classroom Sam at Lton for a couple years and then she got the assistant principal ship up in >> got that burst of energy and cleaned the whole house. Yes, >> she's the principal attorney. He actually was the principal
at Evans. >> That's how long is this on? >> I just flipped it on. >> Is this on her internship? >> Robert grabbed her right away. >> Yeah. He's like, "Oh, no, no, you can intern here." >> Very cool.
>> Very cool. >> Patrick up there running the shop again. >> My uh sister's two of her kids are teachers up in New York, Long Island. >> It's unbelievable. They make like 100 grand a year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And and and our teachers when they were
making $37,000 a year, you have to go for six years before you get to >> I heard about that. My buddy's wife's a teacher. >> And then they bumped up the beginning salaries to 40. >> Yeah. So the new guys are making as much or more than the folks that are there on >> No, the new guys are making more. Then
the second year teacher has to go like crazy >> to go up. And it's like, >> okay, what sense does that make? >> My buddy's wife said the same thing. She was like, I'm her son got a job as a teacher and he's making us think more
than she is. >> Patrick and Whoa. There we go. We're working now. All right. Good times. >> Test. Test. >> Check. Check. That's good. >> Shank is turned off. We don't want to hear what he has to say anyway. >> My favorite picture of all
this >> can't hear me anyway. >> Okay. So, here this is the >> All right. >> Oh, that's Are we good? >> Yes. >> Patrick, we good.
>> I'm seeing a thumbs up >> with that. Let me see. With that, we'll call to order this meeting of the Ovito Charter Review Committee at 5:31 p.m. Uh, good afternoon everyone. I just realized I don't have a copy of the agenda. I know
it's there's not much to it, but uh >> did we have a roll call on there? >> Um, yes. >> Yeah, >> we do. Madam clerk, if you could call the role real quick and I'll grab an agenda. >> AJ Range, >> present. >> Barbara Barber, >> present. >> Arian Bryant,
>> present. >> Dominic Crosampier, >> present. >> Karen Harriet, >> present. >> Carl Thornon, >> Katherine Townson, >> present. >> Keegan Ford, >> Kevin Hypes,
>> present. Luke Linker, Nancy Zer, >> present. >> Nicole Martin, Rebecca O'Brien, >> present. >> Steven Shank, >> present. >> Victor B, >> present.
>> All right. I'm having a blast. >> Appears we have a quorum. We do have an item for approval of minutes. Uh, but uh the minutes are not completely done from the last meeting. So the meeting the minutes from the last meeting uh we should have on the next meeting be good to go. What's that?
>> We have the minutes. Have they been okay? The version of the agenda we have here doesn't uh >> we amended it and I didn't reprint it. My apologies. >> All right. I take it back. Uh we do have minutes uh before you uh for your
review. Um do you have copies for uh the members? They were it was on the agend that was in the system. >> Okay. >> So, it's your choice whether we want to do it now or >> Yeah, we we added it a little late to the online system. Uh if it would be the
preference of the committee, we can go ahead and just put the minutes for approval on the next agenda. Uh unless there's a burning desire to approve them now. >> That's fine. Probably best. >> Yeah. All right. We'll go ahead and uh just move those to the next agenda. The
next Can I just make one request, >> please? >> When the emails come out, can you possibly just attach the agenda and minutes to the email reminding us of the meeting? >> That'd be great. >> That way, it's right in front of us instead of us having to go chase it around a little. >> I like it.
>> And Stephen Shank requires uh printed copies, >> extra large, so that takes lots of paper. >> Outstanding. We'll move on to our next item. Uh uh open it up for public comment. I don't
physically see anyone, but uh we would invite members of the public at this and future meetings to uh please come out and uh offer their comments about charter review matters. Seeing no of one here for public comment, we'll move on down to the business we have today. And
that is beginning our uh review and discussion of topics uh that were brought up at the last meeting and then starting kind of a systematic review as an opportunity to bring up additional topics uh going through in order the
provisions of the charter. point out a couple things uh that have been provided to you at your um at your seats. We put together a an initial running list of suggested topics. These are uh just
boiling down topics that have uh been brought up either at one of your meetings, you've only had one so far, or uh boiling down topics uh uniquely uh new topics uh that have been brought up
by CRC members uh by email. uh for example, uh you'll also find uh at your uh spaces a number of different emails and memos put together by some of your fellow CRC members going through a
couple either list of subjects that they would like to hit or particular proposals or subject areas that they would like to go into. We've done our best to uh fill them into this running list. The plan or suggestion as we
proceed is to use this as one of the tools you'd use to kind of keep that running list of topics that have been brought up and then at some point in the process, circle back around and go through and do a little bit of
prioritization, figure out who's uh who's got a keen interest, uh how much interest there is in further exploring certain topics, which ones don't have a great amount of interest and so on. So we can prioritize our time and then work through that. There may be a number of
them that uh may be purely cleanup matters that the committee would see it as ones we could throw all together into a cleanup amendment that we don't need much work or discussion on that can kind of become a separate list or sublist as we work on through this. Uh
this spreadsheet that we have here is probably going to evolve over time to have additional columns to indicate, you know, when some uh discussion or action may have uh been held on on certain items um and uh other progressions as we
work through here. Any questions on that? And of course as we go through any suggestions as to uh process will be very much appreciated. We can talk through that uh at that time. Uh we did our best uh under the relevant
charter sections to indicate those sections of the charter they would likely implicate. That's always a little hit or miss when you're making obvious changes just in one place. The uh the relevant section is obvious. Sometimes whole new subjects you don't know where they're going to go or could implicate
multiple sections. So we uh do our best with that as we go through. So, uh, as we start working through the charter, my plan was, uh, as we get to certain sections, um, when we've had items that
have been brought up from your past discussion or brought up in, um, in CRC member emails or memos that have been sent on to us, as well as some suggestions, uh, additional suggestions
that that I've compiled that have come from staff and from council members. As we get to those numbers, uh I'll be bringing up those those uh additional uh potential topics or suggestions at that
time. We can have an initial discussion of it and then see where we go with it. So, with that, any questions about that process so far? Figured we'd just get that laid down at the beginning and then we dive in and
work on through. Again, we're kind of in the brainstorming or issue spotting uh time period of your work. I would suggest you right now and and as we progress through additional thoughts uh or areas to focus
on may may come to you as we do that. So, with that, we'll go ahead and start at the beginning, and I'm going to go through I'm going to do my best not to read to you, but I'll probably be reading to you sections or portions, and then giving you a little bit of commentary, if you
will, on what these sections mean, why they're here, what they're doing, why under Florida law they're there, and so on, and kind of what's going on behind some of it, and to potentially either prompt discussion or give you an explanation so we can move on to other things. So we'll start with article one.
