looks like, right? Hopefully. Fingers crossed. But you guys have done a good job and and I think the last few meetings have really done really well and you got into substantive issues. Uh
so one substantive issues and the rest of the ballot questions. On the substant issue, I do have a concern on the mayoral vacancy being six months because uh there's six months and one day, but it takes 90 days for a special election. So, we're going to have a special
election for someone to fill a seat for for for a potential term of three months. >> I think uh I really believe two years is fine, but one year makes sense because because then you're not you're you don't have the potential of having a special election for electing someone for a very
short term. at least they'll have more than six months most likely, but just keep that in mind on that one issue. Otherwise, I know the commission has made move forward to make that change or presented to the voters and that's fine. I think that's a good question to ask.
Uh the issue I have mostly is with there's just too many questions. Uh we property tax is going to be on the ballot. That's going to be on everyone's TV and everyone's social media. Everyone will be going to vote and and knowing there's going to be a very long because funny enough they don't have to restrict
themselves to 75 words. A very long ballot question on property taxes. Schoolboard bond issue will be back up there. Senate race, governor's race. This is the la unfortunately, even though it's probably one of the most important things everyone's voting on. This will be the last thing on people's minds when they go to the voters spoof.
Uh honestly, I think there's questions that you guys don't just don't need. I would look to either consolidate or remove 4, 12, 13, and 14. I just I just don't see the need for some of those questions. Uh not that they're some of those are are decent qu decent issues,
but do are they really needed to put space on the ballot for other very important questions such as 7 to five, such as vacancies, such as moving the runoff? Those are exceptionally important substantive issues and you're going to get voter fatigue especially
when this will be my understanding these will be the last questions on that ballot. So people will be voting for property taxes for everything else first. This will be the last thing they vote for and then when they see 16 questions. I mean I I people are just go skip it or they just go vote no. Uh when
you have that many questions, you have important things that want to be passed. Another very important thing for me is having the clerk be separate from from the town manager. Exceptionally important how most towns function. That's that's a very important question for me. But uh I don't know. I don't because it's going to be so far down
there that I think you risk not having some important issues passed and these not passed because of how many questions. And the last thing is question eight which is I think very uh exceptionally important question due to the issues that we this commission's discussed about voter turnout things
like that. It's confusing. Question eight talks about the actual election procedure in the charter right now and then says should we move it? It reads as almost for changing the whole entire process of how we're doing elections. It should just read should the runoff be moved the the November general election
runoff be moved to the second week of December. That's it. you have a few good short questions and really the shorter the better and the shorter the more likely you'll get a yes vote on these issues. So I would just ask that you take a look at that try to consolidate these things. I would try to get rid of
find somewhere for question 11 and move it somewhere else in one of these questions. I know you're limited to 75 words, but my biggest concern is I know, but my biggest concern is there's just a lot of questions out there, but otherwise, um, you guys have done a good job and, you know, the council will move forward with the questions unless
there's I think the only way we can not move forward is if something's illegal or something like that. So, we have an administrative job to to move the questions forward and we will and then we'll see we'll see what happens. So, thank you very much, >> Mr. Chair. Is it possible for me to ask him
clarification? >> Uh generally in public comments if Mr. Town attorney generally you don't engage with the you know you don't interact but >> generally you don't but in in this case if you if you wish to engage is a member of the council. I think we reported the
same thing to to Mayor Diegas in the past. So it's it's up to you Mr. Chair. >> All right. So given that he's a member of the council and the request by the vice chairman I'll go ahead and allow him to >> Thank you Mr. Chair and Mr. Attorney Councilman Herszer, thank you by the way for being here. The first comment you
had was that on ballot question number five on the filling the council vacancies. >> No, I didn't have any comment. I mean, we, you know, I disagree with that position, but that's been set. I can I can write a novel on all the reasons why we shouldn't be presenting that to the to the voters, but I don't have any
issues with with I mean, I don't have an issue with the way the questions written, right? I think you guys have done a fair job. I just I'm sorry then let me rephrase it. I wasn't clear the first comment you made about the vacancies about the exceeding >> well vacancies right the the vacancies
is right now the cut off is six months right if there's six months or more in a term you must go to special elections that correct >> right >> so if someone has six months in a day left in their term but there's a
six months and a day right left in their term then are you going to go to a special election ction for for someone to then run because it takes 60 to 90 days to get a special election done to run for a 3-month term, right? Uh now, obviously, that would mean that you have a regular election coming up soon, but I
I just need I just don't I want you guys the way I read the ballot question, that's the way I read it. I don't know if the language says that though. >> Yeah, just to clarify because the current language in the charter right now is if it's less than six months, right, which is also what's here. or if it's less. So in your scenario that you
just presented, if there's six months in a day left, >> then that person has I guess they still have six months, right? It's it's that >> right now we the the council has the option to go to appoint or go right this this language and I don't have the the actual red line language, but the way
the ballot question reads is this language requires the council to go to a special election if it's six months in a day, but a special election takes 60 to 90 days to get ready. So now you're talking about having a special election 3 months before a regular like this the timing. That's why I feel like a year is
a safe safe enough po point where you're not going to run into having a special election for a very very short term. >> Yeah. >> Uh that that would be my biggest concern. I honestly think it's fine the way it is other than some language cleanup. But if you want to require a special election, which is fine. Let's
let's think it's a very good question for the voters to have given the history. uh it should be a year because having a special election for a three-month term seems to be uh I don't want to say useless, but when you're that means you're going to have an
election anyway, right? So maybe some language that ties it to if there's a a regular election upcoming within a period of time, which the one year would take care of that naturally, right? So that that's my concern is just not having a special election for a three-month term, which you see
sometimes. And uh with the current language, I it I I don't know if it's possible. I think there's a six-month language right now. But that's all that's what I I it's it's a ballot question and and more of the language in the in the proposed charter revision.
Just look at that. It's something I just wanted to point out. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll continue with public comment. Madam clerk, >> I don't let the record reflect. I don't see anyone else in council chambers for
public comment. And I do not have any participants online. >> Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and we will close public comment. And please note for the record uh member Fernandez.
>> Yes. I also wanted to I did want to state that I did receive the written public comment from Mr. Abel Fernandez. I um shared with everyone yesterday and as I always do it is in regards to that
clarification of eligibility and removal standards for quasi judicial board members. Again, written public comment shared with everyone from Mr. Abel Fernandez for your consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. That comment is so noted in
the record. Uh and noting that there's no further public comments, I'll be closing up officially now. And I just in case it got I I I wasn't clear. I just wanted to for the record is to confirm that Commission Member Fernandez has joined us in person. I know he was on
virtually a little earlier. All right. Going on to the next, the approval of the minutes of the May 18th, 2026 Charter Revision Commission minutes. >> And we have a men motion motion.
>> Yes. I'm sorry. made a motion to approve the minutes. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> No second. >> We have a second. Any discussion from the commission members? Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. The minutes are approved. Now
going on to 7 A, the old business. We will start with the item from uh Commissioner Bennett. Mr. prevented. As uh previously stated, if you could please uh give us a few minutes to kind of discuss your item and then uh present us with a motion um of
what you would like us to review and consider. >> Thank you. Um something that arose uh recently that I wasn't aware of and that's why the lateness of this um proposal uh change to the um charter
came about. Um the the the issue that that is was the um uh recent um uh zoning board meeting that took place in which uh it was not a quasi judicial meeting as as per attorney's instructions because I guess it was it
was a flume meeting whatever but one of the things that was what was interesting to me is that the Florida statutes has specific qualification engineers um so on and so forth that are qualified for it. And yet there is a provision
that allows anyone to be on board without engineering experience. And our current board as three individuals that are neither engineers nor qualified in any way, but they are on the board. Um, I I think we need to establish
beyond what the Florida statute says of what is considered a qualification to serve on such an important board as planning and zoning, which directly alters the uh living the the quality of life in the town of Miami Lakes. Um, I feel that
um some type of codification should be a part of our our town charter. I am now I would love to hear some comments and I can provide some further background if necessary. So at this point I'd like to hear what my colleagues think >> before we get into discussion is we
don't have a pending motion. Um I I think I'll defer first to the town attorney before we get into a motion. >> So again I'm going to say Mr. Chair, you you have the the right to interpret this however you wish. But reviewing both what Dr. Ben has just said and what he's
motion is and looking at what he provided to us back in April, they're very similar. Uh he mentions the the fact of being able to remove um members of the board and he cites here in one of his whereas clauses one two 12501 malfeasants negligence of duty,
misfeasence, incompetence and inability to perform official duties. And then if you take a look at the item that he presented back in um that that's actually from that's from his current um charter change. But then if you take a look at
the one that he presented in May 1st or May it was the May 4th um any qualified elector may initiate a petition for removal. So on one end it's creating a process for removal and this one is a uh a citizen initiated petition for removal but it's for the same reason. Malfeasence, misfeasence, negligence of
duty, incompetence conduct. So he's citing a a process for removal for petition and and then the other that he's presenting today it's the spirit of it seems to be the same. So if you wish all to move forward with the item you may but just be aware that at least the
spirit and the content of what he is proposing seems to mirror and it's using the same language. I'm just I'm reading straight off your item Dr. Better. >> Thank you. So real quick, I and I had taken also a look at the language as well and I'm generally in the same agreement that the substance of it is
generally the same. There is one distinction I just wanted Dr. Commissioner Bennett if you could clarify for me from what it seems. The only way I can distinguish what you previously did from this one is you're seeking to try establish eligibility requirements on the front end rather
than a removal process on the back end, which I think would be precluded unless someone from the uh succeed that was on the successful side of that motion would bring it up again. Is that correct? >> I state your question again because what all this does is establish
qualifications. It doesn't it it is the the removal and so on so forth. It's still based on the council. >> Well, >> it's not it's not a ballot initiative. It's not a ve an elector initiative to remove. >> No, no, but but you do have language in
here that captures a removal process rather than and I I see there's there's and that that the removal process >> from the Florida statutes. >> Okay. Okay. Well, Florida statues is Florida statutes, but what you're seeking to do is I think even in what you just described was you were trying to you were trying to enact standards
that are in addition to what Florida statute already provides. And so, let me before we get to that piece of it, but I think the removal piece was clearly the intent of what your original item that was that failed. And what you're
proposing here is more eligibility standards because remember if you if you're ineligible if it's established ineligible there's no reason to remove an individual because they're simply ineligible. They can't they couldn't have sat on it to begin with. >> Correct. >> So if you what you're establishing if
what you're moving forward here is simply from an eligibility perspective. Is that what you're >> Yes, that's a distinction. >> All right. So, if you want to re So, if you want to if you want to go ahead and make a motion as to an eligibility piece, I'm fine with continuing on it because you haven't made your motion
yet. That's why I wanted to speak before you made your motion like >> rather than from a removal piece, which I believe in agree and in agreement with the town attorney that that was the that's the substance of the prior motion that you had at that May 4th meeting that failed.
>> Understand? So my motion is sure to basically for the town charter to establish eligibility requirements to be on a quasi judicial committee such as planning and zoning that they have the qualifications as specified in
the Florida statutes. >> Okay, that's the motion. Is there a second to the motion? >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a second. Uh now I'll open it for discussion. Uh, council member Fernandez, did you want to make a comment?
>> Are you? >> Yeah. Yeah, please. Uh, well, first I wanted to to state that I believe the the only quasi judicial board that I believe the town has is planning and zoning. So, we can just address it as planning and zoning board strictly. Right. As far as I know, there's no other quasi judicial board.
>> That's correct, Mr. C. >> Okay. Um, so we there is guidance for who who should be serving on that board. Um, I think you mentioned engineer and I think that they certainly should be. Uh, but I think we can include surveyors, general contractor, there is a currently
a general contractor. I think that that certainly they qualify. Um, architect. Um, and then I I think as a former board member, I think a real estate agent could also qualify. I think that we certainly look at surveys. We are aware
of we look at plans. I mean, not constantly, but it does overlap with some of the stuff that we do. The the issue that I have with this is there's guidance, but I'm afraid and I don't like politics. Look, the the the least thing I like about being a council member is the politics behind it, but
I'm strictly speaking on somebody who served and thought I I served well. I hope I served well. Um, I think that if there's guidance already, what happens if we don't have enough residents that fall into one of these categories and
aren't willing to serve? What do we do? Like, we we have to take that in consideration. So, the guidance is there, but I think that it's the council has has the option of um of waving that rule. >> Vice Chairman Inguanzo.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll turn to the town attorney or the clerk. What is how are what you just described? Where is that? Is that a resolution or an ordinance? How is that defined? >> It's in it's defined as I believe an ordinance. It's part of the planning and
zoning. So, it's in our our code. >> Okay. So to Councilman Fernand or Commissioner Fernandez's point, um, yeah, those kinds of things, I think I'm much more comfortable that it's defined by ordinance or resolution because it gives the council the ability and the flexibility to be able to make changes
that may be required. And if it's in the charter, then really our hands are tied and it becomes impossible to acclimate to whatever the situation may be. So if it's defined by ordinance, you you can put the per parameters in the ordinance already. So, um I'm not quite sure that,
you know, we should bind ourselves in the charter by making those definitions. >> Commission member member. >> Yeah. I I mean, just thinking back I I know that recently there
council member Sanchez got appointed to the board. There was a waiver, right? If I recall correctly. So there is a system in place to create waiverss for people who are not qualified. Is there a system to remove them? I mean I guess we're not doesn't matter if we remove >> because we're looking at Mr.
>> I mean the council member will be able to remove >> excuse me just just to put everybody in the proper posture. We're not talking about removal. Removal is we're talking about eligibility. >> Correct. >> But but there is a system in place right now in which >> for eligibility. Yes.
any of the other commissioners? Commissioner Ruano, >> thank you. Um, so I understand Dr. Bennett's uh point. There is a system in place right now that does speak to eligibility, but there's also a way to bypass that with a certain amount of of
votes from the council. Am I correct? >> You need a supermajority vote, >> right? So, with a supermajority vote, you can um appoint a doctor to the planning and zoning board even though they have no qualifications. So, I've been I've been
on on that end of it where I have voted for someone currently. We have an ex vice mayor, a previous vice mayor that serves. It was my opinion that he worked so much with the community and was engaged for so many years that even though he wasn't a licensed professional, he had the knowledge and
the capacity to serve in that on that board. Right. But I understand um your point that there that there could be members of the board that don't necessarily have the qualifications for so that is set in in the ordinance and maybe that is the the place to address
it where the ordinance should be adjusted to not allow for those exceptions per se. that if we want it to be strictly based on professional credentials, then it needs to be stipulated that by no supermajority can that be because it does somewhat become
a popularity contest sometimes and it it's not really about who is the most qualified. >> Right. Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner, well, I'll give you an opportunity to just address everybody at the very end so that way we can close. Go ahead, Commissioner Moss. So, having
served on the board for five years as a 43y year real estate professional, high volume, considerable business in Miami Lakes, if there was an exception made for me, I'm sure that um
anybody who wasn't an architect or an engineer, we educated ourselves every single meeting if there was something we didn't understand. And so to have this be part of the charter, I prefer to leave it as a resolution or an
ordinance. Um I think there are always exceptions. Um I serve on the unsafe structures board for Miami Dade County. I have the real estate seat. There's a real estate seat on that board. Maybe we need something other than maybe the
whole composite of that board needs to be looked at. Maybe it isn't just as it as it sits. Maybe that needs to be considered as well. But I don't think that it needs to be part of the charter. And it was really an honor and a privilege to serve on that board. We
worked really hard and you know to think that it was a popularity contest. I'm sure that I didn't get put on the board because I'm a popular girl. >> Yes, you are. >> You're always popular in my heart. Commissioner Fernandez, did you have any
comments? All right. So, I'm going to have a final comment, then I'll pass it over you to Dr. Bennett to close. Um, you know, I'm going to be voting uh in against this motion as um as I understood your motion as you were making it. You you were more even focusing even more so just on
incorporating the statutes into the requirement eligibility requirements. And I, you know, that's to me it's unnecessary to incorporate the statutes because the statutes already apply. Um, and from what I understand, you know, in just hearing from what I've heard today, it seems that the exceptions have been
made by ordinance. And I echo the other commissioners that that's probably best served in that sense um to be done by ordinance for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, as as has been stated, you there may be times when there's not sufficient members uh to be able to sit on there that are otherwise
have the qualifications that are required by statute, but nonetheless also have the experience as Commissioner Moss had related in her in her instance and in many others that I think that could serve on there on those types of committees. But I believe it, you know, we'd best be left to the discretion of
the council members at the time to make that determination because last, you know, if there's no one that else can that can serve, last thing we need is that we have a quasi judicial committee that is that one is critically important that is doesn't have sufficient number of members and then all of a sudden that
becomes to a halt until you get a sufficient number of people. Uh so for that reason I will be voting in the negative but I will now defer over to uh Commissioner Bennett if you want to close and then we'll go ahead with taking a roll call on the vote. >> Certainly. Okay. So my concern was is
that they can interpret the current laws or statutes to exclude qualified individuals that they don't like. This is what has almost occurred in my case. I was appointed and then they sent the statutes to me
saying that I wasn't qualified. Now, I don't know if anyone knows I have to make this personal because I did take offense to this that I'm not qualified. All right? In order to get to my degree, we had to do engineering. We use the same terms engineers use, bridges,
abutments. We use the law of beams in order to calculate weight loads. This is all part of what we do on a daily basis. The good news is today we get to use computers instead of slide rules which make things a lot easier. But the idea of uh of stating that somebody that has
engineering experience, granted it's not building buildings, we're building micromechanical devices. And these these the principles are all the same. It's the same physics. It's the same mechanics. And it was concerning to me that when I was appointed that they said
I I didn't qualify. And so we need to go ahead and set qualifications. As I said, currently we have an attorney who was suspended license. We have a firefighter. We have somebody who sells cars. Um there is a GC. He's he's
actually quite good. I actually like him a lot. So and um and so on and so forth. But unless we do something to codify this, I think they can use the Florida statute as a bludgeon to prevent qualified people who do wish to serve. You keep saying that we can't get people
to serve and I disagree. I think people will serve and they are qualified. That's why I want this uh basically placed at least in the charter. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bennett. So, I'm going to go ahead and call the role. All in favor of the motion say I.
