test. 1 2 3. Testing. Testing. 1 2 3. Perfect. Chairman, we're ready to go. >> Thank you very much. Uh just for those that are online, we just had a just moment. Just getting all the uh technical difficulties out of the way.
We're good to go. Roll call was done and we have quorum. Um so I'm going to ask a our deputy town attorney uh Coella to please uh lead us in a moment of silence with a prayer. >> Let's bow our heads in prayer. Uh, dear heavenly father, uh, please grant us,
uh, the wisdom and, uh, to be able to, uh, make the right discernment this evening as we're looking at, uh, different ways of being able to, uh, improve, modify, uh, our existing charter, which is our town's constitution. Uh, please, uh, give us that grace this evening. Uh, and we ask
this in your holy name. Amen. >> Thank you, Mr. Deputy Attorney. Next, we're going to go with the Oh, sorry. The pledge of allegiance. If we can have Commissioner Moss, please lead us. >> To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Now, we can all be seated. Thank you. All right. Uh, first we're going to go to the order of business. Are there any deferrals, additions, or deletions? I
have an addition if I could under old business >> for Commissioner Bennett. >> Yes, >> please. >> Yeah, just basically I just want to add um I gave some information. We're not going to I don't want to go into a long discussion about it, but I wanted this commission to be aware of the information that I came across relative
to the powers of the town uh town manager. So, I I basically have some paperwork that I included in your package and I'd like to just quickly just discuss if I could, you know, what the ramification is and why it's time dependent. Otherwise, we can wait for a
much longer discussion when we do the next section. >> Okay. So, uh real quick is just before I ask for a motion uh to add this at an order of business, I had to, you know, I took a quick look at what you had provided. Are you asking there to be a
an addition or modification to either article one or the current article two? >> Well, possibly article one and it be uh isn't the town manager on article two, isn't it? 2.3. I'm sorry. >> The town manager is article three. >> It's three. It's article three. >> That's not going to be discussed today. >> No, we're not going to discuss that
today. But as I said, I wanted the information available to this commission because uh we got fortunately we say we have a three weeks now since artell next meeting, which is fine. give us plenty of time to read over what what what I had presented. So, the addition was I just wanted to make sure that the
information is incorporated for this commission to review under old business, which is basically the way our town is formed. >> Okay. Um, look, I'll take a motion on it. I I I just don't see how what you presented go goes toward, but you know,
if there's going to be a motion uh to add this Are you making the motion? >> I'll make a I'm sorry. I'm making a motion. Yeah. To add this to this package for review by this commission. >> Okay. Uh so adding this ma matter to the old uh to old business. I would be item
7B is uh is there a second? >> I'll second for discussion. >> There'll be a second for discussion. Uh is there any discussion at this point? Just and this is just not on the actual topic that he wants to discuss but to
add it to uh the old business as 7B. Is there any discussion on that aspect of it? >> Yeah, I'm I'm just curious. This is a a information that you're bringing forth that you >> This is basically as you as you're aware, I'm sorry. As you're aware, um the sheriff now as the new elected
position and the um intergovernmental relationship between our town manager and the sheriff is come has come into question. Okay. And the only reason I wanted this information here is when we discuss >> I'm I'm sorry to cut you off because I just want to keep them moving because I know we have a lot of discussion. So
it's just right now it's the what I understand what you want to propose. Um and I think what we're discussing the discussion is to whether or not to add it to as 7B and I want to limit it right now at least any discussion to that motion. Uh so that way we can move forward and if you want you know if it
does go on to the me onto the agenda then we'll discuss it in more depth later. >> The only reason I want it on is it's time dependent. That's all it is. Just time certain. It's not something that you know is um that should be ignored. I just want it's just a time certain item because our um pound commander is being
appointed or has been appointed recently and things like that. >> Well, okay. I I'm not going to go into that discussion at this point. Um so I'm just going to any other further discussions on whether or not to add this as 7B. All right. Seeing none, I'm going to call. All in favor say I.
Any opposed? Opposed. >> Sorry. We'll do a roll call. >> So, can you do a roll call? Just make sure we're clear. >> Council um Commission Member Fernandez. >> No. >> Commission Member Bennett.
>> Yes. >> Commission member Abad. >> Yes. >> Commission member Matoss. >> Yes. >> Commission member. So sorry. Ruano. Yes. >> Yes. >> Of course. Vice Chair Inguano.
>> Yes. >> And Chairman Leoto. >> No. The motion passes. >> All right. So, it's been added as 7B. Thank you. Any other deferrals, additions or deletions. >> So, so I just wanted to touch base and actually more towards Dr. Bennett. Go
ahead. >> At at the last meeting, he brought the form of government, the role of the town manager, and he proposed certain things, but I don't think we ever got to anything. Are we bringing them back up or >> at this time? I don't want to bring up any specifics because we are discussing the manager's position and role, I
believe, the next meeting. Correct. >> So, um I what I what I want to bring up is an some is anformational information. >> No, no, I understand that. I think I think he had just a point of question to you as to whether or not you were going to bring something up regarding to add to the addition. Like I said, we're just
on the order of business right now. So, I just want to focus on that so we can move along. All right. Is there any other is there a motion, Commissioner Abad? >> None. >> No, sir. >> All right. Any any others on the order of business? All right. So, we're going to move forward now to public comments.
>> Good evening. Anyone in the audience here for public comments? Please just approach the podium, state your name and address for the record and we also welcome the participants that we have online. I see
one person. You will get a chance to speak as well. Just always remember that if you do want to speak, you have to raise your hand by clickings on the reaction item and selecting raise hand and it will allow you to participate.
And again, as I always stress, you have three minutes and um welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening everyone. Stephen Hersburg, chapter 119. Uh it was some important discussions to have today. I just want to say that the
discussions be focused on what the problems are and not looking for solutions that don't need solutions. And that's where I see two things that will likely be discussed today. One, our form of government is good. A council manager system works. It works for this town. I see no reason for a strong mayor. I don't even believe a strong mayor would have any chance of a ballot. You've
looked at other municipalities. They typically don't pass when you ask if you want a strong mayor. Uh and it's important to understand that because there's only so many questions that the commission might want to pose. so that the most important things get voted on. You don't have voter ballot fatigue. As
to the amount of seats to the council, I know there's been a push to look at five and it's been discussed before. Uh I saw the the proposal from Councilman Fernandez who has shared via email for everybody. I think the proposal is well done. I don't agree with it, but if you're going to do it, the way he has it
out outlined makes sense. However, I ask you, what are we trying to resolve going from seven to five? What's the problem? We've had consistent management. We've had low political drama. Almost no corruption. And the only corruption
happened had nothing to do with his body. So what are we trying to solve? Uh this commission should focus on systematic changes, not politics. If it's a political issue, that's politics. Uh and that's just part of of of how you
elections work. But I don't understand why there would should be a push to reduce representation in government. If you look at the ma of the map that I know you all received, the majority of municipalities that have 30,000 people or more have seven. And the city of
Miami is an outlier of five. And I'm pretty confident you will see a charter amendment come up moving them up to seven because five is not enough for the city of Miami. So I just don't understand where the issue is, where the systematic government issue is when you
when you are talking about reducing from 7 to 5 because of how stable uh politics has been here in my opinion, especially when you compare it to other municipalities. I remember Senator Garcia was here uh at a recent meeting saying we're not like Carl Gables, we're
not like Dural. And I think part of that is because we have seven. Those cities have five. I I do ask you to watch some meetings that have five that you can find on YouTube and you can see the difference in the way that those meetings happen and I believe that it makes more political. You have less
guard rails of the people up there. So those are just my thoughts. Um anyway, have a good discussion. I'll be watching. Have a good night. >> Thank you, Mr. Council Member. Uh do we have any other members of the public? >> Good evening, commissioners, town council. Oh, Councilman right there he
is. And town management Cardinal Andres 14530 Dade Pine AB Miami Lakes, Florida. All right. Obviously Miami Lakes. Okay. Um the discussion obviously is uh going to be hot tonight um about the council seats. Uh I did some research myself and
I was looking at you know what we have in Miami date county uh you know based on the 2020 uh census and you know we got anywhere between uh you know Miami shores that has approximately 11,500 residents all the way up to uh Dorado that has 75,800
uh there's an average of five you know uh elected offices. Um Councilman Hersburg is absolutely correct. You know we do have a very sound government. um you know we have been running just fine um but I do see that there's a possibility here for five and quite frankly um you know I'm I can go either
way uh with with you know uh both you know arguments really um so nonetheless you know it's good to to see the the the beauty of this this whole topic is that we have the internet and we get to see what other um you know cities u municipalities have in place um I uh
going on to uh what we have right now the current powers of the mayor and the vice Mayor, no change. Leave as is. It's worked just fine. Um, you know, we have a very competent town manager and and his supporting staff. Um, you know, I I would leave it as is. Uh, when it comes
to the uh term limits, there's been, you know, uh, I I I agree with uh, you know, life, you know, limits. You know, two times you run, you're done. um if you a special election you get in uh you know with two years less I know you get that that third shot but you know go ahead
and get it and then after that um you're smooth sailing and no longer running for office. Um I know there's some another topic that I wanted to bring up was for absence. I know that is at the discretion whether it's a good cause or bad cause whatever it is I strongly encourage that for the record of the
council and the residents that the missing uh council person uh write a uh u you know from himself or herself the reasoning for the absence. That way we can avoid any discretion when you know the topic comes on removal if it gets to
that point. Other than that um I have no further comments. Uh thank you all for uh your service to this commission. Thank you. Uh, any other members of for public comment? Council member, >> good to see everybody. Alejandro
Sanchez, chapter 119 for the address. First and foremost, I want to say congratulations. Make us proud. This is the most important document. It's our constitution. To say that you were part of this commission is a huge deal because you are setting the groundwork for the next
10 years of what this town is going into with the secondary half of our strategic plan. Now to just comment on what doc Bennett had said earlier about the time sensitivity of item 7 being now on the agenda. There is no time sensitivity when it comes to this document because
this document will not become effective until next year. So any change that you make right now is not going to become effective until next year until the residents vote on it and accept it. Because this document, even though it passes through your hands and eventually by the elected officials, it gets to the hands of the electorate. So no matter
what change you make now, no matter what change you're trying to avoid from happening now, it's still going to happen now. Even if it's later down the line, not going to make a difference. So I would recommend the 7B be just eliminated to save the time since it's not time sensitive anymore. With regards
to the seven versus five, I'm in between both because I see the five as a form of government that can lead to a melting pot. Most people believe a melting pot can be a good thing, but I don't think it's a good thing because then you have minds that think the same. You don't
have a plethora of ideas. I'm not saying let's become Jacksonville that have 19 elected officials sitting on their deas, but seven is a good number. You have a collective of differences of ideas that lead to a better solutions down the line. You all have the mind, the
ability, the knowledge. Two of you know what happens behind the ferial scenes and I applaud you for doing this. I applaud you for the public service. That's the backbone of our of our nation, volunteerism. Thank you for everything that you do, and I wish you
nothing but the best of luck in all decisions you're going to make tonight. Thank you guys. >> Thank you, Mr. Council Member. Uh, do we have anybody else from the public comment here present that would like to speak? Madame clerk, do we have anybody online?
>> I see one participant and this is your chance. If you want to participate in public comments remote via online, please do so now. Unmute yourself and welcome to the meeting. I also want to stress that we did receive a written public comments from
Miss Hope Reynolds earlier today which I emailed a all the commission members and we had one like two weeks ago in from Mr. Abel Fernandez regarding article two. I just wanted to put that into your attention. You all received it as well.
Um no I don't see the hand raised. So no public comments unless >> Thank you madam clerk. Uh we're going to go now to number six, approval of the minutes. Uh has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes that were submitted? >> So I'll make a motion to approve.
>> Second. >> There's a motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none, motion passes. And now we're going to the old business section 7. Uh we'll start with a the
town attorney legal opinion on the town charter boundary map. As you guys may recall, at the last meeting, there was a discussion regarding uh in article one about the charter the town's charter boundary B and we asked the town attorney that was going to provide us a legal opinion. Uh Mr. Deputy Attorney,
>> uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh with regards to the boundary, as long as we're not changing the meets and bounds or anything uh that we're not augmenting or diminishing the the map, we can go ahead and update it on the on the charter. That's fine. >> Okay. Um, I'm trying to rec I made the
motion I believe contingent upon the legal opinion. Do I need to go back to that motion and reissue the motion or is that then approved to replace the map? >> I'm not the I I don't have a minute. So, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
>> But if if it was approved on that then >> if you allow me one second. >> Yeah, I believe we I had made the motion. I think what we we voted upon was to approve contingent upon your opinion. And I didn't know if we needed to go back to that motion >> in the contingency or if it was
>> You want me to refresh the memory? Chairman Leoto stated that he would like to move forward with his motion that is still pending on the floor, which is to have the town map figure one replaced subject to hearing from the town
attorneys as to whether it's ministerial or not and whether it doesn't need to be included. And if it doesn't, then it could be with could be withdrawn at the next charter revision commission. And this motion passed seven to zero. So unanimously passed.
>> Mr. It's fine. >> Yeah, it's fine. >> Perfect. All right. Uh so we're going to go forward. That closes out on a on the town boundary uh map. Um now we're going to go to the old business that was added. Uh B, if you want to go ahead and
present your item. Uh Dr. B let's ple let's be brief if you want to give the the summary and then we can and if there's a motion we can go forward with the motion. >> I agree once again this is this will be brief basically um as as is being as it's been stated in
the current charter the town manager has the ability to make recommendations. He doesn't have the power to appoint anybody uh for the as I understand it as town commander. The county commanders is not an employee of the town of Miami Lakes. Obviously, he's an independent
contractor that we contract through Miami date county. The I guess the sheriff's department now versus uh the police department. Um and the only the questions that came up obviously with the new elected position, did the existing contract, you know, have uh
have as much weight? Obviously on Florida statutes 125105 uh which basically in 2023 did c did allow for the direct transfer of the contract to the sheriffs and the sheriff is going to abide by the contract that that was basically allowing them to
transfer that contract and that the sheriff would take care of it as as if it was you know part of Miami date countyy's police. The only issue that we came up with is um was how it's appointed generally as as I understand it and as I interpret it and as uh I I
as I understand it this way first and then I'll go into later um that the um town manager can't appoint it. All they can do the sheriff department will appoint who it is and the town manager can give a recommendation to the council
whether to accept that or not. Now, the town manager can remove the sheriff if he chooses to, and that that's what that's what how I saw it. Now, once again, this is going to be a much greater discussion on the next meeting, but the only reason why I bring it up
now is I'm not sure that the current methodology that was used to appoint the commander is valid. >> Okay. Um, real quick, one second. Uh, Mr. attorney. Uh I I'll I'll make my initial comments is um if this is if
you're using this to address that latter issue that you just mentioned, I don't think that's appropriate for this body. Um you know, we're we're dealing with the commission as I believe it came out in public comments as well is that you know that is a you know we're looking at a document that we're trying to advise. If you're looking at the powers that are
associated with the town manager, we'll address it like you had stated in article 3. um but as to the immediiacy or as to whether or not there's an issue with the current contract. That is a that in my opinion and I'll ask the town attorney to to uh opine on that. But I believe that is an issue that is going that is up for the town council, not for
this commission. Um so I'm not sure what I'll defer now to uh the town attorney on that. >> Mr. Chair, you're you're absolutely right. I mean, this is an issue as far as a a contract. Now, I I want to do uh touch base on that contract for a minute. That contract was passed in
2019. Believe the resolution was 191638. That resolution approved that agreement that was done in negotiations between the town and the Miami date county police department, which is now the sheriff. That contract was assigned to the sheriff's office when that uh change
in in the statute took place. Now, under that agreement, section 9.2 specifically, it states that the sheriff's office, it's it has two two sentences. I don't have it in front of me, but first it says the town manager shall appoint the town commander. And second, it says that the sheriff's
office or the Miami Day County Police Department will provide him from a a list of qualified candidates. So, we're not the Miami date county sheriff's office to begin with. That is a separate entity of which manages their own police officers, uh, decides who are the
qualified candidates, promotes from within. We have no control and no say on that. However, as a concession, because the town commander is such an important uh person, I mean, the face of our public safety, the town manager can have
a say, does have a say. He has the actual the ultimate say in the who that person is going to be from a list of candidates that are provided by the sheriff's office. We don't have a say in who those candidates might be. Now, uh why does the town manager have that
power? He has it only because the town council, the governing body of this town gave it to him, delegated to him to decide who that person was ultimately going to be. And that is perfectly legal. There's nothing incorrect about that. As far as adding it to the
charter, it really is not something that would be something that we could add to the charter because we don't have really our own police department. Uh the police department is something that we are renting, we're leasing, uh we're using and piggybacking off of the Miami Day County Sheriff's Office. And again, we
don't have any control as to that management. The contract could very well say uh Mr. Chair, that the sheriff's office in their own discretion as however they decide will pick who the town commander will be and that would be perfectly legal. There would be nothing wrong about that. And for all those reasons, I do not think that this is
something that should be considered for the charter and I don't think that it's something really germanine to this body. >> Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Town attorney. Um, with that clarification, is there a motion that you have that you would like to have discussed at this time? >> No, I just want to make a couple just something clear by time dependent. I
just wanted it to be in the council's in this commission's hands that this will be brought up at the next section. I wanted to give them a lot of time to think this over. That's the reason I brought it up as old business is because other form of government. Um once once again uh we can we can discuss that more
at the next meeting. I have no motion at this time you know relative to this but I did want this information in the public in the records for this commission to consider. >> Sure. And I and I'll just uh you know as a recommend is that when that get that's brought up at the at when we discuss
article 3 or and whatever relevant provision you believe it's going to be moved is to let's focus on how it's going to be incorporated into the town charter and how it'll apply when we do it not whether or not the current contract has been done correctly. I understand that's kind of a just the
factual basis of where you're what supporting of what amendment you may be proposing. But I'm just asking is that whenever we get to that point that we don't have we don't get too much. I we've already shared it with everyone here. So we'll just get a factual background and then you know get into what it is in the charter that you'd like to
>> You're correct. What I'm saying is it doesn't affect the current contract. I understand that and that's exactly right. The question is does this body should this be in incorporated in the powers of the manager? That's what I want considered. Now it gives you a more important thing. But I I have no intention of changing anything that's
already been contracted for. That's not what this is. It's just that this commission needs to know if that power is going to be delegated specifically to the manager. That's what's important. >> That's what I'm trying to get to. Do we want Do we want that? All right. Anyways, thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Not a problem. If nothing else on Oh, I
thought I heard something. Sorry. Nothing else on 7B, we're going to go to now to item eight. Uh items for discussion or action. We're going to start with a participation of town staff. Um, so this is a matter I wanted to bring up real quick as it came to my attention over the past two weeks. Uh,
it seems there was the there was discussion um and information that has been that is that has been stated to me that the town manager who's not present today and it was at it seems there was a request by several commission members obviously didn't come through me um but
that he not participate in these meetings and not be here at the meetings. Uh so I wanted to have you know bring this up for a discussion for us as to what we want from our from our perspective. Um I'll start off is that I think it's a it it is a
a disservice not to have the town manager here and I'll and for several reason first and foremost is he's the one that does the day-to-day operations. He understands what this charter and how it is affecting him in his operations. Um, I personally would like to have him
here uh in that and we have questions of what we're deciding, what we're reviewing. He'll be able to give us boots on the ground. Hey, look, this is going to affect it this way or he can give us explanations as to how it's impacting currently. So that way we can best assess, hey, look, do we want to
modify one of our provisions? I don't want us to be creating uh any changes or recommending any changes that are made in a vacuum uh that may negatively impact them or even something that we may miss that can even enhance their operations. Uh so that's my position and
uh so I'm going to make a motion and obviously you know we'll have some I'll open this up for discussion but I'd like to make a motion to uh to have the town manager participate uh be present here uh on behalf of the council to assist us in presentations. Um obviously we're
getting a lot of recommendations from the town staff uh that they you know that they see that they would like to do. So I'd like to have them to be present here uh and welcome to be to participate uh with us. Um, that's the motion. >> Second. >> There's a second. There's a Commissioner
Fernandez. And so, any discussion? >> Yeah, just a little discussion. Um, one of the things that's important about our town manager. He was also on the original charter commission. He has some inside uh, not inside, but he has
institutional knowledge or memory of what went before. And that's very important to this council. now specifically about the five member seven member council. So yes, I think he would be a major asset to this commission and he should attend. Thank you.
>> Right. Thank you. Good >> through through the chair. Of course, I can't vote, but um >> Whoops. I I agree with with with you as well as Dr. Bennett. I think that it would benefit I mean, I don't think anything negative by him being here. In
fact, he's going to bring a lot of experience and and you know, again, he runs a day-to-day operation. So, I think it it'll benefit our decision- making, your decision-m while while he's here. So, that's all. >> Thank you. Any other any other commissioners like to have a discussion?
Commissioner, >> thank you. Um I'm in agreement to having him here. I think it's an important asset to what we're doing. There's questions that come up. um we're not waiting then to have them answered at a different point in time. So I think it's to our advantage, it's to the public's
advantage as well if things come up that the questions are addressed timely. >> Thank you, Vice Chairman. I think >> Mr. Chair, just real briefly, I agree 100%. He definitely should be here. In fact, Mr. Manager, if you're watching, I know you live very close by, so come on over. We'd love to have you here. So, um
I definitely think he and other key staff should be part of this process. >> All right. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Since we're putting on the record, again, I don't know where that came from and and I understand if one of you or multiple of you did not want him here. I agree that his um his opinion was very
valuable. I do not recall a moment in the in the last two meetings that he said anything that would impact negatively anything. And at the end of the day, we're we're the ones who voting. He has no vote, right? So, it is for institutional law knowledge like Dr. Bennett said, and I agree. Hey, come on
down, buddy. Look, and I' I'd like to add that having him here and having his perspective here only, you know, elevates the the dialogue that we're going to have here. And, you know, it's it's only through dissenting opinions. And of course, I don't always agree with the manager, but I I definitely value his input and and
his uh position, and I'd rather hear what he has to say, and I think everybody um should have access to him. So, yeah, I'm I'm all in. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fernandez. Any others? Yes, Commissioner. the chair, for those that served um on the charter revision committee in the past, was the
manager part of the of the discussions in that >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. I think we've heard from everybody here. Uh so I'm going to call it for a vote. All in favor of the motion? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. If uh you know, Madame Clerk, if
you can share with the town manager that you know, the the council has requested his presence at the future meetings. I'm not saying he has to come today. I understand you know he he's at home or wherever he may be but you know uh please relay that to him that that motion has been passed and he's been asked to attend. >> Absolutely.
>> Thank you very much. All right. Now getting to article 2 town council. uh you know this is going to you know this is going I tried to move pretty quick through the initial aspects because I really you know I've seen a bunch of proposals and discussions from folks um on article 2 and this is a very know
every article is very important but this one is our first very substantive uh review and information that we've been receiving. Uh so I'm going to start with uh B1 which is section 2.1 of the town council. Um if there's anyone want to
start off with any items that they'd like to first present >> the chair >> as far as >> Oh, hold on one second. I'm going to have Councilman Fernandez. >> Sorry. And then I'll go to you, Dr. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, as as you saw through the um through our clerk
through madam clerk, I I submitted what I thought um and this was in collaboration with staff, but um in regard to changing the the amount of council members, I I respect Councilman Hzburg's opinion and and his thoughts.
um since I've submitted them actually I just received or we just received the amount that um and we can go we can discuss u the other municipalities that some that have five some that have seven but we just I just received the amount
that each council member earns including the salary and the stipen for the car allowance and and other things including insurance and it actually totals to um over $28,000. So $28,78960.
So based on that in itself um you know something that we should discuss. I think it's important to also know that the original charter um the intent was to have I believe uh five five at large no excuse me five um
district seats and then two at large. Uh we we went away from that. So, I I think at this time u I'd like for the for the commission to consider to changing the amount of council members from 7 to 5. So, your change is to have from it'd be
six at large to >> then to four at large. >> Just no because I'm looking at the 2.1 and the 2.1 town council section. Wait a second. It defines as >> Hold on. >> Hold on one sec. >> Councilman Fernandez, you cannot make a motion. >> I cannot make a motion. Oh, that's
right. Sorry. Thank you for >> Yeah, you can beg, plead, and borrow that somebody do it. >> Ask you guys. Okay. >> Yeah. I I'd like to >> Thank you for the clarification. >> I'd like to offer the the the motion that council member Fernandez profate. >> All right. Well, let's let's initially
clarify um because the way that you know how is it that we're going that we want to propose that the amount be changed or how we refer to it in 2.1 town council. Um and I say it because in the second sentence it says the council shall consist of a mayor and six at large
council members. Um so it how are we going to define that or how are we going to set that? Is it just going you know are we just going to take out mayor and do five people or no >> the motion going to be I I think for the for the time being, I mean, it's it's obviously very difficult
because there's, you know, we're going in the sequence that the charter is written, but there's there's things that are interrelated that we're going to get to uh later. I think at this point of the discussion, it should be the mayor and four at large council members. That's that's my motion at this time.
>> Okay. So, limiting it to the mayor and at four. Is there a second to that motion? >> I'll second. >> All right. Now, okay. >> Second. So, go ahead, Mr. Ton. Yeah. So, Councilman Fernandez, uh, the council
shall consist of the mayor and for at large said, >> well, but it's not going to be for at large for several years. So, I think
>> Well, I I think what you're getting to is he may need to amend his motion to add the language that was, >> right? It needs to be cleared up, but you can't say four because it's going to be six. It's going to be seven for a while or six for a few years if it assuming it passes. So,
it's the town council shall consist of the mayor and at large council members as described below. And then I think Mr. attorney that may be addressed at at least with what I received under section 2.3 election and
term of office there creates a staggered term for each of the offices in order for some point to get to the four. >> I understand that but I'm struggling with the first paragraph >> because it's not it's not four at large because it's six but it's going to be
four. That's that's that's my little dilemma. If you want move on and then I'll come back to it and >> through the chair. Yeah. Go ahead one second and I'll I'll go to I'm going to go to council or to commissioner Ruano and then over to you can leave it at Okay. Yeah.
