Loading...
02/23/1994 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING February 23, 1994 The Charter Review Committee met at City Hall, on Wednesday, February 23, 1994 at 7:05 p.m., with the following members present: Gerald Figurski, Chairman Joe Evich Anne Garris Kenneth Hamilton Al Lijewski Curlee Rivers Tony Salmon Karen Seel Les Smout Absent: Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman Also present: Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The Chairman called the meeting to order. Minutes of February 10, 1994 Member Lijewski requested on page 4, paragraph 4, line 5, after the word "costs" to add the words "in the mayor/council form;" and to replace the next word "it" with the words "mayor-council form;" and in line 6, between the words "and" and "focuses" add the words "mayor-council form." Member Hamilton requested on page 5, paragraph 6, line 2, the word "hat" be deleted and on page 1, paragraph 5, line 1 the word "has" be deleted. The minutes will reflect these changes. Member Hamilton moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 1994 as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Presentation on Single Member Districts Chairman Figurski reported a speaker on single member districts was not available for this meeting. He said Deputy City Manager Rice is attempting to get someone to discuss this topic at the next meeting. Member Hamilton questioned whether the public hearing would be for public input on what the citizens see as charter issues only or whether the committee should bring forward their issues and let the citizens respond. He asked if there would be another public hearing before the committee finalizes their recommendations. Member Evich said he would be open for additional input. Discussion ensued regarding single member districts. Member Salmon said going to single member districts would affect the charter in some places. He felt the items of form of government and single member districts should be decided on first. Chairman Figurski said he had no objection to anyone coming to the meetings and as things are discussed, express their views to the committee. Discussion ensued regarding the need to establish a quorum and procedures for a tie vote. Member Salmon moved that the quorum be established at six members. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Lijewski moved to continue a tie vote to the next meeting and if another tie vote occurs, the motion would fail. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Priority for Discussion of Items Discussion ensued regarding the members' lists of charter issues. Chairman Figurski said he reviewed the lists and categorized the issues into groupings according to the attention they received. He suggested reviewing the first grouping, except for the issue of form of government, and then going back to the charter, reviewing it section by section. Member Hamilton felt the charter was a reasonably solid document and urged caution when making any changes. Mayor-Commissioner Functions and Powers Chairman Figurski questioned if there is a need to increase the powers of the mayor if the city manager/council form of government remains. Member Garris suggested electing five commissioners and letting them elect a mayor from among themselves each year. She felt the commissioners working together would have a better feel of which one of them can bring about a consensus. She also felt this would make the voters pay closer attention to whom they elect. In response to a question, it was indicated this would not affect the process of filling a vacancy in office. Member Salmon pointed out the model charter from the National Civic League speaks against an annual mayor; however, supports the commission electing a mayor. Member Garris expressed concern in a commissioner having to resign to run for mayor. Member Evich said it is his opinion the mayor should be elected at large by the citizens. Member Smout questioned how a mayor would be elected if the city goes to single member districts. He expressed concern there may be political maneuvering if the commissioners vote for a mayor from among themselves. Member Salmon felt the commission electing a mayor may encourage consensus on the commission. Chairman Figurski questioned the role the mayor plays in terms of influencing direction with the city manager. Member Garris responded it would depend on the relationship between the city manager and the mayor. Member Rivers said in his opinion a mayor should be a strong independent person with no political ties and should be elected at large. Discussion ensued regarding the duties expected to be performed by the mayor. A question was raised if the voters should elect the person who is going to be mayor and perform ceremonial duties in addition to their other duties. Member Garris said a mayor elected in any manner can still perform ceremonial duties. Member Garris expressed concern in having a mayor resign and be replaced by an inexperienced person rather than an experienced commissioner. Member Evich noted Section 2.05 of the charter provides for the vice-mayor to act in the mayor's place when absent or unable to perform the duties. It was suggested this should be amended to have the vice-mayor assume the duty of mayor due to a resignation. It was indicated the vacancy that would occur if a commissioner moved into the mayor's seat could be filled under the normal process. Member Salmon pointed out the model charter provided the deputy mayor would act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor and if a vacancy occurs, would become mayor for the remainder of the unexpired term. Chairman Figurski felt formal motions should not be made until after the public hearing when each item will be brought up again. Chairman Figurski questioned if the committee was in