It's about that Commissioner Fortuna Smuckler. >> Commissioner Lyn Sue >> here. >> Vice Mayor Mackenzie Flormon. >> Mayor Michael Joseph. >> Come here. >> We have >> pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Next up is presentations. The city
attorney. >> Oh, yeah. Open up for public comment, madam cl. Sorry, I thought I was going to go ahead. The mayor and commissioners of the city of North Miami Beach has opened the meeting for public comment at this time. There is a threeminut time limit for each speaker for public comment or
during testimony for public hearing. Speakers will be called to the podium. Please state your name and or the name and address of the organization in which you are representing. During public hearing items, please speak only on the matter the subject matter that is before
the commission. The mayor and commissioners of the city of North Miami Beach recognize the importance of civility. The city of North Miami Beach request that all in attendance to exercise civility towards each other. The first speaker is Whitney Pedote.
>> Good evening everybody. My name is Whitney Pedau. uh reside in Lazulu residents. Um thank you for this wonderful day and a special meeting mayor and commission um on the discussion on the charter review. My colleagues and I have spent many nights
with the city manager office and the city attorney office and the city clerk office major good discussions about how we want to rule the city and charter the city into a new way. Um, one recommendation that commissions to take
very seriously is the one thing on the ballot is the charter committee review discussing on NNB water utility director as a charter officer. Um, based upon the budget, based upon
the general fund, the water and sewer enterprise is larger than the actual general fund. Um, I really consider that you guys take the time to look into it, especially since Governor Ronda Santz have um passed some new laws pertaining
to our utility. And on top of that, property taxes are on the ballot this year. So, I also recommend even though our committee hasn't discussed um over the past couple weeks, is to also make the CFO a charter officer. In the past,
City of North Miami Beach has dealed with a lot of financial um tendencies or some mishaps. And I believe that the city of North Miami Beach should move forward to make sure that we're on the right track to
consider a CFO as a charter officer and as well as NMBB water utility director as a charter officer. they can come they can report directly to main commission especially since if that property tax do pass physical responsibility is going to
be the main concern and the main responsibility of everybody on that day that being said um thank you for your time and take our recommendation kindly and review and have great discussion >> next speaker Jerry Lazar
Good evening, commission. My name is Jerry Lazar. I reside at 1265 Northeast 155th Street, Miami, Florida 33162. I was part of the charter review committee. Um really was an honor to work with my colleagues to bring forth the information to you. Uh there's one
thing that I did want to highlight. I think the majority of us agreed to uh change the date from the election from being from November to May. I wanted to speak on an item because I actually disagree. I was the one person that opposed it. I don't believe we should
change the election date from November to May. I think it's not cost-effective. Um I think when we're reviewing the total of what it may take to move the election from November to May, it's like an additional $60,000. Also to the other issue that I had as a concern was the
fact that the majority of the voters actually come out in November versus May. So that was another reason why I didn't think it made sense for us to change it from November to May. However, my colleagues disagreed, but I thought that that was an important topic that I wanted to bring up to the deis. So thank
you so much and enjoy the rest of your session. We have Ruth Ojan. Good evening, mayor, commissioners, and city staff. My name is Ruth Oen, and I am here to support the charter
amendment to create a charter officer for the North Miami Beach Water Plant. This is not about creating more government. It's about protecting one of the city's most important assets. The water plant has more assets and brings in more money than the city's general
fund. It's a very large operation, yet it does not have a director who reports directly to the mayor and commissioners. Our CRA has its own executive director who reports directly to you, even though it is much smaller. If the CRA deserves
the level of oversight, then our water plant certainly does, too. The North Miami Beach Water Plant is one of the largest municipal water systems in Florida and serves thousands of customers every day. It needs a qualified professional whose only job is
to manage the water system, protect this valuable asset, and be directly accountable to this commission. State law has also placed greater importance on protecting public water systems for future generations.
Having a charter officer will help meet that goal. Most importantly, this change helps keep the water plant focused on serving the public instead of politics. It provides accountability, stability, and independent leadership for one of
the most important services our city provides. Please vote in favor of this charter amendment. Thank you. Janice Kley. Put on my glasses. Sir. Good evening, Mayor Council Commissioner
and Resident. Janice Kley, city employee. Um I'm speaking on the civil service. Civil service was created was a ordinance 7920. It was created September 4th, 1979.
It was revised December 19, 2017. And then it was took to the voters to get rid of civil service in 93. and the residents voted it down to keep. But we
had a city manager at that time revamp the city service rules and we have civil service but there was never anyone appointed to the boards. The civil service rules was made weak.
The civil service rules was there to protect also the employees. Um, I do not know why it's so important that you want to get rid of civil service and why the residents voted in the past
election to keep civil service. City of Miami, city of Hollandale, city of Miami Beach, city of High have civil service board. If you think the civil service rules is so bad, then make it
where is better for the employees here because one day there won't be a union and there'll be one person or a couple people making the decision. Um if you don't know the governor is trying to and I know you all sitting on
the desk what is going on with the union and we need more protection to protect all the employees and civil service is for bargaining and non-bargaining employees. So this is a great place to work for but I don't know why again that
civil service is being brought back up here to be put on the ballot when the residents voted the last time to keep civil service. Thank you. >> Former Commissioner Barbara Kramer. Good evening. I wasn't going to speak. Barbara Kramer. Um but I just wanted to
tell all of you that I commend you in your choices of appointments um of the citizens that took part in this charter review committee. I really really enjoyed working with everybody. Um, one
of the members was someone I had just met. This was a very thoughtful group, very dedicated, very, you know, just really took this very seriously. I'm sorry it's taken so long for this meeting to happen, but it's here. So, I
don't want to speak much longer. We really want you guys to work on this and push through whatever it is that you all see fit for our residents and try to get this going so we could see it on the ballot in November. Thank you.
>> Public comment closed. >> No, no, no. >> Okay. >> Good evening everyone. My name is Mabar Kazan. Um I'm the or I I'm the chair of the
charter review board. I hope that you would give us time to make a presentation. I would ask one of my colleagues, David Templar, to make that presentation for us. Uh in the meanwhile, I would be speaking as a resident now. Um, and if the mayor does
not want that to happen, the majority of commissioners can recommend that that presentation be allowed. Um, there are there's one a couple things here I pretty much disagree with that we had
agreed on. Um the civil service board should not be um troubled should be left in the charter and um the elected officials swearing in. It was proposed by our um city attorney representative
that when the um date county canvas board says well this person wins immediately that person now is the elected official and that should not be uh we have the president of the United
States of America being voted in the first um Tuesday in November and he or she has to wait until the 19th of January to be swearing in. I I've not come across yet where a city, a county or a normal country, normal city, normal
county or normal country that as soon as a person is declared that they are the winner immediately they are sworn and we are going to be bringing a lot of chaos with that proposal that he made and the
majority agreed with. So that you need to be careful with a lot of you could be affected as well too. And I want to say this, we we were given two months, we had nine meetings in that those two
months to do the charter review and um most of us came all the time and we really put out three four hours every meeting. uh the city took maybe almost like a month and a half to come back with our
recommendations. I think that could have done a little better but however I again I ask that uh Mr. David Templer represent us in making a presentation on what we had done. Thank you very much for having me.
>> Public comment closed. >> Mr. Mayor, I would like to take this opportunity to ask all the participants to rise because they they did do a lot of work and I want to thank them. I I believe we all want to thank them. So, if people if you can all rise so we can acknowledge who you are.
>> Absolutely. There's a So, Bruce Cousins and David Templer did not come up to make public comment, but they were also hardworking on this one. Appreciate all of you. Thank you so much. And I'm game to hearing a presentation if the other commissioners
are as well. >> All right. Section 4.1. Is that the city attorney or the city manager or 4.1? >> Yeah, that's the say that's the first one. Yeah. 4.1. Oh.
There are changes at 1.4 here. >> It No, it says I'm just looking at the I'm just looking at the agenda form. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, it says next legislation 4.1. There's only one item. That's all. >> Excuse me. I'm sorry, mayor. I saw what you meant of were referring to the charter. No, just
>> 4.1 is the presentation of the final report and review of provo the proposed recommendations and uh it is recommended mayor that uh as a presentation of the report that you uh have the committee uh
make a presentation. Uh the commission can set the the time limit so they can be guided accordingly. But it does call for the next item of business to be I apologize, Commissioner. Um, the next
item 4.1 of the agenda. Excuse me, I was looking at the charter. Um, calls for the presentation of the report. So, while it's the pleasure of the commission, it's recommended that you have the committee present its report to
the commission. And the commission may wish to set what appropriate time period it all lots for that. um because you have a great deal of business to do in front of you. So um it would be in order to proceed to that if that's your
pleasure but you should you know consider at least uh giving guidance to the presenters as to how long they'll have for the presentation. >> Uh how much time do I need? >> Mr. Kazan, do you as chair? Do you have a request?
>> Could I May I interject please? So I don't think they've made a presentation. >> No, they >> the the request is being made is >> okay. So as >> allowed to make a presentation by the chair uh by some a member that I guess the chair recommended. That's what the
request was being made. >> Right. As chairman of the committee, I would ask that uh Mr. Templar make the presentation on behalf of us and whatever questions he cannot answer, one of us will answer as well. If you have If you have questions to any of the of
the items that we had suggested, >> chair Kazan, the question was how long and maybe it should go to Mr. >> Temp. Yeah. How long do you think presentation? >> He he will tell you now. Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor, Mr. City Attorney. I don't um
I wasn't aware that a presentation was going to be asked of me and I don't really believe that it's necessary. I think the commission should really get to the meat of the matter and to the extent there are questions about any particular issue, I'm I'm here to answer any questions that I can and assist the
city attorney in presenting it to you, but I don't think that my wasting your time by going over what you're going to consider is very effective and useful. >> Thank you. And Mr. I appreciate that, Mr. Templar. I would like to add just for the benefit of the commission that
Mr. Templar um principally undertook to take the suggestions uh brought by the members of the committee and furnished everyone with a sort of a running red line that assisted the committee greatly in reaching its final decisions at the
last two meetings. I want to just publicly thank Mr. Templar for all the work that he did in doing that. With that said, mayor, the suggestion, if that's the presentation, is that the commission is prepared, the members of the committee, excuse me, are prepared to answer any questions. Uh my
suggestion would be that we simply go through um well, there's two ways you can do it. Let me say first of all, you could start just by going through line by line. Uh you could also start because at some point we need to make a decision
as to how this is gonna you know what if anything is going to go on the ballot. You can do all of it. You can do none of it. You can do parts of it. But how you're going to put it on and what's going to be presented is a decision. But
whether you want to try to address that first or whether you simply want to first look at the individual suggestions and talk about those and then be guided by that. That's up to you. But you should decide when you want to get to
how and whether you want to do the walkth through first. Commissioner Turnoff. >> Yeah. Um thank you for the committee members. You did a wonderful job. I really appreciate it. Um, we just got the full document completely redlinined
and everything. So, in order for going one page by one page, there's a lot of scriers errors. There's a lot of little language corrections and I wouldn't want to go over all those, just the meat ones. That's my preference.
>> Um, what I can do if you let me let me back up. So is it your your view that go through the everything first and then decide how and what you'll put on and how you'll proceed at the end of going through it or do you
want to get to that right away? No, not not to go through it all because like and to or or something >> whatever you're going to go through and I I can streamline that but do you want to do that first and then how you're
going to go about treating it or you want to put that at the end? >> At the end I would guess. >> Okay then. >> No. Okay. Um, is that is that how you want this? >> I'm fine.
>> Fine. >> All right. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you. Through the mayor. Um, I want to thank the committee so much. Um, I know I've heard from a lot of people that went to the meetings how much former commissioner David Templer Health
and Bruce Cousins. We had attorneys actually on the committee. So, I'm very grateful for all of them. very knowledgeable. I'm not I've been on a charter review committee prior to this and what we were given
before were a list of 10 items. It could have been nine. It could have been 11. And we were told not to pick too many because when people get to the ballot and they start to vote, they're not going to read through 10. Pick what you
think. Now, reviewing this yesterday, the way it's written, I don't know. I can point out what the what maybe six or seven of them are thoughts that we want to change. And some were brought up for
us to us tonight by the audience speaking by the residents giving their their opinions on some of what we're going to vote on. But is there a list of just sentences what it entails?
Because reading the changes of the powers and etc. And I made some notes that if they go through some of them needed corrections, I thought like 2.4 four needs the word or but um
and 3.11 needed to add the negotiations in with the manager's role but I'm not quite sure what are the are there 10 and what are the 10 that we're voting on I know civil service I know to have uh
charter officer for the water plant because I hear people speak and I read but am I missing Um that's my question >> may >> through the mayor if I might. >> Um well couple of things there commissioner. Um there's not a list. >> There is a red line. There are a lot of
changes but as commissioner chernoff points out some of them are grammatical. Some of them are merely clarifying. Um some of them are very significant.
But neither the committee nor the staff chose to be the ones to characterize what is significant as opposed to what is not. Um there is no requirement that each change or each significant
change or each change that you want the voters to consider be presented in a separate question. Um actually uh often things can be presented in one single
ballot question that says do you you know that the there's a draft available on file and do all of these changes do you vote them up or vote them down? That's one way to do it. And that's
almost always done when you're presenting an entirely new charter, but depending on how significant the changes are, uh there's always usually at least one that's like an omnibus that covers all the minor what are characterized as
minor suggestions um and grammatical changes. Um, you can choose to break particular items out for other questions, but a 75word
summary of what it provides is typically enough to describe at least briefly the substance of the changes that are being sought. if you want to do it as one up or down
item. The the supervisor's office has certainly discouraged us from presenting a lot and you know to say that we don't have an upper limit would not be um
correct. They there's only so many they're willing to put on, but you know, the clerk's been in good contact with them. They didn't give us a number. They didn't say you can have six. They didn't say you could have uh 12, but they just
didn't say, but they encouraged the fewer the better. And as I said, one option is to simply do one. But as far as a list, what I would say is we can just walk through
change by change. Some will require no comment. Some are pretty obvious, some may require some comment. There may be some comment uh by me as staff on some of them. Um the manager may choose to weigh in on something as well, but
we'll we'll go through them then is what I understand has been suggested and then the commission can decide how you want to treat them and what gets put on the ballot. Again, you don't have to. These are recommendations. Nothing goes on that you don't say good. My my personal
preference would be we discuss each one as a commission whe whether it's the civil whether it's a new charter officer whether it's the date of the voting we discuss it and then at the end of each
discussion come to conclusion whether we're putting that on or not putting that on or at the end of all of them I would like to discuss each one amongst us. That would be my preference. M >> that's the suggestion that's been made and basically as I said we walk through
change by change. If one requires no comment then you know if it's some a minor grammatical change everyone can say next item but if there is some reason to discuss it then the commission discusses that item as long as you want to discuss that item and then we move on
in the list to the next one. Uh not it's not a list on in the the the red line to the next item. Mayor >> Commissioner Sue. >> Thank you. Um first of all I want to mention by name. So uh Mubarak Kazan, Bruce Cousins, David Templer, Barbara
Kramer, Geraldene Lazar, Whitney Pot. I want to commend them for the hard work. It was nine meetings in two months. That's a lot of meetings and each meeting sometimes lasted till 9 or 10 or later. We bought lunches, we ate
together, you know, I mean I attended I had the privilege of attending some of them and I know how much effort they put into this. Um this is a in in you know I also want to commend my colleagues here that appointed such a good team to be on
the uh charter review board as this is an important issue that we are addressing. So, with that said, um I know that, you know, there's limitations on how many referendums we put on the ballot and whatnot. I believe that when the board was discussing this, they
themselves had a ton of things, a lot more than whatever it is that they're bringing forward to us. So, I want to respect their time and their effort. I these are all intelligent people who really care about our city and if it is
on there and they're proposing it. I am I am suggesting that these mean that they are important to them and out of respect for their effort, I would love for all of us to uh consider these issues and see if we would like to have them on the ballot. So, uh with that
said, um I believe I just want to clarify this with uh the mayor. We are actually going to go each item by each item, discuss it and vote on it and then move on to the next item. Is that correct? >> Um, no. >> Have you decided or we're still
discussing it? >> No, we're He gave a suggestion. We're just going to go through it. >> If we go through the whole thing, then what is it? We're going to vote yes across the board. >> We're just going by the um >> Well, I like that idea. >> You like the one that I'm proposing >> going Yeah. >> one by one and then just voting on each one.
>> Yeah. >> Which is what Phyllis did, right? Right. >> I think so. >> Okay. No, I just wanted to clarify because it seems like um the attorney said something else. So, I just wanted to make sure. >> Mr. Attorney, through the mayor, do you
know how many issues there were? Do you know a number? >> That's very difficult to answer because that depends on if you count every little grammatical change. But sometimes those little grammatical changes are important.
>> I'm talking about the major issues. You have an idea. >> Even to define which are considered major would is not for staff to do. So I can't tell you how many changes are in the red line. Um they're there. You can
you can see them. I mean, we could look at every place there's a red line, but you know, certainly some of them that change the same article. It's not necessarily that you need to consider
each word separately as opposed to the change in a particular article or a particular section. So, I mean, what's there is what's there and you're privileged to, you know, talk about them. We've suggested talking about them one at a
time and how and when you vote on things is up to the up to you. >> Mr. Mayor, if I could ask Mr. Templar if he has an idea of how many and the reason the purpose of me trying to find out a number is if there's 12, maybe we want to pay attention to which ones in
particular because we're going to vote one at a time that we're going to try to eliminate not to have 12 on the ballot to have maybe eight on the ballot. And that's a reason why you might not vote on them >> till you see which other ones are coming
up. But let me say again, not every question not every ch Let me put it this way. Not every change has to be a separate ballot question. That's not required. >> No, I know. I was asking major changes.
>> Did you know, Mr. Templar, major changes? I don't remember how many changes were made, but addressing uh Commissioner Churnoff, there were only >> No. Well, no, no. Here's Well, look, just to clarify, here's here's where so it can I can simplify a lot of it.
Depending on how you set it up, you can have a million questions or whatever, right? However, if it's like the way the I guess the city attorney was pointed, the most comprehensive way is a like an ominous type of thing. it has everything and then from that one thing you can
take off from what you want. Now if you you can separate it and do it that way but it will be it will create um situations later on down the road. I'm just seeing it that way but it is what it is. Oh go ahead. >> Uh thank you. So
>> can we get the answer from Mr. Tempor? >> Just responding to M uh Commissioner Chernoff. There was only two or three uh really grammatical ministerial changes. The vast majority of this is substantive change to the charter. I think there was
one place where it still said council versus commission. There was one place where it said as uh provided for in this charter versus it should have said as provided for by general law. But those th those ministerial issues were
relatively small compared to the substantive issues that were raised. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So there there there not a vast number of changes in the in the charter. Um I think it's it's it's a lot of work um that went
into this, first of all, and I want to thank you guys for all of your efforts. Um but but the changes are not vast to the point where we can't go through um the vision of the charter committee, the charter review committee. I think we should go through one by one and then
once we go through one by one, we have a synopsis of okay, this is where they started, this is where they ended and then we can come back and then start taking up items individually and deciding what we're going to do about each particular item. But I I want to see a synopsis of what took place in
that review. Um and and I think the only way we do that is by literally going through, you know, one section 1.4. Here's what happened. Here's where where they redlined. Here's what they came up with. Here's what their suggestion. And then we move on to the next section until we're complete.
>> Well, I would like to vote on it after each item so that we don't kind of forget. >> No. Well, I I think the synopsis is important as a whole because perhaps one section may affect the other. Um, and I think that's important as well because
some sections may affect the other. Um, and and I would I would hate to vote on a particular section only to find out that here's how it would affect another section of the charter. Um, so that's the reason behind and it's not a lot. That's what I'm saying. We I think we
can just read through it and then come back and vote section by section. Ready to start? >> Can you go through it? Um, city attorney. >> Yes, sir. >> Each section. All right. >> And I'm going to issue I'm going to go,
you know, line change by change. >> Thank you, Mr. Templar. >> I'm sorry. >> Said thank you, Mr. Templar. >> I was going to say um to Mr. Templar that was the point of my comment that I was starting commissioner was that let
me just issue since he's speaking for the committee and was also very much uh one of the principal draftsmen of the red line that you're looking at. If we
get to something and there is not if it's not readily apparent, I want to issue a standing invitation to Mr. Templar on behalf of the committee to please without being necessarily
invited. If you feel it's necessary, just come back to the microphone and and please help by explaining why it says what it says. So, with that said, >> why don't you let him sit next to you? >> I'm sorry. >> Why don't you let him sit next to you?
>> He's always welcome to sit next to me. That's his choice. >> If you'd like to do that, Mr. Templar, that's up to you. You're more than welcome. Happy to have you. >> Thousand an hour. >> See, that was my concern. Commissioner, I I'm not sure we want to.
>> Isn't that what we're being charged anyway nowadays? He has volunteered many, many, many, many of his hours for the city. >> He's put in a lot of work on this in particular. >> If I may, I mean, it it's not just the seven of you up here that are taking your time. It's everybody else in the
room. And I I want to be very respectful of everybody's time because nobody likes a long meeting, and I certainly don't. So, Mr. Galler can go through these. If I have a comment or you have a question, I'm happy to stand here and answer them. But I really think that your time is
more valuable than just to get to the substance and the meat of the matter than listen to me drone on. >> So we'll invite you to sit. >> I I'll wait. >> Wherever you want to sit, Mr. >> Right here. >> Okay. Well, I hate to keep you on your feet. This could be a while. I if it was
me, I'd be sitting down someplace. Wherever you want to sit, it's fine. Um I believe the first changes are on page 10. Is that right, Madam Clerk? >> That's correct. >> Uh, by the way, as you know, the clerk is away on bereavement leave, but I do
want to specially call out the assistant clerk um because uh quite frankly, um we wouldn't have this without Elizabeth. I mean, it's just a fact. And she came in on holidays and she came in on on
weekends to help get this done. The clerk worked at it very hard, too. But I do want to recognize the assistant clerk specifically. Um, page 10. Uh, what what the madame clerk did, madame assistant clerk, madame clerk for today's
purposes, she printed out this separate document called charter recommendations and she's highlighted and attached pages where there are particular red line changes to look at
and it's in a little bit larger font. So you may want to try and work for that from that document and then go back to the main red line if you find the need to do so. Know that there are pages and pages of the geographical limits of the
city like I've never seen in any other government entity because the city's borders and donut holes are so irregular. I've never seen anything like it. But it goes on and on. Page 10 of
27. And again, if you want to look at this, it begins with 1.4 powers. And in this case, I just want to note that in the second paragraph where there are
some changes, the final language is in blue. But I don't want you to conclude that what is redlined was the original language. What is redlinined in this case
was an initial proposal to the charter review committee for changing what was there. The entire second paragraph is added, but there is some language that is
redlined, struck through, and it's it's not language. None of that paragraph is language that's in the existing charter. So, the entire second paragraph is a proposal. And as you can see, it uh
well, frankly, it was the result of some substantial negotiation. Um whether you think that this second paragraph is exactly
necessary is up to you. Uh it is new language. It is charter committee language and perhaps this is one where Mr. Templar might want to offer some
reason for the change because I mean frankly I don't think there's anything in that paragraph that is not already mandated by existing organic law of the state of Florida.
>> If I may, Mr. Mayor, that paragraph was added by the committee uh at the suggestion of uh committee member Bruce Cousins. It was primarily intended to
codify language in the charter as to the city's responsibilities and it primarily stemmed from some of the development agreements that were um made and approved through the commission whether by this one or prior ones with um our
commercial interests throughout the city. There was some concern about whether or not the materials that were being submitted in support of those development plans were accurate um or were up to date and that the
commission when those things were considered not necessarily you all were basically being hoodwinkedked by these developers and so this language was inserted if if I'm correct and and Bruce is here to so put the respons responsibility on the city of assuring
that the materials and information that it's provided pursuant to things such as these development agreements is accurate and up to date. >> Is that right, Bruce? >> Yeah,
that's that's exactly right. >> Mr. President, could you microphone, please? You're welcome to, sir, with the chair's permission, but it needs to be into the microphone. >> Yeah, just >> if I summarize it correct, you can let him know. >> He He did summarize it. Absolutely.
>> And please introduce yourself. >> Uh, this is Bruce. My name is Bruce Cousins and u I'm learning how this works here. Um, good sir. >> I I noticed in the development agreements and the materials they submitted for approval that they were
based on 15, 20 year old flood maps, flood zones. How how your predecessors could possibly not demand current information that deals with life safety things and evacuations
is just beyond me. So, I did take the liberty of adding that you will make decisions based upon current and reliable data. The operative word is current. Um, even when the developer was challenged about why did you use a
20-year-old flood map when there were others much more recent available, uh, well, we couldn't find them. I had no problem finding them. Anybody that can play with Google would have no problem finding them. So, I don't want to lobby about that, but I don't think it's
unreasonable to say that you'll make decisions based on current and reliable data. That's what I added and I'll shut up. Thank you. >> And just by way of uh further quick comment on it because I don't want to beat a dead horse. It's a not the I'm
speaking into the microphone. It's I I don't know what to say. I mean, I'll put it right here. Is this better? Because I was speaking right into it. Um we had some negotiation about the language of this and um Mr. Cousins was
uh accommodating and agreeing to language that would not be legally improper. Um so let me say that you know for instance the last sentence says all governmental actions and agreements shall remain subject to this charter.
