Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04112011CRC Agendaanc 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 14, 2011 5. PUBLIC INPUT 6. OLD BUSINESS: HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA OR ON THE CITY WEBSITE A. Consider Conducting Two Public Hearings in May and Making Presentation to City Council on June 8th in Keeping with Charter Provision for City Council to CaII General Election by Resolution by End of July (Memo, Calendar) 7 NEW BUSINESS A. Continuation of Priority List Review and Discussion Section 3.03 Removal [of Charter Officer] Section 3.04 City Manager; powers and duties Section 3.06 Police Department Section 4.04 Special election for other purposes Section 4.08 (c) [Monday special meeting may change] Section 4.12 Election procedures; tie vote Section 4.13 Conduct of candidates for election office Section 5.03 Charter Review Committee 8. 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 TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (F.S.286.0105) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN 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. EXCERPT OF PRIORITY LIST 3.03 Removal [of Charter Officer/ Should removal procedures be amended? 3.04 City Manager: powers and duties Should powers and duties be amended? 3.06 Police Department Should reference to Police Department remain in Charter? Police Chief is not a Charter officer. 4.04 Special election for other purposes Should special elections be eliminated? Need the CA to explain what this paragraph is really saying. Are all referendum questions done at "special" elections, and if so, the time frame set out in the provision does not work with the SOE schedule for preparation of ballots if we put referendum question on the November ballot. Is there a conflict with 4.07 reference to "or questions to be decided'. 4.08 (c) [Monday special meeting may change] Move the Monday special meeting forward to accommodate SOE schedule for certification of results maybe at regular meeting at least two weeks after election? Should the "old" City Council or the "new" City Council receive the certificate of the canvassing board at the meeting where the new members are sworn? 4.12 Election procedures; tie vote Member concerns about cost of special elections FS 100.181 allows tie votes to be decided by lot. 100.181 Determination of person elected. The person receiving the highest number of votes cast in a general or special election for an office shall be elected to the office. In case two or more persons receive an equal and highest number of votes for the same office, such persons shall draw lots to determine who shall be elected to the office. 4.13 Conduct of candidates for election office City Attorney concern for language 5.03 Charter Review Committee How often should the Committee meet? How many members should the committee have? 2 3 HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1. Chairperson Kautenburg called the meeting to order at 6 pm. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL Bob Daberkow John Danise Adrina Davis Linda DeSanctis Ed Dodd Dan Dragonetti Jeanne Hill Louise Kautenburg, Chair Janet Kennedy Donna Keys (resigned as of 3/14/11) Mary McGee Bob McPartlan Carolyn Sartain- Anderson Ruth Sullivan absent (excused) Bob Zomok, Vice Chair Staff Present: City Attorney, Robert Ginsburg City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 14, 2011 MOTION by Mr. Dragonetti and SECOND by Mr. Dodd to approve the minutes passed on a voice vote. 5. PUBLIC INPUT none Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Two 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Priority List Review and Discussion Section 1.02 (1) Extraterritorial power— remove poor houses Section 1.02 (6) Dairies and stock remove dairies and slaughter houses Mr. Danise said he didn't know how important it was to remove these items because the more that is present on the ballot, the bigger problems we will have, and the Committee should really address what we really want to change in the Charter. Mr. Zomok said he thought the Committee's goal was to consolidate syntax into one thing, and said he didn't know how many would disagree with removing poor houses because they are self- evident. Mr. Dodd said too many changes would confuse voters, and Mr. Dragonetti agreed and said we should not bamboozle the public, but rather change what is salient and important. Mr. Zomok asked then when do we clean up the charter language. Mr. Dodd said it is legitimate to ask people to approve a question but the question is, does it cloud what you want you really want them to do. Mr. Danise said people he had spoken to asked if the language is removed what happens if we actually needed a poor house, and while change is good, it is hard to accept and perhaps we can try to change just one or two things. Mr. Davis asked for the City Attorney's opinion. The City Attorney said he thought there was lot of wisdom in what has been said, and yes, they could consolidate some administrative issues but you don't have