I don't think so, but I'm going to check This is in the next 10 minutes. And I have not I'm still waiting for council member Fernandez. And madame clerk,
>> yes. Council, commission member Abad, >> present. >> Commission member Bennett >> here. >> Commission member Fernandez is absent. Commission member Matoss >> present. >> Commission member Ruano,
>> present. >> Vice Chairman Inguanso is absent. Chairman Le >> he is let the record reflect that he is very well present. Chairman Leoto present >> chairman you have core.
>> Thank you very much and thank you for our vice chairman for for showing up right on time. Really appreciate it. And u so good evening everyone. Uh we're going to go ahead and stand for our moment of silence as Commissioner Ruano
if you could please lead us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's power our heads. Dear heavenly father, for everyone in this room and outside of this room that is struggling with something, please grant them wisdom, courage, patience, and all of the wonderful attributes that you grant us.
And for those of us that are sitting on this commission, please grant us the wisdom to make the right choices to keep Miami Lakes growing beautifully. Amen. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rouano. Uh, next, if we remain standing, we'll continue with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Bennett, if you could
please lead us. >> 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 very much.
Now, we'll go ahead and continue on. Uh, next first order, fourth order of business is the order of business, deferrals, additions, or deletions. Do we have anything from the commissioners for today? No,
only the the two um from commission member Bennett from last meeting which are part of the agenda but nothing new. >> Nothing seeing none I will be closing order of business. Next we'll be moving on to public comments. Madame Clerk,
>> good evening to everyone, to the public here in council chambers and to our public comments um online. As I always state, public comments are welcome and all you need to do is raise the hand in
the icons reaction and it will allow you to speak. And if you're calling to participate in public comments via phone as well, the only thing you need to do is raise your hand by pressing #99 and you will appear in the screen and it
will allow you to speak. And if you're in council chambers and you want to participate in public comments, please do so now. Just uh approach the podium, state your name and address for the record and use the handheld microphone turning it on. And thank you. Welcome.
>> Thank you, Town Clerk. Carl Andre, 14530 Date Pine Avenue in our beautiful town here, of Miami Lakes Commissioners. Thank you so much for what you're doing tonight. Um, I heard and uh was watching in last meeting and, you know, uh, was very happy to hear that some of my public commentary was being listened to
and being, you know, uh, discussed. Um, here to reassure that my public comments again from last meeting stay in this dialogue of this meeting about keeping us at seven. It's just more bang for your buck. All right. You got people with lots of experience. Uh people that are passionate about certain topics. I
can't tell you how many times as a coun as a committee member how I've gone up to different uh councilmans that or councilwoman that are passionate about something that maybe we had if I wouldn't have had that opportunity. The optimist committees blasting. Um I can go on and on about um the opportunities
I have with seven council uh councilman's there. Now the other thing is you know again free labor that we have with committee members. We have committee members that are not even from Miami Lakes here serving in this town. Emerald Pines, Hayalia, Halia Gardens, I can go on and on. PSN, lots of them from
PSN. Um, yes, last meeting there was a two- round system discussed where you have a primary and the top two candidates go on to the general election. Um, I'm going to stay on my position from last time. I do feel that we should keep it the way it is to have a runoff. Uh, one thing that wasn't discussed that I would strongly
encourage staff to look into is what's the price to have it in line with other municipalities like Hyalia and Miami. Is it the same $50,000? I don't know because right at that moment you have uh the elections department actually entertaining other municipalities that perhaps will bring down the cost. So I would make sure that you have that in
line. Um not to mention my concern with the two round system is that you could have some manipulation now that you can have it the way we have it right now. Um you know going into getting two uh candidates that are known and possibly another candidate dropping off before the general election. Um but more importantly not giving that underdog the
opportunity to go on to the general election. Not to mention most of our debates happen in in October leading to that. And the other one that's very important that is not I think not being discussed very clearly is the resign to run. Um if at all possible, I would recommend that a resign to run happens
way before the qualifying period. Why? To give that other candidate an opportunity to run for office. Um my concern is exactly what's happening in our town and other municipalities where you have a uh a mayor that wins an election that gets an appointment. if you have five elected officials and he
appoints one one person, he's just one person away from having the majority of the council. So, at all possible, like how the chairman of this uh commission mentioned, we should be pioneers uh compared to our peers here in Miami date county. How we can do that, I don't know, maybe it's March, maybe it's
April, we have somebody that resigns to run then and then gives someone the opportunity to throw their hat in the ring. Um again, this I this town has lots of interest in running. Um, I do feel that even with the concern of the bill for a runoff will be avoided with
possibly one candidate getting into a race and having two candidates that can make it up to November. So, um, I again I thank you for your time on this commission and to please consider these points. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> The only individuals, no, there are no
individuals for public comment via remote. It's only the board members that I see their names in the screen. >> All right. Then I will be closing public comment at this time. And moving on uh to item number six, approval of the
minutes. The minutes were approved to the agenda of the April 23rd, 2026 Charter Revision Commission minutes. Have all the commission members had the opportunity to review it? Um is there a motion? >> I'll move. >> We have a motion. Is there a second?
>> I'll second. We have a second. Uh any discussion? Any items want to be brought up by the commissioners? Seeing none. So, uh we'll call a vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, the motion passes. The minutes are approved.
And we'll go on to item number seven, old business. Uh we'll start off with the town attorney of report. Mr. Town attorney. >> Thank you, uh M Mr. Chair. Uh really there's nothing to report uh for tonight. I believe in the new business uh we'll be going through some of the uh
pending language where there were different options and finalize those and then I guess take a look at the entire red line version. >> Perfect. So we'll go ahead and uh so we'll we'll address each of those items as we go through as we have enumerated now in the new business so we can go
through the entire uh charter as we've we've gone through these past couple meetings and move forward. Madam click, sorry. Did you have a question? >> Okay. Sorry. All right. So, we'll go through that process at this point. Um,
any other questions for the town attorney at this time or? None. All right. We'll move forward with the first item uh of old business 7B. Um, this is a pres commissioner has requested a charter amendment proposal establishing a public petition process for the removal of appointed officials. as I've
stated at previous meetings is what I would like is Commissioner Bennett when I give you the floor is go ahead you know I'll give you a few minutes to just kind of if you want to initially talk about it but I'm going to ask if uh if you have a a motion that you'd like to make and with a specific language we'd
like to have addressed let's move forward with that so that way we can move forward to see whether or not there's going to be discussion further on the item so floor is yours >> thank you commissioner Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to thank the commission for my excused absence last time. It was
unavoidable and um I do appreciate that you deferred this item in my behalf. All right. So, this ch this particular amendment was brought forward because I'm concerned that the people's will is not being is not going to is not being
addressed. Um, one of the issues that I like to do since we've now at least on paper at least come up with a five member council versus a seven member council that and the fact that in some cases the will of the people is
definitely being ignored during council member meetings. We um I feel that we need to have some type of remedy if the appointed individuals that are working at the behest of the of the commission,
excuse me, of the uh members of the town council that they are basically uh also um performing duties that are the will of the people. This is this is a checks and balance. That's all it is. It just provides another check and balance. Uh
obviously the real power comes from uh the the commission members as a majority of four soon to be a majority of three and if the majority the minority is totally is not is ignored and that the majority decides to push something that
is not the people's will there has to be some type of check and balance that our uh appointed members will say um members this is something that I can support at least give them an opport opportunity to say that there's a problem with what you're proposing. This just gives an
opportunity for the people to go ahead and if they are such and by the way such an egregious act that would require this. It would be at least give the people the opportunity. Generally, I would assume that the opportunity, you know, the the commission itself, excuse
me, the ch I keep saying commission, I apologize, the council itself would uh act accordingly, but uh I think another remedy should be at least available to the population for the electorate of Miami Lakes. Now, I'm sorry about last
month, but um was their proposal to go from 15% to from 10% to 15%. Was that adopted in any way? I'm sorry I didn't get to see that as far as the 15% of the electorate in order to recall a uh a council member. >> Yeah, that wasn't there. But let's let's
stay focused on your current petition that you have this amendment. And if you could kind of really quick wrap it up. >> Exactly. Well, the point I'm trying to say is that's another impediment to basically accountability. That's that's all I'm trying to say. That's why I I look at these. >> There was no change. I'll just let you know that there was no change.
>> That's fine. That's good. Okay. So, my motion is to uh adopt uh a charter amendment uh that would allow for a public petition according to the rules that are already laid out for our elected members in order to remove uh an
appointed official um within a committee within uh the the council itself. >> Okay. Do you have draft language there you'd like us to come? >> I provided it last time. I had the draft language be uh in the last uh doc the
last um packet because it was I left it with um with Gina when I sent it to her PDF files that I sent. >> Okay. I did see that but I >> I just want that >> it it wasn't it wasn't really it wasn't draft language. It was just kind of more
of a guidance. Is that what you're referring to? >> Exactly. But I I just wanted it to be something I wanted to be more specific about it so that we could discuss it. Once again, this is something that it just gives another leverage, another lever of power to the people to make
sure that their will is being basically carried out by our >> I understand that. But I but so you don't have like actual language. It's just a concept at this point that you'd like us that that you would like to move forward with. Is that correct? I I'm just I just want to clarify. Yeah. I I mean basically it says I mean that they
that we Okay, I'll read it verbatim here if you want. The town of Miami Lakes operates in a charter that establishes appointed boards, committees, u administrative officers and to carry out the essential government duties at the behest of of course our our council
members. So I this particular uh uh amendment that I'm proposing would basically draft a a system in which if there the act is egregious enough that the people has the opportunity to you know to have their voice said
>> sure spoken specifically I mean I could say I you know as as can I move that this be adopted verbatim. I mean you know that's I mean how else do you want me to put it sir? No, I'm just I'm just seeking clarification as to how is it that you want to put it. I'm just
>> That's I gave out the outline of what I what I feel is fair and reasonable and in basically in line with our elected officials. Basically, I kind of just copied over exactly. >> Not a problem. Is there a second to the motion? >> I'd like to second for discussion. >> Okay, we have a second and I'll open up
for discussion. Uh Commissioner Ruana, would you like to start? >> Yes, thank you. Um, Commissioner Bennett, my question to you is this is this is very similar to the recall process. Um, and this is you're proposing this for >> appointed members of our of the of the
town, you know, appointed for either committees, you know, the council, you know, members of uh, you know, that are appointed positions in the town of Miami Lakes. >> Okay. So, and I guess I'll I'll give you my thoughts on it. I I mean, I respect that you took the time to put all of this together, so I want to share my
thoughts with you. When I was a council member and I appointed members to different committees, those members were a reflection of me and and what my vision for the town was and what I wanted to see in those particular boards. And if at any point one of those
members was not in line with my vision, then I would have a conversation with them or I guess at some point even consider swapping them out for someone else or removing them from that board. And to take that away from the council member that appoints them, I think is
maybe skipping a step. So I would the way that it is now, I think that it that the council member is responsible for that person and should be >> okay that that removes them if at some point >> right in response to that you know basically yes you have the power to
remove your individual appointee. >> That's correct. The the other issue is um like if for example if it's the town manager, town clerk who you know has done something egregious. I'm not talking about this particular group of I'm talking about in the future that
require four members of the town council to remove them or to at least admonish them to correct. I want to give one more lever of power back to the people that allows them. It's not just you know an individual one-on-one which is fine. It's also, you know, the more the ones
where you need more council members to agree to it. If you get four to do it, that usually should be enough, but sometimes you can't get four people to agree to it and the the act could be egregious, >> right? So, I remember a time and and maybe it's it's in my memory because
some of my closest friends were victims to the entire council removing board members from specific boards and I'm sure that you remember that time as well. Um, so maybe because this feels a little bit like that, I I don't love it.
Um, I don't know if there's any way to tweak it or perhaps maybe change the language in some form, but I I do remember when the council in its entirety would remove a council member from a committee. I mean, a a committee member. It happened in the education advisory board. It happened in the elderly affairs committee. And it was
and it was very hurtful to the committee member who for no fault of their own, it was pretty much it was more political than anything else. I don't want to allow the community as a whole to make decisions like that that will may be political in nature sometimes. >> And once again, now we're dealing with
getting three 15 time 2,100 people to agree with that. Once again, if if it isn't if it doesn't meet a certain level of egregiousness there, you won't get 2,000 people to agree to not only that to sign their name on a petition to do it. So I I you know, if you're looking
at the small, yes, that is a problem. I'm looking at the big I'm looking at the the power of the people that has at least one more lever to you know remove bad members of the comm of the council and of the appointed officials that that's the only reason I'm offering
this. >> Any other commissioners have questions? >> I mean I just want to I'm trying to get I'm trying to process it that it's a bit hard for me in a way. So, so I will say that I my we do have them something on the charter that addresses removing
appointed people, right? So, we know the town manager and hopefully the town clerk soon will be reporting or or beholding to the council, >> right? >> If we're going to go into committees, I mean, I think we're really getting deep into it. Um, I mean, I thought we have procedures as to how to appoint and
remove people from committees. So, I I'm really struggling with the concept of I mean, why would I mean, you know what I'm saying? The committee, you're going to get 2500 people to remove somebody from a committee. >> Once again, that would probably not occur, >> right? But let's say the town manager and the town clerk, though, that's still
2500 people. They're beholding to the council. The council's beholding to the people. So, I just say we're adding more and more things. >> I I I have to say again, they're beholding to four members of the council. >> Yeah. >> Not to the whole council. any form members can make retain and anything
else. >> Who is the council beholdance? >> Oh, it should be the people of Miami Lakes. I don't I don't I believe there are certain circumstances that may not be occurring and that's why I want the other legal power. >> Yeah, >> I can give you an example if you wish, but I don't need to. Well, I'll give you
just recently we had the um um a restricted covenant that was tied to a piece of land and the uh analysis and I don't know if it's been signed yet and excuse me, let me just >> Well, I don't if you want to just go forward with the example. I don't know if we need
>> Well, I'm just trying to say that item. It didn't seem to reflect what the people wanted during all of the public comments. They were all wanted. They were they were negative by and large. I don't think there was any positive. And one of the things was that
was commented is that we no longer have a senior center. And now a senior center was proposed to be on the par three. And in the documents that is not even in the documents for the restricted covenant. It doesn't exist there. So my question
to you just real quick, hold on again. >> Once again, he can run. He can run. >> I just I just want to I had a question as to that aspect of it is so what would your proposed amendment do to remediate that issue that you believe happened in that like what what was what was the
issue of the appointed officials that you believe that the people should be have be able to remove them that you think would have fixed that problem for you? Well, like I said, I believe that the town attorney should have at least brought to the attention of the council that the um senior center wasn't a part
of that draft, at least the ones that I saw. And that was one of the main reasons that concerned us because a senior center was part of our base master plan and now it's been eliminated at the promise of a restricted cut. >> No, I I don't want to get into the weeds of and the arguments of that. What what
I'm just trying to understand is if we were to if we were to propose this and the and the voters were to accept it. I'm just trying to I'm trying to understand how that would have fixed that example that you would >> it would not have fixed it at that time because it would already been passed.
>> So what you're proposing is more it's more of not fixing a problem but rather it's to address an issue and ameliate it for the future. >> Yeah. Exactly. It's not. Remember, these don't go into effect until the No, I understand that >> the the the proposal is designed to at least give the people one more lever of
power back. That's all I'm trying to say. It's uh it's something that I believe we're at this point restricting representation of the people going to five members. And this is something that I believe would at least neutralize uh the effect of under representation of
the people. >> Yeah, >> that's the reason I put it in here to give an extra lever of power. I put I proposed it for a reason mostly for discussion and as far as it immediate it would not immediately solve anything. However, perhaps the um appointed
individual would maybe you know uh look at things and make sure that the council is fully informed of what was proposed and what isn't proposed and that's what concerned me. >> Any other questions council Fernandez? Nothing. All right. Um, you know, I just wanted to say is, you know, in looking at, you know, in
I'll just sum up my my thoughts on this is, you know, just looking at the charter amendment, I I don't necessarily believe that it it's it's helpful to add it to the charter. And the reason being is that we have a process. These are appointees that are already already beholden to the council members. Each of the council members have the right to
have their individuals. The way I'm understanding what you're proposing is to give the people ability to remove these appointed individuals uh where in my opinion that power lies already with the people in that they can then replace
the council members. you know, they have the ability to either run against them in election and or even go through the petition recall process that what you're proposing they would have to go through anyways and remove those council members whether it's one or even like you were saying you believe you know a a four
majority uh you know three majority if if the event that the voters decide to go to reducing from seven down to five uh it I believe it's already there um and I don't think that adding this in there is going to fix a problem which is the purpose of my my question I just was
trying understand what was it. I knew it wasn't going to address that, but you were using it as an example. So, I was just trying to see how that would have if it would have been in place, how it would address it. But, it looked to be more of just addressing it on the back end, not fixing the problem on the front end. And for that that reason, I'm going to be voting against it. Uh, so I'll
give you if you want to if you want to have a few if you want to have a quick 30 seconds if you want to just wrap up so that way we can call a vote for it as there's no other questions from the commissioners. Once again, um I just want to make sure that the people have an actual say in all this. I think we're
limiting the representation of the people. I also beseech four members who voted for the seven seven to five to at least bring it back and perhaps, you know, reverse that. This is one of the this neutralizes some of that problem that's going to be set up. It gives the
ability for the people to make sure their voices are heard. That's my proposal. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, I'm going to go ahead and call the vote. Is all in favor of the of the motion say I. >> I. >> All oppose say nay. >> Nay. >> Nay. >> Nay.
>> I believe the naysay have it. >> Would you hold please? >> Madame clerk. >> Yes. >> Commission member Abad. >> No. >> Commission member Bennett? >> Yes. >> Commission member Ruano? >> No.
>> Commission member Matos? >> No. Vice Chairman Inguanzo, >> no. >> Chairman Leoto, >> no. >> The motion fails. >> Thank you. All right. We're going to go to now 7 C. Uh Mr. or Commissioner Bennett's second uh item that he'd like
to have addressed is a charter amendment proposal entitled prohibiting candidates from municipal office from or sorry, prohibiting candidates for municipal office from utilizing or benefiting from voter brokers. Uh, Commissioner Bennett, like the last time, if you could, uh,
I'll give you a few minutes to address your item, and then I'd like to have a motion. Okay. >> Uh, please. >> Um, in the past, we we've had some individuals that use boat brokers. I won't go through the names of the brokers themselves. It was well
documented and it provides an unfair advantage uh in that they can go ahead and cluster number of votes without allowing the the general population to know who's what's being what what they're proposing.
They're just basically collecting votes without any uh use of the issues at hand and the what the individual wishes. Now, this is something that happened many years ago. So I have no no knowledge of it happening in the last couple of elections. This was something that uh be
I think around 2016 was the last time there was a significant article about it and it was something that I would like to see is banned from the town of Miami Lakes that vote brokers as we know it. Now questions uh we have to answer is
how would you stop that? Would would it have to if dark money were to go ahead and purchase it, would it be possible to detect that or not? So, as far as in the charter, it's there basically as a guideline. As far as enforcability, I'm
not sure how the town would enforce it, and I didn't my um proposal didn't address any type of enforcement. Um it's just something to help with guidelines of future candidates as well as incumbents. So basically my my motion is
to adopt language of the charter in order to uh basically ban vote brokers from our from the Miami Lakes elections. >> All right. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? >> I mean I'll second it for discussion. I'm interested in hearing more about but
my first question to the town of >> you you you have a >> second motion. Okay. So we have a second to the motion. So we'll go ahead. We'll open up for >> I have one simple question. Is that even legal? Can we prohibit both brokers from >> through the chair? >> Mr. Town attorney. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
>> yes and no. >> So, generally that would be considered a prohibition on the right uh for speech and association, mostly the right to of association. you're allowed to use a consultant as as a you know and that
consultant can help you in creating you know different strategies uh including uh absentee ballot strategies and and how you going to get the message across. There's certain laws already established in place to make sure that there's not undue uh interference in that process
and that would result in in basically someone you know taking the the ballot and and signing it for you. I mean those things are considered uh illegal. Uh the restrictions that some cities have have placed is with regards to any campaign consultant being able to lobby the um
the council. Now most of that is not done in in a charter format. It's mostly by ordinance. Uh and that's something that I know uh the the clerk and I have constantly talking about different ways that we can strengthen our lobbying ordinance. And that's something certainly we can bring to the town council's attention for them to consider
as an ordinance, but I don't think it would be proper as a charter amendment. >> Right. Any other commission members questions, discussion items? Sure. Commissioner Ruana, >> I'm sorry. I and I have a question just because I guess we're from the same we're from the same school, so I
remember everything that you remember. >> Um, isn't there a law already against what they call ballot harvesting or going to is that it's it's more in line with that, right? Right. What you're talking about is it's about people that go >> basically one certain building and collect all the ballots and deliver them. Right. I remember exactly what
you're remembering and I think that at this point that's illegal. >> That is illegal. >> Okay. So that would kind of it's already it's already >> it's already state law. We're preempted by state >> law state law. So I think that it wouldn't if it were happening with any candidate then that's what that's where we would direct them, right? Would be to to the
>> state. Correct. >> Yeah. My question then is to the to the town attorney and town clerk. Um what problem have we had here in the town of Miami Lakes? Has this been an issue in the past? Have we had referrals to the
state attorney's office uh to address uh this these ballot harvesting as uh that's that is definitely without question illegal. Oja and I have been here since at least tw 2015 2016 and since that time no >> since I've been here I have not heard of
anything. >> I don't know prior to my time. >> Sure. Commissioner Bennett, do you have any examples of of of issues that we've had that have been referred? >> Answer is I do have newspaper articles in my archive. I didn't bring them with me nor did I send them but I can certainly bring them if you want to defer this until the next meeting. I can certainly bring the newspaper articles.