Article one is creation and powers. Uh section 1.01 this is the section that legal formal sense is what actually creates the city. Okay. So this is the uh this is the provision that actually
formally creates the city and has some magic language in here if you will where it states that the city shall have all governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable it to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal purposes except as
otherwise provided by law. That is a direct quote from section 166021 the municipal home ruled powers act. All right. And so this is meant to grant the broad paniply of home rule powers to the
municipal government. To give you a little bit of background on this, back in the 60s, the Florida Constitution was amended to switch us from the old way of things, what we call Dillan's rule, uh, form of local government law. Local government, cities, and counties only
had those powers that were expressly granted to it by the legislature. All right. In the late 1960s, the Florida Constitution was amended to flip this on its head and uh basically to say that in our instance here, municipalities have
all powers to uh governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to uh enable it to conduct municipal government. The way it's actually stated in the municipal home world powers act is that municipal uh uh municipalities
have all legislative power that the Florida legislature has except as preempted by the constitution or the Florida legislature. Now, there are big there are big pieces of legislative power that either have been taken back away by the Florida Constitution or more
often by the Florida statutes. And we're probably going to end up talking about a number of those as we go through here. You you'll hear me say the word preeemption, I'm sure, a number of times as we talk. But that is what's going on in that section. This is a very standard
sentence. The the mode of how charters work for municipalities in Florida is that you do not enumerate all 35 powers you think a city should have. You say it has all of them that the city could have and you leave it that basically. So any
questions about section 1.01? >> Nope. >> All right. Moving on to article two. Uh section 2.01 description of corporate limits. Uh, blessedly, your uh, the decision apparently was made years ago
to not have the full meetats and bounds legal description of the entire city of Oido laid out in pages and pages and pages within the municipal charter. All right. That has become a very common decision over the last say 2530 years to
put in a provision exactly as it stated here to say hey the boundaries are what they are pursuant to state law and can be changed pursuant to state law. We'll talk about that in a second. uh and all of the um
uh yeah they are what they are and effectively what the boundaries of the city are are kept on file with the city is is how that works the way municipal boundaries change in Florida the primary
way is uh referenced in section 2.02 2 annexation territorial boundaries of the city of Aino may be extended as provided in Florida statute chapter 171 or as provided by general law. Chapter 171 governs annexation. Annexation is where
a city uh takes in a piece of unincorporated property, property that's in the unincorporated county and makes it part of the city, puts it within the municipal boundaries. There are a number of standards that govern that. All of that is governed by state law.
Municipal boundaries actually technically can also be changed by special act of the legislature. That does happen very rarely. Um but the most common way it happens is by annexation. So
if there are no questions on that, we've made it through two articles already. That pace will be done very quickly. So we're getting into the big one now. Of course, uh, article 3 is legislative dealing with the legislative branch. In this article, of course, is
dealing with the city council, the members of the city council and uh elections for the city council as well as other related matters. So, we will start out with section 3.00 00
that apparently was uh based on the references here, I believe was added uh back in 2003 and amended in 2006. It looks like this provision relates to harmony, cooperation, and ethics in city government. Uh I'll read this. It's
short. It's a fundamental value of the city of Ovido municipal government that all city- elected officials, officers, and employees shall conduct themselves in harmony and cooperation with other city- elected officials, officers, employees, and the public and shall maintain the highest ethical standards.
Two general comments about this provision here. uh from a uh an attorney operational standpoint, it's a little difficult to enforce, if you will, or operationalize language like this. At the same time, it's very common language
that you have as as almost a preamble in uh charters to um you know, set some a aspirational uh goals for uh conduct and so on. Sometimes you can get down into the weeds and and uh have very discreet
regulation of official conduct when you're actually meaning to regulate that conduct in a way that's meant to be enforced with some sanction or other. You want to be very clear precisely what's inbounds and out of bounds and so on. So this I would suggest you is kind
of more of an aspirational uh section here. Again, fairly common within municipal charters. Any questions about that one at this point? >> Question, >> please. >> Uh, when there are issues or concerns
regarding employees or council members, whatnot, how's that enforced this measure of harmony and cooperation? >> Yeah, just a question. >> Yeah, sure. And that I that's that's what I was suggesting to you is that um
I enforcement of an aspiration to harmony >> is is probably in and of itself not not much to grasp onto. I I would suggest to you uh commonly provisions like this I do find that provisions like this are
are actually cited in political discussions in various cities where they have them very often but they're usually they're leveraged or utilized in a political context. You know what I'm saying? when when folks are uh seemingly
going against you what this calls for here, this may be the type of language someone would break out and say, >> as you know, the charter says this, we should live up to it or some something to this effect. So, if anything, that's how I tend to see a provision like this
utilized is more politically or rhetorically than legally enforced. But it but it will be clearly discernable like somebody who's being like acrimonious or volatile or something like that because I understand it would probably be very hard to legislate harmony. I understand it's the spirit of it.
>> Yeah. Th this is more for for spirit and again it can it can serve as guidance if rules need to be made. Remember u we'll talk about this a number of times. Uh the charter is only one of
many instruments of of regulation you know within and and about the government. All right. It is only a number of pages long. We have an entire code of ordinances, an entire uh set of land development regulations, and an entire set of standard operating
procedures that act as additional layers of regulation on both uh internal uh activities and practices of the city. And then with regard to ordinances in particular uh and land development
regulations, external activities within the city. So >> the way Yeah, this came out of a just for history, a very tumultuous time around here at city hall that many of uh I don't know, it just depends how long
you were all here, but you know, back in the 2000s, you know what what people think is disharmony nowadays is uh you know, peace and love compared to what used to happen. But that's where this came out of when we were doing a lot of
team building. We were doing um all the planning ovito on the park, how shall we grow? Uh and the councils were were trying to bring themselves the council members at the time and work together. I think you were here at >> I was in the audience.
