Welcome. I call to order the Charter Revision Commission meeting Monday, May 20th, 2024 at 2 p.m. on the dot. Deputy. City clerk, city clerk, would you please, initiate the roll call? Doctor. Ruth. I'm here, Mr. Collins. Here. Doctor. Boukouvalas here. Miss Jennings here, Mr. Koski here. Mr. Simon here, Mr. chair. Penny here. Moving on to approval of the May 13th, 2020. Four minutes, I did, understand that there was a miss spelling, on Mr. Culianu's name. Cogliano. Cogliano. That's that's where the problem is coming from. Well, and I and I, I'll fall on my sword for that. We have a we have an errant you, as I understand. Correct. Listen, just to you, I should say an errant letter. Yes. All right. Can we note that on here and then I still sign it. We'll accept it as a scrivener's. We'll accept it as a scrivener's error. I will correct it. All right. And I make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted with the scrivener's error with the noted update. Okay. Is there any, we've got a motion and a second. Are there any other updates you would like to see? No other updates. All right. Deputy City clerk, would you please, roll call here, Miss Jennings? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Samson? Yes Mr. Chair? Yes. Mr. Colon here, doctor. Here. Yes. Right Yes, yes. Moving means yes. We know you're here. I know you're here. Yes, I got paperwork here. Hold on. How many times I've missed that name? I don't know your name. I suppose everybody does. But she got me on the first page here. Okay, but I think Michelle's what you need. All right, we are going to welcome, the internal auditor to speak with us today. So it's your turn, good afternoon, board members. Thank you for coming. Oh, you're very welcome. Thank you for having me , I, I went through I watched the meeting you all had last week, and I wanted to kind of address a few points, and I'll try to. And then I'll answer any, any questions that you all have, I, when I went to address, I want to kind of go back in history for, for a moment when before I applied for this position, the first thing I did is I looked at city charter, and the reason is I, I, I have experienced doing this in that, Hillsborough County did the same thing in 2002 or 2000, 2000 or 2002, where the people voted to amend their charter and add an internal auditor. And I worked for the second one. I was the assistant and they didn't get the charter right. And the charter is basically the structure of an internal audit office. And it's as important as who the internal auditor is. I can't I can't stress that enough. How how important the, the charter is. At any rate, they went through four internal auditors in ten years. And now the lady who's there now, she's been there like 10 or 12 years. They've they've gotten some of the things ironed out. But the reason, the reason I mention all that is because the first thing I did was I before I applied, is I looked at city charter because I wanted to know you know, is tarpon, you know, are they serious about having internal auditor or not? Yes, ma'am. Could you raise your microphone up just a little bit? Oh, sure. Sure, sure, sure. And speak more . Yeah. Okay. Let me move it up a little bit and make sure it's on. Gotcha. How's that? Is that a little better? That's better. Yes. Thank you. Okay at any rate. So I wanted to know if the city was if they if they were serious about having an internal auditor or not, because it's one thing to say it. It's another thing to you know, put out a, put out a charter and, you know, go through the process and have a true internal and internal audit office, because, you know, with internal auditing. Yes You know, you have some good but you have some bad too, obviously. And so I wanted to know they were serious. And I looked at the charter and I thought, yeah, this is this is this is pretty good. I couldn't think of anything any, any, any issues with it or any deficiencies in it, and, I still feel like that today. I know a lot of other people don't, I still I still feel like it's a it's a well written charter. I don't know who actually wrote it, but it hits all. It hits all the main points of internal auditing, especially at the, at the, at the local level. So I wanted to, to, to kind of give you, give you all a history there, I also wanted to talk about the, the reporting process where the internal auditor, gives a copy of the report while it's in draft form to the city manager before it ever gets to the board . And during that time period, it is exempt from from from 119, just like Mr. Salzman said last week, it's not considered a public record until it's sent to the board, so I wanted everyone to be aware of that and that time period when it's sent to the sent to the to the city manager and the director, that's at that point between then and it's sent to the board, is a time period where you where you hash out any differences, you know, and, and things like that, and the reporting question, I imagine everyone's last week was talking about the building audit, obviously. And that was done the same way every other audit was done. It was sent to the city manager a couple weeks before, unfortunately, he sent me an email back, and I don't want to rehash everything, but he just said, you know, it was false and some other things, but he didn't really tell me why. So we never we never we never got anywhere and ultimately sent it to the board. Just just like I always do. And then, you know, everything kind of kind of blew up from there. So so the question is, sure that that we had is how do we prevent that in the future, maintaining your independence and as an independent auditor, maintaining the records that you have to meet the auditing standards as an independent auditor, meeting the timelines associated, I mean , and perhaps there's nothing but yes, I, I think it does it in and of itself. This the current charter, I guess what I think not to speak for you, but is there something that you would probably look at, including thing to include in the charter that would give you more give the, the office of the internal Auditor more autonomy? Is that the. Well, there's a couple of things. One, autonomy and two, how do we deal with sensitive personnel issues. But that shouldn't be in the charter. Well, right. Should it that the question was should that be in an audit that becomes public? That was one of the big bones of contention. Yeah. Am I misstates. No no no no no I think I think you're both right in terms of autonomy. I don't I don't have an issue with that in terms of personal sensitive, information. We are all bound to the public records laws. And I can give you I can give you dozens of examples where, no matter what I do, no matter what the charter says, when you work in the public sector, your expectation of privacy is almost zero, I could, you know, I could put, you know, and I don't mind taking out the names. I really don't care about that. But I have to at least put titles in. If you know the only people who can get away with not putting names in is the FBI and CIA and congressional hearings when they say, you know, we're trying to protect sources and methods, the local level, we don't we don't have those. We don't have that luxury, so no matter what I would do, no matter how cryptic I was to write something, someone could easily pick up the phone and say, hey, you know, I'm John Q citizen, who are you talking about in the audit? Who's who's manager X? And I'd have to tell them I can't hide that. So we so the city wound up in that position because the, the, the issues were not resolved in the draft period of time. Is, is that what I. Pretty much yeah, pretty much pretty much. I mean I would have I, we would, I would have had to put those out anyways once you can't unsee things and I have an obligation if and those are those are serious things as well that once once once those things come to light. You kind of have to put them out. You know, how you put them out. Maybe the wording could have been better, I don't know, but I'm under the obligation to do that. And let me add one thing I forgot to say in my intro. I there's usually not a lot of audit findings when at least in my audits, some auditors, everything's a finding , but for me, I don't usually have a lot. And then when it comes to personnel findings, dealing with personnel items or issues, those are very rare. And it's not anything you ever. The audit objective is never to look for, you know, a personnel issue. It's usually, someone says something or you see something and it looks odd and you start looking into it, and then that's that's how they usually come about. It's never an audit objective, if that makes sense, so it's kind of been, I hate to say just, I guess just bad luck. It's just been one of those things. I mean, I, I might go years without a personnel finding, so to speak, it just the last, you know, you know, there's been, I think, 2 or 3 audits with some personnel issues here. So. And it's, it's not something you actively look for, in other words. But can I ask you a question? You excuse me? You started by saying you took the copy to the city manager. That's correct. And he had some disagreements with it. Did you think about going back and sitting down with him and saying where the problem was? Yeah I sent it to him on I made a timeline back in. Oh, gosh. Probably, probably, October. I sent it to him on the 24th and he responded, he responded in an email to me, Mr. Salzman, the HR or the HR attorney and the entire board and the other, Miss Kardash, when she was still here and basically said, well, it wasn't factual. And said it needed more balance and it was pretty, pretty nasty email. And then he like I said, he rather than just send it to me and talk to me, he copied all my bosses on it. All the attorneys, as if I did something wrong. And, and that's where I think the communication broke down. Excuse me, but. We're not trying to place blame. No, I'm interested that this type of a thing doesn't happen again. Me too. And you? You. Your presentation in, in my opinion, was not proper for a meeting for those types of problems. And being an HR in a major corporation, I can tell you that you never use people's names when they no longer work for you. You can't include that stuff because they don't have the time to defend it. After you send it. Yeah, well, that's the thing. And I and I, and I hate to disagree with you, but, I'll try to be as courteous as possible first, I'm doing an audit right now in the R.O. plant, and they get audited by EPA and all that, all the, you know, the usual, the usual players and I can show you audit reports where it doesn't just say Tarpon Springs plant, it has the plant operators name. Some of some of them actually have the hours they work at the plant . So having names and audits is not something I invented. That's just that's just commonplace, and, the second thing, what was the second thing you mentioned about? Oh, him not having a chance? I gave them over two weeks. And in fact, the only person who didn't who was never heard from again was the former director. Everyone else has talked about this. He's never contacted me, never came to the meetings, never sent me an email. He's the only one who doesn't appear to care. So let me ask another question about the process. So your correspondence to the city manager with the draft. Correct. All right. Does that generally then come back to you and then you release it for review by the board? Or is that to the city manager to release to the board. Oh yeah. No, no, it comes back. And then, I asked them to put concur and non concur. And then if they don't concur with the findings, you know why. And then if there's any corrective action ask them to put all that in. And then if you look at the back of the report there's a there's a there's a spot for, city manager and or director's responses. And I, I scan all that in. So it goes in one report. So it'll have the report on the back side. It'll have, their responses to the report. So, yeah, it comes back to me and then I send it to the, to the, to the board. Okay. So let me just repeat this. So you come up with your draft report. It goes to the city manager. Does it go to anyone else at that time. Well the director yeah. The director of the department you're auditing correct? Yeah. Okay. And then it comes back to you, and then you go through the who struck John on the comments. Do document that. And then does it go to you back to the city manager for distribution to the board, or does it go at that point to you, from you to the board. It can usually and sometimes they'll go, I don't think it's happened here, but sometimes they'll go, we'll ping pong back and forth, you know, with some wording issues, but usually it's just because, like I said, usually there's not a lot of findings and it's just the question is who is responsible for providing the report to the board? Oh, I am you are. That's supposed to go from you, correct. Not the city manager, which is what happened last time. Yes. Correct. Yes. Yes, exactly. And at the time the city manager put it out to the board, that was at, at that point, then became part of the public record. Oh, that's a good question. That's a real good question. I don't know, I know the I know the I know the 119 the exemption to 119 is when, it's in draft form and then it becomes public record when it's sent to the board. Now, I think it's kind of the, the 119 is silent as to who sends it. I guess when they were writing the law, they assumed the auditor would send it, not the oddity. So that that is interesting. I never thought of it from that perspective. So I think what you're asking is, did did he inadvertently make it public record when he sent it out, I don't know, I really don't I'm just wondering. Yeah. Okay go ahead, Mr. Tampon, one one thing I want to ask you a rhetorical question. I know the answer to it, and I know it's in the charter. Who do you work for? The board. Okay so the charter says you work for the board and the city manager. And I think part of the problem came from the way the charter is written and the process that unfolded, which was going to the city manager, I believe I was on the Charter Revision Committee with Jimmy when we first came up, that the city needed to have an internal auditor, and the internal auditor was, as I remember it was to what was an auditor for the board, not for the city manager or the administration. So I think when we get down to this, that needs to be changed. Clarified. Right. And that he's the administration's taken out of the process. You make public presentations to the board through memorandums, presentations and work out the differences that way. Wait a second. And, because there's an inherent conflict of interest, the way it's written, with the way this thing is written, that's that comment. And the other thing is when you said about names, you're in your audit of the r o plant, you're conflating the issues. There's a difference between naming people in an overall plant issue than in the naming someone in a personnel matter. I can tell you that. And that was just totally out of control. What happened with your presentation? So those are my comments for now, thank you. Your chair. Yes. Okay. First of all, and I agree with you, John, with regard to the only thing I have a concern about is if when you submit a report and instead of bypassing the city manager, the question is by submitting a draft in draft form to the commissioners, at what point in time is it become a public record? And that's the concern, because you don't want a draft to be public record number one. Lots of there's lots. Well, but there's lots of documents that are drafts in the public record. Right? I think as soon as it goes out to the board, it becomes public record and drafts. Okay. Well, that was just my concern is that that, you know, you don't want somebody taking off on something that's not final. And then there's a, you know, well, it's what happened this past time. Okay. So, and sometimes in all honesty, not all conflicts are avoidable. And you cannot legislate by charter conflict avoidance within departments, etc. you know, and you can't we can't also legislate personality issues and that's and sometimes when, when, when I, you know, watch a commission meeting, you know, it's personality. You know or is some of this that needs to be done procedurally a change in procedure and not necessarily by, charter. Right And so there's a difference in, in and, I was going to save this for my, for my, public by, by closing comments, but I might as well say it now, you know, watching when I watched this board, when I was gone. And, you know, the concern I have is listening to all the commissioners and everything. When you change the Constitution, it's a big deal, okay? And you got to be real careful when you change a constitution. It's like a corporation. When you file for the corporation, you're creating the entity. Our charter is creating the entity of the city like a corporation. The bylaws are the governance. Okay. And those are our ordinances or those are procedures. So we got to be careful that we're not creating a charter that becomes bylaws. And that's and that's the slippery slope we face is, is, is, you know, trying to amend this thing correctly. Fine tune it, expand on it, but not to create something that becomes bylaws. Right. Does that make sense? Yeah Yeah. So the thing the thing is, is and this goes back a ways, the purpose of the internal auditor was to be the commission's watchdog over basically the I'm not disagreeing with you over the administration, over the departments and things like that. So you have this the conflict I was talking about is if it's submitted, if the reports are submitted to the, administration, if you will, there's the opportunity for whitewashing, cleansing, you know, doctoring in the commission. Never let me finish the commission. Never. I'm not interrupting the commission. Never gets the unvarnished truth . So that's that's my that's what I'm thinking. And I agree with I mean, I agree with Mark. I agree with you that the