Oh, it's >> you got to go. Yeah, >> I printed mine up already. after that trip to Australia and New Zealand. >> First off, I don't like to fly. >> Yeah, it's it's a hell of a long That's a long
>> living in the Philippines. I know. >> You I was going to say, yeah, you flown that flight before. >> No, we just lit I said the word literally. We finalized it. We We're going to head out last year this year. That's the only bought the RV literally today. Bought
it. their heads and I say I want you to remember them. >> Oh yeah. >> I want you. >> We're going to build I'm going to build on that. >> Your memories because you're not going to do it again. >> Got to sell something. North Carolina's for sale. Got some good interest on that. >> Um we were going to retire that. So
>> yeah, but my friend, >> but that's for sale. This for sale. >> I got to sell something. Start building. >> I got too much property. >> Too much property sitting out there myself. It's not a bad You know what? The West Magnolia I don't really care about. If
it sits for a while, that can sit. You know, that's okay. I know the town home. We're getting a whole rehab. $10 million worth of rehab. There's two other >> but we got all this stuff
without a whole different system but uh we we have to assume we got enough to redo the building >> landscaping is going to start going to >> landscaping we're just going to start with one building to let everybody
all landscaping. So at that point I'm waiting my building like my building starts in April. >> Yeah. So coming right next so it starts April and then like so June 1st >> they'll like release it. So like somewhere midst
>> I know. Isn't that cool? >> Very cool. I decided I was going to do something fun every day during spring. Actually, I grew up in wound up in your hair. Look, >> I got a haircut
on a Wednesday night. Saturday. >> He's just a gentleman who doesn't want to say it out loud. >> They honor whatever 50 years. >> We're having fun over this corner. >> I'm sure somebody messed that up.
>> I have fun everywhere I go. High school. >> They put me in a corner at school and I'm I'm all by my little lonesome. >> Fantastic. But what is happening? >> Good afternoon. >> Afternoon. >> Can you uh
>> can everyone hear me on this? >> We'll do the best. >> Good afternoon everyone. >> Afternoon. >> Call uh to order uh this meeting of the uh city of Charter Review Committee. It is 5:33.
Oh, thank you. Yeah, it's 5:33 p.m. Sorry for the slight delay at the beginning. Uh, if I could ask the clerk to please call the role. >> Present. >> Present.
>> Brian. >> Present. >> Present. >> Carl, >> present. >> Present. >> Here. >> Nancy >> here. >> Nicole Martin >> here. O'Brien
>> here. >> Here >> present. >> Fantastic. We have a and uh first order of business is the approval of the minutes for the March 11th, 2026 meeting. Those minutes were included in
the agenda packet for this meeting. I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Oh, wait. I believe there is an typo. >> Oh yes, sir. on page four. Buckham, >> could you make sure that your
microphone's on? >> Yeah, I I don't know that it's picking me up very much. >> Maybe I should just >> You're right. Let's try this now. Yeah, that'll Victor. Yes, sir. Uh the typo one.
>> Yeah, I believe the sentence has um changed from two years or four year term. It should be from two four not or >> if I'm not mistaken >> 30 >> the last
>> I'm so sorry it's I'm I'm looking on >> Yeah, if I may. >> Please. >> Um Oh, no. I'm talking about 240. >> Ah, yeah. There is uh there is a typo. The word ore needs to be changed to two
uh on this. So if the mover and second, if it's uh their pleasure, we'll incorporate that uh uh correction. >> Sounds good. >> Hearing no objection. >> No objection. >> All all those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Nay. Thank you very much
for that. Minutes pass and move on now to public comment. Is there any member of the public here to provide comment to us? Seeing none, we will uh once again renew our uh invitation to members of the public to come speak to us about
potential charter amendments. Moving on then to our work for this evening. members, you have before you and actually very nicely up here uh both pages up here on the uh
display uh your running list of suggested topics that uh you've been working for previously. I did some minor surgery to it uh to make this a tool to do some work today. I added just reference numbers uh on the side just
taking it in the order that it is so we can hop around easily and just describe it by number if we want to. And then I have uh place for notation for us to uh write down decisions or directions that
the uh committee make because uh where we're at now, as I indicated at your last meeting, now's the time to start making some decisions about uh what you want to have in your recommendations to the city council and what is not going
to be in there. So, uh, with that, does everybody have a copy? Pass out a copy here. I wanted to I I know we're trying not to pass out as much paper, but I thought it'd be useful to have this in hand because you might be jotting down notes and what have you. Um
before I start just uh plowing through in numerical order uh wanted to ask again everyone please take a look at what I have jotted down in the CRC decision or direction. Uh as of right now this is my best recollection looking over the
minutes and otherwise recalling from uh your last meeting to fill this in but I would welcome anything else uh uh stemming out of that last meeting. And if anything pops up, if you have a different recollection, uh you're
welcome to share as we go on through. Are there any particular items again before I start just plowing through numerically that uh anyone would like to bring up for a proposal of uh uh trying to get everyone on board to say this is
a charter amendment we need to propose or uh the contrary? any particular item you'd like to jump to at this point? >> Hey Wade, if I sir, >> if I may, I think 11.
>> I think we disposed of 11. That was one I I could not recall if if uh >> and I think if we had or not 14 I think those were discussed. Uh yeah, both of those I I think were were
matters I was I I couldn't recall how definitive we had had been on this. So, let me go ahead and uh ask the uh committee with regard to 11 and that was uh change from at large uh council
member to districtbased or hybrid uh council member elections. Is there any strong indication from a majority of this committee to go for that? >> You called that question last meeting. >> All right. That got >> persuasive. It got on the list. >> That's right. And I I do recall that
discussion now. Thank you. It was it was a long two weeks. I've been out of the country until just a couple days ago. >> It was a discussion of wine. >> Yeah. >> All right. So with with that then based on that discussion that's coming back to me now we're going to note down there the notation that that I have on these
other ones of of no further action. >> Yeah. So 11 14 and six I thought we disposed of last week also. >> So yeah we'll just plow through some of this here. So for 14 revise the council
elected removing groups and two candidates with the most votes wins. Um, is it the general understanding of the uh committee that that was one being left uh >> by the buy? >> Yeah, that's >> was that illegal also? >> What's that?
>> Wasn't that illegal? Also, I thought >> that one. No, doing doing elections that way isn't having having what they call uh >> ranked >> uh Yeah, ran choice voting is illegal in Florida. That's not technically that, but in any event, >> yeah, we we threw this out. Yeah, seeing no uh anything on that, we're going to
put that in the same category. And Dominic, you uh indicated six. >> We disposed of that. >> Yeah, thank you about that. And that was what I was really searching my memory about. I know it was discussed at length. Um and uh where we ultimately
came then was um no further action. >> Right. Leave it as is. Yeah. uh if I I thought one was pro the number one was procedural. We discussed that and we came up with that should be uh council can adopt procedures or you know the
city manager the council can how they want that to appear in website that shouldn't really be in >> yeah I I remember I remembered that discussion is it is it the consensus of the committee that we'll we'll start we'll start and plow through with one that uh that
lies in the realm of the city council or the administration can handle that as a matter the procedure. >> Yeah. >> Agreed. >> And I think we got rid of eight, too. Unless you said if we're going to go for seven, we shouldn't go for both. Seven and eight. >> Yeah. And I I have down here on eight. Yeah.