>> I. All opposed? >> No. >> Nay. >> Do we need to take a roll call? Madame clerk. >> Yes, of course. Commission member Abad. >> No. >> Commission member Moss. >> No. >> Commission member Fernandez.
>> No. >> Commission member Bennett. >> I'm sorry. Me? Yes. >> Yes. Yes. I'm doing roll call for everyone. Commission member Ruano. >> No. >> Com. Vice Chairmano. >> No. Chairman Leoto.
>> No. >> The motion fails. >> Great. Thank you very much. Now, we're going to go on to old business of the town attorney report. Next item. Mr. Town attorney. Uh, as you recall, we had
a few items that we had reviewed and discussed from the last meeting as the ballot questions that we had asked for you to modify in some instances and others to split. Um I don't know if you want to go through the packet and then go
or how do you however you want to present it. I'll defer to you. >> Sure. Um I'm I'm going to do that. But before that, Mr. Chair, I'd like a moment of personal privilege. >> Absolutely. >> Right. So we're nearing the the end of of the road as they they say. Um this
has been a very long uh but I think a very fruitful what we see here road. Um, of course, none of this could have taken place without all of you uh and your effort and being here in all the meetings uh and and going through this process. It it wasn't an
easy one. Uh it started out very messy and then got more, you know, cleaner and cleaner and more concise. Now, a great part of that and I I want uh for all of you to know uh has to do with our clerk
uh Gina who meticulously takes minutes, made sure that we had all the information that we needed so that we could do our work. So, thank you very much. Um second of all, I'd like to thank Morelis Castillia and and Alexis, too. I'm sorry I didn't mention you. You
have a great role to play here. So, thank you, Alexis. I I want to thank Morelis Castillia uh and um and our chair. Uh we've met I don't know how many times at least six, seven, eight, I don't know dozen times uh sometimes in our office which doesn't have AC's on
the weekend. Uh and it's kind of hot. Uh but you know both of you uh were instrumental in putting this together and and it was definitely a team effort. uh what I what I want to say by all this is that this product is now the the attorney's report but this language is by no means a uh a reflection of of my
work but rather a reflection of everybody that's here and the two uh the gentleman and the lady uh who are sitting over there. So uh I think before we go through it a round of applause for all of us with that said and thank you Mr. for for
allowing me that moment. Uh I'd like to start going through. So on number one, uh question number one was not changed. Um question number two, even though it was voted on, the language itself was not. Uh and this was splitting uh question number two and number three.
Number two is resign to run, right? >> Yeah. Number two, yeah, we asked for rewriting of the language, >> right? So So correct. So number two is the January term commencement and that we removed it from the resign to run vacancy. So now you have two questions
before you. We can go through them. Mr. Chair, do you want to go through them and vote on them independently as I go through them? >> Yes. Yeah, we'll go question by question. >> Okay. So number two uh is January term commencement and annual vice mayor election and it states shall the town charter be amended to provide that one
the term of office of all elected officials shall commence at 12:00 noon on the second Tuesday of January following the general election and two effective with the election to be held in November 2028 the council shall elect one of its members as vice mayor at the
first January regular council meeting and each year thereafter. Uh, this one has a word count of 66 out of 75 and the ballot title 7 of 15. All right. So, this is the updated language based
on our discussions of the last one. Uh, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to accept this language. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Rouano. Any discussion? Any further discussion on this language? >> I have um I have a quick question. So in
the in do we have the the charter language handy like the the revised charter language handy for this question? My my concern stems around the term of office of all elected officials shall commence at 12:00 noon on the second Tuesday of
January following the general election. What if they're elected during a special election? Like I don't think I don't think the questions that's why I want to see how it is in the underlying ballot language because I I would hate for there to be
confusion that then that that council member that's elected during a special election their term would commence the next January and not immediately after. >> Right. So this is for regular uh elections not for special elections. >> So so maybe we can put that in the
question that that's that that was the genesis. Understood. Okay. >> Okay. I understand what you're saying. Well, but it but it kind of does. And let let me point out where it says the term of office of all elected officials shall commence 12:00 noon from the second Tuesday following the general
election. So it already states a general election. So you're you're thinking that general election should be first and foremost. >> Yeah. either either putting it putting it ahead so that it's clear that it's the term of office of all elected
officials or all officials elected during the general election. Some something to that effect to where it's it's clear that we're we're talking about the the officials elected during the general election that this applies to and not
necessarily any individuals that are elected during a special election. Yes, Mr. Attorney, maybe the term of office for those elected officials elected in the general election shall commence at 12:00 noon in the >> Yeah. So, this is what I'm thinking and
you tell me if you you all like it. the term of office of all elected officials voted in during the regular election or during the regular general election. >> I shall commence at 12:00 noon on the
second Tuesday of January period. >> So, so let me jump in there. The caution I have is obviously that wouldn't technically as written cover runoffs the way that the we kept this language was
general because it's just stating when their term of office shall commence following the general election. Okay. So do we want to say during the general
regular election and runoff? Um, >> do we need general and regular? >> Let let me ask you one second. Uh, I don't know if we can if we want if we can take a look at I I'm trying to look through it whether or not there's a special provision within special
elections as to when that term begins because I think that might resolve it. I know we're I know this one we're just simply dealing with the ballot question rather than the substance of the question of what the changes are going to be. And I think that's what Commissioner Fernandez was
>> Yeah. And it may be exceedingly clear in the underlying ballot question. I just think the the I'm sorry, in the ballot language, um, but the the way that I read the question, it it's a little >> I I would like it to be a little bit more specific,
>> Mr. Chair. I mean, I don't know if this is under the rules. Can't just put in and not special elections. In other words, just to say that it's excluding special elections in the five five letters, you're still five words, you're still okay. Uh, Mr. Council, Commissioner Fernz,
would that satisfied if you just basically were removing we're just make negating special elections from the from the language? >> I think that could be one way of doing it. I think it might just be cleaner. The
term of office of all officials elected during the general election shall commence at 12:00 noon on the second to it. >> Yeah. Well, it's five more words and then we would eliminate following the general election. So, we'd be well within the award count.
>> So, sorry. Repeat that again. >> So, right. So, it would be voted in during the regular election or during the general election and runoff. Um, and then removing the following the general election right before and before number
two. >> So, what would you read? How would you read after? I'm assuming you're reading after number one. What would it read? So the term of office of all elected officials voted in during the general election and runoff
shall and or runoff. >> Yes. >> Okay. And or runoff shall commence at 12:00 noon on the second Tuesday of January. Period. And then remove following the general election. Okay. Second Tuesday of the following
January. Nope. >> Right. Chuck commence at 12:00 noon on the second Tuesday of January. >> Well, I think what he's saying is that it seeking to have that language again in which I I think it just it's >> it's redundant.
>> I kind of see it. You know, I I I understand what he's trying to get to. I don't know if it's necessary from my perspective to be that prescriptive in the ballot question because I don't know whether or not there would be an up or down vote simply because of the distinction between a special election
that could be provided for otherwise. >> Yeah, I I wouldn't be so prescript I wouldn't be that prescriptive. >> I mean it's it's up to you. Just just the attorney. Commissioner Fernandez,
>> I I mean I I laid it out. Um it's really up to the body. I mean, if you guys >> Okay. Do you want to Would Mr. Town Attorney, would you like an opportunity to have your team work on some language and we can defer this one and move on to the other questions. We
can come back to this one at the end. >> My team says yes. >> Perfect. Commissioner Fernandez, would that be helpful for you? >> Yes, very much so. So, I don't think we need a motion. We'll just simply defer this item uh or consideration of this item until the very end. Please remind
me somebody because I may forget, but please please remind me to come back to this one. All right. So, let's go to ballot question number three. >> So, ballot question number three is resign to run vacancies filled at the next regularly scheduled town election.
That's a title and the ballot summary. Uh and this word count is 73 of 75. Shall the town charter be amended to provide that when a vacancy in the office of mayor or council member arises from a resignation submitted pursuant to
section 99.012 012 Florida statutes resign to run comma. The vacancy shall be filled at the next regularly scheduled election of the town, or as earlier provided by the council with the town clerk promptly notifying the Miami Dade County Supervisor of elections and
opening a qualifying period for the vacated seat. Question mark. >> I'll move it. >> Second. >> All right, we got a motion and a second. Uh any discussion? This was the language that was requested. So if there's no discussion, all in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. >> All right. >> All right. Let's go to section number four or number four. This was uh one
portion of several that were split off of. >> Right. So this one is really kind of three. It was split to four to five, but it's got a little components. And so this one, the first one is forfeite of office procedures. Um, and so this one
is, shall the town charter be amended to revise forfeite procedures by providing that forfeite for unexcused absences from three meetings shall occur by operation of law. This is word count is 26 of 75.
>> Right. Uh, let me Do you want to make a motion? Uh, >> or do you have questions about >> I do have questions, but if you'd like to make a motion. >> Yeah, let's make a motion so we can have a discussion. I'll make a motion to adopt this language. >> I'll second. >> We have a second for Commissioner Fernandez. Uh, go ahead. Come vice
chair. >> Yeah, I'll I know we know what this means, but if you read this from a perspective of an average, I don't want to say average, but someone that maybe isn't as informed as we are because we've discussed it, >> right?
>> I don't think it says enough. For example, what meetings are we talking about? Are we talking about regular council meetings? I think so. Right. And if that's the case, I think we need to say that. And who are we talking about? Are we talking about the mayor and the council members? And if that's the case, I think we need
to say that. I mean, does this apply to the mayor as well? I assume. >> Mhm. >> Right. So, I think it should be clear as to who it impacts and what those meetings are. And I think it's just regular council meetings, not a committee meeting >> or maybe a special council meeting or
something of that nature. >> Just regular council meeting. >> Good. Commissioner Rouano. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. I I completely agree with that. And I also would like to add where it says that it shall occur by operation of law. I would like to add how it
occurs now. Like it shall occur by operation of law instead of by a vote of the council. so that the voter can understand what it what's in place. Since the question is so short, there's so many remaining words that we can still use. I'd like to add a component
that kind of gives the voter an idea of how it how it's done. Now, >> any other commissioners? >> I just want clarification. So we're just voting on the language, right? Not on the fact whether we want the question on the ballot or not. >> Correct. Yeah, that's what we did.
Remember on four what we did, we decided that was these four and I believe what we have next and five uh were combined and the request was to split this off into individual sentences or individual questions uh which was why that this one
has a very a lot less words in it. Mr. Town attorney. So, here's a couple changes that may satisfy all of you and and I agree with you on on second blush. It's it's it lacks uh stuff that you know language that should have that should have to make it clear. So, uh,
shall the town charter be amended to revise forfeite procedures by providing that forfeite of, and this is the added language, of office for mayor and council member for unexcused absences from three regular council meetings shall occur automatically by operation
of law, comma, instead of by vote of the council. >> Right? >> Instead of by vote of the council. >> A vote of the council. >> Vote of the council. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. three. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> And I just wanted um with respect to uh Council Member Hzburg's um comment about there being too many questions and I I couldn't agree with him more. And uh Commissioner Abbad just mentioned we're only voting on the language. We're not voting on whether we want this or not.
Is there an opportunity at this point to reduce the number of questions or are we obligated to because we voted all of these topics up or down, are we obligated to move forward with this many questions? I was waiting for question number four because it was one of the
ones that um >> if you were on the prevailing side. >> Yeah, correct. I think yeah, we discussed that. >> Yeah, I already played that game, but yes, I remember. >> It's it's not it's not a game. No, I'm I'm No, I'm being facicious, but I I understand what you mean.
>> Here's my thoughts, right? And if if I if I may, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> This whole body has meticulously gone through the entire charter. The questions that you've picked are those that you believe are important for the
voters to decide on. You have debated this to as much as you can. I mean, you've given this a lot of thought. Don't second guess yourselves. That's my my opinion. >> Mr. Chair, >> thank you, Commissioner Bennett.
>> Just a question, and this is not related to the specific question since this is such a long ballot of questions. Can this be moved to a mail-in ballot like it was 10 years ago in which people would have a chance to sit down and read them and and read the little pamphlets
and not be you know sitting in the voting booth >> and you know doing I mean it would give them the enough time. It's so important that they may need more time >> and otherwise it like I said at this point with the governor's election everything else it it might get buried where they'll just they'll just get
fatigued and they won't keep reading. >> Sure. I think that question is going to is uh Mr. Mr. Town attorney, if you're is a question for the council, not for this board. Is that correct as to whether or not it's going to be a mail-in versus an inerson type of election? I
>> think the question is actually addressed. If you give me a second, let me let me look at the give me one moment to answer that question. >> Sure. No problem, >> Mr. Chair. While he's doing that, may ask >> point of clarification. So, I read the amended language from the attorney,
which is good. I agree, you know, much much better. But I'm a council member. I come to the meeting and after public comment, I leave. Does that count as attendance or not? How do you determine how, you know,
do you vote for the majority of the items or what, you know, if you're in school, right? If you come to a certain if you're in school for certain hours a day, you get credit for it. If you leave before that, you don't. >> Yeah, Mr. Right. Chairman, if I recall
requ uh correctly is that we had a long lengthy discussion of that whole entire process and our discussion was is that that is going to be at the discretion of the council of how they make that determination. Um >> good faith. >> Well, it's up to them. We we we expect
that everything they do is in good faith. >> That's why we elected >> someplace else. So, >> yes. >> So, to that point, Mr. Chair, if I may, yes. What I would add then is an ordinance implementing this provision shall be made after adoption. >> Sorry.
>> So put there that an ordinance implementing this provision shall be made after adoption in such manner that the instruction is given. >> Should that be in the charter or in the question? >> I think that should be in the question. >> But if it but then we'd have to amend it into the charter as well. >> Yes.
>> Which you can do. Other parts of the charter have that. >> No, no, I understand. But then we'd have to go and add that language in because we didn't add it in earlier. >> Correct. >> But that does give the council the ability to establish some parameters that could be
helpful. >> Well, well, I think what it does it it's an affirmative obligation on them to do so versus a permissive obligation. The difference between the two. All right. So, I think there's a potential of one or two motions. I don't know if anybody wants to make a motion to amend
any of this language. or if we want to incorporate the two if if let's do this. Mr. Town attorney, can you read the language with the additional language that you just added about the adoption by ordinance and
confirming that it's within the 75 boards? >> Shall the town shall the town charter be amended to revise forfeite procedures by providing that forfeite of office for mayor and council member? So that would be 27 28 29 30 31 32 for
unexcused absences from three meetings from three regular council meetings. So 33 34 35 shall occur automatically 36 by operation of law instead of by vote of the council.
That's what 40ome >> okay >> and then an ordinance implementing we we can put this in the question or we don't have to put it in the question. You do definitely have to put it in the language in the ballot I mean in the charter language. Would you be okay with that, Mr. Vice Chair? >> Yeah, I >> I would be I just I would like for the
council to establish some parameters so that it doesn't become arbitrary. >> Right. That that's why I'm saying that maybe the ordinance part isn't is better placed in the actual charter rather than in the question itself because I don't think it adds anything to the question whether an ordinance or
>> unless you think so again >> and it can be added. We we've got some >> we agree with the attorney actually. I would obviously reference it in the charter, but I don't know that it needs to be it might create more confusion in the question. >> So I think excluding it is probably best in my opinion. Okay.
>> Okay. All right. So we have a I'll make the motion to amend the original motion to modify the language as read by the town attorney. >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion on the motion to amend that language? So just to be
clear, all we're doing is adding or or the real change is the last four four words that you said, right? >> Well, adding in what he has revised as to the language of the ballot, >> right before switch it to switching it to operational law instead of a vote by
the council. Well, it's it it further clarifies that it'll be amended uh to revise foreure proceedings by providing that a forefeite of the office and it designates the office and the absence of designating three count regular council meetings that specificity and shall
automatically occur adding the word automatically by operation of law. I believe I captured that if my mind is all right. >> Yes sir. >> And you have Mr. chair through the attorney and it's three council meetings total. Three council meetings in a calendar year.
