ready okay we'll call the meeting to order roll call Madam Madam clerk this is the charter revision commission Thursday February 15 the time is now 609 Jesse Jones present Elizabeth Kola I Gonzalez Pekovic Bruce Kaplan is not present at this time ni Roso present Mr chair you have Quorum thank you okay listen do the Pledge of Allegiance please Al to the flag of the United States of America the for it stands naice okay okay we'll open the floor for public comments do you have any cards Madam clerk I do not no comments well public comments are closed okay take a minute and read the minutes I have a comment on the minutes sorry I have a comment on the minutes yes on Section 3.14 yes I think there's a typo yes Mr chair was kind enough to point that out to me under Section 3.14 uh the strike through should be be appointed by mayor subject to approval city council consist that's going to get strike through I um just to further comment on that the City attorney supplied you with a piece of paper or or a status report that shows you what the minutes should should read like was that the typo Vice chair yeah yep okay I'll make sure that the ones the minutes that get finalized have that correctly okay I'll need a motion in a second on the minutes please well I'm I'm sorry you you she she made the motion to accept as no no she was just as saying that there was a typo and that was the same typo you mentioned okay um so we're asking for motion to accept as amended correct sir and the amendment would include fixing the typo correct and the typ okay second moved and seconded all in favor I show the motion carries unanimous okay um okay um if I may chair um I just want to briefly go over what I distributed just as a quick recap um in the interest of um potentially there being a future transition I wanted to ensure that everything was kind of Consolidated and laid out as to what we've accomplished to date um so um before you is a three-page document reflecting the changes for Section 1.02 to strike out the word Mayor section 2.02 to strike out subsection A2 as we're going to address that in another section which I'll discuss in a bit um modify subsection A3 of 2.02 to provide with respect to the mayor's dealings with other governmental entities to provide that no official action or position can be taken by the mayor on behalf of the city except as authorized by the council for Section 2.03 based on the last meeting we struck out um the language concerning uh the exception to the period out of four years that allowed um a person who served two consecutive terms as mayor to seek a position of council member and for further clarification providing that the fouryear period out of office requirement would apply to individuals who have served two consecutive terms as mayor and then try to seek the position of council member so essentially they can't go back and then section 3.14 which is the language that we um actually just discussed um providing that individual council members will appoint their members of each border agency um which was the consensus of the council um I'm sorry of this commission last meeting on the last page was the language that you guys asked for me to bring back which would be to incorporate um some semblance of 2.02 A2 um concerning basically Committees of the whole and to include it instead in this section um to that end I did look at section 1.08 of the county Charter and pulled similar language and so the proposed language would be a new subsection B of section 3.14 that will provide that the couny council May organize itself into standing committees special committees and ad hoc committees which may include non-council members upon formation of any such committees the council appoints um its members I pulled some examples of an ad hoc committee versus a standing committee and how they operate in the county if you have any questions as to that but essentially that would be the language would be proposing um toate our discussion of last meeting I thought I thought we voted on everything except that 3.14 I believe we voted on 3.14 a yes those changes and so this last page this is a proposal to add 3.14 B you guys have not voted on that it was just a discussion and direction to for me to bring back some language okay so do you agree that the one thing that we have not voted on is the 3.14 section B correct that's newly proposed language for your consideration but everything else on this paper we've voted for and they yes okay because if there's not if if there's anything that's missing Madam clerk I'd like to vote on those make sure we've adopted this yeah no and that's it okay well um I want to thank you for this this this sort of a status report that is helps keep us all on the same page um I think if we could clean this document up we could do we could vote on um 3.14 section B and then we would have all this paperwork this paperwork would be done one way or the other well I agree with the I agree with the wording that you are presenting on 3.14 you do you do agree or you don't I agree okay are you motioning to are you motioning to um adopt that language on 3.1 to approve that language is there a second second second okay any further discussion I'll p call a question okay do I have to now I have to have a second for the question no no okay okay okay I have a motion to accept the language on Section 3.14 as provided which states 3.14 b as provided which states the council May organize itself into standing committees special committees and ad hoc committees which may include non-council members upon formation of any such committees the council May appoint as members this was made by Vice chair canola and second it by member Roso Vice chair canola yes commission member Roso yes commission member G pekovich yes chair Jones yes motion passes okay oh let me see according to my notes and if you you might need some help here according to my notes we're um dealing with 3.01 correct the we discussed the compensation and we we decided to push put that off for some further discussion we were going to ask the U Finance folks to give us some additional barometers to measure by I did circulate some information as it pertains to that section to you all last week sometime or right right after your last meeting I'm not sure if you've gotten a chance to review it if not we could move this discussion to to another meeting and just move on to another section yeah I I don't want to move anything that I haven't read and I didn't I didn't read it okay all right um well let's go discuss 3.01 um my recommendation which I'm going to be supportive of was to delete section 3.01 and move the city manager position to 3.02 and put as a charter officer putting all three under the same procedure for selection if you look at 3.02 you'll see that even the heading of that I think um is for all three it's it treats them for I guess for a per Charter office um distinction it lists the city manager and the clerk and the um attorney is the charter officers Mr chair I would like some time to review the language on both sections please okay I got to for for okay you good now thank you you see that what this actually does it just um it makes a distinction that the city manager is in fact the same and goes through the same process for selection as a City attorney as a city clerk well from what I read 3.01 speaks only to how the mayor will nominate the manager and 3.02 speaks if there's a vacancy in the positions for City attorney or city clerk I'm reading these two sections to be very different not one that you can just copy and paste just the title into 3.02 so it flows with the rest of that section I I do believe they're completely different