How are you doing? >> Good. How are you? It's just >> wild. I don't want to say to be crazy. Awesome. It smell good. Yes. I'm sure they didn't
How are you guys Oh yeah, that's why older That's what's happening. >> Hence email. Oh, yeah. >> It's like thick. >> I know. two times a day.
No one's everessed. I told her >> appointment. with us. What can I do? Oh my god. >> How are you? I don't know if Barbara knows Oh my gosh.
Turn on. I have no Facebook, >> huh? >> I may have to reconsider. I know. I had intended to get a glass of tea and then I didn't. >> I'm sorry. >> Well, it's the same one as on there.
Just pick a different one. >> What's that? >> Hello. more >> closer. How are you? >> Okay, great. as a teacher and she said, "Hi, how you
doing?" Spring break. >> I'm glad you me too. >> She said just watch this morning. They said Tuesday. >> Glad to see you join us. I was going to ask you to go down to Disney. >> One good song. is
>> oh one good >> the other one not the other set not so good >> they don't say boss right now they don't they don't call me >> just glad we don't have the same words like they have >> oh sorry >> no the the tornadoes and all that
>> okay >> yeah wow >> I haven't a little bit of a joke cuz you haven't posted anything >> I didn't last Friday attorney Right. Once every other week, so there are a little bit more
>> upstairs. >> All right. We'll call to order this meeting of the city of Oido Charter Review Committee this 11th day of March 2026. It is 5:30 p.m. If the court could please call the role.
>> AJ Range >> here. >> Barbara Barber >> here. >> Arian Bryant >> here. Dominic Pampier >> here. >> Karen Harriet >> here. >> Carl Thornbru >> here. >> Katherine Townsend >> present. >> Keegan Ford.
>> Kevin Hypes. >> Lou Clinker >> here. >> Nancy Zolair >> here. >> Nicole Martin. Rebecca O'Brien >> here. >> Steven Shank >> here. >> Victor Bogatrio
>> here. >> Fantastic. We have a quorum. Members, good evening. >> Evening. >> First order of business uh before you uh this uh evening is the approval of minutes for the February 25th, 2026
meeting that were included in the agenda packet. Uh entertain a motion to approve the I have no comments other than what we're going to be discussing tonight. Actually, I take it back. I do have one uh brief comment. As was indicated in the email that went out and I think in
the agenda packet as well, I have a prior engagement um that uh I need to be running out of here at 6:45. If it's uh generally convenient, it might be a little bit before 6:45. My uh daughter is uh singing at University High School
and I see if I can try. So, you got to be that. >> We will do our best. But um >> Oh, darn. So with uh with that we will move on to our uh discussion items uh for it was it
was difficult for me to get to the point where I could say even with everything I had that it would merit some ballot space but nevertheless I'm going to take another hack at it perhaps after uh some more discussion tonight after discussing these other two items I did have a chance to uh put together for you but uh
with regard to substantive memos of some balance and charter language for you to take a look at. Based on prior discussions, I I pulled two that I thought might be useful for you to be able to see and bounce around and see if there was significant interest uh within
the committee to potentially uh pursue further. The first one was draft charter amendment language changing in the ballot and charter language as you'll see. uh this table was something that was used before and I thought it was a fair representation to understand what
you're looking at and how things would transition uh through these terms. Does anybody have any questions about that uh table generally or how things would trans transition in? We'll talk about it in more detail when we see the language on
the next page. If there aren't any questions on that, if you could uh go to the next page. So, we put together and this, by the way, this tends to be how um my office breaks down and formulates uh charter amendments and then the charter
language. We find it very useful to put it on its own page and break it out, you know, just the two of it together so you can evaluate all of it. Um the top piece of language there is the uh ballot summary with the ballot title and the
ballot question there. I think I've mentioned this before, the general parameters that are required under state law for um any sort of referendum that is uh going on the ballot of a general matter coming from a a municipality or a
county for example is you have a title of 15 words or less and then a ballot uh question or pardon me a ballot summary of 75 words or less. All right, it is typically but not required to be phrased as a question. I say typically it's it's
more often I think you see things phrased as a question and I looking at past ones in OTO uh they have been phrased as a question something to the effect of shall the Obito charter be amended and then ending with a question mark uh it is uh sometimes the case it'll be stated as a statement and it
may start something to the effect of amending the OTO charter too changing length of council terms from 2 years to four years shall the Ovida city charter be amended to change the term term of office for city council members from 2 years to four years beginning with the
2028 election and provide for a three-year term for city council members elected in the 2027 regular election to transition to an election cycle that coincides with the evenyear presidential and gubernatorial elections yes or no. The safe statute also
requires that you have the ballot summary and that it ends with yes or no. Um and then the language that you find uh down in the relevant charter provisions 3.03.02 basically is language that implements
this. I did crib this in great part from uh prior language that had been put together. Uh there may be some minor differences but it's uh very similar. There were more changes I had in the uh ballot summary there trying to work on
some clarity there. So, would you mind going back up to the uh balance summary? And keep in mind, no, leave right there is great. Um, keep in mind this is this is prepared just for discussion, you know, on your thoughts of um both
whether this language, you know, might be something that that would work if you wanted to go this direction, but then I also open up to you to discuss the actual substance to it. Um, I I would open it up to the floor for discussion on both. Does anybody have any questions
or comments on either the wording or the merits of uh what's discussed in this charter amendment? >> Wade, when you researched the previous, what was the vote on it for last time around? >> I did not uh see what the does anybody
remember? >> You remember >> the advocacy they want. Um what is prohibited under state law is governments using government money to uh to do any sort of advertisement for or
against and unfortunately now even some educational matters relating to an amendment on the ballot. But it's all targeted at use of government money. So, do we feel that there's a population shift that they're going to people are going to change their minds and want to have four-year councilmen when we've
gone? >> I think that's a good question. Do we have any additional context? Why do you do you know why they voted in that? >> Why it was voted out? >> Yeah. Why? >> Uh trust it came down four years and we got to have germ limits and so it
becomes just a mess. So when you say trust, do you mean people don't want the same person in for four locked in for four years? >> That's too much influence for too long. >> I think the first couple times it was just the council at time didn't had a lot of it was just people didn't like
them. Didn't trust them. I almost didn't like them. They got voted. >> What is the public receiving from this? >> The why why the why why listen to me. The why the why is it will save the city
the expense of an election every other every off year. You know city does pay for those. It it also I mean I'm I'm a big advocate of this because it creates a continuity amongst the members and I
think we had this discussion back at the beginning when this was first brought up from my experience and I'm sure Stephen would concur and others when you're first elected you spend your first year but it did >> it always did cuz you were always
running for reelection. So given that rationale which seems sound again I again ask the question the why why why haven't we dug a little bit deeper into what is their perception why are they resisting why why is the city
>> because there's always been one member >> Mhm. who would be vehemently against it and just rail against it for whatever
particular reason. And um that creates what Steven was saying, the controversy, the the trust issues, the you know when we first asked for it way back in >> I don't remember when it was 2006.
