Loading...
04/06/1994 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING April 6, 1994 The Charter Review Committee met in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall, third floor, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, on Wednesday, April 6, 1994 at 4:05 p.m. with the following members present: Gerald Figurski, Chairman Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman Joe Evich Anne Garris Kenneth Hamilton Al Lijewski Curlee Rivers Tony Salmon Les Smout Absent: Karen Seel Also present: Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The Chairman called the meeting of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) to order. Approval of Minutes of March 15, 1994. Member Smout requested on page 8, paragraph 5, the words "also contributed" be changed to "was also considered." Member Salmon moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Chairman Figurski noted the City Attorney would not be in attendance at today's meeting. He said there has been difficulty in obtaining a speaker on single member districts. The National Civic League in Denver will be sending a packet which will include information on single member districts, multi-member districts and the voting rights act. A copy will be distributed to all the members. Section 2.05. Mayor-commissioner, functions and powers. Member Hamilton moved to maintain the current council/manager form of government in the City of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded. Chairman Figurski supported the council/manager form of government indicating the system has worked and fits the City of Clearwater. He said this form of government would provide for a dispersion of power. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued in regard to electing the mayor. Member Garris recommended electing five commissioners and the commission annually electing one of their members as mayor. She said this would address commissioners having to resign their office to run for mayor. She felt this system worked well for the county commission and believed the commission would work more effectively with a leader they have chosen. Member Garris moved that five commissioners be elected and the commissioners elect annually one of their members to serve as mayor. The motion was duly seconded. Member Lancaster believed the citizens have the right to elect the mayor. He felt a good commissioner does not necessarily make a good mayor. Member Hamilton agreed. He thought the citizens should have the right to choose the person they want to represent them in all the figure head roles. Member Salmon questioned whether there was a greater possibility of obtaining a better leader with the commission electing their mayor. The commission would know who has leadership capabilities. Member Evich said someone should be accountable; however, felt this would depend on how the commission is elected. He asked the committee to postpone voting on this issue at this time. Chairman Figurski felt the person who heads the city should be elected at large. He noted information has shown if there are single member district representatives, the mayor should be elected at large. He said in his experience with county commissions he has found the person who is chairman reflects the majority block. Member Salmon expressed concern in changing leadership annually. Discussion ensued in regard to how much influence the mayor has on the city manager. Member Garris felt this would depend upon communication between the city manager and the mayor. She said it is difficult to operate effectively if there is a communication problem. Member Rivers did not agree with the commission electing a mayor annually. He believed the current form of government in Clearwater works well. He said the present mayor has a unique ability as a coalition builder. He felt having the commission elect the mayor would lend itself to cronyism. Member Salmon felt CRC recommendations should not just be based on the current commission. Member Smout noted the school board and county commission races are partisan. He felt electing a chairperson from among themselves, particularly the school board, did not add anything to the process. He felt there were a lot of behind the scenes positioning in bringing greater political influence into the process. He supported the mayor being elected at large. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor that five commissioners be elected and annually the commissioners elect one of their members to serve as mayor. Member Garris voted "aye;" Members Lancaster, Evich, Hamilton, Lijewski, Rivers, Salmon and Smout and Chairman Figurski voted "nay;" Member Seel absent. Motion failed. Member Salmon felt the single member district issue needed to be resolved before addressing some of the other issues. Discussion ensued in regard to whether the mayor/commissioner should have any additional powers. Member Salmon suggested adding to the duties of the mayor an annual program of work, goals and the state of the city message as listed in the National Civic League model charter. Member Hamilton felt the goals should be set by the full commission. He expressed concern regarding the cost of formulating the program of work and goals into a document for publication. He said he would not favor such a document if this is being covered in some other way. He noted the Chamber puts out such a document and it is somewhat expensive. Member Salmon felt a determination should be made first whether the above issue is worthwhile. He noted the model charter provides the mayor gives policy guidance through goal setting and advocating policies that address the city's problems. Member Smout believed a document already exists that contains the commission's goals and statement of work. He thought this was being performed by the city manager and staff. Discussion ensued in regard to the model charter referring to an annual state of the city message which is not included in the city's charter. It was felt this was already being done by the city manager and would be a duplication of effort to add it to the mayor's