ofing meetings only have one meeting left okay guys can you do um can you do uh sure here J bassner Gonzalez Elizabeth Lon Samu Raven Ronald star he's he's doing his day job okay um are we going you guys ready and first item I Haven first item is the welcome everybody as well Landing the plane hopefully soon um first item is the minutes anybody want to make a motion next I'll move move by second by Ron all in favor say I Mar unanimous okay we've got a couple of items on this agenda including some follow followups from past discussions but the long awaited and much discussed and well considered vill of Rights want to do that one Nick yes so we're we're on uh we're on item number two which is proposed amendments to the citizens Bill of Rights remedies and dra valid questions so in the agenda is an outline uh it's the same outline that was placed on the last part you board agenda and it's an outline of the issue showing the issues that the board has discussed and voted upon for inclusion um the only remaining issues that have yet to be decided is are the penalty issues and those are two the first penalty issue is the matter of attorney's fees that the board has free previously had some discussion about but we've never had a final vote um legal we've express to you our concerns about the issue of attorneys fees both from the fact of being potential poal conflict um also the likelihood of increased lawsuits for the city but the other things that we just want to point out about the attorney's fees issue just to take into consideration is that if the board does vote to impose attorney's fees there are um we took a look at the at the statutes that presently authorize attorneys fees when a municipality is SE the state Florida and interestingly with regards to the two issues the two Bill of Rights issues that seem to have been the most discussed before the board namely public records and sunon law the statutes presently provide that plaintiffs citizens who bring a lawsuit for Sunshine Law and attorneys fees are entitled to get um fees as far as the city in those cases municipalities are entitled to get fees only if the city can evidence that the plaintiffs acted in bad faith of the case was followed tripolis so even if there is a lawsuit the city wins a public records lawsuit and this has happened before the city has had cases where where um where the city been sued on on Fe and C excuse me on uh Central love public reference cases the city will not get fees if they're the prevailing party unless they can show bad faith or fisus as for the remaining issues though in the Bill of Rights because the suggestion has been made by the committee to insert attorney fees as a global penalty if that is the case then legal's recommendation is that the fees be reasonable and they be reciprocal meaning that if the city does win those cases the city just as the plaintiff would be entitled to receive fees reall fees the city should be entitled to receive reaso fees too because it's only fair because the city expends funds to do that but that's why we also suggest including the words except as otherwise provided by law to address the situation you can't for those that you mentioned exactly so it would be all others exactly EXA um like a prevailing party whoever wins gets the yeah reasonable attorney Fe reasonable attorneys Fe that's before is that is there another issue as well or is that there is one more issue the remaining issue for penalties is there presently is language in the city's Bill of Rights um keeping in mind that the city's Bill of Rights originally was drafted modeled after the County's Bill of Rights the langu the penalty provision has a uh forfeiture of office or employment provision which basically says that if there is a action and it is found that an officer or an employee has willfully violated the Bill of Rights then that officer employee may be subject to having their officer employment forfeited the county in 2016 had a voter referendum on that to delete the uh forfeiture of Officer employment remedy and in its place expressly provided that the DAT County ethics commission would have enforcement pow in addition to being able to go to court the voters the countywide voters including Miami Beach voters part of the county approved that ballot question so fast forward here Miami Beach is we still have the I say for lack of a better term the old language uh including forfeiture which falls under the same conflict issue concern that we've expressed before because it's strictor penalty however if the board much like the issue of attorneys Fe if the board votes to retain the for pature then there should be language expressly providing that that forfeiture of office or employment is subject to Collective organ because pursuing to state law um Collective oring agreements would take presidence with regards to any removal from office or excuse me any uh employment situation so those are our recommendations just for clarification before we the question the call when we discussed this before that the ethics commission has jurisdiction over like the first 15 or some number of these that were like copies of the counties ethics the counties fild of Rights and then the ones that are not specifically the counties 17 18 19 I hear you George it's kind of I hate to give this answer it's a matter of interpretation and the reason why say that is this the county Bill of Rights says that the county ethics commission has jurisdiction over the county Bill of Rights and Municipal Bill of Rights municipalities Bill of Rights so we interpret that to me that the county ethics commission has jurisdiction over our Bill of Rights all of that's our that that's how we read it but it is a matter of interpretation do they see it that way like if a if a viation came forward violating number 21 for example just because a new one they would be the authority having jurisdiction or would it be I don't know the answer to that I don't know that we've had one we haven't had sit we hav yeah we haven't but again the county code expressly provides that the Bill of Rights uh that the ethics commission's jurisdiction extends to Municipal Bill of Rights just like with the with ethics laws the county ethics laws expressly provide that the uh County ethics commission as jurisdiction over Municipal ethics C I guess I'm trying to recall what you because you all took care to made the distinction that there's some number 11 12 I forget the exact number that are complete copies of the County's Bill of Rights and then there's a whole bunch more that were added additional to yeah there's a few more right yeah what's the Nuance of the disting what distinguishes uh other than that they're different again we we made that distinction uh when we can't change the other ones maybe when this first came up about the potential conflict if we adopted different penalties a stri a stricter penalty from what the county Bill of Rights um uh establishes for violations of the county bill got it yeah okay and our recommendation was it would be you know kind of difficult to administer you know one set of penalties for paragraph one through going back then to number one here attorneys fees those would only apply to the non-count ones or no what what Nick just said is that it would be very difficult to bif forc cated penalties very diff saying but we're saying we're still concerned with that conflict issue but if we say accept as otherwise provided by law we be able to argue you know we'd be able to have some argument that uh the county penalties would apply to the county Bill okay and also if if you decide to include attorneys fees that the statutory Provisions where they do not allow municipalities flat out to have uh attorneys fees that we we would say that you know the acceptance always provided by law we AB by the statutes yeah Tri question uh on the attorney thing so as you said that if somebody is suing the city if I underst understand it correctly then uh the city doesn't have the right to recover if they Prevail they don't recover uh they can't um ask for the other party to pay the city's on certain on certain Sunshine Law and on certain public records Cas Pursuit stat and such okay so um in terms as it's currently written does the city have the ability the current law to recover uh legal fees or is in the in other other cases or is this something that we're now considering adding to this this is new it's new okay so I I have some hesitation I'll just say what concern is is that for individual citizen whatever to bring case against the city um that they they don't have few exceptions they probably don't have the resources of the city so the penalty so is it not enough of a deterrence to have to pay your own legal fees um and you know in terms of just doing through stuff and but to ask to say that all of a sudden you not only have to pay your fee but you also have to pay the cities whether that is too chilling much of a chilling effect on on citizens who may have a legitimate case but you know turns up goes against them but but but in in those cases but there but a lot of cases maybe won't be yeah no I share it question you mentioned the bad faith or um is that for fris is that for all of them or just the public records worked when you say Florida Statutes right now for certain public records lawsuits and for certain Sunshine Law violations authorized municipalities to obtain attorney fees only when the it can be evidence that the plain acted in bad faith or the case was F frisly by the way I just want to um re one thing we're looking at the county Bill of Rights the the uh the commission on E the county Bill of Right says the commission on ethics and public trust they're talking about the county ethics commission may also enforce because they're talking about an addition to going to court may also enforce the provisions of this article and may impose any penalty authorized by county code not otherwise prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement for a violation of this article so looking at this it does appear that the county ethics commission only has jurisdiction over there of the county that that was my question yeah is that so who would have jurisdiction over the city it's the court it would have to be Court the that's the only REM more for what you're saying that's my only remedy and now I've got to come out of pocket and bear risk right I think that's too heavy I have a question you say you sorry George there is another in the county code creating the the commission on ethics and public trust that that the jurisdiction of the ethics commission does extend um to Municipal County or Municipal codes of Ethics conflict of interest ordinances lobbyist registration ethical campaign practices or citizens Bill of Rights so it does so they do have authority over our Bill of Rights yeah yeah I withraw my question I'm more concerned with Joe citizen to use a situation doesn't have the resources to move forward um has to come out of pocket um how many people would be willing to do that but if there is a provision for reasonable attorney's fees and a lawyer looks at and says I think you're right we ought to sue the city um you know I don't see why we shouldn't be components of that view now you want to add on the issue of if you lose the city that's the part I'm concerned about well that's the part I'm I'm concerned about as well what's a reasonable attorney fee for a city uh for a City attorney uh we all may have a review what the city attorneys were um well that I mean the issue of uh attorneys fees computation you know we know is an issue after whenever there's a lawsuit and attorney's fees are claimed um there's a separate hearing determining the reasonable attorneys fees and there is case law that addresses the issue of what are reasonable attorneys fees for governmental attorneys what's your sense my question was what's reasonable and so so that's so that that appes to both's there are cases that but if you've got but going back up to the first question which we're still second but I am going to bring it up it says you know no unreasonable postponements notice what is what is unreasonable who who determines what all of that is so that that's in both questions yeah so I don't so you may have computations for the second you're not going to have it for the first could we Jean could we say in regard to the city's obligation that uh if there's a determination that the original suit was made in bad faith then the city could collect attorney apply the standard that they use for public records right I would go with something like that yeah yeah but but not in all C but yeah so so you described that the city can only secure City's speed if there was frivolous or bad faith on the public records or that's what the state says and we take that same standard and say okay for Bill of Rights litigation the city priv it's not a prevailing party unless the person behaves in bad faith or which is what the state standards for other violations relating to apply the same standard to the nonpublic records on right somebody is already taking so um but for the public record sension Law you're saying that that bad faith and for list standard would not apply no so you're saying that b app globally or others litigation well I you know I I it we are the lawyers representing the city and we tell you um maybe I'll well you thinking no are you thinking so so that a a PL tith could only recover fees against no City could only recover the pl would obtain fees if they win if I'm if I'm clear what you've said is that a plaintiff if they filed a complaint violation of the Bill of Rights related to Sunshine or public records they would receive their attorney's fees if the city won the city would not unless bad faith and I'm saying now not just public records and sunshine I'm saying all 24 of them right I mean I think that you know we can never recommend to you um an an amendment that's going to increase exposure just just as just from a risk standpoint I could not advise you to do advice the council the commission our job is to kind of right yeah explore that we're not disagreeing with you we're the citizens who are advocating for but is I'm still a little on is this a change and and with the current situ under the current law or Charter there's no prevailing part if there is no there is no requirement there is no prevailing resident there is no for fees for either side either side for anybody right okay and by the way um not that I'm saying this is the determining Factor but just so that you all have all the facts there is no Charter at least in date County that we've looked at that has attorneys fees um the one city that expressly says no fees is the city of Miami expressly says expressly says judge have if we don't put it in here if we just left things the way they are does a judge have the authority to in a case where somebody wins to say and City you know and as part of the Judgment we going to the attorney speeds will also be included no attorneys fees Awards uh when you go to court a premise on three things number one if there is a contract that entitles you to fees number two if there is a particular law or statute that entitles you to get fees or number three if there is a if a party proves that the case was frivolous if they won the