sections well yeah they are that's you see what it does it separates the city manager from from the selection process that you go through for the City attorney and the city clerk work the case that I'm making is they're all three Charter officers they should have to go through the same protocol for selection in the case for clarity I don't know if How the City attorney and the city clerk are selected if it's mentioned in another way another place within the charter I would suggest to put to include City attorney and city clerk as part of section 3.01 versus deleting 3.01 I'm I'm not sure I got that one Nicole um you want to leave 3.01 and modify that when it just seems like the language for the process is clear in 3.02 it would be a simpler thing in terms of the charter and the language that we go to the voters is to just move the city manager under the exact same same process as 3.02 again when I start reading 3.02 it says in the event of a vacancy in the position of the City attorney or city clerk the members of the city council shall each appoint one member to search to the search committee as provided in this section in order to be qualified to appointed to the search committee versus language on 3.01 the man manager shall be nominated by the mayor we're not speaking to vacancy um in accordance with this section confirmed by confirmation by the majority of the council upon a vacancy in the position of the city manager the mayor shall nominate and replace within such period of time deemed reasonable by the council then in the office the Lang this language doesn't appear in 3.02 essentially 3.02 just goes into speaking on vacancies and how the the City attorney and the city clerk are going to be appointed versus I I think there's more like of a start language in 3.01 as to the selection of well I'll I'll ask the attorney toine my my view is that we need to get the manager the city manager within the same context as a City attorney and a city clerk in the same process to select that person which the only only area where anybody appoints somebody subject to council approval this one the city the council itself has the same power they're all equal power under 3.02 and they have a process where they could they can even name themselves as that select as that committee they have the right under 3.02 to do that so correct so under 302 that is provides for a selection Comm committee process for the City attorney and city clerk if the will of the commission is to include the city manager to provide for that same process it would be appropriate to amend that section to include the city manager as a defined Charter officer for purposes of that section I would add though that does not specifically state that um the council can appoint themselves as members to The Selection committee that I believe has been inferred um and done in past history but doesn't explicitly state that um it doesn't if it yeah if it's I want to make sure that they understand that we're not taking anything away from the council they can appoint themselves to anything so if that if there there's there some areas here that you could point to that would uh that you think may be a problem with that no I'm just stating that doesn't exp explicitly state that they can appoint themselves the only qualifications to be um appointed is that um they have to be an elector and a resident of the city for no less than two years that's that's the only requirement but it doesn't explicitly state that the council can appoint themselves but I agree with you but in the in the item that we have just passed they can Council May organize itself into standing committees special committees and ad hoc committees so moving forward obviously but they can't that can happen and I think has it has been done it just hasn't expressly stated I was just pointing that out but yes historically it obviously has been done it was done as recently as yesterday so yeah I I agree with the the chair on the fact that this the city manager being a charter officer should follow the same um selection um procedure than the city clerk and the City attorney yeah just for a historical reference I can tell you that has been discussed and Adan item over previous Charter committees and the U and it just I think it's just time to get over that hump and and put it in there I think it clears up some of the items that have been discussed it all it does is it creates um this the three Charter officers have to go through the same exact selection process as Charter officers rather than I apologize CH I don't think that it creates them I think that they are already there the city council on 3.03 the city council chart prior to any City Council vote on the removal of any of the charter officers and the title is removal of city manager City attorney and city clerk I think that the three of them are a charter officers already yes the issue is in 3.02 the charter officers are specifically a defined term a City attorney and city clerk so if you look at 3.02 a it only provides the City attorney City Clerk or Charter officers and then provides for that selection committee so purposes of I believe what the chair is trying to effectuate is to change that so that the city manager is included in that list of Charter officers subject to those Provisions which would require a selection committee um in doing that then 3.01 would be repealed so that there's not a mayor nomination process I agree yeah yeah the the significance um Elizabeth is 3.02 the very first word is appointment and 3.03 is removal that's the that's the difference there's a the the removal has takes a completely different context of the selection to employ or to hire now as far as the nomination process can the mayor still nominate the manager does the mayor nominate a City attorney does the mayor nominate a city clerk no under current the the mayor does not nominate the City attorney or the city clerk that's done through the search committee process in 3.02 okay so then what we're essentially doing then is also taking that authority of nominating a city manager away from the mayor essentially yes that's what he's proposing essentially yes but but what it does it puts the all three of the um uh Charter officers having to go through the same thing before the select committee it's a selection process where where the mayor does a selecting and it just offers a name up under the 3.02 the select committee puts them all through the same process and then submits it to the council it's just a matter of everybody you don't have two separate processes because under the existing one the um the rest of the council only sees the selections that the mayor puts in front of them and that this other process they see everything because they're part of the there's a select committee that goes through that through their appointee well I think that the mayor having certain responsibilities and duties that are different from the rest of council this should stay the manager being appointed by the mayor should stay as one of her UH responsibilities or he whoever it may be it's essentially this provision has been done since the beginning of our Charter this is the way that it's always been no um and I think this is the product of um a change that was not done um comprehensively because in 2014 there was a change and then there was a reversion but the reversion only went to a piece of the section and I think that that's why I was mentioning that the three of them are Charter officers but in that process back in 2014 there was something Lost in Translation and we ended up up with a charter that is not explicit or very clear and as I have mentioned before I think that