>> Kevin, I was going to leave that one alone cuz I didn't remember if we finished our conversation on on eight. So, why don't we go down the list like he's doing? >> Sure. Sure. >> Let's Let's make it a goal to get through this list tonight, guys. >> There's not much here. >> Absolutely.
>> That's good. And yeah, why don't we go ahead and and uh plow through? So, we've got one, two, um and this there may be some where it's it's more advisable to bump them and and talk about them at the end. Um, this number two was the matter
that was raised um by our city manager uh echoed by myself uh to some degree and that was uh looking at uh making some revisions to uh procedures for vacancy and candidacy to avoid potential
election delays primarily stemming out of the matter we had uh go on uh just a couple months ago. Um, yeah, >> that seemed to be a necessity >> to the counter. Was that that seemed to be a necessity? >> Yeah, it was. I mean, it was it was a it
was an exigent circumstance at the time. So, I I would suggest maybe we put that one on ice for a little bit and keep plowing through the rest so we can uh see which other ones can be disposed of. Uh, three, uh, moving qualifying period
earlier in the year, uh, making qualifying period longer than one week. uh some of the discussion uh on this one did also relate to two but it's a it's its own distinct uh matter as well. I would open it up to the floor initially.
We had prior discussion about this when it first came up but uh does anyone have any strong feelings or thoughts about this one? Yes, please. >> I'd like that qualifying to be at the same time that the all the other qualifying is for the county in the second week of June.
Any other thoughts? Too early. >> I >> Yeah, there was there was in our last discussion what it seemed like that was a consensus and that bringing that to the same time period was very >> apppropo. >> Well, and that that's why I wanted to to
right >> have that discussion. Now, Barbara, what what was your >> I agree with that office because the time crunch at the end of qualifying to get everything into the supervisor of elections is difficult
>> difficult at best. Yes. >> To clarify, we're on three, correct? >> That Okay, that's correct. >> I already moved ahead, guys. >> I was on 21. I don't know where you all were. >> Yeah, it's in August now.
>> August, right? >> Yeah, qualifying is in August now. >> I like June and I I think it should be two weeks. One thought I would offer on that. If there is if there's a thought to put it at the same time as the county
qualifying, it could be confusing to have it at the same time, but not the same time, longer. Just a thought to to keep in mind. >> So, theirs is only a week. >> Theirs is only a week. Yeah. >> County county is governed by state law. >> See, all the information is available.
It's just your paperwork has to be finalized. >> Everyone gets that qualifying period confused like what Stephen was just saying. It's just the week that everything has to be in. >> You can put it in a lot earlier. Oh, yeah. That's true. >> Right. You can Sometimes you run into I
know what I ran into was, you know, some of your 25, you know, supporters lived in the uh didn't didn't live in the city even though they were had no address and I had to run out and get five or 10 more. So, but I I put it in early enough. >> That just shows you didn't know enough
people really that that understood that explains a lot. Okay. I was testing the system. >> How's everyone else uh feel who hasn't spoken up on this yet?
>> Just trying to prompt some discussion on this and see if there's a >> makes no difference. >> Just so I recall what was the benefit of moving it earlier so that >> I would Yeah, I would leave that to the advocates. One, it helps the clerk's office because they have a longer time
to get all the things they need to get to the supervisor of elections office. >> Okay. >> My opinion on the other is if it's at the same time as the county, people are in tune to it's qualifying. It's qualifi
it's so they know or they're more apt to be >> it's fine >> interested. A lot of times it takes it's not necessarily one person that goes I'm running for that position. There's movers and shakers that
talk to somebody and say or whatever. And when the county is doing their time period, nothing if everybody's doing it all at the same time. It's like that popular party discussion that every party discussion every party you go to at Christmas is or holidays is up about
a certain thing or whatever. So at that point in time, right after school gets out and everything else, are you going to run? >> The other thing it from a more of a a candidates perspective is there are a lot of events that involve all the
candidates in June and July before the primary. >> Good point. And so you're more likely to be able to go to a hobnob or a or you know something that allows the public to meet the candidates where if you have
qualifying in August all those events are over. >> Day but you still you're still a candidate and go >> right. I mean >> once you once you sign that paper you're listed as you're a candidate. >> Yeah. Once you sign the paper you can go. But it's a good point.
>> It's a good point. Yeah. Is everyone in consensus? Sounds like it. Yes, >> I agree. >> There you go. >> All right, we will put that down as one. And what our next step will be is I will put together uh as I did with the other
ones uh ballot and charter language for you to take a look at as we are uh getting towards uh our final steps. So, moving on to number four, uh, the 60 to 90day window.
I I actually just I wanted to double check myself to make sure I wasn't >> misremembering. I spoke with uh, Supervisor Pennock today. Actually, just to confirm my recollection and the clerk's recollection, and uh it is the
supervisor's office's recommendation to move these windows out a little bit more from the 60 to 90 to make it 90 to 120 cuz it gets really cramped for their office to fit within that window of time. >> So, that's your professional opinion to
us. >> It it would be my recommendation. Yes. >> Done. board done >> for special situations. >> That's that's right. I mean, it would be a very rare circumstance, but yeah, it would be it would be when it's triggered for the special elections to fill
vacancies. >> Should we list that one under administration or just list that one now as done? >> I'm sorry. >> As admin, you're going to write the language admin. >> Uh yeah, I'm I'm writing down that it's uh yeah, it's recommended. I'm preparing the chart language.
Very good. Uh we've previously discussed number five and um we previously discussed number six as we just uh reiterated. Number seven's also uh one that we discussed the last meeting. Number eight, I had down here no further
action. That had been my recollection, but but please tell me if I misrecided no further action, but someone said we didn't. I think we said we we don't want to go for both of those. >> Yeah. At the same time, >> we didn't want to ask for both at the same time. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Fantastic. All right. So, we've got our
determination on number eight. >> Uh number nine, uh this was uh recommendation. This is a clarifying matter. We have language in there uh that says the city manager designates the acting uh city manager by letter. There's a suggestion to make it by
written notice. Here's the only thought I would offer on that. when you get to little bits and bobs in a charter amendment. This is where I was having trouble even putting together kind of a a cleanup amendment because I don't I don't know that that language as it is right now poses a huge
inhibition. >> Well, the rest of it says that it has to be filed with the city clerk. If you read the >> that's a written letter filed with the city clerk is the way it reads. Mhm.