>> I think that language you captured in the charter. >> That's in the charter. >> But do you do you feel that we should put it in the question as well? We can we can put three regular council meetings in a calendar year. >> But remember in the charter it says not only in a calendar year but on there's
conse there's consecutive in a calendar year or three. So my my suggestion is since this is you're basically changing the So you're saying that in the charter it says is in the charter the the code
>> I believe it was the charter >> or is it is that in the council rules of order? >> Yes. In the charter, it says absent without good cause from any three regular meetings of the council during any calendar year or if he he is absent
without good cause from any three consecutive regular council meetings whether or not during the same calendar year. That's kind of the that's the un amended language. That was the original language. >> So again, here's my thought on this and you you
give me instruction. The issue here is not on the three meetings. The three meetings is already there. It's deciding whether should it would happen automatically by operation of law or instead of vote by the council. I mean that's the question. The
rest is just giving a little bit of explanation of what exists. So it's three meetings. >> Mr. Chair, >> unless you want to change from regular and consecutive and that's you want to add that as another question. >> No, no, no, no. I I definitely I
definitely didn't want to do that. I I saw it as an opportunity to maybe help the voter understand what what they're voting on a little bit better and give them a little bit more context that we're talking about missing three meetings in a in a year versus missing
three years in a term or missing three years I'm sorry, missing three meetings in a term or missing, you know, three meetings in a month. That that was really the the point of it. I'm not married to it. I just brought it up. >> And and I will say and I'll go to you in in a second, Commissioner Bennett, is I
will say is I I don't want to also overwhelm with too much detail in the questions because they should be just generally describing what the ballot questions are going to be. Um to give them a good sense because I don't I don't I personally don't think a voter is going to make a decision be like, "Oh, well, it's only within the calendar year, so if it had been consecutive
years, maybe I would have voted versus otherwise." I think many of them don't even know when the calendar year even runs uh for the for the commission itself. Um, but that's just a commentary on that. Commissioner Bennett. >> Yeah. Um, through the chair to the attorney, I I always game these things out. Let's assume this is passed and all
that. Do you do you foresee litigation from the dismissed council member? Um, I mean, we would try and make it >> Absolutely. >> Absolutely. Yeah. I I mean, I I'd like to make it where in some way, you know, it we would mitigate litigation that
would happen from a dismissed council member under these terms. Now, I don't want to put that as language, but I'd like to know how we can >> there is >> provisions. >> There is case law with regards to would would litigation occur. Yes, I I I think so. I I could foresee that happening. Of
course, somebody's elected office and they're going to argue. Now, there there's there's a lot of case law with regards to how uh as long as the question obviously is not ambiguous as far as the the procedure, the ordinance, right? So, obviously there's ambiguity,
that's that's one thing. But if there's no ambiguity um and and the language is clear and and that's the interpretation that you've you've they're they're unexcused and you've you've forfeited your office then the courts tend to defer to the governing body of the of
the the local governing body. So I mean could you have an issue? Yes. What's the likelihood of of that person prevailing? As long as again there's clear language the city's pretty >> right pretty is pretty secure. It it's just once again if the absences are
excused is based on a discretion of majority vote of the council members that puts in again the emotional personal political issues too. >> So I real quick I I also want to say is commissioner I understand your point. I don't want to get too far away from where what we're voting on. We're just
simply voting on the ballot question not whether or not we should be moving forward with this aspect of it. >> I agree. >> But I understand you know I want to give you that opportunity to to express >> No, I understand. I just I I'd like to try and mitigate any potential litigation. That's one of our responsibilities also.
>> I don't know if that's responsibilities. >> Well, for clarification on on what what is expected. >> That's a responsibility of our town attorney. >> We we're making the rules here. >> Okay. But but again, I remember what we discussed this item. The whole issue of who determines on excuse absence.
Actually, I think even the town clerk was concerned about who is that her responsibility or the council. So, who's going to determine what's excused and unexcused? >> Yeah, we we we did this we we did discuss this one a lot. And I from what
I recall the consens you know obviously it's not that we're directing them as to what's who it is but rather that the way that the charter is written it's deferred to the council members and to uh what the town attorney was discussion discussing and to commissioner Bennett's point is that should litigation evolve
from it the courts do differ because it's it's an issue of separation of powers first and foremost is you know the legislative bodies uh you know the council is a legislative body and the courts are judicial So they limit their involvement to the extent that is
absolutely necessary to the extent that it violates either state statute or uh or the Florida constitution or the US constitution. Um so they're going to defer to them. So it's the council I it's in within their discretion to make that determination I believe and that's what we discussed uh at length during
our meetings. >> 100% right. >> But then again that's the same thing that's on the charter now. So why are we even bringing this? We had revised well we were revising language and I what we have pending is the motion to amend it to add more detail into the question as
to what the change will be. I think the change is very simple um but we're adding a lot more language to that question which is fine. Um, so on let's remember we're still on the motion to amend.
Any further discussion on to amending the language? >> Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and call the question. All in favor to amend the language as stated by the town attorney say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion
passes unanimously. And now we're back to the main motion on the ballot question um which was read by the town attorney. Uh is there any further discussion on the question in a whole
commissioner or vice chairman? >> Thank you Mr. Chair. So not to muddy the waters here but um go for it. >> I'm being sensitive to um >> the point that Councilman Hsburg's raised which I agree. I think we all agree, right? I mean we've got a lot of questions here. So theoretically, if the
attorney can walk me through this, hypothetically, if I was on the prevailing side of this item, I have a right to make a motion to re discuss the item, the motion. >> You can. Yes. >> Okay. And someone would have to second it.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And then we could discuss it and then they would take a vote, determine whether or not we want to keep it. Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm going to make a motion. So, real quick before you go there, >> keep in mind it's not only whether or not we're going to have the question, but then we would
have to eliminate the underlying changes that precipitated the question. So, it's kind of a two-fold aspect if we're going to go down that route. So, whatever changes we made, which I don't have the we don't have the full red line because I believe we were
waiting to get the final today to get that full red line. Um, you know, we're going to have to change the underlying question if we move forward with deleting this question. >> Okay. All right. >> So, good. >> Nonetheless, and I'm sorry because I it it's going to take some discussion, but
I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. Help me out, Mr. Attorney. I'm going to make a motion to reconsider this ballot question. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I'm going to make a motion to reconsider this ballot question. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. I want to make sure. Can we just
confirm that he was on the affirmative side of >> Yes, I'm pretty confident I was, but yes, let's >> I just want to I just want to be very very clear. >> It would really stink if I wasn't. So, >> it would really stink if we went through a full entire conversation anywhere.
>> I feel your pain. >> Can I Can I speak while we're while we're waiting for that? >> Please fill the void. only because some of the count especially a couple of the council members on this commission went through this issue. I think that it is
important to address it and you know I think that there was never there there was a lot of times there there wasn't that that council member that was present that was able to make decisions that and I think it benefited some on
this commission that they weren't there but I think it it didn't serve the public or the residents. So I'll just leave it at that and you guys decide. >> Sure. >> Mr. Shar, may I respond to that or are you afraid of it? >> Sure. >> Can you Well, it's you can I'm not going to take away your opportunity to respond
to anything. >> So, Councilman Fernandez, I appreciate that 100%. I'm kind of going back to where I think Commissioner Vod was. Well, not here anymore, but where he was on So, there's already I believe it's an ordinance that addresses this, right? So
there may be if you and your colleague council members feel this way, then you maybe should address the ordinance and tighten the ordinance up and address it that way rather than it feels like we're kind of muddying the waters a lot for it
to go back to the ordinance anyway, right? Because that's what we just did. We're going to say we're going to refer it back to the ordinance. So why go through this if there's an ordinance in place that if you and your colleagues feel strongly about you should make stronger. I agree that you should.
>> Okay. So let me uh go real quick. Actually I'm I'm I'm actually looking at the version that I have here. Actually you did vote in opposition to this section. >> Really? Okay. >> Yes. It was approved 61 vice chairman Guanzo. This was at the January 22nd
meeting. Um the language that changed in this section is simply was a deletion of the language of in the discretion of the remaining council members and that's why it's going by operation of law. >> Mr. Chair, >> I guess you were in the >> Well, that's maybe why I feel so
strongly against this. So there you go. >> Mr. Chair, would you be able to tell us who was on the prevailing side of that? >> All the other six members. >> All right. So I would like to make the motion on >> one second. So, but let me again just want to make sure clear
>> the edit to that if we are going to move forward is reconsidering the ballot question and I think we reconsider the entire quest modification. And the modification was to delete in the discretion of the remaining council members because I guess there was a disagreement that it should be in the
discretion of the council members rather than just make it uh the forefeite happen by operation of law because as we had discussed just to remind everyone what we had said is that the commissioners could say look they still don't have good cause uh they haven't met good cause but it's in our
discretion we're still not going to make them forfeit the the seat rather there was a strong consensus amongst the board members except vice chair that uh that discretion whether or not to make them forfeit the seat should be within the discretion of the council member. So if you want to go ahead and
make your motion I out of deference to my colleague I I'll go ahead and pick up the motion that he uh is unable to make. >> Okay. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Bennett. All right. So now we have a motion by Commissioner
Fernandez and a second for from Commissioner Bennett to reconsider the ballot question together with the language that was uh proposed for deleted within that section 2.5
uh B Roman Small 2. All right, discussion items. Commissioner Ingu, Vice Chairman Inguanza. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So to clarify then the attorney or the clerk currently there is there is an ordinance
that defines this process. Is this defined in any way currently? >> Not by ordinance. It's just defined in the charter. >> Okay. Only in the charter. There's no ordinance or resolution. >> No. >> Okay. >> Nope. Could I'd have to look at the current language
of the charter, but could the council implement an ordinance to put parameters in place? >> If I may, >> if I may, >> because I took notes last meeting, this is kind of fresh in our memory.
We did, I think it was the town attorney maybe perhaps who mentioned that this could be addressed in the special rules of order because I have it written here. Um yeah I think you stated
when talking about when discussing section 2.5 vacancies forfeite not section forfeite by absence but procedures because that is what is in detail explained in the charter and I
was a little bit confused last time and I think the chair walked us through at last meeting But um I do believe that Lorenzo did explain that perhaps we can or either explain more in an
ordinance or he even I wrote it here. He could say this could be addressed in the special rules of order to give more importance and more details to the allow the council members explain what they would like to do maybe define what
absence is. I think you went into that detail. So, if I may, and and thank you thank you for reminding me of that, and and I'm reading it again, and you're absolutely right. Um, and and I'll explain why. Um, and and maybe this will help all of
you make your your decision. It says, "The council shall be the sole judge of the qualifications of its members and shall hear all questions relating to the forfeite of councilman's office, including whether or not good cause for absence has been or may be established." So that point already tells you that the
council decides its own rules, decides how they're going to manage uh and and define what an absence is and what it's not. The burdens and and it goes further. The burden of establishing good cause shall be on the council member in question provided, however, that any council member may any time during any
duly held meeting move to establish good cause for absence for himself or the absence of another council member from any past, present, or future meeting. which motion if carried shall be conclusive. So again, this is providing him a level of due process. Um, a
council member whose qualifications are in question or who's otherwise subject to forfeite of his or office shall not vote on any matters. The council member in question shall be entitled to a public hearing on request regarding the alleged forfeite of office. If a public hearing is requested, notice thereof
shall be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the town at least one week in advance of the hearing. Any final determination by the council that a member has forfeited his office shall be made by a majority of the council by resolution or vote excuse
me and all all other votes and all other acts of the council member in question prior to the effective date of such resolution shall be valid regardless of the grounds of forfeitures. So what is it saying? It's being very prescriptive as to what are the
procedures to be to to um to find whether that council member has indeed met that threshold of three unexcused absences. The rules by themselves as as the clerk stated and she's right can be
created by ordinance and by resolution. The remainder is very detailed in the actual charter itself as to how that council member then can avail himself of a hearing. Make sure that there's due process. Make sure that only that
there's due process substantively but procedurally by requiring it to be in a in a in a advertising in a newspaper. Allow for the public participation. So I I I understand very well what um Councilman
Fernandez and Councilwoman Ron are saying because we did deal with this in the past. That was part of dealing with this in the past. However, by the same token, this can be dealt with in an ordinance. >> Any any >> I'm sorry, just to clarify, since some
of our council people were former council people dealt with, was there ever an attempt to try to do that or just the political climate wasn't right? Okay, >> got it. So essentially the procedures are already in place that this is a
redundant thing that maybe we should not give this to the voters at this point. The procedures are already in place and not and basically let's save them some reading and just not use this ordinance or this modification of our charter. >> Sure. I I would disagree with your characterization of what the motion
does. The motion that we had initially approved at the January 22nd meeting was to take the discretion as to whether or not it constitutes or whether or not it's subject to forfeite. Taking that discretion away from the council members
and making it that if the council members find that there was no good cause as proi provided for in the procedures that it automatically for the the council member or the council member either that or the mayor forfeits their
uh office automatically. So it's not that the council then makes a subsequent determination as to whether or not after the good cause determination as to whether or not they should forfeit their office. Rather, they just have to make the determination that they've have no good cause for those absences, the person forfeits. That's the sole
question or the sole edit that this question is directed to. So if we delete it, we maintain the status quo. Where is wherein the council retains its discretion to determine regardless of whether or not it constitute a good
cause, they still have the discretion to say whether or not they're going to for whether that individual will will forfeit their office. Meaning that if they say no, there's no good cause, but we like the guy and I want to keep him on the on the council, we'll go ahead and do it.
>> Well, okay. And and once again, so they that the council still has the discretion to determine if it was an excused absence or not. >> Oh, yeah. That that was never in question. That has nothing to do with this ball. >> Well, that well that that is that directly relates to this. >> Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Because
this is whether or not it's the forfeiture whether because that is already set forth. There was nothing in the in the charter amended language that we did that changed what good cause was. We had extensive conversations about it, but no one ever proposed any types of
motions that changed it or modified it in any way, shape or form. Um, the only sole change that was done into this section which precipitated this question is that section whether or not the council members were going to retain the discretion after their determination of good cause
whether or not that they would the seat would be subject to forfeite. That's the sole issue that this question is precipitating. That's a sole change in this section here. >> So, it's either they retain their discretion or they don't retain their discretion or or we send it to the voters to determine whether or not they
should have that discretion. >> I was just going to say for clarification exactly what you just stated, but maybe it makes more sense for the board members. If you go to the charter to section 2.5,
what this proposed ballot question would change is section two forfeerture by absence. What the chair just mentioned as to what constitutes forefeerture. It's not changing whatsoever procedures
which is section three which is what the town attorney just read in detail. >> Correct. So if they vote, if you all vote to for the proposed ballot question, what you're voting is for a change on
forfeite by absence section two to eliminate in the discretion of the remaining council members. It's just deleting that. If you vote to reconsider and to eliminate the question out of the ballot, it would stay as is, but the
procedure will not change. Right. Yes, Commissioner Ruano. >> Thank you. So, um, when I sat on the council as a council member, this was something that was utilized inappropriately by both sides
of the political aisle, right? So it there was a council member that was absent constantly and both the council members that were wanting to protect that council member and the council members that didn't both just kind of stayed quiet about this because a council of six, you're more powerful
when you're one of six than when you're one of seven. So it was utilized to protect someone and it was also utilized to hurt someone. So for me and and the reason why I brought up the question of how we can eliminate some of these questions was not specific to this question because I think that this is a
very important one because the only way that this will ever happen at any point is if this amendment goes through. Otherwise there will never be a council member on on on this council that will say I want to move to remove my
colleague for absences. It's just never going to happen because there's there's going to be always a reason either because you're more powerful being one of six or because that council member is your friend and you don't want to put them out there. So, it was utilized by
both sides during my tenure. So, I I don't just don't see this ever happening where I had residents that would constantly come and say, "You need to bring this up. this needs to be put on the agenda because council member so and so has not been here for x amount of meetings and no one ever did it and
there was I don't think that in in at least in my recollection of the 20 years that we've been here I've never experience a council member being absent so much and it just never happened. So that's why this was super important for me because this is the only way that
this provision will ever even be discussed because it's a very uncomfortable topic. And then as long as there's a vacant seat, you can go on like that for years. And if the council member is absent for four years and no one ever brings it up, then that seat is will always be vacant. Whereas if this
change goes through, then by operation of law, that will have to be discussed. And then those that are friendly to the to the absent council member will have to explain themselves to the community. Why are you going to constantly give this person a break for not showing up?
They will have to answer those questions. Otherwise, it'll never it'll never happen. So, at least for me, I think that this is an important one. I don't I I I know that Council Member Vice Mayor Fernandez was was along that same ride with me along with me. Um, and
I don't know if you see it the same way that I see it, but I just don't see another way for this to ever be brought up. It's never been brought up in the past, and I don't think that it ever will unless there's an amendment to this, >> Commissioner Hernandez.
>> So, I all kinds of thoughts started going off as as you were speaking. one one of them was I'm not exactly sure that this question
triggers what it is that you're intending. So when I when I just heard you explain it just now and and my understanding of it is if the
council determines that those absences have occurred, right? And the and the council rules that those uh absences have occurred, then they no longer have the discretion to allow that council member to serve.
But what you're trying to fix is getting them to have that conversation and rule. And I don't think this ballot language or this ballot question addresses that whatsoever. That's why I'm moved to to no longer
support it because I think what what you're trying to accomplish by this question is is still up in the air. If the council, if it's still the the the giant elephant in the room and the council still looks around and doesn't
in, you know, decides not to move forward with having this conversation that somebody uncomfortably has to bring up and and start this process that initiation of the process won't
happen. Right? But this but this question doesn't force it to happen. This question only says the somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. This question only changes the fact that once the council has that
conversation doesn't force them to have it once they decide to have it. And if they rule that that the changes are in fact um I'm I'm sorry that the absences are in fact unexcused then they no longer have the discretion of keeping
the council member on there but it doesn't force their hand in having the convers they can they can still choose not to have the conversation and we're back where where we started. Somebody please correct me if if I'm wrong >> that's if if if I may. That's that's not
the way that it was that's not the way that we discussed it. The way that we discussed it was that it would happen by operation of law. So you are absent for three meetings and then that item will be placed on the agenda for the conversation is the way that I understood it.
>> No, no, no. It is I I >> I I'll put it this way. what this motion or the the current pending or the current status of the motion partially accomplishes what you want. But as Commissioner Fernandez
explained, I'm in agreement that it doesn't force the issue. That still is a discretion of either of someone bringing the issue before the council. However, what it does is uh it does fix the aspect of I I think that you kind of allude to that I think is part of the
problem that in the event that there's uh council members that say, "Hey, look, yes, it was it those weren't excused absences, but nonetheless, we're not going to kick you off, it fixes that issue because then they'd have to make a a vote one way or another as to whether or not the reasons for that council
member's absence were constituted good cause." You know, you can't just simply say as like, "No, I was out playing with my kids and now it's the council members and have to decide whether or not that's good cause." If they say, "No, that's not good cause, but we're not going to kick you off." This language would not
allow that. But then it put the the council members in a position of making a determination, hey, look, you know, do you really want to put on the record as to whether or not really bad excuses constitute good cause just to save an individual? But but that individual
would be subject to forfeite >> if they find if the council finds that the that sufficient amount of absences were without good cause. Yes. So maybe maybe I'm not understanding it properly. When it says that a mayor or
council member will be subject to forfeite by operation of law, what what does that >> m you got to read two with three, right? So two says that they're going to be subject to forfeite and what happens what you know the chair is saying is if
she's absent without good cause but what is good cause so then the council and that's why I read three shall be the sole judge of its qualifications if in their qualif if if they decide yeah it's good cause no it's good not good cause they can make that that judgment call.