>> I'm not looking to defer it. I think we can move forward. But I was just wondering if you had any any offh hand since you >> as I said not with me. I rather quote the uh newspaper articles >> here in Miami Lakes. >> Yes. >> And they were referred to the state attorney's office. >> I believe they were. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions
from the commissioners? All right. Mr. Commissioner Bennett, if you'd like to briefly close and then we'll take the vote. >> Yes. Again. Once again, I know there are state laws about ballot harvesting. I understand all that. It's something that future candidates need to know also.
Now, I've seen the candidates books. It's very complete. I don't know anyone who's read it cover to cover. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. And um one of the this is one of the laws that that is that should if it is in there. I I don't remember seeing it off the top of my head, but it should be. If it's in the
the charter itself, at least it it gives it immediate attention to f to uh future candidates to realize that there's a you you shouldn't be able to taint the election pool, the voters pool. You should be able to basically stand on
your own merits and that vote harvesting, I think, is something that is a significant issue. It was in previous elections. I have to be honest with you, I haven't seen it in in these two the last two election cycles for sure. So, that's the only reason I propose it and whether it goes up or
down, I just want this I want this on the record. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bennett. Uh, with that is I'm going to call the vote is all in favor say I. >> Sorry, I >> and all oppose say nay. >> Nay. >> Nate. >> All right, sounds to me nays have it.
Uh, the motion fails. >> All right, that closes old business 7 C. Now we're going to move on new items for discussion. new business. Um, what we're going to go through here and is is the town attorney has gone through and
worked with them to redline the charter as we have it with together. And what they've gone through as you guys have seen it's before you guys is the entire charter in a redline draft with all the motions that we've made uh with and thankfully you know I want to thank the
town attorney uh both the deputy town attorney Gella together with uh deputy with town attorney assistant town attorney Castillia in putting this together. it I think it does a great job in putting each item together um if
section by section and disc where it was discussed as well as referencing you know if there was motions and what were the nature of those motions so that way we can have a quick reference to it um if needed and so what I intend to do is uh you know go through each of these
items um I did notice here that we didn't include uh the citizens bill of rights we can go over the preamble citizens bill of rights pretty simply I don't think there was uh much that was done there uh that we need to review. But I do want to make sure that we've all reviewed those these aspects of it. And as we go through each of the
articles, um there are approximately there's four sections where there's proposed languages or language that was uh requested from the town attorney. And so when we get to those sections, we'll address those proposed section those questions at those points there. And uh you know I'll be definitely asking for a
motion from everybody as to you know which options they provided those various options based on our discussions at the last meeting. Um so that way we can review and approve those aspects and then we'll move on and at the end is hopefully we can uh you know we can go
through the entire charter and set us up for moving forward with starting to draft uh the questions that we're going to have to consider. that'll be the ballot items in uh based on all of these motions and edits to the charter that we have. So, with that, um you know, we'll go ahead and we'll start off with the
citizens bill of rights and the preamble. I don't know if there was anything that anybody wanted to address in any of this here. Um you know, I think there was, you know, some as we can see the red lines, nothing really substantive. see it and we'll go over it.
>> Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry. Just >> a reminder because the town attorney I think uh references. So for small changes like that like for example under citizens bill of rights we're changing hearing to meeting.
Is that something that has to go to the voters or do we have the right to >> amend language that's just clarification? >> Well it seems clarification but you're changing language. I mean change hearing to meetings. So something that the chair
and I have have brainstormed is that that a lot of these so we're going to be going through a lot of changes. Now some of these changes the way it's going to work is they're going to be grouped up in in coupled together in questions. So this would be something uh in line of an omnibus change.
>> Okay. >> Brush up of of the charter uh and and where that would be the question and obviously these would be the sections that would be crossed out. Does that does that make sense? >> Yes. Thank you. Yeah. and and and I'll and I'll just go a little further on that is is so you understand that piece. It's going to be kind of more an omnibus
type of question as these are not they're they're less substantive type of changes and just more of you know we're cleaning up language uh designations throughout here that you know we think are not necessarily substantive that don't need to be on a different type of question and that's kind of where how we're going to be grouping them once we
have all once we've have a final say on from everybody on to uh the draft of the charter that's what we're going to be working on bringing up for the next meeting. >> Um thank you >> Mr. here. Just one question. I mean, and once again, I like I'm just doing hypotheticals. >> Let's suppose the substance of what
we're doing is passed, but some of the minutiae is not passed. How does that affect the general the the whole charter? In other words, >> I'm not sure what you're asking. >> Well, like I said, you want to bundle all these little minutiaas together as one question for what what if it isn't clear and the people decide, no, we
don't want that, but we want everything else. It it it carries down the charter, right? one section, you know, could carry to the next part. It would be wouldn't it cause a lot of conflict about how we would how the charter would look? >> Well, that you're presupposing that the town attorney is not going to do a great
job in sorting that out >> and we don't have those questions. >> I don't presuppose anything. I need I need cause and effect and evidence. I I always act on that. >> No. So, you what what I would say is hold off for the next meeting. Okay. Is you know is once we get those questions and those are the those are the types of questions when we look at those
questions is to look at that and raise it at that point. So that way we can say, "Hey, look, you know, is this question covering too much or is it covering too little?" And then we can modify those questions at that point. Obviously, you know, with the town attorneys and and their work in in collecting them, they're going to do their best job. Nobody's perfect. And,
you know, and our job isn't necessarily to be perfect. I I I want to reiterate actually um I wanted to me you know kind of a comment based on you know the public comments again uh that we received not only from this meeting but from other meetings and from comments that I've heard here on the dis uh is is
just reminding everybody is what we're deciding isn't going to be the change in the charter what we're doing is each one of us I'm sure you guys have had at least one conversation with some member of the community if not many members of the community you know we've had several
people that come and spoken here and whether or not we agree personally with each of the items. What's important is is what I've seen is that there's been sufficient enough discussion on at least the items that we've addressed that we should put it out to the voters whether
they voted up or voted down. It should be up to the people. We shouldn't be the ones saying, "Hey, look, you know what? We're not going to even put this this item up because we personally, us seven that are sitting here don't feel like it, you know, it's not right." that I think does a disservice especially when we've heard from folks that it is it is
a conversation it is something that is that there there is a sentiment there's going to be two two uh groups of people out there people are going to be for it people are going to be against it and I think what'll what's going to be the next steps once we finalize our questions it's going to be getting the campaign information or not campaign but
the information about the questions to kind of explain it that the town will be putting out but I'm sure there's going to be special groups on both sides I'm sure the council member members are going to be going out and they're going to be putting out their feelings on each of these items that we're proposing. And you know what, our voters are going to
vote. They're going to vote one way or another. They're going to say yes, we like it or no, we don't like it and we and it's going to stay the same. Or, you know, or even, you know, the council members still have their opportunity to come up with their own questions that they believe once they see what we have that we may may be lacking or they believe that might be an alternative
that they'd also like to present. And that'll that's great because you know what? I'm always for giving the people more of a choice. So, you know, keep that in mind and as as we go through these things. I know that you know that there is some um there's been a lot of discussion as to you know some of the issues that we've had including you know
whether we move from seven down to five but I think it warrants getting it out because there I think there's good there's a good number of people on both sides of the issue that I think it's really good for us to get it out to the commission to the community and let them decide hey look are we going to really reduce this down to seven or five or we
going to keep it at seven you know it's the will of the people and they're going to come out to vote and I want it because I I really think we're going to have a really good turnout and I think it's going to benefit benefit our elections uh overall uh because we're going to have a good amount of people that are going to show up for it. So, >> chair, can I have a question to the attorney? >> Sure.
>> Mr. Attorney, um in some when when you're drafting those questions, could you in some way as an aside area? um delineate the chain if one particular question fails on the ballot during the
election and how it affects any other sections of the charter. In other words, I'm looking at the chain if one fails and this one but this is related to that. You understand? >> So, so the idea is and that's a that's a wonderful question. The idea is that each question will stand alone will not
affect the other portions of of the charter. So there's there's sections here that deal with I don't know certain things dealing with election rights. So if if we do that we're going to group issues that have to deal with elections and runoff all together. Anytime that it's mentioned in the in the charter. Uh
if we're talking about the manager everything dealing with the manager will be grouped up together. You know that that's the idea. And then again as a chair alluded next time that we meet we're going to be beating up those questions. >> Yeah.
>> All right. All right. So, we're going to go through now we've finished the the preamble no questions bill of rights and so review of article one um you know these were the basic ones the corporate existence form of government corporate boundary um all those items have moved
forward um and 1.4 for powers and construction. There was no changes there. Um any other discussion, any other questions? I don't think there was any since we're good. All right. And now going into article two, we're going to
have a few changes that we're going to discuss here. Uh let's take each of these as we see first in 2.1. um you know we had already made our the the vote had already been made to re for the reduction of uh or the the I'm sorry
here we had changed the where we started the changing of the terminology with regards to council members and that's been done uh throughout the uh uh throughout the entire charter in changing from council members now to members of the council when referring generally to both the mayor and the council and council members is just
specifically uh everyone except the mayor that's been throughout the meeting or throughout the charter and then going into 2.2 uh and in 2.2 as you guys see I don't know if there anyone has any questions
or any issues with regards to 2.2A 2.2B to B. All right, seeing none, we're going to go down to 2.3. And in 2.3, uh we'll start with A. You know, obviously there was the the changes that we had proposed
as you as it's noted there. Um again, it was just the terminology that's done throughout the agreement. And then now we get into 2.3B. This was an item where the town attorney has presented three options for us um
that were we had already voted on uh but I believe there was a question about of how to you know how to word it on the different formats. If Mr. Town attorney if you want to go through those options real quick. >> Certainly Mr. Chair. Uh so as uh the Mr. the chair has has stated there was the
vote to go from seven members to five members and the question was how to do that. So the the uh options that are listed here A, B, and C, I'll briefly uh discuss them. The first one is the council members will serve in seats 1 through six collectively until the seats reduction described in section 2.3A take
effect. Effective with the election of November 2030, council members shall serve in seats 1 through four collectively, seats individually. Um individually, each is a seat. One shall be elected to each seat. So the first
one so so that's how it is now. So the first uh item sorry so so the seat abolition for option A would be for the general election to be held November to be held in 2028. The council member elected in seat 5 shall only be elected
to serve for a period of two years. Council seat 5 thereafter be abolished and no further election shall be held for count council seat 5. for the general election to be held in 2030. There shall be no election for uh council seat number six and council seat
number six shall thereafter be abolished effective upon the expiration of the term of the council member uh council member serving in in seat uh number six. So this is a pure attrition, >> right? >> Yeah.
Correct. Right. >> That's what I >> So now the the the problem or the issue with with CDA and by the way because each of them have their own little issues, but the nuance and and the reason why option A you can consider and it's fine. Uh and if you want to move
that that way, you can. But what it could cause is for the council to be even numbered uh for for a significant period of time. And if it's even numbered for for significant period of time, what you could have is a deadlock. And we did experience that.
>> No, that's option B. Option A option A is the actual it's the abolition. What you're doing is you're you're giving seat five only a two-year period. >> Correct. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. >> Yeah, you're right. All right. So So seed A you wouldn't have that issue because you correct. You would have seed number five only serving for two years.
>> Yes, >> absolutely correct. And seed number six would just expire after 2030. >> Correct. And so and so just real quick so and I just did want to comment so with that because I know the question has come up from uh past conversations
as well I believe from public comments is that so people understand is that that C5 since if that is approved if we go forward with that type of language whoever runs for that C5 will know that they will only serve for two-year period. Correct. So it's not going to be a surprise. They know it's going to be a shortened period of time at that point
because that that one will be an election in 2028 that they know it will only be for a two-year period. >> What what you'll probably have to after the decision is made of which of any of these options to go with is talk about does that count or doesn't count towards
term limits of full term? >> Yes. Yeah. That >> that'll be a follow-up conversation. >> The term the term discussion languages later. >> Yeah. Right. So, um, see, option number two, and and I'm sorry I got confused because I think we somehow messed up in
and putting option B was the one that was recommended versus option A, but option A is the one that's really recommended because it would avoid that, uh, even split. Option B is basically a pure attrition. So, um, it said it states effective for the general election of 2032, the council shall
consist of the mayor and four council members. At the general election to be held in 2032, there shall be no election for seat number five and no election held for seat number six. Council seat five and council seat six shall thereafter be abolished effective upon the expiration of the term of the council member serving in that seat as
of the 2032 election. Nothing in this provision shall shorten the term of any council member currently elected prior to 2032. So that would be a pure attrition. >> Mr. Chair, I have a question for the attorney again. I'm sorry. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> Hypothetically, Mr. attorney. Let's
assume that nobody wants to run for a two-year term and decide and there is no candidate. What happens at that point? Is there is there a candidate appointed by the mayor at that point for two years? Is that is that what is is that the mechanism that's going to happen?
>> It would be a vacancy. So, yeah. >> Thought so. >> Maybe an appointment. >> Thank you. >> Um and then option C is we remain with the seven seats and we don't go to five. So, those are the options before you. A,
which is the two-year term to uh for seed number five, which is to avoid an even deadlock council. Seat B, which is just pure attrition, and C option C, which is to retain the seven seats. And so, um, this is for you all to decide.
>> Yes. And just to clarify, from what I recall is that option A was already was what we had voted on, but we had asked for clarification on those two other options as well. >> Correct. That's what I thought. Yeah, option A is what we currently have already voted on. Um, so it would require a replacing of that vote uh that
motion. Is that correct, Mr. Town attorney, from a procedural standpoint? >> By someone on the prevailing side. Yes. >> Yeah. And that was a unanimous vote. >> All right. So, anyone can make the >> So, I don't know if there's anyone wants to modify. >> I'd like to move to modify and go with
option C. >> I'll second >> modify that vote. >> Okay. We have a second >> option C. >> Okay. Motion is to for to to modify the original vote to go to option C, which
is to keep the language as is. Correct, Mr. Titary? >> Yep, that is correct, Mr. Chair. >> All right. And was there a second? >> I second it. >> Okay. So, we have a second. Now, we're opening for discussion. Commissioners,
>> uh, one sec. Hold on one second. Sure, >> please. >> Did you want to start? >> No, no, please. >> Okay, I'll call you, Commissioner Bennett, and then I'll go to Councilman Fernard. >> Once again, I I'm sorry I keep hammering the same same metal. Um I don't want to
see a reduction of representation of the people of Miami Lakes. Um it's something that um it's it's fundamental to our democracy. I think we should keep seven members. Now when we went from member districts down to at large I um was very
concerned about that where everybody would come from one section and the whole town wouldn't be represented. This I think would even restrict that even further. I urge uh this commission to maintain the seven members and I make a motion to adopt C I believe was already
on the table. I apologize already. I apologize. I was going to do it. Thank you. >> Okay. Any uh Councilman Fernandez? I I I made the the point last last last uh meeting and I I stand by, you know, I I really thought about it. I've I've
listened to the the residents. It was initially it was something that um you know, I thought it was a good idea, but I I take it back. You know, I I I think after a lot of thinking and and listening again, listening to the residents, I I do think only because and
and again, this isn't I I've stated this has nothing to do with the present mayor. Um I just think that in the future if we had five seats, it could be swayed um and that we can give too much power to the mayor. I think it might and it might limit representation, too. So,
and not to mention uh we would have an issue with with our all of our committee members that we would be short uh or we would have to somehow either supplement the ones that are there now in a in a some manner or they would be eliminated. So, for those reasons, I I take back and
I I hope that we stay with uh the seven council seats. >> Thank you. Any other commissioners would like to speak? Uh Commissioner Mats. So, if we adopt C, and I've also thought long and hard about it, we then take
away that option from the voters to vote for those who were supportive of a five member council. That's not new news. In front of you, I have a article that I found just by accident sort of in the
Miami Laker. It's been discussed before and voted on before. Again, we're here to do what is best for the residents by taking away that opportunity for them to make that decision.
Are we representing them effectively or were deciding as a commission? Obviously, it goes to the council, but we talk about the committees. We've all been removed from committees. There have been all kinds of things that
have happened over the years. they've survived beautifully whether it was five or seven or changes or not. Um there are many things to take into consideration. I still think that while I'm also leaning towards C the idea that we're
deciding rather than putting it out there for the voters, I have a problem with that. Um I'm still having conversation. I'd love to hear what the rest of you think. >> May I? We're going to go through everybody first since you've already had the opportunity is and but I'll come
back to you is commissioner. >> Thank you so much Mr. Chair. So so thinking about it again and looking at the article that you actually submitted, it seems that this issue has been brought to the voters twice. It's been voted down by the voters twice, you know, and it's like bringing things back
up and back up. I I know it's been an argument in in the council for years about the park, right? whole optimist thing and are we going to keep bringing it back to the voters? And they made a decision twice. Why are we going back to the same thing? I don't see the value of reducing the council to five. I I mean,
I could be wrong. I've always said you guys could always convince me. And again, I'm also very concerned about border fatigue. I mean, how many things are we going to be bringing up to the voters, right? And is this the one of the main things that we really want the voters to focus on? At the end of the
day, I I I know you brought it up, Mr. Fernandez. Um, again, I don't even see I I know that maybe it was best for the for the town and that's something they wanted a change on, but but what's the benefit for the residents? I mean, that that's all I'm seeing.
