Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-2016 CRC Agendai IIi Y HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA APRIL 11, 2016, 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN ST, SEBASTIAN, FL CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES pgs 3-9 i. March 14, 2016 Minutes 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC INPUT 8. NEW BUSINESS pgs 10-19 i. Review and Discuss Article V — General Provisions Sec. 5.01. - Severability of provisions. Sec. 5.02. - Effective date. Sec. 5.03. - Charter review committee. pgs 20-25 ii. Review and Discuss Article VI - Transition Sec. 6.01. - Title to property reserved. Secs. 6.02, 6.03. - Reserved. Sec. 6.04. - Ordinances preserved. Sec. 6.05. - Continuation of former Charter provisions. 9. STAFF MATTERS 10. COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTERS pgs26-29 11. SET DATE FOR NEXT MEETING - TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. ADJOURN HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONYAND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589.5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE AIRED LIVE ON COMCAST CHANNEL 25, ATT UVERSE CHANNEL 99 AND STREAMED ON CITY OF SEBASTIAN WEBSITE WWW.CITYOFSEBASTIAN ORG PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC INPUT. Time Limit. individuals who wish to address the Board or Committee on any agenda items for which official action is to be taken (typically items listed under public hearings, new business and unfinished business) are allowed five minutes to speak on that item, however, the Board or Committee may extend or terminate an individual's time by majority vote of members present, input Directed to Chair. Speakers shall address the Board or Committee immediately prior to deliberation of the agenda item and all input shall be directed to the Chair, unless answering a question of a member of the Board or Committee or City staff individuals shall not address the Board or Committee after commencement of deliberation on an agenda item after public input has concluded, provided, however, the Chair and any member of the Board or Committee may call upon an individual to provide additional input if desired. Certain Remarks Prohibited. Personal, impertinent, and slanderous remarks, political campaigning and applauding are not permitted and may result in sanctions imposed by the Chair including expulsion from the meeting. Decisions by the Chair may be appealed. Public Input. The heading on Regular Meeting agendas "Public Input" provides an opportunity for individuals to bring new information or requests to the Board or Committee not otherwise on the prepared agenda. Individuals are asked to attempt to resolve matters with staff prior to meetings. Individuals are asked to provide copies of material for the Board or Committee one week prior to the meeting if they intend to refer to specific material. The Board or Committee will not debate an issue during Public Input but may by consensus place a requested item on a future agenda. RULES AS GUIDELINES. It is intended that the rules set forth in this Resolution provide a guideline for the effective operation of the business meetings of City Boards and Committees, and no rights are bestowed upon any parties by the adoption of these rules or by Board or Committee failure to act in accordance with them. A. Suspension of Rules. Any provisions of this Resolution, in whole or part, may be suspended by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members present. Failure to Follow Rules. If a Board or Committee fails to abide by any provision of this Resolution, such failure shall not invalidate action taken by the Board or Committee. 2 of 29 aY of $EST" ._ HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 14, 2016, 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN ST, SEBASTIAN, FL Chairman Jones called the Charter Review Committee Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Fred Jones, Chairman Beth Mitchell, Vice Chair Mike Baran Dan Dragonetti Bruce Hoffman Louise Kautenburg Dick Krull Sergio Mota Nancy Munoz Frank Terranova Bob Zomok 4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS — None Absent: Carolyn Sartain -Anderson (excused) Matthew Sims (excused) Michael Frank (excused) Albert lovino (excused) Also Present: Kelley Armitage, Special Magistrate/Acting City Attorney Jeanette Williams, Deputy City Clerk 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 8, 2016 Minutes MOTION by Mr. Zomok and SECOND by Mr. Hoffman to approve the February 8, 2016 minutes carried with a unanimous voice vote. (11-0) R 7 PUBLIC INPUT - None New Members, Frank Terranova and Nancy Munoz introduced themselves. COMMITTEE COMMENTS REGARDING ARTICLES 1 AND II (Articles I & II, Prior Motions, Committee Member Comments Received Subseauent_ to the February Meetina) A. Mr. Hoffman's Comments Reaardina Removal of Mavor and Vice Mavor Mr. Hoffman said he would like to add language to Section 2.06 (e) regarding the vacancy of the mayor. Mr. Zomok cited his comment on page 24 and noted the phrase reorganization of council isn't in the Charter. Acting City Attorney Armitage explained one of the council members requested the reorganization and the question became was the office vacant; the Charter contemplates that the mayor might move or is incapacitated, then the vice mayor would move up. On February 24, it was up to city council to decide if Council Member Gillmor could resign. He further explained that after an election, council calls for reorganization as provided for in the Charter, and Council Member Hill happened to call for another. The Charter provision giving council the power to do something_ can also give them the power to undo it absent the prohibition of undoing it. 3of29 Charter Review Committee Meeting March 14, 2016 Page Two Mr. Zomok said he would like language that disallows what happened. Mr. Hoffman said the authority should be clearly stated. Ms. Kautenburg said the mayor is chosen to lead his peers during a meeting for a length of time. In response to Mr. Krull, Acting City Attorney Armitage said this could not happen to the vice mayor because his term is stated; since council did not accept Council Member Gillmor's resignation, the vice mayor's responsibility was to call for mayor- He agreed with Mr. Hoffman that a procedure for removing the mayor should be inserted in the Charter and the procedure could be outlined in an ordinance. Ms. Mitchell stated public officials are privy to information and facts that the public is not aware of and she believed some of the council members believed they were doing the right thing. She said the philosophy of leadership/building consensus/working as a team are esoteric terms that they are trying to codify which is not an easy task. She said it is important to have a cohesive council that can work together and agree to disagree and they have a responsibility to do right thing. Ms. Mitchell said she considered taking out the motion to define the mayor's term because it is important that council has the ability to govern themselves. Mr. Zomok said council having knowledge that citizens may be unware of could be a violation of the Sunshine Law. He said he provided a possible solution on page 24. Ms. Mitchell asked him to clarify what he thought was a violation of the Sunshine Law. He said council members possibly having information that the public would not be aware of. Acting City Attorney Armitage said a violation would be if two members were discussing issues outside of a noticed meeting or if someone serves as a conduit; but if a council member learns of something by his own investigation, it is not a