>> Okay. things things around here in 2006. Catherine was here, Karen was here. I mean, many of us were around this. I mean, it was constant turmoil. We'd have lines out the door every council meeting for people to uh politely speak to us at
the podium. And uh which is their right. I'm not denying that. But we had a lot of controversy spinning. And then we had the infamous bundle it all together. Was that 2006? >> No. >> No. Okay.
>> That was four the first. >> Yeah. That then we had the b we we we had like 18 charter cor questions and against all of our better judgments >> was four. I think it was five was the first one and then six was the second one that was unbundled. >> We we had one member who pushed us and
pushed us and pushed us and we finally just said, "Okay, fine. Bundle all 18 questions together." And that failed like I don't know 90 to 10 or something. That was that was a a waste of effort and time >> and it was back to back years. So just maybe it was just ugly.
>> Wasn't it put on the agenda or on the ballot in an offyear election and typically you don't have a turnout for >> hoping that the turnout the turnout differential would make it >> more people who are more involved, more invested, understand things, they'd
understand this and they and it failed. >> All right. And then we tried the last time we tried we put it with term limits >> and then it was let's see that would
have been an off-year election again >> because it was Hank and I >> and to get it implemented quickly what we did was our terms were getting a year added to them and then everybody else who ran the next time the other three
seats would would have been instantly running for 4 years. So, it would have gotten us all right onto that 4-year term track quickly where this, as you can see, will take >> six years, it looks like. Um, and there was a certain member of the
council at that time who had other aspirations and just made a lot of hay out of it. And that's why that one failed. But it's a funny thing. Every other charter question that we usually ask the people of our city passes.
It's that particular one. The when we increase the bonding limits, when we uh park referendums we used to go out for the bond proto on the park, the bond to buy the sewer system, all passed. And
and not just barely passed, they all passed, right? >> You know, 55 60%. It's that one question. this question we're discussing right now, it's always >> 30 to 70, always every time. And that's
why Stephen is uh being so enthusiastic about it because I I I can also say the need for it is listen, it ain't broken, so to speak. The the pluses are as a council member, you're only putting two years you're committing to two years. Um, yes. It
causes what? 60,000 $65,000 for the city to run the election. It's a $65,000 every other year. >> Well, just let's clarify that question though cuz that that number keeps like moving all over. >> He just hit with his head. Yes. As I said that, >> Brian, what did like tell the group what it cost to run an offyear election.
>> What Councilman Shank what Councilman Shank said was the estimate this past year was 65,000. Boy, Brian, that used to only cost us 20. But I guess a lot of things used to sell. >> The thing about it is is that you you have to start looking at how many polling places
>> where you have the polling places because if you do it, that's that 65,000 was having one polling place out on the east side for Sanctuary Live Oak and Riverside. Having one polling place on Twin Rivers uh in Twin Rivers somewhere.
That's and then having a polling place at the gym. Those three and then the possibility of city hall as the early voting. And so the 65,000 was just for those. And then you pay for the election workers and and the other things that
you have the mailing of the postcards to tell people that you're voting in a different place. Uh now if we opened it up to like this coming up election in November where all the polling places are open then it's probably getting up
clo closer to 100,000. >> I'd like I'd like to just point out one thing to Mr. Bryant. The irony of all of this that these have failed so handily each time is that despite that when these gentlemen ran for reelection
they all won by a big margin. But people did not want to group it together for it to be that way. But they all won individually. I always thought that was fascinating. But >> it it it
is they wanted to be there three years. >> The first ones the first ones when it when those first ones went that was when we went through city council members who were got elected off. So it was kind of like I said it was a different time when those first won especially and then
there was still hangover. >> Right. But earlier election years I mean now again just history so you all can really think this through getting back to what Catherine said earlier election years like when you ran with Mike and everything and then then it was uh
>> correct. Then it was kind of like my season, Tom season and all of that. I mean, those earlier races where we had um more people in the race or anything like that. I mean, there was one one of those races I only won by 500 votes
>> out of eight or 9,000. That was Rick Burns. >> Yeah. 2008. >> Yeah. >> That was your first election though. >> No, 2008. That was the first like two weeks when they did two weeks of early voting every day. >> Yeah. Yeah. Remember that was uh Yeah.
Rick was camped out at the library. >> Uh, but I mean, so we used to have closer elections. Now with Catherine, when you get to like 2010 on, as we've discussed earlier, the the incumbents usually it's usually 6040.