>> All right, Commissioner Ruano. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I took the liberty of reaching out to um, many members of the community that are very active participants in the community and that have um, I guess walked through these exercises with us, right? So, I
have my experience as a council member and as a council member, I wouldn't change 7 to 5 at any point. We had a long period of time that there was six of us. Um, there was there was an absent council member. um if that were to happen in a five member uh council then
you'd be down to four. So there's many events where not everyone can attend and so I think that at least for me in my experience the town was much better served having seven council members. However, because there was talks of saving money and it would be more
costefficient and whatnot, I did take the liberty to reach out to many members of the community that I consider budget hawks that I've worked with in the past and that I've um I guess lobbyed with in the past and we've we've been activists together and and we measure every single
penny and this is an area where none of them are willing to save money in exchange for less representation. So, I I did do that exercise and when we when we went through it the first time, um obviously if people ask for it, then it's something that we really should look into. However, I think that our our
our purpose here is to amend things in the budget that have been a problem in the past to look through the budget and find areas that are in need of improvement. And I just don't I don't think that anyone really finds this to be an area that's worthy of being put on
the ballot as a question. um and that anyone really I mean we've we've been here before. We've we've had this question before and I don't really think that it would be significant cost savings. I think there's many other areas in which we can find cost savings that wouldn't affect, you know, the the
voter representation. >> Thank you, >> Vice Chair Inguanzo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Montos, thank you for taking us for this. Uh interesting how history repeats itself sometimes, right? But to Commissioner Abod's point, you said it
went to the voters twice. >> I haven't been the whole >> Yeah. Do we know what the outcome was? What was >> Well, we're still at seven >> in ' 06. >> We're still at seven. So that mean >> back in ' 06. Well, okay. I just didn't know if it had been recommended twice or
not. But do we know, Mr. Town attorney or Mr. Manager, what the outcome was back in ' 06? Well, I believe that we continued with the Was that >> the vote like was it 90 to 10%? >> No idea. Okay. Yeah. Um, Mr. Chair, I
can answer that question for 2016. >> Yeah. If you could hold on one second. >> Okay. >> I don't know if Commissioner >> That's it. I was just curious what the what the outcome of the vote was if it was lost. >> Do you know what it was for 20? >> It was overwhelming. There was almost no negative votes in 2016 to basically go
to seven at large, not five at large. It was seven at large. >> Okay. 2016 it moved it from five to seven. >> No, no, we stayed at seven. It's been seven since our inception. >> So, so but it didn't have to go with the number. It had to do just from districts at large. Okay. I just wanted a clarification because I understood you
his question was how did the 2006 election went because that one I understood it was it was the same similar question that we have today which is different than 2016. >> I'm going to check to see if I can find it. >> Yeah. >> Thank >> Mr. Chair. So as one point of
clarification it there was no question about 7 to 5 in 2016. It was a question of going to districts >> going away to at large. >> Yeah, that's what we're cl that's what I was getting from him and that's we clarified. Commissioner Bennett, you want >> and I'll clarify also we did discuss five versus seven and at five at large
um I mean four at large and one mayor. We did discuss it during that. It's in the minutes. Um at that time nobody of the commission wanted to do that for basically the reasons we listed. Um going to miss uh uh Commissioner Roano. Yeah, I did the calculation based on
what uh Mr. Peterman gave us when we discussed this the first time. The amount of saving is 0.00263% of the budget per per council member with a little bit higher for the mayor of course because he has additional um a salary and benefits. Any rate, I'm I'm
hoping that this commission will uh vote to maintain the seven seats. That's my only Thank you so much. >> All right. So, Mr. Town attorney, Mr. Town Manager, sorry. >> H, but I play one on TV. >> Um, >> much better than I will. >> The the one thing that I would because I
was there when we drafted the original uh town charter. So, for her historical perspectives, I think it may behoove the uh council or the commission to look at the minutes from how we got to why did we even get to uh seven. The original
number was always going to be num uh five. And when we started talking about the geographical districts, there's actually a gentleman who he sits on the GMX board with me, uh, Rudy Pages, who used to be a town resident, was super
involved during that time. He made the recommendation to go to to move to seven and have the four geographical districts, two at large districts, and the mayor at large. and that was uh and the only reason was to try and balance
out and make sure that there was going to be representation from around the uh town. Historically, it hasn't proven even to be be an issue. And I think that the above the abolition of the geographical districts has proven to be okay and and and you know without any
harm. But the reason that we even considered going uh seven districts or uh seven members of the council was because of the geographical districts and the uh the the minutes from the original charter commission. Uh you can read through them. It's interesting
reading and it could uh help you one way or the other. >> All right. So I'm going to go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Town Manager. And I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to close up uh the discussions. is you know I I as I had started off when we were starting this new business is what I want to say is um I would be
disheartened if we take this option away clearly there is a lot of discussion on both sides of this aspect and I wouldn't want to see us as a charter comm as the commission as taking this opportunity away from the voters if as what many of
you believe that it's going to be the same exact thing that was 20 years ago you know if you know if we're going to say hey look you what 20 years what happened 20 years ago the same thing that's going to happen with our residents now there's no point of having any charter revision commission ever because we would just keep it all the
same. Um, additionally is you know you guys have valid points on both sides. I'm not discounting anybody's point. There's there's valid points on keeping seven. There's valid points on keeping five. My point in I'm going to be voting
against uh changing to option C is that I strongly believe that this decision should be made by the voters not by us. And I say it particularly because there is clearly a lot of discussion about it. If this was something that not one
public comment came about, not one person here up in the das really had any desire to even move forward or have any discussion on, I say, you know what, maybe this isn't something that no one's really having discussion. None of you guys have heard it from any of your residents, but clearly there's a buzz in the town, you know, about this. And if
it's for, hey, look, you know, there's a very strong sense of, you know, we want to reaffirm that we want to have seven people and it'll be overwhelming and it'll tell us our town, hey, look, we need to have seven. We always want to have seven. We're going to go forward and let that be 99% of the vote. I would
love that. Conversely, the same exact thing. If there's going to be a strong sentiment of people say you know what we're tired of having seven people we want to have five whether it's for financial reasons or whether it's because we just don't like having so many people up here on the dis for whatever reason the person
doesn't feel like they you know they want to have their sense of hey look we want to have a smaller government we want to have a smaller dice well that's their right and I don't think that we as a commission considering how much time we've actually devoted to having this discussion this debate which I think is healthy and I want to I loved hearing
from every every side because you know it's enlightened me as well. I think we need to give that opportunity to the voters for them to decide. It's not for us to make this decision because it's going to be for the next 10 years. And look, it's going to maybe it's a really close, maybe it's skewed either with
saying yes for one or no for the other. And so that's the reason I'm going to vote against changing this because I really think that this language should go to the voters and whether it stays the same with them voting down which is effectively what we what we're vote what the motion is pending right now or they vote to the change it I think it should
be with the community not necessarily with us with the given level of the debate. So with that, I'm going >> before you call the question, if I may, >> can someone refresh my memory as to where this came from originally? Who was the person that brought about the change?
>> This this was one of the items that was brought about that was proposed by Councilman Fernandez. >> No, I understand that it was proposed by Council Member Fernandez um in in the in the list of changes, but that list of changes came from where? From staff, from management, from where did that >> Councilman Fernandez
>> talk? So it was so it was staff's desire to >> it was a combination of staff and I yeah >> but it but was it something that you presented to them or was it something that they presented to you >> and we discussed it at the time so it wasn't like like this is the guide that I'm going to give you but we discussed
what you know when we were going through the things that we were going to be discussing we discussed some of the things that we could be that we would be proposing >> right no and I and I understand that but was it was it something that came from staff was there something that was already a I don't recall, but it may
have it may be if I don't know if the the what came first, but it may have been from staff if I if I >> just trying to figure out where the desire came from originally because I don't think that it originally came from the public. I don't recall that it originally came from the public.
>> I don't ever remember anyone expressing a desire to me, but there are some things that are sometimes put out into the community that create a buzz, but it's not necessarily that the community wants it. And so that's why I was just trying to figure out where the initial um I guess conversation started. Sure.
>> And and and I just want to quickly add to that aspect to the that question that I was I did I was approached by several members of the community that did come talk to me and said, "Hey, Javier, you know, this is something we'd like to we'd like you guys to consider." And some of them used what's going on in other municipalities as an example. And
had, you know, Commissioner, Councilman Fernandez had not brought it up, it would have been a proposal that I was going to make. But since he had it there, I put it up there. And again, like I'm saying, my purpose is at at this point is to I want I I pref I would strongly want to have the community be
able to have that vote and make that decision. Uh because I've heard that yes, there is that there is a buzz in the community about it. Whether there was one a huge one before or whether there is one now, you well that that spurred what it is now. Uh but there is a buzz out there and I think if we pull
it away we're going to have a lot of people say hey look you know we wanted to vote for it and look maybe it sounds like a referendum says look we're absolutely we want seven people and that'd be great and it's just adding one more question uh about what the what what the what the language is going to be and it and it voids out and you know
the town attorney is going to have his question that if it obviously it dies then you know those other changes that about the abolition and the attrition of the languages that's not going to matter anymore at that point >> Mr. Chair. So very briefly >> before just briefly once again all the discussion I haven't heard any benefit
to going to five other than a 0.00263 savings in the budget. I I don't hear anything that it benefits with five. The savings is negligible. The representation is cut by a by a third. Um I still believe if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>> Yeah. And those those would be arguments that we would pose when when the when the ballot goes up there. Um but with that I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to call the question. So the motion is uh I just want to make sure that if we can clarify clerk the motion that I have is motion to modify the original vote to
go to option C which is to keep it as it is to retain seven seats not to move to five. >> Okay everyone clear on the motion? All right so all in favor of that motion say I. >> I. >> All against say nay. Nay.
>> Nay. >> All right. Can we pull? Madam clicker. >> Absolutely. Council, sorry. Commission member Abad. >> Yes. >> Commission member Bennett. >> Yes. He's wait. >> Sorry, Mr. Town attorney.
>> All right. Before Before we proceed because >> the manager did ask me and I I apologize for interrupting the vote, Madam Clerk, but >> um Councilwoman Rano, were you the person who made the the motion, original motion? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Did you vote originally in
favor of the item or against it? You voted you voted in favor. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah, it it was a unanimous I had I had looked at it earlier. It was a unanimous uh I believe the it was a unanimous >> because the notes do say 43. >> No, it does say 43 the vote. >> Oh, was Oh, then I'm referring to
another one. I'm my apologies. >> Yeah, that and I just want to make sure that procedure we're in the right posture. >> Do we know what who the votes? >> Okay. Okay. So then before we've Yeah. Yes. >> I appreciate that and I probably
mistaken that. >> Attorney Castillia. >> Attorney Castillia. Yeah. But doesn't say who voted. Yeah. >> I >> No, but I don't know. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But >> if we could if we can ref
>> No. Yeah. Because it says option C was the position of Councilwoman Ronaldo. But Council >> April January that was April 23rd meeting. >> Oh, okay. So >> I I believe you. I just want to make sure. Give me one second. I'm sorry. to
refresh the memory the minutes from January 22nd which were approved February 12th article discussion article 2 section 2.1
I'm going to read >> this would be 2.3 >> the town clerk read the motion on the >> this was 2.3B Well, I have it. >> I believe >> this is what I have. >> The town clerk read the motion on the floor, which was a motion to consider
changing the number of council members from 7 to 5. That is the mayor and four at large council members. and to include the wording effective with the election
of November 2030. The council shall consist of the mayor and four at large council members. The town clerk called a role on that main motion as amended and the motion pass 43.
Commission member Abad, Commission Member Bennett, Commission Member Ruano voted in opposition. So those are the three commission members that voted in opposition
from 7 to 5. >> I'm going to keep reading. Chairman Leoto then mentioned that the word council members needs to be defined. That's not it. Chairman Leoto then made a motion for the second sentence of section 2.1 to be restructured the
following way. The council shall consist of six at large council members. The mayor as described below, chairman leoto explained the term council members are referring to six at large council members and then the mayor is separated from that definition. Deputy town
attorney agreed with the motion and stated he would revise this language throughout the charter, make proper changes for consistency. The motion was seconded. The motion passed. Then the minutes go on to section 2.2, to mayor and vice mayor.
Lots of motions. You're saying that this one is particular to 2.3. Okay. >> Well, this language would be 2.3, but it's it's one of those that is tied to the original motion 2.1 then >> from what I'm seeing there. >> I'm looking
I mean, this was a meeting that >> Yeah. So, I don't think we even have the ability to go to option C without affecting that 2.1 motion. Correct. Mr. Town attorney and now that we're seeing that >> depends on how the motion was made. Mr. Chair,
>> yes. >> But I mean the substantive change on his to be quite honest >> 2.1 >> is it is really the 2.3 section is what's substantive. The reason being and Mr. attorney is
because what I'm reading is in 2.1 establishes what the town council will be which is which was reduced from the 7 to five from what the clerk just read and then the subsequent language is how
the seats are divi divvied up and that's this more specifying the language of how the council members that were originally established in 2.1 are separated out. >> Correct. >> That one, that language has the >> that's the one that has the unanimous bill
>> because of how you split up the seats, >> not the reduction. >> Not the reduction. >> Not the reduction. >> Right. >> That's how I'm reading it. >> Yep. I think you're correct, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. So, that was the unanimous because we had the voted. It was already voted down. I'm guessing when we got to it, we
just decided yes, we're going to move forward with that language. So, as a point of order, Mr. Town Attorney, >> I'd like to make sure you earn your >> Yeah. >> Earn my key. >> So, where we are now, since we do have
it, we did have a motion. We did have a second. However, it appears to be >> defective. >> So, I have to I have to withdraw my motion because I was not on the prevailing side. Correct. >> Well, this current >> it would be ruled out of order, right? >> No, I'll defer the time.
>> No, no, no. It's it's it's >> it's nice >> procedurally it's deficient. It's out of order. >> Yes. >> Because that motion was defective from from the onset. It can't be made by someone who was not on the prevailing side. Now, if somebody from the prevailing side wishes to make the the motion and move this forward, they they
they can do so at this time. >> So, there's no motion on the floor. It's it's that it was defective. >> Okay. or any other motion can be made. >> Yes. >> So the motion was wrong so that I can >> it was Yes, >> I will withdraw my motion to not be out
of order. >> All right. I really hate doing this. Sorry. No, we want to make sure we're we're good with the procedures and that's why I am so glad I'm not sitting in your chair. It's nice not to actually have to be the official attorney.
It's a good change. All right. So, I think what we're then in and it's not necessarily option C isn't really an option under what we're considering. It's whether it's option A or B then whether it's a transition or
the attrition. Well, >> because it's because A and B do address the original motion, >> correct? >> And so we can vote on whether it's A or B, not necessarily reverting back to C. >> So anyone can vote for A or B, right? Because that's what what what passed.
Now, if somebody wants to change what passed, it would have to be someone that was on the prevailing side, correct? And they can make up the main motion, >> correct? >> The enabling or whatever terminology, right? >> Because the motion that passed >> Yeah. was option A or B. >> Okay, >> that is correct. Mr. Chair,
>> to the attorney attorney. >> Sure. Commissioner Bennett, >> we now have six people here. If it's deadlock 33 on A and B, does that mean neither of pass? >> It fails. >> It fails all three. And then where are we? That's why I'm asking. >> But yeah. >> Yes. We're even numbered right now. That's why I'm asking. So if it if it
goes 33 on A and B, >> it dies >> and then it dies. And then where are we then? >> Back to back to C. >> There's just no question. No, there's no question. Then it just there is there is no change. >> No, it goes back actually to the original motion that we had >> that was approved.
>> Does it? >> Yeah. Which was the recommended language which was the option A. It would just def default to that if we don't vote on it. >> Right. >> Because that was already moved and that was approved. >> Mr. Attorney, is that true? I mean that then these options are there's no reason to vote on them, right?
So the the idea was to bring back additional language that that was the instructions that you gave me as a board. This is the language that's before you A or B. If you don't vote on it today, it it dies. Uh that doesn't mean that it it can't or it it also can
be tabled to the next meeting >> and you can vote on it. Well, I think what well I think what it is is that we already have we asked for the language specifically on how to address the reduction whether it was going to be just an attrition being that it would we would end both of them at or one of them
would only serve a two-year or whether both of them would be able to run out their time. It's either one of those two options of how they how the reduction would occur. >> So, >> correct. But the one that had originally was voted on was the unanimous one that
I was referring to that I I misunderstood earlier. >> Which was unanimous? Which one? >> A or B or no? >> Give me one second and I'll read and I'll double check that. Or Madam Clerk, I don't know if you have it before me.
Same. >> 2.3 million. >> 2.3. >> Yes. >> Did they pass something? >> Yeah. So, >> we're we're we're looking into a little bit more, but what um Merles just texted
me, I mean, Miss Castillia, was that the motion was made by it was introduced by uh Councilman Fernandez. The motion was made by uh Tony Fernandez and it was seconded by uh Mr. Abad. >> Just to go down the motion was >> it was taken in in several parts from
what I'm looking at from the minutes >> to get the attrition part was that >> so what was voted on >> the proposed language uh >> because it was an intervening language. So the motion was
for section 2.1. >> No, I'm going to 2.3B. >> Okay. >> Which is the two proposed languages that we're looking at. >> Yeah, we moved past the 2.1. That one stayed because I didn't get I I'm not getting a motion from anybody that was on the winning side. So we're on the 2.3 language whether we're going to change
to option A or to option B. And what was voted on at that time was for the election to be held in November 2028. The seat five would be abolished. >> Sure. >> Okay. Go ahead, town clerk. >> Understand?
>> Under section 2.3, election and term of office. I'm reading from the minutes. Council member JC Fernandez presented his proposed recommendation for section 2.3A. He explained he wanted to strike the first sentence of this section because it was obsolete language to this matter.
Commission member Fernandez asked for the town attorney to come back with a list of items applicable to activities and the town undertook shortly after incorporation and bring forth language in an item that removes them all rather by than doing it piece by piece. Deputy
Town Attorney Kella agreed with the request and stated that he would do said analysis. Chairman Lelay Sto agreed and asked a deputy town attorney to have this done for the commission members in advance. Okay. Commission member JC Fernandez then introduced the second
part of his proposed recommendations which refers to the part of the transition that would need to take place if the voters were to vote from the five seats instead of what the town charter currently states, which is seven seats.
Council member JC Fernandez then read the proposed language and this is the proposed language for the election to be held in November 2028, the council member elected in seat five shall only be elected to serve for a
period of two years until 2030. Period. In November 2030, council's seat number five shall be abolished. Chairman Leto then profered the following motion for the election to be held in November
2028, seat five shall be abolished. Period. The motion was seconded by commission member Ruano. discussion was held and the commission members asked Deputy Town attorney G Coella to provide an opinion
on how to handle the reduction of elected officials and to bring back proposed language to this effect so that there is no ambiguity created in the charter. Deputy Town Attorney Kella agreed to provide an opinion. The motion
passed unanimously. So the motion to pass unanimously, if that's the one that we're referring to, I'm gonna keep >> which is Yeah. So >> I believe it was for him to bring back language >> to do it is not was never voted, >> but I'm going to keep reading regarding
section 2.3. Are we still there or no? >> One second. No. So it's it's 2.38. So the motion but the motion was for an election to be held in November 2028. The seat five shall be abolished. And that motion was seconded. And that's the the only motion that was uh passed
unanimously. So there was it's not that the the request to the town attorney because we wouldn't need a motion to request the town attorney to bring back any opinion. >> Just give a direction. Yeah. >> So then it goes to option B then what you're saying >> correct is it have a two-year period
with no council. >> Yeah. We would stick with option is it option B? >> But that's the way you read this. No, it's option A. >> A we the standard of what we have is option A. There would have to be a motion to replace option A with option B is where we stand right now as I
understand. >> Correct. >> But question through the chair to the clerk. >> Yes. >> The vote changed from 7 to 5. Yes, probably >> because
>> if I recall correctly, probably like an hour before this was that meeting that we all of you went back and forth, >> right? >> Which was >> because I I just want to be 100% sure that >> Councilwoman Ronaldo did not was was on the >> Well, I'll read the original seven down
to five. Yeah, >> she Yes, she was against that proposal. Town clerk read the motion on the floor which was a motion to consider changing the number of council members from seven to five. That is the mayor and four at
large council members and to include the wording effective with the election of November 2030. The council shall consist of the mayor and four at large council members. The town clerk called a role on the main motion as amended and the
motion passed 43. Commission member Abad, Commission Member Bennett, Commission Member Ruano were the three that voted in opposition. So the other names that I'm not calling were the four that voted. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> In in agreement.
>> Okay. >> With the four three. >> Mr. Chair, to the attorney one more time, please. So the section in option A that says seat number five gets shortened to two years term 28 to 30 that was passed unanimously.