Well, the charter governs the actions of the city whether that sentence is there or not. Having said that, uh we have no objection legally to what this says. It's whether it's
required and whether you want to have a a separate ballot question relating to this language or if you want to have an omnibus or if you want to combine everything into one, whatever. But if you think it's significant to add
this, there's no objection on the part of the city attorney's office. >> If I may, if I may add that um because there was a statement earlier that some may be impacted by others some changes. So when you look at 2.2, the second
paragraph of 2.2 two on page 11 was also added and that backs up the statement that was added the paragraph that was added in 1.4. So you can see it says the commission shall make written findings and I'm by
the way I'm reading off my red line not what the clerk wrote but the commission shall make written findings when considering major development actions addressing public safety infrastructure capacity evacuation etc. That goes handinand with what was in 1.4 four which was suggested uh as added by Mr.
Cousins. So those two sort of go hand in hand with um unless there's a further question about 1.4. Um I'll move on to the next change and um you know quickly
we're going to get to the 2.2 that >> are we going to discuss whether we're in agreement of that or not yet? We're just going to go through it because there's a lot there's a lot of them. >> So, if somebody has an objection to speak up. >> Yeah. But I rather it's a lot of them.
>> Yeah. And Mr. Tempor pointed out that there is it is accurate to say that sometimes one of the things that's in front of you is related to or impacted by Yeah. 2.2. >> You know, you do want to hear 2.2. So
anyway, let me let me continue to go through >> make a note if it's a yes or no. Yeah. >> And if there's, you know, of course, if any commissioner has any comment, I mean, if there is a comment by any of the commissioners on 1.4 before we move
on. However, since we would like to finish today, um don't feel obligated to make a comment if none is required. Um, I'll move on to 2.1.
This is mayor and vice mayor. The beginning, there's the second paragraph on the document in 2.1
is mostly struck through. That was the original language, the beginning. the mayor shall preside. There is a new paragraph in red redlinined ahead of that that
replaces all but the last sentence in the old paragraph and that sentence is the sentence about vi vice mayor. There's a change there as well, but the
new paragraph is there and it says what it says. I mean, I'm not going to waste our time reading it to you. I I am absolutely certain that every single member of the commission can read that paragraph. I I know that
to be a fact. So, I'll invite you to read it. And if there's any comment or any request for explanation or why it's different, the original language is right underneath it. It's struck through, but you should be able to read
it. Mr. Mayor through May I ask Mr. Templar a question? Mr. Templar, >> I'm sorry. >> So, Mr. Templar. Um, >> so now you're requiring >> the mayor. Mayor. >> Yeah, I already did. I asked him. Thank
you. >> Um, it looks like it's uh there's I mean like requiring them to do a state of the city address. And I mean what came about, how this come about?
>> That's a great question cuz I don't remember this change. So I can't comment on it. I I just don't remember that change. That may have been in the like the very first meeting. And it's even in my red line, it's not even present. But um
>> does anybody on the board remember >> what is the question? >> Why 2.1 came into place? the revised language of 2.1 compared to the previous language I think is >> and and why does it say the mayor shall
annually present a state of the city message like why are we >> requiring that yeah >> and I would like to know why the words till head was removed when he is the face of the city to
be the cheerleader for people to come to North Miami Okay. Um, what I remembered is they followed what Aventura, the city of Aventura has for the mayor. That is what they followed and whomever suggested it,
we I think we collectively voted for this. So, >> you did vote or did not? I didn't hear you. >> Yeah, we we did vote for it. They I think it was u Mr. Pot who um suggested that we follow the Aventur style. It
probably benefits more of the current mayor. What he what he has the duties that he has is going to boost him a little bit more. >> I think >> and we voted for it and it passed unanimously. >> Thank you, sir.
>> Through the mayor. I think there's a few things in here. We're not Aventura. Aventura mayor is everywhere. Everywhere. 12 times a day. 20 days a week. He's everywhere. And
he's on social media. If we want that to be part of North Miami Beach, then the requirements of the mayor should be a little more specific. And I just want to understand because I'm very basic at trying to understand
what the paper says. The mayor is going to have the service of process, execution of duly authorized contracts, deeds, and other documents. Does not that have to say upon
commission approval of those things? I mean, that seems to me to be very open-ended for the mayor's duties >> through through the mayor. Um, I can't tell you again that look, there
are a few items that came before the committee where I offered a legal opinion because I thought something might not be consistent with general law. But as a rule,
if there was a desire to make a change, I didn't find it necessary to weigh in or comment extensively on every change that the committee wanted to adopt because it's not the
staff recommendation, it's the committee that was appointed by you. And so in many cases, as I think Mr. Tempor would confirm. We just said it's up to you committee. Whatever you want to recommend if the commi if the commission
wants to adopt it, they will. Uh there are quite a number of I I don't think your particular concern about saying voted on by the commission
is a problem because the word is duly authorized contract deeds and other documents and that's what do authorization means is where necessary for a commission vote.
But the chief executive officer of the city administration is the manager. There are some documents that call for a mayor's signature, but most of of these are actually
executed by the manager. And inserting this language, again, I didn't have a legal objection. I don't have a legal objection, but whether the substitute language that I
guess I vaguely remember came from Aventura, whether it's necessary to use and change the language, whether you have to state that there shall be a state of the city. I mean, typically I
think that's done frequently, but it's not a charter requirement and it's not a shouldn't necessarily be a violation of charter if that for whatever reason doesn't occur. It could be for nothing more than budgetary reasons or it could
be because there's a a COVID crisis. >> Okay? So, it's up to you, but perhaps you don't need to make the change if the change is not something you're comfortable with. I don't think it has any grave legal implications. I do think
that the the change to the previous last sentence that's redlined in paragraph 2 about vice mayor is more significant. But you're free to adopt this red line language if you want to. It's not
legally impermissible, but it is not, in my opinion, necessary. >> Okay. Well, we're here to decide what we want to change in the charter. So, I would like to make it very clear. I
missed the duly I missed that class of dy authorized contracts because I think I had the flu in my law class that day. But >> probably >> I appreciate you explaining it to me because I don't unfortunately the
charters only change or maybe fortunately it's such a obvious um undertaking only 10 every 10 years and what we change in the charter is going to stick. I would like this paragraph to make sure that the mayor performs the
duties because unfortunately what I've seen is our mayor very rarely shows up and I want to make this clear that the mayor will perform the duties as a tillular head. Not this mayor. Any mayor
in the future won't just say I'm the mayor. I'm handling the commission meetings. I'm also going to go out there and represent the city because that's what the mayors I've seen in cities near
us do. So, I would like this clearly and I would ask Mr. Templar to help me decide what kind of a line to make that very clear in this. >> I'm going to interrupt for one moment before we get to Mr. Templar with
deference to Mr. Templar. Um, if you wanted to say if if the language about being the titular head is significant to you, and I have no reason to disagree. I mean, again, it's up to the pleasure of the commission, but just
stick with the language that you have there. There's nothing that's being added that's a huge big deal. And I mean whether any individual mayor
does what that mayor deems appropriate or otherwise is not something that you can dictate by charter. >> I don't think you quite understood what I had as a goal then. >> Well, you said you wanted the language about titular head that was there. No,
but we can I want to add whatever word that maybe Mr. Templer will help me or maybe Mr. Cousins will help me to make sure whoever is the mayor in this city will be the mayor representing
us when and where necessary. >> That's my point, Commissioner. >> And not that the mayor >> you cannot dictate that changing the charter. You cannot dictate individual conduct in a charter.
Excuse me. The voters, >> Mr. Attorney. >> Yes, ma'am. >> The charter clearly is dictating right now as we read it what the mayor's duties are. Once a year, he will have a state. We're clearly looking. >> No, ma'am. That's the proposed language.
That is not what your charter says now. >> Well, well, that's what I'm trying to do. have proposed language. Maybe you're understanding a little better now because you repeated it. >> I would like to have proposed language. >> Thank you, Mr. Temple. >> If I may, and and I appreciate I
appreciate the passion with which you are addressing this, but I'll make this very brief because I don't want this meeting to last until 11:00. The substantive changes here are not significant. It's a change in the
language that is not necessarily substantive. It was, as I recall now, um, suggested by member uh, Whitney Pedote, who framed it on the language by Aventura, but it doesn't really change
much other than the language. For example, you mentioned for service of process. Well, by state law, the mayor is the person upon whom service of process is made already. So, that's as an example. The only substantive change
that I'm seeing here is for the state of the city address, which would technically require, but as city attorney Geller suggested, if you begin to delineate exactly what any given person must do, you're going to run into
a problem because then if they don't follow to the letter of the charter, what is the remedy? The remedy is they're subject to being voted out of office. It's not as though they're going to be removed for violation of the
charter by the governor. So, it becomes an issue of how this commission wants to collectively and collegiately have the mayor represent the city in these events that you would like. But I don't know
that this language being any more delineated or strict is going to change anything other than what it already has changed, which again is more language change than substantive change. >> I I heard you. That makes a lot of
sense. I heard you loud and clear. I personally from my seat and my years of experience would love to figure out a way that the charter does require whoever is the tillular head to
act like the tillular head to be at meetings to be out there singing the praises of our city. So if there's some way to incorporate that, incorporate that without, we can think about it. We
don't have to have the word this second. But those that go to these events or those that go to the whatever it is, a grand opening, and do not see our mayor, I mean, even simple events like Junth
and you don't see the mayor, it's very heartsickening for the public. I just wanted I would like that to be somehow part of this. >> But Commissioner, Mr. Templar, >> I heard >> hits the nail on the head when he says >> I heard what he said. >> There's no remedy.
>> I heard what he said. >> Right. There's there's really no way to enforce that except collegiately amongst yourselves. to say he's got to be at at this event or that event or any event doesn't really add anything because there's
there's there's it's it's like a statute that said there's a violation, but there's no remedy for it. It's just a continuing violation for purposes of something down the road if you wanted to bring it up at an election and say, "Well, the mayor abdicated his responsibility. He wasn't here. He wasn't there." But I I would tend to
believe, and this is just my opinion, there's going to be more substantive issues than that. If there's a challenge to somebody's seat, whether it's the mayor or anybody else, I I I really respect the the gumption and focus you have on this, but again, I think that
this is more of a language change than a substantive change. and you know >> if it were me >> I agree with that but but because that's the way it's written we're here to discuss what else could be added or deleted and I don't know would in your
in your thoughts of being on the commission would the words added that they're the tillular head be then there comes a time when you can say the tillular head is not performing the duties I'm just asking >> you could you could certainly add that
language, but Mr. City Attorney, when does this have to go to the county? >> Uh, they need it by the 24th. And um, >> so that's 10 days. >> Yeah. >> So, there's not really time to amend language. >> No, but we could add it now. We could
add a tillular head as a sentence, >> but you It's in the previous language, Commissioner. That's in the previous language. If you make no change, then the language you're asking for is there already >> through the mayor.
>> Or you could simply add that word before the word ahead and >> through the mayor. >> You're done. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Commissioner. >> Okay. Um I I feel like we're deviating from the original um >> Yes. >> instructions. So if we can go through uh
Mr. um city attorney, >> but if we have question Mr. Vice Mayor, though I we did say with all No, I understand that. I'm I'm saying that the question >> and I I I value her question and I I'm I'm not trying to dismiss it, but what
I'm saying is we it's been a while, so we we have to kind of move on and then we'll come back. >> All right. Well, I do have a question through the mayor, if I may. >> Oh, sorry. Um, so I just want to know where it says the mayor shall annual
pres annually present a state of the city message. So what happens if they don't? >> Nothing. >> So what's the point of even having it? >> That's correct. >> You're correct, Commissioner. >> That was Mr. Temple. >> This was this exactly was part of the
debate in the committee meeting is that this is a language change. The substance change is not significant and it doesn't have a lot of bite to it. It's not as though um somebody who doesn't present a state of the city address, whether it's
Mayor Joseph or anybody else in the future, doesn't mean you're subject to any kind of a a disciplinary action or removal from office also through the mayor. Um if I may, you know, we we have ordinances and resolutions,
and so I think we have to be mindful of what those accomplish as well. if there are certain things that we want to see done or that we want to make a statement on. So, um, we, you know, the charter itself, you know, serves one purpose, but then the ordinances and resolutions we can
deal with, um, at another time to address certain issues. So, just wanted to make that point. >> You you can decide whether you want the new language, whether you want to amend the new language, or whether you want to stick with existing language once we've
finished walking through. I think that was the vice mayor's point also. So I'll move on to the next one unless there are further questions or comments. I'll move to the next change which is more substantive and um again you can make
your decision when we've finished walking through and you decide what you think is important and what you don't. But the next one is to the last sentence of the existing paragraph 2-1.
And currently it just says the commission shall elect from its membership of vice mayor. It doesn't say you know when that takes place or what. We understand that the
I'll use the word tradition in the city of North Miami Beach, at least as I've seen it over the last number of years, is that it's rotated. And my understanding is it's rotated a little
oddly every four months, not quarterly, which is what you think instinctively, but that's not the case. every four months. There are three vice mayors per year. In a two-year term, that
>> could cover everyone, assuming, but it still has to be done by a vote. I mean, if there was someone that you as a commission just wanted to break with tradition and say it's not going to be that person, um, I
think you have the right to do that. But just the every four months is no stronger than that's you know how you've been doing it. So the whether you need to do that by charter
>> want to cut myself >> is a question that hovers over a lot of this. There's a lot of these things that this committee report seeks to mandate in the charter where it's uh to use a word frozen.
You can't change it without going back to the voters. >> Mr. City attorney, if I may, just to cut to the chase, >> that that addition and that sentence was merely intended to codify custom. That's it. you guys have already and other
commissions have already uh replaced with a vice mayor every four months, but it wasn't there. And so it was merely added to codify custom. That's it's as simple as that. It's a 30-cond explanation. And and that's correct. I just want to point out though,
you could still do that, but you could do it per the vice mayor's point. You could pass an ordinance that says you'll elect a new vice mayor um every four months. It doesn't contradict the existing charter language, but if at
some point you felt it wasn't working, you could the commission itself could change it after two readings and public hearing and everything, putting it in the charter may be unduly restrictive. You may like the change but not think it has to be a
charter change. But anyway, that's unless there's a question, we can move on to the next section. Are there any vice mayor through the vice mayor? Any questions or comments? >> Um, any questions or comments? All right, we can move on.
>> Okay, the next thing we come to is what Mr. Templer referred to earlier 2.2 the city commission. The city commission is described as seven members, one of whom is the mayor,
legislative body, and it talks about what its powers are. Um, you know, to set public policy. That's the role of a commission in a commission manager form of government. And that's provided for in the existing
section 2.2. Um, there's a paragraph added in red line. There's one further correction for final language that's in blue, but basically this says that ordinances and
development agreements must be consistent with the charter. I have to tell you as a matter of law you don't need to say that because ordinances can't contradict your charter
and development agreements are entered into subject to law and that's why you have staff you have a specifically a community development department and subd departments that review those things and
run them through a city manager who presents them to you. So whether you need to state that in your charter, um this also requires written findings when considering major development
actions. I mean that's what is a major development action? That's not really defined, but it does talk about public safety, infrastructure, capacity, and evacuation. I mean there are other things. And then it says shall constitute non-compliance
with the charter. If you amend the charter to say you have to, then yes, not doing it would be non-compliance. Whether you need these things as opposed to them being required under
general law is questionable, but again, uh, the city attorney's office doesn't have an objection to the language. It's up to you to decide whether you need it. Now, let me turn to Mr. Templar to add something. >> Yes, Mr. Vice Mayor, with your permission. Again, this language is
added to coincide with the 1.4 which we talked about earlier. Um, I agree with the city attorney that the first sentence is sort of redundant because it's already understood that your actions must comply with ordinances
and development agreements consistent with the charter or consistent with the ordinances. Anyway, so the the second sentence is what is tied into 1.4 four, which we discussed earlier about uh people submitting development agreements
with outdated um support. And it does ask for written findings. That can be a little curious because um you all don't issue written findings. You you have a meeting, you stayed
orally, there's minutes of the meetings and that's it. There there's not a written report that's signed off on. But to the extent that uh you were doing a written report and you didn't do one, that last sentence says failure to make such finding constitutes non-compliance.
Again, it's a bark without a bite. There's really nothing other than aspirationally that is being said here that you should do this. And if you don't, that's the way it goes. I don't really see that
it's it's got a lot of bite to it. It's an aspirational goal. What you might also end up doing is uh inadvertently frustrating the will of the city commission because while
there's no penalty on the commission for not doing it, you might be opening a door to litigation on something that the commission votes 70 to do and someone says, "Well, I don't think you made the right written findings or sufficient
written findings Um, and then going back to, you know, I mean, you you you have staff, you have a manager, but you yourselves get this information.
I know that at least some of you, maybe all look at that stuff very carefully, read every word, ask an awful lot of questions about it, and if you think something is not current, you have the
ability to speak up and say, "I'm not going to support this or vote for it," when you have final authority unless we get something more current. But some things don't change. If it's a map and it's showing, you know, where the
waterways are, it could be 10 or 20 years old. Presumably, it hasn't changed much. Now, some things do. You know, traffic may change more and you know what is quote current. I mean, I'm just concerned the
language could invite litigation. >> Mr. Mr. Attorney. >> Yes, sir. Let's uh go to Commissioner Smith. Um she has a question and if anyone else has a question. Okay. So there there'll be no more questions after Commissioner Smith. Okay. So Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Jean and then we'll move on from this
particular point. But thank you for your um comments on that. My >> my question was it's the way it's worded. The commission shall make written findings. Okay. How's the seven of us going to prepare a written document? That's
that's what Templer that's what uh former commissioner was saying. >> Um and and then in the end when Mr. Templer said something about having teeth in it, it says failure to make this written
document. It says such findings, but this written document so constit constitute non-compliance with the charter. So I I mean it doesn't say you'll have staff, you'll have the minutes. It doesn't say that. It says
the commission shall make written findings. I just I find that to be something that may have to be removed. >> Uh thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner John. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um good evening. I wanted to also take a moment to thank
the committee for their time. I think this is the first time I'm actually making a comment. I have a suggestion. I see that on the on uh the revision page we were given 10 to 14, 16 through 19 and then 21 through 23. Can we take
those in chunks? Cuz I think if we go through this entire document then go back. I think commission all most of the commissioners mentioned if we were to review each and then make a vote because if we go through everything and then come back, we're going to be here double the time.
So my suggestion is that if we can go from page 10 to 14 after the review is done, can we just take a vote on that subsection? >> Um, >> right. But you would still have to take each item individually obviously, but we
need to we can't just go through this whole thing. >> So what are you saying exactly? You want you want to vote >> you want to vote in sections. in sections, but if you have objections for each item, we would still go each item >> once we take your notes and then we go and take those votes individually so
that we can at least >> get do one section that through the vice mayor. >> We need to speed it up. >> Okay. So, is that a motion? >> Motion. Yeah. Okay. You have Okay. Um, >> I didn't No. Uh, Commissioner Smuckler did.
>> I just would like to go through them all so I know how many before I vote yes or no on three or four cuz we could vote yes on all four and turn up that there's 12 more coming down the pike. >> And and I think um to to Commissioner Smith's point, it we we didn't want for
something that affected another piece to to be ignored. So um that that was the reason we were going through all of them and taking notes. But since we have a motion on the table in a second, do you want to keep your motion or >> Well, here's what I'll say to that. Um,
>> we need to go faster. That's one thing. >> The second thing is, yes, >> if there are any and if there are any provisions that contradict another, you can highlight those. Hopefully, there's some pairing that could be done so that we're not, oh, wait, this 99 one
conflicts with this fifth one. So, Commissioner Commissioner, >> I mean, we would have to rely on on the board. I mean, on the attorney and the >> Commissioner John through the vice mayor. Um, >> can we finish 10 through 14 first and then talk about whether you want to vote
then on 10 through 4, but let's at least get through 10 through 14. >> The motion is if we can go through 10 through 14, then go back individually and make those changes individually. >> I'm just asking if you might defer the motion until we finish 10 through 14. Well, my ask of you as well through the
vice mayor is that we speed it up as as well, Mr. Attorney longwinded. >> We'll try to talk less. We'll try to offer less. >> Madam Commissioner, are you withdrawing your motion? >> I'm not. >> So, what are we what are we doing with your motion? Because we have to address it. >> It stands.
>> Okay. So, um so the motion is that we vote in sections. Is that that's your motion? >> Yes. is we still are individually going through per each section each item but voting in that group and making our corrections as we go.
>> Okay. So um just as a point of of order >> you are not required to vote on every proposed change. could simply have a motion. I want this to go to the ballot
and anything that doesn't get a motion, you're not required to vote on. >> That's fine. >> Okay. So, with with with that being said, um what we're going to be voting on is considering moving things per section for consideration to go on the
ballot versus voting on each individual item to go on the ballot. Is that your motion? >> That's not the motion. to his point, right? To the attorney's point, >> we not everything is going to be added to the ballot. Now, as we review, we we
are making our corrections. Not all those corrections will be on the ballot because not every item will be qualified to be on the ballot, right? Does that make sense? >> All right. Well, let's see how this goes. Um, okay. Your motion, your second. >> Do you understand what what what we're trying to accomplish? We're just going
to vote. There's 10 to 14. We're gonna vote 10 to 14 individually. Then when we finish 16 to 19, we'll vote on those individually. And when we finish 21 to 23, we'll vote on those individually. >> Right. I understand.
>> To the extent there's a motion on any items. >> All correct. Okay. So, um, we have a motion and then we have a second. So, all in favor? >> I I >> oppose. >> No. >> No. All right. So, >> motion passes. >> All right. seems to carry.
>> So, we'll move forward. >> Mr. Mr. Vice Mayor, if I may, just for expediency purposes, I didn't really want to do a presentation and then have you guys go back and deal with everything, but because we're going through this in summary format, I may be able to move this along a little bit
quicker and then if any member of the commission has a question to address to the city attorney, you're certainly welcome to do it. But I think I can go through it more quickly than is being done. >> Great. if that's okay with the commission. >> Basically, Mr. Tempor is going to go
item by item and if you have questions, you can ask me or him or make a comment or whatever you want to do, but on behalf of the committee, he's offering to just go. >> Okay. >> I'm respecting your time, but I'm respecting mine as well. I don't really want to be here all night.
>> Okay. So, we're in um we're currently >> section section two. We just are looking at 2-2. And again to close on that, >> um, you have to decide whether you even think it's necessary. Not whether you like it, but whether you think it's necessary.
>> I made a note to remove the word written. So when you get back to that, I don't know how you're getting back and how we're voting. But when you get back to it, then we have to vote on whether or not that word's going to be removed. I don't know. >> So 2.3, we'll >> move to two 2-3. Mr. Kemper.
>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Vice Mayor. 2.3 was uh brought up by the committee in an effort to uh provide more transparency to the citizenry and the um electorate of the city of North Miami Beach providing for any remuneration or
compensation to the commission to be approved by referendum rather than be uh voted on by the commission. at least since before 2005 when I was sitting up there with uh Commissioner Turnoff, the issue has always been that the city
commission uh decides how much it is going to be paid and what is going to be paid and it has gone up over the years quite substantially. There's no attempt to reduce the current uh compensation and remuneration rate. So, it's all
locked in as it is currently unless approved uh at a referendum by the electorate. That is 2.3. >> And just um there was some concern on our part about that. Um that's something
that the commission could also do by ordinance. It would still leave you the opportunity to amend an ordinance that you adopted, but that does provide greater flexibility when you put it in the charter. Uh that's the reason why
Dade County Commissioners are paid an annual salary of $6,000 because that was put into the county charter back in the 50s when they adopted it and 14 consecutive attempts
to change it. no matter what it was uh coupled with have all been defeated by voters. So you may wish to consider having that control done by ordinance instead of being put in the charter where it may
never ever ever ever be changed. So, uh, to the attorney's point, um, which I don't think we're even following to be honest with you, um, the ordinance that currently, uh, is is, uh, on the on the books
actually has a consideration of cost of living increases. Um, so I think it's, if I remember correctly, maybe I don't know, it was like 1% or 2%, something to that effect. So, it does address um, cost of living. Um, so if it were to be,
this is just my understanding, if it were to be in the charter to um, you know, go to the voters, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be a cost of living increase. The cost of living increase would would still remain um because we're
>> no in the charter, the existing cost of living adjustment would be eliminated because it would be contrary to the charter. So you would not still have any adjustment for cost of living if you adopted at least this language in the
charter. >> Mr. Vice Mayor the charter because it's specific to fiscal year 26 is what you're saying. >> Yeah. The charter would control over any inconsistent ordinance. >> Correct. >> Got it covered >> through the vice mayor. >> I'd like to ask the attorney if we're changing the charter to read this why
couldn't the charter also have however there will be a cost of living adjustment of a certain percentage. You could certainly do that. I just said the existing proposed language >> would overrule. >> No, I understand. You'd have to add, but I guess the answer to your question is
absolutely. >> You'd have to add that because I there's a ying and a yang to this. The ying that's so good about this is it does control how much the majority could give themselves. >> The yang is it only comes up every 10 years. And who the heck knows what 10
years will be like from now? You have no idea. >> If I may address that, Madame Commissioner, >> the the current charter review uh committee process >> says that the charter review committee must be assembled for reviewing the
charter at least every 10 years. So, it does not prevent the commission from establishing a charter review committee every one year or every two years or every four years, but it cannot go longer than 10 years.
the the language specifically that was provided for in uh 2.3 was the subject of quite a bit of debate in the committee meetings and there was quite a bit of um discussion about whether or not there should be language
in there providing for increases due to the increased cost of insurance for example as an example not just cost of living because that that's part of I think your your uh salary, but the insurance is
something else or what they call executive allowance. Now, I'm not sure what it's called. And the committee suggested no, if if it's going to be increased, it's got to be by referendum for purposes of transparency and the electorate's got to approve it. That's the why that's the reason it was written
that way. But the charter review committee can be done as frequently as you like, >> right? >> And that correct? That's a correct statement. But again, >> this language, even if you said just cost of living, you'd need to define
either how much the cost without knowing or you could site to some index. But that would not address specific changes in your in the cost of the insurance premiums to cover
existing members which increase much more rapidly than the general cost of living. >> Correct. um recognizing that 10 years is a maximum, it is not easy to get a charter
review committee going and it is very time consuming from the residents. So >> yes, >> I'm going to go with the latter time in my head rather than the shorter. >> Okay. Um are you >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Smuggler.
