WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=nS98EhhGDyo

Part: 1

1
00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:16.560
Uh, Councilman Herzberg. >> Thank you, Mayor. And and of course thank you to the commission. Thank you for listening to me. I was up here and and emailing you guys. Thank you to the town attorney. We we went on back and forth on a bunch of emails and phone calls as well. Uh, so I really do appreciate that. There's some There's

2
00:00:16.560 --> 00:00:32.680
questions in here that I brought my concerns and and you did listen to those concerns for a lot of them. Uh, our job is not to decide on the questions, um, but we are going I mean I'm voting yes, obviously, because that's our job here. Uh, so uh, there's a few questions here. Maybe they not needed and they're I mean

3
00:00:32.680 --> 00:00:48.880
everyone knows the one question I'm against is the 6 to 4. I I do think that's that's a mistake, but the voters will decide at this point. So, um, yeah, it I remember watching the meetings you guys the first few meetings were a little like where's this going, but then towards the end you guys really started really knocking

4
00:00:48.880 --> 00:01:05.400
things down and and did really good work. So, uh, this shows it. There's a lot of questions because there is a lot of ideas. So, I wish we could make it a little smaller, but uh, we'll see how the voters go and uh, you know, we just got to push this forward. There's really nothing else for us to to do on this. That's our job is

5
00:01:05.400 --> 00:01:20.880
as long as it's legal and the town attorney says it is, then let's let's take it to the ballot. Councilman Sanchez. >> Well, to the committee, thank you for all the hard work, the dedication that you put in, the tower the hours the countless hours and the monotony that is

6
00:01:20.880 --> 00:01:38.000
the the English language and making sure that every I is dotted, every T is crossed. We know though how much time you dedicated to this. I was also here in the chamber once in a while to to listen in and give an opine on some of the the topics that you discussed for the charter, you know, and and yeah, just

7
00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:52.560
really on what my colleagues say. This, you know, it's it's it's a dedication of work that you put into it. Um, you know, there's some things in here that I don't agree with, but obviously that's just my opinion. Now it's up to the the town of our proverbial quote unquote bosses, the

8
00:01:52.560 --> 00:02:08.560
residents of the town. Um, but I thank you very much for for all the work, you know, the differences of opinions. It creates a good environment to see, you know, different perspectives, different types of viewpoints that led to this outstanding document that we have and displayed in front of us. So, I just

9
00:02:08.560 --> 00:02:23.760
want to say thank you and and I hope that your interaction with the town government and you know and and your civic engagement doesn't end just because the charter revision is is over. Thank you, guys. >> Councilor Fernandez, do you want to say anything? >> I I just thank you guys again. It was an

10
00:02:23.760 --> 00:02:40.920
honor to serve with you guys. And uh now, the will of the commission is before us. So, I think it's time we ratify it. >> Thank you very much, councilman. And I also want to thank all of you uh for your time and your effort as the member of the 2016 Charter Revision Commission.

11
00:02:40.920 --> 00:02:56.320
I remember what that was like spending even weekends, you know, coming in here um you know, to beat up the charter and and you know, really think about what would be changes that would improve the functioning of our town government, right? And as the chairman had mentioned at the I believe at your inaugural

12
00:02:56.320 --> 00:03:13.000
meeting, a the changes, you know, at least are going to stand for 10 years, right? So, it's and in some cases maybe even more. So, it's very important work and it's important to be deliberative and I know uh you know, that at times literally uh went word by word by word

13
00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:28.080
of each section of the charter. Um but I I want to commend you all for the work that you've done. Um and I also want to, you know, specifically thank the chair um from one presiding officer to another. I know that sometimes, you know, when you're trying to

14
00:03:28.080 --> 00:03:44.120
um to get something done and everyone, you know, wants to make sure that that what uh what they view as an important change or an important discussion to have, you you you have to balance making sure that it gets heard with making sure that you stay on schedule. And that's not always easy, but I want to commend you and your and your members as well

15
00:03:44.120 --> 00:04:00.520
for getting this to us on time. Uh secondly, though, I I do have some amendments to the order of what is being proposed. And I'm going to explain why. And And this is me putting my hat as someone who served on the Charter Revision Commission previously and also

16
00:04:00.520 --> 00:04:16.040
as someone who has been involved in town politics for a very long time and politics in general, right? Understanding, you know, how voters think when it comes to charter amendments. Well, there are 14 questions before us. And there are some that are more urgent,

17
00:04:16.040 --> 00:04:31.280
in my view, that that should absolutely pass than others, right? I think we would agree that making sure that we have a runoff election is a huge substantive change that we want to make sure passes. And, you know, say uh you know, when you look at questions

18
00:04:31.280 --> 00:04:48.560
like question one, which is more about, you know, changing verbage and technical changes, while important and it should pass, you know, because there are 14 items that are going to be after town elections, after uh congressional elections, after senatorial elections, after state elections, after county

19
00:04:48.560 --> 00:05:05.320
charter uh amendments, etc., that there's a good uh chance that there the further down the ballot these uh an item is, the less likely it is to succeed, right? Voters at some point either start Christmas treeing the ballot or they are ultimately going to vote no because they just are burnt out and they just don't

20
00:05:05.320 --> 00:05:21.480
understand it, right? Um so, in that spirit, obviously we cannot say no to any of these items, right? The charter requires that we put them forward. Um but for me, what I identified and I'll and I hope the attorney supreme attention cuz there you know, I did

21
00:05:21.480 --> 00:05:37.240
break it down and again there's 14. But to me, items or ballot questions two, three, five, 12, 14, and seven should be at the front of the pack.

22
00:05:37.240 --> 00:05:53.320
Right? Those should be the first amendments that are proposed to the voters. And yeah, I'll go through it again. >> Mr. Mayor, oh, I'm sorry. >> Mhm. Two, three, five, 12, 14 and seven. I think I threw in the seven there mainly because

23
00:05:53.320 --> 00:06:09.920
it I I had missed it when I was flipping through here. Then followed by you know all the other ones in whatever order you know they they land. >> Mr. Mayor, when you say when you said it stated that way is that the order that you want them to to appear? >> I'm sorry. >> So you said two, three, five.