>> Can we >> Gina Gina has a point. Gina has a point. It's six atlarge council members references blah blah blah and then it does say effective with the election of November the council shall consist of the mayor and four at large. So I think
that clears it up if you incorporate the blue. >> Yeah. If you incorporate the blue >> or >> whichever color it is on your paper. I have it in red. >> Whatever that red line is. >> I'll amend my motion to include the
blue. >> Yeah. So I sorry sorry for uh holding up the meeting but it is cleared up. >> Mr. Sher, there'll be discussion on this or do we want >> Yes, we're going to Yeah, there was the motion and then there was a clarification. So I'm just >> if I want to go ahead. You want to start
with uh the You want to start with your discussions? Go ahead. >> Sure. >> Sorry. Yeah, if I could. Okay. >> So I uh with the help of our illustrious town clerk, the 2000 commission meeting minutes were available to everybody and
there was a lot of discussions about five chairs versus seven chairs or six chairs and a mayor and all that, whether they're all at large or districts. And at the time it was suggested by Michael Pizzy that we would have four districts, three and two at large and a mayor making seven seats. And the reason for
that is they wanted to make sure there was at least some type of equal representation between the between the more populous west side and versus the east side. Um that that in itself, you know, is interesting. This was also um
commission at that time. Roberto Alonso also agreed to that. I thought it was a better way to go. Now, as far as the population dynamics of it is concerned, this is irrelevant as far as how many commission seats you want. It it is it's something that you can note, but it's
irrelevant. Um, as far as their salary, I'd like to know what that is as a percentage of the budget. In other words, the fact that they have that salary doesn't mean anything unless you have the actual total budget and determined like anything else. Now, here's my concern, and this is this is
the big concern for me. If you were to go ahead and reduce the number of voting members from seven to five, it concentrates power. Um, in all practical purposes, if the mayor has four member uh three members and him, he dominates
the council and the council will pass and so on and so forth. If you go ahead and reduce that now he just needs three or two one three a majority well three out of five so it needs two and and essentially you know you have a a small
majority dominating the the the entire body um I um I don't believe in concentration of power I I prefer the people have as much representation as possible um it's it's not that um I feel
that there's going to be any type of you know uh coercion or anything. But if let's assume now it's a situation in which now the mayor has gets to appoint a council member now he only needs one person. So now you have the mayor and a appointed person that's two already and
then just one more and then at that point now that controls the council. So I would I would I personally believe that that would be a bad idea. I would I would oppose it. I would prefer to keep it as seven. So, thank you so much.
>> All right. Um, just before we go for on a discussion, I was advised that uh town manager Peterman is online and is available for any types of questions if any of you guys have, we can always direct it to him. So, he's available online uh to be able to discuss with them and uh you thank you very much for
attending. T manager Peterman, we see you there. >> All right. Uh moving forward, any other discussions, bunches of discussions anyone wants to have? Yeah, I I'd like to contribute a few points. Right. So, I think I think there was definitely a time um particularly at the at the
beginning of the town's history. We're having more voices. There was a lot of work to be done, especially at the beginning. I think, you know, we've we've reached the 25 year mark. Um there isn't a a whole lot of development going on. There isn't a whole lot of change happening in the in the town. I don't
necessarily think we need that many uh council members to do the work that needs to be done. That's that's one point. I I'm I'm going to say this as nicely as I can without, you know, uh offending two people that are that are sitting here whose opinions I value
enormously. Um, but I think the fact that we had three seats go up for election last time and only one of those seats was contested and made it on the ballot may be a sign that maybe there either isn't enough interest uh out
there to to field seven uh, you know, properly and duly elected competitively elected candidates and maybe it's time to reduce that uh, that field a little bit. So that that's why I wanted to uh to bring forth um this motion. Thank
you. >> Thank you. Anyone else have any points of discussion like to raise at this time? >> Yeah, Commissioner Abad and then I'm going to go to Commissioner Moss. >> Yeah, I mean going back to to that point. So So I remember we when we introduced ourselves a month ago, the
first time we met, we talked about how much we really wanted public input, right, into into these decisions. And it it's it's truly sad. I think we've only had a handful of people speak up. Um I'll give a shout out to Mr. Abel Fernandez that
he's always very constant giving his opinion and I do value that. I may not always agree with his opinion, but I do appreciate it and you know the the truth is it's been a handful of people given the opinion, but most of them that have spoken to me have talked about um bringing it down to
five. I'm open to go either way. To be honest with you, I'm hoping you guys can convince me one way or the other. Uh, however, I'm more intrigued with the concept of and and I think I'm being hypocritical in a way because I voted against it. I remember last time they did it to going back to the districts.
Um, I do see the value in every section being, you know, the town being represented. Um, I mean, if we look at the town right now, I think like three or four of our current council members live in Royal Oaks and that really, you know, I mean, like like everything, you know, I when when I when I ran, I
remember that the east side was very different than the west side, right? The east side was the airport and everybody had traffic. They love their tree canopies. you go to the west side, it was that the mind blasting and you know and and they're they're not very big into trees and you know so I I think
it's great when each section of the town is equally represented. There's I'm attracted to to that thought um and that everybody feels represented in the town, not just this side of the town has more people, this town has more representation. So I don't
know. Hopefully you guys can convince me one way or the other. Absolutely. Commissioner Moss, >> thank you. Uh, a couple of points. First of all, when I um, years ago, we had districts and I'm a big proponent of
having at large seats. This is one Miami Lakes. We are one Miami Lakes. And whether it's blasting, we are united in what we're doing, how we're advocating for reform, for things to change. the
airport. Most of you know my thoughts on that. We need everybody, not just one elected person for a district that encompasses those of us that are impacted by the airport. So, I'm definitely opposed to having separate
districts. And I've read a lot, thought a lot about the number of council people. With all due respect to those that have run unopposed, we are blessed to have a wonderful group of people who come out.
Um, but where's the interest level? Years ago, there was lots of activity for the seats. And I think at this point when we're looking at some of the things that we've been discussing or the council has been discussing and we've been talking about in public comments
about every dollar matters. every dollar matters. It's more efficient to have less, in my opinion. It's less committee people. It's less staff time to manage those things that require um the the
services, if you will, of the town staff for seven versus five. So, I'm feeling strongly about five and I am very much interested in at large seats. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I've
had the priv privilege of working for local government for the past 25 years. Uh, half of that was for a city that had uh a commission of seven members and the past 12 for a council that's got five. Um, you know, either works, but I can
tell you the level of efficiency with a smaller body, uh, in my opinion, uh, anyway, uh, seems to to fit better, uh, at least some of the smaller governments of which the town of Miami Lakes is. um you know it's proportionately whether
it's five or seven you're going to have representatives who advocate on te on behalf of the residents. So I I honestly believe that from an efficiency perspective five seems to make more sense for a town of our size. I agree
with Commissioner Mtos on the um at large question. You know I think we are too small of a town to really have those districts. Um, I could see why it may make some sense, but I really do believe in the fact that we are one town and that everybody who has the privilege of
sitting up on this day should really be advocating for the entire town. And I think with the districts, we tend to kind of break the town into two parts, west and east. And I I don't think we should be doing that. I think we should be focused on the town of Miami Lakes and its entirety.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh, Commissioner Ruano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and through the chair, I when I was a council member on this uh day is I kind of um maybe had a reputation for saying the ugly part out loud that no one else wanted to say. So, I think that I'm
going to continue to do that as I as I sit up here with all of you distinguished um commissioners. Um the reality is that politics is ugly and the reality is that what Dr. Bennett uh very eloquently said does happen. and in a commission of five or in a council of
five, I do believe that there is less separation of power and and and that there can be groups that are formed and and they were and and you know, Vice Mayor Fernandez served along with me and whether we like to admit it out loud or not, that's the reality of what happens
on the day is for various reasons because you know, people have differences of opinion. Um, with regards to the districts, I I think that we are much better served without districts than we were with districts. I think that the the the community likes to be able to reach out to any one of us regardless of of of where you live or
what district you may serve. But for purposes of keeping enough people up here to keep the council honest and to keep it moving efficiently, I know that it's not cost-effective because the less people the less the expense. That that's that's a given. It's more time consuming
for staff, but it does keep the council in a much better position. And we may be in a moment now where the town seems quiet. Um, but we're only like, you know, a minute away from complete chaos, right? That's just the way that government works and the way that that
that that politics works. So we, as I served on this council, many times we were presented with very controversial issues. And I feel sometimes that our tenure was controversial, but when you look back, the council that served before us had very controversial issues.
The original council, I'm sure, had very controversial issues and the more people that serve on the council, I think the better service to the community. And as far as um, you know, trying to trying to keep um, I guess voting blocks from happening or someone being appointed and
then just being like Dr. Bennett said, one one member away from from having complete control of the council. I think that's one of the reasons why a strong mayor form of government has never been an appetite for Miami Lakers. Miami Lakers has always uh preferred I mean it's been on the ballot before preferred
the mayor manager form of government. So at least through my experience sitting up here I've was an advocate for many years before I sat as a council member um and I thought it then and I and I still think today that seven members works well for us. And if you if you
look at other municipalities that have a smaller council for the most part they seem to be very controversial. And I'm I'm gonna use the city of Miami just because I think that that's the most entertaining one. But but you know, five five uh members on that on that uh
commission just don't don't do the city justice. So I do think that the more the more the marrier. Um, I wouldn't put a dollar figure on it, even though I'm I'm a hawk of the budget, but I wouldn't necessarily just limit it to how much it costs because I think that in a position
where there's no salary, where it's mostly a volunteer position and everyone has their own job and everyone has a full-time commitment somewhere else, it does serve the town better to have more council members than less. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ron. Any others?
Dr. Bennett and Commissioner Bennett. Okay, this came up in the 2016 commission uh commission meeting in which we converted from district to uh at large and a couple of the arguments that were made as follows. Um should we
have individual districts represented? Um the thing was the analogy that was used is a representative from Maryland can't represent the people from Colorado because they don't know what's going on in that immediate area. Now, the the the
the idea of going to at large seats was a mechanical thing more than anything else because Lynn is right. Voter apathy is a problem. We can't get a majority of voters to even go to the polls even on important issues. And sometimes you
would have vacant seats and if you had a vacant seat had to be appointed in which case it was the same effect or they ran unopposed because there was nothing there. Uh obviously this there's studies about voter apathy going on for ever you know and they say that what converts
voter apathy is crisis and well I don't want crisis in our town. We did have crisis and at that crisis yes everybody came out. It was a very large turnout. So uh the the discussion about district representation versus all at large. Now
obviously anybody can run. Now, if individuals can say, "Hey, we have no representation over here, you know, at Silver Lakes. We need somebody over here to represent." Get them to run. I mean, once again, you know, uh, to serve the to serve the town of Miami Lakes or to
serve any municipality is a great honor, and it's it's it's likened to jury duty and military service. You're doing what is necessary to preserve a democracy. um the fact that maybe we can't get enough people to run because politics is
what it is, politics, it can get somewhat nasty occasionally. So, um I don't like my once again, I don't like reducing the number of representatives. I would love to hear some discussion about how can we get how can we get
various areas represented that know what's going on in those areas. Now, if we can get people to say an atlarge person, hey, yeah, we got a sewer problem over here. We got a sidewalk problem here, and they can act, but I don't think our members of our town know
to come and approach our council members. And that's one of the problems that we have. I know we try and get it out. We tried before. And um as far as that's concerned, representation at large, it can work. It just you got to get people in those areas to run for
office, you know, and those that's one of the issues. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bennett. All right. Um I'm gonna also discuss I wanted to take a minute to give my thoughts on this aspect of it is one is um
the our clerk provided us a chart with uh municipalities uh with five and seven that are located here in Dade County and I counted them up and you know so it's for everyone's and those for that are
online is uh the chart reflects that there are 24 municipalities in Dade County with five governing members. I'm assuming that includes the mayors and the council members and that there are 10 municipalities with seven governing me mayors. Um, you know, it gives the
the chart provides us with obviously the uh the their populations as well. Um, so we can have that type of comparison. So, if you guys have not seen it, it's it's in your it's in the materials that were provided uh here at the desk. Um,
you know, I I I really, you know, this is a good discussion amongst all of us. It's it's something that I've been hearing here. I've heard from members of the community that have reached out to me uh to talk about this aspect of it. And, you know, it you know, we do have a we have seven governing members. Um, well, let me start off with first just
talking about the at large versus the districts. I, you know, I'm really in favor of keeping it at large for a variety of reasons. Um, you know, just from what you see on, you know, in in all the media and everything is when you start getting into districtricting, you start opening up litigation where
someone feels that the aortionment wasn't done correctly, whether it was number-wise, whether it's political wise or whether it's, you know, some some other type of protected class that you've uh failed to incorporate in deter making the determination. And by keeping it at large, uh, you avoid those types
of issues. Um, and then as further as to, you know, the the the proposal to reduce it from seven to five. You know, I see there's a level of efficiency that comes with it. Obviously, you know, I I recognize the danger that has been raised by uh some
of those here on the dis of you know that you're now you have the potential for collecting power within a very few number of people whether it's the mayor or even another council member could you know could over you know that doesn't that has drawn opposition against that
mayor and can run it. Um, so and but I think that if it's going to happen at five, yeah, it's a little bit more likely happening at five than it is at seven just because the number-wise, but I don't think it takes away from the fact that, >> uh, seven is a lot of a lot of individuals. Bless you. >> Point of order.
>> Um, no, hold on one second. Okay. And so, uh, it in going with that, I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought, but in having seven individuals, um, it's just a lot of individuals that you have here for the size of the town we have. And when
looking at this chart, uh, you know, very significant cities and, you know, I and we can exclude the city of Miami in my my opinion and and just for the mere fact of their population size, you know, the the nearest population size that has five is Dorado and that it 83,000
roughly of population compared to city 487,000. But even when you go just from Dorado going down which is all other 23 municipalities that have uh it's very similar to what we have. >> Excuse me. There 34 municipalities. >> 34. >> Yes. What did I say?
>> 24. >> I said 24 that have five council members. That's what I was referring to. I'm sorry if I misspoke there, but yeah, I know it's 34. It's 24 and 10, which is the two the seven and five. My apologies. Um but I was referring to the to the 24 that have five governing. The largest is the city of Miami. um when
you take th that out from that calculation uh that there'll be the city of Dorado is the closest at 83,000 that's still more than double than what we have here in Miami Lakes you know even based on this chart at about 33,000 uh residents um so you know from my
perspective I you know I think there is a there'll be a definite benefit in having five you know addressing one of the other commission members that even said is you know there wasn't a lot of opposition in the last election And look, I completely understand. I've seen
I've been, you know, I've worked on a lot of campaigns in the past and I've seen it. Just because there's not competition doesn't mean that necessarily that there's not interest. It's, you know, you we have some very good candidates that pop up and people don't want to go against either person because they're very popular or they have a lot of money or, you know, for
other personal reasons. Um, you know, or they just say, "Hey, look, you know what? I support this guy. Why am I going to go against them?" Uh so there's a lot of rational reasons that could be out there as to why there is uh there hasn't been the participation, but when you get down into the five, you know, you start increasing those council members. And
look, I understand that there's two of them here that may be affected by this decision. Um but not in the near future, you know, thankfully, at least with the with the way the proposal is now presented and obviously subject to the voters's approval. Uh but I I think
there is a a a good faith rationale to moving it down from seven down to five. Uh getting in line with what twothirds of the municipalities in Date County have provided. Um, one other item that I did want to talk about um, in the
proposed amendment is that there is a redundant um, classific terminology that is now put at the very end which is uh, redefining council members. Um, and this is a matter that I think happens throughout this entire section actually
throughout the entire uh, charter that I think we need to it needs to be addressed. Uh, and I'd like to hear from the town attorneys if they can opine upon it is that the way that it reads the term council members um in the initial paragraph that is current it
seems to me it includes both the mayor and the council members um because they refer to council members already and then defines it as council members and then obviously subsequently it's repeated in the that separate paragraph. I would, you know, I would ask to have an amendment. Um, but I'll first want to
hear from the the town attorneys on that on that designation of the language because I I I just want to have it for consistency purposes so that way our charter reads clearly. >> Yeah, we've run into the issue before in another city. Um, and that does need to be cleared up be depending on how you
define council member. Some places defines council member including the mayor because he's a member of the council especially because this is not a strong mayor uh city. Uh others uh define council members as the council
members only but not the mayor. So and uh you know that's something we got to talk about. uh it can be important especially when you talk about uh for example one of the issues we had is who could call a special call and it said
four me I think three members of the council or the mayor well we had an issue where two members of the council and the mayor called it and then it became a whole issue but so we'll take a look at it and and we'll come back to
you uh on that if that's okay because it's a long charter Okay. So, I think for at least at this purpose is what I'd like to make a motion. I know we have a pending motion, but this is going to apply to that motion is I would like to make a motion to remove the second designation that that's in the included
language that we are voting on is just removing that last uh parentheses with the quotations council members close uh parenthesis closed parenthesis. >> Okay. So, let me ask, do you want the mayor to be council members
or not? >> It's kind of where >> I'd like to address that, but I think Okay, let's address this motion first and to take out that provision there. >> Okay. >> Um because then we can reference entirety of what the definition of what council members is in a separate motion. So, that way we I I don't want to mix
the two right now >> because I think they're two very different they're separate discussions. I think they're going to interrelate and then we can uh and we can handle it from there. I'll second the amendment. >> Second amendment. Is there any discussion on that amendment? >> Uh once again, back to my point of order, if I may.
>> Sure. I apologize for that. >> We've used uh the word efficiency twice. Could you define efficiency as it as it pertains to this? And before you do that, Mr. Manager, what was our budget last year? Total revenues that we have to spend.
>> Manager Peterman, you may have stepped away. Okay, >> madame clerk, do you know or mad? >> I mean, was it it was 15 million 17 million. What was our budget? >> 30.
>> Sure. Please come up insight. Uh general fund is about 20 21 and a half. Total budget though you're talking about non- general funds in in the >> general funds 20 around 21 million. >> All right. 21 22 million for general funds. >> Thank you. And um Mr. Peterman, your
temp manager Peterman, you've you've popped up. Do you did you hear the question? >> No, sir. >> Asking what the what what is the overall budget for the town for last year? >> The overall budget for the town? >> Yes. >> Or for the the the council members?
>> For the town, sir. the the total the total budget the total amount of revenues the town spends in a year or I don't even call them revenues because it's not really a profit thing but the total amount of money that comes in we'll call it revenues for argument sake is it 20 million 30 million
>> it's a it's a little over 20 million uh but there's different parts to the budget obviously there's the general fund there's the uh the capital fund there's the uh storm water fund so there's multiple areas to the but The general fund is a little over $20
million, >> right? And that goes back to my point. So once again, a definition of efficiency. Eliminating these two positions financially will improve the overall. >> So let's stick to the point you had a point of order. Let's stick to that and then that discussion I think goes to the
main motion, not to the current pending motion. >> Yes. The current pending motion right now is as just to eliminate the the phrase that the council members I know you had a point of order and that's what I was uh giving. >> Well, it was before you made your point. That's why >> No, I understand. But I'll I'll come
back to you once we have once we've resolved this this issue. But I appreciate it and just to answer your question that you have on I don't I don't have a specific definition of efficiency, but what I was referring to is not only from a financial efficiency, it's also an efficiency efficiency in operations. uh because when you have
seven council members, yes, you're going to have a lot of people going back and forth and having a lot more issues and it, you know, now the staff members are dealing with seven members on the council rather than five and that's generally what I was speaking about. I didn't have a specific efficiency. So, just to clarify that aspect of so now
going back to the pending motion which is on the removal of this language. Is there any discussion on that aspect of it? >> Um Mr. Attorney, is there any impact on removing the parentheses on what the what the original motion is? >> I I I don't see it. You're talking about
the blue. >> Yeah, in the blue. I mean, he he str you were striking out council members. >> Is there an impact of that? I'm sorry to to get to the points, but so he removed it maybe because he wants to >> it's just narrow the definition. I'm guessing >> it's I mean it's it's placed in parenthesis because you're going to use
it later on in in the section as council members to refer to that. But >> the purpose Yeah. And so I'll I'll respond real quick. The purpose of why I'm saying to remove it is cuz in the paragraph that remains in the first one, it's already defined. So you're just defining it twice, which you know when
I'm reading a contract or in any type of agreement, you don't want to have the same exact You don't want to continue redefining something that you've already defined. You just want to keep the definition. >> Thank you for that clarification. Not I'm not trying to limit. >> I've dealt with attorneys too and they're very very word specific and
that's why my intent built up. Okay. >> Not a problem. I'm just trying to clean it up so that way it's so we don't have two definitions floating into the into that. All right, any other discussion? All right, I'm going to call call a vote. Is all in favor?
>> Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes. That section will be deleted. Now going on to the original motion. Dr. Bennett. Uh let me go to Dr. Bennifer because I said he would go to him. Correct. >> Thank you for your definition of efficiency. Um the amount of financial
efficiency is 0.0027. 00273 impact by eliminating those two seats. It's negligible. You know, if you go ahead to three significant figures. Now, as far as operational efficiency, well, that's something else. I mean, obviously, um I don't see our town council being
inefficient with seven versus five. Um I I do think the concentration of power far outweighs the problem of having seven over five for efficiency. and uh being too efficient sometimes can step on a lot of people's toes. So, I just
want to put that out there. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner M. Commissioner Fernandez. >> Mr. Chair, I just wanted to comment on the uh on the district's part of the of the discussion uh because I made my comments before that really became a a subject of discussion. I I remember many
many years ago before uh I was on the council having a a conversation with uh with then Vice Mayor Luis Coyaso about the districts and and how that um dynamic played out. One of one of the things that he he mentioned then and it you know it's it's clicking now is one
of the drawbacks of of having districts is what if a constituent what if a constituent you know doesn't doesn't agree with isn't on the same page with the elected official for that district right then what what you see in a lot of places for example in Miami Dade County
a lot of action is deferred um to the the council member the you know um for the district in which whatever project is happening, right? And so I I think it serves everyone. I mean, in my particular case, I would have probably
been the the council member for Hope Reynolds's district, and I know she would have been dissatisfied with my representation of her, right? So, um I I would prefer having everyone be at large and and having equal access and equal accountability to all of the electeds
that sit up here and make the decision. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion items on the current motion? >> Can we can we have the motion read now as as it's going to be presented now? >> Madame clerk.
>> Yes. The motion from commissioner Fernandez was to have the council shall consist of the mayor and four at large uh council members. And of course, he included what is in blue, which reads,
"Effective with the election of November 2030, the council shall consist of the mayor and four at large council members." Period. >> All right. Any other question? Any more discussion items? Is that sufficient?
Mr. Red, >> real quick, I just Okay. Making sure he responded. Go ahead. Just for the for just for reference uh with regards to the topic of participation and apathy, there may have been two seats that didn't draw any opposition, but there
was a special election with five candidates on that one particular election. So there there was I just think that perhaps everyone jumped into that one race and then didn't have the funds to pursue a race that same year. But I still do think that there is there
is an appetite for for individuals to run. >> All right. Any other discussions from any other commissioners? >> All right. Seeing none, I'm going to call the motion is all in favor say I. >> All any opposed? >> No.
>> M. Madam clerk, can you do a roll call, please? >> So, yes. The main motion as amended. Commissioner Abad, >> no. Commissioner Bennett, >> no. >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Matoss, >> yes. >> Commissioner Ruano, >> no. >> Commission, Vice Chairman Inguanso, >> yes. >> Chairman Leoto, >> yes. >> The motion passes as amended.
>> Thank you. All right. And so continuing on uh now that we have that motion move forward is now getting to the anything else on 2.1. Anybody have any comments? All right. Um as I had alluded to during the last
topic that we just discussed, I think yeah we need to look at the how council members are defined. Um and it's just for clarification purposes. And I'm not trying to exclude anybody, but for clarity purposes, for how um how it is
in the charter as I read it, it's very unclear because as uh you the the town attorney uh mentioned is that they had an issue in another um municipality and I think it it it raises issues for us. So I think we need
to really think of how we're going to define it. Um, let me see real quick. Is I'm being provided a sample that we may be able to use. All right. Um, so what I'd like
to do is uh as to the second sentence where in that section 2.1 which reads the council shall consist of the mayor and six at large council members as described below and then had the as the parenthesis with the definition of
council members. Um I would like to then uh restructure that sentence. um town attorney in and the way that you you show me a version that they have here, it would read that
the council shall consist of six atlarge council members parenthesis with uh parenthesis um or the par the parenthesis with the definition or
designation and the mayor as described below. That way the term council members is referring to simply the six council at large council members and then the mayor is separated from that and I think that
helps clarify that aspect of it and I'll say that in that would be the motion that I'm going to make and I and I and I want to further >> can you read it again please? >> Sure. The council shall consist of
six atlarge council members, then the parenthesis with the designation council members closed parenthesis and the mayor as described below. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Just clarification
and or in addition to >> well that'll be the council shall consist of the six council members and defining council members is going to be now council members in the parenthesis and the mayor and so it'll be the council shall consist of the mayor. So
the mayor is a separate portion of the council which is previously defined in the immediately >> so so the mayor is not going to be considered a council member. >> That's the proposal correct. >> Okay. All right. And and I'm okay with
that. You're just going to have to give me time later on to go through the charter and if if we see that I've got to change something to make it consistent with that, we revisit it. But I'm okay with that if that's how you want to do it. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to second your motion, but I do have a question though.
>> Absolutely. So, there's been a second on the motion. So, we're going to open it up now for discussion. And so, we're going to have uh Commissioner Abbad and then we'll have Commissioner. >> So, so this is my concern and maybe I'm misreading this. I just want clarification. Right. >> Sure. >> So, every time we strike a word, every time we make any little change, this has
to go to the voters. >> Yes. But this charter, the change that you have is not going to be on the ballot. In other words, they're not going to get this document with all the blue lines and red lines and everything else.