>> Thank you, Vice Mayor. On the last paragraph where it talks about insurance benefits, the second sentence that says after their term of service, commissioners may be offered the opportunity to remain. Shouldn't it be shall be offered?
>> That would be an appropriate change. >> That's existing language. The committee did not recommend a change, but you can >> you don't you're not bound by what the committee has said. So that's that's an appropriate change. say that it should they should be
offered or really better would be shall >> shall. All right. So, do I have to make a motion for that? >> Well, when we get to the voting part, which we're going to do by section, >> yes. >> Okay. >> Um, Madame Commissioner,
>> thank you. >> Okay. I I just want to bring this to our attention. the salary quote unquote is like this is not a job for us, right? We are volunteering our time and being
compensated and um for our time. So I I mean I I think that being on being having this in the charter amendment is a good idea even though Mr. her attorney did say something, but I think that um
adding a CPI index would be fair because eventually the $500 a month that the county commissioners are getting paid from how many years ago was it? >> About 60 >> about 60 years ago and it hasn't been able to be voted back in. I think this
way we kind of safeguard um any expenses that we incur from you know doing our job as volunteers in the city for eight years. maximum is I think is is a fair is a fair thing. But um I definitely
think that we should codify that lock it in and not ask not have I mean we have that we have seen cities that have given themselves salaries of like 80 100 $120,000 and I don't want to see North Miami Beach do that. So that's uh my take.
Thank you. >> All righty. Any other comments? >> Any other comments? All right. So, if we can move forward to section 2.4. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I just addressed Commissioner Sue. You can add that language when you discuss it amongst yourselves. I would caution you
as the the city attorney that you have to uh pretty much understand what you're giving the CPI for because your remuneration and I'm calling it remuneration versus salary is comprised of several different things including
executive allowance, executive expenses which turns out being health insurance and salary which is tied to I understand the qualifying fee. And so if you're going to consider that down the road or even later in the evening, you must keep in mind that you need to define what it
is in terms of amount, how that's determined, and to what it applies. >> Okay? That's that's part of the reason that the committee did not recommend it >> through the vice mayor. >> Change was not recommended. >> No, the CPIP changed
>> through the vice mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Our salary is 3,000 a year. >> No. uh uh >> which is what commissioner former commissioner >> is saying itself >> is 3,000 the salary itself is 3,000 >> okay thank you
>> we were talking about a remuneration package as the committee >> and the salary and I don't know what the salary is I didn't know what it was when I was up there but that was the clerk that gave us the numbers about how the numbers break down well there there's um um
respectfully madam commissioner there there's a there's an ordinance that deals with all of this >> and it talks about ACPI, right? And so, uh, if we can get that, perhaps if we have time to get it, if not, as uh, uh,
Commissioner, uh, Templar mentioned, you know, we should determine if we're going to have a CPI what specifically that's going to entail. Um, because 2% on 3,000 versus 2% on the entire react is that's exactly my And don't forget the
insurance. I mean, insurance is not going up one or two percent. You want to continue to get health insurance and not have your compensation otherwise reduced. >> But but the but the the charter does not that that change, Mr. Attorney, does not
affect the the health insurance. >> I think it I think that this does. >> Oh, you're so you're saying that the second portion is also I don't see anything crossed out. >> Yeah. what it's >> it says at their own expense. So it's
not being changed. The second paragraph says you may be we're going to even if you change it to shall remain in the city but at their own expense. No, it says here insurance benefits provided to members of the city commission shall only be paid for by the city during their actual term.
>> Yes. But if you limit total compensation as per the first paragraph, that correct >> probably affects the second paragraph and limits what that says. So just understand that if you adopt it as written I it's your privilege. You can adopt it any way you want to.
>> Well, okay. I I just want to make sure. Well, as we're reading this entire document, areas that are crossed out are being removed. >> Correct. >> Areas that have not been crossed out are not being removed. >> Correct. >> But they may be affected by
>> Well, it would be nice to have whatever is going to be affected >> and areas that are underlined are added. >> Right. So what I'm saying is if you don't if you don't tell us that something is going to be changed or removed >> Yes, sir. >> as a result. You understand what I'm saying? >> And that's why I'm raising it. That's
exactly the reason I'm raising it. The language is not being changed. But if you change the preceding paragraph, I mean, uh, every change may impact something else in here 20 different
places. That's exactly why I'm pointing out to you that if you adopt that language from the first paragraph, it does limit the second paragraph. It the language is not changed but the effect
is that especially when you look at the second sentence as it applies after your service is concluded. It doesn't say even if it was the first sentence was interpreted as saying the city shall pay the entire amount
the way the first paragraph is written that would reduce the other compensation to you. I've never I've never heard um with all due respect I've never heard it this way. I I it's been two separate conversations but if that's something
that has to be clear then we need to make it clear. I'll invite Mr. Temper. What >> the committee is the committee's recommendation was to limit total remuneration regardless of how it's calculated. That is salary, executive allowances, discretionary funds or
otherwise. That means that you're getting for example the mayor uh on top of page 12 I believe is getting $56,0004 $56,14.96.
that includes executive allowance and it includes discretionary funds and that's it unless it's approved by a referendum. And if health insurance goes up, as a city attorney has pointed out, the difference will be made up by the individual commissioners. If in fact
that happens, if the health insurance premium for an individual jump, >> it doesn't say that here. >> Sorry, >> it does not say that here. >> It does. I'm I'm a commissioner with deference. That's statutory construction. That's what we go to law
school to learn. And if the health insurance for an individual in a given year goes up by $10,000, but the total, you know, that's what words like other or otherwise mean. If
that went up $10,000, that$10,000 has to be accounted for from the other sources to keep the number the same even if there's a 1% or a 2% increase. >> I'm sorry. But
>> here's what we'll do. Um >> to address your um miss I'm sorry, Madam Commissioner, go ahead. No, it just it it it we're both in agreement and it doesn't say that here and if we don't see it then um I I'm much Can you please tell us where you see it because we're
not seeing it. >> Um and to to to both of your points I think what's what's important here is that do you see how we're having this conversation back and forth? It should be clear. There should be no
ambiguity to a layman that reads this, right? because layman are in fact people who are serving in elected office. >> But we didn't draft this. This was the language of the committee and commissioner Smucker. The first word is it says including without limitation costs
costs includes health insurance the very beginning of 2.3 back on page 11 >> the end of the first sentence the beginning of the second sentence on page 11 including without limitation and respectfully Mr. vice mayor um
or otherwise >> I I agree with the city attorney that this the way this is written is really not subject to interpretation and any attorney or judge reading this is going to know exactly what it means. Now, if
you're asking me, um, can we accept out health insurance costs, um, that's up to you, but the committee has recommended for purposes of transparency to the electorate that
everything be capped from here on out, but not reduced. So, we'll we'll um we'll address that uh conversation. Um, and and I agree with Commissioner uh Smuggler. I think the way we do it now is the way that it should remain. But
when you're talking about um capping specific to whatever that number is that that um that you added for the mayor and for the commission that was addressed um with a with a cola maybe about six
years ago and I think we need to also have that reflect >> in in in this um document as well. >> And vice mayor, your point was correct. I understand it's not readily apparent, but this is the language the committee recommended. That's exactly the reason
why I'm sticking my nose in here to point out to you that if health insurance premiums go up as they tend to do substantially above the regular cola that they would not be covered and I
want the commission to understand that before you vote on it and I agree with Mr. templ completely. Exactly that >> when a this is in the hands of a judge or a lawyer arguing it. We know what that language means. I understand it's
not this is the language the committee adopted so we present it to you. But I want you to understand it does not it it leaves the burden of increased health insurance costs on the people serving on
the deis and that can be a substantial burden. You have the privilege of saying, "We don't care. We're gonna impose that burden." But you also may want the opportunity, as was pointed out, to add language, even if you're going to go with the rest of it,
specifically exempting health insurance. Or you can leave the issue to be dealt with by ordinance. That's another option. >> Okay. I appreciate the clarification um uh from you guys. Um let's move on. >> Mr.
>> Section 2.4 Foreign meetings was amended because there was uh an interest by the committee to asssure that matters that were not reached were not uh indefinitely postponed for too long because of the cost involved to the
applicants that may be becoming uh may come before the commission as well as residents who may come out for public comment. And so there was a procedure implemented in 2.4 four as amended to provide for meetings to reach items
not reached on the actual agenda for uh regularly scheduled meetings with other meetings. Uh and that's what that talks about. Um, the next paragraph was intended to make it slightly easier for
members of the commission to call for special meetings requiring four members uh rather than five. Note that that does not change the quorum. >> Correct. >> Quorum is still the same. That's just to get a meeting called and also to
simplify if the mayor needs to call a meeting. >> Okay. Any questions from the deis? >> I just have a quick question. So why did we take the manager out of this equation here? So before the manager had to give
written requests like an email to us. Now you're saying emergency matters upon the affirmation request of the four members of the commission other than the mayor. So who's going to give who's going to give notice? The clerk. Why did
we take the manager out? Because you're the commission and between your elected mayor and your elected commissioners, it should be up to you to decide. >> No, we decided, but who But he he's no longer
>> he doesn't have veto is >> I understand, Madam Commissioner, you're asking why the language regarding the manager being able to call the special meeting was removed, right? And the reason that the committee did that was because the manager would essentially go to the commission and say, "I think we need a special meeting." And then the
commission members have to decide whether in fact that special meeting is warranted. So the manager is still going to be able to make the recommendation for the special meeting, but he can't call the meeting without getting the approval of at least four members of the commission. >> So is it understood that the special meeting will be notified to the
commissioners by the clerk? >> That's pursuant to the duties of the clerk. >> Okay. that's not being affected. It's just to say that the commission is the judge of whether and when a meeting is necessary. And as Mr. Templar says, the
manager can >> No, the thing is I because it's 24 hours notice, I don't want to come up here and there's no quorum, not me, but whoever the next few years. >> Four members calling a meeting >> when five is required for quorum is a
little bit more of a risk. want them to know what day and what time and I want to make sure that >> there will still be the same obligation for the clerk to comply with the 24 hours to be notified by the clerk. >> It's already covered >> because many of people come up here and say they didn't know they
>> it's already covered whether people open their emails is another issue but the clerk does give notice and will continue to give notice. >> Unfortunately, we've come here without a quorum because people just didn't know there was a meeting. Okay, >> any other questions? All right, next uh
item 2.6 >> section 2.5 corman attendance of city meetings. uh some years ago we had uh a couple of issues and in fact I think there was another issue with this commission about being out for 120 days
and there was some um some concern shown by some committee members that the counting of those days became a problem and how to count days starting on what date ending on what date etc. So that language uh was added.
You'll see the underlying language added in intent to clarify it. But note that with the city attorney's uh suggestion, the last sentence, attendance shall be in person or virtually as permitted by general law because one of the
suggestions during the committee was to require in-person attendance which uh the city attorney points out and I tend to agree with him that that's not necessarily legal because if the state law provides that you may participate by vone by phone or
virtually and that is active participation in the meeting, then that should qualify. And so that's the reason for that last sentence being added beyond the um specification of when the 120 days would start and end. The other
issue on this item briefly that the committee considered this was the language they adopted. But the particular thing is what after at the very beginning of the blue um in the fourth line the word continued
is added above. That's not that's a grammatical change. Um but um where it says beginning with the day following the last attended meeting.
Uh the alternative to that would have been and was discussed as beginning with the day that a meeting is missed. The question was if for instance for
some reason there was a 60 or maybe because of a cancellation a 90day gap in commission meetings. Did you want to reduce this
effectively to 30 or 60 days after someone missed a meeting? the committee vote, I don't think it was unanimous, but I don't recall, was to have it begin with the very next day after the last
meeting attended. So, whatever you choose to do, those are the two principal options. I should add also that uh that language in parentheses um in the third from the last line uh
following the last attended in parenthesis regularly scheduled continued or special and that should close the parenthesis meeting should be afterwards. But the reason that was in there was uh due to the city attorney's suggestion that you can't just base it on the fact that there was a regularly
scheduled meeting and then any other meeting that's participated in is a nullity and it doesn't count. You can't do that and quite frankly I think uh as a city attorney has suggested to the committee that would be challengeable. Um but the way it's written here is a
little bit more specific. >> Mayor. >> Yes. Um, Commissioner Sue, >> thank you. Um, what I am imagining a scenario that actually happened when commissioners come check
in and within uh, you know, leave right after, you know, there there's that. Um, is there something that we can put in for that? Because I I mean, can we say your attendance counts as a full day of the meeting? I mean of course like there
are people who do get sick and I understand that but um I you know they would just come check in and leave and then the city business would not get complete and that's my concern. >> Commissioner Sue that was specifically discussed in the committee meetings
about what is attendance. Um and um uh again the city attorney noted and I tend to agree with him if somebody shows up for purposes of quorum and then leaves the meeting and there's no longer a quorum on the day as the
meeting continues. Uh it doesn't it's not like that person leaving after the commencement of the meeting breaks quorum. they were there at the beginning and so um that issue was specifically discussed but um there is not language
requiring full attendance through the conclusion of the meeting because that's not the way meetings are normally conducted. Mr. Geller will correct me if I'm wrong, but showing up for quum at the commencement of the meeting is the
operative um obligation. Is that correct? I agree 100% with that. And I mean the the ramifications of that would include So does that mean if you failed to attend 100% of the meeting you're not in
attendance? What if you're in the restroom when a vote is taken? Does that mean you didn't attend the entire meeting? Does it mean if you attend an hour worth of a meeting? Does it mean if the meeting is extended past midnight
and you don't stay till the the very end that you didn't attend it? There's just a lot of difficult ramifications. I think it's very subject to question in court. So the decision of the committee was to just say if you attend the
meeting and you are present for some not even necessarily the first moment, what if you're an hour late for the meeting and you attend the rest of it? Is that not full attendance? The decision was not to deci define
full attendance. If you either it's binary. You're either present or not present. And if at some point you're present, then you're present for the meeting. The idea was to eliminate the possibility of
um fluid challenges to somebody saying, "Well, you know, you had to be there the whole meeting or you only had to be there part of the meeting." We couldn't really get into that because to establish quorum, you have to be there at the commencement of the meeting, but there's no obligation
for any of you uh or any other commissioner in any subsequent commission to stay for the entire meeting. there may be an illness, somebody may have to leave because of an emergency. And so we had to leave that um really just to what it was.
>> Okay. Um so we're going to move on to uh section 2.6. >> 2.9 maybe. There's no changes in the next. >> Okay. No changes in 26. No none 27 28. So 2.9. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Next section
is prohibitions of the city commission. Uh and B was changed. And this is one of those uh ministerial acts and clerical acts that had to be corrected because it talks about um somebody sitting on the deis being
subject to recall. It originally said as provided for in this charter, but the charter does not govern recall elections. That's governed by general law. So that was merely a correction made to be consistent with state law. To be clear, there is some split in
authority as to whether that is governed by the state law about municipal recall or the Miami Dade County Charter about recall because of the very unusual Dade
County exclusion in the state constitution which I think sometimes even our judges and our appellet judges don't completely understand. There's a lot of debate on it and it's not in I've seen both positions taken and I think there is
some split in authority but we don't have to make that decision by referencing general law. Whatever the law is the courts decide which one and that's why that word is used there. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Attorney. And we're
going to move on if there are no questions to uh 3.11. Mr. Vice Mayor, 3.11 was amended in adding subparagraph K. Sub paragraph K is sort of in line with what we talked
earlier about 1.9 and I believe 2.2 to giving the uh administration rather than just the commission the opportunity to really dig into proposed developmental projects and allow and specifically
provides for the manager to be able to commission independent engineering planning and other um professional uh reviews. and that the charges for those would be paid by whomever the applicant is and an invoice would be submitted to
that applicant for those reviews and it should be paid. My understanding and Bruce Cousins is here and and he was um instrumental in forming the language is this again is more of a charter cotification of something that is
already part of an ordinance. But this would make it much more um obligatory on the part of the manager to consider it rather than an ordinance that um he didn't necessarily have to pay strict attention to. It would still use the
word may. Is that right, British? May >> May we quote up Mr. Cousins, Mr. Vice Mayor? >> Sure. >> Thank you, Mr. Cousins, if you choose to address it. I mean, you're not required to, obviously, but if you'd like to. >> Yeah, don't vice mayor.
>> Yes. Uh, Commissioner Smith, >> I just have a quick question because I like the word may. Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Templar. >> There there is a ordinance. It's already in existence. It's been in Mr. Cousins for a long cousins. >> Mr. Cousins, you
>> One moment. Let Let Commissioner Smith finish and then uh we we will hear from you. Okay, sir. >> I'm sorry. >> Commissioner Smith first >> and then we'll we'll hear from you. >> I was just saying I like the word may. And now I'm interested in Mr. Cousins
having an prior ordinance. The only question I have being up here long enough to see when our fees were so low to do new construction compared to the other municipalities and
we raised the fees to be where they are and then they came down and we didn't get any business because we were so high. So, I don't know if again, I'm going to use my 10-year reasoning that if we say they shall and
that does not become the custom around us, it may hurt the city. I like the word may instead of shall. >> Just to correct uh you, Commissioner, the these are not fees that are charged by the city for city um
internal city expenses. >> Correct. These these this paragraph addresses the fees that are charged to the city by independent professionals who are reviewing things at the manager's request and that charge being
passed on to the developer. >> We do that now number one. And number two, I use the word fee as an example because that was a fee. I just use that as an example. I understand it's a charge that the city would have to al
still do the inspection, still get the results from a professional and then we would have to eat it and maybe they wouldn't even build here. So I understand it, but I just don't know if over the 10 years what the custom will be around us. So that's why I like the
word may. >> For for the record here, Commissioner, I have to say there were a couple of things previously as Mr. Temper pointed out that were uh somewhat related to
this 1.4 and two whatever it was and 2.2 >> um that I said I didn't object to. Uh this one >> I believe states what the law is. Uh, I think all of those things are things
that the administration and the commission have the power to enforce. I think these in particular are overly specific to be in a city charter. This can be done by ordinance. It is covered
by ordinance. It is covered by the powers of the city commission. It is covered by the ability of the manager to administer the affairs of the city. And although I understand why there is concern and I don't minimize that and I
understand there's a specific case or two that people have some unhappiness with. But I don't believe this is appropriate language for a charter document because
I think it's too too detailed and it infringes on the powers of the city commission >> to set policy for the city and on the powers of the city manager to administer the business of the city.
>> If I may. >> Yes, Mr. Templer. I I also want to add I think it is >> I want to point out here what part of this was intended to address whether it's already enacted by ordinance or not. And I can give you an example. Um
for those of us that have lived here long enough, many of us here, we know that developers want to put their best foot forward when they come before the city. And most municipalities require those developers to do different impact
studies and mitigation studies. I would challenge any of you to show me a um developmental submission where a developer said this is going to have a negative impact on traffic.
It's never happened. they will always come to you and say it's not going to have a negative impact on traffic or the roads are designed to handle um this kind of traffic and in my business as Mr. Geller will
verify. We hire experts and they say what we want them to say, not because we want them to say them, because they think that's what we want, because they want to get more business. And so what you have is
traffic firms, for example, that are being hired by developers who want to continue to get business. And so they submit a traffic plan regardless of how factual the data is. And suddenly they say it's not going to affect traffic.
And that's been happening for 20 years. And I can ask any of you, do you think with development there has been no additional traffic? >> I can tell you that I'm not alone in believing that this is a fallacy. Here
we are. So in in this paragraph, which I believe is codified in the ordinance, it's the manager who can say, "You know what? Terrific. You have your expert that says this. We're going to hire an independent expert and that cost is going to be paid by you. It's going to
be uh build to the city and then we're going to turn around and invoice you. But we cannot necessarily rely on your experts coming forward and being honest with us and telling us that the information they're using is accurate and timely, which was exactly what we
addressed in 1.4 and 2.2. That was the reason for the >> I agree with every word Mr. Templar has said, >> but as he says, that's in your ordinance. And let me just say that if you had a manager, I don't think that you'll think that's
the case currently, but if you had a manager that didn't ask that to occur, that didn't say, "Well, I think we need to have an independent city study." It doesn't end there.
any commissioner on review of the documents can say, "Well, I'm not satisfied, Mr. Manager, that we have enough information here, and I would like you, as a matter of policy, and the commission could vote to say we want and
before we vote, we want an independent study conducted by an independent person loyal only to the city." And that's a cost that ought to be borne by the developer if they want this application to be approved. So
I I'm not saying that there's a word that I disagree with in what Mr. Templar said about, you know, experts retained by developers, but you have every right and every power through the manager or directly from the
deis to to mandate that that occurs. It just does not need to be with this in my opinion with this degree of specificity in your charter that can tie your hands more than free you in in my thought.
>> As I said, we already have an ordinance. Mr. Cousins, could I hear you? >> I guess it it comes back to a naive perhaps fundamental belief about the purpose of the city. We are not a business. We do not have an exit plan.
Our goal, as I've read in all of the the materials that describe what the city is and what we should be trying to do, their safety, their health, that comes first. It comes first, second, third, and fourth.
Other other communities survive just fine w with with those concepts. Maybe I'm just way off base here, but that's what I think that all of you are doing up here. And I don't want the city
manager to ever have to be under pressure. Certainly, our track record of doing this doesn't exist. As an ordinance, I haven't been able to find a single occurrence that a city manager actually had the courage to do this.
Maybe I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, you let me know. But this is is such a fundamental thing to deal with the safety and the quality of life of this community that I don't want any wiggle room in it. I want this to be absolutely
rock solid, non-negotiable. This is what we're here for. This is the single most important thing there is. You know, other things I don't have those kinds of feelings about this. I happen to and I don't think it's the
least bit inconsistent with what I understand your mission to be. That's all I can say. I'm going to go make a hospital visit now so you'll be spared the rest of my comments. But uh
that's how I feel and I really wish that >> you know I I've done the best I can to try and communicate that. What can I say? >> Mr. Cousins is not staying till the end of the meeting. I say we start. >> Thank you for introducing me to a fantastic team of people here.
>> We I loved it. I loved it. I think some of them should be running for office, you know. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. President. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Commissioner, >> I would like to make a motion. My motion
gives these people so much credit for what they did and put together this document. Why don't we just pass it and let the citizens decide what they want? >> Second. >> Second.
>> Yeah. I think um if I may, discussion-wise through the mayor, I think part of validating the work that they've done is for us to put in our own work here on the deis, even if it does take a little while. Um, we've already gone through the first portion of it and we only have two more portions to go.
So, I feel like we should just hopefully we can get this done by 10 o'clock, but I I doubt it. I I know you I know >> it's not about time. >> No, it's not. Go ahead. >> But I but I I think part of Well, okay. So, I I I appreciate your explanation. I um that it's not about time and I'm not saying that it is, but I think part of
us validating their efforts is to go through every single item um especially for the edification of the public as well. Thank you. I would like to say something if I may, Mr. Mayor. >> Um, you know, the we had seven pairs of eyes doing this. Now we'll have 14 pairs
of eyes doing during this. And you know, we like the silly little comment that I made of changing a word from may to shell. Like little things like that that we can catch as well and make it better. Um I I you know we we've tried so hard
to get this meeting done in the first place that I'm not going to now say I'm going home. >> Yes. >> Oh man. >> Commissioner Sue. >> Okay. Um, I think that if we had I think we received this in our email last night
at 8:11 p.m. I don't know, maybe the attorney had it done prior a week before, you know, previously. >> It was ma'am. It was voted >> when it was the final report of the commission of the committee was
distributed at least a week ago. >> Oh. Oh, okay. You mean the one that wasn't completely reviewed but was written by Miss Elizabeth Pierre? The one that >> No, ma'am. It was not written by her. It was uh taken from the minutes and it involved uh many hours of my meeting
with the clerk's office and consulting with our with Mr. Templar who put in a lot of time on it before it was sent out as the final report. And that was done prior to the final meeting of the committee. It was all sent out. >> We're we're we're almost done. And all
we really have to do is consider the election dates, the the um the uh civil service, >> Mr. Mayor. >> And I think we'll be pretty much >> Can we just continue this and um let's we have to go back and vote on this now as for the motion. >> Yeah. So, can we
>> You can, but you don't have to. If you want to hear the rest on the table. >> Oh, yeah. There's a motion. Um Commissioner Smith, >> some of the big items are coming up that we have to discuss. Do we want a change? I don't think I think the committee
worked very hard and I think that the appreciation can never be enough but I think some of these big items for instance the civil service or for instance when are we changing the date those things need to be discussed because it's very effective of a lot of
things and I I appreciate the fact that we appreciate what they did but the purpose and again this is not my first charter And what they did is this is the way it's done. Next, next is the next step is for us to review it.