>> Well, we had one one election where Tom Walters won by eight votes. I mean, that was pretty >> uh Yeah, that that's when that was the last time we What what's the uh what's the polling? Cindy Drago only won by seven votes. We had
>> like seven or five. >> Yeah, that that was the last year we had. >> We set people up to go uh >> canvasing board. >> Canvasing board. Thank you. >> Yeah, I sat on that canvasing board and boy oh boy did we want to have a recount, but it missed the it missed the
recount percentage by like like a hundth of a percent or something and uh uh couldn't have it. I mean, but >> uh is there a way to provide reasoning behind this proposal >> on the ballot there? >> So, yeah. No. So, great question. Um
>> could you repeat his question? I didn't hear it. >> Is there a way to provide reasoning behind this proposal? >> Yeah, it it I may rephrase it slightly, but yes. Is there a way in the ballot summary to provide an explanation of your reasoning or why you're putting it
on the ballot? Unfor a great question and unfortunately the answer is generally no. >> Right. Because that's persuasive. >> Exactly. >> You can't put the dollar figure up there. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. And you you've got to the the uh a ballot summary has to under
the state law has to uh state the chief purpose of the amendment. That may be a little confusing and a little vague. In general, there's a whole body of case law that discusses what can be in a ballot summary and what can't. And what you can't have is advocacy or anything
that is meant to be uh persuasive or or you know trying to entice you to vote for it or anything like that. Uh hiding the ball, flying under false colors. These are the types of uh wording that are used in the case law and even you know extolling the benefits of something
on the ballot. Generally not something you can do in other materials. if someone was really in favor of this or really against it, they could put out uh materials or mail pieces or what have you explaining, you know, good or bad or what have you. Unfortunately, as I was
alluding to before, the city itself is not allowed to do that because of a law that was passed a number of years ago. So you you end up with when you have ballot uh summaries, when you have ballot questions, you have just a brief
explanation of what the amendment does, not the thought process behind why it's being proposed. >> What if the chief focus was cost saving? Again, ne nevertheless, that's that's why I was saying that's when I said the
wording in the statute says chief purpose, that that seemingly simple wording has been mangled by about 150 Florida Supreme Court cases that say that that is not something uh you could do. >> Now, years back, the city used to be
able to make an information package. >> Exactly. >> It had to be just information, but they can't do that anymore. >> Yeah. A number of years ago, they passed uh the original version of uh 106.0113, if I remember correctly, and it clamped
down on um on express advocacy, putting out mail pieces that said vote yet, you know, yes on one or anything like this. But the loophole, if you will, was exactly as Dominic alluded to, that uh cities could put out pieces that were not express advocacy and certainly could
put out pieces that were justformational, including explaining the rationale behind it. The legislature clamped out on that just a couple years ago, and so that's not even an opportunity. they can put together and put on for example the city website uh
or put out uh printed materials that sit on a desk somewhere but they cannot be mailed and they cannot be pushed out in any >> what's interesting and again it's different state but in my personal experience in New York in Brooklyn when before voting uh we received in the mail
uh some kind of brochure if you will >> and that brochure was listed all the ballot all the ballots you know the questions on the ballots and a brief description and the reason what this will allow city to have or or to do. And that used
to be in a number of instances a very common practice for things like charter amendments and so on, but the legislature has really clamped down on even explanatory ones in the last years. >> Someone else can. You're exactly right. >> Our committee, can we send on our
behalf? individual committee is part of the government. So >> yeah, so so that all makes sense. Um but it's even prohibitive to create educational materials if it's written in an objectively these are the pros and
cons of this particular. >> So you can write those materials >> as an indiv. The government the government can and when they clamp down in that bill they actually put some little openings. uh you can uh have explanatory materials
that you can put on your website. You can print them and have them available in government offices. >> You cannot and you can bring them I think if I'm remember correctly, you can bring them to civic organizations. If you go to a Rotary club and you're going to speak about it, which you can do, you
can go to a Rotary Club and say, "Hey, this, that, and the other, what have you, you could have a stack there sitting in the back, >> but you can't put them in the mail to anyone, which is the traditionally very effective way to get, you know, stuff out to folks to have that explanation. So, it's a thing that can be done, but
it's very much neutered, if you will, >> as a Rotarian." >> Yes, sir. >> Let me be very clear. Some Rotary clubs even uh prohibit that. >> Yes, sir. >> You know, because we were >> when I was in Winter Park Rotary, we did
have folks come out and and you're Rotarian, too. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. >> May I ask you another question? >> Yes, sir. as a private citizen uh let's say I have a conversation with somebody and somebody knows I'm a member of this committee and I can you know what you
discussed you know one of the things that you know told limit >> you can absolutely say whatever you want >> okay >> what that what that law regulates is spending money >> okay government money yeah >> so if the city puts together information
postcard and they're sitting out there you can take some of them and you you know, talk to your neighbors and hey, yeah, here you go. I there's this information and do that. >> So, let's say somebody asked me what kind of topics you discussed. I said, one of these is changing the limits to
and here's the great reason why. >> Absolutely. Yeah. every single one of you I in in uh in your capacity as a citizen and resident of Ovido uh and even in your capacity as a member of the charter review committee can completely
speak on you know your thoughts on the matter and explain to people what the committee did. >> Can can the city put printed materials in any public space or only specific public space? Yeah, the statute actually yes says any public sp with the permission of the other public space.
But generally a typical thing that they do if you do it is you put it in libraries, you can put it other things like this and they're generally open to that when it's from another government. >> But again, I mean it's it's available. It's much more limited than you know direct mail which is a direct a
traditional thing. >> So how does this get from this committee to the ballot? Is it just simply a majority vote here or >> Yeah. So uh outstanding question. So uh process-wise for this and then you know any other uh charter amendments that you
all end up firming up and and uh so on the instrument by which this is going to get transmitted this or any anything that's going to be voted out of this committee is going to be in the final report effectively of this committee transmitting it to the uh city council
to tell them these are the uh charter amendments we recommend. All right. Uh so ultimately the the final decision is is firming up and finalizing that final report. But what majority vote is that
is that report whatever is included on that report is that a majority vote of this >> that is that is a majority vote because there's nothing providing anything different. So it would ultimately just be by uh simple majority vote of the committee. the um just as a uh
procedural matter to to help us understand you know how to use our limited time and so on as we go here. Uh what I was going to ask you and if you don't uh if there's not a general feel that you're ready to make some sort of preliminary decision because it's it's
preliminary to getting to the final report and you know there might be substantial changing of minds and so on but um uh is as we go if you were if there was a thought now to indicate um
whether there was an interest in having this go in the list that would be in the final report and again you either in this form or tweaks to it or or what have you. So I would open it up uh on to that point to the committee's thoughts. Yes, ma'am.