agreement the mayor should have no additional powers above any of the commissioners. Member Lijewski felt the mayor's powers should remain as they currently are. Discussion ensued regarding the commission working through the city manager and not going directly to department heads or employees. Member Salmon pointed out this issue is specifically addressed in Section 2.06. Prohibitions. It was pointed out Section 2.06(b) is almost verbatim to the model charter except for the second paragraph. Member Seel felt the provisions of this paragraph gave the commission the right to scrutinize city operations. Member Garris pointed out there is a commission policy that requests requiring more than 8 hours of staff time be approved by the commission. Member Lijewski felt the commission should have direct access to the legal department for guidance and direction. Member Garris noted the city attorney reports to the commission. Member Seel pointed out in the second paragraph of Section 2.06 it does not clearly indicate who the commission can question regarding city operations. Chairman Figurski suggested adding after the word "observations" the words "all city employees." It was felt this area needed further discussion. Member Seel felt if there was a consensus from the commission wanting staff to research an issue, they give them a time limit. Member Garris again pointed out there is the 8 hour policy. Member Hamilton expressed concern in changing the charter to accommodate the commission rules. An interpretation was made that the language in the second paragraph of Section 2.06 allowed a commissioner to go to a staff person and ask questions. Member Hamilton believed a commissioner, not a member of his staff, should approach the employees for information. It was felt any citizen should be able to ask staff for information. Member Hamilton expressed concern the questions from people representing the commission could become voluminous. Mayor-Commissioner Compensation Member Lijewski thought the mayor and commissioners should be paid the same salary and that it should be more than what they currently receive due to the amount of time they put in. He felt increasing the salary would open the field of candidates to more available talent if a liveable salary was paid. Member Garris expressed concern in paying the commission enough money to live on as this job is supposed to be parttime. Member Lijewski also felt raising the salary would provide a wider variety of people to serve. Member Salmon expressed concern if the salary is increased to where it becomes a major source of income, professional politicians could become a problem. Member Lijewski believed term limits would address this. Member Rivers said government has become more complex and the duties have increased considerably. He felt extra hours are required to do a good job and the income should be comparable. A question was raised as to what is considered to be a liveable income. Member Rivers mentioned $15,000. Member Hamilton said if we stay with the current form of government and the commission gets back to the parttime role, the salaries may be where they should be. He said if there are going to be more demands and the commission is going to be meeting a great deal, the wages should be increased. Member Evich noted the provisions of the current charter allow the commission to increase their salary. He said the issue is whether to address how much they are to be compensated or to leave the charter as is. He noted the current commission tried to accelerate an increase in salary which the charter does not allow. It was noted a recommendation was received that the increase should not exceed 100% of current compensation and annual adjustments limited to what the SAMP employees receive. It was felt the expenses could be addressed under commission rules. There was consensus the commission should receive an increase in salary. Member Hamilton believed the mayor should receive a higher salary as this position demands more time attending various functions and meetings in the capacity as mayor. Chairman Figurski asked if the employees get a cost of living increase each year and/or merit increase. It was noted this varies depending upon the pay plan. Member Salmon requested a survey of what similar cities to Clearwater pay their commission and/or council members under the city manager/council form of government. Member Hamilton noted it is difficult to determine the requirements of the commission and/or council members of various cities. Some have greater demands. He expressed concern there may be a risk in raising the salary to such a level that if the demands become less, the level of salary would not be warranted. Member Garris believed what needed to be addressed is the philosophy behind why they are paid and possibly make a change where the salary can be accelerated without going to referendum. She expressed concern in serving three years without an increase, having to wait until the next election. Member Lijewski said this is more palatable to the voters as the candidates knew the salary coming in. Discussion ensued in regard to the amount of time the commission has been putting in. Member Garris felt this was due to the amount of complicated and involved issues. Member Evich felt the increase in time has been generated by the activities of businesses and citizens which was not the case in the past. Member Garris suggested not specifying a salary but setting a percentage of increase not to be exceeded each year and when it becomes effective. Member Salmon suggested proposing an amount and the mechanism for adjusting it on an annual basis. In response to a question, Mr. Salmon responded that an amount be included in the committee's recommendations. Member Hamilton expressed concern the volatile issue of salary may defeat the entire