24
00:06:09.920 --> 00:06:26.880
>> Yeah, so again it would have to be renumbered then I I did not renumber what they should be but what I'm saying is that ballot questions two, three, five, 12, 14 and seven should be at the beginning. They should be the first amendments that

25
00:06:26.880 --> 00:06:42.200
are >> 14 and should be followed then by seven. >> Uh well, yeah. I mean again we can always if we really need to come back to revisit this we can always do it at Tuesday's meeting. Um but but again I'm just I and again seven was kind of just like a I just

26
00:06:42.200 --> 00:06:58.320
noticed I hadn't included it as an item that I want to give it a higher chance of passing, all right? >> Okay. >> The others, you know, uh will be renumbered and they can stay in the same order except that I believe before reasons I will get to in item 7B in tonight's meeting, I believe that ballot

27
00:06:58.320 --> 00:07:16.120
question four should be all the way at the back of the pack. All right? Um and again I'll go into the deficiencies that I find with that particular item um when we get to 7B. But my amendment just one more time is to move two, three, five, 12, 14 and

28
00:07:16.120 --> 00:07:32.680
seven toward the front of the pack and then the others continue from there except that uh ballot question four be placed toward the bottom of the questions. Is there a second? >> I'll move it. I'll second. >> It's been seconded by council member Garcia. Discussion. Uh we'll begin with council member Garcia. >> I agree, Mayor. I think that uh things

29
00:07:32.680 --> 00:07:49.360
that are uh I mean anything to do with with uh the actual seats, the election, um uh runoffs, anything like to do with that is is should go in in the front. I do believe that you're right that after a long ballot and I kind of addressed it

30
00:07:49.360 --> 00:08:05.880
earlier, you know, a lot of residents might just decide not to vote, just leave it blank or so the the ones that are really going to affect the charter of the most should be in the the first ones um, on on this ballot. So, at least they have we have an opportunity to address the the most serious issues.

31
00:08:05.880 --> 00:08:22.120
Um, I'd love to hear what the what the committee thinks on that item as well. Uh, feels on that amendment. Mr. Chair. >> Um, sure. Yeah, I'll I'll go to the Yeah, I'll go to uh, Chair LeSoto uh, to I don't mean or maybe if you want to

32
00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:36.680
take a moment to consult well, are they allowed to have a conversation now that their work is done or >> Yeah, they can't take a formal vote so >> Okay, yeah. So, I don't know if you want 3 minutes, 2 minutes just to convene with them being that a majority of them

33
00:08:36.680 --> 00:08:54.320
are here to discuss it um, or >> of the re-renumbering >> yeah. Remember it was only citizens of nations and states. >> What's your feeling on that? >> Sure, if you give us 2 minutes, we'll just go talk to them. >> Sure, yeah. You know, and then in the meantime I guess we'll go to Councilman Herzberg for his thoughts.

34
00:08:54.320 --> 00:09:10.120
>> Thank you, Mayor. And then um, I agree with you. I think we need to think about that strategically. But, I will say that for me after number seven, I number eight is is a major structural issue in this town charter. Uh, with regarding the town clerk. I

35
00:09:10.120 --> 00:09:25.680
think the town clerk should report directly to the council. I think the town clerk did the did the research. I we might be the only town municipality in Dade County that the town clerk does not report to the council. So, this idea that we have a charter officer that reports to town manager, it doesn't make any sense.

36
00:09:25.680 --> 00:09:42.720
So, and it creates in my opinion a conflict for the town clerk. Because her job is ministerial, her job is to the council but then it also can create well, who's my boss? The town council should be the boss of the town clerk. I mean, even I I believe even in uh

37
00:09:42.720 --> 00:09:58.800
in our town council like budget, the town clerk's assistant is under us. Right? You know, so I think number eight is a critical item. It's It's a It's a It's It's a It's I don't know why why the original charter is drafted that way. I don't know why other charter

38
00:09:58.800 --> 00:10:14.720
committees didn't find this issue, but number eight to me is very important as well. >> So, I And I guess uh we can dispense with the current amendment and then, you know, move to a a separate amendment on that item. I see what you're saying. My guess, right? Uh and the town manager

39
00:10:14.720 --> 00:10:30.680
was here when when that original charter was put together, so he might be able to shed more light on it. But, my guess is that it has to do and we'll come back to you, chair, now as soon as I I wrap up my remarks, but my guess would be that because the job is primarily ministerial, right? Uh that is why they

40
00:10:30.680 --> 00:10:47.120
have him as a report. Keep in mind that the deputy clerk {slash} council assistant, in theory, while they do report to the council or the council members, the at the end of the day, you know, they're still another employee of the town. Uh that's my guess, you know, but >> if you if you look at the at the I was

41
00:10:47.120 --> 00:11:01.880
looking at the graph recently, the chart, like the deputy town clerk actually has a line that reports to us. It's weird. All I'm saying is number eight is a big deficiency. I think it's a sec- To me, it's the second most important thing that this commission proposed after the runoff. >> Yeah.

42
00:11:01.880 --> 00:11:18.000
>> So, I We can discuss We can approve this and move things around. You're right, we can do it on Tuesday. I'm just having having a discussion now. I'm not making an amendment right now. Number eight should be in the top three or five in my opinion. I think it's it just pulling other towns, where it My understanding if the town clerk wants to

43
00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:34.400
correct me, but we're the only ones that the town clerk reports to a manager. It just doesn't make any sense. >> Uh Madam Clerk, did you want to respond to that? >> I don't remember exactly. I want to say that you're absolutely correct. I know that town attorneys Morellas and Lorenzo

44
00:11:34.400 --> 00:11:51.880
and I did a research. We reported back to the council probably like 3 months ago on this topic if anyone remembers, but you're absolutely correct. If I'm not the only one, I'm one of it's very few. I want to say that it was maybe one or two places that the town clerk

45
00:11:51.880 --> 00:12:08.560
position kind of had reporting to the council and to the manager. So you're absolutely correct. The vast majority reports to the elected officials. >> Mr. Chair, and uh well uh first uh now that the chair is here at the podium, uh why don't we hear from him first and