case and they evidenced the court that it is f and there's a whole standard to evaluate determine for a court to determine it like it's lacking any justiciable law or facts that they should you know that would have warn but short of that no if somebody was to say let's say this situation I was not I I I had a right to speak and I was not allowed to speak and they so they decide to sue the city for a violation of the Bill of Rights there because their rights were violated um there wouldn't be any compensation to them so if if if they if they're just doing this to to sort government to ensure good government um you know they it seems to me that that at a minimum they should get their ATT fees back so they're get but then why shouldn't the city get because this because it it's the city's resources are so much greater and if the idea behind the Bill of Rights is to try to level the t is to give more Authority power to the citizens well the only thing that that I that I would just throw out there is terms the enforcement is so weak the only the only enforcement that they really have is is to try to go to the courts and say something or they can go to the ethics commission but it's may not be an eth it no but they have but they have there is jurisdiction they have jurisdic let me I think if I'm not mistaken the way I read this is you guys were crafting there were two separate questions you right right there's one that and that's that's fair you know maybe maybe we approve both let's I I'm I'm inclined to remove the city's portion of the prevailing and let's put it out there and let the let the commission decide not to but as a recommendation of this body I think that's an improvement and if they don't put it on the ballot they don't put it on the ballot they put it on the ballot and the voters vote for it then or they could change it or they could change it language and I get what you're saying about recommend I'm not asking to recommend because you shouldn't you shouldn't uh but in this instance this group is kind of you know you're you're advising the commission but in this group this is saying how do we enhance the citizens position right we're representing citizens so is that does that seem like a reasonable and then we'll go and let that's our recommendation and commiss with everything so so before we start doing something are we good with 21 22 23 and I I also had a bit of a issue with the long in2 you know it says that affordable housing is a Paramount go what's what's not clear to me is you know as various projects development projects and so forth they're brought to the city as as they are the planning board shopping center here U new office building whatever that um it almost implies that that if there's not affordable housing it is part of it that that somehow isn't they're not fulfilling the this this is because this is our Paramount goal isn't our our goal is I think a bit more balanced i' like Lang saying the word Paramount is I'm saying that that that that that that that the that projects there needs to be a balance between um just regular projects that might only be affordable by wealthy people and and and affordable housing I'm not sure I I think most projects if you look at the number of projects that are going to come before the planning board and so forth probably know 90% of them right now 100% of them and and maybe where we're trying to get to is to say well maybe 10% of these would be good if they were affordable housing but this is sort of like I would interpret this as almost saying oh 90% of these projects should do well look this is aspiration right yeah maybe the word Paramount can maybe there's a synonym for that that is less I think that there needs to aspirational it could be you know an important goal I would say that we acknowledge that there needs to be a balance between you know in a for the affordability of housing or that there needs to be that that um you know A diversity of housing needs to be available different affordability levels you can't you can't make that happen though you can't you can't maret the Market's G to determine that we did that we removed that from the the S of land yeah but but uh can turn down projects you can have the first right ofus or you can have the first of offer the chances the chances of that I yeah I don't like you can just leave it as a goal you don't have to of city with regard to city property is probably what you need to have pable is of the anyer individual Community it's not exclus individuality well then there still needs to be a reference to property somewhere yes so here um this doesn't the Paramount was really what strike the word well what what is what is the issue specifically George do you have a Sol I think we're writing it right or no a a goal of the city and a key factor in individual and Community Health and wellbeing okay that has softened it it doesn't dictate or change the factor up individual and Community I had also had Lang I had also language affable housing language that we struck in 103 that was that is consistent with the scale and and maybe we want and historic you know in other words we support affordable housing but it has to be consistent with the character of neighborhoods with historic districts in other words you know we're not going to put a 20 story affordable hous build in a historic neighborhood the direction I was looking at I think I like what you're saying I just think we we ought to make it clear that it's not every project here here's I think this last this last this last phrase here while protecting the ability the property to appreciate and value if you substituted that for some of the stuff about being consistent with the neighborhood I can okay I can that okay so but do you want us to report well you know what we'll we'll insert it and then we'll include it in the report and when you see it next month then you can get final approval because I I think I had that language was pretty good we took it out because we said it was here right so now that it's here let's make sure kind of reflects it a little bit that works for me so works for the committee and what no unreasonable postponements I like it's still what we have in there now on the first on the first bot question um I feel like we're kind of in the we're still in the same what is an unreasonable postponement what is a notice and to be heard of C matters amend because we've been cut off at some public hearings I me we we we need to I'm I'm trying to get us to a place where people feel like they're being heard and that they're not I don't know how to get there and I don't want to pick this to Pieces because we're so close but but I do feel like we need to make a little bit of a tweak does this may I may I yes may I say something for the record George with the language you talked about so where we're talking I'm just going to read and Elizabeth you tell me if you need more in furtherance of the policy the city's affordable housing committee has been created to review establish policies and procedures ordinances Land Development regulations and uh adopted comprehensive plan of the city and to recommend to the city commission specific actions or initiatives to encourage or facilitate affordable housing and this would be my new language members that is appropriate and consistent with the scale and character of the Cities historic districts and neighborhoods I like that does that work yes Bravo yes so um for the 22 affordable housing that would follow the first sentence after well-being then we insert R's language it would go after facilitate affordable housing at the end right at the very end oh so it's all of this I thought you did it after go all the way to here we go to here we just the DAT affordable housing and then we insert rols you deleted the word Paramount and you add delete Paramount we delete determinant we go all the way down the second last line after facilitate affordable housing and then we insert R language yes does that help Ron yes it helps a lot while the ability of the property yes you need to strike that yeah yeah strike yes yes sir right um up above that it it has here what tries to explain number seven no unreasonable postponement but okay still not do enough this this page that you that you all are looking at right now Elizabeth is an outline of the issues address and Bill rights but it isn't the full text now we have a working draft of of the text that will include as part of the final report and as to no unreasonable postponements um what we have right now this is based on the board's discussion uh earlier this year might even last year is that any commission agenda item that has been deferred by the city commission member who sponsored the item um the item has not been heard within three regularly scheduled City commission meetings shall be automatically withdrawn and no item based on the same proposal may be placed on another agenda than following three regularly scheduled commission meetings unless the requirement is weigh a 6 can we can we do here's what I'm looking at this is what people are going to be reading this is not clear to me and this again is what we've historically seen in the city is that these questions don't read uh in a way that people are even can understand it well they will see by the way they will see the full text this is this outline is for the board's discussion purposes but this is the question I have a I think I think what might read better inad expending through public record and um and then instead of saying no one reasonable postponement but um it imposing limitting or limiting postponement imposing limitations on postponement or or in some way limiting postponement reasonable because unreasonable is not a term but but what what you when you read that language what you what you what you read was a limit on on how many times you could post SP well that's what we did so that's a new language that your section title reads no unreasonable pop that's so that's existing so what the what the Bill of Rights currently says is no unreasonable postponements no matter once having been placed on a formal agenda by the city shall be postponed to another day except for good go good cause shown in the opinion of the city commission so that's existing we're not proposing to take that away that's what no unreasonable postponements relates to is that there must be good cause and you're now saying in addition to that in addition to that we're setting that three-month rule that a commissioner cannot defer their own item for more than three months uh unless you know and if they do then it cannot be brought back for another 90 days that's why we're saying those existing rights are expanded so the so this is the question right this is what I'm I'm Joe voter this is what I'm gonna see this doesn't this doesn't okay I'm my questions if I'm Joe voter which I am question now yes yes um so my my so my notice and be heard on City matters um increased public hearings and notice requirements tell me what that means that's that would be my question is something that we can put in here that somebody will say yes we want this because from from somebody else's perspective it may appear that we're even though it says you're you're increasing public hearings but we don't know to what and that's a that's a fair point the challenge with the ballot question5 the Bill of Rights is how many issues we're trying to include that's the challenge right so that's a big one though it is break this up into three I think you need to look I think you need to step back and think of all the issues that you have that you're proposing and um you know when when you're presenting number when you're presenting valid questions you uh have to State the chief purpose measure um you are not you do not have to in the courts recognize that you cannot because of the 75 word limit State the detail of uh the Implement of implementing every provision but you certainly cannot uh you know it's refer to as hiding the ball you cannot not disclose uh elements that um do not otherwise relate to the cheap purpose measure right now we feel there is nothing that we have not disclosed it having stated the chief purpose of the measure we're explaining that the existing rights are expanded and we give a few examples of how to start getting into the detail of each one of these within 75 words unfortunately look if we didn't have 75 words we'd love to but to answer your question um Elizabeth what we mean by increased public hearings it relates back to the board's direction for increased public hearings was the two Stanley sutnik there has to be a quum uh right wait let me just pull that up yeah Stanley s a quum and two public comment the Stanley set both attended by the quum of the commission one held at the commencement of the meeting and one held afternoon you know those are details of the increased hearings um and as far as in there's one the one about the public comment on both first and second reading is that part of no that's in 205 that's separ 205 and the increased notice deals with the uh extra language the the expanded rights to notice that you all want to include the city codes 2-17 targeted notice so that's in there so you know that's what that's what we've done again if we didn't have the 75 word limit that would be very I think you got a grammatical problem here this is not hard to read Because you you begin with a verb expanding existing rights to public records and then I would think that since you don't have another verb that it applies to expanding no unreasonable postponements expanding how about it's a right to know unreasonable postponements all of these rights are being expanded what he's trying to say I think Ron is that you want he in instead of it he wants expanding each before each thing four no I don't I'm not saying that I'm just saying that I find the sentence there something sping ex public record you know we don't have to include no unreasonable postponement I think people want to know that remember we had Sunset Harbor well yeah but maybe it should maybe it's creates more questions than it helps I mean it already s if you want people to vote for this because it's good expanding existing rights to public records how about expanding the following dot dot rights to notice and Elizabeth she did that I me I don't know you just put expanding the following and then just to two three four five or you know a BC yeah exactly I mean that that's simple it reads you don't you probably don't need to say rights well again because it's the title is Citizens Bill of Rights sh the citizens Bill of Rights the um expand and the title has to summarize uh the the substance of the measure so we can't get away with like putting stuff in the title and then not you know they have to be consistent but I think would be helpful for us so we don't um draft on the Flies if there's specific you know if there specific comments you like try to incorporate bullet points as opposed to or numbers as opposed to to having it read like a sentence yeah you know the challenge is just look at the look at the number of issues that we're what if you just did what if and just I don't know that possible just what if you said um expanding existing rights to or you know something and then City mans and then underneath that amendments