[00:00:02] COME ON NOW. I THINK AT 6:00. WE NEED TO CALL IT TO ORDER. 601. OH, THANKS. THAT IS YOUR CHURCH. WE ALWAYS ARE. 5 TO 7 MINUTES LATE, AND HE SAYS 1030. WE'RE LIKE 1035. 1037. OH, YEAH. YOU'RE GOOD MAN. YOU'LL BE DOING MAYOR MEDINA PROUD BY STARTING RIGHT NOW. ANYBODY NEED A COPY OF THE CHARTER FOR TONIGHT? WE'D LIKE TO INVITE PASTOR JAMES BURKE FROM THE BODY OF CHRIST FELLOWSHIP IN PALM BAY TO COME GIVE AN INVOCATION. OKAY. YEAH. LET US PRAY. FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE AND YOUR GRACE AND YOUR MERCY AND THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF YOUR SON JESUS. LORD, BE WITH US TONIGHT. BUT, LORD, BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE BUSINESS OF TONIGHT, WE WANT TO LIFT UP SUSAN CONLEY'S FAMILY. YOU ARE THE GOD OF ALL COMFORT. AND SO WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD JUST COMFORT THEM IN THIS HOUR, THAT YOU WOULD HELP THEM THROUGH THE DAYS TO COME AND THE NEXT MOMENTS, AND JUST GIVE THEM YOUR PEACE AND JUST POUR OUT YOUR LOVE AND YOUR GRACE ON THEM, LORD. BE WITH THIS COUNCIL TONIGHT. THIS COMMITTEE, LORD, I PRAY THAT THEIR HEARTS ARE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY, AND THAT EVERYTHING THEY DO IN EVERY WAY THAT THEY GOVERN, WOULD BE TO BE A BLESSING TO THE RESIDENTS OF PALM BAY. WE PRAY THAT YOUR HAND WOULD BE ON THIS CITY AND BE ON THIS GROUP TONIGHT. WE THANK YOU, AND WE PRAISE YOU AND YOUR PRECIOUS AND WONDERFUL NAME OF YOUR SON, JESUS. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. THANK YOU. SINCE IT'S PAST VETERANS DAY, IF A VETERAN COULD DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. DO WE HAVE ONE HERE? VETERAN. ALLEGIANCE. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. AMEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO IF WE CAN HAVE ROLL CALL. MR. DELGADO, MR. MYERS. MR. MILLER. MR. PRESIDENT. MR.. NORRIS. MR. O'NEILL. PRESENT. MISS. SARAH. MISS COFFEY PRESENT. MR. CHANDLER IS ABSENT. MR. WEINBERG. PRESENT. DO WE HAVE QUORUM? YES WE DO. AMEN. DO WE HAVE. WE DON'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY HERE TODAY. CORRECT? OH. WE DO. OKAY, WONDERFUL. SO, AS WE'RE STARTING HERE TODAY I KNOW THAT PASTOR MILLER HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS STARTING OFF WITH A PREAMBLE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU, BUT, MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE ADOPTION OF MINUTES. OH. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AGENDA? YEAH, YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. I JUST SAY THAT WITH EVERYTHING ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND WRITE IT DOWN FOR ME. [ADOPTION OF MINUTES] DID EVERYBODY REVIEW THE MINUTES? AND DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. MOTION SECOND. GIVEN BY RUTH. SECONDED. SECOND BY. I'M SORRY, BUT MR. WEINBERG. YEAH. PRAISE GOD. AMEN. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL AGAINST BY THE SAME SIGN. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. IS THERE A WAY I CAN REDUCE THE VOLUME ON THIS OR OR. THERE'S NO WAY. OKAY. AMEN. I IF I'M CORRECT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL START AFTER AFTER WE BEGIN. OR DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE EVEN YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW AND THEN PEOPLE CAN ALSO SPEAK ON THE ITEMS AS PRESENTED. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO COME FORTH AT THIS TIME? [00:05:03] BEING THAT THERE ISN'T ANY. WE'LL START OFF AGAIN. [NEW BUSINESS] WE'RE GOING TO START ACTUALLY ON THE PREAMBLE. AND AS MUCH AS PASTOR MILLER HAS SUBMITTED SOME QUESTIONS. AND SO THE FIRST ONE IS IN SECTION 101 AND SO YIELD TO PASTOR MILLER AS HE'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN IT. THANK YOU. KEN. FOR MY PAGE TWO HERE. HANG ON JUST A SECOND. THERE WE GO. YEAH, I JUST, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WHEN THIS DOCUMENT. IT'S THE FIRST TIME I REALLY STUDIED IT. AND I TREATED THIS AS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS COMING FROM, LIKE, ONE OF MY ENGINEERS OR PROJECT MANAGERS COMING ACROSS MY DESK. AND AND SO I JUST READ IT FROM BEGINNING TO END, EVERYTHING FROM SPELLING ERRORS TO GRAMMAR ERRORS TO THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER. AND I KNOW THAT IS PROBABLY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THIS, THIS, THIS TEAM, BUT IT GENERATED SOME QUESTIONS. AND SO THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT IT REFERS TO THE WORD CONSTITUTION. AND IN SOME CASES THE CONSTITUTION IS EVEN A SMALL C, NOT A BIG C. AND SO I WAS JUST ASKING ONE, DO WE NEED CLARIFICATION. IS IT THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? IS IT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? IF IT'S A SMALL C, IS IT THE MAYOR AND THE CONSTITUTION? AND AT FIRST IT MIGHT SEEM INSIGNIFICANT, BUT I AS WE LOOK AT FOLKS WANTING TO INSTITUTE SHARIA LAW AND SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM IN TEXAS AND NEW YORK AND CHICAGO AND OTHER PLACES, MY THOUGHT WAS, DO WE NEED TO TO CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR IS THERE ANOTHER WAY OF ADDRESSING OR TRYING TO MAKE SHARIA LAW ILLEGAL? RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP IN THAT SECTION. THE OTHER STUFF IS JUST PRETTY MUCH SIMPLE UPDATES, LIKE IN THE INCORPORATION. OH. I'M SORRY. OKAY. SO I'LL, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT IF WE CAN ADDRESS IT TO ATTORNEY ERIC MESSENGER. I BELIEVE MOST. THERE WE GO. I BELIEVE IT REFERS TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION GENERALLY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE TIMES IT COMES UP, BUT GENERALLY, WE FALL UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. I IMAGINE FOR MOST OF THE, THE INSTANCES, UNLESS THERE'S ONE SPECIFICALLY YOU WANT TO DIRECT ME TO, AGAIN, WE'RE ON SECTION 101 AS AN EXAMPLE, THOUGH IT DOES STATE IT DOES SAY SPECIFICALLY THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE SHOULD IT ALSO INCLUDE THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? WE DIDN'T THINK THAT IT NEEDED ANY CLARIFICATION. NO. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? NO. FOR ME, IT WAS JUST MORE OF A QUESTION. IT WAS IT WAS KIND OF AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE IN SOME PLACES IT SAID FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. OTHER PLACES IT WAS A CAPITAL C CONSTITUTION AND OTHER PLACES IT WAS A LOWERCASE CONSTITUTION. SO IT WAS A LOT OF INCONSISTENCIES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. AND AGAIN, MY MORE BIGGER CONCERN WAS, DOES IT OPEN UP DOORS FOR OTHER, OTHER WAYS OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS OR CONDUCTING GOVERNMENT? WOULD IT WOULD IT VIOLATE ANY LAWS IF IF THE ATTORNEY WOULD ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THIS? AND IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A CAPITAL C, I ASSUME IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE VOTED ON. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. SO IF THE ATTORNEY COULD COULD MAYBE GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT AND FIND OUT IF IF THE CONSTITUTION SMALL C COULD BE UPGRADED TO THE BIG C. NOT THAT IT'S A BIG ISSUE, BUT BUT IT'S NONETHELESS A QUESTION. IS THERE A GLOSSARY? I MEAN, I DIDN'T FIND A GLOSSARY. THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ALWAYS GO BACK TO AND SAY, HEY, IF WE HAVE A LITTLE C, THAT MEANS WHATEVER IT DOES, OR BIG C, THAT'S WHATEVER IT IS. BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN WE HAVE THIS SITUATION, YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO DELINEATE THROUGH THE ENTIRE HIGHER DOCUMENT. IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VERSUS THE FLORIDA. OKAY. SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THOSE TYPES OF NOTATIONS TO THE DOCUMENT TO MAKE IT CLEAR SO THAT IF THERE IS ANY A QUESTION LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, THAT YOU'D JUST GO BACK THERE, LOOK IT UP, AND THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS. [00:10:04] SO WE'VE NEVER HAD A GLOSSARY BEFORE. IS THAT TRUE? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF FOR THE CHARTER. NO. OKAY. I MEAN, THROUGHOUT THE CODE YOU HAVE YOUR DEFINITIONS, BUT IN THE CHARTER, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY. SO YOU DEFAULT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THOSE DEFINITIONS. IS THAT WHAT I JUST HEARD YOU SAY? NO. THROUGHOUT THE CODE THERE ARE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO THE CHAPTERS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING. BUT FOR THE CHARTER, I DO NOT RECALL ANY TYPE OF DEFINITIONS OR GLOSSARY OR INDEX OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. BECAUSE I RAN INTO THIS WHEN I WAS, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING AT SCHOOL BOARDS AND THEY GOT INTO THIS WHOLE GENDER SEX NONSENSE SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO WHEN I TOLD THEM, DON'T GO DOWN THIS ROAD. YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET DOWN TO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL TO WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE MAKING ORDINANCES OR WHATEVER BASED ON SEX, GENDER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. WELL, THEY THAT WENT DOWN THERE ANYWAY, AND NOW THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE. SO I JUST WOULD I WOULD APPRECIATE A GLOSSARY. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? OKAY. JUST AS A, AS A QUESTION. CAN I, CAN I ASSUME THAT THOUGH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS NOT MENTIONED, IT WILL STILL OVERSHADOW OR WE WOULD WE WOULD EVENTUALLY GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION IF THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S VIOLATING IT. AM I CORRECT? YEAH. I MEAN, I MEAN, WE'RE TYPICALLY GUIDED BY THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT SITUATIONS WOULD COME UP OR WHEN WOULD FOR THE CITY CHARTER WHERE WE WOULD COME UP FOR THE US CONSTITUTION. YOU KNOW, DARE I SAY THEY'RE NOT DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT? SO YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO GET ONE THING OUT OF ONE VERSUS ANOTHER. SO I WOULD SAY GENERALLY THIS IS GOING TO FALL UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. WELL THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MARK? NO, NO, I MEAN, I, I INTERPRETED IT MYSELF TO BE THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, BUT AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO CLOSE DOORS, RIGHT. TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND PRECISE, THAT'S ALL. AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE SECOND QUESTION IS ON SECTION 1.02. I DO, AND IT REALLY ISN'T SO MUCH OF A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE OF THE PROCESS BY HOW WE UPDATE THE SECTION 1.02 DESCRIBES ALL THE BOUNDARIES OF PALM BAY. AND SO IF WE ARE UPDATING THE CHARTER, WHAT A GREAT TIME TO UPDATE IT, UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER PROCESS BY WHICH WE DO THAT. I DO UPDATE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE GOING TO THE VOTERS. I CAN DO THAT ON MY OWN. SO WE JUST I JUST DID IT LAST YEAR, I THINK. WE DID RECENTLY HAVE AN ANNEXATION, SO IT WILL GET UPDATED AGAIN ANYTIME THERE'S AN ANNEXATION OR DEANNEXATION. YOU KNOW, THE CITY CLERK YOU KNOW, WRITES IT OUT AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT. YEP. YEAH. PLEASE USE THE MIC. YEAH. OKAY. I'M GOOD ON THOSE TWO. THANK YOU. AMEN. FROM HERE, WE'RE GOING TO SECTION. 301. AND AGAIN, I BELIEVE PASTOR MILLER HAS A QUESTION OR A THOUGHT. IT'S THE SAME IN 3.01. IT'S ONE IT REFERS TO THE CONSTITUTION. AGAIN, SAME THING WE TALKED ABOUT. BUT IN SECTION 3.1, IT IT SPECIFICALLY LISTS, I THINK, FIVE DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL ENACTED ORDINANCE, ADOPT RESOLUTION, ADOPT BUDGET, DETERMINE POLICY, AND APPOINT A CITY MANAGER. SO THERE'S NO OPEN ENDEDNESS THERE. THERE'S NO CATCHALL THAT SAYS OTHER DUTIES AS REQUIRED. BUT YET ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS THEY ALSO HAVE TO APPOINT A CITY CLERK. THEY HAVE TO APPOINT A CITY ATTORNEY. AND IT LISTS OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DO. AND SO IN SECTION 3.01, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE VERBIAGE OF THAT NEEDED TO, TO BE CHANGED. BECAUSE IN THERE IT SAYS THESE ARE THE DUTIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AND IN NOWHERE IN THAT DOES IT SAY APPOINT A CITY CLERK OR CITY ATTORNEY OR DO ANY ANYTHING ELSE. I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS IT WAS WRITTEN. NOW, LATER ON IN THE DOCUMENT, IT TELLS THEM THEY HAVE TO DO IT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S A IT'S A CONTRADICTION IN THE IN THE CITY CHARTER. SO THAT'S WHY I JUST MADE A NOTE. SO IF I WERE TO CHANGE THAT TO A QUESTION, THE QUESTION WOULD BE SHOULD THERE BE A CATCH ALL [00:15:09] STATEMENT AT THE END? AND ANY, ANY OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OR. YEAH. RESPONSIBILITIES AS DECLARED IN THE, IN THE CHARTER AND OR GIVEN BY CITY COUNCIL OR WHATEVER OR THE OR THE MAYOR. CITY MANAGER. DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT NEED TO BE THERE? LET ME RESPOND TO THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND. PLEASE DO. SECTION 301 IS SPECIFICALLY THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IT LISTS SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OF THE OF THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. BUT OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES ARE SPECIFIED IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER, SO IT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY. IF I COULD HAVE THE ATTORNEY SPEAK ON THAT TOO, PLEASE. YEAH. 301 DOESN'T CONTRADICT IT, JUST, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE A FULL LISTING, BUT THAT THOSE DUTIES ARE LISTED ELSEWHERE. SO WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT ANY CHANGE WAS NECESSARY TO THIS SECTION. OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD? YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT? WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS NEEDS TO GO TO THE VOTERS. FOR ME, IT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP BECAUSE IT DIDN'T LINE UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. OKAY. RIGHT. AND BEFORE WE START ON THE NEXT SECTION 3.02, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. EVERY TIME WE CHANGE A PORTION, LET'S SAY TAKING SECTION THREE, ASSUMING THAT WE CHANGED FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS TO IT, DOES EACH SECTION HAVE TO BE VOTED ON? IS IT VOTED ON AS A TOTALITY 3.0? HOW DOES THAT GET PRESENTED TO THE TO THE VOTER? HISTORICALLY IT'S EVERY SECTION IS AN ITEM ON THE BALLOT. SO YOU DON'T HAVE A WHOLE ARTICLE THREE LEGISLATIVE. IT'S NOT LIKE THAT. SO IF WE HAVE 15 CHANGES BY THE END OR 25 CHANGES, WE WOULD HAVE 25 VOTING BLOCKS ON THE BALLOT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. OKAY. AND BEING THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN SO ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT LOOKING THIS OVER, I CAN I CAN BE EXCITED TO SEE A BIG BLOCK OF VOTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS OF PALM BAY IN THIS GO ROUND, MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE PREVIOUS ONES THAT WE'VE HAD. ONE THING YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS, FIRST OF ALL, IT HAS TO BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVES WHETHER IT GOES ON A BALLOT OR NOT. SO THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE 25 ITEMS ON THIS ON THE BALLOT. I HAVE YET TO SEE THE CITY NOT LIST EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUGGESTED BY THIS COUNCIL, SO I'M ASSUMING POTENTIALLY EVERYONE CAN GET THERE. BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. WE'LL FIND OUT WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL CONVENES. OKAY, SO WE'RE IN SECTION 3.02. THERE'S TWO THERE'S TWO SETS OF OPINIONS AND RATHER THAN GO THROUGH EACH. WELL. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT GOES. SORRY. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. TERESE. I WANT TO COVER FIRST. IF WE MAY. THE CONCEPT THE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, WHICH IS EITHER A FIVE PEOPLE ON THE DAIS OR SEVEN THOSE ARE BASICALLY THE TWO OPINIONS. EACH 1ST MAY HAVE SOME, SOME VARYING. MAYBE IT'S JUST GOING BACK AND FORTH OR DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THEM ON IF YOU WILL TURN OFF. MAYBE THAT MAYBE THAT'LL DO IT. YOURS IS ON. OH, I TEST OKAY. IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE ON IT'LL IT'LL BE AN ECHO. NOPE. IT'LL BE AN ECHO. IT'S MY VOICE. AND TO MAKE SURE WE HEAR YOU 2 OR 3 TIMES. OKAY. SO OF THE TWO THAT SUGGESTED SEVEN, IT WOULD BE RUTH AS WELL AS AS OUR, OUR VICE CHAIR, THOMAS. WHO WHICH OF THOSE IN FRONT OF US IF YOU DID IT? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN THIS? YES. I DID AN ORG CHART BECAUSE I. I'M LOOKING AT THE STATE OF OUR CITY THAT HAS GROWN RAPIDLY, [00:20:03] AND THE COSTS ARE BECOMING FORMIDABLE. SO I, I PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT WILL PREVENT US FROM HAVING TO HAVE HEARINGS AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF WHERE THERE'S A PLAN B BASICALLY ON EVERY POSITION. AND I AGREE WITH WHAT RUTH AND AND TOM SAID, BUT I WOULD NOT ADD PEOPLE TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE COST OF THE COUNCIL IN SALARIES, BENEFITS. AND I THINK THAT COMPLICATES THINGS. I'M LOOKING AT THE STANDARDS THAT OTHER CITIES USE, LARGE CITIES BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDER GROWTH AND COST. SO I HAVE MAYOR AT THE TOP IN MY DREAM FOR ALL OF THIS, THE MAYOR WOULD BE PRESIDING, BUT WOULD ONLY VOTE TO BREAK A TIE INSTEAD OF THE MAYOR. I HAVE A CITIZEN ADVOCATE WHO WOULD BE ALMOST LIKE A VICE MAYOR WHO WOULD COVER FOR HIM IF HE'S NOT PRESENT AT AT A MEETING, BUT WOULD ALSO BE THE PERSON THAT CITIZENS GO TO TO FIND OUT WHERE THEY CAN GET HELP. THIS WILL ALSO BE THE PERSON WHO WILL COLLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE UNINCORPORATED CITIES ON ISSUES THAT AFFECT THEM. WHILE IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THEM SITTING ON THE COUNCIL, WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEM AND GIVE THEM BENEFITS AND THEY WOULD BE SITTING THERE DOING NOTHING WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS THAT DON'T AFFECT THEM. WATER AND UTILITIES AFFECT THEM. ROADS TO SOME DEGREE AFFECT THEM. IF DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED AND IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THEIR CITY LINE, IT AFFECTS THEM. SO THEY SHOULD HAVE A VOICE. AND THE CITIZEN ADVOCATE WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO WOULD COLLECT THAT INFORMATION. ALL OF THE GREEN ON THESE ARE, ARE POSITIONS THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. WE'RE TOO LARGE TO HAVE THESE OFFICES IF WE CAN. IF I CAN HOLD JUST A MINUTE. OKAY, IF I MAY. I WANTED TO DEAL WITH THE CONCEPT OF SEVEN. THAT WOULD BE FIVE ELECTIONS OR FIVE. FOUR. EXCUSE ME. FOUR DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIVE, ONE FOR EACH QUADRANT, AS PROPOSED BY. IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE THERE? OKAY. I WASN'T FOLLOWING THAT. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A TYPO. I'M SORRY. CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR WOULD BE S.W.. I HIT THE A BY ACCIDENT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER, WE WOULD HAVE A VOLUNTEER ALTERNATE WHO WOULD BE NAMED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION WHO IS ALIGNED WITH THE THE PROMISES THAT EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD MAKE. THE REASON FOR THE DISTRICTS IS WE ARE TOO LARGE IN THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL. MOST OF US, MOST OF THE COUNCIL WAS FROM THE SOUTHWEST. THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ONCE FILIBERTO LEFT FROM NORTHEAST, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE OLDEST DISTRICT, AND FROM LIVING THERE FOR ALMOST 35 YEARS, I FELT WAS VERY NEGLECTED. IT WAS VERY HARD TO FIND SOMEONE WE COULD ADDRESS THINGS WITH. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCILMEN TO FOCUS ON THEIR AREAS AND AND MAYBE BE MORE PRODUCTIVE. THE ALTERNATES WOULD BE IF A COUNCIL PERSON WAS OUT SICK OR COULDN'T BE AT A MEETING. SO WE NEVER HAVE AN EMPTY SEAT IN EVERY DISTRICT IS ALWAYS REPRESENTED. THEY WOULD ONLY BE PAID, PERHAPS A PER DIEM. THEY WOULD NOT GET BENEFITS. BASICALLY THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS. OKAY. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OUR POPULATION IS SO LARGE, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE 4 OR 5 PEOPLE DECIDING WHO RUNS OUR CITY. THERE'S THE CITY MANAGER POSITION IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DROVE ME TO THIS WAS OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER ONCE TOLD ME WHEN I SAID, HOW COME YOU DON'T CORRECT THE COUNCIL WHEN THEY'RE VIOLATING THE CHARTER? AND SHE LOOKED AT ME AND SHE SAID, WELL, YOU DO KNOW THEY CAN FIRE ME. THAT MAKES THAT POSITION VERY POLITICAL. AND IT'S NOT REALLY FAIR TO A REALLY GOOD CITY MANAGER, WHICH I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WHO WORKS REALLY HARD. [00:25:01] BUT WHEN THERE'S ANOTHER ELECTION AND SAY THE WHOLE COUNCIL CHANGES COULD BE HIS JOB COULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT. THAT'S A DISTRACTION. AND IT DOESN'T ALLOW THAT POSITION TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. THEY DO IT IN. IN THE COUNTY LEVEL, WE ELECT THE CITY CLERK, FOR INSTANCE, BECAUSE SHE BASICALLY RUNS THE COUNTY MORE THAN THE COUNTY MANAGER, ALTHOUGH THEY SHOULD ELECT THAT PERSON TO THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. THESE ARE ALL POSITIONS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE POPULATION, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A SAY IN HOW THEY FUNCTION. I ALSO SET THIS UP SO THAT CITY MANAGER DEFINITELY HAS AUTHORITY OVER THESE AND CAN DIRECT THEM AND ASK FOR WHATEVER INFORMATION THEY NEED WHEN THEY NEED IT, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT. AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. SO I THINK IT'S JUST VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE WE HAVE THIS. GOING BACK TO THE ALTERNATES THOUGH. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ADVANTAGE THERE BECAUSE WHEN THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TERM OUT, WE MIGHT HAVE PEOPLE WITH A LITTLE MORE EXPERIENCE WHEN THEY GET INTO THAT POSITION. BECAUSE UNDER SUNSHINE, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO A COUNCIL MEMBER WITHOUT BEING IN FRONT OF ANYBODY. THAT'S THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO COMMUNICATION. SO THEY'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, AND IF THEY HAVE TO FILL IN FOR THEM, THEY CAN DO IT RESPONSIBLY. UNDER CITY MANAGER, I ALSO JUST BROKE DOWN DEPARTMENTS. I COULD BE OFF ON THIS, BUT I THINK MERGING SOME OF THE DEPARTMENTS WITH A DIRECTOR FOR THESE, SOME OF THEM, I THINK CAN BE COMBINED. AND THEN THE SUBCATEGORIES USING A MANAGER. I SEE THIS AS SAVING US A LOT OF MONEY. WE WON'T HAVE TO HAVE SPECIAL ELECTIONS OR GO THROUGH A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, MEETINGS AND SESSIONS THAT THEY TAKE UP THE TIME OF STAFF EXHAUSTING THEM AND THEY CAN'T GET THE WORK DONE THAT THEY REALLY NEED TO IF THEY'RE HERE LATE. I'M SURE THAT DOESN'T MAKE FOR GREAT EFFICIENCY, BUT THIS IS HOW I LAID IT OUT, BECAUSE IN MY EXPERIENCE, THIS WILL HELP. WE ALWAYS HAVE A PLAN B FOR ANY POSITION. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCED AND ABLE TO FILL IN, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THE LAST TIME WHEN THE CITY MANAGER WAS DISMISSED. THERE WAS NO AUTOMATIC PLAN FOR WHO WOULD TAKE THE PLACE, AND EVERYBODY WAS UNCOMFORTABLE. NOBODY WANTED TO JUMP INTO THAT POSITION WITHOUT BEING COMPELLED. THEY ASKED WHAT, 4 OR 5 PEOPLE. SO THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THAT. YOU KNOW, I'M HOPING THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER IT. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF DISTRICTS, BUT I DO. I THINK THEY'LL BE MORE EFFECTIVE, AND I THINK EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WILL HAVE A SENSE OF OBLIGATION TO THE AREA THAT HE LIVES IN. HE OR SHE LIVES IN. AND WE DO NEED A CITIZEN ADVOCATE, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE TIME AT COUNCIL MEETINGS IS, I THINK, WASTED. YOU KNOW, HOW MANY TIMES DO THEY COME IN AND WANT AN EASEMENT ON EASEMENTS, PUT IN A STORAGE BIN OR A OR A SWIMMING POOL? THEY ALWAYS GET APPROVED. THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER PROCESS FOR THAT. SO RUNNING THINGS THROUGH A CITIZEN ADVOCATE WILL BE WILL ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO BE MORE PRODUCTIVE AND NOT GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF ARGUMENTS, AND IT WILL MAKE CITIZENS FEEL LISTENED TO. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR DOUBTS. I KNOW I'M NOT PERFECT. SO THIS THIS IS JUST WHAT I'VE COME UP WITH. THANK YOU. WELL, I'M TRYING TO SAVE SOME TIME AND AND NOT MAYBE GO THROUGH EACH PERSON'S SUGGESTION. AND SO I THINK IF WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE THE CONCEPT OR VOTE ON THE CONCEPT, WHETHER WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CURRENT WAY OF GOVERNING TO A DIFFERENT WAY OF GOVERNING. [00:30:03] I THINK IF WE DID THAT FIRST, IT WOULD ELIMINATE SOME THINGS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO LATER OR MAYBE WON'T HAVE TO DO LATER. AND SO MR. GUM. THANK YOU, SIR. JUST TO SPEAK ON THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORY WE NEED TO FIX SOME THINGS. SO TO TRY TO RUSH THROUGH IT, I THINK DOES A GREAT DISSERVICE. I'VE PUT SEVERAL THINGS FORWARD. BASED ON 32 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE HERE IN THE CITY. SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT AS FAR AS ARE WE WILL BE LOOKING AT TONIGHT AS FAR AS FILLING VACANCIES, GOD BLESSED US WHEN HE LET PHIL WEINBERG SAID ON THAT CITY COUNCIL. I MEAN, THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. PHIL DONE AN ADMIRABLE JOB. ADMIRABLE JOB. BUT THAT PROCESS IS BROKE AND WE NEED TO FIX IT. AND WE'RE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR IT. SO I'D ASK YOU NOT TO NOT TO TRY TO RUSH THROUGH THIS, PLEASE. NOT ATTEMPTING TO RUSH THROUGH IT TRYING TO MAXIMIZE TIME IF POSSIBLE. SO DO I HAVE A CONSENSUS HERE THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS LISTEN TO EACH PERSON AS THEY PRESENTED IT, AND THEN VOTE ON THAT SPECIFIC CHANGE AT THIS POINT. I THINK WE PUT THE POSSIBILITIES OUT THERE. THEN WE HAVE A GROUP DISCUSSION TO SEE IF WE MESH THE THREE. IF THERE'S I MEAN, EVERYBODY HAS VALUE. THERE'S VALUE IN EVERYBODY'S PROPOSITION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SHARE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR FOR FOR EILEEN. THANK YOU. THE ONLY QUESTION I'M SORRY, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE CITIZEN ADVOCATE. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYBODY BELOW THE MAYOR LIKE THAT, ALL OF THEM WOULD BE COUNCILMAN COUNCIL PEOPLE. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE EQUAL STANDING. YES. YOU MAY TURN YOUR. YEAH. YES, BUT THE CITIZEN ADVOCATE WOULD ONLY SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE UNINCORPORATED CITIES IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT THAT. YEAH, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT PERTAINS TO THEM. SO, SO JUST LIKE A NORTHWEST OR NORTHEAST, THEY WOULD BE UNINCORPORATED. SO THEY, YOU WOULD DESIGNATE THEIR AREA OF REPRESENTATION TO BE UNINCORPORATED BREVARD COUNTY, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S UNINCORPORATED PALM BAY. RIGHT. NO, NO THERE'S NOT. SO THERE'S UNINCORPORATED CITIES THAT USE OUR UTILITIES LIKE GRANTVILLE. I'M SORRY. YEAH. MALABAR. AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE PERIMETER THEY'RE USING SOME OF OUR WATER AND SEWER SUPPLIES. RIGHT. IF I CAN, MAY I YOU MAY. THANK YOU. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO UNINCORPORATED PART OF THE CITY. IF IT'S UNINCORPORATED, IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE CITY. AND AND OUR CITY, OUR CITY COUNCIL HAS NO SAY OVER, OVER MALABAR OR UNINCORPORATED BREVARD COUNTY. SECONDLY I THINK WE CAN HAVE MR. MESSINGER ADDRESS THE THE FACT THAT THE THE IDEA OF HAVING UNELECTED ALTERNATES ASSUMING DUTIES IF A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ISN'T PRESENT. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. I'M SURE HE'LL HE'LL AGREE WITH THAT. I CAN COMMENT ON THAT. SO AND AS FAR AS AS FAR AS ELECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY POLICE CHIEF THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR MISTAKE. I THINK, IN MY MIND I THINK I THINK THE CITY MANAGER HIS RESPONSIBILITY IS ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME. AND AS FAR AS THE MANAGER, THE MAYOR SIMPLY BEING A NON-VOTING MEMBER, IT JUST I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST TEARING DOWN THE WHOLE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE, OF CITY GOVERNMENT AND, AND REDESIGNING IT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY AT ALL. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? ALTERNATES ARE LEGAL. I'VE CHECKED IT. THEY'RE LEGAL UNDER THE STATE. THEY'RE LEGAL UNDER SUNSHINE. AND THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THEY'RE USED JUST TO AVOID WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. BECAUSE I IN RECENT HISTORY, I CAN'T THINK OF ONE TIME THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN EMPTY SEAT THAT WE HAD TO FILL OR WE HAD TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION OR, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THERE WAS THE WHOLE THING HAVING A QUORUM AND DOING THIS. WE WILL NEVER HAVE THAT ISSUE. IF WE DO THIS, WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE REPRESENTATION FOR EVERY DISTRICT. AND IN THE RARE INSTANCE WHERE THE UNINCORPORATED CITIES THAT USE OUR OUR UTILITIES OR WHATEVER [00:35:01] WHO ARE AFFECTED. THEY WILL HAVE A VOICE AND THAT VOICE CAN BE COUNTED. BUT AS FAR AS THE ALTERNATE, I CHECKED THIS OUT A NUMBER OF PLACES AND IT UNDER SUNSHINE. IT IS ALLOWED. SO IT IS LEGAL AND IT IS DONE IN OTHER PLACES. CITY MANAGERS CAN BE ELECTED AND SO CAN OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS AS LONG AS WELL. THEY SHOULD BE ELECTED BECAUSE THEY AFFECT SO MANY PEOPLE. WHEN I MOVED HERE ALMOST 35 YEARS AGO, I THINK THE POPULATION WAS 14,000 PEOPLE. WE'RE HUGE AMOUNT OVER THAT. AND WHEN YOU HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO ADDRESS, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO TO GO TO TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR PARTICULAR ISSUE. I THINK THAT THE LIMITED TIME THAT THE COUNCILMAN HAVE BY HAVING DISTRICTS WILL HELP THEM ADDRESS THEIR CONSTITUENCY. IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T WEIGH IN ON EVERYTHING. THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE A VOTE ON EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS, BUT AT LEAST IT IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO HAVE THEIR EAR TO THE GROUND AND WITH AN ALTERNATE HOW THEY HOW THEY USE THAT. BUT IT HAS TO BE THEY'RE NOT UNELECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE REVEALED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, JUST LIKE A PRESIDENT HAS A VICE PRESIDENT. JUST JUST SAYING ON THAT, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE SITTING THERE SAYING THE CAMPAIGN WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EACH ONE OF THEM, BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE VOTING ON TWO PEOPLE IN THAT ONE ELECTION. BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY LIKE ONE AND NOT THE OTHER, AND THEN THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE ELECTED, THEY BOTH HAVE ALL OF THESE ALTERNATES WOULD HAVE TO BE ELECTED. OKAY. I'M JUST SAYING, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE ANYBODY SITTING UP THERE AS A VOTING MEMBER AND NOT ELECTED AND NOT REPRESENTING A PLACE. OKAY. THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE ALTERNATE THING. I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A GOOD FEELING ABOUT THAT. AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BODY ITSELF, IT NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED. OKAY. SO WHETHER WE GO TO 5 OR 7, IT HAS TO CHANGE BECAUSE THIS WAY IS NOT WORKING. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT A SPECIFIC PART OF OUR POPULATION RIGHT NOW. SO WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT COULD BE IN ONE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'RE ALL RUNNING. THEY'RE ALL FROM THE SAME PLACE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I HAVE ONLY SEEN TWO TOWN HALLS FROM ANY OF THESE PEOPLE, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING US, AND I'M NOT SEEING IT. SO UNLESS I CALL A TOWN HALL AND INVITE THEM THERE, THEY DON'T DO IT ON THEIR OWN. WHICH IS WHY I THINK THAT WE COULD HAVE A DEFINITION FOR WHAT LEGISLATIVE MEANS, BECAUSE ONE OF OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SEEMS TO THINK THAT HE WAS ELECTED BY THE ELECTORATE, AND THEY TRUST HIS JUDGMENT. WELL, I DON'T. SO I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE SITTING IN THOSE SEATS THAT YOU REPRESENT A CERTAIN SECTION OF THIS CITY, NO SPECIAL INTEREST, NOBODY ELSE. AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF THAT, YOU GET TO BE REMOVED. SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF DEFINITIONS AND LAWS THAT I WANT TO PUT IN THIS CITY CHARTER. SO THERE'S MY SOAPBOX TODAY ON THAT. AND WE CAN BYPASS MINE BASICALLY TO SAY I WANT DISTRICTS LIKE YOU HAVE HERE, BUT I WANT SEVEN BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND IF AND IF THEY'VE READ THE CONSTITUTION, THEY'VE NEVER THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPLY IT. WELL, THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES FOR THAT. BUT THE ALTERNATE, BY BEING REVEALED, WOULD HAVE TO COMMIT, SIR. YES, SIR. SORRY. JUST OUT OF ORDER. YEAH. IF WE CAN BE RECOGNIZED BEFORE WE SPEAK, IT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED. AND THAT WAY WE DON'T. GOING BACK AND FORTH. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER POINT OF ORDER? NO. CAN I HAVE A QUESTION? WHENEVER IT'S MY TURN. GO. YOU CAN FINISH. THE IDEA IS THAT THE ALTERNATE WOULD COMMIT TO THE SAME PROMISES THAT THAT PERSON MADE. AND IT ALSO SPEAKS TO THEIR JUDGMENT ON WHO THEY WHO THEY CHOOSE. SO IT TELLS YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE COUNCILMAN WHEN YOU'RE VOTING, WHO WOULD THEY WHO WOULD THEY ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH? BECAUSE THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. AND AGAIN, THEY MAY NEVER SIT ON THE DAIS, BUT HISTORICALLY WE [00:40:05] HAVE HAD EVERY SESSION ALMOST THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING. IT WOULD ALSO MAKE FOR WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE NEED FOR REMOTE LISTENING TO SOMEBODY WHO WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY'RE REALLY PARTICIPATING. MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO TO HAVE A COUNCIL PERSON REPRESENTING EACH ONE WHEN THEY STAND ON THAT DAIS, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. YOU CAN HAVE AN EXCHANGE WITH THEM WHEN THEY'RE REMOTE. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. AND AGAIN, MY HOPE IS, IS TO REDUCE COSTS. WHERE? PALM BAY. WE'RE THE LARGEST CITY. WE ARE BY AREA AND BY POPULATION. AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THINGS IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTY, BECAUSE WITH THIS THERE SHOULD BE NO CORRUPTION. THERE SHOULD BE NO ONE PERSON OWING FAVORS TO ANOTHER TO KEEP THEIR JOB. THIS PUTS IT IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHERE IT BELONGS. AND THAT ALTERNATE. YOU KNOW, IF FOR SOME REASON THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHERS, BUT THEY SHOULD BE THERE. AND IT'S A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAYBE WANT TO BE ON THE COUNCIL AFTER THESE PEOPLE TURN OUT, YOU KNOW, AND IT GIVES US EXPERIENCE OF SEEING WHERE THEIR HEAD IS. YOU KNOW, I COST TO ME IS EVERYTHING. OUR COSTS ARE RIDICULOUS. WE'RE PAYING FOR THINGS THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. THIS WAY WE HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO REPRESENTS US. AND THAT IS WHY I FEEL SO STRONG. IF I CAN NOW LIMIT THIS JUST TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SPOKEN AT THIS TIME, I WANTED TO COMMENT FOR A MINUTE. DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? DO YOU WANT ME TO? WE'LL DO THAT VERY SHORTLY. MR. CHAIR, MAY I? YES YOU MAY. I'D LIKE TO GET MR. MESSENGER TO TO TO ADDRESS THIS THE IDEA OF HAVING UNELECTED ALTERNATES YOU KNOW RUNNING BASICALLY SERVING ON CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THIS CHART CERTAINLY WASN'T PRESENTED TO ME PRIOR TO THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WAS RECEIVED. BUT I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. AS FOR USING UNELECTED ALTERNATES I DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING, AND I WOULD NEED TO CHECK SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I'M NOT PREPARED, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE THIS AS A AS AN IDEA IN FRONT OF ME WHEN I WAS WORKING ON THESE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK. SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO. BUT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO ARE UNELECTED SERVING AS VICE COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD ENFORCE THEM TO HAVE THE SAME YOU KNOW, VOTING POLICIES AS THE PERSON THAT THEY'RE REPLACING. AND THIS SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD JUST ADD A WHOLE LOT OF LAYERS OF COMPLEXITY AND WOULD, WOULD CREATE SOMETHING THAT I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE WOULD WE WOULD WANT AND MAY NOT BE LEGAL IF OTHER CITIES DO THIS. AND I KNOW THIS COMES UP ELSEWHERE IN HERE THAT I'LL BRING THIS UP JUST BECAUSE ANOTHER CITY DOES IT DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY MAKE IT LEGAL. THERE WAS A WELL, THERE WAS A CASE WHERE A LOT OF CITIES IN FLORIDA PUT THEMSELVES IN FRONT OF MORTGAGES TO GET, YOU KNOW, THEIR FIRST DEFAULT WOULD BE FIRST IN LINE FOR BANKRUPTCY. AND A LOT OF CITIES DID THIS. AND THEN WELLS FARGO SUED AND THEY WON, AND ALL THE CITIES HAD TO REMOVE THAT. SO JUST BECAUSE OTHER CITIES DO IT IF IT HASN'T BEEN CHALLENGED IN COURT. THAT DOESN'T YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY IF THAT'S LEGAL. SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT REALLY PREPARED TO GET INTO IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THIS PRIOR TO AN HOUR AGO. SO BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MY TAKE ON IT FOR THE TIME BEING. LET'S CONTINUE ON OVER HERE FOR A MINUTE. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU THAT IT WASN'T A QUESTION FROM HIS BODY. HE WAS JUST STATING HIS POSITION. PASTOR MARK. SURE. I HEARD TWO THINGS. MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE ALTERNATE. I HEARD TWO KIND OF THINGS. ONE WAS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A PERSON THAT YOU'RE BRINGING ON AS SUCCESSION PLANNING OR LIKE AN INTERN, LIKE PHIL'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE, AND HE SAYS, HEY, I LIKE MARK, SO I'M GOING TO BRING HIM UNDER MY WING AND RAISE HIM UP AS AN ALTERNATE [00:45:03] OR OR IS IT LIKE A RUNNING MATE ON THE BALLOT? RIGHT. SO WHERE PHIL'S RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCILMAN AND I'M HIS ALTERNATE. AND SO WE RUN AS A TEAM WITH ME AS AN ALTERNATE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT BECAUSE I HEARD BOTH THINGS MENTIONED, AND SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CLARIFICATION OF HOW THE ALTERNATE WORKED OR WAS APPOINTED OR ELECTED. THAT IS A QUESTION IF YOU'D LIKE TO ANSWER THAT. OKAY. LIKE WHEN THE PRESIDENT RUNS. DO WE VOTE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT? YES, WE DO, BECAUSE. BUT WE DON'T DIRECTLY VOTE FOR HIM. WE KNOW WHO HE IS. BUT IF YOU DON'T ELECT THE PRESIDENT, YOU DON'T ELECT THE VICE PRESIDENT. THAT'S THE WAY THAT RUNS. BUT ALTERNATE THERE'S A SPECIFIC THING IN IN THE SUNSHINE LAW THAT SAYS, YOU CAN DO THIS, AND YOU AND THAT PERSON CAN COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER OUTSIDE THE SUNSHINE. THEY CAN THEY CAN DISCUSS WHATEVER THEY'RE DOING. THEY'RE ON THE SAME TEAM. SO IT'S NOT TRUE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL. IT IS LEGAL. IT THERE'S NO CHALLENGE TO IT. SUNSHINE MENTIONS IT AND SAYS, YES, YOU CAN DO THIS. SO AS IT STANDS, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU WANT THE FIVE PLUS THE MAYOR? EXCUSE ME. FIVE ELECTED WITH A REPRESENTATIVE, THEN A CITIZEN ADVOCATE. AND YOU WANT THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY POLICE TO BE ELECTED OFFICIALS? AM I CORRECT? YES. ON THAT BASIS. I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN COMBINE EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK THIS ONE IS SO DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING. I KNOW THAT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMEONE WHO PROPOSED IT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A SECOND. AND QUITE FRANKLY, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T HEAR A SECOND COMING FORTH HERE. SO IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE WHO REALLY WANTS TO DELVE INTO THIS DEEPER, WOULD YOU LET ME KNOW? VERSUS WHAT? WHAT SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO OFFER? I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN ADJUST IF THERE'S AS YOU PRESENT YOUR YOUR CASES, WE CAN ADJUST THEN. BUT AS THIS STANDS. DO I DO I HEAR SOMEONE WHO'S SAYING, I'D LIKE TO. I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AND SLICE AND DICE THIS THIS SUGGESTION. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, YOU MAY. FIRST OF ALL, THEY'D HAVE TO PUT THIS IN THE FORM OF A MOTION BEFORE ANYBODY WOULD SECOND IT. AND, AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK THE BOARD IF AND WAS IF ANYONE WAS INTERESTED IN PUTTING THIS PROPOSAL FORWARD AS A MOTION AND VOTING ON IT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING. THAT'S THAT'S MY QUESTION. IF IF I CAN JUMP IN ALSO. YES, SIR. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM ALL OF THEM. LET'S JUST GET THEM ALL OUT ON THE TABLE BEFORE WE VOTE TO APPROVE OR DENY SOMETHING. LET'S HEAR THEM ALL. MAYBE THERE'S A COUPLE BITS AND PIECES FROM HERS THAT WORKS REALLY GOOD. THAT GOES WITH THOMAS'S AND RUTH'S AND THAT AND WHAT I'M WHAT I'M SAYING, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT MAY BE THE CASE. OKAY. BUT BUT AS IT STANDS, APPROVE THAT TO APPROVE THIS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S OTHER IDEAS AND WE WANT TO SLICE AND DICE THIS IDEA. FINE. BUT AS IT STANDS, HAVING THESE ADDITIONAL ELECTIONS AS WELL AS THE ALTERNATE WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROPOSE TO ACCEPT THIS AND SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND? I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE PUT SOME THOUGHT AND AND WORK INTO HOW WE WE REORGANIZE THIS CITY. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM THEM FIRST. CORRECT. SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT THIS AS A PROPOSAL? YOU'RE JUST PUTTING THIS AS YOUR INPUT AT THIS TIME, AND YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS TIME WITH OTHER. OTHER. YEAH. BECAUSE IT CAN BE AMENDED. I MEAN, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE RATIONALE FROM EACH PERSON HERE, OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT WHAT WILL WORK BEST. THANK YOU. THOMAS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT YOURS. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY PROPOSAL EXPENSE CITY COUNCIL FOR FIVE MEMBERS TO SEVEN, IN ORDER TO PROPERLY MATCH THE SCALE AND POPULATION OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY. AS WE COME WITH MORE THAN 140,000 RESIDENTS, THE EXISTING 500 INFRASTRUCTURE CREATED FROM PALM BAY IS A MUCH SMALLER COMMUNITY, NO LONGER PROVIDES SUFFICIENT REPRESENTATION ON CAPACITY. THIS AMENDMENT ENSURES THAT EACH QUADRANT OF THE CITY IS REPRESENTED, HAS A REPRESENTATIVE WHO LIVES THERE WHILE STILL KEEPING THE ELECTIONS AT LARGE. SO EVERY VOTER ELECTS EVERY SEAT ONE VOTER, ONE VOTER, ONE PERSON. [00:50:02] IT ALSO ADDS TWO AT-LARGE DEPUTY MAYOR SEATS TO CREATE A CLEAR, STABLE LINE OF SUCCESSION AND REDUCE INTERNAL POLITICS. THE TRANSITION IS PHASED IN OVER TWO REGULAR ELECTION CYCLES SO THAT IT'S SMOOTH, PREDICTABLE, AND NONDESTRUCTIVE. SO ONE THING I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IN HERE UNDER MY PROPOSAL, SECTION 3.02, TO THE MORGUE AT THE CLERK'S. OFFICE. WHAT IS THAT? TWO YEAR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IN A SPECIFIC DISTRICT OF RESIDENCY FOR THE DISTRICT CANDIDATE SHALL BE DETERMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE CANDIDATE'S CONTINUOUS VOTER REGISTRATION RECORD. PRESENTLY, WE HAVE A TWO YEAR RESIDENCY, BUT THERE'S NO THERE'S NOTHING TO BALANCE IT AGAINST. IT'S BASICALLY. IT'S JUST A SWORN STATEMENT. CORRECT. CORRECT. DURING QUALIFYING, THEY HAVE TO DO A RESIDENCY AFFIDAVIT. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? THEY HAVE TO DO A RESIDENCY AFFIDAVIT AND STATING THAT THEY MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, BUT THERE'S NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEM PROMISING. NO, THAT IS OF COURSE, MY ROLE IS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE. SO IF THERE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHALLENGE IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHALLENGE THEIR ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM QUALIFYING. THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT AFTER THEY'RE ELECTED. OF COURSE, IT WOULDN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE NOT ELECTED YET TO CHALLENGE THEM. YOU WOULDN'T CHALLENGE IT UNTIL AFTERWARDS. DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS AS WRITTEN? YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE AMENDMENT TO 302 QUALIFICATIONS? YES. BUT IT MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT QUADRANT AT THE TIME OF QUALIFYING. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE. THE NEXT LINE TALKS ABOUT THE TWO YEAR RESIDENCY AND VERIFIES. I JUST GOT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM SOMEBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR YOU BECAUSE YOUR MIC ISN'T ON, SIR. OH. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. AT LEAST YOU KNOW SOMEONE'S WATCHING. YEAH. SO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING VERIFIED BY THE CANDIDATE'S CONTINUOUS VOTER REGISTRATION RECORD, WHO IS VERIFYING THAT VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS? PUBLIC RECORD? I MEAN, ANYBODY CAN GO LOOK IT UP. IT'S JUST A WAY TO VERIFY THAT THE PERSON RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE ACTUALLY RESIDES WITHIN THE CITY. FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE, BUT, I MEAN, EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO. I'D HAVE TO CONFIRM EVERYTHING WITH LEGAL. QUESTION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE ISSUE WITH IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION, AND I ALREADY HAVE SOME UPDATES FOR THIS SECTION AS WELL, IS THAT I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IF THE CITY OF PALM BAY CREATES QUALIFICATIONS FOR A CANDIDATE, THAT THEY DON'T VET, THAT IT'S NOT VETTED AT ALL. YOU'RE SAYING THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IS JUST SIGNED AND WE'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT? WELL, WE NEED TO VET EVERY RULE THAT WE HAVE FOR CANDIDATES SUCH AS WHAT MR. GRAHAM IS SUGGESTING. IF WE SAY THAT THEY MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS, AND I WANT TO GO EVEN FARTHER THAT THEY MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN BE A CANDIDATE. THEN THAT MUST BE VETTED BY OUR CITY STAFF. THAT'S MY QUESTION ON THAT. I MEAN, HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT? WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT PER FLORIDA STATUTE AGAIN, THE CLERK'S ROLE IS MINISTERIAL NATURE. WE THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE AFFIDAVITS. WE DON'T DO THE VETTING. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT'S UP TO THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT THEY DO NOT QUALIFY OR SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT QUALIFY. IF I CAN INTERJECT HERE FOR A MINUTE, WE'RE TRYING TO DO TWO THINGS AT ONE TIME. WE'RE TRYING TO TO LOOK AT 302 AT THE SAME TIME, LOOK AT 301, AND YET EACH ONE IS GOING TO BE PLACED DIFFERENTLY, AND EACH ONE HAS TO BE APPROVED. SO RATHER THAN JUMPING INTO ALL THE HOOPS OF, QUALIFICATIONS, ETC. IF WE COULD STICK TO 3.01 AS FAR AS THE HOW MANY MEMBERS WILL HAVE ON THE DAIS, I THINK THAT WOULD OPTIMIZE AND MOVE THINGS FORWARD RATHER THAN TRYING TO COMPLICATE IT WITH ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT GOOD ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. MY APOLOGIES. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD UNDER 3.01 IS THAT YOU CAN'T GO INTO DISTRICTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE. YOU CAN'T JUST USE THE FOUR QUADRANTS AS YOUR DISTRICTS BECAUSE DISTRICTS HAVE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE, EQUAL, REPRESENTATIVE, DEMOGRAPHIC AND POPULATION. SO YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BUT YOU CAN HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH QUADRANT THAT ARE ALL I LIVE IN THE NORTHWEST. [00:55:04] I WOULD STILL VOTE FOR SOMEBODY IN THE SOUTHEAST TO FILL THAT SEAT. SO I THINK THAT HISTORY SHOWS THAT FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE ACTUALLY AT ONE TIME WE WERE DOWN TO THREE. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SURE. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE I TAKE OVER? MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. FIRST OF ALL YOU KNOW, TOM'S PROPOSAL IS NOT SECTION 301. IT'S ACTUALLY IN SECTION 302, THE NUMBER AND MAKEUP OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. BUT YOU KNOW, LOOK, I AGREE THAT SEVEN ON PAPER, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA. THE CITY HAS GROWN SO MUCH, BUT LOOK HOW LONG OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS LAST, WHICH THEY CHANGED. THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CHANGED IT TO THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS END AT 11, BUT THEY CAN BE EXTENDED, AND THEY FREQUENTLY ARE. WE USED TO HAVE MEETINGS THAT USED TO LAST UNTIL ONE, 02:00 IN THE MORNING. CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW MUCH LONGER THEY WOULD LAST WITH SEVEN MEMBERS? LIKE I SAID, ON PAPER, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, BUT BUT I DON'T THINK IN REALITY, IT WOULD REALLY YOU KNOW, IT WOULD JUST EXTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS PEOPLE WHO ATTEND, THE FEW PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS OR THOSE WHO WATCH AT HOME THEY GENERALLY HAVE TO GO TO WORK IN THE MORNING AND TO PAY ATTENTION TO A COUNCIL MEETING THAT GOES FROM 1 TO 1, TWO IN THE MORNING OR LATER. IT WOULD JUST NOT BE PRACTICAL. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO COMMENT ON IS, IS YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE TO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS REPRESENTING EACH QUADRANT OF THE CITY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. BUT IF WE WERE GOING TO LIMIT THE THE, THE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A CANDIDATE HAVING TO LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT, THAT CREATES A PROBLEM. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE POPULATION BY DISTRICT THAT THAT TERESE PROVIDED US YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM 20,000 TO 51,000 IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE REALLY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF, OF CANDIDATES WHO, WHO MIGHT QUALIFY FROM EACH DISTRICT. NO. NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A CANDIDATE FOR CITY COUNCIL WHO'S GOING TO QUALIFIED FROM A DISTRICT OF ONLY 20,000 PEOPLE. THAT'S REALLY LIMITING. LOOK AT THE COUNTY COMMISSION WORKS THAT WAY BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COUNTY OF ALMOST 700,000 PEOPLE, 670,000. IF YOU WANT TO BE NITPICKY. SO THEY CAN DO IT BY, BY BY BY DISTRICT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE TO SELECT FROM RUNNING FROM THAT DISTRICT AND TO BE VOTED ON. BUT YOU KNOW, DISTRICTS THIS SMALL WITH A CITY THAT. YEAH, THE OVERALL POPULATION OF THE CITY IS 157,000 PEOPLE. BUT YOU HAVE REALLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IT YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL REMAIN AT FIVE, STILL BE ELECTED DID CITYWIDE, BUT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH DIFFERENT QUADRANTS OF THE CITY. SOME ARE DESIGNATED COUNCIL, LIKE C2, WHICH WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NORTHEAST, U3 NORTHWEST, C4 SOUTHEAST, C5 SOUTHWEST, OR ANY ORDER IF YOU WANT TO CHOOSE. BUT BUT THAT WAY AS YOU MAY KNOW, WHEN CITY COUNCIL GETS AN EMAIL OR A COMPLAINT FROM A CITIZEN. OKAY THEY GET IT FROM THE ENTIRE CITY, FROM EVERYONE. AND IT'S KIND OF HARD TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND YOU MAY NOT REALIZE THIS, BUT AGAIN, CITY COUNCILMAN CANNOT COUNT CONTACT A A DEPARTMENT MANAGER CANNOT CONTACT AN EMPLOYEE. THEY HAVE TO BASICALLY REFER IT TO THE CITY MANAGER, WHO THEN CAN, CAN, CAN ADDRESS IT THROUGH THE PROPER PERSON. BUT IF YOU HAVE IT BY DISTRICT, WHERE EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR JUST A DISTRICT. THE PEOPLE IN THAT DISTRICT WOULD KNOW WHO TO SEND THEIR EMAILS TO. WOULD KNOW WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR HAVING A RESPONSIVE ACT, YOU KNOW, ACTIONS ON THEIR ON THEIR COMPLAINTS OR THEIR PROBLEMS. I THINK THAT WOULD WORK WELL WITH THE CITY. OF COURSE, LIKE I SAID, THE MAYOR, OF COURSE NOT BEING DISTRICT. QUESTION. YES. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. RUTH. SO IS THAT YOUR PROPOSAL OR YOU'RE JUST COMMENTING ON TOM'S? WELL, I'M COMMENTING ON ON I'M COMMENTING ON TOM'S. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO MAKE IT AS A MOTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. WELL, I'M. WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE I. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING AGAINST WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BUT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE COMMENTING ON WHAT HE'S WANTING TO DO. [01:00:01] WELL, FROM WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY, YOU WERE PROPOSING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. WELL, I'M COMMENTING ON ON TOMS. TOMS WAS TALKING ABOUT SEVEN RATHER THAN FIVE, SO I COMMENTED ON THAT AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT DISTRICTS AND I COMMENTED ON THAT. SO YEAH, I'M COMMENTING ON HIS PROPOSAL. OKAY. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT HISTORICALLY WE'VE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FIVE AS LONG AS WE HAVE FIVE, BUT HISTORICALLY WE'VE GOT DOWN TO THREE AND IT CAUSED A REAL CRISIS. SO THIS IS ONE CHANCE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN UNTIL 2031 WHEN WE OPEN THIS CHARTER UP AGAIN FOR REVIEW. SO WE'RE MAKING LONG TERM PLANS. NOT FOR TODAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I CAME FROM IS I DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST HAPPEN AGAIN. MR. TYLER, GO AHEAD. TYLER O'NEILL. I'M JUST GOING TO. YES. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO TOUCH ON THE THINGS THAT YOU WENT OVER. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT IN THERE. I'M A BELIEVER OF THROWING MORE AT A PROBLEM. DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. OBVIOUSLY, THE BIGGEST ISSUES WE'VE HAD HERE WITH THE CITY, WITH THE GROWTH, IS OUR ECONOMY. I THINK ADDING MORE MEMBERS AND LOOKING AT THE COST ANALYSIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE PROJECTIONS OF OUR POPULATION GROWTH IS AND FIGURE OUT THOSE NUMBERS BEFORE PUSHING SOMETHING. I LIKE THE IDEA, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON WHERE THIS CITY IS GOING, WHAT THE CITY'S PLANS ARE TO BRING IN AN ECONOMY THAT'S GOING TO MAKE BRINGING SEVEN MEMBERS ONTO THE BOARD BENEFICIAL. THAT CAN ROLL INTO OPEN UP MORE MEETINGS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH LONG MEETINGS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE LARGER BOARDS BECAUSE OF THEIR GROWTH, BUT OTHER CITIES ALSO HAVE A MUCH MORE BOOMING ECONOMY. I KNOW THE SLOGAN HERE IN PALM BAY IS LIVE HERE, PLAY HERE, WORK HERE. BUT THERE ISN'T A LOT OF WORK. AND I KNOW THAT'S TRYING TO GET CHANGED AS WELL WITH EVERYONE'S BEEN SAYING WITH, OH, IN THE PAST, HISTORY SHOWS WE'VE GONE DOWN TO THREE. AND I DON'T THINK JUST BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY SHOWING, WE'VE LOST CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I THINK THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON RETAINING THOSE FIVE THAT WE VOTE IN AND POTENTIALLY DOING A BETTER PROCESS ON KEEPING THAT MOVING FORWARD. I DO LIKE THE CONCEPT OF HAVING OUR COUNCILMAN DESIGNATED TO CERTAIN DISTRICTS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THE RESPONSIBILITY WITH THAT GETS FLOATED, BECAUSE YOU'RE DEALING WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S DEALING WITH 20,000 PEOPLE, AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER DEALING WITH 52, 55,000 MEMBERS. SO YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT MORE ON THAT PLATE. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DESIGNATED THROUGH A CITY MANAGER OR THE MAYOR ON WHO'S MOST QUALIFIED TO TAKE ON THE ROLE AND PROPOSAL, AND WHO WANTS TO TAKE ON THAT CHALLENGE. OPENING THE DOORS TO THAT. I LIKE THE IDEA. LIKE I SAID, I WANT TO DISSECT IT MORE BEFORE JUST PUSHING OUR TAX DOLLARS INTO MORE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY NOT WANTING TO STICK AROUND FOR THE LONG HAUL, THAT ARE NOT GOING TO STICK AROUND DUE TO OTHER EVENTS THAT TAKE ACROSS THE FOUR YEARS. I DO THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A PLAN FOR THE LONG TERM FOR 2031, FOR THE NEXT CHAPTER REVIEW THAT COMES ABROAD, AND FIGURE OUT A BETTER PLAN FOR THIS CITY. I WANT TO JUST COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE WE HAVE THE COST FACTOR, WHICH YOU YOU HAD MENTIONED AT THIS POINT IN TIME, EVERYBODY'S SCREAMING FOR MORE MONEY, BUT SOMEHOW WE'RE GOING TO PULL OUT THE SALARIES FOR TWO MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON ON THE DAIS. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH THE THREE JUST THREE PEOPLE UP HERE, I THINK IT WAS MORE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CLEAR AND THE PROBLEM WAS CREATED MORE BY LACK OF DIRECT ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. AND IF WE WRITE IT CORRECTLY, THEN THEN WE WON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM HAPPENING. NUMBER TWO, IF WE DO DO QUADRANTS, WHICH I THINK ARE ARE IT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. THE QUADRANT WOULD HAVE TO BE, OF COURSE. IT CAN'T BE NORTHWEST, AS YOU MENTIONED. MR. GAUME, IT CAN'T BE NORTHWEST, SOUTHWEST, EAST, WEST OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. AND SO YOU KNOW THANK YOU FOR, FOR TERESE WHO WHO GAVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN FOR NONCONTIGUOUS PARCELS, THE FOUR DISTRICTS TO BE CREATED AND ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL BE CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY AND AS APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN POPULATION, AS IS PRACTICAL. PRACTICAL. IN ADDITION, IT SAYS, IN CREATING AND ESTABLISHING FOR CITY COMMISSION DISTRICTS, [01:05:03] THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL USE THE MOST RECENT UNITED STATES DATA TO DETERMINE POPULATION FIGURES. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE PUBLISHED INFORMATION OF EACH OF THE DECENNIAL CENSUS CENSUS, THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL ESTABLISH REESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FOUR COMMISSION. NOW, IF WE ARE BOOMING, OBVIOUSLY IN BETWEEN, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A DISBALANCE AS FAR AS POPULATION, BECAUSE WE'RE GROWING AT DIFFERENT RATES IN DIFFERENT DIFFERENT AREAS OF OF OUR LOCATION. I'M WONDERING IF WE'RE CREATING, AT THIS POINT MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN WE ARE FINDING A SOLUTION. I THINK AT THIS POINT, FIVE IS GOOD. I, I LOOKED UP BOTH FROM WHARTON UNIVERSITY AS WELL AS FORBES, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU ONE OF THESE, IF YOU SO DESIRE. THE BEST TEAM AT THIS POINT IS STILL FIVE. FIVE IS THE BEST TEAM TO MAKING DECISIONS WHEN YOU ADD TWO MORE. WE'RE ALREADY HAVING THEY'VE ALREADY TRIED TO SHORTEN THE, THE TIME THAT WE'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO ADD TWO MORE PEOPLE. AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY GOOD AT, AT GIVING A GREAT DISSERTATION OF, OF, OF YOU NAME IT THEY, THEY CAN TALK AND, AND IN THEIR TALKING, YOU ADD TWO MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO KIND OF SAY HELLO AND, AND, AND TRY TO RECOGNIZE TO GET SOME POLITICAL POINTS WE'RE GOING TO FIND THAT EVERY DECISION NOW IS GOING TO TAKE PROBABLY TWICE AS LONG. I MAY BE EXAGGERATING, BUT IT'LL TAKE MUCH LONGER THAN THE CURRENT FIVE. SO WE ALSO HAVE TO THEN RE REDO WHAT WE HAVE UP HERE RECONSTRUCT TO BE ABLE TO FIT IN TWO MORE PEOPLE. AND, AND SO WE'RE BACK TO FINANCES. WE'RE BACK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ARGUING, WELL, YOU'RE CONSTRUCTING YOUR BUILDING, YOU'RE DOING THIS, YOU'RE DOING THAT. YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO GET TWO MORE PEOPLE. BUT WHERE ARE MY ROADS? AND SO I'M WONDERING IF, IF, IF ANYTHING, IF WE DO CHANGE ANYTHING, I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST IDEA IS TO HAVE QUADRANTS. I'M, I'M NOT SURE I, I THINK IT'S CORRECT TO HAVE PEOPLE, EVERYBODY VOTE ON A A PERSON AND THEN DELEGATE HIM TO A QUADRANT, BECAUSE THEN IT'S REALLY NOT REPRESENTATION. IT'S, IT'S WHOSOEVER GETS UP THERE AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW SCISSORS, ROCK AND PAPER TO DECIDE WHICH ONE IS GOING TO GO IN WHICH DIRECTION AND WHO'S GOING TO BE IN WHICH QUADRANT. THAT CREATES ANOTHER PROBLEM. I THINK IF IF WE DO DO QUADRANTS, IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE FROM THAT QUADRANT THAT GETS ELECTED SO THAT THEN INDEED, LIKE WE DO AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT'S REPRESENTING THE PLACE WHERE THEY LIVE AND THAT WOULD BE CORRECT REPRESENTATION. SO MY PERSONAL VIEWPOINT AT THIS POINT IS SEVEN. GREAT IDEA AND PROBABLY GREAT FOR 2031 OR WHENEVER THE NEXT TIME IS. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POSITION TO PLAY. I THINK AT THIS TIME BETWEEN COST REORGANIZATION, TRYING TO WORK IT IN AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT I MENTIONED, I THINK I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CREATE MORE OF A PROBLEM AT THIS TIME THAN WE WILL A SOLUTION. YES. MR. THOMAS, I I RESPECT THAT AND I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT. THE ONLY THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS IF YOU GO TO QUADRANTS, CURRENTLY, THERE'S ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO I BELIEVE HASN'T EVEN TURNED ON HIS CITY PHONE, AND HE ANSWERS NO EMAILS. SO IF YOU PUT HIM IN A QUADRANT, WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE PEOPLE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BUT THAT CAN HAPPEN NO MATTER WHO WHO YOU GET VOTED. I MEAN, WE ELECT PEOPLE TO GO TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AND THEN THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO. DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. AND IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER YOU, THEY DON'T ANSWER. THAT'S MORE OF A PERSONALITY AND AND A REALIZATION THAT, OOPS, WE PICKED THE WRONG PERSON FOR THIS THING. AND NO MATTER HOW YOU DO IT REGARDLESS, YOU STILL HAVE THE MAYOR IF YOU HAVE FOUR QUADRANTS AND YOU, THEN YOU HAVE THE MAYOR, YOU STILL CAN CALL THE MAYOR. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT THAT IS SOMETHING REALLY TO BE DEALT WITH. AND THAT REALLY JUST SHOWS. GUESS WHAT? WE PICKED THE WRONG PERSON. OR PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT THE WHOLE CITY AT THIS TIME. THEY'RE GETTING SO MANY PHONE CALLS AND SO MANY POSITIONS AND THEY'RE NOT RELEGATED TO A CERTAIN AREA. THEY'RE GOING, I'M, I'M JUST TIRED OF ANSWERING ALL THE PHONE CALLS BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO ANSWER FOR THE WHOLE CITY. WHEREAS IF WE HAD JUST THE QUADRANT, OKAY, NOW I KNOW WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE DOING AND WHO I'M ANSWERING TO. AND AGAIN, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER ONCE THEY'RE ELECTED, THAT CAN HAPPEN, NO MATTER WHO YOU GET. YES, RUTH, I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE GOTTEN INFORMATION THAT WASN'T PRIOR TO US SITTING DOWN [01:10:06] HERE, OKAY. FOR TODAY. SO LIKE THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS AND, YOU KNOW, EILEEN'S THING AND AND THIS, I MEAN, THIS IS INFORMATION THAT I DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE SITTING DOWN. SO THAT COULD HAVE CHANGED. THAT COULD CHANGE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY PROPOSAL. EVEN SO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE RESTRUCTURE OF THE COUNCIL UNTIL NEXT MEETING. THERE'S A MOTION BY RUTH TO TABLE THIS TILL THE NEXT MEETING. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY EILEEN. COMMENTS. YEAH, WE CAN COMMENT. I WOULD SAY MAYBE WE TABLE A VOTE, BUT I STILL WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE OTHER IDEAS FROM THE OTHER GUYS TO OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS DAIS TO, TO OR COMMITTEE TO, TO COME TOGETHER AND SO THAT WE CAN WEIGH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE CAN TAKE IT BACK, BUMP IT AGAINST THE NUMBERS, AND THEN PERHAPS WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING, HAVE A FINAL PLAN. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME IN AND PLEASE SHARE? BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST. LESS. LESS IS MORE. WHEN YOU START GETTING TO COMPLICATED THINGS START FAILING. REMEMBER, LESS IS ALWAYS MORE. AND ALSO WHEN YOU HAVE LESS REPRESENTATIVES UP THERE, IT'S EASY TO SAY WHICH ONES CAUSED THE PROBLEM. YOU CAN. IT'S EASIER TO PUT THE BLAME WHERE THE BLAME LIES. THAT'S JUST FOR A SIDE NOTE, RIGHT? I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING CHANGING OF OF YOUR DISTRICTS THAT ON DISTRICTS. EVERYBODY STILL GETS TO VOTE FOR EVERY ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE SITTING IN THE CHAIR INSTEAD OF YOU CAN ONLY VOTE FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT'S COMING FROM YOUR DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU VOTE FOR YOUR ENTIRE COUNCIL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN YOU'VE SEEN, WELL, YOU'RE IN DISTRICT SOUTHWEST. YOU ONLY GET A VOTE FOR THE SOUTHWEST REPRESENTATIVE THAT WON'T FLY. MAKE IT SO THAT INDIVIDUAL VOTES FOR THEIR ENTIRE COUNCIL. BUT IF YOU START GETTING TOO COMPLICATED, YOU MAKE THINGS TOO BIG. EVERYTHING GETS HARDER. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR, IF I MAY. YES YOU MAY. YEAH. YEAH. WELL SAID BILL. YOU KNOW, THE THING ABOUT IT IS, IS, LOOK, WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN MEETINGS. WE HAVE SEVEN MEETINGS. SO LET'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, LOOK, THE THE AGENDA CALLS FOR ARTICLE THREE AND ARTICLE FOUR TO BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. COME PREPARED KNOW WHAT'S IN THE CITY CHARTER. KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND? EXPLAIN WHAT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS AND MAKE A MOTION AND LET'S VOTE ON IT. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. YES. I WOULD ORDINARILY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, EXCEPT THAT THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE BECAUSE IT IT SPEAKS TO RESTRUCTURING HOW WE OPERATE. AND I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO GIVE US A LITTLE MORE TIME IF WE NEED IT. AS FAR AS THE, THE NORTHEAST, SOUTHWEST, WHATEVER WE CAN ALWAYS REMAP BASED ON, ON POPULATION. SO BUT I DO THINK TABLING IT IS IS A GOOD IDEA MAYBE FOR GETTING FEEDBACK AND AND CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO THIS RIGHT. AND WE DO NEED TO TO GET INFORMATION ON ON THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF INCREASING THE COUNCIL AND, AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK. WE HAVE A MOTION OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS. WE HAVE A MOTION BY RUTH, SECONDED BY LYNN. ALL IN FAVOR BY THE SIGN OF I. BY BY ALL AGAINST. BY THE SIGN OF. NAY. NAY, NAY. OKAY. THAT THAT FAILS. SO WE PROCEED FORWARD. CAN WE HAVE A COUNT? BECAUSE I ONLY HAD THREE AND THREE. OKAY. WOULD YOU DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. DELGADO? A MR. MILLER, NÉ. MR. GOMM. NÉ. MR. O'NEILL. NÉ. MISS. SEP. YES, MISS. YES. MR. WEINBERG. NÉ. OKAY. IT FILLS 5 TO 2. [01:15:03] MR. CHAIR? YES. MR. THOMAS, I'D LIKE TO LEAVE MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LEAVE SECTION 3.01 AS IS, AND MOVE ALONG TO SECTION 3.02. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. JUST ONE. IS THAT FROM THEIR ORIGINAL CHARTER OR FROM YOUR NOTES? YEAH. ORIGINAL CHARTER STAYS AS FIVE. YEP. GOTCHA. OKAY. DISCUSSION. NO. IS THAT AN ORDER? SORRY. ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION. OKAY. MOTION BY THOMAS. SECONDED BY MR.. WEINBERG. ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I, I I. ALL AGAINST NAY. PASSES, 6 TO 1. IS THAT CORRECT? RUTH, WHAT DID YOU. I'M SORRY. SO THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS. 301 IS JUST THE. I'M SORRY. THIS IS SECTION 302 302. OKAY, SO LET'S RESTATE THE MOTION. YES. PLEASE RESTATE THE MOTION. IT IS SECTION 302. TO BE CLEAR. SECTION THREE REMAIN WITH FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE. THE ONLY CHANGE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IN THE QUALIFICATION THAT A TWO YEAR A CONTINUOUS VOTER REGISTRATION SHOWN FOR IN THE CITY. 302. OKAY, WE'LL GET THERE. OKAY. SO 302. YES, FIVE MEMBERS STAYS AS IS. SO WE'RE KEEPING 302. DO I STILL HAVE A SECOND? YES. OKAY. AND DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION? YEAH. MISS. I MISUNDERSTOOD, I THOUGHT WE WERE APPROVING TO LEAVE 3.01 AS IS. YES. MOVING TO 3.02 TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. CORRECT. NOT TO APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE IT AS. AS WRITTEN 3.01 AS WRITTEN. YEAH, BUT HE HE REVISED IT. HE REVISED IT TO 3.02. WE NO ONE. REALLY. MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I STATE MY INTENT? PLEASE DO. MY INTENT IS TO JUST LEAVE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS AS LARGE EXACTLY AS WE HAVE NOW. HOWEVER, I WANT TO CHANGE THE QUALIFICATIONS SO THAT WE HAVE A WAY TO VERIFY THAT THE CANDIDATES ARE ACTUALLY RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY TAKE OFFICE, RIGHT? IF I MAY, I'M SORRY. THE QUALIFICATIONS IS UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION. SECTION? CORRECT. SO THAT WOULD NOT BE IN THIS PART. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE JUST TO LEAVE IT AS FIVE AS LARGE. SO WE ARE IN SECTION 3.02. AND THE MOTION IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY IS TO LEAVE SECTION 3.02 AS IS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? THAT'S FINE. WELL, A NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IS WAS TOM'S MOTION THAT WE HAVE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS. HE MADE THAT MOTION I SECOND IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW. CORRECT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ALL AGAINST. NAY. OKAY. PASSES 6 TO 1. AMEN. WE ARE NOW ON IT. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON SECTION 301? PASTOR MARK, I REALIZE YOU MENTIONED 301, BUT BUT YOU WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS ANY ISSUE WITH 3.01. YEAH. AFTER YOU SPEAK WITH THE ATTORNEY THAT IT'S COVERED AND COVERED ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT, I YOU KNOW, SO AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NECESSARILY TAKE TO A VOTE. IT WOULD BE MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE TASK AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED. BUT I'M GOOD. 3.01 AND 3.02 LEAVING IT AT FIVE. OKAY, NOW WE'RE IN SECTION 303. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTED TO NOTE ANYTHING AS FAR AS COMPENSATION? I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS, BUT I'LL RAISE MY HAND OR. YES, PASTOR MARK, FIRST FLOOR. SO THERE WERE A COUPLE LITTLE MINOR THINGS LIKE THE DEFINITION WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER OF THE WORD SALARY SOME PLACES. IS IT MONTHLY? WEEKLY. ANNUALLY? OTHER PLACES. THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, THE WORD SALARY IS IS ADDED WITH THE WORD ANNUAL. AND SO IT'S USED DIFFERENT WAYS. I CAN TELL YOU THE REASON I BROUGHT THAT UP IS ONE TIME I WAS WORKING FOR A COMPANY THAT OFFERED A BONUS ON YOUR SALARY. AND WHEN THAT BONUS CAME. THEY NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE WORD MONTHLY SALARY. SO THE BONUS WAS, LIKE, 8% OF WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE. SO THOSE WORDS MATTER. SO FOR ME, IT'S JUST BEING CLEAR, CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC WITH VOCABULARY WHEN IT COMES TO FINANCES. [01:20:09] BUT THAT WAS MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE TASK FOR ME. ON THE COMPENSATION. THE WAY THAT THAT I READ IT IS THAT THE COUNCIL IS PAID PER CAPITA OR PER PERSON. AND THE ISSUE THAT I SEE WITH THAT IS WE REWARD OUR REPRESENTATIVES FOR GROWTH, WHICH SOUNDS GOOD BECAUSE WE WANT THE CITY TO GROW, BUT IT'S NOT BALANCED WITH AN APPROACH OF ENSURING THAT WE HAVE THE PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE. SO OUR CITY COUNCIL GETS REWARDED FINANCIALLY FOR APPROVING ALL OF THESE THINGS TO BRING MORE PEOPLE IN. BUT YET WE SEE WHERE WE ARE TODAY WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. SO AS OPPOSED TO TYING COMPENSATION INTO A PER CAPITA RATE. TO ME IT SHOULD BE A FIXED A FIXED SALARY FOR THE POSITION WITH ANNUAL INCREASES BASED ON THE AVERAGE INCREASE FROM THE CITY OF PALM BAY. OR. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WOULD, WOULD PROPOSE. THERE ARE OTHER DETAILS IN THERE, LIKE THE MAYOR GETS PAID MORE THAN THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES SENSE BECAUSE HE HAS A LOT MORE RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES. BUT WE ALSO HAVE A DEPUTY MAYOR WHO HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITIES AND FILLS IN OFTEN FOR THE MAYOR. SO SHOULD THE DEPUTY MAYOR MAYBE GET 30% MORE INSTEAD OF 100% MORE? AND THAT'S IT'S IN MY NOTES. SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HAD TO SAY ABOUT COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT, UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE DETAILS. YES. TERESE, IF I MAY. SO THE PER CAPITA THAT WAS JUST USED TO ESTABLISH THEIR SALARIES BACK IN 2016, THEY NO LONGER USE THE PER CAPITA. NOW THEIR SALARY IS ALREADY SET. NOW ANY INCREASE IS BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. AND SO WHERE'S THAT DOCUMENTED. IS IT WRITTEN HERE. AND I JUST MISREAD THE THE THING IS THAT IT. SO IT'S WRITTEN IN HERE. THEY HAVE A FIXED PRICE. IT'S NO LONGER BASED ON PER CAPITA. NO I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THAT WENT AWAY. IT SAYS THE PER CAPITA PER CAPITA NUMBERS UTILIZE SHALL BE THE POPULATION AS OF THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS REVISION GIVEN TO CITY EMPLOYEES. THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT WORDING THAT I HAD IN THE CHARTER. I'M SORRY I SPOKE OUT OF TURN. SEE, THAT GETS BACK TO THE SALARY. SO THE SALARY IS $0.20 PER CAPITA. SO MAYBE THE SALARY IS LISTED AS $0.20 PER CAPITA. SO IF, IF, IF THE RESIDENT OR IF THE THE PALM BAY GETS 3% COST OF LIVING, THEY GET 3% ON THE $0.20 PER CAPITA. BUT IF WE ADDED 50,000 PEOPLE THEN IT'S PER CAPITA, RIGHT? IT'S PER PERSON. NO, IT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. MAY I EXCUSE ME? MAY I PASTOR MARK ON ON THE SECOND SENTENCE, THE PER CAPITA NUMBER UTILIZED SHALL BE THE POPULATION AS OF THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS REVISION. SO IT'S NOT AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT, BUT IT WILL START AT THAT AMOUNT AT THE APPROVAL OF THIS REVISION AS SET FORTH. THAT WILL BE THEIR SALARY AND IT HAS NOT INCREASED OTHER THAN BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX OR THE ANNUAL INCREASE GIVEN TO CITY EMPLOYEES, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. EXACTLY. I SEE HOW IT CAN BE READ THAT WAY. IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY. WHAT WOULD THAT BE? CORRECT. ATTORNEY. OH, OKAY. IF. THERESA. IF YOU WOULD. YES, I CAN TELL YOU. EVERY YEAR WE RECEIVE THE NUMBERS FROM THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THIS YEAR, ACTUALLY, YES, THIS YEAR, THE COUNCIL, THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASED BY 2.4%. THAT WAS COUNSEL'S INCREASE. AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR. SO THE SALARY AND THE INCREASE OR THE SALARY PERIOD IS NO LONGER BASED ON THE POPULATION THAT WAS JUST TO ESTABLISH THAT BASELINE. OKAY. TERESE. OR DO WE HAVE FIGURES OF WHAT THEY ARE MAKING TODAY? ABSOLUTELY. SO AS OF TODAY, AS OF OCTOBER 1ST, THE MAYOR MAKES 25,443. EACH COUNCIL MEMBER MAKES 12,721. AND SOME CHANGE, WHICH IS A BARGAIN. AND OF COURSE, THEY DO ALSO RECEIVE A MONTHLY ALLOTMENT. YEAH, IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE MONTHLY ALLOTMENT FOR THE MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR IS $500 A MONTH FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER. [01:25:05] IT'S $400. THAT'S THAT'S FOR THE EXPENSES. CORRECT. SO AT THIS TIME, OUR MAYOR IS MAKING 25,443. AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE MAKING 12,721 PLUS THEIR ALLOTMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY ANY SUGGESTIONS, RUTH? I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TIE ANYBODY'S SALARY TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. I THINK THAT'S A RIDICULOUS THING. THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH TELLS US THAT THE ANNUAL SALARY OF A COUNCIL SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. OKAY. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MERIT. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH. THEY PROMISED WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO FOR THIS CITY. THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE WHAT THEIR CAMPAIGN WAS ALL ABOUT, AND THEY SHOULD BE MEASURED BY THAT EVERY YEAR. NO ONE SHOULD EVER JUST HAVE AN ANNUALIZED INCREASE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO A JOB THAT THEY PROMISED. THEY CAMPAIGNED ON. AND I'M NOT SEEING ANY OF THAT BEING REFERENCE MEASURED OR EVEN COMPARED TO LIKE ANY OTHER NORMAL CITIZEN WOULD IN THEIR JOB. IF I'M SET AND I HAVE A JOB DESCRIPTION, I AM. MY WORK IS MEASURED BY THAT JOB DESCRIPTION. THERE SHOULD BE MERITORIOUS ANNUALIZED PROCESS FOR ANYBODY ON THAT COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE ENTIRE CITY, SUGGESTING TO THE CITY MANAGER AS WELL. THERE SHOULD NOT BE JUST AN ANNUALIZED INCREASE. IF YOU WANT TO SAVE MONEY, LET'S DO MERITORIOUS SALARY INCREASES AS OPPOSED TO OTHER CITY WORKER. THEREFORE, YOU GET 3% EVERY YEAR OR WHATEVER IT WOULD BE. SEE THIS THIS ONE THING. THIS GIVES ME ANGST IN HERE, BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS HAD TO BE MEASURED AS A CONSULTANT TO THE WORK THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, PERIOD. WASN'T ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES. IF IF SOMEONE CAMPAIGNED ON A CERTAIN ITEM AND GOT VOTED DOWN 4 TO 1. SO HE NEVER GOT WHAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE HE WAS OUTVOTED. HE WOULDN'T GET A RAISE BECAUSE HE NEVER ACCOMPLISHED WHAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON. OKAY. AND IT WOULDN'T BE HIS FAULT. IT WOULD BE THE FACT THAT IT WAS A VOTE FOR AGAINST ONE. AND, AND BY NO MEANS DID HE NOT DO HIS JOB. IT'S JUST THAT HE WAS VOTED DOWN. HOW WOULD YOU ACCOUNT. HOW WOULD YOU DO? I WOULD SAY THAT WE'D HAVE TO CREATE A MERIT PROCESS TO HANDLE THAT SITUATION. AND WHO WOULD OVERSEE THE MERIT PROCESS? NOW THAT I DON'T KNOW. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M STUCK. OKAY. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. I'D SAY. WELL, WE AS AS THEY SAY, NEVER BRING A PROBLEM IF YOU DON'T HAVE TWO SOLUTIONS. WELL, AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS. CORRECT? TRUE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS HOW THINGS CAN CHANGE AND WE WANT TO SAVE MONEY, THIS IS THE BIGGEST PART OF HOW WE SAVE MONEY. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DO NOT GET PAID ENOUGH. I GET THAT BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING A BARGAIN FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING. BUT AGAIN, I AM OPPOSED, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ANNUALIZED RAISES JUST BECAUSE YOU SIT IN A CHAIR. SO I'M ASKING ALL OF YOU TO HELP ME FIGURE OUT HOW WE DO THAT. MR. THOMPSON, MAY I? THE SIMPLE FACT IS, ANYTHING WE BRING FORWARD HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MESS WITH THEIR POCKETBOOK. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET IT GO FORWARD. SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF GOING ON A SUBJECT THAT HAS NO POSSIBILITY OF GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HONESTLY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO THEIR OWN POCKETBOOK. MR. CHAIR, MAY I? YES YOU MAY. ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, TOM, IS THE FACT THAT AS FAR AS MERIT GOES, DON'T REELECT THEM. THAT'S HOW THEY. THAT'S HOW YOU PAY THEM BACK. THEY'RE NOT DOING THE JOB. DON'T REELECT HIM. MR. TODD. MR. TYLER O'NEILL. RUTH, TO HELP YOU WITH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, I THINK WHAT TOM SAID IS RIGHT. IF YOU PUT THEM IN AND GIVE THEM A PROPOSAL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY NEGATIVELY HARM THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO SHOOT IT DOWN. BUT I THINK IF YOU BROUGHT SOMETHING FORWARD, WHICH IS VERY INCENTIVIZING FOR THEM, WHERE IT CAN PERFORM WINS FOR THEM, BUT ALSO WINS FOR THE CITY, THAT COULD BE A PATH FORWARD OF ONE THAT WOULD HELP THE COST WITH THE CITY THAT'S ALSO [01:30:06] BENEFITING IT, OTHER THAN JUST TRYING TO GET INCENTIVE WINS TO POCKET THEIR LINES. JUST MY SMALL QUICK OPINION ON IT. IF ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TAP ON THAT, IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, YOU WANT TO GO FIRST. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. PASTOR MARK. THANK YOU. SO TWO THINGS I LIKE THE WAY YOU WORDED THAT FOR ME, KIND OF THE BASE SALARY, BECAUSE THEY'RE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEY DON'T HAVE A BOSS OTHER THAN A BIG POPULATION. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE BIG POPULATION WOULD ESTABLISH THEIR ANNUAL INCREASE EACH, EACH YEAR. IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD TO MEASURE THEM AND BE RIGHT. YOU JUST DON'T VOTE FOR THEM NEXT TIME. BUT. BUT I LIKE YOUR AD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A BONUS? IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THINGS THAT, WELL, LIKE TREMENDOUS GROWTH IN BUSINESS OR TREMENDOUS IMPROVEMENT IN ROADS? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE ELECT THEM TO DO ANYWAY. SO I'M KIND OF LIKE NOT USUALLY A FAN OF OF BONUSES. AND THEN THEY GET MISUSED AND THEN IT JUST GETS OUT OF CONTROL. BUT BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR POINT, I THINK WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE A MERIT BASED RAISE ANNUALLY SINCE THEY DON'T WORK FOR ANYBODY IN HERE EXCEPT FOR THE WHOLE CITY. RIGHT. HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? AND I STRUGGLE WITH THAT, BUT I LIKE SOME INCENTIVES. PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INPUT HERE OR CAN GET ENOUGH INPUT TO FORMULATE SOME SORT OF MERIT BASED WITHOUT HAVING A COMMITTEE TO EXPLORE IT, TO LOOK AROUND TO FIND WHAT ELSE? WHO ELSE DOES IT? HOW WOULD THEY BASE IT THEN? WHO? WHO WOULD REVIEW IT? WHO'S GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND DISCUSS YOUR PERFORMANCE? OTHER THAN OURSELVES? YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LOVE TO DO IT, BUT BUT I THINK WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO OPEN UP SOMETHING THAT WEIGHS FIVE TONS WITH A TWO TON TRUCK. YEAH. AND I GET THAT. BUT THE CITIZENS ARE FRUSTRATED WITH CAMPAIGN PROMISES THAT DON'T COME ABOUT. SO IN HONOR OF SUSAN CONNOLLY, SHE WOULD WANT US TO FORM A COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE FIVE SITTING UP THERE ARE ACHIEVING THEIR GOALS THAT THEY PROMISED THE CITY AND WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ONLY THREE PEOPLE UP THERE, AND I KNOW THE MAYOR COULDN'T GET ANYTHING DONE. SO. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF AN INCENTIVE. IF YOU ACHIEVE ALL YOUR CAMPAIGN PROMISES TO THAT BENEFITS EVERYBODY YOU KNOW THAT BENEFITS THE CITY, HIM OR THAT PERSON IN THE CHAIR AND THE CITIZENS. SO I MEAN, THE THE MY FRIEND SUSAN CONNOLLY SAYS, YES, WE WOULD CREATE A WONDERFUL PLAN. WE WOULD ON THE ON THE FLIP SIDE, YES, IF I WAS DOING WHAT THEY WERE DOING FOR $25,000, I'D QUIT AND FIND MYSELF A BETTER JOB BECAUSE WE'RE BASICALLY GETTING BY AND LARGE, I KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO JUST SIT ON THEIR DERRIERE AND AND DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE TO GET YOU KNOW, A CHECK. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THAT'S THE NORM. IT MIGHT BE THE EXCEPTION. SO UNLESS WE HAVE A WAY FORWARD ON THIS WE WE HAVE THREE CHOICES. NUMBER ONE WHO'S GOING TO FORM THE COMMITTEE? IS THERE GOING TO BE A COMMITTEE? NUMBER TWO, DO WE KEEP THINGS AS IS OR NUMBER THREE, DO WE READJUST? TO HELP THESE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW. THOSE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS I SEE. THOMAS, I SEE THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE MOVING OVER THERE. YEAH. JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY PRIOR TO 2016, IT WAS A BASE RATE OF. I BELIEVE IT WAS $3,000 FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND $6,000 FOR THE MAYOR. SO THEY'RE MAKING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THAT NOW. YEAH. I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, 2016. THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE LESS THAN TEN YEARS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY NEED TO MESS WITH IT AT THIS POINT. OKAY, SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR ARE WE. ARE WE GOING TO. OH. I'M SORRY. I'M SO SORRY. I DID NOT SEE YOU. PLEASE DO. AND LET ME MOVE MY CHAIR A LITTLE BIT SO I CAN GET MY SIDE VIEW GOING. [01:35:01] AS FAR AS COMPENSATION GOES, THE LAST TIME THEY LOOKED TO DOUBLE THEIR RATE THEY WERE VOTED DOWN BY THE PEOPLE OVER 70%. AND WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY CAME BACK WAS THEY GAVE THEMSELVES A MONTH OFF. AND THE STIPEND THAT THEY CALLED ONE OF THE COUNCILMEN CLAIMED IT WAS TAX FREE, WHICH IT CANNOT BE. SO I HOPE THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, ALL OF THEM HAVE FULL TIME JOBS. TO SERVE ON A COUNCIL IS AN HONOR, JUST LIKE WE DO ON BOARDS AND ANYTHING ELSE. WE DO IT WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THEY DO GET COMPENSATED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR AND I DON'T REALLY SEE WHY THEY SHOULD, YOU KNOW, TAKE WHAT YOU KNEW, WHAT YOU WERE GETTING INTO, TAKE WHAT YOU HAVE. AND WHEN THE ECONOMY AND THE CITY IS IN A POSITION TO MAKE THESE INCREASES DO THEM, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE ANY REASON. TO INCREASE IT OR AND I AGREE MERIT HAS TO DO WITH YOU ELECT THEM. YOU KNOW WHO'S DOING WHAT. AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO A BETTER JOB OF KEEPING TRACK OF THAT AND LETTING PEOPLE KNOW WHO'S DOING WHAT. BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY POINT IN RAISING THEIR MONEY. I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT OF VALUE. WE VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO WE HOPE ARE OF VALUE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR. AND. TRYING TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AS IT IS, MOST OF THEM GET PRESTIGE AND IT INCREASES THEIR. OTHER JOBS YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY. AND SOMETIMES I WONDER IF THAT'S THE ONLY REASON SOME OF THEM ARE ON THERE AND NOT REALLY TO SERVE THE PEOPLE. WE REALLY HAVE TO GET BACK TO HAVING EVERYTHING IN THIS CITY ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE. AND I WAS REALLY HOPING THAT WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT BY REVISITING HOW WE WORK. BUT ANYWAY, AS FAR AS COMPENSATION GOES, THAT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR. THEY SHOULD LIVE WITH IT. AND UNTIL THEY MAKE THIS CITY SO RICH THAT MONEY IS COMING OUT OF THEIR EARS, THEN WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE ANYTHING? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. IF WE'RE NOT DOING PER CAPITA, CAN WE REWORD THIS TO. THIS IS JUST VERY CONFUSING THEN. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS APPROVAL AT THE AS OF THE LAST REVISION. IT DOESN'T EVEN SAY WHAT REVISION IT WAS. OKAY, FIRST OF ALL, AS OF THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE REVISION. OKAY, SO THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH FOR ME IS VERY BLEEDING. AND FOR THOSE OF US THAT I COULD CARE LESS WHAT THE BUSINESS RESEARCH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SAYS ABOUT HOW TO DO SALARIES FOR CITY GOVERNMENT, WE SHOULD BE DEFINING OUR OWN SALARIES FOR CITY GOVERNMENT. SO TO TIE IT TO SOME RESEARCH, SOMETHING OR OTHER, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT'S FAIR AND CLEAR BECAUSE, LIKE COMMISSIONER MILLER COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE WHAT ALL THAT MEANT, RIGHT? I COULDN'T, SO I PROPOSED ANOTHER THING OF MERIT BASED, AND I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM ANY RAISES AT ALL UNTIL. UNTIL THEY SHOW THEIR WORTH WHEN THEY GET IN THAT CHAIR. I DON'T HAVE ANY GUARANTEE THAT THEY CAN EVEN DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY CAN DO. SO I'M HAVING A PROBLEM WITH COMPENSATING PEOPLE FOR IT. UNDERSTAND? DO WE HAVE A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE? IF THERE'S NO PROPOSAL, WE MOVE FORWARD. AND WE'RE MOVING ON. ONE POINT OF QUESTION, NOT ABOUT THAT IS, BUT ABOUT THE PROCESS. YES, MA'AM. SO IF THERE WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATION REQUIRED OR REQUESTED, WOULD THAT HAVE TO GO TO A VOTE? ANY CHANGE IN ANY CHANGE? YES. EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE. OKAY. LAST TIME WE HAD A TO CHANGE COUNCILMAN OR COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBERS OR SOMETHING AND HAD TO DO IT WITH A OKAY, ALRIGHT. OKAY. WE ARE ON 3.051 AND I HAVE HERE. [01:40:06] EXCUSE ME. THREE POINT YEAH. 3.04151. WE'RE SKIPPING THROUGH YOUR POSITION. MR.. IN THAT SINCE WE STAYED AT FIVE. THIS THIS ISN'T CHANGING. SO IF NO ONE HAS ANYTHING UP TO 3.04, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE UP TO 3.051. UNLESS WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO NEEDS TO SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING, MR. CHAIR. YES. YEAH. TOM HAS A PROPOSAL FOR SECTION 304. THAT WAS CONTINGENT THAT WE HAD SEVEN PEOPLE. BUT INASMUCH AS HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE DEPUTY MAYOR NOW. YEAH. OKAY, THEN. PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. 3.04. IN REFERENCE TO MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR. DO YOU HAVE YOU HAD A POINT THERE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS? THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. NO, I THINK I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THAT SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SABLAN, WE JUST LEAVE THAT ALONE. I'M NOT GOING TO BRING ANYTHING FORWARD. IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO, THEY'RE WELCOME TO. OKAY. OKAY. MOVING ON TO 3.051. PASTOR MILLER, YOU HAD A REFERENCE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TO QUESTION. I DID HAVE SOME NOTES HERE, BUT WE KIND OF WE KIND OF CLARIFIED THAT IN THE FIRST STATEMENT BECAUSE WE LOOKED AT THE RESPONSIBLE DUTIES THAT WAS SPECIFIED IN SECTION ONE. IT ONLY GAVE FIVE, BUT THERE'S SUPPLEMENTAL DUTIES THAT ARE ADDED LATER ON IN HERE. SO I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, WITHDRAW MY NOTES ON THAT. OKAY. I WAS REALLY JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON WHO DOES THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT, BUT IT DOES FULFILL THAT. AS YOU READ ALL THROUGH THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT, IT'S JUST YOU GOTTA WORK FOR IT. INSTEAD OF IT BEING REALLY NICE AND NEAT, HOW PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT THAT'S OKAY. IT'S NOT GOING TO GO IN. THREE POINT FOR ADMINISTRATION 3.052 YOU ALSO HAD A COMMENT THERE WHICH YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO THROUGH IT OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO PASS ON THAT? I'LL MENTION ONE THING ABOUT THAT. AND AND AGAIN, IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT SECTION, BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH THESE APPOINTEES. SO THE CITY OR THE DAIS, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS A CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY BASED ON THAT. BUT NOWHERE DO I SEE A REQUIREMENT. AND MAYBE IT'S COVERED SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR A 90 DAY REVIEW, A SIX MONTH REVIEW, A ONE YEAR REVIEW SO THAT WHEN A NEW PERSON GETS IT'S APPOINTED, THEY RECEIVE THE APPROPRIATE FEEDBACK AND DON'T JUST SHOW UP AT A MEETING AND GET WALKED OUT THE DOOR WITH NO UNDERSTANDING. RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT. TERESE WOULD YOU LIKE TO HANDLE THAT? YES. SO WITHIN EACH CHARTER OFFICER'S CONTRACT, THERE IS AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PROVISION. FOR EXAMPLE OUR CITY MANAGER, HIS REFLECTS THAT IN THIS MONTH THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HIS FIRST REVIEW AND THEN ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, IT'S IN APRIL FOR MINE AND PATRICIA'S CONTRACTS. OURS JUST SAY THAT THE COUNCIL MAY DO AN ANNUAL EVALUATION EVERY YEAR. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND GOING TO 3.053. MILLER HAS A SUGGESTION IN REFERENCE TO HOLDING OTHER OFFICES. SURE. SO AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT JUST REQUIRES ANYONE WHO IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT THEY HAVE TO HOLD OFF FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERM, BEFORE THEY CAN APPLY FOR ANY KIND OF FORMAL POSITION OR JOB. AND I WAS JUST THROWING OUT THE IDEA SINCE THE FOLKS SERVED FOR FOUR YEAR TERMS. IS THERE ANY NEGATIVE OR OR ANY INTEREST IN CHANGING THAT TO A FOUR YEAR TERM, INSTEAD OF A TWO YEAR TERM BEFORE THEY CAN COME BACK? ANYBODY HAVE HAVE A DISCUSSION THERE? YES. MR.. TYLER O'NEILL. TYLER O'NEILL. AGAIN. MARK, CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE DETAIL ON WHY YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT FROM 2 TO 4, JUST FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THIS IS GOING. THANK YOU. WELL, I'M. ASSUMING. RIGHT. I KNOW THAT'S A BAD WORD, BUT I'M ASSUMING THE REASON THAT THAT TWO YEAR DELAY IS IN THERE IS SO THAT WHILE THAT PERSON IS IN OFFICE SERVING AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, RIGHT, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES AND INFORMATION THAT COMES THEIR WAY. SO WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE THEM TO STAY OUT OF IT FOR TWO YEARS AFTER THEIR TERM OF SERVICE. [01:45:03] BUT THE PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE SERVING WITH AT THE TIME THEY LET GO STILL HAVE ANOTHER TWO YEARS LEFT ON THEIR TERM. SO MY THOUGHT WAS, IF IT TRULY IS AN ISSUE THERE, RIGHT OF SOME IMPROPER ACTION AT THE END OF FOUR YEARS, ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT HE WAS SERVING WITH WILL HAVE BEEN, WELL, I GUESS THEY COULD GET VOTED BACK IN, BUT BUT GENERALLY WOULD BE OUT OF THEIR POSITION. SO AND IT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION RATHER THAN A JUST PUTTING IT OUT FOR CONVERSATION. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I STAND FIRM ON. RIGHT. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONE, BUT THAT'S WHERE I WAS. THAT'S. THAT'S WHY I WENT THAT WAY. YEAH. YEAH. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT? ANYBODY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT? OKAY. CONTINUING ON 3.054 CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I BELIEVE. MR. GUM HAD SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT. ALTHOUGH, ALTHOUGH IT'S THIS IS YOUR SOMETIMES YOUR YOUR SECTIONS DON'T MATCH. I REALIZE THAT. AND SO SO I'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS AS BEST WAY POSSIBLE. THIS IS MORE ABOUT STANDARD OF CONDUCT. AND IF CITY COUNCIL BREAKS THOSE STANDARDS, SETS A FORFEITURE IN PLACE WHICH CURRENTLY ISN'T THERE. A LOT OF THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ARE ALREADY IN ORDINANCES. THIS JUST CODIFIES THEM INTO THE CHARTER, MAKES THEM PERMANENT. SO THAT THEY JUST COULDN'T BE CHANGED WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN. HAS TO GO BACK BEFORE THE VOTERS. THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON. MAKE IT. MAKE IT PERMANENT, NOT POLICY. I'D LIKE TO I ASSUME ATTORNEY MESSENGER THAT YOU REVIEWED THAT THAT SECTION. IS THIS A SECTION THAT SAYS PROPOSED 3.055? YES, SIR. FIVE. FOUR. BUT IS IN REALITY A DIFFERENT ONE. FIVE. FOUR. IT'S FIVE FOUR. I WOULD CALL FOR RECREATING THE 3.055. FIVE. SO. IN MY NUMBERING MIGHT BE MESSED UP. SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. GORM. THE QUESTION I'M ASKING HIM IS THE POINTS THAT YOU LISTED THERE, ARE THEY ARE THEY LEGALLY CORRECT? IS MY QUESTION. SO THIS IS I'M SORRY, THIS IS 3.05 FOR FORFEITURE OF OFFICE A ONE THROUGH THREE AND A B. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. GOT IT. MY INTENT. RIGHT NOW, ALL CITY COUNCIL CAN DO IS CENSURE SOMEBODY, RIGHT? BASICALLY IS THIS PUTS MORE TEETH BEHIND IT. STATE OF FLORIDA HAS SETS A MINIMUM STANDARDS THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE HAS TO ABIDE BY THOSE MINIMUM STANDARDS, BUT ISN'T PRECLUDED FROM EXPANDING UPON THEM. I WOULD HAVE TO QUESTION JUST EXACTLY WHAT WHAT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A MORAL TURPITUDE. YES, RUTH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BELIEVE THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS PARTICULAR FIRST MONTHS OF THIS YEAR IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH DRAMA AND NO WORK GETTING DONE. SO IN THAT VEIN, I THINK WE NEED TO PUT SOME BOUNDARIES AROUND THAT. HOWEVER WE DO THAT, I HADN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO WORD THAT EXACTLY TO SAY, IF YOU'RE CAUSING SO MUCH DRAMA AND NOTHING IS GETTING DONE, NO CITY WORK IS GETTING DONE, THEN NOT ONLY IF YOU GET CENSURED, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR EJECTION OF SOME SORT BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE TO DO A JOB. THE JOB'S NOT GETTING DONE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME RECOURSE OTHER THAN FILING A PETITION, [01:50:09] DOING A RECALL THAT'S STILL GOING TO CAUSE MORE DRAMA, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. IT MUST BE CODIFIED IN THE CHARTER TO SAY, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE A PROBLEM CHILD, THEN YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR BEING A PROBLEM CHILD. MAKE SENSE? ANYBODY KNOW WE'RE PRETTY MUCH KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE EXAMPLE THAT I'M SAYING. SO WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION AND OR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT DOING THE JOB THAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. WELL, THIS WASN'T I'M SORRY. MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. THIS WASN'T POINTED AT ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL. THIS WAS MORE BASED OFF OF PAST HAPPENINGS FROM 2016 TO 2020. THEN. THEN CURRENT HAPPENINGS. I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT CODIFIES WHAT THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE THAT WE EXPECT THE MINIMUM STANDARDS TO STATE EXPECTS ARE ALREADY THERE. OUR STANDARDS ARE HIGHER THAN THAT. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT IN THE CHARTER SOMETHING SO THAT IT CAN'T BE CHANGED ON A WHIM OF THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. YES YOU MAY. THANK YOU. YES. WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CHARTER. A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SAY AND DO, BECAUSE OUR CHARTER SAYS YOU CANNOT DENIGRATE CITIZENS. AND WE'RE ALL CITIZENS. WHEN SOMEBODY VIOLATES THE CHARTER, WE HAVE NO PROCESS. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WHAT THEY DO IN A LOT OF OTHER PLACES IS HAVE A RECALL METHOD WHERE CITIZENS CAN WRITE IN THEIR OBJECTIONS, AND THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE EITHER EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF VOTES THEY RECEIVED WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED, OR 10%, WHICH THE STATE SAYS IS MAXIMUM 10% OF THE POPULATION, WHICHEVER IS LESSER OR GREATER. THAT'S UP TO YOU. BUT WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A RECALL PROCESS, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. I, WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE POWER, AND WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ETHICS BOARD. CAN WE TALK ABOUT QUALIFYING, OR AM I GETTING AHEAD OF IT? YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S FURTHER ON DOWN RECALL. OKAY. SO YES, I CAN EXCUSE ME AGAIN. DID YOU SAY I CAN? NO, LET'S DO THAT. WHEN WE GET TO TO RECALLS, THERE'S A DIFFERENT PLACE FOR RECALLS. OKAY. AS FAR AS ETHICS, ETHICS GO WE'VE HAD SEVERAL POLITICIANS IN THIS AREA WHO DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS. AND I WAS TOLD AND I SPOKE TO THERESA ABOUT THIS. THE PROCESS IS THAT. IT ONLY BECOMES AN ISSUE WHEN THEY'RE ELECTED. AND ONCE THEY'RE ELECTED, SOMEBODY WITH STANDING HAS TO GO TO THE ETHICS BOARD AND FILE A COMPLAINT. THEN THE ETHICS BOARD INVESTIGATES, AND THEN THEY HAVE A TRIAL. AND IF THAT PERSON IS REMOVED, IF THAT PERSON IS FOUND GUILTY, THEY ARE REMOVED. AND THEN NOW WE HAVE TO PAY FOR A WHOLE NEW ELECTION FOR THIS PERSON. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE CAN FIX. WE CAN DEMAND THAT. THE ETHICS AND APPLICATION OR IN ANYTHING CAN BE DEALT WITH ON A LOCAL LEVEL. SO I WOULD LIKE US TO HAVE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT DOES NOT DEFER TO THE STATE TO SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO FREQUENT PROBLEMS IN PALM BAY. I'D LIKE TO READDRESS THINGS HERE BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT WHAT YOU HAD PROPOSED. RIGHT. THE THE PLACEMENT OF THE DIFFERENT NUMBERS, ETCETERA, I KIND OF GOT MIXED UP A LITTLE BIT. IF WE CAN GO BACK TO YOUR PROPOSED, FIRST OF ALL WE WERE ON WE HAD JUST COVERED 305 FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND THEN YOU PROPOSE 305 FIVE, WHICH IS STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. DO YOU SEE THAT WHICH IS A NEW SECTION? THIS IS A NEW SECTION. [01:55:02] BUT THIS THIS FORFEITURE OF OFFICE WOULD INCLUDE 305 FIVE. SO, SO IF WE CAN GO BACK TO 305 FIVE AND HANDLE THIS FIRST AND THEN PROCEED BACK TO 300, WHAT SHOULD BE 3.061 ONE IS WHAT? WHAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE ON YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. OKAY. SO GOING BACK TO 355 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT MR. GRAHAM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE WHAT YOU SEE THERE OR IF EVERYBODY'S. WELL, GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR. SO SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE ONE THAT HAS A TITLE PROPOSAL TO CREATE CHARTER SECTION NUMBER 305. FIVE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN BIG BLACK LETTERS. RIGHT. AS HE AS HE GAVE US TRYING TO LOOK IN THE ACTUAL CHARTER AND NOT KNOW IT WOULD BE A NEW SECTION, IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE CHARTER, IT WOULD SIMPLY BE COMING AFTER CONFLICT OF INTEREST. OKAY. THANK YOU. LIKE I SAID, MOST OF THIS STUFF IS ALREADY IN THE IN THE ORDINANCES. IT JUST CODIFIES IT. CORRECT. AND ADDS THE FORFEITURE OF OFFICE FOR VIOLATION OF THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. SO ARE YOU WANTING TO THE STATE DON'T DO RIGHT. THE STATE ONLY SETS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. WE CAN EXPAND ON THAT CORRECT AND AT OUR OWN STANDARDS ON TOP OF THAT. SO THAT WAS MY INTENT. OKAY. AND SO AS, AS HE PROPOSED IT'S NOT A PROPOSAL. JUST YOU WANT DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. DISCUSSION. YEAH. DISCUSSION IS, IS THAT WE WOULD ADD STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 3.055 NUMBER, A ADHERENCE TO STATE LAW APPLYING OR COMPLYING WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTE, CHAPTERS 112, PART THREE, CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THE CORRECT REFERENCE AT THIS TIME. WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE CHECKED JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT FLORIDA STATUTE ON THAT AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS, COUNCIL MEMBER XIAO IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AND ENDEAVOR TO AVOID ANY ACTION THAT CREATES OR APPEARS TO CREATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES AND PRIVATE INTERESTS. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CITY GOVERNMENTS, SEE PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS AND DOING BUSINESS. NO COUNCILMAN SHALL TRANSACT ANY BUSINESS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITH ANY OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY OF WHICH THE COUNCIL MEMBER OR THEIR SPOUSE CHILD IS AN OFFICER DIRECTOR PARTNER IN WHICH THEY HAVE MATERIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST. NO COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL HAVE OR HOLD ANY, ANY EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY BUSINESS ENTITY THAT IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR IS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. I'M READING THIS JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE ONLINE THAT MAY NOT SEE THIS. THE PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING. NO COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL, DURING THEIR TERM OF OFFICE, BE A REGISTERED LOBBYIST OR BE EMPLOYED AS A LOBBYIST LOBBYIST TO REPRESENT ANY PRINCIPAL OTHER THAN THE CITY BEFORE ANY LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND E POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTION. NO FORMAL COUNCILMAN FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER LEAVING OFFICE. ACT AS A PAID LOBBYIST BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY CITY COMMITTEE OR BOARD DISCUSSION. AGAIN, HE'S TRYING TO CODIFY SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS IS MAYBE THERE, BUT HE JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE IT'S IT'S THERE. DOES ANYBODY WOULD YOU LIKE PHIL, I SEE YOU GOT THE MICROPHONE. YEAH, SURE. BASICALLY IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IT'S IT'S GILDING THE LILY. AGAIN, THIS HAS TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT TO GO TO GET PUT ON, ON A BALLOT. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS. I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY COVERED UNDER, YOU KNOW, BY OUR CHARTER AND ALSO STATE LAW. SO WHY MESS WITH SUCCESS. ANYBODY ELSE HAS A COMMENT? I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. THE THE WORDS APPEARS TO CREATE RIGHT IN SECTION B AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS. RIGHT? DO THE WORDS APPEARS TO CREATE EXIST IN THERE ALREADY TODAY OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S BEING ADDED. RIGHT. SO I CAN APPEAR IN STATE LAW. DO THEY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. IS THAT WHO DECIDES WHETHER IT APPEARS? YEAH, IT WAS KIND OF VAGUE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. IT'S SO VAGUE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT APPEARANCE WOULD LOOK LIKE. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, I THINK PASTOR MARK APPEARS VERY SHADY BECAUSE HE'S GOT A BLACK SHIRT ON. AND I'M REPRESENTING BLUE ORIGIN TODAY FOR THEIR AWESOME SUCCESS AS A FORMER NEW GLENN STAGE ONE DIRECTOR. [02:00:05] RIGHT. LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN. AND IT LANDED ON THE BARGE, SO PRAISE GOD. THESE ARE THINGS THAT I'VE LOOKED AT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND HAVE A CHANCE TO BRING FORWARD. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HURT MY FEELINGS BY NOT BRINGING THEM INTO FRUITION. I'M JUST BRINGING THEM FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION. SO PLEASE DON'T. AND I'M NOT I WASN'T YEAH, I WASN'T I WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE FUN OF IT OR ANYTHING I THINK. NO. JUST DON'T. I'M I'M SAYING WE DON'T NEED TO SIT AND LABOR TO POINT ON SOMETHING THAT ISN'T GOING TO GET AT LEAST A CONSENSUS. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? RUTH. I LIKE THIS. I DO LIKE THIS FOR TWO REASONS THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS IN THE ORDINANCES AND A LOT OF THINGS IN STATE LAW, IT'S NEVER ENFORCED. SO IF IT'S IN OUR CHARTER, IT'S MORE LIKELY TO BE ENFORCED, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN SOME OF THESE CHARTER VIOLATIONS BEING ENFORCED IN OUR OWN CITY GOVERNMENT. SO I AGREE WITH EILEEN AND TOM ON THIS, THAT WE NEED TO BRING THESE THINGS TO BEAR IN OUR CHARTER BECAUSE WE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STATE SAYS OR WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS OR EVEN BREVARD COUNTY SAYS, THIS IS OUR CHARTER. AMEN. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ATTORNEY MESSENGER. WHEN IT SAYS NO COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL HAVE, SHALL HAVE OR HOLD ANY EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY BUSINESS ENTITY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION OF OR DOING BUSINESS WITH, WITH THE CITY. IF THEY CAME IN, THEY WERE VOTED IN AND THEY ALREADY HAD A CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. WOULD THAT, IN EFFECT SAY WE HAVE TO BREAK THE CONTRACT OR WOULD IT STILL STAY IN FORCE? THE PERSON MAY HAVE TO LEAVE FROM THEIR POSITION. WHATEVER THAT POSITION MAY BE WITH THE WITH THE COMPANY OR OR WHATEVER IS IN QUESTION. IS A IS A POSSIBILITY IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN. OKAY. I WOULD, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY ELIMINATE THAT THAT SENTENCE JUST BECAUSE IF, IF I WERE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND I ALREADY HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, BASICALLY I'D HAVE TO EITHER LEAVE MY JOB PERIOD, WHICH WITH WHAT THEY PAY, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T HELP ME LIVE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER BREAK THE CONTRACT OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO. YES, RUTH. WELL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST LEAVE HIS POSITION IN ORDER TO TAKE IT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY MUST LEAVE HIS COMPANY AND PUT IT IN A TRUST AND NOT DO ANYTHING WITH IT UNTIL HIS JOB. WITH THIS, THE COUNTRY IS COMPLETE. I BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE WITH THE COUNCIL AS WELL. THAT SAME EXAMPLE SHOULD STILL EXIST. YOU CAN'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BEING ON THE COUNCIL THAT YOU MIGHT BE MAKING DECISIONS FOR THAT CONTRACT. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED. I WOULD SAY IN PRINCIPLE YOU ARE CORRECT. I THINK THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN GET A TRUST, WHEREAS YOUR TOM, DICK AND HARRY THAT HAS A BUSINESS MAY NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY TO ACTUALLY MAKE A TRUST. SO IS THERE ANYTHING ON THIS LIST? ATTORNEY MESSENGER? THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE LEGALITIES. SECTION 3.055, STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. IS THERE SOMETHING THERE THAT IS NOT LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE OR OR IN ERROR? NO, WE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES AS WE WERE REVIEWING THAT SECTION. IT'S THE NEXT SECTION, 3.04 THAT I THINK ARE SOME ISSUES. WHICH SECTION? OKAY. SO SO FOLLOWING SECTION ON THE NEXT, THE FOLLOWING SECTION. YOU'RE RIGHT. SO AT 3.055 THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME, SOME MOVEMENT FORWARD FOR THIS. AGAIN, MY SUGGESTION IS IN PRINCIPLE, I WOULD AGREE COMPLETELY IN REFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT. I'M NOT SURE IF IF THAT IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVABLE IF THEY'VE ALREADY HAVE A CONTRACT FOR A PERSON WHO [02:05:05] IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE. IF IT IF IT WERE A PRINTING COMPANY AND THEY'RE BASICALLY THE SOLE OWNER, THEY'D HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR PRINTING COMPANY, COME IN AND FIND SOMEONE TO TAKE HIS PLACE, PAY THEM. AND I THINK FOR A PERSON WHO'S JUST STARTING OR HAS A BUSINESS WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY CAPABLE TO DO IT. SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE THAT ONE SENTENCE SINCE IT'S IF THERE IS A DECISION THAT, THAT THEY'RE MAKING HERE HE WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE HIMSELF ANYWAY IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YES, RUTH, I AGREE WITH THAT. AS LONG AS YOU PUT IT IN HERE, I THINK A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS RIGHT ABOVE IT. AGAIN. 3.05 FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, ELECTED OFFICIALS SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTRACT TO DO ANY WORK. RENDER ANY SERVICE, OR FURNISH ANY MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT TO OR FOR THE CITY WITH ANY ASSOCIATION PARTNERSHIP FIRM. ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, IN WHICH THEY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST. I'M TALKING ABOUT THEY MUST RECUSE THEMSELVES. SORRY. OH, I'M TALKING ABOUT THEY MUST RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY DECISION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PERIOD. OKAY. SO WHEN THAT HAPPENED EARLIER, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO YES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDED HERE IF WE COULD. YES. MR. TYLER O'NEILL. THANK YOU FOR TOUCHING THE SECTION C WITH THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, I SEE THAT BEING OBVIOUSLY MORE A BROAD DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. STILL, EVEN THOUGH IT COULD BE BENEFITING THE CITY IN THE EYES OF, LET'S SAY, A CHARTER REVIEW MEMBER OR THE CITY, A PERSONAL BELIEF. THAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YOUR EXAMPLE OF SAYING A PRINTING COMPANY, I OWN THE PRINTING COMPANY, AND THE CITY WANTS TO CONTRACT ME OUT TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE CITY. SOME INDIVIDUALS MAY SEE THAT AS LIKE HE'S A BOARD MEMBER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BENEFITING THE CITY. IT'S LYING IN HIS POCKETS TWICE. IF IT'S HELPING THE CITY, IT'S ALSO HELPING A LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER. I SEE THAT ITSELF BEING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OF REMOVING SOMEONE FROM AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THE CITY. MOVING UP BACK TO SECTION B, I. THE AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS, THE WAY IT'S WORDED, I SEE THAT BEING WEAPONIZED IN MANY DIFFERENT FASHIONS AGAINST MEMBERS WHERE IT COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE THEM FEARFUL TO DO THEIR JOB. THESE ARE POLITICIANS TO REMEMBER THEY'RE GOING TO BE APPEAR IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF CONFLICT. AND THAT'S GOING TO RUB PEOPLE THE WRONG WAY. AND PUTTING HER IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CITY GOVERNMENT. THAT IS A HUGE PART OF THEIR ROLE, IS MAINTAINING CONFIDENCE THEY CAN STILL DO THE JOB, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE PLAYING DUAL LIVES OF BEING A COUNCIL MEMBER AND A CITIZEN. IF YOU'RE A PALM BAY, THE VERBIAGE OF THAT I SEE AGAIN, I SEE IT BEING WEAPONIZED FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. AND IN CITY IN THE CITIZENS OF PALM BAY OF USING THAT AGAINST SOMEONE. AND THAT COULD BE BIASED OFF OF JUST OPINIONATION. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY HE VOTES. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY HIS HIS VIEWS ARE HIS JACKET. HIS JACKET. BUT HE'S TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE CITY OR OPEN UP A NEW ROAD, BUT SOMEONE'S LIKE, THAT'S. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY HE'S DOING THAT. THAT'S A CONFLICT OF MY LIFE X, Y, Z. AND USING THIS VERBIAGE TO REMOVE HIM FROM HIS SEAT. AND I THINK THAT PUTS COUNCIL MEMBERS FURTHER BACK OF TRYING TO PROGRESS THE CITY. IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE TRYING TO GO, IS PROGRESS TO CITY. NESS, IF I CAN ASK THE ATTORNEY ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DOES IT ALREADY COVER IN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THEY CAN THE THE PEOPLE ON THE DAIS CANNOT TRANSACT ANY BUSINESS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS IT'S STATED HERE ON PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS AND DOING BUSINESS, IS THAT ALREADY COVERED IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST? I MEAN, I WOULD SAY IN A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES, YES. I MEAN, I CAN'T PUT A BLANKET ON IT BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW. YOU KNOW, EVEN IF SOMEBODY IS UP THERE AND THEY RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM A VOTE, WHAT INFLUENCE THEY MAY HAVE OTHERWISE. SO I CAN'T I CAN'T PUT A BLANKET ON THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY GENERALLY YES. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE MOVING TO AVOID CONFLICTS AND YOU JUST RECUSE YOURSELF FROM A VOTE THAT COULD TECHNICALLY BE DOING THAT AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION. MY SECOND QUESTION IS ON BE AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS AS IT WAS STATED BY MR. [02:10:04] O'NEILL THE THE WORDS ENDEAVOR TO AVOID ANY ACTION THAT CREATES OR APPEARS TO CREATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN PUBLIC DUTIES AND PRIVATE INTERESTS. IT COULD BE WEAPONIZED, IN MY VIEW, ALSO VERY EASILY WEAPONIZED AGAINST A FELLOW PERSON, A COUNCIL MEMBER. I MEAN, TO AVOID CONFLICTS. I MEAN APPEARS APPEARS TO CREATE IS VERY BROAD, VERY BROAD, YOU KNOW, AND THAT THAT'S THE WORDING THAT EVEN WE HAVE AS LAWYERS FOR A LOT OF SITUATIONS IS THAT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SO IT IS QUITE BROAD, WHETHER IT WOULD BE WEAPONISED SUCCESSFULLY OR NOT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. IF I WOULD JUST PROPOSE TO YOU, MR. GUM. OF COURSE. IT'D BE UP TO YOU. WOULD YOU WOULD YOU BE UPSET OR NOT UPSET? THAT'S A BAD WORD. NOT IN AGREEING TO ELIMINATING B AND C, INASMUCH AS BASICALLY IT'S COVERED IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HAVE A, D AND E AND THEN ADD, AS RUTH MENTIONED, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE PERSON ON THE DAIS WILL HAVE TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM FROM VOTING THAT ALREADY. THAT'S ALREADY THE STANDARD. SO THERE'S REALLY NO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THIS. YEAH, YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN. EXACTLY. THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE. IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. IT'S PRETTY CONCISE AND TO THE POINT. SECTION 3.04, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE IT. SO IF THIS IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD, IT DOES TAKE SOMEONE TO GIVE A PROPOSAL. YES. RUTH, IS THE RECUSAL IS THE RECUSAL LANGUAGE IN THERE? NOT SPECIFICALLY. RECUSAL LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THERE, BUT THEY ARE PROHIBITED. SO IF YOU FIND THAT THEY THAT THEY VIOLATED THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST THEY COULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THAT'S A OKAY. THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD PENALTY. I MEAN, HERE'S THE POINT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A DECISION THAT WAS MADE AND SOMEBODY BEHIND THE SCENES SAID THAT THERE WASN'T. EVEN THOUGH THAT PERSON RESIDED ON A BUILDING COMMITTEE OF THE CONTRACT THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED. SO WE MUST CODIFY SOMETHING, BECAUSE IF YOU SIT ON A BOARD OUTSIDE OF THE COUNCIL THAT PERTAINS TO A BUILDING CONTRACT OF SUCH JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THEN YOU MUST RECUSE YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU HAVE INFLUENCE ON WHAT CAME TO COUNCIL TO REVIEW. SO IF WE WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. OKAY. THEN THEN AGAIN, I'M THROWING THIS TO YOU FOR A MINUTE. TOM. IF IF AND INDEED CONTRACT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS COVERED AS WELL AS LOBBYING. I KNOW LOBBYING IS COVERED SOMEWHERE ELSE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A IN, IN THE CHARTER AND AND THE ACTUAL STATEMENT THAT IF THERE'S ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE LEGALLY WRITTEN IT MAY HAVE TO BE COME BACK TO US TO ACCEPT IT TO WHERE IF THERE IS A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT THEY WILL RECUSE THEMSELVES AND HAVE THAT VERBATIM. WHAT I'VE TRIED TO MAKE CLEAR IS THERE'S REALLY NO PURPOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, BECAUSE THE STATE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO REFRAIN FROM THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY THE STATE STATUTE READS. SO THEREFORE, THAT'S NOT NEEDED HERE BECAUSE IT'S COVERED BY STATE STATUTE. OKAY. SO APPARENTLY IT'S ALREADY COVERED. THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS THEY RECUSED THEMSELVES AND SOMETIMES THEY ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE. SO THEY HAVE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR AN OPINION WHETHER THEY CAN RECUSE THEMSELVES OR NOT BEFORE THAT ITEM COMES BEFORE THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO VOTE BY THEIR DUTY. [02:15:02] EILEEN. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DRIVES ME CRAZY ABOUT LAWS IN GENERAL IS THERE'S TONS OF LOOPHOLES. AND I THINK THE MORE WE CODIFY AND EVEN IF IT'S REDUNDANT TO STATE STATUTES, THERE'S NO HARM IN IN PUTTING THAT IN THERE SO THAT IF SOMEBODY ONLY READS ONE SET, THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR OBLIGATIONS ARE. AND EVERYBODY ON THAT ON COUNCILS AND GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO KNOW THE LAWS THAT THEY HAVE TO LIVE BY. IT SHOULD NOT EVER BE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. SO I THINK IT'S FINE THE WAY HE'S GOT IT THERE. AND OKAY, AT THIS POINT THEN WE WE EITHER HAVE A MOTION OR WE OR WE CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. DO I HAVE A MOTION? THERE'S NO MOTION. SO WE MOVE FORWARD. WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE AMENDMENT AGAIN THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. IT SHOULD BE SECTION 3061 INSTEAD OF 3054. AND I BELIEVE ATTORNEY MESSENGER, YOU SAID YOU DID HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE VERBIAGE THERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE? THIS IS FOR THE FORFEITURE OF OFFICE SECTION. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. THE FORFEITURE OF OFFICE IS CAN BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, FLORIDA LEGISLATURE HAS KIND OF PREEMPTED THIS FIELD. AND ADDITIONALLY, IF WE DO TOO MUCH IN THIS SECTION IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO SKIRT AROUND THE GOVERNOR'S RIGHTS THAT HE HAS IN TERMS OF REMOVING PEOPLE. THE ONE THING I SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS NUMBER THREE ON THIS. THE FIRST SENTENCE ABOUT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY VIOLATES PROHIBITIONS ON INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION. I THINK THIS ONE ESPECIALLY WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. THE OTHER TWO HERE THAT ARE LISTED COME FROM DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTIES. SO THERE'S A JUDGMENT OR KIND OF A FINDING FROM A DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY. THIS ONE ESPECIALLY IS IS NOT. AND SO IT'S NOT CLEAR WHO WOULD ENFORCE THIS OR WHO WOULD INVESTIGATE IT. I ACTUALLY CALLED THE FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION, FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND ASKED THEM IF THEY WOULD INVESTIGATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND THEY TOLD ME, NO. SO UNLESS IT OVERLAPPED WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY INVESTIGATED NORMALLY. SO I THINK ON ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ISN'T A FINDER OF FACT THAT DISINTERESTED FINDER OF FACT THIRD PARTY. WE WOULD NOT REALLY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT. MR. CHAIR, I WON'T I WON'T BE MAKING A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. I INTENDED FOR IT TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PRIOR ITEM. OKAY. VERY WELL. IT IS 819. WE WERE SCHEDULED TO STOP AT EIGHT. ARE WE CONTINUING OR DO WE MOVE TO THE NEXT MEETING? EVERYBODY. ARE EVERYBODY FINE WITH CONTINUING ON? OKAY, GOOD. NEXT POINT IS 3.062. AND FOLLOWING AGAIN, I BELIEVE MR. GUM, HAVE SOME SOME POINTS THERE. ALONG WITH RUTH, I THINK I BELIEVE RUTH AND MR. MILLER. SO FILLING VACANCIES. PLEASE. I'LL. I'LL GO AHEAD. PRIOR TO THE SYSTEM WE HAD. NOW, THE CHARTER READ THAT THE VACANCIES WOULD BE FILLED AS PER ORDINANCE, WHICH MEANT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, AT THEIR WHIM, COULD CHANGE THE ORDINANCE AND DETERMINE HOW VACANCIES WERE FILLED. WE CHANGED THAT, AND WE WENT TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM WE HAD OR HAD CURRENTLY WITH APPOINTMENTS. WELL, THAT SYSTEM IS PROVEN TO HAVE ERRORS, NOT ERRORS. FLAWS. SO WE LIVED THROUGH IT. WE SURVIVED. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. AND THE CHARTER IS THE PROPER PLACE FOR IT, NOT AN ORDINANCE. SO MY PROPOSAL IS TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, WHICH WAS ONCE A VACANCY IS DECLARED, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS, AND NO LATER THAN 180 DAYS AFTER THAT DECLARATION. IF THERE'S LESS THAN A YEAR LEFT ON THAT TERM. THERE'S REALLY NO NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT. AND AT THAT POINT, THEN WE COULD DO AN APPOINTMENT IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD. BUT MY MAIN POINT WAS. WE NEED TO HAVE ELECTED OFFICIALS. [02:20:02] LIKE I SAID, WE WERE WE WERE BLESSED THAT PHIL WAS THE ONE APPOINTED. WE MAY NOT BE SO LUCKY NEXT TIME. SO I'M JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO MAKE IT SO THAT WE HAVE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. AND COMMENTS. YES. YES, SIR. MR. TYLER. TYLER O'NEILL FOR FILLING THE VACANCIES. DOING SPECIAL ELECTIONS. HOW DO WE GO ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD BE CAMPAIGNING PER SE OR THAT WOULD BE PUTTING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO FULFILL THOSE ROLES, JUST LIKE A REGULAR ELECTION? YEAH. IT IS HANDLED LIKE A REGULAR ELECTION. SO. IT JUST REAL QUICK. IT'S LIKE SHORT, SHORT NOTICE. YOU GOT 90 DAYS. 90 DAYS. WHO'S READY TO RUN? YES. OKAY, SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION. HOW IS THIS? PRETTY MUCH BE ON STANDBY. YEAH. OKAY, JUST JUST A FOLLOW ON TO THAT. SO IN 90 DAYS, THEN YOU GOT TO GO OUT AND GET ALL YOUR SIGNATURES AND DO ALL THE THINGS YOU GOT TO DO TO GET ON THE BALLOT. THERE ARE NO THERE ARE NO SIGNATURES TO GET ON THE BALLOT. YOU JUST SIMPLY PAY A QUALIFYING FEE. OH THAT'S IT. AND MEET ALL THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE A MOTION? OH DO WE GET PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW OR AFTER I MAKE THE MOTION? WOULD YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? BILL BATTEN I APPRECIATE THE FACT MAKING WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE THE VOTERS CHOICE INSTEAD OF AN APPOINTMENT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE. AND WHAT I'M GLAD IS YOU'RE GETTING RID OF THE PORTION WHERE IT SAYS BY ORDINANCE, WRITE IT IN CHARTER WHERE IT WILL BE SPECIAL ELECTION, BECAUSE AN ORDINANCE CAN BE CHANGED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR WHIMS. SO BY KEEPING, BY PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER WHERE IT IS AN ACTUAL ELECTION, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO MODIFY THAT PROBLEM. SO WE WON'T HAVE TO FACE IT AGAIN. YES, EILEEN. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ALWAYS SOME CONTINGENCY FOR WHO WILL FILL THAT SPOT IN THE MEANTIME. I DON'T THINK ANY OF OUR LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THEIR PEERS. THEY SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE PEOPLE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. WE HAVE TO KEEP THIS CITY RUNNING, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE HAVE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS REPRESENTED. SO ASIDE FROM HAVING AN ELECTION, WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE WHERE THERE IS A DESIGNATED PERSON WHO CAN MOVE INTO THAT POSITION, SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY AND THAT I NEED TO. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THIS. DO I HAVE A MOTION? IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE. I'D MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE CHARTER LANGUAGE SO THAT IT READS. IN THE EVENT OF A VACANCY, THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL ELECTION HELD NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS AND NO LONGER THAN 180 DAYS PAST THE DATE OF THE VACANCY DECLARATION. YEP. YEP. ADDITIONALLY, IF THERE'S LESS THAN ONE YEAR REMAINING ON THE TERM OF OFFICE, CITY COUNCIL COULD SEE THAT BY A MAJORITY VOTE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST READ WHAT YOU HAVE HERE? SO THAT IT'S ON RECORD? I'M SORRY. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE IF YOU NEED IT. OKAY. I LOST MY PLACE. IT'S RIGHT HERE, SIR. YEAH, THIS IS HERE. I I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO, YOU KNOW, MENTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD, BUT WE DO HAVE TWO SLIGHT ISSUES WITH THIS. JUST AS IS WRITTEN THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FROM LEGAL. WHAT ARE THE TWO ISSUES AGAIN? I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND. I SAID. I SAID, I'M NOT SURE WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME. YOU KNOW, IF I NEED TO INTERJECT INTO SOMETHING WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO DO THAT, I WOULD. BUT I DO HAVE. WE DO HAVE TWO SLIGHT ISSUES WITH THIS FROM LEGAL. WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO BE HEARD ON IT, PLEASE. PLEASE DO. OKAY. SO THE TWO ISSUES IS, OF COURSE. THE FIRST IS THAT WE DON'T HANDLE SPECIAL ELECTIONS. OF COURSE, THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS FOR BREVARD COUNTY HANDLES THAT. SO WE DO ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT IF WE PUT IN TIME LIMITS. NOW, WITH THESE ARE PRETTY BROAD, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS CAN GET THAT SCHEDULED WITHIN THAT TIME I DON'T KNOW IF YOU [02:25:07] WANT TO ALLOW FOR SOME CONTINGENCY IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON. THE OTHER ONE IS, SEE, AND BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS THAT IF THE COUNCIL FAILS TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT AS REQUIRED WITHIN THE 60 DAY PERIOD, A A SPECIAL ELECTION SHALL BE CALLED. SO A SCENARIO FOR THAT IS THAT IF A PERSON RESIGNS WITH SIX MONTHS LEFT IN HIS TERM, AND THEN IN 60 DAYS, COUNCIL DOESN'T APPOINT ANYBODY. YOU NOW HAVE BASICALLY FOUR MONTHS TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION. AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE DOABLE OR EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DO. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS OR NOT, BUT THAT IS TWO ISSUES THAT WE HAD WITH IT. I'D LIKE YOUR SUGGESTIONS. THAT'S HOW WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE. IF YOU TURN ON, I'D LIKE YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE WITHOUT CHANGING THE INTENT. FOR THAT, I WE COULD STRIKE C OR YOU COULD REWRITE THE FIRST ONE AND JUST SAY COUNCIL SHALL YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS A IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. BUT THAT COULD BE ONE OPTION THAT YOU HAVE. OR YOU CAN. THAT'S ONE THAT WE CAME UP WITH. I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAD ANY OTHERS. THE OTHER ONE WOULD JUST BE PERHAPS A STATEMENT YOU KNOW, THAT THERE IS PROVIDED IT CAN BE HANDLED BY THE ELECTIONS OF BREVARD COUNTY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU IF RATHER IF YOU PLACED IN NUMBER ONE YOU SHALL APPOINT. SOMEBODY IN 60 DAYS YOU WOULDN'T NEED SEE, BECAUSE THEY, THEY THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT. IT ALREADY SAYS THAT IN THE EXISTING ONE, AS IT SAYS IT SHALL. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN, IT SAYS, BUT BUT IF THEY FAIL TO DO IT. WELL, ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR IS THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IS NOT THE SUPERVISOR OF PALM BAY ELECTIONS, THE SUPERVISOR OF PALM BAY ELECTIONS AS A CITY CLERK. SO THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY OR THAT THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS HOLDS THE CITY'S SPECIAL ELECTION BECAUSE IT COULD BE HELD BY THE CLERK. TERESE I DO COORDINATE WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS ON ALL ELECTIONS. I HAVE NEVER HELD AN ELECTION ON MY OWN. I REALIZE THAT I'M JUST STATING THE TECHNICALITY OF THE LAW IS YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELECTION, NOT THE SUPERVISOR OF THE ELECTION. YES, THEY CONDUCT IT, I SCHEDULE IT, BUT THEY DO CONDUCT THE ELECTION. THEY BRING IN THE EQUIPMENT. THEY DO ALL THE PROCESSING. I'M NOT INVOLVED ON ELECTION DAY AT ALL. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THAT IN TIMES PAST THE WAY YOU'VE STATED IT IS THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE. I DON'T THINK IT'S CHANGED. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE VERBIAGE AS IT WAS IN ORIGINAL. SO I DON'T I DON'T SEE WHY THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM INASMUCH AS YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT BEFORE THEY CHANGED IT, RIGHT? SO I DON'T SEE IT AS A PROMOTION TO SAY COUNCIL PAL AND THEN STRIKE C. MR. MR. CHAIR. YES. JUST ONE CLARIFICATION FROM TERESE. HOW MUCH NOTICE DOES THE SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS NEED TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL ELECTION? THERE IS NO CERTAIN TIME FRAME. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THEIR AVAILABILITY. SO THAT'S WHY IT DOES CREATE. IT CAN CREATE AN ISSUE WHEN WE PUT CERTAIN TIME FRAMES ON THERE. BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO BY THEIR SCHEDULING. I CAN'T MAKE THEM HOLD AN ELECTION ON A CERTAIN DAY. SO WHAT'S THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM? HOW DO WE FIX THE LANGUAGE SO THAT WE GET ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES INSTEAD OF APPOINTMENTS? IN MY OPINION, I SAY PLACE IT. I'M GOING TO BET THAT, YOU KNOW, I'LL BET YOU A DOLLAR TO A DONUT. THAT'S PROBABLY AS FAR AS I'LL GO, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY IF THERE'S A SPECIAL ELECTION TO TO HAVE IT DONE. I DON'T SEE THEM BEING CONTRARY TO THE EFFORT. SO. SO I WOULD I WOULD LEAVE IT, AS YOU SAID IT AND AND THEN IF A PROBLEM ARISES, WELL, THEN A PROBLEM ARISES. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE A HIGHLY EXCEPTION VERSUS A RULE. MR. CHAIR, INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE TERM. [02:30:01] RIGHT. THE FOUR YEAR TERM, WHAT IF IT WAS JUST BASED ON THE TWO YEAR? SO INSTEAD OF CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION NOW, GRANTED, THERE'S ALL KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHEN THE VACANCY COMES, BUT IF, IF, IF THERE'S INSTEAD OF SAYING LESS THAN A YEAR ON THEIR FULL TERM, LESS THAN A YEAR BEFORE THE NEXT SCHEDULED ELECTION. RIGHT? BECAUSE WHY GO THROUGH ALL THE COST AND EXPENSE OF HOLDING A SPECIAL ELECTION, WHEN WE CAN HAVE A VOTE THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP IN JUST A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME ANYWAY? APPOINT THAT PERSON RIGHT BY PREFERABLY ALMOST INTERVIEWING LIKE LIKE WE DID FOR THE CITY MANAGER, ALMOST, AND APPOINTING SOMEONE TO THAT POSITION TO FILL IT FOR LESS THAN 12 MONTHS UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION COMES UP. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN IN NUMBER ONE PASTOR UP HERE IN IN THE NEW ONE IN IN HIS PROPOSAL, IF 12 MONTHS OR LESS THE VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED BY IT REMAINS IN THE UNEXPIRED TERM. AND SO I TAKE THAT TO BE THE FOUR YEAR TERM. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY SERVE FOR A FOUR YEAR TERM, BUT ELECTIONS ARE EVERY TWO YEARS, RIGHT. AND SO HAVE A HAVE AN ELECTED PERSON WHO SERVES ONLY TWO YEARS TO TO TO BALANCE IT OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE ELECTION TWO YEARS ANYWAY. NOW GRANTED IT DEPENDS. OKAY. SO I WOULD AMEND BEFORE TO BE BEFORE YOU AMEND IT, PLEASE IF YOU CAN HAVE PHIL FIRST AND THEN TERESE BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT DECISION. GO AHEAD THERESA. SO IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY NOW, THE WAY THAT IT CURRENTLY READS IN THE CHARTER SAYS APPOINTMENTS WILL BE TO SERVE UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION CYCLE, WHICH WOULD BE WHATEVER THE NEXT UPCOMING ELECTION IS. EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT. YEAH. AND WHEN. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T SEE THAT I READ IT AS THE FULL TERM. RIGHT. NOT NOT UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED ELECTION, BUT IT WAS THE FULL TERM. THE INTENT WAS THE NEXT SCHEDULED. GOTCHA. OKAY. MY FAULT. NO NO NO NO, JUST TRYING TO CLEAR IT OUT. AND THEN HOW? THE ONE THING I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IS, IS IF THIS. LIKE, THEY SHALL APPOINT SOMEONE IN 60 DAYS. BUT IF THIS FAILS TO HAPPEN, HOW DOES IT FAIL TO HAPPEN? IF IT'S A BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET A QUORUM, IS THAT IT? YOU HAVE THREE. YOU HAVE THREE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND YOU DON'T GET A QUORUM BECAUSE ONE DON'T SHOW UP. YEAH. WHICH HAPPENED RECENTLY WHERE THE MAYOR REFUSED TO SHOW UP BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO APPOINT SOMEONE. SO BASICALLY, IN ESSENCE, THE MAYOR VIOLATED THE CITY CHARTER. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING. EXCUSE ME. I DON'T THINK WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE PAST AS FAR AS VIOLATIONS AND AND DECLARING THAT IT WAS A VIOLATION. IF WE CAN STAY ON TOPIC. WELL, I WAS STAYING ON TOPIC. I WAS REPLYING TO MARK'S COMMENT. BUT ANYWAY, GETTING BACK TO TOM'S PROPOSAL YOU KNOW, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE THAT I THINK IT'S FINE. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW AND TERESE CAN COMMENT ON THIS IS YOU KNOW, IT'S NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS OR MORE THAN 180 DAYS. I DON'T THINK THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS HAS EVER NOT BEEN ABLE TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN 90 DAYS NOTICE. SO. YEAH. CORRECT. SO I THINK IT'S IT'S FINE. SO SO THE ONLY QUESTION THEN REMAINS IN C IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY? IF IF THEY DON'T DO IT, IT'S IN THE CHARTER. THEY'RE IN VIOLATION. THEY CAN GET SUED, AM I CORRECT? I'M SORRY. SAY IT AGAIN. IF IF IF THEY DIDN'T. IF ACCORDING TO CHARTER, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SELECT SOMEONE WITHIN 60 DAYS AND THEY DO NOT, CAN THE CITY BE SUED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR CHARTER? MR. MESSENGER? I'M SORRY. I WAS READING AHEAD TO THE NEXT ONE. I'M SORRY. PLEASE REPEAT. THAT'S OKAY. IF. IF THEY WERE. IF THEY SHALL APPOINT SOMEONE WITHIN 60 DAYS AND THEY DO NOT, THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER. COULD THEY BE SUED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE, ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER? IT'S LIKE A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. YOU TAKE IT TO COURT? YEAH, I'M. I'M NOT SURE IF. I THINK THAT THAT'S A POSSIBLE OUTCOME. BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW ULTIMATELY YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE HANDLED WITHIN VIOLATING THE IF THEY DIDN'T SEAT SOMEBODY WITHIN THE 60 DAYS. YEAH, I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND PROBABLY SOMEONE WOULD SUE THEM. SO YOU WANT TO DO YOU WANT TO JUST CHANGE IT? [02:35:03] YEAH. SO WE'LL SEE. WE'LL STRIKE. C AND NUMBER ONE YOU WANT TO PUT THE COUNCIL SHALL WRITE IF 12 MONTHS OR LESS REMAINS IN THE UNEXPECTED TERM, THE THE VACANCY SHALL OR IS THERE SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT OF MAJORITY WITHIN 60 DAYS. IT'S ALREADY THERE. SHALL IS THERE? SO IS IT THE UNEXPIRED TERM OR UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION? OKAY. OKAY. SO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MOTION. YES. WHEN A VACANCY IS DECLARED, IF THERE IS LESS THAN ONE YEAR LEFT ON THE TERM OF THAT VACANCY, THE COUNCIL CAN APPOINT SOMEONE INTO THAT SEAT UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. OR IF THERE'S LESS THAN ONE YEAR UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. EXCUSE ME. YEAH. IF THERE'S LESS THAN ONE YEAR TILL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION ON A VACANCY. THE COUNCIL CAN APPOINT TO THAT SEAT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT YEAR UNTIL THE ELECTION. OTHERWISE, WHEN THE VACANCY IS DECLARED SPECIAL ELECTION WILL BE HELD NOT LESS THAN 90 DAYS AND NOT MORE THAN 180 DAYS AFTER THE VACANCY IS DECLARED. OKAY. ONE LAST THING, AND THEN I'LL PASS IT TO YOU. TERESE. I'M ASSUMING THE REASON WHY THEY THEY PUT TILL THE END OF THEIR TERM IS BECAUSE THERE HAS TO BE STAGGERED ELECTIONS. AND IF SOMEONE JUST IF SOMEONE QUITS AFTER THE FIRST SIX MONTHS AND THEY GO TO THE NEXT ELECTION WHEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FULFILL FOUR, THEN YOU'LL HAVE, LIKE, EVERYBODY BEING ELECTED FOR THAT TERM VERSUS IT BEING STAGGERED. CORRECT. SO AND YOU WERE GOING TO SHARE SOMETHING? THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THE NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS, NO MORE THAN 180, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE DID COMMUNICATE WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. THEY DID NOT LIKE HAVING THE TIME FRAME. THAT'S WHY IN THE NEW THE CHARTER AS IT IS NOW, IT SAYS A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY SHALL BE CALLED AND HELD IN A MANNER COORDINATED BY THE CITY CLERK AND THE SUPERVISOR. ELECTION. OKAY. SO YOU WANT TO DROP THE. YEAH, I THINK THE TIME FRAME. I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE ELECTIONS OFFICE. WE WOULD JUST SAY A SPECIAL ELECTION SHALL BE DECLARED. YES. AND COORDINATED BETWEEN THE CITY CLERK AND THE NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS. I'M SURE THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I MEAN, BECAUSE, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S A WEIRD THING, BUT THEY COULD JUST SUDDENLY SAY 30 DAYS FROM NOW AND THEN THERE'S NO CAMPAIGN. THERE'S NO WELL, YEAH, WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE QUALIFYING AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. SO. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION THEN, THAT THE SPECIAL ELECTION WOULD BE DECLARED. NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE SEAT BEING DECLARED VACANT. OKAY. I'M SURE YOU'LL GET ALL THAT IN THE MINUTES. YOU'LL DO YOUR MAGIC, DO I? I SEE YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP. I SEE THAT HAND. TOM, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESTATE YOUR MOTION JUST THE WAY YOU HAVE IT WRITTEN? BECAUSE YOU SAID. AND YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION. WELL, THEY CAN MAKE, YOU KNOW, AND THIS KIND OF STUFF. READ THE MOTION JUST THE WAY YOU HAVE IT. READ WITH THE WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE LEAVING THE NO MORE NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS, BUT JUST REMOVE THE NO MORE THAN 180 DAYS, RIGHT. OKAY, SO FILLING A VACANCY IF 12 MONTHS OR LESS REMAINS ON THE EXPIRED TERM OF VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT OF THE MAJORITY REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 60 DAYS. THE APPOINTEE APPOINTEES SHALL SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE UNEXPIRED SHALL SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OR UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. I WOULD NOT PUT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AGAIN, BECAUSE THEN YOU WON'T HAVE STAGGERED ELECTIONS. YOU'LL HAVE. MULTIPLE. YOU'LL HAVE LIKE THREE PEOPLE ALL GETTING VOTED. AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR, THE NEXT ELECTION WILL ONLY BE ONE, BECAUSE AS IT STANDS, IT'S STAGGERED. BUT AM I CORRECT? TERESE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE JAFFE DECIDED TO LEAVE OFFICE RIGHT NOW AND SAY HIS TERM EXPIRES IN 28. IF HE. WHERE ARE WE IN 25? SO HE WOULD HAVE LITERALLY THREE YEARS LEFT ON HIS TERM. HERM. IF WE HELD IT WITH THE NEXT ELECTION, THAT WOULD BE IN 26, BUT THAT WOULD BE JUST THAT WOULD BE YEARS. [02:40:06] THAT WOULD BE CORRECT TO ELECT SOMEONE FOR A TWO YEAR TERM. THAT WOULD BE AND I THINK WE HAVE PRECEDENT FINISH THAT TERM. BUT IF THE TERM DOES NOT EXPIRE UNTIL 28, I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT TOO. IF WE HAVE AN ELECTION TO. YEAH. WELL, THAT THE PERSON ELECTED WOULD THEN FILL THE TERM UNTIL 28, SO WE'D HAVE AN ELECTION IN 26. SITUATION WE'RE IN NOW WITH THE DEPUTY MAYOR. RIGHT? EXACTLY RIGHT. YES. SO AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING JUST IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. IF THERE'S MORE THAN 12 MONTHS, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A SPECIAL ELECTION AND IT WILL GO THROUGH. IF IT'S EVEN IF IT'S TWO YEARS, IT'S STILL FINISHING THE UNEXPIRED TERM. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE STILL FEELING JUST THE WAY IT SAYS. IT WILL STILL FILL UP UNTIL THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE NEXT ELECTIONS, RIGHT? AND THAT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF APPOINTEE FOR SIX MONTHS. CORRECT. ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR TWO YEARS. CORRECT. SO I DON'T SEE WHERE WHERE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. WELL, THE ELECTION, THE MIDYEAR ELECTION. RIGHT. THERE'S TWO YEARS LEFT, AS TERRY SAID, THERE'S TWO YEARS LEFT. FROM THAT, FROM THAT MIDTERM ELECTION, THAT PERSON WOULD ONLY BE ELECTED TO SERVE FOR TWO YEARS. SO NOT TO THROW IT OUT OF BALANCE. SO HE WOULDN'T BE FULFILLING THE ENTIRE TERM JUST UP UNTIL THERE'S A REGULAR ELECTION. SO IT WOULD PUT IT RIGHT BACK ON THE REGULAR CYCLE. YEAH. AND THE GUY WOULD GET BACK TO WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. ATTORNEY MESSENGER. HOW DO YOU SAY WHAT WE WANT TO SAY? YOU. WE'VE ALREADY SAID WHAT WE WANT TO SAY. BUT HOW DO WE SAY IT? SO THAT WE CAN. WE CAN PUT IT IN A MOTION. WELL, I THINK TOM JUST SAID IT. THAT THE LAST MOTION. OKAY. REMOVAL OF THE NO MORE THAN 180 DAYS. OKAY. DO IT AGAIN, PLEASE. IF YOU WOULD. AND I'M SO SORRY IF I'M CONFUSED. IF 12 MONTHS OR LESS REMAINS ON THE UNEXPIRED TERM, THE VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE MAJORITY OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE APPOINTEE, OR OF THE SEAT BEING DECLARED VACANT. THE APPOINTEE SHALL SERVE EITHER THE REMAINDER OF THE REMAINING TERM OR UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION, WHICHEVER IS LESS. IF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS REMAIN ON AN UNEXPIRED TERM AND NO GENERAL ELECTION IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD. A SPECIAL ELECTION SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD NO SOONER THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE SEAT BEING DECLARED VACANT. DID THAT COVER IT, ATTORNEY MESSENGER, OR DO YOU NEED THAT TO BE REVIEWED AND COME BACK NEXT TIME? I'M GOING TO NEED TO READ THAT. OKAY. SO IF YOU'LL WRITE THAT OUT I HAVE A MOTION. I'M I'M GOING TO TABLE THIS. IF WE CAN AGREE TO TABLE THIS IN VERBIAGE, NOT IN PRINCIPLE, BUT IN VERBIAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ATTORNEY WRITES IT DOWN SO THAT WE ACTUALLY GET WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE DON'T HAVE A LEGAL PROBLEM LATER ON. YES, SIR. YEAH. WE DON'T NEED TO TABLE IT. WE CAN APPROVE IT. WE HAVE A MOTION. I'M SECONDING THE MOTION. WE CAN VOTE ON IT. AND IF THE ATTORNEY HAS ANY PROBLEM WITH THE THE LANGUAGE, HE CAN BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. CORRECT. THAT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO DO. I HAVE A SECOND TO MR. TOM. YES, SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND. AND BYE BYE, PHIL. AND ALL IN FAVOR? OH. EXCUSE ME. ANY COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL AGAINST. UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. THANK YOU. JESUS. OKAY. YES. IT WAS. OKAY. SECTION 3063. MR. MILLER HAD A GREAT POINT. I'D LIKE HIM TO GO AHEAD AND EXPRESS IT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. FOR ME, IT'S KIND OF GOING BACK TO WHAT RUTH SAID AT OUR FIRST MEETING. A DEFINITION OF ABSENTEEISM, RIGHT? WITH THE CURRENT AVAILABILITY OF TEAMS AND ZOOM AND SKYPE AND CALLING IN AND ALL THESE OTHER KIND OF THINGS IS ABSENTEEISM MEANS PHYSICALLY NOT HERE IN THE ROOM, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CALL INS LATELY. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. AND SO I GUESS I'M ASKING FOR A DEFINITION OF ABSENTEEISM. I THINK YOU HAVE. OR ABS. YEAH. OR OR THE WORD ABSENCE. OKAY. SORRY. I'M SORRY. WE ARE. YES. I'M 303063. [02:45:01] OH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE UNDER. YES. YES, SIR. OKAY. POINT ONE. SURE. AND SO DO CALL INS COUNT AS BEING PRESENT? CAN YOU BE HERE AND VOTE? AND SHOULD THEY BE LIMITED, CAN YOU CALL IN TO EVERY ONE OF THEM? NO. IF THEY DON'T COUNT AS AN ABSENTEE, CAN YOU DIAL IN REMOTELY FOR EVERY MEETING? MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT FIRST OF ALL. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S COVERED RIGHT NOW BY ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE BY PHONE. CAN THEY VOTE BY PHONE? IF THEY PARTICIPATE BY PHONE? IT'S NOT THEY'RE NOT ABSENT. OKAY. DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT IN THE CHARTER? YES. YES. OKAY. AND SO ANY DISCUSSION? I ACTUALLY WROTE SOMETHING UP, AND IT WAS BASED ON MRS. COFIELD'S DISCUSSION FROM THE LAST MEETING. OKAY. I WORK WITH AI EVERY DAY. I COULD MAKE A DEEPFAKE OF YOU TOMORROW. YOU COULD? YES. THERE WE GO. THAT'S SO TRUE. I HAVE A PICTURE OF YOU FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS MEETING. I HAVE YOUR VOICE. I COULD MAKE YOU SAY ANYTHING I WANT YOU TO SAY. SO I, I APPLAUD MRS. COFIELD FOR FOR THINKING. AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, SIX YEARS BEFORE THIS GETS OPENED UP AGAIN. WHEREAS AI IS GOING TO BE BY THAT POINT. YEAH. I THINK MICROPHONE FOR THEM TO CALL IN, TURN ON YOUR MIC. AND JUST A CLARIFICATION. MY LAST NAME IS PRONOUNCED HOLD COUGH HOLD. SORRY. THERE'S NO FIELD IN MY NAME. WE MY HUSBAND SAYS HOLD YOUR COUGH. OKAY. YES. COUGH. COLD. THANK YOU. OKAY. BUT THE POINT BEING IS I COULD VERY EASILY CREATE A DEEPFAKE. AND I'M A NOVICE. I MEAN, THE KIDS TODAY ON THEIR PHONES COULD DO THE SAME THING. LIKE A SNAP OF THEIR FINGERS. SO I APPLAUD HER BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT WAS VERY FORWARD LOOKING. BUT I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO BE HERE TO VOTE. I THINK THEY CAN TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSION. THEY CAN DO ALL THE OTHER DUTIES BY PHONE, BY VIDEO CONFERENCE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO TIME TO ACTUALLY DO THE VOTE, THEY NEED TO BE IN CHAMBERS. YES, SIR. YEAH. ONE THING I WANT TO CLARIFY IS THE FACT THAT IF THEY PARTICIPATE BY PHONE, THEY CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS A QUORUM. THEY CAN'T VOTE, BUT THEY CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS A QUORUM, WHICH IS ANOTHER FORM. MUST BE HERE PHYSICALLY. RIGHT. WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON THEY SHOULD VOTE IN PERSON, IS BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE TO BE HERE TO BE COUNTED AS A QUORUM, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO BE HERE TO BE COUNTED AS A VOTE. GOOD POINT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I NEED A MOTION. IS THERE A DISCUSSION OR A MOTION DISCUSSION? OKAY. SORRY. EARLIER, RUTH SPOKE ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THEIR PRESENCE BEING HERE AND BEING ABLE TO SEE THEIR DEMEANOR AND HOW THEY'RE INTERACTING. LIKE THEY HAVE A DUTY. ONCE A MONTH. BEST CASE SCENARIO TO PRESENT THEMSELVES UNDERSTANDING. THERE ARE MEDICAL EMERGENCIES. THERE ARE FAMILY EMERGENCIES. WE WENT OVER THAT AMONGST OURSELVES AND OUR LAST, LAST MONTH ABOUT OUR ABSENCES AND PRESENCE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. AND WE MADE OUR CHANGES AND WE AGREED UPON THEY ARE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN US. PEOPLE TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR EVENINGS AND FAMILIES TO COME OUT AND SPEAK TO THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. SO THE RESPECTFULNESS OF SHOWING UP THEMSELVES, IF THEY ARE CAPABLE, IF THEY'RE IN HEALTHY TO PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE CITY OFFICIALS THAT ELECTED THEM, IS, FOR STARTERS, THE RESPECTABLE THING TO DO. IT ALSO AGAIN SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION TO THE PEOPLE AND TO YOUR JOB THAT YOU'RE DOING HERE. SO I WOULD LIKE PHONING IN TO BE REMOVED UNLESS I. BUT EVEN THEN, LIKE IF YOU'RE AT THE MEDICAL OR FAMILY EMERGENCY, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR ATTENTION THERE AND NOT SPLITTING THE TWO. IF YOU CAN'T BE HERE, YOU CAN'T PHONE IN. ANY OTHER. I HAD ONE OTHER COMMENT AND HE KIND OF ALLUDED TO THAT IS AT OUR LAST MEETING. THESE ARE THE EXACT RESTRICTIONS WE PUT ON OURSELVES AS CITIZENS. AND IF WE'RE WILLING TO PUT THOSE RESTRICTIONS ON OURSELVES, WHY SHOULDN'T WE EXPECT THE SAME THING FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS? MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, TOM, IS, AGAIN, DON'T FORGET ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY CHARTER. UNDERSTOOD. I HAVE TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT TO GO BEFORE THE VOTERS. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO POINT PUTTING OUT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, GOING TO BE LOOKED AT UNKINDLY BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I WOULD SAY LIKE THEY USED TO SAY IN THE OTHER TIMES WHEN I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY WERE DOING, THEY SAID, WELL, THEY CAN DECIDE. AND SO I SAY, LET THEM DECIDE. [02:50:04] THEY CAN SAY NO. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. WE'RE JUST PROPOSING THAT THEY DO IT. AND AND I THINK I COULD USE TECHNOLOGY TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THIS IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. YEAH, WELL, I THINK YOU CAN USE TECHNOLOGY TO REPLACE THEM AS WELL. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YEAH. YEAH. EILEEN. I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. IT'S IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT WE THINK THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME ETHICAL PEOPLE ON THERE WHO WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND NOT JUST BE SELF-SERVING, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WANT TO GET REELECTED. SO I DON'T THINK A CONSIDERATION OF HOW THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT WE DECIDE SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION. WE SHOULD JUST DO WHAT WE BELIEVE IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE. AMEN. OKAY. WE GOT TWO HANDS. WE'LL START WITH WOMEN FIRST. RUTH. I GUESS NO OFFENSE. I'M KIND OF TIRED. I'M KIND OF OPPOSED TO HEARING. WELL, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE THAT. AND I'M LIKE, I'M NOT HERE FOR THEM TO LIKE THIS. THIS IS OUR CHANGING OF THE CITY CHARTER, AS WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT FROM PEOPLE THAT I GOT INFORMATION FROM. THIS IS ONE OF THE CITY THE CITIZENS BIGGEST ANGST. THEY CAN'T HEAR THEM WHEN THEY'RE ON A TELEPHONE. THEY WANT TO SEE THEM TO MAKE SURE IT'S ACTUALLY THEM. GIVEN THE AI DISCUSSION. AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THE CITIZENS ARE IN CHARGE. I DON'T LIKE WAITING UNTIL FOUR YEARS LATER TO REPLACE SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FOLLOW THE CITY CHARTER. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY LIKE. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WE ARE THE BOSS, WE THE PEOPLE AND THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. LISTEN AND BE ATTENTIVE TO THE WHIMS OF THE CITY PEOPLE. THERE'S MY SOAPBOX AGAIN. AND NOW, MR. O'NEILL. THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AGAIN, LIKE, SHE'S COMPLETELY RIGHT. WE ARE THE PEOPLE. BUT AS WE HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE AND GOING AGAINST THE IDEA OF THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE IT DOWN. DOING THE RIGHT THING. BUT LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN. WHAT IF THIS IS SOMETHING THEY DO WANT? I FROM WHERE I'M SITTING, I DO NOT KNOW ALL THE POWERS THEY HOLD WHEN IT COMES TO THEM PHONING IN AND MAKING THE CHANGES THEMSELVES. BUT I ALSO DO KNOW NOW THAT WE HOLD THAT POWER TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, AND THEY AMONGST THEMSELVES MAY WANT THIS CHANGE TO HOLD THEIR COUNTERPARTS, THEIR COWORKERS, ACCOUNTABLE. AS WELL, WITH THE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE MEMBERS THAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR, IF THEY'RE SHOWING UP REGULARLY. AND INDIVIDUALS ARE CONSTANTLY NOT BEING PRESENT, BUT ONLY THROUGH A CELLULAR DEVICE. IT'S LIKE, WHO DID I VOTE FOR? BUT DIALING BACK, PUSHING THIS FORWARD TO OUR MEMBERS BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THEY COULD AND MAY WANT THEMSELVES AS WELL. YEAH. CHAIR, JUST PASTOR MILLER. GO AHEAD. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. SO YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR WAS A DEFINITION OF ABSENTEEISM, RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE SAYING PHYSICALLY PRESENT, RIGHT. AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN PHYSICALLY BEING HERE IS CONSIDERED ABSENT. THERE'S A SECOND PART TO THAT WHERE IT'S PRETTY GENEROUS, RIGHT. FOR YOU CAN MISS FOUR CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS AND YOU CAN MISS SIX MEETINGS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD. THAT'S PRETTY GENEROUS. LIKE THAT'S LIKE REALLY GENEROUS. AND THAT'S BEFORE WE EVEN GET DOWN TO THE ILLNESS PART. THAT'S JUST LIKE EVERYDAY STUFF. YOU CAN MISS HALF THE MEETINGS AND STILL BE OKAY. SO THE SECOND PART OF THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN MY NOTES, IS DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT TIGHTENING UP A REQUIREMENT ON ABSENTEEISM? NOT IF THEY CAN'T VOTE BY PHONE BECAUSE THEY'RE ABSENT. IF THEY CAN'T, IF THEY'RE ON THE PHONE. YEAH. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY CAN MISS. THEY CANNOT VOTE FOR WEEKS OR FOR MONTHS IN A ROW. OR THEY CAN MISS. YEAH. FOUR. OH, YEAH. FOUR MEETINGS. RIGHT. SO TWO MONTHS. YEP, YEP. SO HISTORY IS WE HAD A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER BECOME SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY ILL. NOW TO ME, THAT'S IN THE PHONED IN FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS PHONED IN. RIGHT. AND I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT WAS RIGHT. I THINK THIS TAKES CARE OF THAT ISSUE I AGREE. AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT 30632 THAT'S GOT SOME COMMENTS ON THAT RIGHT ALONG WITH YOU THERE. [02:55:03] THOMAS. THANK YOU, MR.. PHIL. YEAH. TOM I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR YOU KNOW REQUIRING THEM NOT TO BE ABLE TO VOTE IF THEY PARTICIPATE BY PHONE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM PARTICIPATING BY PHONE IN THE IN A SITUATION, A MEDICAL SITUATION OR A IF THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ALTHOUGH I, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THING THAT YOU DIDN'T PROPOSE IS IS LIMITING THAT BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY'RE IF THEY PARTICIPATE BY PHONE BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE, THAT'S NOT AN ABSENTEEISM THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. IF WE WANT TO PUT IN THERE THAT, THAT IF THEY ARE ABSENT, IF THEY'RE PHYSICALLY ABSENT FROM THE MEETING, THEN THEY WOULD FORFEIT THEIR SEAT. IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THAT WOULD HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH RANDY FOSTER, FOR INSTANCE, WHO WAS OUT FOR I MEAN, HE HAD A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION AND HE WAS OUT FOR MONTHS. BUT BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM LIMITING THEIR ABILITY TO VOTE IF THEY PARTICIPATE BY PHONE. BUT LET'S PUT A LIMIT ON THAT. ON HOW HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY TIMES CONSECUTIVELY THEY CAN PARTICIPATE BY PHONE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT EITHER. I THINK I ACTUALLY COVERED THAT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE BY PHONE FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCIES COVERED BY ADA. SO THAT COVERS THAT. OKAY, SO THE MAIN, MY MAIN CONCERN IS, IS THAT I WANT TO SEE THE PERSON I ELECTED MAKE THE VOTE. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TRACK THAT VOTE. AND IF I CAN'T SEE HIM OR KNOW FOR SURE THAT THAT'S THAT'S THEM, THEN I HAVE A RIGHT TO QUESTION THAT VOTE. THAT'S IT. PURE AND SIMPLE. BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. YEAH. SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON SECOND. LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK. ATTORNEY MESSENGER, YOU HAD A COMMENT OR SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SHARE? YEAH. WE DO, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGER CONCERNS THAT WE HAD FROM THE CAO WAS THIS ISSUE. I'M GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THE ADA, BECAUSE UNDER THE ADA, WE HAVE TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS. AND JUST AS A REFERENCE, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T PHYSICALLY BEEN IN A COURTROOM IN A LONG TIME BECAUSE WE DO ALL OF OUR MOTIONS NOW THROUGH TEAMS. I'VE DONE A LOT OF HEARINGS NOW THAT GO THROUGH TEAMS AND OUR CALL INS. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE WERE TO ENFORCE THIS AGAINST SOMEBODY AND SAY YOU WERE GONE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE OF ADA ISSUES THAT HEARING IS GOING TO BE DONE OVER SKYPE OR TEAMS. AND I THINK A JUDGE IS GOING TO THINK WE'RE BEING UNREASONABLE. IF WE'RE SAYING THAT A PERSON CAN'T COME IN, YOU KNOW, AS AN ALTERNATIVE. AND I THINK THIS ALSO COME IN VIA, YOU KNOW CALL IN OR WHAT HAVE YOU, I THINK WE, WE RISK LOOKING UNREASONABLE. I THINK THIS ACCOUNTS ALSO FOR, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL MILITARY SERVICE OF A PERSON IS IN THE RESERVES, YET IS STILL ABLE TO. AND HE'S CALLED OFF SOMEWHERE AND YET STILL ABLE TO CALL IN. YOU KNOW, I THINK, AGAIN, YOU RUN INTO THOSE SAME ISSUES WHERE I THINK A TRIER OF FACT IS GOING TO THINK THAT WE LOOK QUITE UNREASONABLE, SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO COME IN OVER SKYPE IF YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THE ABILITY TO DO SO. BECAUSE I PROMISE YOU, MOST OF THAT COURT CASE WILL BE DONE OVER TEAMS. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, DURING COVID TRIAL, ATTORNEYS DID WHOLE TRIALS OVER, OVER TEAMS AND SKYPE. SO I THINK JUDGES ARE GOING TO AND TRIERS OF FACT ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK WELL ON LIMITING CALL INS UNDER AT LEAST SEVERE CIRCUMSTANCES. MAY I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? CAN WE LIMIT THEIR VOTE, THOUGH? CAN WE SAY YOU HAVE TO BE PRESENT TO VOTE NO. BECAUSE. BECAUSE THAT IS SORT OF THE THE WHOLE CRUX OF WHAT THEY'RE HERE TO DO. EVEN WITH THE RECENT EVENTS, YOU SEE THAT IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE AND YOU'RE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE, YOU CAN'T VOTE. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU REPRESENT PEOPLE. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESS AND YOU CAN'T AND YOU'RE NOT THERE, YOU CAN'T VOTE. YOU DON'T HAVE A PROXY VOTE. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THOSE RULES WERE UPDATED FOR FOR THEM. I THINK I THINK THIS IS CONCURRENT. IF YOU'RE NOT PRESENT, YOU CAN'T VOTE. OKAY. WELL, I'M I'M JUST POINTING OUT TO YOU THE PITFALLS THAT WE SAW WITH THIS FROM THE COW. OKAY. I WOULD SAY THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD. I'M SORRY. [03:00:04] RUTH WOULD LIKE TO ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS FRAUD. OKAY. THAT'S BASICALLY REALLY SIMPLE. OKAY. NOBODY INTENTIONALLY CREATES FRAUD. A LOT OF TIMES IN THESE SITUATIONS. BUT IN THE INSTANCE OF COUNCILMAN FOSTER, HE SHOULD HAVE STEPPED DOWN. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MORALLY ETHICAL ACTION TO DO. IF YOU ARE SO SICK THAT YOU CAN'T COME IN TO DO YOUR DUTY, THEN YOU NEED TO STEP DOWN. AND IF WE PUT THAT IN HERE, BECAUSE ITEM NUMBER TWO GIVES ALL KINDS OF WONDERFUL EXCUSES, IF YOU'RE REALLY SICK, THEN YOU STILL GET TO KEEP YOUR SEAT. THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY IS NOT BEING DONE. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE SICK. BUT IF YOU CAN'T BE HERE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE SOME OF THESE THINGS. LIKE COMMISSIONER MILLER SAID TO TIGHTEN THESE UP. BUT IF YOU CANNOT DO YOUR DUTY, YOU NEED TO STEP DOWN. YOU I MEAN, I IF I'M SO SICK THAT I CAN'T BE HERE, I HAVE THAT DUTY AS A AS A CITIZEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT I AM TALKING TO WHO HELPED ME GET HERE ON THIS COMMISSION. I WOULD STEP DOWN. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LONG TERM, CORRECT? YES. I MEAN, IF I'M SORRY. YES. BECAUSE IN THE EXAMPLE OF COMMISSIONER OF COUNCILMAN FOSTER, THAT WAS SIX MONTHS, NOT HERE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHO'S ON THE OTHER. YOU COULDN'T HEAR HIM, I NEVER YEAH, IT WAS RIDICULOUS. AND THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT ENFORCED IRRITATES ME, BECAUSE THIS IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO CODIFY THIS AND MAKE THIS MORE SOLID AND MORE RESTRICTIVE, BECAUSE THIS HAS TO BE ENFORCED. ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THIS CHARTER ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED ALL THE TIME. MR. THOMAS, I JUST WANTED COMMISSIONER. GO BACK TO MR. MESSENGER STATEMENTS. I UNDERSTAND THE COURTS DO EVERYTHING OVER TEAMS, OVER SECURED CONNECTIONS. THAT'S NOT A TELEPHONE CALL THAT CAN'T BE HEARD BY THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY CALL IN HERE TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND THE PUBLIC DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS PLAYING WITH HIS KID OR SITTING AT A BAR AND JUST UNMUTING IT TO GO, I OR WHAT. SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY TO COUNTER THIS. THEN YOU COULD FIND A LESS RESTRICTIVE WAY, LIKE MAKING THEM COME IN VIA TEAMS, IF THAT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE IN HERE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION. I'M JUST SAYING THAT PHONING IT IN IS I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING VIABLE IN THE FUTURE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF WE COMPLETELY SAY YOU HAVE TO BE HERE TO VOTE. I THINK THAT AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN ADA ISSUE OR YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MILITARY DEPLOYMENT ISSUE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND THE PERSON IS STILL ABLE TO COME IN VIA PHONE. YOU KNOW, I JUST AND IF THEY SUE US, I JUST DON'T THINK A JUDGE IS GOING TO LOOK FAVORABLY ON ON THAT OUTCOME WHERE WE WERE JUST COMPLETELY RESTRICTING THEM. SO I'M SORRY. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER. SO JUST GOING BACK TO 30631. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF ABSENCE PERIOD. THEN WE GET INTO THAT. IN DASH TWO WE TALK ABOUT ILLNESSES AND DISABILITIES AND ALL THOSE OTHER OTHER KIND OF THINGS. AND MAYBE THERE'S EXCEPTIONS FOR THOSE KIND OF CASES. AND IF SOMEONE'S DEPLOYED AND WE CAN PUT SOME OF THOSE DOWN, I'M I'M JUST SAYING WHAT IS ABSENT. THAT'S ALL I, THAT'S MY QUESTION OR OR MY REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. IN THE CITY CHARTER IS WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF ABSENCE HERE WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US? SO YES, RUTH COMMISSIONER RUTH, MY ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE NOT PHYSICALLY HERE. IF YOU ARE NOT PHYSICALLY IN CHAMBERS DURING A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL, THEN YOU ARE MARKED ABSENT. AND IF YOU DO NOT, OKAY, SO ABSENT. HERE'S MY PROPOSAL AB FOR ONE ABSENCE FROM TWO CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL, OR A TOTAL OF FOUR WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, SHALL VACATE THE SEAT OF THE MEMBER. THE CLERK SHALL NOTIFY THE COUNCIL OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES, OR THE FOURTH, WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER. WITH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AN ILLNESS OR A DEPLOYMENT. [03:05:04] WELL, THAT GOES THAT GETS COVERED IN TWO. SO THAT I WAS JUST KIND OF JUST KNOW I'M TIGHTENING THESE UP JUST AS A SUGGESTION. YEAH, SO I NEED A MOTION. YES, I NEED WHEN SOMEONE IS MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY DISABLED, ARE COUNCIL IS REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ASSURANCE THAT THEY'RE FULLY PRESENT AND CAPABLE OF MAKING DECISIONS. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, I FEEL SORRY FOR PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET SICK, BUT SOMETIMES THE JOB'S NOT FOR YOU AND THAT THIS IS WHY I SAID WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A AN ALTERNATIVE, EVEN IF IT'S IF IT'S TEMPORARY, THEN THAT SAVES THEIR SEAT. SO IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM WITH THE ADA. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LIKE MINDED OR EVEN A CONSULTATION WITH THAT PERSON TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THINGS THEY PROMISE GET ACCOMPLISHED, BUT THAT THAT'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. YEAH. MR. CHAIR. YES, I THINK I THINK ABSENTEEISM HAS ALREADY BEEN WELL DEFINED IN THE CHARTER IN THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A QUORUM IS THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT, PHYSICALLY PRESENT. SO IF YOU'RE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT, YOU'RE ABSENT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE COUNTED TO BE PART OF A QUORUM. THEREFORE YOU ARE ABSENT. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CODIFIED. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE PLACED WHETHER WE WE TAKE NUMBER ONE AND PUT IT A AND B WITH A BEING, THE DEFINITION ABSENTEEISM IS WHEN SOMEONE IS PHYSICALLY NOT PRESENT, WHEN SOMEONE IS NOT PART OF THE QUORUM. CORRECT. SO. SO I STILL NEED A MOTION. WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DECIDE NOW? WE'RE TRYING TO SAY WHAT NUMBER ONE SAYS OR WHAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS A REAL DEFINITION OF ABSENTEE. I'M TRYING TO WE'RE WE'RE ADDRESSING MARK MILLER'S. WE DON'T WE HAVE NOT DEFINED ABSENTEEISM. OKAY. AND AND SO ABSENTEE BEING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD A SECTION IN HERE THAT REMOVE ONE AND TWO DOWN. AND ABSENTEEISM MEANS THAT YOU ARE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN CITY CHAMBERS DURING A REGULAR MEETING. DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ATTORNEY MESSENGER? I'M SORRY. CAN SHE REPEAT IT? I WAS READING THE WHOLE SENTENCE. THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH. OKAY, WELL, WE'RE ADDING A SECTION. OKAY. ABSENTEEISM. MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT THE DEFINITION OF ABSENTEEISM MEANS THAT YOU ARE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS DURING A REGULAR MEETING. WELL, WE CAN PUT IT. AND YOU KNOW, I CAN LOOK INTO IT AND SEE WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, IF AGAIN, IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES, WE CAN BRING THAT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. COULD, COULD WE JUST ALSO INSTEAD OF MOVING EVERYTHING DOWN, COULD WE JUST PUT 30633.063 ABSENTEEISM AND ADD TO THAT AS DEFINED AS NOT BEING PRESENT FOR QUORUM? I WOULD YIELD TO TERESA AS BEING FORMATTING THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING, WE JUST ADDING THE DEFINITION. SO SO IF WE WANT TO SAY ABSENTEEISM AS THE TITLE OF SECTION 3.063 IS THAT WE'RE SAYING? YEAH. OKAY. SO LET ME REVISE MY MOTION. OR DO YOU WANT ME TO WITHDRAW IT FIRST? WE NEVER SECONDED IT. OKAY, GOOD. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE TITLE OF ABSENTEEISM. SECTION 3.063. ABSENTEEISM IS TO MEAN THAT A COUNCIL PERSON IS NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS DURING A REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING OR DURING ANY COUNCIL MEETING, WHETHER IT'S ANY COUNCIL MEETING THAT REQUIRES A QUORUM. YEAH. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO LET ME STATE THAT AGAIN. ABSENTEEISM IS TO MEAN THAT A COUNCIL PERSON MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT ANY SCHEDULED MEETING THAT REQUIRES A QUORUM. [03:10:03] I DON'T THINK THAT WAS QUITE CLEAR. YEAH. YEAH. IS THAT OKAY? I MEAN, LET'S DISCUSS IT. OR SHOULD I JUST SAY, AT ANY RATE, AT ANY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE YOU KNOW,, AT ANY COUNCIL MEETING? ANY COUNCIL MEETING REQUIRES A QUORUM. ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS REQUIRE A QUORUM TO CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY YOU KNOW, ANY COUNCIL MEETING. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO INTERJECT THAT I THINK I THINK THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AS MR. MESSENGER POINTED OUT, WITH PEOPLE IN, IN RESERVES WITH THE ADA YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK INTO BECAUSE THAT COULD CREATE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, THAT LANGUAGE. IT'S TOO BROAD. YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT HAVING TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT TO, TO MAKE IT COMPLY, I GUESS, WITH ADA AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN 062, COULD WE PUT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE'S A AN APPROVED EXCEPTION OR A VOTE BY THE REMAINING MEMBERS TO APPROVE, I THINK WE CAN'T BE THE TITLE A CONDITION. THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE SECTION. YEAH. THAT'S WHY EVERYTHING HAS TO BE MOVED DOWN. BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TOO LENGTHY IN THE TITLE, ALL WE'RE DOING WITH THE TITLE IS JUST EXPLAINING WHAT ABSENTEEISM IS. THE EXCEPTIONS CAN BE FURTHER DOWN IN IN ABSENCES CREATED BY ILLNESS, MENTAL ETC. AND OR ADA OR, AND WE CAN ADD TO THAT PORTION WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE EVERYTHING DOWN. OKAY. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON EACH ONE. YEAH. NO I GET IT. OKAY. SO ABSENTEEISM MEANS THAT A COUNCIL PERSON MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS DURING A COUNCIL MEETING. WHAT? IS THAT? GOOD? I DON'T KNOW. AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION? NO, I'M NOT ALLOWED. YOU CAN PASS THE GAVEL TO OKAY, SO I WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND DEFER TO CHAIR. I YIELD TO TO CO-CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. I RECOGNIZE MR. DELGADO. THANK YOU. ABSENTEEISM AS DEFINED AS NOT BEING PRESENT FOR QUORUM DURING A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. DURING A COUNCIL MEETING? NOT REGULAR DURING A COUNCIL MEETING. SAY IT AGAIN. ABSENTEEISM AS DEFINED. NOT BEING AT QUORUM. NOT BEING. IF YOU WANT A PHYSICAL. NOT BEING PHYSICAL. PRESENT AT QUORUM DURING A COUNCIL MEETING. I WOULD LEAVE OUT AT QUORUM. YEAH. IF I MAY MR.. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION, THAT ABSENTEEISM IS DESCRIBED AS NOT BEING PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT A COUNCIL MEETING PERIOD. SO MOVED. SO MOVED. YOU NEED TO RESTATE IT. DO I NEED A SECOND? OH. I'M SORRY. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? MR. BATTEN? I HAVE TWO ITEMS. SOME WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PHONE. PHONE ENDS. HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT EVENTUALLY. RIGHT. IS THAT WE'VE SEEN WHEN WE'RE ON PHONE, WE HAVE PHONE DROPS. CERTAIN POINTS GOT MET AS SOON AS THOSE POINTS WERE MET, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAD PHONE DROPS. SO. BUT THEY WEREN'T PRESENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETINGS. SO THAT'S DETRIMENTAL TO THE TO THE OPERATION OF OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS IF MY CITY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE, THEY SAY THEY CAN PHONE IN, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RESPECT FOR US AS RESIDENTS, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PHONE IN TO CITY COUNCILS JUST LIKE THEY DO. IF IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY CAN PHONE IN FOR THEIR VOTE, THEN I SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PHONE IN, TO PHONE IN, TO VOICE MY OPINION TO MY CITY COUNCIL AT THE SAME MEETING. OTHERWISE, THEY'RE EXPECTING DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR US AS RESIDENTS COMPARED TO THEM. STANDARDS AS TO THEIR STANDARDS AS CITY GOVERNMENT. GOOD FOR THE GOOSE. SHOULD BE GOOD FOR THE GANDER. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL THE QUESTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. I PASS THE GAVEL BACK TO THE CHAIR. YOU DID A GREAT JOB, AS USUAL. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE AT WE'RE AT POINT ONE OR SECTION ONE ABSENCE. [03:15:05] ANY ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABSENCE FOR CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OR A TOTAL OF SIX WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SHALL VACATE THE SEAT. THE SEAT. ANY COMMENTS? YES, RUTH, I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE NUMBER ONE TO SAY ABSENCE FROM TWO CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OR A TOTAL OF FOUR WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, SHALL VACATE THE SEAT OF THE MEMBER. AND THEN THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY THE COUNCIL OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES, OR THE FOURTH, WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER. DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION. YES. SO TWO CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS WOULD BE IN ONE MONTH. YOU KNOW, WOULD BE A ONE MONTH DEAL. IS IT WORTH CONSIDERING? MAYBE THREE. GIVING THEM THREE IN A ROW INSTEAD OF FOUR, YOU KNOW. BECAUSE THEN YOU GET NOTIFIED ON THE SECOND ONE. SO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE THIRD ONE. OTHERWISE, AFTER YOU'VE HAD ONE, YOU NEED TO BE NOTIFIED THAT YOU'VE HAD ONE. AND THEN WHEN YOU CALL IN, THE NEXT TIME YOU'RE DONE, YOU GOT TO STEP DOWN, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT SAYS TWO CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS. SO TERESE OKAY. ONE, MICROPHONES ARE DYING. JUST SO YOU KNOW, MINE HAS ALREADY DIED. THIS ONE IS ON READ. AS FAR AS THE ABSENTEEISM, TYPICALLY, I MEAN, TYPICALLY THE AVERAGE IS THREE AND FIVE. OKAY, SO MISS THREE CONSECUTIVE FIVE WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMENTS FROM THE FROM THE. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE ABSENCES. DOES IT COUNT IF THEY'RE ON OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS AS AN ABSENCE? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE COVERED FURTHER ON DOWN. THE THE THE DIFFERENCES OR THE EXCEPTIONS. OKAY. WHEN WE GET TO ABSENCES CREATED BY. AND WE COULD ADD SOMETHING ELSE TO IT AT THIS POINT IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER IT'S THREE AND 5 OR 4 AND SIX, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT. DID DID THEY DO THAT? NOW, IF THEY'RE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND THEY'RE ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. IS THAT CONSIDERED AN ABSENCE? IF THEY ARE NOT HERE AND THEY'RE NOT APPEARING BY PHONE? IT'S AN ABSENCE, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON. THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YES AND NO. ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF THEY'RE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PHONE IN? RIGHT NOW THEY CAN PHONE IN FOR ANY REASON? THEY DON'T NEED A REASON TO BE BY PHONE. RIGHT. BUT IF WE'RE CHANGING THAT. YOU KNOW, DOES DOES THAT COUNT IN THERE? THAT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. YEAH. MR.. MR.. MAY, THAT'S THAT'S COVERED IN THE NEXT SECTION RIGHT NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT YOU KNOW, 303.063.1. LET'S STICK TO THAT. AND THEN WE GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS REASONS FOR ABSENTEEISM. CORRECT. AND, AND AND. COMMISSIONER. MARK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AND AND, RUTH. COFIELD. COFIELD. COFFEY. COUGH. COLD. OKAY. I'VE ONLY KNOWN YOU FOR HOW LONG? TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THEY MAY BE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS. I GUESS THAT'S ON THE EXCEPTIONS. OKAY. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION, AND I'LL READ IT. RESTATE IT AGAIN. UNDER SECTION 3.063, ITEM NUMBER ONE, ABSENCE FROM THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL, OR A TOTAL OF FIVE WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SHALL VACATE THE SEAT OF THE MEMBER. THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY THE COUNCIL OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES, OR THE FOURTH, WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER. THAT IS A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. [03:20:01] SECONDED BY FEEL. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE SIGN OF I I I ALL AGAINST BY THE SAME SIGN. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING INTO ABSENCES CREATED NUMBER TWO. WE CAN DO IT 1 OR 2 WAYS. WE CAN EITHER JUST ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE FOR THE SOUND DEAL WITH ILLNESSES, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DISABILITY FIRST, AND THEN ADD SECTION THREE TO DEAL WITH ALL THE OTHER ASPECTS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO, SO LET'S LET'S PLEASE DEAL WITH NUMBER TWO. SOME PEOPLE HAD HAD SOME COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO ABSENCES CREATED BY ILLNESS, MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, EVEN WRITTEN DISPENSE SUSPENSIONS BY COURT ORDER. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? I'LL BE HAPPY TO. COMMISSIONER MILLER, GO AHEAD. THE NOTES HAD KIND OF WRITTEN DOWN ON THIS SECTION IS ESSENTIALLY, IF SOMEONE'S MENTALLY INCAPACITATED, THEN THEY CAN NO LONGER EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE, BUT DEPENDENT UPON THAT FORECASTED LENGTH OF THE MEDICAL ISSUE. RIGHT. SO MAYBE IT'S A CONCUSSION OR AN ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT'S LESS THAN 90 DAYS. THAT'S DIFFERENT. BUT IF IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE LIKE DEMENTIA, ALZHEIMER'S OR SOME SOME SORT OF ILLNESS THAT THAT BEGINS TO AFFECT YOU IN THE WAY THAT YOU THINK AT THAT POINT, I WOULD, WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY REPLACE THAT PERSON WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT OR THROUGH AN APPOINTMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT THAT POSITION TO REMAIN VACANT FOR A FOUR YEAR TERM OR THREE YEAR TERM OR WHAT HAVE YOU, JUST BECAUSE OF ALL WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE CITY. AND SO THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD IS, AGAIN, IS NOT SO MUCH OF A, OF A THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THE CITY OF OR DOES THE CITY OF PALM BAY PROVIDE ANY SORT OF MEDICAL BENEFIT FOR ELECTED OFFICIAL. LET'S SAY LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE DID GET ELECTED INTO THE CITY COUNCIL PART. AND HEY, SIX MONTHS INTO THEIR TERM, THEY'RE DIAGNOSED WITH, YOU KNOW, EARLY ONSET DEMENTIA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH IS VERY PREVALENT IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY. YOU KNOW, ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS TO THE RETAIN? LET'S HOLD OFF ON THE BENEFIT SECTION SINCE WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS AREA. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR ATTORNEY MESSENGER. FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO YOU. THERESE. I THINK YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. YEAH. THEN YOU CAN RESPOND. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. I MEAN, WHEN IT'S WHEN IT SAYS THEY'RE CREATED BY MENTAL DISABILITY. LIKE HE STATED HERE, IF IF THE PERSON IS MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF MAKING A DECISION, AND YET HE STILL RETAINS HIS POSITION BECAUSE IT'S HE'S GOT A DOCTOR'S REPORT THAT IT IS DEFINITELY A MEDICAL ISSUE. THEN IN ESSENCE, IF SOMEONE'S IN A COMA, IF I GO SO FAR AS TO SAY IN A COMA, THEN, THEN HE'S IN A COMA FOR, FOR A YEAR, BUT HE STILL HOLDS HIS POSITION BECAUSE HE'S JUST MENTALLY OR AND PHYSICALLY DISABLED. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING FOR US TO TAKE PERHAPS TO THE GOVERNOR, BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR IS THE ONE WHO REALLY HAS THE FIELD. AND IN REMOVING PEOPLE I'M NOT SURE ENTIRELY IF WE CAN YOU KNOW, PUT IN HERE TO, TO REMOVE THEM. ON WHOSE ORDERS AND ON HOW MANY REPORTS WE NEED AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT WANT TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE WALK INTO THIS AREA OF REMOVING PEOPLE. BECAUSE GENERALLY THAT'S THE JOB OF THE GOVERNOR TO DO. COMMISSIONER, EILEEN. THIS IS WHY I PROPOSED ALTERNATES. THIS WOULD BE A PERFECT EXAMPLE AS TO IF SOMEBODY WAS SICK OR INJURED. SOMEBODY OF LIKE MINDED PURPOSE WOULD BE THERE. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS WHEN YOU HAVE A BOARD, A COUNCIL THAT SAY THE [03:25:06] MAJORITY AT THIS POINT WITH THAT PERSON OUT HAS CERTAIN GOALS THAT THEY WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. THEY WILL APPOINT SOMEONE WHO SUITS THEIR NEEDS AND DOESN'T REALLY WATCH OUT FOR THE PEOPLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, EILEEN, BUT THIS STILL IS. THAT'S ALREADY BEEN. NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I'M SAYING THIS IS THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT ADDRESSES THAT, AND BUT WE HAVE COVERED THAT AND WE'VE ALREADY SAID WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN B FOR CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY REVISIT THE VALIDITY OF IT. AND IN A CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THIS, OR IF SOMEONE HAS MILITARY LEAVE, YES, WE HAVE TO LET THEM GO. WE'RE OBLIGATED BY LAW TO. BUT THE SEAT SHOULD NEVER BE EMPTY. THAT NEEDS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. WE SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT EMPTY SEATS EVER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANY MOTION TO CHANGE WHAT'S WRITTEN THERE? BEING THAT THERE'S NO CHANGE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO A PART THREE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WERE NEEDING. DO WE NEED TO. AND MAYBE I NEED TO DIRECT THIS TO ATTORNEY MESSENGER. TO DO WE NEED TO ADD THE EXCEPTIONS OR HOW DO WE ADD THE EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS MILITARY AND ALL THE OTHER ITEMS THAT THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. AND AND TERESA, I'M SORRY, YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING AND ANSWER MARK TWO AT THE SAME TIME, I APOLOGIZE. SO YOU'RE ASKING I DON'T KNOW HOW CLOSE I NEED TO HOLD IT. OKAY, OKAY. ARE THEY PRCHAL RECORD? DO I NEED TO PUSH IN? OKAY, COOL. FINE. YOUR QUESTION WAS, HOW DO WE PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE? CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE I THINK, AGAIN, AS WE'VE DONE EARLIER TONIGHT, IS THAT WE CAN PROPOSE PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE. CERTAINLY. I THINK MYSELF AND PATRICIA WOULD RATHER READ THEM READ WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY RATHER THAN READ WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING OR RATHER THAN LISTEN TO IT. SO IF IF YOU WANT TO PUT OUT SPEAK SOME LANGUAGE AND VOTE ON IT AND APPROVE IT, AND THEN WE CAN ONCE WE SEE IT ON PAPER, I THINK WE CAN BRING IT BACK AND TALK TO YOU AND FIX IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. FINE. TUNE IT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. YES. MR. CHAIR, IF I'M WRONG, MR. MESSENGER, BUT ABSENCES DUE TO MILITARY SERVICE RESERVE SERVICE AND THAT TYPE OF THING IS ALREADY COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW, CORRECT? IT SHOULD BE. YES, IT IS, IT IS. I DON'T WANT US RUNNING COUNTER TO IT. WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS IT IN THE CITY CHARTER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER EXCEPTIONS YOU WANT TO PUT IN THERE, BUT BUT LIKE I SAID, AN ADA IS ALSO COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER EXCEPTIONS YOU WANT TO PUT IN THERE. COMMISSIONER MARK, I THINK THE ONLY OTHER ONE WE DISCUSSED IS DO WE IF SOMEONE IS SENT OUT ON OFFICIAL ASSURE CITY BUSINESS. IT COULD BE TOUGH TO COUNT THAT AS AN ABSENCE OF THEM NOT BEING HERE WHEN THE CITY WAS THE ONE WHO SENT THEM OUT. SO TO ME, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS. YEAH. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT'S THE ONE THING WE SHOULD ADD TO TO YOU KNOW, TO NUMBER TWO UNDER 3063 IS JUST ADD IF YOU'RE ABSENT DUE TO IF YOU'RE ON CITY BUSINESS IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT. YEAH. ANY ANY OTHER COMMENTS? BUT THE THE ONLY OTHER THING IS MAYBE WE CAN JUST DO IT AS NUMBER THREE AND JUST ADD IT AS A SINGLE LINE. IF, IF IF IF ONE OF THE PEOPLE ARE SENT OFF BY CITY, THEN IT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN ABSENCE. WELL, YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD ANOTHER. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ABSENCES AND THAT'S AN ABSENCE. SO WE CAN JUST ADD IT TO NUMBER TWO. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MARK. YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND A GENERIC STATEMENT OTHER YOU KNOW, OTHERS ALREADY FEDERALLY APPROVED. THAT'S FINE. AND I'M SORRY I'M GOING BACK HERE. BUT SO DID DID WE AGREE, SINCE THERE WAS NO FURTHER COMMENT THAT A PERSON CAN BE HAVE A MENTAL DISABILITY AND BE ABSENT THEIR ENTIRE TIME OF SERVICE WITHOUT HAVING TO BE REPLACED? IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF THE YOU WOULD ADDRESS THE GOVERNOR AND THE GOVERNOR WOULD WOULD, OKAY, WOULD HAVE THEM BE REMOVED. WE ALSO DID NOT COVER WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON CALLING BY [03:30:01] PHONE CAN VOTE. YEAH. WE DID DID WE COVER THAT? WE DID COVER THAT. YEAH, THAT THE PERSON CALLING IN DID NOT COUNT. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT BEING STATED IN ANY PLACE. YEAH, WE VOTED ON IT. OKAY, I BELIEVE YOU. I MUST HAVE GONE ON THE SEAT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE WORDING ON SECTION TWO TO EXCUSE ABSENCES FOR FOLKS THAT ARE OUT ON OFFICIAL COMPANY BUSINESS OR SENT OUT BY THE CITY ON OFFICIAL COMPANY BUSINESS. SECOND QUESTION. YES, SECOND. LET ME START WITH THE SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER GUM. WE HAVE DISCUSSION. RUTH. YES, IN REFERENCE TO THAT, I THINK I HEAR ME. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SECTION 3.063 AMENDING ITEM TWO. OKAY. I AGREE WITH THAT, HOWEVER, AND I MUST HAVE MISSED WHEN WE BYPASSED THIS. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE LAST SENTENCE. SO TERESE. HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF AN ILLNESS OR MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY WRITTEN MEDICAL EVIDENCE SETTING FORTH IN DETAIL THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ILLNESS OR MEDICAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY AND PROGNOSIS THEREOF. DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT? I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENED WITH WITH COMMISSIONER FOSTER. COUNCILMAN. FOSTER TERESE. HE DID COUNCILMAN FOSTER DID SUBMIT A MEDICAL LETTER FROM HIS DOCTOR. BUT THERE WAS, WELL, THERE FOR ABSENCES. THERE REALLY WASN'T. HE DID IT BEFORE THE WELL, HE WAS BY PHONE, SO WHEN HE STARTED MISSING THING COMPLETELY, NOT EVEN BY PHONE. THAT'S WHEN HE SUBMITTED HIS LETTER FROM THE DOCTOR SO THAT HE WOULDN'T BE COUNTED AS THEN. BUT BECAUSE WE CAN'T TALK TO HER, AND THEY'RE ALL DEAD. OKAY. SO THAT'S HOW HE WAS ABLE TO STAY ON THE LONGEST TIME? YES. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MEAN, DISCUSSION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION. SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, SOMEONE BECOMES ILL, THEY HAVE A DOCTOR'S NOTE, GIVES THEM EXCUSE. THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN. AND THEN WE GO BACK TO THE GOVERNOR AND SAY WHAT IT SAYS HERE. AS LONG AS HE'S GOT A DOCTOR'S NOTE, HE'S EXCUSED FROM ABSENCES. SO HOW DO WE BASED ON THE WAY IT'S WORDED? I 364 EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES IN THE EVENT THAT ALL MEMBERS. OH, ALL. ALL MEMBERS. OKAY. YEAH. I'M SO SORRY. YOU'RE DOING AWESOME. YOU KNOW THAT? THAT'S RIGHT. WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO? YEAH, THEY SURE ARE. MUST MEET. IT'S ALMOST TIME TO GO HOME. GOING BACK TO TWO, RIGHT. IT SAYS ABSENCES CREATED BY ILLNESS DO NOT OR SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ABSENCES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION. HOWEVER, IN SHORT VERSION, THEY MUST PROVIDE WRITTEN MEDICAL EVIDENCE. SO THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN IS, AS LONG AS I HAVE A DOCTOR'S NOTE, I CAN MISS AS MANY AS I WANT. THEREFORE, HOW WOULD WE BE ABLE TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR AND SAY, HEY, HE'S GOT A DOCTOR'S NOTE? OUR THING SAYS THOSE ABSENCES DON'T COUNT. COULD WE STILL GO TO THE GOVERNOR AND SAY, LOOK, WE WANT TO GET THIS GUY REMOVED SO THAT WE CAN ELECT SOMEONE ELSE? I WOULD THINK SO. YES, YOU CAN. CAN YOU? YEAH. SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE WORDING OF THIS, IT'S NOT JUST ADDING IN OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS DOESN'T COUNT. I'M STILL CONFUSED ON THE MEDICAL ABSENCE. I UNDERSTAND. GREAT POINT. WE STILL HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THERE'S THE DISCUSSION. [03:35:01] SO EITHER WE REMOVE THE MOTION AND REPHRASE, OR WE VOTE. TO REMOVE THE MOTION. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WHO? YOU. YOU WHO MOTIONED, I MOTIONED. OKAY, SO YOU'D HAVE TO REMOVE. YOU HAVE TO. I'LL REMOVE MY MOTION TO ONLY CHANGE WHERE I SAID ONLY CHANGE OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS. WE'LL HAVE TO RESTATE IT. JUST REMOVE THE MOTION. MOVE THE MOTION. AMEN. MOTION IS REMOVED. I HOPE I'M DOING THIS RIGHT. NOW, CAN I HAVE A NEW MOTION? HOW DO YOU WANT IT? SAID. RUTH. COMMISSIONER. RUTH. OH. OKAY. UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO. I JUST NEED TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT. YES. WITHDRAW THE SECOND. COMMISSIONER QUALM WITHDRAWS HIS SECOND. OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO READ 3.063. ITEM NUMBER TWO ABSENCES CREATED BY ILLNESS. MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, WRITTEN SUSPENSION BY A COURT ORDER OR OTHER LAWFUL ORDER OR ACTION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ABSENCES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION. HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF AN ILLNESS OR MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY WRITTEN MEDICAL EVIDENCE, SETTING FORTH IN DETAIL THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ILLNESS OR MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, AND THE PROGNOSIS THEREOF. COMMA. THE ABSENCE DEFINITION OF SECTION 3.063. 63. ITEM NUMBER ONE WILL NOW BE ENFORCED. AND THE ABSENCES FOR OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESSES WILL NOT BE COUNTED AS AN ABSENCE. PERIOD. DID I COVER IT? I THINK SO. DO I HAVE A SECOND? DO I HAVE A SECOND? MY CONCERN IS THE NOTE FROM THE LANGUAGE FROM THE DOCTOR AND HIPAA THAT THERE'S A REAL CONFLICT. THERE IS NO DOCTOR IS GOING TO WRITE YOU A NOTE AND VIOLATE IT OR VIOLATE THE LAWS IN ORDER TO KEEP YOU SEATED AND IN ORDER TO FULFILL THIS PART. THAT'S JUST THE PROBLEM WE SEE WITH IT. SO THERE'S NO SECOND. SO THE MOTION FAILS. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? MOTION FAILS. WE STILL HAVEN'T ADDED THE PORTION THAT SAYS IF IF THE COMMISSIONER GOES TO BY ORDER OF THE CITY INTO CITY BUSINESS, THAT THAT'S NOT COUNTED AS AN ABSENT, RIGHT. SO HOW ABOUT LET ME PUT FORWARD THIS THIS MOTION AGAIN, 306 THREE. ITEM TWO. CAN I SAY SOMETHING REALLY QUICK? YES. SO IN RESPONSE TO THE YOUR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE WRITTEN ORDER AND VIOLATING HIPAA. IF IF THE INFORMATION IS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN BY THE COUNCIL PERSON IS NOT A VIOLATION. RIGHT? BUT I'M SAYING THAT. IT COULD BE. YEAH. IF THE PERSON'S IN AN ACCIDENT ARE UNCONSCIOUS. I MEAN, THEY CAN'T GIVE THAT PERMISSION. YES. IF A PERSON'S IN AN ACCIDENT AND UNCONSCIOUS, THEY CAN'T GIVE THAT PERMISSION. AT THE SAME TIME THE DOCTOR CAN'T NOSE. THE DOCTOR MAY KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BETTER IN 60 DAYS, BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO PUT THAT ON PAPER BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE HIPAA LAWS. KNOW THAT. YES. YEAH. SO CAN WE PUT A 90 DAY. A THREE MONTH LIMIT ON THERE AND SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF ABSENCES? LESS THAN 90 DAYS OR HOWEVER MANY MEETINGS. THAT IS ABSENCES LESS THAN 90 DAYS CREATED BY ILLNESS. [03:40:01] MENTAL, PHYSICALLY SUSPENSION COURT ORDER. ALL OF THAT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ABSENCES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, HOWEVER. RIGHT. IT REQUIRES A DOCTOR'S NOTE OR, YOU KNOW, AS AS PER IT SAYS, FOR ABSENCES GREATER THAN 90 DAYS, WE HAVE TO APPOINT A REPLACEMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT PERSON'S HEALTH IS RESTORED. RELEASED BY THE DOCTOR TO COME BACK AND FULFILL THE REMAINDER OF HIS TERM? OR DO WE JUST LET IT CONTINUE TO STAY VACANT FOR EVER? I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE, I THINK WE MADE IT THROUGH THAT PART OF OUR HISTORY, WE LEARNED FROM IT. I DON'T SEE A LOT WRONG WITH THIS SECTION TO BEGIN WITH. SO YEAH. MISTER CHAIR. YEAH. IF I, IF I, IF I MAY, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WERE ANY KIND OF EXTRAORDINARY ILLNESS, THAT WOULD BE AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, THEN YOU CAN PETITION THE GOVERNOR TO REPLACE THAT PERSON. BUT SO I AGREE WITH TOM. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IN, IN, IN, IN SECTION TWO 3063 SENTENCE TO IS TO ADD THE FACT THAT IF THEY ARE ABSENT ON CITY BUSINESS, THAT'S AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO ADD. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO PUT THAT IN THE MOTION. I WILL PROBABLY BE IN SIX FOUR. CAN CAN WE? THAT'S A THAT'S AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN SECTION. IN THAT SECTION. NOT AN EXTRAORDINARY VACANCY BUT AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. IDEALLY I WOULD SAY LISTEN, I CAN CAN I JUST SAY I THINK THIS IF THE ATTORNEY HAS, HAS LISTENED TO WHAT WE'RE WANTING, I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE EXPERTLY WITH OUR INTENT AND PROPOSED TO US ON THE NEXT GO ROUND. THIS IS WAY TOO COMPLICATED. AND WE MAY BE CREATING MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN AN ANSWER, BECAUSE WE'RE USING OUR OUR LINGO, OUR LANGUAGE AND OUR UNDERSTANDING, AND WE MAY NOT MAKE THE MOTION CORRECTLY. SO, SO MY, I, I IF I HAVE THE RIGHT, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TABLE SOMETHING OR IT HAS TO BE OKAY, I, I SOMEONE IF SOMEONE WOULD MOTION TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY COME BACK WITH IT ON OUR NEXT GO ROUND. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT? I'LL MAKE THAT. COMMISSIONER MILLER MADE THE MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. RUTH. SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? I ALL AGAINST. NAY. OKAY, SO IT PASSES 6 TO ONE. AND SO IF THE ATTORNEY WOULD DO THAT FOR US, BE A BLESSING, IF I CAN JUST PUT IT ON THE RECORD SO THAT I GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE MINUTES. THAT IT WAS PHIL WEINBERG THAT WAS A NAY. EXTRAORDINARY. OH. SORRY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHICH SECTION THIS IS, THAT WE'RE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS HERE. I THINK. I THINK WE'VE GOT AS FAR AS WE CAN ON THIS GO ROUND. AS MUCH AS WE'D LIKE TO GET. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THE REST OF THE AGENDA DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE MICROPHONES AND THE LATE HOUR. SECOND. SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. WEINBERG. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL AGAINST. DISMISSED. ALL RIGHT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 944. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.