46
00:12:08.560 --> 00:12:25.240
then and then uh well I had a follow-up question to Councilman Herzberg and then um or maybe it's to you guys, but then uh let's hear what they have to say and then we'll we'll continue the discussion. Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Councilman Garcia, to your question, is uh from our perspective as the commission members,

47
00:12:25.240 --> 00:12:40.760
obviously we didn't take an official vote, but in just in briefly discussing this was the order wasn't specifically a discussion item during our meetings. Um so we don't necessarily have an issue with the orders that you guys have. We'll defer to you guys on the orders that you have. Uh obviously taking into consideration,

48
00:12:40.760 --> 00:12:57.040
I'm sure public comments and you know discussions from others as to what's very important and and the ballot. We hope that everybody takes every single question important. I was also asked to convey uh uh the the the possibility that you guys may consider is to request uh the supervisor

49
00:12:57.040 --> 00:13:12.680
elections to have this as a mail-in ballot option uh to take it away from the major uh with as we stated that there's going to be a lot of things going on November 3rd and to have it as a mail-in option, uh but I was asked to share that with with the commission. Does that answer your question?

50
00:13:12.680 --> 00:13:27.920
>> Yes, I appreciate it. That's uh that clarifies a lot. Thank you so much, sir. >> Thank you very much. Um and so Councilman Herzberg, my question to you or or whoever knows the answer to this, right? And and and obviously this is not going to impact the vote one way or the

51
00:13:27.920 --> 00:13:43.880
other, right? You know, it's still a an important structural change to your point, right? The substantive change. Um and again, I ended up writing it at the back of the what I considered, you know, the the lower priority, but you're right. I just kind of was making sure that my numbers added up to 14. So, you

52
00:13:43.880 --> 00:13:58.600
know, and again, we can always revisit it Tuesday or tonight But my question is so how does it work then when they're trying to fill that role? >> Just like we would fill a town manager. We would We can create an ordinance and we would do a search and or just do an

53
00:13:58.600 --> 00:14:14.640
application. The town manager can would still send out the application, work with HR and things like that, but I mean, right now my understanding is that the council still approves the the clerk. Is that correct? So, the town Right, but we can't fire the clerk.

54
00:14:14.640 --> 00:14:30.839
>> I think we can actually. I think we can we can vote to remove the clerk. We can ultimately then the manager's nomination requires that we approve it, but you know Yes, in terms of the >> The selection's not the problem. The problem is that the clerk is a is a is a

55
00:14:30.839 --> 00:14:46.760
charter officer. Charter officers should be reporting to the elected officials just like the town attorney does, just like the town manager does. I think it creates sometimes an issue because then the clerk can be getting different responses, right? So, who who does a clerk report to? Just the town manager

56
00:14:46.760 --> 00:15:03.120
right now. I I Other municipalities don't do it that way. Most of them. We might be the only one. We'll We can double check and maybe come back, but it makes sense for the charter officer to report to the town council and and that's what the commission, you know, thinks or at least wants to propose the

57
00:15:03.120 --> 00:15:18.240
question. Again, I think it's the second most important question they posed because it is a odd thing that we have here. It's not the norm of other municipalities. >> Thank you very much. Okay, so on on the amendment though, any further discussion

58
00:15:18.240 --> 00:15:33.720
on the amendment? Vice Mayor Moreda. >> So, first and foremost, I do want to echo the comments of Councilman Herzberg. That was actually one of the more higher priority items for me because I actually didn't realize until it was

59
00:15:33.720 --> 00:15:49.600
brought up at the charter revision that that that was the case. I thought all three charter officers fell under us completely. I was not aware that the town clerk um was not. It makes complete sense that we're the oddball

60
00:15:49.600 --> 00:16:04.880
out of all of our sister municipalities because that doesn't make any sense to be honest. It rightfully belongs to us as representatives of the people. The charter officers should report to the representatives of the people. Um that that's first and foremost on

61
00:16:04.880 --> 00:16:22.560
that. As far as the order and your amendment um cuz your amendment at this stage does not yet include what he's proposing, right? What as far >> Well, no. It It includes it. It just does not include it toward the top. >> Your Your amendment doesn't place um

62
00:16:22.560 --> 00:16:40.320
number eight >> within the first >> six. >> Yeah, whatever it was. I didn't even count the how that how they would be renumbered. >> So, a couple questions on that. Number one, um when you say 2 3 5 12 14 and 7, are you proposing it

63
00:16:40.320 --> 00:16:57.040
in that order? Or could it be within those six numbers, uh could that order be altered? >> Well, that that that order will be altered at some point when we discuss 7B if 7B were to pass. Now, if for the time

64
00:16:57.040 --> 00:17:13.959
being, I would say the the issue with seven rather and and I guess but it's not really an issue, but something I did want to note for the council in my conversation with supervisor elections Garcia is that she made it very clear that she would not be doing a runoff election in December. Excuse me, early

65
00:17:13.959 --> 00:17:30.800
voting for any runoff election December. She just said, "You can request it, but I've decided that we're not going to do that. So, I think I need to flag that first and foremost for everyone's benefit. And you know, we again, we are going to have an an ability to get a change done with time

66
00:17:30.800 --> 00:17:46.440
before their deadline on Tuesday if we need to. But right now, just to move this forward expeditiously, that's why I just said 2 3 5 you know, 12 14 and 7. And I and you know, I'm more than happy to entertain an amendment to the amendment with

67
00:17:46.440 --> 00:18:01.600
respect to eight, right? But >> I I guess my my confusion comes in I don't really know what I'm voting for because we haven't discussed 7B. So, I don't have the full picture. It's hard for me to know really what am I voting for the >> Well, I don't want you to overcomplicate

68
00:18:01.600 --> 00:18:17.600
it either, right? Because the reality is like I said, there's going to be a discussion on Tuesday more than likely you know, on this, right? Or there's or you can propose a reordering if you'd like, right? And you know, I remember and at the top of the conversation I recall that you

69
00:18:17.600 --> 00:18:32.760
had mentioned that you would you know, come up with other changes as we went along. So, you know, I guess what I'm trying to say is you know, we can always revisit you know, this order after we take up 7B and 7 C. You know, actually we will have to

70
00:18:32.760 --> 00:18:49.000
revisit the order of this. But being that this is item 7A and you know, as within that 7A you know, we can we can con we can consider there we go. That was the word I was looking for. We can consider items 1 through 14 as currently proposed by the CRC. You know, I'm