Am I correct in that that section is what was passed unanimously to eliminate the seat at during the 28 and 30 election? >> Yes. >> Based on what? >> Okay. As a member of the prevailing as a member of the prevailing party I make a motion that that seat should not be eliminated eliminated in the year in
2028 and 30. Do I hear a second? I'm I I'm I'm well know I hear one. I'm trying is that I'm going to since I was the prevailing party of that and so I'm coming back and says no, I don't want that to to eliminate the seat in 2028. >> And what's your
>> my motion is to to not eliminate the seat in 2028 seat number five to maintain it. Well, it wouldn't maintain it because it's already eliminated by the 2.1 and you So what what you what you're effectively doing is trying to what your vote would do if successful
would cause a hole in the charter. Well, then you can certainly make that argument if >> No, he's just saying he doesn't want to eliminate he wants to he wants to eliminate the decision to eliminate seat five period and not have that and just keeping the language the way it
currently is in the charter of having six seats. It would just be inconsistency in the charter. You you're you're you're you're you're looking to maintain >> reopen reopen this question to perpetually maintain seat 5 or to go with option B or to just have the
discussion. >> Well, I I'd like to go ahead and discuss it because now we're in a situation where since I'm on the prevailing party, I'm bringing back I don't want to see seat five eliminated. Now, that was my motion that we that come 2028 that the the seat five is not
eliminated. >> I'm so sorry. What is the motion on the floor? We we have a motion. >> Uh is there a second to that motion? >> I will second your motion for discussion. >> Thank you. >> Can I have clarification? What is the
motion from the commission member Bennett? Which is the motion on the floor right now? >> Okay. Well, once again, we're at that the um the crossroads. So, our chair has just said there would be a hole in the charter. I don't see why there would be
a hole in the charter because we're just saying that we don't want to eliminate seat five at that particular election. Um it would basically maintain that seat. Um essentially u basically preserving a seven member
council that that's essentially what what I'm saying. It doesn't look we're not we're proposing what the training motion
simply as you stated would cause the charter to have the people would cause there to beision there's only five people. Well, then the question is going to be what is going to
be up in arms and I think the change provid That's exactly correct. When you have an ambiguity in the charter or the charter is not clear, uh the way that it gets clarified is through ordinances. So the the charter would create that
you'd have only five seats. There's nothing in the charter that prescribes how you get to those five seats. So an ordinance would need to be created. So, so yeah, I think this is creating even more confusion. I I think once 2.1 is approved, the voters approve it, that should supersede what B states, right? I
think the only argument is are we eliminating a seed in 2020 in 2030 to make keep it at an odd number, right? That's all we're really discussing. >> Not really. >> Yeah. No, that is really what we're
option to >> what's going to happen that he's going to propose that we're going to put on the ballot is going to combine these two things because obviously 2.15 fails then this option does not matter
exact because you would be would be eliminating if the original motion uh or question to reduce but what we're focusing on
the event that decision passes. How is it the charter saying that we're going to modify this to accomplish that? >> Well, Mr. Chair, and rebuttled, they're all at they're at large seats. They're all at large seats, aren't they? There's
not really any section. So, it it is kind of irrelevant which seat is eliminated, isn't it? >> No. Well, I don't think it's irrelevant. I think is what we're doing is we're making this we're proposing the decision of how the seats will be eliminated rather than what I believe from my chief
town attorney is deferring to the council for them to then make the decision as to which of their seats two seats are going to be eld thank you Mr. chair. Um I seconded uh your motion to be able to have the discussion of option B. Um if this is
the direction that we're going to go in, I just think that seats should just term out when they term out. I would I would hate to shorten a term. So if that's the if this is the will of the of the board, then I would prefer option B than option A. That way everyone gets to
fulfill their full terms. These short terms are sometimes difficult to get candidates to run for. you have to raise funds for a very short amount of time. And so it's been my experience that in these elections that are for shorter terms. I ran for one myself. Um there's
less of an appetite for individuals to run. So if it's going to go on the ballot, I would prefer to have both seats just run out their terms a naturally when when the term is over and then just not come back. And I want to clarify just real quick,
vice chair wants to make I do want to say right now the vote is on the motion from Mr. Bennett is different. I think commission taken in that aspect that would require a new vote to adopt B to option A that
would be to take that but I understand what your comments are but I just want to make it clear for everybody else but that's what that affected vice chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to admit I am not too clear myself because you keep referring to 2.1.
>> 2.1 is what reduced it from seven to five, >> right? I don't see that language in what I'm looking at. >> Yeah, the manager and I were just talking about that. It should say in in the red line, it should say instead of six, it should say four. >> Oh, thank you. Okay, that's my confusion
cuz I keep looking. It's saying six here. >> Yep. >> Well, the red line is struck. >> There should be more something like that. >> Yeah, but where it says six at large members, it should say four at large members. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. That's my confusion because I keep looking at 2.1. So, I don't see the
>> Okay. So, just to be clear, >> it's a scooter and that's that we spent six hours and she spent five hours a day before and >> you know. >> Okay. So, to be So, thank you because that clarified the information. Thank you, Mister. To be clear, 2.1 >> that's that's correct. >> As amended should read six atlarge
members of the council. >> It should read four at large members. I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> Four at large members of the council. >> Yes. I apologize for that. >> Thank you. Understood. >> You you have to have both languages because for a period of time there will be six. So you have to have like a separate and I think that's what was approved.
>> You have to have say six and then effective so and so November of 28 or 230 whatever the right date is. Then it'll be a mayor and four council members. >> I understand. But that definitely doesn't say that. >> No, no, no. That was left out. That was left out. >> Okay. >> There was that's the scriers there.
>> Got it. >> Well, that's a big scri That's a big scriber. Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot of scribbling. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. Let's I I can make things I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> So So again, I think we're all a bit confused, but even going with option B, to me, it
shows me that we're going to have two years with an even number of council members. Yes. >> And that could create quite a bit of gridlock. You know what I'm saying? So I I I'm not willing to risk the council being in that position. That's just my thought. >> But the way it was originally approved,
if I'm not mistaken, was you would avoid having a even number of council members, cuz with seat five being elected only to a two-year term, then there's six members for the first two years, and then then uh seat five
is done and seat six doesn't there's no election and then you you automatically go from seven to five and one in one at the same time concurrent >> but that being option eight though >> that's >> yes >> that's that's what we had already >> that's what was originally approved
>> commissioner Bennett >> yeah one more time so >> one more time because so you're saying that when we eliminate one seat we're going to go from seven to five we're eliminating one seat and you're going to go from 7 to 5 because you're not going to be electing another and
that's going to happen to the simultaneously or are we going to have a situation where >> I'll I'll clarify that. So under the two options under option A which is what we had approved it mean it simply means that we would go from 7 to 5 because
seat five would only serve a two-year term from 2028 to 2030 and at 2030 the seat six which remember they go on opposite years they would terminate. So you're going automatically from 7 to 5. Option B gives you the option where seat
five and seat six finish out their terms, but seat six is going to turn it finish their term in 2030 and it's going to give you a two-year period of only having six members on the term until 2032 when you go to the full five. That's what that's the effect of those
two different options and correct. A keeps it. You go straight instead of So, uh, for no further discussion on Dr. Commissioner Bennett's motion, uh, I'm
going to go ahead and call >> Mr. Chair, I can withdraw the motion. >> Yes, we're just going to go ahead and we'll just take a vote since we're right there. >> As you wish. We don't have another motion to withdraw. And >> if you wish. Okay. >> So, let's go ahead and >> Okay. So the motion on the floor from
commission member Bennett is motion to eliminate seat number five. No. >> Well, that's what I have. Eliminate the phrase. >> Eliminate the phrase. >> So motion >> to eliminate. >> In other words, >> the phrase >> basically to remove the phrase so that
seat five would remain. What my is what I interpret. >> That was his motion >> to keep seat five. >> Correct. >> The effect of it. Yes. Let me just run. >> All right. So, all in favor say I. >> All against say nay. Nay. Nay.
>> Nays have it. The motion fails. All right. Do we have any other motions as to either option A or option B. All right. Seeing none, uh we're going to finish off. So, we remain with option
A which was originally voted on. So now we're going to that was 2.3B. Now we're going to 2.3 C and you know there was just the the language that was approved there in the
changes. Um again uh I don't know if there's any discussions. Now going to 2.3D term of office. This was the language that we had already approved with regards to term of office. Any
discussions? Seeing none, we'll go now to section 2.4 qualifications. These was language that we had approved uh by vote as noted.
Nothing going forward. We'll go to 2.5 a vacancies. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh on qualifications, there is added language and and I apologize. I did not I did not discuss this with you yesterday, Mr. Chair, but uh there is a
case uh from 1993 Sarasota and it discusses what is considered a um a reasonable restriction. Um and it's a it's a little complicated >> reasonable restriction. >> Yes. On on residency.
>> Okay. And the court uh appined that a 2-year uh requirement for residency was uh unduly burdened the right to be able to travel um and because it restricted your right to travel that it was uh a
violation of your constitutional right as as it was uh overly burdensome. I mean I I can get you the exact language but the the the the point is is that two years is considered illegal uh unconstitutional. So my suggestion would be if if it's the will of this
commission to add a question to change it from two years to one year. >> Okay. So >> says two years and you're saying that there's a there's a there's case law that states that two years is unconstitutional. Yes. >> And so you're >> it's an illegal restraint. >> That's that's the exact term. An illegal
restraint. >> An illegal restraint. Yes. >> Um chair. I'm sorry. So, I'm going to so we can dis I'm going to make the motion to uh per the town attorney's clarification on that issue um is to
modify in section 2.4 to strike the number two years and replace it with one years. One year. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second for discussion. But it says one year now, doesn't it? No, they made this. Oh, they made he made this change
so that we would consider and that's why but it wasn't marked as a turn. >> Yeah, give me one sec. And so would we have a second? >> Yes. Commission by Sher Inguanzo. Okay. So we open up for discussion. So Commission Member Bennett. >> Yeah. Well,
>> okay. >> So Mr. Attorney um once again I'm doing hypothetical so I can understand the law. So, somebody who lives in sayo um a um apartment in North Miami Beach
decides to buy a condo in Miami Lakes where the pajam is most of his time is spent in North Miami Beach. Would he be considered uh a can he be considered a candidate after just buying a condo in u Miami Lakes? Is that is that how that's interpreted? >> He's got to live in Miami Lakes.
>> Well, that's what I'm trying to say. that could be his homestead and he could basically uh live and work in North Miami Beach. I'm correct as a hypothetical. >> Sure. >> And and that he would be qualified if if he if in other words >> if he lives for a year. Yes. >> It's his homestead that determines where he lives.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So the the the case is >> well clarification. I don't think it's I don't I don't want to confuse the legal term of a homestead because if a person is renting, they don't really claim homestead. >> Correct. And they and they can run for office.
>> It's where they're Yes. It's where they residing. Correct. Is why the term >> Well, that that's my question. Could somebody who rents an apartment run for office if he lived in that apartment for two years? Just I'm just trying to say putting that out there. Is that you know they do they have to be a land owner for example? >> It's not required.
>> Resided >> just reside. Thank you. >> All right. Any questions? Uh or town Mr. Town are you have you pulled up the case? Did you want to put the citation to the case into the record? Yes, I I' I'd like to uh the uh exact case and I
can read exactly what the court's finding was was Board of Commissioners versus Gustafson. Um it is uh 616 Southern Second 1165. >> Sorry, 616 Southern Second >> 1165. Uh it's a second district case 1993.
Um, and what the court found, just one moment. Bear with me one moment. So, the court applied strict scrutiny as it as it found uh to to the 2-year requirement based on an equal protection
uh challenge. um because it found that the 2-year was unreasonable as it was a um here because it was
I'm sorry. What year was this again adjudicated? >> 1993. >> 7 years before we were town. >> Mhm. >> Interesting. >> The US Constitution was constituted almost 250 years before a town. >> Yeah. So, so basically that was it was
it was a it was an infringement on his right to travel and his equal protection. It was found to be um uh excessive and the court found that two years was was uh was was a reasonable restraint. Uh and so it found that one year would be okay but two years was
excessive. M Mr. attorney. Is there any effect um consequences of previous elections if somebody didn't have their two-year requirement, was prevented from running for office in Miami Lakes? >> Yeah, they could challenge it. Um hasn't been challenged here in Miami Lakes, but
I can say that it's been challenged in other municipalities. Um and a two-year has if if challenged, the person would be able to prevail and be able to run showing that they haven't lived here for two years. I'm just thinking about previous elections in which maybe somebody wasn't
allowed to run because he didn't have his two years. I I off the top of I can't think of any >> I can tell you those cases would probably be stricken as moot because there is no there's no active controversy. >> The courts wouldn't address it. >> I I agree. I agree what you're saying. I'm just trying to say that we've had
now two comm well three commission meetings and it never came up in the the 26 26 years we've been a town. It never it was never brought to our attention to all our attorneys and all that. So, uh Okay, >> seems he's earning his money today.
>> Thank you for your research. >> So, any other discussion? Any other questions? So, uh on the motion to per the town attorney's uh guidance on the case law uh concerning the residency requirement
of from two years down to one year uh is I'm going to call the vote. >> What happens if the voters reject it? >> Yeah. What will happen is if it remains there, it's just like, you know, it's just like any Well, it just becomes challengeable. It wouldn't be it wouldn't be effective because there's a
con someone would just say, "Hey, look, you know, >> yeah, someone would try it two years and they say, "No, it's unconstitutional." They'd say, "I've lived here a year. It's sufficient." And they'd have to bring >> money for the cast. It's it's very similar to if you take a look at the Florida Constitution, it says that voters have to be freeholders. That's
that's illegal. That that was overturned by the US Supreme Court. Freeholders mean that you have to own land. You you don't have to do that. You can vote and be a renter. >> Under those circumstances, isn't it just rendered mood anyways? We don't have to do anything with the with the U. >> What I'd like to do is just add it into
the omnibus type language. >> Yes. Since we're when you have the opportunity to clean up language like that, you want to kind of take when it's something like this. >> I'm gonna be in favor of it. It's a fair point, but I'm just trying to say that I can see all the complexities that that since this predated our town being here
and all the elections we've had since 2000. >> All right. So, I have one more question. So, Commissioner, >> to run for any office in the state, it's only a one-year requirement of residency. you don't have to have a requirement for residency. >> There's no requirements at all.
>> But what the court has found is that two years is excessive. >> So in the language, if I if if you were to run for, I don't know, a commission seat or a state rep seat or senator in a specific district, let's say that there's a geographical location, there's
no requirement for residency. >> There there could be a requirement, but there could not be a two-year requirement. >> But do we know what it is actually? I can tell you there's I I can tell you because this this controversy is this is actually come up now uh it's come up recently in in a couple of different
races. Um there's a lot of the seats the residency requirement and I believe there was a case recently that disc decided this as well is that you have to reside in it at the time that you take office. If it's if there's nothing that designates otherwise in I guess in in
our instance in the charter, >> you would just the person would have to reside at the moment that they take office, they have to be a resident. >> Um uh but if we have a one-year requirement, you have to have resided now one year. And from what I understand from the town attorney, I haven't read
the full case, but from my understanding of that is that the court found that it was unreasonable to have two years as a requirement, >> right? uh to establish residency for two years prior to be able to be able to run. >> Right? So >> if we had none, we could, but at the moment that they would accept office,
they would have to be residing. That's required. That's that's for any of the seats, whether it's for judicial or for congressional, state, house, or whatever. >> But I do believe that for those other seats, there are stipulated >> uh residency time frames. If I if I recall from when I don't remember what
they are have they been have they also been changed to one year >> you have some that have been changed to to less than two years >> uh to coincide more or less with with this opinion and opinions of other I mean this is the the main I would say
the seminal as far as this area of the law is concerned um and and if you want me to >> so there's there's other cases with other opinions >> yes very similar if you if you let me indulge right >> the board I can this into the record real quickly. >> Yes, sure. Of course. >> Right. While the provision of a 2-year
durational uh residency requirement for candidates for elected office does not affect suspect class and cites United States versus Carleon uh suspect class described as a discrete and insular minority. Suspect class set to bear an immutable characteristic determined solely by charact uh accident or birth.
So if you're suspect class, right, and you're taking a look at an equal protection clause, then you're looking at with strict scrutiny. In other words, >> it's the highest pleading standard. >> The highest standard. >> Okay. Right. So, a similar two-year candidate durational uh residency retirement has been held to seriously
infringe on the fundamental right to travel and thus violate protections of the equal protection clause. Green versus McKon uh citing a federal sixth circuit court. Since Green is not controlling authority here, not controlling because it's a federal and this is a state case. However, we feel compelled to examine the reasoning
employed in Green and other cases in order to reach our decision. Our review of these cases leads us to believe that it is not the existence of the candidates's durational residency requirement by itself that seriously infringes on the fundamental right so as to require the application of strict scrutiny. Rather, it is the length of
the durational residency requirement that determines which equal protection analysis will be applied. Accordingly, a fundamental right is not considered seriously infringed so as to require a strict scrutiny an analysis unless a candidate's durational residency requirement is deemed excessive.
Conversely, a candidate's directional residency requirement that is deemed reasonable is not considered to reasonably infringe using the traditional equal protection analysis. While this method of considering equal protection challenge would appear at first blush to be putting the cart before the horse, it actually it places
the emphasis where it should be on the magnitude of the legislative effect on the fundamental right of the suspect class. Only serious infringements merit resort to compelling u interest test. Applying these principles to the instant case. We ask first with a two-year candidate residency requirement is
reasonable. We agree with the trial court that it is not. The evolution of communication transportation allows individuals to move easily between communities renders such a a two-year residency requirement, particularly ownorous applicants could identify no reason for setting the period at two years. There was no evidence that
candidates would be more familiar with the county issues having lived in the county for the preceding two years. In fact, in explaining how the charter review board had arrived, you guys, uh, at the two-year term as opposed to a three-ear, five-year term, one of its members testified on cross-examination that it was a judgmental call. It's not
carved in stone anywhere. So, and the court just continues to to reason on. So, thank you. Uh they concluded that two years was excessive, less than two years. Which case was that? >> Uh, this is Gustiffson right now. border county commissioner
Sarasota County versus what you said. >> I'm looking at um the Florida Division of Elections. So to Commissioner Rano's point, so it appears that the Florida Constitution says that for governor you must reside in the state for seven years, which seems long, but and for state house or senate at least two
years. And then this under the division of elections, it says that um local offices tend to mirror um state guidelines. Thank thank you. Thank you um Mr. Vice Chair and I I the point that I was trying to make is that I would not like
to include this in all of those little um changes that we're going to make because this is a big change. >> We can have it a separate >> so but I understand the point that if it can't be voted down then I think that it's best to just leave it be and if someone wants to challenge it then then so be it. But I would hate to hide it in
all of those little >> um adjustments that we're making because I feel like this is a big a big deal. Mr. Chair, >> and hold on one second. I do want to say is I'm going to make sure that the town attorney we're not hiding anything in any way, shape, or form. >> Maybe I used I used the wrong
terminology, but things things that are just I guess um what is it? Scriveners. I'm the new word that I learned. >> I I I know what you're trying to intend, but you know, considering that, you know, we have the public that are watching. I just don't want to get >> my apologies for for the poor choice of words. >> We are definitely not going to hide anything in any of the wording that we
have. >> So, the question >> I'll go to you in just in one second, commissioner. We have Commissioner Bennett. >> Mr. Chair, to the town attorney, did the did the ruling give any guidance as to what's the proper length or they say just less than two years? Could we theoretically do 1 year, 11 months, and
26 days? I mean, I'm just trying to say, >> but I pulled this case and I I I have other cases I can probably present to you if this is something really that interests you. But it the the cases basically say that and and there's there's different cases between a year a year and a half is is okay, but
definitely that two years is is is excessive. Um and there is a distinction between the state >> house uh rep and for for local elections and there's cases law that that distinguishes between both of them. Uh there was one particular case where this
was being challenged. Uh and the judge specifically asked us for a brief and I was trying to look for it today when we were having a conversation and I can get it for you. Uh and the only case that we could find that would support that 2-year provision was uh we had to go outside and look at California law to
support our proposition. So it's it's >> and again there's no harm if we leave it there and it's challenged in the future. It's challenge in the future. >> Sure. You know, because I I think the well the effect will be is someone that would be preclude. It'd be in the effect of the the enforcement of the town. The the town would clerk would say, "Sorry,
you haven't resided for two years." They would then have to bring a challenge saying, "No, you've now infringed upon my rights. Bring up this case. Bring us through litigation to determine whether or not they were eligible to run with less than two years based upon the charter revision." That's that that's the effect of what if we were not to
change it. Yes. And it would be in there and or you know, it's all an enforcement aspect of it. It's the rights of the individuals whether they have to defend it. >> Um, Commissioner, >> wait. So, the one year >> chair, I didn't finish. >> You asked a question of him and he answered. >> Well, I know, but I wanted the response
so that I could basically continue with my line of thought, please. >> Okay, let's go. No, >> let's keep it brief. Let's finish. >> So, so once again, if we can if how important is the two-year requirement to this commission is what I'm asking. In other words, can well if we did 18
months as opposed to one year. This is the discussion I want to talk about. Not just say arbitrarily one year, you know, I want to say, you know, how important is the residency requirement to this commission for elected officials? That's my question. >> Okay. Right. Commissioner Moss,
>> when does the year start? When you start counting the year, it's in a rears. So from the the day that you take office, it's one year prior to >> I don't know that goes into more the election law of I don't know if the
>> madame clerk when is it that you begin to count residency from do you count it from >> I I think the question would be is it from qualifying or is it from the taking office? >> It's clear from the moment that they walk into my office to qualify. I always
I mean I follow the town charter. I ask for evidence. I ask for documents to show me that they have been residents for two years. So you ask for checking accounts, mortgage payments, FPL.