>> You were in the audience with this. Right. Right. Um so that's kind of where it came from. So I wouldn't get all wrapped around it. It's it was really just um one of those being a member at the time feel goods that we threw out there and uh we led the charter off with
it for that very reason. So there's other things AJ to answer your question in here to uh take care of when a council member misbehaves. So if there's nothing further on that, I'll move on down to
probably our first operational piece where we may have some uh discussion and that is section 3.01, city council, powers and composition. This is the initial section that establishes the city council. All right. The way it
currently establishes it is establishes a council of five members, one of whom is the mayor and four of whom are at large council members. All right, we're going to talk about that because there was a suggestion, one of the ones that we've got on the list here uh came in by
email uh suggestion of uh discussing whether the election of council member members ought to remain at large or completely at large. And I'll go down the tangent of what at large means versus district in just a moment, but
I'm go through the basics of all of this. So, uh, we've got our one mayor, four council members elected at large, uh, with terms of office set out in section 3.03, uh, 02. We'll talk about that a
little bit. Those terms are two years, uh, being elected in accordance with section 3.03.14, which handles election matters. Then we have just kind of a a uh definitional or or uh you know defining our terms
sentence. The mayor and four at large council members shall collectively referred to herein as the city council council or city council members and individually referred to as member. Uh as an initial first kind of technical cleanup matter even though we have all
sorts of permutations of of references here kind of to to catch every single way it's said over here. Uh our city clerk noticed in her review that it's missing one. Uh there are a number of references within the charter to not
just member but city council member or pardon me to where's the reference uh to pardon me to just council member. So, the thought is, and this would be purely a cleanup matter, to uh as kind of a
final pass and a cleanup uh amendment, going through and getting some consistency on whether it's city council member, council member, member, or what have you. Not I would suggest you not a high priority matter, but a cleanup matter that could be caught on a final
pass. The city council shall have all legislative powers of the city vested herein. Now, that's that's very important. But it's a little sentence and that's very important. All right, that is uh one of the main roles of the
city council. It's the primary role main role of the city council. All right. Um is or a primary one um is all the legislative powers of the city are vested in the city council to adopt ordinances and regulations uh to be
effective within the city. Each member of the city council have shall have one vote on all matters at which a vote is taken. Vacancies in office shall be filled in accordance with the provision of section 3.07. So a lot of this section is basically creating the city council and then referencing other
sections about different things here. But while we are in section 3.01, 1. Uh, I wanted to bring up a couple matters looking down on our list here. And this was uh
referenced actually in our memo uh from uh member Kevin Heypes um addressing a number of issues and one of them was uh bringing up the matter of whether there should be a change from at large
council member elections to proposal be potentially district-based or a hybrid some at large some districtbased council member elections. And I want to turn it over to you in just a second, but I'm going to give a tea up a little bit to give the the tea up kind of the concept
we're looking at here. As of right now, the uh members of the city council are all elected at large. What that means is the um everyone in the city, all registered voters within the city can
vote on each of their elections. the the district in which uh folks uh there the the area in which uh city voters can vote on city council members encompass the entire city and there is no
residency required requirement right now. Tell me tell me if I'm wrong, but I it's not in the charter. We don't have residency districts or anything. There are no residency districts or anything like this. Yeah. city council members uh can reside anywhere within the city
limits. Hypothetically, this is not advocacy one way or the other. Hypothetically, uh all five members of the city council could live in a row of houses, five in a row, all right next to each other, and then the whole rest of the city, you know, nobody, you know, lives in those other
areas. Very common. Happens in a lot of places. Um, in contrast, the um the concept that's uh been thrown out is the potential for elections on a district or
precinct or ward based basis. We're taking all of the city council uh uh seats or potentially some of them as a hybrid matter and saying districts are drawn. This is typically done at least two ways, by the way. Sometimes it's
merely a residency district, right? And you could have city council members have to live in a given area uh and um have to live in a given area, but the entire city can vote on whether or not they get elected. Other times, it's a pure
district-based election. A uh a council member has to live within a designated district and then only the voters residing within that district can vote for that council member. Okay. So these you see a wide variety of permutations on this among municipalities in the
state of Florida. Each one they attempt to tune to the circumstances of that city. You know what they believe to be best. So uh Kevin I'll turn it over to you if you wanted to share any additional thoughts on those. >> Um so when I was a a commissioner in
Sanford this was 20 years ago. Um we had u districts and you had to live in the district to be uh to run I guess to qualify to run. Um and um as a city gets bigger and gets more diverse. Um I found
it to be actually I liked it because you know the the folks in my community uh they knew who I was and they knew I lived in their community. They knew their concerns were my concerns and they knew who to call if they had an issue about something in the community. Um,
but by the same token, uh, we were elected by everybody. People in my district only didn't vote. Everybody voted. Um, but I I felt it was if a developer was coming into my area to put up a building or something, you know, the folks in my district would call me
and say, "Hey, I'm not sure if I want that here." So, and of course, in Sanford, it was a lot more diverse. They had the downtown and uh they had various areas um that really needed separate focus, I guess. Um, but I I liked it actually. I thought it was I thought it
was more intimate to have it that way. And I think the council folks, uh, the commission, you know, we respected each other's territory. We used to refer to each other. Hey, Kevin, that's in your area. How do you feel about it? If you really want this, you know, we'll we'll
defer to you kind of thing. Uh, so I I thought it was actually pretty good. Um, and in a place like this, like you said, everybody could be in one area running the entire area and then of course you don't get that that intimacy at least. So, uh, not sure if it would work here,
but I thought it'd be a good idea to throw it out there. So, >> please, >> um, I think it's really important that I mean, I can understand the idea of a residency area, but I think it's really important that all of the positions are
voted at large. Because in Orange County, their schoolboard members are elected by area and voted in their district and then
when one district gets something new, then all the other districts want an equal amount spent. And so I think it's it's more functional for the entire city. It's cheaper. It's not doesn't pit one neighborhood against another
neighborhood if everybody is electing um is voting for all of the representatives and the mayor but council members and the mayor. >> Anyone else have any initial thoughts, please? >> I understand Oh, sorry. It was on
already. >> I was live. Um, I understand what Kevin's saying and in looking at the map, it makes a lot of sense um of the city because
one area say over by the high school versus an another area over closer towards UCF versus way out towards the outskirts or then what happens when we when the city itself changes development
such as old downtown um or something else over by Duda or or something like that. Somebody like you say in that area um makes the people of that area feel more connected. Yet we
tend to have a problem to get people to run for anything anyway. So then you're really limited and and now if you don't have anybody that wants to run from that area, what do you do? So it's it's got points and then it's got
downsides. But and like has been said, a a voting at large, if it was a district aspect, a voting at large would definitely be a better aspect than just a district votes for their person. Mr. versus this way the whole city feels
unified as well if it was to end up that way. That's all >> please. >> Um I think definitely should be at large no matter what. Uh there should always be at large vote. Uh every citizen should vote for every council member. Um
and I think it's been talked about many times. Probably every time we this group sits down for a charter committee. this comes up for a second and gets talked around and previously it's mostly well we're not big enough we're not really there yet we don't feel we've reached
the level uh to be there and I don't think we have and I don't think looking forward I mean you know in 2002 they said we'll reach to 50,000 someday um you know and that kind of thing we're
not there yet to even 50,000 uh as a population if you look at the makeup of the council because I was trying to think backwards and go we are very well represented on the city. If you look at the council right now from where they sit and where they live, um, and if I go
back in my head and peel back each council backwards, we're still very well represented. And, uh, you know, Trudeama can convey the same that sitting up there, you and I'm sure the same council does here, you would reach out the
person that lives there would definitely be the key member. Just like, you know, Kevin said, they would be the point person in their community. But that doesn't mean you couldn't reach out and be talking to other people. You'd rely
on, hey, give me some feedback from, I'm going to use Councilman Britain for a reason, Councilman Britain in his area, the golf course, you know, um, somebody who lives up north for that live oak reserve. there's different areas and you'd reach out to that person whoever
was from there historically over time. Um I I think I I think it benefits from you may not be your representative may not be the one you love and the person that's your guy and you feel you know
this other person better or that other person better. Um, but I also think it makes council have to be aware of everything and have to understand the city and kind of know the entire city. Um, years ago, walking the city was a big
thing, but you should be able to as a council member go, you know, if you if you name a development kind of at least know where that is and think, wait, hold on. Oh, yeah, that's boom. and understand well over there in Riverside or in that corner of Riverside
yet floods a little bit and over here in this section they have this problem and over it gives each council member responsibility for all of it. Um and I think it's not too big or too much at this point. I'm gonna say to expect that from council
members and as a citizen to just go I think they can handle it and would be better. >> Any other initial discussion on that topic right now? >> I just have one thought. Um, Lou kind of talked about what I was going to say originally, but then as I was thinking
about it, is there any kind of an option for sort of a hybrid system where perhaps you don't have to live in that district, but you decide it's divided up into districts and you decide that's the district you're going to run in. So that anybody from the city of Oido could
potentially choose a district to campaign and run in. And that way we it would be open to everybody. So, I'm trying to trying to make sure I understand the the the concept. Would it would it be if
>> the city was divided into two or three or four districts and >> only the people in that district would vote for them? >> No. >> The whole city would vote for them. >> The whole city. >> But they and they don't have to live in that district. they would not have to live in that district, but they would
they would choose, you know, and and maybe they do live there and that's why they would choose the one of the four districts. >> So, we we and please correct me if I'm wrong in my recollection or understanding, we have designated seats. >> Yes, seats.