any legal document has to be very clear and especially our Charter so I I that's the reason I agree I think that the city manager is a charter officer and should follow the the same process that the other two okay EV that you have a comment on this no I I just to add because I know that Nicole was is bringing this up essentially for discussion and laying out um our positions the way I see it is that the charter is clear that we're a mayor council manager everyone has an equal vote and so um that's sort of how that's might push back to your concern about taking Authority away from the mayor and the fact of the matter is that you know I I think that this amendment creates a lot more consistency and Clarity if we put everybody on on the same all Charter officers you know on the same track as far as um being selected so there's any further discussion then we'll accept a motion and are we opposed [Music] to to putting the city manager the City attorney and the city clerk to being nominated by the mayor instead of removing that section no I couldn't support that it's it see what we're trying to do we're trying to get every the there's a flowthrough process that I think has some hiccups on it and one is it we partitions certain things out for the mayor that should be done by the council as a group and this selection process it solves that particular problem it does equalize everything because a m still has a seat still has to come before the comes before and she's part of that should be part of that selection committee or whoever she appoints if there's no sther further discussion not on my end motion yep I you know I will go ahead and I will motion to one second so I can state it for the click I we want to delete section 3.01 and then incorporate the city manager um as a charter officer in uh what is it 3.02 3.02 thank you Mr chair okay is there a second second seconded by Elizabeth any further discussion Nicole comment okay okay Madame Clark call the role please have a motion to uh remove section 3.01 and incorporate onto 3.02 is that correct correct correct okay with with the with the with this with the distinction of um I don't know Madam attorney what do we need to say do we need to do we need to be specific about the um change I think I I think it's been sufficiently clear 3.01 will be repealed and 3.02 will be amended to include city manager as a charter officer um I think me just for purposes legislative intent and so that it's clear the the intent is to move away from or to um not permit that the mayor nominate a city manager that any future city managers irrespective of the vacancy um and how it's created will go through a selection committee process as under 3.02 yeah my my comment to that and I thank you for that my comment on that is what it really does is is provide continuity it of a process that I think it's as equally as important as any any the individual authority to do it and now empowers the council in the entire process prior to the selection itself so is there a second Madam clerk call so I have motion to repeal section 3.01 and incorporate the appointment of city manager into section 3.02 made by board member Gonzalez pekovich and second it by Vice chair Kola commission member Gonzalez pekovich yes Vice chair Kola yes commission member Roso no chair Jones yes pass okay okay now did we did we vote on 3.14 yet or adopting your language I think we did yeah yes okay all right the next item in terms of sequence that we've laid out is 5.01 C which is the trying to move the um city um vote off of the general election cycle and I think we decided that we would just have one partic one meeting specifically for that process and um one of the problems with that we're going to run into to and um m madame attorney I'd like to ask you is there anything that this process can do that would coincide with a with the current expiration of terms so we don't have to get involved in any of that expiration or would you have time to study that I have not had time to study it but I can't imagine a scenario where changing the election date would not require some adjustment of terms because currently the terms run to no November so if you change the date there would have to be some extension um I well I'll save it I'll save that we're GNA do we agree by consensus we're going to set up a special meeting just to review that okay all right the um so we now have three items we got the office of Charter enforcement the item of um the um compensation and the one we're talking about so there are three items that we've set up for end of the process discussion yeah and for purposes of the office of the charted enforcement official I did distribute um a chronology with backup documentation um in the event that you know I'm not going to be here moving forward I just wanted you guys to have that information because I know some of it was unique to dealings that I had with um Mr Rosen um the link will expire in less than 30 days so just make sure that if you are going to review those documents that you download them in advance yeah and of course I'll always make myself available if you guys need to reach out to me okay thank you that by the way I recommend strongly that you read that I studied it and it's really a great a great report that follows through on a lot of the issues uh the only I couldn't do I couldn't open the I couldn't open the emails I think I'm I'm working on a lame computer with uh and it wouldn't open that it couldn't but I don't think think that I needed to to to have to see that to understand what you're trying to say I can um the the one there's one email with the correspondences between Mr Rosen and I I can PDF it and send PDF it would be good for me um and I I did like to make a comment on that before before we um before we move on you'll see in that document that there's apparently a lot of discussion by that selection committee um whether it to be a full-time position or a part-time and I think the attorneys at the time some somebody will find that the you didn't have that option under the way it's written so when you read that thing keep that in mind because maybe maybe we want to alter something to make that um I don't know that I'm ins supportive of it but I but I think it's something we need to consider because I think it has a lot to do with the budget and I think it'll have a lot to do quite honestly with the compensation of the person you pick and M Mr chair I me because I sat on on that committee I know that um a lot of the information were working off of was what had been reported to the depart the police department which had been kind of serving in that role and there was a lot of of you know representations that it was rather minimal and so there was just not a lot of perspective on how you know there wasn't a belief that there would be enough work if you will and so um but the reality is that this role has never actually kickstarted you know to figure out really how much work um can be involved so that was one of the um difficulties I think for one sitting on that board trying to make some of those decisions yeah I found out you were on that board by the what the information she provided us with and so when it comes time to that I'll ask you to take a leading role in that okay all right the um if if may I Mr chair um can we review please section 4.02 4.02 sure um let me see where I'm at here okay 4.02 I Y 4.02 A termination the city manager May terminate Department directors accepted the council by fourth fifth majority vote disapproves the termination I suggest that we change this to to the normal uh majority 3 to5 I haven't had let's see I have a question is there any other place