So since that's not defined, you know, they can always say, "Okay, no, you know what? It wasn't good cause, so keep them on board." >> So if they're if this if this person is now subject to forfeite by operation of law, then the council has to make that decision. How does that happen?
>> They're subject to forfeite by law automatically. But the problem is is that they're subject to forfeite of law if they are absent without good cause. >> So there has to be that finding, >> right? You got to first define was it good cause or not good cause. >> Once the council has determined that the
reasons that is set forth by the council member do not constitute good cause then they're automatically subject to forfeite of their office. There's no question about it at that point. That's what this language does. The removal of this language. Whereas if we keep the
status quo, the council members could find you had missed 15 meetings in a row or 15 meetings at all, found there to be no good cause, but says, "Ah, you know what? I really like you because you vote on my side." And a majority of the
members keep them on the board because we don't care that that doesn't constitute good uh um good cause. They could do that as it currently stands. the council member has that discretion to keep somebody on
regardless of whether or not anyone else felt that it wasn't good cause. They just have to make a determination. H it's good cause, >> right? So, and I definitely understand that. But when when this was originally when we originally spoke about this, the way that I understood it was this would this would happen by operation of law
and then the council could determine if the absences were excused or that they were for good cause then there could be that procedure and then >> right. So then how is this different than what we have right now if nothing is going to change and nothing >> and the council doesn't have to have
that conversation. It takes one piece off, which is this issue of whether they want to deal with it or not. If it's okay, it's not good cause, but we're going to still keep you on and we're not going to bring it up. >> They have to have the conversation in what manner. >> If you're absent, you got to figure out
were they absent for a good cause or were they absent for not good cause. >> But so that conversation has to happen >> is that if is that they don't have to have that conversation even though the charter would >> mandate this. >> They've got to figure out was a person with good cause or not good cause. >> Mr. I think what she's asking is what initiates that conversation to begin
with and I think that what triggers that onto the agenda >> either a member of the of the council bringing that issue up. >> Yes. >> Or anyone else that's authorized to bring up force the council to have that conversation. >> Absolutely. Because again you got to read two with three. So number three says that they can establish what that
good cause is. They can create their own rules for themselves. So it's in that rule making that they can decide okay you know at a after an absence of of a council member at the next meeting you're going to have a a discussion is whether that person was unexcused or
excused. That would be one way that it could be it could be dealt with. >> Mr. Attorney would that be forced onto the agenda? In other words, somebody is have been absent for any reason >> and then there has to be a conversation about the absence. >> Yes. Or it could be done by by virtue of an ordinance. Right. So again, number
two says that the the council is the sole judge of his qualifications, right? So if there so judge of his qualifications if they create their own rules then they create an ordinance let's say or a resolution that says a you know after a council member's absence at the next meeting there shall
be uh a uh a motion to determine whether that person's absence was uh you know >> does anything force the council to put that on the agenda for conversation >> unless that rule exists? No. >> There's your that's the point she's making. Yeah,
>> it can be buried and you wouldn't hear about it. So, how can we change the language or can we change the language to make sure that that discussion is presented to the council in the event of say multiple excused absences? The question is is twofold is can and should
you I I think you probably could we'd have to tinker with the procedures and that have to be all revamped as to you know what what those are uh and we'd have to be even more prescriptive uh than than exist um should again and I go
back to what I said before and it's in the minutes and I'll say it again the council has the power to do this right now by ordinance they can already put it on and create an ordinance that says after in an absence, there shall be a an item presented to the council and decided whether it was for good cause or
not good cause at the end of the day. Right, there has to be that determination of good cause or bad cause. And that again is going to go back to the council. There's not going to be an automatic it was bad cause. If I may >> and real real quick, madame clerk is I
also just wanted to also point out is that you know for the benefit of commissioner is I I believe is you know the electors also have the opportunity to propose ordinances through 5.2. So you know even if the council weren't to take it up you know obviously you'd have to get the signature requirements
um you know to be able to get that. But I think that the the electors do have the authority under the charter to propose ordinances if they feel that the council is not taking it up. So that might be something you know you take up in that sense. You you propose an ordinance saying, "Hey, look, when it happens, the council shall address this
or the town clerk shall report to the council members." And I'm just throwing things out there, you know, that the town clerk shall be responsible for reporting this. And in the event that it does, that the council shall make a determination as to whether or not there's sufficient good cause. And then that would be an ordinance if you get
sufficient members of the electors to bring it up and force it onto the council for as an ordinance. Correct, Mr. Town attorney. >> Yes, that's correct. >> So, there's that possibility there. >> And which again would take months, if not longer, to deal with this. Once
again, should we put something in the town charter so that it's a more immediate effect on the council? That's that's the real question here. >> Real quick, I don't want to convolute the two issues. So that's that keeping in mind. I I know I see you making faces and and and it's a little disturbing. I
continue to make faces when I make comments, but the what we have pending right now is whether we're going to eliminate this where we're going to eliminate what we've previously voted on. We're not here to think of oh what solution we can have that can if we want to come up with that solution and make
another motion. let's first resolve this issue as to whether or not we're going to eliminate this one first because if we're not going to eliminate this this this proposal then there's there's no point in trying to create new ones afterwards. So I that's that's the only point I don't want to have us too many
convoluted issues cuz as we're seeing we are on number ballot question four of 14 plus. Um so I already see that we're most likely going to have another meeting. Um, yes. And we still have to
go back to two. You're correct. Yes. So, >> so not not to continue to beat a dead horse, but this question then is misleading because when it says that you're subject to forfeite by operation of law, to me, it means that if you do not show up here three times, you are no longer a council member or that
conversation has to be had. So, if we're if we go back to >> unless the council wants to bring it up, unless the council member wants to put it on the agenda, then this does absolutely nothing. I I I I disagree with you there because it does say forfeite for unexcused absence. The charter explains what unexcused absence
is. It's by decision of the the council. >> I'm sorry. I guess >> vote yes or no to the language and not to spend a lot of time. I just wanted to state for the record that I think the issue here is not so much the language of this ballot or changing the language
of the charter is something simple. We need we meaning the coun the the current town council needs to define what is good cause and what is an what constitutes being absent because that
was the issue >> where we were at that point is where we were years ago and we could be again if that happens again we don't know what is being absent because as vice chair
guanso started all this conversation You ask a very simple question. What happens when we have an elected official that shows up sits on the deis and after public comments 30 minutes or an hour they walk out for whatever reason. They
could have a very they can go to the hospital. It could be a very but is that person absent or is that person present? as my ministerial duties as a town clerk, that person is not absent even if he or she was in the meeting for 30
minutes because that person was here but the person left early. So I think I think it's essential for the current council to define what is excuse, what is unexcused, what is being absent and
what is being not absent. I think that with a good definition which could be provided in special rules of order, >> it would make our life easier at least by ministerial duties would be accomplished. So with that definition, let's say that the current council
creates an ordinance and defines what an absence is. What happens when a council member is absent per that definition? Let's say that an absence means that you didn't walk in the door, that you just never showed up, and the person is not
here at all for three meetings in a row. With this charter amendment passing, what happens at that moment? >> If if it's if the if it's very clearly defined by ordinance, what is unexcused? And this is then by operational law, the
person is is out of act. That's what it does. >> Well, it depends, right? If they were in the hospital, then that's excuse. >> That's excuse, right? if you're defending with your kids, >> right? So then this >> so that's what but I think what what >> then this does >> the clerk was saying is that the ordinance would need to define that unexcused excused
>> but then the then the question does serve a very valid purpose. >> Let me let me ask a question differently if if I could Mr. Chair >> Mr. attorney. So once those absences occur, right, what is the next step that
has to happen for that to come before the council as it is now? And if this ballot language passes and it's a trick question on purpose, >> I don't think it's a trick question. >> No, it's not at all. I think it's actually pretty straightforward. Yeah, I
I think the the the section number three the the actual procedures are pretty well I I don't think I don't think procedures I think to if I'm understanding Commissioner Fernandez his question is directed to what is the triggering event
that begins the conversation as as to or not the conversation the inquiry the formal inquiry as to whether or not absences will constitute good cause and my interpretation without I don't know whether or not there's been ordinances
or procedures that have been implemented otherwise but I believe it would require either a council member to bring that issue up or by referendum or by initiative by the electors to implement an ordinance that would require either
an automatic trigger or otherwise. But as it stands right now, as I understand it, it would require someone from the council to step up and say, "Hey, look, I'd like to have this addressed as to whether or not these absences of council member X, Y, and Z constitute good cause
pursuant to section 2.5 and and initiate the procedures that the procedures don't just in they don't trigger themselves currently." That >> that's absolutely correct. And again, the way the charter is written is that the the the council is makes their own
rules and makes their own rights and and this reaffirms that. So the the council could very well adopt an ordinance that says uh upon the absence of a council member, there shall be a uh an item placed on
the on the next uh council agenda that is to discuss whether or not there was good cause for said absence. Simple. >> Yeah, Mr. That's it. >> Commissioner Ben and then I'll come to >> just quickly. So when we turn in these questions to our town council, can we include a memo so you know as as to some
things are unresolved of what ordinances they may want to initiate in order to give some body to our to the valid questions. Can we can we include a memo so if they are passed that the uh the uh council can you know initiate an
ordinance to basically establish that type of role? >> Mr. Deputy Town attorney if you you could respond. I I know that we'll be issuing a report together to the town council with regards to this. I don't know if we go into that level of detail in that report or not. I don't believe so. But >> I don't know if anything precludes us
from doing it. But >> nothing precludes you from doing it. You can urge the the town council to take some type of action. They can or they can't depending. There's there's nothing that's inappropriate with that. >> Okay.
>> If you want to make a motion to add that into your report, you can do so. >> Right. Commissioner Fernandez. >> The the second part of my question I I think still remained unanswered and it was kind of the the point that I was trying to make. We clarified that that's the procedure under the the way that the
charter is currently written. Can you confirm that if this ballot question passes that procedure is not changed? Still the same procedure. >> That procedure is not changed which is I think going to Dr. Bennett's point that he wishes to urge the council to adopt
an ordinance to create a procedure. >> Correct. So ba based on the fact that that triggering procedure doesn't happen. I out of all of the questions here don't
think that removing the council's discretion and not addressing the the real underlying issue. I I don't think and mind you this is we we've been talking about this for an hour. We've been up here for 3 months. We're some of the
most civically minded, experienced, educated people in this in this town. And the average voter is going to have about 6 seconds looking at this question. So if if we didn't completely understand it up until a few minutes ago, I can only
imagine what John Q voter is going to do when presented with this. I don't want it in front of them. I don't think it it makes big enough uh of a difference. I don't think it's going to fix the underlying issue that you're you're trying to to fix. I think the underlying
issue that you're trying to fix is a is a worthwhile one. Unfortunately, I think we're we're kind of running out of runway with this with this process. It might be something that, you know, we might, you know, have to ask the the council to deal with in in ordinance. The council can also propose charter
questions. So, that's that's another way. And if they want to beat it up on on their own, they they definitely uh they definitely can. But as it stands right now, I I don't think I can support having this question in front of the voters. Um and I think that's what we
should vote on, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Um I want to really just take this down to moving forward on making a vote. So if unless anyone has any more substantive discussions they'd like like to have as
to the pending motion and the pending motion is madame clerk do you have it written down the actual motion? >> Yes. The motion that we have is motion to reconsider this ballot question together with the language that was deleted and this was a motion by
commission member Fernandez which was seconded by commission member Bennett. Um, >> okay. So, the motion is to reconsider the but we did do it. >> I think it has been reconsidered. >> But
you tell me. >> Yes. >> The roll call or >> one more question. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I have one more question. >> Go for it. >> Procedures where it reads, >> the council shall be the sole judge of the qualifications of its members and
shall hear all questions relating to forfeite. When does the council hear those questions? At what point is that hearing triggered? >> I think again I think I'll answer that. It's the same thing that we've been saying over and over.
>> It's we would the way it's currently written there is no triggering mechanism. >> So can we add >> So it would Well, we would need Yeah, we we could add >> Oh my goodness. Yes, we Yes, we could. Sorry. And I'm only getting because I I I see where we're at. if we're going to
reconsider adding more making other changes, substantive changes to the charter language. Um, and then we have to develop the the questions as well. >> I apologize. I thought that by operation of law was a trigger and I apologize for for my I guess lack of of of legal
jargon knowledge. >> That's to me that was a trigger. And so that's why I was content with the question. >> Can we can we add language that says that this will trigger a hearing? That's it. It's very simple. >> No, no. >> And and don't apologize. You know, it I
completely understand what you're explaining as to what your confusion was in there. It is a trigger, but is a trigger at a different point in time than what you wanted. From what I'm understanding, you wanted a trigger to be on the front end. This is a trigger more on a response after the the the
council has made a determination that there's no good pay. So, it's a trigger, but it's just it's it's the the flow differed from what you were from what you were expecting. So, I completely understand. So, don't apologize for that at all. >> Um, but where we're right now at the pending motion is to reconsider it. So, I think we have to take a motion on this
aspect first. And if you want then to propose another motion to have other language, I'm, you know, I'm I'm all for it uh to allowing our body to make those changes uh as necessary. Yes. Just a point of parliamentary procedure is absolutely if if it if the motion to
reconsider passes then >> it passes and we're going to move on. If it doesn't then you can promise. >> I'm sorry. Could you >> Well, because you said that she could present it afterwards, but if the motion passes that's currently on the table, then she can't.
>> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and call uh on this motion to reconsider. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All against say nay. >> Nay. >> Nay. And
>> yes. Two nos. Correct. >> Yes. All right. Commissioner Ruan. Okay. So, the motion passes. So, the ballot question and the language have been removed. >> Just to clarify, I'm a yes. Right. Excuse me.
>> To clarify, it was a yes, right? >> Yes. It was just me and Commissioner Ruano were the only nos. >> So, if we can make sure the town attorneys have that. So 2.5 uh C2 is going to reinsert the language
that was deleted as to the end of discretion of or B2 I'm sorry not C2.5 B2 forfeiture by absence is reinserting the language in the discretion of the remaining council members that's going to remain and the question will be
removed. Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. The next one is ballot question number five. Filling council vacancies. Shall the town charter be amended to revise vacancy procedures by one revising the procedure for VA filing by
excuse me. Okay. Let me drink a little bit of water. Yes. Shall the town charter be amended to revise vacancy procedures by one, revising the procedure for filling vacancies with less than six months remaining by the mayor nomination within
45 days of council confirmation. Two, requiring a special elections for vacancies with six or more months remaining. Three, providing that if the mayor's office becomes vacant, the vice mayor shall complete the mayor's term, the resulting vacancy shall be filled otherwise provided in the charter.
>> All right. I will make a motion. Oh, and the word count is 74 of 75. We just got to squeeze it in there. And so I'll make a motion to adopt this language. >> Second. >> We have a second. Discussions.
>> Commissioner and then I'll go to Commissioner B. >> Um, couple of questions. I'm going back to what Councilman Hzburg said. Is number one, I'm through the chair to the attorney. Is number one already in the charter? Is it I heard the
councilman say it was repeating what's already in the charter? Just trying to confirm that. >> I I don't believe it it is. I'll go back to >> I believe that it said 30 days instead of 45. Maybe >> correct. >> I can read it. >> Okay. Okay. Read
>> it into the record. >> We're changing. We're going from 30 to 45 days. >> I believe this is how it reads the current charter. Yes. If less than six months remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a
nomination of the mayor made within 30 days 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy subject to confirmation by the council. This is section 2.5
vacancies. C filling of vacancies. A vacancy on the council shall be filled the following. That's one. >> Yeah. Sub Roman one. >> So currently it's 30 days following the
vacancy subject to confirmation by that council. All right. And then number two is let's see that's Roman numeral 2 I um requiring a special election. Currently it's
okay. So this is changing from nomination from the mayor to forcing the special election. >> Correct. >> Okay. Commissioner. >> So I also wanted to address section two and I agree with what Councilman Hersburg said. It makes no sense that
six months, you know. So, I personally would like to make a a motion that we switch a language to say requiring a special election for vacancies with 12 months or more remaining. >> Well, real quick before we we
ask for a second on that is keeping this in mind is that it not only changes that one, but it will also change the first one because right now the mayor does the appointment through six months. It would be a change there in that first portion
to give the mayors for any seats that are up to 12 months if you're going to go forward with that. So, if you're going to do it, I'm just saying it so that way when we take the motion at one time that you make the change to incorporate both changes. That gives the mayor the option to nominate somebody
that has less than 12 months rather than less than 6 months and then for anything that are 12 months or more that it goes to special action. >> I just want to avoid interim motions. later on. >> Yeah. >> If that's what you're and >> right now it's six months or 12 months.