violation. Mr. Zomok said the public should have been aware of some things that were happening. Ms. Mitchell said she believed each council member has information that the public does not have which is not a violation, but part of the difficulty was council could not sit and talk about it as outlined in his proposal on page 24(which might be a violation in of itself.) She noted that council can go into closed sessions to discuss circumstances to benefit the city but not in this situation. Mr. Zomok said he appreciated the discussion on his proposal. Mr. ©ragonetti said the public doesn't know what went on behind closed doors; they didn't get the information that led to what appeared to be a personality battle and Council Member Gillmor wasn't given a chance to explain. Ms. Munoz said she was concerned they were using the Charter to prescribe rules for the sandbox; her goal for the 2016 Charter Review is to see what's not working and propose a fix; this might be the reason the mayor's term was left out; a locked term might be able to address different personalities. Mr. Mota said there is a Facebook page with 80-90 comments from individuals that didn't understand the Charter violations. He said an important part of the military is the ability to communicate and the ability to communicate to the constituents is missing and should be addressed. 4 of 29 2 Charter Review Committee Meeting March 14, 2016 Page Three Mr. Zomok said the Charter is the Constitution for the city, it is incumbent to discuss a problem and see if it deserves to be in the Charter. It worries him that if the Charter is silent on something, it can be done. Mr. Terranova said no one asked Council Member Gillmor to make statement, it wasn't stated why the other members didn't like his leadership, and the office is for ribbon cutting, and parades. Chairman Jones called for a motion but no one wanted to change anything further in Section 2. B. Ms. Munoz Comments Regardinci Article I — 1.02 (4) Ms. Munoz explained that information technology addresses the building of infrastructure and method of collecting/storing data and telecommunication is ability to send and receive information. She suggested the word telecommunication may be a more effective term. Mr. Krull suggested have both telecommunication and information technology. MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Mr. Krull to include both terms when Section 1.02 (4) is considered again passed with a unanimous voice vote. (11-0) In response to Chairman Jones, Mr. Hoffman said he started a motion to address term limits. Chairman Jones noted the house bill died relating to the time and manner of municipal elections and the 2011 ballot question probably died because of the way it was written on the ballot. Mr. Hoffman suggested that council serve two consecutive four-year terms. Ms. Mitchell reminded them that they did vote on longer terms but not term limits. Mr. Hoffman added that should term limits pass but not the length of term, members would only serve a total of four years. Acting City Attorney Armitage said each ballot question could only have one issue. Mr. Hoffman WITHDREW his motion to address term limits but would like Council members to have four year terms. Chairman Jones asked if this would prevent off year elections. Ms. Kautenburg said the March election was moved to November to hold one election. C. Mr. Zomok's Comments Regardinq Article II Mr. Zomok cited the motion to give council a raise and reported that he pulled the Council members W2's and is waiting for a salary survey of other council members from Human Resources Manager Cindy Watson. Ms. Mitchell said her motion's intent was to change how council members are compensated for business expenses given that $300 a month is open-ended, she would like receipts submitted for reimbursement in addition to their $600.00 monthly income. Mr. Krull reported the Vero Beach mayor makes $1125 and council members receive $900.00 a month. Mr. Mota noted Vero Beach has more employees and he still wasn't comfortable voting on a salary increase. Ms. Kautenburg noted that at the last Charter Review they kept a list and at the end went back over what they wanted to recommend to council and asked the Committee to stay with the agenda. 5 of 29 Charter Review Committee Meeting March 14, 2016 Page Four 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Discuss Article III — Administration and Lepal Departments (Article III, Zomok Comments, Munoz Comments 3.03, Terranova Comments 3.03, 3.04. 3.09), DIVISION 1. — GENERALLY Sec. 3.01. - Creation. — No changes Sec. 3.02. - Appointment [of Charter officers]. — No changes Sec. 3.03. - Removal of Charter officers. Mr. Zomok noted on page 32 Sebastian's Charter mirrors some of the National Civic League's Model Charter and asked the Committee to turn to page 39 where he has rewritten this section. Mr. Krull noted the model charter was written in 2003 and asked how so many changes would be presented to the electors. Mr. Zomok said in 2011 they did whittle down a list and their questions will be at the end of a very long ballot this November. Ms. Mitchell said she would still like to see an annual evaluation for the Charter officers, leaving the evaluation procedure up to Council, Ms. Kautenburg noted at one time the officers were evaluated at a public meeting with standard compliments, it was useless for normal employee/employer situation; the officers serve at the pleasure of city council with contracts so it probably didn't need to be addressed in the Charter. There were no recommendations to change this section. Mr. Krull asked what is reasonable period of time for a Charter officer to prepare for hearing in Section 3.03(b). Chairman ,tones stated it would probably depend on what type of charges are levied. Mr. Terranova said he was concerned with the term believes with no requirement for proof to support the beliefs, there should be a reasonable answer time and a process to remove an officer. Mr. Hoffman reminded them that the officers serve at the pleasure of City Council. Mr. Dragonetti said he believed in evidence. Mr. Hoffman said that Section 3.02 regarding serving of the pleasure of Council would need to be changed. Ms. Kautenburg noted the Charter officers' contract keeps removal from being frivolous. MOTION by Mr. Terranova to include that council provides proof to remove an officer so the officer has some idea of what he is facing. Mr. Zomok said it's been his experience that an employment agreement is a misnomer, it is really severance agreement and asked if the officers were at -will employees. Acting City Attorney Armitage advised that absent an employment agreement or a union contract, employees are at -will in Florida. Mr. Zomok asked the Committee to consider the proposed removal process at the top of page 40. Mr. Terranova WITHDREW his motion to study the proposal. Mr. Zomok requested to come back Section 3.03. Sec. 3.04. - Citv manager; powers and duties. Mr. Zomok said the additional detail in the model charter would help the city manager understand what is expected of him, and if he didn't meet those expectations, why he would be removed. 6 of 29 4 Charter Review Committee Meeting March 14, 2016 Page Five Mr. Terranova said it does not provide for any accountability or reporting structure by the city manager. Chairman Jones said he is comfortable with council handling a city manager. 3.05. - City clerk. - No changes DIVISION 2. - POLICE DEPARTMENT Sec. 3.06. - Police department. Mr. Terranova said the police chief should be a Charter officer and answer to the city council. Ms. Kautenburg explained that Council is elected every year and having the police chief work for different people every year would not be consistent; the city manager should be the ultimate guy in charge. Sec. 3.07. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 3.08. - Reserved. - No changes DIVISION 3. - LEGAL Sec. 3.09. - Citv attornev Mr. Zomok commented that the city attorney is not an officer in the model charter, the current Charter only states there should be an attorney so he wasn't sure why the attorney should be a Charter officer. MOTION by Mr. Zomok to remove the city attorney as a Charter officer. Acting City Attorney Armitage noted the city attorney should serve as chief legal advisor to city Council and his motion would have him report to the city manager. With that explanation, Mr. Zomok WITHDREW his motion. Mr. Hoffman asked why paragraph ( c ) was in Section 3.09 but not in the city manager or city clerk section. Ms. Kautenburg noted all three officers have contracts. The intent of paragraph ( c ) was undetermined by the Committee and Mr. Krull pointed out the same could be said for defining the Police Department in the Charter but not addressing for example, the Public Works Department. B. Review and Discuss Article IV — Elections (Acting Citv Attorney — Update on Proposed Legislation Re: Municipal Election. Article IV, Zomok Comments) Sec. 4.01. — Adoption of state election laws. — No changes Sec. 4.02. - Filina of candidate's oath: fee. Mr. Krull noted paragraph (b) indicates that someone can't start running for office until 75 days prior to the election. Ms. Kautenburg said you could announce your candidacy. Mr. Mota said there is also specific code providing for the placement of signs. The Deputy Clerk explained candidates can pre -qualify ahead of time; the time frame in this section provides for the completion of all of the necessary forms and payment of qualifying fee. Sec, 4.03. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4.04. - Special election for other purposes. — No changes Sec. 4.05. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4.06. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4.07. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4.08. - City canvassing board: canvass of election returns. In response to Mr. Krull, Chairman Jones noted the first sentence referred to a county -wide election as opposed to a city -only election. Sec. 4.09. - Same ---Ballots. — No changes 7of29 5 Charter Review Committee Meeting March 14, 2015 Page Six Sec. 4.10. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4.11. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4.12. - Election procedures; tie vote. Mr. Krull suggested the language should say highest number of votes. Ms. Kautenburg explained that while she agrees, the meaning is understood. Mr. Zomok cited the Town of Indian River Shores referendum that included many issues in addition to a catch-all sentence reading "to clarify and update language in various sections." Acting City Attorney Armitage said the referendum sounded like it was a summary that included many issues and could be called law grueling. Chairman Jones asked if the language referring to two years need to be changed if council is given a four year terms. Acting City Attorney Armitage said each question is supposed to address one issue, at the last Constitutional Revision Commission the voters did vote on grouped issues and it would be up to the Committee if they want to recommend an initiative that has two issues. Ms. Kautenburg asked if a line could be included to address any conflicts. Acting City Attorney Armitage said the initiative could contemplate both since they are complimentary to each other. MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Chairman Jones to amend her previous motion to include Section 4.12 passed with a unanimous voice vote. (11-0) Sec. 4.13. - Reserved. — No changes Sec. 4,14. - Interim government. — No changes 9. STAFF MATTERS - None 10. COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTERS - None 11. SET DATE AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (March & April Available Dates) MOTION by Ms. Kautenburg and SECOND by Mr. Baran to hold the next meeting April 11 to discuss Articles V and VI passed with one opposing voice vote. (10-1) Ms. Munoz asked if she could participate telephonically. The Deputy City Clerk suggested she could submit written comments. Ms. Munoz said she would watch the broadcast live. 12. Being no further business, Chairman Jones adjourned the Charter Review Committee meeting at 7:51 p.m. Approved at the April 11, 2016 Charter Review Committee Meeting. Im Chairman Fred Jones Date 8 of 29 6 2016 CHARTER SECTIONS LISTED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION MOTION by Ms. Kautenburg and SECOND by Ms. Mitchell to furnish any and all public services including information technology to Section 1.02 (4) Public Utilities passed with a unanimous voice vote. MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Ms. Kautenburg to remove Section 1.02 (6) Stock passed with a unanimous voice vote. MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Mr. Krull to make the same recommendation as made in 2011 to amend the Charter so that Council members shall be elected in even number years for four year terms. Those elected in 2016 shall serve until 2020. MOTION by Mr. Hoffman and SECOND by Ms. Mitchell to amend Section 2.06 (a) to include the same one year term verbiage for mayor as the second sentence in Section 2.06 (c) passed with a unanimous voice vote. 2011 Recommendation for Term Limits: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Charter, effective with the terms of council members scheduled to commence November 2011, no person shall be elected as a council member for more than two (2) consecutive terms. Neither service as a council member prior to the terms scheduled to commence November 2011, nor service of a partial term subsequent to November 2011 shall be considered in applying the term limitation provision of this section. Mr. Hoffman is requesting this be changed to three consecutive terms. MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Mr. Dragonetti to double the salary amounts currently allocated, in the event the vice mayor acts as mayor, the vice mayor should receive the mayor's salary; the expense account should be eliminated but Council members should be reimbursed for qualified expenses. AMENDMENT by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Mr. Dragonetti to have the vice mayor compensated if they act as the mayor for 30 days or more. Add the requirement of annual Charter Officer evaluations to the Charter MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Mr. Krull to include both terms (information technology and telecommunication) when Section 1.02 (4) is considered again passed with a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Hoffman would like Council to serve four year terms. Mr. Terranova WITHDREW his motion to study the model charter. Mr. Zomok requested to come back Section 3.03 regarding the removal of Charter officers. MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Chairman Jones to amend her previous motion to include Section 4.12 regarding election procedures. (Previous MOTION by Ms. Mitchell and SECOND by Mr. Krull to make the same recommendation as made in 2011 to amend the Charter so that Council members shall be elected in even number years for four year terms. Those elected in 2016 shall serve until 2020.) 