to. He said they have some very important issues in front of them that would change the way Sebastian has done things for years, and this may not be the year to change those other technical issues. He suggested putting them on the back burner and, at the end of deliberation, then see what you might want to add. Chairperson Kautenburg asked for a general consensus as to whether the committee wanted to deal with the most important issues and put these smaller issues on "layaway" It was the consensus of the Committee to do that. Section 2.03 Election Section 2.04 Terms Ms. McGee submitted a Press Journal article regarding an idea in Broward County to get rid of special elections to save large election costs. (see attached). Chairperson Kautenburg noted she had asked members to seek input from people within their circles and asked them to share what information was gathered. Ms. McGee said her politically astute friends favor every four year terms, but noted there will be certain factions which will fight it no matter what. 2 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Three Mr. Dodd said most people didn't support a change to four year terms and supported annual elections, saying the level of accountability is worth the cost. He said $35,000 is not a great amount of money in terms of comparison to what that money can get the City. Mr. Zomok said politically astute people supported four year terms, and some supported two year terms to get the turnover. He said the way it is now, it takes one year for a Council member to get up to speed, and then they spend their time getting elected again. He said most people he spoke to supported four year terms. Ms. Sartain- Anderson said she was unhappy with the e-mails she got back, because here we are trying to get a better way to live in our area, and many said leave things the way they are, some were up in the air as to terms, and some were more worried about term limits rather than the number of years of the term. Ms. Kennedy noted there was also an option discussed previously to change elections to every two years without staggering the terms. Mr. Davis said people told him they wanted two year terms, because with four it is harder to get rid of them. Mr. Danise said people told him they didn't want special elections, but are not sure about terms. He said we have been fortunate with the people who have run. He said a slight majority want four year terms but will live with two year terms. Mr. Dragonetti said he walked his district and no one wants four year terms and had a few in mind they would not want to see in office that long. Mr. Davis said he heard two year terms, and said if an individual was working out well they would get re- elected. Mr. Dodd cited the US Senate and US House and asked which group is most responsive. Chairperson Kautenburg said she talked to a lot of people and there was not a strong majority either way, though people who pay attention to elections said four years, some say they moved here so they don't have to think anymore, and some said you can get rid of someone easier in two years. She said she asked people would they be more careful with their votes if it was for four year terms and every person said absolutely. Mr. Zomok said going to even years and eliminating odds years is possible to do. He said in his experience in writing policy, he tried not to write it to cover the exception, and asked just because we might get someone we don't want, is that the driving force to write the policy or should we write for the will of the majority. Mr. Davis said he had eight people who said "do not change 3 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Four Chairperson Kautenburg asked for a consensus by show of hands, through the contacts they made with the public if it there should be "no changes, stay at two year terms, including special elections." In response to Mr. Dodd's comment that as far as special elections, there are some things they could do limit special elections without changing the terms, such as term limits, which then his hand would be up, Chairperson Kautenburg offered to separate special elections from the term limits. Seven out of thirteen members raised their hands, indicating the majority was in favor of a two year term as it is now. Ms. McGee said people more politically astute are more likely to vote. Mr. Dodd and Chairperson Kautenburg asked how we would get rid of special elections for council members. The City Attorney said if you have two year terms and elections in only even numbered years, you cannot have staggered terms. Chairperson Kautenburg said she hears from people it doesn't matter who is elected because staff runs the government anyway, and to a certain degree that is true, but we are fortunate we have staff who are competent, kind and ethical. Mr. Danise said we have a strong City Manager and Council is just guiding the City Manager. Ms. McGee said if we have an election every two years, a bunch will run and uneducated people will vote. Ms. Hill noted a lot of people vote by