less change is, the less is said in the in the charter is probably right. But the original intent was for the internal auditor to be the watchdog for the BOC. And just like Mr. Saltzman works for the BOC, does he interact with the city manager? Of course. Does the clerks interact with the city manager? Yes but they are work for the board. Their primary, boss is the board. And that's what I'm trying to say about the auditor that he needs to understand, or the charter needs to make it clear that his boss is the board. I don't I don't disagree with what what you said. And I think it's clear in the first sentence, it says that Joan had a had a comment. Yeah. This my issue is that as Carrie just mentioned, it's clear in the first sentence about the Board of commissioners. But if you go down to point I. Yeah, it says report all findings or non-compliant issues to the city manager and the board of commissioners, which implies that it's a simultaneous submission and so that's that's an advanced stage. That's what I'm trying to address. Was I where it says that's what I think needs to be changed, that it needs to go to the it has to be clarified. Sure. Can I so may I so clearly there was a practice put in place not necessarily complying fully with the charter to go to the city manager first with the draft, have his input. Oh, yes. And before, before that. So maybe that some that needs to be done away with and it goes simultaneously to it's just it's but I also do want to say, you know, I am in agreement with you as someone who's been a public employee for pretty much my entire, you know, adult life, that public employees serve the public and, and you have the expectation that you are responsible for your actions. And I don't think it's beyond the realm of civility or normalcy or whatever. If someone has is in gross negligence of their of their duties, if that's part of a report that's pertinent to the Board of commissioners, I don't see a problem with that. Okay. That's a question where where did the direction that it go to the city manager and staff first for review come from? Because because I don't see that here I don't either. Glad you asked that because, that's just, typical audit practice, whether these yellow book, red book standards, you always you report to the audit committee, that's the language they use and standards in this case, that's the audit committee is the board. And you dotted line administratively report to the chief executive of the organization in this case city manager. So, is that at the same time, though, no, it's always be the way I've always done it is you always go to the city manager first. And it's not to keep anything away from from the board or anything. It's to, to hash out any differences and make sure and really for QA, I'm sorry, hash out the differences with who with the city manager and staff and also an opportunity to whitewash and oh no, no, not whitewash. No no sir. It's more for showing. So let's say I'm wrong. There's been times where I've been wrong in reports and I'll say, oh no, no, Billy, that's not right. That's not how. Oh okay. Well, good. Good thing we caught it. You know. And then I'll change it and, you know, and then make the corrections and then it'll go out. So it's really more of a QA kind of rationale behind it. But that's how that's how all auditors do it. They should be doing it that way. And so and in fact, when I remember I interviewed, I said, there won't be any surprises and there's not. I the city manager, always gets everything before it ever goes to the board. I even I send the board every a month or two. I send them a work update and before I and when I send them the work update, I even copy the city manager on it, and anyone who's mentioned in the work update, I'll send them a copy as well. It's about transparency and about trying to trying to build relationships. You know, before you, you go to the next, the next level. Do you think. Utilizing that same process, you're talking about now, it's going to change it for the next time. I'm sorry. Do you think what you're talking about now is going to change what happened the last time? It won't change it, but I'm still going to do things the way I, the only way I know how to do them. And that's the correct way to do it. I will always send it to the city manager, change it. How? How often are we going to be embarrassed in the city with that hell of a blue report publicly and very, very on your part? Aggressively? Okay Well, you know, with with all due respect, I, I didn't hire the building director. I'm not in charge of him, I just report what I find, sir, honestly, I understand that, but do you not worry about how you report what you find? Absolutely I do, absolutely, I do you. I thought you were out of line. Okay. You were aggressive, raising your voice at. And that's not what a okay, well, let me just branch should do if I could. This is this is a time to listen and track down as opposed to, I mean, he did call my integrity into question, my ethics, my competency. I'm sure you defend yourself as well. If someone did that to you. I'm not calling anything. I'm I want to I want to terminate this part of the conversation right now. Okay? Okay This is getting to be based on. I want to ask him something. Another hypothetical. If the committee chose to take out the city manager that you don't report to the city manager and the public decided to ratify that position, would you continue to do it your way, or would you do what the charter says? How would you do? Obviously, I'd always do what the charter says, but if you do that, who it's you're going to you're going to have more hell over it than a little bit. If you just go straight to the straight to the board and you don't get any input, then things will go from, from, I think, I think the yeah, I think what got circumvented was the distribution of your draft report to the board should not have happened. Right. And that was out of your control, right. And that kind of ignited a lot of fires. Correct That's a good way to look at it okay. And we you know, the appropriateness of what happened to that meeting. Let's not talk about that. Let's focus on process charter. And if we need to make a change here. But I think what I'm hearing is that it's the auditor's response ability to report to the board. It says in here that you are reporting findings of non compliance issues to the city manager and the board of Commissioners. We can, you know, I believe that what you said, your process says you engaged with administration at the draft level not for approval but to as a QA process pretty much okay. But they're their responsibility is not to fire it off to the board. Their responsibility is then to work with you on that. And you keep the integrity of what goes into that report. And you also control when it goes to the board. Correct And that was circumvented this time. And I think, John, that's what you're trying to point out. Am I wrong. No. Okay. So the question I think here is do we, leave in item I city manager there or not ? Is because I'm hearing that you in your mind, having that there is a point of, misunderstanding. Yes. Mr. Okay, Mike, you know, it's mixed, but but I think providing if there's a significant issue. Okay, I think it's the role of the city manager, let's say the department, whatever department it is, that you find something amiss, to not wait till it gets to a commissioner that even though it would be a draft form or whatever those issues would, I think need to be addressed more promptly by a city manager, I think we all agree with that. Okay. So keeping the city manager out of the loop could become problematic. I'm not saying we do that. No, I'm just I'm, I'm it's part of his I think I talk what I think. All right, well, it's part of his audit process to get to. So have Edmund involved in it. So review round with so with regard to any whitewashing that actually depends on the ethics and the credibility of the internal auditor. Correct and so, you know, that's that would be the issue if, if regardless if, if there's pushback on something, the internal auditor would feel comfortable with, it goes back to the credibility of the ethics of that internal auditor. I mean, the whole thing, as I see it, comes down to a failure to communicate. And my question is, is it appropriate for us to try to legislate, communicate in in the charter, the other question I had is Billy referenced, you know, professional standards. So on one hand, if you have standards, if your profession that you are following and they're kind of contradicted in charter, there has to be some kind of, you know, merging, wouldn't you say? Well, the way it's written now, I think is, is , dovetails really nicely with the, with the, with the, with the standards, auditing standards and, and just, just like, just like the, charter is a framework standards are a framework as well. And right now it dovetails nicely if we were to take that out, like take the city manager thing out, issue out, then it wouldn't dovetail nicely. And I would not recommend doing that. You know, I don't have the best relationship obviously now with the city manager, but I don't want to take that out. I mean, I would recommend against that. That's that's when things will really break down. Truly. Who chooses who who sets up your task? Like you said, you're doing the r o plant. I'm sorry. My audit plan. Yeah, yeah. Who who chooses the audit plan on what departments or. Oh, okay. Okay, when I first started here, I did a risk assessment, and I met with every, every single director. I met with the clerk. I met I met with everybody, and I, and I said, well, I sent out a survey first. They filled out the survey and I created a score sheet and then I personally met with every one of them. And then I signed them each scores. And the highest scores are, are is basically my audit list. So that's the risk assessment. And then the, the highest scoring departments got get audited first. And then every September or so. Right. You know before at the end of the budget year, I go in front of the board and I say, okay, here's the next, the next list of, of, of, of departments. So you, you present them a list. But did you ask for their a minute ago, you said you worked for the board and I heard you, you you say you contact everybody in the city but the board, and then you just tell the board, here's my plan. So? So my point is, when is the board interviewed to see where they think there may be issues with departments? I mean, I could tell you understand something. If I were on the commission, I could tell you some places need to be looked at. But but my point is, you didn't say you talked to the commission to get your audit schedule. You just presented it to them. This is what I'm going to do. Okay. I think that's a problem. Yeah, no, I misspoke, I misspoke, not only did I talk to the to each director I talked to when I started here, I talked to each commissioner and I asked them where they think, you know, issues lie. And then, yeah, I tried to, but really, a lot of the commissioners, they've I thought they'd be and nothing against them, they've really just, you know, kind of given me a long leash and let me do, do my thing. And I thought they would provide more, you know, more direction. But they're really letting me. They're giving me autonomy and which I like. But at the same time, it would make my job easier if they said, hey, look here, here or here, okay, great. Because the hardest part is coming up with objectives and all that. But no, absolutely I do I do talk to the commission to the commissioners, and, if I'm always open for, for suggestions and all that. So, to answer your question, yes, yes, yes, I have done that. And that's, that's the proper way to that's the proper way to do audits, organizationally. So and operationally, do you have a means when, for example, when this happened and I know you were very angry about the process, do you have a means to resolve that other than in a public forum? I, I suppose, I guess the city manager and I could, could talk. But, you know, we did try or I tried. I mean, it just it kind of just it it it it got a little, it got a little, got a little sideways there. So, so let's not do that going forward. But, yeah, it really hardly ever has. You, you have a lot of power as a charter official. You have a lot of autonomy as a charter official. And, you know, the, the, the, the city manager should know from the charter that it's your response, ability to provide that report to the board, not his. Okay. And, you know, we may need to address that in the city manager part, but go ahead. Just just quick comment, say you could say it's a yes or no. You looked at this charter. There's from what you're what I'm gathering from you is you don't see any changes necessary. Correct. Okay So we had the city manager. We've had several commissioners come and not one of them, when we asked them what things they would want to change or look at, not one of them that I was aware of said, you need to look at at the description of the, of the internal auditor. So that kind of tells me that it's not the charter, it's either personalities. Right. And process and process. Yeah. And we don't need to address that here. Yeah Right. Correct. So Mr. Pulis. Yes, sir. We're looking at the chart. Do you have the chart in front of you. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. It's up here. Up there. Oh yeah. There behind me I left those other eyes. Yeah Sorry, chairman. The just having fun. The Mr. Pulis I paragraph I. Yes, yes yes. Okay. We're, correctly, miss Jennings pointed out that it report all findings or noncompliance issues to the city manager and board of commissioners. So typically you have these reports and the first part of the sentence says to, to ensure resources are being used economically and efficiently. The next one is report findings or noncompliance. So would you read that that the noncompliance is would be considered more severe than just a general report that noncompliance. And this the way it's written is, is like there's something really bad going on here. I'm not sure what you're what you're asking report all findings or noncompliance. Yeah. There were there I'm finding is more of a general term I guess. And because finding a finding can be anything noncompliance is you're just not doing what what? You know, you know, a statute says or what a rule says, whereas a finding can be a noncompliance issue can also be it can also be a performance issue as well. You know, the you're supposed to do, you know, ten reports a week, but you do five. That would be a finding. Does that make sense? So findings can be findings are more broad I guess is that what you're asking or. Yeah I'm just I'm trying to see if in your mind if noncompliance was elevated to say, some type of criminal activity, I see. Oh I see, yeah. That would be under findings, which is very rare then that would if it's something like a fraud or, something criminal fraud. Oh okay. Yeah. Then that would, that would take it, that would take a different route. Then I would, I would, I'd probably call for a face to face meeting with the city manager, HR director, and, what do you what you do in that case is if you suspect something's going on, you do a little more research before you start pulling those levers. Because once you pull certain levers, you can't put them back, and you don't want to start crying wolf. Oh, I think you know so and so stealing money or something. So you do a little more research until you're got a pretty good assurance. And then again, I would when it's like fraud or, you know, something like that at that level, then I would, I would meet with the city manager in person, probably the HR director and maybe the police chief or something. You know, that rarely, rarely happens. You know, in fact, in my career, I've that's happened twice and, it hasn't happened here. I mean, there was I've had some bad findings here, but not they're not criminal. You know, there's a difference between, you know, findings, noncompliance and bad things and criminality. So there's a there's a bright line between those, if you will. Does that answer your question? Okay. Okay. I have one for Mr. Saltzman. I think I sort of know the answer, but what would it be appropriate to add an item J that actually spells out what happens if there is significant noncompliance issues? I, I mean, I think that's automatic. If there's significant noncompliance issues, there's required moments that the internal auditor has to report. And those matters take on their own. Right, so, I mean, I think it's part of his requirements anyway, that's why I think one of the things that was stated is that you have a particular procedures that you have to follow, and you're guided by that, and that's your requirement as the internal auditor. So, I it's to me, I think his guidelines lay all that out. Harry. Yes Yeah. I have a note that, at a prior meeting, Mr. Saltzman discussed some wording that would, in I that would possibly exempt personnel issues from the report. Well, I said that was something that you may want to discuss with the internal auditor to see what his opinion is. Yeah. And, and I thought about that. And the first thing I think about when I think about defined personnel issue is that a time sheet audit, which is common, someone could say, oh no, that's a personnel. You can't look at that. Okay. What about p cards? Oh no no you can't look at that. Well what about the shoe allowance that we give. What if you know the wrong people are getting the shoe allowance every every year. Oh no. You can't. Look. That's personnel. So it gets to the point where you're kind of looking over your shoulder. Okay. Am I is someone going to misconstrue this as a personnel issue and then I get in trouble because I'm looking at something I shouldn't, and it just it starts. I don't think the comment was about not looking at those things. It's how they're reported. And in other words, are they reported in an open forum or are they reported in a shade format? First to the board? Again, it