And that that's the practice. >> You copy the city clerk when you do it, right? >> Well, I think you do it by email now, right? I'm just going to say it's never been done, >> which is a letter. I mean, and that and that's the thing is is I I would tell
you as a legal matter, an email copying the clerk satisfies the by letter. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, >> there's no magic definition of letter other than, you know, >> what it what it means in practice. So, >> so can we put no further action?
>> I would I appreciate the thought, but that would be my recommendation on that one because I I think I think what's done now complies with that and I think the language works fine for it. >> Good.
>> Very good. Um number 10 um somewhat similarly I it is very often you'll find this you'll find this in our own code of ordinances you'll find in other code of ordinances and in charters and in state statutes they will attribute to uh a the
body yeah the governing body do a thing well it's never the governing body that does a thing it's their it's their agents it's their people go out and do it and so here when it says because the city council publishes the B budget summary, they cause it to be published.
Um, so that that's a very common drafting form. So I I don't know that that we'd want to take a ballot space, you know, with that one. Any contrary thoughts on that? >> Sounds good. >> No.
No. >> Very good. On to the second page already. Uh so uh we discussed 11, we discussed uh 12 uh at the uh last meeting
uh number 13 uh including wording in the charter that requires election packets to be available by a certain day. Um I would open it up to any thoughts. >> Procedural council procedural. >> What did you do before?
>> I'm sorry. decided not to push that. >> My recollection as to number 12 at the last meeting was that there was direction, no further action. I I reported back because there was a question, hey, could we do this? And I said, yeah, I think you can. Any interest in doing that? No. So,
um I think the city clerk does a great job, especially now they're advertising it. I' I've seen it. If people want to run, they got they have to know they have to go get a package. Well, again, council can set dates that they would like to see it, we
can recommend that they look into doing that. That's all I would do. >> What I was thinking about this one as well is just mentioning um uh in in the final report, just a general recommendation and encouragement, you know, the committee, you know, is
encouraged by hearing what the clerk's doing to to push that out and encourages, you know, that that's done. Something to that effect. So, >> resolved. administration. Very good. We've discussed number 14. Uh that that
was uh previously no further action. Number 15, uh review the mayor's duty uh regarding issuing proclamations. >> You want to dive into this now? We can or we can bump that. Uh >> well, >> any interest in diving into that now?
>> All right. So, I brought this one up. Um the way the chart is currently written, the only person up there that can issue a proclamation is the mayor. So, depending on whom the mayor is, that mayor handles things differently. So, I
think I explained when we talked about this last time, you know, my rule always was if member wanted a proclamation, I would gladly make sure it was issued. But if you wanted it read, you're reading it. I'm not. Uh type of type of uh thing that we would do. Or if a
member wanted a proclamation and it was something that the clerk or the attorney would say, "We don't know if that's a great idea." We would do a resolution. I believe what you used to do, Barbara. I forgot what you used to call them when they weren't proclamations. We called them something else. >> I can't remember.
>> H >> I can't remember. >> Yeah, I don't remember. Many of them. >> Brian, do you remember? Well, we instead of a proclamation, if the mayor didn't do it or something, we called him something else. I forgot what it was. >> We would do it as a resolution. >> Right. Okay. That's it. So, it just gets
sticky. It's like, it's like this sticky wicket because you'll have, you know, members who feel strongly about something, three or four of them, and, you know, just the mayor just whomever that mayor is just doesn't want to do it for some reason. you know, that's not fair to the organization who's
requesting it or asking it. You know, I I I I think we should have some way of, you know, the mayor issues proclamations at the pleasure of the council at a vote, you know, a majority vote of a council if a member wants it. Just something in there to give them another
mechanism to let the members have a way of having a proclamation issued. If there's no interest in doing that, that's fine. I'm just explaining the issues that that occur and you know and then the issue went the pendulum and Steven knows swung all the way the other
way with another mayor that we had who would proclamate everything and uh yeah Barbara's laughing. She knows which mayor that was. Um and we would spend the first hour of our meeting having pro
proclamations read. So, >> I mean, proclamations. >> I'll let Steve speak to it cuz he was the one sitting on the end. >> Proclamations should be should be city council. That's the only thing I can really think of. It's it really should be proclamations are a city council. Not
anybody. I don't care if it's, you know, one member. That That's not really It's not a proclamation for any one member, whether it's the mayor or any member. Um it should really say city council issues proclamations however they want to decide to do it. >> So by majority vote then basically
>> well essentially or they can make their own procedures as council. They can set the procedures and say, you know, hey, if you have something you want to bring up, blah blah blah or it has to come to a majority vote or some procedural, they can set their own procedures. >> Majority vote makes sense cuz you don't
want to have >> and then it just gets by what he's talking about for all the situations. If council has a problem, work it out amongst yourselves, guys. There's five, you know, people. There's five of you there. figure out how these
proclamations will be put together and read amongst you five. If another group comes in and was like, "We don't care. Listen, if you got a proclamation, put it forth. We'll read them all." That kind of thing. I mean just just so the me the members of this committee are
aware what's well I won't say precipitating this but there's a certain proclamation that the current mayor refuses to sign but the majority of members want signed
>> and so they are currently on a similar issue. The mayor is issuing a proclamation >> alternative >> and the members are issu is issuing a resolution. It is the silliest fight amongst them >> and it's because of this and it's not
fair to the majority that a minority blocks this. So I like Steven's suggestion at at the pleasure of council and let them figure the rules out. >> I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the verbiage, >> right? But I think it's important that
we don't change it due to one person. We change it for the charter. >> Oh yeah. >> Not for a person. >> I I was just giving everyone an example. >> An example. I mean that's how I charter say city council issues proclamation. >> I've given many examples from
>> I'm not I'm not in disagreement with that shame. >> You know we I'll give another example. We had an a a ceremonial mayor at the time who did zero proclamations because in their mind nobody deserved a proclamation. So I mean
and you can imagine who that is. Um so I mean this thing has just been all over. So that that's why I brought >> Okay. But if a but if the the council can issue a resolution instead of a proclamation, >> does whatever group is on the receiving
end really care whether it's a proclamation or a resolution? >> I mean that seems >> you get like you get like three proclamations read out and then >> a resolution. Yeah, >> you're getting a resolution. You're not getting a It's just a different You get three groups up there. Uh we're giving a
proclamation to the swim team. The soccer team won national, you know, states this year. blah blah blah. Then we're doing another proclamation for veterans or somebody else or somebody else. Then it's we're going to do a resolution for this other group or whatever. It it does stand out. I mean,
it becomes a little like, oh, that's weird that you're sitting there wondering about it. Again, either way, it just >> I think that's a very >> I think it's not against any I I don't care. It's not against anybody. I think it just should say city council is propations. I could counsel go. >> They'll they'll decide it.