alphabetical order. Mr. Dodd said staggered elections offer an opportunity for continuity and if you have all new people you might not have that continuity, and said even if it costs more, we should keep elections every year. Mr. Dragonetti said $35,000 is $35,000 and that he really didn't see any apocalyptic event by electing five members at the same time. Mr. Dodd discussed the cost benefit pros and cons of saving that $35,000, such as could you hire a police officer, stop furlough days, etc, and said you would probably not be able to do any of those things with that amount of money. Mr. Danise said if we don't come to a consensus he did not see them coming to a conclusion by June. Chairperson Kautenburg agreed, and said by virtue of its complexity, this issue probably deserves more discussion. She said personally, she was highly against throwing the baby out with the bath water. Mr. Danise said if you have four year terms, you don't have to worry about throwing out everyone at once. 4 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Five Ms. DeSanctis said her recommendation was to go to four year terms, because by the time people get trained and the City is running smoothly, there is small window that works, then they have to do retraining, and if the seats all empty at once, God help us. Mr. Daberkow recommended elections every two years, with four year terms and would not support election of all five at the same time, because that could be a polarizing issue for elections. Mr. Davis again said keep the status quo with annual elections, and that it is better we pay the $36,000 in odd years. Ms. Kennedy said she used to work for a Congresswoman whose major complaint was two year terms because it is difficult to raise that amount of money in two years. Ms. DeSanctis asked the City Attorney about the procedure to remove a council member. Mr. Zomok suggested that some members could have two year terms and some four year terms, citing Senate and Congress and urged the members to think outside the box. Ms. Hill said that would confuse people, Mr. Dragonetti said leave it alone, Mr. Danise agreed it is nice to think outside the box. Mr. McPartlan asked if all the possible alternatives can be presented on the ballot. Chairperson Kautenburg said it is the job of this committee to bring forth a recommendation of the committee to Council and it will be Council's decision as to whether it is placed on the ballot. Mr. Dragonetti said leave it alone. Mr. Zomok said has heard for long time if it ain't broke don't fix it, but recommended we improve it. Mr. Danise said election costs are going up, not down. MOTION by Mr. Dragonetti and SECOND by Mr. Davis for no change. In favor six hands raised out of thirteen members. Failed. MOTION by Mr. Danise and SECOND by Mr. Daberkow to go to even year elections for four year terms Nine hands raised out of thirteen members. Passed. Ms. McGee asked if Council rejects the recommendation, will it stay the way it is, and Chairperson Kautenburg said they could approve, change or reject the recommendation. The City Attorney said in paragraph B there is a reference as to when the terms begin, and that he and the City Clerk recommend this be changed to a regular meeting at least two weeks after the election, which gives the election office time to certify the election, noting we are lucky to get the certification in time if there are no protests and no contests of the election. 5 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Six Mr. Dodd noted language on Mr. Zomok's recommended language whereby the new officials are sworn within 48 hours of certification, and terms begin at the next meeting. The City Clerk said this would not allow sufficient time for the certification of the result by the Canvassing Board under state law. Mr. Dodd asked if the newly elected board accepts the certification, and the City Clerk explained that currently the Canvassing Board certifies the elections, if we were to go to even year elections, the County Canvassing Board would canvass the elections. She said currently the sitting Council accepts the results, and noted sometimes it is uncomfortable for a sitting council to accept the results if they have just been voted out of office. The City Attorney said the swearing in is a positive event after an election, there is enthusiasm, and families are present to get the new Council off to a good start; but the way the Charter is written is awkward, because you may have people on the sitting council who don't come, and that he and the Clerk recommend two weeks between the election and the swearing in. It was noted that people on the sitting council not showing up has occurred in the past. Ms. McGee asked if that would be at the beginning of the next meeting. The City Clerk reminded them that sometimes after an election there is a regular meeting scheduled the next day, depending on the calendar. Mr. Danise suggested asking the City Attorney to write the recommended language and present it at the next meeting. MOTION by Mr. Dodd and SECOND by