>> Six months. >> Well, right now it's six and six. So, the mayor has the authority to nominate up to for for if there's less than six months of term. And if there's more than six months, it's covered by C2, which is uh more than if six months or more
remain, that goes a special election based on what we had voted. But if you what you're doing is just on the timing aspect you're saying that the mayor has >> right I'm bringing >> to nominate anything for up to 12 months and then 12 months or more would be
special election if I'm understanding what your motion >> Yep. That's right. So I'll go back and I'll do the whole thing. So then revise number one and two. So my motion would be to change the language. It says revising the procedure for filling vacancies with less than a year
remaining by the by mayor nomination within 45 days with council confirmation and requiring a special election for vacancies with 12 or more months remaining. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion an inter motion
and a second. Um any discussion on that change? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Um Fernandez. So, I'm I'm trying to understand it and I I very much was um was listening to Councilman Herzburg's remarks. Um, but I was having trouble
following the the the thought process with the because I I think one of the things that's that's maybe not spelled out here that happens anyway is if that um
so if the mayor was to nominate uh that position, it would still even after that appointment. If more than two years are left on that term, it would still go up to a vote at
the next general election. Right? So, that's that that that's a that's a part of the process that's not necessarily spelled out that that maybe some of some of my colleagues here don't don't understand. Right? So if there's if there's a substantial amount of the term left, then
whether or not the the um >> there's there's an appointment and a and a nomination, it already goes to a to a special election for the remainder of of the term. So you you kind of have that scenario where the vacancy happens
between, you know, almost the the beginning of the term and that two-year term, right? So you could have some sort of of partial term there and then you would have an election that gets triggered after the fact. Then you have
this circumstance that we're carving out where there would be less than six months um remaining in the term and then you would have the appointment and then the the councilman's Herzburg pref Herzburg's
preference is to increase that term from the 6 months that we contemplated before to a year to to accomplish what exactly that's that's the part that I'm that that I'm missing. Um, and through the chair, if if you would indulge me and
let Councilman Herdsburg come up and answer my question. >> I welcome Councilman Herszburg. Right before you go, if uh the town attorney, I just wanted to ask you on that on that aspect. I was I saw you nodding um so I didn't know that aspect that he was talking about about the two years. >> Yeah, there is there is a difference between the two years and the less. So,
but this is not what that's addressing, so that's not going to be in the question. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, what is can you explain that real quick? What that two-year Yeah. So it's just a different process. You want a minute, Mr. Town attorney? >> Yeah. Okay. So, go ahead, commissioner,
councilman. >> No, I've got bill. All right. So, sorry, because I was reading about the two years. It's really it's it's the six months that triggers it. So if less than 6 months remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by nomination of the mayor made within 30 days. So we're changing this from 30 days to 45 days. Then if 6 months or
more remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by nomination of the mayor made within 30 days following the occurrence of the vacancy subject to confirmation by the council, the nominee shall fill that vacancy until the next regularly scheduled election as described in article 5, at which time an election shall be held to fill in the
vacancy. So that's that's a the triggering point is the six years the six months. So I guess what you're talking about is it expanding that six months to one year, >> right? So again, personally, I don't necessarily have a big issue with the way it works right now. Um, but if I
think it's it's a decent question to ask the qu the only issue I have is 6 months is a very short amount of time. So, someone correct me if I'm wrong on the math, but if someone if the seat becomes vacant with six months in one day and the term is coming
up in six months, that means we're having a general election in in six months. So, you're going to have a special election for someone to fill a term or three months if you're lucky. Maybe special elections take 60 days minimum. Last one, it took at least 90 days. So, you're going to have a special
election to have someone the seat will remain vacant for for 60 days. Let's just say it happens really fast. The seat will remain vacant for 60 days and then someone will fill it for four for the remaining four months. So you're going to have a special election to fill a four-month term. I think 12 months is
is a good barrier because it will take at least 60 to 90 days to set the special election has to come before the council. Council needs to approve it. Supervised elections. I I don't even know if it needs two readings. I don't think it does. But um that's that's the concern is that six months will because
remember there's no discretion. If the charter says you must go to special election, that's it. So the council will have a meeting. The meeting might happen to you a month after the vacancy. So now you got five months to fill a term when the vacancy actually occurred with when there's six months in one day. So that's the only issue. I think it's a good
question. It's not a bad question to ask on the ballot. It's just a matter of whether six months is a proper period of time or 12 months makes more sense because then if you're at 12 months, even if a three-month period of getting to special election, you still got nine months of a of a term for the special
election, right? The person will sit there for at least nine months, not potentially three months. That's why that that's really the only thing about it. >> And if the math isn't working, maybe I'm I'm wrong, but that's the way I think it works. >> Right. Does anybody have any other questions for Commissioner Councilman
Council member Fersburg? >> Great. Thank you very much. All right. Any other further discussion on the motion? >> All right. All right. So, we have the interim motion to amend the ballot summary to
extend from uh to replace six months with 12 months. Is that correct? Uh so uh no further discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. So now we're back on the main
motion from the main ballot summary as read. Uh replacing the 6 months with the 12 months. Any further discussion on the main ballot. Right. Seeing none. Uh all in favor say I. I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? No. The motion passes. with the as as amended. >> Remember, it's on both number one and two uh for the attorneys. >> All right, we're going now to >> Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, can I we go
back to ballot question number two? >> You want number two? Yes. >> Yeah. Before we >> I had a little sticky note to remind us to go back to number two >> because after that then we're going to question 14 15. We're leaprogging. >> Sure. All right. >> Back to question number two. Ballot question number two. Shall the town
charter be amended to provide that one, the term of office of all elected officials elected at a general election shall commence at 12:00 noon on the second Tuesday of January following the general election semicolon. And number two, effective for the general election
to be held in November 2028, the council shall elect one of its members as vice mayor at the first January regular council meeting and each year there and each year thereafter. This would be 72 words. Isn't that what's there now? I'm sorry.
Did I read or >> Can you read Can you read it one more time? >> Sure. >> No. >> Shall >> Sure. >> And just through number one. You don't have to read after number two, but just if you could read that number one cuz I >> the number one. Sure. So, shall the town
charter be amended to provide that the term of office of all elected officials elected at a general election shall commence at 12:00 noon on the second Tuesday of January following the general election. And quick question,
>> and I hate to be I I don't want to be hyper technical, but how does that how does that take into account runoffs? >> Well, general election and or runoff. >> Can we just add that? >> Yes. But if you have a general election, the general election will include once the
runoff has concluded. Okay. >> Yeah. If you don't achieve >> I'm fine with that. I just don't want >> it continues. >> If you have a runoff, the general conclude election hasn't concluded. It doesn't conclude until the runoff results are are are presented
>> because it hasn't been certified. Is >> that means if we read it correctly, it >> hasn't been certified. >> We had a general election in November 3rd. We don't have a winner. they go to the runoff. If it gets approved, I think the language proposed is the second Tuesday
of December. Once that runoff >> is concluded, the term of that elected person will start the second Tuesday of January. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay.
Any further disc? Go ahead, Commissioner. that that modification was was my request and I'm more than pleased. >> So, would you like to make the motion to adopt? >> I would like to to uh I I think there was already a motion to adopt, but I'll I'll make and I move to adopt it and and
uh wish to extend my gratitude to the deputy town attorney for uh adding such valuable language and vice >> I'll second it. Second from Commissioner Bennett. All right. Any further discussion on
number two? All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> We have Commissioner Abod walking back in voting. >> Uh any opposed? Motion passes. So number two is voted as amended.
Okay. >> Oh, I thought you had something. Okay. So, now we're back to >> number six. So, this one we're voting on as to wording. Uh, Mr. Town attorney, if you want to just go through the wording. >> Yes.
>> We had requested some uh changes in the wording at the last meeting. >> Six. >> Okay. So, number six, I'm not sure if there's any changes to number six, but I I can read it. This is a two-term lifetime limit for mayor and council members.
>> Sorry. I thought we had already I thought we had already approved this one. No, >> is I have here is >> because number six was the old number four >> and that had already been voted on. >> The new well the new the one that you're looking at ballot question that's listed
as on our chart as number six is a two-term life limit for mayor and council members, >> right? >> Is we had made several changes to the language and you were coming back with that language. Okay. >> So, this was just capturing everything. I just want to make sure everybody was fine. >> Sure.
>> Language because it it it varied from the language that was initially proposed back then. >> Okay. Shall the town charter be amended to limit the mayor and the members of the council to two no to to no more than two little number two terms in each
office during their lifetime and in uh parenthesis rather than two consecutive terms in parenthesis comma with terms as council member and mayor counted separately. provided that service exceeding two years of an unexpired term
counts as a term and apply these limits retroactively such that prior terms count towards a two-year term limit the two-term limit. >> So I'll make a motion to approve the language. >> Second. All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion passes. Approved. All right. Now ballot question >> 14 >> seven. Yeah, that one again is I I just went through the minutes and these were ones that we had made motions to modify
language. Uh and so this is I just want to make sure that we've captured the the approval on these. >> So this is reduction of council members from six to four members. Shall the town council be amended to reduce the number of council members from six council members to four council members by one
electing the council member to seat five in 2028 to a two-year term, after which seat 5 shall be abolished in 2030, semicolon, and two, abolishing seat six upon expiration of the current term in 2030 with no further election for seat number six. >> I'll make the motion to adopt the
language. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? S >> just quick, I seem to recall that I think it was Commissioner Rono that mentioned it, but the numbers, didn't we say that six council members to four council members should be spelled out so
it's not to confuse it was the other way around? >> Yes. Okay. All right. >> Yeah, because for me, I'm the opposite. I'd rather they be spelled out than the numbers, but what? No. >> Yes. Cuz she didn't want to have the confusion that I remember that. >> So, all right. All any no further
discussion. Anybody? you don't have to say something on this again and this is going to be our last chance to speak on it anyway. So, so, so once again, this is I think this has been the most controversial item that we've or the most discussed item. Every person that stood up there, I
believe there was only one person in favor of making a change. Uh, I'm still concerned about the way the item came up. You know, I still don't know if it came from the council, Councilman Fernandez, or town staff that couldn't even be cleared up. when we asked about
it last time. I obviously can now make a motion to to move the the you know to remove the question because I was on the losing end. Again, listen, if we're going to listen to the people, I think the majority of the people who have spoken have agreed to stay with the six members and I would hope that one of you
guys who voted in favor considers. >> Right. So the any other discussion on the approval of the language? Um, once again on principal I'm going to I'm going to say no just strictly on principal. So >> understood. Any further discussion?
Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> We have two nos from Commissioner Bennett and Commissioner Abad. Madame Clerk. All right. Now we're on to question number eight. This was a matter that was
tabled I believe. Oh no, this one wasn't tabled. Sorry, my apologies. You have that correct, right? This was already voted on. >> All right. Yes. Question number eight, the one on the election procedure.
That one was I was just going back to the minutes. I had uh taken the wrong notes on to number eight. This is the one where >> Mr. Chairman >> I did not. Hold on one second. >> It's permissible.
>> Oh, wait. No, we did table this one. This was the one to table. My apologies. Uh this was where Vice Chairman Guanzo had asked for clarification on the runoff language. And yes, and so we rewarded this one at
the suggestion of uh assistant town attorney Castillia that they would bring back language on what was voted on regarding the runoff and this was tabled. So this is the language that was proposed. If you could read it, Mr. Town attorney. Certainly
election procedure November general election with December runoff. Shall the town charter be amended so that one the general election shall be held in November of each even numbered year concurrent with the US congressional elections? Two, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, a runoff votes between the top two candidates
shall be held the second Tuesday of December. Three, the 21day runoff period is repealed. And four, the council shall hold no meetings between election and swearing in except for emergencies. This is exactly 75 words. >> I'll move it.
>> All right. I'll second. >> We have a second. Any discussion on the language? >> All right. See, >> chair, I'm so sorry. I do. I'm just I'm trying to find it, but um if the attorney can help me like currently, where does it say when the general election takes place in November? So, I
know it used to be October and then we there was >> the general election shall be held in November. >> No, no, I'm sorry. currently in the current language in the current >> I'm in section 2.3 under election >> like how do we know that our elections are in November where does it say that in the charter
>> if I may it's in section five currently right >> yes >> 5.1 elections >> 5.1 >> letter C >> thank you >> a general election shall be held in even numbered years on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November
mber. Provided, however, that it is in the intent of this charter that the town election always be scheduled to coincide with a countywide election and it keeps going on. >> It's a long, >> right? The reason because I I recall
Councilman Hzburg comment about this item being redundant because that's already the case, right? So, Mr. Attorney, if you can just help me out like what's different about what we're proposing than what's currently in the charter? Well, I I think what's important here that's that's different and based on your discussion uh was the
fact that it we were having the issue that we're running into the Thanksgiving holiday. >> No, I'm sorry. I'm on number one only. >> Not the runoff period, just the general election. So number one talks about the general election shall be on the first Tuesday. >> That's not changing.
>> We rewrote the entire section. >> Okay. So that's what the new section provides. >> Yeah. I mean it's you're right. it can do without if you want to remove it. >> There's no concern with that. So because anybody that reads that is going to say, "Yeah, of course I support first Tuesday of November." But that's already the
case. So we're asking a question that's irrelevant because it's already the case. True. I just feel that that's almost it almost takes away and believe me I'm supportive of everything that follows but it almost makes the question like yeah support the first Tuesday so you
know it's it's almost it's a little misleading to me because number one to me is already the case unless I'm mistaken >> I don't have the current language before me no it's it it says the first Monday current amended language current that we
approved that's what I don't have sorry No, as what what we've have proposed. >> Yeah. And and I only say this obviously it's not a big deal. Well, it is, but I only say it because we're trying to address the voter fatigue, right? I mean, there's a lot of questions. So, the simpler the question, the more
likely it is that somebody's going to really focus on it and vote on it. >> Understood. So, would you like it to be amended to say, shall the town charter be amended so that if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes? Start there. I >> if if I may, Mr. Mr. Chair. So there's I
I think you need a little bit of of the context that one provides. Maybe not a full restatement of it, but I I I do think you need to take a little snippet of one and then maybe grab that and add it to the to the language of two and
make one sentence out of that that >> something to the effect of if in a general election no candidate receives more than 50% vote to run off. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. And keep in mind is that now it's concurrently with the countywide elections versus the US congressional elections. But that's not really
substantive one way or another. I don't believe so. Not too much. But >> so do you want an opportunity? We'll just hold off on this question and give you guys an chance to reward it as >> I mean I think I think the the rewarding could be as simple as what was just suggested. Amended so that if in a
general election no candidate receives more than 50%. Then go from there. The important question here is we're moving the runoff, >> correct? >> The Tuesday before Thanksgiving to that first Tuesday or I'm sorry, that second Tuesday in December. >> Great. And we're repealing the 21-day
runoff period. >> Do we need to make a motion to amend that language? >> You do. Yes. >> All right. So, I'm going to make the motion to amend the language to strike number one and replace it with if in a general election, no candidate
receives more than and pick up or number two. provides for that language. Second. >> All right. Any We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Attorneys, you guys have the just the language of what we need. >> I do.
>> Okay. Uh in no further discussion, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. >> All right. We'll go to question, >> I think. So, is that item done or do we need to come back to it? >> Yes, you have to have vote on the on the main motion as amended. Right. >> Oh, my apologies. I was trying to move
forward too quickly. >> All right. So, as to the main motion now as amended, uh, thank you very much again, both vice chairman and town attorney, the clerk is uh any further discussion on the main motion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I. >> Any opposed? The motion passes in full. >> Making progress. >> Nine. Yes, correct. Nine is there's we do not need a vote. That was already
passed. >> Now we're at number question, ballot question number 10. Uh this was language that we had asked for to for the chair to or the town attorneys to come back with. Uh Mr. town attorney if you could read it into the record.
>> It says um administrative updates, town manager removal, acting manager and town committees. Shall the CH town charter be amended to one comprehensively revise a procedure for designating acting town manager during the town manager's temporary absence or disability, including notice and reporting
requirements, and provide that the council may establish or terminate town committees as it deems advisable. >> All right. Any I'll make a motion to adopt the language as present. >> You have a second. Any discussion? >> I do have a discussion and again I hate
to raise this but I'm I'm never a fan of a question that really asks two different questions, right? Because this question is asking the first part addresses the issue of the manager designating an acting manager, right? But then the second question is has
nothing to do with the manager and it's asking if the council may establish to terminate town committees if it deems advisable. So I may be supportive of number one but not of number two. So now I don't have a choice because I'm being asked two different questions. And
believe me I'm not proposing any additional questions. I think we're trying to do the opposite. >> Yeah. >> I just feel like it's a disservice. >> Sure. >> Bundle two different question. I I can tell you when we had this discussion, it was at the request to try to consolidate questions >> and so this was one where we had extra
word count, I believe, if I remember from the town attorneys. >> Um, so >> yeah, Mr. Chair, I I that that's the compound question problem that I raised last several meetings >> because like I said, it's two separate issues to be voted on and then you're
split down the middle. So I guess you you refuse to do both. I don't know how you would approach this. Sorry. Are you having a motion to then to split it off and add another question to >> Well, I was going to have the vice chairman make his um his proposal
because I understand what he's saying. I'm just kind of nodding his way to let him know that this is a compound question and I have an issue with it. But as far as change, I'll I'll allow him to uh make any suggestion. >> M Mr. chair before the vice chair commissioner
>> asked this question. >> I I don't understand section two provide that the council may establish or terminate town committees as it deems advisable. Isn't that the case already now? >> Yes, that language trying to recall where we pulled that
from Mr. Town attorney. I >> I know we consolidated that from another section >> because I I do kind of thinking about it agree. I mean the mayor is the one that creates the
council subject to council approval but the council can >> committees. Yeah. >> Yeah. The committees but but the council can they can't establish the mayor only can establish. So that would be the change,
but they can terminate. >> It's awkward in this question. Um, and there's only, I think, one other question that addresses committees, and that has to do with the mayor putting the council person on on the committee. I think it's 12.
And it doesn't fit there either. Am I right? about that. >> You're right. I think it fits in 12 more. There's just no words. We're We're at 74 75. So I
don't think it can >> Yeah, just so you so I'm I'm just looking at what we considered at the last meeting. Uh they were all combined. This was actually one that we didn't combine questions. So I I I take that back. Um rather it was just a rewarding
of the entire question. Um and that's what we did. They were both they were both combined the last time. There was actually three sections here in the last in the last
version and now we it's combined down into two. >> You're still on number 10, correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. Right. >> If I can through the chair to the town attorney. >> Sure. >> The um committees were formed by
resolution originally. Are they not by resolution currently? They are, but they have to be com created through the mayor. The mayor is the one that gets to create it uh through the charter um committees. >> Okay.