71
00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:05.000
talking about the amendment as of the items they have proposed at this junction. >> Okay, now I understand that. So, that that part I understand. But what I want to confirm is that what you are proposing is yes, 1 through 14, but then

72
00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:22.720
reordered to 2 3 5 12 14 7 and then everything else. And maybe not in that order I said, but Um, we're just making sure that those six are the first in a in a particular order. >> There we go. >> Okay. Later on we can re- revise the

73
00:19:22.720 --> 00:19:36.840
order. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, uh, with that said, um, uh, uh, I guess I'm making an uh, but well, you know what? Let me take it as a second amendment. Let's dispose of this current amendment first. Uh, any further

74
00:19:36.840 --> 00:19:52.960
discussion on the current amendment? All right. See >> number eight, you mean? >> No. Uh, not not yet. I'm going to make that as a second amendment. Uh, or I'll give Councilman Herzberg the opportunity to make that second amendment. >> say, um, besides changing us from six to four uh,

75
00:19:52.960 --> 00:20:08.640
councilmen and um, I mean, this is a major change in the way the town clerk does her does the business with with the town and with us. So, I mean, I agree it should be up there when the in the top and the at least the top four. But, uh, that's just my my opinion on the on this item. Thank >> Well, then I'll just go ahead and do it

76
00:20:08.640 --> 00:20:23.720
as a as an amendment to the amendment to uh, and again, this is just to dispose of this particular item first, right? Again, there are going to have to be changes to the order anyway once we discuss 7B and 7C uh, assuming they pass, right? So, how about this? The

77
00:20:23.720 --> 00:20:39.960
amendment to the amendment will be uh, just, you know, just to include it there in the first seven then, right? We'll call it the first seven. 2 3 5 12 14 7 and 8. Right? And um, that'll be the amendment to the amendment. Is there a second on that? >> I'll second. >> It's been seconded by Councilman Garcia.

78
00:20:39.960 --> 00:20:55.840
All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amend- the amendment is amended and we're now back on the amendment as amended. And with that, any further discussion on this particular Councilman Herzberg. >> Hey, and sorry guys, this is I'm I'm very passionate about the charter. You guys all know that. Passionate about the

79
00:20:55.840 --> 00:21:12.600
state constitution and you all know that as well. Um, why do you and this is the question to you, Mr. Mayor. Why do you believe number 12 is important? Honestly, I was up there saying get rid of it." I Do we really need something in our charter that says we comply with state law? The charter,

80
00:21:12.600 --> 00:21:28.520
state law will >> That was the impression I got from watching and you were watching it, too. The impression I got from the attorneys that it would be a best practice to go ahead and go ahead and have the charter conform to state law. I really don't care, personally, but I'm going off of what they said. >> putting it up in front. So, I would make

81
00:21:28.520 --> 00:21:44.000
an amendment to the amendment that has been amended to get rid of number 12 from there. >> Okay, well, I see your point. But you you're free to make an amendment, but again, I think we're also overly complicating this right now, right? I think it would be better just to let everyone digest the current the

82
00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:59.680
revised order when it becomes available and then make amendments on Tuesday. >> So, this is coming back to us on Tuesday? >> It can. You know, you can you can but we all have done it before. Let's not act like we haven't. We can submit a late filed item, waive the rule, and then hear it.

83
00:21:59.680 --> 00:22:15.960
>> Okay, yeah. I mean, or we can just tell tell the town attorney bring it for us on Tuesday. >> Yeah, as a report, yeah. >> You can amend it. Find that format. The only thing you can't change is to change the substance of the >> No, I know that. I'm just saying I to to get this going, I agree if we're going to see it back on Tuesday, then let's we can discuss it Tuesday. So, I'm just

84
00:22:15.960 --> 00:22:32.280
going to request the town attorney during your town attorney report to bring this resolution back on Tuesday to see if we want to make any other additional changes. >> it the final final report. >> Yeah, or what you can do tonight is just give me instructions as to how you want the final version to to look like, then

85
00:22:32.280 --> 00:22:48.560
I'll bring it back on Tuesday. For a vote. >> I'll move to provide the instruction. >> It's out of order at the at this time. The reason being is because it's not germane because we're talking about Well, you're talking about the order of the amendment, right? But I I really don't see like did does he need Do you

86
00:22:48.560 --> 00:23:03.840
need an actual vote of the council to bring a report? >> No, but I I think listening to to all of you is that my report can be actionable, so I can bring the resolution back as amended, so you guys can vote on it. >> Aren't all your reports normally

87
00:23:03.840 --> 00:23:20.120
actionable? >> Yes, but not all my reports include a resolution attached to it. So, this one would attach have this resolution attached to it. So, if you want to, you can give me instructions to come back with a resolution as amended. >> All right. So, here's what we're going to do then. We're going to have an amendment then to

88
00:23:20.120 --> 00:23:36.120
the existing amendment, you know, uh you know, say stating that the approval of this still means that it has to come back in an actionable report by the attorney. How about that? Yeah, because I don't want us to start, you know, getting especially since the clerks have to go back and transcribe all this. We're we're we're going to

89
00:23:36.120 --> 00:23:52.080
make it very complicated, right? So, simplicity is key. So, with that, that is my amendment, you know, adopting it for the vice mayor, you know, to you know, to require that the that the final order come back after it dispatches. All right. And is there a second?