9 of 29 Sebastian, FL Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 ARTICLE V. - GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 5.01. - Severability of provisions. If for any reason any section, paragraph or part of this Charter shall be held invalid or unconstitutional, that fact shall not affect, invalidate or destroy any other section, paragraph or part of this Charter, and the remaining portions thereof shall remain in full force and effect without regard to the section, paragraph or portion invalidated. (Ord. No. 0-93-02, § 7, 1-27-93) Sec. 5.02. - Effective date. This Charter shall take effect January 1, 1979, Sec. 5.03. - Charter review committee. Not later than April 15 of the year 1999 and of every 5th year thereafter, the city council shall appoint a charter review committee to review the Charter of the city. Each charter review committee shall consist of fifteen (15) residents of the city. The committee shall otherwise be appointed in the manner provided by the Code of Ordinances. The committee shall be funded by the city council and shall be known as the "City of Sebastian Charter Review Committee." It shall, within six (6) months from the date of its formation, present to the city council its final recommendation for amendment of the Charter or its recommendation that no amendment is appropriate. If amendment is to be recommended, the charter review committee shall conduct two (2) public hearings, at intervals of not less than fourteen (14) days, prior to the transmittal of its recommendations to the city council. The city council may by ordinance submit any or all of the recommended amendments to the electors for vote at the next general election held within the city or at a special election called for said purpose. (Ord. No. 0-98-13, § 1, 10-14-98; Ord. No. 0-06-18, § 1, 10-11-06) Editor's mote— Ord. No. 0-98-13, § 1, amended the Charter by adding § 5.03 to read as herein set forth. Such amendment was approved by the voters at an election held Mar. 9, 1999. 10 of 29 about:blank 4/5/2016 March 18, 2016 Submitted by Bob Zornok Article V. General Provisions 11 of 29 Charter Review Committee — 2016 Comparison of Sebastian City Charter to Model Charter — Article V ARTICLE V. - GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 5.01. - Severability of provisions. If for any reason any section, paragraph or part of this Charter shall be held invalid or unconstitutional, that fact shall not affect, invalidate or destroy any other section, paragraph or part of this Charter, and the remaining portions thereof shall remain in full force and effect without regard to the section, paragraph or portion invalidated. (Ord. No. 0-93-02, § 7, 1-27-93) Model Charter Section 9.06. Severability. If any provision of this charter is held invalid, the other provisions of the charter shall not be affected. If the application of the charter or any of its provisions to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the application of the charter and its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Commentary. A severability clause is a necessary precaution and should be included in every charter. Sec. 5.02. - Effective date. This Charter shall tape effect January 1, 1979. Sec. 5.03. Charter review committee. Not later than April 15 of the year 1999 and of every 5th year thereafter, the city council shall appoint a charter review committee to review the Charter of the city. Each charter review committee shall consist of fifteen (15) residents of the city. The committee shall otherwise be appointed in the manner provided by the Code of Ordinances. The committee shall be funded by the city council and shall be known as the "City of Sebastian Charter Review Committee." It shall, within six (6) months from the date of its formation, present to the city council its final recommendation for amendment of the Charter or its recommendation that no amendment is appropriate. If amendment is to be recommended, the charter review committee shall conduct two (2) public hearings, at intervals of not less than fourteen (14) days, prior to the transmittal of its recommendations to the city council. The city council may by ordinance submit any or all of the recommended amendments to the electors for vote at the next general election held within the city or at a special election called for said purpose. (Ord. No. 0-98-13, § 1, 10-14-98; Ord. No. 0-06-18, § 1, 10-1 1-06) Editor's note— Ord. No. 0-98-13, § 1, amended the Charter by adding § 5.03 to read as herein set forth. Such amendment was approved by the voters at an election held Mar. 9, 1999. I have included the following information titled Citizen -Based Government: A Process to Engage Citizens in Charter Revision solely for consideration by the City Manager and City Council as they approach forming the next Charter Review Committee. DRAFT 2 — 03/18/2016 12of29 APPENDIX TO ARTICLE V CITIZEN -BASED GOVERNMENT: A PROCESS TO ENGAGE CITIZENS IN CHARTER REVISION In simpler times, when it became apparent that the city charter needed attention, whether a quick maintenance check or a major overhaul, the mayor or city council would turn to the small group of steadfast civic leaders that had the time and inclination to take part in a charter commission. This group was pretty recognizable to the community. They were the acknowledged community leaders that willingly and regularly stepped into the public space to make decisions on citizens' behalf. More recently, jurisdictions have begun to hold public meetings to apprise citizens of proposed changes developed by charter commissions. While some of these efforts genuinely seek citizen feedback, more often they are perfunctory gatherings for telling citizens what has already been decided. However, the emerging challenges confronting our communities call into question the adequacy of these methods for revising city charters. The latest edition of the Model City Charter reflects the importance of citizen participation in the governance of communities, including involvement in the revision of a city's charter. The increasing diversity of communities across the country, the impact of civic infrastructure on collective governance capacity, and the need for citizen education and buy -in for the charter reform process to be successful make citizen participation in charter revision essential. Diversity With our cities and towns becoming increasingly diverse, ensuring that government is of the people, by the people and for the people is becoming more problematic. Today, the challenge for many jurisdictions across the country is to reform government structure and practice in a manner that reflects the needs and aspirations of everyone in the community. This is best accomplished by involving as broad a cross- section of the people and perspectives in a community as possible. Civic Infrastructure Over the last several years, a growing body of research has documented a decline in citizen trust and participation in formal and informal political and governmental activities. To some, these findings indicate that citizens just don't care about public life the way they used to. But a deeper and more plausible analysis is that citizens don't believe that their participation in politics and government will result in significant changes. They don't think they have any power within the system as currently configured and therefore opt to focus their energies elsewhere. Perfunctory town hall meetings that communicate to citizens an already developed set of ideas or policies exemplify the kind of approach that drives citizens away from public life. City leaders must develop methods for enhancing meaningful citizen involvement. Perhaps the most fundamental way to do this is to involve citizens in structuring the government that is closest to them. Citizen Education 2 DRAFT 2 — 03/18/2016 13of29 Many people simply don't know how government works. They aren't aware of