One of the things we're going to have to decide is how we break it up when they go to vote on it. >> Chair, hold on one sec. I mean, >> anything else? >> You see, Gina, when we go to put it on the
ballot, if how are we going to do this mechanically? How I I guess that's his that's his question. >> The memory that I have of 10 years ago was that there was discussion. There were many motions made and then the attorneys, your law firm was able to
draft legal language considering all the motions that were made and then that was presented to the town council as a report which I think you all have because I send that information like four weeks ago for your benefit and um the council gave
opinions. they um approved it and that's how we d the attorneys drafted the language >> and worked with the electric. >> Okay, that's somewhat accurate but it's not completely it's not inaccurate but it's there's more to this.
What you guys propose vote on and adopt the council does have to submit to the voters. They can't tweak it. They can't change it. They can't do anything like that. I think the what Commissioner Abbad is asking is how does this get to the voters? In other words, they're not
going to get to a ballot with all of this on it. That's not what they get. Let me get back to you. But we divided it up in a summary in a sense because the the commissioner of elections will not let us put all of this on. >> Actually, it was 10 questions, right,
>> that were provided. >> Exactly. >> You drafted the language. >> Yeah. based on what you all pro well not you the previous commission um voted on >> yeah I I would yeah hold on I'm going to go to the council
>> it's it's to the point that how it gets on the ballot so I think there's a there's a maximum amount of words >> exactly >> that that can be used and we 75 is that right so that's something that I guess you as the attorneys will have to figure out how to word it
>> yeah it's it t believe me we end up counting words. >> But but Michael Cern is the case letters. I >> think it was Commission. >> Yeah. A is a word. A is a word, you know, and is a word. >> Commissioner Fernandez.
>> Right. So my my assumption would be that whatever changes get made that are associated with with each other would be bundled into one item. So if if we're changing it to four council members, then everywhere else that it you know, everything that goes along with it being
four council members goes along in that same item. >> Yes. Yeah. In other words, I don't have to ask, do we change it to four council members in section, you know, 2.2? Do we send it change it to four council members in 2.3? No. Is it changed to
four council members? uh as the question about my concern is that we keep striking a word here and adding a word there and if we keep doing this and everything has to go we may end up with a ballot of 20 different items or 30 items >> you're not in >> as a voter I have been in the ballot box
with those and you lose interest pretty quickly >> you know when you get so many changes so >> and so I'll go to you in just a second commission Bennett uh so just to quickly respond is the way I foresee it and look it I understand I'm like you People may say I'm nitpicking and looking at every
single little thing, but this is what I do. And I think words are very important, especially in our charter. You know, there's a reason why the United States Constitution uh has been amended, you know, 28 times. Uh you know, those are 28 amendments because it wasn't actually perfect, but it is it is
near perfect. It is the most perfect constitution in the entire world. And I really appreciate 27 >> with a few repealed one. >> Yes. And uh but nonetheless, you know, I just want to make sure that our terminology that we use and I, you know,
I'm going to defer obviously to the town attorneys uh on how they draft those language and they put it together because I think you can put a lot of those um cleaning up type of language. You know, the state legislature does it often. Every single time they go into session, they have these cleanup bills
that are not going to anything really substantive. and they can there's a way that they can formulate the questions within the 75word limit that'll be able to capture it. Uh that won't uh that that'll be fair and it advise them, hey, look, this is what we're simply doing.
We're just doing some cleanup. Um but I do strongly feel that it is important that we clean up this language as the town head town attorney had had expressed that there's been issues at other municipalities when the terminology isn't correctly used throughout the entire charter. So that's my intent of of why I want to go
forward. So Commissioner Bennett, >> first of all, he reads my mind because exactly what what he said is what comes up. We did historically is we mold over each section. We gave the general idea to our town attorney and we requested
them to put it in legal ease ballot uh questions. We asked them to go ahead and clean it up for us, but would make sure and then before those questions were approved for the ballot, and that was a mail-in ballot that time, not it wasn't you go to the ballot, it was mailin, we
would go ahead then and then e parse or at least we would vote on the question being included on the ballot. That's part of what we do once we get it into question format. What we're trying to do now as our as our chair says is we're cleaning up based on one section it will
affect other sections automatically. Can we compress this? I think we we set a limit of 10 questions at max. I think we we have to decide what 10 questions we want to ask the voters on their charter. And uh if we can condense all of these
things into a single uh 10 you know each little paragraph to be voted on that's efficient. But we have to decide which of these things are so important that we want changes on. For example, the the amendment that was just passed will go before the um the voters and our town
attorney will go ahead and draft the appropriate question for us to vote on if we find that the wording is what we what we want as a commission. >> Thank you, Commissioner. And you know and and I'll further expand on that is like I I believe I had said this either at the first or the second meeting as well is that you know I think what our
purposes of our motions is is what we're intending on having the changes and more the specifics and then that the attorneys are going to like you just said put together the final document as to all of our questions. Maybe they can they'll be able to condense a lot of
these motions together and say hey look they have a common theme or they have some you know whatever from a legal perspective. I've never invol been involved in that aspect. So, I'm going to definitely defer to them on that piece. Um, but they'll be able to say, "Hey, look, you know, you guys have these five motions. We can capture it with this one question. Uh, that'll be
presented. That'll then come to all of us, like you said, happened at the last one from what I understand. And then we'll be voting on the final question. So, hopefully, you know, we're not going to have a 50page, you know, ballot. You know, I really don't want to go there. Um, you know, but that's why, you know, our attorneys are very astute, very
bright individuals that'll be able to capture our thoughts and ideas and condense them down in a way that is going to be very understandable. Um, so what our motions are going to be here is really to give them the ability to then formulate what questions and how they can condense them down and what how
they're going to be proposing the eventual questions that we're then going to take a look at a new and ensure that we're capturing what it is that we want to send out to the voters. And we just want to make sure there's no compound questions on the ballot. >> You know, it has to be basically direct
up, yes or no, up or down. Comp I know, but I just I'm hoping that's how it works. I just compound questions are one of those nos. >> Sure. It's hard. It's hard to do a compound question to a lawyer in 75 words. I can guarantee you that. >> Or 75 words is an abbreviation.
>> That's the introduction paragraph. Introduction sentence. So, uh, any other discussions on the motion? All right, I'm going to call it. Uh, all in favor of the motion say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Seeing none, motion passes. All right.
Anything else on section 2.1? >> M. >> Mr. Chair, I I think that the second part of that paragraph that I shared with you is important as well because there's a point in times where since you're all part of the legislative body, there should be another word for how you're going to call each other. So >> I think that was okay because I think
that's the council which is in the first sentence of our current charter. >> Okay. >> The current council has that as the it's defined as the council and since and and the way I would read and please give me your opinion on it. I'd like to hear it is the council is obviously going to be
defined as everybody. >> Mhm. because the second is what divies up what the council is comprised of and then we we have the six at large since there are six individuals now they're referred to collectively as the council members and since the mayor is one singular individual I don't believe that
we need to have a definition for mayor since it's only singular >> I'm I'm looking at that section just I mean we can brush it up later I just I I want to make that that point but you're saying that that's in section one >> in 2.1 no in section 2.1 the first sentence
It says there shall be a town council and is defined as the council vested with all legislative powers of the town. And then the second sentence would read the council shall consist of the six at large council members defining council members and the mayor as described
below. So you have council members, you have the mayor and they comprise together collectively the the entire council. >> Okay. >> So Mr. Mr. chair for the the non- attorneys just so that I'm I'm also on the same page. The council is the
council members and the mayor. The council members are everyone but the mayor. Correct. >> Okay. Good. >> In what we've proposed. Yes. >> Yes. Perfect. >> All right. Anything else on section 2.1?
All right. So, we're going to go now to section 2.2. Um, Commissioner or Councilman Fernandez, would you like to prop provide your proposal that you want to submit for our recommendation? >> Yes.
>> So, excuse me. So, the mayor typically includes um both, but looks like two separate addresses. So, in regards to and my vision is so bad, but the first section there under a um it just because it's
usually included in one address that we would just remove the the budget address. >> Do you want to present all um 2.2A at least or >> Okay, I'll go >> and then we can discuss.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, in regards to the next um section um let's see. So, the committee >> A2 A >> A2, right? So, committees are free of council members. So, that's that's the point of of um of crossing out that part
of it. So, we wouldn't have any any uh council members on the committees, right? And then we can um >> just a point of clarification as as I'm reading that is just that they just wouldn't be voting members. It's not that they wouldn't be part of committees. It's just that they're the way that you what you've proposed to us.
Am I reading that correctly or the >> No, I think that they would not not be part of any committees at all. >> Okay. So you're Okay. >> Right. That's slightly different than what this says though because this says shall not include and the amended is members of the council as voting members
>> which infers or employ could be like you are with this body. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. So then I my notes are incorrect but yes. So it would just be non- voting members. >> Yeah. Thank you for that. Um and then
the I think do I do I go on? >> Sure. Just well, you have I think you have a a proposal at the end. >> My vision is so bad. Vice chair and secretary, >> you want to look at my a little larger. >> Oh my gosh. >> Oh, and there's >> Yeah, try both. See what happens.
>> Oh my god. I could see. >> Thank you. >> Let there be light. >> I I probably look hilarious with these on, but that's fine. I could see. So, uh, in regard to Yeah. So, vice chair and secretary, it's just not in
the charter. is my is what my notes say. >> Yes. Okay. >> So, do you want me to move on? Go on. >> Let's just do the entire section A. Okay. What your recommendation move. >> So, then um the next one, this shall not preclude the town administration and staff from dealing with other government entities. I guess in the past it was
difficult for um for the members of staff to be able to reach county FDOT, FDOT or the school board because the way it was written. So it would li it kind of limited them as to um their daily the
whatever they have to do to to contact other entities outside of uh this municipality and it was difficult for them to do so. So that is why that is um included there. And then the last one is effective with the election. Um
>> well we'll go to B right after. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm that's >> I want to take them chunked, but >> I get it. >> Let's go. Stick with it. >> Thank you. >> There you go. You can read. >> All right. So, now I'll open up to uh any items that the commission members
would like to propose. >> 28. Yes. I mean my only concern is based on well on 2.2A subsection one I'm assuming the the word budget was excluded. I'm assuming that was a typo because on the original chart it says that the the
mayor shall present the state of the town and budget annually. So what you're proposing says state of the town and annual. So the fact that the word is skipped I'm assuming it's just a typo, right? >> Yes. >> There's no intent to make any changes. So going back to 2.2 to a subsection
three or or two, I'm sorry. I mean, if what the council what you're recommending is that the council members should be appointed to committees, I don't agree with that at all. I mean, and that's how the way I'm reading it. Whether they're voting members or non non- voting members, I'm all for council
members attending committee meetings and showing support for the committee, but to be actually part of the committee, I don't think that's something we should be getting into. And I agree with you there. I'm sorry to the chair. May I may I respond? >> Sorry.
>> So So I think included in these committees I think would be something like this where we would have to have specific language if we were going to allow a council member to be represented here on this on this commission, right? I guess we would have to define that.
But I agree with you in regard to committees themselves. I don't think any council member should be should belong to the committee. >> Yeah. Hold on one second. So it's I'm getting a point of order from our town attorney. Um so we don't have a current motion. So if if there's I know that we're trying to get some clarification
on some of the presentations from um from Councilman Fernandez. Um I don't know if anybody has a specific motion and if we want to take them like line by one like A1 2.2 A1 if we want to address that and then we want to move to each one. Um I'm fine with hearing from
anybody that wants may wants to make a motion on each one. >> I I'll make a a blanket motion to accept the the changes proposed in uh in 2.2A subject to you know discussion and amendments that
will uh arise. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Uh, any discussion on that motion? >> Yes. I want to make sure that we're still going line by line. He just said 2A, which means we're going to adopt all of these changes in one vote. >> Well, I think what his motion was is is
contingent. He he he's uh mo moved for discussion purposes and subject to any type of amendments to clarify any of those individual >> just to put us in the proper posture and then we can we can definitely go through it line by line. >> That's right. Okay. Yeah, that was a technical problem. I agree. Okay. No, I appreciate that. Uh, okay. Seeing no
other discussion, all in favor or we have the first and second, so I'm opening for discussion now. Sorry. >> Okay. So, I'll let me start. So, just checking. So, what you want is the mayor to present bas state of the town. And of course, the budgetary information is usually done by the town manager
anyways, I'm assuming. So, you know, I mean I mean, will it once again the state of the town, he can state, you know, how the town is progressing with no problem. As far as the budget address, uh um I'm not sure what's the issue with that. I mean, it the state of
the town just tells you is a town doing well or not doing well. Uh the budget address if anything is going to be done in a council meeting with the town manager giving the annual budgetary report, you know, and of course that's televised also anybody who's interested in that. So I don't see a problem with
that being, you know, simp simplified to remove the budget information because the actual expert on the budget is our town manager anyways. So I don't see an issue with that. Um, let me stop there and then when you go to the next section, I'll be fine. >> Just a quick point of clarification.
You're you're you're you don't see an issue with removing the information removing the term budget address basically. >> No, I just want to make sure that that's what you were fine or that you were fine with what was originally. Correct. Yeah. The mayor shall present state of the town annually. I have no I have no problem with that. Um because as I said
the budget information, the expert of that is our town manager, not the mayor. So >> Okay. So I I'll amend my original motion to remove the words and uh budget address as a a motion to amend. That's A1. There's a second uh by Commissioner
Rouano. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. Motion passes. Uh now we're back to the original motion. Uh that includes the deletion of ad budget addresses. Is there any other discussion on a uh Roman one?
Okay. Uh so we'll move on to a Roman 2. Uh the language there. >> Is there any any discussion? >> Once again, I'm sorry. >> All right. >> No, go for it. The issue I think here is these committees funded by the town
council. If they're funed by the town council, obviously there might be a conflict with the budgeting having a voting member of the town council on that committee. I mean obviously once the conflict is the commission the council member can go in and vote for
$50,000 budget for this particular committee that meets on that can control individually. So that's something that As far as that's concerned, I do see a problem there. I'm not sure how to clean up the language. I'm going to let people clean up the language. I don't see that
uh that problem I see basically that the budgetary might be again. >> Okay. >> Okay. And and I'm >> shall not >> Yeah, that's what I was going to say. The language is that they shall not include members of the council as voting
members. So it would not include Yeah. The proposed change would be that they shall not have members of of the council as voting members. So they wouldn't have I I don't believe it that that conflict that you were alluding to would necessarily apply with the way the language reads currently.
>> So I I'd like to offer an amendment based on on a point that was brought up earlier. I would like to remove the uh the section that starts with as voting members and just leave it that um committees of the council shall not
include members of the council. >> I'll second it. >> All right. Is there a second? >> I second it. >> Oh, second. We have commissioner Abad second. Any discussion on that? >> Yeah. I I mean if we are going to remove those three words and I think it stays the same as it is on the charter right now. So I I don't really see any other
difference perhaps. No, I I the way that you know and I and I'll defer to the town attorneys, but the way I read it is that is that it the original languages may include non-ouncil members was what that stated. Now, it just it changes the intent of this language now that we're
explicitly excluding members of the council period on committees. Yeah, it it strikes me and I there's other people in the room that can speak to the original intent a little bit better than than I can, but it strikes me that the original intent was that the committees could be comprised of council
members or that the council members could designate somebody else to to serve as a council member. And I don't in in practice, I don't think anybody does that. I think almost everybody had, you know, full-time dedicated uh committee members that they would appoint and none of the council members
served on the committees. And I and I I I think it's much better the way that it's being done in practice and I I would want that to be memorialized in the charter going forward. >> Any other discussion on this item, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yes. Uh Manager Peterman.
>> Yep. the uh to uh Commissioner Tony Fernandez's point, the restriction and the way it's currently done, that limitation is in embedded into the u the council's uh special rules of order. What this charter language does, I
believe, is it mimics what's already there and what the practice is uh what's already in the special rules of order. >> Thank you, manager Peterman. And with that with that explanation, I think I you know and I'll ask for the town attorney if I'm if I'm incorrect in citing what it seems we're doing is
we're would include what's already in practice in as a rule of procedure. Now we're codifying it in through the charter which would make it impossible for the any subsequent council to ever change that uh in the interim unless the next charter review commission believes
uh that they want to change it at that point. Is that correct? >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, is there any other further discussion? Any questions from the town attorneys? >> Can I hear the motion as as we're voting on that part? Now,
>> the the amendment uh the amended motion would be to adopt the language in 2.2 um a Roman 2 striking out the words as voting members as well. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Uh so, hearing no further discussion, all in favor say I. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes to as amended. Uh we're back on the main motion. Uh anything else uh to discuss in 2.2 A2 A2?
>> No. All right. We're going to move forward to 2.2 A3. Uh there was no edits there. Um 2.2 A4. Uh the language that is there. Um is there any discussion items?
Sure. >> Commissioner >> through the counciloman. >> Thank you. >> Through the chair. Um I I'm as I'm reading it right the idea is to allow other um other council members and even staff members to be intergovernmental
liaison. And I think that for practical purposes that can get a little messy. Um, the ideal thing is for the council to give a directive to the mayor and for him to serve that purpose. And it may not always happen that way, but I'm not sure if this language makes it
incredibly difficult to conduct business with other government agencies when everyone who has a different opinion can approach these agencies and perhaps have a different agenda. So, it's just a little food for thought. I'm not sure if that would get messy. >> All right. So, I'm going to go to
Councilman uh Fernandez. believe you had a comment and then I'm going to go Fernandez and then Bennett. >> Well, I'd like to hear from Commissioner Inguanzo because he he actually serves or works at at at a municipality. But the I think the intent
here was not necessarily the council members to be able to to represent the town with intergovernmental affairs. I think it was that the staff members have have the authority or the option to do
it. So, it's discussed. >> Councilman Fernandez, thank you. I was going to address that as well. The way I read this, this really alludes to the town ad the town manager andor staff. >> Yes. My mistake. It does not say council members, >> but I I believe the mayor should of
course be the the lead. >> Yes. >> You know, from the government, you know, on the deis anyway. But I think what what may have happened in the past was that because the charter references the mayor does it, it precluded perhaps the town manager and or his designate from
having the ability to have those meetings or conversations. I think this clarifies that, you know, in many instances it's really the town manager or the administration that's really doing that work with other government entities. So this clarifies that in my opinion. >> Commissioner Fernandez,
>> correct? Yeah, I my thought process was was along those lines. Um, so I'm I'm rereading it in that in that context. Um, the the only part that I'm struggling with a
little bit is so I I I think maybe the original intent was to to have that singular voice, right? Be it be it the mayor, be it the manager, be it somebody. And as I I think councilwoman Toronto can attest to, the mayor and the
manager don't necessarily uh always have the uh the they're not necessarily rowing the uh in the same direction all the time. Not not this current mayor and manager, every mayor and manager, you know, in the history of town. So, I I'm
I am a little concerned about what that might do when the the mayor may have one direction and the manager may have a competing direction and now that other agency is getting um you know direction from both or input from both. I'm I'm
I'm still digesting that. I'm I'm not um I'm not offering any changes right now, but that might be something I might want to come back to in the future. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fernand. Oh, um, just a what I'm I'm I'm going to be suggesting some language ch a motion to modify the language that I think may be able to help out, but I want to go to
commissioner Bennett and then I'll come over to the town attorney. >> Okay. >> Okay. Back to what we are. We are a council manager form of government. The council comes up with what they want directed, goes directly to the manager verbatim. The manager then basically
implements what's being done. This will give the manager the ability to say we say have a uh Tony the assistant manager do the direct communication with an intergovernmental agency. That's how I'm reading this. So as long as the council
gives explicit instructions what the man what they want the manager to do it there shouldn't be any conflict. Whether the manager agrees or not is irrelevant if the council member have voted on it what they want to do. So his job as manager is to carry out the will of the
council, >> right? And and my thought process before that was adding something to the effect of as directed by the council. Um that that was the gist of you know I just didn't know if if those were going to be the words or I think the chair might have you know more lawyer substantial
language to to offer. So I'm not going to I'm >> I'm not on the clock so don't worry. >> There you go. But town attorney he is. Yeah, hold on one second. >> Sure. >> Well, while he's ruminating as, you know, as I said,
>> all right. Um, what I was thinking was >> in the in the blue sentence, the the mayor, it says the mayor, let me start again. The mayor shall be the official designated to represent the town in all dealings with other governmental entities. That's what the
charter says. Then you want to add this shall not preclude the town administration and staff from dealing. I was think you might be better off with communicating >> yeah from communicating right
>> with other governmental entities for day-to-day operations. Now, if you want to add as directed by the council, but then it becomes count becomes cumbersome because now he's got to come back every time he wants to make a call over over to the, you know, chief traffic guy,
chief traffic signal guy or whatever at the at the county. But if you put in communicating, I think that >> so what I was going to propose um instead of communicating, I was going to have conducting. And so the motion that I was going to make and I it would be and I want to you know we can have a
discussion we can amend it if necessary was to rewrite that that this shall not preclude the town administration and staff from conducting day-to-day operations with other governmental entities >> operations or communications.
I put from conducting day-to-day operations because then it's and that was my intent but I'm open to amending that other type of language but I think it's just so it's what the town administration and staff is doing is conducting day-to-day operations rather
than representing the town which is the intent of the initial sentence. >> Right. >> So that was that's that's my motion is to have that uh to to rewrite the sentence in that format. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second.
>> You get to pick, madam clerk, will you answer the second? >> I just like to hear the sentence finally, you know, finally expressed. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll rewrite it. Reread it again. This shall not preclude the town administration and staff from
conducting dayto-day operations with other governmental entities. Period. And so, we have the first we have a motion. We have a second. it will open up for discussion. >> So I think this is better. It's clear because many times there are department heads that might be in communication
with the county or other municipalities. This gives them the opportunity to do that. If it's if it doesn't include the town staff and administration, the mayor or the manager isn't going to handle each and every one of those things. needs to be brought
>> and and um just for the record, matter of the record, the reason why I use the day-to-day operations, it my opinion, it distinguishes it from representing the town. And the operations is what the town manager and their staff do. They handle the day-to-day operations rather
than representing, as I see this more of, you know, the representing the town. He's going to be the face of the town with other governmental entities. He's the one that is going to first and foremost be the first face in either Tallahassee, other municipal
entities going before the board of county commissioners. He's doing that representation. But this wouldn't preclude the town administration from as uh commissioner Mtos had referred to conducting the day-to-day operations talking to you know if we're sharing water rights or if there's any of those questions any of these questions
regarding the bridge comes up you know the mayor's not you know he's not going to be the one that has to be called every single time because those are just operational he's he's going to you know represent hey look this is what the town position is if he has to go to the city of Halia so Hia gardens or any other issues he's going to be that face at
that point he can obviously ing town managers and staff to do that piece of it and that was the reason why I selected this language is just for clarification for the recording >> is a better word >> any other just short >> just I'm I'm thinking it through right and so when you're when I'm looking at all this language I'm also thinking as a
lawyer as far as litigation in the future and conflicts so operations comes to mind maybe signing agreements and certain things like that and I just want to make a a friendly suggestion why don't we use the word maybe communicate and collaborate because when we're talking about other agencies We're not doing anything operationally.
We're need to communicate. We need to collaborate. We need to do things within the authority that council has already provided. It's just a thought. >> So what you're what you're suggesting slashrecommending is that we replace the word conducting with uh communicate and
collaborate. >> When you say instead of operations, say to communicate and collaborate. >> Okay. Okay. So take out the entire so instead of conducting day-to-day operations have it communicate and collaborate with other governmental entities. So should not tell
administration staff from right communicating and collaborating with other governmental entities >> and we should we limit that to the particular item that the council brought to the manager to take care of or is this something just u like I said the
Halia water plant shut down and uh we don't have to have the mayor you know to >> the problem with the problem if if you make it come back to the council you got to notice it you got to they have to discuss it and everything else and if there's a stop light or, you know, a traffic crosswalk light that needs to be
fixed. You don't want the manager having to >> No, I understand that those are managerial issues. I'm just want to make sure that the broad strokes uh if we're going to enter into an interlocal agreement. >> Well, he can't sign those. Those the mayor has to sign. >> That's that's why I want to make sure this language doesn't all of a sudden give him the ability to enter into
contracts. >> So, communicate and collaborate. >> So, I'm going to do I think I'm going to have >> Can I just say something really quick? emotion. >> We we've got to be we got to understand the the place where we're at at this at this time in the section that we're talking about of the u of the charter.
We're talking about the mayor and vice mayor. So this limitation is we want to make sure that whatever power the mayor has is not precluding the manager from doing his job. So >> that's true. Thank you for that. >> Of course, we're going to have to modify the managorial section too, I'm
assuming. Right. >> We'll get there. >> We'll get there. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. This is with step by steps, baby steps, and I hope we take larger steps soon. Um, so what I'm going to do, I'm going to I'm going to do a another motion.
I know we have one pending motion, but this is going to I I want to have a motion to modify my original motion to so it'll read this shall not preclude the town administration and staff from communicating and collaborating with
other governmental entities. And the motion is to replace this sentence with what was previously proposed in the original motion. >> Second. >> Have a second. Any discussion on this? >> All right. All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes.
Now we're on to the original motion now uh to incorporate uh this to replace what was originally proposed to be this shall not preclude the town administration and staff from communicating and collaborating with other governmental entities. Uh as the
main motion from I believe it was Commissioner Fernandez. Is there any discussion on that now that we're on the back on that semi- main motion? I don't even know what to revert. Yes, interior motion. I like that.
>> See, you you are good. You taught me. Appreciate it. Uh any further discussion on that? All right. Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. So, we've so we're now uh finished up with A4. Any
other discussions on A4? >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to call the question on uh a >> 22A. >> Yep. >> All right. Uh any further questions or any further discussion on the entirety of 22A? >> Seeing none, all in favor?
>> I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none, uh motion passes. Now, let's go to the 2.2B. Uh Councilman Fernandez, if you want to propose >> this. Yeah, this one's simple. Um because we don't have a a meeting.