>> So, Mr. Sure. So then I think we're all having like >> a difficult time kind of recalling how we got here to this question, but is it was our conversation if someone recalls the discussion was in addition to the mayor allowing the council obviously to
have a say? the the issue in this one was the may versus shall >> may >> this was may that's why I'm I'm reading back on here in my notes is provide that the council may establish versus shall
establish and that's the incorporation of that language >> because that's council now has the power >> right now the language shall establish >> the council >> yes and this was this long discussion that we had regarding okay versus may versus shall Oh boy.
>> Yes. >> And that's the same for the mayor, right? So the mayor right now currently >> Yeah. It doesn't change anything other than whether it's just the words may and shall. That was the removal and it was incorporating >> the change of the use of word of the instead of using shall to use the word
may. And I'm so sorry to ask this because perhaps it does fit in number 12, but does it currently say the mayor and council shall? >> I don't know >> because if it does say the mayor with council then it would fit in number 12
better. I think >> 12 doesn't have space. >> Ah well >> that's a 74 words. I mean what I really read is that the mayor may create subject to council approval. >> The problem is is right now the way that
the charter reads is that it says that the mayor may create subject to council approval committees of the council which may include non-ouncil members. So the the mayor is the one that creates the the committees not not the council. So I think we're trying to
even it >> and can they terminate? Well, that's in 12. That's 12. >> But 10. Question two is just the may versus shall issue. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Chair. Question of the attorney. Can
this be taken care of by ordinance or resolution? >> This section? No, because this is changing language, specific language in the charter, >> existing language. >> And I'm sorry, Mr. Where is that in the current charter?
>> Um 2.2 2.2 >> 2.2 A >> letter number two. The mayor may create subject to council approval committees of the council which may include
non-ouncil members and goes on. >> No, I I don't >> Yeah, we're talking about the council. Where does it give the power to the council right now? It doesn't. >> No, hold on one second. And this was a different section.
>> Yeah, it's different than what the chair's recollection because he's his recollection is that the council has that the council shall currently and we're changing it to may. So, we need to find in the charter that gives the power to the council.
Vice Mayor Council. >> Do you know, Mr. Attorney, where that gives that power to the council currently? >> It it doesn't. The the council doesn't have the power. >> Brand new language then? >> It would seem so. Yes. >> It's not existing language in the charter file. No.
Well, then Commissioner Bennett's point may be a valid one. Again, I don't really recall what we were trying to I mean, I do know what we're trying to do. I just I don't recall the conversation,
but if it's not changing the language in the charter as the chair believes it is, then >> there's flexibility. >> And I'm going by what was in the question on the last one? Could it be that
>> the the original language that was provided last one is provide that the council may rather than shall establish terminate town boards and agencies as it deems advisable. >> So could it be that what we were talking >> that was that was the language that was in the last one that we were asking the town attorneys to revise that's what I'm going off
>> but could it be then what we were trying to do was to give the power to the council in addition to the mayor. It sounds like that's what we did. >> Yeah. This was a from the town from one of from the notes here it says is a February 12th meeting this was decided
on >> Mr. Chair um we removed uh question four I believe from recommendation to the council can we since we removed one question without we could add a new another question or at least clarify what we want in this question by
bifurcating this into clear language. Yeah, I think we first let's find out what the reason was and then I think >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Mr. >> for a minute. I'll be right back. >> Sure. All right.
Commission for next. Excuse what am I doing? I'm trying to look at the see of the reason why >> we're wait. >> We're waiting. We're trying We're trying to get clarification as to why we precipitated this question right here so we can address it. >> Chair, can it be 3.9
town boards and agencies that it currently reads, "The council shall establish or terminate such boards and agencies as it may deem advisor. From time to time, the boards and agencies
shall report to the council. >> I'm sorry. >> And and just for a matter for the record, uh this motion was made by commission member Bennett. >> Commission member >> Bennett. >> Oh, >> so yes. >> I'm so sorry, Madam Cler.
>> This was your motion that was voted on. It was unanimously. I'm looking at the notes. >> I'm so sorry. Where is that? >> 3.9. >> 3.9. Okay. So it is in the charter. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> 3.9 >> and there's very little discussion on
it. Correct. Yeah. 3.9. It was just changing the words from shall to may. The council may establish or terminate such boards or agencies as it may deem advisable from time to time. The board and agencies shall report to the council. So
I was just changing the may the shout to the may in 3.9. >> So So can I ask a question though about it? >> Right. I have it as commission member Fernandez. >> Well, I'm looking at the minutes that were approved 3.9. >> Me too.
>> Um >> Oh, I have them under February 12th. The minutes >> Well, February 12th, >> right? Or >> it was a February 12th meeting. The minutes were addressed on the February 26 meeting
>> under 12 minutes. >> Yeah. Um, >> under section 3.9, I have Commission Member Fernandez made a motion for the word shall to be removed and for the word may to be replaced and the motion was seconded >> by Commission Member Abad and the motion
passed unanimously. >> Mr. Chair, there was a modification in the minutes. I brought it to the attendance. Is that what it was? >> Yes. of the >> So there was second by commissioner. Okay. Okay. Yeah, because I'm looking at then this version. >> Oh, >> then there wasn't Yes, there was a modification we did. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Not in the version. I'm just looking at the what the agenda from February 26th. >> Yes, we did make a >> So I guess we amended it the subsequent meeting >> 3.9. So, in the interest of trying to resolve the issue, it sounds like it was a
unanimous vote, right? So, I think we were all of course supportive of it because you want to give the council the ability to not force them to do something, but um is it a I I guess I'm making a proposal that to reconsider
including this question as a change to the charter. Um, >> and the >> I'll rely on the attorneys really. I mean, may shall deputy attorney, I'll ask you is I mean, is there really a legal difference
between may and shall? >> Well, there's I think this is one of those points that we debated quite a bit. Um, in another question because there was actually I'm I'm just looking there was very very there was no debate in this one as said this. The other one was yes.
>> No, no, but there was questions. >> We went into extensive debate on May and Chelle in another section, but just not in this section. >> None of this section, right? Well, I just remember Bay Shelby conversation at some point. So, I mean, I'm not sure that it really makes a whole lot of
difference here. But I I am going to bring up another point that I was that that just occurred to me that I'm not sure makes a lot of sense and it's it's something that again as we're looking at this and we're thinking
about the decisions we've made and where these are in different sections of of the code. So section 3.9 definitely deals with you know boards and agencies. So, these are your town councils. U I'm sorry. These are these are like your elderly affairs committee. These are your
economic development committee. So on and so forth. But one thing that I think there was a little bit of confusion on and I'll admit I was I think confused too because I don't think we've ever used it. Um and it's where the mayor may
create subject to council approval committees of the council. And I'm going to tell you why is that interchangeably this section has been used with the other section where I I don't think that that's been correct because the the charter already provides that the boards can be created through council approval
and don't require the town. So I believe that where this section 2.2 is talking about committees of the council are committees for the council to meet outside of the regular boards and convene. So, that being the case, and
I'm just I'm reading this again, I think that we can clean some of this language up if you all agree. So, in question, Mr. Chair, may I ask a question while he >> Yes. >> Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not the chair. You're the chair?
>> No, that's I'm just curious. Can you give me an example of what a committee of the council is? Like are there any that >> it just hasn't been used? >> I can't think of >> elderly affairs is not a committee of the council. >> No, it would be an agency. It would be a
board. >> A board town board 3.9. And >> so 2.2 to would be if I'm what I'm assuming is they the committee creates or the council creates a committee and just trying to think of it to review
applications for town for a position for the town manager >> Mr. town attorney at something like is be they they create a committee to review some qualifications or something that it's going to that they want to address but they want to have hey look can you guys look at this a little bit
outside of our council meetings >> correct change the change that we made there because of that >> let let me give you an example of one that just occurs to me right now let's assume right now for argument sake that the council is
considering uh adopt moving away from the sheriff and they want their own police department. They say, "You know what? We need to beat this up a little bit more. Let's meet in committee to further discuss this and let's have several sessions so we can figure out if we want to do this." So, you create a committee
of the council. >> So, and >> that can include non-consil members, which is why that 2.2 is written the way it is. >> Yes. >> Which we >> But we've never really used it that way >> inappropriately. >> I'm having a Eureka moment. >> Excuse me. We're all having a Eureka
moment. Well, the mayor has made ad hoc committees. I mean, we have established adhoc committees. >> I see that. >> Yeah. >> Years ago, >> but they're not committees of the council. That's what I think that that's what the the town attorney is getting. >> I understand. I'm just trying to say that. Yeah. I mean, that would have been
guessing. >> Years ago, there was a committee, a group that was formed um to address issues that were happening on Main Street >> that was formed. You remember that? there was a issue there and there was a safety let's for lack of a better word
there was a safety committee that was created for that and wouldn't an ad hoc committee be considered there have been a number of those your 20 10 year anniversary um you know was that a committee >> might have right I'm just saying they
they said that it never happened yes of course they've happened yeah >> try Sure. >> For how long? So, yes, there have been. >> Um, all right. There was a Christmas um, we'll call it a riot over on Main Street
by the theater and it raised a lot of questions if you remember takeovers now. >> Yeah. Something like that. Vice >> Vice Chairman Inguanda. Yeah. Go ahead. >> So, Mr. Attorney, I'm going to go back to you because my question was in your opinion is the change of the council
shall establish to the council may establish in your opinion important enough that we should ask a question on the ballot. >> Probably not. >> All right. So, I'm going to make a motion. I was on the prevailing side, but we should confirm that. Okay, good.
>> All right. I'm going to make a motion to um amend question 10 to strike number two in the current question >> and second and the >> concur and the correlative
edits to section 3.9. >> Yes. Thank you. >> And that's the motion. >> Yes. >> All right. Did there second? >> I second it. >> Second from Commissioner Bennett. Any further discussion? >> Just just a little bit. Should we have this language somehow incorporated into
ballot question 12 somehow just reworking that or just eliminate it completely? That that's the only question I have. >> Point of parliamentary parliamentary procedure. I would deal with them separately. So once we get to 12 then we can bring that up.
>> I I'm I'm agreeing with you. I think we we need to Yes. >> All right. So to strike so the motion right now is to strike this number two together with the change that was then done in 3.9 changing from shall to may
any further discussion seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. So we're reverting 3.9 and striking. Now back on to the main motion for the main question. Um it
would also I think by operation it would just also take off the number number one. So all it is is going to be uh shall the town charter be amended to comprehensively revise the procedure for designating and acting town manager
during the town manager's absence or disability including notice and reporting requirements. I'm going to uh that would be the ballot summary. I'm going to make a motion to also delete from the ballot title uh to revise the
ballot title to read administrative updates semicol or colon tone town manager removal and acting manager and striking the rest of the current written ballot title. >> Second. >> Any discussion on that revision?
>> Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Now on to the main motion with the corrected ballot title and the corrected summary. Ballot summary. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? >> Motion passes. All right. Now let's do this. I would like to first let's you know well all right before we go on with the
questions I think we need to address this other issue that just got raised in regards to the language 2.2 which is the which is cor which is resulting from what the town attorney was just talking about is in 2.2 to
section A2. We had deleted uh that that section reads the mayor may create subject to council approval in committees of the council which and we had modifi had read may include non-counsel members. We had deleted it and modified that sentence so it read
shall not include members of the council. That would be incorrect based on this new yes >> understanding or the the it's not a new understanding the correct understanding of what this provision was for. >> Correct. >> And let me see do we have a ballot
question? >> Mr. Mr. Chair I think that that can be accomplished by in ballot question number 12 just deleting number one providing that committees of the council shall not include members of the council and then the rest can remain as is. >> Correct. And I and I think we may have
found a landing spot for uh the language that was in question 10 section two previously and all of its underlying little may and shall friends. We can now insert that in one in 121.
>> I I mean you just voted a minute ago that you didn't find that it was important to put on the ballot, but if you want to rework that and rethink that. We removed it from 10 but >> well we removed it from 10 and we also removed the change that we had done in 3.9. >> Correct.
>> We reverted it. So we would have to redo the change that we just undid >> and put it into question 12. >> Yeah. >> Right. That was my question that if we could incorporate it. You say was I was parliamentary procedure was incorrect. So it has to be done. >> Yeah. Well we can do it subsequently but
the motion was to remove it from question 10 but also to change the underlying lynch. >> All right. So we can we can read add it in if we want to. >> Yes. So I I would like to make a motion to eliminate first of all. Are we on 12? Did we skip over 11? >> Well, number 11. It was we don't require
a vote cuz that was passed. >> Okay. All right. Perfect. >> So we're on 12. >> Perfect. So I would like to make a motion to eliminate >> Well, there's no remember there's real quick is that there is no motion as to 12 yet for the language. So we don't have to modify we don't have to modify
the language. I think we just read in the language that we want to have. >> Okay. So, I would like to make a motion to approve the ballot language stated in question 12 with the following modifications. Um, and that would be to
replace section one with the words provide the section provide that the council may establish or terminate town committees as it deems advisable. just um
>> and then also reinstating the language that pertain to it. >> So, >> in section 2.2, yeah, >> just in reading it, I just before we take a second on it because I just want to make sure we get the the motion correctly. Um, this one is for mayor's duties, but 3.9 considers the council's
duties. It's a it's a duty of the council. So, they'd be two separate type of issues. I think we can, you know, if we want to modify the ballot title to be rather than mayor's duties and just have it more general, but I think we'd have to revise a little bit of the ballot summary language to include that
language. >> You see what I'm saying? >> Yeah, I sorry my mic was off. Um I absolutely mayor and council's duties. It it does include committees intergovernmental rel. So committees is is already kind of
addressed there. There is there is a nexus, but I'm I'm more than happy to include mayor and council tutties. >> I I'll add that to my already motion flowing in progress. That doesn't have a
second yet, but >> okay, let's make sure we get it. >> I'll second it. >> Mayors and council's duties would be the ballot title committees intergovernment relations and annual address. I think that's sufficient and it doesn't look like it's going to go over the word count. That's a problem. And then so be shall
the town try to be amended to I think one revise the town and mayor's or the mayor's powers and duties by clarifying the mayor's role in representing the town does not preclude and requiring and then taking out those two and threes and
then after what's currently there obviously taking off what's number one >> completely and going straight to clarifying And then following the adoption of the budget process I think and then and two
revise the council's >> no because it's just the council the council I think includes we're short on I I don't know how many words we're going to get to there. Um, and then incorporating that question from 10, the language from 10. >> And it was in it, it was my intent in
that motion to include uh the underlying charter language that was previously associated with that. The the only thing I would add is to make it shorter and I think it would work is you can start with shall the
town charter be amended to revise the mayor's powers and duties uh by clarifying you know number two and number three and then add as as so number two would become number one number three would become number two and then three provided the the the council may establish or terminate town committees
period >> then it would work can you draft up can you draft up language to that extent So we can read it all together and make sure they're wording the numbering. >> I I just did the numbering. It'll come out to to 71. >> Okay. So can you read it? >> Yeah. Perfect. >> Shall the town charter be amended to
revise the mayor's powers and duties by clarifying that the mayor's role representing the town does not preclude administration and staff from communicating with other governmental entities and requiring the mayor to present an annual state of the town address with a town's budget. continuing
through the regular budget adoption process and provide that the council may establish a terminate town committees. Period. >> Okay. And that's within the 75. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh I'll make motion. Make a
motion language. >> I'll second. >> You have the second. Uh any further discussion on that adopted language? Uh all in favor say I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none. And then together with that, since we're removing
that, we just uh I'll make the motion to uh the language in section 2.2A2 to revert it uh to uh revert it back to the language as stated. Um the changes that were made that shall not include
members of the council to revert it back. That's the motion. Is there a second? >> Second. All right. Any further any discussion on that? All right. Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? The motion passes. The
motion town attorneys, you got that to revert that language back to red light. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Perfect. Now we're on to question. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> I'm so sorry. Before you go to 13, can we go back to 11 real quick? >> I just wanted to clarif we we passed
this at the last meeting. >> Yes, that wasn't passed as I remember. Um, man, I >> go back to the >> Can't imagine I supported this because I can assure you I don't even know what proportional threshold is. I don't know that you're what do you call the average
voter? >> John Q. >> John Q. >> What do we mean by proportional threshold? What does that mean? >> One second. Let me go back to >> right >> like seven to five to five reducing all of those I said going to five to seven
to 2/3 was the change. >> I I don't know that anybody I don't know what this means to be honest with you. I I would skip this question because I don't know what how to I don't know what to say. >> So you're proposing just defining proportional thresholds.
>> I that would help. >> Got plenty of letters though. >> Sure. Yeah. We're less than 20 words. >> All right. >> One second. >> Hold on. I have I have an idea. Paul, wasn't this this was included in another ballot question and we pulled it out?
>> Could be. >> Or or I faintly remembered asking to combine it, >> right? You asked to combine it, but there's >> and I'm so sorry I have to ask this because I can't imagine I would have voted for this. Can So, we voted for this at the last meeting.
>> No, this was voted on. >> I'm looking. You know that we have >> I'm looking I'm looking for the minutes because I do remember you stating exactly where you're stating now. >> Yeah. >> That you didn't understand. >> That's why I know I wouldn't have voted for this. But >> ballot question number nine >> I think split up nine.
>> It was part of nine before. So it became its own question now. >> Mhm. >> Well because some of them split. So >> right >> question nine became the 11. >> Yeah. No, that I recall. I recall was part of there was a lot in what was nine
and we said, "Hey, it's compounded to fabricate." But >> I don't know that we voted on this because I think >> honestly if we did then let's figure out
a way to define proportionate threshold. If I may, um, in the question where we where we in the question that asked the voter whether they want to reduce the council. >> Mhm. >> It's only 61 words. Can this be
incorporated into that question because it's all part of the same this language has to be amended only if this question passes. >> And I could have sworn that I made a motion to that effect last meeting.