the opportunities that are available to citizens to impact a policy or problem in their community or they don't have the confidence to navigate what can appear to be a very complex system. Direct involvement in reforming government not only helps to create a governing structure that reflects citizens' needs, it also educates them about the manner in which government works and prepares the way for future participation. Citizen Buy- In There are countless examples in which well -conceived changes to a city charter make their way onto the ballot only to be rejected by the voters. In some cases, this occurs because citizens simply don't understand the need for or the potential impact of the change and therefore vote against it. Another obstacle arises when a small but well -organized interest group mounts a campaign against a proposed revision. While their opinions may not accurately reflect the sensibility of most citizens, such groups can often develop and deliver a message that prevents passage of the proposed reform. In both cases, the missing element is a deeper understanding among citizens of the importance of the revision. It's not enough to invest in radio and TV ads or rely on a few op-ed articles to inform people about the issue. The best chance of getting charter changes accepted is to involve many people in the discussion, develop reforms that reflect their ideas, and educate participants throughout the process about the deeper impact of the proposed changes. In this manner, support for charter revisions is developed over the course of the revision process and the chances that special interest groups can derail the proposed reforms are held in check. In the following pages, a new model for revising a city charter is proposed. This model is based on the notion that citizens have both the right and the ability to be integrally involved in shaping the structure of their local government. Specific process steps for developing a citizen -owned charter revision effort are advanced and examples of successful reform efforts are detailed. Citizen Engagement in Charter Revision A credible citizen engagement process for charter revision contains three basic stages: an initiating stage, a citizen engagement stage, and an enactment stage. The initiating stage focuses on the design of the process for charter revision. It is usually driven by a steering committee and focuses on the process, not the content, of the charter revision. The citizen engagement surge brings together a diverse group of citizens to analyze the current charter and make recommendations for change. The enactment stage focuses on the formal electoral process used to pass charter revisions. As this process may differ in each community, it is not discussed in great detail here. Initiating Stage This first step in designing a city charter reform process is to review the existing regulations governing charter revision. This should occur before the steering committee is formed because, in many instances, the mayor or council is required to appoint a commission to revise the charter. The process for selecting a commission should be designed to ensure significant citizen involvement. As in any community engagement effort, a citizen -based charter revision process will require a steering committee of 15 to 20 people that represents the diverse interests of the community. The composition of the steering committee should be guided by the need to represent three important perspectives. The committee should include both some of the traditional leaders of the community and some of the emerging voices. As the charter is the blueprint for the city government, it is important that the committee include key experts who possess practical knowledge about how local government functions. Citizen representation that reflects 3 DRAFT 2 — 03/18/2016 14 of 29 community diversity in terms of ethnic composition, gender, age, income level, and other key characteristics is also an essential component for ensuring a balanced deliberative process. The steering committee is not responsible for developing the content of the proposed changes. Its charge is to facilitate the development of a credible citizen engagement process that will formulate recommendations for change. Specifically, this group will be responsible for the following tasks: Design the community engagement process. The steering committee is responsible for developing and refining a process that works best for their community. Considerations such as timeframe, local events, and customs will impact design of the citizen engagement stage. Recruit stakeholders to participate. In order to develop recommendations for change that reflect the ideas of many citizens, it is critical to invite people of various interests and perspectives to participate in the analysis of the existing charter. It is recommended that the steering committee involve one hundred to one hundred fifty stakeholders to meet on a regular basis over the course of three to six months to analyze the charter and develop recommendations for change. Conduct outreach to the broader community. In addition to involving a core group of stakeholders in the revising the charter, the steering committee must develop methods to reach out to the broader community. Mechanisms such as neighborhood -based meetings, town hall meetings, radio, TV, newspaper and speakers' bureaus can assist in educating the general public about potential changes to the charter and gathering additional feedback. Provide staff to manage the process. Projects that bring many people together to deliberate over important community issues require significant staff support to ensure success. At a minimum, a half-time staff position will be required. Additionally, the steering committee may consider utilizing a professional facilitator to assist in the design and implementation of the citizen engagement phase of the project. Recruit technical experts who will support the process. A charter reform process requires technical assistance and advice in a number of areas such as municipal law, municipal finance, electoral process, and governmental structure and accountability. Additionally, the reform effort may require research into the experiences of other cities as a way of providing citizens with examples of possible reforms and their potential impact on government structure and performance. Address and manage logistics such as meeting sites and food. Meeting sites must be selected that encourage strong and equal participation. issues such as transportation and childcare should be taken into consideration and food should be provided to ensure attendance. Citizen Engagement Stage After the foundation for the project has been laid through the efforts of the steering committee in the Initiating Stage, one hundred to one hundred and fifty stakeholders will meet over the course of three to six months to analyze the charter and develop recommendations for change. We suggest that stakeholders meet approximately every three weeks to conduct the work of charter revision. The steps of this process are discussed below. A. Review current charter (one to two meetings) Before citizens can begin to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the charter, they need to have a clear understanding of its current configuration. A 4 DRAFT 2 - 03/18/2016 15 of 29 summary document of the current charter should be developed for stakeholder use, and educational presentations need to be developed to inform stakeholders how particular government structures affect the practice and conduct of governmental affairs in their city. This will lay the groundwork for informed decision -making in the latter