Mr. Danise to make that change and all thirteen were in favor. Section 2.05 Compensation; expenses Chairperson Kautenburg said people she spoke to said compensation shouldn't be part of the charter, but if it is going to be there, we should leave it alone. MOTION by Mr. Dragonetti and SECOND by Ms. DeSanctis for no changes to compensation. Mr. Zomok said it's been ten years since it's been changed, and suggested we put in an automatic adjustment based on COLA or some other sort of change. Ms. McGee said the last time the committee met it was proposed and rejected, and people thought it a privilege to serve. Mr. Danise said he didn't believe it should be in the Charter, it should have a reasonable COLA, but recommended keeping it the way it is. Chairperson Kautenburg asked for a show of hands in favor of keeping it the way it is, and there were 12 hands raised in favor and 1 opposed. Passed. 6 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Seven Section 2.06 Mayor; vice mayor Chairperson Kautenburg said the issue is to discuss whether we maintain the way the Council elects the Mayor or should the people elect the Mayor. Ms. Hill said it is best for the five people who know best to elect a Mayor. Ms. DeSanctis asked if this would be an additional Council member and the answer was no. Chairperson Kautenburg said we have strong City Manager form of government so the Mayor is still a figure head. Mr. Dodd said the cities down south where there are problems have a strong Mayor form of government, and the way our system is constructed seems to work well. Ms. Kennedy said we would have to revisit compensation if we went to a strong mayor government. Mr. Zomok noted the need to make a change in this section to tie in with the 2.04 recommended change (terms and time of swearing in). The City Attorney also noted it. MOTION by Mr. Dodd and SECOND by Mr. McPartlan for no changes to Mayor being elected by Council members. There was no one in opposition. Mr. Zomok said he had recommended changes to 2.06(b) Duties of Mayor in his proposal, taken from the model charter, which he believes clarifies the Mayor's duties better. The City Attorney said in the proposal there is no reference to "no veto power" and in the current Charter the language is clear that he does not have veto power. He said the second major change in the proposal is that the Mayor would be given extra powers to make appointments to standing committees. Mr. Danise said again, the more changes we make, the less chance we have of getting anything done, and said he would not like the Mayor assuming more responsibilities. No changes were recommended by the committee to Mayor duties. Section 2.08 Vacancies; forfeiture of office; filling of vacancies The City Attorney said there are words used in this section that he did not understand. He said he did not have a problem with A, but in B, it talks about forfeiture of office, he had no problem with B (1), but was not sure how B (2) would be applied except in specific instances when giving orders to staff. He expressed concern about (3) moral turpitude, but was okay with (4) missing four meetings. He continued saying the language for filling vacancies is an issue, citing the last paragraph C, which he has been told by the Clerk can be explained and has been utilized in the past, but he has difficulty with it and is not sure it is well stated. 7 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Eight Mr. Dodd said people will be looking at extension of terms, and asked if we want to change the way people can be removed and questioned if we want to tackle this at all. He asked the City Attorney about recall procedures, and the City Attorney cited that recall is under Florida law, is not efficient, and requires two separate petitions of a specific percentage of voter signatures. Mr. Dragonetti said in B(3) it would be nice if it read "is or has been" convicted. Ms. Kennedy shared information from her IPad with Chairperson Kautenburg and told the City Clerk she had shown her the definition of "moral turpitude" from an on -line dictionary. Chairperson Kautenburg said she had difficulty with understanding the definition of "moral turpitude citing a wonderful gentleman who had been denied access to a City board because he had been arrested for smoking marijuana as a teen many years ago. She said "moral turpitude" is one of those things where, "I can't tell you what it is, but know it if I see it Ms. Kennedy read the definition of moral turpitude as follows: legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals." Mr. Dodd said the language doesn't say how that is bought forward, there is no provision to file the charge. The City Attorney said this language is far better than some things the committee will see later in their review of the Charter, and at least we quantify in this language. He said with their permission, and based upon the four year term recommendation, he would take a crack at rewriting the "however" paragraph and bring it back for their review. Mr. Dodd asked him to look at