including incre and and pressure a little bit could we take bullet number three which is go ahead yeah the remedy and include it in the remedy question below some way so now you've got the first question is expanding rights and the second question is remedies and that gives you I don't know how many more words a lot it's just it's more simple more of what run yeah the language is just tortured because notice and be heard it says expanding rights I still want to move the remedy to the remedy question maybe make that sentence a little clearer that first bullet make it bullet points or number I don't know I don't even want to have bullet points on top of bullet points no no no but what like what my number it you could you could put one two three ABC okay you we following this yeah yeah so the bottom line is that we want to put all of the penalties the third bullet in the second bullet in the second ball so it's all just about penalties um so you know can I just do a quick count excuse me for one sec question there's one question is expanding rights and another question that is yeah oh I like that I like that just I think that's clear one passes then it passes and if the other one doesn't then right just it's just more simple you know just think on people start reading these things they get bogged down in the details and they can't you know it's just like they read so much it's like no as opposed to yeah usually the pros is known so have any reason to and then assume so let's say we can uh while Gan is counting incorporate the third bullet into the penalty question um what are the points that that you it sounds like you'd like more detail on the no and reasonable postponements and and and being and be heard being heard right to be heard so you want us to take each of these existing rights and give like an example for each exis no no no no just just just detail just just outline them underneath each other with like maybe Dash or xwh number of you know don't make it all like a runon sentence kind to let them stand on their own yes have to explain expanding the following existing rights something like that Bo exactly got it the for each of them just one two physically long no as long as 75 words as long as 75 words could be a you know like an outline you know right but then again you know visually you don't want it cluttered no but this is more cluttered to me okay so are you saying expanding existing rights to colon right and then to correct okay it's just do you want us expanding yeah like expanding existing expanding existing these existing rights or something you know and then list them all you can yeah it could be points or numbers or letters or wordss yeah are you serious yeah okay then do that so then you don't need a bullet for expanding existing rights start that and then your first bu is ex rights to public record second bullet no one reasonable postponed third notice to be heard fourth amend whatever exactly and just make it simple do the same the same thing with bullet number two creating new rights so you want no unreasonable performance noticed um and be heard on City matters amendments um increase public hearings and notice requirements you want those listed as bullets okay you need the bullet okay more like I want to vote for it exactly yeah you consist you may want to do the same thing with number create new rights historic pres okay J yes can we do the same thing for bullet point number two and and the same for for third moving to the second ballot question which will need to be abbreviated a little bit because we're at 76 words okay second we'll get there the second no I think it's the sense of this Comm the committee unless I'm feeling otherwise that we're interested in allowing for the plaintiff's um attorney's fees um but not the city unless but I want to clarify something to you know it is not necessarily that the city will be the defendant these Bill of Rights well I didn't hear you I'm no I just said it to Ron oh because the uh Bill of Rights are applicable to officers individually employees individually and the entity individually so whatever you are deciding now for the successful defendant will apply you know as well to an individual defendant not defendant pled no the attorney's fees award you're saying you want absolutely the successful plaintiff to get attorney fees but then there was a discussion about why the defendant the successful defendant should not get attorneys fees because you were talking about City's great resources but the defendant is not necessarily the The Entity it could be the individual as well if it's an individual employee AR they not necessarily not necessarily not necessarily um you know there are George just asked would the city pay for those bees and I think we Bri briefly uh in the past discussed that then you get into issues of whether or not the uh defendant is entitled to the city assuming the call of attorney's fees and that is not a given who decides the City attorney or the commission well it statute the city wishes to cover an employee is that a determination of the city or of the statute well I don't know about employees but I know about officers what about no go ahead I I don't know about employees but I but I know for offic there is a u there is a state statute that references uh when actions are taken and the city's responsibility there's there's a couple of uh uh legal analyses that that we go by and then there is also common law that talks about if a action is taken within the course and scope of your employment or office then the uh you may be entitled to attorneys Fe the whole idea is not to chill your actions when you're acting as a government well it would seem that if they if they were acting in their normal Dort and under the direction of their boss that the city would cover them if they acted independently in Rogue and the city chooses not to well maybe that's why we want them well particularly in a case where they want so you know if if if an employee or commissioner whatever is sued by somebody then and they and it turns out that they won the case then it would seem to me that that would be where you should be your Indemnity should take into effect it's a little bit like um if you're if you have dno insurance if you if you you know they pay your legal fees you know to defend but if it turns out you've done something wrong then you're then you're then you're you're stuck you know I don't mean to argue it but I just factually yes of putting perspective right role as City attorney former City attorney will tell you the city still pays for that indentification the city's resources are still paying for those attorneys fees to be paid by that policy that the city has right right in other words you know no to say the city has big pocket de pocket well but but that's what I'm saying is is that the city that the person if they Prevail is going to be reimbursed by the city so they have the financial resources of the city behind them whereas the person bringing the case has only their own pocket book but it's still again I'm not arguing just it's still the taxpayers that are pay we still take a budgetary hit one way or the other yeah I mean I think what you what you're saying what you're trying to say is that um you know a a lawsuit against the city you know is is could be viewed as a lawsuit against hypothetically a deep pocket defendant who has all the resources even though that's that's not technically correct I think you're talking about perception okay all right but I think that's the sent can can I just say something are we pass number is number one okay save for the bullets first question yeah okay so first question you just want to divide it into bullets but the language is and we're only doing dealing with the first two the expanding and the creating new three we're moving to the L okay all right so got guys the first question framing it number two question two then we're we're I'm going to you know suggest that we do the prevailing party for the for the citizen side not the the resident side or the city side correct with the Proviso frivolous and yeah same same concept as with the state right you know okay and we also provide in here of you know right now just by way background the um Bill of Rights all of the Bill of Rights city of B Beach's Bill of Rights state county Bill of Rights all the other Municipal Bill of Rights in D County that that we've looked at they all provide that the that the successful party gets cost again none of them provide for attorneys fees um this proposal suggests that to expressly say that everybody gets calls not the successful plaintiff but just so that you know and I know mik that uh when you go to court the successful party is entitled to get costs whether it's in here or not attorneys fees no let all successful parties are entitled to cost under the rules of cours and Flor the states so this ballot question also has a provision where we delete at least the language in the Bill of Rights that limits cost justce the successful PL basically saying that whoever is successful so PL so just to be clear that was very good a resident files suit or some violation other than our public record well no it's going to we're gonna say it's all right we're GNA say but let's just say it's a right to be heard thing um and they are successful they get their cost and attorney if they are not successful they're not successful but it was not frivolous and it was not bad faith then they just incur their lawyer fees and costs but the city doesn't get any re is that what we saying okay because this is you know I the other reason why I kind of feel that way this isn't just a uh any old suit this is a Bill of Rights suit this is this is not uh so that's why you know in situations where you know this isn't a for-profit kind of a situation where a developer is trying to you know kind of ensures that the um I just have to say that when you say for profit several years ago the city and I think it was when was City attorney right you had those predatory public records law yes and for profit there were bad actors who were filing lawsuits not just against the city of Maya Beach but against Municipal various governments Municipal and they were doing it because of the fact that as we've already told you the state statutes specifically allow for the successful plaintive to get attorney's fees so here you had these uh parties that were making a a cottage industry about suing governments just to yes get the case settled under the threat of attorney fees and there is a great likelihood for that happening again here I think what Gina is saying is and I know Ron that you know in in a in a in a perfect world you know this is you know Davey against Goliath and your view is that there should be some remedy but there could be unintended consequences at the end quite simply we we we you know just to advise you completely we may find ourselves giving a a different recommendation with regard to this question than than you do and that's and that's why it makes sense to separate them want let th the baby with the bath water the the commission decides they don't want to do that or change it then they don't put question two on the B yeah and we still get the benefit of the expanded rights and I I think you've heard our concerns in recommending this so um if there's no more discussion on those two points I want to raise one additional point with regard to the Bill of Rights which is non-discrimination the board discussed at an earlier meeting um amending the Bill of Rights to include hair texture or style height or weight as uh additional categories um you know based on which discrimination would be prohibited we looked more closely at the Bill of Rights at section 1.07 of the charter which requires voter approval prior to any Amendment to the human rights ordinance which waters down the human rights ordinance and we also looked at the human rights ordinance itself which is in chapter 62 of our code and the list of protecting categories is different in all three places in the Bill of Rights in 1.07 and in the human rights ordinance and the human rights ordinance has um 10 more protected categories than are listed in the citizens Bill of Rights so I I raise this to because um it's you know we where the board was talking about hair texture style height or weight it's really you it's going to require you know more substantial changes in that it's it you know if you wanted to make the Bill of Rights consistent you would need to add these you know these 10 objective categories so I I raise this because for a number of reasons one is that um that there may be there may be labor issues that we would want to look into further this is something the board um wants to explore putting in the Bill of Rights um and also the board should consider that this will likely require an additional question so so uh so I raise it for you know for for your thoughts um you know it's I guess I would say that these categories are all covered by our human rights ordin so can we make the charter consistent by referencing yeah the human rights or in other words can the can they reference the city code provision as say may be amended from time to time because I get what you're saying that these protected classes are expanded periodically so we don't want to put something in the charter that's going to be out can we do it that way by referencing the the charter the the the city code section and we do that now or as referencing the city's human rights ordinance I say may be amended from time to time and we do it in in 1.07 we reference the code where it says any revision to the code you know the waters down the human right but then we specifically identify the classification category so I guess right you know and Nick this this is both in 16 this is both non-discrimination and nondiscrimination in city and FL that's right yeah and are they they're the same protected classes in both no there the the there's one additional protected class in in City employment which is gender identity that one is not in in paragraph 16 I I honestly don't know Michael suggest incorporate okay yeah otherwise you'll always be chasing your tail that's a separate ballad question well or if we should maybe look and see if we're moving bullets three into the penalty maybe we have room to reference I like it we may have let's look at it not the complic can I wait wait the um in the first question in the first question I was gonna um I wouldn't I wouldn't feel complete if I didn't suggest this it to be accepted but in the item number 18 ethics and governance 18 icma has a very it's 100 years now but icma has had its icma code of ethics it gets adopted from time to time to keep up with you know the business can or should we reference Thea code of ethics as part of it as well got copies here people want to see it but but you know IA is the the premier Organization for good government local local government management and I'm just wondering if it would be worthwhile so that's another question no I'm not suggesting another question it's referenced as part of this text here wait what government I would want I want to see it I haven't seen that I'd love to see it because I'd want to see where there's probably I'm sure there's overlap with with um some of what is go