Typically, the council doesn't hold a meeting typically in December. Um, choosing the vice mayor makes more sense to be held in in January. So, we don't have to hold a special call meeting.
>> All right. Is anyone have a proposal as or any other matters or any uh recommendations motions as to 2.2b? >> I I I truly do. So it it seems to me that the vice mayor is just a ceremonial as the mayor, right? When it comes the
position of vice mayor is just a ceremonial position just as well. So watching meetings online, coming and watching them here, it's become a debate over the last few years of you know who should be appointed vice mayor, right? Is this should it be based on seniority?
How how should it be? I'm concerned that at times it becomes very political. That position is very political without it needing it to be. So I would like to make a motion to amend 2.2B of the town charter to add new language at the very end which states that to be eligible to
serve as v vice mayor. A council council member must have served a minimum of one year in office. No council member appointed to fill a vacancy shall be eligible to serve as vice mayor. A council me council member cannot be elected vice mayor for consecutive terms
and then we can add what you wanted at the end if effective with the election to be held November 2028 at the January regular council meeting each year the council shall elect one of its members as vice mayor. >> Okay. Uh just madame clerk did do you
need him to repeat that? >> So I I'll I'll keep it to the simple. So I I just wanted to add language at the very end that says to be eligible to serve as vice mayor. >> Let's take that in chunks so that way make sure she can get >> that count. >> Sorry. >> You want me to slow down
>> for me purposely? >> No, no, no. I know. I know she writ >> you can walk it over there too. >> You you want me to walk it over? >> That would be great if you could drop it. That would be great. >> But I need for the sake of expediency.
There you go. >> Don't ask me to repeat it because I don't have it in front of me. So, >> I'll read it into the record. Motion. To be eligible to serve as vice mayor, a council member must have served a
minimum of one year in office. No council member appointed to fill a vacancy shall be eligible to serve as vice mayor. Period. A council member cannot be elected vice mayor for
consecutive terms. >> And then I think he had he added also the language from the effect >> and then effective with the election to be held on November 2028 at the January regular council meeting. Each year the council shall elect one of its members
as vice mayor. >> And that is the motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second for discussion. And I have some >> Okay. So we have a second. We'll go ahead with the discussion. Go ahead. Council or commissioner Fernandez. >> Perfect. I I think there might be another way that I think accomplishes
the the intent that you're looking for. I want to say it might be Surfside. It's it's one of one of the uh the cities in in the northeastern part of the county. What they do is um so mid midcycle to
those terms, they put it on the ballot. So they have a ballot item along with whatever other council seats are being elected and all of the sitting council members that will be on the council for the next term can be chosen by the uh by
the electors to be the vice mayor for a two-year term. Right? So it's it's I I think it gets to the to the same place because it would have to be a sitting council member. they would have to have been on the council for one term
already. I think it checks off most of most of those boxes. Just wanted to to put that out there because that was something that I was going to suggest, but I'm I'm perfectly okay with what you suggested as well. >> I'm going to go with Vice Chairs and then we'll go with Commissioner Bennett.
>> Yeah, just as a an alternate because I know for example the city of Miami Beach and several other cities do it this way as well. So given that the role of the vice mayor really is to, you know, fill the void left by the mayor if need be. Um, for example, Miami Beach during that two-year period from one election to
another, they actually have a rotating schedule, right? So every four months within that two-year period, one of the council members gets to serve as vice mayor. So, it kind of takes the politics out of it a little bit and it just automatically based on, you know,
whatever um in their case district they're assigned, uh, every member of the council within a two-year period gets to be serve in the role as vice mayor. And it takes away the, you know, the issue of who should serve for a whole year as vice mayor.
>> I actually I like that a whole lot better, actually. >> Right. I think that'll be a that'll be would be a different motion uh because it's different language. I'm going to go with Bennett and then we'll go to commission and then I'm coming to uh council.
>> Okay. Obviously I I think I see it. Um what what their intent is if we go to a mayor and four at large seats. Well, what happens? The most senior person is for a year and then the next one is for a year until all four. And eventually,
once again, everyone will be uh during their four-year term will be vice mayor at least for one year. Am I interpreting that wrong? >> Mr. Chair, just to clarify, >> vice chair, >> in that case, uh Dr. Bennett, >> you would have a two-year period, right?
So, if you've got four at large, that means that each one would serve for a six-month period. >> Um, you know, within that two-year period, because you got to look at it from one election to the next election, and since we have an election here every two years, correct? >> Yeah. then you're really dealing with a two-year period from one election to the next.
>> So he would so the vice mayor would serve for two years, not one year. >> No, in this case, each me each of the four council members would serve for six months each within that two-year period >> during that time. Okay. And it's is it what determines who does the first round, first term? Is it going to be
seniority? >> It's they've got no they do it by district. So not quite sure here how >> we have no districts at large but every council member >> seat numbers seat >> number go I assume that if there's four >> well seat numbers are left over from the
districts they're all at large now so >> yeah they still have seat numbers >> because the way that they're staggering election >> okay well all right I mean I want to hear the >> we're gonna continue with discussions >> yeah but commissioner >> thank you um so as as one of the only
sitting council members that was never vice mayor. Um, I'm going to quote my niece on this one. It it's not that serious. It's a ceremonial role and it really is someone that works very closely with the mayor because as commissioner ino said, it really is the
person that takes up the space when the mayor is not available to attend or the mayor cannot perform his duties. And I remember in recent history, I think that one of the best examples was Mayor Manny Sid and Vice Mayor Jeffrey Rodriguez where it was seamless. The events were
seamless. When one could not attend, the other one was always present. So there was good communication and the this the town was not left without representation. So even though um you know I had my my run with you know the
political aspect of never being chosen for vice mayor for political reasons, I still do think that the way that that the town does it is the best way to do it. And does it become a little political? Sometimes it does, but you need to have that camaraderie and that
that that cohesiveness between those two individuals because not only the two individuals, but the majority of the council has to, you know, get along with this person or, you know, want this person to be the representative because it it for just practical purposes, it
just seems to me that this is not a part of the charter that we need to fix because I don't really think that it's that it's that big a deal. Councilman Fernandez, >> I I agree with uh Commissioner Ruano and I wanted to add something something we can think about. Um especially when when
running the meetings as chair of the meeting, there may be and if you if you rotate that position, there may be some council members that aren't that that that may not be that well-versed with the with that part, you know, the the procedural.
So, we're going to have somebody that may not be able to run the meetings efficiently, and that that can cause an issue. So, if we just rotate them to rotate them, it may not be the right thing. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Amos, >> I was just trying to think if we had
ever had the um the vice mayor on the ballot since we were incorporated. I don't think we ever did, did we? It's always been the way it's been. I don't think it's necessary that that becomes a balloted item. >> All right. Um, and so I'll close.
>> Yeah, I I'd like to offer my perspective as as being one of the people that was on the other side of of uh my colleagues um lack of vice mayorship for for lack of a better for a better term, right? I think
there's a lot of important issues that we as a council are tasked to deal with and I think in in my particular case that entire experience being politicized was a gigantic waste of time. It was a
distraction. So much so that it's a distraction right now in in this conversation. And rather than us moving to the next topic of discussion, we're we're talking about a majority ceremonial uh role. Obviously, with the
exception of which got called into action in in this town's history, unfortunately, um you know, when there is uh a vacancy due to the mayor's inability to to perform their duties, right? So, it's largely it's it's the uh the most important thing you hope you'll
never use, right? Um I I think the fact that politics gets dragged into it is is distracting to the operation in the town. I would prefer um and and I I think you make excellent points about um you know the the camaraderie and the and the cohesiveness. But I think if there's
a if there's a way to take that entire process of the council choosing um out of the equation and makes it something that's you know set in stone and there's a there's a procedure and everybody knows what what's going into it. I I I
think it's better for everyone involved. >> Thank you. Um I just have a one point of uh clarification is uh as to and and this will go to Councilman Fernandez since you were the one that had you know that made the recommendation is as to that second sentence is what was the
reason rationale again by changing it from uh from the first council meeting in November to now have it or then starting in November 2028 to the January council meeting. What was the rational behind that? again if you can remind us >> because since uh we don't have a meeting
in December >> speaking for the record yeah since we don't have a meeting in December typically there there has to be a special call meeting called in January and that would just avoid it >> but well the the reason why is because the the way the language currently says
it says the first council meeting in the month of November which my understanding would >> well that >> well let me ask you this would is it possible I I I think I'm seeing I'm just kind of reading tea leaves. >> Is it the election interfere with that?
>> The runoffs, the potential runoffs that could go that'll push it. >> Exactly. >> That aspect of it. >> Got it. >> And the and the certification of uh the elections the the election department sometimes takes two or three weeks following the date of the election for cert certifying the results of the
election. >> Perfect. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Um and so let me give you my my my two senses. You know, is I I struggled with the first, you know, with all the whole sentence, but listening to uh, you know, my federal
commission members, especially those that have sat and been in that position, um, you know, I'm I'm not really receptive to the first and no offense um to the first sentence including that because I think it just causes a little bit of confusion in that
uh, and especially how they've explained it um, in adding qualifications at least into the charter. aspect of it because then we're bound with it for at least the next 10 years um subject to the next charter revision commission uh making their determination how they want to move forward. Um but you know I I can
understand the reason for the second part of the language. Um so I would like to make a motion uh to address your initial motion. It would be to delete that first sentence and remain
with the proposed language of the effective with the election held in November 2028 at the January regular council meeting. Each year the council shall elect one of its members as vice mayor. And that's my motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second.
>> We have a second. Any discussion on that? >> It's just bringing down the motion to have just one line. >> Correct. Yeah. No, I I see what you're saying. Basically, yeah, we moved to January because obviously elections may not be determined by the first council meeting in November, which is understandable. It doesn't invest any
additional powers to the vice mayor. It it does it seems like a I I I'm I'm in favor of something like that. Yeah, I'll go with that. >> Right. Any other discussion? Sure. My motion is to uh taking the first motion that was initially that
were still pending. Um, my motion would be to eliminate that first sentence that was added and remain with the second sentence which starts with the what's written on the proposal from Councilman Fernandez that effective with the election to be held on November 2028 at
the January regular council meeting each year, the council shall elect one of its members as vice mayor. That would be my motion to amend the earlier motion. Did you capture that madam clerk? Okay. I just want to make sure we had
>> figure out the strengths. >> It would Yeah. the the what it would do it would eliminate the additional uh language that was proposed or that that is that u commissioner Abad had proposed and remain with that second language
that was recommended by Councilman Fernandez >> that you're proposing where I started to be eligible all the way through the fact the consecutive terms you're asking to strike that right >> correct yeah adding what I'm asking is is my motion is to strike those uh
because those would be additional conditions as to eligibility for to become vice mayor. I don't think it's necessary, especially in light of the discussion that, you know, this is very ceremonial. I don't think we need to be so prescriptive within the charter. I think that the commission, you know, if
the comm the council would like to at their, you know, at their day-to-day, if they want to set their own little internal procedure or they want to set an ordinance, they can. And that's easier modified uh than having the charter, which wouldn't be revised if this is obviously approved by the voters
until uh in another 10 years. Not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying I don't think it it's I I'm not really in favor of having it as the charter. So that in in within the charter. So that's my motion. Any other discussion, Madam Clerk? Anything else?
All right. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, all opposed? >> No. >> Can we get a poll? >> Yes. We're going to Madam Clerk, can you get a poll? >> Council member Matoss. >> Yes.
>> Council member, I'm so sorry. Commissioner Mats voted yes. Commissioner Fernandez, >> no. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> no. >> Commissioner Abbad, >> no. >> Commissioner Ruano,
>> yes. >> Vice Chairman Inguansel, >> yes. >> Chairman Lysoto, >> yes. >> The amendment passes. >> All right. Thank you. So, going back to the original uh motion, which would be to uh pretty much ratify the what the
last motion was, is that to amend section 2.2B to include the language effective with the election of to be held in November 2028 at the January regular council meeting each year, the council shall elect one of its members as vice mayor. Is there any further discussion on that addition of that
language? All right, seeing none, all in favor say I. Any opposed? One one opposition. Okay. >> Noted. >> All right. All right. Anything else in section 2.2?
All right. Well, we're going to move to section 2.3. All right. Um, Councilman Fernandez, if you'd like to discuss your proposed recommendations and proposals. >> Thank you, chair. So, really the the language that's there that's being stried. Is that a word? Strike.
>> Yeah. Stricken. >> Stricken. >> Yeah. And let's do this time. That's good. Let's just do with a and then we can then we'll take it one by one. >> Okay. This is just it's obsolete because um it it's it speaks to the first election. So we don't need that language
there. >> And then you have additional language that comes in at the end of a >> through through the chair to the uh attorney. What is so language like that that only
applies to things shortly after incorporation is that supposed to stay in the charter? Is that supposed to get I mean you when you take a look at other charters I mean it's just language is it's carry over and it's just it stays
there. Um obviously if you feel that it's confusing and you wish to have uh to clean it out then maybe that's something that we can look at and how we would frame the question so that it can be done uniformly. I I would prefer to make a motion that we strike or we have
the attorneys come back with a list of items that are only applicable to activities that the town undertook shortly after incorporation or incorporation post incorporation related activities and bring forth language and
an item that removes them all rather than than try to do that piece. So, I I I'll do the analysis, but there might be language, and I'm thinking of one right now, maybe dealing with like the land development code, uh, where we took
things provisionally from Miami Day County that should probably still be in the charter, but I'll address those. I I can do that exercise for you. >> I don't think we necessarily need a motion on that. I think it's a request from the town attorney to go through. And I think it's it's a variety and I and I wouldn't limit it to just what it was from near our ad incorporation
because I think there's some language here that even from the last charter that was meant to incorporate some of the changes then that just really aren't applicable. So I think it's more of more cleanup language and making sure everything and I think that we want and we can obviously address it article by article so that way you're not doing the
entire charter for the next meeting but having it for us in advance so we can take a review. I think you know that that's a very very good point taken. Um so is there any motion at least for the initial part of a um which is what I see because I think the the second part was
adding language that was being recommended. Yes. And that's what I was alluding to. Do you want to go ahead on that? >> Yeah. So, so the second part and yeah, it it actually just would it makes reference to the the part of the transition that would need to take place if we if the voters were to vote for the
the five seats versus what what's presently the the charter seven seats. So, do you want me to read it and specify? I mean, it's it's there, but it's just part of the transition that it it would make sense. >> We'll read the recommendation that you have uh just for the record.
>> Okay. So for the election to be held in November 2028, the council member elected in seat number five shall only be elected to serve for a period of 2 years until 2030. In November 2030, council C number
five shall be abolished. Want me to go on? >> No, let's let's go with A right now. And I understand there's B. So that way we just take one at a time. Um, is there any motion on that? Um, if not, I can make I I was going to make a motion. Um,
this would keep it in line with uh what we the decision that we've made at the top. However, I would modify the language to an to to an extent is for the election to be held in November 2028. The council member elected in seat or
I'm sorry, let me start all over. for the election to be held in November 20 2028. Seat five shall be abolished in November 20 or period and then in November 2030 or and and sorry, it'll end there. So,
it's abolishing seat 5. And so that way there isn't a two-year um there isn't a you don't have someone that's going to be running for a two-year. And then because and I'll give the well let me leave it at that first as to the motion and we can discuss.
>> Mr. Chair, can can I interject just a quick point? >> Well, let me hold on one second because there's a pending motion. Let me see if there's going to be a second for discussion >> or further. There's a second for discussion. Go ahead, man Peterman. >> Yeah, by by doing that you end up with for two years you end up with a six
member uh council until 2030 when you would be abolishing another seat. Sure. Um let me give a clarification now that we have it for discussion. Um the rationale what I was thinking in my mind is um when you then have a 2-year period
of someone serving a 2-year period, now we're getting into issues of the term of office, the way it's defined um on those limitations because those are specifying four-year terms. Um, and so you could run into an issue where a person has
served one term as a four-year, now they served a second term, and now they're going into a four-year. Uh, if they get reelected, if it's the same individual and the way that it's, you know, when we're looking into the other subsequent portions, um, it wouldn't be two consecutive four-year terms. So, you
could have somebody that could potentially continue on for it many other years beyond that. And that's where I that was the intent of why I made the proposal. Give me one second. I think manager, did you have something you want to follow up with? Manager Peterman.
>> No, I I just wanted to to state having a six member uh board or council for a period of time would be would make would be complicated. we can come up with language if you'd like to recommend to you for the next meeting that would talk
more about how those transitions and that person, you know, whether they're eligible for another term and and so forth to try and alleviate some of your concerns. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Bennett. >> Yeah, good point though. >> Correct. Six members. If you get a deadlock vote 33, where do you go?
>> So, the motion fails. >> Well, you can state that, but then you could say, you know, 33, you might need a supermajority then or something. Also, we have a contingency clause going on here. This >> just real quick just address that point, Mr. Town Manager. If there's a if there's a deadlock on any vote, it would
always go it it just the motion fails. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the other part is contingency. Obviously, this change is only contingent upon the first change, which means we eliminate two seats. >> And what happens if our electorate decides to not eliminate the two seats?
But now we have this clause in here. Well, that's why we have learn it attorneys that would draft the language to combine it and and have them all interrelate. >> Yeah, that's that's the important part because we have a contingency clause going on now. >> Yeah. Well, a lot of what the changes are going to be contingent about other
changes >> the way that our charter reads, >> these changes definitely have to be made on the same item as as that first section that that we amended. Otherwise, it it makes no sense. Right.
>> Okay. Right. Any other discussion? >> Yeah. I mean, so so being one of the three that voted against going to five, but I understand how it works. I mean, I do worry. I I think that going to six council members, the risk of constantly, not that I think it will happen, you
know, especially with this council. I don't think it would definitely happen, but the risk outweighs the reward of I mean, listen, if I'm going to run for that seat, I know it's for two years ahead of time. I don't see what the issue is. You know what I'm saying? I'm being warned beforehand. This is a two-year term. I can choose to run for
the seat or I can choose to run for any of the other seats. >> But running the risk of spending two years deadlocked. >> Yeah. >> I think >> and and I would and and just a quick response to that is you know like I said is I'm open to discussion. I I want to hear from you guys. You guys, these are
very valid points is my intent is just merely to avoid the issue of having you know because it it's now complicate in my opinion it's going to complicate terms of office and a couple of bunch of provisions that are going to follow and it makes a in my opinion made it a little harder to be able to to clean that up. This is definitely not the
first time that this has occurred at at a municipality. So, you know, to the extent that the uh the town attorneys can maybe provide us an opinion on that, what's occurred in other entities of how they've handled the reduction in numbers of any of their members from like either
seven or eight or any other number down smaller and how they handled that. >> You usually the way that they do it is they'll signify a seed, okay, well, we're, you know, this seed or this seat is is going to be abolished going forward and then through attrition that seat just eventually just pays out.
Yeah, >> that's usually the way that it works, >> right? So, let's say you have someone that's already in seat five and seat five is the one that we're eliminating and seat six. Then, you know, when that term ends, that seat no longer goes for re-election. It's over and so forth.
>> Great. >> And what's interesting is Sorry, >> go ahead council council Fernandez and then we're going to Commissioner Fernandez. So I I I was >> councilman I'm smashing sorry >> I just had a point to make that that this language would actually be obsolete
once this were to take place at some point. >> Sure. >> Okay. You know >> just be obsolete. >> No I'm going to Okay, Commissioner Fernandez. Go ahead. >> So I I only heard your uh your com your comments partially because I was walking back in from the from the restroom. Uh,
if I understood correctly, your your reservation here was how that would impact the the term limits and if somebody runs for that for that two-year seat, would that then preclude them from running for another four or was is that >> we're going to have to make changes or
add language to the charter that'll clarify that aspect of it or we would have to at some point uh and there's subsequent terms as well throughout the charter that govern or that are controlled by that uh by the terms that
are being served by those individuals. So there'd be a lot more changes that we would have to do by keeping it in as a two-year for clarification purposes because I think there'd be potential for ambiguity within the charter. >> Right. So, one one potential way to I think fix most of that is the section where it says if the mayor or council
member is elected uh to appoint or appointed to fill a partial term in office. Maybe if that gets changed to a term less than four years, then that fixes the subsequent issues with that 2-year term and the term limits. Just
something something to I I know the uh the town attorney is going to look into it anyway. I mean, the issue of the two-year term as as written is is is a little complicated. I think it just should be you target the seed and just naturally through attrition, you know, that that's
there's there's an abolishment of that seat. That that would be my my suggestion. Any other discussion as All right. So, I'll take it up on the motion. Um on the pending motion
yes we did have a second house Marilyn. Uh uh Commissioner Rouano I'll get I'll get it by the by May I'll be there. >> All right. All in favor say I. Any opposed?
Seeing none. The motion passes. And you know I just for clarification purpose I just want to remind everybody is like you know I'm very well open that later on if we need to rethink any of our languages as we see how it impacts the rest of the articles we can obviously review this and you know as
the attorney town attorney prepares this uh going to 5B. I think this one's a little simpler. and go ahead continues on to to eliminate and and to eliminate those two seats, right? For the election to be held in November
2030, there shall be no election for council seat number six and the seat shall be abolished. All right. Is there a motion? I'll move it. All right. Is there a second?
>> I'll second it. There's a second by Commissioner Abad. Is there any discussion? Well, basically it said all these are going to be obsolete if the first um um amendment or the first um five years the five seat council comes to fruition, right? So all these are just automatic
to be eliminated. >> We need it in the right we need it in writing just if it doesn't exist. >> Well, I think it provides a mechanism uh that outlines how that attrition will occur. That's so is guiding rather than deferring to the council. This will allow the charter to regulate how that
attrition will occur. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, all in favor of the motion. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. >> All right. Uh, now going to and it looks like Commissioner Fernandez
the next edit. I believe you guys had uh Yes. >> Yeah. >> Since we added C, now this one goes to >> right is going to be move modified. The seats council members shall serve in seats numbered 1 through six collectively seats until 2030. Effective
in 2030, council members shall serve in seats numbered 1 through four collectively seats and then that language continues. >> All right. Is there any motion? >> I'll move it. >> I'll second it. Motion to adopt. Yeah.
>> And mo you guys you second the motion. >> Yeah, I second it. Commissioner Bennett. All right. Is there any discussion? >> Seeing no discussion, all in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none. Motion passes. All right. Uh the next recommendation, Councilman Fernandez.
>> Again, in in an attempt to remove those seats. Uh going to where are we at here? Going to be elected at large. Seats one through six. All council all members of the council should be elected at large. So moved.
>> All right. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. Commissioner MTO. Any discussion? Seeing none. Uh, all in favor say I. >> Any oppose? >> No. >> One. Dr. Commissioner Bennett wants the
no. >> No. My apologies. I just hear it from my right side. I wasn't looking. >> Uh, any other nos? This one. And so motion passes. Moving forward to uh the next section.
>> Is that G? >> Yes. The new G. >> The new G. Term term of office. No person shall serve as mayor or as council member for more than two consecutive orear terms not with notwithstanding the above. If
>> a person >> Yeah. a person is elected as a council member and serves a full term, that person shall be eligible to be elected as mayor. And the rest of it is the present charter. >> All right. Is do we have a motion?
>> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by the vice vice chair. Uh now open for discussion. >> So I would like to amend that motion. Can I do that or just start the discussion? Oh, you can file a motion to >> So I would like to amend it to reflect
that the two consecutive four year terms in a lifetime >> in a lifetime. We don't need to be retreading politicians. You know, >> just before you make the motion, just as a point of clarification, I think it might be easier to just say two >> terms,
>> four-year terms rather than consecutive >> because then it's just two year two four-year terms. >> I'm fine with that. Okay. Do you have the motion, Madam Click? >> So, yes, he's deleting the word consecutive.
>> So, discussion, it would be for >> for more than two four-year terms. >> Yes. And >> consecutive. >> Yes. And is it does your motion include the subsequent language? A person elected as council member serves a full term, that person shall be eligible as
an elected mayor as well. Are you including that in your motion? >> No, but that's fine. Once you serve your four years in the council, you want to run for mayor. >> Okay. >> Not preclude you. >> Yeah. My apology. I actually Yeah, you're you're you're amending the original motion. So So sticking to that. So you're amending the original motion
to so it reads only two conse or two four-year terms would be your the motion. Is there a second to that motion? >> I'll second that. >> Second by Dr. Bennett. Any discussion on that limited motion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I.
Any opposed? One. Commissioner. No. Commissioner Romano. All right. The motion passes. Now on to the original motion, which is the addition of the language that is two four-year terms and that notwithstanding
the above, if a person is elected as council member and serves a full term, that person shall be eligible to be elected as mayor. Any discussion on that? >> Yeah, I have some discussion. Like discuss. So, let me see. I'm just want to see if I get this right. So, a
council member may serve two four-year terms at any randomness. In other words, they may do it for four years, sit out for four years, and come back and and serve another four years, but after that, they can't serve anymore. Is is that what I'm understanding? Or can you
because now now once again, because now we took out consecutive. So, in other words, you you'd sit out for four years and you come back or would it be two years? >> I mean, how long would you sit out? I'll defer the I I I I concur, but I want to defer to the town attorney on that interpretation. >> You repeat the question.