>> Respectfully, you could just move on to the next section and defer voting on the first section if you want to get to the other stuff quickly. That's another >> No, no. I what I what I would suggest is that um can we just go as part of the discussion for the
accepting and um what we're going to eventually put out to the voters finish out the rest of the section and then we can vote on what we keep and what we >> finish the section >> and what Yeah. And so let's just finish this just finish the um the last the last sections please.
>> We we really we finished this first section. >> Can we just vote on the section that we >> can we just vote on it and >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, there are several sections remaining on the summary. However, I do agree with uh Mr. Vice Mayor that the the ones that are more contentious and uh sort of fluid have
already been discussed. The ones upcoming at least for purposes of the summary description are pretty straightforward. >> So, if you if you want to go to those two, right, right at your leisure, whatever you like. >> There's a motion already. There's a motion and a second on the table. If you would take a vote so we can move forward.
>> Okay. There there's two things, Mr. Mayor. Um uh because with respect to to the mayor, he was he um he there was a vote that was taken um about doing it section by section. >> Um so I guess we can address your vote your motion. Uh Mr. uh Commissioner
Turnoff >> and then we can go back to >> I'm just going to tell you one thing just >> just because they did all the hard work and they did great work. There's one item that I don't agree with them. And if you want to do blindly pass this, then my vote is going to be no because
there's one item that I don't want to approve on. I don't want to see it on the >> what what is that? >> The civil service board >> and amend the mo would amend that motion to take it off. >> No, I want to continue this and we just wasted like five minutes discussing this. So, can we just >> if if we're not going to discuss it,
what are we doing here? >> Yeah. Why did we come in the first place? Procedurally, you need to deal first with the motion that was just made by Commissioner Chernoff, and then you can address whether or not you want to go ahead with what was voted to
previously, which is to do the first section by voting first or whether you want to just plow through till you're done. You can >> keep what you did. You can change what you did. >> Do as we said we were going to do. Now, let's vote on >> You have the privilege of changing that. I'm just saying first you have to
dispose of commissioner of commissioner chernoff's motion to just you know vote everything up. You have to address that first and then you did pass something you can stick with it or change it please. >> All in favor say I.
>> I. >> I oppose. >> Opposed to >> Okay. So now can we vote individually on the first chapter? Right. >> What are we doing? >> Make a motion >> on the first.
>> No, we made that motion. Now we have to go individually one by one and say yes or no to each item on pages 10 through 14 like we said we were going to do. >> Let me let me say again, commissioner, procedurally, if you're addressing the first, so we're going to do it. If
you're addressing the first section, you don't have to vote on each proposed change. You may also just vote on what changes you want to put on the ballot. Anything that doesn't get a motion doesn't advance to the ballot.
>> Could I, Mr. Mayor, could I just ask a question before we go over this? I know you got the majority vote. >> There was a vote when you were gone. >> Oh, yes. I wasn't >> You weren't here. There was a vote. I was the only negative voter into taking
>> There were two committ so I'm sorry to take the first section and vote on it first. My question is if you vote on I think there were seven six or seven and then we do the rest and there's another six or seven. How are you going
to determine what to eliminate or are you going to put 13 on the ballot? That's my question. How will you know? We haven't gone over the sections. >> So, >> since there was a vote, >> it would require some
>> there are seven changes. >> It was 42 in favor of that. If one of the people who voted in favor moves to reconsider, that's one thing. Otherwise, there is a motion. >> No, I I don't mind. whatever they want to do, the majority won. I just want to know if you vote for these seven now and
we haven't followed the rest and there's another eight, are we going to put 15 things on the ballot? >> That's what we have to do. That's what we have to do. >> Well, the thing is Dave County itself, city attorney in the past on my charter, city manager on my charter recommended
that you limit it to eight so that they will answer the questions. And if you've been in the vote, you know how lengthy those questions can be. >> I don't think I said eight specifically. I just said limit. >> The former attorney when I was on the
charter, not you. Thank you. >> By the way, >> um through the mayor, if I may, um the the the agenda says presentation of charter review committee final report and review of proposed revision recommendations.
So we can uh through the um Mr. Attorney if um if you can appine on this decide that whatever we vote on that we want to see on the charter I mean that we want to see um on November's ballot can come as one question can come in as two questions can come in as three
questions. >> All of the above. Yes. Any of those is perfectly permissible. We have a we have a meeting next week. After we vote on whatever you're going to create, you come up with a draft. >> I will be required, mayor,
>> to present to you the actual resolution, including the 15word title and the 75word budget. Excuse me, the 75word summary for any individual question
>> that you want to have on there. If you have eight of them, that would be eight 75word summaries that you will all have to wade through, but that may be what you want. I don't know that eight is a magic number. Um, it's not a little
number, but it could be maybe a bigger number, but they're frowning on it. They don't tell us what to do at the supervisor's office except if they refuse to do it. At some point they may, but um you have to adopt an actual
resolution which I couldn't draft without knowing what questions you wanted and how many there would be. >> Okay. So >> So you have to do that already at the next meeting. Yes. >> So there's a there's a motion to there was there was a process set up to vote
on each section, right? So, how many they're vote? They they're going to vote on one section right now or is that >> unless one of the four who voted for that wants to just plow ahead and move to reconsider. If there is no motion, then yes, you have to address unless there's a motion to reconsider. You have to address that,
>> Mr. Mr. Mayor, if I may through the chair. >> There's nine more. Four of them are completely eliminating things which we might want to bring back like the civil service, etc. But nine and seven, we're going to have 16 on the ballot. If you
vote now for these seven, how are you going to know what's the priority? Or are you going to not vote for them and then in the end you'll want them? I just I I would I would hope somebody would withdraw and we could do it so that we could look at all of them.
>> Mr. Mayor, if I may. Um, one moment, Commissioner, if I if I may. The the what we're reading here as charter language, right, is not specifically word for word what's going to be >> on the um on the ballot, but can you can
you um either agree or disagree with that statement? >> I agree with that. Okay. And I think the city attorney would agree with that. The referendum language is basically a summary which would direct people to the actual language. you do not have to put
the actual language of every change in the referendum. >> So, so, so can you agree with or disagree that if we do for instance in section one decide that we're going to we want to see five things that that
can't be summized within one ballot question. >> Correct. >> It can be right. Yes. Assuming >> that the things you've coincided Yeah. are reasonably related to each other, don't contradict each other. There is one potential
contradiction that we'll come to that you have to deal with where you've got already to do two ballot questions because there are inconsistent positions that could result and in your and in your seat um as well as Mr. Templar. Um, can you can you opine on whether or not
we after voting could um allow the city attorney's office to determine whether we would need one question for for let's say three areas or two questions. How does that work? >> You can ask us to provide something to
you, but it is subject to your final approval when you approve the resolution language as to what they're going to be. So yes, we can be instructed to do that if that's your pleasure, but the authority to approve it rests with the
commission. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Agree. The city attorney could be asked to phrase two or three questions, but it would still be subject to commission approval as to how it's presented on the referendum. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> So, what just happened in the last 10 minutes?
>> Nothing. Okay. Just that's what I thought. Can we all right well there's a just follow the process that you guys set up. So >> we have to vote on it's >> so let me help out uh here uh in in my
seat if we're going to section the first section >> uh when it talks about uh 1.4 four powers. Um I really uh that section I don't see the necessity. Um
so in my seat >> motion to approve >> section 1.4. >> No, I'm not I'm not done. >> Oh, you're not doing that. >> So I'm saying I don't I don't see the necessity of it. So that's >> she's agreeing with you. >> Sorry, >> she's agreeing with you. >> She's saying motion to approve section >> motion. She's saying that she agrees with your point that there is no need to
add that one into >> Is that what you're saying, Commissioner? No, actually, no. I >> She's making a motion to approve it. >> I'm motioning to approve it. And you know, >> he's making a motion to not approve it. >> Yeah, I'm saying I disagree with it. So, that's I'm I'm just saying um in my seat. So, 1.4 I disagree with changing
that. Um I think that what we have is is um broad enough. >> Are we going to vote on each one? >> No, I'm just telling you where I would not unless there's a motion to put it on. If no one moves to put a section on, there's no vote on it. I understand. >> All right. So, real quick, um I'm going
to go to section 2.1 as well. Mayor and vice mayor, >> we make a motion to vote on each individual one. >> No, ma'am. I explained at the time that there have to be >> there's a if no one moved >> each individual item. We made a motion. I
>> Mr. Attorney, the commissioners want that. You're telling us not to >> our motion. >> I am not. That is a misinterpretation. Commissioner Sue, let me state again if any member of the commission after
you have expressed your views on this first section, which that's what you voted to do, any motion to move a particular recommendation to the ballot. No, we I'm sorry, but we
said each chapter individually, each item, >> commissioner, >> we did. I'm sorry, but we didn't. >> Commissioner, >> he's just saying that if nobody wants it, we don't have to discuss it. That's all I'm saying. >> But so far, right now, one person wants it and one person doesn't.
>> So far, we need discuss it. Commissioner, >> I understand you, but I did make a point of order to point out that you don't have to vote down anything.
It's up to you to vote anything up that you want to, whatever you want. Any commissioner can make the motion. But if no, as Commissioner Smith says, if no one does, right now, Commissioner, excuse me, Vice Mayor uh Furamond is
expressing what his view has. >> It's going to happen with every item. So, can we just like move on, please? >> He was speaking and he's entitled to finish his comments. >> Yes. And you're not letting him speak, so please. >> I'm not the one stopping him from speaking. >> Yes, you are. >> All righty.
>> Thank you. Um, so >> that's how I feel about 1.4. So since since you Commissioner Sue since you said you wanted to >> I I would to I I'd like to add that. So I'm motioning to to add this to the
list of items that we want to um put on the agenda. I mean put on the referendum. >> Do I have a second? >> Mr. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. >> A second. >> Is there a second >> to Yes. All right. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> I say I. >> Opposed. >> Next. >> Okay. >> So, let's cross it out. >> Okay. Um, item 2.1. >> Remember that 1.4 and 2.2 are connected to each other. >> Correct.
>> So, that would in essence take out that as well. >> So, um, >> next please. >> So, item 2.2. Are we saying that that >> 2.1 is next? So, you were commenting on it. >> 2.1. >> All righty. So, item 2.2, we're already rotating every four months. I think that if we have it, if we don't have it by
ordinance, >> that's still 2.1, sir. >> Yeah, that's where we're at. >> No, no, >> 2.1. I'm sorry. My my apologies. My apologies. Um, >> second paragraph. >> Yeah. Okay. Section 2.2 is where we're at now. >> Uh, not the first paragraph. >> 2.2 or 2.1. >> 2.1.
>> 2.1 first and then second paragraph. >> Okay. Yeah. I'd like to add to 2.1 till eer head that the mayor will be a tiller head. >> It's not what it says. You have amend it to do that. >> She wants to amend it to do that. >> I want to amend it. That's what we're here.
>> Okay. So, >> I propose that we leave it as as it is. >> I without changing anything. No state of the union requirement or whatever. >> I'm making a motion to amend it to ask that the mayor will be the till your head. >> Second. >> What are you seconding >> her? Uh Commissioner Smith. So,
Commissioner Smith, would you mind if it stays as it is with no changes whatsoever? It would keep the the the only part that would not be added is basically the state of the of the mayor, >> state of the city, >> a city, >> right? That I don't I don't think we have to even talk about.
>> So, we can just leave it as it is, >> not change it. >> It does say this >> on the original one. It said the head to make no change then >> on the original that we now have as our charter. I believe it says he's a tillular head. >> I'm agreeing with you, Commissioner
Smith. If you make no change, that language about titular head remains as was just pointed out by Commissioner Jean. If you make no change to the first paragraph of 2.1, it still says titular head. The practical difference, as Mr.
Templar said, is just that it doesn't make a charter requirement for an annual state of the city. That's the only real difference. If you just keep the original language, you don't have to amend this to add tissue or head because that's in the existing language
>> and also it doesn't codify the form rotation. >> I understand that completely. But reading what's written in red, which would be under 2.1. I do not see the word tiller head at all. >> You're 100% correct.
>> And I'd like to make an amendment to add that. >> It says it in the >> I would like to make an amendment. Yeah, but I think I think she's she actually likes the language that it just wants. >> All right. Okay. On her on Commissioner Smith's amendment, is there a second? >> There was a second.
>> I did second it. >> All right. There's a motion to say. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Oppose. >> Opposed. >> All right. Next, please. No, sir. You still I'm sorry, mayor, but just to be
clear, the amendment was not adopted. There is no motion to accept. >> No, it's 2.1. Right now, there is not a motion that 2.1 go that any change be made. There there can be a motion, but
there is no motion now to have 2.1 go to referendum. >> Yes. Now, comm vice mayor, continue on, please. >> No, I was just saying I 2.1 doesn't need to be we don't need to add this on to uh at all. So, we can move on. All right. So section um
>> 2.2 >> we have to vote on that. >> No, we don't. It's it's we're not asking for it to be added. So there's no vote. >> It'd have to be a motion to add it for you to vote on it. >> If no one moves to change it. >> Oh, I make the motion to add it so that
every four months is part of the >> You can make that as a separate motion to add just that part of it. Otherwise, you're changing titular head which you said you didn't want to. >> All right. I make the motion to just add that every four months we change vice
mayor. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Oppose. >> Next. Next item. Next item please. >> All right. So, uh 2.2. I think that's also something that we could um remove
because of um section 1.4, >> right? because those two kind of go together. So, we don't have to add this if one if uh the first section 1.4 was not voted on. So, um that's just my my um my thought.
>> I'll make the motion. I'll second your motion not to add it. >> All right. All in favor say Wait, you don't need a motion. >> So, we just Okay. So, we keep moving. >> There was no motion to add it. >> So, you can move to 2. Without a motion, you move to 2.3. >> Next. Okay. >> Do you have some
>> All right. So, uh, as it relates to the mayor, did you want to say something about 2.2? >> All right. Vice Mayor, >> as it relates to section 2.3 compensation, >> uh, just watching the show >> as it relates to compensation, I think there was a conversation about the
health insurance. So maybe we put in language that um there be a >> a cola for the cost of the health insurance while leaving the uh salary and everything else as is
hey wait um commissioner >> the cola the cola negates the cap didn't mention that >> sorry >> if there is the cola then the cap can't be in the same conversation is that what it was >> no um I think the the attorney said that if want to add something specific to
insurance benefits, we can do that uh so that it can be delineated or be more clear through the mayor. >> Senator, >> um we have two issues here. One is adding a specific cola so that it's not frozen
um at that number. And you could specify that a 1%, you could specify a 2% or you could just say shall be adjusted per the um >> index >> index that's maintained by the I think it's the Bureau of Labor Standards. I'm not certain who but there isn't a
federal index separately. You may wish to say however uh increases in the cost of health insurance for commissioners shall not be capped by this provision. I
would request since he helped was the main author of it I would like to turn to Mr. Templar to assist in specific wording. If that if those are the two things that you want to change a
reference to the the index for cost of living and separately taking out whatever health insurance costs there are, then I would like to turn to our friend Mr. Templar to to help word it up. I I have a suggestion. And I would
think that perhaps what we could do, sir, is to um uh ahead of unless and until changed or modified, we could say um accept that there shall be a an annual cost of
living adjustment based on the index maintained by we'll have to see who that is. I think it's Bureau of Labor Statistics. and then add a separate sentence after that that says, "However, increases in the cost of health insurance
for sitting members of the city commission shall not be subject to this cap and that would be but what do you think?" >> So, Mr. Mayor, what my suggestion was is this presents the problem that I originally discussed with providing for
COLA adjustments. You have to tie that to the particular aspects of the remuneration because otherwise what you're doing if you're giving yourself cola increase and you're not limiting health insurance is you're double dipping on the health insurance. You're
getting the additional money for the health insurance and you're getting the cola increase on that health insurance. So that's that's where the issue comes in. Can it be done? It can be done because I can add the language. I'm not going to do it right here right now. Now, I'd have to give it thought, but
I'm happy to do it however you suggest it should be done. >> Well, um Oh, good. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. >> No. Um >> um Commissioner Templar, I think you mentioned that the index there's specific areas of our salaries that would be affected and not affected.
Those do those have to be delineated in that? >> There's some areas that are going to be covered or affected and not? >> No. Commissioner Jean, the the language as proposed is a full limitation on all remmoneration regardless of whether it's
executive allowance, cost recapture, health insurance, um or otherwise. That the way it is written is a full limit on the amount of remuneration paid to or for the benefit
of commissioners. And I say for the benefit of because some commissioners have their health insurance paid by the city. Others who have health insurance get an executive allowance instead of the health insurance. And so that's the reason it was worded that way.
>> That's a good point. So I think I think in my seat um >> mayor, excuse me for inter point of privilege. Uh mayor, I think you're going to be talking about this for another couple of minutes and we have the benefit of the thoughts of Mr. Temper. I'm sorry, but I have to excuse
myself for a couple of moments. I'll be right back. I apologize. >> Um can you say your thoughts, Commissioner? I think we should leave it as it is unless we can get more delineation on the cap because if there's a cap then that means that we will be responsible for paying the
additional increase. Right. >> Correct. Can we? All right. So, >> what >> can we and also I wanted to add that word shall instead of may >> where >> on the last paragraph the second sentence after the term >> be notified for the insurance
>> shall be offered the opportunity to remain instead of may be offered the opportunity to remain. >> Okay. Um but the um >> the question I had because I didn't understand commissioner Jean's point. No, I didn't. >> She was saying she was saying and
correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner, that um there's an ordinance um and to be left that way or should be amended for what have you. But the complexity of how this can can be affected depending on what your situation is could be
substantial. >> Oh, so you're saying don't add it to the ballot question. >> No, I'm not saying don't add it to the ballot. The the shall word I don't think. No, the shout the shout part she wants to change. But in regards to the the other aspects of the the renumeration in the caps, that's why
she's like she just wants to add that I guess commissioner Commissioner Smucklers shall. So >> So you're saying only on the ballot. >> It doesn't need to be on the ballot. That's what she's saying. >> I'm we leave it as it is. >> Mean, >> right? That's what I'm asking. That's >> No, but Commissioner Smuckler wants that
>> with the exception of Sha. >> That's the one thing she wants to change. >> Mr. Just just to be clear, >> the second paragraph was not changed by the committee. >> So, Commissioner Smuckler wanting to change um may be offered to shall be
offered certainly within the purview of the commission. It's not part of the committee's >> recommen it's to me it's more like a of a correction. >> That's I'm just saying that that's not part of what we dealt with. We dealt with the first paragraph, not the second. And the first paragraph, as
Commissioner John's pointing out, is a full limitation. And the reason you see those figures at the top of page 12 is because there had to be some clarity about what was actually being paid
today, which is part of the full limited cap. >> Mr. Templer, through the chair, if I may, through the mayor, would you know if we just change it from may to shall if both of those paragraphs would be on
just changing that word, would that be on the ballot for them to vote on? >> It is a change to the charter language. If you if you did nothing with paragraph 1, if the commission decided that there was not going to be any limits beyond
what you decided for yourselves and paragraph 1 was left as it is and Commissioner Smuggler wanted to change paragraph 2 from may to shall that would still require referendum because that would be a change to the language of the
charter independent of what is in paragraph one. Unless changed by ordinance if >> so I think that when you are elected as a commissioner >> I think when you're elected as a commission >> by ordinance >> yeah I think when you're elected as a
commissioner you read the charter and you know that when you leave you have the option to take the insurance with you by the word may >> no that's not what that says that's not what I said >> but may could be what I should say you also will
>> the language and paragraph two, >> but you can change about order. Sorry. Sorry. >> The language of paragraph 2 being permissive and what what Commissioner Smuckler is suggesting is that you would change it
to shall, which is more specific. You could leave it as may I defer to the city attorney and still provide by ordinance for something that allows shall, right? So long as you're not making it um more restrictive, it'd be
fine. So I think you're I think you could do it by ordinance. I'd defer to the city attorney. That's separate and apart from paragraph one. But I think the idea is that you try to make that change without putting it on as a referendum. >> All right. Yeah. If it could be done by ordinance, of course, that would be
>> I'd like to make a motion. >> Can All right. What is your motion? My motion is to approve the cap for the renumeration, add a CPI in the state of Florida, and add the shell for paragraph 2. >> Do you have a second?
>> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> Hold on. >> Did you favor? All in favor say I. Discussion. >> I >> oppose. Opposed. >> Opposed. >> Opposed. >> Opposed. >> Next item. >> Did you Did you vote, Mr. Commissioner?
>> Turn up in the index. >> All right. >> Can we Can we The sh can be added by orange. >> So, wait, this didn't pass? >> No, it didn't. We're going We're going to do the We're going to do the sh by orange, >> right? But the rest of it didn't pass. Well, I mean, I don't I didn't hear
Commissioner Smith. >> We didn't vote on the rest of it. We did. What didn't pass was the change? >> She made a motion to um to approve it for >> to approve paragraph >> with a change. >> As No, no, I added the CPI for Florida.
>> Okay. and >> and to to cap this amount >> and added the CPI index per the state of Florida >> because the federal is usually higher. Um so the state of Florida and then secondly add commissioner Smuckler's
request to change the language to shall so >> point of order mayor commissioner Sue I I am not aware of any separate index maintained by the state of Florida federal index. There's two indexes >> by maintain
>> state of Florida and the federal >> who in what entity in the state of Florida provides >> um you can search it for yourself. >> I'm not aware that there is such a thing but if you say there is okay >> um well um respectfully I think that if we're going
to do something like a charter amendment >> we need to know you know what what um >> what CPI we're using and whether or not it exists. Um, but to to what to the motion that was on the table, what I would like to offer or or or profer is
that I don't have an issue with the CPI. Um, and I don't have an issue with even the cap. I just think that we need to be mindful and make that exception for the increases in the um in the in the benefits. As a matter of fact, maybe we
remove the CPI from the salary and then keep it for the benefits. But it goes to the point of what commission it's a double dip. No, no, no. That's what I just said. Remove the CPI from this from specifically from the um the executive
expense, the salary and it was salary, executive expense. Those were the two things that you can remove the CPI from that but not specific to the cost of coverage. Um I don't know if um you guys can opine on that. Uh,
>> so, um, I think what Commissioner Sue is referring to are two different things. When you say CPI, that's consumer price index, and that's adjusted by the >> I'm sorry. COLA, a cost of living or >> federal government. And then there's COLA, >> right? >> Which is um cost of living adjustment,
and I believe that's state. >> That's why you can't mix. >> Yeah, that's okay. So then I amend my uh my motion to include cola for the state of Florida. >> All right. So um now can we have the discussion?
>> So cap >> no no meaning like this is the base the base that where we start from. >> Okay. >> So this is the base then after you know then cola adjustments right >> but technically if you're putting a cap then you then the cola would be negated by the cap.
>> Okay. No cap. Fine. So the baseline is this and then we add the whole thing is >> and then we add the language then that's it. >> Is there okay? Correct me if I'm wrong, right? We do have an ordinance, right? Can this not just be mitigated by the ordinance? Because >> it can be mitigated by ordinance. U Mr.
Mayor, I I I don't disagree with you. However, I think the, you know, the goal is basically to take that out of our hands and put it in the hands of the of the uh the public. So, you know, but I I don't disagree with you that we can manage this through an ordinance, but if
it is to go on a ballot, I think that we should >> Yeah. the way that this is being doesn't make any sense. That's why I was saying like >> sorry it just doesn't make any it doesn't make any sense because you can't
have a coal and a cap because it's like coal will keep going there's no cap. >> I got it. I understand. That's why I said okay we're going to use this number as the base >> because and then there's there's a c cola increase then after the cola
increase is done and then we add this the shall the language that commissioner smuckler proposed. If I may, Mr. Mayor, >> um, >> how do I word that correctly? >> Delicately.
Mr. Mayor is correct that if you're going to say there's a cap and then provide that it shall not apply to cola. I think the l I think we can put language in there that would do that.