duties. Member Evich said Section 2.01 does not indicate the Commission sets the policy entirely. He felt if the mayor is to be held accountable for leadership, some form of established goals for the commission should be set. Member Salmon felt the mayor, as the head of the commission and the city, should provide visible leadership to the citizens in some form. Member Garris noted the commission has goal setting sessions. Member Lancaster believed Section 3.03. Powers and duties of the city manager, page 9, paragraph (h) addressed the financial condition and future needs of the city which is the responsibility of the city manager. Member Salmon said he is looking for policy leadership from the commission and felt this would be the responsibility of the mayor. Member Evich questioned if leadership rather than power would be expected of a strong mayor. Member Hamilton expressed concern by placing all the responsibility on the mayor, you are setting someone up to fail. Member Smout requested a copy of the commission's goals. Member Salmon questioned the advisability of adding to Section 2.05, paragraph 2 the word "temporary" before the words "absence or inability of the mayor-commissioner to perform, etc." Chairman Figurski noted Section 2.07(c) deals with vacancies in office; Section 2.05 does not. In response to a question, he indicated Section 2.07(c) also covers death and resignation. Member Evich recommended if there is a temporary vacancy in the mayor's seat, the vice-mayor fill in and if there is a permanent vacancy, the vice-mayor fill the unexpired term. Member Salmon moved to add in Section 2.05, paragraph 2, sentence 2, the word "temporary" before the words "absence or inability of the mayor-commissioner to perform, etc." The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued in regard to whether "temporary" needed to be defined and it was felt it did not. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Section 1.01 Corporate existence and powers. and Section 1.02. Corporate boundaries. Member Evich moved that Sections 1.01 and 1.02 remain as currently incorporated into the charter. The motion was duly seconded. Member Salmon said a question had been raised whether the phrase "safety, health, convenience and general welfare of its inhabitants" in Section 1.01(c) of the city's charter is too broad. In response to a question, Chairman Figurski indicated Article IX deals with bonds and incorporates the public health, safety, etc. language. He said this language in Florida is known as the police power of a city, county or a state; the power to regulate in the interest of the people. Member Salmon noted this language is not included in the model charter or the state statute. Member Garris expressed concern the charter does not limit what the city interprets as safety, health, convenience and general welfare. Member Salmon noted Section 1.01(c) is cited after the model charter with the exception of the language referring to safety, health, etc. Member Garris said she did not understand the sentence "The specific mention of a particular power in the charter shall not be construed as limiting in any way the general power stated in this section of article I." in relationship to the rest of the charter. She expressed concern if the prohibition against spending more than $2 million without the approval of the voters would be null and void because of the language in Section 1.01(c) indicating if the city decided it was for the convenience of the inhabitants. Chairman Figurski said there is a distinction between the granting of power and the limitation on power and believed the limitations in the charter would address this concern. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor that Sections 1.01 and 1.02 remain as currently incorporated into the charter, the motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued in regard to single member districts and it was indicated this issue is not being addressed at this time as additional information will be following. Section 2.06. Prohibitions. Marilyn Gioquinto requested the CRC consider addressing ethical conduct in the charter. She felt a desperate need to do so indicating the present commission is walking a fine line. Chairman Figurski requested a copy of the city's ethic ordinance. Member Garris felt whether something is ethical or not is a matter of opinion. She recommended making paragraph (b) of Section 2.06 stronger because she felt the commission can not do a good job if they can not ask questions of staff and check on what is going on. Member Lancaster said he preferred leaving paragraph (b) as is. He did not want the commissioners doing more than scrutinizing and asking questions. Member Rivers agreed with asking questions; however, said it appears that some commissioners are overstepping their bounds. Member Salmon noted the model charter reflected dealing through the city manager but did not prohibit the commission from talking to city staff. Member Evich felt if ethics are to be addressed in the charter, there should be a separate section and very specific. In response to a question, Member Salmon said Section 2.06(b), both paragraphs are almost identical to the model charter. He felt the committee should not base their recommendations on current situations. Member Salmon read portions from the model charter that dealt with prohibitions. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to make changes to the city charter by substituting paragraphs from the model charter. The meeting recessed from 5:05 p.m. to 5:10 p.m. Discussion continued in regard to whether or not the language in the model charter should be substituted for the language in the city charter. Member Lancaster moved that Section 2.06(a), (b) and (c) as it reads in the charter. The motion was duly seconded. Member Salmon suggested in Section 2.06(c) inserting the word "city" before "employment" and inserting the word "elected" before the word "appointive." Concern was expressed commissioners would be prohibited from resigning from office to run for mayor if the word "elected" was inserted. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Section 2.07. Vacancies; forfeiture of office; filling vacancies; advisory boards. Member Salmon noted Section 2.07(b)4. dealing with forfeiture of office if the commission fails to attend six regular meetings in a 12-month period, whether excused or not, is not addressed in the model charter. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not missing six regular meetings in a 12-month period is too restrictive due to the current schedule of the commission. Chairman Figurski asked Commissioner Deegan, who was in attendance at the meeting, whether he saw this provision as a problem. He responded he did not. Member Garris moved in Section 2.07(b)4. to delete the words "excused or not" after "12-month period." There was no second. Discussion ensued in regard to setting a percentage for number of meetings missed. Member Hamilton moved to approve amending Section 2.07(b)4. to read "Fails to attend 25% of the regular meetings during a 12-month period whether excused or not unless such absences are excused by the commission and to approve Section 2.07(a) as it currently reads. The motion was duly seconded. Member Salmon noted the model charter includes the language "violates any express prohibition of this charter" as a reason for forfeiture of office and recommended adding a subparagraph 5 to Section 2.07(b). Concern was expressed regarding failure to attend 25% of the regular meetings also being too restrictive. Discussion ensued regarding what would be an appropriate percentage. Member Hamilton amended his motion to change the percentage of meetings missed from 25% to 33% The seconder accepted the amendment. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor to approve amending Section 2.07(b)4. to read "Fails to attend 33% of the regular meetings during a 12-month period unless such absences are excused by the commission and to approve Section 2.07(a) as it currently reads, the motion carried unanimously. Member Salmon moved to add to Section 2.07(b) a subparagraph 5. Violates any express prohibition of this charter. Questions were raised as to who would determine whether there is a violation and would a violation of the code of ethics, either a city ordinance or a state statute, be a felony. Chairman Figurski believed the ethics code in the state statutes provides how violations are addressed and could include forfeiture of office. Chairman Figurski pointed out Section 2.07(a) provides any forfeiture is to be declared by the remaining members of the commission. Member Hamilton expressed concern the added language in subparagraph 5. would be a matter of interpretation and could become a major battle whether a person should remain in office. Member Garris felt some sort of consequence for that commissioner who violates the charter should be included. A question was raised as to whom should determine if the charter has been violated. Discussion ensued in regard to violations being filed with the Ethics Commission who in turn make their recommendation as to whether a violation has occurred and what the punishment should be. Member Lancaster said there are procedures to remove someone from office. He felt adding the language would become a political football and create more problems. Chairman Figurski said he will research the statutes to see what the ethics statute says about violations and consequences for a violation. Member Salmon moved to withdraw the motion on the floor to add a subparagraph 5 to Section 2.07. (c) Filling of vacancies. Member Hamilton felt someone resigning to run for another office should be replaced as soon as possible. Member Salmon noted the model charter and other city charters provide if a replacement is not found within 30 days, a special election is called. Discussion ensued in regard to the resign to run procedures. Concern was expressed regarding filling a seat prior to the effective date of the resignation and campaigning for a higher level of office and still sitting on the commission. Discussion ensued in regard to calling a special election if an agreement for a replacement of a vacant commission seat is not agreed upon. Member Salmon read from the model charter the process for filling a vacancy. Member Salmon moved in Section 2.07(c), after the first sentence, add the following "If the commission fails to do so within 30 days following the occurrence of the vacancy, a special election to fill the vacancy will be held no sooner than 60 days and no later than 90 days unless a regular election or special election has been scheduled within 120 days of the vacancy. A question was raised if the person appointed or elected serves just the unexpired term. It was indicated the person appointed by the commission would serve until the next regular or special election. The person elected by the voters would serve the unexpired term. Discussion ensued in regard to the procedure for filling a vacancy in the mayor's seat. A question was raised if a vacancy in the mayor's seat is filled by one of the commissioners, would both seats be filled in the next regular or special election. A question was raised if the commission should fill the permanent vacancy in the mayor's seat from among themselves or should the vice-mayor move into that seat until the next election or for the unexpired term. Member Evich referred to a memo from the City Attorney indicating the vice-mayor would step in until the appointed person takes over the duties of the mayor and until an election is held. He said he would like to see a person who currently serves on the commission serve the mayor's full unexpired term and fill the empty commission seat at the next election. In response to a question, Member Evich indicated he would support a replacement within the next 90 days. A suggestion was made to develop language regarding this issue before a motion is made. There was no second to the motion on the floor. Discussion ensued in regard to future meetings of the CRC. Meetings have been scheduled for April 26 at 7:00 p.m. and April 27 and May 10 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m.