ahead George are you suggesting specifically adding in the icma or just say using language in the I reference right but you're not saying incorporating number 18 just kind of say you know you know whatever that is there to include the icth we talked about you know last summer about how we M you select a manager yep stuff like that this is the standard for managers relates to CS of ethic all good stuff I'm not suggesting we incorporate the entirety and try to write it in here but do you want the guidelines Incorporated by reference is that what you're suggesting suggesting in number 18 if it can be done wait wait but you're not saying uh by name incorporating IC well I I think the concern with that would be city employees and and government City officials and employees are governed by three ethics codes I'm not talking about the manager because we understand the manager is governed by the the icma um city employees and and officers are governed by the state ethics code and by the county ethics code and by in Miami Beach the city of Miami Beach's ethics code they are not bound by this now again we understand you you know you George your professional capacity as manager maybe also because the same way the attorneys are bound by the Florida ethics it goes to the last the last phrase George where it says All City officials and employees shall abide by ethical codes of ethical conduct and be subject to all penalties provided for in such regul regulations so does the i as far as I know though the icma code of ethics those right but they're voluntary no there are no there are no penalties well there's public censures Andel you can be expelled from the membership just it's like a Florida bark and take away your license I suppose and so icma can expel you into a public censure or private centure suspend your membership or your financial manager status those things but those are process that icma goes only to IC members they're just I'm bringing it up only because we talked last time about establishing some criteria some aspiration I don't want to create a problem oh you're worried that there may be a conflict you know especially the penalties George this is also as an alternative um and I'm I'm just we could also do this as a possible Amendment to the city code because the city code right now has standards of contracts for city employees you know so that it might be more appropriate to do this as an amendment to the code I like it if there are that's a good idea right if there are provisions of the code that do not conflict with this and then policy decision City commission and that's something you can include in your um in your recommendations uhhuh I like can we put can we add that there I standards of content to be done by Amendment to the city code recommendation by Commendation we can include that in the report that's a good suggestion okay okay have Weil this one land okay and other so we're good with the ballot questions as amended um so the decision on the for pature I assume is that the board wishes to retain the for piture of Officer employment and adding subject to which we we are explaining is required by state law regardless it is subject to Collective Bo right so so the Genesis of this one is not really coming from here it's that the county made a change and so now we're different than what the county does on for yes on on the forfeiture of office and I guess again going back to my first question which is if there were a violation of some sort of the county ones then we would have to apply that standard and if it's a violation of the city ones it would be a different standard or like we didn't do that we didn't say that just leave it the way it is what's what the argument that the city could have is that the um well again I hope you will understand that what we're saying you know on the record we're not here to make record for somebody looking to challenge the city so maybe that's best left for private discussion but um we've already um but but you know we've we've explained to you that there are concerns that we have with regards to a partial conflict and that's why uh we have acceptance otherwise provided by law and what's the feeling what do you guys um it's good enough for the county it's good enough for us that's the that's the least I don't think we have a choice anyway so the board is voting to delete the the fure of Officer employment yeah they take bullet three and incorporate into the question two and try to but you're talking about if I understood what you just said um deleting the for pature as a penalty yeah consistent with the count the count okay count well hang on let me just for a second um the County's position is for a violation of the county Charter the county Bill of Rights provision County bill of County bill of right um there's no provision to for the employee or the office holder to Forfeit their position correct correct the voters approved that and and then the voters did whatever they wanted it for removal I think we need to keep bill of right say I don't know would do all right because I thought in our original discussion many moons ago uh we wanted to include specifically we do that if there is a violation they could forfeit their position that was I remember that that was specific that's what the forfeiture section says the forture section that's in as a penalty that used to be in the County's Bill of Rights says if there is a willful violation then a remedy one of the remedies is forture of office or employment and the county deleted that um it's my understanding because it could be considered Draconian uh but they provided in that same balent question that the county ethics commission would have jurisdiction to provide the public and the citizens with an extra enforcement but the ethics commission can remove them from correct the ethic not interest I'd like to leave it has power over the penalties forat to me mean this voluntary not voluntary but I do it versus being removed someone forces me out does forfeiture mean like means you lose your you lose your all the for employment you know you may who would decide that the court well the courts would you know right now um the most recent relevant uh news item that's happened is with um you know not commenting on the validity of it but just saying I we had read in the heral reported that in the city of Miami with commissioner coro's recent um litigation that's going on the um plaintiff who succeeded in getting the money judgment is also moving pursu to the city of Miami's Bill of Rights removal of commissioner coroo under this forture provision and that is that the but that but that's one example there you know the I mean there are there is an example of a of a city employee including for instance a code enforcement officer um where where a a plaintiff's on the forfeiture of that code officer's position um really for conduct that was within the completely scope code the court will decide it right that right but it is a you know it's a it's a very heavy penalty yeah you know I I can we leave it the way it is without addressing and it just with the current existing langage well again if you do leave it in um we've explained to the legal concerns but at the very least you we U pointed out that pursu to state law collective bargaining right that needed but fix that no I think we made a an affirmative decision for for for I think we leave it in I mean as long as it's some process that leads mean that that is the maxim as long as long I me that's a great point I'm sorry paron but but again under the discussion that you just had with these the uh officer or the employee and this could be any employee you know low-level employee or or actually doesn't even matter if it's the highest officer low anybody but if they succeed they do not get fees and that individual will have paid it could be that individual could have paid out of his or her pocket fees yeah but I would hope that the court would say this is frivolous this was filed in bad faith you're entitled to fees Mike you know the lawyers in this room know how difficult it is to prove frivilous when you go to court and you try to evidence that a case is privis it's a very high and I'm not saying it shouldn't be otherwise but it is a very difficult standard to me to get these proposals very difficult so what is your suggestion look I think we're kind of at a consensus here I know you guys you guys recommend to the commission not to approve this question maybe the answer but the Citizen's Bill of Rights yeah citizen is gonna be chilled and perhaps employ the employee is an issue the city would if they ended up prevailing the city have to re right um you know you know one of the issues though I think is sometimes the city's City attorney's office will give very good advice to the commission or an individual commissioner the commissioner will shrug and say screw you I'm going to do whatever I want and then gets litigated the city loses um and that person you know who's gone through all this and the city didn't take a a reasonable position ought to be entitled to to collect Fe um so I don't see in my mind the ill you're suggesting here is almost always present but you know as Ron points out is it designed for citizens to vouch for their rights and you know I think that's the consensus here and the City May the City attorney may take the position this could cost you guys money and the commission can make a decision who we would don't want to take a chance uh on losing money so we're not going to put it in there that's that's their prerogative that's their so I think question two is the penalties without this Bo actually yeah well getting back to the yeah the four piure in job as as long is the language clear that is the language clear that that that that is the maximum penalty but that is not the required penalty you know so that as was said that that a judge or somebody that there needs to be a process whereby some DET what should to including whatever but but that that is but it but we don't want it to be read in such a way that the court would find that you lost the case therefore you must lose your job it's discretion discretionary the remedy says um any public official or employee was found by the boards who have willfully and willfully you know it's a standard to be deter by the court right violated this Bill of Rights shall forth forth with forfeit his officer that's too draconi I do agree Finish Well that that's it that's it with regards so I do agree that to may may that could be it you know and and leave it to the but then we need no I mean excuse me um then you need to have criteria by which the court will evaluate whether it shall be May or shall because the courts need criteria right so could it instead shall shall uh shall receive a penalty up to an including forit like that don't we have that in some of our we have that in our labor Personnel standards struggle we should we discipline up to an including what you're saying is it's not a death penalty that's what courts do anyway I mean every law that we have in the books criminal whatever you know say you know the maximum is 20 years in prison and then it's up to the judge to decide what he thinks is yeah but there are guidelines in terms of what the prison sentence should be for specific crimes um I I tend to agree with Gene that leaving it so open-ended is not um appropriate what about leaving it to discretion of the the based on recommendation from the Ethics Committee like shall be subject to disciplinary action up to an including forfeiture of what the employer would decide not so much like a court doesn't usually decide what the disciplinary action is it's the employer the judge would no I'm saying that in I've never seen that a judge decides what is the appropriate disciplinary action a judge could decide that disciplinary action was discriminatory because it of the way that it was handled but a judge isn't going to come in and say you should suspend this employee or you should terminate this employee that's handled by the employer so so you know in the in the real world I don't know at least my beach we've never run across a situation like this that Happ well there been law not many but and so now if is the the mayor in the conduct of running in the meeting failed to properly deal with the right to be heard two suic hours at a certain hour whatever um and a plaintiff came and filed against that um in the far extreme I guess he'd be subject to Forfeit yes yes and nothing in between not the way that it's written if it was okay that's okay probably why the county that is why and that is also why other cities have also deleted it you know quite frankly you know it's not just uh the the factors for the um court but it's also for the employee or for the officer it it establishes a standard that can subject them to unlimited for threat of forat and that's re and and by the way I just want to throw in one other thing whenever you look at Cas law that talks about these types of penalties for elected officials the courts refer to the analysis that these are decisions best left at the ballot you know if you don't like what the elected official did you vote them out of and as far as the employee situation there are Personnel rules that govern I mean I'm not advocating but just so that you there's only so much control over right but so so so in of having this instead of so this not binary it's not yes or no there's a place in between up to an including yeah from said they're not gonna tell you in your own emplo in your own office they're not going to come into your office and go hey guess what you've got it's I'm sorry go ahead lower level employee than the the supervisor could delate between the two for director like besides the M sitation if if a code officer is Rogue enough that they do something that violates three or four or one of these things but I think that would happen regardless of whether it's in the code their boss would supervise him say hey either reain you in or suspend you progressively up to termination those things exist for most employees right except for maybe the charters and then you've got the elects and we don't want to have you know not say that any but if they just said hey I'm gonna discriminate against everybody it can happen you got guess political removing it all right I understand the reason for removing is there something else that we can put in that at least gives the as something well I think the attorney's fees is um a very substantial something that is being provided here uh considering that on the flip side of the coin the city even faced with the potential for predatory cases that's question question I understand think nine out of 10 cases that won't be the case so I mean I I were I lean in favor of the resident But but so I don't want to create a situation where where where so it's so Draconian that that on the other side that that the citizen is afraid to bring suit that's they got a legitimate case but my question is can there is there some other penalty that we can language we can put in there so that it isn't completely do this can we say I'm repeating from the same behavor can you can you someone said delegated delegate the determination of penalty to the commission ethics commission no but they would need standards un they not