>> Gobblygook that nobody that votes is going to give crap about. Yeah. >> And I think it's a waste of >> It could be a waste of the space, too. I I think it's a wording thing that >> let it city council says it. >> Figure it out. >> I I'm one of the exacting this should
have very little in it. So, I'm not going to disagree. It's a waste of space on the ballot. >> But I look at this and go, "Yeah, this is not tight. This should really say, it really should say city council issues proclamations. That's my only It really should say that. So
>> that recommendation letter said you guys play nice. >> We can do that. Well, any any other aspect of it, we do have a council that we only give the mayor a voting presence and and basically an
honoral aspect of you were elected mayor, not a veto power, not an extra vote, not a governing aspect. So why wouldn't we allow all things to be council related as opposed to oh this is where you get to
exert whatever power you think you have. So it just evens out the council totally. I'm going to say it this way. You're going to put a list of like things that are could this fall under the kind of cleanup because city council should
issue proclamations. I don't know that this falls under that. You can. It's not enough. It's too much. That's not something I care about. I'm just making sure >> I think it's making a real change. Whether you know whether voters would think it's an important change or not,
it's making a real change. >> You can I'd say let's see let's can we put this on let's see how we shape up >> and kind of just throw it at the end and see hey if if we only have two things to add throw it on there. See if it's a vote. If not, who cares? It's a again I
like you just said it makes a change. It means something. You know I I'll give the only other time where I said stuff means something is we used to it used to be thrown around. Not we cuz I never thought that it should be this way. Deputy mayor was just this thing that
used to be just like you're deputy mayor you're deputy mayor this year. You're deputy mayor that year. For years people just went yeah you're deputy mayor cuz who cares? Deputy mayor, it doesn't really mean anything except if the mayor resigns. Holy crap does it become very important at that moment. And nobody ever thought
of that really until the mayor resigned, >> right? >> Wait, what happens if the mayor resigns stuff? And as I said, this is there is some substance to it. I'm not saying it's grand, but even here, >> there's some substance to it. >> If we just come back to it, that's how I look. Even here as a as a group, we're
making recommendations that as recommendations, they'll be worded should they by council be decided to go to ballot to be voted on. >> I'm over >> and it would be a recommendation that if the council as a whole goes, yeah, and says, "Put that one through." Or they
could go, "Yeah, no, that's okay. We're good. We're just making a recommendation to them." >> Question. >> Yes, sir. In reviewing this, um, is it stating that
the mayor would lose that opportunity or the mayor would be included in the council for proclamation? >> Included. >> So, yeah, the mayor Yeah, the the mayor is a voting member of the council. So, >> becomes a majority thing rather than just the mayor's name. >> Yeah. If the the thought the thought
I've heard discussed in all this, because there's there's a couple different ways you can skin the cat on this. Okay. what it what it sounds like I'm hearing of the idea would be to from the list of powers of the mayor >> stated in the infinitive here to issue proclamations relating to events and so
uh that that line would effectively move from the list of the powers of the mayor and move over to the list of the powers of the council >> okay >> that same line >> I just I wanted to be clear on that >> yeah and the the mayor is a voting member of the council and so I'm good >> no nobody's taking anything away they're
all equal >> I just want to be clear know that. >> Yeah. And it becomes a decision when we send our recommendations to city council. If they as a collective group go, ah, we're good the way it is, they can toss it. If they're like, "Thank you
for for making that recommendation. We we feel that might be something." And go through it. >> Okay. >> We just give them the opportunity. >> I'm good. >> So, at this point, where are we? >> Let's come back to it when we when we see how many recommendations.
>> Circle back. All right. Thought that was an easy one. I always want to snap a whip and go raha when I hear that. >> All right. Uh number 16, review the wording for mayor's duty re-emergency
powers. And this was in reference to in some ways one of the more technical uh and and frankly typical in a lot of charters uh language that you find. Um, and that's in We can't bring that up
easily, can we? >> Can we bring up the charter? It might be useful for you all to see. >> I don't know if I brought this up. >> You did. And actually, now that we're up to 17, we disposed of 17, if I remember right, because we were going to let
>> whomever the city manager was set the policy on >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah. U, we'll get to that in just a sec. I just want to keep on 16. >> Oh, no, no, no. We already disposed of 17. That's all I'm saying. >> 16.
>> Thank you. Yeah. Did was that at the last meeting that we uh >> or two meetings ago? >> Yeah. I'm trying I'm trying to recall. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to skip over 16. I figured you bringing up 16. Let let me just just for confirmation sake. Is it um is it everyone's
recollection or consensus that uh 17 where there was modifications to uh the language relating to uh inquiries and so on. Was there was there any contrary sentiment on that? >> I'd like to talk more about 17, but let's finish one at a time instead of
bouncing back. >> Let's let's take a look at 16 uh here real quick. Um and where are we? It was number six. >> Yeah. Oh, that I apologize that that um
that subsection is missing on on the list here. We'll correct that. It is uh 3.05A uh subsection 4. You able to uh zoom in a little bit? >> Yes. >> That'd be wonderful. Uh just on the bottom part of the page. I can't move on.
>> No, no, just the bottom part of the page. Um 3.05. Yeah, there we go. Perfect. It's number >> Yeah, right there. Perfect. Uh it's number four. Be the official under the provision of state law for the purposes of declaring states of emergency within
the city limits and to exercise emergency powers. So I actually have a little bit uh of an update in one part uh to this. In I mentioned this in at one of the last meetings in the charter there was a footnote and it referenced
um a uh chapter of Florida statutes uh chapter 870. That's actually not the emergency management statute that cities deal with most often. All right, that's chapter 252. That's when we have
hurricanes and >> frankly when we had COVID and and other things like that. Uh that's the much more invoked uh emergency statute. This statute um in chapter 870, it actually
has to do with riot and when you have like criminal mischief and riot and declaring curfews and great stuff like this. >> Um and when I went and took a look at that statute, this is actually a direct lift
this language from that statute. uh the uh declaring states of emergency within the city limits and to exercise emergency powers. It is an old archaic statute. The last time it was updated was 1970 as I recall. >> Oh wow.
>> And it's from really from the old days before we had the city manager form of government in most places. And it says it says that either the mayor or the police chief >> in any city shall have this power and the sheriff in every county shall have
this power. And again, this is for when you have riots that you have curfews and and >> so basically this is is this something an example for use on this would be uh county areas like New Simra, Daytona Beach in their spring break curfews and
things that they've applied. Uh yeah, those those curfews that they've uh imposed are probably just operating under their home rule powers. Uh it's a very particular thing you trigger that statute for. Um so it's similar. It's similar. Um
I guess what I'm suggesting is there there's a lot of uh mckingness with this little bit. I I I think we've we've got a um fairly robust uh system set up here under the more common uh emergency uh
declarations that are called under chapter 252. They have an adopted plan for the city manager to exercise those powers and so on. Um I don't want to inadvertently break anything in the charter is I guess what I'm saying uh along those lines. So
>> I'm listening to bring this up. I no clue what >> your recommendation. No problem. Leave it alone, man. >> My My suggestion would be it's it's kind of an arcane little thing there and it's it's probably not hurting anything. My suggestion would probably be leave it be. >> Good. >> Good. >> Fantastic.
