05/01/1984
~
I '
. I. i
. . . '/ .
" .
"~:.:'I:~" ,;; "u>l;"~:;:['"..~,~..~:~ ..., 1;".:._':' I : .
. .' c ,,' .,. .,
. .,..
CHARTER
REVIEW
COMMITTEE
MINUTES,
"
,
Date
~9?
.,'
(
"
~.:": !~y" ~~,S;l;I.~~I" .......,.... " "Ii;
~
MINUTBS OF THE MEETING OF
CHARTER RBVIBW COMMITTHH
OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
May 1, 1984
A meeting of the Charter Review Com mittee of the City of Clearwater was held
on May 1, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Mayor's Conference Room, City Hall.
Members Present:
William Schwab
Frank Donnell
Nancy Pappas
Lee Regulski
Helen Theofilis
Charles LeCher
Jerry Lancaster
Mary Lou Dobbs
Howard Groth
Members Absent: '
"J
Jeff Butler
Elaine Cornlllaud
The minutes of the April 17 meeting were approved as written.
A question was raised concerning the proposed evaluation of the city manager as
to whether this evaluation could take place at the time the commission discussed the
labor contracts out of the sunshine. It was suggested that the committee should first
get a legal opinion on this, whether It be from the city attorney or an outside attorney.
It was also suggested that perhaps the committee should get the attorney general's
opinion. There was a discussion on the pros and cons regarding how to provide for this
evaluation.
{*"vA
.....
Helen Theophills referred the Committee back to Article V, Planning and Zoning,
and asked whether this article should be expanded. It was indicated that the functions
of the planning department, comprehensive plan, board of appeals, etc., were outlined.
in the City Code and in additional ordinances.
-1-
".' '. . ,.,:. ",,:':.;'.' I" .'.:....~oI-"'_:..:<jl..._I~L.-o,..-~:.~ ,.,J-, '.:. .. '::...: . .... ,,,:.,' t. ,:'.,.'.. . ','."",~ ,';< ..... .' .:'....,
" . J"':, ".,.' 'c ~ . ,
, ., '.1 .
~
A discussion of the charter articles scheduled for tonight's meeting followed:
Article VI. Initiative. referendum and recall
Section 6.05. Petitions
There was a discussion on the 1096 figure regarding number of qualified voters
needed to sign initiative or referendum petitions. It was decided that the 10% figure
was acceptable.
Section 6.06. Procedure to fi1in~
Someone proposed a revision of the first sentence of this section to clarify it.
It was suggested that the language be reviewed by the legal department to assure that
it would be appropriate to change it as follows: Within twenty (20) days after the
initiative petition is filed and five (5) days after the referendum petition is filed, . . .
A question was asked: If the charter committee unanimously agreed on a charter
amendment and it was rejected by the commission, does the committee need to get a
::) petition to put on referendum? It was indicated that it would be necessary and that
the procedure was covered in Article VII, Section 7.01 (b).
A question was brought up in Section 6,05(d) as to whether the effective date
was the same thing as the adoption date of an ordinance. It was indicated that in most
cases it is the same.
In Section 6.06, after discussion of the provisions in subsections (8) and (b), it was
proposed that a change be made in subsection (b) to require the Commission to approve
or disapprove within 30 days a petition which has been certified insufficient.
Section 6.07. Referendum petitions; suspension of effect of ordinance
In subsection 4, a question was asked as to when a vote of the City is certified.
It was indicated that when the canvassing board meets after an election the results of
the election are certified. AlSo in this subsection it was suggested that striking out
the word "after" would make the provision more grammatically correct.
...,
- 2-
',." ,::'.l":"~, ,...' .":", ',,:,.....:' '.:"' :."" ".,,' ....':::'):,'"..,'...,.,:.'<,,'.,', ....,,'...'....,.'.,...;:..:',':..;..:: ,"~':',:,', ':"."'.;:.. ".":i'."'.',,':.' '.'\,'..
"..'-\ ,"" 1'./,:,..'.:.:...."...'1-.".\'.......,' .'.--,"., ,,',' J"""':.' "",:',.
I . . . '. . '. : . " ..' . I.z .0\ ,',' ~,' " . I~' .'. .;.. .
,'t 'e ,e '! ' '.'; ~ ,1,-. > ....' . . , ,"" ",." ." t \ ~. '.' .
.
;J
.+.J..1
Section 6.08. Action on petitions
There was a discussion in subsection (c) regarding what was meant by 4 members
of the petitioner's committee. It was indicated that Section 6.04 covered the answer
to this.
Section 6.09. Results of election
In subsection (b) the apostrophe in "elector's" should be removed.
Also change the first flit" in line to "the referred ordinance".
Article VB. General Provisions (Charter amendment)
Section 7.01. Charter amendment
In subsection (b)2, it was brought up that perhaps there should be a time element
imposed on the special election that is required to be held if a general election is not
scheduled within the 60 to 90 day period. It was proposed to revise this subsection as
follows If. . . , the Commission shall place the proposed amendment to a vote of the
~? electors at the next general or special election held not less than sixty (60) days nor
more than ninety (90) days after certification 61' a~ a speeittl- eieeft6ft eaHed fer StieR
pttrp6se.
Section 7.02. Charter review advisory committee
There was a discussion on whether and In what manner to amend the charter to
provide for its review every 5 years instead of every 10 years. It was proposed that
I
the subcommittee propose the language for this substantive change.
Article vm. Nominations and Elections
Section 8.01. Electors
There was a question asked regarding the phrase "the ordinances of the City":
Does the ordinances of the City have any authority over registration of voting? It was
suggested that perhaps the Committee should see what City ordinances apply to this.
~.
-3-
. '~{~~...: ~Y'\f.{~~:
" 'c'. be .1
, .'1. u" . ;\~~ 'JI~lr ,
".'...., .", .
. .", . ": " ~', ,:':,":~.i':'.t.>:~.~>,:~~,;':,.'.": '~:::i....'.,.:',"{::.,~' :,<. ':.' >: ';: :''':'':'':.'~' .,,;.:",-> ',,:': :.><':. i.'''''''''''' ." .'..'
, . . ... \' '. : . . . I .' ,"" I.", , \ l~ '. '. ,..,:1.,.., . ,,;. . .'. , . .
"
"
.. . : u . , ~. ":/ ~\ .. '. . .
~
Section 8.04. Nominations
There was a discussion on the payment of a qualifying fee of $25.00 and the
requirement for a petition to contain 250 signatures. It was suggested that the number
of signatures required for a petition be raised. Also, the City Clerk had previously
recommended that the last sentence in this section be changed to require a voter to be
a resident of Clearwater for 2 years. There was a discussion on this subject and it was.
decided to bring this up as a proposed substantive change.
Section 8.05. Elections
In subsection (b), the City Clerk had suggested that the regular City elections be
changed to March of each year. In subsection (c), the City Clerk had suggested
following state law requiring 2 ads, one in the third week and one in the fifth week
1\
prior to the election.
It was proposed that at the next meeting Articles IX and X and any other points
, ':J anyone had would be discussed.
A question was asked regarding why we have a city commission instead of a city
counciL Someone was going to bring his note on this subject which he had from the
last charter review.
The meeting was adjourned.
I,
0,'
:'"
-4-
: ~ \.-