hear that anyway you know my fear I guess is you have a mayor uh at sutnick hour doesn't like a citizen right and citizen shows up I want my three minutes three minutes the mayor says turns off the microphone next and the guy back next week I want my three minutes next and you know consistently for whatever silly reason or you know reason you know shouldn't there be a mechanism where uh a charter violation uh you know mayor you've done this three times can't do this and the mayor shrugs and say I'll do whatever I want to do well there ought to be a provision in there to uh you know ex you don't wait for the two years for the bance repeat a fender so that you do it like what you just said maybe three times and then it's forfeiture but up to that and remember it's only if somebody complains right strikes and your out it's only if somebody files a case so it would already likely need to rise to a pretty significant standard for me to you know hire a lawyer and do whatever a citizen would need to do in that so are you suggesting that if somebody brings a case and a Court decides mayor you were in the wrong then and if if that in a if after that if he does it again the mayor then in that case might be subject I'm just trying to figure out how to address the concerns that you all have I'm not sure that that's perfect solution you know um I'm just saying objectively the concern is uh the voters who vote in at elected official they don't necessarily want the the person that they elected and removed for fear to let somebody speak at a meeting I'm not saying that's not a significant issue but they're all different levels ofy and as Nick said let me ask a question it just don't so so in Michael's example I'm the resident who's been shut down three four many times I tolerate and I finally say you know what enough is enough I hire my attorney I file suit I have to go through and be adjudicated don't I it's not just because I filed suit so somebody a judge a panel of of my peers whomever is going to rule that in fact yes my rights were violated pursuant to this then the judge would appr the standard I guess it's been established which is for which it's been judge to make a determin and there would have to be a finding by the judge that it was a willful intentional violation and then under the way this presently exists the judge has the right to and must um going back for a minute why not why not inj him what do you mean a party right now can bring a c action or injunctive yeah yeah to enforce it and there's different ways it be so that would be step one before a judg yes aand kind of thing to can a judge order leg right to be heard right I wanted to come to S hour and I keep getting shutting down so a judge tell the mayor give me my minutes is more like you file an application and I refuse to process it what about what about a thousand fine what about some put something in that's not so crazy you know it's not lost a job but it's enough so that somebody isn't Gonna Wanna is is it you know like this is what they do with like you know athletes and I mean you got all kinds a lot of precedents for for having a fine of some sort that you have to pay a civil penalty are are we talking about elected officials Charter officers some elected officials will delate between an an employee employes who are cover you're saying you need to speak to the collective bargaining so that the the an employee right would have to be subject to Collective Fair approach well employees are already you know you already have employes yeah but there is no re for an elected official I mean so other than you know a thousand fine or something that then there is something that that right now they have zero so I'm just suggesting that the employee and just have it officials but then that's still ionian because you don't know what the nature I mean to eliminate the mayor because you know I mean we can think of an example mayed a citizen three times or whatever I say what's the yeah but are we gonna be that specific three times well again I could just say what the cases say when these types of political issues come up yeah the courts say that these are decisions to be determined at the ballot Bo yeah that that's so maybe that is the answer if you I'm just suggesting that if there are if um in that example where you have a mayor or whoever is preventing you know a citizen their their rightful um uh ability to speak before the city Comm and for whatever reason they're ignor whatever if you go to court uh and you are successful of your proposal that plain will be able to get attorney's views and the decision of what to do about that lefted official maybe one that's best left at the B Bo I'm not ready to go there Continuum violation go to your your Bill of Rights and it's the it's second to last paragraph It's Capital C just just like our own ordinances where first you know a noise or say okay it's $500 it's a flat amount it doesn't like well how noisy were you when that you know it's very simple and let's let's scale this up shall forth with forfeit his office instead of that shall first face a $1,000 fine $3,000 fine for like that yeah multiple two three it's like a graduated scale you're putting your criteria so they pay a $1,000 fine for the first violation I don't know $5,000 fine for the second violation of the same and then time is for are by the ethics ordinance the count the county ethics code has graduated do monetary dollar penalties but that doesn't have to do with this just in see that is not this remember that this is enforceable one of two ways by the ethics commission or by filing by filing here in any suit right only in this one we're not I'm not stepping on the ethics commission if if they pursue it under letter see here and any employee who is any emplo official or employee who is found by the court to have will willfully violated this article shall set of forth with shall face a one $1,000 fine for the first offense 5,000 for the second viation no no then forfeiture forth with forfeit his office after the third Bish so that would require three cases cases of the same thing well do we want to do it of the same thing or three three of the bill three violations of the the Bill of Rights of the Bill of I'm sorry of the Bill of Rights have to be specific Bill of Rights I think we would need to look into that I don't think there's any Bill of Rights that there are no Bill of Rights like that penalties except except um that given the fact that the date County ethics commission has jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights the county ethics commission if they find a violation um Can impose their penalties and they have they do have monetary penalties George that's that's an important point I think the county ethics commission has jurisdiction over um our Municipal Bill of Rights and violations under the the the county ethics ordinance carry fins understood so I'm not sure there that but this says for this says forfeiture so you've got C here that says if you're going to file a suit and you've told us that you want to give the judge some criteria this would be the Criterion or some some schedule like this so are you proposing to strike for a fure and then replace that with some sort of simplifying schedule like a one through and three or out three is the third is for third is for violation of a Bill of Right is a th then you go off and do something else whether it's a thing or something in through 25 to it just being I think it's what do you think Jan I un concerned that it's arbitrary um these dollar amounts we're throwing out a th 2,000 okay so you've asked for a schedule we're trying to give you the schedule no we haven't asked for a schedule we're just telling you or I'm sorry you suggested that a schedule be just having um giving a court the opportunity if it so chooses to to the courts need standards to you know to impose P can we use the standards that areth number 100 a th000 whatever that is it goes to forfeiture after three yeah take a look at it right I'm not W to the numbers I'm just I'm I'm concerned about where you know where we are on the calendar but we we can look at it I mean that seems a little bit more less otherwise I would just but the of what the the big picture idea of what you're saying just so we understand your correct is you're saying that rather than um if there's a willful violation immediately you know the the forfeited that if they go to court and it's like the first violation it's x amount of dollars and if it's the second wolf of violation at the court finds it's then this dollar amount and if the third time is three the magic number that you're right and and you say it's arbitrary I mean this is under civil Cod right I mean we already have a flat well if we're tied into I think as basis right just one two you're out under this proposal yeah okay um and and we know can I make a motion to strike the whole the whole um the next where we were talking about the salary only all right so ethics commission first do you need anything else on third um would be I think we're okay I don't need I don't need a motion here just yet you guys for number three three strikes are up what do you mean forfeit number three the third the third violation right the dollar amount the dollar Mount okay can we move to the next item or do you need yes hopefully we can you don't need to see Bill rights back right I guess we need this or well our our our plan is to bring back the final a draft final report at your next this will be in the report okay I'd like to talk about something after we do 103 so but I I just want to bring up we might need before April 16th which is our regularly scheduled meeting I think we might need an extra meeting only because the election discussion is is fairly um complex and I'd like you be able to digest it and um you know and then we can do the final report on April 16th I don't want to ruin anybody's timeline but I think it might be good to do a an additional meeting do we have time you issue your final report then do we have time before they meet to vote to to do oneon-one thing yes yeah we may need to have a meeting after would say think for the for the majority of things for the rest of not just the elections but for the rest of the things because what I'd like to do is I'd like to devote April 16th to the final report and and you know and process following okay but I'm saying is it may be April 12th and then on April 16 19th when I don't know that I'm going to be able to get a meeting before April 12 okay I will not be here April week April 16 the next meeting is weeks April 18th is fine because we also still have cerges until April 19th yes so I just I think we need an additional meeting that's all I'm saying even if it's reduced when's our meeting by the way you guys I thought it was 16 you when my last day the 19th the 19th yeah you'll come back for that though availability the week of the hangist guys let's not get on calendar yet let's finish our agenda calendar okay I'm sorry I didn't want to I I didn't want to bring it up prematurely but okay here's my 103 bid question which hopefully you will approve of does everybody do everybody have it in front of it front of them P 27 we're at we're at um 74 words and um I tweaked it since we since we last met i' met with I I I I I tweaked it since we last met so um you want me to read it or you guys good reading it yourselves we're looking at page 27 so bullets it's you have to say from 60% majority that imp I think we I think you know I think we do have to disclose that right did we not have air rights in here somewhere air rights is in the text Elizabeth okay okay thank you then the the only heing on the mission did we change that we the committee has to change this six s vote of the commission uh yes unless you want to leave at 67s did we did we as a committee sayange I believe you I just I do remember there was something which I just didn't like that where we changed it from I think the reason for changing it was because we added um before the approval of management and Concession agreements did not require a public hearing so it was um the way it's in the text right now is in the current Charter is you have a planning review a planning board vote which is binding four sevens and then you have six7 City commission vote and what we've done now is we've made all the planning reviews um advisory right and we changed this to 5 SS but we added a public hearing we could go back to so I'm not I don't have a problem with that that that's a policy call not sure I would change it to 57s L but I persuade I would made a change from what it is now now 67 you want to go back to 67 that's what it is today yeah yes that's where it is today then we can eliminate the bullet right right then right then all I have to do is adding a public hearing yeah I don't see a reason to loosen it management concession and that that change is minor enough that we can take your direction and include it in the final report that's the fin change yes then we'll need to change the test yeah I don't change the text that's no big to you okay you need a vote on this uh yes I need final who's making that Elizabeth I will move forward second R all in favor I any against N Rock unanimous great work members thank you great work work okay so next item is um on this election thing I suggest we go back to where we were it seems like Chistina has indicated that U runoff from December is for a lot of reasons not the best idea in your packet ladies and gentlemen we incorporated the email from the county on page 30 we last talk we we said we'll have the the first election in November run off the first week of December second week of December um Christina White and consulted there us a lot of reasons why that's not a an advisable for of action and so in here I think we have the what we had tentatively agreed to that right which is election in October run off in November or mayor no R off just an election November which is where we were until last last Mee right and the only little uh just for the um just for the record um there was one additional change that we needed to make to the taxt it's completely consistent with your substantive am amendments but keeping in mind that this would not go into effect until the city's general election in 20125 we also needed to address remember we did that little tweet for 604 we needed to address the situation where if this is approved November of this year 2024 there could be an intervening city election like to fill a vacancy uh between 24 and 25 so we need to make sure for those elections none of this would go into effect yet so the uh the first paragraph where we had deleted you know deleting the um missioner groups now we're going to say that that will that the deletion of the commissioner groups will be commencing 202 mon specifically s don't really love that people have to come out twice every two years do already no they just only the run off done every year election no but they're is a runoff they only have to come out one date you come out you vote for the year done with this we have now made it such that every two years everybody has to come out twice just like now just like even come out twice now they only have to come out twice if there's there's a run but I think history has been because