>> We we we have designated seats. So, when folks run, they are saying they're running for seat one or seat two or three or seat four. They're notionally tied to some geographic portion of the city, >> right? >> And if they
if they weren't elected just from the people there and they didn't have to live there, I'm I'm just trying to figure out what connection it would have. >> I say Councilman Britain had over by the
high school, Publix, Pine Avenue, things like that. those people are contacting that person first. Um, right now I think there's a lot of people in a city. Maybe they don't even know who the
council members are other than who they see the most active in social media pages and things like that. And so that person might get inundated with things and people may feel oh they don't even help me versus from that viewpoint
you're assigned to a certain segment or district >> live in a given area might end up becoming the point person for it. I've seen the opposite in some cities sometimes somebody might live in a place and they couldn't care less about little bits and bobs that are going on in the
area where they live. They only care about the budget or they only care about this. So I I I I would just offer to you the the thought that the d the dynamic uh of that of folks kind of being the advocate for an area when it's not
legally tied to an area gets a lot more >> okay >> tenuous. I'm not saying no. I'm just trying to to operationalize it a little bit. >> I'll just please >> if I can I'll kind of wrap it up.
it the district idea is always an idea as Stephen said that gets batted around in these charter review committees, but in reality when you sit up there, what tends to happen is the resident is going to
contact the member who they know. you know, I I know Keith Britain, I know Jeff, I know Natalie Allen, uh, Mayor Slate, Stephen, Dominic, that that's who they're going to reach out to generally
first. Um, or what happens? And when I switch seats, everybody calls the mayor. You know, the mayor is the one who really becomes the well, you can make yourself into a lightning rod or you can just, you know,
be the mayor. But you're going to get the bulk. That person, whoever that is, he or she is going to get the bulk of the resident's wants, desires, complaints, whatever it may be. I mean, um, my email box would have 20,000
emails in the darn thing. I mean, it's just it is what it is. It goes with the territory. So to in a city this big, you know, geographically, we're only Brian, we're still only about 15 square miles. I'm going to assume >> 16 >> 17 miles. >> Oo, we're 16 now.
>> 16 square miles. >> Um, you know, we're not spread out. We're not that big. And as Stephen said, we just should it happen one day? I think it should. Uh, are we quite there yet? I mean, every member that's sitting up
there and my perspective should work for all of us. You know, we we should elect them all at large. Uh you know, every one of them, no matter who it is, whoever you contact with an issue should respond to your issue. That that's what
we elected them to do. Um, and it hadn't been brought up, but of course, if we ever get to that point, it would have to be if everybody's elected at large, of course, uh, four districts, the member lives in the district, mayor is always at large. You know, that's just kind of
typical, but I'll just leave everybody with that thought. However, the committee wants to to go on it. But >> one last comment, um, I wasn't proposing that you only vote in your district. I was assuming in Sanford we everybody
voted for everybody >> but of course >> Sanford's not >> right >> Sanford's not district they're district elected it's at large >> yeah it's at large election no anymore it's not >> no I thought it was I thought it was in district >> yeah we well when I was there Sanford we
were in districts >> they're elected by district >> right it was well it was district but I was there too but we didn't vote only in our district >> I think when you voted you voted for everybody. You know, you had the right to vote for each candidate. I mean, you voted for the guy in your district. I
guess you did. Yeah. I can't recall, but I just thought it would be nice to have my own council person to um advocate for the mall because we're very different than everywhere else. And >> you can go right across the street down Wild Eagle and Mr. Bford's right there.
>> Sometimes we I feel like I don't get enough attention. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. Very good. Well, thank you all for that discussion. Uh as we >> question >> Oh, please. >> Um so the district um sounds like a good
idea for me to me. But um when we're looking at are there guidelines for population or size of the city? Because like Sanford's maybe 20,000 more. That's not a huge difference when you talk about population, right?
Yeah. So, um just to give you all a little bit of background on the topic uh before we move on, if there were uh if there were a decision to establish districts, all right, the the law in Florida and generally uh in the United States is that um those districts have
to have uh as uh equal equal population as practice. All right? not perfect, but it's they've got to be uh roughly equal population within those districts. All right, that's bad news. Sometimes I deliver to some cities because they they
really want to, you know, divide it up because they don't want some certain area to have too much political influence, but that's also where all the population is. So, you know, they're not going to be able to accomplish anything there. You divide it up uh based equal population within those districts. Okay?
There is there is no legal threshold in Florida saying that a city uh you know is uh too small to have districts or too large. That's up to the city and that's up to the voters to decide. There are very small cities that have little
districts and they do tend to have the problem that was alluded to before uh where small cities have a problem getting folks to run uh for office at all. when you have individual districts in a small city, it's even more difficult to find people because you got to find people in each of those little
districts. So, um, so yeah, as it does tend to be that as cities get larger in population, there is more of an inclination to move to some sort of district model, whether it's a residency model um or uh single member districts,
folks voting and living in that. But again, that's ultimately always a judgment call of the folks proposing charter amendments and then the voters. >> And then whether or not if we're creating districts, then we would create more seats on the council or we're just
dividing the city based on current seats. It would it would the the proposal was to to take uh the four seats that exist and make uh some or all of them uh be subject to residency
districts. So it wouldn't be adding it wouldn't be making more than five city council members uh on the city council at least in the the proposal that we've heard from your fellow member. >> So just to confirm city doesn't have districts at the moment >> right now. Yeah, the city does not have
any districts. That's correct. >> Excuse me. >> Please. >> So, what you just said about district populations is very important in thinking about whether Ovito should or shouldn't have districts because right now
when you look at the city map based on population, it's pocketed in densities to very non-dense to very dense. So you could end up with districts that are very different within their own district. So that's a that's a very big
thing to to think about and look at as well. So thank you for clarifying that. >> Absolutely. Just look up Winter Springs and you know they have districts they have to live in. They run it large and just what L said, they have districts that spread across the whole city and
then they have these little tiny ones and you know sometimes they have trouble getting people to run and they're even worse off because they have 12-year term limits. So eventually they do have to find somebody to run. So >> I think two year or four years over
there. I think there's four. Yeah. >> Yeah. Three four year terms. >> Very good. And would the sid would um the charter decide how the districts are created >> or is that a different >> That's that's a great question. Uh the
the way that uh districts are uh typically established are by the governing body by the uh city council. >> Council. >> Yes. >> Right. But there's state guidelines and federal guidelines that have to be followed.
>> Yeah. The primary guideline being as I uh as I indicated have equal population. There are a number of civil rights protections uh related to how uh districts have to be drawn uh and so on uh when you're getting into matters like that.
>> So thank you all for that discussion. Uh as as we discussed before at this point we're kind of in the initial brainstorming and then having uh a a good initial conversation on different topics. um at a later date as we go back through uh we can have further
discussion and then you have some disposition on this idea or uh discussion on you know how we should prioritize it or what have you. So we'll move on now to section 3.02 >> before we move on. >> Yes sir.
>> Uh I have a question but I want to make a statement first. I don't necessarily have any political aspirations. Um, but my question is, has there been some thought about
expanding the council from five to perhaps seven in light of the growth and the diversity of Ovido, looking futuristically toward uh greater demographics? just a question.