But what I'm hearing the deis suggest is in theory we approve the cap. However, we want to carve out any increase in health insurance and we want cola
on the other money. Now you've pretty much eviscerated the purpose of the amend the proposed amendment. >> The terminology the terminology and I appreciate you saying that. I think it's a terminology issue. So when when I
mention COLA, there may be a specific term uh you know the cost of increase to health coverage is specifically >> what I'm talking about. We may address that by using the word COLA. Um but more specifically, I'm I I don't have an issue with the um the capping or leaving
the um the salary and expense allowance the way it is unless the voters decide to change it. Um, but there is a difference, you're right, between the COLA, for instance, 2.8% in 2026 versus what the cost of insurance increase was
for this particular year. Maybe way more than that. North of 10% if I'm not I if I'm correct, right? >> Um, so well, if we if you move on, you may not even address the issue that's on the table. So, that's kind of where I was
coming from to Commissioner Shu's point. >> All right. Can Okay. Um, I know we unless I I want us to move on to the next thing because I know the way that it's just being profered doesn't because
it doesn't make any sense. Like I think this is more nuanced and that's why an ordinance would be preferable to do that. Um, so like if you is there another item vice mayor we can go to >> or maybe um I I think there is an item that we can go to which is the next
item. But what I what I will say is perhaps the commission could be mandated to come up with an ordinance on on a on a you know on a certain on a certain amount of years or whatever it may be to since there are complexities
in the different price indexes and things of that sort >> just so we can because the deadline 2.4 But so I I just want to capture the the concern that I think the committee had which was they really don't want us to
decide on our own salary increase and that's something that we are not addressing for what their concerns are. So >> we should at least put something in there to give them confidence that like you know our salary is dictated by them.
>> I agree. Vice Mayor Flormont is correct that as is the mayor that you can do this by ordinance, but the purpose of the committee submitting this was to prevent the situation where you pass an ordinance and then later on you decide
to amend the ordinance. It doesn't provide the type of restrictivity or restriction that a referendum would provide where the citizenry would say for purposes of transparency. This is the amount that you're getting. you know
this when you run for office and this is it and you can't subsequently come to us down the road and say pay us more because there's a cost of living adjustment, there's a consumer price index adjustment, there's a health insurance adjustment. The more that you
try to um limit the cap by providing for what may be termed fair increases. It's that's not my business to say you're eviscerating that cap, which is the mayor's point >> because it through the mayor.
>> It's a there is another alternative that you could adopt that would address that uh short of putting it in the charter. You could have an ordinance that says that uh or you know if you are
interested in a charter provision you could say instead of saying it cannot be raised you could have a charter provision or put it in the says however the remuneration or compensation
whichever word Mr. The Templar settled on remuneration to be paid to the commission may not be raised as to any commissioner during their current term of office. And
that would remove the ability of commissioners to raise their own salary subject to being reelected when the public would know that they've done that. And by doing that, you don't tie the hands of commission as to future
commissioners, but you rule out their ability to raise their own salaries. And that's just another way to accomplish it. And that might work. Might accomplish what Commissioner is talking about >> during the term of office, their first
term though. during their existing term does not apply. >> If they're only in their first term, they can't, but they could vote on it. >> They can vote to affect their second term because the public has the opportunity when they run to say you're
running and you will get the new salary there. But so you may end up with half the commission uh getting one salary or one compensation for a 2-year period, but nonetheless, no one will have voted to raise their own compensation during
their term in office without having to face the voters. >> That's interesting that you would have people on the commission, the idea is marvelous, but people on the commission would be earning two different salaries for two years. >> That's where that would cause a problem. Like that's That's
>> sometimes called a bug, but other times it's called a feature. >> That's why it creates See, >> I think >> this is like I said, this is >> how about how about the fact that the salary can't be greater than a cap on it, not not specifically saying what it
is now, but the salary cannot go up more than a certain dollar. Or how about >> Well, that's the point of a COLA. If the cola is a max, it just leaves the question of health insurance. And you know, the only thing to say about health insurance,
it does cost the public more, but it's not something that goes into any commissioner's pocket. No commissioner is receiving the additional money if health insurance continues to be paid for. No one's
pocketing that money. You can limit it to actual payments for health insurance and say if it's a payment in lie, you could say it doesn't apply. No one profits from that except the health insurance company that's raising the rates.
>> Well, I'm not sure that's accurate because there are some commissioners that do not get their health insurance through the city. >> And that's what I'm saying. You could say it's only to the extent that the city is paying their health insurance.
You could restrict it and say as to anything else, it's subject to whatever cola you're you're setting. But if the city's own cost to pay for it, does that result in disperate treatment between those who get theirs through the city
and those who don't? It does, but you can do that because they're different things. Let's receive it. >> I think honestly we can do this by orders. Can we just go to 2.4, please? >> No, I I think we should include this. I
make a motion that we do include it with a >> vot. So, there's a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> May I hear the motion again, please? >> That it includes what um the >> a cola and and um a cola on proposed
>> on our total package. The cola would be on the total package of a commissioner. >> You I just want to just get past the like I said it doesn't because there's no cap. So um >> all all in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. >> All right. So >> no >> no there were four eyes, right? >> There are four eyes. >> Four eyes. All right. Next item, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Wait. And the shell is also going to be >> and the shell also was included in that feeding. Let me finish. >> Can we be clear on the language that we that was just voted on? So the the
>> Okay. So the motion was to it was to motion my motion. I don't >> Commissioner Smith said that she agreed if I'm if I'm not mistaken to put a cap on the entirety of >> but that was >> I'm not not a cap I'm sorry to put a cola on the entirety of of the package
>> of the package. That's what you second. >> And I also wanted to add shall >> and you added shall so for instance my understanding if there's a 2.8 increase for 2026 that 2.8 increase would be for everything, >> right? >> That's what you That's what you seconded, right?
>> All right. Next item. It passed. >> Okay, it passed. Great. >> Oh, no. Okay. So, um >> I I >> Hold on. >> I >> and and and tell me, please, for the record here, the exact language that you finally came up with. >> Go ahead. I don't want to miss I don't
want to miss >> because I I guess you guys >> Was it Commissioner Smith motion? >> I guess you don't There's no cap, but go on. >> Was it Commissioner Smith's motion? Yes. >> Tell me please the final that you came up with >> the following language. Did it pass? >> Yes.
>> That there will be a a cola on the total package and that a shell should be added a second paragraph >> and what? No addressing of health insurance separately. >> No address to the health insurance. >> No, that's not what you said. >> That's what she said.
>> That is I never mentioned the word insurance. No, but you said but from from my understanding of you said the entire package. >> So from my understanding of what commissioner Templar was saying and what the city attorney was saying >> renumer re remuneration
is inclusive of the health insurance. So if if 2026 was 2.8% cola increase that means the entire package would see a 2.8% increase. Okay. So if that meant that for the year excommissioner would get an additional
$1,500, that's what would happen. >> That's what would happen, right? >> So that's >> Yeah, that's what that's why I was trying to get some clarity. >> You know, I understand first place >> that would be irrespective
of any health insurance increase. If the health insurance increased by 15 or 20% next year, the coverage that each of you are provided through the city would have an out- of pocket to you beyond what the
COLA was. >> Correct. >> So your if your health insurance increased $10,000 next year through the city, but the COLA was 2.8% 8% and only came to 2,800,
you're going to get hit for $7,200 to make up the difference in the health insurance. >> We're not doing that now. >> No, >> hang on. Can I I'm just reading I'm going to read the charter. It says >> Wait, hold on. I mean, I'm I'm
>> No, there's a there's a conflict in in the my understanding. So, it says insurance. May I please read this? Thank you. Okay. It says insurance benefits provided to members of the city commission shall only be paid for by the city during their actual term of
service. So it's already being paid by the city. The renumeration that you have included is not part of that is paying for the insurance >> voted on. >> That's fine. I mean like I don't need the city to pay through through the
mayor. >> That doesn't mean the full amount is paid. Mr. Templar and I both agreed. >> Yeah. because we had that it's limited by the first paragraph, >> right? We had this whole discussion say it must continue to be paid in full without deduction. It would still be
paid but it would reduce the other remuneration that you were receiving. >> We had we had that discussion right out. We had that discussion earlier. >> So you're you're automatically getting >> you're loot I I don't think you
understand it's not really a cap. You're you're actually doing um a regenerative type of of of legislation. That's the part that makes no sense. That's why I was like, do you guys understand >> her motion? Does she if she doesn't understand it, what what is she going? >> No. No. Smith was the one that that
>> she seconded what she thought was the motion. >> No, I did the cap and nobody seconded it. So, >> I'm not I'm not sure that uh >> I'm not sure. >> So, um just to be clear on the language, I just want because this this was voted on. If they don't change it, that's fine. But what I just want to be clear
on what the language is. So for instance now um Mr. Templar, Commissioner Templar if um and Mr. City attorney >> listen to him >> if um the city let's say were to cover $500 uh a month for a commissioner or the mayor, right?
>> Um and that um after this uh would be what 2028 um went up by an additional $300. What you're saying is that if that $300 multiplied times 12 is $3,600, but the
cola went up $1,500, then whatever's left over is at the cost of that elected official. That's what I'm understanding. >> That's my understanding. >> So, the city will just continue to pay what it's paying currently and not
moving forward. Whatever the difference is would be the responsibility aside from the cola of the elected official >> vice mayor. >> Well, we also vote on insurance. What percentage? It could be that the because the employees also get a change in what
their insurance costs and we vote on it. >> But you would not be able to receive the remainder of your current compensation. It would be reduced because the charter
would demand that the total that you receive not go up by more than whatever the cost of living adjustment is 2% or something like that. So, if there was a $10,000 increase in your insurance and
the cost of living adjustment came to $800, you'd be paying you'd be receiving $9,200 less because you would be having the
cost of your new health insurance that you'd still get, but the additional cost would come out of the compensation you were previously receiving because it's capped. >> Why isn't the health insurance comp
considered part of your complete compensation? >> It is. That's exactly the point. >> So if it is then >> and the if the cost of it goes up, but you can only receive X dollars total from the city, they'll still pay the health insurance, but however much it
goes up would come off your compensation because it is part of your total. I understand. >> All right. So, are we are we moving on? >> I don't I'm trying to find out what there seems to be confusion. I understand you voted on something, but I'm not sure what to vote on. >> Mr. >> You want to recons I have a motion for
reconsideration. >> Okay. But before I'd like to add something to that. Um, so >> first you have to adopt and then you can add anything you want. If you vote to reconsider, it's all back on the table. >> Okay. I have a thought. >> Oh, we have a motion for reconsideration. Second. No, I'm not
seconding it cuz >> I'm not either. >> If I may. >> Who made the motion? >> Commissioner. >> Commissioner Turnoff. Okay, I'll second it for discussion. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, can I just add my thought? >> Go ahead. >> So, >> you have to vote to reconsider first. >> Okay. >> All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Okay. >> Oppos. >> Now, anything you want to do with it, it's back on the table. Commissioner, >> Madam Commissioner, may I interject for just a second? because what the city attorney said is um in theory correct,
>> but in practicality it's not going to work that way. >> If part of the executive allowance for those that don't take health insurance, um let's say health insurance goes up for those of you that are on the city plan.
the city can't take back the same money they're paying to a health insurance company. So, your benefits are not reduced. You're going to get a bill for the remainder and if you don't pay it, you're going your health insurance is going to be cancelled and then you're
going to get the executive allowance in lie of health insurance because the city can't theoretically take money away from you to pay benefits that it's already paid. That would be like going to the insurance company and saying, "Give me
back $5,000 because I have to take it off their salary." You can't do that. It's already been paid. So, what would wind up happening to the extent health insurance increases and there's a cap is each of you that were on the city's plan
would say, "Okay, I'm either going to stay on the city's plan and here's my $5,000 contribution." Or the city manager is going to say, "You're not making up that money. Here's your executive allowance. Go get your own health insurance because we're
capped at so much money." So, in theory, I agree that ultimately you're going to be getting less, but it's not going to be the city paying you less. It's going to be less money in your pocket. >> So, I just wanted to explain it
differently to to be to be clear. I I think this should be done by ordinance. I think this is very complex and having it locked. That's that's just my thought on it. I'll offer again that what you could simply do is just say you can't vote,
not cap it, period. Just say leave it to the commission, but say that you cannot by by charter. You could say you cannot vote to raise your compensation during your current term. And if there is an
increase, you don't receive it during your current term. and that I think addresses it completely, but still leaves the commission the flexibility to do what it needs to do and to respond to things like rising health insurance. You
can still be flexible with it. You can adopt it so it applies as of the next election, whenever that is. um for everybody for that matter. You could even say instead of saying during your current term, you could just say you shall not do so uh until after the next
election. There's a couple ways you can do that that mean you're not raising your own salary. >> Yeah. I >> But other than that, you have flexibility to act as a commission and not be
dictated to by an inflexible charter. >> That's true. But that would provide for possibly disparit payments to different commissioners. >> So I'd like to I'd like to ask a question to >> I never did my thought. >> Go with your thought. >> So if if we were to put this on for um
on the ballot and and if it were not to pass that means that this item with the word shall wouldn't pass either. So, I would like to actually remove that from the ballot option and change it by ordinance.
>> All right. I'm fine with that. >> Okay. >> I I disagree, Mr. Mayor, through the mayor. >> By ordinance means majority can raise the salary. The whole purpose >> talking about the salary. I'm just I'm talking the word shall. >> Oh.
>> Or or we can do we can do a unanimous decision. It could be that the charter says that nothing could be changed without the unanimous vote of the commission. So instead of talking about >> I'll second I'll second her motion to change it to ordinance to shell.
>> Okay. Yeah. The mayor had actually seconded it but >> I'm going >> Okay. So >> Okay. So we're just going to do the shell part. Right. >> Right. We're going to do that by or >> we're going to do but this is not >> but the Wait, hold on. We're not doing that today. >> You didn't pass.
>> No, no, we're not pass No, we're not passing the language. We're not passing the language. We're moving on to >> But in regards to >> We're removing it and that paragraph and we're going to change it to be an to an ordinance. >> Yes. And now we're going to make a shout 2.4. Vice Mayor.
>> No, wait. Hold on. I want to make a motion with Mr. um attorney said, >> which is we are not allowed to Okay. I motion that >> what goes into the >> orange. No, I >> can we go to 2.4, please. 2. >> No, we cannot. I am not done saying what I want to say.
>> Okay, go ahead. Finish. >> Thank you. There's a concern by the residents, right, who are sitting there for nine meetings saying that we should have something to control this madness about commissioners voting on their own salary. So, what I'm trying to say is
Mr. Attorney gave one good advice today, which is >> how do you like that? It's amazing. >> I love it. I love it. I love it. So, we're going to make a motion to add to the charter that you cannot vote on your own salary rate. Right. Like increase. >> Is that your motion? >> Yes, that is my motion.
>> You have a second. >> Second. >> All right. It's going to understand what they said is going to create desperate treatment regardless. Understand that. All right. >> Desperate treatment. >> Um, commission. >> Yes, ma'am. Can we add language to make
it so that as soon as it would change everybody would change at the same time? >> Yes. >> Okay. Let's add that term >> to increase your own salary. >> But nobody
>> No, not for four. You would just say until the next election. >> It could be six months later. people would still be in office and they would be voting on their >> if there'll be no cola. >> If your change
>> that you just said was what was done, then it's not an issue because you would say it doesn't take effect until someone begins a new term. But if someone's beginning a new term the way you just
said it to keep it from being desperate once anyone begins a new term, everybody moves up. But that still means there has to be if you vote on it in in May, it still doesn't happen till after
November. And if you vote on it in uh October, it doesn't happen till after November. And when anybody goes up, you're addressing the disperate treatment. say when when anybody goes up, everybody goes up. But it still wouldn't happen
until there was an intervening election. So people are not voting. It would affect to keep desperate. It would affect the people who still have two years left. But in no case is it four because it's it's effective over the
next four years, but it only is delayed from when you vote it until there's an intervening election. So it governs the new people being elected and anybody running knows that. And then your change to what Commissioner Sue said is just
but if anybody goes up, everybody goes up. So they're not treated differently. I I happen to agree if everybody goes up at the same time >> that that's your that's what you're Yeah, that's what I understood you're saying. I'm just saying it's not four years. It's from from the date it's
adopted till the next election. >> There you go. >> I just want to add, Mr. Mayor, I mean, the problem is, as you indicated a little while ago, the recommendation by the committee was intended to be simple
so that all of the nuances were not carved out of it, which eliminates the purpose of the proposed amendment. It eviscerates it. I'm not suggesting what you should do or you shouldn't do. I'm only suggesting what the committee has proposed. There was a
simplicity to it. This is the amount of money you're getting. You're not getting any more money unless the voters approve it. Once you start playing with it and saying, "Well, except for health insurance or except for cola or >> we can vote for it, but not until the
next election, you've basically eviscerated that part of the committee's proposal. I'm not suggesting you should do it or you shouldn't. I'm merely explaining to you what it is is hap that's happening. That's all. So I I don't intend to
suggest that any of you should vote a certain way or you shouldn't. But I do suggest that you should understand. You're well intended. I get it. And and it's obvious that you're all very thoughtful about it and you want to do something whether it's by ordinance,
whether it is by amendment to the charter with amendments to the proposal. I get it. But um it becomes an overly complicated issue beyond the simplicity of the proposed
language. >> Well, to to that to that point, I I recall how hard it was um Commissioner Kramer may remember this when we were even having this conversation maybe six years ago to even get to five to even get five people in agreement. So what
about the well I'm talking to you as if you're I should be talking to my colleagues. What about the unanimous vote approach? So if the entire board is not in agreement then there's no change that's made to the salary. Have you seen >> Respectfully Commissioner um there are a
few very few things in current law that require unanimity. Okay. >> There are some that require supermajority as the mayor is saying, but unan unanimity. >> Super majority. >> But I think the the reason I mentioned
that was because I believe in the charter currently it says supermajority, right? Or no, it doesn't say that. >> It doesn't say that. >> No, it we would be adding supermajority. >> Would super majority would be an addition. >> Yes. >> Okay. I thought that was already in. >> No, that was never that was never this would be a super Yeah, they want
>> superjority. >> Okay. Well, I mean I if if if you got to define it because you can't just say if you mean a 57th vote, say a 57th vote. If you mean a 67th vote, say that what do you mean? You have to also think about the possibility that you'll be
having a vote where six members are present, not seven. So >> I I thought may maybe I'm wrong that we had a five five out of seven mandate by the charter. The vice mayor, pardon me, the vice mayor may be correct because it
the original language said shall uh receive such compensation as shall be fixed by the commission but the next sentence says the compensation of members may be increased by the affirmative vote of five members.
>> Okay. So, so okay. So that's what I thought. >> So that's already there. >> Okay. So that's but now are we able to raise that bar um uh are we able to raise that bar to six uh Mr. Attorney? >> Yes. But you have to if you specify six
and you have a quorum and five members are present constituting a quorum or if you have six members present >> and you say it requires six you're back to requiring unanimity. If you say
supermajority and specify a percentage of those present voting, you can have it be an extraordinary vote. But again, you could easily default depending on, you
know, if it currently says five, uh, could you default to making it unanimous if six are present? Again, then you're defaulting to unanimity. That's why saying supermajority but specifying a percentage may be a better idea than an
absolute number. Again, you could say it requires six and five show up and you got a quorum but you can't act. Maybe that's okay. But that's a decision. >> Can we just say
>> um Mr. Templer? Um, is there right now it has a supermajority aspect in it already? Currently, right? >> It appears that way. >> It does. So, um, it has that.
um would you be disposed because I I understand your standpoint in regards to having um cuz I didn't know was I thought it was I thought I wasn't too clear about it but I'm glad that you clarified that there you need a supermajority to raise um the benefits or whatever.
Is there um would would an ordinance could an ordinance further clarify if given because I'm just trying to get because I know that putting it in the charter would be cumbersome to to a degree because
because of the back and forth but could I'm just trying to get us >> if my numbers are correct and little quick math I believe five out of seven is 71.43% 43%. Does that sound right?
>> You're asking the wrong guy. >> That's I know. That's why we're uh lawyers, not doctors. I get that. >> I play with words, not numbers. >> But I believe that's correct. It's something short of three quarters. That's that's my that's my understanding. So if you said it
requires a 75% vote, that would be higher than the current. Uh let me see what that would come to if it was I know you could split people up >> because that's what it >> if you wanted to do that you'd have to
have it as 75% >> 1.5 >> of the seven members >> unit >> because otherwise if you have a quorum five >> then you would presumably get a vote at four would be
>> what what would it be Joe 80 >> um u Mr. attorney and Mr. Attorney. Um the reality is if you put it at six and six people aren't here then you just can't vote on the issue which means no increase. >> You could >> right >> correct the bottom line. >> That's correct.
>> If there's either no if there's if if six people aren't present >> then there's no vote on the on the item and if six people are present then automatically it means uh unanimous vote. You could take the >> that's fine too if there's no vote that if there
>> yeah that's fine too if they if there's no >> I think I think that I think the the supermajority the way it says it now the supermajority is fine because I once you start going into those nuances it just got gets kind of wonky for me >> I know yeah
>> you could simp yeah you could change the number five the compensation members of the city commission may be increased by the affirmative vote of I wouldn't say six. I would say not less than six. >> Is that okay? >> Not less than six. >> All right. Do I have a motion on that?
>> Okay. >> So, the motion the motion to be put on in the charter, right? >> No. To to to bring it before the voters. >> Yeah. >> To bring it before >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> Is what? >> Not less not less than six. >> Not not less than six. >> Right. I have a mo I have a motion. >> Okay. Well, that's my motion. Not less
than six. So, all in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose? >> I'm gonna oppose. >> Yeah, I'm gonna oppose. >> Oppose. >> All right. All right. Goals. >> Got it. Next. Next item. 2.4, please.
>> 2.4. Can we go to 2.4? >> Sure. >> Mr. Mayor, we can go to 2.4 today. >> It's up for your discussion and vote. That was already summarized. That was a provision that provided >> Speak louder. >> 2.4 meeting. >> Can you speak louder, please?
>> Yeah. That was a provision that provided for um meetings to finish the agenda versus just passing it off to the next regularly scheduled meeting
>> and to change from 5 to 4. >> No, not that one. >> Special meeting. That's a special meeting. >> That was separate. That was >> that Well, that's in the next paragraph, but that is correct. Commissioner, >> it's the same one. I motion to approve
2.4 section as uh as amended by the committee. Is >> there a second? >> The only issue again we raised was that it specifies Thursday. Um, it's unless it's a quote federally recognized holiday and you can
certainly do this by ordinance, but requiring it as a mandatory and saying what day it occurs in your charter. I mean, you can have an ordinance that says that, but you have
some flexibility to change it if you need to. This says your charter says you must meet on this day. That's pretty unusual. >> So, is there a motion? Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Wait, hold on. That >> I I get it. Let me Can I have a discussion about this shortly? The thing is we constantly go on without finishing an agenda. Everything gets rolled over month after month. Sometimes discussion items don't get discussed until like 3
months later. I mean until now we still I mean even in in CRA we don't have our singer building issues discussed and we keep kicking the can down the road. We have one meeting a month and I just feel like this is not enough for us to move
our city forward. So this is why I think what the committee is proposing is completely just because they also sit here and wait for their things or wait for items to go through and I don't get a second. I don't understand. >> I would like see that that it doesn't
happen. >> Of course I but I want to I want to amend I want to amend what it says. If the Thursday is an issue and I agree completely that we have got to put it in our charter that there has
to be a second meeting if the first not up to votes if the first meeting's not completed mandatory but maybe we could say within 15 days. >> But here's the issue. Here's the issue. A lot of the reasons why we go over is because we have discussions a lot of discussions and we don't limit
discussions. It you shouldn't have a a an unlimited amount of discussion items. That's what keeps has the meetings go on and on. That can be handled by ordinance. >> But it's not. >> But we no technically we we had a part
of it worked out by the manager worked out. We could act we could amend it to say you no no um member of the commission can have no more than two discussion items. That would save us a lot of time. >> Well, let me say this. Things happen in a city. I don't think that that's that's the way to do it, Mr. M.
>> Things happen in a city that we don't know are going to happen in a month. We didn't know it. It needs a discussion. There's seven of us. We cannot discuss it outside of here. It has to be transparent. There are too many times where a second meeting would should have
been mandatory and we vote not to have it. It doesn't make sense. I agree with Commissioner Sue. So instead of it saying Thursday and you don't want Thursday, say within 15 days, but a mandatory second meeting will take place in the month if the
first meeting >> is not finished. And that would be if you want to finish each one faster, you're the mayor. >> All right. So you have a motion. You have a motion. >> Let me just add commissioner with through the mayor commissioner. uh you
you also there are a lot of ways you address it. Limiting debate is not the only one. You could also limit how many discussion items um any individual commissioner can put on a particular agenda because sometimes one of the
reasons you don't reach them is because one commissioner or another has multiple multiple discussion items. >> Okay, I heard what the mayor said. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. However, what if it's my discussion you want to take off of there? What if I've been waiting to discuss this? I don't think that's a
good idea. It means something that the commissioner to the commissioner that that's why they put it on to discuss it. >> All right. So, I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion >> to that mandatory second meeting within 15 days if the first meeting did not
>> 15 days and I'm like that that's going to create. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Where's >> Wait, we have to wait until our commissioner comes back. She has to vote when she comes back. >> Yeah. >> All right. Can we All right. Can we get
Can we go to the next item, please? >> All right. 2.5. Um >> or I'm in attendance at city commission meetings. >> I think Commissioner John was going to address the second paragraph at 2.4. >> Yes, my vote is a yes.