the general elections now for everybody and November and everything's both it's mandatory versus there is an occasion where maybe there are no R but the history would indicate that there have always been RS at least the last I think this is better this is an improvement for today firstes I thought we were going to Avid the Tuesday after Thanksgiving yeah were we put it the second week of December but then when you do I guess early voting and staff time and all Christina was no she said I would avoid recommending December R this would mean election day is the Tuesday following her other concern was she cannot do a runoff any any shorter than four weeks foll ing the general that was the other she needs at least four weeks yeah so I thought we were saying we were looking at later in December like the 10th or 11th or whatever that's what we had said we weren't we never he doesn't want that you know right now got to do leading up to that election dat program this gives her five we talked about it would be five weeks and we were specifically did one avoid that Tuesday after Thanksgiving this isn't what we asked her to do to app on and she has written to the city clerk that that is not right what she can accommodate no she says very clearly I would have difficultly remember the D as opposed to the November because this would mean election is the Tuesday following Thanksgiving that's not what we asked for he just talking about ear vo you have to read the next sentence we have voting for have early voting for runoffs yes yes I think we're I mean I think the overall tone of her email run is that it's not going to work she said no right and she file if you want to weigh in she's said no okay basically she's saying this is how it's going to be know the City of Homestead right now the City of Homestead three years right rph they forever rala they have had their election in odd numbered years the first Tuesday in October is the general and the runoff is the first Tuesday in November Christina has correct me if I'm wrong real Christina has you know sent the message out that she would prefer Miami Miami Beach and haia the three cities that we all now have our election first Tuesday and two weeks later the runoff in November that she would like um that that's what she that's the standard she wants so she would she likes the October 2nd right day in October are we can we get a motion to just approve what we had appr before with this that I I as amended by as amended jeez so I got a motion a second second second by Michael all in favor say I I all oppos I should suggest additional meetings more rock so that's a unanimous as well so thank you Ron we try so next one is the solation thank I'm gonna make a motion I don't I think we I think we should discuss so we have our recommendation here for the salaries yes right well you already approved right right right but the commission what's happened since right is the commission has voted themselves why don't you please describe and at a minimum the the the numbers need to change if nothing else because the number is now 41,000 is not correct right because they now more the question is do you want to proceed with this question given that we're going to have a multitude of valid questions and given the commission's posture or do you want to call it qu we may we may okay because on the one side one would argue listen you know onehanded right on the one hand I guess uh you're right the commission has taken their action right read the leaves and move on on the other hand we did discuss that part of what this question was doing was closing that forward a loophole or whatever we want to call it that ability to going forward continue this practice and also right George but also inserting the voters view of it because right now they did it on their own right right you know completely eliminated the will of the people maybe maybe not maybe the people will say yeah I think that's appropriate but they don't get an option unless we put this on the table but they're not going to get an option if going forward I I think that's a harder vote because at the commit at the meeting uh Christen Gonzalez for examples raised the question about perhaps having this on the ballot with the voters to yeah she did she did so I think I think the fact that they voted themselves ra doesn't mean that they won't agree to this to a change in the process and if they do then that's a piece of information voters should have agree I think the voters have a right let them reject it to weigh in on on their elected official salary what the commission did For Better or For Worse um they've taken the constituency out of the equation said we're going to do what we want to do and that's what it is I I don't think we should fold our tent now okay listen this is a it's a policy call up to you we have a lot of valid question so we're going to have to have that discussion soon but if you if you feel this is important and want to go forward with it that's your call are you guys um is this strong enough let me ask the question this way if this passes could a future commission do what was just done no no not no no it it closes that interpretation right they would have but they would have to they would have to want to have this on the ballot and agree don't okay but they got but they got to go on record to say that and when they face the constituency as Ron points out this is an issue for a voter to decide on that's that's fine I would I would propose one modification which is for very brief discussion is you know we can look at whether first of all as you say we may but I think the other thing that I felt that I had res about the first time around and now knowing how the commission approach they built in a cost of living didn't they yes CPI I'm okay with the cost of living this as long as it go you know as they get their cost we agree on a baseline if you're okay with that that may also send a negative if what you want to do is make the voters that may send a negative message to voters but I don't think it's reasonable to hold their their compensation include and constant for 10 years with that remember you know I think that that there that it shouldn't that there should be some automatic increase modest and then if and only only if they want more than that then that's well do you want like a cost of living not to exceed 3% per anom or something like that which is what we've typically done the voters sure right but the voters haven't improved it and I thought your what what the board has said previously is that you you want any increase to go to the voters I don't I don't's changing his mind yeah I I don't think that that's practical I don't think that Theiss we are creating a situation of just getting out of whack once we decide okay here's an amount to give you then it's just going to get out of whack so Ron what we've usually done is just from past practice we've stipulated a cost of living not to exceed 3% per anom which means that anything over that would require referendum I have a question didn't they just in theiry didn't they just vote for the CP CPI did yeah but this would override that if it passes if it passes if it passes but I I don't mind putting I don't mind putting it in I'm just they choose not to right then me that's your that's your decision we're not we're not they didn't listen to our recommendation to wait they just jumped right in and they they were afraid that we were you know I mean right they were aware they were aware of Elizabeth's motion the board's not the Elizabeth's but the C review committee's motion they were aware um the question is do you still want to put this on the ballot I'm hearing yes I think we want to put it on the ballot and if the commission decides they don't want it on there they'll have to vote it off so so here's a question here's a question this is this is now the tactic gos so our numbers were based on arrays so forth uh it was giving with whatever the increases what what if we now say establishing the sole exclusive compensation of instead of it saying 60,000 and 55,000 the numbers have to be adjusted we adjust those numbers to be exactly what they gave themselves yes okay yes may lower than this no no higher no it'll be higher okay whatever that is it's just that number so now the voters get to vote on what they right right right so we're not asking them the commission to to to give back what they think they already have give them that number be curious to see those numbers and and and then and say and in the interest have a summary of what it would be on a monthly basis but I don't have it annualized I need to do the ma we can get it's on the previous page it's on 838 I'm tell be we can get the number yeah so it's not going to be too much more than the 1655 any I don't think it's that signicant it is what it is yeah yeah say so now and then and then one last question I I mean I what I had my mind was more like 4% than three not to exceed remember it is a CPI 3% when when you look at for example three was an example Ron okay never mind holds that uh that you use for you know the well the last valid question that the city sent out on that was um uh not to exceed I think it was was 3% whichever is the CPI right let's just change the lesser of CPI or 3% right exactly here's thing we were already at 75 words with your ballent question on compensation um and every word was so how about we make get two questions let the separately but uh voter fatigue and I I I think this question warrant a not incl we should we guys did you hear us we may not have enough words I mean it was already at 75 you remember you know what was so we have more huh we have more not enough we have more words okay yeah well then wait a minute though can we remove the stuff now about the the 10,000 and the 6,000 I know that you guys those are the numbers that are actually in the chart amending the charter how about removing that included within the 41 no you wanted you wanted this no but now that we're changing it to say shall it be this number well now it will say included within the blank earnings it'll be the new dollar amount he said no he's saying he's saying two but I thought you just said that you want to reference I'm saying establish the solar so just increasing change the 10,000 from mayor to blank dollars which is what they're earning actual number what you have here is the 60,000 change the 60,000 to whatever the math works the actual number the actual number for the mayor and instead of 55 the commission instead of the charters 10 and six yeah and dro the part of we were trying to help with the um right included the wait I just want to go back and find that um the last time this went out to the voters like four years ago oh no I know but I just want to explain to them it was the um to allow an annual compensation increase based upon Consumer Price Index issued by the department not to exceed 3% I I'm I'm not exactly a fan of that myself but I'm gonna go for assistant are you guys gonna are you guys lesser unanimous 3% you guys okay I mean they gave it to those do I have to well I I I I want to I want to give them half a chance I don't want them to say I'm opposed to this because it's not right that doesn't go up and end of vote and we're done I I don't want to give I don't want to have him voting basically what we're doing is yes putting yes what they just did to a vote that's right we got the ethics question yeah we're we're we're making it such that you the lesser of CPI are 3% okay that's what was in 2018 okay okay I think that's the right well let me just do quick okay I presume we can add that and you can I guess you can drop the pars including within the right those things yeah you know what can I just do a quick um let's see yeah you know we would say we would just say um to be adjusted by the lesser of CPI or 3% adjusted by precise index yeah we know they can a CPI increase but not to exceed 3% right within the word you don't need to use all the words and then the actual numbers and we take all that stuff including whatever from the cpen because just an actual number and that's on page 38 yeah so do we know what the numbers are because we don't have yeah um the mat will take it the Sion includes car allowance includes phone includ I'm just making sure that the number that we put in the valid question will include everything everything right everything that was your intent to make it all quote unquote right salary right and close quote and motion motion by Michael B second by second second by Ron star all in favor say I I oppos None you okay great I'm counting nine ballot questions so far ladies and gentlemen okay let's see let's go to that so that's item six which is a a chart that we prepared a summary of issues considered by the should you this by the board so we' got Bill of Rights as we've done today yes and 103 yeah 2011 is the we just reaffirmed that section 202 we just reaffirmed section 203 the gifts we've already done right y section 205 is the this is the ad and the adver the two public right I think we're done with all the questions four five six seven this over here the pending issues we've taken care of well the one that is uh requires some changes are the the Bill of Rights and penalties um but but you essentially approve them we're GNA have eight there question yeah yeah what we have we're looking at housekeeping so we're nine now so now would be helpful if the board could uh prioritize if you wish to or do you want to present all night we present okay because we're drafting the report so we will present the report as these are all of your recommendations for placement on the November ballot okay I would just list them in numerical order here you have them here what p is that 41 yeah I think these are all that's nine questions yeah right you have two two rights 103 103 right 21 is the election 202 is the compensation 203 is the um yes the gifts and the non interference and 205 the public hearing and the notice and 207 is the vacancy the two Phil of Rights and then the conformer so are there any questions P we commissioner Rosen Gales referral right get to that one a second those are the two that anything that we had on our to-do list you I thought something that we ought to add in here permanent parking for all of us who participated in in the city of Miami I in Charter I want to be able to keep my free Pary Bravo we can extend the we at least get it through the end of the year so no so not we I didn't hear anything Ral I wna yeah so so you've recommended nine questions to the commission well upwards of nine at least right now it may not you know the the housekeeping remember we told you from day one we can't tell you exactly the number until you're all done and then we sit down and start looking at all this the housekeeping a conforming question we'll have to see if we need that even I think we do but you'll be um let me see what else so then we've got the two items that uh the commissioned sent us we kind of had a preview of it when commissioner Ros visited us last month those I'm sorry to interrupt but those would be if approved by the committee straw bance right uh before I go item number six is there any action you need or you got what you six was the the nine questions no no those have all been voted okay so um