90
00:23:52.080 --> 00:24:07.160
>> Second. >> It's been seconded by Councilman Sanchez. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and now on final passage of the revised order on 7A. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The

91
00:24:07.160 --> 00:24:24.280
motion carries. 7A passes as amended. We are now on item 7B. So, with that, and I thought I had submitted this to the the the clerk. I guess there was a miscommunication. Um you know, from my office in a In essence, the problem with

92
00:24:24.280 --> 00:24:40.280
ballot question four, right, is twofold. And I'm going to read directly from the the memorandum I had prepared that that unfortunately did not go out. With all due respect to the Charter Revision Commission, ballot question four is incomplete and therefore will be improperly before voters at great risk

93
00:24:40.280 --> 00:24:56.360
to the structure of our government. First, the text of the proposed amendment does not contain the language of the 45-day nomination period when the mayor may make a nomination for a vacancy on the town council. For those of you that were following the deliberations, you would know that this

94
00:24:56.360 --> 00:25:12.800
was something that was considered and had support. And for those of you that have been following the council meetings or were there, right, uh you know, during the last uh well, not the last time there was a vacancy, but the one prior before I became mayor,

95
00:25:12.800 --> 00:25:30.800
there was clearly um a lot of issues with the 30-day timing, right? So, that So, that's first, right? That doesn't address extending the 30-day uh block that the mayor has to make a nomination. Number two, second, the text of the amendment and the proposed question and ballot summary do not address by when

96
00:25:30.800 --> 00:25:45.920
the the town council must act on the mayor's nomination, creating an unaccept- unacceptable risk of non-stop gridlock that would grind the people's work to a halt as previously occurred in 2023-2024. Accordingly, I propose the following alternate amendment text and ballot

97
00:25:45.920 --> 00:26:02.320
summary to voters. I ended up, as it turns out, I think that's actually what happened here cuz I see the X's. The the uh they were waiting on me to go ahead and provide my proposed uh uh ballot summary, right? But in essence, what I'm proposing with item 7B is that as as an alternate

98
00:26:02.320 --> 00:26:19.280
amendment to ballot question four, it the the charter would be amended, and I guess I need the attorneys to make sure they're jotting this down in case this passes. The mayor would have 45 days to make a nomination, right? The council would have uh

99
00:26:19.280 --> 00:26:36.120
a Actually, let me ask the town attorney. Mr. Attorney, do you remember um what we had discussed as as a possible date by which the the council must act? I think we had said 60 days, right? 45 days to make a nomination. A By day 60,

100
00:26:36.120 --> 00:26:52.200
uh the vote must be taken as to whether to accept it or not. >> Correct. >> And then, if not, it goes to, you know, the the runoff, and if it does, then then they serve their out the remainder. And you know, those two changes, and leave it at that. No no further changes, you know, with

101
00:26:52.200 --> 00:27:08.720
respect to um you know, and keeping rather so I guess I do need to specifically state it. Keeping the existing language that if 6 months or more remain in the term, the mayor is permitted to make a nomination until the next general election or next regularly scheduled election rather.

102
00:27:08.720 --> 00:27:25.400
That would be the motion to address what I see as the issues that come up with the proposed ballot question four. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by the vice mayor. Is there any discussion beginning with the vice mayor? >> Thank you, mayor. So, I guess I want to be clear on this. It's not

103
00:27:25.400 --> 00:27:41.760
that we're removing number four because we cannot. This is almost a a competing item with with number four and it'll be up to the education campaign to to see which result comes out depending on which side you you want to fall on that.

104
00:27:41.760 --> 00:27:57.040
And and I guess that's again where where the order comes in and as a as a former president George W. would say the the strategery. So, all right. I I think it makes complete sense first of all. Uh

105
00:27:57.040 --> 00:28:12.480
we've seen what happens when when there's a breakdown in, you know, who has what power in in that scenario. And so, I don't think any of us want wants that no matter where you sit. No one wants our government to come to a

106
00:28:12.480 --> 00:28:29.440
standstill. So, so I'll definitely support that. >> Thank you. Further discussion on this item? >> Yes. >> Councilman Garcia. >> I was under the impression that the 45 days took into consideration the 30 days you had to do the nomination

107
00:28:29.440 --> 00:28:46.480
and then we had 15 days as a council to approve it and that added to 45 days. I I guess you're saying the language doesn't is not uh that specific. It says with council confirmation. >> It would be 45 and 60 now, right? Because let me So, going back to 2324,

108
00:28:46.480 --> 00:29:03.520
right? When we had that vacancy in seat six because of Wait, actually, yeah, that just reminds me, Ms. Vice Mayor, you're you're seat six, not five. Okay, no, cuz I could have sworn you had said you Anyway. Uh so, with that so, when that vacancy occurred, right, it happened right

109
00:29:03.520 --> 00:29:20.360
before the Thanksgiving holiday season, right? The 30 days listed there created a lot of confusion, not to mention timing issues, right? The members of the council wanted to interview the the nominee. And of course, when you're when you're in getting to Thanksgiving and getting into the holi

110
00:29:20.360 --> 00:29:34.920
you know, the the Christmas and holiday season, that you know, you have all sorts of commitments that create a real hassle there. So, just going based off of that trauma, if you will, that PTSD, I felt 45 days would go would be a lot

111
00:29:34.920 --> 00:29:52.720
better, you know, in terms of you know, the time for the mayor to make a a more deliberate decision, right, without having to rush, right? And then, also giving the council therefore an additional time because obviously there's nothing stopping the mayor from making earlier nomination, you know, but

112
00:29:52.720 --> 00:30:08.400
giving the council up until day 60 to consider that nomination, right, yes or no, right, whether they're going to accept or reject it. I think that time frame works better um than what's currently there. Um because again, the 30 days does seem like a lot of time again until like what happened where

113
00:30:08.400 --> 00:30:24.760
you're you're bumping into people's busy holiday schedule, they're traveling, you know, whatever the case might be, it just gets a lot more difficult to have a really deliberate uh discussion or a to have a really informed discussion with the proposed nominee if if when it happens during that season, right? And

114
00:30:24.760 --> 00:30:41.840
hopefully it doesn't happen again, but again, you know, we're trying to head off these things. >> No, makes sense. Makes sense. Just a question to you to you, Mayor, and I guess the town attorney. The less than a year remaining the time frame, that starts uh in the beginning of the 45 days or

115
00:30:41.840 --> 00:30:58.640
after everything is is complete? Like, does that 45-day window um, is that part of the 6 month or before the 6 months or after the 6 >> No, so so what the committee had proposed was only for uh, for vacancies

116
00:30:58.640 --> 00:31:14.760
that were a year or less, I believe, right? >> Correct. >> or less, the mayor would have the right to appoint. So, I also think that's problematic because there are clearly other situations, as we've learned, where there are longer vacancies, right? Or vacancies that could, you know, involve a term, not

