Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-2016 CRC MinutesnnOF SEBASTIAN 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: Absent: Fred Jones, Chairman Carolyn Sartain -Anderson (excused) Beth Mitchell, Vice Chair Matthew Sims (excused) Mike Baran Michael Frank (excused) Dan Dragonetti Albert lovino (excused) Bruce Hoffman Also Present: Louise Kautenburg Kelley Armitage, Special Dick Krull Magistrate/Acting City Attorney Sergio Mota Jeanette Williams, Deputy City Clerk Nancy Munoz Frank Terranova Bob Zomok 4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS — None 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) 6. PUBLIC INPUT - None 7. New Members, Frank Terranova and Nancy Munoz introduced themselves. 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. 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. Dragonetti 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. 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 Reaardinq Article 1-1.02 (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 Regarding 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. 3 Charter Review Committee Meeting March 14, 2016 Page Four 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Discuss Article III —Administration and Legal 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 Jones 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 at 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. - City 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. 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. - City attorney 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 City 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. - Filing 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 kJ 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. airman Fred Jones Date 61