in the charter that has um the 45th majority vote I don't know off hand I would have to look um where there's other areas for super majority I'm not sure um so essential essentially if I 402a specifically is it relates to termination if the council decides they don't want to lose that department directors it would take a Four f majority vote to overturn that that decision by the city manager is that correct so essentially this is like a veto boat yeah it's super majority okay um that's interesting we have some some conversations on that um I haven't visited that I I would love for Elizabeth and she was the one that presented it to maybe share with us your mindset um on that just truly to to keep it a simple majority I'm sorry I'm trying to shut my phone I'm not ignoring you okay okay I'm I'm sorry Elizabeth you repeat that because I didn't hear it I was trying to show just to keep a simple majority simple majority a simple simple majority okay that do you have some thoughts on that I mean I do think that throughout a lot of the meetings that we've had um and while obviously there's not always consistency um with everyone that sits up here I think a lot of it has been about you know this is not a a strong mayor City every Council council members vote is equal um and so the I I think that the Three-Fifths does support the idea that um the equality um amongst you know the council members and if the council believes that you know a particular fing shouldn't occur there there shouldn't need to be a super majority to do that Nicole I think if there's no other language within the charter that speaks to a super majority I don't disagree with the three fifths especially considering the actions that just took place it was at a 35 vote um I would think a city manager is just as important as our department directors and they weren't afforded that fourth fifth that super majority vote I don't disagree with putting it a 35 for everyone else I'm hesitant to but if I could just probably give some logic um generally speaking employees work at the will of the city manager um without interference by the city council so I actually have never seen this type of provision in in any Charter I don't think it's it's typical um because the idea is if the city manager is terminating directors and the council doesn't like it then you get rid of your city manager yeah so what so that's rather cryptic right they want to get they want to get the city manager wants to get rid of a department head and the council doesn't want to do it so they fire the city manager however I do like this as a safety net for the council to Aline with a decision that may be contrary to what the city manager is doing right instead of leading to such an extreme as to firing the city manager before those steps are taken if it could a situation like this could go to council and the council essentially revokes fetos the the city manager's decision I'm okay with that and I think the 35 vote would be sufficed to take that decision if needed well let me ask the attorney this question if you delete 4.02 a does that preserve what the what the what the folks are talking about under b 4.02 b no they're addressing two different things um if the will of this commission is to change it to a simple majority then we would just strike through four fifths majority vote and just put by majority yeah well what I meant by is they fire the city manager they fire the city manager I asking this is what I could foresee something happening think example I'm going to give you an example let's say there's a director who does something that's for cause doesn't work and then does something that's for termination for cause and the city manager terminates that person for cause they violated silly policy under this the council could override that I under under the fourth fifths just like the three fifths right well that's what I'm saying so that's why I'm saying you don't see that it's not typical because usually there's a lot of language as there is in the charter under 4.02 um that the city council should not be kind of meddling in employment matters right um so well that's why I ask if you eliminated 402a does the council lose anything in terms of overriding the city manager under 402b yes the if we you repeal 402a you would be eliminating the council's ability to override the city manager's um termination of a director and that's where the three three over five so yeah so is a simple solution if you want to take get rid of that four this majority just delete 402a and let no if if the intent to get rid of the super majority it would be to amend the four majority vote just to say by majority a majority okay well any further discussion on motion to app to amend section 402a to read the city manager May terminate Department director except if the council by a three F majority vote this approve C ammunition I would just put simple majority or just majority by a majority vote okay is there a second that what do you think you're not I'm admittedly I'm sorry I know that we're um I'm I'm a little torn just because you know my my concern is that you know the the manager for example is running you know the dayto day and then reducing it to you know a simple majority could also open the door for a a lot a lot of issues where like you know the council may not be dealing with the day-to-day as much as that manager um I'm a little torn on this admittedly I need to kind of think through it where I stand well I said will it take some time then hold on let's let's take some time I'll second the motion for purposes of discussion and and if I may sorry real quick um Mr chair the other thought that I had is you know there are all sorts of employment issues and labor law issues associated with this and then if you have the council sort of weighing in on a firing um you know maybe at that at at a at a simple majority it could expose the city to more litigation on labor issues um that's really what's keeping me from from you know seconding emotion like that because I I do think it provides con consistency in line with what we've been doing but I I don't know if that's smart for pures of let let me respond to your your consideration there this is very specific language this is only if the city manager wants to terminate somebody just a termination so it's very um it's it's it's rifle accurate in terms of what it's intended to do and it's only after the city manager has decided to terminate somebody right right right you're right so actually it's the reverse on the labor law issues well no because but I think you're right in that they would have to have a public meeting on it right and so they would be discussing what would be the manager's basis for termination why did you choose to terminate them and then overriding that decision so they would be having kind of these public discussions on very sensitive issues that would be right for litigation um and I will also add by overriding that decision you're compelling the manager to maintain an employee that they wish to terminate there could be hostile work environment cuz now that person you know was essentially fired and now reinstated and now working under a manager that didn't want them well that's that's and that's and again that's why I'm saying typically what you would see if a manager is going rogue and firing people um and the city council is dissatisfied with that then their remedy is to get rid of the city manager okay so then why don't we just keep it like this go ahead I'm sorry go ahead then why don't we just keep it like this it sounds like I I don't know if this has ever been put to practice but um I'm Pro avoiding chaos I'm Pro avoiding having