would, I guess it it would have to be open because, like I said, it's the it's the public sector. It's like this say like, let's say the board was upset with me and they wanted to fire me tomorrow or the city attorney or the clerk, are they going to do that in private? No, they're going to do it right and right in that room, you know, downstairs in front of everybody. And they're going to hash it out and say, yeah, we don't like Billy because he does this, this and this. And one's going to say, yeah, I like him. The other say, no, I don't like him, blah, blah, blah. It's all public. There's nothing I can do about it. And it's the same for everybody. It's one of the perils of working in the public sector. And it's hard to wrap your mind around sometimes, but it is what it is. Florida's got some of the broadest public records laws in the country. And, you know, at the end of the day, and I don't like them. And I can tell you stories that'll make your head spin. And I've been the victim of it, so to speak, and I don't like it, but it's, you know, the people have a right to know where their money is being spent, who works somewhere. Are they doing good? Are they doing bad? You know, and that's that's that's just the way it is. So. Yeah I guess that's the best way I can answer that for you. Yes, sir. I think it's pretty well known that the city manager is getting ready to change after a nice, illustrious career here. Sure. So the new city manager comes, and you suspect that he's cooking the books on bids with whoever. Who do you report to, then? That's a good question, situations like that where the where the subject is also, you know, like the, the city manager in this case then you would have to go straight to the I'd probably just go to the mayor with that. So it's one of those rare instances. But it does happen. Absolutely. It's a good point, so I'd have to go to the mayor there because otherwise if I'm I'd be I'd be asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Right, right. Mr. Saltzman, in that situation, instead of going to the mayor in that situation, is the city, the mayor and commission. Are they allowed to have an executive session to hear his report? No, no, it's only for litigation, litigation. And litigation for shade, meeting and executive session is only allowed for collective bargaining, which is completely out of the sunshine. Okay, so, Mr. Poulos said he would report to the mayor. What does that do to the to the commission? Well, I think, honestly, in the scenario you're describing it, probably it would probably be, either the police chief, state attorney's office. I mean, you're talking about a crime. So it would have to be. It would be through me, I'd have to probably contact, Bruce's office and talk to him, and see which way they wanted us to go before it's presented to them. Can I'd like to keep us back on track. We don't need to go down every rabbit hole of a possibility, I think we were. We were. It's a process of who he reports to and how he reports. Well, it's clear who he reports to. Right Not in this situation that I just put forth it wasn't clear. Well, what what's what's documented here is the report not interim findings. Well, and the one question I'm sorry, I think the one question goes back to what we were talking about. Do you have a process and procedure normally that you would do in that scenario? I would I would go to the highest in the food chain in that case, and that would be the mayor. I mean, there's only so many things you could do. It's a really weird spot to be in, actually. And I wanted to add that happens in Hillsborough County with the county administrator and the county attorney were we found they were giving themselves pay raises illegally because they were their their, their their contractual employees. This was 15 years ago or so. And, we actually went to FDLE and FDLE did an investigation. So so, I mean, outlets. Yeah. Yeah. What makes us confusing is that there are there are professional standards that aren't documented here. There are, and, you know, adopted city practices, which aren't documented here. And then there's the charter, which is documented. And we saw a snafu happen. And then the question was, is our charter adequate? And from what I'm hearing, the answer is, yeah, I think yes, it's adequate. But, so I will ask if there's any further comments. I have one more question. Yes, sir. I'm trying to determine by what you said that when you make that presentation, you include the employees name because the public may want to know or require to know. Is there any difference with with, including the department saying the personnel department had a problem and this is what they did and what they did? Now, the Board of Commissioners, why you're making that presentation knows who that is. Right. But if they've done something pretty egregious, the public's going to know it. Yeah, of course. And that's not what we're here for. But we can't avoid that is what I'm saying. You can avoid it. Once you tell the Board of commissioners they know who it is, I don't think it's necessary for anybody. Not just you, for anybody to stand up there and do that. I mean, if it makes everyone happy, I can. I can put I can just put titles in. I mean, what that's what I was saying before. It's like, you can't you can't get away from public disclosure. And I know it's uncomfortable. I know it's embarrassing. Trust me, I know I know it better than everyone. I can tell it. Like I said, I can tell you stories where my name has been dragged through the mud for things I didn't even do. And I think, I think I can't do anything about it, is to if you if you have to report on personnel, use titles. Yeah. No problem. Okay, okay. As opposed to specific name does that. That's fine because I don't think what happened that night puts the city in any more jeopardy than they're in. So thank you. Understand, just for the record. All right. So take it out. I do. And first of all, as far as I can see, Mr. Boulos has totally followed procedure. The snafu you put it in someone, someone outside that went beyond what the procedure was. But this this does not pertain particularly to the internal auditor job. But I think his opinion might be good in this instance. And because of this snafu about residency, I don't know that that particular position was is included among those that have a residency requirement, but should but should we consider something like this when we consider residency in the charter? I'm sorry. Consider something like like like the fact that that the, the internal auditor building the building director was way outside, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, if you if you want my opinion, I'll give it to you. I'd like your opinion. Oh, I think I'm asking. I think no matter what what it is you're talking about, I would ask before you make any changes. What are we trying to accomplish? And with the residency. It's okay. What is what is the goal of a residency requirement to have someone like the public works director, let's say, for example, close enough in an emergency? Or is it just to make sure that people live in tarpon Springs? So what's what's the goal? I imagine it's for emergencies. So they're close. So I would I'm sorry to make people high ranking people a fabric of the community understand as emergency. Some people are emergency, some aren't. Right But okay we're going to stay on topic for a minute. I'm very sorry to interrupt, but I him and her. No, no. Well, well, let me say I think it's so that they can do their job, narrow it down too much. It's a discussion. Okay. I would just say I think the, the best way to handle it if I was, if I was sitting where you all are at, I would do either a, a miles radius or a time radius or a combination of the two. So because I mean, if someone lives in, you know, in Pasco County and holiday, that's just as close to here as anywhere else, right? So I need to discuss that. Yes, it's my opinion. I was asked, so I answered, yeah, I mean, the responsibility of the auditor in this case is to make sure that whatever the requirement is in the charter is adhered to by the name. People in that charter agreed. That's basically okay. And his responsibility city. The other thing is if you're considering changing to given department head instead of name, if it were me, I would run it by the board of commissioners and get their approval. So then it takes everybody off the hub. Understood Thank you. Okay, any other comments on this? I I'm going to thank you for your time today. Oh, well thank you. I appreciate your insights, and thank you. Thank you. If anyone's got any other questions, feel free to call me or email me. Thank you. Have a good evening. Okay. Okay. That, I believe, opens us up next to, public comments. Do we have anybody who would like to make a public comment? I see a commissioner standing up. Is this a commissioner comment or are you representing yourself as a citizen? It depends, because if you're a citizen, you get 15 minutes. If you're a commissioner talking, then we give you a little more leeway. I won't take 15 minutes. Okay. So John Collins, 1020 Peninsula Avenue. I didn't come here for that, but since I'm here, I'll make a comment on it, I think where. And this is something Mr. Saltzman could appreciate. When you have a report out that has a significant legal issue involved in it, which was, you know, privacy rights of an employee, there needs to be a mechanism for which it that we can get a legal opinion on it. And I think that's where there was a breakdown in because it was subsequent to the, to the issuing of that report that both attorneys are, are, employed attorney and our city attorney at that time, both were adverse to having that report read. But again, it came too late. So it was after the fact, now there's a debate about whether we tried to get to it before, but that's there. So whether that's in the charter or not, again, I and I can speak to this not just as a commissioner. I can speak to this as a professional because I hold a master's in financial forensics. So I do a lot of the things he does. I just do them from a different, you know, different angle. I've never been an internal auditor. I've always been an external auditor. But whenever you have. So you had in this case, you had a non, an unqualified person. Because I'm not a lawyer. I mean, we, we take in to be a CPA. We have to take a business law course, right? Courses. And we have to take a portion of the CPA exam is on business law. And it's the reason is not for us to be lawyers. It's for us to identify issues where we should call lawyers. Okay. So we're very attuned to this has an issue. And you need to be able to say okay, it's time to call the lawyer. So when you have the internal auditor who's going to be issuing a report publicly, and then he's also assessing whether it had whether he legally can do that without legal advice. That's problematic. And you saw what happened. So it was a perfect example of the auditor making the judgment of whether he thought something was legal or not. And he's not he does not have doesn't have the education or the background to do so. So, so if you were going to do something in the charter and, and again, I just, I, I just came here not knowing he was standing here. Okay. Till I got, got close to the building. That there could be something in here to where reports need to be vetted by the, by the city attorney. Now, whether all reports do or not, I don't know, but that report you would have loved to have seen it before, right? Yes. Okay And I guarantee you would have identified an issue right? I would hope so, yes. Okay. So now again, things happen. And that's why we have lawyers who sue people, because it's not everything's perfect but that and again that's not why I came to the podium, but, it is it is something. That's a good question. So So wouldn't that be considered more procedural? Well, it could be again that you know, maybe it's something we should build in. That's why I say I don't know how it fits in the charter or not, but that was the breakdown. That was the, the gist of the breakdown is whether or not that report in that form should have been read at a public forum. That's the whole. That's the whole. As a commissioner, maybe, you know, or maybe you don't, but or maybe the city attorney knows, is there a procedural component with regard I'm not talking charter procedural component in these types of reports to avoid what what happened, you know, not again, not, you know, before you came, one of the things that I brought up is, you know, how how sacred the charter is and not turn the charter into a bylaw or procedural aspect. Okay? And you're right. It may not be necessary. So the question is, is there something that we have in place or the city should put in place not to not to put the fingers on the charter, but to look at it from a procedural aspect internally. Yeah. And I think when you and again, I'm not telling you guys how to do your job and I've never been on that side. I've never been in the Charter revision committee. But if I were on the Charter Revision Committee and had an issue that I didn't believe belonged in the charter, but was identified through the, you know, your the work you're doing, you may want to make note of that. Hey, we did this item. It was of concern to us. We don't believe it should be in the charter. However we highly recommend a procedural, item. John, do you think that this noted now, do you think that that would be covered in a maintain compliance is may be required by the state auditor general? No it wouldn't be. Okay. That's that's a whole that's a different a whole different thing. Okay. This is really I'm sorry. This is really what's the best way of saying I don't want to say it's a one off situation, but it's a situation normally where charter officials work together. And so this is perhaps one where it wasn't everybody wasn't in agreement that this was an issue that should be discussed beforehand. Obviously, the internal auditor did not agree or did not look at it that way, but it might be exactly what you said, an internal process or procedure that just generally to make sure from a legal standpoint, we're not opening the city up. I mean, obviously nobody can tell the internal auditor what to do. It's his findings. He has his obligations pursuant to what the state and his certification requires him to do. Right So but you can talk about and you brought it up. One of the issues was discussing not individual people's names, but just positions. So that's one way of looking at it. That might have been the suggestion had it gone beforehand. And discussed and say, hey, let's not use people's names. We don't want to. If it's not necessary, we could use position so that you're right. That's a policy or procedure. Yeah. If I may, under a audits of all departments for compliance with city written policies and procedures, the Board of Commissioners right those city written policies. Chairperson. You do you does this count towards my 15 minutes since they're bantering back accounts. But go ahead. Does oh no I mean here's a commissioner. Then the board of commissioners write those policies and commissioner, you guys could add that in there that the auditor the way the auditor will make his presentation. Yeah. I mean, you know, the and I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest. Believe me, I, I you know, when he talks about people that he commissioners that he spends time with and talks to, I, I dare to guess that I'm speak the most to him. Maybe it's because I talk his language and we have things to talk about, and so, you know, it's, Yeah. So, so we knew we knew the audit was we all had a copy of it. We knew that it was coming. We saw it before the meeting, again, we're not lawyers. I made a call to our city attorney and said I got some concern again because I. I do this for a living, and then, you know, the rest was history. It the process went forward. So it's a perfect I know you might say it's a one off, but I think it's a great learning, situation for us to say, okay, here is a worst case scenario. Here's a situation where things went awry and how do we correct it? I you know, I'm not in the I gotcha game. I don't you know, I'm, I, I if I'm here another year or three years, I'm more than happy to work with Billy. He and I you know, I have respect for him, you know, I he has he could do so much for our city, in efficiencies and, you know, making us a better operating, functioning business. Like we are. So his that job is very useful. And I and I know he has the talent to do it. That situation, you know, for whatever reason, went astray and got out of control. And, but I, you know, the lesson to be learned is you listen to your attorneys when they tell you they're not they're here to protect us. So how do we get that in that process? So that that was looked at by the attorney. That that is the important part. That's a process. Yeah It's process. So I'm going to thank you very much for that comment. And just let me let's let us wrap this up. And then if I finish my what I really ask you can you can continue. But let me just make a comment here. And that is that, we had that situation happen last fall. We're reviewing the charter. We've done due diligence here. I think we've we understand what caused the issue. We've seen that there's a number of process issues that should be dealt with, by the Board of commissioners with regards to how the city operates, how the internal auditor, interacts with the other charter officials, city attorney, etc. And I think there's some work to be done on that side. So I think I'm going to ask for a motion to accept this, section as is and move on, I have more why are we cutting the discussion off? Well, you need a motion and a second. I'll so move. Second. All right. That discussion. Would you like to, continue your your comment? Yeah, I was you know, we haven't we have a citizen, a commissioner and an expert witness. So I want to talk to John. Take off your commissioner hat. All right? Please And as a