>> But what's the time frame? >> Two years before the day they walk in to the Yeah. to qualify. Not when they get elected. Not when they get sworn in. from the moment from those seven days that my office isn't qualified they have
to walk in saying I've been a resident for two years that's what it that section 2.4 before qualification states. >> So to my point then follow to you >> if I can finish it's really 18 months even if you change it to a year because
if it's from the day that you qualify if you're not taking office till January it's not a full two years if we change it to one year but it's almost it's two and a half years or nearly three years if you leave it at two years right
>> Mr. Chair, vice chairman, >> I also pulled up the county charter. So, for the county to run for county mayor or county commissioner, it's you must reside in Miami Day County for at least 3 years prior to qualifying is what the county charter says. >> Yeah, I for I forwarded it to you,
Lorenzo. >> Yep. Not county charter, but yeah, there's there's a nuance as to why when it's statutory it's it's okay and why it's not. and I can provide you that that legal memorandum afterwards if you guys want to see and and again it's it's
a suggestion if you don't want to >> it would >> but it begs the question if the counties three years prior to qualifying how are they doing that >> well I think what the question is going to be is it whether they're enforcing it or if they're they haven't changed that item and whether they're just simply
applying it >> on the on the basis on the case I don't know I don't know one way or the other maybe it's a question of the county attorney Yeah, >> chair. >> Right. >> No, >> Councilman Fernandez, >> it'll be it'll be really brief. I think
that the the longer we we we um require somebody to be a resident and it that we legally are allowed to, I think it it would be better only because I I sometimes question motive if they've only been here for a few months or a year. I you know, and they don't really
understand how our town works. So, I just I'll leave it at that. I think that the longer we're allowed to to have them require residency, I think it benefits the town. >> All right. So, I'm going to close up my the final comments. I'm going to take it up a vote. What I'm going to do at this point and and I'll share my thoughts is
that I I I think I'm going to vote against the motion. I know I made the motion. Um but from hearing from everybody, I think it's just we just leave it leave the language as is and we just allow it to make a determination. You know, if someone wants to challenge it at some point in time, they can do so. uh and we'll deal with it on the
back end. Um you know hopefully they don't challenge it and we do end up getting continue to get people that are as we have stated is uh you know people that have been residing here for over two years. Um and it'll never be an issue hopefully. Uh but that's how I'm going to be voting. So uh go ahead and
call the vote. All in favor of the motion say I. >> Seeing none all oppose say nay. >> Nay. >> Motion fails. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Town Attorney, for that uh discussion. >> The two years.
>> Yes. Yeah. There's no change. All right. Thank you. >> All right. And please let me know if there's any other changes that I might not pick up. Mr. Town attorney. >> Yes. >> All right. So, going back, we were at 2.5 now. I believe we're moving to 2.5
C. because we had just jumped back. Yeah. 2.5 C1. Uh that's the language that we had already voted on or C1. And then we have C2 is where we have our next proposed language. Um this was questions of what
we had asked of the town attorney. So if you could go ahead and present that, Mr. Town attorney. >> Okay. So this is with regards to the filling of vacancies. Um and this is the uh the proposed lang language. Uh if six months or more remain in the unexpired
term. So this is when there's 6 months or more remaining. Um the vacancy shall be filled by special election. If the qualifying for period for the next regularly scheduled election of the town is less than 12 months, the special election shall be held concurrently with the next regularly scheduled election of
the town. If the qualifying period for the next regularly scheduled election of the town is more than 12 months, a special election shall be held as soon as possible and the town clerk shall coordinate the scheduling of the election with the Miami date county supervisor of elections in accordance with applicable law. The person elected
at such election shall serve the remainder of the expired term again. And so I'm going to make a motion to adopt the proposed language. If anybody has any discussions, we can have that discussions if we move forward again. And just a reminder is that this section
2.5C2 was language that we had requested from the town attorney. So that is my motion to adopt the language as proposed. >> I'll second. >> We have a second from commissioner Abad. Any discussion from commissioners?
>> I'm still processing. I want to make sure. Oh, I'm so sorry if Mr. Chair, if I may. Um, yeah, I'm still processing. But what this is saying basically is if if there's a vacancy that occurs and there's six or more months remaining in that vac in that term that we're going
to call for an election a special election >> special election. >> Correct. >> But they held concurrently with the next regularly scheduled election of the town. So >> the election wouldn't take place until um I'll give you an example. Councilman
John Smith resigns today, the next election in the town is November of this year, right? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> So, the election would be in November of this year, >> right? >> But if Councilman John Smith resigns January 1st of 27, then the special election wouldn't be
until November of 28. >> So, the way that it's it's written is is that if it's less than 12 months, a special election shall be held concurrently with a regularly scheduled election of the town. But if the qualifying period is greater then it's at at as soon as possible in
coordination with the elections department. The reason for adding this language is before there was just all this calculus depending on on 90 days and 30 days for this or that and it's trying to streamline it so that if there if a special election needs to take
place that this the town is not out of pocket you know >> and it's running with with a u regularly scheduled meeting. What we're doing though is tying it to the qualifying period and not to the election date to make sure that there's sufficient time for qualifi qualifying
if that makes sense. >> But we can schedule these elections along with primaries or other elections, not just the November election. Correct. >> So there may be to the to the vice chair's point, there may be elections like I had a special election once that
was in August and not in November. So they could be sooner. >> Yes. And that's why we put that that's why we chose a language of regularly scheduled election rather than a general or a primary to not confuse it to give us that ability to move it depending on when it is that >> and and also depending on how many people qualify to run in the election
whether it be three or or two or one. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Council. >> So essentially we're what we're saying is there won't be a vacancy for greater than 6 months. Is that is that essentially what we're saying that there can't be a vacancy for more than six months? >> No, this is just this is addressing when
there's more than six months. If less than 6 months, that CI is already addressed >> or there if there's going to be the vacancy if there's less than 6 months left on the unexpired term. Now, if there's more than six months, there still could be a period of time, you know, depending on when they get it.
they if they do it in January like we're saying and the next regularly scheduled election is not till August or even November depending on what year it is you know then you could have more than 6 months of an unex of without with with a vacancy >> should we address that contingency or I
mean does this doesn't you know in other words are we allowed to are we accepting a 10-month vacancy on the council >> oh I believe that what the I believe that's what the The proposal was to eliminate the mayor being able to appoint when
there was more than six months left. That was the whole point because the if we if we revert back to way it was before there would we wouldn't have to address this because the name the mayor was being appointed and I believe it might have been one of your motions >> or it was I don't know if it was your
motion or if it was the uh coun council >> I don't think it was mine >> and it's his vote convoluted >> um saying that you know that we should pull it away from the you know the govern for the mayor not to have that full appointment process when it's more than six months left on the term. >> Yeah. Okay. So this is addressing that
issue that was raised at that time. >> So any further discussion on the language? >> All right. Seeing none, uh call the question is all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing no opposition, the motion passes.
Uh this pro proposed language shall be added in. All right, going over to 2 5C3. This is the language that we had already uh agreed upon and voted upon.
>> Oh, I think there was additional language that was added in. >> Correct. to account for if the mayor and vice mayor's positions become vacant simultaneously. >> Yes, I Yeah, I believe this one was just added earlier today for the for the discussions. Um, if you want to go ahead
and present it, Mr. Town attorney or Mr. Town Manager, whichever. >> Sure. Um so ba basically what it's it it uh discusses that if the mayor and vice mayor positions become vacant simultaneously the remaining members of the council shall elect them uh select the mayor from among the remaining
members of the council. >> The council shall appoint new vice mayor at the next regularly scheduled council meeting. >> And I understand it's because there was just there was nothing in the in in our charter that even considered that >> correct. It's just trying to eliminate contingencies, questions, things that
may come up. We tried to what if it >> Yeah. And this is what we came up with. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to move to add that language because I do think it it it fills that gap in what the charter states, uh, which is to add the language. If the mayor and the vice
mayor's position become vacant simultaneously, the remaining members of the council shall select the mayor from among the remaining members of the council. >> I'll second your move. >> We have a second >> from commissioner Abad. Any discussion from the commissioners? >> I have some discussion. All right. So
once again, the scenario is our mayor and vice mayor has vacated the spot. You've now appointed from within the council itself. Now we have two possibly two vacant seats that are going to be filled by election or filled by the new mayor.
>> Depends >> what happens to the the vacancies that are made when the mayor and vice >> those are already spoken to. Those would just be council member vacancies and the charter already speaks to it. So they would just be filled through the normal process. more than 12 months or less than six months, right? Right.
>> It's less. >> Yeah. Whatever depend Yeah. It's already spoken to in the charter. >> Commissioner B. >> So where this this is where uh reducing the council to five comes again to play, right? So now we have two people who are out. There's three people left sitting on the day. One's going to get appointed
mayor. There's two left. One's going to be the vice mayor and a council member. You see what I'm saying? I I just don't I mean I I I know where we're going. I know we're far into it. I just don't think this was very thought through.
>> That'll that'll be on your campaign ad against that that item, >> sir. >> Commissioner Abad says no. >> Any other commissioners? Any other discussion on this on this motion? All right. Seeing none, I'm
going to call the question. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. >> All right. Going forward. 2.5C4. Uh, that was just the change to align
with pri the the prior language. I do. We need to vote on that or is that one that is one of these by inter delineation? Mr. town attorney. >> Uh we're on 2.6. >> I know I'm looking at 2.5C4
the council member vacancy and then strike in seats 1 through six. >> This is cleanup language to fall in line. >> Clean up language. Okay. So that we don't need a vote on it. It's just cleanup value. Yeah. It's through interineation cleaning following the prior motions. >> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. 2.5C5 >> chair. >> Yes. number uh small Roman numeral uh five it becomes obsolete if you have no nominations if you everything is appoint
is selected by special election >> sorry can you repeat that again this this item here becomes obsolete if you're appointing if you're not making any appointments to fill vacancies if all vacancies are being
filled by special election then this item becomes obsolete. >> I don't think so because there's still there's still the appointment by the mayor >> is there or for short? >> Yeah, for shorter for when there's less than six months. >> So it wouldn't be someone that was
>> take it back. >> Thank you though. >> All right, let me go 678. Romans 678. Anybody have any other
items? All right. Next is going to be 2.5C 9. This is the resign to run proposed language uh from that we had requested from the town attorney. Correct.
>> This is the language to implement the motion that had passed. >> Correct. So I don't think we do we need lang do we need to move to approve the language itself or no >> or just if anybody has any discussion anybody has any discussion >> the motion already passed the concept >> but I believe this is the first time
that you're looking at the language itself so correct if you have any questions >> one thing just as a point of reference is a logistical thing is with number of dates and number of days and you'll have to have a subsequent uh qualifying period for that extra election this is
going to necessitate and we spoke about it internally this morning. It's going to require our current qualifying date to be earlier, probably as early as May, to be able to have the sufficient number of days in the event that somebody has
to resign to run to allow a certain number of days for the subsequent or the follow-up qualifying period to exist and all of that to happen in order to possibly be uh on the ballot in August. >> Yeah. And that would be done and that's done by via ordinance. Correct. Right. I
just mentioned it as a point of reference. >> Okay. No, I appreciate that. >> And what's good is that there won't be an election for another two years. So, they have two years to figure that out in the ordinance wise >> or a year and a half. >> So, it can be that aspect.
>> All right. Any questions on the proposed language on the motion that we had already passed? All right. And we're going to move forward then. Uh we're now into 2.6 compensation. Uh that was language that we had already approved.
Nothing. 2.7 recall. That was no changes there. >> Oh, yeah. We just we had already approved the just the deletion of the language. So, that was just p pursuant to law. All right. >> Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure the recall is still 10%. I'm just reading through. Well, what we did is we took
off the word 10% and we deferred to state law which provides for 10%. >> Okay. Thank you. I see. >> So that way in the in if state law fluctuates or changes, we just fluctuate with the state law and we don't have any inconsistencies. >> You're welcome. And now we're going to go to article three,
3.1, 3.2, or 3.3. I don't see anything substantively. 3.4 4 3.5 or 3.6 on the next page. This is language that we've already determined and approved.
>> Which item are we on? Uh, m >> we're now in article three and we're just uh going through now we're around 3.5 3.5 uh four and five and six. >> 3.4. Yeah. I had a we had a question when we
were looking at this today is what exactly does that mean or as otherwise determined by the council the highlighted the yellow highlight I'm not sure if you have the same version of the let me read it real quick >> oh okay
>> do you think anybody can read that >> that the acting town manager shall serve until the town manager returns from such temporary absence or temporary disability ility cases or as otherwise determined by the council. The way I read that sentence and I think I believe we might have had that discussion during
the time but the or otherwise determined by the council refers to the decision of when the town manager is to return and and go back into >> Mr. Chair question. >> So then we're talking about either a
termination or suspension of some sort >> as determined by the council. Yeah. >> Yeah. And they always have that ability. It's just we're mixing to me. We're mixing apples and oranges. This is more about the acting manager >> and uh it's it's Yeah. It's when the town manager will return to their
position, >> Mr. Chair. >> Because there there could be a temporary disability doesn't cease, but they believe that I I'm just putting on a hypothetical and just thinking about it right now. They could say, "Hey, look, you know, your temporary disability has ceased, but you know, we think you can
come back to work." Well, you still have that temporary disability, but yeah, you you feel good. You're you're you have the recommendation. You can come back to work and we can bring you back. That's what I how I one one example. >> Or maybe they feel that um that the manager it could be some medical issue that's so severe that the they're
incapable of uh coming back or so. >> Mr. Chair, >> they got >> please. >> How does this violate the Americans with Disabilities Act? We terminating him because of a disability. Isn't that a violation of the >> I don't think this doesn't say anything about terminating >> well or otherwise determined by the
council. >> Correct. There's there's a lot of options like the actual action of theirs maybe would be something that I'm sure they would speak with the town attorney and make sure it doesn't violate the ADA or any other or even the you know you know Florida law and disability. I mean,
hypothetically, we have a female town manager and she has to go on maternity leave, you know, at which point maybe she had complications and she couldn't return because of a pregnancy. >> Yes. >> I mean, I I hate to play hypotheticals, but I I'm concerned that this might be
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. >> Okay. So, I I I'll say two things is I'm not going to give the legal opinion. I'll defer to the town attorney on that, but I don't believe this causes it's every action if if anything that says a the discretion of an individual to make
a employment decision, yes, could potentially open up the possibility that it's going to be done in violation of either civil rights or even disability. So, I don't think, you know, it makes those that wording unconstitutional or improper. um rather it's going to be in
the discretion of the council which we anticip you know we always expect that their decisions are going to be in line with law and if it's not that's why those individuals that are there affected have have a recourse to bring action if they feel that they've been violated. Commissioner
>> I'm sorry and I I did not mean to interrupt. The way that I interpret this is that the acting town manager shall serve until a couple of things happen or the council determines otherwise. So the council can say deputy town manager was
left in place of the town manager, but the council determines tomorrow that they want the CFO to be the acting town manager. So the council can change up that. That's the way that I understood it. Maybe I'm wrong. >> Yeah, the language for sure says that.
>> Okay. So I didn't I I didn't necessar >> phrase I didn't really understand exactly what was meant by that those last >> right because when the manager goes on leave he leaves someone in his place that he that he determines unless the council determines otherwise. So the council can say we don't want this
acting town manager we want that acting town manager is the way that I interpret it. I don't know if that's right or >> 100% right. That's correct. I >> I'm not worried about the language. I don't want to I don't want to beat a dead horse. It is what it is. It's a it's a catchall. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> It's not at the end of power rest in the >> right to give the council the opportunity to select another acting town manager. >> Great. So, we'll move forward now going over to any other discussions. 3.56
78 or nine. Anything else on article three? >> Hold on. Let's go over 3.6. I just want to make sure that we establish that the town clerk would fall under the town council. Right. That's what it is.
Take your time. No, I'm I'm good with it. I want to give you time to read it. Good. Okay. Anybody else on article three? Right. We're going to move to article 4
legislative. Uh we have article 4.1. Is there any questions, discussions on any of the language that was proposed there? There's not much. All right, we'll go to article 4.2 and we'll go to now B1
B Roman small one with uh the versions of the resolution language. Mr. Town attorney, this is the interference with administration language. >> Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. So here there is um two versions uh version A and
version B and there's a breakdown as to uh the different this is something that we discussed um at the the last meeting. Uh one of the the first version is very in line with what exists today. Uh it says uh except for purposes of inquirs, investigations made in good faith, the
council and any of its members, individual members shall deal with town employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager or their designate and neither council nor its members shall give orders to such employee either publicly or privately. It is the express intent of
the charter that recommendations for improvements in town government operation by individual members of the council are made solely to and through the town manager. Members of the council may discuss the town manager any matter of town business. However, no individual member of the council shall give orders to the town manager. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the mayor members of the
council acting in their official capacity are authorized to make good faith inquiries of town employees subject to the direction and supervision of the town manager, provided that such inquiries are made pursuant to a resolution adopted by the council authorizing such inquiries and are
conducted in a manner that does not constitute direction or supervision of such employees. Nothing in this section shall prevent any elected official from make making inquirs of town employees in his or her individual capacity as a resident of the town. This section does not apply to town employees whose
primary function is to provide direct administrative or clerical support to elected officials in the performance of their official duties. That's version A. At the um it is a mouthful. At the motion of uh council member
Ronaldo uh we came up with uh version B which you asked us uh to come back and version B says except for the purpose of inquirs investigations made in good faith the council any of its individual members shall deal with town employees who are subject to the direction supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager or their design
and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to such employee either publicly or privately. It is the express intent of the charter that recommendations for improvement of town government operations by individual members of the council are made solely to and through the town manager. Members of the town council may discuss with the
town manager any matter of town business. However, no individual member of the council shall give orders to the town manager. This section shall not apply to town employees whose primary function is to provide direct administrative or clerical support to elect officials in the performance of their duties. Um,
>> yep. And so I just want to from what I see here, Mr. Town attorney, correct me if I'm wrong. The difference between the full text of version A and the version B is in version A has the language that starts with notwithstanding the foregoing. It's the blue writing that
goes all the way to right before the last sent uh the last sentence that ends with uh with town employ or well the sentence that starts elected official from making inquiries of town employees in his or her official capacity as a resident of the town. So the that's the
difference between the two versions. >> Well, yes. So in in version B, good faith inquiries are permitted without a council resolution. the council members can make a good faith inquiry of town employees under version A. It's not it's it's prohibited unless there is uh a
formal resolution authorizing the inquiry. Version A is more in line with what's currently in the the charter at the moment. Version B would make a a change. Where's the Can you just point me to the language of the resolution?
>> Sure. So in um version >> No, I see. So So it's okay. So the language is Yeah, it does it does make the difference, but the language is already included in that section. I told you the blue >> correct. >> Okay. Yes. The blue language is the only difference in language is that's all I was saying. I just want to make sure
that I didn't mis misunderstand that. >> Correct. So one is has requires a resolution. So has to be an action of the body. The other one permits each of the council members to act independently. >> Okay. For good faith inquirs. >> All right. So, do we have a motion to
adopt either A or B? >> Motion to adopt version B. >> Okay. We have a motion to adopt version B. Is there a second? >> I'll second >> for discussion. Sure. So, we have a second from Commissioner Ruano for
version B. Uh, go ahead, Commissioner Rano. Um my question is with regards to the language that refers to requiring a resolution for an inquiry. Isn't every vote that is taken on the council
that resolution? So, the council votes to cut all the trees on 87th Avenue. Is that not sufficient to make an inquiry or is does this require an additional resolution where a council member has to come before this council and say, "I'd
like to present a resolution to be able to ask the public works department about the trees that are being cut on 87th Avenue." >> Correct. So, one would be a resolution to act, ask public works to give you a report on the trees that are being cut down on 87th Avenue. The other one would
be picking up the phone and calling public works. Hey, what's going on with the trees on 87th Avenue >> because it's already been voted on and >> well on on uh B, right? So, it wouldn't require resolution. You could just do it in your capacity as a as a council person.