to put an employee to have to defend their position or open up to maybe information that maybe wouldn't have been made public so considering that since there wasn't an issue to this ever I'm okay with leaving it also leaving it as it is yes as is leaving it as is because it seems like we're opening up a can of worms right there it it may be a simple change to do three fifths but it seems just based on this small discussion that it really could be a bigger problem than what we're foreseeing and and and if I may just to add what um the city clerk um just indicated is that under subsection B um it does say so other than expressly provided in 4.02 of this Charter presumably subsection a right neither the council nor any of its members shall in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any City administrative officers or employees to whom the manager en support power to appoint so basically again like other than the department directors in this limited kind of instance of being able to veto the manager's decision in every other instance the city council should not be involved in those matters yeah that see that was what I was thinking I without I have to confess I've not read read this or studied it with that kind of detail but it's why I ask the question if you go to a simple majority has it have we have the has the council given up anything under the rest of the language there no the council's not giving up and if you make it a simple majority it makes it easier it's giving the P the council more power to interfere in those decisions more power more power because and the issue of termination termination and it's specific about the office or the it's specific about the um the department of directors so it's not city employees not employees other than directors correct that's the way it currently reads so but again then you're going to you're going to relegate somebody to continue employment when your city manager wish to terminate them yeah well no I I understand understand that and and that's why you probably they' probably get rid of the manager first so they didn't have to deal with that I've I've got some U I've got some concerns about it in terms of um well I don't I I don't really know where where I'm at I I'm I'm I feel the same way Mr chair and and we hadn't brought this way up before correct is this the first time first time Elizabeth right to to kind of read it in conjunction with the rest of the charter as well I I would like the opportunity to do that um just so that I can uh feel confident with my position because I'm not at the moment admittedly well I I second it for purpose of discussion now um what's the procedure now can can I motion to table this as I as a second we table the item yeah of course would you would you accept that Elizabeth yeah that's right all our motion to table this for further discussion is there a second do we need a second I'll second that okay a second okay that's good Elizabeth you gave us something to think about or something else to think about okay um now the next item that that I have on my list is 501e which is runoff elections um we were given a lot of data most of I say most I think we got 32 municipalities there's only like 10 or 11 10 or 11 of them left that that don't have a that don't have not gotten rid of the runoff only in the case of a tie um got it here I've forgotten the count but I think there's 32 um I can chime in if you like Mr chair I have it in front of me um so 15 have a runoff five don't have a runoff and 14 have a runoff if there's a tie so you got 15 that have a runoff and you've got 19 that do not no essentially I essentially do not unless essentially do not correct yes you're right unless there's unless there's a tie right um and we've had some limited conversation on this we tied this into the um going off cycle for the election but I think this is um worthy of a discussion on a standalone item um is the committee ready to discuss this item about eliminating the runoff I am okay Nicole okay all right well I I can say now Connie you you got the information that um I think you provided provided us I think the discussion that always came up in the past was the cost of Elections and on this particular item it wasn't necessarily the cost it was more about that where the the elections are in November and now you're in Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and you don't get burn you don't get turnouts so and I think um I think that's the the the reason and I could support eliminating the runoff for no other reason than that because you don't get the turn off you turnout and what you want is a turnout I agree with you you agree so the C are we do we have are we an agreement on the I'm not asking at this point for a motion but and one thing I just want to ask for clarification um currently because it's not just e it's actually d as well that that's implicated um you can still have a runoff if there's an exact tie that's one option um but eliminate the runoff if somebody doesn't get the minimum 50% you know something like that so I just want to make sure that when you have the discussion you kind of flush out you know what exactly you want well I think we're trying to eliminate that 50% thing at least my view on it is because if you have four people running the same seat nobody's going to get the 50% say the majority vote exactly so so we're dealing with subsection d right okay I'm sorry well here let's let's see if I can simplify the question in front of us um are we are we in support of eliminating the runoff except for ties I am I am as well Nicole My worry is how is that information going to be if that's the decision how is that information going to get to the residents as to how the election process in their city has been changed they'll vote on it they vote on it only happens if they approve approve it this has to they have to vote on this just because we obviously just because we decide that it should go on the ballot doesn't necessarily mean that the voters will approve it so just by virtue of voting on it they'll be informed I mean I think there's a lot of other ways that they will find out as well right which is but um because not everybody votes huh right not everybody votes not everybody knows what our election processes so I mean I have a concern I am I would hope that we would have enough spirited uh candidates that get the message out on that they should vote because to me without regard to this issue we should encourage everybody to get out to vote period I mean the fact of the matter is that because the the turnout in the runoff is always less what ends up happening is that you know in a runoff you can end up with a candidate who wins who really did not get the majority of the vote in the city understand and so that that's highly problematic I think so that's my main reason why I I would support this change well the the 30,000 foot level because we're on this election cycle where there's there's a down ballot you have you you knows you could look at these things and you have a lot more people voting like for the president and the mayor Ian excuse me the senator or whatever and they don't B they don't vote going down but the ones that come out for for that for the runoff election those are your serious voter I mean those are your serious voters and that's where you don't have enough of those that choose to come out because of the holidays so the idea is that if you're on that General Electric um excuse me the general election cycle you're going to get more voters so hopefully the candidates running would all would get more votes that you would even if they don't get 50% and and truthfully just to add another point I think the residents um would find this to be very positive because I think that at least definitely from the last election and I know it's not the only one you know people get exhausted as well with the candidates you know campaigning and so I I think you know moving into the holidays and and all of that I I think it would be welcoming to know that the vote that happens on the general is it yeah and I and I believe it it's also in the best interest of of all of us of the residents of the city because yes during the general election people tend to go out and vote but later on you end up with with 20 votes it's it's really the the amount it's 3,000 people out of 70,000 votes so it's like so that's why I'm in favor of deleting the the runoff election you run the risk of the runoff not really reflecting the will of the of the majority um Connie and I I don't can't put my fingers on I got it somewhere what's the cost that I think work member serves is 60 something thousand so yeah 60,000 60,000 the stand for the stand alone runoff election is 60,000 approximately you know every year goes up down but that's the approximate memory service is around 62,000 I am sorry I haven't you know expressed if I'm opposed or for I just wanted to speak on my concern sure and this is great discussion right because we all gave a little bit of information as to how it would be helpful to eliminate this cost savings really getting the voters to vote on the candidate the first round who they choosing again my point of view was just more of an educational perspective just making sure that that information would be given out to the residents knowing that not all our residents vote right um continue Connie I'm sorry I cut you off there okay Mr chair if I may please so with the discussion of the removal potential removal of the runoff election just wanted to bring to your attention in subsection C of that 5.01 also States a runoff election if necessary shall be shall be held in the second Tuesday in December so that if if you all choose to remove the runoff language that section that portion of that section will also have to be stricken okay yeah and the 50% has to be amended to a majority well unless there's well you can keep it for exact ties I I think that we can keep it for exact TI which are very unlikely but F exact ties work well just again to go back to something I I shared with you in a mo a moment ago uh the runoff election there's 15 that have a runoff election and there's 19 including the ones that 14 in case only in case of a tie and let me just read you the names of these Indian Creek Miami Springs West Miami Bay Harbor Islands Bay Harbor Village Golden Beach High medley Miami Shores opaka pal Bay Pine Crest South Miami Sur side those are the ones that um a lot of these are the ones that were late in corporation like like we were like Dell and I think it seems to be the trend to go off that runoff election so that that's that's that's a um that's an indicator to me that I could support that based Bas on 19 other communities of various um positions of um wealth let's say and and and populations so if we if we get to the um if we get if we get through discussions and you want to act on it tonight I could tell you I could be supportive of of removing the runoff elections based on the cost cost the number of other communities that are doing it as as as well as the holiday period and you don't you don't have a choice because that's the election cycle you're on okay well is it do you want to make a motion any I want to move it I I'll go ahead and make a motion I'll I'll make a motion oh wait wait a minute did I I seconded that for discussion didn't no that was the other one okay okay keep me straight we're moving for with the motion just with point of clarification here we would still keep it in case of a tie correct Yes except in case of a car so I'd like to put a motion to um amend the charter removing runoff elections um unless there is a tie and while the way I've expressed it may not be the best way at the moment I hope that the City attorney can capture it um I'm sure we need some language for when there is a tie so I'll leave that to you to come up with what's appropriate absolutely is there a second I'll second any further discussion M clar call the rooll I have motion to remove the runoffs and to revise the ballot language the and to revise the language to for to include for unless there is a tie I'll I'll word it better in the minutes I promise May by commission member Gonzales seconded by chair Jones commission member Gonzalez pekovich yes chair Jones yes member Roso yes Vice chair can yes motion passes okay um now the next one I have is 6.02 the charter revision this is this group um I was surprised that I've been on so many of these things I didn't see this before this Charter is silent on two items that need to be addressed there is no provision in the event that you have no previous Committee Member available to serve which in case in point could be made then you can't have a charter review meeting and a fact you may not be able to have one at all I've asked the attorney to make a recommendation on how to deal with this issue as each council member has the right to appoint the representative some memb is required to appoint the previous service member and needs to be addressed because what if the council members nobody wants to appoint the previous sitting sitting member even if you had one so I I suggest that we have someone from previous Charter commissions appointed but as um at large without voting rights just for the purpose of historical on on the revision um I I don't think that would work Elizabeth because if I let's say it's me and if I don't think I'm can vote on something that I I'm being asked to opine on I don't think I would serve I think you you can't you can't have a position where somebody can opine and then they can't vote no no so not opine but to be there as a as uh like a point of reference the point of reference the yeah I I don't think I could support that um the I think I think I think there has to be a way and they could do but there has to be a way that you could even serve because I think the more Pro likely probability is that you're not going to have somebody that can or will serve that's the biggest problem I see so there has to be some way in the event that that person is not available the city council is going to have to find some way to go forward with a charter review so there has to be a way to do that you you know my my concern is that I think it's a it's a great practice and it's available we should have it um but I think that if if we just stated that they're if they're not a ailable then you don't have it it's two they're kind of like two Polar Opposites there has to be yeah you know something in the middle um I was going to ask Madame attorney do we do we have any perspective on other cities and how they do it even if it's outside the county I'll take a look I I don't have that information off hand um not in particular with respect to a previous Charter commission I know at least one other jurisdiction they do allow one current sitting council member to be in like ex officio type me you know member to the but I can look at that specifically to see but the idea is for the person to actually have hands-on experience um with previous committees I can survey um some municipalities and see um come back with some language I think it's obviously a big plus but I agree that we also don't want to jeopardize the possibility of a commission not being able to sit on account of that yeah this is this is I think this and another ask attorney to a p on that right now if you didn't have a previous um count a person that serve could you have a Char review meeting you know I don't know I don't it would certainly frustrate the purpose right the intent is to convene one yeah um I think you I think you'd end up in essentially what we call a charter crisis so for the for the sake of discussion I I have two other options but but I agree if if there's no one to serve one is one doesn't work so right it's it's not it's not prac it's either to delete the the the requirement yeah or have someone that is only serving as as a a reference right a non voting member probably the best thing is to remove it Mr chair if I may but then you also till that point you also have to figure out who appoints that person yes see that's who do you who appoints that other person yeah well that that was the other idea but just uh thinking of five members here and that was one of the of the ideas that came to me was the same rotation that currently for vice mayor So within Council they can have that person be appointed on a rotation basis every years so I think that's going to be challenging um but if you have it as an ex officio non voting member then you would still have each council member elects one person to the committee and then the council as a whole can select whoever the exoo non voting member is that's good I I'm as to as the problem is if that person does not exist does not exist or is no longer in the world well if they're non voting I don't think it's going to frustrate the purpose we can provide for language you know if no such member is able to be located or exist the committee can still be convened because you still have now you know a whole board I I just think that the we need to compensate or supplement the value of having that person in some way shape or form whether it's a matter of I mean I know this sounds painful but like either some type of report that pulls from the past or I mean I feel like the the the committee needs to have some perspective historically it can't just be like oh it doesn't exist so that's it um now what that would look like I don't know yet um I was just thinking that like you know putting together either some presentation that's required from the city attorney to give that perspective or the you know City I don't know I don't know yet um let me think about that for a minute the um let's assume for a moment that the a previous uh member is available right now there's still no requirement that any of the five sitting uh elected officials would would appoint that person and now that that's the first statement the second one is should we then assuming that happens should the should we say one of the elected officials now you you suggested a rotation but maybe we should invest that in one in and let's say the mayor's office the mayor's office would be the one if no one else was willing to do it maybe the mayor's office would have that authority to name that person is that complicated no I mean it's whatever you guys want to proceed with you could certainly relegate that appointee to the mayor I think the difficulty is going to become of course if there's no one to serve um as an appointee that you was a former um commission member well yeah and then of course there could be the Declaration that there's nobody available but maybe there is somebody available and then you're going to get into yeah well I I think that really complicates it personally even though I suggest it I think it complicates it because now what happens if if the mayor now says that position has to name that person what happens if one of the other four members want to want to name that person see I think it complicates it I don't know I don't know how to deal with that I think I think that's a little above my pay grade I think I think that there is an Essence component to having some sort of historian being part of yeah the charter commission yeah and I think there needs to be some type of Remedy in the event of they not being that person what happens I do like kind of a hybrid model what Elizabeth was saying perhaps doing something on a rotation based on the vice mayor rotation so I really don't know how this could be resolved well Madam attorney um the Sun is setting but is there is there a again I can look at other jurisdictions see if there's something there that we can look to for some guidance even if we do rotate the appointment it doesn't resolve the issue of if there's no member to serve I think that's really the core issue here I think we can work through you know how to make it fair as far as who appoints and who gives up their ability to appoint not ability but their who they can appoint because they have to go with the historian um I think the bigger issue is what do you do when you don't have well that's what I'm suggesting I think the I think I I think this is a uh significant enough legal complication that we need to let I think we need to let Council look at this and see it's the the charter is actually silent on this and there's nothing we can go through May I add something else that it's not in here but to me is important um there are no the only requirement is that you are an elector of the city I do believe that people sitting here should have at least two years the same do as other areas of the charter indicate before before sitting on the charter Commission because that also brings certain historical data for for to be able to discuss what changes or not may be happening but that's not here so that's yeah Madam attorney if you could note that to whatever you guys take into consideration I think it's a good point if if you if there's consensus if you want to take up that discussion and if there's consensus for that that's kind of an easy fix we can vote on that and include it if and then we can deal with the larger issue of um the other thing if you want to bifurcate it that's up to you I don't want to vote on an empty bucket I think I think what we need we need guidance from from Council legal guidance you're going to put something in here if we put it in here I don't know that could stand any kind of a calibration test certainly the we have to take into consideration the elected officials uh there's just a lot of moving Parts there and it's silent I think this really needs to come I think the charter review commission obviously the county has it most every other city has it we maybe that's a starting point to look see where the other cities are what they're doing it correct like I said I'll do a survey of other communities um to see what they have and if they have that requirement I I candidly have not seen that um but I'll go through the different Charter see if it's there and if it is if they have any kind of caveats or outs in the event that there is not an available former member to participate well the answer May simply be um to eliminate that need if it you see if if if the solution is worse than than the disease okay we may just need to need to relieve that from this from that requirement to serve yep that's a policy decision for you guys to make yeah you know I I would say that if that's the direction we have to go just because you know there are no other options I still think we should do our best to see how we can still encourage or or put some type of language that encourages having some type of a historian present um but if one cannot be obtained Etc I I don't want to do outright away yeah no the simple version would be to to um where it says that they need to be you might have to say that if one's available that you have to pick them if not then you have to go for without them maybe that's the simplest way but i' I'd rather have more wiser minds and mine o Pine on that agreed yeah maybe it's this you know putting in language that if this is if this cannot be located or this can't be obtained you know then the commission still moves forward which I think the way it reads right now it wouldn't at a minimum you know we'd have to lay that out not to you know create a crisis in the future okay so by consensus we're going to ask the attorney to again to check this out yeah yeah okay all right well that those are the last uh notes that I have are there is are there any items that um that we where we got we got about another half hour um let's see does anyone have any other items that we're not listed we're not listed um I think I thought there was a couple here eight so um that if that be the case then let's take talk about there our next meeting date we've already picked is that's the 21st okay um did you want to bring up uh one of the other sections that required a whole day discussion well that before I do that I want to ask the you and the attorney are there any items that we've discussed other than those three well I guess now we have four four items okay um have we voted on all the other ones now we we know where we're at and and when would we assuming that that my I'm correct when would we see some language that would um that would go before the voters well I think you have to be done by April correct correct yeah yeah I just say I I just wondered is when would we start to see that language the ballot language specifically because I've already provided kind of strikethroughs and underlines as we're going through it so you have that um but specifically the ballot language will get prepared as we get closer okay well I I certainly want to see that language because we're going to have to vote on it to submit it to council correct I'd like to see that language as well as the language is going to end up in the charter of how it functions of course okay okay the um we're scheduled next for the 21st corre do we want to try to meet again in um in February 29th works I don't know if it works for you all 29th yep Abol sleep year it is it's a great day to do it it's like we're not really here is the 20 29th good for everybody it works for me February 29th is Leap Year it's like are you super we may we may not be here we don't know no I'm serious there are a lot of people superstitious about that fine you're fine you're good okay 29th Nicole and Bruce when he emailed me that he wasn't going to be here he said you know anything after the 29th work so the 29th works for him too uh Mr chair I have a question I know that we have I think already two um meetings that we wanted to dedicate to certain um to the issues can we identify when like in other words on the 29th can we identify already what we're going to discuss on that day just so we can be hyper prepared yeah I I think so um Madam clerk why don't you tell us which the items are sure so we have let me see let me scroll down here we have section 2.06 which talks about compensation um that information was provided to you all last week I believe then we have 2.07 which is the office of Charter enforcement and we have 4.02 which was just discussed today about the prohibitions pro what was 4.2 okay and the ti title on that 4.02 uh prohibitions that's the one that Vice chair controller just brought forward about the four fits vote okay and we also have uh 6.02 yes can you give us a quick description just oh sorry 6.02 is a charter compens the composition yeah um okay that's what I have well um on the issue of 2.06 um did the finance department give you any of the other I didn't read that you sent it you sent it to us I sure did yes sir okay if I can't find it I'll ask you again okay no problem does did everybody else get it did you get it Elizabeth okay maybe I just didn't open that up okay w we going to discuss uming the election from November T I didn't was that referenced in these sections that you just yeah we table that we did we taed it and um I don't know I don't I don't remember you know if there was a consensus on not pursuing that or not I'll tell you it I mean it's it's it's there's a lot to it yeah I I I was envisioning that the office of treasure enforcement in that section were the two that may require their own meetings but if we got past it and we decided we didn't want to go down that route that's fine as well well then let's let's do this then um if we took uh if we took them in not necessarily in order but if we took 2.06 on compensation uh I don't think we need a full meeting for that I agree with that so maybe what we could do we could put the compensation as as well as that off cycle um because that you're you're either going to you're either going to get rid of it quickly or you're going to set up another another meeting to discuss it right that's my prediction because of the experience I've had with that and and the off cycle is worth discussing um and there there are um 19 existing communities that are off cycle and they're the big ones are so that's definitely where that's and and you sent us that information did you not Connie yep okay okay I've got it I just want to make sure everybody else had it so and now um for the meeting after that we should we we're we're going to have some language back uh from you on the 4.02 on the on the um on the four fist majority you were going Tock no I think you guys were going to just think about it further okay yeah okay um well then maybe what we should do we could put instead of off cycle on two on U on the next meeting maybe we should that put 4.02 and 2.06 together yeah y that's a great idea two yeah okay and then compens um the for the charter comp comp position the charter member composition I could try to get something quickly I can look tomorrow I'll do a survey of other jurisdictions and at least I can provide that information you guys can discuss it further okay so for the 21st Mr chair I have 2.06 4.02 and 6.02 say that again 2.06 4.02 6.02 well you will do will they have information back yet on on 6.02 I think you're going to need more time than by the next meeting oh by the 29th no the 21st right 21st 21st we're talking about the 21st yeah she's I'm I'm only I only have two things for the 21st the compensation and the 4.02 okay and you you want to we can leave it on there yeah I would add 6.02 again I could do a survey I can go through the various jurisdictions it's just pulling up the charters and Mooney code you know honing in on that section and see what I could find and then I'll be able to say listen this is all of these cities you know don't have that requirement the ones that do this is how they deal with it and then we can discuss it further Mr chair I think that we if we do 2.06 and 4.0 I'm sorry if we do um if we do 2.06 and 4.02 I think we'll probably have time at least to get into 6.02 and then if we need to push it into the next meeting yeah or give it its own because it's that compc let's just schedule it 2.06 four 4.02 and 6.02 and if we get to it we get to it okay and for the 29th you want to leave the office of Charter enforcement yeah yeah yeah okay yeah all by itself just and probably at another hour yeah okay okay okay I think that does it that's good that's a good game plan all right we're we're doing good here okay all right how are we doing here and is there anything else you want to go talk about tonight folks we're on schedule we're early we did our homework thank you Nicole did I make a motion to adjourn Mr chair or is there anything else no I don't think so no all right Nicole second a motion sure I'll in favor I I show Mission carries unanimous and we're done thank you all no thank you thank you all okay