the broadcast is now starting all attendees are in listen only mode Madam clerk call Mark order this is the charter revision commission meeting Wednesday March 6 approximately 6:17 p.m. Jesse Jones present Elizabeth Kola present I Gonzalez pekovich present Bruce Kaplan present Nico Roso present Mr chair you have corn thank you pledge lead to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republ for stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all okay um we'll open the floor to public comments any public comments I don't have anybody signed up Sir okay close public comments please okay and everybody take a moment review the minutes any comments a motion chair motion to accept submitted motion I'll second it moved by Mr Ka seconded by AET all in favor I oppos likewise sh the motion carries unanimous okay now discussion items 2.06 this is the one that um we talked about the um salaries and everybody take a moment and get that in front of you I had it here just to review what we we we didn't table it because we didn't have a motion but you T we decided we wanted some time to think about it I think um I that had some things she wanted to think about and I think Nicole so did you um for a point of reference um the discussion centered around freezing the salary of the mayor at the current level and then pegging the salary of the um elected I excuse me the rest of the council members to a percentage of of that um my recommendation was 70% so there was a discussion of 50% but the logic that I put forward for the reason of the higher one is the fact that I do believe that the role of the city council all five members is expanded significantly when that salary was set at um 50,000 and 12,000 subject to um increases um the roles were a little bit different but this city now is just going bonkers and these uh I think all five members are doing a Yan's job and I think the salar should be closer together and I think the um as I referenced the um last time or the first time we put forward um this Charter Review Committee put forward a recommendation to Peg the um councilman's salary to 50% uh of the mayor's salary at that time um it went out to the voters and there was not one single uh Precinct that voted to approve that so it doesn't give me a lot of hopes that anything we do with this area is going to have a lot of success although I'm hoping that if we do um put something on the ballot from this from this committee I'm hoping that by capping the salary give instead of finding a way to increase the salary voters have a reluctance to increase and I said that all the in of all the elections that I voted for at the day county level I voted against every one of them and uh but here where it's our city and we want good people we want them to be able to uh have be compensated for what they do and there was a valid point brought up by Nicole that there's a certain amount of people who desire to um give their time to to the city that you know they shouldn't expect to be you know paid at a certain higher level which I support the concept but the bottom line is that that demand has gotten so heavy now that it's not it's almost hard to consider it a part-time job now so and even if they do have extra jobs um I still think that they we should try to at least compensate um uh what I would to call a fair compensation for the time they put in so that's the background so I think I'll ask um either vet and Nicole if you've had time to reflect on it do you want to do you want to bring those points up again well I can I can summarize um my points for for just give the attorney a second to welcome welcome Mr Mr attorney sorry to few Sir Mr School Board attorney Mr Geller welcome rain delay rain delay uh the rain was bad traffic was worse yeah um okay so my I'm sorry so my opinion on this is that public service shouldn't be tied to a salary plain and simple I I think the motivator should not be an income I think with what is paid to the council members and the mayor is suffice they do have their I I believe it's a stien that they have an addition to a salary and again just the economic time that we're in and how it affects our community I just I I don't I don't see how our elected officials can ask or be given an increase in salary when our own residents are struggling to stretch a dollar even with good salaries so I just don't think it's the right time to do so yeah and I appreciate that Nicole I think but I I want to make clear again the point that um prior to this these times I think it's at least 10 years ago could have been 15 years ago I don't remember the actual date but I saw this is a is something that was deficient uh 10 or 15 years ago and it passed through this Charter Review Committee to to give them to um Peg the mayor's I mean excuse me the council's salary to 50% of whatever the mayor was making so this is not a new item here for me personally uh and I made that clear so this is not coming from any mo nobody's asked me for any for for anything this is just something that I've always felt it quite honestly um like right now um based on the numbers I I don't remember the current numbers but at the time it did get on the committee we were paying the council members 12,000 the Miami day County Commissioners are paid 6,000 so and I think we had um I think Elizabeth had some numbers for the various communities that to show that we're we're not really out of line with the with the numbers we're talking that we're talking about so Nicole do you want to comment I Mr chairman I I just just very briefly thank you for for bringing this up I just kind of want to share a cautionary tale if you will as as as yall down south say bless your heart for for your votes against the uh against the the raay and and salary having earned those $500 a month at the county going back back to the 1960 something Charter I can tell you that was grossly inadequate but the the cautionary tale is this you can establish this as public service you can establish this as a part-time job you can establish it with whatever we intend it to be and and it's taken on a life of its own as the cities have grown as the responsibilities have enlarged and particularly as the budgets have enlarged uh there were a bunch of there areund and something Mayors from around the the hemisphere in town a week ago um the GDP of most of their countries are smaller than the GDP of half the cities in D County so what I what I can tell you is that what happens then is yes the salaries remain at whatever they were set often during incorporation but very cleverly all kinds of supplemental budgets are approved all kinds of slush funds happen all kinds of um travel um allowances begin to become formalized although they begin as temporary then they become institutionalized and all of a sudden you're looking at 60 70 100 $130,000 of cash unaccounted for mostly um and a $500 a month salary so the the cautionary tale is often be be careful what you wish for because somebody will find a way around the best intention and that is public service I agree with the Cole this is public service that is true it's you're not in this for money yes I think I've lived long enough to see some of that laress Nicole excuse me you that not not at all you you looked at me I knew what you were referring to so I put a lot of thought into this um and thank you for the time um Jesse that you offered or you provided for for me to think through this so first of all what I want to say is um Mr chairman in princi I actually agree with you wholeheartedly um I also think that and I've said that the last time there's sort of I feel like there's been a running theme um during this committee um uh from some of us to remember that every vote on this day is equal um and naturally you know one would think well obviously then the work you know is arguably equal as well and and compensation you know should try to be more equal right um my thought though however is that I don't I I I'm not going to support it at this time for this particular um tread Review Committee and first of all you've said uh Mr chairman how you know it it didn't pass at all in any um it didn't get any support in any of of the precincts and so I'm sort of hesitant to add yet another potential Amendment to the Charter on the ballot um to others that we we think may actually have more support and pass and and create confusion so that's one reason um it feels like we are putting it out there obviously for the I think for the residents to to consider it think it through and the way that its message could make a difference this time around but I think historically since it's failed in the past I wouldn't want to just add it when there's other stuff that we we proposing as well um and and potentially it wouldn't pass anyways the other thing as well is that I think um definitely over the last um few years maybe two years there's been a lot of like debate and contention and misinformation for certain um regarding uh compensation or benefits to those that serve um and while I do believe uh wholeheartedly that um a lot of that messaging has confused the residents the residents aren't even really clear on what some of this stuff is my fear is that putting something like this forward um this time around will be um will be presented in a in a sort of in a in a corrupt Way by others unfortunately Mr chair um and I think that uh it doesn't have a great shot of getting approved and my thought process that moving forward for something like this maybe it should come directly from the dayis give the residents an opportunity to come speak to it and see how they feel about it I did put a lot of thought into it because I do agree um I I'm of a different mindset maybe than Bruce and Nicole while obviously people serve because it's it's in their heart you know they want to serve the community um I do do believe very much so that proper compensation is appropriate I think it contributes to the Integrity of the position I think it dissuades OBS sitting uh officials from trying to make money through their position in other ways especially if they value their compensation I don't think much of that has been spoken of but that's a core belief that I have that contradicts or or it's completely contrary I think definitely to what Nicole has stated maybe to what Bruce has stated but I am of the position that are elected should be properly compensated in a way that the voters and the residents agree with um however just because of what's happened in Dural and the misinformation and the way that um things have been distorted um at this juncture and I'm referring to specifically Mr chair to the pensions and and all of that that was going on my con my my preference on this issue would be that it potentially comes from the deis and really give not only the council an opportunity to have direct interaction with the voters as to why it would be appropriate but also to give the voters an opportunity you know to speak directly on it not to say that this means does not give them an opportunity I don't want that I don't want it to be interpreted you excellent excellent point the the the do you think that you can count enough noses on the council what we do what we do is irrelevant unless they actually put it on the ballot do you think it would pass the I don't know if it would pass but I do think that if historically it hasn't I'm just worried about adding things on the ballot that would add to further confusion maybe you know discourage people from continuing down the ballot