117
00:31:14.760 --> 00:31:31.200
vacancy, but a term that is longer than that period of time. And you know, scheduling a special election itself can also be quite challenging, right? >> the question I have is the that 6-month previous or you know, 1 6 months or less 6 months time frame. >> That's what's already in the charter. >> It's already in the charter and the 45

118
00:31:31.200 --> 00:31:47.120
days is it >> It would be new because right now it's 30 days in the charter. >> No, I understand that, but that's what I'm I guess I I guess I'm how do I how do I Does the 30 45 days, is that included in the 6 month? Does it add to the 6 month time limit to put them over 6 months? >> No, because that's a separate analysis,

119
00:31:47.120 --> 00:32:03.800
right? The 45 days is from the date of the vacancy, right? >> From the date of the vacancy, that's Okay, perfect. >> The the the 6 months or more has to do with the balance of whatever uh, the time is left on that particular seat's term. >> Okay, perfect. >> time of the of the vacancy. Uh-huh. Yeah, so those are two separate

120
00:32:03.800 --> 00:32:19.320
uh, uh >> Thank you for the clarification here. >> Uh, Councilman Hershberg. >> So, first of all, I agree with you that this was an issue that needed to be discussed and and the commission discussed it. I also agree with you. I think too that just filling the 2-year term was was fine because of how long it

121
00:32:19.320 --> 00:32:35.280
can take to just fill that seat. Like, even a year, you'll have a special election potentially for a 7-month term or something like that. But, I I'm confused on on what you believe is wrong other than the 12-month vacancy because the red line I have says

122
00:32:35.280 --> 00:32:50.600
the confirmation vote of mayor's nomination shall be conducted the next regularly scheduled meeting following the nomination unless the majority of the council votes to hold a special election. So, there is something in the redline charter that requires the vote to happen. So, I'm just confused on what I agree with your issue

123
00:32:50.600 --> 00:33:06.800
on making the 45 days clear and I agree I personally I think it I think the way I I think the only problem we had in the charter wasn't the how long the term was, but it was how the appointment and nomination happens, right? >> Mhm. >> So, I I just I want to know what you

124
00:33:06.800 --> 00:33:21.640
believe is wrong with that language. >> Well, again, hey, I was working off of an older draft as it turns out or you know, so so if that's the case, that's fine, but you know, I also just want to state it because I want to make sure that it's comprehensive enough, right? You know,

125
00:33:21.640 --> 00:33:36.840
so that there's no um or rather so that it's clear that if one prevails, that would be the one that prevails, if that makes sense. >> Right. I mean, I I guess maybe we'll see the final language on Tuesday. >> Yes. >> So, I'm I'll vote for it for now. I just I think the only thing we might be

126
00:33:36.840 --> 00:33:52.280
competing on is the the the length of a vacancy, which I'm on your side on that one, but let's let's see what the final language is. >> I also think it would be great just to again for clarity's sake, right? Because remember that if there's a conflict between the two, right? The one that receives the most votes wins. So, I

127
00:33:52.280 --> 00:34:07.560
wanted to state that as part of the motion and to make sure it's included in the ballot text because if the other one gains more than or rather if this one gains more than the than ballot question four, then that amendment, you know,

128
00:34:07.560 --> 00:34:24.679
would would in my opinion potentially have a defect, right? So, I just want to re- restate if that makes it better, but I was working off of apparently an older draft, so I want to apologize for that. Um >> I'm sure that the the final language will be cleared up and then >> Yeah, exactly. Okay, anyone else?

129
00:34:24.679 --> 00:34:42.120
All right, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All opposed, no. The eyes have it. 7B passes. Now on 7C, which was the last one I had added to the agenda, this one to me is just something for your consideration light of what the supervisor of elections told

130
00:34:42.120 --> 00:34:58.320
me directly by phone, that there would be no early voting, you know, in-person early voting in the event of a December runoff, which is one of the questions here, right? And and I'd actually be curious for the chair to give us a kind of a quick

131
00:34:58.320 --> 00:35:15.040
rundown of how this discussion went because what I'm proposing with 7C is to have a simple August primary, November runoff, right? Which I also think in situations involving these charter amendments, you know, would be beneficial, right? You have to have an election where there'll

132
00:35:15.040 --> 00:35:30.760
be more turnout, but also won't be overwhelmed and drawn out the others. But I I don't fully remember what the discussion was on that. So, if you can, you know, provide us with a quick rundown of how that discussion went before I go ahead and finalize the motion. >> Sure, which specific discussion did you want to

133
00:35:30.760 --> 00:35:45.600
I wasn't clear >> With respect to the pri- the changing the primary and runoffs system. I know for example, you had a proposal on having in cases with only two candidates in a particular seat, they would skip the August primary and go straight to a November primary in

134
00:35:45.600 --> 00:36:00.840
essence, right? But if there were more than two candidates in a particular seat, they would have a an August primary and then go the top two would go to a November runoff. But that was one proposal you had. I know I believe it was Commissioner Aboud

135
00:36:00.840 --> 00:36:17.800
that had mentioned, you know, or had discussed at least what what I've just brought up just for the council's consideration of a simple August primary, November runoff. And then, you know, how we ended up with the final product, which which I I favored. I spoke about this at the at the December

136
00:36:17.800 --> 00:36:33.720
chamber meeting, Chamber of Commerce meeting last year. But again, it was just the comments from the from the supervisor that had me a little concerned then, you know, are we not going to have early voting if we adopt the December runoff timeline? But, if you can give everyone a rundown of how

137
00:36:33.720 --> 00:36:50.320
the discussion among those three items went, that would be uh great. >> Sure, Mr. Mayor. So, first of all is the comments from the supervisor elections weren't part of our discussions. We weren't aware of it. I I'm just for learning of it today. So, that wasn't part of our discussions at all. Um nonetheless is as to that item when it

138
00:36:50.320 --> 00:37:07.800
first came up, there was a initial proposal that had passed, which was to have a August uh pretty much a primary when there was going to be more than two uh persons that are qualified for a seat to run, and then there was a lot of debate going between how that how that would w- move

139
00:37:07.800 --> 00:37:23.200
forward. Uh the initial proposal was going to be that the top two vote getters would then move on to November for a final. Um and there was also a consideration that the person that received the most votes, if they received more than 50% plus one in that primary, even though there was three of