>> Good question. Yeah. I mean, I want to know is if a council member serves four years >> and then decides to sit out for two years and then he can serve another four years and then sits out another two years and then can do four more years. In other words, is is this what I'm
reading into this? >> Two terms. >> No terms. Period. You're you're allowed to have two consecutive terms. >> Well, no, consecutive was removed. That was that was that motion. >> If it's if you remove consecutive, then it means two terms. That's it. Two terms
and you're done. >> So, that means for life. In other words, two terms, you're out. >> Correct. >> Okay, that's good. And then the um the other issue that I had was um you can do two years as a council member and then you can still do another term as mayor,
two terms as mayor. So, correct. They could be technically on for 16 years straight. >> Yes. >> I just making sure I got that clear. Thank you. >> Not a problem. Any other discussion? Vice Mayor Sure. >> Just question. So the new language says a person is elected as council member
and serves a full term. So that means that if they only serve two years, they could not file to run for mayor. They'd have to serve a full four years. Mr. Town attorney. >> Interesting question. The way
>> say that one more time, please. >> Well, the the way this is proposed, it says a person is elected as council member and serves a full term, implying that's four years, >> correct? >> That if they only served two years and there's an election, they could not
vacate their council position to run for mayor. I Yeah, I don't. So, you're saying they're four years? No, I'm I'm asking a question. This says >> like look here where it says the proposed language says
>> right the the added language a person is elected as a council member and serves a full term. >> Right. That person shall be eligible to be elected as mayor. Okay. >> I believe he's asking does that preclude a person that serves less than a full
term? But isn't a term considered two years in a day or more than two years? >> Well, well, I think it's and I understand what the question is. >> So, one Yeah, give me one second. The town attorney. >> So, you're the question is if if they
served less, >> this says full term, >> right? >> So, if they serve less than a full, are they eligible >> to be elected as mayor? >> Would they be precluded from running for I I believe you're correct. They would be procluded from serving as mayor. So, do we want to say fullterm or right
because the intent there? Right. >> Right. That that's the question. >> I'm I'm not sure. That's that's the new question. So, I guess we have to ask Mr. Fernandez, what is the intention? >> Councilman Fernandez. >> I think as it was written, it would be it would be to to avoid somebody from running for mayor without without having
served the full four years. I mean, I'm I'll leave that up to you guys. >> So, could be four years or it could be less than four years. It all depends if the person's appointed and then they you know, >> right? So you could have that that circumstance as well, >> Mr. Chair.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Manager Peterman. >> Yeah. One way that you can maybe just not have to define it here is just put um if a person is elected as a council member and is term limited out,
something to that effect, that person shall be eligible to be elected as mayor. That way you don't have to uh run through all the different scenarios. You'll define that you know term limited out somewhere else with regard to partial terms and all that. So if you
just put something to that effect and you know the attorneys may be able to make it you know prettier words >> that that's how that's how I read into it when I looked at it the the first time which you know to to lay it out more cleanly it would be a person would be eligible for two terms as a council
member and no more than two terms as mayor like some something to that effect. Yeah, >> I'll brief discussion. No, I know >> because I I I'm going to propose I think I have some language that I think that'll be able to fix that. >> I just have just I have a question. Maybe to the attorney. So, hypothetical
I know we can do this. Somebody is elected in the off year when the mayor is not up for election. He serves two years and he decides I want to be mayor now. Can he only since he only served two years on the council, can he run for mayor? Would there be any restriction from him running for mayor? >> If you're adopting this language, then
yes. So, so he wouldn't be able to. So, you'd be that would be that's going to be a that would be a major lawsuit. I I see that as a major problem. I >> I mean, go a step further. The way that I read it, if you haven't served as a council member, you wouldn't be able to run for mayor either, right? And so, you
could have a council where no one wants to run for mayor and then what do you you have a charter crisis on your hands. >> Exactly. That also means that you have to be a council member in order to be qualified to become mayor. >> You have to make it open to anybody. I don't think that that was the intent of that particular sentence.
>> I think the intent was to allow someone to serve yes two terms and still run for mayor. So, I'm going to have a motion that I'm going to propose to rewrite that second part of it that it'll read, "Notwithstanding the above,
any terms served as councilman or mayor shall not impact >> No, just as councilman, >> any term served as a council person shall not impact the ability to serve." I think it should be both ways because
if someone ends up saying, "Hey, look, I've served one year as term as council member and then goes to mayor," it shouldn't preclude them from being able to go back as council member. That's why I'm just want to have it reciprocal because I think Councilman Fernandez and that's where so any terms served as
councilman or mayor shall not impact the term limitations for the other position. That's my motion. And if we want, we can, you know, I'm willing to take modifications. Someone has better language for that. But that's
the motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second for discussion. >> Second further discussion. >> I'm sorry. Perhaps perhaps adding language that says no one individual can serve more than two terms as council member and two terms as mayor.
Two in right in total. I mean, I I I disagree. I disagree with it entirely because I think that you should be able to, you know, sit out one term and come back and run again. So, I'm I'm not in favor of it in general, but maybe to clarify the language, two terms as council member and two terms as mayor in
total. >> Yeah, I agree. I think we all understand what the issue is. Perhaps the town attorney can take a stab at just clarifying. You know, we know the intent is that you should be able to serve as a council person for two terms and you should be able to serve as mayor for two
terms. You could serve as council for two terms and then mayor for two terms as Dr. Bennett alluded to for a total of 16 years. You could serve as a council person for four years. >> Yeah. >> Or maybe two years and then run for mayor. Um or you could serve, you know,
any any mix of that. and and it could be less than than the full four years depending on if you're appointed depending on how you you come into the position. So, >> but also not withstanding anybody who wants to run for mayor whether they have any council experience whatsoever should are still able to run. We just got to
make sure it doesn't limit the scope of the of the office. >> Although town attorney, I will on that point, you know, if you have someone that serves as a council person for two years, then runs as mayor and is elected mayor, right? Or maybe they served the full term, the full four years and then
maybe two years, which was the case of our current mayor actually, right? I believe our current mayor served for four years and then two term, right? We need to make sure the term is defined so that in that instance, that person, person who now served as mayor for
perhaps eight years can come back and say, "Oh, I only served two years, so I can serve another term." Correct. It did. Right. You understand? >> I do. I do. And I I believe that elsewhere that is is defined a little bit better as far as terms and and how
how many you can >> Right. >> But yeah. >> Okay. I agree. >> All right. So, we have a and yes. Yeah. >> I I know I understand where we're going and that's why we need to have these discussions because we're finding the the language isn't always reflective of
the intent. So, um, we have a pending motion right now from No, my there's right now my motion that I had to amend the second part of the language. >> Yes. And so,
>> do you mind repeating that motion, please? >> Yeah. >> Do you need me to restate it? Okay. The motion is to amend the second portion of the language of the original motion.
That is to read the current notwithstanding the above any terms served as councilman or mayor shall not impact the term limits for the other position.
All right. So, all in favor of that amendment motion say I. >> Any opposed? >> I'm gonna have to oppose it only because I don't understand it. No, I I need to see it in writing. >> I don't think it's worded the way intent is. >> I mean, I hate to say we'll have to come
back to this one because it is a little convoluted >> and I'm I'm pretty smart, but this is a little bit beyond me. >> Okay, let's do I mean, I think the the motion is pretty much you want to make sure that it's eight years in total. You can't serve as council member more than that and eight years in total as mayor. You can't serve more than that. >> That's it.
>> And we can >> Yeah. Well, >> yeah, you can serve as mayor and then council member, council member, the mayor. >> Basically, you're setting up term limits. This is a term limit issue. >> Yeah. Yes. >> I mean, I just I don't see it as term I don't see it defined. >> Just from a clarification purposes that So, we have the one pending motion. The reason why I felt like I need to amend
it again. I didn't want to go through another amendment, but I just want to get through this motion so we can get back to the original motion and then we can if we need to clarify the language further. Um so I did we call let's do the poll so that way we clear as to the current motion of amending the second
language that I read. >> So the amendment just offered by chairman Leoto which was seconded by commissioner Ruano. Commissioner Ruano. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Matos.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Fernandez. >> No. Commissioner Bennett, >> I may have to say no. I'm still confused. Sorry. >> Commissioner Abad, >> no. >> Vice Chairman Inguanso, >> no.
>> Chair Leto, >> yes. >> The amendment is >> And I think you have Commissioner Moss. Did you know? >> Oh, you did vote. Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear. >> Chairman voting yes. And the amendment fails. the the purpose of my new vote was to get us
in the proper posture quicker to be able to Yeah, exactly. >> Fine. Trust me, I'm not I don't take any offense because I think based on the discussion, I think that we we could have another amendment. U Vice Chair or Commissioner Fernandez, I think you guys may have suggested you guys have some
language. I think it's maybe just having language that is just specific to >> mayor suggestion. >> Sure. I I think the attorney understands the direction here. I think, you know, something needs to be drafted to capture
that sentiment. But I think you're clear. The only caveat I would have, Mr. Town attorney, is you know, you said a maximum of eight years. But the doubt in my mind is the current situation where we had a council person who served four years and then two years. Does that
negate that individual from somehow coming back and being able to serve two years somehow? You understand, >> right? And and >> four year term. >> And so then the question becomes and that I'll I'll offer some language and some clarification is what is considered
a full term? So in reality, we're not talking about years. I said years, but really I'm talking about terms. What does that full term look like? Uh and then there can only be two full terms of mayor and two full terms as council member. >> And maybe it's not full terms. Maybe it's just terms, right? Because a full term would imply that you serve the full
four years, >> right? And you could theoretically only serve two years. >> What does that do to that person? >> So my mind >> situation if the mayor after he serves assuming he gets elected to another term four years he's now served as mayor for
eight years but he only served as councilman for six years. What does that 2-year period provide him an opportunity to do? >> But but the problem is and and that's where I think you know the question lies is a a term is four. A term is not two.
So you can't just run for a partial term. You either run for a full term or not. So you've already served two. You can't serve two more. You you've you've already forfeited those years. And I think that that's what's what's going to be >> depends on special elections. >> It depends on special elections, depends on appointments, right? >> So there's other factors that go into
it. So when I'm looking at full term, >> if if you've forfeited, say because you want to run for mayor after two years, you you've in my mind, you've served your full term. >> All right. So, I just want one just one point that I just want to say is it seems that there's a lot of questions of this aspect. So, we're on the main
motion of amending this language. If that fails, I think it doesn't it doesn't preclude us from not going back to this aspect. As I've stated before, I think it'd be, you know, if it does fail, then we can go back and ask the town attorney to go ahead and propose some language that we can consider for the next meeting. >> So, so if I can offer uh just a
suggestion, my understanding of the sentiment of all of you is that you're in agreement. You don't want it to be that the person can go ahead and then have an off year after they've served two full terms and then come back to the council. You want to nip that in the butt and make sure that there's term limits. That's the understanding.
>> But I think we voted on that already, right? The motion was done. We voted on that. >> Right. Great. So now the question is what does that look like and and what does that full term look like? And and and as a person that's only served two years, are they precluded from coming back and serving another two years? And
so if you want me to, I can come back and offer language if that's a direction that you want to go in. >> So let me ask you a simple question though. Let's talk about the current situation. Let's talk about the current vice mayor, right? So he ran a special election. >> Mhm. >> Right. Is that considered a full term? >> So now he can run again for four more
years, right? >> He can. >> So he in total he did like what six and a half something like that. >> Would he be able to run a third time? >> I don't believe so. >> So >> because the way that the code is written, it depends. if there's more than six months left or less than six
months and that what's it creates the caveat where you can run more you can run less and that's why I'm saying if you allow me to come back and explain what that term is because I think that that's the important definition that you're looking for what is that full term you you you've given me that you're I think all in unison and in concert
that you're okay with two terms per council two terms for mayor the question is what is the definition of a term >> can can I add some additional homework cuz you know And I I know you love nothing better. Commissioner, so if memory serves me, there was there was a
a lawsuit last year in the city of Miami regarding whether or not these term limits apply retroactively. So when you do that and bring language, can you also research and bring language to that effect? um one way or the other. I'm not
saying I prefer it one way or the other, but I think we could find an issue where, you know, council people that have served in the in the past that did not serve under those rules might take offense to the fact that they are now procluded from running in the future.
>> That's a good point. I will we'll do >> Okay, so let's just go ahead and vote on this motion. >> I still have something to add. >> I've been holding my hand up for a while, Commission. >> Okay. Well, go for it. We're doing the Okay, good. What about we have a res the
resign to run clause? In other words, now he's done two years. Does he have to sign the resign to run? Does that preclude him from then can then run for mayor for four or eight years and then come back and says, "I didn't do a full term. I only did a half term." Do I get two more terms as a commissioner, as a
councilman? >> Sure. >> So, now you're up to 18 years theoretically. >> Yeah. So, as I'm understanding from everybody here as Mr. town attorney is that they would like to have language that would be able to clearly delineate uh how the terms will be defined or and
or applied in determining these this this term limitation. So that's the question. >> Okay, >> correct. >> That would correct. I just want now we have a theoretical resign to run clause. Does that preclude him from running another? In other words, you stay all
the >> You decided to run for another office. Have you now forfeited two more years and in perpetuity? >> Yeah. So, I think he's going to cover all the different potential aspects of it uh that could be implicated there. So, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to call the motion.
>> Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry. I don't mean for this because I believe the horse is dead. But I'm kind of thinking this a little bit through. >> It's rotted. >> You know, going back to your point, Mr. attorney about the full. You know, it's >> it's important to define full because in my mind, I may not, you know,
Councilwoman Roro brought up the fact that there's a special election. >> So maybe it should be two full terms, right? And if you don't serve two full terms, meaning two four-year terms for a total of eight years, that perhaps you should be eligible to run that you
should be able to serve two full terms. So if you only serve two because of a special election or any other circumstance that you should have the ability. If you look at the US Constitution that you alluded to earlier, that's the cause for the vice president, right? It's I can't remember which amendment, but one of the amendments says that you know if the
vice president serves for uh you know a period of time as vice president or as president that because he succeeded a president then he has the ability to serve another term. So yeah, so I wouldn't be opposed to >> the language being two full terms.
>> Think you get me? >> Manager Peterman. >> Yeah. >> If you go to if you go to the end of that paragraph, there is language there that talks about partial terms and what constitutes a partial term. It's >> 2.3 >> years or more or less than two years.
>> Sure. No, no, I I fully understand. And so I I think we're we're at the point and then and you you know I'm sorry I know that we're you it's not the beating the the dead horse. I think is where we want to give the opportunity to the town attorney to be able language. I would just recommend if any of you guys come up with some language that you think such as maybe even incorporating
something that uh adopting language that may be in the US constitution that works is send it over to him. I think it'll be helpful for him to just take a look at it and but nonetheless we're on the original motion which was to amend this section uh which includes both the the
initial that that it'll be more than two terms two four-year terms and with that second language that we've been in full discussion right now. So I'm going to call that all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? No.
I said no. On on the original not to you cannot move forward. >> Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. >> I'm a little >> Can can the clerk please repeat the motion that we're voting on? >> Sure. >> I'm sorry. I meant to say >> so would I recall from the motion. >> It wasn't my motion because this one's
going back to >> to commission but >> no because we we we've amended we went through amendments to it and that failed. So we're now back up to your original motion. It was the motion. I believe the motion
on the table was um drafted by coun by Commissioner Fernandez. Um if a person is elected as a council member and serves a full term, but then when you were having that discussion, then you went to an amendment by the chair and by
commissioner Ruano which failed and now you gave direction to the town attorney to draft language on this second section of 2.3G. What I have in my notes that passed was
the motion by Commissioner Abad, which was seconded by Commissioner Bennett, which was to remove the word consecutive from the first sentence, which would read, and this is what passed. No person
shall serve as mayor or as council member for more than two four-year terms. The word consecutive was removed. That one passed. Then the discussion started with notwithstanding the above
if and all this discussion. So >> So was that so my for my clarification then cuz make sure that I'm understanding. So that second portion was not included in the original that passed cuz my how I'm remembering it and I could be wrong. I thought that there was the entire I had then moved to to
eliminate and replace the language that was secondary and that's what then ended up failing and then we were back on the full motion as and that's where we're at now. That's what how I was understanding it >> and somewhere in between there I think there was intent to give the the town
attorney direction. It wasn't formalized as a motion but there was intent by the vice chair to give him direction to bring it back. And and for clarification, that was the reason why I was voting no on the main motion. So that one, that one just simply fails with the intent of coming back >> for him to give us an entire because he
may need to change the whole entire paragraph >> and that's why I I thought we were going back to that original motion. That's that's my understanding of where we were. But if you know the clerk if if that the >> you want to clarify if you're all agreeing which I took notes that you all
agreed to give direction to the town attorney to come back with um proper language addressing full term addressing um definitions if you want to give that direction and we can have a motion to that. I think you all gave direction
already and what I have for sure that passed was the amendment by Commissioner Abad which was seconded by Bennett by Commissioner Bennett >> and what was the language that it was >> and that one was no person shall serve
as mayor or as council member for more than two four-year terms. The consecutive was removed. >> Okay, so that was true. Okay, thank you. Now we're we're clear. And so there is no pending motion from what I see now. >> Right. So just to clarify, I'm sorry cuz
I think I'm going to So the last motion that we voted on that I didn't vote. I didn't know what the motion was. There was really >> there was no pending motion. No, I it was my it was my confusion. Okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify. I want to make sure that I >> Not a problem. I take I take full responsibility for the >> And I would like to I'd like to make a motion.
>> I just like I'm following along. I'm impressed that I was able to, you know. Okay. I'd just like to make a motion that essentially it says that this that the town attorney drafts language for our review to make sure that the intent of what we were doing is codified in the
language. >> I'll second. >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a second. Any discuss further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. All right, now let's go to section 2.4 qualifications. I don't see anything
from recommended from uh commissioner or councilman Fernandez. Does anyone else have any discussions or recommendations as to um section 2.4? All right. I have one uh very simple is
that in the one, two, three, fourth line down. Um the sentence that start well it starts at the the end of the three it says a person may not be a candidate for council and mayor in the same election. My motion would be to replace the word council for council member because I
believe that's what is intended because it's inclusive. So that's my motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. Now going to section 2.5, vacancies. And
so uh let's go let's go at least through A. I didn't see any uh recommendations from Commissioner uh Councilman Fernandez. Anybody have any discussions on A? All right. Any motions? All right. So,
I'd like to make a motion to uh let me see how I had written this in an A. All right. Uh there was two changes or three changes that I was recommending is to rewrite the paragraph as it current reads the office of council member and
then adding the language or mayor shall become vacant upon his or her death resignation striking the word disability. suspension, comma, or removal from office in any manner authorized by law
or as otherwise provided for by law adding that language or by forfeiture of his or her office. That is my motion and I can you know if someone wants to second I can go and explain the motion >> it's been second and so in for
discussion the reason is um I think vacancies it says council member as we had already defined we need to include the word mayor on that aspect of it the reason of removing the word disability is because it's a very general term um there's not defined anywhere else and I
think the way it reads here a person could say hey look I've broken my arm and someone could raise up oh now he's he has a disability ility or he's lost an appendage or some other issue that is a physical that is not a mental impairment and that would automatically because this is a shall uh create a
vacancy. So that's the reason why I'm removing that disability. But to be able to capture it, um because in my discussions with the town attorney, there is already in Florida statutes a provision that uh requires vacation of of position based on mental
incapacity. And that's why I added the language or as otherwise provided for by law. So it's not that it's removing the disability, but rather focusing what is already in state law and incorporating that into uh the charter. And that's the discussion uh items. Anyone else has for discussion?
>> Yeah. Well, the only thing I would like to see if that for any reason he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office. I mean, you can lump that in if you want with disability if you want, but basically he's saying if he can't attend or if he's unable to attend because of some either physical or
emotional problem, you know, I mean, it goes down to, you know, if he cannot fulfill the duties of the office he holds. >> Mr. town attorney. Um, like I I I understand what you're trying to say. I'm I'm I I I read this section as
that's the intent by implication, but I'd like to hear from the town attorney. Do you think we would need to add that type of language? I >> I think that this Florida statute pretty much covers the different sections that automatically remove someone from um the
seat of of being a mayor, I think, or an elected official for that matter. Um, I think we have to be careful in in not adding too much or being too wordy and as not to create a conflict with what already is in in Florida statute. There have been cases out there where there
has been some conflict between what a charter says and what is out there as Florida statute and then it creates a problem and can create litigation. >> So you you'd like to add as per Florida statute. In other words, >> as per Florida law. >> Well, I understand that. But once again,
a lay person may look at this. This the constitution is written for the lay people. It's not written for legals. Legal legals. >> And if you're going to have if you're going to stay well, it shouldn't be. It's written for the people. This is the people's document, right? Okay. >> I'm trying to say that, you know, they may
want to know what the limitations are in some way. So, if you if you quote the specific Florida statute as per Florida statute, whatever is 122.2. problem with doing that is that Florida statutes change all the time. Uh and and the numbering may change. Um so I mean I I
would if you want to put as per Florida law, I'm I'm fine with that. >> Yeah, I'm the suggestion was or as otherwise provided by law. We can if you want to designate Florida law. >> Well, I don't want I don't want to limit to Florida law. I'd like to have it make sure it's uh federal law, too.
>> Yeah. I I would say more applicable law because, you know, we get into people determining what's law, what's not law. So then if uh you know, Commissioner Fernandez, are you making a motion to
amend the language to add applicable before law? >> That sounds like a great idea. >> Yes. >> All right. Is there a second to that motion? >> I'll second that motion. >> We have a second. Is there any discussion on adding the word applicable? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Seeing none. All right,
we're back on the original motion of adding the language of or mayor striking disability and as otherwise provided by applicable law. >> Is there any further discussion on that aspect? >> Seeing none, uh all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion
passes. Anything else as to section 2.5A? Seeing none, we're going to go to 2.5B, uh forfeerture of office. Um let's start with uh B1
uh just so we can take these in section uh section subsections B1. Is there any recommendations? Um my motion I would like to make a motion in that first sentence is to replace council the word a council member with a member of the council. Uh
so that way it simply covers both the council member and the mayor. Uh so that is my motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none, motion passes. Anything else on B1? Seeing no none,
we'll go to B2. All right. B2. Let's see. >> All right. I believe there is commission Councilman Fernandez. >> Yeah, this one's simple. I think it happened. It's to to clarify what is an
absent an absence, excuse me. Um I think it happened in the previous council where uh council member showed up um was present during roll call and then left subsequently after and somehow was he
was he was officially considered present for the meeting. So it's just to clarify it. That's it. >> Okay. >> All right. Is there a motion? >> I I will uh I'll move it for discussion, but I definitely have comments. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> I'll second it for discussion. >> We have a second. All right. Go ahead, Commissioner Fernandez. >> So, the the one thing that struck out um to to me when I read it and and I would be very careful to to I I understand the the intent of it. I I'm in favor of the
intent of it. Uh but to to the attorney, um I I I would like a little bit of clarification. I'm I'm afraid that this line might get misused, particularly when it comes to the consent calendar
and and somebody considering that if you were absent, you know, from consent, you therefore missed 16 agenda items that are then 50% of the meeting, right? So I I I would like that language cleaned up
a little. the way that if it is the will of this this body to adopt something along those lines. I can tell you that I've seen this firsthand in other uh in other you know places here in Miami County and
and it's uh very difficult when it's not well defined as to did the person miss you know 25% you know was it were they uh present but they were upstairs in the office and they weren't in chambers and so was that absence of 25% uh the zoom
count I mean all sorts of things so I'm not sure that in the charter should be that prescript descriptive. So what I would suggest is if you do want to adopt something like this, you do so but instructing that the uh definitions of what constitutes 25% shall be adopted by
ordinance or something to that effect. >> The the other question that I wanted to ask is >> I want to be very prescriptive in the charter. >> Got it. The other question that I wanted to ask is what what exactly constitutes good cause, right? That that is very
very slippery like good cause you know what might be good cause for me might not be good co you know I I I would like a better definition of that >> so I will just one one that I reflect because I did read that and I saw that
aspect of about the good cause um even though that's not part of the motion right here um but you know just real quick is that in three procedures the second sentence says the burden of establishing good cause shall be on the council member in question provided however that any council member may be
at any time. Uh, am I skipping lines? Yes. Provide that any council member may at any time during any duly held meeting move to establish good cause for absence of him or herself or the absence of any other council member for any past or
present future meetings. Which motion if carried shall be conclusive? Uh, so to me it it defers to the I think that charter provision just defers to the council to determine what good cause they're amongst themselves. are going to determine what good cause is. >> Yeah. Again, I I I completely agree with
you, chair. The if you want to adopt this as a general policy, that's fine, but instruct that the council has to then create an ordinance. And the ordinance can be as prescriptive as you want. Just I wouldn't have this be so prescriptive. >> Yeah. And I want I'll have one comment
then we'll go over to Councilwoman or Commissioner Ruano is um in reading this I think it'll cause even if we were to be more prescriptive I think you run into an issue with you know potentially with operation of Robert's rules of order from my understanding is that once
you're present you're deemed present until there's a call uh by the body to determine for him again and determine whether or not a council member is present otherwise. That's my my recollection. I haven't looked at it uh at all for this purpose, but my recollection is you're always present uh
once you've established presence to begin with until there's a if some unless someone questions whether or not now quorum and who's present for the meeting for for official for the record. >> You you're correct and and under Robert's rules of order, I think there's
and I'm trying to remember the mechanism. I don't have it in front of me where you can call for for a roll call and then if you're not present you can actually send for the person to be brought back and there's different rules on on that. Um but always remember that our rules can supplement or change
modify Robert's rules. That's a way that the the council rules are are established. So you start with the premise that you have Robert's rules but then you can be modified and that would supersede. >> Yeah. So my question was is just to make sure that in part of this discussion you understand that now we're going to
modify this would modify Robert's rules of orders and we'd have to remember that we've modified Robert's rules of order in the town charter so when we're in practice in the event it would come up >> okay >> ask a question attorney vice >> chair and then we're going to
>> so I'm reading this provision and Lorenzo I'm a little confused what's the difference between the first part of that clause and the second part of the clause. In both it says if you miss three meetings, you know that that's an issue, right? Except in the first part it says within
one calendar year, but in the second part it says whether or not during the same calendar year. I'm not quite sure what the difference is between the the first sentence and the second sentence. >> And commissioner, what are you are you looking at B2 forfeite by absence? Yeah, it says a council member shall be subject to forfeite of his or her office
in the discretion of the remaining council members if he or she is absent without good cause from any three regular council meetings of the council during any calendar year or if he or she is absent without good cause from any three consecutive regular council meetings of the council whether or not
during the same calendar year. >> So if you miss uh November, December, and January, it would trigger. If if not, you could in theory miss four days and still be correct. You could miss >> January, June, and November, and that's
three. >> That would trigger. Correct. >> Or you could miss >> But if you missed November, December, January, and February of of different years, >> okay? >> Right. Then you would be in compliance, but you will have missed four consecutive
>> council meetings. And just for further clarification, how I'm reading it, and obviously I'll defer to the town attorney if he sees otherwise, what this last sentence does is define what an absence would be. So potentially, while you may have attended, if you didn't attend for 25%
of the time, that could also be counted against you. So it's not just fully missing a full. It's like if you only stayed for the, you know, the pledge of allegiance and then you left >> and then and that would be counted as an absence for you. the the other slippery slope being
attending virtually, counting or not counting. That might be another thing you might want to clarify. >> Yeah, I I I completely agree. You know, you could be upstairs in your office on Zoom but not in council chambers. Is that
>> being absent? You know, because >> that that was the issue. Exactly. Will Zoom meetings be considered uh acceptable attendance? Here's the issue. Technically speaking, if every commissioner wants to stay at home and we have everybody on a Zoom meeting and somebody comes here to speak to empty chairs, is that what we want to
represent? >> I think state >> Well, that's the question. >> I'm sorry. The quorum now goes down because we have if if we adopt the the smaller council, the quorum goes down to three, right? >> Yes.