>> Well, I I will tell you that uh if there were to be a discussion about expanding the membership of the council, >> that discussion would be right here. That is that is one of the fundamental things that is potentially before the CRC to make recommendations for charter
amendments on. Uh we set the number of council members on the city council in the charter. Right now it says five. Yeah. >> So if there is uh an interest or proposal to change that, this would be uh the venue to to discuss that.
>> Just throwing it out for discussion. >> AJ, we do have the seats. There's enough seats up there. So >> um for my own >> Oh, planning and zoning is uh >> seven. >> Seven, right? >> Zoning is seven. >> So is uh community redevelopment agency,
>> right? Oh, yeah. That one's seven, too. >> Yes, sir. So for my own edification and I'm so I understand the district conversation that's happening right now. Um can someone help me understand when you say seats what's the correl like what's
the help me understand that it's not it's not there's no correlation to a district or a geographic plot a location. So what is what seat one seat two >> can you Yes. >> So basically seats are just regulate when they're
elected. It really just relates to when they're elected. So you have like seats one and two at a certain election time three and four. It just differentiates. >> So they're staggered. >> There's no like there's no other way to differentiate. You could, you know, call it whatever you want, but it's just that that's seat 1 2 3 4 and seat one and
three come up in this election. Seat two and four come up in that election. And the mayor is elected in a certain year. >> Or for even easier, it's an identifier. That's all. >> It's it's an identifier and it's also an identifier of to be quite frank and political who you're running against.
>> Do you see what I'm saying? If there are two seats up uh for city council elections and uh you know other folks were jumping in, they're jumping into race one or race two and somebody looking to run gets to decide which one they're going to for you know whatever
their political calculations are which one they hop into. So, it's it's a designator for a seat of uh yeah, which terms are up when, who's up for election when, and who you're hopping into, you know, okay, >> running against or what have you. >> As opposed to something like, you know,
the top two people, everybody runs for, you know, next year there's five people running, two people become the council members, that kind of thing as opposed to that. >> And that does exist in some >> other places. That's how they >> and it leads to some wild game theory
and math figuring out uh how friends run against each other and they're running against each other and nevertheless, you know, try to win and all that. It it's an interesting uh dynamic that's not what we have currently in OA. >> Thank you. >> Hey, before we jump in, I just a quick question. If you could define the
difference between the system we have now with a city manager and a strong mayor system, it might be fun for folks to understand what the differences are. >> Sure. That is easily a half hour discussion. Um, but if if I could
>> actually we're going to get we're going to get there. >> We're going to get there. >> We get there. >> We're going to get there sooner than you think. Um although there's there's a lot of election stuff in the way. >> Two seconds. Give me the short one. Brian, I >> I can give the short explanation if you want me to.
>> Go ahead. >> You're welcome to go if you want. >> Basically, >> I'll give the long version after >> with a council manager form of government. Council serves as the policy board and let's put it in terms like a business. Okay. Council is the board of directors. Uh the city manager is the uh
he is in charge of the operations. So the city manager is the CEO basically and then all of the department heads report to the city manager. The city manager reports to the city council. Uh the objective is is that the city manager implements the directives of the
city council and and tries to bring them what their vision is. You know, implementing their vision. Uh when you have a strong mayor form of government, the mayor is the CEO and president of of the corporation and the uh council members or commission members. Most of
the time it's a commission. uh they are they're the board of directors and the strong mayor usually does have a chief of staff that works with that person and handles a lot of the administrative duties for the mayor day-to-day duties for the mayor but the mayor is the
primary person uh in the government like I said serving in both as CEO and president. So they still equal votes on the council and the mayor typically or >> Yeah, usually the mayor has a vote. >> So they still only get one vote. >> Well, >> some of them they may have a tiebreaking.
>> Yeah, I would offer qualification. Yet you you have a wild array of different orientations for the office of mayor when it's a strong mayor. In some instances, uh, they are not a member of the council or commission at all and
they are they they sit where a city manager would sit and present their their items to the city council or what have you. In other places, um there are instances uh city of Orlando for example, city of Apakka, uh Orange
County uniquely among counties, uh have a uh all have a mayor that is the chief executive but also sits as the chair of the governing body, the legislative branch. So you have a wide variety of of
what legislative powers a strong mayor has. But in all strong mayor instances, uh, in one form or another, the the strong mayor is effectively the elected city manager that can't be fired by the
city council. >> And that's a that's a key difference as well in the power dynamic that we'll talk about when we get to uh uh article 4 in particular, but also the interference provisions in article 3. um is that ultimately one of the key uh
roles of the city council is the um hiring of the city manager. Okay? As opposed to an elected mayor. Uh elected mayors can get on very well with their governing bodies or legislative bodies or they cannot but they can't be removed
by them. They can't be fired by them in any event because they're hired and fired by the people. So I hope that helps as an initial thing. We'll dive into that later. to go into it. But what about a recall vote? We don't have that here, do we? >> Uh, you do actually because every municipality in the state has it
pursuant to state law. Recalls though are not an effective means of just we don't like you anymore. Recalls have to be for a very discreet set of reasons uh under the state statute and they follow a wildly rigorous arcane, if you will,
procedure uh that dates from a long time ago. It's not an effective way to just say, you know, we don't want you to be whatever anymore. Uh it is you have to have uh done one of the enumerated types of egregious acts that are set out in the statute.
>> And ironically, Apacha is discussing right now removing strong mayor. >> I mean, the candidates bring it up all the time. >> Oh, yeah. That that is a hot topic of discussion in Apakka. Um but yeah, I mentioned other city of Orlando is probably the most, you know, well
understood one around here. Over uh on the west coast, city of Tampa is also a strong mayor form of government. You tend to find strong mayor forms of government in substantially larger uh jurisdictions, >> urban cities. Yeah. >> Yeah.
So uh and we will have further discussion about all this the interplay between um uh councils and and city managers or the differences with you would have with a strong mayor as we go on. So with that we'll go ahead and move
on to section 3.02 qualifications. uh and so in subsection A we do have uh some matters uh that have been raised previously or or some other uh discussions uh relating to all this. So we'll jump to those but I'll go through
the basics of what we have in subsection A. So, um, this subsection is setting out some of the bare minimum qualifications for a, uh, for a resident to be able to hold office as a city
council member. No person shall be eligible to hold office who shall not at the time of qualifying be a qualified elector and residing within the city limits for a period of at least 12 uh, 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the date of qualification. This is a very common requirement, a
12-month uh residency requirement. There are two requirements in here. There's a qualified elector. So, you have to be registered to vote and you have to be residing within the city limits for a period of at least 12 months. This is a very common provision in uh municipal
charters around Florida. I will just caution you at the outset, 12 months under case law in Florida is about the maximum that courts like to see. uh beyond 12 months, they get uh really uh that they really start to question it. So 12 months is usually seen as the
sweet spot. So you're not inviting lawsuits. Uh the council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its members and of the grounds for forfeite of their office. All the rest of this here talks about in this subsection talks about forfeite. We'll
talk about that a little bit further, but this this is about those instances where uh something has, you know, gone so far off the rail rails that uh that council members are in effect voting other council members off the island.