>> Um I think that having an election every two years makes the city council members more accountable to the public and $65,000 is worth it. So I would I would not want to change it
to four years. >> Wait, our final report goes to the council to approve or disapprove. >> So it goes to the council as a recommendation. The council can can take it and they can uh I'll put in a nice way. Yeah, they can do anything they
want with they can take it and say this is outstanding. Let's put it all on the ballot exactly as they said. They can take it and say we like most of this but we're changing this. we like most of this and we're taking this out and so on. Um, but again, of course, it's that
they all uh chose everyone on this committee and and uh trust the members of this committee, so they're going to take it into serious consideration, of course. >> Yeah. General general rule of thumb is they'll take the committee's recommendations as long as we don't get too far off the reservation, so to
speak. Um but um I understand uh Karen's point, but you know, I'll stand by my point. I just think that the rotating of members, but I will wholeheartedly agree with Stephen. This is a heavy lift. Uh I think the last time we went through
charter review, we didn't put it on there, did we? >> I I would I would >> Catherine, did we last time? >> No. Right. I I would think with the two of them together cuz we're going to talk about >> there's no way both of them are going to pass. If you look at this and then um going after term limits.
>> Oh, it's got to be it's got >> I would say if you're if you are more thinking towards term limits then I would think push that forward um versus two years. If if that's your if that's your thing and said, "Hey, I
think term limits are much more important in some way." um then I I would push you to consider just putting one of those forward. Not because you put both both of them forward, they're both almost guaranteed to fail.
Um but you might have a chance one of them alone and you might if if and I'm totally against term limits, so I'm throwing that out there as I hate them. But if you're really, you know, that's your thing, but term limits, you might want to consider not looking at this one and saying term limits is more
important. Why don't you push it on forward instead? This is a sticky wicked this one. >> Right. Well, >> what what would what would be what's the group thinking? >> I'm on board for the four years. I like the four years. >> Hang on a second. Let me let me go around. AJ, what are you thinking?
>> Just just to get a a >> I like the four years. >> All right, Barbara. >> Four years. >> Arith, >> I'm in favor. >> You have four years of the four years. >> Four years. two. >> I'm in favor of four, but I'm not in favor of putting in front of the voters
because it's always two. Wow, that's that was a political answer. >> Karen, I know I'm just not going to call on you. That's good. >> Nicole, >> I'm in favor of John Le. If not, then
>> Okay. I will say prior to the education I got in this committee I was for two but after this discussion I like the costsaving benefit of four. So >> I like see four. >> Yeah. Same four years. >> So it looks like >> there you go. General consensus.
>> I'm hearing a strong Yeah. strong majority. Not unonymity but strong majority that right now we're looking at four. >> Just don't be disappointed when it doesn't pass. >> No. We got to promote it. Got to get on Facebook and explain why. Okay. Based >> based on that then I I think maybe we
put this uh in the queue of of things that and again the ultimate uh the ultimate action is going to be looking at that final report but I I think >> I mean to take over Wade but I want to get you to your daughter. Oh, no. I appreciate it. I I I was going to push
it to that, but I don't I don't want to p I don't want to push you guys to uh decisions if you don't feel you've gotten, you know, gotten yourself to that point yet. But, um I think that that was a good discussion on this point. >> Is everybody comfortable that we beat
that dead horse? I mean, >> yeah. >> No, I think that was important. There's a lot of us that didn't have that context. It's not for me. I think it's there's a there's a compelling financial reason behind it, but the other context
that you shared um in terms of people sitting in a position, I'm I'm certainly behind accountability. I'm all about accountability. I think if there are other mechanisms in place, it >> but the other the other thing is if you're looking to um recruit new council members, a two-year commitment is much
easier to accept than a four-year. I do not disagree. So, you're you're >> I don't know. I think if you're going to if you want to change the government the city and you're focused on it, you're motivated, >> it is a commit winner for all their seats this year. So >> yeah, four shouldn't matter.
>> So another aspect isn't just what you can get done in four years. But so you convince somebody, they have an idea, they want to get on council, you you promote them to get on council, they run, they get on council,
they're figuring out what council really is. Then they decide, "No, this wasn't what I wanted." Now they're just riding out a year and a half or a year by the time they figure that out, and they're not productive at
all. and the other term you can see before you're you really get to see the individual. So by the time they're up again you've had time to see people have had time to decide and people have had time to
decide whether to run and when they are running they know it's four years it's not just if I don't like it I'm out in two. >> That's just the thought. >> Plus it's got to take at least two years to win Brian over. So you got to have a little more time than that you know. All right. Well, thank you all very much
for that discussion. It's very uh very helpful on on that point. We've uh for the other >> before we move on, I have to announce UCF won their game first round their Big 12 tournament. So, >> nice 665 overtime.