and vote on some of the other things that could potentially pass um and that's just sort of from like an efficiency standpoint from uh I'll just leave it at that but but in truth I'm just really concerned about uh putting this forward at this particular time let Mr on a scale of 1 to 10 if we have 10 items in front of us where does this stand in your order of importance in terms of wanting to put this particular issue forward well the intent as I stated earlier we're going to come up with them all we're going pass them and then we're going to go through and evaluate them again and see which ones we want to carry forward okay now and and that's that's but but I also want to comment on this um and I'm not trying to um pick on your logic but but but it's confusing to me let me tell you why um you make a strong point which I've laid out clearly that it didn't pass okay and I don't put a lot of high hopes for it but based on what comments you made you're making a decision based on what we'll call you know a public and a public uh a public forum so your votes being influenced or your support is being based on public influence and at the same time you're not willing to put it on the ballot and let the people vote for it that's confusing to me there's there's some I think I understand your logic and maybe there's some truth to it I think for me I started off with the point that if if the likelihood of this getting support and passing from the voters is low and we've actually put quite a few changes forward so far if they do go forward and it for a vote or not I I just I wouldn't want to add something that you know the chances of it getting support seemingly are low to and then potentially compromise the possibility of some of the other items passing that's just my I I started sort of with that point and then secondarily I'm offering you you know sort of some of my concern and and my logic which I hear you maybe it contradicts I'm I'm not arguing with your logic matter of fact I'm just trying to show you where it conflicts a court of public opinion has apparently already influenced you which I'm going to propose to you that should never be a part of your convention up you're up here to make decisions based on what you think is right for the city not your concern about things on the Public Public Opinion when what we're doing is passing anything we do puts it directly in front of the public in the public and letting them vote on it yeah I I agree with that and I think in theory we are putting it in front of the voter and allowing them you know to vote on it but but the reality of it is you know that when it comes to money and budgeting and all of that I I feel like just the ballot language or just the language on the ballot it's probably not going to do it enough Justice for people to really understand where things are coming from um especially something you know of this nature and so I'm just concerned that that maybe the opportunity to discuss it you know and I don't want to take I'm not necessarily taking back steps I mean I've already been clear I would support it myself personally if this was on the ballot um whether it's a 50 or 70 I don't know but I would support it because as I stated I do believe in comp in proper compensation and I agree with you wholeheartedly on that I think my hesitation is just primarily on your cander in that it hasn't been successful in the past and so you know why put it forward if we have some other a number of other items that have more chances um and then I am and and you're right Mr chairman I am concerned you should be and I'm not saying you shouldn't but by the same token those of you're talking about voters and the process of voting so anybody runs through office and loses the first time around they should never run again because of public you have to operate on your conviction without a doubt and what you believe is best what I'm saying to you is that that and i' I've made this clear from day one I think we need to deal with this compensation thing I think it needs to go before the voters I think they need to vote it up or down I don't think we should purger this that that concept going forward and bottom line is when we get through we get them all past we're going to look and go over them again before we decide to send them all up and uh that's probably that's yeah real quick Elizabeth just a point of clarification on procedurally how this works what we've what we have approved by a majority vote on this committee thus far as far as changes can you remind me how it works does it automatically go on the ballot because we've approved it or no there's yet another step before it actually hits the ballot it's it's up to us and technically and I and I'll ask the attorney to aine technically once we vote on it it's it it's it's eligible to go to to the ballot but what we've always done as a matter here we take a look at whatever we've passed we go over it again and we'll see that do because we decided on individually now we look at them collectively and I can tell you and again in all honesty I don't know of any of them that that we passed that didn't go in the ballot and several of them get voted down and I think that if you have if you if you're the if you're the opinion and I'm not I'm I think I'm paraphrasing you you yourself would support it at The Ballot Box I don't know if it's seven but yes I I do believe the compensation needs to be you know more leveled well I I threw numbers out and we so I'm talking about the concept now if I if I'm paraphrasing you correctly you would support at The Ballot Box but if that's the case now that you're looking here and you're concerned about the public opinion previously in influencing that I don't think that's what we're up here for I think we're up here if we have something we think is good for the city that's what we should be doing if we don't think it's good for the city we shouldn't be doing you know truth be told the reason why I would support this is because I am a firm believer that those who are up here serving should be properly compensated in order to offer further assurances that behind closed doors the people that are up here are not using their position to make money in other ways and are more protective of their role one would think that you shouldn't need that to ensure that that doesn't happen but I think it assists in in giving that Assurance so that's why I do support it and I think each vote up here is equal it doesn't make sense the disparity we're at what the council's at about 25% right of what the mayor makes when in it seems like almost in every other city they're at least at 50% so Durado is different in that regard so just from the numbers I think it's appropriate to do so I guess the reason why I was giving push back more than anything Mr chairman is because you've been very candid and adamant that it hadn't received support in the past and I do believe we've passed a number of um other proposed changes I don't know if relative to other years it's more than than usual but my thought was I didn't want those to kind of get lost or to lose you know maybe one might say adding one more what difference does it make if may I I yes I I thought toally agree with you and one I believe that the there should be more level the the the amount of of work that the five of them do is almost the same they go through all the minutes to all the reviews to all the research almost the same so it has to be more level one two I do agree with you on the fact that it has to be in my opinion it has to be very clear to the residents out there that whomever is sitting here does have a way to make a living MH I I agree with you that it's public service but you also have to make a living and I agree in the sense that when you see that someone is making $50,000 a year and they have to take care of a family but they are sitting here it can be tweaked you know it can be visualized on a different way out there and yes you don't want anyone thinking that behind closed doors there are some other arrangements or some other things going on because $50,000 is not going to make it uh plus you're making $50,000 plus they have to be in every single event Saturday Sunday morning nights so at what time do they work so I I do believe that their salaries should be more level um I will be supportive of that I am concerned of the fact that Mr chair you say that it hasn't passed maybe it has been the wording um I don't know but definitely I believe that the the salaries should be more level going to what you said Bruce um the total compensation they have is there 70,000 18,000 for the council members they have $30,000 in a stipend that they do not have to as you said they do not have to to to report it report to to yeah to how do you say that to account for and they all have uh Insurance Dental insurance medical insurance and they have a 401k for for government officials so those are all their their benefits Elizabeth you you you raise a very good point and and it kind of begs a question first how much is enough and if we're looking at some kind of a a brick wall to fight corruption um how much is enough if if a person is hellbent on doing a corrupt act doesn't matter if they're earning a 100,000 200,000 500,000 by Nature by Nature they're going to try and steal something um so hopefully those would not be the folks that would win elections but that begs a second question and that is okay if you're setting a salary for somebody who's going to be an elected official it happens that a lot of lawyers become elected officials because it has to do with lawmaking and Regulatory issues but what's the Criterion just because someone happens to be a nice person does it mean that they should get a salary to go to concerts and go to all the stuff you mentioned absolutely nothing to do with legislation and absolutely everything to do with the the fringe benefits of being an elected official which is going to every event outside of City Hall so there there there there are two parts one is ceremonial and one is legislative so must you be qualified to to perform your legislative duties police officer has to have accreditation and continued accreditation and go to the range every X number of of of of weeks months and and and residual training and that's why we pay them not nearly enough but uh for an elected official to say I'm a great guy I want to go to this party um and I raised enough money to get elected doesn't necessarily automatically qualify them totally totally agree with you and and if I may agree with you I I just want to say something real quick I think that a lot of the examples that we've given about all the hard work that comes up here is like oh going to this event weekend but what I find is that the real work that that is involved here is not necessarily in going to the events and like putting your face up it's in digging your head into computer researching meeting with the right people that would know about meeting with the experts you know trying to find real solutions to whatever the concerns are of the residents not necessarily attending every opening of a brand new shopping center and so bringing it back to the compensation aspect of it I mean that's think the the the events is the easy part in my my thought the hard part is giving hours at researching meeting with you know subject matter experts and things of that nature which I I just wanted to make the point wasn't spoken of let me clarify have the intellectual capability of understanding what the subject matter yeah no no let me let me clarify when I when I said let me clarify when I said events and and all those things I was not saying that that was a hard job what I was saying is that it takes time from them and even if it's because they have to be there because they have to to to be present to to be part of the city as a whole it takes time it takes time to commute to the place to be there two hours to commute back to the place so what I was speaking about is at what time what time they have left to actually have a part-time job or a or to do this work what I was referring the hard work and and I agree with spend time with her spend time with I I agree with you let me I want to move on to I want to move on to this we've had a lot a lot of discussion now about whether we whether no no no no we got one other thing we need to do uh we talked I've uh offered that I thought it should be 70% of the mayor's salary but discussion has been 50% let's talk about that if we're going to Let's assume for a moment that it's it's going to pass this group whether it does or not it's not the issue but I want to make sure we're not covering all the points that we're going to have to address before we call before we put a motion out there Mr attorney is there a legislative coition inhibition prohibition as to the percentage number or anything that we could possibly propose not to my knowledge the okay not to my knowledge um you can propose whatever salary level you think is appropriate and to answer the question that the chair was asking earlier I want to just quote for a second from your Charter uh because it does go to the council but it does not apparently from the language here give any descrip ression to the council uh because it says that uh this commission shall draft such amendments to the Charter as it deems appropriate and submit the same to the council and by April 1 but submit it to the council but it says the council shall yeah after submission of the proposed amendments to the council submit the proposed amendments to the electors of the city and then it talks about the procedure and when that has to be and there's some options about when it's scheduled but it does not say the council may choose not to send them or may alter them in any way what you send them they shall put before the electors although again there's you know when it's going to go is it August November is it those are other issues and this is why I've had a conversation with the to bring um Mr Geller up to speed that's that's really important yeah is why I asked Mr Geller to call him to bring him up to speed there is a requirement the the city council has no choice they must submit it as we submit it and I've asked him to be prepared but prior to our next meeting with the language that we will see going on the ballot and we'll see the language the way it will be incorporated into the charter before we send it up to them and I'll work with the clerk who is your supervisor of elections I presume uh to make make sure that the U ballot form is clear now we don't have discretion the clerk or I as Charter officers to change your language so the language you settle on is the final language but if there is some unclarity that's why the chair has asked that we bring that to you for your meeting on the 19th and if there is anything that we think we understand what you're trying to do but there's a concern that the language may not be sufficiently clear to educate the voters we'll bring that to you on the 19th and say this is the language or this is what you voted but we suggest perhaps you want to modify a few words to answer your direct question commissioner um as far as what you can present in terms of salary uh there's no prohibition or regulation on it to my knowledge but as you've been discussing it has to be approved what was discussed at the last meeting is you need to balance if you're going to do this at all if you put something on obviously there's some disagreement as to whether that should be in some mixed mind as well well let's let's hold that till I can get past this next point if you don't mind yes sir I want to I want to talk to you about the um the concept that I've had for over 10 years is linking a percentage of for the councilman's pay to that of the mayor okay so Mike I would like to hear some dialogue about and what you would consider being an appropriate amount and and I think it needs to start with the knowledge Elizabeth I think you have that information what is what is the current level of pay of the mayor and what is the current level of pay for the council members oh here for Doral is uh 70 78 total for the mayor 18,600 for Council Members 70 years it's not even it's not even it's it's out you said 25 I knew that that the stipend is 30,000 for all of them for all for all five they're all they have parody at the stien level so now if you my my proposal was going to be the 70% now let's have some Dialogue on that I think I I think you I think you guys should be discussing this in open Forum he let's talk about an open Forum please so I'm I'm throwing a number out there my my preference would be 70 someone else has proferred 50 or or it's came up I it came up I don't know who did it but let's have some dialogue should we do this what percentage would do you think would be the appropriate amount based on the 78 some 78 roughly 79 70 uh the correct figures are 77586 for the mayor 18,617 19,900 19,000 so Mr chair just so you know my thought process it's hard for me to know what is appropriate to be candid with you but what I what I the reason why I kept sort of referencing I'm not crazy about 70 but maybe 50 if I was going to support this it's simply because when we went over it last last time I don't know that I don't I don't recall that you were here Bruce we we mentioned the different cities and what the council's me Members made and maybe you can repeat it for Bruce's benefit but it seemed that the average appeared to be about 50 or it was always at least it's around 70 the some of these numbers are the original numbers so Miami Beach is for Council is 6,000 mayor 10,000 um for Aventura is 7,500 major 10,000 Sony is Council is 1,000 mayor 1,250 homestad is Council 4 4,800 major is 6,000 and for Coral Gables these are numbers at at 2023 the mayor earns 69,000 the vice mayor earns 67,000 and the Commissioners earn 65 5,000 so they are very close together see this speaks to the isue 70% it speaks to the issue of why I was saying that you need to take a look at a if you if you start with what's in the charter the 50,000 and the 12 that doesn't seem you know like far apart when you get up to the 79 versus 19,000 that that is and by the way that's adjusted annually so the mayor's salary is going to keep growing because they're starting at a higher number and that's why I think the voters May accept uh if you're going to freeze that number okay that means it's not going to go up from then on until the next Council me which we if it goes out for 10 years in 10 years they'll have an opportunity to increase it m Mr chair the attorney has a comment I think I just wanted to I just wanted um for the benefit of commissioner K was absent last time but the CH has just hit the point the discussion was um that by coupling this by starting the item by saying there will be a freeze and no further increases cost of living increases of any kind for either mayor or uh council members subsequent to them being set that that might be enough to overcome the hump of people not not necessarily wanting to see uh salaries go up you just say that the there that freeze occurs no more cost of living beyond what's set in this thing and then add whatever percentage and that might overcome the reluctance to vote for higher salaries because nobody's will go up anymore so chair was making that point Thank you Mr turn a bit of a light B I not a light bulb but just sort of like some clarity all of a sudden came to mind I I guess I want remember that we had at the last meeting we said we talked about freeze and there was like another word and I was trying to understand like how would that work and I think that Mr Geller has just clarified that for me are we literally freezing no no more going up at the risk of offering you an apology you might remember I asked you clearly do you know the definition of the word free and you said yes yes now you're confused now you're not no because I suppose when I I when I hear the word freeze I assume that there will be an unfreezing at some point and the way that Mr Geller just laid it out was like no and in fact without couching it that way it feels like this is actually more beneficial for the residents from a budgeting standpoint my apologies Mr we have Clarity it was more clear last week was this year a point of personal privilege pleas please like I'm sorry I missed the last meeting but I I want to welcome our our City attorney um he served our community for long enough to give us the benefit of incredible wisdom and I'm honored to be here with you and in in this one sentence that you you you just explained something that would have taken perhaps someone who else sat in that chair um for meetings and and 16 reviews to do you clarified something very quickly and graciously so thank you very much thank you sir thank you all right so still we're still working on what we think would be an appropriate linkage uh percentage I I've thrown 70 out there Mr chair I something else has occurred by recognizing that there is a Merl salary and perhaps a percentage thereunder for a the council members we're also again recognizing that there is a mayor we we've been talking the first three or four meetings of doing away with recognition of the mayor as an almost an independent entity or the mayor of having having special privileges or or or apperences to the office or having some kind of other legislative duties Beyond ceremonial so I'm glad that we're finally again recognizing we have a mayor well yes and that's the whole concept that of why I'm that's actually why I'm proposing the 70% thir she she or he or whoever has a 30% greater amount because they are out there in the ceremonial Arena perhaps in other areas that the others may choose to be but they don't have to be but the mayor has to be so those are that's the reason I'm linking it to a 70% number because when you get down to the administrative side they all doing the same work they're all working hard they're that they're doing the same work the mayor at that time is a is a member of the council and one one of the five votes they all got to do the same research how do you educate the public about what this not only this aspect of of the package but the entire package once it goes forward is there a budget to actually bring forth the proposals are we able to talk to anybody other than the council the re one of the reasons that I the um Charter review commission if you remember I asked to extend and make clear when we Sunset it is assumed but the charter is not clear when this C committee sunsets it's assumed that as soon as we turn our work product over we're done I don't think it should be that way because then we can't aine we can't do anything other than just as individuals I think if you if you extend this to and it passes it won't affect us because we're we depending on what it is I think that what you would happen What happen what will happen for what we recommend and hopefully it won't be the same 10 years from now but what'll actually happen now you're going to find out that as individuals you're going to have ways of supporting things you're going to have a way of and actually asking and I would hope that all five of the elected officials would support this because it's good for them it's good for the it's good for the city so you're going to it's going to end up a political Arena not necessarily um in a in a in a bad way but you're going to have public support you're going to have people that may campaign on it or against it I would think if I were going to run I would campaign for it in the future we have certainly in any number of council people and Mayors sitting on the Das right now yeah so but but it doesn't help us get over the hump of this being on the ballot in November so how do we somehow get this work product in a form that we all acknowledge our votes are known it's public record either we support it or we don't but people need to know that a group of their neighbors decided that maybe these are things that they ought to be looking at either in the affirmative or in the negative but they need to be looking at it how do we get it out to there is no vehicle of to my knowledge available to this group to address what you're raising it's going to end up that the issue is going to be on the ballot people that have an issue with it for and against it they're going to support it just like who you vote for that's the same that's the Avenue that you're going to have I mean I guess presumably couldn't we have some type of an open Forum as is supported obviously by not no I don't think we can because we're we don't have a clear Sunset date we're already telling everybody what we think Mr chair I think the attorney has a has a point I'm sorry there are some legal restrictions on what a municipality can do to advocate for things uh they didn't used to be there but they arose for instance when there were like Bond issues and cities would you know go all in and get run campaigns and hire consultants and put out vote Yes on this and so that's been rained in but municipalities are permitted to put out informational material and that explains what it is that the voters have the opportunity to vote on it's supposed to be done in a fairly dispassionate manner not a campaign piece but to provide information and that can be mailed so one option I don't know you've got the the history that I totally lack here as to what they've done in the past Mr chair but one option I would think is that the committee could since there seems to be I wasn't aware of the unclarity about the sunset but the com this commission can ask the city council to clarify that to you know make clear that the job of the charter review commission ends with the vote on the charter amendments you propose as opposed to on submission to the city council and you could request the city council to work with you to allow you to work with the Communications Department to prepare fair but informational information informational information um to be distributed through the mail and otherwise on websites and stuff to explain to the voters the impact and and and rationale for what you're doing oh let me comment the we passed something last that we we did not address the issue of when we Sunset I it was an a point that I brought up because of just the scope of that particular item I didn't want to bring that up we can still change it and add that to that amendment of when we Sunset we left that off I left it off because I didn't think it was a strong enough point because I I didn't know where this would come from but no rather than uh let me just pick up on your ideas um Mr attorney and let me tell you my thinking on that I think the the city has to fund this committee whatever we do and as I shared with you and whatever we can hire our own attorney you're you're serving here with basically for two masters what I would suggest to you would be the following I don't think we should be doing anything that we don't run this through legal itself I would suggest to you by the time we come back on the 19th because while we're still sitting we have the author we have the authority to um spend money and I don't know if the um the ideas that you proferred are part of what we are entitled to do I would ask you to research that and come back and if it is and we can ask for a budget for c for material to send to the voters as long as it's legal yeah when that is that what you're addressing Bruce that was yeah yes Mr chairman thank you I I think the work that's being put in deserves to be recognized and it's a public service that goes absolutely unfulfilled and unrecognized if no one knows what the hell we're doing that's that's true and that's why I want the attorney to aine what what our what the scope of our Authority is I I think I I think the from a budget standpoint we have the rights to that but we can't spend it on something that's not legal for us to do and rather than us guess and I'd rather the attorney o Pine on that you okay yes sir was that okay we're back now back to where I was saying in the 70 yeah so what so thank you Elizabeth thank you for setting forth the the uh the comparative yeah schedule it's very interesting yeah Elizabeth did her homework um the um the do we even even though I know you're not going to be support it but if it did pass is there is there something that is there a number that you think would be appropriate if it did pass Nicole so Mr chair I am not going to entertain the h hypothetical of a percentage because I'm not supported of that of that um again my gatekeeping for this section of the charter is in the front in the sense of I don't think we should raise the compensation for an elected official um because I believe that it it will be motivated by personal gain okay thank you thank you and um just so I can close here does pass although I'm not sure it's going to but if it does I Mr chair just so I can finish I'm sorry I was just going to thank you I was going to apologize to you thank you and um I I think that the council as is is compensated for the work that they do and that's the last thing I wanted to say thank you and and I and I hope I hope that your if it does pass I hope that your concerns um are not are are not valid I hope it we don't I hope we don't stimulate that kind of personal thing that you're concerned about I would hope I know if it were me it wouldn't and I know if it you it wouldn't okay thank you we still had conversation here about what kind of a what kind of linkage I'm at 70% I have another question that goes back to this freeze idea is it fair and forgive me that I'm caught on this because if I'm looking at this from another angle on the concept of freezing or capping salaries I think that's a very different message than increasing salaries and so what my first of all I I'm thinking I have a question if this if this goes to a vote and the voters vote on it with sort of the ideas that we've been contemplating how if there if if we wanted to unfreeze or uncap the Sal the mayor the all Sal would it be all salaries I guess I'm struggling a little bit because I don't know the verbiage that would be used to I'm sorry can I can I can I help you yes if you link it to the mayor's cell that's the only thing you need going forward go if you increase the mayor's salary you increase everybody else's and so in order to uncap or unfreeze it would be another Charter revision that's exactly that's what I'm trying to get out yes okay all right 10 years Mr chair if I let me let me just elaborate just a bit on that um once you put this in the charter it can only be changed by another Charter Amendment so if the language were to be first starting with the mayor salary you're not reducing it by the way it's it's increased substantially you know from I mean from 50 to 78 is a pretty big increase already frankly so if you start by saying the salary of the mayor shall be Frozen and capped at the present level and shall not increase going forward the salaries of council members will be a percentage of what the mayor gets but then add in after if this is adopted neither the mayor nor any members of the council will receive any future salary increases absent a future Charter amendment I think you've given Clarity and you said you're stopping you are making an adjustment to relate Council to Mayor the Mayors will not change change it all the council will henceforth be at that level and neither will go up and I don't want to talk about the political end of that but legally that is clear that explains what you're doing legally Mr Mr attorney can you design rather than a Eton Stone number are we able to have an open-ended the percentage of the maril salary for Council henceforth shall be option A X percentage option b y percentage option c z percentage and let the electorate choose what percentage they decide the city council should take of the meil salary and cap it out not in the same item what you could do if if you want to do that it's possible in my opinion with off the top of my head it would be have to almost as an attorney always says when an attorney tells you off the top of my head be careful yeah I think that would you don't want off the top of my head that's you want research but I think it would be possible to have a separate item and say henceforth shall the Council salaries be x% of the mayor or y% of the mayor but the problem with that is your current system does not provide for that and if you had that Amendment even as a separate Amendment you're presuming that the answer is going to be it's got to be a percentage whichever one they pick and I don't can do that Council I mean I'm going to I'm going to I'm sorry open that no I'm going to take over the chair's position we just went back this is the fifth time I want us to keep this on a percentage the more this dialogue goes the worse it gets the more complicated it gets the only thing that's on front of us right now short of emotion is the issue of with the preference of the percentage linked to the mayor's salary if you have any dialogue other than that I don't want to hear it do we name a percentage or we just agreeing to a no I want to hear some dialogue I want to hear what you think is a fair thing you got a mayor salary today is closely 78,000 and the council is closely 19,000 what percentage do you of that do you think based on the the mayor's salary do you think is appropriate Mr chair I think that the the City attorney makes an excellent point and that all of them every proposal almost has to be just as a charter Amendment would have to be Standalone this would be Standalone we probably need to entertain a motion for every trunch of percentage rather than we're not going to come to a consensus why with respectfully Council you could you don't have to do that you can simply do as the chair says came about because you asked a question about a tiered he answered you based on a tier and that's not where we're going the chair is correct then saying that whatever motion look you have a a framework for it which is to include a freeze the motion as I understand it and the chair is correct the motion is what is X you're going to say x% and there can be a motion as to what that percent should be the chair suggested 70 but by motion you can determine that and answer that question then you can deal further with the entire Amendment that's what's agre before you and the chair is correct agreed I agree Mr chair I'm agreeing with you yes and what I'm trying to do is to get a before we put a motion out there I'm trying to hear some dialogue which is the way I have covered every event I could I could throw a 60% that will bring the council members to 46,500 60% okay we have now we got 60 the southern mayor would be 70 77586 and the council will be 4655 so that's about plus the 30,000 that's that's a 60% yeah that's a 60% yeah what what would it be at what would it be at 70% and what would it be at 50 at 50 it will be 38 793 and 54 310 at 70 at 70 and what was it at 60 4655 551 okay so the dist the difference between 60% and 76 is roughly $9,000 no by8 ,000 so the delta at 70% the Delta the difference between the mayor's salary and the council's would be um $24,000 the mayor would be making $24,000 annually more than the council members and it would be $32,000 difference at 60% Mr chair question are we are we considering this increment in salary and eliminating the stipend yes or and oh no no not the stien they they keep the stipend but we're eliminating is the annual cost of living increase how about accountability for the stipend agreed I agree on that but I don't know that we can do that in this commission well first of all that stiping that stien is enacted by ordinance yeah now if you did that you'd have to overrule that ordinance and I I don't know that that's a that's a slippery slope I don't I think they were they were taken away Mr attorney I um we may have we may have some seat at that table but I don't think we should be passing anything here that overturns something the council has done by ordinance unless it's just some some something it really is bading on that reserving on that for the moment okay there is an issue with what's called single subject and something that is I mean whether or not you might have something unrelated to this item that addressed some other issue it should not be related to this item because it's really a completely different subject one is the compensation PA the stipend is entirely different but excuse me but section and just for clarity please on section 206 it says the council shall also receive reimbursement in accordance with applicable law or as maybe otherwise provided by ordinance for authorized expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties so in my op it's not a different subject it's the same section section 206 so just just SE 206 206 just for clarity because I do agree with J Bruce on the accountability on the Sten yeah thank you yeah I to the SE I I I wouldn't want to um to risk the concept of this motion by starting to attack a stien because they're going to find another way around it if you do it I'm with you Mr chair thank you I agree with but I'm with they will look they will look so horrible trying to justify is there single subject restrictions for I don't know municipality yeah for anything for ballot language but right at the state level but I don't know if would it apply to a municipality is the stien strictly reimbursement um I I don't know the receive $30,000 period they do not have to account for it so that's that's my my my question to you I don't know how to read this last sentence um well it what it says is they shall receive reimbursement in accordance with law or as may be provided by ordinance for authorized expenses on I would suggest that the ordinance if it does not make clear that it's for authorized expenses I I don't think in ordance here but again as to single subject let me just say if you it it I you have a very good point frankly that it is in the same section but the change you're proposing if you address that I'm not saying you can't address it but it is a different topic than what the compensation is it would be I don't want to say you have to but it would be best addressed if you choose to address it in a separate item because otherwise you're confusing the the public about what it is that they're actually voting on it's it's referred to as log rolling and it means you I mean you're already putting relating the council salary yeah to the mayor's along with a freeze on salaries somebody could argue that well that's two different things too but they're both about the compensation the salary that people are making I think they are Rel ated if you then throw in something in the same thing that's log rolling it's just it may not be illegal don't think advised it's just ill advised if you want to do it address it with a separate item okay thank you I don't think we should be going down that slippery slope that's they created it by ordinance there there's a way around it and I I think it would be just confusing and I think the council has it within their authority to by that same line they have the authority to give themselves a stiping and and I don't think it's within the purview of our our group to address that we have the authority to put in the charter that there be some kind of fiscal accountability for what well think I don't disagree with you there I'm just thinking about what we're trying to get done here no on this particular item I you're right log rolling is definitely not what we want to be doing but I think that the City attorney has found an elegant way to move past it in a separate proposal going forth in this Charter revision package we can perhaps ask that there be accountability in all types of expenditures that the council votes themselves at but whatever you do you should finish your business that you're today on that you're talking about before you contemplate whether you're going to do a new one that's that's all I'm saying I second I second the attorney's motion all right you have any we have numbers between before us and I'm going to propose um I'm going to propose a motion that we uh link the that we freeze the mayor's salary and we uh eliminate the automatic annual increases and we link the uh councilman salary to 70% of the mayor's salary and freeze it thereafter and and freeze it there and they can change that again in 10 years when the next Charter amendment I tend to like the word cap better but I guess cap langu cap cap whatever that that's what the the attorney will dra that yeah absolutely I was it was just a commentary because it it it's associated with some of my thought processes on this so both we'll find a way to work both in okay okay I made the motion is there a second to the motion I will second the motion second a motion any further discussion noair what was the percentage sorry I didn't 70 70% Madam clerk would you read a motion backwards I would ask kindly the City attorney to help me reward the motion exactly to what the chair stated that way I understand and I get it correctly the percent the percentage you in your motion is 70 70% so the motion was as I understand it to have an item which would say that the current salary for the mayor shall be capped at the present rate and Frozen at that number that going forward the salary of City Council Members shall be at 70% set at 70% of the compensation excuse me the salary can use both words paid to the mayor this uses the word compensation not salary so we should use that word and that once those adjustments are made henceforth in the future there shall be no further salary or compensation increase for either the mayor or the council members absent further amendment of this Charter is that got it Mr chair yeah it seems like you're crafting the actual language um but you no I don't disagree with it I the the motion was simpler than that but that's the verb I just wanted to get the gist of the motion I'll I'll write the motion the motion itself is in that framework which has been discussed to fix the percentage by which the S the council salary shall relate to the mayor's salary so the motion is to fix that percentage in that framework at 70% is that correct Mr chair yes it's correct I have a motion oh sorry Mr you want me to goe call any further discussion read a motion back then I have a motion by chair Jones and a second by member Gonzalez Pekovic chair Jones yes chair Jones yes member Gonzalez pekovich yes member Kaplan no with another number put in Vice chair gonola yes member Rosa no care motion carries okay next next item is you have section 2.07 2.07 Mr chair could we recognize that the mayor mayor is present at the meeting so could we recognize that the mayor is present at the meeting oh I'm sorry I glasses I just had a cataract operation I can't even tell who's back there welcome thank you I have Mr chair I would move that we open the floor if the mayor cares to make a public comment I'm reserving my comments okay okay okay thank you okay um 2 point 07 this is the office of Charter enforcement and this I don't want to go down this Rabbit Hole any further than than just I want to make maybe some comments Evette you were on this last um um group that depict the office of Charter enforcement I don't have I don't have any comments about the problem with the with the office of Charter enforcement my main concern is why why has it failed um why why haven't they been able to get it done um and uh if that you were on that committee I was I was on the most recent one where um admittedly I I don't know the history of why I I don't know the history of why it took so long to get to a point where we were able to to put on an ad and and sort of you know form out you know what what what the duties would look like Etc um but I do know when I served on that committee and I think it was in uh 2020 right Connie that I served on that committee um I thought we had a pretty decent response it wasn't huge to those to the ads that we put out um and I thought we had great cand candidates we chose one unfortunately I had to resign from that Comm I I was part of the vote to choose Mr Rosen I was part of the process to figure out what the ad would look like compensation duties Etc Mr Rosen was chosen and then soon thereafter I had to resign so what I don't have is what ended up happening there and did that have anything to do with how things you know how either the charter was written or how the process was carried out I don't have that information and I don't know why it took so long we have a member actually of the committee here who could perhaps shed some light on the process and some of the roadblocks that perhaps they're encountering after after I hear what they're going to say I was an open the com yeah no and certainly member of a of a fellow chair well what I was going to say is that our former city the attorney provided you all with a chronology and everything how it entailed because she was the one that had the conversations at with Mr Rosen throughout the process I know it was our former City attorney and it was also her so that is in front of you um other than what is it's very detailed that's the conversations meetings Etc that um happened so I will leave that to you for your review can you tell me on this list can you tell me on this list where it failed or where where did it break down it's chronological but where did it break down um I want to say is in the second to last page it's it looks like uh looking at maybe right under September 7th of 20122 Might speak to where the halt occurred Connie when it went to a vote Mr chair to the council to approve Mr Rosen um the City attorney here advises a review of past Council meetings revealed that rosen's contract was never approved by the city council and what date is that I'm it looks like it's on the on the back page of the um chronology that we received right under September 7th okay of 2022 so apparently the agreement was never approved by the council and and currently Mr chairman we are in a in stasis because there are two applicants required to be interviewed and only one person has applied but again I would ask that we recognize a member of the committee to to perhaps elaborate since six pages of a 40 page Charter deal with this one position just just a minute Bruce I I know they're here we're going to call them but I wanted to know where it f failed that's all so if everything was good up until November the last item I'm say I'm saying I the last page two of 24 May I Mr chair clear something this says arment was approved was never approved I know I see it I huh my question was where did it fail it failed here fail number7 you have a question no I have a I have a comment I I believe that independently of the fact that it failed in in many places exactly I think that's the point uh I think that the way it's written and what we are requesting in the charter for this officer it's for sure that every single time it's going to to fail starting by the fact that in our budget we have $78,000 budgeted for this office uh but at the same time we are requesting in the charter that this person has an office outside the city with Personnel that that person might choose outside the city with furniture with with everything that they need so right there $78,000 for the Bu from the budget won't make it right there so if we go to the from those 78,000 if we go to the the candidates that's probably one of the many reasons for which we have one candidate and the one that we had Mr Rosen the amount of money that he wanted does not comply with what we are offering so I I do believe that this Charter enforcement officer fails per se in many places and in the event that we want it to continue in the charter it requires a lot of revision a lot so my my suggestion is to delete it from the charter because also we have had in all the in those these years two complaints well I don't know where that $78,000 budget comes from because the charter is relatively clear it says the the the city shall shall fund it yeah but I I review the the budget I requested the budget and I review it and it has 78 around $78,000 budgeted for this particular office so are you saying that the city underfunded underfunded the office so the problem is why' they do that there's no real intention that it actually be enacted yeah I don't know it's a Mr chair it appears from a political perspective that it sounds great and the best way to defeat something that sounds great but is never intended to be implemented is just to never fund it properly well that's my concern see that's why I want to know where it funded now at this point um I want to ask either the mayor or the member of the committee or either one who would like to comment on us come up and come up and comment but the question that I want to answer first is where did it fail what did why did it fail so uh I was not on the committee that Mr name and address please sorry uh Grant Kaplan 5621 Northwest 100 Court um so I was not on the committee uh where Mr Rosen was selected I am on the current iteration of the committee um and just so you guys have an understanding of where things stand now we haven't even gotten to the point where we have elected a chairperson uh because right now nobody wants this job um I think that from our perspective and and basically from everything I've heard sitting here uh Clarity is the big issue uh that I think the committee really needs to focus on with this Charter revision because there are so many contradictions and ambiguities in multiple important provisions of the charter you know I am a practicing attorney and I have clients that do things in and around rale and uh there are certain ordinances that the city requires that have taken us I don't know six months to get through for something that really shouldn't have taken that long simply because of confusion uh in what the charter itself actually requires with respect to this particular position um the charter requires somebody of you know Mr Geller's stature you know a lot of experience basically an attorney uh and the budget's not there for it um again I think the position was envisioned as somebody who works full-time for the city but not with the city uh and if that's something that uh the city wants and needs uh you know obviously I I'm involved because I support it I think that it's it's good to have checks and balances but uh I think I think we need to clarify exactly what it is that we want out of this position uh I do understand budgetary constraints and the way things get voted and you know there there's politics involved and in Council decisions um but I think that the charter itself really suffers from a big lack of clarity and I think that instead of fighting over some of these larger ticket items I think that since you know we have a City attorney who really knows his stuff I think we should go over the charter with a fine- tooth comb and you know Define some pretty ambiguous terms you know there are several attorneys sitting on this stas right now who I'm sure echo my concerns uh as we're kind of crossing swords over some larger items but you know it's really the minutia that you know is it a shall is it a must is it a May uh and and those little distinctions uh have real serious consequences when you're trying to interpret things or get things done so let me ask you a question there because I I looked it over and my thoughts are that the maybe the one of the problems is it's a it implies it's a full-time position when you have a full-time position you have to pay for all the collateral issues that go along with that are you saying that perhaps one point of clarity if we made this either um based on what the counil wanted to do we could hire a part-time part-time position I think the wording is it called requires it to be an employee of the city correct and I think that's the area where we may be stumbling over that way they couldn't subcontract it out or what have you I I I would agree and you know whether it's a an outside you know counsil for lack of a better term or or somebody who works as a as a City Public Employee um I I think that that Clarity needs to be done I don't think there's a problem with outside counsel you know I act as outside counsel for businesses and individuals all the time right but um you know somebody who is employed by the city may be less impartial maybe more impartial I mean it it's hard to gauge but I do think that since you all have the authority to figure that out um I I would suggest that you know we spend some time on clarifying certain ambiguities and questions that are out there because you know that's that's what's paralyzing the whole process what role is the salary or the budget you're being given by the city playing and your ability to recruit somebody for the position well um I think we convened and and the city clerk can can you know clarify but I mean we we convened sometime in the third quarter of last year and we submitted the first uh round of of you know publication for for this position for I think 90 days um and after the 90 days expired nobody had applied for the job uh oh one person did okay so I guess not enough for us to convene and and you know do the thing well my my question was about the budget that that you're given I I think that for the requirements that the charter calls for the current budget is too small uh obviously I understand that budgets get voted on and you know we may be coming into a new fiscal year uh all of that can be addressed by the city council and I have full faith that you know if we are able to get candidates that are qualified for this the city council will do what they need to do to make sure that that person is compensated correctly so that this obligation of the charter can be complied with so the committee you're currently serving on you've only interviewed one person for we we we haven't interviewed anybody we only got one submission you so so you don't know if the salary is a problem or not because you haven't interviewed anybody I I would imagine that it is um you know like I said this the job description pretty much spells out an attorney with close to 10 years of experience uh doing this thing and I can tell you right now that an attorney with 10 years of experience is likely a a partner level wherever they're at and 78,000 is not going to cut it much less when that budget needs to cover uh employees Furniture office space etc etc may I just based on your experience as as an practicing attorney I guess you had more than one or two years I do yes okay what based on what you think those qualifications require do you have some kind of a a number I I'm not asking you to apply as an attorney just do you have it what would what normal compensation would you expect that person that's described in the charter to be paid so if we're looking at the budget as a whole right I mean because the way that this this was budgeted we're talking about 78,000 for the entire office of the charter review inspection officer wow you know that salary alone right you know if if let's say we hired an administrative assistant or something for something abysmally low right I mean that that just that wouldn't be covered um so I mean salary alone you're talking about something comparable to the whole budget for the office right at at a minimum what is the budget the $78,000 is that the budget for the whole office yes correct that's ask Madame mayor if you can comment on that but again I I my my my thinking is that you know these ambiguities in the charter of you know how do we how do we how do we deal with this jued position right we want somebody at a certain level of experience and you know the city budget only goes so far right and I think that the council and the mayor have done an excellent job of prioritizing certain things right we've got a lot of police officers on the street at all times you know the city is beautiful uh you know there's artwork every everywhere I mean things are functioning the way they're supposed to but I think that this office uh has kind of been an outlier for a long time because we've had this issue of clarity as to what it is that we want what it is that we need and how are we going to pay for it well I personally have no problem with with the budget of the city I think they're doing a good job with the money that they're getting I feel that way but if they're under funding of critical part of the charter there has to be an question why so I'm not asking asking you to address that but I would assume that if you're on that committee and the the city clerk has not been able to get anybody view to interview it has to be more because you know there are people out there that are qualified the question I would assume Madam clerk do you advertise what the salary is when you put it out there Mr chair just so you know the section in the in that provision uh 2.07 subsection e no subsection f and g talk about the selection committee shall submit to the city council a recommended salary for the charter enforcement official so the position goes out without a salary once the individuals apply then the interview process goes in front of that that committee and that committee is the one that establishes a salary that proposes to council it is my understanding that the city has budgeted what the city has budgeted because they have they don't have any idea of what that's going to be okay okay I'm good um go ahead may I um and it's it's clear in what the the former uh attorney gave us it says here the contract that was offered to Mr Rosen was for a monthly retainer of 3,500 per month 42,000 a year for a maximum of 90 billable hours per fiscal year additional hours were to be buil at an hourly rate of 7 700 per hour at 90 bable hours per fiscal year the average th those average only 7.5 hours per month and Mr Rosen himself pointed out a single witness interview between prep and interviewing could be four hours so it was not enough here it says uh also uh he was looking for a salary of $200,000 that was the the range Council discussed salary range from 75,000 to 100,000 for a contract of employment but requested a best and final offer so I think that what has to go in the the amount that you're asking for what has to go into the budget is north of 400 around $400,000 the number you just quoted was that just for Mr rosen's salary not the office or whatever not the office not the assistant not the furniture not anything just just in rent for an outside office a small Mr chair I think the fundamental question that needs to be answered on this section is the need for this section before we even touch on salary what is the need if our complaints are two yes two complaints since the CH since this was established in the charter yes does it justify a budget of more of what we have does it even justify having this within the charter is there other means I don't know exploring but I want to know why FAA complaint I want to know why it failed so if I could interject on on that point um you know this is essentially an office of the Inspector General right corre I mean and correct I I think that you know number one that's very important to have in any uh Civic organization number one number two I think it goes to what the deas was discussing earlier in that a lot of people don't know about stuff right A lot of people are not educated on what resources the city has I mean the city website is great and we're very active on social media and all these kinds of things but you know it you know these things that matter where something doesn't pass the sniff test where do I go right A lot of people and particularly the demographic and in in this city doesn't trust government right it's it's a fact right and so I think that we can do a better job of educating the electorate to understand what resources they have available to them when something doesn't pass the sniff test because fortunately we're here in the United States of America and government works and we've had we have a fantastic mayor we have a fantastic uh city council uh that really run the ship super well um and you know I work in Coral Gables I look forward to my drive home every day right I mean I think it was it car was or Miami Beach now is putting in an office of the Inspector [Music] General Miami Beach just instituted an office of Inspector General which is headed by the former director of the Miami day Commission on ethics Joe centorino I was at a an Ethics conference a couple weeks ago that he spoke out and the previous and current directors also spoke Out Mr chair I I author and created the office of Inspector General at and um worked actually with Mr Geller um and with Jeb Bush at the time it was really a bipartisan effort to make something durable um and of the highest quality we ended up Contracting the head of the FBI's public corruption unit head of pc1 and he came and stayed for about two decades and it worked really well and now the office has become something that's looked up to around the country as a model for these sort of things why this office of Charter enforcement is even which looks like an ordinance it reads like an ordinance it feels like an ordinance is sitting in a charter really doesn't do justice to the office to the process or to even the the the impact that was meant to to offered to the citizens of of of Dural most of whom as as Mr Kaplan said have fled countries boughten by corruption and the last thing they want to do is find it right here at home yeah I agree but okay I appreciate the comments Madame mayor would you join us for a comment I'd like to ask you through the budgeting process and the problems that you've run into trying to fill this position if you had to if you had to offer um some comments on the problems you had in a the budgeting process and B the actual selection of somebody for that well let me start by saying that this office has been budgeted at all different amounts we started with budging it at $150,000 when it was first put into the budget and it stayed that way without being touched for many years and then it was later reduced when the the charter changed to make the um recommendations to try and fill the position because initially when it was put in the charter there was no way to fill the position because every person that was named to take the position rejected it they had a conflict it was then changed again to be a little more broad with certain qualifications which is what we have today and at that time when I came back as mayor I think it was budgeted at like $50,000 it was very little and we actually budgeted it at what the committee had recommended based on an hourly rate but then it was determined that this needed to be a full-time position as an employee of the city and therefore the candidate that had been selected rejected it because it wasn't enough money and we sat as a commit as a as a council and said there's there's really no way to meet this qualification at this point so looking at the same situations that have been already discussed as that only two Charter complaints have come in um and the structure in which this has been done for several Charter reviews at this point um it needs to be overhauled and I agree that I think that an office and An Inspector General something that we've seen in the past would be a much better Avenue versus creating something that no other city has we there is no city that has an office of Charter enforcement and therefore it has been impossible to meet the requirements of the charter with as much as we've tried with many different mayors and councils it's been impossible the way we tried to cure the violation of not having the office fulfilled build was we put an ordinance in that had a um AI division within the city police that when one of these complaints came in then the investigation was done by the police department it was an internal affairs type of position we have had that ordinance and it had been extended for about four years since or five years when was it that we put it in 2018 or 16 17 2017 and this year when I when we brought it again to fulfill the this the requirement it died three members of the council voted against it to not be able to fulfill at least try and accommodate a fulfillment of the charter so this is this is not working obviously and now if you want to extend reviewing the charter for 10 years goodness could you imagine how we would actually get things fixed if we realized that they didn't work throughout this process so I think that it is been determined just by pure facts and evidence of sequence of events that this does not work the intention may have been well but I think that there's several ways proven that we can have an office of Charter enforcement I'm sorry A office of Inspector General to replace the office of Charter enforcement or turn over the enforcement to the ethics commission turn over the enfor enforcement to the ethics commission what may what would be your what would be your recommendation um to replace this look at an office of Inspector General which is what other cities have done and uh you know the school district has the county same as uh the city of Miami Beach I mean there's several cities that have office of Inspector generals that is looking at what other cities have created already instead of Reinventing a wheel that clearly does not work look at what other cities have already done to put it in that would be created by ordinance I would assume or or it could be part of well no hold on hold on just a minute um I I'm appreciating what you're saying there the degree of difficulty I know it's hard it is because I was part of the one that crafted the stuff and the idea was that we really wanted something that was totally independent of any kind of political influence Mr Jones with all due respect it's never going to be fully independent because ask you a question has to fund it I'm ready to ask you a question if we were to remove this tonight would you commit to to us tonight that you would support by Charter Amendment on the coming election to create an office of uh Inspector General Sir I already did it I was one of the members that voted for it the other three members voted I mean I'm asking not for an ordinance I'm asking you to put it in the charter well that's your job no Mr chair need it be in the charter or could it be done by ordinance I I don't think that this anything that you can do by ordinance can be removed by ordinance I'm sorry the attorney has an opinion what I just a minute I I want to finish this all I'm asking is would you be willing to put the office of Inspector General in the charter the next election once again that is on that is what this committee is for this committee is the one that will decide what will so we can eliminate this and and incorporate now we can do this now I'm not the attorney but to my understanding is you can recraft the language to take off the office of Charter enforcement and put in an office of Inspector General or or just remove it and have it or remove it and allow it be done the way we have done it for the past so six years if it's your experience in office of of Inspector General is what's needed here other than this I'm not saying I'm not giving my opinion on what is needed or not I'm telling you what has worked in other places if you are looking for an arm of enforcement yes that's that's my comment I'm not giving my opinion on what is what what is correct or what is not correct I'm telling you that what what is here what is here does not function yeah what I was asking is the problems you've had to deal with and your knowledge of Inspector General's office you think that would be better than what we have what I what I'm what I'm saying is from experience in other cities and and at the School District or other government agencies that I have seen and studied that is what exists already and has functioned in other places okay okay Mr the attorney I appreciate I'd like and I'd like a question as well after the attorney to the point that you were making commissioner capan to the point the chair was making [Music] um if you wanted to remove these many pages and I I can't say I'm very familiar with that entire structure candidly yeah because I've never seen it before it's bizarre if you wanted well strong language commissioner um if you wanted to have something to replace it that said a few things that said there should be an office of Inspector General that gave a couple of General guidelines but that otherwise did not attempt as commissioner Kaplan said before to take what's an ordinance and put it in your Charter to say there shall be one and that it should be responsible for ABC and make sure that thef and the details of it are to be defined by the city council in an ordinance you as to your point chair you do impose a duty on the council to do it correct but you don't micromanage in the charter you allow sufficient flexibility for the mayor and councel to come up with something that works and the citizens of course can say hey don't