The question of whether to change the city’s form of government was met with caution by the board, with one member explicitly stating opposition to a strong mayor system. The board considered the ramifications of altering the city’s political structure and ultimately deferred making a specific recommendation, acknowledging the need for extensive consideration and potentially leaving the decision to Miami Beach voters.

Simultaneously, the timing of city elections sparked debate over the potential conflict with Thanksgiving and the impact on voter turnout. The board had previously voted for elections in October and November but faced confusion over synchronization with the county’s schedule. The discussion extended to early voting for runoffs, a subject integral to maximizing electoral participation.

Another topic of substantial discussion was the city’s prevailing wage ordinance. The board considered whether prevailing wage fees should benefit the city or be returned to the workers, and how to enforce this ordinance more effectively. After debate, the recommendation was made to remove the city’s portion of the prevailing wage fees, deferring the ultimate decision to the city commission.

Adding complexity to the board’s agenda was the debate over attorney’s fees related to violations of the citizens’ Bill of Rights, public records, and Sunshine Law. The potential imposition of attorney’s fees as a penalty was scrutinized for its practicality, risk exposure, and the chilling effect on citizens’ lawsuits against the city. Moreover, the board contemplated the ethics commission’s jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights and the authority of judges to award attorney’s fees in judgments.

The board also tackled the language of the city’s charter, with a focus on clarity and readability for the ballot questions. This included the wording related to affordable housing, city property protection, and the avoidance of unreasonable postponements in city commission agenda items. The expansion of public hearings and notice requirements was considered, as was the challenge of summarizing issues within the constraints of a 75-word limit for ballot questions.

In a related vein, the board discussed the inclusion of additional protected categories in the Bill of Rights, such as hair texture, style, height, and weight, and the potential labor implications. The incorporation of the ICMA Code of Ethics into the charter was debated, with the decision to incorporate it by reference while further exploring the addition of protected categories.

The ethics code for city officials and employees was scrutinized, particularly the penalty for violations, which raised concerns over the severity of forfeiture of office or employment. Some members suggested delegating penalty determination to the ethics commission, emphasizing the need for clear standards and criteria.

Voter engagement and the process elected officials must follow to address violations of citizens’ rights were also discussed. A proposal to impose fines on elected officials who prevent citizens from speaking at meetings was considered. The jurisdiction of the County Ethics Commission over the Municipal Bill of Rights and election-related matters, such as runoffs and voting procedures, were brought into question.

The board’s internal processes received attention as well, with the timeline for presenting their final report to the city commission outlined. The report, set for presentation at the April 16th meeting, is intended to be concise and informative, encompassing the history, background, and rationale behind the board’s recommendations. The board emphasized the need for review and discussion before the report becomes public and is accessible on the city’s website.

The members also contemplated their involvement in briefings and meetings with the mayor and commissioners, voicing concerns about the nature of these discussions and potential lobbying. The board’s contribution to these engagements was decided to be limited to providing technical information.