>> Wow. >> Fantastic. So, with that good news, >> move on to >> I can't deny that I didn't have YouTube TV on right here while >> you got to have your priorities. Uh so, with with that good news, we're going to
move on to the second memo I had the opportunity to put together uh for you. And that had to do with a charter amendment revising council voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions. Otherwise
removing otherwise referred to as removing the roll call requirement for council votes for ordinances and uh resolutions. This was another one when I was looking through it uh based on past discussion and so on that I thought
might be ripe uh for you all to thought would benefit from seeing some language particularly ballot language with regard to this uh and so put together this language uh here the question is as follows. Shall the Ovido city charter be
amended to revise council voting procedures for ordinance and resolutions, removing the requirement for a roll call vote while maintaining the requirement that each council member present cast an affirmative or negative vote on such votes except as provided by
state law and maintaining the requirement that the clerk record the individual vote of each council member in the council meeting minutes. Yes or no? This is one of these instances. You find this sometimes where the ballot uh question is longer than the language
that you make in the charter. And there's a reason why I did that here. It's not the only way to do it by any stretch, but it was trying to be explanatory to the voters. Because what I did not want the voters to
misapprehend or misunderstand is that by removing the roll call vote that we would be removing the idea that folks have to vote and we remove the requirement that everybody's individual
vote is going to be taken down. You see what I'm saying? Because folks could very well read just removing the requirement for a roll call vote. Oh, wait. They're going to get to vote and we're not even going to know how they voted, >> which would be a a inaccurate
conclusion, but a very reasonable conclusion for someone reading a balance summary without context. So, that's why we've got all that other part there retaining these other essential components that are spelled out expressly in this paragraph to say it's
staying there, that by removing this, we're not affecting those other essential components. Um, again, there are different ways you could phrase uh something like this, but that was the main thing I was looking at there and tend to always look at when you're making a uh substantive change with a
small deletion. You want to make sure people have the full context. So, uh, as to this item, open it up to the, uh, committee for any questions or discussion either to the, uh, ballot
language or to the merits. So the only thing we're saving is the 50 seconds it takes the clerk to call each councilman's name to get his vote. >> So I would offer it's it's two things and this is just based on your at least two things uh based on your past
discussions. That is one piece of it and that's just a little bit of time. Um there is uh however and I don't character mean this to characterize this negatively um but it's just the nature of the beast when you come to parliamentary procedure and gamesmanship
of necessity when you call the role you call one at a time >> and publicly instead of everybody voting at once I and nay in which case as things are getting called there arises all manner of gamesmanship. So for
people who are not the first, say three or whatever, getting called to potentially think through how they vote based on other folks they heard vote as opposed to everybody voting at once. >> Mhm. >> And again, this can be this is sometimes
iniated by the fact that uh sometimes folks will be very plain in a discussion say I'm going to vote against this. Great. Okay, cool. Um there is the case and I'm not speaking to Ovito here. I'm speaking more generally to discussions in uh deliberative bodies. There are of
is often the case that folks will sit and they may ask questions but they will not give any indication how they're going to vote and you truly only know when they're how they're going to vote when they vote. Um so again whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is
for you all to discuss whether whether uh moving away from that as a requirement in all instances of ordinances and resolutions and moving instead to the opportunity uh for there to be for example voice votes where it's
all those in favor say I. I. >> It removes the vote of convenience. That's what it removes. That's the easiest way to put it. I mean, we we called um we never called roll vote votes. We always called voice votes even
though it was in the charter. We had a different opinion from a different attorney at the time. Uh you know, this all just came up recently and uh it slows down the meeting. Uh voice vote, you don't know what your compadres are
doing and your vote, your conscience. When you roll vote, you can just sit there like Wade was saying, one, two, three, it passed. I don't really like this, but it passed. I'm voting no. And it happens. It >> Wade won't say. Well, I can't speak to
it in no veto. >> Of course not. It happens other places. >> It happens everywhere. >> Does the vote always have to be in the same order every time? >> Nothing in the chart. Nothing in the charter specific. >> They rotate the wrong.
Do we think that the average Obito citizen has any idea what any of that means? That would be my concern because like council meeting, so I know what you mean by a roll call. But I think people who have never been to a city council meeting
>> might look at that and think I don't know what that means. So I'm going to vote no. >> And that is I I always tell people it's a completely rational response to a question when you don't know the full effect even when people try to explain it to vote. That one will pass 80 to 20.
>> That one will pass on the ballot because >> they look at it. It's simple. It's Oh, people are still okay, whatever. That That's the way these questions go all the time. >> However, I'd like to point out that you're and my eyesight is blurry. Um
that each council member present cast an affirmative or negative vote on each vote. So maybe it should on such votes. So maybe it should be affirmative or negative vote on each issue
>> except as provided by state law. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm actually if you heard me I uh got tripped up when I was reading it as well. So um that um I I don't disagree that that >> polish it a little bit better.
Yeah, I think yeah, the word the word vote there twi on such votes I completely agree with you. I think it would need I need to sharpen that up and probably um change it to such question or something like that. >> Then it's easy put it out there
>> see what happens. >> I some people may I I agree with what your thought was. Some people are going to be read this and think they're hiding something. This there's a lot of time and and some percentage. I don't know what that'll be. We'll see the result. If we put it out there, we'll see the result. It should pass. I think it's a
good thing. I don't see a problem with it, but agree. >> Plus, you can still hesitate. I I I you know >> I mean we've done a couple of road calls here and there but you know you can there's definitely like like Dominic
said you could sit there and go yeah this is something that people don't really generally like out there. It's an issue but it needs to be done and you can go 1 2 3 while it's there. So I can go no. See I didn't vote for it. I I didn't vote for putting that whatever by
your house cuz you're my neighbor. >> Right. Right. >> That kind of thing. >> You can play games this way, you know, with the >> And just because it says it all it's saying now in the charter is they have to vote. >> If there's a council in the in the future who wants to make it their policy
to roll call vote, they can do that. >> Sure. >> This is just removing right now. It says they have to. >> Yeah. >> Good point. >> Yeah. So is there I'm see hearing a lot of general positives along this. I'm I am