forensic accountant, the charter reads that the a report would go to the board of commissioners and the city manager. Right So to me, that appears like it's making two the auditor has two bosses. So what do you think about the reports going to the commission who was technically the auditor's boss and the city manager as a forensic, not as a commissioner. Right And not as a citizen? I'm looking at those words up on the screen. Oh yeah. Okay. And you know, it says report all report all findings and noncompliance issues to City manager and the board of commissioners. It doesn't say what happens with those complaints that that, you know, again with the city from what I understand, all this is public because it was all aired out in in back in, in last fall. But the city manager said don't issue this report. Or or bifurcate the report. So what it could that report could have been bifurcated, meaning there was two sections of that report. One was a procedural thing of that department, and one was this issue with an employee, the city manager said, bifurcate the report, issue it about the rules of the procedures. Let's deal with this city employee thing as a separate matter. The problem with that up there, it says you show it to them. It doesn't say what you do when after you show it to them. It doesn't say that there's any authority there. And that is that a concern, Mr. Saltzman? Sure. I mean, you show it to them, and then what happens? Yeah. So you show it to him, and he. And then you, then you say, well, he says he doesn't like it. And then you say, well, I just showed it to you. So I've complied. So maybe there should be some teeth there. I think you guys need to really think about this one. I know it's, but I think that's, again, if we're going to look at that situation as a learning experience again, not an I gotcha. We're not I'm not I know I'm going to lay an blame on anybody. There's there is a fundamental weakness here right in this process. Now whether it has to be approved by the city manager and the board of commissioners to be reported to the community. I don't doesn't say that. I'm not saying I'm not recommending that that's the case. I just don't know what that means. But and that's exactly what happened in that case, it was given to him. He said. Didn't like it. What did it mean? Okay But as long as it's in there and I go back to where I was, I think the answer to what you're saying is, is that all audit of all departments for compliance with city written policies. Now, if your policy is put in, if you write a policy that says when the auditor is through, he goes to the city commission and the city manager and be is the city commission, and the manager will determine when it's made public. We don't put that in here. Yeah. It's here that gives you the right to put that in there and make the city run like it should . You're it may. Yeah you're right. It might be a process dealt with process. But that that's what happened. So when you look at this as a learning experience it was a breakdown in authority. Who had the authority who identified the issues. How should this have run through an and, but is that more procedural than anything. That's your guys. It's your guys process thing. I mean, it's very clear the auditor works for the board of commissioners, right? That's who he's responsible for reporting to with a I read that, as you know, courtesy to city managers, another charter official who is why why would we have the city manager in here in I when he reports to the board of commissioners, I probably made the motion is a courtesy. I'm sorry. We have a motion by John as the maker of the motion, would you agree to add, after Board of Commissioners, the word simultaneously, in I in I okay, but let me but let but let's consider why we even have the, city manager in here when he reports to the board of commissioners. I think he should be. I think it should come out myself, but. Okay, well, I'll make a motion to. Just. So you know, if you're putting a simultaneously just under public record. Yeah, I simultaneously I as soon as it's given to the city commission, it is a public record I and is considered final according to the statute. Yeah. I have an issue taking out city city manager. I think it's I think it's problematic if you take out the city manager because, listen, you can change the city manager even though the, the auditor serves at the pleasure of the commission, the city manager still runs the city and needs to know what's going on and not bypassing the city manager on issues. If there's an issue specifically with the city manager, there's an avenue for that. Yeah but to take the city manager out of this loop, I think that's a mistake. I think it's a mistake. I think it's a mistake because I think that, again, in a case like this, if this becomes an HR issue, this HR director works for the city manager. So it needs to go through the city manager and if it's an HR issue, it should have been delegated to the HR department or shouldn't have a process for handling that employee, it again, in my opinion, I would not have I, if I were issuing that report, would have. I mean, I use this word bifurcate, but I would have cut that report in two. I would have had a report that went straight to the HR through the city manager, because it was an employee issue. Regardless of whether you believe the city manager was negligent in any part of that process, you'd still let the commission know that, hey, we have sent this to because that's actually what we voted on later as a, as a, as a, as a correction. Right. Was from now on, these things go there. The city all the all the, Board of commissioners are notified that a matter went to the to the HR. You can we can go through the city manager to the HR, go down directly and speak to Miss Sniffen and know what was involved in that process rather than it becoming a public matter, because employees have rights regardless of whether he said there in in the government there's, you know, you work for the government, your all your your issues are laid out. I don't I don't I don't I'm not again, I'm not a lawyer. But I think he would agree. That's probably not the case. They still haven't. They still have rights as employees. Well, let me also say I think I think Mr. Poulos was right. It is a courtesy and it makes sense to show the report to, to people like the city manager, the draft before it goes out to correct any misinformation. But I think this can be handled through procedure. You're not necessarily should be in here because he reports to the Board of commissioners. But if you if you if I was going to make one change in there, add one person, add the city attorney is also a charter official, just like the city manager is a charter official. You could say all findings of noncompliance issues to the city manager, comma city attorney and the Board of Commissioners. I could live with that because the city manager is part of the administration. And part of the problem with that whole discussion was there was talk of covering up people's position, positions and things. So if you throw the city attorney in, I'm good with that. I think this whole situation would have been handled entirely differently had that happened, and I think it should still say simultaneously, because as it reads now, it says the city manager and the board of commissioners, it did not go to the board of commissioners. It went to the city manager. It did. You're right. It did. We had the eventually, eventually. John eventually. And it was released by the city manager as opposed to the auditor. I don't know if I put that in the charter. And I think I think I if I was I think if you have in there the city attorney as well, I think you're you're covered. Just know that, you know, talking to John about this, this is the, from a public records standpoint, once the audit is final, we know it becomes a public record. The definition of final is once it's given to the board of commissioners. Okay. So maybe maybe it should read that it's is reported to the city manager and the city attorney simultaneously, who will then report the final report to the Board of commissioners. Yeah, I like that. Can I disagree with you on that? Why? Because I as a city commissioner, I'd rather have that report after it's gone to. That's what I said, John. No, not you said simultaneous no to the city manager not using the word now what? What I said was the new language would be that the reports of noncompliance or findings are given to the city manager and the city attorney simultaneously, who shall give a final report to the Board of commissioners. Okay. I agree with that. Yeah Except that change in motion, John. Well, well, the question though is who is responsive for releasing the report, though the nanny and the city manager is what my motion said. Well, the city city and city manager and the city attorney are responsible then for that report to go to the city board. You're talking about giving it to them versus the auditor still has to present it at a public meeting. Right. Well one of the questions was, who is responsible for issuing that report? He's right that they vetted the city auditor and it's independent auditor that's they vet it. So after so basically they vetted after review by the city attorney and the city manager, the auditor will present the lease release the report, the findings, release the final report. There you go. Yeah Can live with that, I don't know. I think I wouldn't, I don't think I put that wording because I, I don't I don't mind being in the loop. I wouldn't mind as a commissioner being in the loop of an issue as soon as you receive it. It's a, it's public record by the time it gets to you. The problem is public record. Yeah. All right. Well, do you have maybe you're right. I mean, I guess for me, making you guys get it by yourself without the city manager, right? Right. I get it now, I get it. Can we, can I? Right. John, I think you're I hate to say it, but you're. I know it's tough in it. It's tough. Would you like to amend your motion? Yes, I, I would like to amend my motion to change, section 14 letter. I to, report all findings or noncompliance issues simultaneously to the city manager and city attorney. And after their review, released to the board of commissioners, I think we have to throw the auditor in there. Joan I would I would appoint the commissioners by the internal auditor. Okay. All right. It would be my recommendation. Yeah. Okay. So let me revise it yet again so that the last sentence in section 14, article I is to report all findings or non-compliant issues similar to the city manager and city attorney. And after their review released to the board of Commissioners by the Internal Auditor. Close enough. Yeah Okay. Okay. Second, you need a second. Okay. It needs to be the. So you've amended the motion. The motion amended motion needs to be accepted by the seconder okay okay. So we've got that. Any further discussion on. Yes. Read it over again I'm sorry. Read it over again I can't hear you. I need a sentence over. Good. All right. Let me see if I can read it. My, my cursive. Good luck. No, no. On mine. So, the census report, all findings are non compliance issues simultaneously to the city manager and city attorney. And after their review, then release it to the board of commissioners by the internal auditor. That's kind of messy, but our attorney's going to make it sound really good by the time it's in final language, some grammatical polishing so you have the intent there? Yes. And we get to vote on accepting his language. So we have a stop gap after this. Right. We can always change it up. Massage it so it sounds right. Okay. But anyway, you have the intent. I think we all understand what his what the motion is at this point. Okay. So I'm going to ask the deputy city clerk to call the vote on accepting that. Yes Miss Jennings. Yes, Mr. Cuscuna? Yes. Mr. Semen. Yes, Mister chair. Penny. Yes, Mister Collins. Yes doctor. Ruth. Yes Great job. Thank you. And I'd like to make an editorial thing. I. I asked for the motion to adopt so we could focus on the charter. Okay? That's why I did it. I didn't mean to insult you or put you on the spot, but I. You've been very helpful with all this. But my intent was to focus this conversation. Okay. All right. That's good. He came to tell us something besides this right now we get to focus back on our illustrious commissioner. That's. Now come see how many government is very messy. Government was meant to be messy. So you're all your little thing and you apologizing. You don't have to apologize. It's part of the mess of making government. But at the end. But I'm polite. But I know you are. But at the end, things come out good. And that was a good process. And I think you you addressed a problem. If that was in the charter, no problem. Right. All that would have been averted. Okay. All that would have been averted. So you just solved a huge thank you issue that could have happened in just fixed it. No no, John did a good job. He actually he's he's smart. All right. So I want to talk about the planning and zoning board, that it the, you know, there's been two, the last two applicants of pretty contentious, projects. Both had the same, they had the same reaction when I spoke to them. Why did I even have to go to the planning and zoning and what was said since it was completely ignored? Why did you make me go through that? And I really didn't have a good answer for either one of them. And I think what I and again, I don't have, you know, I just have like I was talking about with, taking business law, I can identify an issue. It doesn't mean I have a solution for the issue. I can identify issues. And in this case, there's an issue that this the board, you know, if it was if the board of commissioners was an appellant, court. Right You would have, you would go to them like, say like the historic society. If you go to the historic society or the historic board. Right. And you they rule adversely to you. You have a right to appeal it to the Board of Commissioners and then you have to make a case as to why they didn't either follow the law. They didn't. They ignored you know, some relevant evidence. You have to have some basis to make your case as to why you believe that that ruling by that board should have, should be overturned, the board of the Planning and Zoning doesn't really the board of commissioners in, in their in conjunction with the planning and zoning doesn't have that role. It's just a it what's happening is everything's starting from scratch again. The applicant is just is coming with the same case and then getting a different different possibly a different ruling. But the planning and zoning was almost like a what a test test run of your of your situation. An and I don't think that's fair to the to the, to the applicants. And I don't think it's good process for the city. So I think there should be, there should be times where they the Board of Commissioners needs to be an appellant court. There should be some kind of and again, I don't have it all identified. That's more for you guys on the P and Z to identify and maybe bring to this to this board, but there should be times where you they can act as an appellant because remember we've we always talked about when I was on the planning and zoning, we always talked about what could we have autonomy on what things don't need to go could be decided on by the planning and zoning and not have to go to the board of commissioners again, not, not it's not for the ego of the planning and zoning. It's not so they can feel like they're important. It's for the citizens . Right? It's a we should not be putting processes in place that just make it difficult for people to do their business with our city. So there could be times where the board could act as an as an appellant, like they do with the historic board. We could identify certain types of transactions that that fall into that. And then the other might be and again, it may not be, a charter thing, but it could be something that's adopted as, as policy and procedure is that, that everything is focused off the planning and Zoning board report, so that when it comes to the to the to the BOC, it's okay rather than a complete ignoring of the planning and zoning. It's a working off the planning and zoning report, whether here we either believe that they, saw this properly or they didn't see it properly, but but so that may not be necessarily a charter, but I think there needs to be some kind of again, we don't want to put applicants through a just an unnecessary process. And I've had this conversation with Renee Vincent, who is way more intelligent on this than I am. So I would recommend that you have I know, have you had her up here yet? Not yet. Okay. So I would when you bring her up here is I would talk to her about the planning and zoning. We have had conversations about it and she had she she knows what she's talking about. Again I just mine is kind of a vague thing, but I know the I know the frustration of the applicants, and I know the frustration of the board because I was a board member, and I know that I know it from, you know, that whole Anclote Harbor thing. You know, I, I never felt that my issue with the with the comp plan and the and was ever really properly addressed. No, I just I don't think it was, and that kind of started the whole process of our frustration. Right. That was kind of the, the, the big issue. And then it's and it's I don't think it's gotten a lot better. And there's been a couple cases where it's not. So when you guys can, I'd like to see you have conversation and address the planning and zoning Board in its relationship to the process. And I would recommend highly recommend you bring Renee up here. She's probably cursing me right now that I'm throwing. I think she's on the bus, but she really is. She really understands this. And obviously you may get some pushback on that. And I don't disagree with you, but as a commissioner, would you see if some and because it's difficult to see two presentations. Right. They do one for us. They do one for the city. And some of it's A70 vote for the plant P and Z. Would you see that being put instead of another presentation on a consent agenda and allow a commissioner to pull it out and have a discussion. And that way it expedites the, your, your, your commission time. So if, if, if so, in other words, the commissioner still have to approve. Right. But if it's A70 vote by P and Z, rather than having to go through another presentation, the exact same thing in front of the commission, a commissioner could pull that out of the consent agenda and let it go. And that's just a safe the city staff time save us, commissioners time and save the applicants time. It's a valid recommendation. If the Commissioner pulled it, then they'd have to give the full presentation. Correct? Right I yeah, it's kind of I don't know if that's fair. I mean, if you're an applicant and you have no idea whether it's going to get pulled or not, and you have to come prepared and then you have to bring your all your professionals with you and you have to, you know, schedule another meeting. But, but but at least that could be a problem. A lot of jurisdictions are like that. I can tell you. Yeah, Pasco is like that. They don't have to require to be advertised to public hearing. Oh, it's advertised public hearings under the P and Z meeting only. No they advertise the P and Z. Then they advertise the board of County commissioners. But it can be anywhere on the agenda. It could be in public hearings. It could be in the consent. Like Mike says, they jerk it off. And that's just the way the cookie crumbles. You got to go to see if you're if you get pulled, you get pulled. I think you got to I think you have to let me finish. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. So like other people, I've been on both sides. I've been an elected official, and I've been on the P and Z as chairman of the P and Z . From the perspective of the public, first of all, I don't know that they can I don't know that the city commission, it may be an unlawful delegation of authority for the city commission to give up legislative. Is that right, Mr. Saltzman? That could be that could be point. Right. So I don't think that commission should, abdicate their responsibility or delegate it. I mean, they've abdicated things already that we elect you. I mean, you did your time on the P and Z, and you have some feelings about it. But now you're a commissioner. You're elected by the community as a whole. I mean, the commission has given up the facade grant program, you know who gets the money? I mean, to me, the commission ought to be deciding who gets the money. You've given up a liquor license thing. Those are all made by staff decisions. Now they a lot of people don't know that. But, I mean, at what point do you stop abdicating your responsibility and just cut and ribbons? Not only you know, you're being a little I know, but what I'm saying is, my thing is I think there's some legislative there's some law problems, but I also think there's some, you know, abdication problems for me. Well, one of the things the issue is, was presented to me is we have two boards that are not acting in the same way was P and Z has to go. And what was the other one? Not board of adjustment. Board of adjustments gets to make local decisions. And in some cases those decisions have more impact than, than certainly many of the small P and C cases. Right. So it's. And this is me talking as a member of this commission, not as the chair. I can see having equity between those boards. However I also believe that those decisions should be made at a higher level, especially with the financial decisions that are happening. So I think, you know, I think we need a legal interpretation of whether it can even be done. I don't I think there's a I don't think you can abdicate legislative responsibilities. I don't think you can either. I'm going to double check on that. So yeah. I mean so then the question is, is not can we make decisions at the P and Z that then don't have to be voted on by the BOC? No no no no no, that's not what that's not what I'm saying. That's not what what I'm saying is we'll you'll get an innocuous, zoning issue. Okay? And no one has an issue with it. We've it's A70 vote. It's, you know, but the same presentation now has to go in front of the commissioners, right. Okay So if it's A70 vote, it should. My thought is to say to save the applicants time, the commissioners time to listen to another 45 minute, you know, presentation on you know, something that's plants. Whatever the case may be, right, to put it as a part of the consent agenda could be pulled out if needed. Yeah. Not needed. I can see that. Mike I would say instead of A70 vote that it's just if it has the staff recommendation of approval and it has a vote of approval, whether it's 4 to 3, that's fine too. You know, if it has a vote of approval, it has a staff recommendation of approval that it can if the city manager chooses, can go on the consent agenda. And if the commissioner has some heartburn, you can pull it. But again, aren't we talking process as opposed to charter. Yeah. But that's I yeah. But we were talking about abdicating abdicating responsibility of the zoning zoning powers. Yeah. So it all it's kind of in there. But but it's, I don't think that's something that needs to be in the charter, but that's something that I think procedurally. Yeah. So I mean, unless the attorney says different, I don't think you can give it a. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I don't think it's a charter issue. I think it's a great suggestion. But that's a city process. Yeah. I mean, me bringing it, bringing this up is just the general frustration that I'm noticing from applicants and from the public. And, and we, we want to, you know, and maybe again, it's, it's, I was I always, you know, talk about dancing together. Right. So it's like if we need to dance well together now, that meaning we're, we're in sync. And it looks like a, a process that has purpose and again and right now I again, as, as a former PNC member and I know you guys are having you had that twice where you had the frustration. And I heard from the applicants like why did I have to go through that? What is the point of it? So so, if it's strictly an advisory board, then , you know, and there's procedural things that could be done. I don't know, again, what your whole when you guys do your report, let's say that that issue we had with the, the auditor, you made that, that, charter amendment, change and do you then say, okay, we made this change, however, we also recommend that you guys look at processes that x, Y, and z. If is do you do that we can okay. So I'm saying here is something just to look at it. I mean it's very you guys are a really well read presented and well rounded, committee that has the sense of this whole process. I know you've got you've got city, former commissioners on the board, you've got attorney, you've got your chairman of your PNC, you've got a good wide section of people. So it may be something you might want to look at and make a recommendation, even if it's not charter amendment that something that if you could help us, that's all. I'm just I'm just turning to some wise people here for some some we can we can talk to Renee about that. But from what I'm hearing, this is another area where it's a process thing. You know, where it goes in terms of the agenda is, you know, up to the that would actually be a commission thing. The board of commissioners and the city manager, city manager thing manages that agenda. Well, I think we should get a legal opinion on on what we're allowed to do in that regard. Also, I would I would, I would speak with, bring, Renee up here, speak with her, see what recommendations she has, city clerk. Has Renee been scheduled? She okay. And then and then she. Because she might she had some pretty definitive ideas. So so. And I don't want to speak on her behalf again. She knows a lot more about the technicalities of these things, but I just thought I would address it to you. And if you didn't have her on the agenda, you should. That's all on the agenda. And we could have asked for her in any case. And we could also ask her to do some research on on how it's handled. Yeah. Other places. Yeah. And she would, she probably. Well thanks guys. We're asking her to come. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. All right. We're still we're now into public comments. Do you have anything you'd like to say? Or feel obligated to tell us about? I will tell you my opinion. Government is takes a long time sometimes to get things done. The Planning and Zoning board is not elected by the citizens of this community. And, if you're going to change this, you've got to start looking at some of the people you put on these boards, their background, their qualifications, and what they're doing. And it is the commissioner's, responsibility to listen again. It's the, applicant's responsibility if he has to come up here five times. I remember Oak Leaf Village came up here quite a few times, Harbor watch all that area out there through the years came up many, many times. It took months. But that's the responsibility of your commission and government. That's what happens. I'm very sorry he brought it up. I think it's going to be an issue, with applicants. I know where it's coming from. Be very cautious with this and changing it because the elected officials have the last word. Planning, zoning. Board of adjustments and appeals, although they're not elected. So they don't worry. But the people put their trust into their elected officials, and they vote for who they think they're smart enough for it. And it's their decision. And their responsibility to hear it, even if they don't want to hear it five times. Mayor protest. Could you provide your address just for the record? 901 Bay Shore Drive. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay well, we have no more public officials, so let's go ahead and continue our review and discussion of our charter sections, we left last time with section, 1515, which was a reserved section. So I suggest we start again with 16 and just continue our reading through. All in favor? Okay, let's go. All right. This is the second 16 is on the city manager. And the acting city manager, I'm going to note right now, I don't believe we have an acting city manager, so that might be. You mean assistant city manager? I'm sorry. You mean assistant city manager? No. It says on section 16. Acting city manager. Well, there recently was an acting city manager on vacation, and he appointed Scott. That's. That's true. That's a temporary thing. Yeah You're right that that's what that talks about. How the how they come in and out. That's right. Oh okay. Cover. Yeah. And let me just go to where the I'm back here where it talked about residency. Yeah. That's where the assistant city manager is showing up. Okay I got confused. Forgive me for a minute. Right. I it's very long. I will read it if you want. Otherwise, I'll waive reading it. You have a nice voice. What's that you have? I said you have a nice voice. You want me to read it? No no, it's. Do you want to? Okay so, At this point , One of the things I had a question on was why the section on acting city manager and acting city clerk and collector was so different. Where are you? Which would have been, section B and 17 versus section two and 16. Well, I guess, Michelle, are you the assistant city clerk? Deputy? Yeah. Deputy But okay. Appoints me when she is out. Right Okay, so I got a question. Yes. Okay It talks about acting city manager, and I don't know if this is charter or not, but I think we need to get away from an acting city manager and look at maybe whether it's a charter requirement that we get an assistant city manager, and that way that would be your acting city manager. In the event the city manager is not available, the size of this city is getting to a point that that a city manager cannot be the one all all the responsibility and burdens on one person that he needs to be able to delegate certain things to an assistant city manager. And it's about time, with the size of the city, that we look at, whether it's a charter requirement that we get an acting, I mean, a assistant city manager or deputy city manager, and that will take that section completely, completely out. And I don't know if that's charter requirement or whatever, but I'm throwing that out to this board. We'll make it. I sort of agree with you. The problem is if you don't make it a requirement to have an assistant city manager or whatever the title is, then a city manager that's hired could say, well, I don't, it's not there. He said, well, I don't need one. And then then you don't have this clause. I gotcha , I understand, I agree, okay, you convince me otherwise. Okay? You don't want to leave a void. Yeah okay, I understand, I agree, but I think and I don't know if that's. I agree with you on the size of the city. A $70 million corporation is probably warrants two chief executives or the chief executive and assistant. Is that something that is charter that that we put a charter as a requirement or is that something I don't know, and that's, is that, you know, do I because we have to define we I guess we would have to because we'd have to define the responsibilities that assistant city manager will be, support and whatever, whatever you however you want to define what an assistant does for the city manager. But requiring an MC is probably makes more sense because what they've done in the past is they say, well, this guy over here is going to be my administrative assistant. And he's still the head of a department. So what deficiency do you have over there in Department for the guy doing the administrative assistant part. So making us give him an assistant city manager required I don't care. So So when I could you put section 17, paragraph B up and keep section 16, paragraph two in front of you? Okay. So go down to two. Okay. So oops. There you go. So with the city clerk, it recognizes that there is a deputy city clerk. And that is who would be acting in the event that the city clerk was on a temporary absence. Okay. So that is called out. And the city manager, they don't have that direction. It's basically kind of a, you know, he picks as long as it's approved by the board, it can be any qualified administrative officer and I think I'm really in agreement with Mr. Cuscuta said about we've got a big city and we should start having an additional executive person at the helm of it. I agree, so now the question is, is that an assistant or is that a deputy? Well, semantics don't matter to me. I think there's more responsibility associated with the deputy than assistant and assistant. The thing I don't want to see is somebody getting thrown another hat that's really department head that then doesn't have time to do the job. No, that's. I'm against that too. Yeah Okay. Well that's good. I'm glad we're kind of in agreement with some of the wording. Yeah I don't yeah it would be consistent with the, with city clerks, with city clerk. Yeah. No I think it's, it's one of the more important things we could accomplish in this, committee. Yeah. Look around town. There's plenty neglected needs. Agreed. I agree , I mean, so would that be a reserve provision? What was that reserved? You know, we have reserve sections. Well no, I we have, we have a city clerk and an acting city clerk. And then the deputy city clerk is called out in that section, I think we can amend this one to be city manager acting city manager, and deputy, possibly then also expand it to be deputy city manager, where we require a, you know, an additional executive to, you know, assist in running. I think we should be decision making of the city of Tarpon Springs. The language ought to be consistent with what's typical in all of the local governments. I never have heard of deputy city, a deputy manager, city manager. It's always assistant city manager or something like that. Well, Mr. Saltzman has that experience. Would you like to weigh in on what that second executive should be called? I've only heard it as assistant. Assistant. I've never heard it as deputy. Okay, that's. I've heard of what city deputies or city clerk? City clerk deputies and, police and fire, but assistant usually in city manager, because you have to have you have to have a city manager. If you're doing a city manager form of government, then you have the city manager and his assistant. Right? Right. As opposed to his deputy. It just it's I that's I heard it anywhere. I don't think anybody's heard of it. Never anywhere. Yeah okay. So that that that brings into attention assistant city manager which is actually already referenced in the residency paragraph. And then the question is, is I mean, the city manager clearly is a charter official, his assistant is if we're going to describe him in here, we get some level of charter official. It should be a charter official, it should be a charter official, okay. With defined duties and responsibilities. And then we probably still need the verbiage about acting City manager, because in the event both of them were were out, or sick or like Covid or something, we'd need somebody to serve conference. Well, the acting city manager would be the assistant city manager, unless neither unless they were both not. They were both unavailable. Yeah yeah. I don't disagree with what we're saying and I'll happily support it. But prior to doing that, should we bring the city manager in so as not to embarrass him and let him think that we've decided he needs help because he doesn't know it's not right? Guys, he was here. He's well, he's going to take ten minutes at a time. It's only fair. I have heard the thing discussed, and I think it was at BoCC meetings where, I think the only reason somebody hasn't pushed it through prior to not now is they knew Mark was leaving fairly soon. So you don't really want him to bring his guy in and then bring in a new city manager and have them want somebody different? Well, this