>> She's a yes vote. can passes >> we move on or are we going back I don't know >> no >> second paragraph as well right you mentioned the >> four the four majority four can call a special meeting >> correct those those two provisions of
2.4 Four can be considered separately. They don't necessarily have to be considered separately, >> but they can be. >> But five is a quorum still, right? >> Five would still be a >> quorum. Correct. >> Five would still be a quorum, but a
special meeting could be called on the affirmative vote of four. >> No, we did not. Because the quorum applies to every action that the commission says and you shouldn't have separate quorums for one particular kind of meeting that's a special meeting
called in that fashion. The quorum is across everything and to just affect it for that one small class of meetings would do violence to your general procedure. I don't understand why. >> I mean, if you wanted to change the
quorum, you could try to change your quorum from 5 to 4, but that's a whole different >> issue. That's not this paragraph about this issue. This this what she's talking about >> specifically is applying to
>> I'll tell you, if you'll allow me, I'll tell you why that was changed from five to four. And uh it's particularly applicable to the way the commission sits right now where there's currently a petition by a group that says, "Oh, but you have four
people from the east side and that implies that there's three people that are not from the east side." And so a special meeting requiring five people when you have a divided commission could it may never happen. And so that's the
reason the committee suggested dropping it to four so that it was a majority but not a super majority to call for a special meeting because the supermajority may effectively be blocked by voting
blocks. That's the reason the change was suggested. >> All right. So is there a vote on this? Please >> make approve it. >> I make a motion to approve it. >> Second. >> Approve. Second paragraph. Yes. >> I >> item, please.
>> All right. So, this is the second thing we've actually passed. >> We just voted on four instead of five. >> We passed a couple. >> Oh, we didn't. >> Yes. Four instead of five. But that does not include the mayor. We still have five. >> Huh? >> No, that's It does. What are you talking about?
>> It says in not including the mayor >> to call it. >> To call it >> other than the mayor >> to call the meeting. >> Call the meeting. The mayor can call and four commissioners can call. That was a >> correct. Next item please. >> And to for the record, the previous
thing about 15 days is was adopted by what vote? >> 43. >> Okay. >> Um I think the next one the next one is the 2.9 section 2. >> Did I miss it? >> This is when you start the 120 days.
>> Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Wasn't a motion. >> Did you move it? Oh, I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. So soft. >> Move to approve. >> No, she did already. I mean, he did. I second it. So, >> okay. All I make a motion to just vote on it and
>> to what? >> To vote. Call the question. >> I'm calling the question. What? >> I'm a I'm a yes. >> Okay. You called the question. >> I'm calling the question. >> Okay. I'm a yes. >> Well, the mayor has to call the >> mayor has to call the
>> Oh, mayor. >> Mayor. Well, if there's no debate, you would go to the question without a call. >> You can >> unless there's debate. And if there's no debate, I have no debate. >> Vote. >> Okay. So, >> if there's no question or comment to that. And if there's not, then >> Mr. Mayor, can you pull the vote, please?
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Call the vote. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? >> I I I This is This is in regards to >> the 120 days. >> Okay. Go on. It's start there. This says
it starts the day after the last meeting attended as opposed after >> it's defining missed the definition. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Go on. >> Remember that was the whole lawsuit. >> 2.9 is um just minor changes to section 2.9.
>> It's ministerial to comply with general law. >> Do I have a motion? >> Make a motion. >> All in favor say I. >> Second. >> Oh, I have a motion to take. All in favor say I. >> I. I. Um, okay. >> Next. >> Then we're at 3.1
section. 3.11 section K. >> Oh, we have to go over >> one second. 2.9. We voted yes. Are we voting to add it to the to the ballot? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, we didn't vote on that. >> I thought it was a simple change.
>> That was the motion. >> That's what means. >> It was a simple change. >> That was the motion. It's such a simple change. Can we do that by ordinance? >> No, I think you can change the charter by ordinance. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Even to change one word, it has to go on. Yeah, correct.
>> I can't change that by. >> But Mr. Attorney, if we come back and we have too many, could we, if you were on the winning side, could we go over that vote and then ask for vote to >> amend it? >> You have not in any way indicated how
these are going to be presented. If it was like one big ballot question or or maybe two, you could make it part of one. You're not voting on >> next item >> the what the ballot questions are going to be. You're voting on whether or not
you are asking that a particular change recommended by the committee be presented to the voters. >> Yeah, he's going to present it to us at the next meeting. No, no. I'm going to get some guidance from you before we're done, but I will have a resolution to to put it on with
exact language, but you have to make that determination when you're done >> getting through the other two sections that you haven't even >> I I don't think this should go on. I don't think that we should go. Yeah. Not two. >> No. 2.9. >> I'm going to resend my
>> You're talking about section K or no >> 2.9. I'm going to >> Yeah. What? I don't understand if we can put the word shall on ordinance. Why can't we put this one in ordinance? >> You can. That's what you voted. You voted to include No, I'm sorry. The
shall can be done by ordinance. You can add by ordinance. I didn't listen to your question carefully enough. I apologize. >> You cannot change something and make it different than what the charter says by ordinance. >> But we were changing it from may to shall. That's okay.
>> Yes. you you are doing that by ordinance. When you say that something may be done, you're allowed to. And then if in an ordinance you say and we're definitely doing it, that doesn't contradict the charter. What you
couldn't do is if it said it shall be done, you couldn't pass an ordinance that says it may be done because the charter directed. >> 2.9 we're just changing herein. I it >> we're changing the idea that there is a
provision in the existing charter >> that allows for recall when there is not such a provision. It's just it's an incorrect statement. That's the problem. It is already
>> and we cannot that by that we cannot do that by charter >> ordinance. You sorry ordinance. No, you can't because it says as provided in the charter as here and provided and there is nothing in the charter. So that's why it has to be but it can be
>> lumped in with something. >> Okay. >> Pardon? >> You don't have to vote on that, do you? >> We did already. >> You did. But I mean it can be lumped in with something else. Nothing that says it has to be a separate ballot question. >> All right. Next. Next item, please. >> Section K. I don't think that needs to be added um to as a ballot question. And
section 311. >> Wait a minute. Let me 311. >> Yeah, I think we look we we have our quasi judicial, we have staff, we have a lot of things that we are responsible for in quasi judicial that are mandated by law. Uh and while I understand the
intent of this, I think that we can probably do something about it within an ordinance versus putting it in charter form. >> Yes. And as Mr. Templar has noted before, you know, this says the applicant shall reimburse it within 30
days and and what if they don't, as he's pointed out, what then what happens? So, you need to >> you can have something that has teeth in it and you can have an ordinance, but if you put it in your charter and they don't, then then what? >> Yeah. I think it's an ordinance issue.
>> Yeah. >> All right. I have to agree with what the group came up with. This is when a developer comes before us and has a bad study and we want to have them a new study. We don't pay for it. They
reimburse us for it. >> Right. >> You can still mandate that through an ordinance, >> right? >> We have >> an ordinance could require that. >> We have an ordinance. >> But I think people would approve something like this. I mean, it's it's a no-brainer. >> Okay. >> I mean, I'm okay with it. I'm okay.
Seriously. >> All right. So, make a motion. Make a motion to put I make a motion to put that K in there. >> Okay. Commissioner. >> Okay. Mr. Mayor, >> all in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. >> It passes. Next item, please. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I think that was concluding that section. And so, Please, >> that would be the the following provision starting at 3.5.3 would be up
for summary explanation subject to later vote and then the others as well. But I under Commissioner Jean's uh earlier request those were you've already considered now everything that was previously summarized. So what do we
Okay, >> you know the comment that goes with this is this is very unusual to have this level of specificity in a charter. This was taken according to one of the members from a neighboring jurisdiction
tiny Biscane Park that has similar provisions but they have it by ordinance. I'm not aware of anybody that has this level of specificity by charter. It's very restrictive. >> Is it? >> Yes. >> Is it even legal? That's that's my
question. >> Um questionable in my opinion. That's what I'm saying. It's gonna It's gonna get knocked. >> What was just voted on? >> Yeah. I don't think it was it was even legal, but I'm like, "All right." But if it's not legal, I'm not the judge. I don't get it. Presented. >> Yeah. But the attorney's supposed to be
there and say it's not legal. >> It's No, he said it was question. Well, can you clarify? City attorney. >> I don't wear black robes, so I don't rule on things. I give opinions. Okay. To say how a judge would rule, it depends on the judge and depends on the
day and it depends on what panel you get at the appellet court. So, not clear. I think it is subject to challenge. I think it is questionable, but I also think that it ties the hands of the
commission unduly. I'm not aware of any cities that have I'm aware of cities that have those provisions, but by ordinance, that's what a variance is. It's something that allows you to wave something on a proper showing. If
it's in the charter, you may not be able to even have that that flexibility. >> Saying that it's better to have this as an ordinance than in the chart. >> I think even um Commissioner, >> we already have an ordinance. I think that's the 12th time I said it. >> Correct. >> When you have that ordinance,
>> correct? >> Mr. Templar, you wanted to make it permanent in a charter in your committee because >> I'll explain why this came up. >> Okay, please let's listen to M. >> The committee the committee was concerned
that far too many variances are granted. Sometimes without serious consideration, sometimes just as a matter of course. Mostly they're concerned with commercial properties and uh commercial
development, but also with um issues that would come to the city on a um after the fact request for variance where somebody would do something, not comply with the variance process, then come to the commission and say, "Well,
now we want the variance and we'd like it approved and by the way, this neighbor doesn't object to it." But the provision that Biscane Park had which makes it very difficult to get variances particularly when the applicant is the
one at fault for necessitating the variance was what the committee wanted to see. They wanted to see uh the deis be more strict with the granting of variances whether residential or commercial. And so this provision was
was uh pulled as uh the attorney has indicated out of Biscane Park. Now Biscane Park is quite different in character than North Miami Beach. >> No commercial. >> Correct. It does not have significant commercial if any.
>> That's it. >> They have a lot. >> Right. And so >> it's not by the way it's not in their charter. >> Correct. It's in their code. We're doing a lot of stuff. >> Since uh Commissioner Turnoff with respect to uh uh Commissioner uh Templar and the city attorney, you made the
motion. You're hearing the statements about ordinance versus charter. >> So it's it's back in your court if you want to reconsider it. >> I think again. >> Yeah, that's that's the thing that it's >> I think Commissioner Schmuckler made the motion. >> No, Commissioner.
>> No, we're not talking K. I'm sorry. >> We're talking uh 3.5.3. I didn't make >> I thought we I thought we were talking about >> Nope. >> K. No, >> pass that. No, >> that that was adopted. >> K was passed. >> Okay. >> This is 3.5.3
and it's the standard for variances, but it's it's a standard that exists by ordinance and Biscane Park has the same standard, but it's an ordinance there. Even little Biscane Park with no commercial. It's an ordinance, not in
the charter. In fairness, the North Miami Beach ordinance doesn't refer to these four specific um items >> and it could certainly be adopted by ordinance. >> Correct. It could be adopted by ordinance. Yes. >> I'm not aware of anybody that has that as a charter provision.
>> And by the way, I Mr. Mayor, I'm not suggesting that that DEA should vote on this. I'm just we were going on with the summary and so I was providing that summary. If you choose to if you choose to vote on it, that's up to you, >> which we appreciate. >> Well, no. Well, the thing is they're they're giving great deference to the
they're g they're giving great deference to the committee. So, whatever they whatever it's on here, they think that it's like fully fleshed out even though, as you pointed out, a lot of this stuff is by ordinance in other cities. And we're doing we're doing a very a lot more restrictive approach in making this
applicable. Like, we would be going not a step further than in other cities that have this as ordinance. That's why it seems kind of bizarre to me. Commissioner Chernov just said move to the next letter. >> Okay. >> Are we voting as we go? >> Yeah. >> Not a vote. >> We're voting as we go. Okay.
>> Next is section 3.6. This is a major >> this is a major change. >> Commissioner Chair said he basically said move on. So >> correct. >> Do it by ordinance. >> 3 and do it by ordinance.
>> 3.6 is next. This is a major change. >> Please look at 3.6 and let Mr. Templar give you an explan. Committee member Podote uh who spoke earlier at uh public comment uh provided the impetus for this
and it was really debated quite extensively on the committee about the need to have a specific charter officer for running this utility that is so
large and um so significant that it probably should be operated independently uh rather than be left on the manager's desk. And um the the the committee did agree and we suggested a new charter
officer. I will also tell you there were a variety of other issues related to the utility that we could not possibly reach in time to have this presentation to the deis. And there was at one time a
significant discussion about we might choose to ask our commissioners to continue with the charter review committee to establish even more um items related to the utility but for
purposes of today it was simply providing for the charter officer. >> All right you you heard it. Um, is there a motion to accept >> question? I don't have a problem with making them a charter officer, but making them a
charter officer makes them have us as their boss. >> Yes, >> that's correct. >> And we don't have enough knowledge of the water department to direct the director and we're taking that away from the manager.
>> Yes. Equally said, you may not have enough knowledge to tell the manager what to do. >> We don't have the knowledge. >> That's why there's seven of you and not one. >> Yeah. >> So, do you not want >> I don't have knowledge to be an attorney. >> As as someone that missed most of her law school, I don't have much
>> expertise in that field either. One of the one of the residents pointed out something very astute. how much the value of that water plant is and how much the city's value is and the water plant surpasses it.
I think one of the things that will be difficult is to find the right employee because they have to really inside and out know a water plant
and again like you say what what expertise do we have but we'll have to study it like we study anything else. I think it's a good idea that our main asset for the entire city for future generations
on to have somebody in control of it is not a bad idea. >> Do you make that motion? >> I'll make the motion. A second, >> mayor. >> All right. >> I know you're in a rush. all of you collectively uh I don't I try never to give policy advice but I'm
going to make a small exception here just to tell you from many years experience look you do whatever you want to not my city I don't live here but you seek accountability and when you have one person who is accountable to you and that person is
the city manager the the successes are the manager's successes just like you know failures are the manager failures. But when you set someone up, I mean, there are two charter officers besides the manager. My job is remotely not the
same job as the manager. I just make sure that we don't break the law. And the clerk has a very different job. The clerk just makes sure the records are kept and provided to the public. Uh all matters of administration are vested in
your city manager. When you take authority away and set up someone different, you have really as a policy issue. If there's a problem, it's a prescription, frankly, for you know,
fingerpointing. Well, you did this. No, you did this. And secondly, as important as the utility is, and it's critical to the city obviously, but you have
a lack of unitary budgeting because that person comes directly to you seeking a budget. It happens. Uh my brother's on the commission in Broward County and they have these issues where, you know, they have an independently elected
sheriff, but they're still the budget authority. So, you know, when you um have that independent budget authority, the sheriff comes to them and says, "I need this. I need this." But they have to approve it or deny it. And there's
again a lot of fingerpointing between independently elected constitutional officers and the commission itself much less the the manager that they have in those places. So uh you know whatever you want to do I just would be remiss if
I didn't point out to you that when you have that person as important as it is chosen carefully by a manager who is ultimately responsible to you. you know proverbally where the buck stops and you
equip the manager to be able to do the manager's job of balancing the importance of the utility with the importance of the police department. >> Correct. >> Or the importance of uh public of of
solid waste. And when you strip that out, you really you may be setting up a situation where accountability is difficult and you handicap your manager in being able to do their job to the
fullest. And I apologize for the time, but I would be remiss if I didn't point that out to you >> through the mayor. >> And it answers a it it opens a can of worms for all your other department heads. >> I I I agree. Now we have wait we have a motion in a second. All right.
>> I well we have discussion. >> All right commissioner. >> So I I'm actually in agreement with um with what um the city attorney said. I I really tried to look into this for reasons that you know I believe the charter uh committee came up with but
you know it can really become a political issue uh with us having to pick a water utility director. Um, and throughout this whole state, I think there's only two cities that have that, and that's Gainesville, if I'm not mistaken, and Riviera Beach. And I think
Gainesville is a special district or Riviera Beach is a special district. Gainesville is a special district. And I think Riviera Beach, I'm not sure what their makeup is. um you know but with Gainesville I think there the entirety of the governing body of that utility
does not compose of elected officials right so it's a it's a totally nuanced different situation in Gainesville and also in Riviera Beach so you know I I think that we should you know stay out of that while it is important to have the water department at the forefront of
our conversation it's the second largest utility but us choosing the director I think we should Stay away from that. >> Commissioner Smith, >> thank you. Uh Whitney, were you on the commission? >> Yes, I'm on the commission. >> What What was the thinking? Let me ask
you, what was the thinking that this came about? >> The thinking that this came about was to turn city of North Miami Beach Water Utility into an independent authority. However,
um our our committee and our commissions and my colleague discussed very lengthy and basically came to a conclusion that there has to be a cost analysis based upon that and changed the whole operations upon how the city would tend
to operate. So to do to go from an independent authority, we scaled everything back to change it from a turning the enemy water utility director as a charter officer. It still goes according to or it still goes to mayor
and commission and the city of North Miami Beach mayor and commission still have control of the water utility. is just a first step on trying to deviate the powers and create guard rails because the city manager has
the police department, he has planning and zoning, he has sanitation. If the city manager, you know, in certain municipalities, you can govern how the operations of
water and sewer differently. So, city of Normine Beach is in a unique situation where you own the second largest utility in Dade County. We haven't have to operate like how other municipalities or other counties do. You can set your own standards where
okay, you have a charter offer that that goes directly to mayor and commission and give you guys the best advice how the race is supposed to be, how the operations of the water utility is supposed to be, what issues going to
come on because from previous experience based on past city managers tend things tend to fall through the cracks and outsourcing the water utility was a was not a good idea. Importing the
utility without a plan was uh not a good execute a plan and these things cost the city a lot of money and open the cans of worms that that position the city and not in a good light. So making a charter officer that reports directly to you
guys is a step forward for a city of North Miami Beach just to help balance the day-to-day operations and make sure that you have the proper governance so when policy comes upon on you guys on making rates or making ordinance or
making any legislation you have a better understanding or grasp so you can make the right decision. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I'm not certain. >> I'm not certain I understand the explanation. Oh, were you done? >> No, I I just want to say that one of the hearing what he said and thank you very
much. One of the things that is a differentiation is it wouldn't come through the manager. >> It would come directly to us. I there's pros and cons to that without a question. There's pros and cons to
that. We have a manager that has a lot on his plate and can handle more. But who knows who's the manager once you put in the charter. That's the way it's going to be either way. Either way, because you don't know who would be the charter officer at the
water plant. So, it definitely has its pros and cons. It's not it's not a straight line with this >> through the mayor. So we have a public utilities commission who is like appointed residents with expertise in
this area. Um I think we underutilize their abilities and their knowledge. That's >> correct. >> Okay. So there's that one thing that we have as support for the commission. Um the other thing is by the way there are more than that apart from Gainesville
and whatever you mentioned there's Orlando there's Jacksonville also. So there are there are organizations that have that. Now I think the the the re the reaction to this when I attended the meeting during the charter review and
they voted on this. This was a unanimous vote. People who were not in agreement like really did their research, did a debate, you know, discussed this over and over and um we they do see that there is a relevance and importance to doing this and and thank you for
bringing this up. Um there's also I don't think that there's any policy. I think we can incorporate certain things that are utility involved, right? Like storm water, right? It could actually be carried over. I don't know if um I don't know how we're going to structure this
eventually with this charter officer. Whether they're going to be coupled with public works and public utilities, uh that's another future conversation to be had. But there's also um an opportunity for us to once once the city and the
water plant is bifurcated right what ends up happening is we are allowed to do things like franchise fees and things like that because that is what in general the independent water plants >> just it's just showing up Gainesville.
>> Well then I added Gainesville. So no it doesn't show just Gainesville. the charter officer. >> No, but you're saying >> I said Jacksonville and Orlando. >> Orlando doesn't have a charter officer. >> No, you're saying the makeup you're saying. You're saying
>> we're talking about who which city has a charter officer. That's that's what Commissioner um sorry, Vice Mayor McFurmon was talking about. >> No, what I said was cities that have water utility directors who are charter officers. >> Right. That's what I'm saying. Well, I mean, I'm not seeing the or the the
Orland the Orlando. I just wanted to make sure so I can take that into consideration. >> Okay. So, got it. Now, my point is that I think that by us doing this, separating that, it would be actually another buffer for us to not
have I can't explain myself right now. Um I think it's it's what he was talking about in terms of guard rails like today we have a wonderful manager we have a great water utility director or our utility director but we have to prepare
on days that it's not these people. So this is why these things are put in place so that we can be the city could have that buffer and be protected. Okay. through the mayor. As a matter of law, I
just want to point out that whether you do or don't do this, making the utility director a charter officer does not mean that your utility
is not the city. It does not make it an independent authority such as like Jacksonville. That's an independent authority. That's for instance the way the um public health trust is run.
There's a separate governing body. Uh whether it the utility is run by the manager or by a separate charter officer. It does not confer the powers that go with an
independent authority that can do things other than the city. That doesn't make it a good or a bad idea, but just please don't conflate those two because as a matter of law they are different. You certainly could move to devolve power
from the city commission to an independent authority if that's something you chose to do. And you know you could pursue that and there are mechanisms to do that. But simply having
a different charter officer run it does not make it an independent authority. If they that charter officer reports to you legally it is has the same powers and responsibilities whether it reports to a
city manager or a second charter officer. That's as a matter of >> I think there's also salary implications as well. Right. >> Absolutely. Because when you're talking about our city manager, his responsibility includes a large water utility, which we took into account not only for him, but any previous city
manager or moving forward, right? So now, if we say we're going to have a charter officer separate from the manager and he's no longer responsible for that, and I'm not speaking specific to you, I'm just speaking to the position, >> then we're talking salary implications. And then there was a conversation about the CRA which is you know a conversation
that I also took into account but the CRA by mandate is a separate organization and entity from the city >> even though the board members are city commissioners. Um that's a whole another conversation because there may be some right but it
is a separate entity that requires that we appoint executive uh director. So, I just wanted to be clear that I took all those things into consideration in my decision. So, at this point, I don't think it's necessary. Thank you. >> U through the mayor to Commissioner
Flormont. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd also like to as your city manager weigh in on this issue. When it was first brought to me by the charter committee, it was the discussion about having an independent uh water utility facility, which at that time I jumped on board. uh legally I
looked at it as a way to bypass uh legislation that we knew HP1451 uh was coming down um from um Tallahassee from the state. So if there was a way that we could escape that and maintain those revenue streams uh
obviously as a city manager and particularly in the financial situation that we're in I was all for it. Uh at some point that conversation uh devolved from actually having a independent uh utility uh water utility facility into
having a charter member uh public utility director and the implications there are significant particularly as you noted in the salary range which were particularly uh which we're talking about the finances correct um but there are some other implications that are I
think needs to be thought out and need to be fleshed out in order for an item for like this to move forward. For example, if you all recall on the last agenda, there was a item to move forward with allowing the public utilities uh director to pull down funds from the
Wolfy loan. If you recall, I defer that item. And so now let me provide to you why I defer that item is because the numbers of what is available under that loan from the utilities department and our own finance department were
different numbers by millions of dollars. So I indicated to both of them but I was not going to allow that item to move forward until those numbers were reconciled. Now, unlike with the charter officer that is
the attorney, unlike the charter officer that is the city clerk, the lane that the charter member running a public utilities department would be in would be very similar to the lane that the city manager runs in. So
if the by the example that I just gave, the public utilities charter member now wants to terminate the finance director for a multi-million dollar discrepancy in the whiffy loan. Does he have that authority?
The other financial implications that I don't believe has been discussed currently the public utilities department utilizes our HR utilizes our procurement utilizes our f utilizes our finance utilizes the services of many
departments either we're going to make this an independent facility um as was originally discussed but under a churned arrangement where you're going to have a certain split off is not clear just by this agenda item along administratively
how this is going to work. Uh furthermore, I see a devolution of what we call is the council manager form of government whereas there's a clear separation of p powers between what is policy and what is administration when
you have two charter officers pretty much operating in the same lane. And so again to I think uh one of the members point, what happens when there's a vacancy there? Can we afford to have a 9-month vacancy in water utilities
department as we did with our uh city manager position? What's going to be the impact of that? And as another one of you identified there once you make this a charter member, there are going to be political ramifications for that. Is now
the focus going to be on simply the person's ability to run the public utilities department or is it also going to be how you're able to service the members of the commission? Those are weighty communications that have to be discussed. Currently there have been
some departments that have said uh we want to support events for the commission. Procurement being one, utilities being another, CRA being another. And by having discussions with you, I've been I have a unanimous kind of understanding that that is not something you all want to continue to see. However, once this become a
political position, that discussion becomes open a new to what are the revenues, what are they going to what's going to be supported, what's not going to be supported, and how this is all going to work. So again, I just like to say for the record when this was initially brought to make it independent
from a legal standpoint to address HB1451, I was all all for it. Uh now that it's devolved into this charter member conversation, um where uh it is unclear how the finance is going to work. It's unclear how the administration is going to work.