stages of the process. B. Creating a shared vision for local government (one to two meetings) Successful citizen engagement projects often start with agreement on the shared values and overall vision that drive the project. Creating a shared vision of local government will allow participants to find agreement on the broad goals for the project and provide a framework for the meetings that follow. It can also serve as "the glue" of the project when disagreements arise and consensus seems hard to reach. An exercise to develop a shared vision for government could be catalyzed by set of simple questions such as "What should government be about? What should it do? If our local government was working at an optimal level, what would it be doing? What would it look like? C. Identify key areas to address (one to two meetings) After stakeholders have had some education on the current charter and developed a vision for the kind of government they would like to see, discussions can begin about the areas of government structure and the charter that need attention. Presumably the existing charter is not going to be discarded in its entirety. (For communities that are creating their first charter, recourse to the eighth edition of the Model City Charter is strongly recommended.) The steering committee, especially those members who are key experts in one or another area of government structure, should help the stakeholders frame this discussion. At this juncture, these key areas do not have to very specific. They will be further defined and analyzed later on. Key areas could include composition of the city council, power of the mayor, role of the city manager or chief administrative officer, municipal finance, and redistricting among others. Another important task in detennining the key areas for charter revision is to develop some way of prioritizing the areas in which stakeholders want to make reforms. It may be that stakeholders develop a long list of possible changes that can't all be explored at the same time. It is therefore necessary to develop an agreed -upon set of criteria such as significance, legal feasibility, and political viability to rank the areas in order of importance. D. Evaluating key areas of the charter (8 to 12 meetings) After an agreed -upon set of key areas have been developed, the steering committee will need to consider two process options as they continue to guide the charter revision project. Both of these options have their strengths and weaknesses. Option I One possibility is to keep the original stakeholder group intact as an ongoing body to analyze each of the key areas for charter revision. This option allows for continuity and stronger citizen education in all aspects of the charter under consideration. Its drawbacks are that it relies heavily on technical experts to fill in the gaps that will undoubtedly emerge as citizens attempt to assess an incredible amount of material. Furthermore, this approach requires a sequential, one -at -a -time assessment of the key areas and will likely take many months. Option 2 The second option is to break the stakeholder group up into work groups around each of the key areas. Work groups of 15 to 30 people meet every two weeks to analyze their key area and develop charter revision recommendations. This approach ensures deeper citizen analysis of each key area. It creates the opportunity for additional citizen involvement as the work groups can recruit other citizens to join a work group. And it allows each key area to be analyzed concurrently and thus avoids an extremely lengthy citizen engagement process. The challenges are that it requires additional facilitative expertise (to guide 5 DRAFT 2 — 03/18/2016 16of29 each of the work groups), it requires additional efforts to ensure overlap between the work groups is synthesized, and it necessitates the identification and involvement of technical experts in each of the key area work groups. Issues such as the number of key areas, the complexity of the issues to be addressed, the enthusiasm/attendance of citizens to this point in the process, the timeline and resources available should all be taken into consideration when making the decision about the best process option. Option 2 is the more thorough of the two approaches, .and the description of the process design below is based on this choice. But the steps described can easily be adapted to suit Option 1 as well. A. Structure work groups for charter revision Strong leadership and guidance is required for each work group to ensure that sound and credible recommendations for charter revision are developed. It is likely that each work group will need a chairperson(s) to manage the development of their recommendations. This person must be viewed as a respected community leader who has the ability to rise above the fray to solve disputes and keep the group focused on its goals. if process facilitators cannot be identified to work with each work group, then the chair must also possess strong facilitative and group process skills. In addition to strong leadership, each work group will require technical support in their key area. The technical expert(s) should be a resource for the specific key area the work group has undertaken. This person(s) should possess strong research and writing skills. As citizens break into work groups of their choice, it is likely that key individuals and perspectives will be absent. It is therefore necessary to identify and invite key individuals that can bring additional knowledge and perspective to the work group. It is critical that the chairperson ensure that a Work Group is balanced and is not dominated by one interest group. B. Education — what is the current status? Before deliberations can begin, each work group will need well -presented information about the current condition of their key area for charter revision. This information should include a thorough description of the current design and structure, the legal parameters of this structure, the impact of this structure on government practices and on the overall quality of life of the community, and examples of structures from other cities and towns. This presentation will be used as a springboard into the assessment of the key area. C. Analyze the key area Early discussions should focus on identifying the key issues and problems within the scope of the work group. It is important to first guide participants to agreement on what the problems and challenges are before they begin to move into solving the problems. From these discussions, the work group should emerge with a set of clearly identified and agreed -upon issues for further analysis. D. Draft option memos Technical experts play a critical role during this phase in the process. Most citizens are not aware of alternatives to the current element under scrutiny and require additional information and education from technical experts. Based on the early deliberations of the work group and the C. DRAFT 2 - 03/18/2016 17 of 29 issues and challenges they have identified, the technical experts will draft option memos for work group consideration. Option memos are documents that present a series of alternatives for revision of the charter. An option memo presents alternatives for charter revision on a particular topic and describes the potential impact of each option, with supplementary material from case study examples from other cities and towns, if available. E. Select options It may take a few meetings for each work group to come to agreement on the options that they want to propose to the stakeholder group. But with three to four clear alternatives presented in the option memos, the work group should be able to stay focused on the issues and their potential solutions. Leadership by the chairperson(s) during these discussions is crucial because disagreements will emerge during these discussions. The chairperson must ensure balanced participation from the entire group as he/she leads them towards the development of a viable set of revisions. F. Propose changes to the stakeholder group Up until this point, all of the deeper analysis of key areas for charter change has occurred in separate work groups. Before final agreement can be reached, it will be necessary to bring the recommended changes from each work group back to the entire stakeholder group to review the proposed changes. It is possible that some of the work groups have overlapped in their assessment of the charter or have analyzed interdependent aspects of the city charter. In one to two meetings, stakeholders will go through all of the proposed changes, identify areas of overlap, ask questions of clarification and come to agreement on a final set of recommended revisions for the charter. Careful attention must be given to the agreed -upon language as it has significant impact in the final drafting for charter change. An additional but worthwhile activity during this step in the process is to have the stakeholder group recall the shared vision of government that they developed early on and ask them if the proposed changes to the charter reflect that vision. G. Draft charter revision Technical experts and staff will incorporate any changes brought about during the presentation to the stakeholder group. It is possible that one additional work group meeting for a particular area is required to ensure that any changes made reflect the opinions and ideas of the work group. Staff and technical experts will then begin the process of adapting the recommendations into the language and format used in the charter. H. Present charter language to the stakeholder group As a final check to guarantee clear communication of and support for the charter revisions, the charter language should be brought back to the stakeholder group for final approval. Since the final revisions will be expressed in a different form than the proposals of the work groups, participants should have the chance to consider the actual language that is being proposed. This extra step should forestall any perception that the steering commitice or technical experts mi,ht DRAFT 2 — 03/18/2016 18 of 29 have dismissed the work of citizens and will ensure strong support for the changes when the measure reaches the ballot. Enactment Stage Once the appropriate language has been drafted for the proposed reforms and the stakeholder group has signed off on them, the next step involves a formal electoral process to pass the charter revisions. This process differs across communities and it is difficult to prescribe best practices for it. However, it is important that the method for getting the changes to the electorate is decided well before the final version of the charter recommendations is drafted. Enactment is a vital part of the process and the choices and time lines for doing so should be kept in mind throughout the process. The best -case scenario is that revisions are drafted in time for an upcoming election. This allows the steering committee to build upon the momentum of the citizen engagement process and rely upon the knowledge of participating citizens to help them create support within the broader community. D RAFT 2 — 03/18/2016 19 of 29 Sebastian, FL Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 ARTICLE VI. -TRANSITION Sec. 6.01. - Title to property reserved. The title, rights and ownership of all real and personal property, taxes due and unpaid, uncollected permits, dues, fees, judgments, chores in action, penalties, decrees and all property rights held or owned by the City of Sebastian, shall succeed to and be vested in the City of Sebastian, a municipal corporation created, existing and organized under the provisions of this Charter. Secs. 6.02, 6.03. - Reserved. Editor's note— Ord. No. 0-99-36, § 1, adopted Nov. 3, 1999, and approved by the voters at an election held Mar. 14, 2000, repealed §§ 6.02, 6.03, which pertained to unimpaired obligations of the city and holdover of city officers and employees pursuant to the adoption of the 1979 Charter, Sec. 6.04. - Ordinances preserved. All ordinances in effect upon the adoption of this Charter, to the extent not inconsistent with it, shall remain in force until repealed or changed as provided herein. Sec. 6.05. - Continuation of former Charter provisions. All provisions of the former City Charter which are not embraced herein and which are not inconsistent with this Charter shall become ordinances of the city subject to modification or repeal in the same manner as other ordinances of the city. 20 of 29 about: blank 4/5/2016 March 18, 2016 Submitted by Bob Zomok Article VI. Transition 21 of 29 Charter Review Committee — 2016 Comparison of Sebastian City Charter to Model Charter — Article VI ARTICLE VI. -TRANSITION (Change the title of this Article to Transition and Severability) Sec. 6.01. - Title to property reserved. The title, rights and ownership of all real and personal property, taxes due and unpaid, uncollected permits, dues, fees, judgments, chosen in action, penalties, decrees and all property rights held or owned by the City of Sebastian, shall succeed to and be vested in the City of Sebastian, a municipal corporation created, existing and organized under the provisions of this Charter. Secs. 6.02, 6,03, - Reserved. Proposed Section 6.02 Officers and Employees (Model Charter Section 9.01. Officers and Employees.) (a) Rights and Privileges Preserved. Nothing in this charter except as otherwise specifically provided shall affect or impair the rights or privileges of persons who are city officers or employees at the time of its adoption. (b) Continuance of Office or Employment. Except as specifically provided by this charter, if at the time this charter takes full effect, a city administrative officer or employee holds any office or position which is or can be abolished by or under this charter, he or she shall continue in such office or position until the taking effect of some specific provision under this charter directing that he or she vacate the office or position. (c) Personnel System. An employee holding a city position at the time this charter takes full effect, who was serving in that same or a comparable position at the time of its adoption, shall not be subject to competitive tests as a condition of continuance in the same position. Personal Comments The current Charter seems to ignore protecting incumbent employees. If it can be demonstrated that the current Charter does, in fact, protect incumbent employees, then the current Charter should prevail. Proposed Section 6.03 Departments, Offices, and Agencies (Model Charter - Section 9.02. Departments, Offices, and Agencies. ) (a) Transfer of Powers. If a city department, office or agency is abolished by this charter, the powers and duties given it by law shall be transferred to the city department, office or agency designated in this charter or, if the charter makes no provision, designated by the city council (b) Property and Records. All property, records and equipment of any department, office or agency existing when this charter is adopted shall be transferred to the department, office or agency assuming its powers and duties, but, in the event that the powers or duties are to be discontinued or divided between units or in the event that any conflict arises regarding a transfer, such property, records or equipment shall be transferred to one or more