is going to vote in November, correct? Or March next year. It'll go in March next year. So Mark will be so, just for to morrow's point and to Jimmy's point. Mark was the previous city manager prior to Mark. I know that was ages ago. Mark acted like a I think his title was administrative assistant. Right, Jimmy. And so the need I think is there. I'm happy to talk to Mark again and let him say let him weigh in. But I think the need is there. And Mark actually was going to appoint somebody as an administrative assistant at one time, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I think former police chief, something like that. And he did he brought him in for about six months after he retired a city. So, police chief, you know, I think it's a need, a need thing, but I'm happy to talk to Mark. Yeah, I and I would ask the city attorney if. If some of the other charter, if, you know, language with regard to an assistant city manager, I'd like to see rather than us trying to, you know, that's what I'm actually looking up. Okay, if we could look at certain language, maybe for next meeting. Yeah. Can we, Mr. Saltzman, would you take the action to give us language to consider? Yes. Yeah. Good language. Also consider somebody who's coming in or has previous experience. Yes, I that's it. The hiring process. So it could. Yeah. But what's going to happen. Well I mean they say Mark leaves okay. We this thing passes in March. We get a guy in here from New York and he's going to come here to retire as the last two years. He's going to bring some. My experience has been they bring their pal in. So but I agree with you. The qualifications don't belong in here. But for the hiring, the hiring would be done by the city commission. Yes Could we? Since we're having Mr. Saltzman look at language for the assistant city manager, could we also ask him to look at that unlawful delegation of authority, to settle the zoning and application as well? Yeah. So, in other words, the how an acting city manager is no planning. I'm going back one. I'm going to the P and Z thing that John brought up that the P and Z. Yes. Could we just get a ruling that it is an unlawful or not an unlawful delegation of authority? There's I think there's a statute that says you the legislative thing. The city commission can't give it up. All right. Mr. Salzman, did you catch that? Yes I have made notes on both. I bet you it's save an hour's worth of time. This may be a silly point, but no, I. Yeah, in section 16, it never actually states that the city manager is a charter official. Is that even necessary, well, he's in the charter, so he's a charter official. Okay, I wanted to be reference it. Somebody else? Yeah. Okay. I don't. Is it anyone else? I believe so, no, it's not in the next one either. We have to do their their charter officials because they're in here as opposed to. Okay. All right. So let's see here 520 2024 Mr. Salsa when asked yes. Just a minute. Asked to provide, opinion. Regarding Ability to abdicate. Decision. Authority. To PNC. Okay. Got that back here. Okay. Okay, so I've recorded both of those actions on our notes before we leave. City manager. Is there any other thing we want to include? I know that Mr. Delacruz had indicated that, he would like to see a prioritization of the capital improvement program, I'm inclined to think that's a process thing, but if we should put it in the charter, I'm hoping to hear that the city does that, don't they, Jimmy? I I think I had brought it up about about and I don't know, again, maybe it's a process, maybe it's a charter where the city manager, you know, because when you go to budgeting and you and, you know, department heads, you want, you want at least, you know, whatever their capital projects are. So they could prioritize their capital projects. So when we look at budgeting or they look at budgeting, what do we have to fix next? Doesn't mean you're going to pay for it. It just there's a priority if it goes to the following year, the year after, there's a useful life. The problem is, and I've actually heard this from, a couple employees who remain nameless, is that there are capital things that need to be addressed. And they're they're not addressed. And it'll take a disaster to happen, and then you'll Band-Aid it. Got it. Okay. Instead of looking at something useful life and say, we need to we need to look at this two years from now, three years from now. Because that's the useful life. And we need to budget instead of wait for it to break. Then budget it. So this is section F. We're talking about I should say section 16, subparagraph F okay. So whether or not we add the words prior prioritize prioritize capital improvements it will provide can provide to the city commissioners or you know and he'll get that from from, he'll get that from his, department heads. But prioritize. How about how about it and say it says budget message and capital improvements. We say capital improvement program say budget message and prioritized capital improvement program. Yeah. Yes No. Or it I think what we're talking about in that if that's what he should be doing, but it's controlled by the board of commissioners. Right Back to being a process. No, the writing, the check is controlled by the board of commissioners. But it's but the city manager, if he brings it front of the board of commissioners and say, look, these are the issues we have. It's up to the board of commissioners to approve those projects or change it around or change it around. That's what I said. Yeah, it's up to the board, not the city manager. No, but he he's got to be able to prioritize capital improvements. Well, you should be doing it. But I think he probably any city manager is going to do what is absolutely the most important that affects everybody in the city. Do they do everything that needs to be done? No You know, my road needs paving for the last six years, but they're paving roads all over town. Yeah, but that's the way it is, guys. I mean, never mind. I'll be quiet on that. I'm just. I'm just more inclined to look at like the, like, utility, you know, utility department, sewers that have to be replaced. Your infrastructure, the useful life of some of the infrastructure that that, you know, some of some of the, you know, maybe they've changed them all and maybe Anita knows more than I do, but some of those pipes are still clay. So Okay, this is a question I can see. I can see where it would have a place here, but is also is that something that the, the sustainability plan should be addressing? No, no, they don't know anything about the public utilities, the clay and water sewer. Well, maybe it's part of the sustainability of the city. Maybe that's more of an infrastructure. It worries me that the charter could have that in there, because if you look around town now, they got more roads closed than open because they're fixing the roads, changing the pipes underneath, yadda yadda yadda. It's going on . And I have to say, that's from way back because I got more calls from, as a commissioner about something wrong. I don't have enough water pressure. This is wrong. That's wrong. Well, when you look at it or the city manager gets back to you, you find out the fix. That little water pressure. Yeah, but what about us? $15 million. But those things are being done anyway. I mean, they're they're doing things, but those may not be the priority. If you've if you're working on a, on a roundabout and you know you're going to budget for roundabout, but you know, one of your major components in your utility department is useful. Life is, you know, five years past, what do you what do you pay for first? And you're not by by prioritizing. You're not telling the city commission, you're not telling the city manager what they got to do. They just got to be aware that they're. And where the city manager saying, look, these are the priorities as far as capital. And you got to as a commissioner, you got to plan for your budget in the future, not taking away from the things that they're doing and they have to do. But the things that are that are foreseeable, and that's the key to budgeting, is to look at things that are foreseeable and put funds aside, or that that you need to and I don't again, I don't know if that is something, you know, by putting the word prioritizing in the charter, it requires an affirmative of response, if that makes any sense. It makes great sense to me, except it's a board of commissioners who get the proposed budget. With all those priorities on it. And at that point in time, they should be making. Let's see what you are getting. Okay. Ideally you're right. Ideally you're right. However if you've seen the budget process, it's more focused on today than five years. Ten years infrastructure, long term issues. And not just that. I think that's what if I'm a city manager and I bring a if I prioritize a project and the city commission says, well, we're not doing that fine. And then something goes wrong, at least as a city manager, I've covered myself, okay? Because I've instead of getting blamed for not addressing something, I've covered myself because I've prioritized something. And it's the commission that you you have to, that you that that gets thrown. You know, I'm going to throw prioritize in prioritize a capital improvement program. I'm going to throw something out there. And I think that what might be skewing this is because it starts right off rare and annual budget. And maybe what we need is another thing that addresses long term capital improvement planning, separate from this annual budget line. How about the how about the manager shall provide to the commissioners annually? A priority of you know, the better language that of capital improvements. And that way you got it. If you just add prioritize capital improvement program. But he'll provide okay annual budget budget and a prioritized capital improvement program. How about how about this provide annually a plan for long term capital improvements? Yes. No. Only because not priority. It's not prioritized. I'm sorry. Yeah. Well, long term prioritizing. Prioritize by impact. Prioritizing long term capital improvements or capital improvements. Prioritizing capital improvements. Now do you want to put that as a separate thing? Because if you go down to G right after this, it talks about it talks about making, well then I make such other reports as the Board of Commissioners may require. Well you know, but you could you could include that in there as well, I think where you're talking. Yeah, I agree with John . Where you're where you're actually talking about that the annual report they have to do make a priority capital improvement, requirement as part of that budget, as part of that annual report to the to the commissioners that works, could we consider what the budget says about where they're going to spend the money and how much and where? Isn't that prioritizing it? Well, that's prioritizing it this year, then if you want them to do it, a year's out, only do it one year at a time. Yeah, you can only spend money when you're at a time. You can only really budget money, but you can have the list of things you got to address going forward. Yeah, yeah, yeah G has future needs of the city. The next, the next. It's it's fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city and make such recommendations to the Board of commissioners concerning the affairs of the city so we could put there including a prioritized plan to include, to include, to include, to include a make it in the budget, like it where it's at because it says it's an annual budget. The capital improvement program gets funded through the budget. That's why it needs to stay where it's at. It gets funded through the budget and the budget message. It's not just the capital improvement prioritizing, it's the budget message of why they're doing it and the budget itself that shows it being done. That's my opinion . Yeah, I wouldn't take out the capital improvement program from f. I would leave it there because that's integrated. But but I think maybe add the word prioritized and a and a prioritize capital improvement program. But but also and going on to G where it says John. Yeah I would I would add it later where it says as to the financial condition and future needs of the city, okay. And I would put prioritizing future, prioritizing future capital expenditures. Oh, I like that. Yeah Okay. So future and capital because not only you're going to prioritize this year, but prioritize what are our future needs. Long range. Yeah. Long range capital needs okay, Mike, so you're suggesting and prioritize future and capital improvement needs of the city. Prioritize future capital needs of the city. Future okay. Prioritizing future capital needs of the city okay. Actually, those are my notes right here. Yeah Now do we need prioritization as well then. And I think, like John says, on an annual basis, they should be able to have a priority list on an annual basis, a prioritize capital improvement program. Is that what you want to see the word prioritize. Just add the word prioritized. Yeah. Prioritize capital improvement program to the plan or capital improvement plan okay. You want to take out long term in F correct. Yeah okay. What we have we have the words here long term. What did you say sir. Well we have a change recommended to G and to F which is keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition prioritizing future capital expenditures and future needs of the city, and make such recommendations to the Board of Commissioners considering the affairs of the city. Yeah, okay. What about f, I think? Okay, so that's that. So now the question is what is the language change then being requested for f? Where do you want to prioritize the capital improvement program? A prioritizing the city's capital improvement program. I thought somebody said long term after prioritizing, but then it got bounced to F. So yeah, it's f and G. It's included an F and G, right? Okay. So we're going to put it in both right. So Premier and submit the annual budget budget message and prioritizing the capital improvement programs to the Board of Commissioners. And affirmed approved by ordinance or law. Was it programs or just capital improvements programs twice in here. Yeah. That's right. Do you need the word program? Leave the word. I'm sorry. Leave the word. Leave the word program. Let's make a motion so you can discuss those two things. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to, reword, section 16, item F to include, prioritizing before capital improvement. And to, include wording in section G to, and in the first line and prioritize these capital improvement needs of the city. I think a future needs. Oh I'm sorry. Prioritize future needs. Future capital improvements. Yeah, let me read what my notes say. Okay. My read it slowly. I wrote I wrote these notes when I first started going over the. Okay, okay. The charter. So I'll withdraw my motion. No, no, my notes say prioritize capital projects based on need and useful life. I don't need to know if we have to include that language, but that was I think that makes sense, because you need to give them direction on how to prioritize, capital projects based on need and useful life. Okay, so I'll withdraw my motion. Well, you want to do one at a time. We'll just. Yeah. Okay. Do one at a time. All right. So, I'll make a motion to, change the wording in section 16, item F to read, prepare and submit the annual budget, comma, budget message, comma. And prioritizing capital improvement programs to the Board of Commissioners. And I'll second that motion. Okay. Any further discussion on this one? All in favor of that change, can we, have a roll call, deputy city clerk, doctor boukouvalas. Yes, miss Jennings? Yes Mr. Koskotas? Yes, Mister chair. Penny. Yes Mr. Collins? Yes, doctor. Ruth. Yes Okay. And then I'll just go ahead. If it's okay. I'll take the motion on the next one, please. To change, g to say, keep the Board of Commissioners fully advised as to financial condition and future needs of the city to include prioritizing, prioritizing capital projects based on need and useful life and to make such recommendations to the board of commissioners concerning the affairs of the city. I'll second that. I thought you were going to put long range. Yeah. Future, future needs of the city to include prioritizing capital projects based on need and useful life. So you're saying the future needs sets long range based on okay, prioritizing? You know, future needs to include. Mike, do you want to read it again? So yeah. Okay. Keep keep this the board of commissioners fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the city and to prioritize capital projects based on need and useful life, and to make such recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the affairs of the city. I'll second that any further discussion. Are we sure they're not doing that now? Well, if not, we're going to make them do it. That's not what the charter is about. I don't care, guys. I'll vote for it. But if they're doing it, we're going to look foolish. Well, we'll we'll check on all this language before you finalize it. Make sure that anything that's being done, we will bring to your attention. That's great. I just I don't I don't know, and I just personally I don't know if, if when they go through the budgeting process because I, you know, I don't necessarily go to see all commission meetings, but I don't know if I've seen a lot of discussion on sometimes based on you're going to need this in five years, you're going to need this in three years. How are we going to start budgeting for that, and there may be, I'm sure they have it internally. I just don't know. But there should be a plan, right? The, the especially on wants to add some capital improvements. There should be a five year plan looking into that. Yeah. But I think for the city manager's sake it helps the city manager to put that charge to his department heads, because maybe some of the department heads aren't as proactive as looking at useful life. And this way it puts the onus on the city manager to go to the department heads and say, look, because city manager's not going to do this. He's going to go his department heads and say, I, you know, you provide me a list, okay, that's what he's going to do. Yeah. And it also forces then the city, the department heads to work together to come up with an overarching list. I'm sorry. I'm going to let, city clerk weigh in. Can you come to the podium to speak in the microphone? I was just going to say there is a five year capital improvement plan that they do look at. Okay. And then it is prioritized during budget time with the BOC. Okay. Now longterm can mean longer than five years. But they do some things have a five year plan or let's say a fire truck. They they do budget it out. I don't know all the I haven't had anything that's specifically mine that is long term like that. But that it would be good to codify that if they're already being done. It's not. Well, I, I think yeah, I think our, our vision should be much farther out than five years. Five years is short term in a city budget. Life I mean, you're fixing things that are broken at that point. Well, I understand Jimmy's point about micromanaging, but I also know that we're getting ready to change city manager, so might as well put it in there so he knows what we want. The new guy knows what he gets. It gets slammed. Yes So call the question. Roll call. Yes Miss Jennings? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Penny. Yes Mr. Collins? Yes, doctor. Yes, we'll take the five minutes. Okay. Taking five minutes, I have to. Okay. Let's just take five minutes and we'll come on back and figure out what we're going to do to finish. Resuming the meeting. Let's go. All right. Do we have anything further we want to address? At this point, I'm inclined to say. Let's. Let's table the rest of this section until next week, when we have more information from the attorneys. Also agree that we do comments and go, let's say we do comments and go, no, we got we got 15, 20 minutes of active time. We're supposed to go at 5:00. And I'm very good at getting us out. I thought you said you didn't want to go further. I must have misunderstood what you said. I heard what John heard. Thank you. What? No, I wasn't I. That's what I postponed. I took a break in the meeting because we. Yes, I thought I heard. Could I suggest that we've got 45 minutes approximately that if we start delving into another part of the charter, we may, you know, give us enough time to discuss it as opposed to taking comments or have you look at what the next one is. Okay. What's the next one? The city clerk and I have a feeling we will blast through that rather quickly, really, which is why I was suggesting we go ahead and do that one. Okay And if we wind up getting mired in conversation , then we'll end that. Okay. And go to go to wrap it. Fair enough. My job is to keep us moving ahead. All right. We can still make a motion and a second and a vote that we can override me. There will be penalties to you. There will be consequences. Yes Been. There are. All right, so this next section is on the city clerk and collector and the acting city clerk and collector. It's two paragraphs. That's what I thought. Okay. All right. I disagree with you. Do we have any. I think it's fine as it stands on this. I think it's fine. As it stands. I will ask the city clerk if she has anything she'd like to weigh in on on this. And she happens to be a captive person. I do not have any changes to that. No changes. Yeah. We made we made changes last time. So I think we're probably good on this. I make a motion that we accept it as second. Is it second? John seconds it. Okay. Any further discussion? Can we call the vote ? Doctor doctor. Bucuvalas. Yes, miss. Jennings? Yes. Mr. cutis? Yes, Mister chair. Penny. Yes Mr. Collins. Yes, doctor. Root. Yes Was that so hard? Oops, sorry. Was that so hard? No. All right. Okay, now the next thing is we. I would like to start on section 18, city attorney, which I also don't think we're going to have a lot of discussion on. But let's touch that. If we go into a lot of discussion, we'll move on. I do have I do have one question, and that would be to the city attorney. Go for it. Okay. One of the things that and when that was from the old city attorney that I had, I had brought this up and I had actually brought it up to several commissioners at the time is the city attorney cannot serve two masters when it when it represents a city board. It cannot also represent the department. In other words, code enforcement. Right. And so the same firm and one of the issues that I had previously was it was the same firm representing both sides of the table. Right. And that and I had asked for an attorney general's opinion as to the ability, the ability to do that. And I never got one so well, I can just tell you in Clearwater, I serve as the code board's attorney, and the city has their own attorneys that prosecute the case. And I will always say you need to work with the city on that or you're, you know, talk to the city attorney. So I'm correct in that regard. That's how I've always looked at it. And a lot of cities, as you know, might get a special master for. Yeah that's different. But but then the but that's a different attorney. Right, right. And when we were doing this, with Regina, Regina was representing the board. And while we were, while we shared the position of city attorney's, we were separate and that we had separate responsibilities as as so I was representing the city. Honestly, we don't need to in that situation. I told to Mark, we have very good, employees for code enforcement right now, and they can prosecute their own case. Prosecute their own case. Okay. And ironically, when I well, as I serve as city attorney for the or board for the city board, code enforcement board in Clearwater when there was an appeal. It's an appeal of the board's decision, not the city's. So the city doesn't get involved in that, you know, because we're representing the board, whether they're competent , substantial evidence that that kind of thing. So I do think they're separate. Okay, okay, okay. I have a question of the city attorney, and the second letter, it says second sentence. The city attorney shall render to the city and its respective boards, officers and employees. And then when you go down to the fourth line, it says the city attorney shall defend the city, its officers and employ its officers and employees, but it doesn't include the boards. Is there a reason for that? Well It probably should say the boards normally what happens is you don't sue the boards, you sue the city, okay? Because ultimately the city is responsible. So if you were if you sue the board of commissioners, for example, you really sue the city. If you're choosing to sue the board of commissioners individually, you can. And in those cases, what we do, there could be a potential conflict, so there's a determination based remember, we have the Florida League as our insurance company. The Florida League provides us defense. I was hired as the litigation attorney. I handled matters in which the Florida League doesn't defend us, which are are more things like public public records, things along those lines. So we also oversee what the league is doing to make sure that everybody is aware of what's going on. But we if there's a conflict, we absolutely get separate counsel. Okay. We would go to the league in that situation then ask for counsel. Right. Because there was a lot of conversation about, you know, Board of Appeals and, you know, P and Z. So let's say that somebody wanted to bring a case against Merl. Do you have qualified immunity? Okay So you would really bring so, so really the cause of action should be that, that, if the board acted improperly. Me so you you bring a, certiorari action, but that's against the board. Their action, it's not against the individual member. Okay. You have to really have a trying to think of what a civil rights allegation against an individual board member. And I don't know how you could do that because the majority I mean, boards act just like you. And what a majority says and the majority changes. So you really would sue the board, not an individual. Okay. But we do have qualified immunity in most of the time. We can have the individual taken out of there, really the proper party is the city and not the board, because you sue the municipality, and unless it's the city commission, that could be different, and just like if you were going to sue the police department, you can't sue the police department. You have to sue the city, so there could be conflicts. Absolutely. If an individual person acts in a different way, in which time we which is why you have a provision in there that says if there's a conflict and you can't represent everybody in that, the initial analysis might be made by the city attorney to determine. But a lot of times, as I said, we have we have in the Florida League. So the Florida League provides us unless the Florida League says, oh yeah, we're not representing you on that, then I get involved in doing that. Now if it's somebody we were going to sue, for example, we're foreclosing on a piece of property that we would handle, right. We would handle that litigation, but we have a we have a code enforcement appeal right now, and so that's one that, that I'm handling, and so if there was some kind of conflict in that case, but there isn't. Well, thank you for the clarification. Is there any other questions for the city attorney? John? I don't have a question. Okay. Go ahead. So this goes back many years and the city has grown. And this this is just a personal thing. I think the cities that have and this has nothing to do with Mr. Salzman or any other city attorney's, abilities or anything. It's just I felt for a long time that this the city is large enough to have a full time city attorney, and I'm perfectly cognizant that we have we need labor attorneys and specialty attorneys and things like that. But if you had an in-house attorney, then it seems to me like the city manager or department heads commissioners could reference the city attorney and maybe on a full time basis, eliminate some litigation by not misstepping. But, you know, maybe I'm wrong, but if I had a $70 million corporation, I'd have me a full time city attorney or a full time corporate attorney, that's just just throwing it out there for. Think about it. Yeah. I gave birth to one of those. Pardon me? I gave birth to one of those. You did? Yeah. My son's a corporate attorney. Okay I had the pleasure most of the time. A pleasure of, when we had a regular full time city attorney. And for the most part, they worked out very well. Whether they could do what's going on today, I don't know, but I was quite impressed with that young lady you put up here. I never saw her back down, and she knew her stuff. And if you would tell her to apply, we could change this. I don't know that we would need to change this. It doesn't preclude it being right. You could. You could put in a full time. We could put in a full time. Yeah. But I mean, I think the charter says it stands at all know that. But carry the reason you would want to put it in the charter is because attorneys in general are pretty sharp people. Most of them they would most of them. I disagree with you. There's exclusions to every rule, of course, the few, but they would. Most attorneys are pretty sharp, so they would know that they're serving, you know, maybe at the, the will. I mean the they don't want to be fired for no reason just because the of an election, you know what I mean? So if you had it in there that they have to have a full time, full time city attorney, it gives them a little more protection than just. Yeah, they can have one. They can not have one. They can do what they want kind of thing. The only thing I would say, contrary to that, is that even if you're a full time city attorney, you'd have a contract and I have a contract with the city, and it's a three year contract. Right. And it's actually less than two years left. And, and so you would have that kind of even if you're full time, you'd want a contract, because actually the contract would give you more rights than it would generally just from being a city employee. I mean, you talked about the Civil Service Board, before, but really, you get more rights from the contract, if you have a sharp city attorney who puts in the right terms, so do does Duneen have a full time city attorney? No, no, that's, Bryant . Miller. Olive. Clearwater. Clearwater? Yes Clearwater. Saint Pete, are the only two that I can think off the top of my head. Say, Pete has a staff of attorneys. Yes. Yeah, they. And I believe Clearwater does. Oh, I know Clearwater does, because I deal with them. So Clearwater does. Saint Pete does. But your beach communities don't. I don't think there's I'm trying to think of anybody else. Yeah. They're they're pretty small. Have any commissioners. Well either the county obviously has counties. The county has a group of attorneys. So County Clearwater and Saint Pete, I believe. Right Yeah. So Jimmy's right. We served with some full time city attorneys. And it was nice having them in their office where you could just see them. We could give you office hours. I'm just Andy. Whatever works for you, buddy. You want to be this full time city attorney? Works for me. Regina actually did that when she was here. She had at least, Mondays were office hours, no. Whatever. It's whatever you all want. It doesn't seem like it's. This doesn't preclude. This doesn't. This doesn't preclude the board of commissioners from hiring a right full time as a mandated. But it doesn't preclude it. And they may want to do that analysis to determine. So yeah. And it's probably a significant cost savings to have someone on staff as opposed to paying. Yeah. Might be a cost benefit. That to me it was them to me it was both that to me it was both that there's potential cost savings but there's potential to avoid, litigation. Yeah. Well, just it also, the city attorney can only represent cannot represent the board's, it can only represent the staff or like, like it depends like, because it would be a conflict, right? It depends on like, code enforcement. Right. It would have to represent the code enforcement officer, but it couldn't represent the board. Right. You have because you have a direct conflict on how that case comes out. Now on Board of Adjustment, I have never seen a problem with the city attorney representing the board. They don't represent the city because you have experts in that area that are presenting that to the city. Yeah. And the same with planning and zoning, because again, you have experts that are coming, and even on that one, that's an advisory board. Yeah. Board of adjustment would be more the one that you want to make sure you're representing the board because code enforcement you have to prosecute a case. Right And that's one of the only few boards that that requires a prosecution. Right. And that really I mean, as I said, we have a really good group right now that are putting in the cases. Their cases are very well done. I don't see any changes on this. So unless there's I'll go ahead and well, generally you would make a motion. I'll go make a motion that way if there's any further discussion, it'll be within the motion, well so if you don't see any changes, you want to make a motion to accept it as written, correct? Make the motion. We'll see if it's second and then we open it for further discussion. Well, that's what I said. I think I'll make a motion. I was I wasn't going to make a motion to deny it. Is there a second to your motion? I'll second. Is there any further discussion? Man she just chewed me out while you were gone to. But I did so gently. You did. You did that. Is there any further discussion? No. Looking this way, because I sometimes don't. All right, deputy city clerk, would you please call the vote doctor? Boucouvalas Yes, Miss. Jennings? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Chair. Penny. Yes, Mr. Collins? Yes, doctor. Yes Done all right. We are going to reward this productive work of the last 15 minutes by moving on to the next agenda item. Let's see. Oh notice, did the lights just change? I thought they flickered. Well we're gone. Okay, the alien invasion five boyfriend over the house and the lights flicked. It was dad saying, getting the hell out of here. Okay, so our next meeting will be May 29th, which is a week from Wednesday, right? Okay, so there's nothing Monday. I hope you're all out having fun. All right. But we will meet here then on Wednesday, further public comments. I don't see anyone from the public here. We're going to go on by. Let's go ahead with board and staff comments. I'm going to start with staff, city manager, city clerk, do you have any comments to make? No, deputy city clerk do you have any comments to make? Attorney Saltzman do you have any comments? No. You want more action items? No, no. Okay Mr. Terpening, would you like to weigh in? I would please do so. When we first convened this thing, I mentioned the two things that were most important to me were to protect the citizens and encourage participation of the citizens, opportunities for the citizen to participate. It's come to my attention that the qualifying times for the elections are very short, in my opinion, and they're not well advertised. They're not publicly disclosed much. I mean, even this this recent election and this is no reflection on the clerk or anybody. This was, I think, done through a previous city manager. And, and maybe some elected officials. But I think that we should it's important enough to where it can't be changed that that that we say whatever the time is. That has to be like the last thing for this election coming up in March, it was a one week qualifying time, right? Right. Well April 30th to May. Sorry. We work backwards from the election date, because the election based on the March election, the date, the language is due in December now. So absentee ballots could go out in a timely manner for this August election. You're talking about or past March, for past March, all elections are the upcoming election. In August, there was a one week qualifying time. That is correct, but it's 112 days from the date of the election. That's the minimum required. That's the start of the. And 104 days is the final and we do advertise it in we have to do a legal ad for that as well. And I know who reads the legal ad. Nobody. So Irene the time frame that you're saying you're working backwards, that's the minimum amount of time you could have gone earlier. Right If the if it, I if you want to change those dates, the 112 versus the 104. Yes. But for, for a march election, the qualifying would start in November. Right. So that gives the person an open for how long it is 112 days versus 104. So it's a week. Nine days is the depending on if it falls on a weekend requirement from that's in the charter. That is in our charter okay. That's under section 11. Oh yeah. That's so I mean to me that's just wrong. And I think so my opinion is, is that we number one we expand the length of the qualifying period of time and, and that we put in there the advertising requirements that it . No offense to you Irene, but nobody reads classified ads because the newspapers don't even come out anymore. I mean, the times comes out on what, Wednesdays and Sundays? Wednesdays and Sundays is when we do our ads, our legal ads. It is also on our website. We do put just I know, but everywhere it goes, I think the elections are important enough that we do a mailer and we expand, expand the qualifying time for at least a month. I mean, I would go six weeks, but I live with a month. I mean, you want to get people the, the chance to talk it over and get in, get out of in their head and their friends. And could you bring up where it is in the charter, please? I might the 112 days might be in the code, but just because I'm not, neither one of us are finding it . And see, that's what happened. Carrie. The last time the city manager changed it. Not this one, but a previous one. And the whole purpose of that. I'm going to just put it out there. The whole purpose of it is to manipulate elections to where you have your own people running, and you don't have other people jumping into the race. So there it is. I mean, you have a one week qualifying period. That's all that does. Yes. And the let me look. But yeah, the code section I'm not saying where that is in the charter. It's probably in the code. The the if I can get into this. My computer died. So I can't get into the. Section two. Mike, what do you think, I'll tell you what I think, that's what I was asking. Okay, I, I don't disagree with you expanding the qualifying, the some of the issues I have with what you say, people tend to be apathetic with regard to elections. And we can't spoon. We can't spoon feed the public, with regard to whether to vote or not. Vote but one of the things that if you want to encourage voting and I was going to bring that up is and I and I and it may be a difficult process, but to maybe change our election cycle to be consistent with, you know, the November dates that way, same people that changed it to one week, changed it from November to March. Yeah. And the same purpose. Yeah. And so I would, I would say changing it to an election cycle because couple things a people tend to vote more. You'll have a better turnout. Number one, I agree with that. Number two, the cost savings of having your own special election could be minimized because it's grouped with a larger election process. So you would get more, more people, more of the electorate to participate in in an election process, what I was told that I don't know who told me was the reason they did that was people got confused because of our ballot. Could be too long with state, federal, state and local elections. And my I scratched my head on that one and I said, then what tells you something about the electorate if you have to have a separate election, for your local so they could focus more on the local issues? That scratched my head on that, that response, the public more credit . I do too. And but but, you know, just to get away from the apathy would would to try to change the election cycle to be consistent with the November election. But my thing, Mike, is like on the eight, I'm good. I'm good with going to November on the one week to qualify my for somebody who's never run before. I like the 30 days. Okay. And is it's a lot to do in one week. I mean so what would you recommend that it be? Can I just clarify before you. And there is qualifying is only the stuff as far as like paying their qualifying fee and stuff that they can only do during that period. Anyone could come in at any time. If you remember, a couple of years ago, someone came three years ahead of time. Anyone can come looked at that sign. Anyone could come in. That's the only thing they change. But anyone could come in and pre-qualify and do everything to run as that. Now I mean, y'all could do whatever you want. I know it comes up at every charter, and I'd be happy to bring you back information because I have a pile and it's bringing both the good and the bad of changing the election, but it doesn't matter to me if you find it in I can't I won't let me pull it up from this one. So it's in the code. I believe it's in the code. Okay let me just the qualifying date. Let me finish. Irene. Yeah. Anybody can come any time of year and do something. But there is a there is a qualifying time that people look to and people start talking about elections and who's going to run, who's not going to run, who's a good who's qualified, who's not. That eight days for somebody who's never run. They have to open a bank account. They have to get cards signed. They have to do form six. Now. They have to do all of these things. Irene, it's a big paper chase and, you know, it is. It's if someone waits to the last minute to do all if they wait till the eight days, right. If they wait, just to the qualifying period. Right. So and that's my point. There's a qualifying period. So we need to blow the qualifying period out 30 days at least. Okay But that is that in the charter. Isn't that in code. Not in the charter. Not the charter. The charter. It's the code. But I want to put it in the charter so that it can't be changed by a city manager or a commission to, to manipulate the elections. And also I want it to be advertised better so people know so they can participate in their government and be aware that, hey, you know, I've been thinking about the commission. I see it's coming up. And I think I'll run and I'll go get my papers and get some friends and, and build a campaign like I said, my thing was protect the public and increase participation. So that's where that's coming from. So let me I would ask I'm sorry, city attorney is there, have there ever been any changes in, legal notices? You know, because I agree with John. Nobody reads those classifieds. I'm going to make a point of order. Here we are in comments, not discussion. Period Oh, okay. And this is now in my book for discussing in section eight going forward. Okay. So can we move on. Well then this would be a comment that could be discussed later because it would require Irene to be able to comment on it as to the difficulty, if we did look at changing an election cycle, what does that mean? So I know that it's okay. The difficulty for myself. Okay. It's if you go with back to November election, just thinking off the top of my head, some of the things that were the issue and why the charter never have changed it. It comes up every charter. So it's nothing new, is that right? So can you can you I can provide that in the future because we're going to be we can put it as an action. Yes I can, I'll bring that back to you all. That's. Thank you. That was my suggestion to you, Mr. Coley. We have a customer. We unfortunately, our past public comments. We are in Bordern staff, so let's finish that right now. I move, we waive the rules and let the public speak. That's a motion. I'll talk at my meeting tonight if you don't, but that's fine. No, no, I my comment is I'd like to finish where we are and if we have time, then we can open. Open that. You're no comments. Okay. No comment. No comment. No comment. All right. I don't have any comments. I've been making mine, I will, can I have a vote to whether or not we're going to reopen for public comments? I move, we waive the rules and reopen for public comment. Second, second, second, second. Okay. I think we can do this by voice vote. Yes. All in favor? Aye. Any against. Okay. Public comments. George Francis, 15, Athens Street. So, you know this charter commission, I've been watching the meetings and I've listened to the attorney and the city manager, and, they made it very clear that the changes that should be made will should be minimal if, if at all. And, I've seen public commissioners come up here and people public commenting and saying that, well, that's not about the charter, but I've seen every single person on this committee bring up things that they know are not related to the charter, I think the entire interaction with Billy Poulos was completely inappropriate, probably only brought on more litigation problems, as we there are some pending matters. And his statement that, the person that he inappropriately mentioned in that, meeting hasn't made any action is he knows is false. We all know that's false, so we just put the city more at risk by doing that. And I'm that was entirely inappropriate. And I know people up here have some agendas, asking requesting that the city manager be taken out of that charter was completely inappropriate. And I know that that was motivated by someone's personal, agenda to, beyond that , the recent comments about the election cycle, again, changing the dates is not going to make more people run. You know why people won't run? Because because we know why. We know who the people are that are making the websites. I know who they are. Everybody up here knows who they are, we all. And nobody wants to say that. And I won't run. I have a job at a firm where if somebody comes in attacks me, I might lose my job. That's why I won't run. People know people don't want to run because of the atmosphere that has been created by this city. It's already being manipulated. Changing the dates is not going to change politics. I'm a political science major, okay? If two people get into a race, say this whole email that that Commissioner Coleus says is true, if that's true, that's politics doesn't stop anybody else from entering the race, did it? No. If you don't want to enter, then you don't want to enter. You're not going to change the rules, Commissioner. Vice prior. Mayor Lunt tried to jump in, didn't know the rules. Okay? He resigned. Thought he could run for mayor. And he can't missed it by a month. The rules are there to protect us from people like that. They're already working. We're not going to change it to make more people easy for new people to manipulate the system because they don't want to go in and read the rules that are already there in all these rules that everyone's talking about, you can just ask the city clerk's office they have miss Jacobs has set up here. I've been through five of these, and yet nobody asks her any of the rules. She knows it all. It's really insulting to have people up here weighing in on every matter, the Billy Poulos matter. I know what happened there. I don't know if everybody knows what happened. You're not going to stop if somebody's going to be manipulated. That person shouldn't be an auditor. That guy needs to go in. Townsend was the only person that made sense that night. He came in and said, I hired this guy and I'd fire him right now. And that should have been happened on that night. He's the only one that made any sense. And once you let it continue, it just festers and it festers. And then he comes up here and he just digs a bigger hole. The policy's been fixed. You cannot change that in the charter. It just cannot be done. And then as far as the P and Z board and the Board of Adjustments, I'm on the PNC board. I don't want any decision that we make to be final. I'm fine with being advisory, I think that decisions there can be adjustments made if it's unanimous that somebody should be able to pull something and that that would encourage our board. As we discussed, to maybe be more cohesive. So that way we'll work together better and that it'll that way it's A70 vote. You guys have to do the BOC would have to like make a decision one way or the other to either they have to hear it or if it's not A70 vote, they can one. Maybe it's a majority, a minority vote that they can not listen to or something like that, but the Board of Adjustments has too much power, and that's an easy one to fix. Anything that comes in through the historic board that should not be final, that should have to go to the BOC. Coach came through in 2021. And one question was asked of Katie Cole. She wanted to double everything in the historic downtown, and not one person asked her a question. They said, congratulations, good luck. Final not that's what they said and Board of Adjustment. So I'm saying that nobody paid attention to that because it didn't go to the BOC. And by the time it came to us, it was parking and this and that, and we tried to help everybody out and we couldn't we I voted no both times. And then everybody tried to go back, but it should have been stopped. It should have been noticed. Everyone would have known because it wouldn't have been the BoCC meeting that they were doubling the size of a historic property at Board of Adjustments. They had a final say in that not everything in front of Board of Adjustments is just increasing a screen on a pool. Okay, so that's where you need to fix it. Nobody on the P and Z really wants authority like that because we don't want to be, you know, sued. So it's the board of Adjustments that you need to fix if you're going to fix anything. Thank you. Can we talk to her? I don't know quite what to say other than thank you for your time. I do, Miss Francis. Come back, no. No, I don't think we are going to entertain that with anything. I'm not entertaining. I'm not entertained. Come back. I'd like to hear the truth. Come back. Georgina the Miss Francis, I've been doing this a long time. I know I have watched the public participation in elections shrink in direct proportion to the qualifying time. Okay, I can tell you when it happened and why it happened. And it was specifically to shrink the, candidate pool to. Yes, it was. I mean, difference of opinion. I was there you weren't. You were probably in diapers when that happened. The, it was done specifically to eliminate competition in the elections so that they could put in people hand selected people like Conor Donovan. Pardon me, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. And you tell me as far as the, the coach thing, the property owners and merchants downtown, 46 people signed a petition asking for reconsideration, and we were denied. But nobody came to the meeting. You weren't at the meeting and nobody was at the Board of Adjustment meeting? No, not at the Planning and Zoning Board, but I'm I'm trying to help. I said, no, I voted, I was on that's good, I know, but the Board of Adjustment meeting, nobody was there, wasn't noticed. They were the ones that already approved doubling the size of a historic property. And I know that it went in front of the Historic Preservation Board. I assume it did. So listen, the board of Adjustments has all the power in the world, and it's not over just things in your home. Go back and watch the meeting. I watched the meetings. I know all the meetings that everybody here has been on. So I do know what's happening. Mission could have denied them on the parking. They could have they. So the final word was with the commission and they approved it. But if maybe people had showed up at the PNC or the Board of Adjustments, like all I'm saying is that I didn't approve the Board of Adjustment hearing, the Board of Adjustments approved that. I think that the BOC should have been able to approve doubling a historic property that's where I'm saying if you're going to make a change, is the Planning and Zoning Board. I'm saying I don't want final say, the Board of Adjustment should have less say they're easier to control historic property. They don't get the final say. That's the easier fix. John. John. I'm sorry. This is public comments, not public discussion. But I'm just saying and I just have to say, I'm just going to ask you for clarification when I sit here and I heard you say, okay, is what I heard, this may not be what you said. That's why I'm asking for clarification that even though we have the independent auditor as a charter official in the charter, we're supposed to be reviewing that we should not have discussed any of that. Now, you didn't know the facts and you weren't. You were. It was not your job. Any of your jobs to sit here and interrogate that man. And it wasn't his job to be here that only put the city at risk because of what happened. And I don't think it is our job to correct in that manner. I got the floor. I'm sorry. I'm the chair here, but none of this is under oath. I'm a lawyer. Everything I say, chair, I'm speaking. I'll wait. And you're done. Well okay, I will finish. Mark Lacourse is the only one that did the right thing that night. He defended the city. He knew it was wrong and no one listened to him. And he had no nothing to. I think he got a friendly. No, I'm not for Mark. Of course anybody will know I pick. I don't pick sides. I'm not like some of the people up here. Okay Mark, I take I, I just, I take objection to. That's fine. I don't care. The charter the charter commission that this board is full of agendas. No, not all of them, but some of them are. I'm sorry, I don't. That's fine. I don't care that you take offense to it. It's true. I'm. I'm okay with you being in the meeting adjourned. God, you gotta love. You gotta love it. I love it