going to with regard to that piece of the language there uh do do a tuneup on that language for any final >> ver the teacher found that. >> Yeah. No and I I appreciate it. No again I uh I'm hyper picky about ballot language but I'm also very open to
getting it ripped apart. So this that's wonderful. Um so uh I'm hearing a general consensus. Is there anybody with a a strong opposing view uh with regard to this? Hearing none then um no we'll do some clean up on that and we'll throw
this in the queue and something that uh could end up in that final report as well. So um fantastic. So with that move on to the last thing I have on the agenda. It's a little more open-ended. And if we could open up the um topic
list, the latest version, we're going to throw this up. You can only get one page at a time on on here, but just so we have something in front of us. Uh we have the topic list that is kind of uh aggregated
or accreted as you all have received comments from various folks and worked through the charter. And I wanted to ask the committee for other uh likely suspects, if you will, of uh additional topics that we wanted to try to firm
something up either to have further discussion tonight or tell me put together some language on so you have something a little bit more firm to look at. So we can look at um first one on the top I'm like we could get in my opinion you know require notice for chair of office hearing notice on
website in addition to current requirements newspaper that to me really is again it's not required by law it's hard to define what you want to do and by putting it I I think that's really procedure you know council can adopt procedure as
part of the as part of you know the city manager putting together a city procedure and making that as things evolve because as papers disappear or whatever is going to continuously happen as things roll on that's something and and I and it's Victor brought it up and
I think it's a smart thing to say hey we should start looking at different avenues of how we can but I think that's the real thing is to tell council or ask council they really need to look at more avenues on getting information out there
um in terms of notices things like that whether it is a dedicated noticed you know channel on whatever besides just the website etc. But I don't think that's a valid question. And I I like clean, mean, lean is my idea what that
charter should be. And that just kind of gets into the mini. It's not there personally. >> Very good. And um we don't necessarily need to go through this in order by any stretch. Uh this this is a little bit for and of course we can only get one
page at a time up here. uh but it's a little bit for hopping around as well just to to bubble a couple more things to the top so we have some discussion items for the next uh meeting. One uh thing I want to ask about not propose um
because of necessity or of of um reality anything on this subject is always a little bit of a political hot potato. Um but the matter of term limits have been uh put on here and and brought up and so on. I did not based on the past
discussion while it was raised um I I did not on my own valition want to put together any language along those lines until I got further direction from the committee at all. Um so just want to put that out there. If there is a strong
desire from a strong segment of the committee um then uh if have that discussion to to give me some specifics that one would want to see. Um
>> I Steve one other time I would pass on term limits myself >> and and and yeah to to the yeah to the the counterpoint as well if while it's a um a topic that always comes up in in charter uh discussions anywhere. Um is
there much appetite from from a substantial portion of the committee? No, there we go. >> I I I will take that as as maybe we won't spend too much time on it. >> I think all those ones that you that have the dates about uh you know
that related to providing and getting things ready for the you know for the I think those definitely need to bubble up. There's like two or two of them at least in here. You >> mean the special elections and stuff and >> yeah that all have how many you know we have 90 days and and things like that.
They definitely have to be revised and updated because they're just feas not feasible at this time anyway. >> Yeah. And I would I would like to go back and look at um the qualifying period and move it to the county qualifying period so that just for just
for you know just make it the same everywhere because people do move from place to place within the county >> and I if you asked 100 people when the qualifying period was for running for
city council nobody would know. >> Yeah. So the qualifying period is the second week of Jan. >> I don't think so. >> August. >> Second. Yeah. >> Second week of August. I'm sorry. >> Second week of August. >> County. Oh, for the city. Yeah. County. Yeah. County qualifying in June. It's in
June, but I don't remember weeks or >> I need to look it up in the um >> the only the only bad point about that, especially if you're looking to find candidate or have someone run June people kind of summertime,
you're either in it, you're either in it already or you're being coralled in it or being, you know, asked to or being kind, hey, you ever think out and June isn't that time cuz people are on vacation, they're doing other stuff.
>> Um, you need a little I think you need a little later to allow people to make the decision and come to it and give them time to cuz again you can get all the materials you can do all this. It doesn't stop you. I think the mayor usually pulls in January, starts her packet whenever the packet is available
January 31st or whatever February 1st packets open there's a candidate you can start raising money. You can start doing everything from January, you know, whatever that date is up until the election in November. So that doesn't stop you the qualifying period. That's
only the qualifying period >> that that's just the last date the last days to get it all in and put it. So I think moving it earlier for a local for us as a local election. >> But let's hear from Barbara cuz she lived it. >> Yeah. >> Mhm.
>> For many years, >> I don't think. Well, many years ago, we had all kinds of people running. >> People don't run now. Number one, it's in August. Everybody's going back to school. >> Exactly. >> And they think that they can't do anything. It's education is
>> And that's what I've written down as education beforehand. >> They think that they can't do anything until that week in August. And they only have one week to do it all. >> Right. >> And people don't run. >> Right. But that's a lack that's a lack of knowledge of the candidate. >> Yes. And and I know we talked last time,
I know the city and the clerk, they're putting out or starting to put together materials and educational materials to >> get an email on it. >> We've always had an email about it. >> The packets have always been ready in February. >> I say usually by early February
>> now and I talked to Elon, we talked about it and I said you have to put something out >> on Facebook or whatever and tell people they're available. >> Right. But I've also noticed that there's a lot of people, especially reading the Alvito page, right? >> They don't read the they don't read the
Facebook page or the city's website or anything. They don't look on there >> and then they, you know, >> don't pay. I love the idea of it, but that's my only thought is >> it it kind of you're giving a longer term for people to go, "Oh, maybe I'll
get in." Versus >> I'm looking at it from the view >> because she doesn't have much time to get the stuff turned around into the county, >> right? >> So, it puts a lot of >> Oh, no. I I was on her. >> And the other the other advantage is if
you have qualifying earlier, then you have more groups within the city that can invite all the candidates and and hear what they have to say. And so it it is generally I would think more um educational as far as educating the
voter on who the candidates are. >> And if the countyy's doing it, >> if the countyy's doing it >> is doing it at the same time, there's >> continuity more. >> Yeah. >> Wait, the the county is June 8th through June 12th.