work of the committee. Chairman Figurski indicated all the recommendations would not be grouped together, they can be listed as separate issues. Member Evich noted the Commission will determine the form of the ballot. Discussion continued regarding compensation for the commission and it was felt by the committee recommending a higher salary, a mechanism for increases and an effective date the pressure would be taken off the commission if their salary is increased. Member Salmon recommended if a standard for salary increases is set by this committee, it could only be changed at the next charter review. Member Evich questioned whether the salary for the present commission would become effective upon approval by the voters as they were elected under the current charter. Chairman Figurski believed it would. Member Smout said the Florida Statutes specifies increases for the school board and was in favor of setting a formula for increases. He felt this would allow more flexibility. Member Garris felt the commission's salary should be commensurate with their services. Member Lijewski said he felt comfortable in having the charter review committee who meets every five years re-establish the formula for commission salary increases. Member Evich suggested allowing the increase as currently provided in Section 2.04 but to put it to referendum. Chairman Figurski also requested survey of salaries paid to commissioners in cities of our size in the city manager/council form of government. GAO or Audit Commission or Citizen Audit Commission A question was raised as to what the GAO will do and Member Lijewski referred to the GAO as an internal auditor looking at the entire operation of the city who will report directly to the commission. Member Evich said he would prefer eliminating the internal audit department if a GAO is created to avoid duplication or to raise the internal audit department to a level that reports directly to the commission. Member Garris asked if the committee thought the budget is clear enough to see how money is being spent. Member Smout felt there were some antiquated practices being done in city government that are not done in private practice. He said government accounting is a complex issue. He said he had served on the BAC indicating the system works, however, felt it may need some fine tuning. Member Hamilton understood the GAO at the federal level is designed as an overseer because they do not get an accounting firm to audit the federal government. The City of Clearwater has an outside accounting firm. It was pointed out the GAO goes beyond just an audit. Member Evich referred to the Tallahassee Charter, Section 32, which provides there shall be a city auditor who shall be appointed by and serve during the pleasure of the city commission and shall be the head of the audit department. He believed this was in line with the concept of creating the GAO. Member Salmon felt the GAO would cut down on the number of questions to staff. Member Garris expressed concern there had been some instances where money had been stolen and had disappeared from the city. It was felt this was due to weaknesses in internal control in management functions. A question was raised if the city's outside auditing firm would have discovered that money had disappeared and it was indicated not necessarily. Member Lijewski found outside auditing firms to be fairly expensive indicating they do broad reviews about operations and procedures. He felt an internal audit staff would have an established procedure to make sure there are no problems. Member Garris asked if there was a GAO, would there still be an annual audit. It was indicated there would be, however, an outside audit firm would place a lot of reliance on the internal audit functions. A question was raised as to how many are currently employed in the city's internal audit department. Member Seel asked if the position of GAO would be appointed by the commission and it was indicated directly by the commission. It was also felt the commission may want to rely on their current accounting firm. Member Evich pointed out the Tallahassee Charter specifies the qualifications of the city auditor. Member Smout expressed concern creating the GAO may be an costly endeavor as this department would be overseeing if the city manager is fiscally responsible. He said the city manager is working at the pleasure of the commission. Member Lijewski felt the auditor should be of professional stature and be able to objectively evaluate and review all the policies, procedures and internal controls. Member Smout indicated the GAO position is much broader and of a much higher level, separate and distinct, from an internal audit function. A question was raised if the city had an auditing office that reported to the commission, would the city also keep the current internal audit department. Concern was expressed in seeing a duplication of efforts. A question was raised as to what functions the current auditing department performs and it was felt the committee should find out. Member Hamilton questioned whether the current auditing department needs to be improved and expanded rather than creating a separate level of bureaucracy which may be difficult to handle. Member Lijewski felt what is needed is a department that would objectively evaluate everyone's performance and report directly to the commission. He asked what the city pays for its outside auditors and found it might be helpful to ask a representative of that firm how much time they spend reviewing policies and procedures and how much could the audit be reduced if the city 's internal audit staff coordinates efforts with the work the outside firm does. Member Evich said the key word is accountability. It was felt the GAO could inform the commission whether purchasing procedures are being followed and