>> A would require resolution, >> right? But as the language stands now >> inquiry requires a resolution. >> Correct. >> A specific resolution for that conversation. >> Correct. For that inquir. >> Understood. >> Yeah. I think the intent is it's a higher level. It's a higher kind of bar.
What is and I think the the important thing is to see the word investigation. Right. So it's a higher bar. Something's not going right. >> The council wants to conduct an investigation. you pass a resolution and say we want to conduct an investigation because there's $100,000 missing from
finance >> and now you would pass that resolution and now you you can you know handle those inquiries and investigations based on that resolution because something is a miss. >> Right. But with >> that's what the intended purpose of the language is.
>> Right. Right. Right. And I and I do understand that for things that are new to the council, but for things that have already been voted on, for items that have already been decided or voted on as a body, so it's already in motion.
>> Do you need do? >> Yes, you can. >> I can attest to that. Yes. However, I'd also like to be able to walk into the public works department and ask that question because it's already something that has been voted on. So, it's not something new. It's not it's not a specific inquiry about an investigation.
It's about something that's already been voted on. So, I guess that's where the gray area is for me that I thought that you did not require a resolution for that. If this body already voted on it and it's already in motion, is that an inquiry in good
faith? >> I think Mr. town attorney. My understanding of your question I I think what you're getting at is whether the question would be whether or not the resolution >> whether it requires an additional resolution to ask the question. >> Well, what I would say is that you would
include it in your in the original for anything that was already done. Yeah. You I I believe you would have to have a resolution under A, not under B. >> I don't think B even gives you the opportunity to get a resolution to do it. Um I think B just simply says is
that you have the authority to talk to them in your individual capacity which addresses that A is the one that gives the council the ability by resolution or ordinance to have those discussions directly with on official business
>> to town staff not through always directly through the town through the town manager. I think that's that's what a does. It gives you it gives the council greater authority to be able to say, "Hey, look, I want to go talk to the building department." >> The other way around, >> right? That
B allows you to do it without a resolution. A requires you to have a resolution. So B, you don't need a resolution, >> but B says your individual capacity. So that means an inquiry about my home. What she's asking is that for for official business, I don't think B gives
the authority for a sitting council member to go to the building department and say, "Hey, look, tell me what's going on with this project that we approved." >> It does. So, let let me show you the difference. So, if you read a B, it starts, "Except for the purpose of inquirs, investigations, made in good
faith, the council and any of its individual shall deal with town employees who are subject to direction supervision solely through the town manager or their design. Neither. So A says, "Except for the purpose of inquirs made in good faith, the counsel and individual shall deal with him."
>> But that's the language that's currently confused. >> The the the language in black is what's currently in the in the charter. Blue is the distinction between the two and they both have the last line.
So that's why I read that B is the one that gives the authority to that that makes it very clear that hey look I'm not violating the town charter by asking hey look what where where you guys are on my tree permit
>> for my house whereas version A says hey look the council can go ahead and say we are drafting up this you know we're going to be doing this project over in uh Veterans park and I want to go find out what the status is of them changing
out the awnings and everything or the playground. >> Right. So, I I feel like version B does carve out for that inquiry about your personal >> property and that's that's wonderful that it's included in there, but I don't
see where a council member can reach out to a staff member about something that has already been voted on by the council. Once something is voted on by the council, it belongs to the people. It's moving forward. So, it's not an an investigation about anything new. The
council has already said, we're moving in this direction. So, there's no reason why a council member cannot ask a staff member, how far along are we in this direction that the council has already voted on, right? >> So, I don't see that either one of these gives us >> beat well,
>> that opportunity. >> Yeah, conversation. I think what >> I think I think there I think there's two parts to your question if I'm understanding you correctly because I think a to an extent allows it to the extent the resolution provides language
that says that the council members can have discussions can get can obtain follow-up information or get inquiries from town staff. >> So would that and I believe that's to the extent of that. What I think what you're asking is if they've already passed something or they don't have that
directing language whether or not it can go forward. I think it's that second part which is I don't I I don't see it in either of the vers I I think this was written incorrectly because it's just it's the same version that's not what's written the code currently you cannot make any uh I'm going to
>> right currently it currently it's except for inquiries in good faith. So it >> doesn't allow anything. I I'll pull it. >> Those sound a lot more restrictive though. >> No, currently it says except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations. >> Perhaps the workaround is that every
resolution that's passed or every vote that is that is made includes that language. Moving forward, every single resolution that is passed on the day is every ordinance, everything that is touched on the day will include that language. >> Yeah. No, I I think that'd be the that'd
be at the discretion of the >> Right. >> at the discretion of the council if that if that makes it easier, >> Mr. Chair, just >> Commissioner Bennett, go ahead. >> Um I just once again I looked at the language of both and I couldn't quite figure out, but if a council member
wishes a record from the clerk, do we does he have to go through or she have to go through the town manager to pass on the thing that I need a document from the clerk? Are you asking it currently? >> Currently or on either of these versions? I want to make sure that if a council member wants something that the town clerk has, it doesn't have to go
through the town manager. Just ask her for the documents. >> They go they can ask the town whatever >> on either version. >> I think he's I think operationally now it's either they can do that. >> The clerk, the attorney or the town manager, >> right? You go directly to them.
>> Exceptions, right? >> Any council member can go directly to them. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Mr. Ringer. >> May I ask the there's a current resolution, Mr. Manager, right? That is consistent with the charter.
>> Um, so if if I may, Mr. Vice Chair, through the chair, >> yeah, >> this is written incorrectly, so I'm going to clarify what the difference in the language is, and I and I apologize. Um, so the way that it currently reads in the charter says that except for purpose of inquiries, investigations made in good faith and in accordance
with a resolution adopted by the council, the council and any of its individual members shall deal with town employees who are subject to the direction supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager and neither council nor its members shall give orders to any employees either publicly or privately. So the
change that's currently what's what's on there and we were creating a carveout saying that they could do so in their individual capacity. It doesn't infringe on their individual capacity to ask questions of staff. So the the change would have been what you you proposed councilwoman was to change the and and
remove in accordance or resolution right and put except for the purpose of inquirs investigations made in good faith the council and any of its individual members shall deal with the town employees who are subject to arresting supervision. So it removes the restriction of the resolution. >> It removes the resolution restriction.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm reading it from the >> No, no, that's the charter. >> No, I just read the charter. Um, but yeah, I'd like to see the current resolution. Like what does it say? Is that what you're pulling up, Mr. Manager? >> Um, let me try. >> You're talking about resolution the 22
resolution? Yeah, there's a reference to a resolution adopted by the council in 42BI. >> So, currently there's a resolution that's adopted that dictates what the terms of the council being able to interact with
employees is. >> Yes. >> 223. kind of remember. >> I think it says just call the manager. >> Yeah. >> It puts your cell phone number right there in the red. No, it is.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, Mr. town attorney while he's looking that up. Um, so what you're based on what you're saying and I'm understanding then is that what a does in this notwithstanding the foregoing is providing clarification
only on the ability to make inquiries >> in your individual capacity as as a member of a resident of the tunnel of no not a >> it says it says acting in their official capacity. So it's not in your individual capacity.
>> Do you want me to read it? >> So give me one second. >> What happens is that the version of A is incorrect. It it's it's it was tech it was typed wrong. It should have been exactly the way that it is right now in the charter. >> So it should have included and in accordance with the resolution adopted
by the council in that in that section. >> Yes. So it's it's it's wrong. Mr. Chair, I think they're ready with the resolution. I'd be curious to see what it >> um Okay, Mr. Chair, do I need to modify my motion? No, let's hold on one second and let's get some more information and
then we'll determine. >> So, resolution 22-1823 reads, "Whereas the town of Miami Lakes, the town charter section 2.1 provides, there shall be a town council vested with all the legislative powers of the
town. The council shall consist of the mayor and six at large council members as described below. Council members, references in this charter of the council and or council members shall include the mayor unless the context
dictates otherwise. Whereas, in addition to the town mayor's legislative duties and powers, section 2.2 Two of A of the town charter provides that the mayor shall be recognized as head of the town
government for all ceremonial purposes, for purposes of military law, and for service of process. The mayor shall be the official design shall be the official designated to represent the town in all dealings with other
governmental entities. Execute contracts, deeds, and other documents on behalf of the town as authorized by the council. And whereas in order for the town mayor and town council to carry out their legislative and executive
functions, it is often necessary for them to perform independent research and investigations and seek inquiries from town staff. And whereas the opportunity for the town council to obtain greater
knowledge on matters that will come before them will serve the public good by providing for better discussion on on issues disclosure of information to the public and greater transparency. And
whereas the town charter section 4.2b 2B provides except for purposes of inquiries and investigations made in good faith and in accordance with the resolution adopted by the council, the council and any of its individual members shall deal with the town
employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager. And neither the council nor its members shall the give orders to any such employee either publicly or privately.
Whereas solely and further hands of performing their legislative and executive functions, the town council and the town ma mayor are to have continual authority to discuss, res request information, comma, and
perform inquiries from town staff. The foregoing recital are true and correct and incorporated herein. And at the last part it reads, "Pursuant to town charter section 4.2B, for the purpose of carrying out and exercising their legislative and
executive duties, the town council and town mayor shall have the continual authority to conduct good faith investigations and inquiries of town staff. The town council and town mayor shall be prohibited from ordering or
providing any instruction to town staff as provided in the town charter. A violation of this provision of the town charter may result in the violator's removal from office. This resolution shall be effective immediately.
This was passed March 30th of 2022 and um >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Chair. So, >> okay. >> Good vice chair. If the reszo just read
it, it seems to me and Council I mean I'm sorry, Commissioner Ran, I'm going to look to you, but in your capacity as Councilwoman Ronaldo, like it seems to me that the resolution allows the council to basically ask questions but
not give direction. >> Correct. So the way that the way that it was explained to me was was not that way. So I feel like this whole conversation is is moot. We don't you don't need a specific resolution to ask a specific question. >> Yeah,
>> that resolution covers it all. And that resolution says that all council members can talk to all staff members at any point. Am I misunderstanding that? >> Kind of. And I'm going to explain why. A resolution can't overturn the charter. If the charter says that you can only
talk to them by resolution, then that's what we have to talk about. >> But but by that resolution. >> Yeah. >> Not by another resolution. I >> I think that the charter was referring to that resolution. >> Yeah, I agree. >> At least at least >> the resolution talks to the charter because >> right
>> when the when the charter refers to inquiries in good faith or by resolution resolution it's it's in it's referring to that specific resolution >> cuz that's not how that's not >> that's that's an interpretation, right? >> That's not how it's done. the rescar can
also be >> changed council to council, >> right? >> Which is good. >> You want that. >> Well, you could or you couldn't want >> or or there or there or there could be language that mimics that resol I think that resolution is spot on.
>> Correct. >> So, there could be language that mimics that resolution and instead of having it in a resolution, it's permanently in the charter. >> And that I think that's where the town attorney is getting to. >> Yes. If if you're going to have something, why why have it as loosey goosey like that with the resolution? If that's
really the intent of this charter, that that should be it, then it should be in the charter. >> If you're going to have something like that, which is a right that all council members are going to have to be able to make those good faith, then it should be
here. this resolution that was passed and and adopted was trying to do a workaround on on on the on the charter in my opinion. You know, I think it was because the the resolutions the way that it's I I believe the spirit of the way that's in the charter is that the
resolutions are specific to particular items where you're going to go to the, you know, okay, we we want to be able to speak to or or for public works to report back on the trees on 87th Avenue. We want to find out what the fines are with code compliance. we want to find out this that and you're directing the
manager from here from the deis versus you're going directly behind the manager and just asking the question it's done in good faith but here you have to go through the step of first getting the resolution to then get the answer so I'm I'm not saying that there was anything
illegal with that resolution the way it was done >> because again it's it's it's subject to interpretation >> these resolutions unfortunately they come and go with time and with situations, very specific, >> correct, >> council members, very specific. It it
happens very specific situations that sometimes, you know, when when the pendulum swings, >> it swings. So I but I think that language like that on the in the charter can put this to rest permanently where there's no more, I guess, question on
what what inquiries you can make and what inquiries you can't make. >> Yeah. if if if the community or if the residents the voters decide that right because this ultimately will go to the voters. >> Yeah. And if I'm understanding you Mr. Pen attorney and is what what a does is
incorporate the language from the resolution into the charter so that way you don't need that resolution while it's there. It's operative effect now sets the floor in the charter >> correct >> as to what >> but but what I'm saying is that >> again version A is missing something
very integral which part of >> because if you take a look at if you if you remove that language you just take that paragraph by itself then you don't need the language not with going to for not sorry not withstanding the foregoing it's it's it's saying the same thing it's redundant >> correct no that's why I was a little
confused >> Mr. If I may just point out >> to the town attorney's point, there are other sections of the charter though that reference for example section 3.2 which is the appointment of the manager
um references the town shall enact an ordinance regarding this section. So there are other areas of the chap of the charter that reference either an ordinance and or a resolution. >> Correct. But so 3.2 is so that the process is created by the ordinance. So
it it's it says how the appointment occurs but then the actual process itself shall be created by ordinance. So the charter gives direction for the prescription to be done by ordinance. This one is just saying that you can't talk to any staff and regardless of what it is unless you pass this resolution
the way that it currently uh stands. So you could take the very expansive view that that resolution was a, you know, pretty much allows uh the the the council to ask any questions uh regardless of what the charter says. Or you could take the more conservative
view that no, you need specific resolutions item by item. I tend to think that it was supposed to be item by item because then what's the purpose if you can just undo what the charter is telling you by just passing a resolution? But but again, >> I subject to interpretation.
>> But you know what we could do is we could that was that resolution was adopted 22. That wasn't that long ago. You were on the council, Councilwoman Ronaldo. So you could look at the council memo to see what the intent of that resolution was. >> It was that >> it was what? >> It was that he said >> it was there were battles.
>> Yeah. >> It is. >> And it was to clarify, but the resolution to me is clear. It says that the mayor and council can ha can inquire >> and investigate. Hold on one sec. >> I'm sorry. >> No, I I think your point is well taken, but I think what the town attorney is
saying is that that resolution I think runs into what he sees kind of like a gray area that that wasn't the intent of the original. The way that the charter language currently stands that the that I believe the way he's reading it is that the way that the charter currently reads, it requires more of independent
rather than like a just an omnibus type of resolution that says at any point in time rather than general. And so that's why I think what they did in version A was include the language from the resolution to give you that omnibus ability to have that resolution 22-1
or 1823 and he wouldn't have those concerns going forward if A was approved. >> But if B was approved, he's saying you wouldn't even need to have that resolution. And I >> and I real quick just before we continue
on with the speaking, I just want to remind the commissioners and everybody speaking. I I got a message that some it seems some speakers didn't turn on their microphones when they're speaking. It was a little hard to hear online. So just please make sure that you're when you're speaking that your microphone is on. Commissioner Bach.
>> Yeah. I I mean it seems to me that the language itself can can be burdensome in a way. It's very restrictive. I I know you actually A seems to be less restrictive to me than B, but I know you're saying there's missing something in it. So, whatever is missing, can we
just bring this back at the next meeting? Let Mr. Kobea fix whatever he needs to fix. >> It's it's a word with resolution. That's that's really the the key word, the key distinction. In one version, you have to have it, you know, uh a resolution, and
in the other version, you don't to make good faith inquiries. What vice chair in Guanzo is saying is that well a resolution was already passed that pretty much lets you ask any questions made in good faith. So you don't need to make the the change to the charter. But
I again and the manager said it was done for I think a particular purpose. You could take that opinion and you know and state okay resolution is sufficient but I'm not sure. Yeah. Well, well, I think what he's saying is you could have a
different town manager at some later point in time and say, "Hey, look, that resolution with the current language in the charter violates it and has no null effect and could have a challenge saying no, you can't it's ambiguous. >> It can't be." Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, there could be it creates an ambigu ambiguity. >> Yeah.
>> I don't think so because the charter says in accordance with the resolutions. So therefore, I'm not an attorney. You guys are, but in accordance with the resolution. And that's why when it was when when the council asked me to look at it for legal sufficiency, I'm going to say I'm the one who signed off on it. So, I signed off on it because yes, it
was legally sufficient. >> However, is it better just to clarify it in the charter than just to have this resolution out there in the winds? Of course. >> I don't know. I to me there's something about sometimes you in the charter it's permanent, right? And sometimes there's
something to be said to allow the council the flexibility to amend a resolution depending on what the circumstances are. But >> if I may through the chair, >> sure, that's fine. >> I I'll walk you through a scenario and it's completely hypothetical. It's not anything that I experienced or anything
like that. But you could in essence have a council where the majority wants to alienate the minority and they can change the resolution and be in agreement with the town manager and then have certain council members not have access to information because it has to
go through the town manager. >> Not saying that it has ever happened. It didn't happen with me. I always had access to the town manager. But it could in essence happen. And if we do get if we reduce from seven to five, then all you need is three people and one town manager to do that. Unless it is
stipulated in the charter that all council members, you could also have one rogue council member that really shouldn't be talking to staff. But >> I think that for transparency purposes, it's better to have that access. They can't give staff direction, but they can
definitely acquire information. Otherwise, you can create this situation where politically it's unfavorable. >> Yeah, I understand, >> Mr. Chair. Commissioner M. >> Yeah. What she's describing is the tyranny of the majority. You know, it's um basically three wolves in a sheep
asking voting out of what's for dinner. So, yes, this is the situation that she's talking about. So, what I want to know is will the corrected language in version A address that concern or does it have to be in version B address that concern?
I I think version B addresses the concern. I think version A, I'm not sure why it was done that way. >> May I ask a question about version A? Is version A the same as the currents? I'm reading it and other than what was struck about the resolution, it seems to be the same.
>> The blue and the last sentence, >> the notwithstanding all the way down is the difference in version A. Correct? >> Well, no. Again, version A didn't provide V. V version A is is the ver is what's on the charter currently.
>> No, no, but no, that's what we're saying with the with with the missing language. >> Yes, >> we include that in version A is the current charter, but then the notwithstanding foregoing and the red language that is this section shall not apply to town employees in the primary purpose. >> Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So, that's all what A does. It just changes those adds those two language. But version B will basically >> Version B takes off >> addresses her concern uh Commissioner Ronaldo's concerns. Right. >> Well, it it removes the in accordance
with resolution adopted by council language and adds the last se last sentence. >> And can it also add the resolution language or is that well I mean that that would be too many words for a ballot question anyway. >> Yes, it would. >> But remember remember the ballot
question isn't how many words is on that we have in the charter. It's how we word what the question is going to be. >> How we don't we don't have to add the specific language. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> That that'll be in the details in the brochure that says, "Hey, look, these are the changes." >> The prop the language is going to say,
"Shall the charter be amended to update the information, you know, correct all scriers. It's not going to go and say what every single scrier is in the question, >> but rather the backup uh will say these are where all those scriers errors are going to be found." >> Okay. >> So, so we're talking about Mr.
concern but doesn't section A again version A after not with withstanding the forgoing addresses her concern more >> it section A speaks to a resolution but that resolution can be changed at any point by any council so that I guess
that's where that's what we're talking about is putting something in the charter that can't just be changed by a council >> I think you see the word resolution there >> I think your question the answer to your question is yes that I I I believe a
addresses the issue that councilwoman or commissioner Ruano is bringing up the way I'm understanding because it makes it very clear that they can make these good faith
inquiries without a resolution. Yeah. >> Well, yeah, because it's already in the charter. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'm going ask for some clarification because I'm reading B now, but B to me doesn't seem to give the council the authority to speak to anyone
other than the manager. >> I'm not sure what we're trying like >> B says only through the town manager, >> but it says except for purposes of inquiries. >> Yeah, but keep reading. >> So inquiries is very general. >> No, but keep reading. >> Yes. Except for purposes of inquiries
and investigations made in good faith, the council and any of its individual members shall deal with town employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager. >> Correct. Except for purpose of inquiry. So inquiry investigations are not included in that sentence. So the
council and any of its individual members shall deal with town employees. So think of it the sentence is the council and any of its individual members shall deal with town employees who are subject to the direction superv supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager or their designate designate period. You think of
that except if you're now you're going to have inquiries or investigations you do not have to go through the town manager. >> Okay. >> So that's what it's saying. Those two now you have to do it the way that it was that it's currently in the charter which is the language that they removed. It says and in accordance with a resolution.