>> Once again, yeah, you have to have physical presence. >> You have to have quorum in the chambers. Correct. Correct. Then you can have one or two participants online, but you cannot you have to have physical quorum in this room. >> This this is my understanding limited to how this impacts council member
attendance, not so much quorum. You wouldn't be able to have the meeting if you didn't have physical >> but but that's the whole point. It does it will directly affect that. In other words, if you don't have people that consider an attendance, if they're on Zoom, is that considered an an excused absence or is that considered an
attendance? I I think what Councilman Fernandez or Commissioner Fernandez is stating is that it they're two distinct issues. I think what you're talking about is going to determining quorum to engaging in decision-m because you can have a meeting you don't you know
without quorum you just can't make any decisions at that meeting. Um, but I think what uh Commissioner Bennett is is referring to, that's what he's referring to is just for the quorum perspectives, whereas this language is just going to determine whether or not it's going to create a forefeite of your position by
absence rather than determining quorum for the meeting purpose perspective. Is that correct, Commissioner C Commissioner Fernandez? >> Yeah, that's that's completely correct. and and uh Council Member Ronaldo or Commissioner Rano or what what whatever we're going with these days. Um corre
correct me if I'm wrong, but there there were plenty of times where both of us attended virtually and we were just as much if not more effective attending virtually than than we might have been here dealing with some other uh issue. So I I think having that option available and not discouraging people
from from you know counting it against their their record has value >> and I don't think that that Zoom aspect uh the quorum piece is really relevant to this piece and it's not to dismiss your concern because I think there's a valid concern but I think the Zoom attendance which is I think we were referring to the town attorney I think
Florida statutes requires y >> uh inerson presence for municipalities for quarant purposes. >> That is correct Mr. Chair. So you're saying that the Zoom meeting counts toward attendance? >> Yes. >> Just not for quarant purposes. >> Just not for quarant purposes.
Interesting. >> Well, I don't >> that's that's a distinction without a difference, but okay. >> It's not precluded. >> Okay. >> Attending by Zoom. There's nothing that would preclude that from counting as presence. Correct. For attendance purposes. >> Just for the record, 10 years ago, we
didn't have this problem. >> Just letting you know. >> Six years ago, we didn't have this problem. the the other the other thing that I wanted to to bring up and this is actually something that I I think the committees have faced with and and is kind of like a very interesting wrinkle.
So if it turns out that you have and and particularly now that we're going to be reducing to four council members, if there are enough council members that are absent that you don't have quorum and thus cancel the meeting, does that still count as an absence
because there was no meeting? So that that might be another thing to to brush up. I'm sorry to give you so much homework, but >> No, I I believe that in the past we've uh it's we've appined or our position has been that that that's not it doesn't count as an absence. >> Council because no meeting was held.
>> So, >> okay, one more and I think we'll go ahead for the motion. >> Um I believe that what we're discussing is the 25% uh attendance. I think that the easiest thing to do is based on the items that are voted on. If there were, you know, a 100 votes and you voted on
25 of them, then that's 25%. And one of them is going to be the consent and that's going to be a big chunk of the agenda, but you can't just come in for 5 minutes and Right. So >> So are you making a motion to amend >> pending motion? I I just wanted to
>> Oh, no. It's a suggestion. So I'm not sure if you're asking. >> I could I could and just wanted to to see if there was an appetite for that. Um, and then when we move to the other sections, I'll >> I I I I'm definitely in agreement with the the spirit of that. What I wanted to close up was what would happen, for
example, if you're at the meeting, you need to go to the bathroom during consent, you miss the consent vote, the consent vote is half the the number of items on the agenda, >> but the consent vote would be one vote. >> Well, >> even if you're voting on, right, I would I would define it as every every vote
that's registered by the clerk. So the consent calendar gets voted in one shot. So it's not 16 votes. It's just the one vote. So if you're in the meeting and you missed a vote because you went to the restroom, it's happened to all of us. If it's important, if it's something that's truly important, you sit and you
wait. But if it's something that you know is going to pass or it's like a feel-good item that's not >> consent is like the definition of that. >> So let me but that's fine, but it's only one vote. Let me throw attorney and then I think >> let's assume you have consent and you have two ordinances and right? So now
you've got three votes and the two uh let's say uh ordinances deal with a land use item and so the land use item take three hours. The consent only takes one. >> You've are have literally voted on the consent but you are absent from the two
land use items. You're onethird of the meeting. You you're you're considered present. >> Right. And I understand that and for on principle >> you're either here the whole meeting or you're not. That's how I see it. And as a council member, that's a commitment that you made. And if you're not here for the whole meeting, then you're absent. I don't want to add anything.
>> I know that there's three areas that we have to address. So >> I don't want to add to it, but let me say this. So I I know we've had an issue in the past of council members not being present, right? But at the end of the day, who's going to remove that council member, right? It has to come from somebody on the day, right? So I know we're spending a lot of time debating
this for something that I don't think anybody >> that's something that we can change as well. Well, if we put it into the charter, no one makes that motion because it shall >> this the the charter prescribes it. There's there's no motion or anything like that. It's just by operation of the charter that the person has now
forfeited their office. >> So perhaps that's the issue we should be visiting. We have to be very careful in how we do it because we may force someone to forfeit their office that will as an unintended consequence such as and I'll give as an example if someone has oh actually there you know
there's the good cause aspect of it but nonetheless is that you know you got to be very careful in how much you prescribe. Um, I'm going to just to move this forward. I'm going to make a motion to amend the language here uh to add language that to the end of the sentence that the
council shall prescribe by ordinance how to define 25%. And >> well, how to define present? Maybe we should >> Well, this is defining absence, right? >> This is defining absence. I'm sorry. But
I'm asking 25% is not the right the right verbiage. >> Well, remember I'm taking I'm taking what's the the current motion right now and I'm just amending to add that language that the council shall prescribe by ordinance. Is it ordinance is the correct term? Uh by ordinance uh
the how 25% shall be calculated. That that's my motion. I >> I'll second for discussion. >> All right. Uh so for discussion go ahead >> Mr. Chair or actually Mr. Attorney. So, can this be dealt with not in the charter? Meaning, can you do a special
rule or an ordinance or some other mechanism to address the absences that's not in the charter? >> You may. Yes. I mean, absence is a broad term what what constitutes an absence. So, you can
>> that defined through another mechanism or a special rule or order or something like that. >> Yes. and and that's why I if if you want the 25% that doesn't completely offend me >> but don't be so prescriptive as to defining what the 25% is. >> So my recommendation would be that
>> you know >> we don't get into the weeds in the charter on those specifics that that really be addressed by the council through a special order ordinance whatever the right mechanism may be to address that if it's something that the council believes should be addressed and
is an issue. I mean, we would certainly recommend that they, you know, pursue that, but I don't know that getting into that level of detail in the charter is appropriate. I think it's too much detail. >> So, for discussion, and I just want to make sure that we're we're focused on the the pending motion is just to add
that additional language. So, any discussion as to adding that additional >> Exactly. Yeah. As far as ordinance is concerned, you're asking the council to be the wolf in the guarding the hen house because they're going to make it the ordinance so that it's as liberal as they can be so they don't lose their seat. So, it should be addressed in the
charter and not by ordinance. >> All right. Any other >> It's basically so it applies to them whether they make a rule that changes it or not. >> Fully understand. Any other discussion? All right. So, I'm going to take a on vote on the motion is to and to be clear, we're just amending to add that
additional language to the original motion. Uh, that's where we're at right now. Uh, so all in favor say I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> All right. Can we take a poll? >> Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what I'm voting
on. Can the clerk or somebody repeat or restate the >> Would you like to do it or would you like me to read? The chair looo made an amendment which was seconded by commissioner inguanso which is to amend to add the language
for council to define what is absence by ordinance. Is that correct chair? >> Correct. Yes. And so that's all it is. It's just to add that language to the original and we'll vote on the full motion on the full language subsequent once we get past this one. And I believe the roll
call was 52. And please correct me. We have two nos. >> I didn't vote because can we just do let >> absolutely. Commissioner Abad, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> no.
>> Commissioner Fernandez, >> Commissioner Matoss, >> yes. >> Commissioner Rouano, >> no. >> A vice chairman Inguanso. Yes, >> Chairman Leoto. >> Yes. >> The amendment passes.
>> All right. Now, we're on the original motion, which is uh in absence of the an absence shall be defined as an as being absent for more than 25% of the official council meeting agenda items and the additional language that we just added.
So, any further discussion on that at this point? I I'm I'm very confused by this because it sounds like we're defining what an absence is and then we're instructing the council to adopt an ordinance that says what an absences. I think it's one or the other, but I
don't I don't see how they both play along. >> Sure. And and I'll explain the reason what the what that language is. We're define the the charter would define that this is what in absence it shall be, but it gives the discretion to the council to determine what is going to be 25%.
So, it's going to be it's it's kind of a two-step process, but allows them to say, "Hey, look, you know, 25% is going to be, as we had stated, you know, is each consent agenda item that is on the on the ballot, each one going to be, or is the consent agenda item itself going to be defined as one? And each
individual item, is it is are we is appearing for the momentum of silence, is the pledge of allegiance, each of those different items, are those going to be considered like one item? How you define it?" I I personally believe that it is too prescriptive, but I was just suggesting language based on the current
pending motion that we have and adding that language to help move it along and to be able to clarify it. Um, for discussion purposes, I'm I'm, you know, I'm going to be voting against adding the language all together because I think it causes a lot of confusion. It's too prescriptive. Uh, but that I added
the additional language in the event that we were going, you know, the consensus is yes, we're going to move forward with it. at at least have that caveat. >> Yeah. I mean, who's going to keep count? In other words, is it our town clerk is going to do it? And basically, will she
have a tally sheet here? So, okay, Mr. Councilman, you missed two more votes. You're out. >> Sure. Any other discussion on this one? >> All right. So, I'm going to call it for a vote. All in favor? >> Seeing none. Oh, sorry. All in favor?
>> I. All opposed? >> No. >> No. Nay. So, two nos. Vice Chairman Inguans. >> No, the two yeses and call the role. >> Yeah, let's let's just do a poll. >> Okay. >> So, the main motion as amended,
Commissioner Matsos, >> Commissioner Fernandez, >> no. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> no. >> The 25%. >> Commissioner Abad, >> no. Second, >> Commissioner Ruano,
>> no. >> Vice Chairman Inguanso, >> no. >> Chairman Leysoto, >> no. >> The motion as amended fails. >> All right. Uh, so now moving forward, is there any other changes suggested for section B2?
Uh, I'll make one. Uh, again, >> I'm so sorry. Can I just point of clarification? So, for section 2, right? Is that what we call that? We are We are in B Roman 2. Oh. Oh, we're still there. >> B R Roman 2. The one that we're just by
absence. I'm sorry. Okay, cool. >> Good. My apologies. >> Point of clarification like you asked. >> So on I'm going to make a motion and this is just more again going back to what we had the change that we had made is there's two references to council
member uh and to replace those with with the phrase members of the council. Uh that will be inclusive of both the council member and the mayor. Uh so that is my motion. >> Second. >> All right. Any any discussion? Seeing none. Uh all in favor say I.
>> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. Motion passes. Now we're going to go to any other questions on B Roman 2. >> Go ahead. Council Roman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, there's a couple of things that I wanted to change and one of them was the section that
says at the discretion of the remaining council members. Um, I live through this and there there is never going to be a council that is going to want to remove one of their own. So I would like to remove that and put that onus on
administration and perhaps you know recordkeeping of some sort but not on not on the remaining council members because unfortunately um a council of six every council member carries more weight than in a council of seven and in
a council of four everyone carries more weight than a council of five. So, it's never going to be in anyone's political best interest to remove someone for being absent. And we lived through that during our tenure. No one ever wanted to bring it up. No one ever wanted to touch it. It was, you know, one of those taboo
things that no one ever wanted to bring up. And this previous council went for quite some time with a semi- vacant council seat. So, >> that's just the motion. >> The motion is to remove the language that says in the discretion of the remaining council members. >> Okay. Is there a second?
>> I'll second for discussion. All right, we have a second. So, you had you explained, did you want to go further in your explanation? >> I don't I don't know what mechanism can be used to to have some other some other office uh police this or bring it to to
to the council for a vote or however we want to move forward with that. But I just don't think that the way that it's written, it's ever really going to function. >> All right, discussion. We're going to go commissioner Fernandez and then Commissioner Bennett. >> Perfect. So, I I agree with you in principle. I I would stop at, you know,
having staff or a staff member or any staff member being the adjudicator of that issue cuz, you know, I I think they would also have their own set of of conflicts. >> I just mean for recordeping, for absence, recordkeeping and that kind of thing. It would just to me it should
just be that you forfeit your seat. If you're if you're if this happens, then your seat is just forfeited, >> right? I I was I was going to ask the deputy town attorney, is there a is there a mechanism for, you know, arbitration or an independent arbiter, a special magistrate, somebody that's
removed from the council and removed? >> I've I've never seen it to to be honest with you. >> It's the state attorney. >> I have Let me ask you a quick question. >> It's the state attorney. Let me just and it goes on to your question is the way I'm reading this is that the charter is
going to mandate that they're subject to forfeite and I from what I unders how I had initially read it and I may have read it in correctly or there may be ambiguity in it in the discretion of the remaining council members it really is creating it's referring this to the
procedures which is in three that it f that the council then follows the procedures in three to adjudicate whether the person is going to be subject to forfeite. And if we're going to remove this language, then is wouldn't take it. It'll just by operation of forfeite of absence by the charter that the
individual forfeits their position and it doesn't kick it over to three procedures. I know I'm putting you on the spot on something that we're just amending. >> No, you're trying to take the discretion of the council out and make it by operation of law.
You can do that. I I guess but you you're always going to have the issue, right? Because one thing you have to define always when you're defining whether a person is present or not is whether the person has been for good cause. So the person could be absent absent absent and then you say, "Yeah,
it's good cause. Yeah, they couldn't come. Yeah, they couldn't work." And then you know that that that can create a an issue. But I I think if you want to remove more discretion from the council and say listen automatically if you're you're absent and there hasn't been a
good cause established uh and and and you might be able to say that good cause has to be um you know further defined by by ordinance. No is is what I would also suggest. Never try to be too prescriptive in a charter because it's
hard to change um and and it may not work the way you want it to. Um, I think that would be fine. So, if if you're if you're absent three times uh without good cause established, you're automatically forfeit your your position. >> And so, for clarification, how I'm
understanding it then is by removing by moving forward with this motion and deleting that language, what would occur is the sole discretion of the council would be determining whether there was good causes for the absences. And if they do not find that there was good
cause for the absences that caused this forfeite clause to be enacted or to move forward on it, then the forfeiture is completely gone or >> correct. Am I understanding that? >> Yeah. Yeah. So if if good cause is not established then automatically if after
three absences Yeah. >> forfeerture occurs. >> So the council doesn't have a decision as to whether or not it constitutes forfeite. their sole focus is going to be on whether or not there's there's good cause for each of the absences that are >> it forces it forces the conversation
otherwise the conversation will never happen at least that's how I see it this it this will never be on on the day is for discussion unless it just happens because it it's going to happen >> okay any other questions discussions >> well if there's a charter uh dispute the
state attorney does is the remedial source to go on. That's what it was before. I don't know if it's changed since then. I don't remember it changing. But the the issue again is you wanted something that is automatic without council input, which means three absences. It comes before the council to
determine if there are good cause. If they determine if the majority of them, I'm assuming not just one, that there was good cause, he remains on the council. And if they decide that there was not good cause, but we haven't defined good cause yet, right? >> Yeah. I I I think >> No, it's already in the procedures.
What? Go ahead. Sorry. >> Yeah. No, >> no, I got I'm my attorney in the town attorney, please. >> There is there is language in the charter as for good cause uh as far as as a procedure if the council wants to define it further or the procedure or
how that good cause, you know, it could be as prescriptive as they created their own rules. uh if a council member is going to be absent uh by 24 hours before or or when not they shall state you know the reasons why and it shall be accepted by the council and if it's accepted then it's good cause and
>> and you would recommend that by ordinance as >> always. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any further discussion? All right. So, uh we're going to go forward on the motion. The motion is to remove that language and the discretion of the remaining council members. All in
favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? No, >> we have one. No. Is that correct? All right. Uh, so motion passes. Correct. All right. We'll we've gone forward on that. Any other matters on section B2?
All right. Seeing none, we're going to go to B3 Roman 3 uh procedures. Is there is there there is some recommendations from Councilman Fernandez if you can proceed. And it just is >> just that added language there that this
clarifies the majority of the remaining members of the council by resolution. >> All right. Is there a motion? >> Any motion? >> So moved. >> So just to clarify, >> is there a second? >> All right. We have second. Any
discussion items on adding that language uh to this section? Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> Any oppose? Seeing none. Motion passes. Any other amendments to B3? >> I'll make the motion. I'm going to uh
similar has been done in B2 is the the phrase uh council members. >> Yeah. Uh throughout this section each there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight
um references to council member is to replace those each of those in this section with members of the council. Is there is there a second for the motion? >> I'll second it. >> All right. Um let me just uh go into describe as some of you may be thinking as I'm going to go through this piece by
piece. When I've been reading through, there are some provisions where it already says council member and it does refer to specifically the council member. That's why I'm not doing an omnibus just clearly do it. Um because then it would change the meaning and a bunch of different others. >> Mhm. >> So unfortunately we're going to have to
do it at least from our motion standpoint. I think it'll be easy for the town attorney to change it, you know, by interineation throughout the entire agreement or the per whatever language they have. Uh so that's uh the basis of reason why I'm doing it like in this in this fashion
>> to to the chair. I I think given the the clarity of your direction, can we just have the town attorney do that and come back to us with all those changes rather than >> Yeah. I mean >> I I think Yeah, I think it's very clear. >> Yeah, we can do that. I mean, you've
given us direction of what you want to do and >> to have him disambiguate every time that the the word is used throughout the charter if that means >> to correct those. >> Exactly. Now, now that we've clarified the definition of both for him to come back with all of the uh all of the
places in the charter where that distinction needs to be made one way or the other. >> Okay. All right. So, would you like to amend my motion to have that it be at the direction or that we direct the town attorney to uh do by interleation and change it throughout the entire document and provide us with a copy of what his
recommendations are? >> I very much would. Thank you. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Any further discussion on that motion? >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. Now we're on the original motion which is now the amended motion
to for the direction to the town attorney. Do you have that madam clerk? I just want to make sure you don't have to repeat it. You understand what that is. All right. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. Our motion passes. All right. Anything further on
B3? All right. None. Let's go to C Roman one. Uh Councilman Fernandez. >> Okay. So there was there was an issue with with this part of it in the past. So I'll read the whole thing. If if less than six months
remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a nomination of the mayor, the nomination of the mayor shall be made with within 30 day, excuse me, 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy and shall be subject to confirmation by the
council. The confirmation vote of the mayor's nomination shall be conducted at the next regular council meeting following the nomination unless a majority of the council votes to hold a special meeting of the council prior to the next regular council meeting. If the
mayor fails to nominate a person within 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy, any member of the council may nominate a person for consideration at the next regular or special council meeting following the expiration of the 30-day nomination period. If a nominee is not confirmed by
the council, the vacancy shall remain unfilled until the next regularly scheduled election. >> All right. Is do we have a motion on this section? I'll move it. >> All right. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second, Commissioner Abad. Is there any
discussion on this language that has been proposed? >> Yeah. Um All right. This kind of comes down to the resign to run clause. In other words, u you know, 6 months before he decides he wants to run for a different office or something. And um so
what what as I understand the language now then the appointment of the mayor for the remaining terms will be done by the council. It doesn't the vice mayor just doesn't take over. Is is that is that what I'm trying to understand here?
>> So this is a vacancy of the council. Um, and I'll be and just for discussion purposes is that I'm going to be making a motion after this is to add at the end of an expired term of a council member to specify because this is going to be an appointment by the mayor. So, the mayor can't appoint themselves that
they've now vacated, but I'll be adding that as a clarification subsequent to I don't think we need I don't want to complicated by adding it here. Um, but I I I don't you know, so it doesn't go to the appointment of the mayor and the vice mayor. doesn't relate to that aspect of it with that subsequent
language that I'm going to be proposing. >> Okay. So, give me a quick hypothetical here. So, a council member has resigned for whatever reason. >> Whatever reason, not necessarily to run for another office, but to resign obviously then the mayor gets to appoint somebody. Is that that's the general
rule? And then >> nominate someone >> nominate someone and then it'll be a >> but but the council then has to basically not a unanimous vote but obviously a majority vote. Okay. >> I think I understand what you're what's going on here. >> Okay.
>> Yes. Any other discussion? >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Um the the at the end of that last sentence on uh CI, I would like it to say within 30 days of the vacancy. >> That's your motion.
>> Mhm. at the end of CI or very end and shall be subject to confirmation by the council within 30 days of the vacancy. >> Oh, wait. I'm sorry. >> It's the I
>> Yes, I know CI, but that's a huge paragraph. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Building of vacancies. >> No, this is the amended language that he's adding. So, I was just trying to see. >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's >> okay. So, as the end of the current language >> of the current language, correct? at the
end of the first sentence, right, where it says, "Mayor, >> less than six months remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a nomination of the mayor made within 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy and shall be subject to confirmation by the council
within 30 days of the vacancy." >> May I believe that's the intent. >> Hold on one second. I think she's making a motion. There is an I just want to make sure that I'm reading before ask for a second. >> The amended language already kind of addresses that by saying at the next
regular special council meeting the amended language, not the >> Yeah. Yeah. >> scheduled count the next scheduled council meeting can be further than 30 days. So I just want to make sure that both the nomination and the confirmation happen within a 30day period.
>> Okay. So let let me let me let me just from order uh do we have a second on the motion? >> I'll second for discussion. >> So we have it for discussion. Okay. >> So go ahead. >> And question. >> I do. I I think I'm thinking along the lines of the town manager. >> That could mean that you would have to
call for a special meeting. So let me just What's your thought process? Cuz you've lived through this. So what's the thought process of waiting for the next schedule meeting? >> That's that's the thought process, right? that because everything has to happen within 90 calendar days, right? Because the election is supposed to be
held within 90 calendar days. So, if you don't keep yourself to that 30-day window, then you're running out the clock by the time that you have another council meeting, then you don't have enough time to schedule with the elections department the special election if need be. If there's a
confirmation of the appointee, then you don't have an issue. But if you if you happen to fall in the predicament where you're going to have a special election, you don't have enough time. >> So in I if I if I may through the chair in CI there is no provision for a for a
special election because that >> it's in C it's in C2, >> right? But we're not we're not at C2. So C C1 deals with exclusively if less than 6 months remain the if no one is is confirmed
at those meetings it's vacant until the expiry of the term there's no provision >> there is no special election ever at any point there >> not in that case right not not in C1 we >> right >> when we get to C2 that that your your argument right
>> uh come comes into light but in C1 it doesn't trigger a special election It's dead. The the vacancy exists until >> it doesn't trigger a special election, but it allows you to wait to the next regularly scheduled council meeting. So, >> she's not talking election. She's talking council meeting, not election
that it's the council is going to be electing or basically affirming the nomination. She's not talking a special election as in the general election. Correct. She's talking about just in other words, in December, if you don't happen to have a council meeting because of the holidays and it just happens that time, you call a special uh council
meeting. Correct. That's what she said. >> You call a special counsel meeting and if that special council meeting doesn't happen, which has happened in the past, then that's why it was always my opinion that when this was written originally, no one worked the calendar backwards.
