05/16/2012 Workshop
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 16, 2012
Present: Michael Boutzoukas Chair
Duane Schultz Vice-Chair
Sheila Cole Board Member
James E. Strickland Board Member
Michael J. Riordon Board Member
Wayne Carothers Board Member
Absent: Sue A. Johnson Board Member
Also Present: Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board
Camilo Soto Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Sprague Secretary to the Board
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the workshop to order at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman discussed Municipal Code Enforcement Board
member responsibilities to consider testimony by the City and Respondents, ask questions,
continue items when additional information is needed, determine if violations to the Code
occurred, even if members disagree with the Code, determine how much time a respondent
needs to comply, and the fine that will result if compliance is not met. The manner of
compliance is only relevant to board deliberation when considering how much time is needed to
comply. It is possible that the Board could find a Respondent in violation of the Code and
impose no fine if the Board finds staff interpreted the Code incorrectly.
Attorney Salzman expressed concern that staff not provide irrelevant information. When
the Public Hearing portion of an item is closed, a motion is necessary to reopen that part of the
hearing before members can ask additional questions of the Respondent or staff.
Attorney Salzman said based on the Sunshine Law, it is important that members do not
speak at the same time or have side bar conversations as the public has a right to hear every
board comment. Staff must retain all notes made be members during a meeting. Board
members should disclose all information they have regarding a case or its location; it is
important that members base decisions on the same information. It is inappropriate for
Respondents to contact board members individually and such actions should be reported.
Attorney Salzman said if the board disagrees with Code, the board needs to approve a
motion and present those objections to the City Council.
Discussion ensued regarding previous cases, with comments that political speech is not
appropriate for the quasi judicial function of the Board, it is expected that the City would
advocate its position or drop the case, and the City’s objective is compliance. It was felt that the
Board is expected to be a rubber stamp for the City and a more fair process is needed. Board
members were encouraged to limit discussion to issues relevant to the specific violation and not
consider similar violations elsewhere. It was stated providing Respondents with a forum to
Code Enforcement 2011-05-16 1
express their concerns is often helpful. Concern was expressed that the Code is ambiguous at
times. It was noted the Board is responsible for upholding the letter of the law, not opining on
Code.
Staff requested board members treat them with the same respect as they treat the board
and expressed concern that personal comments by Board members could provide respondents
with basis for appeal, undermine the enforcement of Codes, and open the City for attack. Staff
said they are careful to respect citizens’ rights. Staff stated it is important that board members
not reach any decision prior to a meeting.
ADJOURN:
The workshop adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
Code Enforcement 2011-05-16 2