do it that way do it this way we want something that matters well let me let me tell you where my heads that and I appreciate the comments that you're made because I'm really seeking an answer here um to try and rework the language in here on this is ridiculous it won't work it won't it won't get done I mean it won't be done properly having said that I do believe the charter needs something to give guidance for people that have a problem with with the administration of the city and and if the office of Inspector Journal is what it is then I think we need to get that into the charter so now I'm asking and this is why I was asking her um we have we have the um we have the right let's say to take this out but now do we have the time that's that left in our schedule to craft what's required at the office of Inspector General if that's the case then we can do it which she said but by the same token they can put a char and anytime they want and that's why I was asking the question Mr chair can I finish yeah yeah you can Jesse but but we need to get somewhere we're already at 8 o00 and and in deference to our other commission members we've agreed to stop so we're we're again arriving at nowhere M Mr chair to answer your question directly if the amendment that you would offer Del twed this language and stated briefly there shall be an office of Inspector General what its purpose is and maybe a couple of other things but did not attempt to mirror this multi-page micromanagement but instead specified that there shall be such a thing but it shall be adopted by ordinance by the mayor and Council there is certainly time to craft that in time for our next meeting if the commission wants to see language you can draft it yourself we can assist if you're intending not you but if the commission intends rather to create an office of Inspector General with this level of depth um I can only say it would be difficult but if that's the direction of the commission we would certainly undertake to do that but that would be a difficult Prospect and you may find that specifying all of that in the charter is unduly restrictive to allow an ordinance that is subject to regular amendment to be changed if the need for that appears well I'm I'm going to I'm going to suggest ask that we agenda this for the next meeting with the following caveat that I want to make I'm in supportive I'm not I'm not willing to support something that's not working and I'm not in favor of this if I if I hear from everybody including the mayor and the current the current uh Committee Member that this is not a workable thing I'm not opposed to getting rid of it but I want to make sure that we get something about it back do can we have um uh language from other cities that have a Inspector General whatever Miami Beach is doing or whatever can we have that next next week and we can deal with that yes mayor is that is that good with you you are the charter commiss the charter commission at this point I know but I'm asking you is is this is this a workable solution to you to something that you an Administration has trouble and implementing I think that if the language is stricken good then it needs to be replaced with something like like the office of of Inspector General m madame mayor if there were language implementing or creating the office of Inspector General and the public votes for it as a charter Amendment yeah could there be a time certain for the city council and the mayor to implement such an office dra craft draft the the appropriate enacting ordinance with the city attorney yeah we cannot stipulate that within that it shall be enacted within time certain Mr Mr Turner you can't put that in your Charter you can put in that the council has to do it we we have to meet the Charter's requirements so as soon as it passes we and it's adopted we would have to fulfill the position just like we tried to do with the charter of office enforcement we immediately tried to fill the position so it could but it could go down the road another 10 years as long as we're able to find someone to fill the position within the ability to craft that then yes we would be able to fulfill it if may I I I believe that part of the problem that we have had for so many years is the wording the wording that's in here it's so complicated it's so contradictory it's so out of of touch with reality that if we have a good wording the correct one we will be fine in a short time plus the fact that we have had only two cases in so many years it's not something that it's going we have to do tomorrow we have to do it correctly yeah in order to have a working office here we have one qualified one qualified police detective in white collar crime and fraud and public corruption investigations currently on a part-time basis in the city police department that's not something we can then delegate to someone because you can't just take someone off the street Street and turn them into a public corruption detective overnight so we have to also face the reality of the city and put time certain restrictions on things that are very practical um and the county by the way has just shut off the city from the ability to investigate white collar and other sort of public corruption issues as of last week I believe the Miami day Police Department um has ceased supporting White Collar cases on behalf of the city well I think I think we're on the right track here if if if if Madam mayor um believes and I think she does individually um the the office of Inspector General is a better position than what we have and I'm more than willing to ask the City attorney because we have a lot of cities that have our county has an office of Inspector General bring that back to us and we can then profer to remove this and replace it x with y yes and and just to commissioner kaan's Point absolutely you can do that and absolutely you can say that there shall be such a body and it should be created by ordinance what you can't do is say you have three months to do it because at the end of three months they still have to have the ability to adopt the ordinance in accordance with law and if there's some reason why it can't be done in that time period you have to defer that to the that's the point of doing it by ordinance you can say it shall be and then you trust that the members of the council will carry out their duty to obey the charter in the best way that they can Mr turn it's even simpler than what we're envisioning it could really be done in in in one Preamble in three sentences yeah well here let's let him right to bring the language back where we can look at it and make sure okay particularly Miami Beach I me for the county when Dade has it or Broward has it I don't know that many cities actually have inspector generals we can check I'll work with the clerk on that I have a language here the recent one that I know has done it is Miami Beach which is a comparable City so we'll see how they did it we'll see how they did it well I have the Miami Beach language here and I think Connie you have it too will you send that will you send that to all the all the members I think you already sent it to all the members didn't you send it as well as to the City attorney and also send it to the council members I have it okay okay are we done with this now okay I have a question sure it's been stated on the record a couple of times now that the council has the ability to bring for forward a charter Amendment at any time yeah outside the scope of the years yes you can bring for you can ask for Charter Amendment at any election coming up is that the opinion of City attorney yes there is a procedure for Amendment of the charter and that procedure does not is not limited to work of the charter revision commission so the council by a majority vote can make a decision to take a ballot question to the voters at any time to change the charter I hesitate to say it's by majority vote without looking at it and maybe it take a 4 fifths and maybe there are some limitations on it but in general yes there is an ability to place not only by the council by the way there's also a Citizens initiative by petition to amend in accordance with there is a little split as to whether you have to follow the state law or the county because the county preempts it under the home Rule Charter and the county thinks you have to follow the county position that's a little less clear but citizens can initiate it and Council can initiate it again I'm not sure if it's majority and there's some restrictions but the general answer is yes I think that that opinion on what statute you're referring to should be forwarded to this commission as well as to the council members okay because with a decision of extending Charter reviews to 10 years I think that that is uh very important opinion to have on the record as far as because to my understanding and I've read our Charter back and forth several times there is no mechanism within our Charter for that process even if it is completely absent from our city Charter state law and in this case the day County Home Rule Charter have Provisions which are mandatory now again there is a little clash between the state law provision and the county provision the same as there is on on recalls where there's one state statute and there's a county statute the county takes the position that the home Rule Charter prevails governs but that is honestly a very talk to our friend Mr Mr Kaplan right the um decision about whether the county Charter preempts is based on I hate to be esoteric but it's based on whether or not it was an area which the 1887 state constitution 1885 state constitution provided for and whether that was maintained in the 1967 revision of the State Constitution so certain things are historically within the power of the county because the county this County only under the day County Home Rule Charter provision there's a home rule exclusion we have a whole provision in the 1885 state constitution that says Dade County Home Rule Charter and if it was covered there and not specifically minated in the 1967 rewrite of the Constitution which maintained it then the county can actually impose its will in contradiction of state law so which of those Provisions governs is a little more complicated but unquestionably they both provide for a procedure whereby Charters may be amended that has nothing to do with a charter review commission that has to do with a governing body placing something on the ballot under certain conditions and restrictions at certain times and under some Provisions where citizens by initiative can seek to amend just the way people seek to file amendments to the state constitution absolutely and I'm happy to do a little more research on that and get that out um it is though candidly more of an issue for the council than it is for the charter review Commission because the charter review commission's Duties are prescribed clearly in our Charter and whatever the council can and can't do doesn't change the authority of the charter review commission and of course let me just finally sorry to be so long but um [Music] the move from 5 years to 10 years is a proposal that could very easily be voted down the charter says five years so unless that passes it stays at five I'm aware yes thank you thank you very much we we have a City attorney finally thank you very much Madame mayor motion to adjourn uh are you making I'll make the motion toj okay all in favor I second cross okay my Jour we're done thank [Music] you [Music] [Music]