So it's 20 words. The other one's 60 one >> 61. >> Yeah. Which go over is that >> Marilyn? Which ballot question is >> number seven right now? >> I couldn't find it. There we go. Okay, cool. Yeah, I would definitely support that
and I think it would make much more sense there and put it in context and that I think would be much easier for people to understand what that is. The problems we'd go over, I mean, we'd be at 81 words 19. >> Well, we don't have to add the shall the
town charter amend like we can eliminate all of that and just speak to the proportional thresholds. We use too many people. That would be the legal change. >> Shall the number of council members be reduced by public? >> I think those are the six words.
>> Shall be a town charter be amended. Redundant. >> Yeah, that's seven words actually. Anyway, okay. So, did you make a motion? >> Repeat the motion. >> Yeah. If you're making one, repeat it
because I don't think the tongue clerk has it either. >> If I if I if I made through the chair to uh the attorney, how would we go about amending? >> Okay. So, you're going to add this? >> I'm going to make a motion to amend question number seven. >> Right. We have to reopen seven to be
able to incorporate this language. Right. >> Not exactly. Let's let's go step by step. So, you you want to what's what is it that you want to do? You want to put this language number 11. Mr. Chair, may I ask a question to attorney? >> Sure.
>> Can you explain what this does exactly? What number 11 does? What does it mean that we'll update the council voting and meeting requirements by modifying the proportional thresholds? What does that mean? >> We wanted to change from the way that it
was. I think it's fraction to numbers. >> It said number. It said from four to four. It had a specific number of council members. Right. But given the possibility that >> so the other way around to move it to two/3s. >> So this is new language, right? It's not currently in the charter.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Currently in the charter has a number of of of council members. I think what councilwoman Ronaldo is is saying is since we're deleting council members to put that >> and proportional thresholds means
explain it one more time. fractional. We can we can use the word fractional if you think that word's better. >> But twothirds of what? I'm I'm sorry. I'm just >> twothirds of the entire of the the total amount rather than saying requiring five people. >> You're now you're saying it's going to
require twothirds, which technically the it it would cover it, but if we're reducing the numbers or if it ever changes again, all you're doing is just running it rather than a two-thirds like you would do like a super majority vote is a two-thirds vote, >> right? rather than saying, "Okay, figuring out how many people you have
and saying you you need to have four out of the seven." Thank you. >> But as a standalone, it's super complicated. This is one they're people are going to just pass right over. >> They're not. >> So, do we have
a motion. >> I I >> I think the attorney is still coming up with procedurally how to do this because we've already voted on seven. So, >> well, no, you voted on seven. You're not changing the language on seven. You're just sticking the language of 11 to to
seven. So, you're just adding two in in other words, you're not really substant Yeah. You're not modifying. You're just supplement. >> Yeah, you're supplement. I think is what he's trying. >> I I I'll go with that if it moves us along quicker. >> Yes. Yes. I'm It's We're going to do that. >> Let's go.
>> Now, but the question becomes is how do you change how do you say which what we're trying to do, which is change it from numerical to fractional? >> No, I I think you keep the same language. You just at the end of seven
add and update council voting and meeting requirements by modifying to provide proportional thresholds. >> Yeah. The the the way that we put it was to be by fixed numerical requirements with proportional. Right. So just put
that there. >> Well, I I I think there was two different conversations. I think there was one >> by chairmano says the language is confusing and I think and then commissioner Fernandez is just simply saying just move it over >> intellig
>> wasn't that Rono that did that >> well I heard you say it but she may have said >> to move it to seven >> right what what I my idea was to just >> saying it now >> move the language to say >> like at the end and adjust
proportional uh voting thresholds accordingly something something very straight like simple and >> okay no no that's >> cuz when you use that word it's like understood that it has to do with the changing >> but but here's the question and I just want to make sure everybody's okay with
this that works but the way that I understand from what you're saying would be instead of being five now it's four if you're changing the the number of of council members but not changing to a fraction But you could say the same thing you're
saying. So to say what you just said to adjust it proportionally >> adjusting by adjusting pro uh proportional voting thresholds accordingly. >> Well by adjusting proportional threshold and reflecting them as fractions.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Because I think our our change effect >> because that would be >> well yeah because the change all we did was just how it was reflected. You know, if we get into decimal points, yes, there was a change, but >> No, but I thought that it was instead of using five is saying 2/3.
>> Correct. So, right now, not changing. Yeah, >> because right now you have numbers of council members. >> So, changing it and reflecting it as fractions. >> Yes. >> Not not to get overly nerdy, but 2/3 >> is fractions and proportions are essentially the same thing
mathematically. >> No, >> no, but follow me here for a minute. >> Right. There's another there's another change. >> You're changing it. Right now, if you have a supermajority, it's five. 2/3 of a seven council member is not the same as of a five member, right? So, what you
want to do is two things. Change the proportions, right? Because you're changing the numbers. But then the second thing is have it reflected as a fraction. That's what I understand the intent was. If it's not, then we don't have to put that. It's fine. >> I feel intense. Go ahead.
>> What is the what is the language that we that we approved in the >> you you you approved to change it to fractions. >> Changed it to fractions. >> You did. >> If we look at back at the motion, that's what it was. >> Instead of a specific number, we had fractions that I that I recall.
>> Like I'm having >> and we did it generally because it's throughout the it's throughout the charter, not just any specific s section. because that's what you want to do. You want to change the fractions. >> I think I'm just trying to look for one
example. >> And if we and if we use two fractions of the council or fractions of like if we add something to the end of that so the voter understands fractions of what? >> Yeah. >> Right. It's just going to get worse.
>> That'll make the whole question fail. >> Actually, I did find the I finally found it there. This is what happened last meeting. Chairman Leodo read the proposed question number 10, ballot title, council voting thresholds, special meetings, abstensions, and emergency
ordinances. Ballot summary. Shall the town charter be amended to update council voting and meeting requirements by replacing fixed numerical requirements with proportional thresholds.
So that one special meetings may be called upon the request of a majority of the council in parentheses instead of four council members. Two, when a majority of the members must abstain
under state law, the remaining members may approve a matter by anonymous vote. And three, emergency ordinances require a 23 vote parenthesis instead of
five members. >> So, three three specific changes within the charter. >> Yeah. >> Can we use the the word can we use the phrase by modifying voting thresholds instead of proportional thresholds? That doesn't capture it,
>> Mr. Chair. It's it's simply Isn't it just the majority of council members? >> Sorry, guys. Commissioner Benner, >> I'm sorry. Isn't it just a majority at the majority? Why why do we have to give a number at all? >> No, some of them are super Some of them are two-thirds is supermajority. >> Does it have to be a supermajority or a majority?
>> Well, for the way that the way the currently for creating an emergency ordinance says no less than five members, which is a super majority. So, it was just converting it to 2/3 so that way it represents it. So, it doesn't matter how many people there are on the council because if you only because even
in the instance it's an emergency because you've lost two members and you can't get five people to even vote on it. It says no less than five, you're going to have a problem. Rather, you're going to have a supermajority. There's a whole bunch of things that it's better to have a proportion rather than a specific number. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to remember why we
decided to make it a super majority versus just a majority. I just don't remember. >> We Well, we didn't change we didn't change to make it was always a super majority. just change it from a number. >> 10 years ago, I can't remember why we did that. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
So, where are we at, guys? You're at you you we I think we have a motion on the floor that was made by Councilwoman Ronaldo which was to change or to move the language of ballot question number 11 as you stated to
seven. And if that wasn't seconded I'll second >> vice chairman. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> And Commissioner Duano, restate the motion. Yeah, >> just to make sure.
>> That's brilliant. >> Hang on. See, I didn't I didn't I didn't think we had the stated motion, but >> Okay, so the motion was to add to the to add to ballot question number seven.
At the end of that question, it'll read to abolishing seat number six upon expiration of the current term in 2030 with no further election for seat number six and providing for modified proportional thresholds.
Say >> it again. >> And providing for modified proportional thresholds. I feel like it should say voting thresholds >> or council voting thresholds. >> Council voting thresholds. providing for modified proportional council voting thresholds.
>> You know, in thinking about it, I think that that's sufficient if that's approved to move it to the way that it's going to be stated as 2/3. >> Yeah. >> Right. I'll second that.
>> Or updating. >> That's a better word. updating >> proportional, you know, >> instead of modifying. >> And updating >> updating and modifying because we're modifying it, >> but you're modifying it. >> Yeah, >> because updating would just be moving
the numbers, but mod modifying is is achieving that. So, >> cool. >> All right. So, we have a motion. >> Okay. Any further discussion? Good. >> Madam, Madame Clerk, you said proportional thresholds, but it was
proportional council council member voting thresholds, right? Or council >> proportional council member voting thresholds. >> Council member voting thresholds. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Right.
Do we have it? Do you number wise are we good? >> 69. >> Perfect. And do we need to change the ballot title or do you think the ballot title captures it? >> No, that would capture. >> Perfect. All right. So,
no further discussion. Hearing hearing no further discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? No. >> None. >> Sorry. >> No. >> Okay. We have one. No. Any other nos? Just make sure I didn't miss anything. >> Okay. Jesus.
>> So, 11 has been moved. and incorporate it into seven. >> All right. 12. >> 12. We did. >> 12. We did. >> Now we're on the 13. Uh, we don't need a vote. This one was approved at the last
one based on my notes. All right. And then 14. 14 is one of the is the item that was tabled from the last meeting.
Uh yes, this was tabled upon motion from Commissioner Bennett for adding additional language. Those friendly amendments on additional language and this is the revised language of Mr. Town attorney if you could read it.
>> Yes, we're uh number 14. Correct. >> Correct. Shall the town charter be amended to align the recall petition signature requirement with section 100.361 Florida statutes which adjust as required based on the town's registered voters so that the charter automatically conforms to the applicable statutory
tier as a town's registered voters grow. >> I'll make a motion to approve the language. >> It's grow I believe grow. Yes, I realize that yes, it's got to remove the yes. So >> there's a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion?
>> Yeah. >> Yes, I second. >> I have a question, Mr. Chair. >> Sure. >> The which adjusts as required based on the town's registered voters, does that need to be there? I don't. >> So, depending on the town's registered
voters and the amount, then the threshold of what is needed in order to have a uh recall grows. >> I mean, I'm sorry, shrinks. >> Right. I I understand the I I understand the process. I'm just saying on the ballot question
if you >> Yeah, we could get rid of the registr I from what I recall it was it was several people and I think it was also what precipitated commissioner Bennett he wanted a little bit more language to just be more descriptive as to the reason for it. Um and that's why we added that language based on his uh his
request and I think it was also part of the discussion that people wanted to have more understanding as to what we were >> right >> the adjustment what was >> right the discussion was section 100.361 >> nobody's going to know what that is I just wanted that somehow defined so that
they know what they're voting on that's all >> so so then I think if that was the spirit of the change it it should be more descriptive right because which adjusts as required like adjust what what adjusts
I don't like I read that and I don't >> I I'm that smarter after I read it >> the recall petition signature requirement >> right >> that's what adjusts >> that is it's the first part of it >> to align the recall petition signature
requirement which adjusts as required based on the town's registered voters which adjusts the number of petitions needed as required based on the >> well recall petition signature report.
It refers back to the original sentence. >> If you want to, you know, if you want to rewrite the think a better way, you know, I'm open to it. >> While he's thinking, may I ask a different question? >> Sure. So, I know we had this discussion, but I'm going to ask the attorney to
remind me. So, if the statutes require this, don't we have to do it anyway? >> You do. >> So, why are we asking this question? If >> the reason because we changed the language we changed right now sets a firm 10% threshold.
>> However, we are on the cusp of the change right now statutoily changes at 25,000 elected voters. 23 and we believe within the next 10 years we're going to exceed the 25,000 and if we exceed it before the next
charter revision commission then our charter is going to be in non-compliance with state statute. So rather we said as provided by law which was >> reflected in here >> and I'm sorry to ask this question to either of you really but wouldn't the state statute supersede our charter
>> all the time it yes it would. But if we have an opportunity, just um change it now >> and get it to comply so that way our charter is not in non-compliance. >> And I'm sorry, I'm going to ask this one more time, but if we were non-compliance, the state statute would
correct it anyway. >> Well, it would do everything. Yeah, we could we could we could say that, you know, that our >> our council members could commit felonies from the bench or from the dis too and then say, "Oh, we're just going to defer to the state statute, >> right?
Can I check to see if I was in the prevailing side on this? Because I think this is probably a superist question that is probably not needed. If if we're really trying to limit the number of questions in my opinion, this is one that state statutes already take take
care of. Was he on the ground? >> So, commission member state Bennett stated that he would like additional language to be added to the question because as it written there's a lot of unknown. Commission member Rouano seconded the motion. Commissioner Dano Opine that it was important to add the
municipality size and percentage of signature required after further discussion. Chair Leoto made a friendly amendment to table for the town attorneys to reddraft this question modifying the language and providing a better explanation to address perhaps
the growing nature of the electorate of the town. Commission member Bennett agreed to the friendly amendment and the motion passed to table unanimously. >> No. and zero. >> I think we need to look at the underlying what the charter question what the what the change to the charter
whether he was on the prevailing side of that motion. >> This is from last meeting. >> Well, that yeah, that was the charter question, but we just need as to the actual charter language that was amended. That's what I need we need to find. Chairman Leoto made a motion to adopt
the language and commission member Fernandez seconded the motion. Commission member Fernandez stated that state law is going to preempt the town charter and that for said reason to reduce voter fatigue, he would be okay with eliminating this question.
Commission member Bennett stated that he does not agree with the proposed language. During discussion, Chairman Leo explained that the commission members had decided to remove the 10% number and to align with the applicable
law. Chairman Leoto explained that the proposed language remove the reference to 10% so that it aligns with whatever state law is so that if it changes in the future, it is aligned to state law. Deputy Town Attorney Goa stated that the
percentage varies on the size of the local government. And then what I read earlier, Commission Member Bennett stated that he would like additional language to be added to this question because that as it is written there is a lot of unknown. Commission member Rouano
seconded that motion. Commissioner Rouano Alpine that it was important to add the municipality size and percentage of signature required. After further discussion, Chairman Leoto made a friendly amendment to table and for the
town attorneys to reddraft this question modifying the language and providing a better explanation to address perhaps the growing nature of the electorate of the town. Commissioner member Bennett agreed to the friendly amendment and the
motion to table passed unanimously. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Commission. >> Yeah. Basically, the only thing that I objected to was on the on the question that says section 100.361.
If we can if we can li if we can either explain what that is or what the parameters of that is in the question that would that would explain what we want to achieve. That's the only thing I objected to because it's a it's a charter amendment that's referring to a Florida state uh a law that they're
going to go to the ballot box without understanding what the Florida statute says. That's the only reason that's the only language I wanted change. I don't know if you can do that in 75 words, but I just wanted to make sure that in some way that we could describe to the electorate what what that section means
and how it's how it's going to be affected as we grow in grow in size and population. Thank you. >> And as it pertains, this is the qu one of the questions, maybe the only one that addresses the voters directly. So when you have the statute information
cited in in the question, they're going to want to know what does that mean exactly? So if there was a way to explain it with more clarity, I think it's important. The voters are going to look at this because it says the voters, right? That's one that they're going to
pay attention to. >> Yeah. So we have I think there's two issues that are being discussed right now is one what commissioner Bennett and commissioner Monttos is talking about is about just the way it's presented in the language and vice chairman in Guanzo has requested an inquiry as to whether or
not he was on the successful motion because he'd like to eliminate the question and the change in its totality. So that'd be two different aspects. So, I'm looking at just to see the language and see who was on to address
the vice chairman's question and then I think we can address both issues. >> Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm going to ask the attorney >> a question. The attorney again. So, again, I just I think I know the answer, but make sure we're all clear.
If we did nothing, if this question was not on the ballot and we did in a couple years cross that threshold from, you know, 23,000 registered voters to 26,000 registered voters, the statutes would correct our um our our issue in the town
to conform to whatever the statutes require. So what you would have is you would have a conflict between what the charter says which gives us specific numerical amount and what the statute says which is a different amount. >> So yes if challenged state statute would
prevail over the town's charter. >> Could we going to go back to our first question where we kind of do some a problem there is we're at 75 words but make non-conforming subst. Um, so if we go back to ballot question one, >> number six, there it says make
conforming nons substantive technical corrections. I guess that wouldn't fit there. But, >> you know, number one to me is just kind of a cleanup. Um, but isn't there anything in our charter that says that we must adhere, you know, anything that statutes change that we
must adhere to whatever the statutes define? >> That's just law in general. >> All right. I I think >> I I'll give you an example of of one. Um and and I think we're doing some cleanup with regards to when elections must be
held uh after um uh there's a vacancy. It says it stated 90 days. I think we cleaned that up as far as the the vacancy requirement, right? So the way that it was before states something that would be in conflict with
election law because election law if the elections department says you can only have an election you know 120 days out you and you're saying you have to have it 90 days out you can't have it 90 days out you have to have 120 days out so state statute would would prevail in that instance it's it's it's avoiding
just a future conflict that's why you you want to clean it up that's all >> I I I think what could happen right so definitely if it if it was challenged by someone. I I think it's it's incontrovertible that state law would prevail. I think what we would the
benefit that I could see to having this question on there is let's say you you have a recall petition and and the people organizing the recall petition read the town charter and the town charter says X Y and Z. And so they go through this entire process and after
they go through this entire process, they then find out from somebody else that state law says otherwise. And and so now you've made them go through this, you know, process in a in a way that was unfruitful and,
you know, just wasted every everybody's time, right? I think that's the the risk in not changing it. >> I think the question is important. I think it needs to be there. I just think it needs to be clarified so that it it
not that it makes more sense. >> Then, Mr. Chair, I'm going to withdraw my >> I'm going to withdraw my request to determine whether or not I'm eligible to withdraw the motion. I mean, the question.