>> Yes. Second week of June. >> Yeah. Yeah, because it varies slightly every year. But yeah, >> any further discussion just on on that piece right now? Um, one thing I I did want to report because I had it down as as more something I
needed to research and I had the opportunity to do it. Uh, down uh towards the bottom question had come up. Currently, it's required that you be a registered voter as these are, pardon me, uh qualifications to run for uh city
council. You have to be a registered voter, not for any particular period of time, but you have to be a registered voter and you have to have been a resident of the city for one year prior to qualifying. All right. There's a question that was asked. Can we put a one-year qualified elector one-year
registered to vote in veto requirement on residence? All right. So, you already have to be a resident for a year and you have to be a uh you have to be a voter when you qualify, but you want to put a
requirement on. You have to have been a voter, a registered voter that entire year prior to qualifying. I did my research on that because I couldn't remember whether or not there was some kink in state election law that would throw anything into that and there
really isn't. There are uh that is a provision in a number of uh city charters around the state and there's a lot of uh case law that would suggest that would be a perfectly fine qualification requirement for a city. whether that's too kind of it's it's a
very minor change, if you will. Um, it is a change. It's a real change, but it's it's ultimately somewhat minor because you already have to be a one-year resident. And so, you're you're really only dealing with the fact pattern where someone had been a resident of Oto for a year or longer,
but then it just dawned on them to become political and registered the vote and then ran for office. M. >> So again, that I wanted to answer that question cuz it had come up before and I did do uh research on it just to see that I'd be comfortable saying that that
would be a permissible thing. >> Ultimately is a minor moving around the deck chairs type of thing. >> Okay. As a realtor, >> now I got a question on that one. So, somebody buys a house, moves in the city, they're here more than a year, but
they didn't change their registration because they forgot about it until, you know, 6 months later. You would you wouldn't believe how many clients I have who forget to go file for homestead exemption if I don't remind them a million >> times. It it could very well uh end up being what we call a trap for the
unwary. uh someone who if they merely because they forgot to change no intervening election happened but they forgot to change their registration that could be a problem. >> Well, and they could be an excellent voter, you know. >> Well, that's that's just where I was going. If it if it said that you had to
be a registered voter in Florida for at least a year. >> Mhm. you know, so then at least you're getting somebody who's engaged and you know, just because they had forgotten to change it to their budo address if we were all going that direction. I mean, that would might be something that would
cure that possibility because that could be a hindrance. Somebody could be here a year and a half, but they just changed they just remembered to change their address. Happens all the time. It does happen all the time. Yeah. My feeling is you live here for a year, you can run.
Uh whether you voted or not, to me, if you have the desire to run, you've been here for a year, you should run. >> Yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, this is >> if you're not a registered voter, >> that's okay. >> I I did I didn't want to bring it up because I thought it was particularly
important. It was just I had it down as a thing I needed to report back. So, >> yeah, I just don't >> whether somebody participated you're penalizing somebody with their level of participation, but they may get activated at a different point.
>> They should be able to participate whenever they want, >> right? >> So, I don't know about that. >> I can't remember. Is there any that particular thing does not require that you be a resident of the city for a year? It simply says a registered voter.
>> Oh, no. Yeah. I'm so sorry. >> Where does it say registered uh in the city for a year? >> Yeah. No, it does not. No, >> I'm saying where does it say you have to live in the city for a year? >> Oh, >> that used to be in there, huh? >> It's in there now. It currently is in there now. It's in there.
>> We know where I don't see. >> Oh, sure. It's uh 3.02. >> Okay. So, we're not talking that they have split that between uh residency and where you and voter >> someone Yeah. Someone asked the
question, could we could we read years? Yeah, you have to be a resident don't live where they're claiming to live. They're you know that that we've seen that which goes to you're agreeing with Donald. >> Exactly. Every level of uh elections in
this county. I would like to see it say something to the effect of you not only have to live, but you have to be registered in the city for a year. So, are we going to preclude any 18-year-old from running?
>> No. 18 year olds. >> I didn't say that. >> Yeah. If you have to be registered for a year. >> Uh, well, yeah. >> So, if you're 18 and you want to run for office, you can. >> You actually want any 18year-old up on your county city council?
>> No. I don't want 18y olds on city. >> Yes, I would be willing to give that up. Yes. 18year-old is that's a great point because I believe the mayor of Edgewater, Florida was like 18 or 19, right, when he got elected. >> He was >> Yeah, I think he was 18.
>> 18, right? He has a very interesting name. It just like escapes me right now. Dew or something. >> Big long name. >> Uh again, that was my bringing it up was not advocacy, just reporting back. Um, so, um,
are there any, uh, other topics that, um, and I'm mining my clock just a little bit. There any other topics that really jump to anybody that they would like to, uh, have teed up, written up for
discussion at the next meeting? Let me ask you, and this is, it seems like it'd be a minor thing for drafting, but um, might be helpful. Is there any appetite to address the matter of changing the frequency of the charter review
committee from uh it's currently every five years. I think the postulated maybe pushing it out to eight years or what have you. Is there any is there any desire to uh look at anything along >> I'm all about that because I think every 5 years is silly but I'm not going to
die on the soil for that one. council can appoint themselves, decide. There's nothing really to look at and if they really want to, they don't have to set up a committee. >> That's exactly right. They can they can go. >> So they can choose to do it anytime they want. >> So this is not compelled every 5 years.
>> It is now by ideas, but they can be the charter review committee. >> They don't have one. >> They can be it themselves. I think >> they don't have to somebody just did that. I think when Springs somebody was just doing that, but you can be your own charter council as I understand it. Ovito has done it
before. >> Yeah, we we did it one year. Were you on the council with us? >> No, we had a couple little things of something we had to throw out there. >> I think after the two dumps I think. Yes. Then >> Brian that was like 10 years. >> I think it was that second year when they went >> and bundled everything together.
>> I think that was your your own charter review. >> So question. I think if you're going to push to have longer term limits and you want it to be four years per person that it's would be even more important to have charter review on a regular basis. >> Mhm.
>> You know, I agree. >> It's it's like Donna says it's not Yeah, it doesn't matter. I don't think council is going to or council here is really going to, you know, continuously go every 5 years. Nah, we don't need to do anything. We'll do it ourselves. We chair as a committee. Yeah. Yeah. We're doing nothing. Boom. But it's done in
other places. So if you keep it at 5 years, if after this year it's kind of like, hey, listen, everything's pretty well bundled. Is there anything we have to do? No, we really don't have to. >> And that that's what the council can do. They >> they can do it right now. They don't have to. >> Is there anything that has to be done?