departments, offices or agencies designated by the city council in accordance with this charter. DRAFT 2 — 3/18/2016 22 of 29 Personal Comments The current Charter seems to preserve ordnances; however, "transfer of powers" and preservation of "property and records" , again, appears to be absent. Editor's note— Ord. No. 0-99-36, § 1, adopted Nov. 3, 1999, and approved by the voters at an election held Mar. 14, 2000, repealed §§ 6.02, 6.03, which pertained to unimpaired obligations of the city and holdover of city officers and employees pursuant to the adoption of the 1979 Charter. Sec. 6.04. - Ordinances preserved. All ordinances in effect upon the adoption of this Charter, to the extent not inconsistent with it, shall remain in force until repealed or changed as provided herein. Sec. 6.05. - Continuation of former Charter provisions. All provisions of the former City Charter which are not embraced herein and which are not inconsistent with this Charter shall become ordinances of the city subject to modification or repeal in the same manner as other ordinances of the city. Proposed Section 6.06 Pending Matters (Model Charter Section 9.03. Pending Matters) All rights, claims, actions, orders, contracts, and legal administrative proceedings shall continue except as modified pursuant to the provisions of this charter and in each case shall be maintained, carried on or dealt with by the city department, office or agency appropriate under this charter. DRAFT 2 — 3/18/2016 23 of 29 MODEL CHARTER Article IX TRANSITION AND SEVERABILITY Introduction. Many charters do not facilitate transition from an old to a new form of government organization. More than almost any other part of the charter, the article containing transitional provisions needs to be tailored to existing law and organization. The Model makes no claim to being complete in this regard but calls attention to matters that must be considered and provides a basic pattern for a transition article. Care in the preparation of this article will have important benefits. It can disarm arguments that adoption of a new charter will harm existing personnel and the processes of the government. It may also save the city from costly litigation and administrative confusion. Section 9.01. Officers and Employees. (a) Rights and Privileges Preserved. Nothing in this charter except as otherwise specifically provided shall affect or impair the rights or privileges of persons who are city officers or employees at the time of its adoption. (b) Continuance of Office or Employment. Except as specifically provided by this charter, if at the time this charter takes full effect, a city administrative officer or employee holds any office or position which is or can be abolished by or under this charter, he or she shall continue in such office or position until the taking effect of some specific provision under this charter directing that he or she vacate the office or position. (c) Personnel System. An employee holding a city position at the time this charter takes full effect, who was serving in that same or a comparable position at the time of its adoption, shall not be subject to competitive tests as a condition of continuance in the same position but in all other respects shall be subject to the personnel system provided for in § 4.02. Section 9.02. Departments, Offices, and Agencies. (c) Transfer of Powers. If a city department, office or agency is abolished by this charter, the powers and duties given it by law shall be transferred to the city department, office or agency designated in this charter or, if the charter makes no provision, designated by the city council (d) Property and Records. All property, records and equipment of any department, office or agency existing when this charter is adopted shall be transferred to the department, office or agency assuming its powers and duties, but, in the event that the powers or duties are to be discontinued or divided between units or in the event that any conflict arises regarding a transfer, such property, records or equipment shall be transferred to one or more departments, offices or agencies designated by the city council in accordance with this charter. Section 9.03. Pending Matters. All rights, claims, actions, orders, contracts, and legal administrative proceedings shall continue except as modified pursuant to the provisions of this charter and in each case shall be maintained, carried on or dealt with by the city department, office or agency appropriate under this charter. DRAFT 2 — 3/18/2016 24 of 29 Section 9.04. State and Municipal Laws. (a) In General. All city ordinances, resolutions, orders and regulations which are in force when this charter becomes fully effective are repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent or interfere with the effective operation of this charter or of ordinances or resolutions adopted pursuant thereto. To the extent that the constitution and laws of the state of permit, all laws relating to or affecting this city or its agencies, officers or employees which are in force when this charter becomes fully effective are superseded to the extent that they are inconsistent or interfere with the effective operation of this charter or of ordinances or resolutions adopted pursuant thereto. (b) Specific Provisions. Without limitation of the general operation of subsection (a) or of the number of nature of the provisions to which it applies: (1) The following laws and parts of laws generally affecting counties or city agencies, officers or employees are inapplicable to the city of or its agencies, officers or employees: [enumeration] (2) The following public local laws relating to the city of are superseded: [enumeration] (3) The following ordinances, resolutions, orders, and regulations of [former city governing body] are repealed: [enumeration] 4 DRAFT 2 — 3/18/2016 25 of 29 Charter Section 5.03 . .. .the charter review committee shall conduct two (2) public hearings, at intervals of not less than fourteen (14) days, prior to the transmittal of its recommendations to the city council.... " 26 of 29 Ii A-P R L, s � 3 4 5 N ]I ]] t3 N 7s 2G I] n S35 X 27 1a I n u :A ]0 S 3a m 31 e a•. a • • b • r a M' 1 2 6 7 8 9 111 11 12 13 14 15 16 (,hG�rtPr Lvcr��.c r 17 18 19 20 23 27 23 �. 6'i �((- %,r({..UtSDrtJ DD rw IL67 ' %UfkS+�t D� Ear:h Day Pa„over' 24 25 26 27. 25 29 36 O N CD N 00 c N (O Al es t) u ffi a] e DffiM Ni X 75 m V ]e n M tB 1a ]) . 23 N ]3 m y 23 . 30 ®® .. '� 77ll``iiww► ��"�' _�.,- r�yq.,F�c'vx.+�., � �.. ��q e�j1,y '^ .6 � w �. � ' f � �' � � '�� � � "�''t'.' �r �f� {.•��4� �2.r• ~�� y� 4 �. Y ta+• �C��'Y';Ss�c.Y'aLG:iJI�:�w�a'r `l�✓Wr }fi- r. t 4a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 194 7— Eastern Orthodox Easter A 1��', (�r� . / • Holocaust Remembrance Day Labor Day (M) Hattle of Puebla (M) - 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 r2 L 00/ 0t!t C, 1, f R:30 - JI Lan 6) r 50 .. I l4-M Mother's Day (C. M. US) UJ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Parks Pti, p ge llk ye.r 5 30—k Armed Forces Day (US) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Co tton / - -- .. Victoria Day (C) 29 30 31 1-1 a 1 It d0.1, NOTES: SUNRAY �i s M r w 7' r s a M r.w r M s 1 2 5 5 6] 1 2 B 4 i0 II 12 If w 7 • 5 6 2 B 9 15 50 11 12 19 20 21 1p II It 13 N 15 W 22 23 2• 25 M 27 M 1] . 5 20 21 L' 21 n 7a 31 M 2i X 27 28 A i0 71 ' WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY sAruR.L a P 4- Z c1 5 6 7 S c] 10 rCJ +Ad /Uf0TI kes . i q ji �7 3' & (Cj 13 First of Ramadan' e—oa we I 12 13 14 15 10 17 Flag Day (US) 19 20 21 22 23 24 I' '1 Father's Day Summer begins CQ Ltn e I 20 27 28 20 �;(} Ad N 0 St. Jean Baptiste (Oudbec) 18 25 rr