The commission entertained the idea of entering into an agreement with the county to appoint a Deputy Inspector General dedicated to Doral. This approach garnered support from some members who highlighted the benefits of tapping into the county’s established expertise and infrastructure, which could result in cost savings and prevent duplication of efforts. However, this proposition faced opposition from other members who raised concerns about potential challenges in collaborating with the county, including experiences of unresponsiveness and the importance of local focus in conducting Inspector General duties. Further, there were differing opinions on maintaining an internal office of Charter enforcement, as some members underscored the necessity for an independent Inspector General’s office within the city, which aligns with voters’ previous preferences.

Discussions on the topic emphasized the need for clear language in the proposed agreement to grant the city council the authority to develop its own procedures while maintaining the principle of Charter oversight. Members suggested revisiting the resolution to include additional considerations.

The commission also tackled the issue of mayoral and council member compensation. A resolution was passed to cap the mayor’s compensation at the current salary level and adjust the council member’s compensation to be 30% less than the mayor’s. This resolution was part of a broader discussion on public service motivation, with concerns raised about increased compensation potentially attracting individuals more interested in personal gain than in serving the community.

Another aspect of the meeting was the approval of a proposed amendment that would require a former two-term mayor to take a four-year hiatus before running for a council position. This measure is designed to prevent power consolidation and encourage fresh participation in government roles. The distinction between the roles of mayor and council members was a point of debate, with varying opinions on the necessity of limitations on transitioning between these positions.

The commission additionally discussed resolution 2406, which pertains to the appointment process for the city manager. The aim was to achieve clarity for voters, resulting in an amendment to the resolution’s language that replaced the term “Charter officer” with “city manager.” This modification was unanimously passed after receiving support from the attorney and the chair of the commission.

Furthermore, the meeting addressed the effectiveness of committees, with a resolution passed to streamline the process for creating standing, special, and ad hoc committees.

Other resolutions that sparked debate included one to eliminate runoff elections, except in the case of a tie, and another that proposed extending the Charter Revision Commission appointments from every five years to every ten years, along with changing the residency requirement for commission members. These proposals were met with concerns about the democratic process, cost implications, accountability, and inclusivity, yet they passed with some dissenting votes.

The commission not only focused on these high-profile issues but also handled administrative details with precision, such as voting to change the language regarding the starting year for the 10-year charter revision cycle from 2008 to 2023 to avoid confusion.