140
00:37:23.200 --> 00:37:40.040
them, if they received the 50% plus one, that that would be the version. Um after much debate and uh reconsideration is the commission ultimately voted on having on keeping to have the vote only in November with a runoff to occur in December. Uh

141
00:37:40.040 --> 00:37:55.720
moving forward, the current timeline for a runoff, which puts it into generally is almost in the Thanksgiving time period. Um so, it put it into the second week of December uh time period. And that's how that transition, and that was the ultimate decision of the commission. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And uh

142
00:37:55.720 --> 00:38:12.840
so, again, that that conversation, by the way, happened toward the end of your deliberations after you had voted on on this and everything, you know, so that's why, for example, you and I didn't have a conversation about that. Uh and it was something actually that I learned in my conversation with her while discussing what her attorneys had viewed as

143
00:38:12.840 --> 00:38:28.760
deficiencies with the wording in in the initial report or when when we were going to consider the the final report, what was it And now, you know, 30 days ago or so. So, you know, that's why I wanted to just raise it for my colleagues as an alternate thing, right? Because my priority

144
00:38:28.760 --> 00:38:45.360
ultimately was to deal with the issue of no early voting in in our runoff system, right? And also, you know, how to boost turnout because the issue that we experienced in '24 was people were traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday and without any in-person voting, they only were able to

145
00:38:45.360 --> 00:39:00.400
vote realistically either on election day or absentee ballot. So, I wanted to kind of have this discussion on the days by adding an alternate proposal there and the discussion the merits of that. Councilman Sanchez and then Councilman Well, actually, first

146
00:39:00.400 --> 00:39:15.680
to get that I'll move it and then it's been seconded by Councilman Herzberg. We'll begin with Councilman Herzberg and then Councilman Sanchez. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, I I remember signing on, I think Councilman Sanchez is also chiming in on this issue. The

147
00:39:15.680 --> 00:39:32.400
problem I have with that is we're we're trying to fix one problem with a new problem. August elections, unless there's a presidential primary, which I know No, presidential primaries don't happen in August. They happen in May in Florida now. They're low turnout elections, too. 20%, 18%. Um so, we're

148
00:39:32.400 --> 00:39:48.040
trying to [music] solve a problem with putting it to another low turnout election. I It's It's unfortunate to hear that the Supervisor of Elections won't provide early voting. I don't know why since the town pays for it. But, um

149
00:39:48.040 --> 00:40:04.920
I think that another thing that I that I that this commission discussed and I thought they were going the wrong way on a few of the issues was they discussed, "Hey, why aren't people running for elections?" You know, last one people were unopposed. There's a lot of reasons why people were unopposed. And and 6 months before that, five people ran for

150
00:40:04.920 --> 00:40:21.520
one seat. But, uh doing this makes it harder to run. Plain and none. Putting a primary in August makes it harder for normal people to run. It costs more money. >> No, not Are have normal? >> No, I'm saying people that are not po-

151
00:40:21.520 --> 00:40:38.320
not connected, not not politicians, not incumbents, it makes it harder for them to run in my opinion cuz now you're looking at unless you only have two people running for your seat, you're you're looking at having to do two campaigns. It's going to cost more money. And I think one of the big things that people don't like

152
00:40:38.320 --> 00:40:54.880
about running for office is got to go out and ask your friends for money. I hated it. Hate doing it. But unfortunately, it's it's part of it's part of the business, right? You have to do it or else you can't run. It takes money to to run a campaign. So, I would much personally, I would rather keep it the way it is, go with the December

153
00:40:54.880 --> 00:41:11.120
runoff cuz I think that was the biggest issue. I think if we have a I think we have a December runoff like Hialeah does, like the majority of the municipalities have a December runoff. The clerk did the math. I think only Miami Gardens does this August runoff. And I saw the email the supervisor of elections trying to push this August runoff idea. I think it's a terrible

154
00:41:11.120 --> 00:41:27.160
idea. >> August primary. >> Primary, right. Primary. And then uh I think moving the runoff to December will increase the voter turnout. I think the the mayor runoff was 10%. I think we'll get to 15 to 20%. And you know what? That's what an August primary is,

155
00:41:27.160 --> 00:41:45.680
too. Uh on a good year. So, I don't see how it solves the turnout issue. It does solve the early voting issue, but the turnout's still going to be low no matter what. And I do really think that it makes it harder and more expensive for people to run for office in August. And that's that's one

156
00:41:45.680 --> 00:42:02.880
of the reasons why I I spoke out against that. >> Councilman Sanchez, the also got to take into consideration the question of qualifying. So, does that mean that we would have two qualifying periods? One for August, let's say that one person qualifies and no one else does. Does that mean that it ends there? Or if

157
00:42:02.880 --> 00:42:17.600
three people qualify, then we move into now a November type of situation with an election in August and then again in in uh November. So, would we have multiple qualifying periods?

158
00:42:17.600 --> 00:42:33.400
>> So, let let me take them in turn. Again, I'm indifferent on this personally, right? Um and I'm bringing it up as an option. Although, I do want to say I completely disagree that it necessarily makes it harder, right? When you sign up to run for office, you already know that you might have a

159
00:42:33.400 --> 00:42:49.160
runoff election, right? And if you're telling me, right, that the turnout in the in a November or in a December uh primary or runoff, rather, are going to be the same as the turnout in August, really what the real danger is is that you're going to have a back or a a a

160
00:42:49.160 --> 00:43:05.200
backloaded election, right? Where August is actually going to be easier for candidates to run in because now you're going to have 15% turnout in the town, which is the same as it is in December, let's say, right? You know, for for hypothetical purposes. So, in a way, you're actually making it more accessible, right? Because now the

161
00:43:05.200 --> 00:43:21.520
electorate that they need to reach is smaller than the November electorate. If anything, you make it more expensive on the back end. Um but the barrier to to entry in some ways gets easier, right? And again, look, I I'm just This is more of an intellectual exercise. I really don't care what >> And I and I I enjoy these discussions

162
00:43:21.520 --> 00:43:37.560
and I I know you do, too, Mayor. >> Yes, I do. But I I have a I have a rebuttal to that. This man right here, he ran in you were you ran in a three-person race. He didn't need a runoff. You don't It's not Right now, if you have a three-person race, it's guaranteed you're going to have to run two