a strong may form of government anybody wish to advocate for that I'll take the UN side you'll take the what side the con side again I've only ever only this is the only city that I've ever lived in that has that does not have strong air so I mean this is different for me lived in a city of this size um I GRE in Alabama so yeah it's not not not a size Montgomery you're right okay it depends on the I think it depends on the culture of this of our tax Phoenix Arizona is a strong form of government San Antonio Charlotte North Carolina San Jose Atlant Texas um there are a number of large cities that are strong manager former government and there are a number that are strong mayor former government you know generally speaking the strong mayor is more found in the larger cities that's that's what I'm used but the the key thing that I talk about strong mayor versus the council manager we have now or commission management form is you have seven commission members all who have generally equal Authority the moment you have one elected official who was outside the commission who's in charge and running the dayto day uh not to mention the notion that you may or may not get a qualified person to actually be an administrator um you you you diminish the authority and power of the commission right individually um and so the strong Merit comes at the expense of the Commissioners I agree with you but is it our decision um to weigh in or should it be voters decision look there's a parade of horribles I would never vote for uh a strong mayor in the city of Miami Beach I I would agree with that but but that's me um isn't it up to uh the citizens to to make a call I mean assuming that they were sufficiently advised and it wouldn't be it's a straw ballot so it's h you know it would ultimately reconfigure this uh this committee to create a ballot Amendment uh a new Charter in effect to do it with a cost uh the UPS the Downs hearings and everything else I think the downside is not worth the upside yeah well ballot is you if if you want to do it then let's have somebody kind of put together that recommendation but I don't know I think from the position of our board I I I I haven't I don't see a compelling reason to make such a major change I mean this is really major and I think it would be almost it's premature we're not we haven't spent we would have to spend a lot of time I don't think anybody would even understand to really look at all the pros and the cons before making a recommendation so I think that we feel that you know that that would be my answer is that sending my tickets feel qualified or that you know to to make a constit recommendation on this given that it the implications are broad extensive and I'm G tell you the potential for good versus the potential for bad yes it doesn't quite right penil out I like I like this form of government to be honest with you yeah I I I do too I think we this works system system isn't broken mail in my ballot you know I agree I just uh I am not convinced that it's our call to make one way or the other yeah and let them I think if the commission what the commission might want to do is put this on the ballot a SC that quite question I don't think we a what what is do you know the impetus for why this question is is even do you know what why she she because she's not even going to be on the commission she can run for mayor her her I'm paraphrasing what she shared with us is the notion that that um you know the mayor gets elected to affect change or make a difference or you know Implement an agenda and in her mind the the the shackles of government prevent that from then happening um that is in my argument I would say that that's more a function of the individual than it is about the system I I got you know you get a mayor and there the system has worked for the years that it has worked then there have been Mayors who have been strong and there have been Mayors who have not been strong and it's a function of the mayor and how they pull the levers of government and the manager and partnership with that that makes it or doesn't make it happen yeah but that's okay that's the check and balances that's in place I'm fine with how we are I think we're all in agreement we might as well move on somebody else on this is it no recomend and then the second item that came our way I think we kind of um kind of addressed it as part of the other action do with the election right this was the even year election right we just voted to have the October and November AUD and so by the action we took on item well five four four we kind of yeah indirectly answered item six or seven seven eight eight is that fair to say uh not necessarily because you could do the same to dates on uh even year is an odd year no because I think what Christina White wants is for us to follow the county yeah she wants August and November oh okay I got August would want to do an extra election she must have do less elections okay she said she didn't have Tom so so is that I guess no recommendation on that no recommendation or our recommendation is we recommended item number four okay fair way to rep you nicely say that but we considered it and we prefer item number four okay that'll be just in the report I guess right yes is this report going to be written by special Council yes oh well it's you you want us to talk about that for a few minutes sorry yes well it may follow I just want to talk about what happens I wanna I want to kind of get it in my mind you know how it proceeds we get the document we all agree to it it gets sent to the commission um yes yes and this go ahead what happens next is on April 16th obviously will be our last last meeting as as a committee we will present a draft of the final report to you the final report will cover obviously the history and background and give a little what we did right right how what you did and how you got there um we want to make the report as concise as possible so that they don't you know get exhausted reading it so we're looking at maybe something that's about a document that's about eight pages Max really that sure yes or what about like an executive summary and a know because like for example the I would I would want to make sure that the the eight or nine recommendation have there should be some not just say this is what's recommended but some color commentary about like like a paragraph or two why and what the you know what the pros of this are and we agree we were also going to include obviously um the text the agreed upon text that you've all that you've all work so hard on as an appendix to the report so the report so it won't be eight pages because you know if you want to go further and read that the individual valid question text it'll be more but bottom line is we wanted to keep it as concise as possible but also obviously including how you got there and what your rationale was um so the report would be present the draft version of the report would be presented at our April 16th meeting and then Jean you want to talk about the process for getting the report approved approved here you mean well again we'll have the report done uh for placement on this board's April 16th agenda but we will send as customary we will send to the chairman prior to the 16 so that if there's any missing facts that we need you could plug in to be finalized by the board that it's April 16th meeting can we have can the entire board have this in advance yeah it'll be it'll be in the agenda would you get EXC no it'll be in the agenda right because there may be some things that we need um some more information on for you all to provide as to your reasoning so before before the agenda gets published normally what I do is review so what you're saying is let let me do the same thing and kind of make sure that before it gets printed and published which is still days before we meet yeah um right right it has whatever followups that you need correct okay is that okay with you guys yeah but it does become a public document as soon as you send it to all us or even as soon as you technically it's a public record published agenda is the public version will it be accessible on the website or as part of the agenda yes and what you you want it accessible to you or to the citizens well I just want to know whether it's accessible to world before we've had a chance to comment on it the draft will be included in the agenda so it'll be a public document accessible on the web then once you on April 16th hopefully you'll give us your comments and hopefully approve the final report and then um that report is transmitted will be eventually transmitted to the commi commission as the charter review committee's final report with its recommendations do we make any presentent how how does the commission handle it they look at it and say uh do do we and I have any right or any responsibility or the option of going in front of the commission yeah of course you saying of course you do this is why we did this this is what we this is what we plan to do as the as the attorneys to the committee right after the charter Review Committee adjourns on April 16th having approv approve the final report we have that but what we plan to do is hopefully schedu not hopefully but schedule individual briefings with the mayor and Commissioners to go over the issues as well as have um two Committee of the H meetings where the in R what were the tentative dates for the committee of the whole do you have them these are the meetings that are held during the city commission meetings okay but we wanted to have individual briefings and then two Committee of the whole meetings so that the commission and digest theic questions separate it's it's during the commission meeting no no no I'm suggesting the mayor he wants to do it the mayor suest doing itge yes well the problem istion George here's the challenge and we discuss we discussed this with with um the City attorney and the city manager that and the way the commission likes to do business now um scheduling is difficult so we're definitely going to schedule indiv individual ahead of time but what we'd like to do is the reason for having those two Committee of the whole meetings and we anticipate those to be in May and June if I'm not mistaken is so they can give us their com their final comments as to any tweaks that we may have that they may want done to the ballot questions and or the text in other words the same thing you guys have been doing um we we want to give them an opportunity to do so hopefully that by the time we get to the Commission in July which is the dead the deadline to approve these questions and transmit them to the county is July 25th I believe so hopefully at that July meeting we will have the ballot questions in final form and they will be approved by the city commission do do we as a board play a role of any in these two Committee of the whole meetings uh they're public meetings so you're welcome you're welcome to attend beyond that you could you if you'd like to maybe one of you you as Chair George could address the commission yeah the idea was to do the same thing with the City commissioners as we're doing here is to educate them on the question yeah that's what I'm saying so so so I Envision you guys or is it us or the attorneys no no no I think we should be able to participate in theit the me first of the there different things first there's the so we transmit the uh the report right right right give them time to read it or whatever right then we were going to agenda briefings those agenda briefings I think appropriately you guys right together with one or more of us I have to tell you that that's first of all the scheduling is very tight and it's very hard to schedule the the City commissioners you know for two hour two hour blocks which is what we anticipate minimum but each individual briefing taken so that's what I'm saying is you schedule those meetings and then one of us George I also have concerns about on just from an any client standpoint there are certain things that are going to if you guys want to meet with them separately to talk about the ballot questions that's great in terms of lobbying where you got there but we really think these meeting these individual briefings need to be technical meetings you know be as Nick said between attorney and client because we may have some recommendations there that that you I know it did today you're GNA have a recommendation right contrary to what we've proposed which is fine we you're your attorneys making recommendations that you know you want your client to be aware of before they accept right right right but we should we should as a committee be able to inform them I think I think I think an appropriate form to do that George is at the committee of the whole when we've done Charter review in the past you know um we've never had committee members present during the individual briefing with Commissioners just like we don't it's it's like an agenda review you know but I think the committee of the hold is a public meeting and if you want to designate a representative or if all of you want to attend the committee of the whole which will happen after the EV indidual briefing so your your perspective will come following that is there an opportunity for someone from this committee to present the report publicly you can do that at the city commission meeting sure as a matter of fact that would be great customarily the chair has presented the report to the city commission at the meeting has formally presented the report meeting at the commission meeting not the committee of the whole meeting well we've never had you know we've never done this with Committee of the whole before Char that's the only opportunity for the public to hear right the recommendation whole is public meeting but you present it both at the committee of the whole and at the final commission meeting to questions yeah of course yeah next one I'm not going to be here so well you'll designate you know usually it's the chair that's designated but any of you are free to attend well maybe two of us yeah two and but but um it would be April hopefully it finalized transmit the final report final report yeah April 16 is so it's the plan that at the you guys meet once month right I'm going to give you the dates right now if Ralph doesn't have them but I'm going to give you the dates right now you have them you want to go over them so yeah so the first uh April 16 the the first date in your timeline is the that we would present the draft final reports the charter review board on April 16 okay um that's our meeting that's us yes and then you're done right no we're not tell you well theoretically we're not meeting as a committee anymore the the city Commission next meets on May 15 which is when we we'd like to hold the first Committee of the whole and so between the 16th of April and May 15th we will be individual meeting that's right each of the seven that's correct and then there's one more commission meeting before the July ballot question deadline which would be June 26 um if we if we need a second committee oh yes right when's the July and the July meeting is July 24th which is when the commission would would need to adopt any any ballot questions and so guys one thing I want to interject there um I think your participation of the committee of the whole is welcome because if we do once we do have that second meeting second Committee of the whole meeting in June from our perspective and I'm sure from yours we would like to be done with all comments and questions that that time so that we could integrate those comments and questions and be before the city committee on what date yeah well right already july4 that's when you're just voting to put the that's where the question where's the chairman will present it we will answer any questions but I think you all agree what on the 24th already present the July City commission meeting that's the final meeting right but that's what we have right presenting the other two are coming the whole probably in a conference room somewhere yeah the way but they're not they're not going to be on all well you know what but that's the purpose of this Charter Review Committee because sure we're going to we're the the questions and everything is going to be proved in public forum but it's July 24th guys by then the work that's been done a year and a half here and we've had briefings for the commissioner I mean we don't intend and I don't think it's a good look for any of us to be rewriting ballot questions on the floor4 what I'm suggesting I want us to come with a unified front my suggestion might be that somewhere in this schedule probably at the May 15th meeting at the commission meeting before you get to break out to the committee of the whole there's a presentation of the report to the commission there a presentation of the report of the report but that that Public Presentation of the committee Ron and I or whoever the committee members that attend present and say we met this many times we did you know a public heiring of what took place then in the committee of the whole you can really dive into the questions but to otherwise that presentation in July all the questions have already been done it's form at that point we could certainly talk about putting an agenda item in May yeah yeah don't you think otherwise you know what my question you know at the end it it's already done but you know our first opportunity we're hoping that by April 16th everything is really done because I mean we're done okay but you know have what do you anticipate after April what do you anticipate happens after April 16th we we explained these to the commissioner the commission you'll call your you call your commission you offer up your presentation the commission will look at it and basically hopefully just decide which questions to place on the ballot or not but and some Commissioners may have tweaks but I trust that the reason for creating this adhoc committee was that the commission's delegated this function the real nitty-gritty work text and ballot questions to you guys so I I expect that's what you know I expect that's what your recommendation is going to be you meet with Commissioners yes approve this this is what we approve for example for because we're not going to be saying anything contrary either but for example if if if the commission decides that item 202 relating to salaries okay that we're recommending right they decide I don't want that okay we're done we're not even going to talk about it right and if there's no presentation of our report it never gets the light understood but I want to I want to explain George and Michael I want to explain this is a concered effort but I want to explain our role in the individual briefings we're just going to go into the individual briefings and do what we've done with this committee explain what those questions mean and how they change the charter we're not taking you know that we don't make policy no we don't policy so we're not going in there to say ah you know what just ignore this question they're just full of H that's not what we're doing not understand because I want you to have a little bit of trust also we just want one opportunity yeah but my whole my whole goal gentlemen and lady but our whole goal is so that we can get before the commission these are nine questions it's fairly in depth that we can go as one and just get this expedited so that we can be at the county in time we both have the same so we have no stake whether it's one question or nine questions our job is to explain to what our our client what the charter Review Committee did and what these questions mean is that acceptable of course okay of course but this committee that's a publicly established committee has met for a year and a half or whatnot right probably should have more than just a written report correct delivered to to the commission agre beyond your delivery of itre we all should get up and say hey even if it's just get the public thank you this your absolutely as early as as first of all it could be as early as after you vote on your final report reach out to them individually but the committee of a whole on on May 15th yeah could be you know and if you want to make a presentation you know during the regular portion of the meeting fine you know we put an agenda item for an item in May that allows us to formally officially present publicly say present your report just like the Auditors come and present an audit just kind of come and say we spent we did we liked we didn't like I'd like to say I think with all the votes we're unanimous yes and we want to say these are our best recommendations for the Improvement of the that's great IT addresses a lot of different things we'll get into the details in your Committee of the whole that's wonderful can enumerate them and just hold on because I guess your job is really to sell these questions well that's the point that's our job after July we have a r right right the voters at least have one shot I mean right for those who those people who are yeah but Ron you know what I don't want to with all due respect to everyone here because we have been at this a year and a half and we have sat in four-hour meetings every shot and this committee has done an incredible job I don't want the good work of this committee I want us to go as one in July so I don't want some member of the audience telling us how to rewrite a ballot question we put in a year and a half agree with you 100% we Rewritten either but what we might want to say is what we might want to see is some members of public see what our nine questions are or proposed question can say yeah commissioner I really do hope you put this on the ballot that's the kind of dialogue that that's agree that but I also think the feedback from the committee to the individual Commissioners or at the public meeting is a great idea because it gives them confidence that these questions and the text reflect the will of this committee right so that they don't have to you know that's the point you guys SP a year and a half doing that they shouldn't have to spend an hour you know they should have the full support of this committee behind but let me also suggest post July whatever's going to be put on the ballot the Herald's going to weigh in yes with recommendations yes and who should meet with the editorial board should be well that's what I'm suggested the city commission if the city commission directs you to that I think that's the city commission call as to once your work is done here once the report is done the uh if it remember before we have talked about the education you know process uh the city commission you could express when you make your presentation your willingness to participate further with regards that but you know it's not just most respect showing up it's the commission would have to authorize you to engage in that communication what if don't you think bro what if a reporter that's a resident I can you know yeah knows you know does a little homework and sees that George is was the chairman of this commission this committee and they decide to call him ask a question that's fine I think Jean's suggestion was if the if the commission you know if designated one of you to speak on behalf City I mean that no I can't speak on be the cityan US approaching the paper and saying we're we want to no buten it'll probably be your city manager whoever that is at the time as we get Clos but I'm sure they're going to rely a lot on George but as we get closer to November yeah um you know if there's a candidates Forum or something like that you know one of these bodies might say hey can we take 30 minutes or 15 minutes and have one of us you those B that's all terrific Chamber of Commerce mbu yeah that's I think that's all terrific and and you know and that's you know whatever you guys decide is the best thing to decide he's going to be gone um the manager will be gone the City attorney will be gone so uh well I don't know about the manager forgive me I I I I can't fathom what's in elen's head but whoever defi whoever decides where's ni going maybe you announced it before but I miss he's going to the county joing the county attorney's office and he's taking me with him he's going to the county attorney's office you know so the new City attorney will be taken so there isn't a need for another one of these meetings other than April 16th yeah yeah borrowing something no we wanted we wanted all our work to be done before Nick left so hopefully on April 16 April 9 Too Close yeah just as that guy guys you know in terms I think you guys have a good idea that's why your attendance at the committee of the whole and your discussion with individual Commissioners may be valuable because you really explained the ballot questions from the resident's point of view from the activist point of view more than we're just going to be technicians and they're probably going to you know be so bored with us in the briefings but you guys really put it in the context of what it should mean but I you know my only goal is that we all go as one and that they all get adopted you know don't worry so we're all in the same team absolutely but I don't want you to think at all that that you know that after April 16th you have no role team try to revie so so you guys will put an item for basic the main meeting and I think you know it shouldn't just be me I mean all of you should attend but in your in your next agenda we'll post a timeline of what happens after April 16 no I don't no I think one person we be over we could be intimidated whatever it is please do please do do meet with your elected official yeah we should all the heart and soul after after the 16th we should meet whoever appointed us yeah really you guys you guys have been passionate this you're the heart and soul of this I think it's important I think this is a true statement I agree and I think by the way thank you guys for the work you guys you and seriously thank you so much I think it's important for the commission to know how hard you work but but I want I want the report I think it's a true statement the like every item that we're recommending was a in think there's anything here that confirm but I think that's right which means that you know we we we went through it got to consensus it's not extreme positions anywhere for all of us to always agree on was not group thing we all work through it and I think it's important to reflect that you know there was important opponent to it and there were some that we voted that we that failed along the way right and so we've had votes along the way that failed so we only presenting you that which we felt was had the mostly agreed right we didn't start out that way but it took it worked out that and I also want to reiterate that the committee's role is doubly important because I don't want to keep throwing a lead out because that's not my P but we did lose our committee rep Marsha monserat that's right you know so the administration you know is not as fully versed as you are in in what we've been doing so it's doubly important that the committee really and I know you all will we can meet with all of them right that's the benefit of of having individ having to speak to any of them yeah there's no restriction there's no cor of Silence um not cor of Silence Sunshine Law question after April 16th which means that for all the T and purposes we're not voting on this committee is well not disbanded probably could could I and Michael or I and Ron or two or more of us reefa commission I well I it's a matter the committee haset yeah 16 I I think that by resol and I don't have it in front of me but you see where I'm going with this we can do weeded July but remember again but it's matters that are or foreseeably before the will appear before you all for Action so ifpr meeting even though we can take any action right yes could we could we then have individual discussion assuming that the committee does sunset on April 16th there would be no problem it's not a sunset though I think the sunset went to July our to July well I I said assuming I said assuming so we'll have to get back to you on April 16th with that answer so your um are you the board sunsets on June 30th yeah on June 30th but if we have no more meetings scheduled after the 16th the commission would have to no that's I don't think that that cuts it I think if if if more than one of you want to meet with City commissioners after April 16th then we would have to amend that resolution to expressly state that the committee has Sunset as of acceptance of the final report on April 16th but after June 30th you could you know during the educa dur you know prior to final adoption of the bid questions and during the education period which is you know the summer and fall um and guys this is don't to protect you no well there's a commission meeting coming up on March 29th whatever April 3rd April 3D could we could that be put on the ballot that we want a sunset on the agenda on the agenda do you want it an amendment the on the April agenda maybe save that may let see how we're doing and do it for May or ask us to reconsider there may there may there may be a need for future action there may be a need not a good idea that so we're GNA leave it untouched yeah yeah I wouldn't I wouldn't abandon it all right um we just meet individually now let me ask one other Sunset Sunshine thing because this is going to this is obiously gonna come up um do I have the ability to say are you going to the meeting on the 16th George we can coordinate it's not coming if it's not coming before us yes and on July 24th that's the meeting where you we expect that the commission will vote questions ping about right is there that's the outside date right for us that you are I guess that's when they might say thank you to the committee or absolutely abely I think you should all be present yeah but by then it's no more gonna get our bonus less than your CPI you're greater L presentation after appreciation well we usually we usually do that committees that have really work hard at least the end of the year or no no this parking should remain valid until a new Charter review should go home just gonna have to get on another committee i i a motion to adjourn has been made oh wait the record there's no one on zoom and there's no one here requesting public comments so ju when they do July 24th I guess they'll have public is the commission going to allow for some public comment at some point they can July 24th they almost have to they stat yeah they a 16 all of them is our