Loading...
05/27/2003CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 27, 2003 Present: Daniel Dennehy Chair Melody W. Figurski Vice Chair Katherine Elliott Cole Committee Member John Doran Committee Member Isay M. Gulley Committee Member – arrived 4:35 p.m. Thomas D. Calhoun Committee Member Timothy A. Johnson, Jr. Committee Member Jay F. Keyes Committee Member Lawrence (Duke) Tieman Committee Member Absent: Jay Edwin Polglaze Committee Member Nicholas C. Fritsch Committee Member William Joe Fisher Committee Member Also Present: Pamela Akin City Attorney Cyndie Goudeau City Clerk Rosemarie Alfaro Administrative Analyst Brenda Moses Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #2 - Approval of May 13, 2003 minutes Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 13, 2003, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 – Review of Proposed Changes from May 13 meeting Consensus was to accept the proposed changes discussed and recommended at the May 13 meeting. ITEM #4 – Article VI. Initiative, Referendum; Recall In response to a question, it was indicated “city officers” in Section 6.01 refers to the City Commission and the City Manager and could also include members of boards. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said Sections 6.01 and 6.02 do not allow voters to set salaries. Ms. Goudeau said it would affect the budget if those sections were changed to allow voters to address salaries. Consensus was not to change Sections 6.01 and 6.02. Concern was expressed that 90 days is insufficient to complete the filing of referendum petitions as stated in Section 6.05(d). Ms. Akin said after that timeframe an initiative to change an ordinance could be pursued. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said an initiative refers to the passage of a measure and a referendum refers to repealing a measure. She said the 90-day timeframe prevents suspension of an ordinance to an unacceptable length of time. Consensus was not to change Section 6.05(d). It was suggested that “… and more particularly section 100.361, Florida Statutes, including any amendments thereto.” be deleted from the end of Section 6.03. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said Section 6.05 re Recall emulates state law although state law does not make this section a requirement. It was requested that capitalization of words be consistent throughout the Charter. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said Section 6.09(a) addresses the possibility of conflicting ordinances being on the same ballot. If ordinances cannot be enforced together, they would be considered conflicting and the one receiving the most votes would prevail. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said an initiative could be brought back to the voters even if it failed at a previous referendum. ITEM #5 – Article VII. General Provisions In response to a question, Ms. Akin said Section 7.02 provides for not less than 10 charter review advisory committee members. The Commission could appoint more members or alternate members. It was felt that a charter review advisory committee should be appointed every 6 years. A suggestion was made that the recommendations of the charter review advisory committee go directly to the voters, rather than the Commission. This is how Pinellas County’s and the state’s constitutional convention are handled. Discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of this suggestion. It was suggested this topic be added for discussion at the next meeting. Ms. Akin will prepare draft language for the committee’s review. ITEM #6 – Article VIII – Nominations and Elections A concern was expressed that declaring a candidate with no opposition elected does not allow for write-in candidates. Ms. Goudeau indicated because write-in candidates are extremely rare and the likelihood of them being elected so remote, it was determined the effort and cost for an election was not warranted. In response to a question, Ms. Goudeau said per charter, candidates must pay a qualifying fee of $50 and submit not less than 250 petition cards to run for office. The number of petition cards was set years ago in an attempt to show candidate support. It was remarked that although the County does not require the submission of petition cards, their candidate fee is much higher than the City’s fee. In response to a question, Ms. Goudeau said the cost of a special election in previous years was $50,000. Due to the expense of new voting equipment, etc., that cost has increased. She has not received a definitive response from the County’s Supervisor of Elections as to the actual cost. Questions were raised regarding having run-offs and the possibility of coordinating city elections with the county and/or primary elections. Regarding coordinating with County elections Ms. Goudeau said, while costs would be reduced by piggybacking on the County ballot, there is some concern re a city’s election getting “lost” on a November ballot. She indicated when the Presidential primary falls on the regularly scheduled March city election date, piggybacking does occur and voter turn out is higher. Regarding having run-offs, it was remarked that voters often wait until they know who “is actually on the ballot” before voting. It was requested Dr. MacManus be contacted to see if she had statistics regarding these issues. In response to a question regarding Section 8.05(d), Ms. Akin said the city commission is required by state law to serve as the canvassing board. Typically, the commission appoints one of its members to be the canvassing board’s representative to witness the testing of the tabulation equipment and to make rulings on absentee and questionable ballots on election night. The commission member appointed is not running for office in that particular election. The canvassing board’s role is to accept the election results. ITEM #7 – Set Agenda for June 10 meeting The following topics will be on the June 10 agenda: 1) review of property issues, and 2) if the charter review committee’s recommendations should be presented directly to the voters. Member Johnson said after the June 10 meeting he will be on an extended absence. Ms. Goudeau suggested the committee schedule a public meeting no later than September, as all committee business must be completed and ready for presentation to the commission no later than October. ITEM #8 – Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.