>> Correct. All right. I mean, you guys are attorneys, so I guess it makes sense to you, but I think there might be a clearer way to say what you just said. >> Oh, 100%. Yeah, >> there's always clear ways. >> We can we can we can Okay. So, if it's if through the through the chair, if I may make a suggestion,
>> if you'd like if if this if it's the will of of the commission that that language, the spirit of that resolution be embodied in in the charter, we'll word it further and come back. >> Okay. So, let's then def do we want to
uh let's just simply defer then uh the motion. >> Right. >> So, I'm going to withdraw I'm going to withdraw my motion. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then to to be deferred until the attorney can give us language, shall we? So, that's more clear. >> So, he's moving to withdraw. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any oppose? Seeing none, motion passes. Motion to withdraw. >> Okay. And then we'll just have the town attorney bring up the specific language of that. >> All right. We're getting through this, guys. Tell you the the following articles, a
lot of it is stuff. We really didn't do too many changes. All right. Um, so that we were 4.2. Anything on 4.3 through 4.11. The rest of article 4. Anybody want to raise any additional issues?
All right. We'll go into article 5 elections. And now we're going to go to there was no changes in A or B. Uh now is on to the versions for article 5.1
C. Mr. Town attorney. Okay. So for 5.1 C we change this sum. This is the uh direction that was given by the um this commission to create the uh primary election and the general election. And
so 5.1 C1 creates the definitions. Uh primary elections is if more than two candidates qualify in any race for mayor or council member, a primary election shall be held to coincide with Miami date countyy's primary election. That's the August date and that's how it's defined um by the supervisor of
elections as the primary election date. general election. The two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary election, regardless of the percentage of votes received shall advance to the general election. If only two candidates qualify for any race, those candidates shall proceed directly to the general election. Okay? And
there's a version A and version B of this. Um so for version A it states that uh 5.1D primary election the ballot for the primary election shall contain the names of all qualified candidates in races where three or more candidates
qualify for office. The ballot shall instruct the c the electors to cast one vote for mayor if applicable and no more than one vote for each open seat. The two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes shall proceed to the general election. Then 5.1E. The ballot for the general election
shall contain the names of all qualified candidates who have advanced to the primary election or who are qualified directly for the general election where only two candidates are qualified. And the general election is the November election. The ballot shall instruct the electors to cast one vote for the mayor if applicable and no more than one vote
for each open council member seat. The candidate receive receiving the most votes shall duly shall be duly elected to that seat. 5.1F. In the event that there is a tie vote for the office of mayor and council member, the town clerk shall designate a time and place for the tied election to be decided through a
coin flip. And this is a true thing. This is actually there's several municipalities uh the chair and I researched this yesterday and >> and and just just for clarification purposes, the coin flip is what it is what it is. It's actually in state statue. It's it's a one of the versions
of what's called drawing of lots. So drawing a lot is pretty much anything of a ch of what's of pure chance. And a coin flip is just simply one of those things. You could draw straws. You could actually I even thought about it last night. I was thinking about it with my wife and it's uh you could do rock paper
scissors. We thought that a coin flip would probably be >> And so for purposes of of this um suggested language is that the coin shall be selected by the town clerk who shall certify under oath that the coin is balanced and equally calibrated. >> Yes. And and and for the purposes, just
so you guys understand, the coin flip, that instance only occurs when there's an absolute tie between two candidates, such as if there was 10,000 people that voted and 5,000 voted for one and 5,000 voted for the other. You know, there's no pouring in having another election
and it just just goes to a coin flip. It's literally a pure chance because you got a 50/50 split if you couldn't get that one extra vote. So the uh version B is a little different and this is the 50 plus one primary model. Uh so if if two
candidates qualify for any race, the the definitions for primary election, general election are pretty much the same. Uh where changes is in the primary election uh 5.1D. The ballot for the primary election shall contain the names of all qualified candidates. The ballot shall instruct electors to cast one vote for mayor if applicable and no more than
one vote one vote for each open seat. If any candidate receives more than 50% plus one of the total votes c cast in the primary election for that race, that candidate shall be deemed to be duly elected and no general election shall be required for that race. If no candidate receives 50% plus one of the total
votes, then the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes shall advance to the general election and then the section of the general election is the same and uh the coin flip also the same. So the question before the commission is 50 plus one or majority
>> well 50% plus one or just moving to the top two candidates >> right the top two right >> yeah top two advance correct >> all right so I'm going to make a motion to adopt version A it's had discussed it
at our last meeting is I'm more preferential to allowing the top two to advance um you know I I and that will be my motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a second. We have any discussions?
>> So, Commissioner Bennett and then >> just quickly. Yeah. So, so we have the system here with suppose in the primaries we have five candidates. No clear majority, but the two top ones will go ahead and move on to the to the uh final >> to the November election >> to November election. So in other words,
if we have five and one got 15% 17%, if the 20 and the 23% would be the ones that would basically move on, >> correct? >> And then it would be a 50/50 >> at the November election, which as we had as we reported on that's actually the one where obviously you're going to get more historically has always been at
the November election, you're going to get higher turn >> of course. Yeah. I'm just at the primary it would be uh pretty pretty brutal, I would guess. potentially depends on how many people there are and >> Sure. >> Okay. >> And you could have
>> commissioner a race with only three candidates. One gets 51% and the other two are split. The one with they still the top two vote getters still go to the November election, >> right? >> Yeah.
>> So that is running an extra round. Well, it's a round that's already kind of paid for because there's always going to be the November election and more people, that's the turnout where you have a greater number of turnout. So, the greater number of people will always have the final say. >> The fiscal impact is going to be I I
believe the fiscal impact is going to be negligible because >> even if there was no council members running, there's still going to be an election that's going to be operated because there's county elections that are going on and other things, correct? Other other votes are going on. So, it's not something that we would have to. So, so, so I and I know we talk a lot about
fiscal responsibility and stuff and and that is all great. I mean, I don't think the charter really is focused on fiscal responsibility is how to run our government better, but that is fine. My only concern is we've tried to align with the county on different issues, right? And now we're talking about doing a primary that I think only two
municipalities, if I'm not mistaken, are doing. So, we just become the third municipality out of 33 or 34. Um, I mean, that's just my concern with it and having to do that extra round. Listen, if you receive 51% of the votes or 50 plus one, clearly the majority of the
citizen or the citizen of the town wanted you to be elected. So I I don't see the need for all that extra, you know, leg or I I know for the town it might not be for the candidate. It could be very pricey. You know, it's
I don't know. I'm just not too convinced with the whole primary thing. I guess that's what we approved and and if that's what we approve, we go that way. So, I I'll I'll address that because, you know, I've had a lot of time to think about that aspect of it. What what I do think is, you know, while there are
I I don't know the exact numbers. I know that was a reference to about two of them that are running I I don't believe it's that they only two are running primary elections. What what's happening is that they're coinciding with the primary elections because there's other municipalities that just have them in March, they have them in October. So,
they're creating their own. What this establishes is a procedure to effectively avoid a runoff that is going to be off a major election time date. And so what you're doing is is just like if we would have three or more
individuals and and neither of them got 50% plus one, you're going to have a runoff. And now you're going to have a runoff which the clerk had said what occurred in 2024 cost us $50,000 because it was our own election. Whereas this would would
require these elections to occur during the major election cycles. And so we're from a fiscal aspect of it. That's what this provides. Otherwise, it's still going to be the same I think for the candidates. Even if there's going to be three and nobody gets 50% plus one, you're still going to go to a runoff and
now you're going to do it on an off election cycle, which we found out from the numbers has even less than both the primary and the general election dates. And that's that was why I'm going with this two top two advanced model. Commissioner Bennett.
>> So essentially the candidates will have to plan on funding or at least uh two elections no matter what. Primary and well assuming that they win the primary, the top two. So they're going to have to basically um collect enough campaign contributions to run two elections no
matter what as opposed to if there's a runoff, which there may or may not be. >> Sure. Well, no, not necessarily because I I would say it in this in the in this I would say it in this way is I've worked on several campaigns and all candidates if they know if there's more
than two candidates that are running you need to kind of plan on hey I have a potential for running on a runoff if there if I don't get sufficient enough votes um and then it becomes hey how am I going to run my money am I going to try to dump it all now and then try to
do fundraising later or am I going to try to save some just in case I run into the runoff period. And that's going to happen regardless of whether or not we have this top two advanced model or if we if we if we go with this top two advanced model, it's you know, it's like you're
going to have to do that. So, at least, you know, you're going to have to go into the top two advanced, >> you know, you have to you're going to be doing in a second model. Obviously, if you're going in the 50% plus one primary model, you're running literally a coin flip as to whether or not you're going
to have to save money for a potential second election if you don't receive 50% plus one. >> I'm trying to say one method requires you have sufficient campaign contributions to run two elections and the other one is only if there's a a runoff. >> Well, I think both of them require it. I
think one of them you're guaranteed you're going to do it. Whereas the other one you don't know if you're going to have to use it. So you don't know whether or not to use all your money for your main election or if you're going to want to try to save some money because now you're going to have to go ask for people for more money and that's on another election that's going to occur
now. >> Yeah. But it's not guaranteed. In other words, >> No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. One you're guaranteed you're going to. One of them you're not going to. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Commissioner Rouano. Um, I first have a a a question for the attorney. We
already voted on these primaries being in August, right? So, we cannot change that to the way that we used to have it, which was November and late November, >> right? So, the the reason for the change and the reason why it's called primary is because the primary elections are the
August elections that the county has for the county commission and also uh the judicial uh elections are always held. So we wouldn't have to create an election. >> Correct. Right. And >> so that's the reason for it. >> Right. And I I remember that. But what I'm saying is this commission already voted on that.
>> They did. >> So that there is is there a way to have the discussion again about the November and possibly December runoff instead of putting our election in August. >> Because I know that we had that we had
the conversation just cuz I spoke to several residents. they they like their elections in November. They understand the situation with the runoff being near Thanksgiving or at the end of November or whatnot, but we had talked about the potential of having that in December
where other municipalities have that runoff election in December if if it happens. Are we past that conversation at this point or can we still have that conversation? So, similar to what happened earlier this evening, >> if you were on the prevailing side of
that vote, you can bring it up again and change it. You know, as for for modification, nothing's been set in stone yet. You did vote on this motion. That's why you have option A and option B before you because that was a direction of this body. Now, if you wish to change course, >> so there's a there's a motion on the
table now um >> to adopt version A. >> To adopt version A, right? So now is not the time to >> Well, now you have a you have a current motion on the floor. This motion has to be voted on first and then if it fails or dies, then you can >> well forward. I think she could
potentially >> or right now you can actually ask for for an amendment of that motion and say, "Hey, listen. I I'd rather the dates to be changed. I'm okay with it being the majority, but I would rather the the primary be November and then the runoff being December." You can also that that would be also appropriate. So, can we um
>> So, it would be an amendment to the motion on the floor. >> Okay. Can we look into whether or not I was on the prevailing side of that particular motion? >> If she was on the If you were on the prevailing side. Yes. >> Okay. Can we just >> I guess you can find out. Yes, you can find out. Yes, she was. >> I'm sorry. Ed was whispering something
in my ear, so my reaction. >> No worries. So, on the on the topic of of the 50 plus one on on the runoff or not, as a candidate, I would prefer the option of not going to a runoff if any one of the any one of
the candidates earns 50% or more simply because sometimes we have candidates that aren't really serious candidates. Sometimes we have people that get very little votes. So, it would really be um I think it would be a disservice for
maybe three candidates and two of them get 5% of the votes and one of them gets 90 and they still have to go to a runoff. So, financially for the candidate, I would prefer I know that you always have to plan cuz I've I've been a candidate so you always have to plan for the runoff. Um but it would be
great if in some circumstances there wasn't a runoff. So, the 50 plus one I think works. It's it's always worked before. So, I would I would prefer to have that one. Um, and but aside from that, if I can get that information, I I would like to at least
have a friendly amendment and to have the conversation about the November election because as as I talked to people about moving this up and moving up, qualifying and moving up everything, it it just it didn't at least with the residents that I spoke, they would have
preferred the option of moving it back and having that runoff in December. So, I don't know if anyone had that same feedback from the community or if it was just something that I >> Let's wait to get that answered in that motion so we don't confuse the two motions. But I I did want to just respond is look, I I completely agree.
You know, there's there's pros and cons to both of these models, you know, and I've seen candidates that have wanted one versus candidates wanted the other. You know, I could see that aspect. You know, I I've always tended to look at as look, if I get 99% of the vote at at the primary election, I sure hope that I'm
going to get 80 to 90% of the vote come the full on when I'm really going against the one person that got only 1% of the vote. I'm really really hoping that aspect because if it doesn't work out, man, I don't know, you know, what it says about the first 99% people that voted for.
>> But but Mr. Chair, once again, if it's few few voters, it's easy to get 90% of 80 people. It's hard to get 80%, you know, 90% of 2,000 people or 20. >> Well, that's my and and that is that's really my intent of why you advance the top two to the major election where you
have two because then you're truly getting a better representation of the entire town of who they want on the council rather than the smaller that only vote generally that's historically happened at the primary versus the general election type. That's why my preference has been to push it to there
because then you're just going to really get that vote from the entire more people from the town and I think the last one was almost I think we're over like 75 80% of the town voting members of the town voted in the 2024 November versus it was I think it was only 10% 10
or 15% that voted in the primary. So that's that's what that was my purpose in going that way. >> But knowing that that was a presidential election too though. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But historically you're going to get that across the board. I'm sure the the clerk looked at it. Your general election is always going to have >> may not be as high because it's a
governor's race, but they're both going to be high. >> You're always going to have at the November election is always going to be higher than any August election, no matter what. >> Clark. >> Yes. So, to respond to provide clarification to respond to commission member Duano's question at the last
meeting, April 23rd, the minutes you all have them in front of you. It's in tonight's agenda. I'm going to read regarding item four called election dates primary versus Ronoff's system which is talking about section 5.1.
Deputy town attorney stated that the town clerk in Guanso provided a very good analysis on this matter earlier in the evening and he emphasized that the town attorneys were also conducting a separate analysis and they also alluded to the municipality of Kiscane and to
the municipality of Miami Gardens. He stated that he would draft language for charter revision section 5.1C and 5.1D adopting the August primary system once the item is discussed by the commission
members. During discussion, Chairman Leoto stated that there are two ways to run with the primary. that is one way is if there's going to be more than two electors to go to the August primary election. He explained that in the event
one of those candidates meets the 50% plus one vote threshold. He asked if that candidate is the winner or should the town attorney's draft language that to state that the two top candidates no matter what they get go directly into
the November general election. Chairman Leoto stated his preference as you stated now is for the highest two candidates go from the primary to the November general election because in the November election you get the bulk of
voters. the highest voter turnout. During further discussion, Chairman Leodo asked the town attorneys to draft two different types of languages to be presented to the commission members. A proposing the two top vote getters
regardless of the percentage moving forward to the general November general election ballot and also to draft language providing the option that if any candidate that achieves the 50% plus one vote at the August primary that
candidate be deemed the winner of the election. Chairman Leoto as the town attorneys to draft both versions for commission members to review it at the next meeting and decide what type of language they want. No further
discussion was had. So I think that answers the question that no one voted. >> Yeah. So there was >> it was like direction given >> rather to get the proposed language with with that instruction. So so the intent was to move forward but we haven't moved the the election. So,
>> so Commissioner Rana can make a motion about changing the back to December. I mean, November, December, right? >> She can make an independent one. There's a pending motion. >> Pending motion. >> There's a pending motion from the chair, seconded by Commission Member Ruano.
Motion to adopt version A. That's what I have as of right now. >> And that motion includes these dates, >> correct? The primary and the general election. And look, uh, and and I'm more than happy to just, you know, reiterate, you
know, what I had stated. I know that I had stated at the last meeting as well as, you know, I think I've alluded to it now. Um, you know, I I strongly feel that we should be going to this primary and general election rather than the having at the general election and then a runoff. Um, and the purpose being is
be, you know, my primary purpose beyond the finances is voter turnout. you know, as the numbers that were reflected is that uh we don't have that level of turnout at both at the runoff election that we do at either the primary or the general election to just taking the 2024
numbers that were provided at the last uh meeting. But I think generally you're also going to have that you're always going to see a lower turnout when it's just a municipal especially it's just a runoff because you know unfortunately voter apathy for one reason or another time things they don't see you know what
I'm not going to go for whatever reasons people have their have their reasons not to vote at those and that's why I prefer to have it tied to the primary in the general election just because I I my whole entire thing has always been and I've said this for years and years is I
just like people to go out and vote. And when you have a higher representation, you're really going to get a better sense of what the population does feel. You know, whether it's for you or against you, that's going to happen when you have more people. And you're going to and you the council members are going
to be better driven in those in those in all of their decisions, you know, both for the charters as well as you know what they're going to get when you know, with the council members that are here. They're like, "Yeah, you know what? you have a good representation of the town because you've gotten more people to come out and vote for you. >> You know, they're they're they're giving
you that direction. Um, that's my personal opinion and that's why I'm pushing for, you know, >> we want to have the primary versus the general and not doing the runoff and on and off schedule because it's just, you know, it's it's it's unfortunate that there are voter aathy. I wish we could push people to get to get them to vote
for it and you just you're not going to get it. And I just think it's it's a little better if we have them the the greater number. Commissioner Bennett. >> So So the other side of that coin is a minority of electors will pick the two candidates hopefully. And then if once
again if the majority of the electors wanted the candidate that didn't at that particular time didn't get his 14.5%, he wouldn't be on the ballot. So you're having a minority of electors select the candidates for that general election.
I I don't think so. >> It It seems like, you know, you say it's the voter turnout is very low >> because they're not selecting who the candidates are going to be. Well, they're selecting who the candidates are. They're they're Yeah, they're picking the top two individuals. Correct. But >> but then then what conversely, you take
you what you're you're you're saying to fruition, then the people that are ultimately selecting are even a greater minority. They're actually se selecting the person that's going to sit on the council. No, no, because >> Yeah, because it would be in a runoff. If you're having the general election and there's going to and then and which
is what how this is implicated, right? >> And then you're going to have a runoff that's going to have even less people voting. The person that's actually going to sit >> is now going to be a super minority. >> So, in other words, it it's no matter what happens, there's a minority of electors probably going to be electing the council.