And as is oftenly said here, uh and I've heard it many times, we are not Aventura. And I understand what that's meant when it's said to me. So if we are not Aventura, we certainly don't have the financial uh revenues right now uh
to begin creating expenses while we're trying to fill so many holes. So I just thought I wanted to weigh in on this particular issue as I' you know, as you know, I've been silenced for uh the entirety of this meeting, but this was such an important item that I wanted to flesh out for the commission some of the
issues that it presents to me from an administrative and financial standpoint. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. I I thank you, Mr. Manager, for that insight. I think from the moment that I've gotten on on the commission, the last time that
I've gotten a thorough picture of the water plant was when we approved the Whiffy loan. That was the last time that I really was able to kind of see what was happening. Since then, I can't tell you what's really really going on. I
think each manager that we've had has tried their very best to sustain the entity, but as we see what happened now, it's been a compounding effect of not being able to thoroughly do that even with the political wills. So, I think it's it's um the onus is on this
commission to really decide how do we want to move forward with the commission for the with the water plant for the next 10 years. How do we better stabilize it? because you know each manager like I said try their best but there were a lot of pitfalls that led us
to this moment right now and so if it's the biggest if it's the biggest entity that that provides funding to that collects funding right >> we we don't have a clear picture of it and and I think that that's unfortunate
um but it's it's it's it could be something that we can move forward from instance there's been the state law that's been um passed. I don't think anybody on this commission has a clear picture of how we move forward for the next 5 years. And I think that's the
fear that I have once I leave the seat, what would happen? What would the next commission decide and how do we stabilize this this particular entity? So I agree with you to the point that you've made and I think like there's other conversation about how do we stabilize this this because you're
looking at fees so many things that we're going to have to make a decision on in the next couple of weeks and still we don't have a picture of that. So I do understand that we don't we have an enterprise procurement enterprise finance department where all those
departments are overseeing different divisions but this might be a a a point where we say maybe we need to bifrocate it for the sake of stabilizing this this this um asset. I don't know. I just think that um bifurcating it is
completely different than just doing the charter officer. Um so, you know, we we shouldn't like do the charter officer and then let's figure it out from there because now we're just opening up a can of worms um without even giving
instruction and fullness of what the authority and vision uh of the charter officer should be. So, um, you know, uh, I think while while it's something that we definitely need to take a look at, um, the direction of our water plant,
the charter officer alone is not going to address that issue. >> So, so what would what does anybody here know what the steps are to um, to move into bifurcating the city from the water? >> It's a it's a pretty lengthy process. It can't just be something that you can do.
I mean just roughly like milestones. >> I guess ask I guess I would ask just to have the manager or the water plant director pro provide a plan to do that or give give you the plan. You can take a look. >> No, I mean like when when we normally in
any business if you if you are if it's a holding and there's several companies in there usually like if one is not doing so well you want to cut it out and then have the prospering business continue, right? And then this one you can either claim bankruptcy or try to revive it
some other way, sell parts of it or whatever. >> Well, so that's I'm not trying to sell the city out, but for for the record. So, so what I'm trying to say is like now that we know that, you know, the situation in our spending is this way and we know the water plant is making money, the best way to do it is to sever
that and so that the the the city can deal with its own thing and the water plant can deal with its own. Now with that said to start this ball rolling in terms of bifurcating my understanding is to create a charter officer. So that is like the first step in this process and
then however we choose to go whether it's regional independent or whatever else that we want to do with it. That's another that's another step. But we have this opportunity to do it now. And I think that this is a good start to get the ball rolling. And that's where I'm coming from. >> All right. Is that your motion?
>> That is my motion. motion. >> Is there a second for that motion? >> Seeing none, next item. >> No, no second. >> Next item. >> Oh, >> the next item we would move to is 4.1.
This is the change in date. Um, and there are other things here. First of all, this changes the date from November of 28 until May 29. uh note that you cannot because you have
I don't want to say cannot but there are great legal problems with shortening a term someone's been elected to and when cities have changed dates such as North Miami they extend the term till the
following date so this extends the terms of everyone who's ex due to expire November 28 8 until May of 2029. And similarly, anyone elected this fall
in November of 26 instead of expiring in November of 30. Yeah, we're talking 30s already. >> Uh would be extended until May of 2031. Uh we can have some great confidence that Commissioner Jean will still be
around then. And some of the rest of us, we're not so sure, but we'll see. Um that said um in addition so it changes the general election for the city from November till May for all
future elections. Uh two sets of terms will be extended to four years and six months. Um this also eliminates runoff elections except in extreme circumstances.
It says that whoever gets the most votes is the winner. >> Okay? >> And if there's, you know, two candidates, that's the same as now. But >> if there are three or four, you don't say, unless somebody got 50% plus one,
that there's a runoff between the top two. This would just say whoever has the most votes wins and there are no runoffs. The only exception to that is it
it does say there's a runoff if there is a tie vote. And that was done principally to eliminate the possibility that um if there was there's was concern
about people being selected by lot and so by having a runoff but if the runoff also ends in a tie anybody can speculate what the odds are of two ties in a row
but then it would still be selected by lot. Now I have to note that there is an alternative provision here that I referenced earlier that has to do with
um it starts at the very bottom of page 17. Note, if the change eliminating runoffs is not adopted, you still need to have an alternative question on there that says if this
change is not adopted, you still have to change the charter because the charter says runoffs take place >> two weeks. >> Two weeks and the elections department has said they won't do it. they cannot be ready two weeks after a general election to hold a runoff. That our
minimum would be four weeks and we've this came up before the last election and we said we would put it off but uh now we have to face it and it has to go we've opted for the the four weeks being the minimum time that they would give us
but that has to be on there in case this fails. Finally is the language that the um committee chair talked about um that oh I'm sorry that's a little further down. I take that back. Anyway,
this goes on just to specifically talk about the um the fact that there's an extension of time for the existing terms. I'm going to defer in a moment to Mr. Templar to talk to you about the
reasons. Therefore, but let me just say that although this is all 4.1, if you put everything into one one big amendment, you don't have an issue. You can all put everything in there. If
you decide to start breaking it up depending on how many, there's nothing that says that moving the elections till May, uh, which was commented on by one of the committee members. That does not have to
be the same vote as eliminating runoffs. You could address those two separately even though they're in the same section. Mr. Temple. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, some of us have been around long enough
to remember the May elections and uh, they worked out very well. Actually, back in I don't even know when it was 2010 or so. there was a faction of discontents,
let's say, that felt that we should move it to uh November because we'll get a larger participation of people being dragged in for general elections. And one of those actually was
Commissioner Kramer. She was one of the people that pushed very hard to move it from May to November. And when this came up in the committee, she said after all of these years of witnessing how this has created
problems, I regret doing that. We should have left it at May. Like you said, we should have left it in May. primarily for the reason that the general election and I mean national and state elections drag in people that
vote for more significant items and then they just vote for the city even though it's thoughtless. The second thing that happens is we get sort of false advertising.
We get people that hand out palm cards that talk about Democratic slates and Republican slates and otherwise that have nothing to do with a city election. And suddenly people are cast into these
um elections for state and federal government where Republicans and Democrats are all part of it. So, the committee uh if other than uh committee member Lazar voted yes, we should be
going back to this. Yes, it's going to cost us a few extra dollars, but with all the other things in this city that are costing money, this is important and this should not be overlooked. Um this should go back to May where we have a
very specific election. people can focus only on that election. They can focus on only those candidates. They don't have to get inundated with everything else that is immaterial to the municipal election. And so I'm very
happy to say six of the seven uh voted to move this back to May um to mitigate >> five of six. >> Five of six, excuse me. Right. because
our seventh member never showed up. Um, thank you. Um, to mitigate in part the cost of having that election be separated by May was the suggestion that
why are we going through the expense of the runoffs when it is so expensive not just for the candidates but for the city as well? Why don't we just say whoever gets the most vote wins and eliminate the runoff with the exception of the
pro very low probability of an even vote uh a tie vote which I've never seen although uh Ken Dalippo did come close once I think there was six votes separating him from France Pierre at one point >> I've seen it but not in the city.
>> Yeah. So that was the thought process. Um with the exception of uh committee member Lazar, uh the rest of us agreed that this was a good idea and probably should be pursued because of the change. Uh each group,
each elected commissioner in each group is going to wind up with an additional 6 months. So for a transition period, people are going to be elected for 4 years and 6 months because the alternative would be 3 years and 6
months, which the city attorney suggested is a bad idea. Um, >> and for what it's worth, there are a lot of considerations that are other than the financial considerations that uh,
Commissioner Tempor refers to. >> Mr. Mayor, >> can I >> Okay, >> um, to me this seems like we're going backwards. Every other city around us has a November election. Sunny Isles,
Aventura, North Miami, um Miami Gardens is in the they have a like their general in August, but they have their um their runoffs technically in in November. The whole reason this
passed last time was because of the cost and even Coral Gables went from to now uh went from um May to now November. It seems kind of like we're trying to reduce the participation and
it doesn't make any sense and you're going to have a a lower turnout regardless based on this that assumption. just just will it's going to cost more money and that's what that's if you guys are going all go back from like what when this passed initially is
because people wanted to to be able to vote because everybody knew that they're going to vote in November and you know reverting back makes what was sold years ago to be considered a fallacy in a weird way because you you sold him this and
now you're just trying to go back on it and to say that it's been seen as I guess what you said a mistake or what you're alluding to or what have you that I can I can I think that can be debated depending on on on
you know certain people that that voted in in November elections but I think that you get more participation in November and I think it's unfair having a small minority group decide for the larger group especially since all of
us up here got elected in November. And I think it's unfair. >> Mr. Mayor, >> I came when I came elected four years ago, I asked the city manager if we could move it back to May. I'm sorry,
not the city manager, the city attorney. And the reason being that when we have a voter who votes in November, they vote for state first um or national first, state second,
county third, us fourth >> in every election. So if we have all these charter amendments up, you know how many people are going to read them? Not many. >> Not many. And that's just because
the other thing was that we used to have it in May because there was a reason because of it. We wanted the educated voter. Well, that's not true anymore because all the snowbirds came and left and they were only here for three months. That was the reason for it being
in May so that they couldn't vote in our elections. That way why they were there. Well, now there isn't a snowbird in the area anymore. We have full-time residents now that were never here
before. And I guarantee if we go back to May, there's not going to be 3,000. There may be half of what we get now, 11,000 versus 6,000 or so or 7,000, but you're going to get residents that know
what's going on. And I'm for it moving back to May. I just want to say that if they're snowbirds and they were voting, then they shouldn't have been voting. >> I didn't hear what you said. I'm sorry. I said there
should be >> Could I just um I I don't know if we need to separate these two issues, but having run seven time well or five times in two runoffs,
the difference between May and November is so night and day. In May, you get the locals attention. In November, you are lucky if anybody stops. It's
that different at people voting. And what I also want to say about November and having charter review questions, you have to remind them to turn to the last page.
You're trying to get votes, but you have to remind them there's questions there. Don't forget to vote on the last page. I happen to think it's a good idea to move it to May. I think it makes it November can be a
real circus at the polls, >> especially early voting, >> it's a real circus. our last >> whereas >> in May it's much more local much more
attention to North Miami Beach >> on the other issue of not having a runoff right now we have four people in a vacant seat if one gets 32% and one gets 29%
it's because the other two people took some of the votes We know. But now let's find out of the two candidates who do the people really want to represent them. I am so against and I hate a runoff.
I hate a runoff. It's costly. It's a lot of work when you thought you're done. But I think it's a necessity. If you don't get the majority of the people wanting you to be their representative, then we have to go to vote for that. So on those two issues,
I would like to see it go back to May and I would like to eliminate the fact that there would not be runoffs. I want the public to see who the last two candidates when there's four, there could be six. We have a month to go.
The last two candidates to see who the public really wants. And that was my opinion on this. through the mayor. I I think um when it comes to this item, you know, when we talk about quote
unquote educated voters versus to me that's a really nuanced slippery slope. Everyone has the right and and ability if they're if they're so blessed to cast their
ballot to do so. Um, and so when we have the opportunity to get the most of those voters to come out and vote, I think that's something that's really, really important. Um, now there was the conversation about
runoffs being 2 weeks uh after the general, which is definitely understood. Our sister city um of Miami Gardens does August and then their runoff is in November. >> Wow. and then subsequently whoever is
elected gets sworn in, right? Um and that gives a nice buffer in between elections for whoever those candidates are to go out there and really make their case for why they should be the one chosen. Um, so I'd be amanable to an
August um, date, but going to May is just um, all of the reasons that we said prior to in 2010 or whenever that decision was made, cost, increased participation, all of those things are still as important now as they were
then. So, um, that's that's my statement on that. I think August if if we were to do anything about it, I think August would be um the best option and then in November you have your runoff and then everyone gets sworn in and you keep
moving forward as is. >> May I Yeah. So I I think saying that the the smarter people, right, would be voting in in May is not the cor the correct language that should be said. I think what happens like in
November, it'll either be for the governor of Florida or for the presidents of United States, right? Every two years. And um you know, people generally go out to vote for that and then there'll be like, oh yeah, that's right. there's let me pick this name
because I like this name or I've heard of this name, right? Those are the those are the people that vote in those elections, but the people that that we want to vote, right? are the the people who who actually
know who not necessarily the incumbents are, but who the community activists are, who the people that are running, like they know what's going on in their city and they know who to vote for and they're going to go vote for them. So, it's not like they're smarter. They're
just involved. They understand what's going on in their city. They know that there's an election. and they know that it's important and they're going to say, "I'm going to go vote for them because I want them to be my commissioner." And that's what it's about doing it in May.
Doing it in November, they're just going to, oh yeah, I'm here to vote for the president and by the way, let me just pick a name. Uh, you know, you'll have a a bigger majority of people just picking a name because they've heard of the name, because they like the name. Um but
in November in May the people who go vote are because they are knowledgeable and they understand what's going on. That that's why I believe that May is a better choice. >> That that happy medium I think is August
>> if if we're going to do something about it because August you have your primaries where you don't get the >> but you're still in the same situation. you're going to have that um >> well that if you if to to your point >> which which I I tend to disagree with
what type of voter you want to you want to reach to come out to any election >> because you want every voter to come out to every election. You want every voter to come out, but in the but in the May vote >> typically um people who will understand in the November vote, it'll be people
who may not understand and they're just going to pick a name because oh, I I know somebody by that name or I like that name or it's a woman or it's there it's Jewish or it's Haitian. like they're they're just going to they may
just pick a name because they're there and they're going to pick a name, but the person who's going to go out and vote in May is going to go out and vote because they are informed. >> Well, the primaries are similar to what you're saying, right? I think with primaries, you're going to get your quote unquote super voter that comes out
during the primaries and then if you want to have your runoffs four weeks from that point or you want to have it in November and everyone takes office in November, >> um you I think you're still able to accomplish the same thing. save the city um significant amount of money, still
get good participation, um you know, while getting a um quote unquote super voter to participate in your elections. That that's that's my thought. Um but like the mayor said, a lot of cities really looked at what we
were doing and decided to do the same thing. And now we're saying we want to go back. I think the happy medium is, hey, look, August and then November, then you're good to go. Everyone gets sworn in and you keep it flowing every two years. >> They may go back, too. They may reverse
shoot. >> Recently, Carl Gables just did it. I mean, that's that's pretty much comparable to our size from a population standpoint. I think it it would look like we're disenfranchising a lot of people because now you're saying that instead of 11 or no I think we had like
17,000 people vote you're going to expect on average 3 to 4,000 people at most not seven not six 3 to 4,000 and having that group decide the you know how a city of hopefully
fingers crossed in an excesses 50,000 plus one gets to move and I think it's unfair it's it's disenfranch Anybody looking at it from an objective standpoint is going to be that we're disenfranchising a lot of people. It just it is what it is.
>> Mr. Mayor, it's up to the populace to go and vote. >> It's up to them to vote. >> Yeah, but we're actually putting this in a November. Like that's what I'm saying. When we when we when we voted when we voted Yeah. It's an oxymoron. When we voted for it to go into
>> in November, I think we did it >> in May. in May. >> What I'm trying to say though in reference to who how many people vote >> their vote they're coming to pay their attention is on the governor or the
president when they come to vote now I think you'll see a difference if the elections move to May I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that you'll have very high numbers. >> If I may Mr. I want to say something.
So, it's like you're like the candy bar at the cashier checkout right now. This is how people vote on our ballot. They just look down. They either vote the first or the last or whatever it is. And only the same handful of people that vote in the May election will still vote
by actually knowing who they're voting for. Otherwise, you're the candy bar at the cashier. That's how I see it. when we do have that May I don't know if you understood my pun there about the candy bar at the cashier but what I'm saying is like they're walking out and they're
like oh you know what that looks good okay let me take it and check out but they're not actually looking at the candidates I don't know even if like they had their phone in there and like they're shopping around or looking up looking us up on what we have done or what we are going to do you know even
that so I don't know why we want to take so much pride in having 18,000 votes when the 18,000 vote may not even like associate us with them. >> But they mayor, Mr. Temper also win this moment. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But I I No, I'll I'll go like look, you got 18,000 something people voted. >> That's a presidential year, by the way. >> Yeah. But you you're not taking consideration not all of them. Like we didn't get the same like the same people that voted for president then same
people didn't vote for in our municipal election. It doesn't work. There's a drop off. Yes. >> But you still had 18,000 people that went all the way down >> and made that decision to vote on a particular municipal issue. >> It just is counter is counter conducive
to the fact that one this was voted initially in May initially to go to November. and to now say that well we don't feel that those voters that vote in first the
one that that initially pushed us back in uh to November back um when we first did this in May as well as the voters that um that that that we count on to come out in November are smart enough or or were the I guess to to the to Mr. um
Templar's um point informed enough to understand what they were doing, >> you know. I mean, so just to rebut what you were saying just now, it's it's I think we're not eliminating anything. They're given more opportunities to vote
and so they can vote in November and May now. So, but um anyway, I'm I'm just going to let Mr. Templar talk. I what I don't remember when we voted in May, did we have all the polls open or we had just one? >> We had all the polls. >> We had all
>> Yeah. You had the all the polls, but you didn't have you didn't have the early voting. >> Yeah. We didn't have >> We didn't even have early voting and it went through >> Well, there's mailin ballots still, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. We Yeah, they always have mail and ballots. >> So, mail in ballots, no early voting, and then one day election. I love that.
>> Commissioner Jean, >> thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. I think that, you know, uh, Commissioner, so you were voted in in November. Yeah. >> Right. >> You wanted a runoff. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that we when we analyze these points, we have to look at them
from all vantage points. Um, because technically, if there was no runoff, you would not maybe you won't be here, >> right? So I think that when we look at what the state has put in place as it relates to >> as as it relates to what suppressing
voters is giving them less options when you take out early voting. >> You see what has happened. So many thousands of voters have been stripped off the roll. >> It's going to make us >> a lot of individuals elderly have been also stripped off the role because you have to renew your vote by mail every
two years. So we're compounding to the suppression of voters >> because back in the day it would stay abs would stay. They don't stay anymore. >> And then also and also to say that our our voters do not know who they're
voting for is also insult to injury. That's kind of saying that the that the that the voter doesn't care who their mayor is, who their commissioner commissioners are. People when you knock on doors, people are vested into the city. So whether it's the seven or the
six that attended the the you guys are you just like we're a sample size of the entire community the the um committee was also a sample size of the community. The the thousands didn't get to really we're speaking on behalf of the
residents. So to say that this would be the best for them when you're eliminating options that's kind of a difficult conclusion to make. We're a sample size just like the committee was a sample size. Obviously, you're you're taking historical um
historical value into your decision, but we also have to put in place the current state of elections in the state of Florida. >> Mr. minutes. If we if you're done, commissioner, maybe >> I'd like to point out something that is
it seems to me in listening there's a misunderstanding. You all are not voting to move the election from November to May. Your vote would be to allow the residents to determine whether they
should reconsider their move from May to November and return it to May. >> So, you're not deciding anything other than to let the people decide. That's number one.
And that was considered, by the way, that was considered with the committee. Uh number two, also considered by the committee was disenfr disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement doesn't apply because it's you're not limiting anybody's
ability to vote. They can still vote by absentee. They can still vote by mail. They can still vote in person. >> It's a matter of whether they choose to vote. And if they choose not to vote, you have not disenfranchised them. You
haven't made it any more difficult. And we talked about this in the committee meetings. They have a choice whether they choose to vote or abstain from voting. It's it's not really disenfranchisement.
At least this is the way the committee sees it. And I'm not I'm not trying to persuade you with my own personal opinions. I'm just saying to you this is what the committee talked about when we talked about this issue. So again, you're not suggesting that it get moved
to uh May. You're just allowing people to decide whether it should be given to May. To your point, what this does is one, it it creates a a perception that's doesn't even look right. One, you're extending the terms of everybody up
here. That's one. two, we're we're we're remove we're putting because that's going to be the first perception like why it's gonna say extending terms right off the bat. That's what it's going to say because the way that to accomplish your goals that you have to do that. Two, you're going to the way that they
would normally have been doing it for the for over a decade is going to be changing and there's no more early voting. it's going to be day of election uh and and and you have to sign up for abs because it's going to reset after the general election
anyways. So, you are disenfranchising voters. It's going to that is the perception >> and that's how it's going to look. People are going to say, well, why are you extending terms? >> Well, there's also voted that way for 80 years. >> Wait a second. >> In the city
>> on the on the And again, I'm not I'm not trying to argue with the mayor or anybody up here. I'm merely pointing things out for your consideration that were brought up by this committee in terms of extending terms. There's a petition circulating right now for a
ballot question that not only extends terms but allows people to run again. So if that is the objection, if the objection is you shouldn't be extending terms, okay, we'll just make it that it cuts 6 months off despite
what the city attorney has suggested and then we can eliminate this petition which >> presumably knowledgeable people read and understood every word even though we all know that's just not true. >> Move to approve.
>> I like your comment um Mr. the Templar in the sense that I think once you remove an option just like early voting you're limiting the options of the voter right because now people who people who may not like for example Washington Park is under construction the amount of people that's going to have to wait in
line to vote the day of now of course those people can definitely you know choose to vote by mail but each community has its limitations that's why you have the early voting in place for working people for people with you know whatever the need is the second thing is
this this charter review. I'm not sure if there's anything on code enforcement or some of the things that you know really affect the day-to-day of what residents are seeing. But your purview of what you guys selected is also limited to the purview of the things that you guys thought were important. So
whether they were however they were generated, you guys use your you know your lens to kind of identify items that were important. But I do think that if you're limiting early voting, you're limiting options for voters. That's that's just a given because working
people who get off at 5 have to rush to a poll or they can vote by mail. They have to call their election. And we don't we're not even doing a great job with educating the voter. So I think the nuances are very intense here. And I
think we all have um that is this is padded in some ways like because it's not benefiting the entirety of the of the population especially when we're saying we're speaking for the voters and saying that they're not educated to their leaders. I mean that's that that
statement right there from our from my colleagues is hard to hear because that's saying that they don't know who Commissioner Smith is. They don't know who Commissioner Chernoff is. The longtime residents know they're they're >> I'm not saying they're not educated. No, they're not informed. They don't know who they are. They're just they're just voting. They're just going in and
saying, "Oh, who's this? >> Who's this? Who's that?" >> Thousand votes. >> You know, you'd be surprised who we are. >> But again, I think that for the sake of argument sake, if we're if we're dissecting arguments, a runoff gives somebody a second win.
And a lot of So, it's like the goose and the gander. It was good for one time, but now we're taking it out because it doesn't serve a greater purpose. >> Well, hope hopefully by if this were to change, then the next election would be in 2029. No, it would be in 2029. So,
Washington Park better be built by then. So, Oh, >> it will be. >> Okay. >> No, but I'm saying I'm like I said like I said in my comment, I use I use Washington Park as an example, but every community has its limitations as it relates to voting. when you go to
different precincts, they have different limitations. So, that's why I'm saying early voting, taking out early voting would not benefit our city as a whole. >> Can I just say, um, Commissioner Jean, there's all different kinds of voters.
Really, when you work the polls, you you meet all different kind. And you'd be surprised how many people say, "Oh, I didn't I never met you. I didn't know you after all these years." But I'm a crazy voter. I've never missed a vote since I'm 18. And so no matter what,
pouring rain, no matter what, I make sure I get to the polls. Does the date make a difference to somebody's motivation to make sure they vote? If they want to vote, whatever the date is, they're going to make sure they vote. They're not going to miss it.
>> So what what um sorry to interrupt. I just want to ask this question. What if a voter gets to the poll on a particular day and there's an issue that can't be rectified on that day, right? Um, if we have early voting, perhaps they're able to have time to rectify that issue and
come back to cast their ballot. >> Well, what what happens if that issue actually happened on election day in in November? >> Well, well, these are all the different nuances that we have to consider, right? >> But it could happen. >> Well, we don't have to consider that. If they have an issue, they have to work with them. No, no. What I'm saying is
with with what's happening in >> Call for office, >> Mr. Vice Mayor, very respectfully. >> Well, that's you're not deciding that question. >> When we ran for office in North Miami, there was an issue. There was something cuz I remember Pizzo
went and bought water for everybody. There was an issue there at at early voting. So, it could happen. >> Yeah. It could be an outage. It could there's a lot of different things that can happen. We we what what I'm saying and what I'm hearing my some of my colleagues are saying as well is >> with all that's happening around voter
suppression, >> we shouldn't be adding to that, right? And so not having runoffs, eliminating early voting, you know, these are things that that really do matter. And that's why I profered the August option because you can still manage to accomplish the
same goals but do it in August. And then also there's your runoff uh question as well. Commissioner Smith doesn't want to eliminate runoffs, neither do I. And we have to address that as well. So, you know, if you if you turn around and you have an election in November of, let's say, 28th, right? And then you turn
around and you have another election in May and then you have another election four weeks from that point. You know, that's that's quite a bit. I think that the best way to address the issue is August, November, and call it a day. And then no one gets an extension of their term if you do it that way.