>> So, you're withdrawing your inquiry, >> correct? >> Okay. I just want to >> Okay, perfect. So if we're withdrawing the reinqu then it's remaining is the question that commissioner Ben and commissioner Moss had regarding the language
>> I guess the attorney's reviewing I mean obviously is it still a percentage of electors in the law in the state law in the section the the statute the way it currently reads and remember the statute could always be they could change it to some other type of threshold they could
change it even to the number wise which is why he was just referring to what the statutory tier because they do create just tiers of where we're at. We're just happen to be on that cusp of the from the that'll that'll change the threshold. It actually reduces the >> it's based on a percentage though. I mean I I believe for um county
commission at 6% of the electors >> that's what we want. >> Yeah. Well the percent the percentage goes to the number that are required for a recall petition. Correct. >> Not necessarily the number of electors. The electors is a hard and fast number. So, the I know one of the thresholds is
that we're going to be dealing with is more than 25,000 have a lower percentage, >> right? I think where our attorney has the answer. >> Yeah, I I was just talking about this with a with a the town clerk. She has a good idea except I'm going to add just one word to it. I go, "Shall the town
charter be amended to align the recall petition signature threshold to applicable statutory tiers as town register registered voters grow? See, we did it both together. >> Move it. That's that's that's why we have you here.
>> Yeah, that's exactly right. That eliminates the unknown writing the statute. >> Motion. >> Yes. >> Motion by Commissioner Fernandez. Motion for Commissioner Fernandez. Second by Commissioner Abad. >> All right. Any further discussion on that question? >> All credit goes to the town click.
>> Yes. >> Yes. All in favor say I. I. I. >> Any opposed? approved as amended. All right. Now, we're going getting into these were
new questions uh that we had voted on and requested the town attorney to um come back with questions. So, Mr. Town attorney, if you could read them into the record, please. >> Um ballot question number 15. >> Yes. >> Okay. Interference with administration. Shall the town charter be amended to
provide that the town council and its members may make good faith inquiries and investigations of town employees without first passing a council resolution? >> Move it. >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? >> That's beautiful. I almost shed a man's tear when I heard it.
>> We we we uh we inquired of the town clerk and she was the one that gave us the the language for it. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> None. Motion passes. >> 16. Even another shorter one. The
shortest question I think on the entire questions. Mr. Town attorney. This is another one that we asked. >> Yeah, this was at the behest of our of our mayor. Early voting requirement for elections. Shall the town charter be amended to require a minimum of two days early voting for any municipal election? >> I'll move it.
>> Second. >> Second. All right. Any further any discussion? >> Just quick discussion. I'm sorry. It says any municipal election. I mean, are we talking about any municipality or are we talking about our municipality only? >> It's it's our charter, so any municipal. >> I know. I'm just It's
>> Well, we would we wouldn't be able to control the early voting for any other >> I understand that, but the language kind of implies otherwise, doesn't it? >> No. >> Okay. >> I don't think so. I don't think so. Let me put it that way. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Commissioner Ruano and Commissioner,
Vice Chairman, >> I do. Listen, I'm all 100% supportive of this, but just it's I think to the clerk a question. So, you have to coordinate early voting with the supervisor of elections, right? So, just on your end, are there any logistical challenges that
you foresee in mandating this now for any election or every election? I >> think it gets challenging for runoff is what I think. But you you get it done. you communicate with the supervisor of election and as long as you have the
money to pay for the um early voting. >> So let's walk that through because we made a change for a runoff, right? It's moving now um >> second Tuesday of December. >> So it's basically a month after, right? It's four weeks after basically from the election. Is that what we did >> approximately?
>> And the supervisor of election can accommodate within a 30-day period. I'm just asking because I know in my dealings with the supervisor of elections, they sometimes will provide Yes. a minimum number of days that are required. >> Yeah. Because um we communicate the office of the clerk communicates I think
if I'm not mistaken a year in advance or two years in advance of elections. So if this passes, I would know that I've been instructed to always provide for early voting. So I would have to state in case
a runoff is needed, please set aside two days for early voting. >> You have to let them know in advance two years. >> So they'll plan so they know that there may or may not be a runoff on December 9th of 2028, but they'll plan for it in the event that there is.
>> They I would have to communicate with them that that is the per town charter. >> Yeah. early voting needs to happen in case need be. >> And I'm sorry to ask this question. If that's the case and there is no run or uh early voting for a runoff because
there's no runoff, do they charge you for that or no? Or do they only charge if they actually >> if it happens? >> Only if it happens. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. If it doesn't happen, no. Like right now if you go to the elections department website you're
going to see many municipalities that have election in the next November us being included and you will see that there is a a potential runoff for 21 days after November 23rd and we just
have that as a hold because I don't know if the need will >> sure >> take place. My last question >> if it doesn't happen we don't pay >> right. My last question, who determines what the two days are? Is it the supervisor of elections? Do they tell us it's the the Friday and the Saturday or the Saturday and Sunday before the
election or do we have the ability to determine what those days are? >> I don't know exactly the answer. I went up from memory I think there was an election I think it was the the runoff that may former mayor Manny Sid won over
former mayor Michael Pizzy. And I can vividly remember that we had a runoff in Mary Collings and it was a Saturday and a Sunday. And I want to say from memory that we requested that we said though I think the council actually voted. I
think the council at the time chose that weekend to be the >> Okay. >> Yeah. I would assume >> I think we choose I think the elected officials choose and I just communicate and request. >> Yeah. I mean this has a minimum of two days. So the council I guess would have the ability to determine if they wanted
to do it for a week like for a general election. Does that give them the power under this question? >> If the charter states a minimum and this passes they could vote to say we want >> if they have the money. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Any further discussion? >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. This passes. I believe we've now gone through all the questions. We have them all approved. >> We don't have
>> I don't believe so. Madame clerk, did you have something? I don't know. Oh, okay. I think you were saying, >> Mr. Chair, just just one question. Are we going to send once again my question about sending a memo to with our with the ballot questions to the council when they do it saying there might be some outstanding issues they might want to
address by ordinance. Do are we going to include anything like that? So, we're going to do there's there's going to be a memorandum, a report that gets drafted through with the attorneys and myself to d to transmit this over to the uh
council for their review. >> Okay. >> Um and subsequent approval. Um I don't believe that I don't know what was done last time. You would have been respon you would have been working with the town attorney at that time to do that after. Yeah, we we we did draft just a minor memo. But
>> I think that'll be simple enough if you guys give me direction to include, you know, I'll bring in some of those, you know, the some of these matters. >> It could be added >> and we can add those to submit to them. I know she had shared with it, but I didn't get a chance to read it. >> Very. >> All right. Thank you.
>> This is Do you need a motion to adjourn? >> Included. >> We still have one more item. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a very simple. Yeah, I see where you're here. Yeah, there was even a section that you had put in about other recommendations that you had done
in the last time around and we'll do something similar as that we'll take into account. Um, you know, I right before we adjourn, I know I had what the last item I had on uh the agenda is just kind of closing comments to the extent that any of you guys want to include any type of comments uh discussions, you
know, anything you'd like to say. You know, keep it more or less brief. You know, I know everybody wants to leave, but I, you know, this this is our official last day as a commission operating. Um, I'm opening something.
So, I I just personally wanted to thank you all for your patience. I know it's been very long. It's been very tedious at times. U I do appreciate Gina and Lorenzo. I mean, I I read the the work that they've done. It's it's incredible
the amount of work you put up. So, I I do regret that we did not have many or I anticipated more people, more residents to give input. I I do regret not uh not seeing that. And obviously, I do want to thank Councilman Herszburg for trusting
in me, for believing in that I could actually sit up here and try to do this. So, but it's been an honor truly, truly, truly. And uh I appreciate what what you've done for the town. >> Any other commissioners like to make any closing remarks? Commissioner Mtos,
>> I do for sure. Um, thanks Alexis and Rehea. You guys have been great. We couldn't have done this. And the town manager as well, everybody on this board is it's just an honor to sit here with you. Um, you know, in the beginning, I
remember the first meeting like, oh my god, it's going to be a lot. It's a lot. And it was just it it was like a pool that just came in and bit by bit the pieces just like a puzzle started to fit. Thank you Councilman Fernandez for
placing your trust and confidence in me. I appreciate you. >> Thank you commissioner Commissioner Rono. Thank you. So I echo the sentiments of of of everyone on the commission. I appreciate the staff. I've always
appreciated the staff. Thank you, Meliss. I know that you've done a lot of this behind the scenes and thank you, Mr. Chair, for your patience. Um, I know that I speak out of turn consistently and I appreciate your patience. Thank you to all of the members for for for going on this journey. It's uh it's
always exciting to be up here and thank you uh Council Member uh Alex um for for appointing me and for giving me this opportunity. >> Commissioner Rana, thank you. Commissioner Bennett. >> Yes. Um, I have to first of all applaud
Gina uh to keep these things straight. Um, I've dealt with complex modeling that uses supercomputers and I think she did an excellent job trying to keep everything straight. Quite impressive. Um, I do want to say I am very impressed
with this commission in general. It was one of the most detailed revisions that I've ever gone through, including the 2016 one. Um, granted, we've had some issues that come up that needed this, but um, it was an astounding job. And I
do applaud everyone and I also applaud our our chairman. And I didn't I don't mean to make faces. I was just in shock. All just just call it a reaction. It's it was involuntary. But, um, I was once again, I'm very impressed overall. And I do wish we had
more public input. It would have helped a lot to help us form. Um and um I hope that when these questions go before the people, they really seriously understand what we tried to do and hopefully they'll either accept or reject uh the
various questions. Thank you all. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bennett. Commissioner Fernandez, did you want to >> Absolutely. So, you know, going into it, the one thing that I I definitely did expect was how awesome everybody in this room is because I've served with most of
you in some way, shape, or form. Um, you know, I' I'd see neighborhood improvement committee members and former uh council members and, you know, um, so I I I knew exactly what I was getting myself into, but going going through
this process, I think, um, was was something that I wish every elected official went through before they became an elected official, not not after uh s such as we did. um and really understanding uh all of the intricacies
of of the charter is is very illuminating. So, I I definitely I wanted to thank um everybody that's up here and everybody that's that's in this room um for continuing to be amazing and continuing to be one of the one of the reasons that Miami Lakes is such a
wonderful place to to live, grow, and work. So, thank you guys. >> Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to go Vice Chairman Inguanzo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real briefly, um, of course I'll echo what everybody said, but, uh, you know, thank you to all my colleagues up here. I know
we're all very committed to trying to make Miami Place an even better Miami Lakes an even better place to live. So, appreciate everybody working so hard to try to do that. And of course to the manager and the attorney and the clerk and your staff, Alexis and Morales, and everybody involved in making this
process seamless. So, greatly appreciated and it's been a pleasure to be up here with all of you. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Is Council Member Fernandez? I >> I'll be brief. You guys really did a great job. I I think that it was so important um just as important as the
questions that will appear on the ballot are are just going through the rest of the charter and debating and discussing. And I think that it's just as important that aspect of it. But I want to thank again the attorneys and and our clerk and our deputy clerk. Thank you guys for
all the work and for everybody up here. It was an honor to serve with you. >> Thank you, Mr. Council Member. And I'll give the town attorney or town clerk and town attorney if you guys would like to say anything. You don't have to. It's your choice. >> Very brief. It's always an honor to work
with all of you. This is not the first time that I work with each one of you. And again, you know, you're people that I love, that I admire. I'm very happy and I I differ from commission member Fernandez when you
stated that you think this is a good process for um individuals of before their elected officials. No, I think it was wonderful to have a excellent mix of former committee members, former elected
officials that went through it. You really bring your experience. I mean, I think and then other individuals that are amazing residents, smart, as I said earlier in another meeting, I think it was challenging because it's the town. We all we all
love the town charter. It's our constitution. We want to make it better. We're passionate. We're vocal. We're active. But for me, it was an honor to be part of this. A lot of work. It's still not done. I have to do the minutes of this meeting in a few days and give
them in a hurry to Mirelis and to Lorenzo and to the chair to improve the the ballot questions and have it on the agenda for the council members, the mayor and council to review in two weeks in the regular council meeting. So, our
work is still not done, but as always, with a lot of honor and pride, we'll do our best. Thank you. Thank you, Madam M. Town Clerk and Mr. Town attorney. >> Yeah, just a few words because I opened up with thanking all of you. Uh, but I
just thought about, you know, what echoing what U. Council member, Vice Mayor Bernetta said is that, you know, we're an amazing group of people that are up here and I've worked with each and every single one of you, I think, for as long as I can remember. But I
think something that makes us different from maybe another municipality is that, you know, even Gina who's a town clerk, myself, town attorney, and Morelis working here and Alexis is that we're all neighbors. So what we're doing here is is a labor of love. Yes, you know,
we're volunteers working, but we all are affected by the decisions we make here. And I think all of us, what makes Miami Lakes also a little different is everybody is passionate about this town. And that's that's a that's a beautiful thing. So, it's a blessing to be with with all of you. Thank you for making
and challenging me, by the way, cuz all of you have challenged me to the nth degree. Um, and I and I appreciate that. Um, what was that saying? Stone sharpens stone or steel sharpens steel. So, thank you all. >> Thank you, Mr. Town Attorney. So I'll
close up is uh first and foremost you know as you guys have all said is I'm very proud of this entire commission. Every single one of you guys have significantly contributed. No one was at a lack of questions, comments, uh
interpretations. Um and it truly benefited the process that we went through. I you know days have gone long like today and you know I'm not going to be too long but you know I I truly appreciate each and every one of you guys those of you that I've
worked with before with before even those that this was the first time that we really had a substantive interaction this type of environment it it truly helped me be a better person I believe I think it helped me uh uh refine my abilities in sitting in this role. I
thank you guys for giving me the confidence whether or not you had it or not, but I felt like you guys gave me the confidence to sit up here and it truly was easy being patient. You know, it it I've sat on many other boards, many more I can tell you that are more conflictive than this and that things
get very personal and I really appreciate it. You know, we truly in my opinion are serving our community. It's what I set out to from the very beginning is to uh put out something that gives our community the options to figure out what it is. What do they
really want to change? You know, uh I I too feel that, you know, it would have loved to have seen more involvement. You know, I'm going to just uh I guess take a assume that they just thought that we we have a lot of control in that and so they deferred to us. You know, I'll just go ahead and say that on the record that
they just gave they really yes, they had a lot of confidence in in what we were doing. Um, but for those that did appear uh from the community that gave comments in addition to the council members, um, those that appeared either virtually that even listened in or even have
reviewed because I know that they did, you know, that there have been people out there because I've heard those comments. Um, really appreciate uh, you guys taking that time. Um, really looking forward to this. You know, this is the I I believe this is still the beginning of the process. The next steps are going to be to see what efforts. I
know there's some strong views on a few of these items and it's just making sure that our our town is is educated. I encourage every single one of you guys to get out there, you know, and and and voice your opinions and let's see where we go. Um so, you know,
Sure. So, the well, let me I'll get into the next steps. Uh I'll jump into that real quick. is so the next steps is we're going to be drafting up the report that we'll be transmitting over to the council. The council will receive that and hopefully we'll take that up at their next meeting coming up in two weeks. Uh then they will their their
motion their their resolution is simply is to transmit it as the way it is as we've written uh as we've stated that the questions will be together with the red lines. They'll be transmitting that over to uh the supervisor elections to set this for ballot in November.
Yes, madam tank clicker. >> Just to give you some information that um we did, you know, according to the law, I did send an email to the supervisor of election, Miss Alina Garcia, requesting right the
special election, the the adding of these charter um amendments to the November 3rd and she immediately accepted our request. So, I just wanted to inform you all that we do have her blessing and that um the office of the
supervisor of election is aware that we're going to have a meeting in the next two weeks as you mentioned where we will be within the the deadline um and they'll be receiving our questions. >> Sure. And then and so that meeting the next town council meeting is going to be
on June 16th at 6:30 p.m. here in Chambers. You know, I welcome each of the commission members if you guys are available to come in. you know, I'll I'll obviously be speaking with uh the mayor and the council members to see exactly how they'd like to present uh that matter, but you know, I'll be, you know, sharing my thoughts that I'm
sharing with you guys now as well uh during that council meeting because I'm I'm truly and utterly proud of this board, of this commission, of what we've done, of everyone, the town staff that have been here, uh from those that are up here to even the uh custodial staff that has had to stay late a few times,
you know, because of uh you know, us being able to get our our time our our all of our questions and answers done and giving us the time for it. You know, thank you to Miami date sheriff's um for being here with us uh at day every
single one of those nights ensuring uh you know protecting our community and everything that you guys do. We truly appreciate it. Um and lastly is I I definitely want to thank is my family. Um, you know, with my two boys, they've had the opportunity. You know, I've, you
know, being here is obviously a takeaway from them, but they've seen it. They see it uh on the live stream. They've seen it afterwards. They've made great comments. And that to me is just very special to be able to do this for them because this is the community. This is where we chose to live, me and my wife, when we came to move here. Um, we truly
love Miami Lakes. We I I always tell people it's I believe it's one of the last bastions in South Florida that is a true community. It's a place where the kids still ride around uh sometimes in the middle of the roads where they shouldn't be but you know kids still ride around you know where they still are able to ride around in the middle of
the roads with least amount of danger where people you know we gather in in both you know Main Street and other parts you have community that gets together often you know you still have those that neighborhood feel that I I see in in different parts of our county
where it just isn't there anymore um we still have it we still maintain and I and I hope that for the future for the at least minimum next 10 years that you know we continue to grow beautifully and appropriately. Uh and so with that you know I want to thank every single
one of you guys. I can't say it any even more. I truly really appreciate it every one of you from the bottom of my heart. Um and looking forward to seeing what's next for our community and working with you guys in different capacities. So with that we will adjourn.
Thank you very much.