vacancies, taking nominations and voting upon them, and reminded everyone that in the last occurrence of a vacancy there was confusion on Council as to how to seek qualifications. He suggested taking a shot at B also and asked how you can involuntarily forfeit office. All agreed to hold on this section and to have the City Attorney bring back amended language for them to look at. Section 2.09 Judge of qualifications The City Attorney said this section needs to be deleted entirely, stating he did not know how this would play out in real life. He read the section. MOTION by Mr. Dodd to bring back language to replace 2.08 and 2.09. The City Attorney said there are a number of ways to say this, and told the committee he intends, when drafting ballot language, that he will make every effort that a positive vote does not mean a negative. He said there may be a way to rewrite Section 2.09, like letting the courts decide the qualifications for office. Mr. Zomok noted most of our current language appears in the model charter. 8 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Nine The City Attorney said he didn't know if this language was constitutional and there is no due process. Ms. McGee asked if 2.11 need to be eliminated and the City Attorney responded that actually 2.11 gives Council the authority to investigate departments of the City, but is inconsistent with one sentence in 2.10 which he will address. Ms. McGee asked why Council could investigate. The City Attorney cited the Vero Beach inspection of their utility. He said the problem is that 2.11 is inconsistent with 2.10 which states Council cannot give orders to any employee other than charter officer, but in 2.11 which cites misdemeanor for someone who fails to obey a lawful order, that sentence is inconsistent with 2.10 and the City Manager form of government MOTION by Mr. Dodd and SECOND by Mr. Davis to delete 2.09 from Charter. There was no opposition to its removal. Section 2.10 City council employee relationship conflict with 2.11 Section 2.11 Investigations Mr. Dodd noted 2.10 gives no authority to direct anyone on staff but Charter officers, but 2.11 gives them their only ability to bypass and talk to staff. The City Attorney said issuing a subpoena would bring the person forward, and it is the giving of an order that is the issue in 2.11. He said you can subpoena anyone but only give direct orders to a Charter officer. Chairperson Kautenburg asked if the committee wants to vote to delete or leave it the way it is, knowing it cannot be enacted. Mr. Danise asked if the City Manager denied an order, would the City Attorney handle the case or would the City have to hire another attorney. The City Attorney said it might be the last thing the City Manager does. MOTION by Mr. Dragonetti and SECOND by Mr. Dodd to delete the last sentence in 2.11. Mr. Zomok asked if the word "lawful" in 2.11 acts as a modifier, and the City Attorney responded that it can't be a lawful order to a municipal employee other than a Charter officer, so you don't need the last sentence, because if someone refuses a subpoena you can go to the courts. Chairperson Kautenburg asked if anyone was opposed to deleting the sentence and five members raised their hands as being opposed, so since the majority did not raise their hands the last sentence will be recommended for deletion in 2.11. There was a little further discussion on whether the change was necessary though not enforceable, and Chairperson Kautenburg said it had already been voted on, but members will get another pass at all the sections when they are reviewed again. 9 Charter Review Committee Minutes March 14, 2011 Page Ten ATTEST: Chairperson Kautenburg noted it was nearly 7:30 pm, the Committee was making progress and asked if they wished to adjourn at this time. There was no objection. Section 2.12 Procedure Section 2.14 Codes of technical regulations Section 2.15 (b) codification and 2.15 (c) printing of ordinances and resolutions The City Clerk noted before they closed, if they wanted to move past Chapter Two, that she had spoken earlier to the City Attorney on the next three sections 2.12, 2.14 and 2.15, which she had originally brought up to the committee, advising that it was not necessary to change those sections, because it won't really change anything that is being done at this time in regard to these issues except that some of what her staff does now is done in other ways, such as electronically rather than on paper. There was no objection to leaving them as is. 7. Chairperson Kautenburg noted that the Committee will begin with Section 3.03 at the next meeting which is April 11 She reminded members to gather opinions and adjourned the meeting at 7:30 pm. The remaining sections on the priority list are Section 3.03 Removal [of Charter Officer] Section 3.04 City Manager; powers and duties Section 3.06 Police Department Section 4.04 Special election for other purposes Section 4.08 (c) [Monday special meeting may change] Section 4.12 Election procedures; tie vote Section 4.13 Conduct of candidates for