163
00:43:37.560 --> 00:43:53.080
campaigns. Guaranteed. Because I I do definitely don't believe that we should have a winner in August be the winner. I think I I don't I don't like that the county does that. I think that's a that's a bad system. But, um you're If there's three people, you're

164
00:43:53.080 --> 00:44:08.280
guaranteed to have a runoff, right? You're guaranteed to go to November. So, you got to run two campaigns. If you're If you're running a great campaign in November, you can win. Councilman Garcia did it, right? So, I I I understand and I I remember when I first saw the proposal like yeah that

165
00:44:08.280 --> 00:44:23.280
makes sense and it would save the town money too potentially. But I I do think it makes it harder for people to run and it makes it more expensive and I think that's one of the reasons people don't want to run cuz you got to collect a lot of money you got to ask for a lot of money and that's one of the barriers of entry.

166
00:44:23.280 --> 00:44:40.200
>> I get it but I just wanted to respond to to to that right and again and I don't want to bore the audience here with with something that we can maybe discuss after we've disposed of this but >> chair Mr. >> I I I'll get there in a minute but also wanted to respond to Councilman Sanchez. I don't see why you would need two qualifying dates because kind of like

167
00:44:40.200 --> 00:44:56.720
with the existing system right when you sign up and then you're talking about a runoff you're you're within the same race you're now just talking about the top two vote finishers going to a second round they've already qualified. >> If I may Mr. Mayor to rephrase the question a little bit so right now the qualifying period is coming up for the November election.

168
00:44:56.720 --> 00:45:11.800
What I would like to know and and ask the clerk is is there a minimum amount of time before the election that the qualifying period has to be? >> Yes. >> So if your example if if your qualifying period is for August

169
00:45:11.800 --> 00:45:28.160
for an election in August it wouldn't be sooner than that it wouldn't be maybe four months before that because if if you're doing if you only have two candidates and they're going to run in August is that what you're estimating? Is that what you're recommending? If they run in August there wouldn't be a runoff in November.

170
00:45:28.160 --> 00:45:45.800
>> right now for all the August primaries? >> I don't know for the August cuz we don't have that. That's the problem. >> for us >> Well I'll say it off the top of my head from my recollection as a political nerd it's it's usually around late May early June. >> You know >> Late May early June.

171
00:45:45.800 --> 00:46:01.800
>> Yeah and and the way that I'm thinking it is just moving the timeline. If you're moving it from November to August you're moving it back by four months so you would also move the the qualifying period by another four months. >> I get that but it's really not a big impediment. I think the proof of that is how you see the state many of the state

172
00:46:01.800 --> 00:46:17.640
races and everything else, you know, pan out and you know, it just really depends on who wants to run, right? You know, and and again, don't look at it as as qualifying from for for November. Look at it as qualifying for August, right? Still pretty much the same amount of time before, right? You're just

173
00:46:17.640 --> 00:46:33.240
moving the schedule earlier because your primary now won't be in November, it's going to be in August, you know, but I just wanted to to answer you and make sure I did. And now Councilman Garcia, I believe you had a a question. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I think the issue that we were having by moving into the second week of December addressed

174
00:46:33.240 --> 00:46:49.200
the problem we felt that yeah, the runoff in November, you know, collided with with Thanksgiving and we didn't get that turnout. And moving it to where other towns are doing it second week of December addressed that issue. Um I think that the system that we've had

175
00:46:49.200 --> 00:47:05.600
where you have the the November election and you had the runoff after has worked for 26 years and there's been very robust elections with multiple candidates, more than three, four, five throughout the years and I think it's worked

176
00:47:05.600 --> 00:47:21.720
and I think moving it to the second week that with the charter committee suggested makes sense to me and and I I I wouldn't want to make that change to to an August primary at this time. >> I think that's fine and I just want to point out again that I first brought it up

177
00:47:21.720 --> 00:47:37.240
last December. I mean, not that it matters, but the point is, you know, again, it's about I agree with you, it's about finding solutions at the end of the day to these problems and that was a problem I identified from my runoff that that it was definitely a challenge to go ahead and try to get remind voters that they had a second round, right?

178
00:47:37.240 --> 00:47:52.400
Some people that I would contact would say, "What do you mean? I just voted for you." Right? So and that would throw them off and then now you have a mad dash because you know, you have to you know, the AB requests have to be put in within the following week, right? And so you're

179
00:47:52.400 --> 00:48:07.720
also truncating the time to make those requests. I'm fine with December, right? You know, I just I'm I just wish that our supervisor would uh give us the option to also have uh or in-person early voting along with that. Um,

180
00:48:07.720 --> 00:48:24.440
you know, and you know, they perhaps a future supervisor will feel a little different, especially cuz we're not so far into the holiday season, you know, when we have that, right? Um, but yeah, and I also want to know for everyone's benefit and then what I'm going to do is is have a motion to lay this on the table cuz I see where this is at. Um,

181
00:48:24.440 --> 00:48:40.640
but but just to close uh to your point, Councilman Garcia, I just want to re-remind you that that it wasn't until 2013 that we did that we implemented a true majority requirement, right? Meaning having a runoff. Before you would have multiple candidates run, um, such as in 2008, you

182
00:48:40.640 --> 00:48:57.480
know, in uh when Nick Perdomo uh ended up uh prevailing and it was a winner-take-all system on in that race, right? There were four candidates and I believe uh former Vice Mayor Perdomo won with something like 38% in a four-person race. So, with um, you know, so, you know, that's why we had to correct it in

183
00:48:57.480 --> 00:49:13.960
2013 and uh and you know, we're this is a a system of continual refinement, right? You know, we're only 25 years old, going on 26, so we're always learning with that. I will move to lay this on the table indefinitely. Uh seconded by the Vice Mayor. All those in favor say, "Aye." Aye. All those no. The ayes have it. The

184
00:49:13.960 --> 00:49:31.000
motion is laid on our 7C is laid on the table indefinitely. With that, I believe there is no further business and we are adjourned with I have my I'm sorry, I left my phone at 7:43 p.m. Thank you, everyone. >> I was going to say something.