Worst case scenario, you need to have an election. So, you need to everything else has to take you to worst case scenario in the event that it happens because it it has happened and there weren't enough days to schedule that election. >> Commissioner, not for months. If I
please go ahead. I I I think the reason why >> um and I think I understand uh Mr. Inguanzo's question is that this one only affects if there's less than 6 months. So if that's the case, there's never going to be an election. You're either going to accept that person for
the remaining of the term or you're not going to have it. It's going to be 66. You're going to leave it vacant for whether it happens as a special or you wait till the council meeting. It's really no harm, no foul. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I and further I I think even the way that it's written is going to happen at the next regular council
meeting and even if we take into account that hey look the December that they don't have a meeting the max you're going to have there is going to be 60 days where they're going to and if they fail to confirm at that within that 60-day period now say you have 180 days a full 6 months left on it you know then
you know you're the person's still going to have 90 days it's just going to be vacant for another 90 days if they don't confirm them at that meeting. That's what I that's the way I've read read the way that this is being >> and the only way that there can be less than 6 months left in a term is if that
starts in March. So there the December wrinkle doesn't come into fruition what's >> true. >> No, that's true. Yeah. >> Right. Uh Commissioner >> I mean my only concern goes back to the fact that now we're going to have six months possibly six months with a
council that could be deadlocked on multiple votes. You know what I'm saying? Well, it's you you could you could have somebody that is unable to attend or doesn't attend or >> but I I I know you say it's fun. I'll be honest with you. >> This incident we're talking about, I found it no fun. I I listen
>> I was being extremely cynical, by the way. I >> No disrespect to to either one of you who sat on that council. To me, that was the most disgraceful times in the town. I mean, we we put somebody who was very qualified, who was nominated, that we ran the clock out. I mean, whatever
excuse we want to sit here and we want to say, you know, you know, and I find it ironic and hypocritical, and I'm sorry I'm saying it that way, but this was my trigger, you know, that we the prior council talked about clicks. There's a click, just a click, there's a
click. Well, there were two clicks. >> Commissioner, I I don't want to get too far. I know. I get because this may get a whole bunch of other things. I want to stick to just what >> but ultimately if we don't have a a way of actually appointing somebody
then we're back to the same thing you know we're going to be three three ties on things and the town business is never going to move forward. >> No I I I I fully understand. Um >> and so right now we have the the motion is to add that additional language
at the end of the proposed second sentence. Correct. That's correct. All right. Any further discussion on that on the addition adding that language? >> And if I think by some of the faces I'm seeing, can we have the motion reread?
>> Yes, madam clerk. >> The amendment by Commissioner Duano, which I believe was seconded by the chair. Am I being mistaken? No, it was vice chair. The vice chair. >> The vice chair. Okay. Vice Chair was to add for this to read this way. If less
than six months remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a nomination of the mayor. The nomination of the mayor shall be made within 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy and shall be subject to
confirmation by the council within 30 days of the vacancy. Madame Clerk, I believe that that motion now belongs to the to the body, but it >> it doesn't it right. It doesn't pertain to that to section one. It pertains to section two as they explained to me. So, I don't know if I can I can't withdraw
it at this point. Right. Because it's on the table, >> but that was a motion that was the motion. And you're withdrawing it. >> I don't know if I can at this point. >> Well, you can you can move to withdraw and we can it would have we can either do it by I I actually looked this up because of the what happened the first time. We can either ask for a motion or
we can we can determine the withdrawal by consent. I looked it up. >> Okay. So, >> I did homework. >> May I make a motion to withdraw? >> You can make a motion if you'd like to withdraw your Okay. >> Is there a second to >> second? >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? >> That sounded pretty unanimous.
>> Unanimous consent. And just for the since she did make the motion, there is a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. So, the motion has been withdrawn. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else on C1? >> Um, can I have a moment of personal privilege?
>> Absolutely. >> Regarding these sections that I have read a lot with the town attorney so that we don't go through this again, I kindly and respectfully suggest just changing a little bit of the wording to make it easier. And this is what I
suggest and you tell me the nomination. I'm in C1. If less than six months remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a nomination of the mayor. Period. I wouldn't I I think it would sound better. The
nomination by the mayor, not the nomination of the mayor, shall be made and keep everything the same and subject to confirmation by the council via email to the town clerk or something
to that effect. I think it would make my life easier for me to know that the nomination by the mayor made within 30 calendar days is being communicated to the clerk via
email so that we don't have any issues in the future if he texted me or she texted me or if it was stated in a public meeting in a public venue. I think I don't know. I think it's proper
posture for that nomination by the mayor to be made within 30 calendar days of the occurrence of the vacancy and shall be subject to confirmation by the council. But that nomination to be communicated to me or to whoever is the
town clerk at the time via email. >> Okay. Is that's a recommendation. Is that >> I'll make a motion to move it. I'll move it. >> I'll second. Oh, just >> well real quick and I think we need to clarify what the actual motion is to what language is that we're asking to amend.
>> I would just like I agree with Gina to add just to add that section that the nomination shall be communicated to the town clerk >> via email or >> Yeah. Yeah. What I I'd like to say is official email. In other words, the town
clerk the town council's official email. Um that just makes sure you know we don't get a Yahoo who sends it by Yahoo. >> Okay. >> All right. So let me and we'll discuss this in just a second. So the motion is
to modify that first sentence is the nomination by instead of of the mayor. And I think how I'm understanding is to say the nomination by the mayor, which shall be communicated to the town clerk
by email, comma, shall be made within 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy such and such. Is that what you guys are recommending? >> I would just like official email only because I want to use the town as I don't want an outside server. I want >> Well, we we had the movement so it's his motion so I can clarify his No. Well,
let's clarify his motion first. >> Okay. If if if you believe that's what my what your motion is. >> No. Excellent. That's perfect. >> Okay. >> Can we have a discussion? >> Well, let's second it. >> I'll second it for >> sure discussion. And now go ahead. >> All right. Because I think what the clerk meant to say is it's not that it
will be communicated to the council via email. I said town clerk >> is what what I stated what what I how I proposed and was confirmed was to that which shall be communicated to the count town clerk by >> by the mayor
>> by email. >> Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you said to the the council. >> Yeah. Know. Okay. All right. By the town clerk, >> right? Okay. Okay. Any further discussions? >> An amendment to the motion. Official email. I hate to be a stickler about
this, but I do want to go through official channels. >> All right, there's a motion for to amend language for official email. We have a second. Any discussion on adding the language by official email? Um just, you know, this kind of goes between this and
the the former. Um my preference is that we don't designate by email. I understand that's good and because you're becoming too prescriptive because what if in the event you guys run out of uh you know some something happens you can't communicate by email now the charter says hey look you can't transmit
this in any other fashion you've prescribed it very limited for the next 10 years we don't know what's going to be out there of way we're communicating now you've prescribed exactly how it has to be communicated rather I would I would recommend that we do not add even
the term by email just that it be communicated ated to the town clerk and the town council can prescribe it if they want or they don't have to but as long as it's communicated by any form or fashion communicate it writtenly maybe in written form >> that's the whole point is verbally is not going to work I want a written
record >> right okay >> some type of written record official mail you can use post at the post office I'm concerned yeah >> I mean but I just want you know in writing official this is something that's important >> should be communicated there has to be a paper trail here okay >> so going back to the motion the motion right now is to amend the proposed
language to be by official email. That's where we're at right now. And then we can work our way back to the original motion and the language if we need to amend that aspect of it. But right now, any further discussion on just adding official to >> Yeah. Once again, and we can make it broader as for the chair, you could make
it official mail or email or any other written official, you know, methodology. I'm just trying to say you don't have to limit. I know it's a it's kind of a sticking point, but I just want a I want a paper trail. That's all I want. >> Sure. No, I understand. What you're saying is now it's official email, but
keeping in mind that if you if we go to amend it, we're going to have to probably amend official because, you know, official written communication, you know, written notification. It'll be a little bit more complicated that aspect, but nonetheless, we're right now to amend this language to in addition
before email. Uh, so I'm going to call the question. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Seeing none. So now we're back to the earlier motion which is to add this language which shall be communicated by
official or to the town clerk by official email. Um is there any further discussion on that aspect? >> Yeah I think given given your your feedback I mean it you know I'm I'm an IT guy by trade. If the charter would have been written in the 80s, it would have said sent by faximile, you know,
like I I I think we should get away from prescribing the specific technology being used and have something, you know, a little bit uh something that's going to age a little bit better. >> So, is your motion that it'll be communicated to the town clerk by >> official means or
>> or written communication or comm written notification? >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> Anything like that is acceptable. >> Okay. by written comm by by is commission is commissioner Fernandez and seconded by the vice chair.
>> Shall we communicate by >> are we open for discussion? >> Yes. Give me one second. I just want to make sure I >> and Okay. >> Written notification. >> Okay. All right. Go ahead with uh >> So once again, Madame Clerk, you you wanted this to make life easier on you.
We'll be getting registered letters from the post office, make your life easier as opposed to official emails. I'm just trying to say by official some type of written means. She's just she was trying to for expedience. That's the only reason she entered that. And that's the current technology. I don't imagine
emails are going to go away soon. But um you know >> well what else you going to have? Telepathy. I mean come on. >> It could be on the blockchain. You never know. Uh that take it that's a good point. It could be blockchain one day. Yeah. Um and just to the town clerk, I
mean any written method is going to be acceptable is make it easier on you. Yes. I think what I'm trying to look with this amendment is to have some kind of formal
communication from the mayor at the time so that um I can show it as evidence. I can say yes. >> Okay. Um the term formal communication >> made within the 30 days and in writing. >> Yeah, there she just said the term a formal communication. It can be email,
it could be postage, it could be blockchain, just formal communication, >> but written, right? >> Written. Well, for Yeah, formal written communication. >> But but to be on the same page, that's the amendment that we're talking about, right? Formal communication. Well, right now, well, right now the motion,
>> the motion that is pending right now is to replace official email with the phraseology I believe I have is to the town clerk by >> formal written communication communication. >> Well, that wasn't the motion, but
>> Oh, wait. No, it was formal written communication. >> That's correct. >> Yes, I know. >> That's why we all right. So, that's where the motion is. Is there any further discussion? to amend that into the full language. All right. All in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. Now, going back to the original original mo well, second original motion is that it'll read the nomination by the mayor which shall be communicated to the town clerk by official written communication
shall be made within 30 calendar days in the occurrence. So, adding that language there. Is there any further discussion on that? All right. Seeing none, all in favor say I. I I >> All right. All oppose say none. Motion passes. And if you could clarify for me, Madame Clerk, because I've now we've had
many, many, many motions. Did we vote on the original motion to add the recommendation from Councilman Fend? I don't think so. Okay, perfect. All right. So now we're on the entire
language as amended with the original language. Is there any further discussion at this point with that? All right. Seeing none, now on that motion, all in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. So now we're going to C2. Or is there
anything else on C1? I hope not. Okay, now we're going to C2. And I think uh you know, Commissioner Ruano, I think you had some um modifications here that you wanted to Well, let's go to Commissioner Fernand or Councilman Fernandez first to discuss his and then we'll get into yours.
>> So, it's just another way to clarify that vacancy. Um I'll read it real quick. If 6 months or more remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a nomination of the mayor. The nomination of the shall be I think I think that's a
mistake clearly. of the mayor shall be made within 30 calendar days following the occurrence of the vacancy and shall be subject to confirmation by the council. The confirmation vote of the mayor's nomination shall be conducted at the
next regular council meeting following the nomination unless a majority of the council votes to hold a special meeting of the council prior to the next regular council meeting. If the mayor fails to nominate a person within 30 calendar days following the
occurrence of the vacancy, any member of the council may nominate a person for consideration at the next regular or special council meeting following the expiration of the 30-day nomination period. The nominee shall fill the vacancy until the next regularly
scheduled election as described in article 5, at which time an election shall be held to fill the vacancy. However, if the council is unable to confirm a nominee, a special election to fill that vacancy shall be held following the occurrence of the vacancy
subject to the coordination with an approval of the Miami Dade County Department of Elections. >> All right. Um, that is the proposal. And before a motion is considered, I would I
would I would ask, and this is something we're going to go back to C1 in just a second because I forgot to make the motion to add some language there. Um, that if someone's considering to move this, that it include in that first sentence, if 6 months or more remain in the unexpired term of a council member.
and then with the additional language that he stated in the nomination of the mayor shall be and include the same language that we just had with the town clerk to incorporate that into it. So, if someone's would like to make a motion, I I'm going to make a motion,
but it's it's not going to be relevant to the to the language that the council member read into the record. I want to make a a completely different motion that reads, "If six months or more remain in the unexpired term, the vacancy shall be filled by a special
election to be scheduled um at the first possible uh date as uh the next possible date available by the Miami Dade County Department of Election. >> I'll second that.
Okay, there's a second. Do you have the motion, madam clerk? >> Enforce. >> Okay. It's just requiring a special action if there's more than six months. It's pretty much discussion. >> Okay. Now up for discussion. >> Yes. So, uh, Madam Clerk, what does it
cost the town of Miami Lakes to hold a special election? >> I don't remember precisely. So I don't want >> I don't want precisely just a ballpark >> maybe like 40 50 a special election 60 >> right and we're >> I could get back to you so that we don't you know
>> yeah well last I heard was 80 but but that's okay I can't remember now >> it depends if there's also if there's a runoff also >> right >> right anyway and the reason why going back to efficiency and all that I mean we we we're eliminating two council seats and changing the structure and the
representation of the town of Miami Lakes over 54,000 such $56,000 uh in perpetuity and now we're adding a special election. So, you know, we can't use the illusion of efficiency if we're going to basically redirect money in a
different way. So, um I um I think that's something this commission needs to consider. If we're going to go ahead and add the financial cost of a special election, well then we've eliminated once again two seats and that
representation for less. So, okay, >> the chair stepped out for a moment. So, I'm I'll take over uh momentarily, but question for the town attorney. So, as it stands now, the council has the option, well, the council has the option
to either um or the mayor has the option to nominate. The council can or cannot um you know, pass or confirm that nomination and if that's the case, then it goes to a special election. >> That is correct. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. The the power in in um selecting that person lies with the mayor. the confirmation power lies with with the council. If the council says no, then in one scenario, if there's, you know, less than six months, >> yeah, >> there's that that's using that field. If it's more than special election,
>> to Dr. Bennett's point, it could be 6 months and 3 days, and that would stink to pay whatever it is, 30, 40, 50, 60, $80,000 for a special election. So, okay. All right. So, we've got a motion that Commissioner Fernandez made. Um,
Commissioner Rouano seconded. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? >> I would like to discuss actually. >> Okay. >> So again, and I'll try to bite my lip this time. Um, again, um, my concern,
so I don't think we should take away from the mayor the power to nominate, right? I think that's their right. It's been established. My concern is the way we go about uh approving a nomination. Um I agree with I should get a regular council meeting the next council meeting
in just to avoid what happened last time you know November somebody resigns there's no council meeting in December then we go through January and now we have this confusion right that then can we nominate again can we not
I you know I I know it's very unusual to so so could we and I know I spoke to to Mr. Kobaya this morning about it. Is there any way that instead of a tie I'm concerned about the tie just like it
happened. It's either voted up, it's voted down. That part I'm fine with. But if there is a tie, could a vote um could that now be considered a defeat instead just appoint that person? You know what I'm saying? Instead of vetoing
the position, just the motion doesn't pass, >> right? But but but that that is how we choose to define it though, right? >> Yeah. I mean remember you the the rules of those are Robert's rules of order, right? Right. So if you want to amend
it, that's always possible. You know, Robert's rules of order can always be amended by the governing body to being something different than what what exists. >> You could. >> It depends on how you would structure the language.
>> Yeah. So then I'll make a motion to amend article 2 section 2.5 section two or double I whatever you call to the time chart to provide that in the event of the vote of a nominee to fill a council vacancy results in a tie the nominee shall be considered confirmed.
>> Okay. So I apologize I had for a second. So you're moving to amend because we're on the original motion. So, I move to amend that motion >> to >> to the to provide that in the event the vote for a nominee to fill a council
vacancy results in a tie, the nominee shall be considered confirmed. >> Okay. So, you're adding to his that it'll go to an election and in the event that there's a tie in the election >> Well, no. What I'm trying to avoid is that election. I agree. It's quite >> original motion. Oh, so you're doing a
strike call of his original motion to replace. So, I mean, I guess >> because no, because his motion is that an unexpired if there's six more months that the nomination shall be filled by election. Um, and that's what he's doing. So, what
you're saying is you're trying to avoid that election. So, it'll be a strike of his amendment. >> I'm trying to strike that special election. >> So, you'd be striking his and replacing it with your language. >> Sure. >> No, no. I'm saying that that's that's generally what the oper log let me put the logical operation of
>> we can have illogical stuff here all the time if we want >> okay let me let me uh >> real quick he he he has his pending motion no we don't have a second motion I was just trying to clarify exactly what that motion is that correct
>> yes sir okay all right is there a second to that motion all right we'll second is there discussion on that motion then town attorney I think you wanted to say something. I thought you said you wanted >> No, no. >> Okay. >> I question. All right. So, let me see if I get this straight. So, if there's a 33
tie on from the council, in other words, that means it's passing anyways as opposed to being struck down. Well, >> going back for a second is he's amending his the original motion from Councilman
Fernandez or for Commissioner Fernandez. His original motion, his strike all would mean that there isn't even an election because of the way that he's formulated his language. >> It doesn't incorporate anything that is already there or has been proposed by
Commissioner Fernandez. Okay? So what you're doing is you're going to be stating exactly what he says that the statement would just simply that section C2 >> would only state exactly what he just stated. It would not have any of this other information because the original
motion was pretty much a strike of everything to be replaced with that it'll only become a uh it would go straight to an election >> to a special election that we'd have to pay for. So his the commissioner Abad's motion would strike all that motion and
it would just only leave the specific language that he just stated >> the 33 tie asing. >> So you would never have a special >> rightity either. So it wouldn't be considered. It would just But >> the bar
>> well for discussion purposes >> well the way his motion is currently phrased what you would be saying is you wouldn't even you wouldn't even have the mechanism to engage in it in nomination process because his was an original
strike all and so you're it's missing meat to how it would operate. You see what I'm saying? >> Yeah. I'm going to request the attorney to clean that up and let me see the wording of it. I'm I'm not quite following only because if you don't have
a clear majority, you haven't ascented to anything. So a three- three tie, you can't you shouldn't be able to pass. >> Hold on. Let's go to the town attorney and then we're going to go to Mr. >> So if you have a a three-3 tie under Robert's rules of order, the item just
dies, right? So I think what Mr. Abad wants to do is in the instance of a nomination, right, by the mayor, if you have a 33 tie, then that means it automatically that that person is is voted in. Except
>> does that require a change in Robert's rules? >> No, because Right. Because the rules that really govern is is the charter. >> Can you do it? >> Yeah, you can. >> Awkward. >> Yes. So, let me let me let me put a
couple thoughts on the uh on the record. And >> it it applies to the to the amendment and it applies to the underlying motion. So, I'll I'll try to say it once. Um we're talking about a three- three tie. Um, but
if if the first thing that we propose today goes through, we might have a tutu tie and you're not going to have a you're going to have the mayor ostensibly is not going to nominate somebody that they're not going to vote for, right? So then you have three remaining council members that are going
to make this decision, right? You would almost need the burden of a supermajority to get somebody confirmed, right? But one one is vacant. So that the person that's vacant no longer gets to vote. You only have three three that can still vote on the mayor, right? So
it makes it very very difficult at that point to get you would essentially have to get everyone. You know, it it makes it very very difficult to confirm someone. And as as we saw the last time that that we went through this and I I don't think there's
any beating around the bush, the current system, what was in the charter failed atrociously the the last time, right? So I I think if there's any part of the charter that should be severely rewritten, it should be this, right? Um
I I think putting it in a position where you're going to require essentially a supermajority to get this person confirmed is going to make it very difficult. I think in a lot of cases you may and and I think the on-ramp or the off-ramp that was proposed by uh
Councilman Fernandez makes it even more enticing for a a dissenting council member to try to kill the nomination because they're going to have the opportunity to nominate somebody else. Right? So there's 33,000 other people in in the town that you know and you you
get into the dynamics of well I'm council member A. I I want my person and you want your person and and then >> right >> that's not >> I'm going to go to the vice chair first and we can go to commission. >> Yeah. So that's that's not what the the proposal stipulates that if the mayor's
appointee is not confirmed then the council members any council member can uh nominate somebody in their place. I think that in the onset kills the the entire process. I think it makes it toxic. That's why I originally offered
just going to the special election in that particular case and bypassing all of the the disaster that then turns into a botched nomination, right, for the nominee, for the council, for the mayor,
for the town, for everyone. >> So, Mr. Vice, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Fernandez, I agree. The ideal situation would be to have a special election, right? Let the people decide. However, given the cost involved, that really hurts, right? I mean, finding those kind
of dollars really, really hurts. >> But back to your point, you know, whether it's a five member council or a seven member council, right? If you're down one council person, then you're either dealing with four or three, right? Hypothetically, it could be four, but right now it would be three, three.
One of three things would happen, right? You would either have a, you know, assuming it's a seven member council and you're down to six council people, you would have a, you know, one to five, two to three, um, 3 to three, right? Um, or
the other way, right? So, I think what Commissioner Abad is referring to, if there is a tie vote, whatever that number is, that the person gets appointed to avoid the need to have to go to a special election. I think we all agree that a special election is ideal.
It's just do we want to incur that kind of cost? You know, is it just better for a short period of time to have an appointment made and then let the next special what's that? >> No, no, we're talking about 6 months or more at this point, >> right?
>> So, wait, it could be eight months, >> right? That's seven months. >> That's the door I was gonna I was going to open, right? Maybe we should revisit six months being the hard line, right? Maybe maybe a year. Yeah. >> And then we we go with the what's laid
forth in in C1 for appointments, you know, vacancies less than a year and then we do special election a year and above. >> Right. So, let's stick on the current motion. I understand the comments and everything. It's for discussion purposes. So, I'm going to go to Commissioner Bennett. Did you have anything further from you had to kind of
>> No, no, that I just want to I'm just what I'm trying to understand here is once again, I always play scenarios in my head. um a council member is removed for cause. Uh the mayor then appoints another council member. It's a three-3 tie, you know, and basically uh we lose
that the council member um for for what is defined as cause and ordinance by the council. They're going to determine by council what is cause. So it it becomes convoluted. Um once again, a three- three tie is no ascent. It's it's by there's a reason why ties are usually
negative. You have to have simple a simple ascent to any particular vote. If it goes 3- three tie, we have to come up with some other type of solution. >> I'm sorry. That that's my thoughts. >> Okay. >> Ron >> on on the on the on the motion of the 33
tie being a prevailing vote. I I can't I can't I didn't realize I was speaking into the record. on the on the motion of the 3-3 tie being a prevailing vote. I can't I can't support that. To me, Robert's rules are what they are and and if you're at a tie, you it it doesn't
prevail. The way that this played out in my head when I when I read the charter, when I wrote it based on the experiences that that I lived on the on the day is that mayor should nominate within 30 days. That should trigger an automatic special call meeting. It should not be
subject to four members wanting it or however members want. It should trigger an automatic special call meeting with all of that should happen within 30 days so that we know within those 30 days whether there is an appointee or not. I don't think that any other council
member should be able to uh make a nomination. I think that that's strictly just a luxury that the mayor has. If the mayor's uh nominee is not confirmed, then you go to a special election within 90 days to expedite the seat not being vacant. I think that that's the whole
that was the whole premise between the 90day when when this was written, right? That within 90 days, you would fill that vacancy. Now, obviously, it has to be subject to the Department of Elections having availability because we ran into that as well. But that's how it played out in my head. Um, I'm not necessarily
loving the the way that it that that um, Council Member Fernandez is presenting it. Um, I don't think that we should automatically go to an election either, even though I understand that your thought process, right? Commissioner Fernandez is always thinking three steps ahead. So, I understand that the math
may just won't math, but the way that it the way that it's written, I think it's okay with a couple of tweaks just specifying so that certain things don't happen. and and I think that that can solve the problem if there's an appetite for that. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Chair,
Mr. Ru, the the only issue I see with that is what if you don't have a quorum at the special or at the special meeting, right? What what happens then? Now you're saying it's going to automatically trigger cuz it could be you can call special election, but if my calendar is full and I'm in Washington
DC for work, I can't be here and I can't vote virtually. If you don't have quorum, then that handcuffs the process, >> you know. >> So, look, I I fully >> I still live in the world of seven council members. I'm sorry to interrupt you. And that's one of the reasons why I think we should keep the seven council
members for >> so um one thing I just want let's just go back to the pending motion that we're at and then we can continue this discussion. The pending motion that we have right now is as to uh the amendment to move it to the the 33 tie to be sufficient and replacing the pend the
superseding motion that is pend that is also still pending uh on that language. Is there any further discussion on that amendment that we have right now? >> I move to call the vote. >> All right. Is all in favor say I. >> Any opposed? >> No.
>> No. >> All right. It sounds to me that it knows have it. Does anybody want to pull in? All right. The motion. >> We have the roll call just to make sure. >> Let's have a roll call. >> Yes. Council member Moss. And this is again in the amendment um profer by
Commissioner Abad which is striking the Commissioner Fernandez previous motion which is if uh the nominee is a tie the nominee will be considered confirmed on that amendment. Commissioner Mados,
>> no. >> Okay. Commissioner Fernandez, >> no. >> Commissioner Bennett, >> no. >> Commissioner Abad, >> yes. >> Commissioner Ruano, >> no.
>> Vice Chair Inguano, >> no. >> Chair Leoto, >> no. >> Okay. The motion, the amendment fa. >> All right. So now we're back on the original motion as presented by uh Commissioner Fernandez. Is there any
further discussion on that as on that discussion? Um I will I did want to just as a point of just a on on that piece clearly there's a lot of thought that I believe needs to happen as to this
provision. There's a lot of opinions. um you know I'm thinking is simp my votes is going to be no for the purposes of declining to move forward with moving this and that I think is that we then just move forward with moving to the next section and defer this to the next
meeting um or at some later point in time so that way it gives all of us an opportunity to really re really think of how we can structure this and we can come with concrete written um proposals that we can share with everybody in advance so we can take a look at it and we can address it at that So before you take a vote, c can I add something
different then? I mean I'm I'm making a motion at this point. >> Sure. We're still in discussion. >> So I mean if we received obviously public comments, right, from everybody and I think then the next most fair way is
what Mr. Ael Fernandez submitted. If you all read the public the public comments that he submitted that in the event of a vacancy, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes in the most recent election for the same office shall fill the vacancy until the next
regularly scheduled municipal election provided that such candidate remains qualified to serve. >> Yeah. So >> I mean that to me that's intriguing. >> That's that's that's that's a suggestion that I would you know that I would say hey look in the event that this motion does not move forward or even then we could still reconsider some type of
language if even if it does pass. Um but you know that would be one of those things that I was just suggesting is like look come up with the the suggested language that we can all consider. Um is there any further discussion on >> Yes. Before uh be before you call the vote, I'd like to make a motion to defer
uh the the item until said time that we all have time to ruminate. >> Second. >> I second. Yeah. >> Okay. So, there's a motion to defer the item rather than and then so keeping your motion on the floor. >> Um is there any discussion on that aspect of it? >> All right.