election office Section 5.03 Charter Review Committee Approved at the April 11 2011 Charter Review Committee meeting. Louise Kautenburg, Chairman Sally A. Maio, MMC City Clerk 10 DATE: April 7, 2011 TO: Charter Review Committee cnYc HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND MEMORANDUM FROM: City Clerk, Sally Maio City Attorney, Robert A. Ginsburg RE: Consider Changing Meeting and Public Hearing Dates In reviewing our schedule recently to make sure all provisions of the Charter, Code and FS are met in preparation for the upcoming November election we found a glitch. Section 4.07 requires the City Council to call the General Election by resolution and the resolution includes: Where the election will take place Offices to be filled Questions to be decided Direction to advertise in accordance with Florida law. Florida law (FS 100.021) requires advertisement of the general election in the thirty day period prior to qualifying (qualifying is 60 to 75 days prior to election or August 25 through September 9 We typically bring the required resolution to Council in July for adoption, but when there are questions, we don't always know at that time what they will be. If we keep to the established schedule, we will not know what the questions will be by the end of July because Council will not have had the opportunity to conduct their second reading and public hearing by that time. The approved Budget Calendar shows the Budget Review Advisory Board next regular meeting on May 9 and because their meetings are televised we at least need to move that originally scheduled meeting date. We could have met upstairs in the conference room on May 9th, but in light of our recommendation below, perhaps we can establish new dates for May. We are suggesting the Charter Committee consider the following changes to the schedule: (a list of available dates in April and May is attached) Complete review of the priority list in April and schedule two dates in May for public hearings (they must be at least fourteen days apart). If another date in April is needed to complete your review, schedule another April date. Submit recommendation to City Council at their June 8, 2011 Regular Meeting. City Council discusses the recommendation at that meeting and directs the City Attorney to bring back ordinance(s) to the June 22, 2011 meeting for consideration. City Council conducts first readings on the ordinance(s) on June 22, 2011. City Council conducts second reading and final adoption or denial of ordinance(s) on July 13, 2011 for placement on the ballot. City Council adopts resolution calling general election on July 27, 2011 in accordance with Section 4.07, and it includes the questions to be decided, if any. Available Meeting Dates April (if needed) 18, 19, 26 and 28 May hearings (2) (must be at least 14 days apart) 3, 4, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24, 26, 31 May dates at least fourteen days apart 3 and 17 or any of the available dates after that 4 and 18 or any of the available dates after that 12 and 26 or 31 16 or 17 and 31 2.03 Elections and Terms. City Attorney Draft Language (a) Election of Three (3) Council Members. Three (3) council members shall be elected in 2011 at the time of the general election in November. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Charter, council members elected in 2011 shall serve until their successors are sworn in after the general election in November, 2014. Three (3) council members shall be elected in 2014 and every four years thereafter at the time of the general election in November. (b) Election of Two (2) Council Members. Two (2) council members shall be elected in 2012 and every four years thereafter at the time of the general election in November. (c) Terms. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, council members shall serve for four year terms. (d) Swearing In. The terms of the newly elected council members shall commence when they are sworn in immediately prior to the first regularly scheduled city council meeting held at least seven (7) days following the general election. City Attorney Draft Language 2.08 (c) Filling Vacancies. Any vacancy in the office of council member shall be filled by majority vote of the remaining council members within thirty (30) days. The person chosen to fill the office shall at the time of appointment meet the qualifications for a member of the city council. An appointed city council member shall serve only until the next countywide election. If the vacancy has occurred in the term of a city council member that extends beyond the next countywide election, the remainder of the unexpired term shall be filled by election, and the candidates shall run specifically for that seat on the council. City Attorney Draft Language 2.09 The Florida Division of Elections, the Florida Elections Commission (or successor state agencies) or the courts shall determine issues relating to the election and qualifications of city council members and of the grounds for forfeiture of their office. Delete Existing Language