All right. Uh, a member charged with conduct constituting grounds of forfeite of his or her office shall be entitled to a public hearing on demand and not such hearing shall be published in one or more newspapers in general circulation in the city at least one week in advance of the hearing. At uh your last meeting
uh you heard an initial uh suggestion uh potentially as a as a cleanup or modernization you know amendment or what have you uh with regard to that notice. And there is one other notice expressly referenced uh relating to publishing notices in the newspaper later on in the budget section of also posting it on the
city website. So that's uh something we've already got noted down here as something that that we might throw into an amendment or it would be before you to discuss uh later on. Before I move to subsection B because it gets into kind of a different matter in in the same
area. Let me go back through and see. Um I believe I had just double checking here. I believe I had at least one other
issue in here. It's got a lot. And if it's not jumping out at me, does um any CRC member uh have any? And Victor,
you had listed in your email 3.02 qualifications. Yeah. >> Was it just the matter I just referenced? >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Um at at this point, uh with regard to these qualifications, are there any questions or discussion concerning?
>> I have a just a quick question. residing. Should that say primary residence or residing? It seems a little vague. >> Living in. >> So, >> primary though. >> Here's a problem. >> You could write whole law review
articles. In fact, there have been whole law reviews articles uh written about that single word residency. Okay. Um and the the issue and slippery slope uh comes about in trying to uh nail that
down in a meaningful way other than what courts have put together over time. Okay. And so there is a large body of case law in Florida constring precisely what that word reside or residency
means. Okay. And it it because it was frankly all made up by courts over a couple hundred years, it encompasses a whole lot of weirdo scenarios and deals with with things and so on that otherwise would be very difficult to summarize even in like five or six
paragraphs. I can give you the basics of what what residency means under Florida law. Okay, residency means that you have a present. This is going to sound slippery and it is a little slippery and for most people in most instances it
really doesn't matter. It's where they live and that's where they live and that's the end of it. But residency as a technical matter under Florida law for the purposes of being able to vote and for the purposes of of being generally eligible to be a candidate for office is
you have a present intention to reside in a place and you have some facts to back it up. All right? It's a differential standard. All right? But if you don't have both, then you got a problem. I'll give you an example where
you don't have both. Let's say I uh lived in Alaska. I've never been to Florida, right? I've never uh I uh never rented an apartment for a month in Florida. I haven't rented an apartment uh you know that I can wave around and
show or anything like this. I got nothing to connect me to Florida. All right. I'm living in Alaska. But I say aloud, I have a present intention to live in Florida. and I send in papers to Ilion to run for office or I have present intention to to live in Oto uh
and I send in papers to uh Ilon to run for office. All right, that's not going to work, >> right? >> Because I don't have the second part. I don't have anything. I don't have any facts to back up that that mere stated intention.
>> Okay, you end up with a situation sometimes. This is why when you hear about folks who are state reps or folks who are county commissioners in places, never in this county obviously, other counties, um but uh where they where it comes out
seemingly that they spend most of their time, you know, sleeping most nights in some other place, right? But they have an apartment that they have a rent uh pay rent at. uh and uh people try to figure out how much water are they using at that apartment and how many nights
they sleep there and all of this. All of that's going to fail in court because when they have those two elements, courts are going to say you have residency. And ultimately when you have a situation like that, it becomes a political issue
to enforce. It comes out that somebody doesn't live in a place, tell the voters. They don't live they don't really live here. You shouldn't vote for them. You see what I'm saying? So that that's that's the issue you get into when you when you try to fool too much
around with residency that that those are the um oddball scenarios you can end up with. But those are the scenarios you can nominally end up with with any other type of thing running for any other type of office as well.
>> Interestingly that does not hold for federal offices. That's exactly right. You don't have to have res for Congress. You don't have to have residency within the congressional district because it doesn't say it in the US Constitution. Right. I >> think they've tried to legislate it and they said it's not in the Constitution. You can't do that. So,
>> not that I'm looking to change it, but would could you uh relate to um >> uh a registered voter with that address for 12 months in the city? >> To get more Kevin's aiming I I see what Kevin's aiming for. Yeah. So would the aim would the shop be better as you'd
have to be a registered voter with the address registered for 12 months? >> Yeah. Then you have to you have to have been a registered voter within the city for 12 months. >> My my thought was that would be a different way to >> I have a condo in Castleberry and I have a home in Ovido.
>> I just them both depending on what time of the year. >> You can only register bro to one place. That's why I said to to kind of get to what you're aiming >> so you cure it somewhere else. >> You can tie it. >> Well, can I run in both places? H what's that? >> Could I run in both places? >> Where's your home?
>> Yeah. That's why I'm putting primary. And now now and here's the thing. But by the way, keep in mind that um I'm going to throw another wrinkle on this for you. All right? Because the enforcement mechanism for all these qualifications
is way more messy than I think I wish I could tell you it is but this is this is how it is. All right. Um so under state law and we can't change this uh this part of any of it. Under
state law, the filing official, the filing officer, the person before whom uh someone who's running for office has to qualify for office. All right. In the city of Ovito, running for city office, that is our city clerk. Okay. Uh for running for county office, that's
supervisor elections office. Um running for state office, it's uh with the uh department of state division elections in Tallahassee. All this stuff. um in those instances there when you turn in your filing paperwork. All right, the statute is crystal clear and they've
made they've amended it to make it even more crystal clear because there's been so much fighting over this over the years. The role of the filing officer is a purely ministerial role. The only thing Ilon, the city clerk, can do when
folks turn in their filing papers is to see that all the required papers were turned in and that they were filled in not with blanks. Okay. Beyond that, they are not allowed to
look behind what is represented in the affidavit and other forms or files in all of that to look to the truth of the matter. they have to rely solely on what is before them in those filing documents. All right? So, what ends up
happening is folks who come in who are who do not have these qualifications or who are disqualified in one way or another under our charter or under Florida law, it is not within the power of the city clerk to say, "Nope, sorry,
can't take your paperwork. You can't run." What ends up having to happen is that uh someone else withstanding at bare minimum a a an opponent and in all likelihood uh a someone who would be
qualified to vote on that race has to go into court and they would have a pretty easy case but they have to go into court and get them knocked out. So, that's the thing to keep in mind. When you put in more qualifications or or this or that or whatever, it's not going to be easily
enforced in in any event. >> Um, it can be enforced, but it's it's like pulling teeth to to enforce it. >> So, just something to keep in mind. >> Any other questions? Initial questions
at this point on uh 3.02A. So, we did have a uh a suggestion and I actually need to go refresh my recollection on um whether there's any concern for having having requiring that it they
have been a registered voter within the city for 12 months. You know, to clarify that the 12-month period, you know, relates to that. My initial thought off the top of my head is I don't think there would be a problem with it, but I need to dig into that a little bit more. Um, so we're going to put that down on
the list as as an idea that's been thrown out. Moving on to section 3.02 subsection B. This is an interesting one. This is this is a matter we do have um uh on on our
list that your city manager raised. I share his um concern relating to it. Um this subsection provides in the event after the qualifying period for office has closed and two or more candidates
have qualified for office that a vacancy in candidacy candidacy or candidacies occurs as a result of a removal of candidate or candidates from the vow by reason uh of death withdrawal or removal such that fewer than two candidates
remain. So one candidate remains uh remains qualified for the election. This provision provides that a special qualifying period be established by resolution of the city council during which uh additional candidates can qualify for office. Now I want to back
up. This is not a criticism but I just want to share the the greater reality of of among cities. This I would offer to you is a is a relatively uncommon provision among municipal charters. Where it is common and where it actually exists in Florida
law, all right, is in elections for partisan office. All right? Now, we'll see here later and as you all know, election for city council is done on a nonpartisan basis, meaning that uh
they're they don't run in primaries as a first level to qualify to run. And second, that their party affiliation is not placed on the ballot. Those are the two things it means to be nonpartisan. Um, in my experience, most members of city councils are a member of a party or
other, but that's those are the two discreet things it means. you're not running in party primaries and your party affiliation is not printed on the ballot. Okay. Under Florida election law, when you have this circumstance happen, the the
exact circumstance is this. You go through a partisan primary, right? So, two or three people run for state rep, right? In the uh Libertarian party or, you know, pick a party. Uh actually, no, that not sure if it applies to Libert.
Let let me pick a Republican or Democrat because the minor parties have slightly different rules in some instances. Uh three people uh run in the Democrat uh primary election for state representative. One of them wins. All right? So they are the party nominee for
that race to be elected in November. All right? Comes to be after the August primary. Uh that person for whatever reason resigns. It resides their candidacy. they they drop out of the race or they um they something happens
um and they are no longer the candidate. In that instance, there is an opportunity not for the voters but for actually the uh party executive committee or executive committees for the counties where that district is to
get together and fill that vacancy and candidacy. All right. So there's an opportunity so that it just doesn't go unfilled. So the party has an opportunity to fill that back in. It's where you see something a little bit like this. But under state law on
nonpartisan elections for for state or uh schoolboard elections for example where you uh or judge elections which are uh uh nonpartisan elections that are governed by state law. you if if you end up with a situation where you have uh
two or more candidates and then everybody drops out but one left, then the one left wins. There's no reopening uh anything like that. Again, I'm not saying this is wholly unique. I'm sure there are other municipalities that have it, but this is um different than what
you find. The and and here's why it's brought up. the the concern in how it's structured right now is that it could be that uh folks run, other people drop out, and um and then there's
only one candidate, but this occurs right near the election. All right, this is this is the nightmare scenario under this language. the the second candidate drops out in late September, early October when it's scheduled for a
November election. All right. Now, we've just thrown everything haywire for cuz what this contemplates is opening it back up for people to uh potentially jump in at the last minute, but those ballots have already gone to print. So, what are we doing now? Are we delaying
the election? Can't find anywhere in here about delaying elections. do we uh you know what do we do about any of this? So the suggestion one way or another uh with regard to this provision is one
possibility is um to remove it or modify it to say simply that uh if at any time there are uh after the uh after qualifying that less than two i.e. one are there because people dropped out or
what have you, then that person wins because that is what happens if folks if you have your regular qualifying period and only one person signs up they win automatically. So it's it would be very similar to that. Another one, if there was a, you know, ardent desire to keep
something like this mechanism, all right, would be that if you're going to have this this mechanism of having a special qualifying period, it only happens when it's within a short window after the initial qualifying because
there's got to be a point where it locks in and we're done regardless of what else happens because then we're going to be running into problems And I we bring this up. This is not just a hypothetical scenario. We did in fact just live through this
circumstance uh with the last election and we were having to game out all the possibilities and some of the ones I described were the the worst case scenario ones we were concerned about. It did not come to the worst case scenario. It all sorted out in the end. But uh we don't want to go through this
ride again one way or the other. So, we throw it to to the CRC for your thoughts. Um, if there's a burning desire to keep an opportunity to open it up for a secondary u qualifying period
or simply say if people drop out after the qualifying people period and it gets down to one candidate, that candidate wins just like happens in most other elections in Florida. >> So, open it up to your thoughts. So, I'm glad you glad you brought that up at the
end because we did have that recently and it was not having known the charter and all I was very confused and but it was explained to me as we look at it.
Is there a way for city to explain how that impacts them as well? Because as voters it impacts because now you're confused. you're really confused and you're going, "What's going on?" Um, >> which makes it a really bad option in my
opinion, not anybody else, just in my opinion. Um, because you've had time, everybody's had time to jump in the race, decide what they want to do, whatever. And I I also see a note further down about lengthening that period. um
that if it came down to like it did where the other person dropped out. So then without this provision, it would be like okay, we have a winner because there's only one person as if they're running unopposed because now they are
running on opposed. But in the situation that we just had, how does that encumber the city and staff as well? I mean, as voters, we all What the heck? And what's okay, what what are we looking at? And then you have just so much time in which
a new candidate, if they were to, okay, I'm going to get in and they get in and and all of a sudden it's like, what real foothold would they have or or possibility and then like I said previous, what's it doing internally and and
costwise? >> Sure. So, I can turn over to Steph and I'll give a a um I'll give you an initial thought. I'll probably say this a couple times as we go through all of this. There probably a number of instances where um where staff really
doesn't care which way some decision of you all comes down. We just want certainty. >> Mhm. And the primary problem with with this when you with this issue that can come about here when it you game it out is there was wild uncertainty and that's
bad for staff. That's bad for the voters. That's bad for, you know, the the city as a whole. And we're dealing with high stakes matters that aren't just internal to the city. We're dealing with the supervisor of elections that has to run an election. And while the supervisor of elections is, you know,
independently elected county constitutional officer with all their powers and so on, they are not the primary people in charge of everything regarding the city election. So, they're relying on us to make calls about what does any of this mean? What are we supposed to do? They're just the one
who, you know, run the uh, you know, count the ballots and uh, run the machines and all that and certify it and run do all that great stuff. So, um, ultimately when we have something like this, it creates uncertainty that had us
all running around, um, eating up a lot of staff time. Uh, and then opening it up, you know, opening up for qualifying again. Did we have a special meeting to >> to fix that? We had to. >> Yeah, we had to. Yeah, we had to have a special meeting to to, you know, very
quickly uh re, you know, recall this uh the special qualifying period and all this. jump through a lot of hoops, a lot of staff time to try to work through that. >> This has only happened >> twice, right? Once I think it was with maybe it
was Mary Lou with the mayor. >> Yes. >> Right. That somebody dropped out after qualifying and this last time. I don't remember. >> Walters. >> Oh, was it Walters? I >> think so. >> Okay. Yeah. I I only remember it happening twice. You two, Katherine? Right. Maybe.
>> Yeah. or what? But it could be >> uh well, >> you know, yeah, >> I I understand the person drops out, you know, after they qualified and the other person wins. That just that leaves the door open for shenanigans. That's the only problem there.
>> I mean, you Well, okay. Uh you're an incumbent, you get your buddy to come in, run against you. Nobody else wants to run >> and then he drops out. >> And then he drops out. So, >> and and if you don't think that somebody will come up with that idea,
>> of course they would. >> I came up with it before you said it. That's what that was my concern, too. >> So, so certainty, you know, the whole the whole what what avoids that is that the qualifying period's going to open back up. And I think if you had
clear rules on how that occurs, other than I could see how open-ended this is. that says it should happen. Doesn't say when it has to happen. Doesn't say
how it has to happen. Uh might be a a better way of doing it. But you know, again, if everybody thinks everybody would be above board and everybody will be honest, then certainly, you know, drop out, the other person wins.