We they panel themselves as we as we're looking at to do. So >> I I think leave it the same. >> I agree. I'd like to leave it the same. Plus, it's an educational process for residents who sit on the committee. It's been good.
>> I heard a one doesn't want to die on that hill. Anybody else wants to die on the hill to push? >> I'm good. >> All right. >> We'll see everybody in 5 years. >> Are there uh I have two actually.
>> Please. One is the um >> I already got voted down on that one. I want my own counsel. That's a different story. >> That's okay. It worked good for me. But uh one is the firing of the city manager. You know, city manager is a critical role as we know. It it takes an
enormous amount of expertise. I don't mean to buff you up, Ryan, but it really is a critical role because council people come and go. We don't know the inner workings in detail. I mean 20 years. >> Well, some do. Some do come and go.
>> Well, that's true. That's another thing. But I I there have been I mean once you got a city manager who's in there who's good u and it takes four to hire him if he's doing well councils and I don't mean anything negative
they tend to have clicks sometimes if it only takes three to fire a guy that could be a click. I'd rather it be four so that the three don't want to get rid of him. You really got to convince a guy that's on the fence to go four. And if he gets three against him, he may leave
anyway. But I don't really like the three confirmed. >> I rather see it before. >> I agree with that. I think it ought to be consistent. >> Four years. I think it should be consistent the other way. >> Yeah. >> Three three. >> I think three. We've Listen, have we
ever fired a city manager, Brian? >> Yes. Have we ever we've forced them? >> I don't You've never taken a vote. >> Correct. We've never fired a city manager. We've been through a bunch and I've been through five. Personally, I myself four.
>> We've never fired a city manager. >> But that's that's not my point. My point is >> No, I'm saying you're you're saying like it's >> getting nervous about two or three guys that are buddies that don't like the way he's doing things. >> They were Listen, they were elected. three three buddies that were elected >> by you know that's who the
representatives are >> all the more reason to keep two-year terms that is to me is just you can help people out that's >> I'm going to just just everybody hear me out for a second I mean Steven's lived it I've lived it others have lived it
>> here's the problem with your argument okay and it it took us a long time to get it where it is now and it got there for a very good reason because a when you go through a hiring process for a city manager, it is a royal pain in the
ass. I agree >> to get the right person to get the council on board. That's where the four came from, >> right? >> Because we would be picking a city manager with three. You'd have one who was lukewarm and one against it, and the
one against it would spoil it. So once you get four, a city manager feels comfortable even if there's the outlier. Right. All right. That's how we got it there. Here's the problem with what you're suggesting. You have a city manager, not Mr. Cobb,
of course, but you have a city manager who is comfortable in their position, doing things the way they want to do it, and you need four members to fire. Mhm. >> So now you got three members who just hate this person and they just sit there
nice and comfortably because believe it or not, city managers know how to count and they just count and that's what happens. So when you have >> But you think if three really had legitimate reason to get rid of them,
one of the other two with common sense would say >> that doesn't always happen that way. you you would be >> you would Kevin you you're opening up a possibility it doesn't need to be open because the argument can be made both ways.
>> So if if the city manager has to now they're counting they have to keep a majority happy to keep their job. >> Now what Stephen just pointed out though was uh was a perfect example. Sometimes the city managers, we never actually
voted to fire, >> is absolutely correct, >> but sometimes they saw the tea leaves. >> They're smart enough to know and see and and >> but when they see the tea leaves and they see that two are pissed and maybe and now they got a third, the
conversation changes. If it's four, they might ignore it. That's that's the only point. And it's kind of like with police and fire, you know, we made that a supermajority vote many moons ago. Uh, you know, simply because we want to be a
full service city and fire >> uh uh public safety to outsource it super majority. >> Okay. >> Takes four members to outsource it. >> Uh because of that very argument you just made. >> You could have three who all of a sudden just want to get rid of your police and
fire and your whole reason for existing as a city is gone. Now, the state might be having a whole different discussion about that difficult >> as time goes on, but >> that's the only thing I would caution everybody with. >> It took years to get it there and it got
there for a reason. >> Well, it hasn't really come up, so it's not a big deal, but it just And you got to go right away. >> I do need to go. I wanted to >> Yeah. Oh, Kevin, I very briefly, I wanted to give you opportunity just you said you had a second one. >> The second one was the uh and this came
up early. um the um publicizing at an official meeting people that whether it should be advertised or not or um there was some discussion early on about >> newspapers. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh that they should be >> that's number one on your list if you
>> that's why I said they need to set more procedure about using different ways with it >> that might not be >> Yeah. One one thing I I wanted to throw at you all generally. I may have mentioned it before. Um you don't want to overuse this as you go down a whole different rabbit hole, but when ideas
come up that you kind of decide they're a good idea, but they don't rise to the level of let's amend the charter for it. In the final report, we can certainly put in there some just general recommendations. as we looked at it, we didn't think it was worth amending the
charter for, but the council may want to look at adding more of this or adding more that or what have you. That's an alternative outlet for the good ideas you all have come up with that may not be something you necessarily want to amend the charter with. So, not saying that that won't there, but just want to
put that general >> and I know you've got to go, but we I just wanted to throw that out there because I do want to kick that around. >> Understood the advertising. Um, so coming into the next meeting, I'm going to take a little bit more look. I'm going to take a second hack at
seeing um if I can put together something of a cleanup amendment to do a little bit of of other stuff based on putting together a couple of these things. And then otherwise um if it's all right based on on where I'm seeing
this discussion going we might start and we we do need to start going in this direction as as our um calendar gets shorter uh going into the next meeting. uh like to ask us to start making some
some chopping off the list, very, you know, strong chopping off the list decisions to winnow it down to just what we're looking at that we can get this thing to done. Does that make sense? >> I I think we got through the big issue tonight. A lot of this is >> could be quick discussions.
>> I think so. All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you for your indulgence. We'll see you at the next show tonight. Thank you.