>> You find that sometimes old statutes that you just got to parrot the words to do certain things. All right. Uh moving now on to uh 17. I I trust your recollection, Dominic, but I I just wanted to to confirm because I
didn't have it down when we were at this point uh of of making hard decisions on cutting things and so on. This is the uh uh matter that I had brought up and council member had um uh brought up
previously and given to me to share with you all. And this had to do with Could you bring up section 3.06 very quickly? It should be very closely after that. It's had to do with uh a typical provision you find in charters, the non-interference provision. Um and uh
basically it reads, "Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations under section 3.081D, the council or its members shall deal with the city officers and employees who are subject to direction supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager. Neither council nor its members
shall give orders to any such officer employee either publicly or privately. Council members A's um uh suggestion or recommendation was not to make wholesale gigantic changes to any of this. It was
basically um uh endorsing what current city manager current city manager's practices uh with regard to uh having uh free and open communication between the council members and
department heads. Okay. Uh so you all had a discussion on this previously. I think discussion generally uh went in the direction of that was you know folks seem to think that that was a a very good practice. I think some of the
discussion also went to the fact that in the future different city managers may have different management styles and so the question of whether or not to lock things in what's that >> what's the current policy >> I would turn that over to the mayor >> I I allow the council members to have
direct access >> but I like them to have firsthand information and what I ask of them is that they if they make a if they make a qu a question to a director that they copy me so that I know that the question is being asked. >> You don't feel that intimidates
employees. >> It doesn't intimidate the directors. Directors I feel, and this is just me, I believe that the director should have a relationship with the city council. Now, I do say do not go below the director level because yes, you do I use the word
freak out. You freak out the employees when you go below >> the director level, but the directors, I mean, they're all required to be at the city council meetings. They're all required to make presentations before council. So I believe that and they are the uh subject matter expert in most things.
>> I I don't like the council having to get secondhand information through me when the director can explain it much better. And so I do give them access to the director, but I know uh as a story that I told at the last meeting. Uh it was
brought up at a cow meeting and they were going around the table talking about well my my city manager does I can only talk to him and you know and uh council member Pollock at the time explained well our city manager gives us access to the um to the directors but no
one else. And he said it works really well. We've developed a good relationship with our with our directors. He said but if someone abuses it he can take it away at any time. And that was, you know, how he did it. So, yeah, I'm a little different, but I have
found that it it creates a better relationship between the council and the staff because the council has a trust in that director. They know that director has the expertise that you're talking about. See, I see that as being one of the things, as I mentioned before, that
it is written in to determine how you like to manage as opposed to having it be for the sake of the charter. You follow? >> But I but I think that that that >> and if you're not there next year, what
will somebody else want to do then? >> Right. And that that's one of the things and one of the things that I asked Mr. Bo Bose when Mr. I brought it up, you know, am I am I violating the charter? And he said, "No." Uh, and you're right, a another council
member, another city manager could take the attitude of, "No, you work through me, and that's that that's fine." >> Um, the city managers that I worked for here, cuz I worked for all of them, all
had that same philosophy. And I watched it backfire on. And I think that's one of the things I I I'm working off of lessons learned and but I have found one they're getting firsthand information from the subject matter expert and then two I'm seeing that level of trust being
developed between the council and the staff that wasn't there when I was when I was a director. >> Right. >> And so it's I've seen the benefits from it but I've also seen some of the stress from it too. So clear the the language
as it is now allows you to do that or not do that. >> It does allow that. >> So that gives the flexibility and that the language in there uh deal uh solely through the city manager that through is
very flexible language. It's through he's the gatekeeper. He he says yay or nay. I'll allow this. I won't allow this. You've you've gone out of bounds too far. I'm not allowing it anymore. and so on. That is completely consistent with
>> Have you ever actually pulled back that flexibility? >> You know, thankfully I never had to. >> Good for you. >> Now, I've had >> I I've had some come very close. I really have. I've had a few a few
council members come very close, but um no, it it it really what I look at is >> if they ever get to the point where they're giving direction, >> that's when that's when I need to pull it back. But as long as they're asking questions,
>> then I'm okay. >> And as long as Let me tell you all how that phone call goes. Uh I do have a question though because as it's worded now and should for some unknown reason >> the council is looking for a new city manager
>> it becomes their responsibility to interview in a way that they hire a like-minded individual. If they hire someone that goes nope just through me well that's on the council. Mhm.
>> So the wording is such that gives freedom both ways and it becomes a council's process to hire accordingly. >> It's absolutely one of the things that a city council is interviewing for is management style and that's you know
jives with what they're looking for. >> But I'd rather see in the city charter is is an embodiment of the culture that we've established >> and and we've established that culture. It's working well and I I don't
necessarily think that it I I would rather see it in in writing than allowing it to to maybe be at the whim of whatever city manager comes next. One one thing I would offer
if to try to to encapsulate the entire dynamic of what you've just heard uh from the city manager because because >> you can encapsulate part of it. >> Sure. >> You could say the part of it would be
they can talk to the department heads. >> They can make inquiries of impart of the department heads. That's a different thing than just talk to because talk to could include direction. >> Understood. So we you could make it inquire of the department heads. All right.
>> Mhm. >> The the issue there. All right. It becomes that the ability we just talked about that's never had to be you really fully pulled on. Um but that ability
where something is going off the rails in the view of the city manager to rein that in to pull it back goes away because once you get beyond >> kind of very simple mechanistic yes you can no you can't type things. You can't
legislate good behavior. >> You just can't. Yeah. >> Um, I could write five pages of yes, no rules and it would only encompass, you know, a little bit of the nuance you had heard described >> from Brian. So, I'm I'm I'm not
suggesting do or don't do anything on this. I'm just I'm trying to tell you the the limitations of legislating good behavior. >> It's very difficult, >> right? But I would rather have the council members always have the ability
to inquire, not just talk to because I think that's too broad. >> Um, >> yeah. Not to give orders, >> right? >> What was that? >> Not to give orders. >> Oh, yeah. No, it
>> we're talking about city, >> but that's what it already says. Yeah. And yeah, it would very rarely do I make strong recommendations uh on things, but if if there were significant fooling around with the giving orders piece,
then you're you're fundamentally changing or throwing out your city manager form of government. That's this is seen as the the the fundamental backs stop in most charters to make that work. Yeah, >> you know, we we probably had you laid them all out all the the whole
range of of city managers and each of them did this a little bit differently. I I will agree. Uh Brian does give a great ability and and it does breed trust from both sides. I think that I'll say Bobby Wyatt, you
know, in public works, you talk about why you're wondering, hey, how come you guys just did a road study blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. can you give me information about that? And he can sit down with you and Brian say, "Yeah, go ahead and look at it and really go through it with you and give you the information."
You know, others that level wasn't there and some it was even less that it was no, we're going to all you either you'll sit with me and we'll go over it and I went over that with you kind of atmosphere to just you can see it at the
meeting. that will be when we get to the presentation, your presentation will be given to you at that podium. So, yeah, we we've kind of seen all different levels and I agree. I think a I like things clean in here, but also it gives city
council, hey, if they want somebody to tell them and just feed them the information through that person, they have a trust in I trust that person and they're my gatekeeper for everything and that's what city council wants. I don't want to burden Michael. You never want
to burden city council. That's a thing in in anything. This you you can put a burden in city council and say you will always be open to Brian's type of you know management style versus someone who
hey I want to see a scope of nothing goes through that's it or you can go or force upon them. you're allowed to go talk to every director or again inquire every director. So I would say leave it it is.
>> So even if we but I'm thinking if I I mean you never know who who's going to be elected. I mean you don't know their management style so to speak when you're voting for them. And I would always want the council members to be able to
inquire of >> and and I say this with all honesty. It's like, but if that's not what the public wants, you got to live with what and I and I hate to say, but that's you got bad choice. Every once in a while, you'll you there's people that get elected and you go, I don't want that. And it could be me. I don't want you ran
against me, so I don't want that guy elected. So, it could be, well, I don't want that guy elected. And thus, you're you're stuck with somebody. So, it's that could be the result. And if and if all of council if three out of the five are people you go like man I really don't like their style
of management but that's the style of manager they want that's for council to decide. I mean that's >> yeah how it's a representative government. >> But I think at the end of the day city council will make a will make better decisions if council members have at
more access to information rather than at some future date that can be limited. Oh, I'm I'm all that information. That's me 100%. But it's just where you're getting it from. It could be I want if you want to request information, you go through Brian. That could be the city
manager saying, >> but like but like you said, he he's not necessarily a subject matter expert and you may have a a follow-up question, a follow-up question that you know that >> I'm I'm really not disagreeing with you. I I I understand what you're saying, but it's if that's what council wants to
live with, God bless him. I would never want to be in that situation. But if they want to go, there's only one man responsible. You're the guy responsible. We're going to hold you 100%. So if there's bad information that gets to me somehow, you're the guy cuz you
inevit inevitably you are anyway. But I'm only going to rely on you to give you that. If you give me that information and I find out at the next two days later at a council meeting, they're presenting something entirely different. So, so let's offer city
council a a recommendation that they can make inquiries of council heads of directors. >> Yeah, you can't open the floodgates up. It there's got to be a gatekeeper. We've had, you know, and with all all respect,
we've we we hashed this out >> last at the last meeting of the meeting before. I I don't think there's consensus. we the um there has to be a gatekeeper at some point in time. You
can't just have five different members going to all these department directors. It it it would just become chaos. >> Yeah, that was my question. How would you even word that? >> Yeah, I mean because >> you just leave it alone the way it is and let that city manager decide.
>> Yeah, >> that seems like that would be a logistical >> there. There are a lot of ways you can work this. Um but uh >> and truly there really hasn't there's been there's been city managers who have had a tighter lid, let's call it on it.
But that was more at the beginning and as they were here a little bit then the lid started to loosen up and information started to flow a little bit. Well, not information that's a very bad word. Communication. >> Uh you know it's it's got to be the
manager that they hire. he he or her. And I would think that would be something that a new city manager coming in would want to have that ability that hey, I'm just coming in. I don't want to have to be figuring everything out and
be getting information that my council's the count that the council is going to department heads and I need to figure that out. Let me have everything come through me first. Once I start to understand how things are flowing, then I can open it up a little bit and let people go. If somebody just abuses the
power, like Brian said, we can reel them in. And and I'll give you one other. You just hit something too. The worst thing that could ever happen is something again. You're just going to Bobby Wyatt. I don't have to go through Brian. I go talking to Bobby and Bobby just got
information. He's telling me stuff and I come back to the city manager and he goes, "I haven't even heard that yet." That's probably a worst case scenario that if you come in and say, "Yeah, Bobby just told me blah blah blah." and you go >> take take it one step further. >> Not good.
>> What happens when one member all of a sudden has more information from that department director than the other four? Cuz that's the other thing Brian then will disseminate. Oh, there's in the in the information gathering from one council member that he's party of seeing
things. Oh, you know what? If one has a question, probably most of them are have that question. He'll diss disseminate it out. Well, I can see two different scenarios. One is a new council me member who's
feels like they need to to get up to speed on on ongoing issues. And I can see another scenario where um there's an issue in the city and the and there's a council member who really wants to drill
down and get very specific granular information. And I think that both of those are legitimate reasons for inquiring of of a of a director,
>> right? It can't not be through. >> The point you're missing is it can't be blanket that any member can go gather their own information. They have to make decisions as a group. >> Well, that's why Brian said said that everything's copied to him. I mean,
>> that's that's the language you have. >> Yeah. And and and again, that's that's where we get into copied to him and he decides that that council member can't have information. >> That that that isn't what happened. But that's a whole different thing that
somebody's withholding information versus a procedural. You're say, "Well, then they're withholding information." Well, if they're withholding information, and I'm not going to say it doesn't it doesn't happen. You can have one council member knowing more and and it's been set up on the DAS. How come
that how come XYZ knows and the rest of us don't? That's a problem that will work itself out that doesn't relate really to this. That's a different problem that I think you're trying to solve. >> This is about information and how they can gather it. Anyway,
>> so thank thank you all very much for that conversation. Let me let me just ask the whole group. I want to see is >> do we have is there anything near a majority interest in implementing a change along these lines?
>> Leave it alone. >> Leave it alone. >> Leave it alone. >> I'm hearing a lot of leave it alone. So >> very much appreciate your thought. >> You want to go to district? I got to vote for this. It's good old ball rolling right there. Get this and
do this. Good stuff. >> All right, we're going to put this down right now. No further action. And uh move on down to 18. This was actually uh my recommendation. And as I've thought about it more, it does not
keep me up at night anymore. Uh this so I'm I would probably suggest that you take no action on it. This was this was the matter that had kind of curious language in there that said uh when folks resign and they issue a letter of
re uh resignation that its effective date can't be any more than 30 days out from it. That seemed weird to me because that conflicted conflicts with the resign to run law I mentioned before. As I thought about it more, I realized, well, it convicts conflicts with the
resign to run law, and the resign to run law trumps it, overrides it. It's preempted. So, if somebody is uh is doing a resign to run law uh letter under 99012, this charter provision is trumped. So,
>> you hand that letter in, you're resigned. >> Well, no. When you hand that letter in, it it it gives go right. You can't take the letter back. >> Yeah. No, in any event, it is. Yeah, it's irrevocable, which is also what the resign to run letter. If for some reason somebody did a resignation letter that
wasn't resigned to run, then there's just I don't want to do this anymore and but they tried to do it 45 days out and it wasn't resigned to run. I'd say sorry, it's got to be, you know, 30 days. Um, so in any event, it seemed a
little weird. I have a resolution to it uh to make it so it doesn't conflict with state law. I don't think any amendment is necessary. It's just interpretation. So my recommendation from my prior recommendation was just no further action. >> Agreed. >> Sounds good.
>> Good. Sounds good. >> Uh we have uh discussed and addressed the matter moving charter review from 5 years to possibly 8 years or another longer amount. Number 19. Moving on down to item 20. Uh this was a
recommendation. I briefly mentioned um the extensive process that's laid out for initiative and referendum for uh for ordinances by uh initiative and having referendum on
on certain ordinances and so on. To my general understanding, it's never actually been brought to bear or invoked in Oto uh before. But uh there was a recommendation uh from a member uh as a thought to reduce the uh petition
percentage required. Does anyone have any discussion on that matter? >> Remind me how many that we are requiring now? >> A great question. >> I will take a 25 >> equal to at least 15% of the total
number of qualified voters. And we thought that qualified voters um to vote at the last regular city election. Um we thought that was a pretty tall number,
>> but I don't remember. >> 125 signatures and you thought that was no 15% 15% of the qualified voters. Right. But if it's 15% of like 35,000 3500,000 >> I think we got rid of that last time
something in the 20 some odd range. >> High 20s we looked up is like high 20s 28 >> 28 I don't remember >> but that's to initiate a referendum that has nothing to do with qualifying. >> Yeah that's in there's a reason why that bar is high.
>> It's a big deal makes sense for a referendum. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And qualified voter, I mean, does that mean voting age or >> Yeah, it means you're registered. >> Yeah, that's that's a statutory term. Yeah. >> Um,
4,000, >> right? That's for initiate a referendum. >> Yeah. You got to get 4,000 plus, you know, real signatures that are verified and blah blah blah to do that. >> We're going to leave that one alone. Yeah. Is there is there any uh strong wave of people wanting to make that change? No.
>> All right. All right. Um, uh, Victor number 21. I I think I can even slip in doing that little correction just as a, uh, not even with a charter amendment. That's that's just notation. Well, so I
>> and it's just throughout the document. >> No, I understand. >> I'm not this particular piece, but yeah, just in general >> because that's literally changing nothing at all. Yeah, >> this is a hyper technical uh difference for you. There's the slightest bit of
latitude under Florida law for making uh changes in charters without referenda for purely scrivener stuff like this and so on. In contrast to county charters, seminal county is a charter county. You can't change a single word in a county charter without a referendum. uh even
stuff like uh that uh even on municipal charters where you can take stuff out that's been found unconstitutional. Um you can't do that with county charters. So in any event, my my recommendation would be that's that wouldn't be an actual charter amendment. We'll clean it up one way or the other.
Okay. >> If if we had a cleanup amendment where we're throwing some other stuff in, I'd just throw that in for the fun of it. But okay, >> I don't think we have much going on there. And uh finally the last one we had uh Katherine was um something you had uh
mentioned there the language in 4.06. Got to remind myself here very quickly. Uh oh it had to do with the personnel system. Um so 4.06 106. Again, this is a very typical uh piece of language you find in
municipal charters throughout the state. Uh and it provides all appointments and promotions of city officials and employees except those specifically exempted by this charter ordinance should be made solely on the basis of merit and fitness demonstrated by examination or other evidence of
competence. And um Katherine at that time you had uh mentioned that uh you wanted to look at uh the language on the basis of merit and fitness. Did you have any further thought or discussion on that?
>> I have no idea what I was >> not a problem. I was like fine at all. >> Yeah. And a month ago. No. I I will tell you this have the floor. Yeah, this is, as I said, th this is this is language.
It's kind of reform language from a bygone age. It's it's just to put out there generally that uh the the enterprise is not to just go hire everybody's buddies and put them in this that or whatever. That you're going to have a personnel system that you uh
endeavor to promote based on, you know, good work and competence and and so on. how that all pans out. It always pans out differently in different places and so on, but this is meant to be the general thrust and direction of how a personnel system is supposed to work. So, any questions on this one or
>> can it? >> Yeah, >> I'm good. >> All right. Well, we've made it through our list that had been uh put together.
Um, we skipped over >> back to number two. I think >> number Yeah, we skipped over number two. Uh, just cuz that might have gotten this into a discussion. May or may not have
>> two and 15 are the only two we have to revisit. >> Yeah, why don't we use our time to go back to two first. So um as we've discussed before the concern that we had had and and by the
way at least for me uh I don't think this is a a die on the hill concern because historically in Oto has been very rare that this circumstance has happened. It just happens to be recent in the mind. So we're fighting the last war in our heads when we look at any of
this stuff. Um but the the concern that is hypothetical on the face of it but looked like it could have become real uh as we were going through is the matter raised I'm going to get to the
language here the matter raised by the fact that um when you have a race that starts you have uh two or more or you you have uh two or more candidates that start in a race
that both qualify and then uh one or more folk folks drop out such that at that point you have only one candidate in the race. Uh in contrast to to what you find um in a lot
of other charters, it's just those other people dropped out, that person won. Yeah, >> in this instance here, it has the qualifying period has to reopen. And that's all well and good except there's no provision to deal with what happens
if it reopens when you're really close to the election. That that scenario is not uh played out at all here. So, you could come up with a circumstance where you are hypothetically a week out from the election and somebody drops out.
what is to be done then? Uh, we'd figure something out, but the charter the charter says you reopen qualifying and I don't know what that means when the ballots have been printed and and so on. So, what do the matter? >> What do other municipalities do? What do
you you represent cities all over and counties? >> Yeah, the the um >> Yeah, I don't want to say it's exclusive. This is the first charter that I have seen in my experience both among cities that our office represents
and in my charter work around the state where you have this um if uh it goes to less than two folks drop out after qualification that it reopens. You do see that in state law. I think I mentioned this before. You see that in
state law with uh or something similar to it uh with partisan races. Okay. So when you have when you get past a partisan primary running for state rep or county commission or what have you and then you end up with a Republican
candidate and a Democrat candidate and then the Republican candidate drops out or passes away as happened in Orange County a number of years ago or what have you, then there is a vacancy in nomination at that point and the party
is allowed to fill it. They don't have another uh primary. They actually get together in that instance, the Republican or Democrat executive committee for the county or counties involved and they choose. Okay. Uh they
it's it's one of those few instances where those party executive committees have direct power in the election uh code in the election system and they fill that vacancy and nomination. um because in that instance the idea is the parties have some interest in having
somebody in the race. In this instance here, of course, your your races are nonpartisan. Um and uh what this provides is it reopens for nomination. Uh when I say that, and I think I said this before, when I say I
haven't seen that anywhere else, I'm not saying that's inherently bad or anything. the the only matter that was giving us heartburn was when that opens up at a point, a later point in the process where it's going to throw everything else haywire. That's that's
the only thing that was giving uh staff, the city manager and I some pause because we don't know what what we would do if it happened a week before the election. >> So that turns back to anybody for any thoughts >> qualifying.
We're gonna recommend that they ask the voters that we move qualifying up >> right to June. So we're we're getting adding more time to the qualifying not the qualifying period but the period from when you're qualified to election. We're adding more time.
>> Yeah. The the window. Yeah. From the formal qualifying period to the election day. Yes. That's >> So are you able to put like a timeline like a deadline on it if somebody drops out by say >> whatever our old qualifying used to be?
Let's just say mid August. I'll just pick August. >> Yeah. >> Then it opens back up for a week or something. Or >> you could absolutely do something like that. >> The date of the primary, something like >> Yeah. And and if you um if you wanted to make it really sync up well with how the
state uh election system works, it could be somewhere around if the the vacancy occurs prior to the um >> like 90 days or something. >> Yeah. No, if it if it happens prior to
the county primary date, which is in August. >> Okay. Um, the reason why that's relevant, by the way, is the August primary date. That is the real driving window on when those
ballots go to print for November. Okay? So, if you make it so that you'd have to have somebody drops out and you have a qualifying period and you get that qualifying period done before um the primary election happens in
August, then you're perfectly in sync for ballot printing, right? >> And you're going to be you're going to be locked in with your new candidate without mucking up anything for the supervisor. >> So, >> that makes sense. Now, if you're backing that out and you do that, that is something you could do.
>> Would those two questions moving up the qualifying and this particular question be able to be one question? >> I think it probably could cuz I was have to be one. >> One kind of enables the other. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Sometimes they're not allowed to be one question, which is why I asked.
>> Yeah. and and I am even even when you don't have a strict uh single subject requirement uh the the rules on municipal charter amendments are a little weird. Uh technically there's not a prohibition on single subject but
there is a prohibition on uh confusing or misleading ballot questions. And often times when you start mixing and mashing completely unrelated things, in my opinion, you can drift into confusing the electorate as to what you're doing. In this instance, these two things are
inexurably linked. >> Yeah. >> I mean, one enables the other. The idea you move it back further now, you've just created a natural, very useful window of time to be able to say, "All right, we can have this thing." So you because the ill that was discussed
before was folks coming in, they qualify and then they drop out the day after qualifying and then their buddy who also qualified, you know, just wins directly. You're going to have a whole window of time from qualifying all the way to the August thing there.
>> It could still happen, but at least >> it could, but you take you take the edge off that someone's only going to have to keep up the act for many months as opposed to a day or an hour. Um, so no, I think I think those matters
could be put together as as a single question doing both of those things. Makes >> sense. >> So we can trust you to put together that language. >> Yeah. What you is is everyone's thoughts. I should put together a language doing those two things for you all to take a look at.
>> Yep. Let's do it. >> Agree. >> All right. >> Right. Good point. >> Very good. Well, that gets >> that. >> Did we decide on number one? What
>> administration number administration? >> Yeah, number one was was Leave that alone. Yeah, it's it's more of a procedural thing. >> And so the one we said >> 15 >> to circle back on
do have some time. We ought to use it. >> Right. As of this moment, how many questions kind of does it feel? We're >> Let's take a look. >> Four. >> Looking at four, right? >> We have uh one or three. >> Uh actually, these are the two and three
would be together. So, that's one, >> two, >> uh three, four >> and seven. Five and seven. Yeah, I'm seeing four right now, >> which is a healthy but very reasonable
number generally. >> Come on. We've had 18 questions. >> Yeah. Uh I'm sure you've had more than four. Yeah. Um >> so yeah, as as of right now, I'm I'm seeing four. So
um and that's you say you said two three together, right? Two and three together. >> Mhm. >> Uh four. >> Number four. Number five. >> Right. >> And number seven.
So, sorry to revisit it uh so quickly after discussing it already, but does anybody have any further thoughts on the moving around issuing proclamations? >> Uh, and if if if you're you're talked out on that, we can talk about it at your next
meeting, but I would say I'm talked out. I don't care, but put it I'd put it as put it there and let council decide if they want to do five questions, four councils, four questions, five questions. They don't feel it's important. They feel they want to do it.
Otherwise, I again it's a to me it's just and I know it's not my I don't know it was my issue, but it's it clarifies it should to me it should be that way. So, it's one of those ah throw it out there. See if council wants to bite on it. It's not that vital and important, but they wait. Could you put the
question together so we can see? >> That's what I was going to recommend. Yeah. >> And then then why don't I put together the charter the charter and ballot language and then you'll see it crystallize what you got and then you decide whether or not you want to go with them. Good. >> Yeah. Because because these first four I
think are pretty hefty issues >> and and 15 seems to be >> a much less minor. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> I agree. >> I'll put it together. I do think that on 15, our voting basis that regularly votes
is going to be that group of people that include those looking for proclamations and stuff. And they may want if the council says, "Oh yeah, let's see what the voters say." They may want, some of them may have been subject to, "We didn't get a proclamation, but we got a
referendum or whatever." We don't want that to happen. So it's it's a possibility. >> I I think the only tough question on this ballot >> is terms. >> Terms. >> Yeah. >> Everything else going to pass. >> Yep.
>> Agreed. >> In terms be an educational aspect, I would think. >> Yeah. Good luck with that. >> I'd like to fast. God, I would. members. I I think you uh you plowed through all the different topics that uh
you had uh figured out while going through the charter here. Um what I think we'll end up doing at the next meeting is uh I'm going to have charter and ballot language for you for all the items we indicated. I will have uh just
so for completeness I'll have the uh ones we provided before one with the little tweak to the language we had talked about to do a little bit of clarifying language but you'll have all of that in front of you at your next meeting. I may or may not um uh also
take a crack of having a draft of uh final report for you all to see. Uh there's really not much to it. It's just saying hey this is what we did uh and so on. That's why this does a lot of work. Just attach that and it tells a lot. Um,
so the hope will be uh at your next meeting uh we may be at the point of uh getting things buttoned up because there is no great merit in in driving this to the last minute if you can get this uh
done in April. So >> sounds great. >> Uh wait, I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Section 4.08. 08.08. Um, in the middle of this paragraph, there is a phrase not to exceed the
mileage amount set by general loss. >> Say number three. >> No, no. 40 4808. Okay, gotcha. Uh, give me one second. D not to exceed the millillage amount.
Yeah. Not the millage amount set by general laws. Is it county, state? >> Oh, yeah. General law. Good question. General law is a term of art in uh in Florida. Um okay it's uh general law means the laws of general application
that are applicable to uh to the entire state as opposed to what are called special laws or special acts >> uh which are applicable only to a particular place. So what this is meaning here is in uh chapter 166 and
chapter 200 that deal with millages and uh setting budgets and millages and stuff like that. So general law or general laws is referring to the laws that are applicable to all 411 cities. >> Any other questions or anything else for
us to discuss? Thank you all very much. We're adjourned. We'll see you all at your next meeting. >> Thank you. We appreciate it. >> Absolutely. >> And how was your daughter's play scene? It >> was fantastic and I made it on time.