I'll be sure to get my papers. Very good. >> Please. Um when when is the qualifying period? Is it at the regular county qualifying period in June? >> You're in when is our qualifying period right now.
>> August. >> It's generally the second week of August. >> It's the Monday begins on the second Monday and goes through that Friday. It's generally usually it's the second week. So, is it before the county
primary or >> Yes, >> it's before the primary. >> What's the time frame for printing ballots that you would need notice? >> So, it can vary varies by county and supervisor, you
know, how how quickly they get things done. Uh the um a a good notional point uh uh or thing to keep in mind is most supervisors uh try to have the ballots ready to go
to go to print for November right after and that is just a number of days after certification of the August elections. >> Okay. >> Yes. because they have to mail them to the military who are >> precisely they the >> 30 days ahead of time >> as we kind of generally touched on a
little bit before and we did get some feedback from the supervisor um on some of our other election deadlines uh on this uh because of changes in federal election law and state election law over the last 25 years uh there's a lot more time involved to mail overseas and and
go through all the processes and so on. So, they're looking at a time window going from from the county primary to county general election. They're trying to go to print uh just about as soon after August certification from the August election as they can do it.
>> Would would it be would it help resolve the problem if the the qualifying period were in June? Mhm. >> It would lengthen the the number of months that you have to run, but that would be the same as the soil
and water board. I mean, you qualify in June and you have the election in November. Um, and that way if somebody dropped out, you could reopen it before the primary. Well, I would have to give this some more
thought because the litany of possible scenarios that you went through are so many. But what I see is even if we extended the timeline, no matter how far we pushed it up, even though it's an aberration and it's only happened twice, it could happen again. And then you're running yourself into these situations
where it can cause tumult right now. So even if you push the qualifying period up and it doesn't happen all the time, you could have a scenario where you kept having to extend it, open it up, open it up again. But I also understand what
Domin is saying where that's not the scenario that came to mind. But the scenario that came to mind is somebody who might be wholly unfit to be in that position and all of a sudden they get automatically qualified because somebody dropped out at the last minute.
So I think what we're looking for, we need something that's closed loop that um aligns with the not the qualifying period but when all the ballots have to be counted and extended to a certain point because I do
think there is some benefit there is something good about opening it up for a different period to avoid that particular scenario over there somebody who's being duplicitus or somebody who's just wholly unfit and
they just um enter into the position but I also recognize it has to stop at some point because there are other things that are contingent that are going to be happening, right? So, I think we need to come up with something that's a closed loop pushing it forward. So, I don't know. I got to give it some more
thought. >> I have a question. >> So, in in the situation that that Dominic presented. Mhm. >> Um, in other scenarios, especially in partisan situations, you can get criminally charged for a
coast candidate, which basically is what he's talking about. >> So, so, >> and somebody did if it >> Yeah. So, let let me back up because I I need to >> I'm gonna I'm going to put this in as
politic as I can. Um the the term ghost candidate um does not exist anywhere in the Florida statutes. It exists primarily in the pages of the Orlando Sentinel. >> Yes. >> Um
I I there some of the things it describes in amongst all the different things that are labeled with that some of the things are illegal. Right. >> Uh and so some of those things would be
for example um making campaign contributions in the name of another. Okay. To basically these are campaign finance violations lying about where money is coming from and all of this. Unfortunately for the public's greater
understanding of Florida election law, all that stuff gets lumped into the idea of or the term ghost candidate. All right. So the the mere thought of the shenanigans that uh were uh mentioned there in and of themselves without
anything that would violate Florida campaign finance law or any of these other things would not be criminal. >> It would just be politics. Um and you know what what uh Dominic has raised is
is an important point. This this is one of yall's jobs and working with with me and staff to think through is to game some of these things out to think what are would be the intended and potentially unintended consequences >> of the existing language and any
changes. So it's a very important point to to think through and sometimes you got to balance these things you know how it's going to work. >> Um so I'm taking a look at the time. Uh it's 6:55 uh right now. Is there any other
discussion on on this discreet topic? Cuz I I think uh this topic based on the discussion be worthy of further discussion when we wrap back around after we work through some other things to focus on potential options. Obviously, one of the options is do
nothing, leave it as it is. uh if if uh the more worst case scenarios were to have come about with regard to this, we ultimately would have been able to trod into a city council meeting with a plan and we would have made it look like that was the plan the whole time because
that's what professional staff does. But I I'm just sharing with you now that um that this this looked like it could have caused an issue that that could have been somewhat of a mess. So one option would be leave
it as it is. Other options would be as we discussed either remove it or potentially modify it in some way so that that it has a discrete window of time and and so on. Is there any further point Dominic's point very well taken? >> The fact that it's in there even though
it's a complicating factor is why it doesn't happen very often I think. >> And and given that you given so much thought to it, I don't know if it's appropriate. Did you come up with possible language that you >> I >> I haven't come up with any uh language
at this point. No, I mean the the the uh most nuclear option to the immediate staff concern was was deleted and make it be if there's only one then then what have you. If there is a desire to go a more nuance route to to address the
concerns uh that were brought up um if there was going to be a change but nevertheless address those concerns. I would speculate at this point it would be along the lines of uh having this trigger only within a window of time. Uh but that might there might be other
options as well. But that's that's the initial thought I would have and and primar further discussion as we move on. Yes, ma'am. >> I think that if you backed up to a June qualifying and Dominic was having to or
some potential city council member was needing to convince a friend to jump in the race. That that friend would be very hesitant about being a candidate for weeks or months before dropping out
because >> most people don't want to do that in in a in a duplicitous >> type of way. >> Um where it's a lot easier to just put your name in a next week dropout. Um so
I just want to throw that up there. >> Good. Any further discussion on please? >> You can also end up scenario where you have zero candidates if your one remaining candidate withdraws or dies. >> Absolutely. >> How do we address that?
>> So that is addressed uh further on elections >> in the charter. Uh, and trying to remember >> 2.03. >> I apologize. Uh, I don't recall. Yeah, I can tell you it's one of two ways. I
don't remember which. And when we get to it, we'll it'll jump out. Um, it'll either be by filling the vacancy by the balance of the council or holding a special election. Uh, so >> yeah, I think there's something in there, isn't it, that the council
appoints somebody and then if it's a certain time left in the >> That's exactly right. >> It gets in Yeah, it's it's only for a portion of the unexpired term until the next election and then you have it for the balance of the unexpired term. Yeah, it it's going to follow parameters like that. We'll we'll dive into those weeds
when we get to to that section on it. >> Right. Yeah. If it's like 6 months, then there has to be an election because we appointed Kathy Mars. >> Yes. and she served uh she didn't want to run. She served the four months and then we had an election. Uh and then when I inherited my seat, I had the year
and a half. >> Mhm. >> So the next >> Good. Well, if you don't have anything further on this, I think this would probably be a good stopping point uh for uh tonight. Did you have anything further? >> Um
anything further tonight for the good of the order? Uh, I just want to announce to the group that we all should congratulate Mr. Cobb. He is celebrating his 30th year with the city. >> All right. >> Brian, I remember when you were nothing but a little planner over there.
>> Oh, I had brown hair. >> Huh? >> I had a head full of brown hair. >> You did, actually. >> Only 45. >> All right. Cool. members. Thank you all very much. Uh great meeting. >> We've done all we can do tonight. So, uh
with that, we're ajourned and we'll see you at your next meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.