Clerk, you're going to be responsible for remembering that that me item has been deferred for consideration on the next time. If if I could make a suggestion, why don't you defer it to a date certain maybe for the next meeting or two meetings from now? I think that would be easier. Does
>> that just automatically comes back? >> Does the rest of the body think one Yeah. two weeks is enough? >> I think that's Well, I there would be have to be a motion to amend yours to add that date certain if someone's interested in it. >> I'll entertain such a motion.
>> Is there such a motion for anyone? >> Yes. Whatever whatever the motion to move this forward. Yes. >> So you're making a motion to amend the pending deferral to a date certain in the future. Correct. And what did that what would be >> February I'm sorry they the next the
next February the next commission meeting. >> February 12th is the next meeting. >> February 12th is plenty of time. >> February 12th. And so is there any is there a second as to that motion? >> I'll second. >> There's a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any oppose? Seeing none, motion passes. Now we're back on the original motion to defer to a date certain February 12th. Uh is there any further discussion on that? >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. So madam town clerk, if we can make sure that that gets added to the old business already
on the agenda for that time period. So we're going to move forward then to now is uh section C3. Um Councilman Fernandez, if you could go forward with the your recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I'll just go
to the line where the where the added verbage was was placed. Um, the last sentence, the council shall and >> that was shricken. Uh, appoint a new vice mayor once the vacant council
member >> I'm tired. >> Seat is fil. >> Seat is filled. Does it go on? >> That was it. And that's yeah, that's the end of >> Okay. >> the change. >> Is there any motion?
>> I'll move it. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second for discussion. >> Sure. All right. So, it's been seconded uh by Councilman or Commissioner Bennett. >> Close enough. >> Okay. I'll let you go for you want to
discuss let you go first. >> What is the intent of what he's trying to do here? I mean, obviously Shell on that, but once the vacant council member seat is filled, what is the intent of the change here? I'm not sure what he's what he's trying to accomplish that isn't already accomplished.
>> Okay, I'm going to defer to the manager, >> manager Peterman. >> You came up with that? >> I don't know if you heard him. >> Yeah, I heard I heard >> he's focusing.
So the question is um the last under section three C3 that last sentence the what you added there. >> Yeah. The vacancy because so now the vice mayor moves up to mayor.
>> So you have a vacancy at vice mayor but now you only have six people on the council. What all this is saying is that you should wait till the the council the vacant council member seat is filled
before deciding on a new vice mayor. It's not a big deal. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work cuz some of the other things that you've been discussing almost seem like there could be several months before uh filling of the vacancy.
Uh so this may be uh a moot point and it may be too long to wait cuz obviously it it's always a better thing to do it when you have seven members on the council instead of only six and that's all it is. >> Okay. So the vice mayor moves up to
mayor. There's a vacancy there and he wants to wait until that vacancy is filled before selecting the vice mayor. And of course, it begs the question, if the mayor becomes incapacitated during that time, who runs the meetings? >> Right? That's usually not a big deal.
Historically, what the council has done is one of the most senior or more experienced u uh council members just takes the gavl and runs the meeting. Uh it's usually not an issue. >> Would there be an issue if say during
that interim the town attorney were to run the meeting? Is there an issue? Uh it it would it would it would have to a member of the council. >> Well, he won't be voting. He'd just be running >> an elected member though. It would have to still run. >> It has to be. >> I Well, Mr. Town attorney.
>> Yeah. It needs to be a member of the governing board. >> It's going to Yeah. I mean, the job of the attorney is to be the parliamentarian, the you know. >> Okay. Well, then we need additional language then to say, okay, who runs the meeting if the mayor the the mayor prom becomes ineligible to be mayor or
>> that that's that's in Robert's rules of order. Robert Robert's rules of order say that once you get through the officer, then you go in order of the most senior member on the on the board. There's there's been times that even in council meetings that the mayor has been absent, the the vice mayor has been
running the meeting, has stepped out. The next most senior member of the body is the one that assumes the G. >> I'm sorry. Do we need to codify that in the in the um charter? I mean, just I don't see any reference to
>> Well, let's let's do this is just let's that I it sounds like we're starting to get into another issue. Um, and I want to stick to and I'm just sticking to the amend to what we're uh what the motion is right now to amend this language. Um, because what this is establishing, we
can still come back to yours if you'd like to make an emotion at that point, but right now it is to the strike the word then and to add the language once a vacant council member seat is filled. And correct me if I'm wrong, M. Town manager, how I'm understanding it is it's to make it very clear that a vice
mayor should not be chosen until we have the full council because you've now replaced that vacancy and then you have the full council making a determination who the vice mayor is just making it's clarifying what the order of process is going to be. >> Correct. But if if the previous process
that you were debating for several for quite a while, it ends up being a lengthy process, several months, this may not make sense. >> And it may just you may just try and select a new vice mayor uh with six uh members of the council instead of
waiting for the seventh person to be on. >> Very true. >> So, Mr. Chair, may I make a suggestion if I'm able to? >> Well, hold on one second. Yeah, you may want to wait until you've you've decided on uh the previous one that you guys u
deferred or >> I suppose well just just for point of clarification is the way I'm reading one and two one and two is is dependent is the unexpired terms of a council member and it's not as a vacancy of a mayor three is separate and apart from a from
is just specifically the vacancy created of a mayor. So I don't think two implicates three >> in my the way I read it. I know we haven't proposed it but I had I had as I had mentioned is adding the language of a the unexpired term of a council member because two and three or one and two
refer to the appointment of the mayor and nomination by the mayor. So it's going to go to that aspect of it. It's not dealing with a vacancy created by um a mayor. >> Right. Well, it's it's a domino effect once the mayor then the vice mayor moves
up. Now, what you're dealing with is what you've been dealing talking about for the last uh whatever several, you know, hour or whatever, which is the vacancy of a council member because the the one who was vice mayor moved up to mayor. >> Correct. No, but what I what I'm trying to say is that one and two those
concerns specifically a vacancy that is happening as to a council member, >> correct? Vacancy of a mayor. So you wouldn't have uh three come into play because three specifically is a vacancy of the mayor's position where the vice mayor is pushing up, >> right?
>> I don't think it's implicates war one or two. And if anybody has a difference in opinion, I'm more than happy to >> I have a parliamentary inquiry. >> Sure. um the special rules of order that dictate that meetings can't go past 11
p.m. Does that apply to this body or do we need a do we need a waiver or do we need to uh make a motion to defer the rest of the agenda to >> so the actual >> so so those rules are for for the council the what the charter says rules cannot I mean the meetings cannot go
past midnight uh is what it says unless damn >> right um but I I could have sworn it was 11 I I I I do I mean if you do wish to defer the I don't know that there's a lot left but if you do wish to defer the items that is always you know
>> an option. So well we have a pending motion. I'd like to resolve this motion first before we take on another motion. Um so is any further discussion on adding that language? N seeing none. Is there a uh I'm going
to call it the call the vote is all in favor in adding this language say I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> No. >> Can we pull? >> Not clear. >> Council Oh, council member I'm sorry.
Commission member Mados. >> Yes. >> Commission member Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Commission member Bennett. >> No. Commission member Abad. >> Yes. >> Commission member Ruano. I She left but
she's participating via Zoom. >> You're permitted to vote via Zoom. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> She's absent right now. Vice Chairman Inguanso. >> No. >> And Chairman Leoto. >> Yes.
>> The amendment passes or the motion passes. >> All right. So, we've now had that amendment. Is there any other pending? >> Forgive me. My Zoom wasn't allowing me to unmute. >> Not a problem. Would you like to register your vote? >> Yes.
>> Yes, you would. Or that is your vote. >> Yes, I would. And yes, is my vote. >> Perfect. Just for clarification purpose. >> Thank you. >> The chaotic mind of an attorney always trying to parse all those little things out. All right. Is there another pending
motion right now? Um as to three. All right. Seeing none, we're going to go to section four. Uh C4. >> I'd like to make a motion, >> if I may.
>> Four, five, six, and seven. Um adopt as written to bring us to eight. when you say adopt as written >> as it is as it's on the paper as it's as it's stated in the in the in the um on the document >> in I guess in the charter actually it's
h as stated in the charter >> okay is there a second to that motion >> I'll chair can I interject >> second we've gotten a second um for discussion I'll start off I I don't know if that would be a proper
uh motion just to keep it as it is No, it's a proper motion, but I don't think that's, you know, that's really we could just say, hey, look, there's nobody has a motion as to any of the things and we can move on. >> I can tell you is that I would have I I I had suggestions of of making
modifications to each of those. I know we wanted to go if you guys want to defer, you want to go through these things. Mine aren't too complicated, >> but nothing. >> I wish to withdraw my motion then if you want to discuss them. I just gave an opportunity. I didn't see any changes, so I figured it was already everybody sented to it. So, I will withdraw my
motion. Excuse me, I'm getting a little sore. >> I'm sorry. I didn't >> I'm going to withdraw my motion to adopt uh four, five, six, and seven as written. >> Okay. Is there a motion to accept his withdrawal or is there a second his motion to withdraw? >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? Seeing none,
all in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. All right. We're back on the his motion has his motion has been accepted as withdrawn. And so we're back on four real quick. A um
I'm not going to bring it up at this point, but I think we need to revisit section four, the vacancy of seats 1 through six shall be filled by qualified elector of the town, meaning that we'll have to have language that will clarify as to what's going to happen after November 30th, >> right? >> Um based on the thing. So, but I'm, you
know, I'm fine with going back because I I right now I don't have language uh as to section five. Um the language is currently what I would my um replace is filling persons filling
vacancies. I would be put persons nominated to fill a vacancy shall meet the qualifications. That is my motion is just replace that language. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion on that item? Just clarification. All right. All in
favor say I. >> Any. Thank you. Seeing none, um motion passes. And so number six, I have to read because I have a note here that we may have to
strike uh based upon proposed language. Um but I think we're still pending. We're going to have to pend because we're still waiting on number two of how that's going to read. So, I'll I'll defer on that one as well on anything on my part. Um,
and that goes also with seven because I think that's going to depend on what number two says. All right, going to section 8 now. Um, is there any motions to change? Oh, let me Councilman Fernandez. Yeah, I I just read it into
the record to make the change subject to the coordination with and approval of the Miami Day County Department of Elections. And I think everybody knows the reason why, right? >> So moved. >> All right. Is there so move? We have a
second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I'm >> sorry. Just point of clarification. Miami date should be hyphenated. It was also not hyphenated. before but okay I think that's a scrier so I mean that something we can correct there
>> yes before you vote we're only talking about that one line right >> that one line correct right now >> at some point we might have to strugg that disability if we strugg >> well correct I'm going to go to that I'm going to go to that piece next >> Mr. Sure. Do we need to take a vote about deferrings five, six, and seven? >> No, it's No, because it's I'm just going
to be I was just making uh for the record that I'm going to be bringing it up at the next at least from my perspective. Yeah. Others may bring it up as well, >> but I don't think we didn't need to have a motion because there was nothing pending. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh so, all in favor of adding the language here, all say I.
>> Any? >> Seeing none. Motion passes. Uh I'm going to make a motion to uh for a few things. It's first is again as in we did earlier is to strike the the phrase disability. In the second line uh the reference to
council members to be members of the council and then in the very last sentence uh instead of meet all requirements is to align it with the language of the charter is that you must meet all qualifications for candidates. And so
those are the three um items that I'm I'm moving to modify. >> There's a second. Any discussion? >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Seeing none. Motion passes. Anything else on eight?
>> Okay. Okay. Be before we move to the to the next section, I do have uh an additional section that I would like to add to 2.5. >> Okay. um and and where it gets placed, you know, is a ministerial thing later, but it might
be at the end, it might be in the middle. Uh but I did want to add another section. So, as some of you know, with Florida's resign to run law, whenever you um whenever an elected official decides to run for another office that
coincides with the same term, they're required to resign. Usually they are required to resign no later than so they have to resign at qualifying and that resignation can occur no later than the
time that the the new office starts. Right. So >> election day >> I believe it's election day >> of of the new office. Exactly. No, whenever whenever the two terms >> right
election >> right so >> correct >> we we we had it happen recently we may have it happen again where the town receives uh a resignation that's future dated
for an elected official and that resignation is future dated the clerk knows about it before um the qualifying window closes for the November ballot. And so there's an opportunity to put
that position on the November ballot without triggering a special election, without triggering an appointment. It's a it's a free special election, right? Whereby that seat can be filled by the electors with no interruption. And I
think that's an opportunity that we should take. I know there was resistance to the the special election and two because of the cost this is a way to eliminate the the potential for a special election. So that that section would would read and I I'm more than
happy to defer to the to the town attorney to draft the exact language, but the the spirit of the item is in the event that the town clerk is notified of a future dated resignation to comply with Florida's resign to to run line. By
the way, those those resignations that are given to the clerk are irrevocable, right? So you you win, you lose, you you you decide not to run, whatever. It doesn't matter. That that resignation is irrevocable. There's no there's no going back.
>> That that position will be placed on the uh the next regular um election ballot. So that's the that's the spirit of the >> that's that's the motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Open for discussion. >> Okay. So let me just I'm sorry. Let me
just get this right. So obviously it's back to the resign to run. So you're saying they future date their resignation as opposed to I'm deciding to what at what point do they file that they're running for another office? Isn't it shouldn't it be at the time that they file to run for another office?
>> Yes. >> That that's what Yeah, that's what you want to say. So in other words, during that period of time that they're running for another office, there's a vacancy on the council. >> No, >> there isn't a vacancy on the council. Not I think there I think there's two aspects and and I'll let Commissioner Fernandez uh explain what what he's
saying because I I follow what your question is and I think he has a clarification. >> So I can I can speak in specifics because it happened just recently. Right. So the the current mayor was a uh was a sitting council member. In order to run for mayor, he had to tender a
resignation, which in his case and in the case of most elected officials is future dated to election day, which is allowed by by state law. That's that's perfectly clear. So in essence, the clerk was notified
during our qualifying window during whatever qualifying window for that next office is. The clerk was notified that that resignation in August. is going to happen November, whatever. Right? So, it it and it happens in
August with enough time to open a qualifying window for that vacancy in anticipation that vacancy is guaranteed to happen. >> Right. So, I think I see what you're saying. So, what you want basically is you don't want to you want to make sure that the spot that's going to be vacated
by the the person is not going to be appointed by the new mayor that it's actually going to be an elected spot. >> Right. >> I'm I'm I'm on board. >> So, go ahead, Mr. Vice Chair, and then I'm going to go next. >> Yeah, >> Commissioner Fernet, I agree 100% agree
100%. I just You got to look at state law though because you can't have >> I think there might be a conflict. So the spirit if you guys want to vote on it I'm okay with >> but then give me an opportunity to do a little bit of research >> because there might be a conflict with
the resign to uh run law >> and we can research it >> perfect >> and also what what I wanted to comment on is that I see a potential another potential issue in the implementation of that is you're you're going to you're
going to create I think almost an ambiguity if you know of a person if But if they put it, when are you going to do special? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me go back. The the ambut I'm going to that I believe I think this this that section may be a little premature because I think it'll be dependent on what our
decision is on recommendation on the C2 because then there'll be six more months dependent on there and that may that would control because the vacancy is created that way. So there may be a conflict between this language and what potentially we could be proposing in
going forward. So, it's not that I I don't say no, but I think there may be a conflict depending on what we end up proposing there. >> Right. And I think, you know, whichever version of of C2, if it's at least one of the ones that we've that we've discussed, it would either be instant special election or appointment by the
mayor. And I think putting it on the regular ballot is better than both of those. >> Well, yes, depending Yeah. for for that one instance, >> it could potentially do it, but it also could potentially create a conflict because if you're saying, "Hey, look, you're going to have a special election." You can't have a nomination.
>> That nomination would would not matter at that point. Uh because you're now requiring it to go for for a special election, >> but it wouldn't so it wouldn't be the the the beauty of it is it wouldn't be a special election. That election would be on the reg. I mean,
>> I well an election, right? It would it would trigger an election on the left, >> right? and it would just override the appointment and nom and the nomination and the confirmation process if we were to stick with that type of language. Correct. So that's there's a potential for conflict. >> I understand.
>> And then a question uh Commissioner Fernandez. So the the issue now is what if the person who wants to resign to run waits till the last day of qualifying at which point there will be nobody available or nobody can qualify you know
by midnight or whatever. So, so >> how's that how's that resolved? >> Okay. So, the the way that the that the calendar works, right, and the dates that are prescribed uh for qualifying in our charter are, you know, more conservative than the
than the dates allowed by the elections department, right? So there is sufficient time even if that happens even if that resignation happens on the last possible day of the normal um qualifying period. The clerk would be
able to open a new qualifying period for only that vacancy as she would do for a special election regardless and give the required, you know, 7 days or 10 days or a qual for a candidate to qualify for that position and still have enough time
to notice the the clerk of um I'm sorry, not the clerk of cler to the supervisor of elections and make it on the regular November ballot. >> Okay. So, Mia, Mr. Attorney, you got that? No, no. I I understand >> little nuances that we're discussing here to allow a window sufficient that
if anybody wishes to run for the vacancy that he can qualify. >> I understand what the what the item is. Uh but as commissioner uh vice com vice chairman commissioner in uh alluded I think that there might be a
conflict but I'll get back to you by next uh my next meeting. >> Okay. Any other further discussion? All right. Um, so voting on the addiction of the an a new section to be
placed somewhere within as as to be determined within 2.5. Um, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed say no for the as as discussed just I I think it's a little
bit premature but nonetheless motion motion passes. All right. Anything further for section 2.5? All right, section 2.6. Any uh any motions? >> I don't have a motion. I have a question
if that's permissible. >> I think briefly >> I'm going to address it to the town manager. So, if I read this correctly, it says that um council members and the mayor receive a basically a cola cost of living adjustment um tied into the CPI for the
Miami area every year. That's automatic. That happens every year. >> Yes. >> Are they aware of this? Because I know that there's every year when I tune in to the budget meetings, there's always a discussion about colas for employees and there's, you know, a lot of debate about
that and some years employees aren't awarded colas. But are the council members aware that they automatically get a cola? >> I believe so. Uh obviously we have uh a lot of new council members on the council, but they may not be aware, but I'll find out uh for next meeting or I
could have it emailed to all of you what the current amount what the 400 is has increased to, you know, over the years with uh with the cola. >> Yeah. just it would seem to me that the fair thing to do to the employees is if the council is having that discussion that they're fully aware that they
automatically get it, you know, and if they're having a discussion about whether or not employees should get it seems, you know, not I don't know, just kind of seems like that really stinks for the employees if the council votes not to give it to them and they get it. But >> yeah, so just briefly because I I know
there's no pending motion right now, but go ahead, Councilman Fernandez. >> No, it was it was brought up. I I made a motion to to um to remove our our cola and it was noted it was it was clear that it was in the charter and we couldn't remove it.
>> Okay. >> So yeah. >> Right. >> So is there any pending >> but couldn't the charter demit revised to say that if the employees get the call the council gets the call if not just directly tie one to the other? >> Yeah. So we we could make a motion. I'll
just just one point of clarification just so everybody understands that in as I read the charter the cola is only applying to this amount of what it says is the what's listed currently or is currently in the charter of $400 for a
reimbursement expenses. it doesn't go to anything else. And I believe that's also reflected on the email that uh was present uh provided to us by the town clerk uh that provided a variety of different expenses that are benefits and
allowances which goes beyond what is provided for in the in the charge should be in there. The the current amount should be in that uh in that email. >> Yes. And yeah, it's it's specified and that's what I'm referring to. >> Yeah. specified there of the CPI index,
but it only goes as to that small that smaller amount uh that limited amount for this reimbursement expenses. It's not on on all the other benefits or anything that they may receive or >> if I remember correctly from my last year on the council, I think it was like $3 a month that that CPI.
>> Yeah, because Yeah, because at that point was 400, >> right? I'm sorry. Is the mayor's salary subject to COLA increases also? >> Yes. Yeah. I mean, higher salary, which is what 2,000 a month than expenses? >> Not per charter.
>> I don't know. That's why I'm asking. >> Yes, it is. >> No, Mr. Manager. >> It is. >> Well, it may be, but I'm I don't Well, at least not in this section 2.6. >> 2. >> No, it's by uh by ordinance. The compensation of the mayor is the is
established by ordinance. And I think in that ordinance is where it stipulates that. >> Could I request a copy of that ordinance for the next meeting? >> And what we could certainly do, I I would be very very scared to tie the
council's cola to the staff's cola. I think that's a very slippery slope, but I would definitely open the door to Councilman uh Fernandez's uh profer to allow the council to forego their colas. that that I think is, you know, the the fact that he
>> Yeah. the the fact that he offered that and that option wasn't available to him. I I would be very scared to tie it because >> Do you want to make a motion to add that language to this charter because this this requires it? >> Right. >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. I would I would like
to add language to to give the council discretion to forego it. >> I'll second. All right. I think the language would be to the extent of uh the council members shall have the
discretion to bypass >> right >> bypass forego >> to forego >> or the wave the colo requirement. >> Yep. >> And just as a point of information the current amount that is the monthly
amount is $844. So, the $400 uh with the multiple colas over the years and compounding is uh it's at $8.44. >> 844. Perfect. Because I was going to ask that in a minute. >> Uh so, the motion the motion that we have seconded right now is to add that additional language to to give the
discretion to each council members to determine whether or not they want to wave their cola. All right. Any further discussion on that? >> Yes. Uh >> sure. >> Question again, I think to the manager because perhaps Mr. manager, you were part of the first commission that perhaps put this in the charter. I don't know how long this has been in there,
but what was the rationale for I mean such a relatively small amount. I mean, you know, Commissioner Fernandez just mentioned what you saw was maybe $3 or whatever it was, but what was the rationale to, you know, mandate a cola on such a small reimbursement?
>> I don't remember. I mean, I don't rem I I'd have to look at the minutes and I I know that the minutes were sent to all of you earlier today uh to see if that was in from the original uh charter or if it was implemented at at a subsequent one.
>> Um so I don't know I don't know what the uh I'd have to look back at the minutes and see if it was there from the beginning and the CPI component, you know, what the rationale was. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I don't believe it was in the original. I don't believe that it was amended during the last commission. So I think
it was from the original. >> It wasn't in 16. Uh >> so I don't remember it in 16 either as being a part of it. So it might have been original. I'm surprised we missed it. >> Yeah. Or was there one before 16? I guess. >> No, that was the first one. >> That was the first one. >> Yeah, that was the first revision commission because it was implemented in
2005. >> So we may have missed it. So >> yeah. And but I I will say is you know I kind of say it in just but not really in just but you know $400 back in 2000 2001 when the original charter came out is a lot more than what >> you
what the CPI will do in 25 years it's doubled that original amount. So >> any further discussion on the amendment to add this language. >> All right. Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none. Motion passes. And then uh I'm just going to make a
motion real quick uh in line with what the manager said is to update in 2.6A the number of 400 to the current $844 per month and that just is simply to reflect what the current is so that way we can move forward with having a
current charter. Um is there uh is there a second to that motion? >> All right. Is there any discussion on that? Yeah, the that number may change because uh next October before this goes to vote for the uh to the residents to
the voters uh this number will get another CPI in the in October of next year of well this year. So the number 844 will be adjusted one more time. >> Okay. Is it would it be appropriate then to just not have a number because that
number is always going to change every year or it could change because they could vote to you know defer it or uh or not uh accept it but is it appropriate to just come up with language that says that you know they'll receive um a cola on their monthly reimbursement?
>> Yeah. And and the and the and I'm trying to remember I think it's like the August the August CPI number is the one that we use for that adjustment. I'll have to check with the budget. So, we we won't know the new number until like August.
>> I would just simply state this as to that. I understand what you're trying to do. Um but I'm just trying to think of how it would operate, right? Is by not having a number in there. It would really then >> any number >> by operation, it would go to the council, make a determination. Hey, look, this is now we're going to have a
reimbursement of $5,000 and subject to the COLA. And I I I think it has unintended consequences, but I understand your point and you know the manager Peterman's as to that. Um so what I would like to do is to uh I'm going to do what we've done a couple of
times now is to withdraw with the purpose of rec we'll bring this back and I think what we can do is just do what we make the calculation as to what the 844 is going to be in after October and we put in that number so that way it accounts for whatever the cola is going to be. So that way when it gets approved
that number will be fixed. Is that is that fine with you, manager Peterman? You guys >> Okay. So, my motion is going to be to withdraw. >> My motion at this point. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I.
>> Any oppose? >> Thank you, Baron. >> Yeah. >> Continue. >> Mr. I'm sorry. So, the item will come back for further discussion. >> Yes. Well, well, that's one of the deferral ones that I'm just going to be or anybody can bring back uh once uh we'll get from the manager Peterman's
recalculations of what that call is going to be. >> All right. Anything else on the 2.6? Seeing none, we're going to go to 2.7 recall. Anybody have any recommendations? Any motions? >> So, it's not a motion yet, but they
count is 4%, right? >> The recall. We're talking about recall at this point, right? 2.6. Which we're talking 2.7 >> I I want to I'm not sure exactly what Miami County I can look into it and come back. >> I'm sure.
>> Yeah, exactly. Sure. >> Yeah. >> All right. Is there uh any any motion as to right now for the recall 2.6? >> All right. Seeing none, uh we're going to that is we finished article two. Thank you very much. As we've noted, there's going to be some sections we're
going to move back on and uh move forward for consideration. Our next meeting is going to be February 12th in the chambers. Um as always, as we recommend, you know, we welcome any of the input from town members as well as from any of the commission members. If you guys have any proposals, especially
as we've discussed, particularly that C2, um if you guys have any drafts that you would like to share, please share them in advance so that we all can take a look at it to the extent possible and obviously we'll consider anything going forward. Um, and with that, uh, we stand adjourned. 11:34 PM. Thank you very
much. >> Have a good night, everyone. >> Good night. >> Good night.