>> Having run having I just want to I just want to add to to your thought of the >> elections in August then they're voted in. >> No, it would be it would be >> No, you're not reducing because if you're if you're doing the election in August of 28, right? And then you're
doing runoffs in November of 28. >> Yeah, but what if there isn't? >> No, everyone would take office after the runoffs like we normally do. >> Yes. >> Everyone takes office. >> So you win you win in August and you don't take office until November. Correct. Correct. That some cities do that.
>> I I can only say to you, I think when you run, and you've run before, I don't know if you've ever had a runoff, but that's when the momentum is there for people to continue to vote >> that care about the city. That's when you've worked very hard for them to get
to know you. to go from August to November to start all over again for people to not know not remember that you came to their door. I just think it's too long of a time. I do like the way this is worded. The only thing I would
say and again I thank you very much, Commissioner um Templar. What I the only thing I can say is it's what he told us is it's not it's are we putting this on the ballot? My answer is let's call vote and I want
to put it on the ballot. >> But my question if >> you can separate those two questions the comment that there's no early voting come from why that wasn't addressed in any way that I'm recall. Do you remember anything about that? >> It was not it was not addressed by the
committee. It was raised by the mayor during the discussion because I presume and I don't know that early voting is set up by the county, not by the municipality. >> That's not so. Um, when you have
elections that everybody votes in, you have early voting run by the county because they run all the elections. very many cities I mean one that I served in Bay Harbor Islands has had early voting they designate two days
>> they want to go back >> the fact that you have it in May doesn't mean >> you can't do that >> the charter >> provision says says I always had early >> when your elections will be
>> the general >> there's nothing about it that says you do or don't and >> it is the custom in cities most cities that I'm aware of that even if they run their own they have early voting again
Bay Harbor Islands is a good example they designate a couple of days >> could Could you attorney could you Mr. attorney change that from being 2 weeks to 3 days or 5 days. >> If you have your own, you would specify
how many days. There's an expense to it, but it is early voting is a >> thing that people have become used to. >> You pay for county. You pay pay for county when they run it. They don't we don't they don't do it for free. >> They you pay something. You'd be paying
more if it was standalone for you. But you know again >> I think 14 days is way too long. >> Way too long. >> Way too long. >> You certainly don't have to if you have standalone you don't have to have two weeks but you there's nothing about this
charter change that means you cannot have any early >> you know can we amend this to say that early voting will be no longer than 3 days? >> It's you could but it's it's I'm saying you could add that. >> Yes. But it's not addressed currently at
all. >> I know. I know. I know. But I would like >> the question. >> Yes or no? Early voting. >> Can question. >> No, but I would like to make I would like to is the >> I would like to make an amendment that we
make this also include that early voting will be no longer than will be three days or no longer than three days or three days. >> What are you saying? same >> same thing. >> But again, the other question I had was
is what is moved and seconded to do the entire section um including the elimination of runoffs as one vote or Commissioner Smith wanted to split?
>> I would like it to be two votes. I mean, Commissioner Smith can certainly ask to divide the question to the the two different >> No, but I I would make a motion to divide it just so the one may call the question.
>> Do you want to resend >> let her >> to do what? I'm asking what the motion was precisely. >> The motion was just to approve it as is. >> Just election day. >> Just election day. Okay. >> Okay. >> Right. To May. Yeah, I would say I seconded.
>> The answer to Commissioner Smith's question is if you wish to amend the motion to put that on the ballot to state that the commission by ordinance shall prescribe no less than three days
for early voting and then leave the details. They could say three and they might say four, but you can leave that by ordinance. And what about the the runoff >> and well as I understand it that's not this motion. There will be another motion. >> Okay. So
>> next about whether to do that you're privileged to do them together but one of your number has already requested that it be separated. >> I make the motion that the early voting is only three days. >> Can no by ordinance >> shall prescribe because you have to
figure which days I shall no less than three days. I agree with the no less than 3 days amendment though. >> It could be more but no less than three days. >> No less than three and no more than five. Commissioner, >> correct? >> If it's an ordinance, we don't have to vote on that right now.
>> You don't have to do the details of which day. You can >> no not >> I don't think we have to say no more than five. >> Early voting will be decided by >> early voting. Uh the there shall be no less than three and no more than five
days of early voting in a manner to be determined by the commission by ordinance. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Why does it have to say >> by ordinance the commission the way commissioners is doing mandates that there be some
>> it says there will be some not less than three not more than five and you work out the detail. For instance, is it going to be all weekdays? Are you going to provide a weekend day? Are you going to have everything that would be in the ordinance? >> Five. There's Yeah, that's all for an ordinance. That's my point. >> No less than three, no more than five,
correct to uh be prescribed uh by ordinance by the commission. >> I second that. >> That's the amendment. >> That's >> Well, that's the >> that's the amendment. >> All right. Um so, >> are you accepting that as friendly >> as the amendment? >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, then it's the the motion as amended. >> No, we have to vote on the amendment. Make sure there's >> accept it as friendly. >> Okay. >> And the second I think did as well. >> Okay. Before we vote on this, we're not voting for the yet for the >> No, we're not voting for the second
part. Only the first >> this motion only made. >> Okay. I understand the change that was recommended by the committee >> to change the date of voting with the additional provision that if that changes uh if this change is approved
that early voting well I just can include a statement early voting shall be provided for in connection with this >> uh for not less than three and no more than 5 days of early voting to be prescribed by ordinance says May, but is
it May 1st, May 31st? Like is there a like when would it be the first week of May? >> You don't have a choice of that. >> I think it's usually like the second the first was it the first Tuesday after the second Monday or first Monday? >> Yeah, but you don't have the cho choice of specifying a date. It's up to the
county. >> Okay. All right. >> Anyways, um all in favor say I >> I >> I >> What's the vote, mayor? I'm sorry. >> 43 in favor. >> Yes. So now >> and the next issue would be whether you want to go with the runoffs. And let me
just note again >> that >> as a matter of law and because the county insists regardless if you're planning to eliminate the if the I'm sorry I misspoke. If the
vote ultimately eliminates runoffs, that's that's one thing, but there has to be an alternative. There has to be a slot to say if no change is adopted in runoffs.
There still is a change in the charter that runoffs occur four weeks, not two weeks. You have >> motion. Second. >> Second. >> But but wait, are we going to talk about Oh, so we will have a runoff. It's not going to be the most votes. Okay. All right.
>> No, no, no, no, no. You have to vote on whether or not you >> Right. Exactly. Okay. >> And then they have to approve. >> I got it. I got it. But if they if they fail to eliminate runoffs, then we have to have it something that says four weeks, not two.
>> All right. So motion in the second. >> Was there was there second? >> Okay. >> All say I >> opposed. >> Wait just a second. If we're opposed to this, it does not go on to to have run. >> Correct. >> I oppose.
>> I am I'm against. >> I'm against. >> It failed. >> So you oppose it? Yeah, I >> want to run. >> I don't want to put this. I want to run off. >> Get rid of runoffs. The vote. >> I don't want to get rid of runoff. >> I'm taking it off. I don't want >> eliminating runoffs on the ballot and the motion fail. >> I want to keep
>> So that So voting yes keeps the runoff. >> No takes away. >> Voting yes puts it on for them to vote. >> I think I vote. >> Wait, I thought the runoff was only in the case where there is a tie. >> No, that's we're disagreeing with that.
That's the committee's recommendation, but the committee >> I think I voted wrong. >> The mayor is correct. I would like >> the yes vote is to eliminate runoffs. >> Yes vote eliminates runoff. >> Oh, then I voted wrong.
>> Okay. Then I wrote it wrong. >> Yes. Is to put eliminating runoffs on the ballot. No is to not put it on and keep the status quo. >> All right. >> Commissioner Shernoff. >> No. Commissioner Jean, >> no. >> Commissioner Smith,
>> no. >> Commissioner Smuckler, >> no. >> Commissioner Sue, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Flormont, >> no. >> Mayor Michael Joseph, >> no. Next item. >> Oh, excuse me. And as a matter of law, I will put an item since you're keeping
runoffs. I will put something on there that says a runoff will be held four weeks, not two. The elections department insists. So is that going to be two items or one to put together? >> Two. >> Two. >> Next item.
>> Next item. Next item is section four. >> You have to vote on the two or four or it's already automatic. >> Okay. >> No election. >> No, there are changes in 4.2. >> Well, the 4.2 A, B, and C
um may may or may not change depending upon the votes that they just cast. So they don't really need to consider these. >> All right. So what's the way? >> Well, I mean, no, no. >> No, you'd still be going to 4.3. >> 4.2A is ministerial. Okay. But you need
to put it on because otherwise you're not aligned if the change in date changes. >> Okay. So, >> so you have to do 4.2. It's ministerial. 4.2. A you have to do B and C. You
don't. So we pretty much voted for changing the election. This would be I guess >> 4.2 to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> I >> I 4.2A basically is a ministerial thing.
If you change to May, this is the one that specifies that includes language that says um municipal elections if there's a if they're in May 29 and
May 31, which groups are up or is necessarily extended by the change in 4.1 and that's in two places and that same language is in 4.2b. What's not changing in B and C? At one
point there, the committee had voted to change the time you have to sit out from two years to four, but they reconsidered it still stays two. That change is not taking place. It's still two years you have to sit out. But there are some
changes in A if you move to May and a little change in B and they just follow if you make the change. You have to do them. They're ministerial. >> All right. So >> that's what I said. I said I don't think those have to be voted on. >> I I
>> I oppose. >> All right. Next item. >> Next item is 4.3. Mr. Mayor, this uh language change was due to some concerns
over whether the original language requiring one year of residency was a clear um indication of what really should be. And there was a lot of debate about
whether it was residency or doicile or legal doicile. >> And at the end of this um this language is intended to clarify the um charter language that was there
already. But I don't know that it makes a giant substantive change. I think the attorney would agree with me. you're can we move on to the last item then if that if you don't feel that it's that big of a substantive change like or do you need do you feel that this need
this clarity is needed? >> The the main thing is that the word doicile was added. Um doicile really is the same as legal residence but there was a desire to be more specific and to
include doicile but I agree with comm with commissioner Templar. And can this be an ordinance or >> the next item? >> Attorney Geller, can we make it an ordinance? >> I don't know that you can
add qualifications by ordinance to what's in the charter to be >> changing the language of charter, right? >> To add them. I thought we could. I I'm adding qualifications by ordinance that are not >> in your charter is is questionable.
>> Okay. So, is there a motion to add >> a motion to add? >> Which one are you on now? >> 4.3 >> qualifications. >> All right. Is there the motion and a second? All >> I >> Any oppose? Opposed? >> Commissioner.
>> All right. >> Just to be clear, I'm sorry. At the end of 4.3, there's some language struck out about that you can't have been convicted of a felony or an offense involving moral titude. >> Um, that's struck. It was not in the
current charter. It was proposed language that was struck because I believe it's illegal. So, I don't want you to think that that was in there. I'm sorry. Just a clarification. >> I know it's not. >> I know you're a lawyer. That's why that doesn't make any sense. But hey, you
guys want to go. Next item, please. >> I think 4.4 is moot based upon the vote on 4 um one city attorney. Um, I don't think so because if I'm
reading it right and it's very a little mysterious, but um, it talks about when the people who win the runoff election are installed and since we'll still have runoff elections, I think we
>> Yeah, we >> do need to adjust that. >> Oh, actually, I think this was u something you brought up at the committee, so you're probably better off explaining it than me. Basically, this now says that you know the new by law
when you were a commissioner elect um this is the item by the way that chair Kazan raised with you earlier because he disagrees. Um, so in fairness, I want to point that out. But once the votes are
counted, you become a commissioner elect even before certification. If the night of the election, you win. Now, if there's, you know, if you got a 20 vote margin and there's 100 provisionals out there, then it's not final. But once
those votes are counted and you're the winner, for instance, you're bound by sunshine. The sunshine law begins to apply to you the moment you are a commissioner elect even before certification. This doesn't
seem to, and I had that conversation at great length with the state attorney's office when I was a mayor elect. So, um, this says that once those votes are certified
by the the canvasing board, you're supposed to be sworn in in two days. Remember that, you know, a ceremonial swearing in is just a ceremony. The fact is, if the voters look, your
term may have expired. terms expire upon the election of your successor and your successor is elected when the canvasing board says so, not when you have a party. Now, you do need to take your
oath, but that can be done in front of any notary at any time. And and the important principle here, and some cities sometimes get this wrong, if you were an incumbent and you stood for reelection and the voters voted for
somebody else, you're out. You cannot I mean, you can still sit there ceremoniously and accept ceremonially and accept the canvasing board returns, but you can't do anything else. >> Yeah. The moment that election happens,
>> you're you're you're done. You can't do anything substantive if a hurricane strikes. You know, whoever just got elected mayor is the mayor. Even if there's no formal swearing in, and if there is
um if you're brand new, if your success, your predecessor's term is expired, you cannot vote on anything substantive. And I see these cities where you know they have the election in November and then they have a December meeting and they
vote and they do all this stuff that is illegal. That is just >> what like has Mr. Kazan like said about the president or even like the governor >> because the president of the United States is not governed by Florida law. There is a a constitution that says when
the president takes office. >> So you're saying there's a Florida law. There's a Florida Constitution also that says the new governor takes office January 3rd. That's in the Florida Constitution. Schoolboard members,
county commissioners, when there's an election in November, we take office by the Florida Constitution 2 weeks after election day. But for other officers, city uh
state representatives and senators take office that night, >> but >> they take office immediately upon election. >> There's a Florida there's law that talks for city officials.
>> Typically, they take office upon the election of their successors. What does election mean? Election means when you are declared elected. I mean I could argue frankly that you take office sooner than what this says. This says
two days two two business days after the acceptance of the final election returns. But it it the city it says also the commission shall meet two business days after the
county issues final election returns. That can take a few days. I tell you that if if you're an outgoing commissioner and you're waiting for that certification and you cast the substantive vote, you violated the law.
You have no authority. That's just the law. That's >> So So this clear this cleans this up, right? Pretty much. All right. >> So, so what about when you vote to certify it? Remember how we vote as a commission to certify it? >> Well, this Yes, but this says that's
supposed to occur two days after the final certificate from the supervisor, two business. >> So, so if we have a a a commission meeting the following week to certify it, right? Like like I'm like I'm termed out, so we'll use myself as an example.
So, we have a commission meeting there. There's an election, somebody wins, a week later, we vote to certify it, which is what we've always done. I I can't do that. I can't certify it anymore. >> Technically, no. >> That ceremonial action of accepting the
and the canvas from the canvasing board is permissible because it's substantive. But for instance, if the supervisor's office says, "Who won?" and every incumbent lost. >> Mhm.
>> And the incumbents say, "The hell with this. We're not going to meet and we're not going to accept the returns from the county, that doesn't mean you get to continue until somehow they get a quorum here where you need fun." No. If they're
declared elected, you can still meet and say yes, we accept it, but if you try and do anything else. If you refuse to meet and cast that vote pretty much, >> doesn't mean you're still in office. >> So, I have a I'm I'm motion for this. >> Wait, can I can I ask a question? I just
wanted to clarify this for myself. >> So, um Okay. So, you're saying that the county certifies the votes right after the election. Now, whether it be the general election day, let's say we don't change it. It's still November. Then we do a runoff four weeks later. Then we do
a four a runoff four weeks later. Then they certify the votes. We have to within two days we have to get together and certify the vote. >> Well, accept their certification. Basically, their certification final.
This says final certification. That's really the longest that you can do that. That sometimes takes a week to 10 days for the after they have a preliminary certification where they say >> who really won, but they may be some
additional votes that are still subject to review by them or provisionals or a cure period. That usually takes a week to 10 days. This this says you'll meet within two business days of that >> final certification. >> Frankly, if you don't,
>> as long as nobody's trying to do anything, The newly elected people don't have to wait for you to do that to take their oath of office. They can take it. And like I said, if the hurricane comes, >> right? >> It's the new people. Believe me.
>> Where does it say within two days, Mr. Man? >> It says on the second business day immediately, the first line after B. >> Thank you. >> Um, so Mr. Attorney, please continue hurricane. >> What in effect? If you know, you have your election on November 3rd like
everybody else and on November and it's it's clear who won and sometimes it's not. It can be close and you're not sure >> in which case your successor has not been >> certified >> elected, you're still in office. But the
minute that's clear and who your successor is, if there's a hurricane on the 6th and you're still waiting for final certification, really the outgoing mayor >> does not have the authority to act
>> substantively. The newly elected person, if it's clear who that is, really takes over. They have to take their oath, but they really take over because your successor has been selected >> selected.
>> So basically the ideal thing to do whether it's prime preliminary or final certification the safe thing to do if there is a emergency meeting to be called on they should take an oath before they attend
the meeting. >> So any meeting any decisions to be made will have to happen after an oath is taken. Is that correct? >> There should always be the oath taken. >> Right. Okay. Okay. Can I call >> now? Again, if there was some impossibility of taking it,
>> I just called the question. >> I service. Right. >> Mr. Attorney, can I ask you a question from the last one? I was out of the room for a minute. >> Through the chair. Yes, ma'am. >> Through the chair. Is it possible to add when they we were talking about
residency that the clerk would have to be provided proof by they don't do a draw they don't they just sign an affidavit now I swear I live here >> the clerk's well the clerk's duty is ministerial there are cities that say
you should provide something but I don't >> no I'm asking because when I first elected, they came to my house to make sure I live there. >> I understand that and that was not legal. >> I I understand they did it. I found I can't tell you, Commissioner, how many
things I found since I've been serving in this job for a little over two years of things that the city did that were not legal? >> So, could we be legal for the clerk to ask for a proof showing their driver's license?
In my opinion, it would not. Although the point of toughening the language, which was done, was to allow the standards to be stricter. But what
if you have a voter card, but your driver's license doesn't reflect it because you never bothered to get it changed? It's you're required by law to get it changed, but the penalty for that is not that you can't run for office.
There are penalties. So, if you've got a voter card and a bank account and um your uh AARP card and you file your taxes and you have six other, you know, and a homestead exemption, but your
driver's license never got changed, that doesn't mean you're not a legal resident because it is a prepoundonderance of the evidence standard. Imagine the two scales of justice. Which one weighs heavier? And no one thing is
determinative. And there's 40 cases and a dozen of them are mine. So there's not one thing you can say, well, you got to have this, you got to have that. Now, if you haven't changed your voting address and
you have to be a resident for a year and you never changed it, um it does say you have to be an elector of the city. So, that one could be a problem. But if you can prove that you
were a legal bonafide resident and doiciliary of the city by a prepundonderance of the evidence, I don't think even where you're registered if it stands alone outweighs all the
other proof you can bring. That's a judicial question. And if somebody questions you, um I think Commissioner Chernoff could tell you about a particular case where >> we went to court and proved somebody was not a legal resident and it can be done,
but you know, and um former mayor Smeaggel, same thing. I happen to be on both of those cases and you can prove someone is not a resident, but you have to go to court to do that to empower a a ministerial
official such as the clerk who's bound to accept papers if they are facially sufficient. You cannot impose a duty of investigation. That would be illegal and someone has to go to court to bring that. So what if someone were to let's
say file a police report or something then does the police have to investigate it and then pro there would be proof? >> I don't think that that would be a matter I could stand corrected by the police but um if it's just that someone
lives someplace here or there that's not a crime. Now, if you say you give an affidavit that you live someplace that you don't, >> then that might be a crime and that might be something where the police can
investigate, but I'll tell you, the police don't have the authority. They can arrest you, but they don't have the authority to say who's on the ballot. You qualify you. There's a component that's the city clerk. There's a component that's the supervisor. But to
disturb facially correct papers, I have a case I'm doing for that in the city right now. You can't uh no one can order the city, the clerk, the supervisor to take add a
name or remove a name. Only a judge can do that. The police can't do But but if the police, let's say, were to investigate and they can they'll they know they'll see that there's no that the person doesn't live there, that's it. It's like the police is
>> that does not give them authority to >> they're not all they're not judge, jury, and executioner. They're like >> they don't they don't have they can arrest you. They cannot say you are or not on the ballot. That's that's for a judge, >> right? But okay. All right.
>> All right. Um can you explain um real quick um the the last the last item civil service? Um Mr. Temple, >> I can make this quick and you'll be happy. >> Um poor David. >> Article seven, which is personnel
eliminated the civil service board in the last uh charter review committee that was also recommended. It was sent to the voters and the voters disapproved the elimination of the civil service board. But, uh, Manager Williams was at
the meeting and gave, uh, great information and counsel on, uh, whether or not the civil service board was even necessary or whether it was an archaic method of dealing with employees in light of the fact that there's a
union. I know Janice disagreed. Um, but at least for the last number of years, despite the charter, the city has not instituted a civil service board. And so the language here, despite that the voters said we want it kept, it it has
not been kept. And so the idea was and and Janice was very upset about it. Well, the voters already said they wanted it kept. Why are you going to recommend again that it be eliminated? Part of that was because we needed to give the manager a certain level of
control that he might not otherwise have if there was a civil service board, which has to do with 7.1. In 7.1, all under article 7, there are positions within the city that were not in the city at the time this language was
originally written. And so we had to amend that language to include, for example, the deputy city manager and the chief of staff. those positions did not exist when this provision was written and we eliminated part of um an
entitlement to be able to stay um absent the manager's uh approval. So 7.1 really was indifference to the manager and his ability to control and then the civil service it's not a functioning entity right now so we just suggested that it
be eliminated. The manager had other reasons why a civil service um finding would basically support a lawsuit and be evidentiary for somebody who was suing, which by the way you have right now. Uh because our our prior um public works
interim director is now making this allegation directly in your courtrooms. >> Okay. Is that opine? Okay. That being that being said, is there a motion for this? >> There's a second. >> No. to to accept it. >> No, not yet.
>> So, yeah, they'll be removing it. >> No, it's not yet. We're at 7.1. >> That's what we're So, is there a motion for 7.1? >> Yes. >> Is there a second? >> All right. It fails. Um, that being said, >> let me say 7.1 is just to clarify.
>> 7.1 is I know Commissioner Smith had a question. >> No, it's not to remove it yet. >> 7.1 is not to remove the civil service. >> Not yet. 7.1 is basically to say two things that Mr. Templar explained.
Number one, there what is classified and what is not classified. There are positions it said department heads are not are are not in the classified service but there are pro positions now that are above
department head that didn't exist. deputy city manager, chief of staff, certain level positions like that. And right now they're not covered. So the first thing it does is to say if you're department head or higher,
>> you're still unclassified. >> Okay, we I'm sorry. We already voted on we already voted on it. We already voted on it. >> It did not that it did not get a second. Did not pass. Okay. So >> you have one last >> the other thing in the 7.1 does is just
to say that the matter I understand that. All right. Um so we're so we have decided to keep the civil service board. What I want to do is >> that was not the vote. 7.1 is not about >> it has nothing to do with finish
eliminating the >> Mr. Mayor, please let the mayor >> please let the attorney speak because even the commissioners are confused with >> Go ahead. Uh, yes. City attorney >> 7.1 has nothing to do with the civil service board. 7.1 says that people
above the level of department head are still considered unclassified. And it removes a requirement that the manager can only fire department heads like once a year is what it appears to say. And
it's very vague and subject to interpretation, but it's unhelpful. That's 7.1. removing civil service is 7.2 through 7.4 or five. All right. I don't think that that was understood when you looked at
7.1. >> So now we're in 7.2. >> Well, I think there was Commissioner Smith said she had a confusion. >> No, I didn't have a confusion. No, we don't >> I didn't have a confusion. Let me make the record straight. But I heard my commissioners having a >> All right. Now we're in 7.2. 7.
>> We don't have to take up 7.2. We don't want to. >> Do we Does anybody want to take up 7.2? >> No. or anything moving forward >> or anything or anything else? >> Yes. I don't want to eliminate civil service. >> All right. All that being okay. Since we have no other further business, can I get a motion to adjourn, please?
>> Wait, wait. Isn't the Isn't there a Is that it? >> 7.26. Are you making any just >> Was there anything? Nobody wanted to reconsider 7.1. >> No. Are we putting 7.1 on the ballot or no? >> No, we're not. >> Well, there's not. Unless there's a motion to reconsider by somebody who
voted with the prevailing sign on it. >> All right. I have a motion. I have a I have a mo I have a motion to adjurnn. I have a second. All in favor say I. >> How are we just going over civil service? >> We're not going over We're not eliminating >> We're not eliminating it. >> So we we we're journal I was going to
make was can we get the civil service board back and up and running? Wait a minute. We didn't take it out but they took it out to vote on it. >> You would have to put it on. >> We didn't agree with the ticket it out. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Yes.