That's what you're saying. >> Well, not electing the council members. If you if you get your if if you have your primary election, yes, you're going to have a minority of voters compared to the general election selecting who the candidates are going to be, you top two, >> but then they're going to be selected by
a majority of the electors versus you have your main election and November, which is only going to select down who your candidates, >> the last two for the runoff, which is what we have. council member is going to be selected by a super minority
>> that's going to be in that runoff even if it's held in December. >> Okay. Well, that's once again I see both sides as a minority selecting who's going to be elected. >> So I I I just think look we cannot force the citizens to be civically engaged, right? We can see it through this whole
process. We've sat here for what eight 10 times. I think we've had a total maybe 10 people you know come expressed >> like three people that repeated. Some of them are the same people really really four or five people have given any input. I mean >> at least your public
>> right? So it it and even in in elections I assure you the majority of our residents or our citizens are not as engaged. They're going to vote you know there's two people and they will show up for presidential electors or or or state governor election or so yeah you could
see the higher turnout. I just don't see why we should switch everything around when there's only two municipalities who are actually doing it that way. Again, I know I'm probably in the minority in this. It's just very difficult for me. And when it comes to 50 plus one or
runups, I mean, some of us who ran, I mean, listen, I I I looked at those um reports, those financial reports. Yeah. I mean, listen, if you're an attorney, you got some nice donations, but if you're a social worker and you work with
poor people, you're limited to where you can tap into. So, that creates a disadvantage. So, h how do we get our residents to run to be engaged? I mean, I know you cannot force it, but unless we're planning on having a whole council full of attorneys, you know, because
they can raise all these funds. Listen, an election could go 20, 30 grand. I can guarantee you there's a lot of attorneys that can't. >> No, but but but listen, I saw it and I saw it like in a week, you know, go like So, how do you try to play ma make the field more even for for our residents to
to want to become engaged to want to run for for council? And I I I just don't think that putting all these obstacles on on the way is the way to do it. To me, hey, like I said, you run like any other election we've had in the town. I don't think we've had any major issues.
the residents overwhelmingly vote for one, then that that's who gets elected. I mean, again, just my personal view, but just having to force somebody to go to a second round for a runoff or any of these things, I think it's unnecessary. >> So, just to clarify, so are you your
opposition is to >> be 50% plus one? >> I think I'm I think I'm opposing everything having a primary having a 50 plus one. So you'd rather have just So your your preference would be having the November having a runoff in whether
November or December because we don't even know if that would even pass. Right now it's currently November because if they don't agree to that then it's just where we're at right now, right? >> We expend the extra $50,000 plus to do that runoff nonetheless. Have a minority of the people say >> but would but usually in elections that
happen November at some municipality there will be a runoff. Don't you think? Don't we have runoffs? I I I always recall having >> all at different times. >> They have them at different times. Ours right now coincides by ourselves >> and we would have to be able to coincide
it with another state that >> and hope they do and even if they don't and if they don't we're running we're rolling the dice >> whereas there will always be a primary and there's always going to be a general election no matter what. >> The other challenge Mr. share to add what you just said. The challenge which
with the way we currently have it is it falls the Tuesday before Thanksgiving which is a couple of different challenges right people are completely disconnected traveling there's no school and it creates a challenge for the department of elections because that means that on Thanksgiving day they are
certifying the election which is bad for them terrible for them. >> Yeah. And and even if you were moving into December, you run into the issue of those are the holidays. >> You know, people are >> Yeah. But I think most cities have moved it to the first week of December. So I
think they're certifying, you know, like by the 10th, 12th, 15th of December. So it's, you know, slightly before the holidays. But >> yeah, last meeting I if I may, last meeting I think I read and I could pull that information from the website of supervisor of election. My memory is not
mistaken. The vast majority of the municipalities that offer runoffs, it's either that first week or second week of December. Miami Lakes and another municipality are
the only ones. I wish I remember which one it was that has it that week of Thanksgiving because we have it 21 days after the election. It tends to coincide. It happens every two years. And I think there was a handful of like three or
four municipalities, Bal Harbor being one of them and Pinerest. I do remember those that have it the week before Thanksgiving. But those municipalities, you can attest about Bal Harbor. They never have a runoff.
>> So because they don't I don't know. I don't work in B Harbor. I'm just stating the fact >> you usually don't get one candidate running for a seat. I've never seen a one of us and B Harbor. >> I I see anyway >> I see Councilman Sanchez is here and as
I've stated on multiple occasions on previous is that we do not need to open up public comments for members of our council members that would like to come up and speak. Uh this is not reopening of public comments, but it you know if you'd like to have something you'd like to say, Mr. Councilman,
>> you are officially invited at the invitation of the chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah, it's working. Well, good evening everyone and uh Councilwoman Roano and Councilman. I know that you're enjoying this time
that is your usual, you know, time of being up on the day is bringing back memories. I bet to everybody else, thank you for being here such deep into the night. It's already 10:00 at night and I I appreciate all the work that you're doing, but I do ask um that I know we're looking at it or you're looking at it at
a very micro level, but I to take it up not to the 30,000 the 50,000 foot level. And I'm going to speak on a point that I've brought up in the past about our military. Our military is one of the best in the country, not because of it's because of our volunteer force. At the
end of the day, the elected officials that are up there are volunteers. We are volunteers the same way that our committees the same way that we have with the majority of residents just elected officials but like but the committees already bringing it down from
seven to five makes it because of the reasoning that I've heard in the past of lack of individuals that want to run that want to serve it been harder to say hey not only are you taking it to one election but two
mandatory elections those people that really want to serve that really have the passion to represent the people and give less representation to those that are paying the taxes of this town, the 34,000 residents, not just the ones that go out and vote,
the 34,000 that live in the town lakes. So, we're leaving it so with less representation and we're leaving it more on the hands of the staff as to what's going to happen. The staff, yes, they play a vital role, but we also play a role in the what the people want and how
they reach out to us. They vote for us. They are the ones that say, "We want these individuals in place." So, not only are you looking into bringing it down to five, but now making it even harder for those that really want to dedicate their time to get on the council to be there to serve for the
people. So I ask you look at it from a from a 15,000 foot level. Not 30,000, not so micro that it's down to the nitty-gritty, but it's down to the detail that it's still people that want to serve where you're getting the cream of the crop, but not the cream that is so beat up because of all that they have
to go through to get to the seats that you're currently sitting in that we sit in every month and speak to the residents on a daily basis. where we want to help, where we want to be there for the people, where we want to represent, where we want to save the taxpayers funds and tell them we are
doing right by you. Because yes, there have been historical instances where not everybody has the best interest of the town and it's just using this as a stepping stone. But the majority that have been up there are doing it for the purpose of this town to make sure that we left it better than we found it for our children. So I ask of you not just
to look at the micro but take a 15,000 foot level and say are we really really ready to beat up those individuals that are trying to serve the town that are be there for the town. So I ask of you you know please make sure that the decisions that you're making tonight are the right
ones not just for now but 15 20 years from now. So, I ask and I please implore you to make sure that you do your due diligence when it comes to this to make sure that that is the right decision. I appreciate all that you're doing. I will be sitting here the rest of the night and I'll be listening. This will be the
only time that I speak, but as you know, at any point in time, I'm always there for a phone call. Anytime that you want perspective, I am here. Thank you and uh best of luck tonight. >> Thank you, M. >> Chairman, >> Councilman Sanchez. I have um council
member Stephen Hzburg online that wishes to speak. >> Sure. And I invite Councilman Herszburg to speak. This is again not opening of public. >> Oh, I was like, did I get his name wrong?
>> Sorry. I will repeat it into what was just >> the member. Please unmute yourself and welcome to the meeting. >> Thank you guys. Good evening everyone. Uh I've just been following along and I I saw Councilman Tenches join along. He
decided to take the drive. Good for him. Uh but anyway, on this specific issue, I I think it helps to get input from people that are involved in politics and ran. I know many of you up there have. Uh I don't see what you guys are trying to fix other than moving. We My position
is the date should be moved, right? It makes no sense to have a a runoff in November, right before Thanksgiving. But everything so far that this commission has done regarding wanting people to vote is you're making
it harder, not vote, to run, you're making it harder. making it more expensive and requiring someone to go through a August primary, which means starting your campaign earlier, getting more money, and then I'm a true believer no one should make a final decision in
August regardless. So then you're guaranteed if you have more than two to then go to November. We've had council members win three pe three person races uh in in non-presidential elections, not raising that much money and getting over
50%. It's not impossible. It's It's been done recently. So, this idea that I other than from staff, I don't know where the idea came from. Honestly, I I don't believe people are asking for more times to go vote. Uh we already see that
voter turnout is low. That's unfortunate. Something that I hate seeing, but adding an additional required election, I I don't see how that changes it. and on a non-presidential primary that August election is a low turnout election. So
all you're doing is moving one potential low turnout election to a required low turnout election. I don't see the fix. I think the fix is simple. move the prime the runoff if there even is a runoff because there doesn't have to be to the
same dates that other municipalities have it in December which hopefully you'll get you'll get 15 20% on a runoff maybe you won't there's nothing you can do to create more voter participation a runoff that's something that any city in the entire state deals with it's low
voter turnout for runoffs even for large cities but I don't see how requiring people now to run twice, making it more expensive. And on at least every other election, putting that primary in
already low turnout election solves the issue. I think you have a a solution in front of you, which is to leave it the way it is, but make sure to move that move that uh runoff date so then you can try to increase the turnout. But I I don't see where this this is a fix. I
really don't. So that's just my input from from where I see it and I I do appreciate you guys. I know it's a long meeting. You guys have been having a good discussion. So have have a good evening. >> Thank you, Councilman Herszburg.
All right. I think we've had plenty of discussion now on this item. Uh where we stand now is we have uh the motion to adopt version A as written uh which is the top to
advance model. Um so I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to call the vote on that. Uh so any uh all in favor of version A say I >> I >> I
>> can we just for the town clerk P poll I believe >> and opposed >> oh I'm sorry >> sorry I forgot to call a sec those opposed >> name >> yes we'll take a poll please >> yes council let me start with commission
member Ruano No >> commission member Matoss. >> Yes. >> Commission member Bennett. >> No. >> Commission member Abbad. >> No. >> Vice Chairman Inguanso.
>> Yes. >> Chairman Lelay Sto. >> Yes. >> So we have three yeses and three nos. The motion dies. >> So all right. So that motion fails. Do we have another motion?
If I if I may, I'd like to move to adopt version B with amendments to the election dates having our regular election with the general in November and moving
any potential runoff to a date that corresponds with another municipality in December. >> I'll second that. So we have a motion to adopt version B with the modification on the election dates as written to be the general to be
the primary election to be or the would be in November with a runoff in December to coincide with another municipality. Is that language we can draft? Mr. town attorney. >> What I would say is at the next
available date as per we don't control those dates. If the department of elections doesn't have a December date, we can't have one. We got to do it in in January. So, it just depends, >> right? But at the next available date, >> available date >> trying to get away from the Thanksgiving problem.
>> Yeah, that we can do to >> at the next available date in December >> change it to 28 days or 35 days. That means it's going to be the four or five weeks following. Is that okay? >> I think that if we provide language in
the amendment changing 21 days to like maybe 30 days, we can look at the calendar whatever. >> Okay. But moving it so that it coincides I from the from my memory I think for this municipality of Dorado. Is it the first week or the second week? I think
Dal is the second week. We can do the math. I think I can ask elections department. >> Yeah. >> If you all are okay with that with >> it, it's got to coincide with what they find acceptable is what I'm trying to say. >> So, is this something that we should table for now and perhaps >> No, no, no. You can vote, but just give
us direction to come back and for that to >> Can we use language within 35 days? >> That gives you any time within 35 days. >> Yeah. >> Does it have to be date sir? Will it that two? Okay. We we'll we'll call the Department of Elections and they get you
that that date what it could be. >> Mr. Chair, may I >> So hold on. I I just want to clarify the motion before we get into too much discussions. Unless you're just trying to help. >> No, I was out of discussion mode, but I thought that's where we were at. So my point >> No. So I just want to make sure. So it's going to be the motion is going be version B modifying the election dates
to be the first election. I don't know what we're going to call it, but it'll be coincide with the November election with a runoff to a co to occur at a date that we're going to set up that'll be at a later time in December.
>> Yeah. So, for instance, um attorney Castillas said that or looked into it and I guess the runoff is December 8th. >> 28 days. >> I know that I provided that report last um meeting. I don't have it in memory,
but the vast majority were the first two weeks of December and there was a batch that was before our runoff, which I don't recommend. >> And this is just a matter of just I'm trying to develop >> the information is in the website, right? >> The question I have is for those others are there is their date set in their
charter, the actual date, or how do they have it written? That's what I'd like to know. >> I think that's what Commissioner Rouano is trying to get at. >> I believe they're around whether it No, but I'm seeing what the other municipalities if they say 28 days because we don't want to say 28 days and
then they end up being 35 days. Do you see what I'm saying? >> Can it be first Tuesday in December or second Tuesday in December? >> Mr. Chair, may I like to >> to follow up on So, if DA is December 8th, that's 35 days, which makes sense to me because if you say the first
Tuesday in December, then that's right after the Thanksgiving. No, it's because it's always going to be either four. Well, but thing it could depend on where the December, >> but the first Tuesday in December is always true, but it's going to be right after Thanksgiving, which is probably
not ideal either. So, Dorado does it 35 days after the election. >> They have the charter of Dorado runoff election as as applicable. The ballot for the run of election shall contain the names of the two candidates for mayor and the name of the candidates for
each seat who received the most votes in the general election. The ballot shall instruct electors to cast one vote. Okay. I keep reading. I I'm reading for the date. Um is that okay? Yes. A runoff election if
necessary shall be held on the second Tuesday in December. Period. >> Is that how you want your motion to read? >> That's Doral. I have Palmetto Bay. If you allow me, I can read it just to use an example.
Okay. 5.1 >> Give me just one minute. We can provide other other >> Okay. This is um village of Palmetto Bay. A general election shall be held in even numbers on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in December
of that year. A runoff election, if necessary, shall be held by the village as provided by ordinance. Which ordinance shall schedule and authorize the runoff date in compliance with state law? So, this one doesn't state
I'm trying to read necessary. So this one does not state a specific. No, it's set in in their ordinance. >> I have Pinerest as well. >> No, I want to share with everyone
so that you have ample. I >> think I think Pine Griff is before, right? >> It's before, but I'm going to read it. I have it so that you see how everyone Let me just one second.
Okay. Pinerest election days. A general election shall be held in November of each even numbered year on the day US congressional elections are held or if none is held in any such year on the
first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. A runoff election if necessary shall be held on the third Tuesday in November. So they don't specifically state the number. They just say the third, the first, the second. Well, it's stating a number because it's
still it's still seven days out what they're doing on the Tuesday. >> Bennett was making reference to it. >> So, Commissioner Rouano, how would you like your motion then to read? >> I would like it to read either within 30 days or um the fir the second the second
Tuesday of December or the first Tuesday of December, whatever. I mean whatever is is >> I think it I think uh I think manager Peterman said it was 35 days is the second day second to two more or less. >> Yeah. I mean if you do factors of seven >> seven yeah >> because you're not always every month
every year may be a little different. >> So it's probably better off defining it like you do like Dal does it by >> I think it's safer. >> Right. So if we so if we can mirror the language >> if we mirror the language in Doral's at the very least we guarantee that there's going to be one other election. Well,
you're not guarantel the entire cost of it. >> Yeah, there might there might be. Yeah. >> Can I ask? >> Sure. the chair >> would I I'm still confused about the the reason why we would want >> I I understand when it's when all the
municipalities have an election and we would piggy back on that or or a state or or another some other election that we would have to be voting on but what would be the reason why would we save money if if for instance DAL had an election what would
be the reason why we would save money >> I don't believe it will it'll just be >> that's I didn't understand what >> regardless of other city or 100 other cities. >> What would be the reason why we want to coincide with except for it's a good idea but not necessarily because we were
we were going to benefit some. >> It won't be financially. >> It's not going to be financially and no >> historically it's it's going to be a lot less voting that you're going to get anyway. So you're going to get less voters and you're going to get and it's going to cost you more money. >> So you know that's why I I pushed for the A but you know that got voted down
>> unfortunately. So how would you like your let's go back to chairman commissioner ruana. So >> thank you. Is there any way to word it where we would fall in conjunction with another election? >> But it doesn't >> or it's irrelevant because of the cost. >> It'll be irrelevant. So, so when we when
we have our when when our candidates are on the general election, it costs us the same thing. >> Then if we have No, the general election is a specific >> the primary which is a countywide election and >> the primary whe that's a countywide election and the general that's a countywide election there there is an
economy of scales that 100% cases but not when it's our our runoff if there's another city or two or three other cities it's it's irrelevant. >> Okay. Yeah, that's true because they'd have to staff our it's our our our location, our polling location for us
>> versus where it's the county. They're staffing those locations anyways because it's a county election and we're just getting now cost of ballots or probably or anything, >> right? and and >> a decision the council makes at the time when there's a runoff is the uh decision to um have certain number of um early
voting days >> where that decision doesn't have to happen when it's primary and general because the early voting dates are predetermined. >> Yeah, those are already set by the county anyways. >> So to the chair to >> is for the only thing about having
>> turn on your mic please. >> It is on. >> Oh, it is. Oh, I don't see >> the only thing I'm sorry my mic is on. Check. Check. Um, the only thing about having it when there would be another municipality is awareness in the community, right? So, if Deral was having an election in somebody else,
there would be more awareness, right? That would be the only thing. The good thing about having it the other way was that everybody knows about the primaries, right? >> Yes, I I I concur with that. Um, I don't think that there's any benefit with any date that we choose. I guess it's just
moving it past that Thanksgiving date. Um I would I would suggest second Tuesday in December versus the first. Sometimes Thanksgiving and that first week of December are close together, but it doesn't really it's at the will or if
there anyone has a different um opinion. >> I'm just not in favor of having this this that structure unfortunately. But any other commissioners comments? >> Do we have someone who because I missed it. I know that motion was um made by
commission member Ruano. Did someone second that motion? Was it >> Did you want to repeat? I believe it was Commissioner Abad, but the restated and I'll second that restatement as well. >> Okay, Commissioner Abad. All right. No further discussion. We're going to go
ahead and call a vote on that. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. No. >> All against. >> Chair, I'm so sorry. >> My apologies. Can someone just reread the motion? I just want to make sure I understand it clearly. >> Do you Thank you.
>> This motion was to adopt the version B but modifying eliminating the primaries in August and having the election in the general election in November, which is usually the first Tuesday of >> November
>> of November. And if a runoff is needed for it to go to December, there has been discussion whether it's going to be the first Tuesday or the second Tuesday. Am I correct, Commission Member Rouano?
So adopting version B is forgetting about the August primary. It's focusing on what we have basically going to the election in November. And in case there's a runoff for it to
happen, not 21 days as it is currently that Thanksgiving weekend, it's moving it to December. Okay, >> that's the motion. Thank you. All right, so I'll call it again. Is all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> All oppose say no. No. >> No. Let me take a poll. >> Let's just take a poll to make sure. >> Okay. C. Commission member Ruano. >> Yes. >> Commission member Abbad. >> Yes. >> Commission member Bennett.
>> Hi. >> Vice Chairman Inguans. Oh yes. Vice Chairman Inguanso. >> Yes. >> Commission member Matoss. >> No. >> And Chairman Leoto. >> No. >> So we have two nos and one, two, three,
four. Four yeses. The motion passes. All right, now we finished that. So we'll go on now 5 let's see we can we go any left on 5.1de FG or H
see none. All right, we'll go to 5.2. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair, one more time. So currently our our current law says that right after the election the following they're sworn in they become but now we're modifying it to be the first week of January is when they take office. >> Yes. That was done at the February 26
2026 >> meeting did there. >> Okay. I'd like to hear some discussion on it. So can I make a motion not to adopt the first Tuesday in January just so we have some discussion on this?
>> Um let's see. Well, there was one that voted against it. Looked like Let's see who was the one that voted against Bennett. >> It was Bennett. >> Nope. >> All right. So then, anything else on article five? We'll move on to article
six. Uh 6.1. There's, you know, there's one section there. Um there was no changes. >> We'll move on to unless there's anything article 7 uh one through three 7.1 7.2 7.3 there
was no changes uh 7.4 Four. There's language that we uh approved. Any discussions or 7.56 or seven discussions? >> See? No. So, sorry. I do have a discussion. >> Sure.
>> Although we I guess previously discussed this, but I think currently the council does not meet in December. Correct. >> You don't have a council meeting in December. Currently we do not meet in December. Correct. Okay.
>> That that's why it says at its final regular meeting of the calendar year >> which under the current schedule. >> Thank you. Okay. That resolves that issue. Thank you. >> Only the original one from 200 2005 that was a December meeting back then. >> Yeah. It was August. >> The off month was August. Right.
>> Thank you. All right. Uh and seeing none, we'll go to article 8. There was either transition provisions there was nothing going to you know recommended and retaining. We had no further discussions on that. Same
with article nine. No further discussions I believe. And so we have completed our review of the charter. Um our next meeting if uh madame clerk if you could read out the time and date.
>> Yes. the 18th of May, which is not next Monday, the following Monday. However, so for sure we're meeting May 18th at 6:30 p.m. However, I was asked earlier today to share with you all. I think I
did if it's okay for the commission members to meet next Monday, May 11th. >> If needed, >> I don't think they need to. >> Not needed. >> No. Okay. >> Mayhe that's 6:30.
>> We do. We have that one pending version that the town attorney has to present to us. Does don't we? >> Yes. That's the may well that we have the may >> and we'll be able to address that one issue and then go over all the questions that will we hopefully will capture all of this. >> Mr. Attorney, could we please have some
time between the uh questions and the our meeting just so we can review them? >> Yeah. I mean I just you know like I said I got all the emails at 4:30 today and I didn't get a chance to read them. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. If seeing nothing further just
want to wish everybody a great evening. Thank you for all for going through all this. We are almost there and uh looking forward to having opportunities for me for our community to vote on. Thank you. Thank you. It helped a lot to have everything this
afternoon. Whatever time it a hand. >> Yeah.