would give the commission a comfort level for supporting requests. Member Seel asked how much is budgeted for the city's internal audit department. Member Smout felt a position was being created that is going to be impossible for 2-3 people to fill. He expressed concern of a new level of administration being created. He said the city does have a professional staff and the accountability portion comes back to how much confidence the commission has in the city manager. Member Hamilton felt the commission has created the feeling of need for this office. He questioned if there were different people involved, would there be a need for a GAO. It was felt there would still be a need. Member Garris said she did not see the GAO as working against the city manager but as someone who is finding things the city manager needs to know about sooner. Member Evich said the committee needs to view the charter not just considering who is in office today but as a way for the betterment of the city. Member Hamilton said he was not convinced there is a need for creating another level. He expressed concern regarding the need and the cost of creating a GAO and questioned whether the city should fine tune what they are doing now. He also expressed concern in how to keep this operation from being political. Member Evich requested adding to the priority list the engagement letter because the charter specifies the commission shall provide for an annual independent audit of all city accounts and does not ask for any operational or performance audits. He felt the committee should wait and see what comes back from the outside auditor. Member Salmon said the current group of commissioners are fairly active from a policy making standpoint. Not having information available to help make decisions creates a problem. Member Lijewski felt every report the GAO would be making to the commission would also go to the city manager. Role of the City Attorney Chairman Figurski said this issue relates to whom the city attorney should report to. Member Lijewski felt the legal department was a staff function and saw no problem with it reporting to both the city manager and commission. He felt access to the legal department, if needed, should be available to both. Chairman Figurski welcomed Commissioner Sue Berfield. Chairman Figurski felt ultimate control of the city attorney would be in the hands of the commission and did not favor putting the city attorney under the city manager as it would take away some of the independence in giving legal advice. Member Garris said there has been discussion there may be a mistake in the overall makeup of the legal department. She felt with today's specialized legal issues perhaps the legal department should consist of paralegals. If a specialist is needed, the city could have one on contract or hire someone from outside. She indicated it was difficult for one person to be an expert in all fields. Member Seel expressed concern in hiring outside firms on a regular basis. Member Rivers questioned if there is any information available on where this has been done. He said he was also concerned about costs. Member Evich said the city attorney does note to the commission when he does not have expertise in a certain area. Member Evich pointed out there is provision in Section 4.03(b) of the charter under his duties that says "when required to do so by the city commission, the city attorney shall prosecute or defend." The charter does not say this is part of his requirements. He noted he is also legal advisor to the city manager and city departments. Chairman Figurski said he would hate to see the city attorney department staffed with only paralegals. He said attorneys are needed that understand government. Member Hamilton referred to the Hildebrandt audit of the city attorney department and indicated the report was balanced. He said the city attorney was not questioned on his ability of giving legal advice. He felt a change should not be made based on the current city attorney. He said if we stay with the present form of government, the section on the city attorney may not need to be addressed. Member Seel asked the number of staff members in the legal department. Member Lijewski asked what their annual budget was. Member Evich distributed a memo to the committee regarding a memo dated February 7, 1994 from the city attorney to the interim city manager regarding areas he wanted the committee to review. He said he would like the city attorney to identify areas of weaknesses and strengths in the charter and give his opinion and offer solutions and/or recommendations. Chairman Figurski said he would talk to the city attorney regarding this. There was discussion that the majority consensus of the committee was to retain the current form of government. Member Garris noted she is in favor of the current form and Member Evich said he was abstaining from making a decision at this time. Chairman Figurski felt the vote on form of government should wait until after the public hearing. A question was raised if the commission should be polled to voice their opinions. Chairman Figurski said this committee was given the role to give their best judgment on where to go. Discussion of Meeting Times Discussion ensued regarding meeting times and Member Hamilton said he would like to keep the Wednesday meetings that have already been scheduled suggesting the public hearing for citizen input be rescheduled from March 2 to March 15, 1994. He pointed out there is available parking at the lower level behind City Hall. Member Garris noted she would be out of town next week and would not be in attendance at the March 2, 1994 meeting. Consensus of the committee was to keep the March 2 meeting date and to schedule the public hearing for March 15. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Chairman Attest: