Dec 11, 2025 Charter Review Commission

[00:00:01]

OKAY. I THINK WE'LL CALL THE SESSION IN TO ORDER.

[CALL TO ORDER]

AND SO, PASTOR MARK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT? SURE. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU, LORD, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER.

WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DIVINE APPOINTMENT, LORD, AS WE LOOK AROUND THIS TABLE AND THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS OF PALM BAY BRING US WISDOM AND GUIDANCE AS WE CONTINUE TO DIVE INTO THIS CHARTER REVIEW AND AND, AND HELP US TO JUST COME TOGETHER, LORD, AND TO DO WHAT IS HONORABLE, TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

AND SO WE WE GIVE YOU ALL THE GLORY AND LIVE IN YOUR WAYS.

IN JESUS NAME I PRAY. AMEN. AND, RUTH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I 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. AMEN. THANK YOU. I GUESS THE BATTERIES ARE ALL CHARGED UP THIS TIME.

AND. AND MAYBE OUR VOICES ARE CHARGED DOWN AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK SO MUCH.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROLL CALL. MR. PRESIDENT MR. MYERS. OH. THANK YOU. MR. MYERS IS NOT HERE. MR. MILLER. HERE. MR. GUM IS ABSENT. MR. NORRIS IS ABSENT.

MR. O'NEILL IS ABSENT. MISS. SEP, MISS KAUFHOLD HERE, MR. CHANDLER HERE, MR. WEINBERG HERE. AND I BELIEVE THAT MAKES QUORUM.

WONDERFUL. HOPEFULLY YOU ALL READ THE MINUTES.

[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]

OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. IT HAS BEEN. WEINBERG HAS MOTIONED AND RUTH HAS SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ALL AGAINST BY THE SAME SIGN.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE SAID BEFORE WE START, AND CERTAINLY IF YOU ARE WATCHING, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME IN AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS TO THIS PROCESS.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR OLD BUSINESS AND I BELIEVE.

[OLD BUSINESS]

CORRECTLY TRY TO SAY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO SAY, AND HOPEFULLY THEY WOULD BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE THAT THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE.

EXCUSE ME. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS COME FIRST OR.

WELL, NO, WE'VE ALREADY DONE. OKAY. YEAH. SO WE DID.

NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WRITE DOWN JUST, YOU KNOW.

OKAY, LET ME TRY TO FIND IT WHERE WE SAID, MR. CHAIR, THIS WAS FOR SECTION. SUBSECTION 3.063.

ABSENTEEISM. THAT IS CORRECT. I'M TRYING TO GET THERE ON MY PAPER.

AMEN. AS IT WAS STATED IN THE MINUTES, MR. DELGADO SUGGESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED, ALLOW THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BRING BACK LANGUAGE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

MOTION BY MR. MILLER, SECONDED BY MISS CAULFIELD.

AND SO WERE YOU ABLE TO TO LOOK THAT OVER? IS THE IS THE INTENT TO HAVE A PROVISION WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF THEY HAVE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE? OR IS IT JUST THAT THE ONLY ABSENCES THAT, OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED THAT YOU ARE SEEKING ARE IF THEY ARE TRAVELING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? IS IT THE EXCUSE OR ARE YOU TRYING TO NARROW WHAT YOU ALL ARE, WHAT YOU'RE PERMITTING AS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE? IF IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY AND I'M OPEN TO CORRECTION.

BUT WE WERE LOOKING AT IT WHERE IT SAYS MENTAL DISABILITY, AND WE WERE WONDERING IF THEY'RE MENTALLY DISABLED, HOW CAN THEY CONTINUE? BEING ON THE BOARD, BEING MENTALLY DISABLED?

[00:05:01]

YOU'RE YOU'RE ON POINT. WE COVERED MOST OF THE ABSENCES.

WE WERE PRETTY CLEAR ON THAT. WE WERE ON SPECIFICALLY ON THE MEDICAL ONES RELATED TO HIPAA, RELATED TO MENTAL CONDITIONS. IF IT WAS A TEMPORARY CONDITION OR IF IT WAS A LONG TERM CONDITION, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE A MENTAL DISABILITY WHERE IT COULD BE SHORT TERM.

SOMEBODY IS HAVING A HARD TIME DEALING WITH THE DEATH OF SOMEONE YOU KNOW, AND IT CAN BE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE LOST YOUR SPOUSE OR YOUR CHILD, AND FOR A WHILE YOU JUST ARE NOT MENTALLY ABLE TO FUNCTION.

THAT MAY NOT BE FOR SOME PEOPLE. IT MAY BE SOMETHING LONG, BUT FOR A CERTAIN PERSON IT MAY BE SOMETHING JUST THE INITIAL SHOCK OF IT AND WHERE YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK. BUT I THINK AS FAR AS ANY TYPE OF MENTAL DISABILITY, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PROVISIONS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING THE INFORMATION, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEDICALLY DO IT AND IT'S NOT JUST A SHORT TERM, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM WHERE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY ABLE TO DO THE ACTUAL JOB.

BUT I THINK THERE CAN BE SHORT TERM MENTAL DISABILITIES, AND THERE COULD EVEN BE A MENTAL DISABILITY THAT MAY BE LONGER TERM, BUT IT'S THAT YOU'RE JUST DIAGNOSED AND YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT TYPE OF THERAPY.

MAYBE IT IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU NEED 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS TO GET STABILIZED ON MEDICATIONS, SO THERE CAN BE SHORTER TERM OR EVEN MORE PERMANENT TERM SITUATIONS. BUT IF IT KEEPS YOU WHERE YOU CAN'T FUNCTION, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT ACTUALLY WILL ALLOW WHERE YOU HAVE FORFEITED. BUT I THINK THE POINT OF THIS IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT DIALOG WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE AS FAR AS THE ADA, YOU KNOW, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE IF IT'S SHORT TERM, JUST LIKE ANY, ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE? LIKE AN EMPLOYEE? GRANTED, THESE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

IF IT'S SHORT TERM, YOU CAN USUALLY ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING SHORT TERM, BUT YOU'LL HAVE DEPENDING UPON THE SITUATION, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT FOR 30 DAYS OR MAYBE 45 DAYS.

AND IT MAY DEPEND ON THE TIME. 30 DAYS MAY NOT BE 60 DAYS MAY NOT BE THAT BAD IF IT STARTS IN JUNE, AS IT MAY BE SOME OTHER TIME, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT.

YOU'RE NOT MISSING AS MUCH, BUT I THINK THERE ARE.

THERE'S ALREADY A CONVERSATION AND A TIME AND A FRAMEWORK FOR DEALING WITH SOMEONE.

AS FAR AS WHEN THEY HAVE MEDICAL ISSUES, AS FAR AS WHAT'S A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION? I IF IT'S OKAY, I THINK I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WAS LACKING IS WHAT DEFINES SHORT TERM AND OBVIOUSLY EXTENDING GRACE TO SOMEONE DURING THAT TIME. BUT IF IT BECOMES A LONG TERM AND THEY'RE NOT ABLE, THEY'RE THERE. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, AFTER 90 DAYS OR AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME THAT COUNCIL MEMBER NEEDED TO STEP DOWN OR THE COUNCIL COULD COULD VOTE TO REMOVE THE PERSON OR HOW WE ADDRESS IT.

SO THERE WAS NO DEFINITION OF SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM DISABILITY.

AND BEING THAT IT'S A FOUR YEAR TERM, THE IDEA BEHIND IT WAS HOW DO WE CAPTURE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM AND HOW WE HANDLE THOSE.

WELL, I BELIEVE IF YOU LOOK AT IT BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONE SECTION, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT SECTION, IT DEALS WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES. WHEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE REMOVED BY DEATH OR DISABILITY.

SO I THINK THAT GETS INTO WHEN YOU'VE GOT THE SHORT TERM.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABSENTEEISM, BUT WHEN IT'S TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN'T ACCOMMODATE YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THE FUNCTION AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE BODY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC IS IS ENTITLED TO HAVE WHERE YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE ACCOMMODATION UNDER ABSENTEEISM, BUT WHEN IT'S PROLONGED, YOU'RE UNDER DISABILITY.

IT'S NOT SHORT TERM. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING JUST A MINOR DISABILITY WHERE WE CAN ACCOMMODATE.

AND IT'S THE SAME FRAMEWORK AS THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION UNDER ANYBODY.

ADA. SO I THINK IT'S THE PROVISIONS TOGETHER ARE WORK.

I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST WHEN I READ EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES, IT SAYS IN THE EVENT ALL MEMBERS, NOT JUST ONE MEMBER. AND SO AND THEN IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT IF AT ANY TIME IS REDUCED LESS THAN A QUORUM.

WELL, LOSING ONE PERSON ISN'T GOING TO MAKE IT LESS THAN A QUORUM.

[00:10:02]

SO WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE SHORT TERM, I KNEW I MEANT THE LAST SENTENCE.

I SKIPPED DOWN MENTALLY TO THE NEXT SECTION. THE PROGNOSIS THEREOF IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT SECTION TWO IS GOING TO GET TO YOU FROM THE ACTUAL PHYSICIAN OR THE TREATING PROVIDER, WHETHER IT'S SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE I THINK WHEN WE HAVE SOMETIMES FIREFIGHTERS OR POLICE OFFICERS AND THEY MAY HAVE SOME TYPE OF INJURY. AND BEFORE THEY CAN COME BACK, WE HAVE THE FIT FOR DUTY.

SO YOU'RE HAVING THIS, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATION WITH THE PROVIDER.

IS THIS PERSON EVER GOING TO BE ABLE THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FULFILL THESE FUNCTIONS? AND IF SO, WHEN AND IF YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE A DATE OR THEY DON'T KNOW IF THAT PERSON WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE FUNCTIONS, IS BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE THAT PROGNOSIS.

I THINK THAT GIVES YOU THE ABILITY BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THEM SAYING, IN THIS CASE, WELL, I DON'T FEEL WELL OR I'LL LET YOU KNOW. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION.

DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT. STILL BACK TO JUST A LACK OF DEFINITION OF WHAT SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM IS SIX MONTHS SHORT TERM OR ONE YEAR IF IT, YOU KNOW, GRANTED LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS CAN HAPPEN.

SO IT WAS JUST KIND OF UNCLEAR TO ME. WELL, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN HERE, BUT IT IS IN THE WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY SPECIFIED EITHER. IT'S A FRAMEWORK AS FAR AS WHEN THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IS DEPENDENT UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO YOU GET THAT FACT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS IT DEPENDS UPON ESPECIALLY HOW IT'S AFFECTING THE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO VOTE, HOW TO BE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOBS, AND WHETHER YOU KNOW HOW FAR THIS CAN GO ON, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, TIMES WHERE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE A LOT OF ZONING WHERE WE YOU'RE GETTING REAL CLOSE DECISIONS OR YOU'RE GETTING TIGHT DECISIONS, WHICH ACTUALLY MEANS THINGS ARE FAILING.

SO IT'S HOW IS IT AFFECTING THE CITY AND HOW LONG IS REASONABLE.

AND WHEN YOU'RE IN ADA ACCOMMODATION, IT IS FACT SPECIFIC, BUT USUALLY YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO SPECIFIC TERMS TO GIVE YOU THAT FACT.

SPECIFIC AS FAR AS HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU? SURE.

AND IF IF I COULD I KNOW THERE'S THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

THE, THE THE LESS CLEAR, THE MORE GRAY AREA, THE MORE POSSIBILITY FOR LITIGATION OR AND OR CONTENDING THE DECISION. SO, SO IF I'M READING HERE AS I'M READING IT, OF COURSE, I'M, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT AS I'M READING IT AS, AS MARK WOULD SAY THERE'S REALLY NO TIME FRAME OR EVEN HOW TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LONG TERM OR SHORT TERM.

THERE IS NO DATE BETWEEN LONG TERM, SHORT TERM.

WE DO HAVE AN ATTORNEY HERE TOO. AND SO IN THAT AS WE'RE READING IT THERE'S NO AS I READ IT, I DON'T SEE CLEAR, CLEAR CUT LINES OR WORDAGE THAT SAYS WHAT TYPE OF MENTAL DISABILITY, HOW LONG CAN THEY BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF MENTAL DISABILITY? YOU KNOW, YOU YOU MAY HAVE A PHYSICAL DISABILITY THAT MAKES YOU MENTALLY INCAPACITATED TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THE DRUGS THAT YOU'RE TAKING OR HAVING TO TAKE.

BUT YOU WANT TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS. THERE'S JUST NOTHING CLEAR CUT.

WHICH THOUGH WE HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THAT, WE'RE JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT IT LONG TERM.

DOES THERE NEED TO BE SOMETHING CLEARER AS FAR AS TIME FRAME SO THAT SOMEONE WHO IS IN A MENTALLY DISABLED STATE. THE REST OF THE DIOCESE CAN SAY, OKAY.

THE TIME FRAME FOR THIS TO BE OVER. AS WE READ THE DOCTOR'S REPORT, WE GIVE YOU A THREE MONTH MEDICAL LEAVE.

BUT NO MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS. YOU KNOW, JUST SOMETHING THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO VACATE YOUR, YOUR POSITION. OTHERWISE YOU COULD HAVE FOR PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE VACATING THIS POSITION.

AND THEN THE ONE PERSON WHO'S VACATED SAYS, I'M GOING TO SUE YOU BECAUSE I'M MENTALLY ABLE.

[00:15:07]

MR. CHAIR. IF I MAY, PATRICIA, AREN'T THERE AREN'T THERE THERE ISN'T THERE PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW REGARDING IF A COUNCIL MEMBER OR, OR OTHER, YOU KNOW, POLITICAL ELECTED OFFICIAL CANNOT CONTINUE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN, YOU KNOW, CAN WE SUPERSEDE THAT IN THE CITY CHARTER? NO. AND AS FAR AS WELL, THERE IS PROVISIONS AS FAR AS IF YOU CAN'T DO IT.

BUT AS FAR AS THESE TIME FRAMES YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THE TIME FRAMES AREN'T GOING TO COME FROM THE CHARTER.

AND EVEN IF YOU HAD PUT THREE MONTHS IN THERE AND YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, HEY, THREE MONTHS IS GOING TO KEEP US FROM BEING SUED.

NO, IT'S NOT, BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS SAY, IF THE THREE MONTHS MAY NOT BE REASONABLE, IS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO GO THROUGH THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS AND YOU CAN'T ARBITRARILY COME UP WITH A NUMBER.

SO WE HAVE FEDERAL LAW AS FAR AS AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT.

AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LEARN.

IT'S THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND SEE WHAT IS REASONABLE WITHIN THE FACTS.

AND WHEN YOU COME UP WITH HARD, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS IS A NUMBER RIGHT HERE.

IT ACTUALLY WORKS AGAINST YOU BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS.

YOU'RE NOT EVALUATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU JUST CAME WITH A HARD, FAST NUMBER.

AND THAT'S MORE LIKELY TO CREATE LITIGATION ISSUES THAN IT WOULD BE IF YOU WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT THE THAT'S DICTATED BY THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK.

SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IF I'M GOING TO SYNTHESIZE THAT, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A SITUATION THAT SOME PEOPLE ON THE DAIS WOULD SAY, I THINK IT'S TIME THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO YOU AND THEY WOULD SAY, LEGALLY, ARE WE OPEN TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE THE VACATING OF, OF THIS SEAT ON THE DAIS? AND YOU WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER LEGALLY IT WAS DEFENSIBLE OR LEGALLY NOT DEFENSIBLE.

IS THAT HOW IT WOULD WORK? I WOULD MAKE I WOULD EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE IF I WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE AN OPINION. MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, BASED UPON THE MEDICAL INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR THE PHYSICIAN.

IF THAT WERE THE CASE, YOU WOULD SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER.

CERTAINLY. IF THERE WASN'T THE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS UNWILLING TO REALIZE, YOU KNOW, BASED UPON WHAT THE WHAT THE DOCTORS HAD PROVIDED, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE A BASIS, YOU KNOW, EITHER TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE PROGRESS THAT IS ADVOCATED OR IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, BE EVEN SAFER, YOU'D BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE TO THE GOVERNOR.

BUT THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE EVIDENCE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE ABILITY TO GET THE PROGNOSIS IS NOT A LOT DIFFERENT THAN OUR OWN FIT FOR DUTIES FOR EMPLOYEES. IT'S JUST SOMETHING CALLED SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.

BUT IT GIVES YOU THE SAME RESULTS. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS MISS CAULFIELD.

I HAVE SOME. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME WORDING THAT WE MIGHT USE.

OKAY. JUST. AND I'M JUST COMING TO ME RIGHT NOW.

SHOULD A COUNCIL PERSON BE MEDICALLY DISABLED AND HAVE EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED ABSENTEEISM DEFINITION, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DEEM THIS PERSON NOT FIT FOR DUTY.

SO I THINK OUR ABSENCE IS NOT CONSIDERED AN ABSENCE, IS IT? IT IT'S NOT. AND THAT THAT'S WHERE THE QUESTION CAME IN.

SINCE THAT MEANS YOU CAN BE SICK AS LONG AS YOU WANT.

RIGHT. I DON'T I DON'T MEAN THAT TO SOUND SO DISRESPECTFUL.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN AT ALL. I'M TRYING TO.

YEAH. YEAH. WAY TO GO. WAY TO GO, MARK. LET'S LET'S LET'S RUTH, CONTINUE.

BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO. WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXAMPLE.

RANDY. RANDY FOSTER WAS THE EXAMPLE OF EXCEEDED HIS TIME OUT OF THE CHAIR.

SO NOW WE HAVE TO FIX THAT BY SAYING HERE WE'VE ALREADY CREATED THIS DEFINITION OF ABSENTEEISM, SO WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THE MENTALLY PROBLEM YET.

HE'S JUST ABSENT. RIGHT. SO YOU YOU CANNOT BE ABSENT MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS IN OUR NEW DEFINITION.

SO THEN THE COUNCIL IS NOTIFIED ON THE SECOND AND THIRD CONSECUTIVE ABSENCE.

[00:20:08]

SO NOW THIS PERSON HAS SAID, HERE'S MY DOCTOR'S NOTICE.

I'M GOING TO BE I'M ABSENT. BUT HE'S EXCEEDED ABSENTEEISM ALREADY, AND HE MUST VACATE THE SEAT.

SO THIS IS JUST A SCENARIO THAT I'M TRYING TO PRESENT SO THAT WE CAN COME TO A DEFINITION FOR MEDICAL, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE ADA.

THE ADA PROBLEM IS HE NOW BECOMES DISABLED, OKAY FOR LIFE.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE CHAIR? SO THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT BECAUSE WE HAD RANDY FOSTER ATTENDING IN A TELEPHONIC WAY THAT WE COULDN'T SEE HIM, DIDN'T KNOW WHO WHAT HIS MENTAL CONDITION WAS.

WAS HE UP ON DRUGS? WHATEVER IT IS. SO WE NEED THESE TWO SCENARIOS YOU KNOW, FIXED IN MY MIND. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE OVER TO OVERRULE OR GO AROUND THE ADA.

THAT'S FEDERAL LAW. WE'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO IT.

JORDAN? YEAH. NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, MADAM CITY ATTORNEY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER CHARTERS THAT YOU KNOW OF THAT HAS A PROVISION THAT CLEARLY DELINEATES A SPECIFIED TIME, THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER CAN BE ABSENT BEFORE THERE IS A REMOVAL VACANCY? YOU KNOW, AND I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK MR. WEINBERG WAS HINTING ON IT. IT'S REALLY TWOFOLD.

I THINK COUNCIL CAN TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS, GIVE THE CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION, GET AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO. ASK THE GOVERNOR TO THEN PURSUE REMOVAL OF THIS INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HERE FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.

BUT BUT TO MR. WEINBERG'S POINT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ALREADY STATUTORILY A RECALL OF OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE, DEATH. I MEAN KILLING, MURDER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

AND SO IS THERE ANY OTHER CHARTER THAT YOU KNOW OF THAT HAS A PARTICULAR PROVISION THAT SPECIFIES A TIME FRAME IN WHICH A COUNCIL MEMBER CAN BE ABSENT? MORE ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE THAT THEY ARE MENTALLY INCAPACITATED, DISABLED PHYSICALLY OR ETCETERA.

NOT THAT I LOCATED A QUICK QUICKLY. A LOT OF THEM DON'T EVEN GET INTO THIS DETAIL BECAUSE THEY ESSENTIALLY DO IT BY NUMBER OF EXCUSED OR UNEXCUSED, AND THEY WILL HAVE SOME PROVISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS EXCUSED.

SO THE EXCUSED ABSENCES MIGHT COVER, YOU KNOW, THE MENTAL DISABILITY WHERE YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME BACK, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL WHETHER IT'S EXCUSED OR UNEXCUSED.

A LOT MORE. A LOT OF THEM HAVE LESS, IF I MAY SAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN THIS THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

IT SEEMS LIKE AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE TO, QUOTE UNQUOTE, PUT A TIME LIMIT, APPARENTLY IT'S GOING TO BE.

OH, I'M SORRY. EILEEN, PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD.

YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET. OKAY. REGARDING THIS, I CONTACTED THE STATE'S ATTORNEY, AND THEY SAID ADA DOES NOT APPLY TO LEGISLATORS. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT I HAD, WHICH WOULD HAVE AN ALTERNATE FOR EACH, WILL MEAN THAT THERE'S NEVER AN EMPTY SEAT. AND WHEN THAT PERSON IS BETTER, THEY CAN COME BACK.

BECAUSE THE GOAL OF ALL OF THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION.

THE CITY HAS GOTTEN WAY TOO BIG FOR ALL OF OUR DECISIONS ABOUT WHO'S RUNNING IT AND WHO'S REPRESENTING US.

COMES FROM A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE DAIS.

I MEAN, WE WENT ALMOST OVER A YEAR AND A HALF WITH FILIBERTO GONE THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR WITH FOSTER GONE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SYMPATHIES OF THE THEIR FELLOW COUNCILMEN WAS THEY WANTED TO DO RIGHT BY THEIR FRIEND.

THAT'S NOT BEING OBJECTIVE. AND IT'S NOT DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF PALM BAY.

ALTERNATES ARE ALLOWED UNDER SUNSHINE. THEY CAN COMMUNICATE.

AND WHAT MY PROPOSAL WAS, WAS THAT THEY BE ELECTED WITH THEM SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW THE MINDSET OF THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW? SO IF SOMEBODY HAS TO BE GONE, THEN THAT SEAT WILL BE FILLED BY SOMEONE OF LIKE MINDED PURPOSE.

[00:25:12]

COMMISSIONER, I JUST THINK IT'S A WAY TO GET THINGS HAVE THINGS MORE SEAMLESS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR IT.

AND IT AVOIDS IT AVOIDS GETTING PEOPLE IRRITATED BY THE FACT THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE JUST PROTECTING THEIR FRIENDS.

EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IN THIS CHARTER SHOULD BE ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF PALM BAY, NOT PROTECTING SOMEONE WHO WAS ELECTED. AND IT ALL ORIGINATED WITH, I THINK IT WAS RUTH'S PROPOSAL THAT THEY BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT. AND I SEE THAT'S THAT'S IN HERE, TOO.

IT'S VERY HARD. I FOUND IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND.

COUNCILMAN FOSTER. WAS HE REALLY FULLY THERE? YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING HE WAS A BAD PERSON, AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE REASONS FOR KEEPING SOMEBODY ON.

MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE IF THEY TOOK HIM OFF, HE NEEDED INSURANCE.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE A COLA, BUT OUR LEGISLATORS ARE EXPECTED TO BE COMPETENT AT ALL TIMES, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY MR. SKINNER'S OFFICE THAT IN THOSE CASES, IT WOULD NOT APPLY UNDER ADA.

MAYBE THAT'S HIS OPINION. I DON'T KNOW. YES. IF I MAY.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL AS FAR AS THIS ALTERNATE THING, WE'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH THAT.

WE VOTED ON IT. WE VOTED AGAINST IT. THAT'S DONE.

LET'S MOVE ON. OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE ALL YEAR AND GET NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED.

CAN I SAY SOMETHING? THERE WAS NO MOTION FOR THAT.

THERE WAS THE CHAIR. WHO, WHO, WHO PUT A QUESTION OUT AND HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO.

AND IT WAS. IT WAS. IT WAS VOTED DOWN. NOBODY WANTED TO HEAR IT.

THERE WAS NO THERE WAS NO SECOND. IT WAS THERE WAS NO SECOND.

SO IT DIED FOR LACK OF A NO. THE QUESTION WAS, DOES ANYBODY WANT THIS? BUT IT CAME FROM THE CHAIR WHO IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION.

SO THERE WAS NO THING. AND THAT WAS MY OVERALL PLAN WAS TO RESTRUCTURE THIS CITY BECAUSE IT'S TOO BIG FOR WHAT WE HAVE.

YOU MIGHT LOOK AT THE THE MINUTES. THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

THE IT WAS IT WAS PROPOSED HERE. IT WAS NEVER IT WAS VOTED DOWN.

IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. AND I THINK HE'S GOT A POINT IN THAT WE NEED TO MOVE ON FROM THAT POSITION, INASMUCH AS THERE'S NO FIRST OR SECOND. THERE MIGHT BE A FIRST, BUT THERE'S NO SECOND TO BRING IT UP TO THE FLOOR.

THAT BEING SAID, I'M GOING TO SAY THIS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A, AYE.

AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION IN REFERENCE TO 3.063, MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. IF I MAY, A QUESTION FOR PATRICIA.

PATRICIA. ESSENTIALLY, IT'S A MOOT POINT TO TRYING TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE CITY CHARTER ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION OF HIPAA.

IT COULD BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. CORRECT. YES.

THERE. ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT SEEM DEFINITIVE ENOUGH, THERE IS ENOUGH LEGISLATION IN THE UMBRELLA AND THE RIGHTS TO BE ABLE TO FIND OUT THE PERSON'S PROGNOSIS TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE SITUATION AT HAND.

THERE REALLY IS. SO THERE'S NO POINT IN TRYING TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE CITY CHARTER.

CAN WE MOVE ALONG? THUS I SAID, THAT'S THE REASON.

I SAID, IF THERE'S IF THERE'S NO MOTION HERE, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

OKAY. MOVING FORWARD THEN. THERE'S NO MOTION.

CORRECT. OKAY. THEN GOING ON TO 306 FOR EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES.

DO WE HAVE ANY PROPOSALS THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEIR.

MR. CHAIR, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. IS THAT A IS THAT A STANDARD THING IN IN GOVERNMENT THAT IF WE LOSE ALL OF OUR CITY COUNCIL THAT THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS THE NEW ONES AS OPPOSED TO. YEAH. MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, LOCAL, LOCAL FOLKS.

YES. AND IT'S COMMON. AND I ALSO THINK IT MAY BE BASED ON A STATUTE, BUT IS FAIRLY COMMON THROUGHOUT.

AND I'LL LOOK, I'M NOT CERTAIN, BUT I THINK IT MAY BE STATUTORILY BASED WHY SO MANY CHARTERS HAVE IT.

LET ME LOOK. IF I'M NOT. YES, COMMISSIONER RUTH, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THAT UP ARE WE JUST DOING NUMBER ONE OR HAVE WE MOVED ON TO NUMBER TWO? I THINK WE'VE ALREADY DONE ONE AND TWO OF 3.604064.

[00:30:05]

OKAY. I WANTED TO CHANGE IN SECTION TWO OF 3.06 FOR EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES.

THE WORD MAJORITY VOTE TO UNANIMOUS VOTE. SO I'LL READ IT.

IF AT ANY TIME THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL IS REDUCED TO LESS THAN A QUORUM, THE REMAINING MEMBERS MAY, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 3.062.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT JUST ONE MORE TIME? YES, SIR. SECTION 3.06 FOR EXTRAORDINARY VACANCIES.

ITEM NUMBER TWO. IF AT ANY TIME THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL IS REDUCED TO LESS THAN A QUORUM, THE REMAINING MEMBERS MAY, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 3.062, REPLACING MAJORITY WITH UNANIMOUS. SO IT'S THE SAME.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY. YEAH. DO YOU MEAN SUPERMAJORITY? MEANING IT'S A UNANIMOUS MEANING ALL MAJORITY IS NOT THE SAME AS UNANIMOUS.

WELL IT IS. THE QUORUM IS THREE. IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN THREE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO TO HAVE MAJORITY OF TWO.

YOU'RE YOU'RE ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE.

IF AT ANY TIME WE EXPAND TO SEVEN IT COULD BE DIFFERENT.

ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT WE NEED ALL OF THE MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL TO AGREE ALL.

SO WE COULD HAVE A QUORUM. THAT IS FIVE. IF WE GO TO SEVEN.

RIGHT? I MEAN YEAH, WHAT SHE WHAT IS SHE SAYING? WHAT SHE IS SAYING IS THAT IN THE EVENT THAT WE DO EVENTUALLY CHANGE IT TO SEVEN SEATS.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME, MAJORITY WOULD BE A FACTOR IN.

SO SHE'D LIKE TO CHANGE THE WORD MAJORITY TO THE WORD UNANIMOUS AND YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT.

EXCUSE ME. AT THAT TIME THEN? NO. YES, SIR. I THINK TO THE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POINT IT THE TERMINOLOGY SHOULD BE SUPER MAJORITY BECAUSE THAT ULTIMATELY IS A COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD. SO SAY FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE FIVE MEMBERS WHO ARE SITTING UP THERE, BUT ONE DECIDES NOT TO SHOW UP. NOW THAT MEANS THAT ALL FOUR OF THEM HAVE TO AGREE TO VOTE IN AFFIRMATIVE TO PASS WHATEVER THEY'RE TRYING TO PASS, VERSUS UNANIMOUS, WHICH WOULD MEAN UNANIMOUS SIMPLY MEANS A MAJORITY.

NO, UNANIMOUS MEANS ALL. UNANIMOUS MEANS ALL, NOT MAJORITY.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S IN THE CASE THAT THERE AREN'T ENOUGH MEMBERS TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE TWO. WE'D BE DOWN TO TWO.

SO IT WOULD REQUIRE BOTH TO VOTE TO, TO YOU KNOW, TO REPLACE THAT, THAT COUNCIL SEAT, WHICH WOULD BE UNANIMOUS.

OKAY. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO CHANGE SECTION 3.06 FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO.

IF AT ANY TIME THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL IS REDUCED TO LESS THAN A QUORUM, THE REMAINING MEMBERS MAY, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 3.062.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? EILEEN COMMISSIONER EILEEN.

SECOND. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? LET ME GET PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST.

NO PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, SIR. YEAH. THAT'S AGAIN, THAT'S A MOOT POINT.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. IF WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, WE'RE DOWN TO TWO MEMBERS.

IT'S GOT TO BE THE TWO MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

SO IT IS UNANIMOUS IN THAT CASE. I MEAN, TO TO TO TO LOOK AHEAD AND SAY, WELL, MAYBE SOMEDAY WE'LL HAVE SEVEN.

WE DON'T. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN HER PROPOSAL IS BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THEY MIGHT HAVE SEVEN.

AND RATHER THAN HAVING TO ADDRESS IT LATER TO ADDRESS IT NOW.

ANY OTHER ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR BY THE SIGN? AYE, AYE. ALL AGAINST NAY. OKAY, LET'S HAVE A VOTE BY BY HOW DO YOU CALL IT? THE CLERK? THANK YOU. ROLL CALL. VOTE. THANK YOU.

MR.. YES, MR.. MEYERS? NO. MR.. MILLER. NAY. MR..

AYE. AYE. MR.. CHANDLER. NAY. MR.. WEINBERG. NAY.

AND IT IS WONDERFUL THAT WE CAN STILL SMILE AT EACH OTHER AND CONTINUE TO MOVE ON.

OKAY, GOING ON TO THREE POINT ANY FURTHER? ANY OTHER ON 3.064.

[00:35:05]

I THINK JUST MOST PEOPLE DEFAULT TO IT, SO IT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM DOING IT.

IT'S JUST COMMON BECAUSE THE STATUTE ALLOWS THAT IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE ANOTHER WAY, THEN THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS.

SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY. QUESTION. SO WHEN YOU SAY DOESN'T PROVIDE ANOTHER WAY, MEANING WHO? THE CHARTER DOESN'T PROVIDE ANOTHER WAY. BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ALL GONE, THEY'RE ALL GONE.

SO WHO WHO WOULD BE PROVIDING THE OTHER WAY? NO, WHAT I MEANT IS YOU COULD HAVE A CHARTER PROVISION THAT PROVIDED A DIFFERENT PATH.

THE REASON WHY THE THE STATUTE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT TO BE THE GOVERNOR.

IT ALLOWS IT TO BE THE GOVERNOR. IF THERE'S NOT A SOMETHING ELSE SPECIFIED IN THE CHARTER.

I, I WASN'T I WANTED TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE SEEM LIKE YOU ONLY HAD TO CHOOSE THE GOVERNOR.

IT IS ALLOWED UNLESS YOU HAVE ANOTHER PROVISION.

IT'S JUST THE IT'S NOT IN HERE. IT'S JUST THE EASIEST WAY.

SO MOST MUNICIPALITIES JUST GO FOR THE GOVERNOR.

BUT IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE SOMETHING ELSE, THE STATUTE ALLOWS IT TO BE GOVERNOR CAN SPECIFY THAT IT'S THE GOVERNOR, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID. COMMISSIONER CHANDLER. MISTER CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD AND SAY, MISS CAULFIELD, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE WORD UNANIMOUS. I WAS HAVING A BRAIN MISHAP THERE.

IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, SO. THANK YOU. SO YOU WANT TO VOTE AGAIN? NO. I'M GOOD. I'LL JUST GO AHEAD. COME ON. OKAY, MOVING ON TO SECTION 3.07.

ANYTHING ON 3.07? I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I HAD IN MIND THAT I WANTED TO CHANGE THIS.

TO GO BACK TO MY CHANGES.

SEVEN. OKAY. I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN THIS. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING DOWN FROM WHAT YOU GAVE ME OR WHAT YOU SENT THE FIRST TIME.

RIGHT? UNTIL YOU REACH 3.08. YES. BUT IN COMPENSATION.

AND THIS IS NOT JUST CITY CLERK, IT'S ALL APPOINTED, YOU KNOW EMPLOYEES.

I'M HAVING A REAL PROBLEM HAVING A CONTRACT THAT SAYS YOU AUTOMATICALLY GET COMPENSATION AND IT'S NOT MERIT BASED.

SO I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THAT. I MEAN, WITHOUT TOTALLY REDOING ALL THESE THINGS.

SO. IT SHALL BE FIXED. WHAT IS FIXED MEAN? I MEAN, IS IT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONTRACT THAT SAYS EVERY YEAR, REGARDLESS OF MERIT, YOU GET A 2% RAISE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU KNOW YOU'VE DONE ALL YEAR LONG. THIS IS I'M HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE CONTRACTS WHERE FOR THE CITY EMPLOYEES, THE THE APPOINTED POSITIONS SUCH AS THE CITY MANAGER'S I AND I'VE NEVER SEEN A CONTRACT.

IT WAS MY IS HEARSAY. THEY GOT A LINE ITEM IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT YOU WILL ALWAYS GET A 10% RAISE NO MATTER WHAT.

IS THAT TRUE? NO NO NO. I MEAN, A PERCENTAGE OF THE A PERCENTAGE, SOME SORT OF DEFINITION THAT SAYS YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO GET A RAISE NO MATTER WHAT. NO. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT IN THERE.

PRICES ARE THE SAME AS GENERAL EMPLOYEES GET THE SAME COST OF LIVING INCREASE. THERE IS NO OTHER THAN THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE THAT EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE GETS.

THAT'S IT. OKAY, SO EVERYBODY JUST GETS A COST OF LIVING, REGARDLESS OF MERIT.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A MERIT INCREASE SINCE I HAVE BECOME CLERK.

OH, BUT YOU DON'T GET A REVIEW EITHER. MY LAST REVIEW WAS IN 2019.

I'M ABOUT TO GET A REVIEW NOW. OKAY. SO? SO MY REAL THE CRUX OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS HAPPEN WITHOUT SHOWING MERIT AND SHOWING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE THE CITIZENS AT LARGE.

DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONTRACTS SAY BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME MOST EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ARE PRIVATE.

SO THOSE ARE PUBLIC. THOSE ARE PUBLICLY ACCESSED AS WELL.

OKAY. SO. SO SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, WE HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO SAY THAT

[00:40:10]

COULD COULD I REPHRASE THAT AND SEE IF THIS MATCHES? OKAY. IF IF THE CITY CLERK THIS IS WAY OUT. BUT IF THE CITY CLERK IS JUST DOING A HORRIBLE JOB.

WHAT WHAT IS THE VENUE OR AVENUE THAT IS AFFORDED TO THE CITY TO SAY YOUR CONTRACT SAID YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS, THIS AND THIS. AND ACCORDING TO MERIT, YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING OF WHAT WAS WHAT WAS IN IN YOUR POSITION TO TO DO WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT POINT? WELL, IF THE PERSON IS DOING A HORRIBLE JOB AND YOU CAN POINT TO INSTANCES WHERE THEIR PERFORMANCE HAS TRULY BEEN, YOU KNOW, HORRIBLE, YOU COULD THEN TERMINATE FOR CAUSE, BUT YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT GROUNDS, OR YOU CAN JUST TERMINATE THEM BECAUSE THEIR SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL.

BUT COUNCIL HAS A WAY TO I MEAN, NONE OF US HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT, EVEN WITH A CONTRACT TO HAVE A JOB.

IT'S A MATTER OF WHETHER COUNCIL IS GOING TO TERMINATE FOR CAUSE OR WITHOUT CAUSE.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NO. OKAY. I'M STILL NOT HEARING MERIT.

I'M STILL NOT HEARING MERIT RIGHT NOW. AND THESE THESE THINGS.

AND IT'S JUST BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT CULTURE RIGHT NOW OF PEOPLE THINK THEY NEED TO GET SOMETHING FOR FREE OR THEY'RE NEVER GOOD.

BECAUSE YOU WORK FOR THE CITY, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET FIRED.

I MEAN, THESE ARE THE TYPES OF ATTITUDES THAT OUR CITIZENS ARE HAVING ISSUE WITH, AND IT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY'S CURRENT PERFORMANCE THAT I'VE HEARD HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR COUNCIL, IN THESE PARTICULAR.

YEAH. BECAUSE BASICALLY SOME OF THE THINGS HAVE BEEN THESE PEOPLE ARE NOW GONE.

RIGHT. SO SO I GUESS WE CAN JUST MOVE ON FROM THE COMPENSATION PART.

BECAUSE IF THERE CAN BE SOME SORT OF THINGS THAT SAY YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR PART, BUT I DO HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH SHALL NOT BE REDUCED.

I'M OKAY WITH NOT REDUCED, BUT I'M ALSO NOT OKAY WITH GETTING A RAISE.

SO IF YOU'RE NOT DOING, YOU SHALL HAVE YOUR COMPENSATION PUT ON HOLD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. COMMISSIONER WEINBERG. YEAH. TWO THINGS AS, AS PATRICIA STATED AND RESTATED.

YEAH. AS ALL CITY EMPLOYEES GET A COST OF LIVING RAISE EVERY YEAR, THAT'S NOT NEGOTIABLE.

OKAY. NOW, AS FAR AS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ABOUT MERIT RAISES.

SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? WELL, WE WANT OUR CITY EMPLOYEES TO DO THEIR JOB.

WELL. IF THEY'RE NOT DOING THEIR JOB, THEY CAN BE FIRED.

CITY CLERKS HAVE BEEN FIRED BEFORE FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

OKAY. THE PROCESS IS WHAT I'M. IT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S THE PROCESS. AND IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.

AND AND AS AS THE ATTORNEY. MADAM ATTORNEY SAID IF THEY WANT TO FIRE HIM JUST BECAUSE HE'S WORKING AT THE PLEASURE OF THE OF THE COUNCIL.

THEY CAN FIRE HIM ANYWAY. HE MAY BE DOING A GREAT JOB, AND THEY STILL MAY SAY, WE DON'T WANT YOU ANYMORE.

YOU'RE OUT. YEAH. ALL ALL CITY CHARTER OFFICIALS CAN BE FIRED BY CITY COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK AND CITY MANAGER. AND COMMISSIONER.

EILEEN. I SEE THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THIS IS CERTAIN.

JUST LIKE WE HAVE, WE VOTE FOR COUNCILMAN. IF THEY'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB, THEY GET VOTED OUT AND THE PEOPLE HAVE A SAY IN IT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COUNCILMEN BEING ABLE TO FIRE SOMEONE IF THEY KNOW FOR A FACT THEY'RE NOT DOING A JOB, BUT A LOT OF TIMES THIS BECOMES A POLITICAL GAME BETWEEN PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY AND JUST THE LITTLE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP THAT THEY HAVE. THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE. THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE MERIT IS TO MAKE THESE POSITIONS VOTED ON.

IF YOU DO, THE PEOPLE KNOW IF THEY'RE GETTING THE RESPONSES THAT THEY NEED, AND I TRUST THE PEOPLE MORE THAN I TRUST A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR 100, ALMOST 160,000 PEOPLE. I KNOW, BUT IT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

OKAY. IF THERE'S NO IS THERE A MOTION ON THE BOARD? ANY MOTION? NO MOTION. I HAD TWO COMMENTS. I'LL JUST I'LL JUST KIND OF WITHDRAW.

[00:45:05]

I BELIEVE RUTH, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO MENTION ABOUT.

I'M SORRY, 3.81 ON MEETINGS. I'VE GOT A NOTE HERE THAT YOU MAYBE NOT.

MAYBE IT WASN'T YOU. I HAD ONE. YES, I BELIEVE MARK MILLER DID.

YEAH. IT WAS JUST IT WAS JUST OPEN TO WHERE 3.082 SAYS COUNCIL CAN DETERMINE ITS OWN RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

SOME THINGS I DEFINITELY LIKE ABOUT THAT. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN THIS SPECIFIC SECTION, IS IT'S A REQUEST. WHEN A PERSON FILLS OUT A PUBLIC COMMENTS OR SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, SPEAKER CARD.

RIGHT. WE HAVE TO FILL OUT ALL OF OUR INFORMATION, OUR ADDRESS, WHERE WE LIVE, ALL OF OUR CONTACT INFO AND ALL OF THAT.

AND IT GETS TURNED IN AS A SPEAKER CARD. SO ALL THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, ESPECIALLY IN TODAY, WHERE EVERYBODY IS OUTRAGED BY EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY'S GOT A GUN AND EVERYBODY'S GOT THIS AND THAT.

WHEN WE COME UP TO SPEAK, CAN WE REMOVE THE PART, OR DO WE EVEN HAVE TO SAY THE PART WHERE WE GIVE OUR FULL ADDRESS? CAN I JUST COME UP AND SAY, MARK MILLER, PALM BAY RESIDENT I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION IS DOES THAT NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER? WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PROCEDURAL, WHICH WHICH CAN BE DONE BY TALKING TO THE DAIS THERE'S, YOU KNOW, TO TO SPECIFY EXACTLY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THERE THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY FILL OUT, FILL OUT AND THEN SAY IT AT THE PODIUM THAT YOU YOU ARE CORRECT.

IT IS TOTALLY AT THE DISCRETION BASED ON, BASED ON THIS AS WELL AS REMOVING PUBLIC COMMENTS AS WELL AS STOPPING THE VIDEO AS WELL AS REMOVING THE COMMENTS AT THE END. I THINK THAT CAN BE ADDED.

WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A PROCEDURE. WHETHER OR NOT THEY SAY THEIR NAMES AT THE PODIUM OR NOT.

WELL THAT WAS POINT A OKAY OF OF MULTIPLE POINTS.

SO RIGHT NOW 3.082. RULES AND ORDER. COUNCIL DETERMINES ITS OWN RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS BY THE CHARTER, DO WE WANT TO MANDATE THAT? YES. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE BROADCAST. YES. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT.

YEAH. AND SO THAT THAT'S AND THEN NOT ONLY THOSE BUT CAN DO WE MANDATE THAT PEOPLE JUST NEED TO STATE THEIR NAME.

YOU KNOW, JUST SOME REFINEMENTS TO THE PROCESS OF THE MEETING.

DOES IT NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER? I'M GOING TO SAY, IN MY VIEW, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

IN MY VIEW, WE COULD PUT IN THE CHARTER THE THE MEETING SHALL BE BROADCASTED IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM BEGINNING TO END, WHICH WOULD ADAPT TO THE FACT THAT THEY TRIED TO SHUT DOWN PUBLIC PUBLIC BROADCASTING, RIGHT? AS FAR AS WHAT THEY DO TO SIGN UP AND AND WHETHER YOU HAVE TO SAY YOUR NAME, THEY DON'T.

I MEAN, TO SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS TAKES ABOUT FIVE SECONDS. THEY DON'T. FOR ME, IT WASN'T A TIME THING. IT'S MORE OF A SAFETY THING. RIGHT. SO EVERYBODY'S OFFENDED BY EVERYTHING. I GET UP THERE AND I PREACH THE WORD.

RIGHT. AND THEN I HAVE SOMEBODY THAT SAYS, OH, MARK LIVES AT EIGHT, NINE, EIGHT NELSON AVENUE.

RIGHT. AND AND NEXT THING YOU KNOW, YOU GOT DRIVE BYS, YOU GOT THIS, THAT YOU GOT IS IS THE INCREASED RISK TO SAFETY WORTH SHARING THE WHOLE THING WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALL THE INFORMATION? IF THEY NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU, MADAM ATTORNEY.

NO, THIS IS A POLICY DECISION. AND IT GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS, IS THIS THE TYPE OF SPECIFICITY THAT YOU WANT IN THE CHARTER, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE UP WITH COUNCIL? BUT FOR ME, I WOULD ADD THIS ONE THING TO THE CHARTER.

I'M SORRY I SPOKE OUT OF TURN. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

BUT BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL SEVERAL THINGS TO THE MEETING.

AND SO IF WE WERE GOING TO AMEND SECTION 382 TO DEFINE SOME OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF HOW THE COUNCIL MEETINGS GO, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CONSIDERED.

BUT IF WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE IT AS IS, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THAT THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.

IF THERE'S IS THERE A MOTION FOR 3.082?

[00:50:09]

THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS SECTION IS THAT SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL CANNOT. CANNOT EXCLUDE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM ANY MEETING AND CANNOT SHUT OFF THE TELEVISED PORTION IF WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT AT A SEPARATE ISSUE AT THIS, WHICH IS, AGAIN, THE SAME THING THAT MARK MENTIONED, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED. THE POINT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO HIT RIGHT NOW IS MADAM ATTORNEY, I'M GOING TO SHARE THIS ASK YOU HE BRINGS THE POINT THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SAY MY NAME IS KENNETH DELGADO, I'M AT 154 ANGELO ROAD AND I SAY SOMETHING AND SOME IRATE PERSON SAID, OH, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.

I WANTED TO KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE. NOW I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE. AND AND I'M GOING TO BE KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT.

AS A SAFETY ISSUE, DOES THAT NEED TO BE SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER OR HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT LEGALLY? AS A IT'S NOT A LEGAL ISSUE. IT IS A POLICY ISSUE.

IT'S THE ISSUE THAT YOU ALL WERE, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT HERE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION.

SO I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTEP BY TELLING YOU MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND ELEVATING IT TO A LEGAL OPINION.

SO IT'S NOT ILLEGAL OR IT'S WHO ESTABLISHED THE PROCEDURE THAT WE HAVE TO SAY OUR ADDRESS WHEN WE GET UP ON THE PODIUM? RULES AND ORDERS? YEAH, THAT'S IN COUNCIL'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BACK IN 2001.

OKAY. AND SO TO CHANGE THAT, WE NEED TO EITHER DO IT BY CHARTER OR WE ADDRESS OUR INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASK THEM TO CHANGE IT.

CORRECT. MISTER CHAIR. YES, SIR. IF I MAY, IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, SOME PEOPLE DON'T GIVE THEIR ADDRESS.

THAT IS CORRECT. SO IT'S A MOOT POINT AGAIN. YES, SIR.

SURE. IT WASN'T JUST FOR THAT, BUT IT WAS ALSO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE MAYBE A TAPE DELAY.

WHO SPEAKS AT CITY COUNCIL AND WHO DOESN'T. RIGHT.

SO THAT JUST GOT CHANGED TO NOW YOU HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OR BUSINESS OWNER.

SO THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS THAT ARE CHANGING. ON WHO CAN SPEAK AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS I DON'T THINK IS THERE A POLICY THAT RIGHT NOW THEY CHANGED IT TO PALM BAY RESIDENTS ONLY, OR RESIDENTS THAT HAVE PROPERTY OR A BUSINESS HERE? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION RIGHT NOW.

AND IT'S DUE TO THE ALL OF THE MELBOURNE PEOPLE COMING OVER HERE YELLING AT CHANDLER.

SO THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. THAT'S WHY AFTER THAT MEETING, THAT'S WHEN THEY PUT THAT INTO PLACE.

AND SO GOING BACK TO 308 TO THE COUNCIL, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, COUNCIL DETERMINES ITS OWN RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

AND THEY CAN CHANGE AS HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT, WHETHER THE PEOPLE AGREE OR NOT.

JUST LIKE WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN THE VIDEO. JUST LIKE WHEN THEY TOOK AWAY THE THE LAST THREE MINUTES.

OKAY. CAN YOU CAN YOU I THINK YOU, YOU WROTE DOWN IN YOUR IT'S ON PAGE SEVEN AND EIGHT OF MY NOTES.

YOU HAD A COUPLE OF ITEMS THERE THAT WE COULD PUT IN.

NOT THAT QUOTE UNQUOTE. I'M NOT SAYING WHETHER WE COULD OR NOT.

IF IT'S VOTED, IT COULD. IT'S I THINK THE REAL QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO LEAVE IT COMPLETELY AS IT IS AND ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO, TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT? CERTAINLY.

EASY. OR DO WE WANT IN THE CHARTER TO SPECIFY MINIMUM POINTS THAT HAVE TO BE COVERED IN A CITY COUNCIL GOING CLOCKWISE? I GO WITH MINIMUM POINTS. I'LL MAKE TWO. ONE OF THEM TO COMMISSIONER WEINBERG, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT SINCE THEY HAVE TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD ANYWAY WITH YOUR ADDRESS ON IT THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THE PODIUM, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY YOUR ADDRESS. OKAY, SO IF THE EVERY IF EVERY SPEAKER GETS UP THERE WITH A WITH A CARD.

THAT'S MY CONTENTION, IS THAT CITIZENS DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO FILL OUT A CARD AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT.

SO I THINK THAT ANYBODY THAT SPEAKS AT PODIUM SHOULD HAVE TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD.

IT SHOULD BE PUBLIC RECORD, AND THAT WHEN THEY GET UP THERE, THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION THAT WE DON'T HAVE THEIR INFORMATION TO VET THE FACT THAT THEY ARE A PALM BAY RESIDENT OR A LEGAL PERSON YOU KNOW, THAT OWNS PROPERTY OR DOES BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

[00:55:03]

SO, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. IN REFERENCE TO THAT, THERE WERE TWO SUCCESSFUL SUPREME COURT LITIGATIONS WHERE PEOPLE SUED THE CITY BECAUSE THEY TOOK THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THEM.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, YOU CANNOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

THE PURPOSE OF LEGISLATURE IS TO ENHANCE YOUR RIGHTS.

AND IF SAFETY IS AN ISSUE, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES BELONG IN THERE.

I ALWAYS WONDERED WHY. WHY DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THE EXACT ADDRESS, YOU KNOW? ESPECIALLY IN THIS CRAZY WORLD, PEOPLE GO AFTER YOU FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

SO I, I AGREE WITH MARK AND RUTH AND I THINK CONSTITUTIONALLY, THE ONLY REASON IT HASN'T COME UP SO FAR IS BECAUSE WE'VE MANAGED TO WORK IT OUT WITH THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE SOME THINGS, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS I WANTED TO BE ON THIS BOARD, ON THIS COMMISSION, WAS TO CODIFY A LOT OF THINGS.

THERE'S A LOT OF LOOPHOLES, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT ARE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

THERE'S NO CRIME IN IN BEING SPECIFIC. BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU'LL FIND THAT PERSON WHO REALLY GETS GETS YOU. I MEAN, WE HAVE A COUNCILMAN NOW WHO'S CLAIMING UNDER FEDERAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT HIS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS BEING VIOLATED AND WE HAVE $1 MILLION LAWSUIT WITH THAT.

WE HAVE TO CODIFY THINGS IN HERE. AND I DO BELIEVE SAFETY IS A HUMAN RIGHT, AND I BELIEVE IT FALLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

SO I SUPPORT DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT HERE THAT THEN LET ME ADD ONE MORE ITEM SINCE YOU HAD WRITTEN IT DOWN WE USED TO HAVE A SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AT THE END.

WHAT WHAT IS WHAT ARE YOUR YOUR VIEWPOINTS IN BRINGING THAT BACK? YES. COMMISSIONER. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? YEAH. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? YES, SIR. YEAH. NOBODY ELSE DOES IT OKAY. COUNTY DOESN'T.

WEST MELBOURNE DOESN'T. CITY OF COCOA DOESN'T.

CITY OF ROCKLEDGE DOESN'T. THERE'S A REASON YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CITY CHARTER MEETINGS ALREADY, EVEN STARTING EARLIER. IF YOU REMEMBER, THEY START AT SEVEN.

THEY NOW START AT SIX. THEY STILL SOMETIMES RUN PAST 11:00 AT NIGHT.

THAT'S THE MAIN REASON. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE PUT ON A MOTION? THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A COUNCIL IS SO THAT THERE IS AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, AND BY NOT ALLOWING IT AT THE END, I FOUND SOMETIMES THINGS THAT COME UP IN THEIR REPORTS OR THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, YOU DON'T KNOW AT THE BEGINNING, YOU'RE JUST PRESENTING THINGS AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE STORY AT THE END IS WHEN YOU REALLY DO.

AND I THINK THAT CONVERSATION IS VERY VALUABLE, AND I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE IT JUST BECAUSE OTHER CITIES DON'T DO IT OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION DOESN'T DO IT DOESN'T MEAN NOBODY ELSE DOES AND DOESN'T MEAN IT.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO HAPPEN. THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHERE STUFF WAS SAID THAT I WAS LIKE, YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

AND I WOULD GET UP THERE AND TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF YOU DON'T ALLOW THAT, THEN YOU'RE DEPRIVING PEOPLE OF THE RIGHT TO WEIGH IN ON THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE BY A COUNCIL WHO IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.

SO. SO COMMISSIONER MILLER, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THEN AS A MOTION TO TO THOSE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE IS TO USE THOSE POINTS AS YOUR MOTION? IT'S IT'S INITIALLY POSED AS A AS A QUESTION.

IT'S CURRENTLY IN THERE WHERE THE COUNCIL CAN DETERMINE ITS OWN RULES.

SO THE QUESTION THAT I'M PROPOSING, CORRECT. OR IS, ARE YOU PROPOSING TO MAKE THIS A CHARTER? YEAH. YEAH. SHOULD THE CHARTER DEFINE THE MINIMUM BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING? SO, SO BASED PRIMARILY ON THE FACT THAT IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF I'VE ATTENDED, THERE'S BEEN 4 OR 5 CHANGES THAT HAVE REMOVED PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO

[01:00:06]

ITEMS. A PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE BROADCASTED ON AUDIO AND VIDEO.

UNLESS A TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH THE EQUIPMENT WE COULD CROSS OUT.

I WOULD WANT TO CANCEL A MEETING JUST BECAUSE OF COUNCIL.

SURE, CALL IT THE PERSONAL COMMENTS OUT. NUMBER TWO AT A FIVE MINUTE TAPE DELAY TO THE LIVE BROADCAST SYSTEM, IN THE EVENT A SPEAKER SHARES INFORMATION THAT VIOLATES REGULATION.

BUT THEN BUT THEN CUT OUT THE THE PERSONAL STATEMENT OF THERE ARE MANY CITY OFFICIALS IN THE MEETING BEING PAID JUST TO INCLUDE THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT, BUT WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT IN THE CHARTER. NUMBER THREE, ALLOW ANYONE TO COME AND SPEAK AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CITY OR STATE THEY RESIDE IN.

AND NUMBER FOUR, ADD A SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION BACK INTO THE END OF THE MEETING JUST BEFORE THE FINAL COUNCIL FROM THE COUNCIL, AND THEN ELIMINATE THE COMMENT. IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RETICENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL COMMENT.

SURE. SO, SO AND I WOULD ADD NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER FIVE AT THE END ABOUT STATING YOUR FULL ADDRESS, A REQUIREMENT, ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT TO STATE YOUR FULL ADDRESS AT THE MICROPHONE.

OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S ON THE SPEAKER CARD. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT A MOTION? SURE. I'LL PRESENT A MOTION THAT WE UPDATE 382 WHERE THE TO THE EFFECT OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL AT A MINIMUM CONTAIN THESE POINTS. AND AND OUTSIDE OF THAT CAN DEFINE THEIR OWN RULES AND ORDER AS SET FORTH IN WHATEVER POLICY. DO WE NEED TO RESTATE THAT TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL? IT'S BASICALLY EVERYTHING YOU HAVE LAID OUT IN YOUR PROPOSAL IS WHAT'S IN YOUR MOTION.

YES. MINUS THE PERSONAL. MINUS THE PERSONAL JUSTIFICATION.

COMMENTS. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SET? YES. WELL, FIRST LET ME HAVE A SECOND BEFORE WE MAKE MORE DISCUSSION.

SECOND RUTH SECONDED THE MOTION. YES, DISCUSSION.

AND THEN YOU WANTED TO. DID YOU ALREADY ADD THE SHUT DOWN OR SUPPRESS PUBLIC COMMENT IN ANY WAY? THAT WAS NOT A SPECIFIC WORD. WE ADDED A FIVE MINUTE TAPE DELAY IN THE EVENT SOMEBODY WAS YOU KNOW, SPEAKING OUT OF TURN OR SHARING INFORMATION THAT WAS ILLEGAL OR NOT SUPPOSED TO.

SO THAT THAT COULD BE STOPPED IF NEEDED. THAT WAS IN ONE OF THE SPECIFIC BULLET POINTS.

OKAY. NOW, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ IT AGAIN? COMMISSIONER. NO. IF WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH HIS BULLET POINTS, THEN I'M FINE WITH THAT.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT ALL WHAT WE DISCUSSED SO FAR WAS HERE.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS BOARD? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY? YES, PLEASE. COME ON UP. I THINK JORDAN HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.

OKAY, I'LL GET YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. IF WE IF YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND.

GO AHEAD. IN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.

IF YOU'RE COMING TO MY DOOR, COME KNOCKING. THE NO.

THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY PERTINENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T SQUELCH THE CITIZENS ABILITY TO INTERACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

AND LOTS OF TIMES WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA. THEY DISCUSS.

AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REDRESS IT AFTER THEY BRING IT BACK.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF YOU PASSING THIS ONE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER. CHANDLER, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? NO, SIR. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I.

I. ALL AGAINST. NAY. WE HAVE. 7 TO 1. HOW TO COUNT THAT OUT? IT PASSES. OKAY. MOVING ON. FORWARD. 3.083. ANYTHING ON 3.830.

GOING BACK TO 3.082. THERESA, WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD TO THAT 3.0 TO THE INITIAL ONE MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING. SO IT WOULD READ THE COUNCILMAN.

THE COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE ITS OWN RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS, BUT MUST INCLUDE THE FONT OR SOME VERBIAGE THAT SAYS MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, MISTER CHAIR. YES, SIR.

JUST A QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I SEE HERE THAT I KNOW HE'S NOT HERE, BUT I THINK THIS IS COMMISSIONER.

[01:05:08]

ARE WE GOING BACK TO ADDRESS THOSE, OR. BECAUSE HE'S NOT HERE, WE DON'T COVER THOSE ITEMS THAT HE THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

GOING BACK TO 3.081 FOR A MINUTE HIS HIS SPECIAL MEETING WHERE? HE ADDED TO TAKE OFF SPECIAL MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS MAY BE HELD AT THE CALL OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND ALL VOTING SHALL BE MEMBERS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, EXCEPT IN CASES OF DOCUMENTED MEDICAL NECESSITY AS DEFINED BY THE ORDINANCE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT APPLIES TO MEETINGS. SO SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T I DIDN'T ADDRESS IT.

ON 3.02 RULES PERMITTING, VOTING BY ANY METHOD BY THAN BY MEMBERS PHYSICALLY PRESENT. I BELIEVE WE COVERED THAT ALREADY IN PREVIOUS IN THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

SO THAT WAS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF. AND SO 3.03 IS THE SAME, SAME, SAME VEIN.

I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. YES. THE PURPOSES OF 3.081, BECAUSE I KNOW WE SKIPPED OVER 1 TO 3.0.

VERY GOOD. I'M GLAD. I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT.

I HAD FORGOTTEN HE HAD WRITTEN SOMETHING DOWN, EVEN THOUGH I MADE A NOTATION HERE.

OKAY, SO WE'RE AT 3.083. ANY ANY CHANGES? SUGGESTIONS ON 3.083? OKAY, IN THAT I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING. WE'LL GO ON TO 3.09. EXCUSE ME.

YES, SIR. CHAIR. NOT ON MY NOTES, BUT ON ON TOM'S NOTES.

HE DID HAVE ON 3083. REMOVING THE LAST PART OF THE SENTENCE AND REPLACING IT WITH NO ACTION OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE VALID UNLESS ADOPTED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF A QUORUM PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

RIGHT. SO IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME THING YOU SAID GOING ACROSS 38130813082 AND 3083.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE JUST CHANGED AT THE BEGINNING OR EACH BULLET POINT, BUT THAT WAS WHAT RECOMMENDING PHYSICALLY PRESENT PROBABLY COMES BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF ABSENCE, WHICH WE ALREADY COVERED. YOU GO AHEAD.

CORRECT? NO, I WAS GOING TO SAY I THINK WE ALREADY COVERED THAT BASED ON THE WAY IT SOUNDS HERE. I THINK SO REVERTING BACK TO SECTION 3.06.

SO I THINK WE'VE GOT IT COVERED. YEP. OKAY. OKAY.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. YES, SIR. OKAY. VERY GOOD.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU. 3.09. I BELIEVE MILLER, YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION ON 3.09. OR YOU HAD A CLARIFICATION THAT YOU WANTED.

IT WAS MORE. IT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION, BUT I BELIEVE I CAN WITHDRAW IT.

MY QUESTION WAS RELATED TO WITH SO MANY COMMUNITIES TALKING ABOUT SHARIA LAW, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, TOTALITARIANISM, BRINGING THOSE, THOSE THINGS IN WHICH GO AGAINST OUR STATE AND US CONSTITUTIONS, YOU KNOW, DID IT? DID IT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED OR STATED? AND IT KIND OF WE ADDRESSED IT IN THE VERY FIRST MEETING WHERE I TALKED ABOUT CONSTITUTION.

IT JUST SAYS CONSTITUTION. SOME PLACES SAYS STATE, SOME PLACES IT'S CAPITAL C, CONSTITUTION, SOME PLACES LOWERCASE. AND I JUST FOR ME IT WAS MORE OF A CLARIFICATION, BUT I DON'T HAVE A MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS LATER WAS TO SOMEWHERE IN HERE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT VERY POINT.

I KNOW WE SKIPPED OVER IT IN IN THE VERY BEGINNING SECTION ONE, BUT GIVEN TODAY'S CLIMATE AND SHARIA LAW BEING CLOSE IN THIS STATE, WE REALLY DO NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WE ARE NOT GOING THAT WAY.

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND IT'S THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION THAT WE ADHERE TO.

SO IF WE DO IT HERE OR WE GO BACK AND DO IT AGAIN.

I AM NOT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS. MADAM ATTORNEY, IF WE WERE TO ADDRESS THAT WHAT SECTION WOULD WE ADDRESS

[01:10:03]

THERE IS A WHERE THE CONSTITUTION WOULD EQUAL SHARIA LAW, OR THAT THERE WOULD BE A HISTORICAL PRACTICE AS FAR AS OUR CHARTER. SO IF I CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE HOW SOMEONE MIGHT MISUNDERSTAND OR MISINTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION TO MEAN SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE FLORIDA OR US CONSTITUTION, I MISSED THAT.

MAYBE THAT WOULD GIVE ME BETTER INSIGHT ON HOW TO ADVISE YOU, BECAUSE I'M IT'S NOT APPARENT TO ME.

MR. CHAIR, I THINK. YES. WHERE THAT CAME OUT OF 309, IT SAYS NOT INCONSISTENT OR THEREFORE CONSISTENT, I GUESS, WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION. AND THEN IT SAYS OR GENERAL LAW.

AND MAYBE THAT'S A LAW TERM, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WHEN IT JUST SAYS GENERAL LAW, TO ME, THAT'S LIKE ANY LAW, ANY COMMUNITY WANTS TO INSTITUTE AT ANY TIME.

AND SO THEREFORE IT DOES NOT SHUT THE DOOR ON CHANGES, OR AT LEAST THE WAY I READ IT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SHUT THE DOOR ON CHANGES.

IF SOMEONE WANTED TO INSTITUTE ASPECTS OF SHARIA LAW OR ANY OTHER LAW THAT MIGHT GO AGAINST.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR ME.

NOW, GENERAL LAW IS GOING TO BE A LAW OF GENERAL OR WIDE APPLICABILITY.

YOU COULD HAVE A COUNTY LAW OR A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE.

IT HAS THE APPLICABILITY OF LAW, BUT IT'S NOT STATE.

SO. OR YOU COULD EVEN HAVE LAWS OR REGULATIONS THAT ARE ADOPTED BY CERTAIN SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

SO WHAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THESE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE OR TO PASS LAWS.

SO I, I, I'M, I'M LOOKING HERE AS AN EXAMPLE.

IRVING CITY COUNCIL PASSES RESOLUTION ABOUT FOREIGN LAWS PROHIBITING FOREIGN LAWS AS IN SHARIA LAW.

SO WE HAVE THE ABBOTT BILL AIMED AT BLOCKING SHARIA COMPOUNDS.

SO THE, THE, THE SLOWLY INCHING IN OF SHARIA LAW COMING INTO THE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES IS A SOMETHING NEW THAT IS HAPPENING IN TODAY'S MODERN SOCIETY.

AND SO PEOPLE ARE ALREADY TAKING OTHER STEPS TO, AT LEAST IN WRITING TO REMIND PEOPLE, THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE GO BY OUR STATE CONSTITUTION, WE GO BY OUR US CONSTITUTION.

AND AND THEREFORE APPARENTLY THE VERBIAGE HAS BEEN MADE SOMEWHERE ALREADY TO ADDRESS THAT SITUATION.

SO I THINK I HAVE MORE CLARITY BASED ON IF YOU'RE ASKING, CAN YOU PUT A PROHIBITION THAT AS FAR AS FOLLOWING A FOREIGN LAW? OF COURSE, I WASN'T CLEAR IF YOU WERE SAYING WHETHER THIS LANGUAGE, AS IS, WOULD LEND ITSELF TO BE INTERPRETED AS A FOREIGN LAW, WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YES, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WANTED TO RECOMMEND, OF COURSE. BUT I DON'T THINK THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY COULD BE INTERPRETED IT TO MEAN THAT IT'S A FOREIGN LAW.

BUT COULD YOU PASS SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT COUNCIL FROM HAVING SOME RELIANCE ON A FOREIGN LAW? ABSOLUTELY. CAN CAN CAN WE TABLE THIS AND ASK OUR ATTORNEY TO LOOK INTO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED FOR AN EXAMPLE BY THE CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS AND, AND COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION THAT MAYBE WE CAN MAKE A BETTER DECISION.

AND IF WE DO, WE WOULD STILL ALSO NEED TO KNOW WHERE WOULD WE INSERT THAT WITHIN THE WITHIN THE CHARTER.

COMMISSIONER RUTH. AND MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO PUT IT IN SECTION 1.01 FOR DEFINITIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE OUR DEFINITIONS AREA IS.

SO I WOULD JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, WE WANT TO SAY US CONSTITUTION, FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND THE CHARTER OF PALM BAY IS WHAT GOVERNS THIS CITY, PERIOD.

I MEAN, OKAY, JUST AS A CURIOSITY, IF IF IF ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE AN INFLUX OF MUSLIMS AND EVERYBODY'S EVERYBODY IS FOLLOWING SHARIA LAW WITHIN, AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE CHARTER.

[01:15:02]

I WONDER WHETHER YOU'D WANT THE PALM BAY CHARTER IN THERE OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE FLORIDA.

I GOT YOUR HAND, SIR. FLORIDA AND AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VERSUS VERSUS THE CHARTER.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER WEINBERGER A COUPLE OF THINGS.

NUMBER ONE IS, FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN'T PUT ANYTHING IN THE CITY CHARTER. THE CITY COUNCIL CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE CHARTER. THEY CAN'T. SO WHAT ARE WE ADDRESSING? SAY YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ANYWAY.

WELL, WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT LIVES ARE SOCIETY HAS CHANGED.

AND INASMUCH AS OTHER STATES AND CITIES ARE TAKING A PROACTIVE MOVE TOWARDS PROTECTION TO PREVENT YOU KNOW, ANYTHING COULD BE CHANGED AT ONE POINT MARRIAGE WAS HUSBAND AND WIFE.

WHY DO WE NEED TO PUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN HUSBAND AND WIFE? WELL, BECAUSE SOCIETY CHANGES.

AND NOW. AND NOW NOW WE'VE GOT LAW. WELL, THEY SOMEONE CHALLENGED THE LAW OR SOMEONE ADDED TO THAT LAW.

AND SO THE BECAUSE NO ONE SAW THAT COMING. IT MOVED FORWARD JUST AS THIS COULD.

I'M NOT SAYING IT WILL. SUPREME COURT COULD CHANGE ANYTHING.

BUT THE THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO FOLLOW SUIT OF WHAT OTHER STATES AND CITIES ARE DOING BECAUSE OF THE INFLUX OF EFFORTS TO MAKE SHARIA LAW LAW IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF OUR COUNTRY.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN PALM BAY, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE FUTURE.

THAT'S THE PURPOSE ANYWAY. AND AND THE STATE IS NOW ENACTING LEGISLATION CURRENTLY THROUGH THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO BAN SHARIA LAW SPECIFICALLY. OKAY.

SO THAT WILL COVER US, BUT THAT WON'T COVER US FOR SOME OTHER LIKE ALIEN WITH THE GENERAL LAW IS WHAT CONCERNS ME.

THE FACT THAT THIS SAYS GENERAL LAW, IT SAYS STATE CONSTITUTION OR GENERAL LAW.

WELL, WHO'S GENERAL LAW? SHARIA IS GENERAL LAW.

ISLAM'S GENERAL LAW, IRAN'S GENERAL LAW. I MEAN, WE ARE GETTING WE ARE UNDER ATTACK.

WE ALL WE HAVE SHARIA LAW WITHIN THIS STATE ALREADY IN GROUPS.

AND EVEN THERE IS A COMPOUND IN BREVARD COUNTY.

SO WE NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES. WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS.

AND WE MUST DO IT AS, AS LAWFULLY AND AS WE CAN WITHOUT HAVING TO DEPEND ON ANYONE ELSE TO DO IT.

WE ARE PALM BAY, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT PROVISIONS IN PLACE THAT PROTECT OUR CITIZENS, AND IT WILL MOVE FORWARD INASMUCH AS SHE IS LOOKING INTO THAT AND WILL COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER EILEEN. I THINK TO BE TO COVER OUR BASES WITH IT, WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE NO SECT RELIGION IDEOLOGY CAN TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO EVERY CITIZEN.

YOU KNOW PERHAPS WE CAN DISCUSS THAT WHEN WE GET THE, THE, BUT I MEAN RATHER THAN BECAUSE SHARIA COULD RENAME ITSELF.

AND THEN WOULD HE DO YOU KNOW BUT THEY'RE OKAY WITH BEHEADING PEOPLE.

WE DON'T DO THAT IN THIS COUNTRY. WE DON'T DO THAT IN THIS STATE.

YOU KNOW, SO I THINK HAVING MORE GENERAL TERMS SAYING WE THIS IS NOT OKAY, WE HAVE RIGHTS GIVEN TO US BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE STAND ON.

AND NOBODY CAN VIOLATE THOSE NO SECT RELIGION, IDEOLOGY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL.

SO WE LEAVE IT IN YOUR HANDS UNTIL NEXT TIME.

AND BECAUSE THE LAW, I MEAN, WE ALREADY GOT LAWS AND WE'VE GOT SECTION 1983 TO PROTECT, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE OUT REMEDIES. IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING SOMEBODY'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

SO OUR RIGHTS ARE ALREADY INGRAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, SO YOU DON'T NEED THE CHARTERS SAY THAT YOU CAN'T VIOLATE SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BECAUSE CHARTER CAN'T ALLOW YOU. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS BODY TO VIOLATE SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

BUT I WILL LOOK INTO THE OTHER ISSUE YOU WERE MENTIONING.

WELL, THE PRECEDENT. I'M SORRY. MAY I SAY, COMMISSIONER JORDAN? SO. SO, IN ADDITION TO MR. DELGADO'S POINT ABOUT LOOKING INTO THOSE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THAT HAVE PASSED PROHIBITIONS AGAINST

[01:20:04]

AND I JUST, I MEAN, YEAH. OH, THERE IS ONE THERE IS A MAYOR THAT WISH DEATH UPON A CITIZEN SPEAKING AT THE PODIUM FOR WANTING THE LAW TO BE ENFORCED. SO THIS IS WHERE THIS ANGST COMES FROM.

AND I'M TRYING TO FIND THE EXAMPLE FOR YOU. I CAN'T FIND IT RIGHT THIS MINUTE.

SO CAN WE MOVE ON? YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING OR CAN WE MOVE ON? I ALREADY SAID WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. I AGREE WITH MR. CHANDLER. OKAY. SO MOVING ON. PASSING ON THROUGH 3.091.

IF THERE'S ANY, ANY STATEMENT ON 3.091 OR IS IT 3.092, RUTH, THAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS? WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO 3.091 BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION REFERENCES.

IS THAT TRUE? THAT IS CORRECT. ONCE, ONCE WE WHAT DID YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT 3.091? WELL, WE WE WE WANTED TO AFTER WE GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE ATTORNEY, WE WANTED TO STRENGTHEN STATE CONSTITUTION, TO ALSO INCLUDE US CONSTITUTION AND DELETE GENERAL LAW, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANY SORT OF DEFINITION THAT IS TOO VAGUE IN EACH ONE OF THESE SECTIONS. SO IF WE JUST CHANGE SECTION 1.01 TO BE THE DEFINITION FOR CONSTITUTION, AS OPPOSED TO 3.091, TWO AND THREE, THERE ARE REFERENCES TO US CONSTITUTION.

MAY I ASK ATTORNEY MADAM ATTORNEY, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATE CONSTITUTION OR GENERAL LAW? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERAL LAW AND STATE CONSTITUTION? BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT BETWEEN 100 AND 1 AND THIS SECTION.

LET ME FIND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. FIRST, IF I MAY, GENERAL LAW IS ONE WHICH MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE.

SO AS I STATED, IT COULD BE REGULATIONS THAT ARE PASSED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHETHER IT'S MUNICIPALITY, A COUNTY, AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON.

BUT YOU'VE GOT A BROAD, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN GOVERNMENTAL BODIES LEGISLATE IS IS FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THIS MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, IS ONE DEFINITION THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT VERSUS SANTA ROSA DUNES OWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESCRIBED TO GENERAL LAW. OKAY. MOVING ON.

COMMISSIONER RUTH, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A CHANGE THAT YOU WANTED TO OFFER ON 3.092.

YES, SIR. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE WORDING ON SECTION 3.092. ITEM NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER OF SIGNATURES. ALL PETITIONS MUST BE SIGNED BY AT LEAST 4.5% OF THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY.

THEY NEED NOT BE AN AFFIDAVIT FORM. THE PETITION TO AMEND THE CHARTER MUST BE SIGNED BY AT LEAST FOUR AND ONE HALF PERCENT OF THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF REGISTERED ELECTORS AS OF THE LAST PRECEDING MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION.

PETITIONS TO PROPOSE OR REPEAL ORDINANCES MUST BE SIGNED BY AT LEAST FOUR AND ONE HALF PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS AS OF THE LAST PRECEDING MUNICIPAL ELECTION. THAT'S IT. SO BASICALLY CHANGING 10% TO FOUR AND A HALF, BECAUSE THE LAST TIME WE HAD THAT MADE THE CHANGE TO 10%.

THIS IS EFFECTIVELY SILENCING CITIZENS VOICES AND ABILITY TO CHANGE.

MAKE A CHARTER CHANGE IT IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, OR IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT THAT THEY NEED TO PETITION THE COUNCIL TO DO SO. I NOTICED YOU ALSO SUBTRACTED OR AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 166.031 FLORIDA STATUTES, AS MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. I'M I'M ASSUMING THAT SOMEHOW THE STATUTE AFFECTS WHAT WE DO HERE.

AND SO THE ELIMINATING OF IT, I'M NOT SURE WOULD BE LEGAL.

[01:25:03]

I MEAN, THIS JUST MAKES IT CLEAR, BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE ARE OUT DOING THEIR PETITION OR THEY'RE CONSIDERING IT, THEY MAY NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS A STATUTE THAT APPLIES AS WELL AS THE CHARTER.

SO WHAT YOU IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY STATE LAW.

BUT YOU MAY MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEKING THIS PROCESS LESS AWARE OF WHAT LAW APPLIES.

MY SUGGESTION IS TO LEAVE THAT PORTION ON, SINCE AT LEAST SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTE STILL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

NO MATTER WHAT. I ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

OKAY. ANY ANY COMMENTS ABOUT CHANGING IT FROM 10% TO 4.5%? YES, SIR. MR. WEINBERG. 4.5% IS AN EXTREMELY LOW BAR.

OKAY. THERESA, HOW MANY REGISTERED VOTERS DO WE HAVE IN PALM BAY? I'M NOT SURE OF THE CURRENT AMOUNT. AS OF THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION, IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 80 SOMETHING THOUSAND.

HOW MANY? 80 SOMETHING THOUSAND. 87,000. SO? SO 4.5% WOULD BE 32.

AND 48,400. AND $84. SOMEWHERE AROUND 80. 80 SOMETHING THOUSAND. I DON'T KNOW WHY I HAVE 88,000 IN MY HEAD.

SO IT WOULD BE. YEAH. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ROUGHLY 4000 PEOPLE.

THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY LOW BAR. YOU'LL HAVE 4000 PEOPLE.

YOU'LL HAVE PEOPLE FILING AFFIDAVITS TRYING TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER.

YOU KNOW, CONSTANTLY. MAYBE 10% ITSELF IS A PRETTY LOW BAR TO SET.

REALLY? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY COMMENTS FROM FROM THE FROM THE AUDIENCE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? THAT WAS A MOTION. THAT WAS A MOTION.

DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EILEEN.

ALL IN FAVOR BY THE SIGN OF I, I. I. I. ALL AGAINST.

NAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. MR. DELGADO. YEA, MR. MYERS.

NAY, MR. MILLER. YAY, MISS! YAY! YAY! MR. CHANDLER.

NAY, MR. WEINBERG. NAY. THAT MAKES IT. WHAT? COUNTED HIM TWICE, ACTUALLY.

PASSES 4 TO 3. PASSES 4 TO 3. OF COURSE. THE CITY THE DAIS HAS THE CAPACITY TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AT 10%.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT DOES PASS. OKAY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

3.09. ANY MORE ON THE 3.09 SECTION? I DON'T FIND ANYTHING HERE, BUT DOES ANYBODY COME UP WITH ANYTHING FROM THE LAST TIME WE MET? OKAY. MOVING ON TO 3.093. ONE AND TWO.

ALL THE WAY THE WHOLE PAGE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING HERE THAT WAS SUBMITTED BEFOREHAND, BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE? BEING THAT THERE'S NO COMMENT, WE CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD AT 3.094 AND FIVE, I DIDN'T FIND ANY, ANY REQUISITIONS FOR CHANGE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING NEW THAT THEY WANTED TO PROPOSE? MOVING ON TO 3.096 I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER MILLER HAD SOMETHING ON 3.096.2.

AGAIN, IT WAS JUST JUST DISCUSSION ON 309 62.

IT SAYS THAT A MAJORITY OF ELECTORS CAN REPEAL AN ORDINANCE.

AND I JUST WONDERED IF THE ABILITY TO REPEAL AN ORDINANCE SHOULD BE SOMETHING LARGER THAN A 50%.

SHOULD IT BE A TWO THIRDS VOTE OR A 60% VOTE, OR SHOULD IT BE SOMETHING LARGER? BECAUSE A LOT OF EFFORT OBVIOUSLY GOES INTO PASSING AN ORDINANCE.

IS IT A 50% PLUS ONE VOTE TO REMOVE THAT? IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION.

MORE JUST A QUESTION AT THIS TIME. IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A MOTION AND WOULDN'T LIKE TO TO COMMENT ON THAT.

YEAH IT WOULD BE 50% PLUS ONE. THAT'S WHAT A MAJORITY.

YEAH I UNDERSTAND. NO I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. WHAT MY MY QUESTION IS.

[01:30:01]

OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. BUT AGAIN IT JUST MAKES SENSE IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN HALF THE PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN HALF THE PEOPLE VOTING TO REMOVE AN ORDINANCE THAT'S A MINORITY, OVERRULING THE MAJORITY.

SURE, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE. YEAH. COMMISSIONER I BELIEVE THE STATE RECOMMENDATION IS 60%.

AND I THINK A SLIM MAJORITY DOESN'T REALLY NECESSARILY SPEAK FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T BOTHER TO SHOW UP OR EVEN CAST A BALLOT ON IT.

THEY FIGURE OUT LATER ON THAT IT WAS A BAD IDEA.

I THINK 60% IS A BETTER PERCENTAGE. WE HAVE A HAND.

I SEE YOUR HAND. DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE COMING TO CHURCH? I WASN'T SURE IF I COULD SPEAK, BUT SOMETHING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE, A BILL BATTEN.

SOMETHING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE. IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES ITS OWN ORDINANCE.

IT DOESN'T GO TO THE PUBLIC. IT DOESN'T GO TO ANYBODY ELSE.

THEY WRITE THEIR OWN ORDINANCE. SO BY HAVING A THE ABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO CHALLENGE WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL PUT AN ORDINANCE ON.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE THAT. IT'S SUCH A LARGE QUANTITY TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE, BECAUSE NOW ALL YOU DO AS A RESIDENT, IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE A CITY ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING COUNCIL OR SEND THEM AN EMAIL AND THEY SAY, WELL, SO WHAT BILL? THIS IS OUR ORDINANCE. WE THIS IS HOW WE WANT TO CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS.

SO BY HAVING IT IN THE CHARTER, WHERE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY FOR THE CITIZENS TO PETITION AND CHALLENGE, IT'S A BENEFICIAL EFFECT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY'LL WRITE ORDINANCES LEFT AND RIGHT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DO ON A DAILY BASIS.

RIGHT. AND ON THAT THOUGHT, I THINK YOUR POINT WAS WELL TAKEN.

IF THE THE POPULACE HAD VOTED ON IT, THEN IT WOULD TAKE A 60% PLUS TO CHANGE IT VERSUS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS MADE BY FIVE PEOPLE. AND THEN THE MAJORITY OF THE OF THE POPULACE SAID, WE DON'T LIKE THAT ORDINANCE.

AND SO THEREFORE THE LOW THRESHOLD OF 50. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT FORWARD.

I WAS THINKING GOOD ORDINANCE WAS A GOOD, GOOD RULE.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CHALLENGING IT. OKAY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

3.10. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY SUGGESTING ANYTHING.

YOU HAVE SOMETHING? COMMISSIONER RUTH, IT IS 11.

ANYBODY ON TEN? PRAISE GOD WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

THREE. THREE. 11. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS, BOTH FROM RUTH AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER MILLER. AND LET ME SEE. YEAH, JUST THOSE TWO.

SO WE'LL START ON 3.11, AND WE'LL GIVE RUTH THE INITIAL VOLLEY.

ACTUALLY, YOU WANTED 3.12. OR WHAT DID YOU WANT TO CHANGE? THE STARTING POINT FOR MY CHANGES WILL BE 3.112 AND TWO A.

OKAY. ANYTHING ON 3.11. I'LL. I'LL PULL MINE OUT.

IT WAS. THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, AND THE CITY MANAGER.

ALL THREE SECTIONS ARE DIFFERENT. THEY ALL USE DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY.

NOTHING'S DEFINED. IT'S JUST. IT'D BE GREAT TO CLARIFY IT, BUT NOT WORTH GOING TO A VOTE AND GOING THROUGH ALL THAT EXPENSE.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS TAKEN CARE OF. SO I'LL WITHDRAW EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE ON THAT SECTION.

OKAY. SO WE NOW YIELD TO YOU COMMISSIONER COFIELD.

THANK YOU. PROPOSED WORDING IS TO FOR. TO ADD SECTION 3.1 12A ON QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY WITH AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICE IN THE COURTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

MAYBE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT ONE. OKAY, SO THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT ONE, BUT I WANTED TO ADD 3.11 TO BE.

NOW THIS WOULD BE BRAND NEW. IN ADDITION, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS MUST BE QUALIFIED, MUST BE QUALIFIED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

ALL ATTORNEYS MUST BE A LEGAL CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY BIRTH, OR AS COMPLETED,

[01:35:01]

IF AT ANY TIME AN ATTORNEY IS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS QUALIFICATION, THE PERSON SHALL BE RELIEVED OF THEIR DUTIES WITH THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND FINED AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN $5,000 FOR EACH YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ITS ELECTORATE MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE ATTORNEYS IN ITS EMPLOYMENT, AND WILL NOT EXCUSE A DECEPTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE FOR NOTHING LESS THAN FRAUD.

COMMENTS. QUESTIONS. I HAD A QUESTION. YES, SIR.

IF IF IT'S THE CITY THAT. IF IF THESE ELECT THE ATTORNEY.

AND AND THEY HIRE SOMEONE. WHAT WOULD YOU FIND THE ATTORNEY FOR? WHAT? SOMEONE ELSE ELECT. HIRED. BECAUSE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE OF THE SAME STANDARD AS THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SHOULDN'T SHOULDN'T, SHOULDN'T. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHARGE, SHOULDN'T IT BE THE PEOPLE WHO HIRED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? I'M SORRY.

WHAT? I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU IF YOU'VE LISTED THE QUALIFICATIONS AND AND THE CITY, LET'S SAY THE CITY MANAGER HIRED HIM WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DAIS.

I DON'T KNOW THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS TO HIRE ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, SO I DON'T KNOW.

THIS IS WHY I'M MAKING IT IN HERE. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND, ASSUMING WE PASSED IT FOR A MINUTE, LET'S JUST ASSUME IT'S PASSED. WHO HIRES THE CITY ATTORNEY? THE COUNCIL? THE COUNCIL? SO IF THE IF THE COUNCIL, IF THE COUNCIL HIRED THEM, WHY WOULD THE ATTORNEY BE FINED FOR WHAT THE COUNCIL DID? THINK OF IT THIS WAY.

IF, IF, IF I HAVE A A POLICEMAN WHO IS SAYING COME THROUGH THE RED LIGHT AND I COME THROUGH THE RED LIGHT, AND THEN I GET FINED FOR GETTING PASSING THROUGH THE RED LIGHT.

YEAH, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT APPLIES. I DON'T SEE THE CORRELATION BECAUSE THE POLICEMAN HIRED THE ATTORNEY.

IF THE IF THEY HIRED THE ATTORNEY, THE FAULT IS IS THE DAIS, NOT THE ATTORNEY? THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO HIRE THEM. YES, BUT WHY WOULD YOU FIND THE HIRING AND NOT THE HIRER? BECAUSE THAT'S MISAPPROPRIATION. THEY MISREPRESENTED THEMSELVES.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS IS WHERE THEY MISREPRESENTED THEMSELVES AND THEY WERE FOUND OUT.

THEREFORE, YOU SHALL BE DISCIPLINED. OKAY. WE HAVE TOO MANY ATTORNEYS NOW.

I LIKE HER. WE. WE LIKE OUR ATTORNEY HERE. BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY ATTORNEYS RIGHT NOW NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

REALLY? AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE A CITY ATTORNEY, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW EITHER.

YOU CAN BE DISCIPLINED AND YOU CAN BE FINED AND YOU CAN BE PUT IN JAIL.

BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO THAT FAR. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PEOPLE THAT CAN DEPEND ON THESE ATTORNEYS TO DO THEIR JOB, AS OUTLINED IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY ATTORNEY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GO FIRST. A COUPLE OF THINGS.

NUMBER ONE IS I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU REALIZE THIS OR NOT, BUT THE THE COUNTY, THE CITY COUNCIL HIRES THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY ATTORNEY HIRES THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS.

OKAY. AND IF I'D LIKE. PATRICIA, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS, PLEASE? OF COURSE. HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW.

BUT THEY ALSO, LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE A CITIZEN OR HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK AT THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

THAT'S SOMETHING HR R DOES FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER CHANDLER? NO, I THINK YOU ALREADY TOUCHED ON IT, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK, WHAT IS THE PREREQUISITE TO BE AN ATTORNEY OR TO BE ACTUALLY LICENSED BY THE BAR TO PRACTICE LAW? I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALREADY GUARDRAILS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY.

WHO IS THAT ANYONE WHO IS A NON NATURALIZED CITIZEN OR HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO RECEIVE NATURALIZATION.

WOULD NOT RECEIVE A BAR LICENSE TO TO PRACTICE LAW.

[01:40:02]

OH, LOOK. BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE QUALIFIED TO SIT FOR THE BAR. SO IF THEY'RE NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, THEY CAN'T BE A LAWYER IF THEY'RE NOT A CITIZEN OR DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL RIGHT TO WORK HERE.

I MEAN WELL, RIGHT TO WORK, I THINK, IS DIFFERENT THAN BEING A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.

SO THAT THAT'S A THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING THEIR NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF BEING A LAWYER.

AND THEY LIVE IN PALM BAY, BUT NO ONE CHECKS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE THOSE WHO MAY HAVE A GREEN CARD VERSUS SOMEONE WHO IS A NATURALIZED AND OR A CITIZEN, AM I CORRECT? YES, I'M. GREEN CARDS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO GET.

FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SPONSOR AND SO ON AND SO FORTH THAT THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER DISCUSSION WITH A COMPANY.

THIS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON. THE CITIZEN MUST DO THEIR JOB IN ORDER TO GET AND BE A VALID AND ASSIMILATED PERSON. IF YOU COME HERE FROM ANYWHERE, I DON'T CARE.

DO THE JOB THAT TO BE A CITIZEN, DO THE JOB AND GET YOUR NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE JUST LIKE MY GRANDMOTHER DID.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? ARLENE? YEAH, I I THINK THERE'S A VALUE TO HAVING THAT IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IF PATRICIA DECIDES TO GO WORK SOMEPLACE ELSE RIGHT NOW? IT'S A POLICY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND IF WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT, THEN WE NEED TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER.

THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE I WAS GOING TO ADD. OH, I THINK THEY SHOULD ALSO BE RESIDENTS OF PALM BAY, AND THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? THAT WAS PART OF IT, WASN'T IT? WAS IT? NO, CHAIR.

JUST. COMMISSIONER ASKING FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BE A RESIDENT OR FOR ALL OF THE ATTORNEYS, BECAUSE YOU ALL DON'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE THE CITY MANAGER TO BE A RESIDENT.

IF THE CITY MANAGER WASN'T A RESIDENT AS BEING HIRED.

SO ARE WE LOOKING TO MAKE THE ASSISTANT CITY OR WHAT WE TYPICALLY CALL THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS RESIDENTS? WELL, THAT WAS JUST THE COMMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER.

WELL, THE THING IS, IF YOU HAVE SAY YOU LEAVE, DO YOU HAVE LIKE A BACKUP? IF YOU LEAVE, JUST YOUR DEPUTY TAKE PLACE? WHAT'S THE POLICY IN CASE YOU VACATE YOUR SEAT? PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC. IF YOU LEAVE, DOES THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY TAKE THAT PLACE UNTIL YOU'RE REAPPOINTED TO.

SOMEBODY APPOINTS AGAIN. IS THAT THAT WORKS? COUNCIL WILL APPOINT SOMEBODY TO ACT.

OKAY. BECAUSE COUNCIL APPOINTS ANYWAY. OKAY. I JUST THINK IF YOU'RE NOT A RESIDENT, YOU KNOW YOU DON'T SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE YOUR COUNSEL TO THE COUNCIL, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME.

I MEAN, WE HIRED A CITY MANAGER, BUT HE HAD TO MOVE HERE.

BUT HE'S RIGHT. I DON'T THINK HE'S REQUIRED TO BE A RESIDENT OF PALM BAY.

WE COULD SAY A RESIDENT OF BREVARD COUNTY. OH, RIGHT.

HE WASN'T A RESIDENT AT THE TIME WE HIRED HIM EVEN.

HE WASN'T EVEN A RESIDENT OF BREVARD COUNTY AT THE TIME.

RIGHT. BUT ONCE HE TOOK THE JOB, HE DID BECOME A RESIDENT.

SUZANNE SHERMAN DID THE SAME THING. IS HE A RESIDENT OF PALM BAY NOW? YES. YEAH. OH. IS HE I DON'T KNOW. I, I PERSONALLY I DON'T SEE WHY THE RESIDENCY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR CAPACITY TO FOLLOW FLORIDA LAW, WHETHER THEY LIVE IN VIERA, WHETHER THEY LIVE IN, IN TITUSVILLE, OR, FOR THAT MATTER, IN VERO BEACH.

I THINK AN ATTORNEY'S AN ATTORNEY, KNOWS FLORIDA LAW.

THEY HAD TO BE APPROVED BY FLORIDA LAW. AND SO I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE THAT, LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE HAS ANYTHING OF IMPACT OR IMPORT IN REFERENCE TO THE HIRING OR FIRING OF AN ATTORNEY.

ON ON THE SIDE NOTE AND I QUESTION YOU KNOW, JUST WHETHER THE CHARTER IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASICALLY

[01:45:07]

GOT OUT OF OUT OF MY POSITION THERE FOR A MINUTE.

THE CITY, AM I CORRECT? IS THAT HOW IT GOES? SO.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WHEN WE ADD ANYTHING AS FAR AS VIOLATION, YOU'RE GOING TO BE FINED $5,000.

WHERE WHETHER WE'RE CREATING LAW VERSUS GIVING GENERAL DIRECTION OF.

OKAY, LISTEN, YOU MUST BE NATURALIZED AND, OR OR A LEGAL CITIZEN.

WELL, EITHER WAY, THEY'RE LEGAL CITIZENS. BUT EITHER YOU'RE BORN HERE OR YOU'RE NATURALIZED.

THAT'S DIRECTION. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE NEED TO TO ADD THAT PART.

PERSONALLY, MY MY PERSONAL VIEW WHETHER THAT'S NECESSARY IF, IF THEY VIOLATE IT, THEY'RE USUALLY FIRED.

I'M WONDERING IF WE'RE PUSHING IT TOO FAR. AT THIS POINT, MY PERSONAL.

THAT'S JUST AN OPINION. IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? EXCUSE ME? WOULD THAT BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MY IT I WOULD SAY CONSIDER THAT WHETHER THAT'S THAT'S NECESSARY.

SO IF YOU'RE SAYING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT WOULD BE TO STRIKE SENTENCE NUMBER 3C12.

YES. IF AT ANY TIME FROM THERE DOWN WOULD BE STRICTLY CORRECT, I WOULD WANT TO KEEP THE PART WHERE IT SAYS THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ITS ELECTORATES MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL TRUST. OKAY, SO IF NUMBER THREE IS WHAT I WOULD ACCEPT.

OKAY. YOU WOULD AMEND IT BY TAKING OUT THREE.

SENTENCE NUMBER THREE. YES. ARE THERE ANY MORE? ANY MORE COMMENTS? THEN DO I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER WEINBERG HAS A COMMENT.

OH. I'M SORRY. OH, YOU WERE HAD YOUR HAND UP.

OH, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? OH. YOU DO. WHY'D YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? I WAS JUST ASKING. HE WAS ASKING FOR COMMENT AND LOOKED THE OTHER WAY.

I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION. THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SECTION 3.1 12B AS IN BOY, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS MUST BE A QUALIFIED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ALL ATTORNEYS MUST BE A LEGAL CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY BIRTH, OR HAS COMPLETED THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS AND RECEIVED A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.

THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ITS ELECTORATE MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE ATTORNEYS IN ITS EMPLOYMENT, AND WILL NOT EXCUSE THE DECEPTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE, IF FOR NOTHING LESS THAN FRAUD.

THERE IS A NOTATION AT THE BOTTOM ABOUT HOW TO BECOME A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.

AS A FOOTNOTE, I DIDN'T MENTION THAT EARLIER, BUT I JUST REALIZED THAT THAT'S DOWN THERE.

OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER.

SEP. SEP. DO I HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM FROM THE ANYBODY OTHER OTHER COMMENTS HERE? I WANTED TO GO AHEAD. I WOULD I WOULD SAY, I MEAN, I'M, I'M FOR IT.

BUT I THINK THE PART AT THE VERY END IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAKING A LEGAL DETERMINATION ABOUT IT BEING NOTHING LESS THAN FRAUD.

I THINK YOU SHOULD PROBABLY STOP WITH THE CITY OF PALM BAY IN ITS ELECTORATE.

MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE ATTORNEYS IN ITS EMPLOYMENT PERIOD.

I THINK GOING INTO THAT FURTHER PART IS PROBLEMATIC.

OTHER THAN THAT, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. MADAM ATTORNEY, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? FRAUD TO PROVE LEGALLY IS A REALLY HIGH BURDEN, WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE THROW THE TERM OUT.

BUT YOU USUALLY DON'T SUCCESSFULLY AREN'T SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO PROVE IT.

I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. OKAY, SO WE NEED TO REMOVE THE THE MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE PROPOSED. I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE MY MOTION.

OKAY. DOES IT REQUIRE THE THE SECOND TO DO THE SAME? SECOND, FIRST AND THEN YEAH, SHE'S ASKING TO CHANGE IT.

WOULD YOU REMOVE YOUR SECOND AND YOU REMOVE YOUR FIRST THE MOTION.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION THEN. YES. I'LL RESTATE THE MOTION.

[01:50:03]

ALL ATTORNEYS MUST HAVE A LEGAL MUST BE A LEGAL CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY BIRTH, OR HAS COMPLETED THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS AND RECEIVED A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.

THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ITS ELECTORATE MUST KNOW THAT'S THE PART YOU WANTED TO TO SUBTRACT.

STRIKING THE THIRD SENTENCE. YEAH, SO I'M SKIPPING OVER IT.

AND THE FOURTH IS WHAT HE SUGGESTED. NOT THE FOURTH.

NOT ALL OF IT. WE'RE ONLY TAKING THE PART OFF, AND I'LL READ IT.

OKAY. HE WAS SUGGESTING YOU NOT ADD THE FOURTH SENTENCE AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEY.

OKAY, BUT I'M TAKING OFF THE PART THAT SAYS FRAUD.

SO LET ME FINISH THE SENTENCE. OKAY. I'M SO SORRY.

NO. YOU'RE WELCOME. PLEASE FORGIVE ME. YES. AS ALWAYS, THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ITS ELECTORATE MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE ATTORNEYS IN ITS EMPLOYMENT PERIOD. YEAH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES. OKAY.

AND THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR WORKING ON THIS WITH ME.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SETH.

ALL IN FAVOR? BY SIGNING BY COMMENTS. ALL AGAINST.

NAY. I HAD A COMMENT BEFORE YOU CALLED FOR A VOTE.

OH, WELL, PLEASE FORGIVE ME, SIR. THANK YOU. FOR FOR THE THE POINT OF ORDER.

OH. THAT'S OKAY. THIS IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

I MEAN, YOU'RE TRYING TO RESTRICT WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY DOES.

SHE'S A CHARTER OFFICER, FOR GOD'S SAKES. SHE HIRES THE THE HER, HER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS.

SHE HAS TO HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN HER ATTORNEYS, OTHERWISE SHE WOULD FIRE THEM.

BELIEVE ME, JUST LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL CAN FIRE THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THEY HAVE BEFORE. IT'S REALLY TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

THE CITY CHARTER OFFICER. DON'T TIE YOUR HANDS. LET HER DO HER JOB.

OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER, JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR ME.

I SEE THE MAIN POINT IS MAKING SURE THAT WHATEVER ATTORNEYS ARE HIRED OR APPOINTED ARE US CITIZENS.

RIGHT. AND THAT TO ME, THAT WAS THE. TO ME, THAT'S THE MAIN POINT.

SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR CLARIFICATION IS TO SIT BEFORE THE BAR.

DO YOU HAVE TO BE A US CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BE A LICENSED ATTORNEY BY DEFAULT? ARE YOU AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRED TO BE A US CITIZEN? NO. YOU HAVE TO BE A US CITIZEN OR HAVE OR HAVE A LAWFUL STATUS.

IT SAYS LIKE A GREEN CARD. AND THEN THERE WAS A FEW YEARS BACK.

BUT I THINK THERE'S EITHER SOMETHING NOW TO RESCIND IT WHERE THE LAW CHANGED BECAUSE THERE WAS THIS KID WHO WAS NOT A US CITIZEN, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE DREAMERS.

SO THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW THE DREAMERS TO BE ABLE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T BEFORE ABLE TO SIT FOR THE BAR.

BUT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE STATUTE. I THINK THERE'S LEGISLATION TO REPEAL THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NOW I BELIEVE IT'S NOW, BUT I DO KNOW THERE'S BEEN TALK ABOUT REPEALING THAT, BUT THAT WAS A STATUTORY CHANGE A FEW YEARS AGO.

OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. ONE OTHER NOTE, IF I MAY.

PATRICIA? YES. THE ATTORNEYS THAT YOU HIRE AS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS.

THEY'RE ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AREN'T THEY? YES. THEY HAVE TO BE TO BE EMPLOYED HERE. EXACTLY.

SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? BE CITIZENS OR HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK? HR WON'T PUT THEM THROUGH. THIS IS THE POINT THAT I'M QUESTIONING IS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS UNITED STATES CITIZEN, NOT EVERYONE GOES AS FAR AS TO SAY AND NATURALIZED.

IF YOU WEREN'T BORN HERE, YOU SHOULD NOT BE AN ATTORNEY, PERIOD.

UNLESS YOU GET A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

CASE IN POINT, ILHAN OMAR, OKAY, SHE'S A CONGRESSWOMAN.

SHE SHOULDN'T BE IN THAT SEAT IN MY OPINION. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THIS WOULD STRAIGHTEN THIS OUT FOR ANY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING OUR CITY.

PLEASE. THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING IT IN THE CHARTER IS SHOULD THERE BE A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP THAT WANTS TO CHANGE POLICIES, THIS WILL PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING.

IF THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT AND THE PEOPLE WILL VOTE ON THIS.

SO I BELIEVE WE NEED TO CODIFY THINGS. JUST TOO MUCH IS ASSUMED AND AND IT ALL GOES HAYWIRE.

[01:55:02]

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I, I I. ALL AGAINST. NAY. PASSES 5 TO 2.

OKAY. MOVING ON TO FOUR. WE CROSSED THE CHAPTER.

QUESTION. YES. I ON THE BACK OF MY ONE GOING ON WITH THIS, THE EXAMPLE THAT WE USED HERE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, I WAS WANTING TO DO A GENERAL PROPOSAL.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF I COULD DO THAT. THAT WOULD SPAN ALL APPOINTED OFFICERS TO SAY THIS.

THE SAME THING FOR EACH APPOINTED OFFICER MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND JUST MIRROR THIS LANGUAGE FOR EACH APPOINTED OFFICER. THAT IS KIND OF A GENERAL PROPOSAL. I DIDN'T KNOW IF I COULD DO IT WITHOUT DOING IT TO EACH ONE OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS.

MADAM ATTORNEY.

CERTAINLY YOU CAN DO IT TO EACH ONE. LET ME KIND OF SCAN AND SEE IF THERE IS SOMETHING CLEAR WHERE I CAN QUICKLY SEE WHERE YOU COULD JUST PUT IT. THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL. MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING IN COUNCIL POINTING.

I'M NOT SURE. LET ME LOOK AND SEE IF I CAN FIND SOMETHING THAT'S.

I'M CERTAINLY YOU CAN PUT IT ON EACH ONE. BUT IF YOU'RE ASKING, IS THERE ANOTHER PLACE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE IT, WHERE IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT ANYBODY THAT COUNCIL APPOINTS AND WHERE THAT WOULD BE? LET ME LOOK. BACK TO THEIR DUTIES. RIGHT. THERE'S A SECTION I DON'T REMEMBER.

PLEASE MAKE SURE ON ON INDIVIDUAL ONE YES I APOLOGIZE.

NO, NO, NO I WOULD SAY NO. THERE'S A SECTION THAT ARE HERE ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND THEN IT LISTS THOSE THREE ITEMS. RIGHT. YOU COULD PUT A QUALIFIER RIGHT THERE.

APPOINTS CITIZENS. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. I WAS GOING TO LOOK AS FAR AS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPOINT AND LOOKING MAYBE THAT THAT COULD BE A CATCHALL. COUNCIL DO YOU WANT TO LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND AND AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.

IF YOU WANT TO RESEARCH THAT ATTORNEY, MADAM ATTORNEY AND COME BACK NEXT NEXT TIME WE MEET.

SO MOVING RIGHT ALONG AT 4.011. I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY WANTED TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

HOWEVER MR. MILLER, YOU DID HAVE COMMENTS. 13 AND 14.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU STILL NEED IT QUALIFIED. NO, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND WITHDRAW.

OKAY. THOSE QUESTIONS, I PRETTY MUCH HAD THEM ANSWERED ANY ANY CHANGES FOR UP TO 415.

MOVING ON TO PAGE 22. EXCUSE ME. YES, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE A CHANGE TO 4.0011 ON APPOINTMENT.

WHICH PART WOULD YOU AMPLIFY? WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT TO ELECTED.

AND I SPOKE TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS. HE LOST HIS JOB IN PALM COAST BECAUSE THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE COUNCIL.

AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IT MAKES IT THEY BECOME MORE BEHOLDEN TO THE COUNCIL, TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE THAN THEY DO TO THE PEOPLE.

THAT JOB ABSOLUTELY AFFECTS EVERYTHING WE DO.

WE HAPPEN TO HAVE A REALLY GOOD MANAGER. AND I WOULD LIKE I WOULD HATE TO LOSE HIM BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T SHOW UP TO VOTE TO, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP THINGS THE WAY WE LIKE THEM.

THE CITY MANAGER SEEMED TO LIKE THAT IDEA. IT WOULD GIVE HIM MORE STABILITY, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE KNOW IF THE CITY IS BEING RUN CORRECTLY. AND A LOT OF THAT GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER.

SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO RUN THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SIZE THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. COULD YOU OFFER IF YOU'RE WANTING TO CHANGE SOMETHING, WOULD YOU OFFER HOW OR WHAT? WHAT WORDS ARE YOU USING? WHERE WHAT ARE YOU TAKING OFF? WHAT ARE YOU PUTTING ON SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT BETTER? I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE A MOTION THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD BE A CHARTERED POSITION, SUBJECT TO A VOTE BY THE PEOPLE.

GIVE ME A SECOND, PLEASE. IF YOU WOULD YOU MIGHT HAVE TO RESTATE THAT.

[02:00:06]

CHARTER POSITION. ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

SO YOU WANT. YOU WANT THE MANAGER TO BE ELECTED? YES. ANY COMMENTS? LET ME CITY ATTORNEY. SO ARE YOU SEEKING TO HAVE A STRONG MAYOR? I MEAN, WHEN YOU'RE TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE ELECTING THE PERSON TO MANAGE. THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT THE STRONG MAYOR IS.

THE MAYOR IS IN OUR CASE, HE'S JUST A HE'S A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.

HE CONTROLS THE COUNCIL MEETINGS. BUT THE STRONG MAYOR IS ACTUALLY THE PERSON WHO IS MANAGING THE DAY TO DAY OF THE CITY ON THE DAY TO DAY BASIS, WHAT WE HAVE THE CITY MANAGER DOING. AND TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THAT PERSON THAT MANAGING THAT'S ACTING AS THE CEO THAT'S ELECTED IS THE THAT MAYOR POSITION. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT, BUT TYPICALLY THE YOU HAVE THE MANAGER THAT'S ELECTED IS THE STRONG MAYOR.

OKAY. OUR CITY MANAGER, OUR MAYOR IS PART OF THE LEGISLATURE BY CHARTER.

HE'S NOT EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE IS THE ONE WHO WHO MANAGES EVERYTHING AND SETS POLICIES FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THE NORMAL CONSTRUCT WHERE THE MAYOR DOES RUN IT, OUR MAYOR DOES NOT DO THAT.

HE, THE CITY MANAGER, GOVERNS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

HE HAS A SAY IN WHO GETS ELECTED AND WHO DOES WHAT.

HE SETS THE POLICIES FOR THAT. AND WE DON'T REALLY AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NO SAY IN WHETHER THOSE POLICIES ARE WORKING IF THEY'RE ELECTED. WE THE PEOPLE KNOW IF THINGS ARE HAPPENING THE WAY THAT WE FEEL IS BENEFICIAL TO THE PEOPLE OF PALM BAY. SO IT'S NOT REMOVING THE MAYOR AND IT'S NOT CHANGING HIS TITLE.

HE'S STILL THE CITY MANAGER IN THE COUNTY. WE HAVE A CITY CLERK WHO RUNS ALL OF THE LEGAL STUFF.

SHE'S THE ELECTED PERSON. WE ELECT THE ATTORNEYS IN THE COUNTY.

WE ELECT THE WELL, THE SUPERVISOR. YEAH, WELL, STATE STATE'S ATTORNEYS AND STATE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

OKAY. NO ATTORNEYS. THEY THEY GET ELECTED. ALSO THE TAX COLLECTOR AND THE ASSESSOR, BECAUSE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE AFFECT OUR LIVES.

AND IF WE'RE NOT HAPPY WITH IT, WE HAVE NO RECOURSE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DEPEND ON HOW FRIENDLY THEY ARE WITH THE COUNCIL.

THIS CITY IS TOO BIG TO PUT THAT MUCH ON FIVE PEOPLE.

CITY COMMISSIONER JORDAN. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR.

JUST. COMMISSIONER, I JUST PROMOTED YOU TO CITY COMMISSIONER.

I APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU SIR. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

I THOUGHT WE. AND I'M MISSTEP. I'M NOT. I CAN'T SAY I'M FOR OR AGAINST YOUR PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME, BUT I THOUGHT WE ORIGINALLY STATED PROCEDURALLY THAT WE WOULD SUBMIT THOSE AMENDMENTS.

I DON'T SEE IT IN THE PACKET. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING, ARE WE JUST ARE WE JUST STATING IT VERBALLY HERE NOW WITHOUT AN AGENDA PACKET? I DON'T THINK THAT. I THINK FOR THE, FOR THE, THE BENEFIT OF US STUDYING IT, WE'VE ASKED TO SUBMIT IT BEFOREHAND, BUT I DON'T THINK WE DENIED THE CAPACITY AS WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO ADJUST ONE BECAUSE WE JUST FOUND IT AND REALIZED WHAT IT WAS SAYING.

I DON'T THINK WE STOPPED THE ABILITY TO PROPOSE SOMETHING ON THE SPOT.

JUST FOR FOR EXPEDIENCY'S SAKE, WE DID ASK FOR PEOPLE TO SUBMIT IT THE BEFORE, TO GIVE THE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING AND TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DELVE INTO IT AND TO TO TO STUDY IT.

THAT BEING SAID, LET'S RE-EMPHASIZE THAT SO THAT WE DON'T SPEND FOREVER IN A DAY GOING EVERY LINE ITEM AND HAVING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE ALREADY IN YOUR, IN YOUR PROPOSAL WHAT YOU WANT TO AMEND, HOW YOU WANT TO AMEND IT, WHAT WORD YOU WANT SO THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK ON VERSUS TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING ON THE SPOT.

[02:05:01]

NOT THAT WE CAN'T DO IT RETROACTIVELY. IF SOMEONE FOUND SOMETHING, THEY COULD PROPOSE IT FOR THE NEXT ONE.

BUT RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EVERYTHING AT THE MOMENT, LET'S JUST GO.

CAN WE GO AHEAD? AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A MOTION FOR THIS.

LET ME KNOW IF WE DO THAT, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT IT BEFORE THE THE ACTUAL EVENTS SO THAT THEN WE CAN STUDY IT BEFORE WE COME IN. BEFORE WE HIT, HIT THE FLOOR HERE. TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, YES, THE MOTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU ALREADY HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, CORRECT? CORRECT. DO I HAVE A DO YOU HAVE A SECOND ON HER MOTION? BEING THAT THERE'S NO SECOND ON THE MOTION, THE MOTION FAILS.

SO I HAVE A MOTION. PLEASE, RUTH, I'D LIKE TO.

SORRY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT SECTION 4.011 BEFORE YOU.

YOU CHANGE THAT? CAN WE CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO DEAL WITH THE MOTION OF MAKING SURE THAT WE GIVE.

MAKE A MOTION. YOU'RE GOING TO. OH, TOM'S NOT HERE.

SO THE CHAIR CANNOT MAKE A MOTION. NO, I'M NOT ASKING.

I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION. I'M ASKING IF WE CAN DEAL WITH FIRST TO TO HAVE EVERYBODY SUBMIT THEIR CHANGES BEFORE THE EVENT VERSUS TRYING TO DO IT ON THE SPOT.

IN OTHER WORDS, AS WE'VE DONE UP TILL NOW WHERE WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD TIME TO READ THROUGH IT, WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO THINK OF SO THAT WE DON'T SPEND 20 MINUTES TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EVEN WHAT WE WANT TO CHANGE AND THEN TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT WORDS.

BUT BUT I, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT.

YEAH. I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT WHAT IS PROCEDURALLY NECESSARY TO DO THAT.

I MEAN, YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED FOR THAT IN OUR PROCESS.

SO IS MORE NEEDED. IF YOU WANT TO KIND OF TIE IT UP, THEN YES, I WOULD SUGGEST A MOTION. THAT WAY EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE INSTEAD OF JUST LISTENING TO MY EMAIL.

SO OUR VICE CHAIR IS NOT HERE. THE CHAIR WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION.

ANYBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION. I THOUGHT THE CHAIR, NOT THE CHAIR.

I'M REFERRING TO ANY OTHER MEMBER. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

OKAY. MOTION IN THE MOTION IS ON THE MICROPHONE.

SECOND. I MAKE A MOTION THAT IF YOU WANT TO AMEND ANY PART OF THE CHARTER, THAT YOU WOULD DO IT IN ADVANCE AND IT WOULD BE IN WRITTEN FORM SO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS CAN LOOK AT IT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WONDERFUL.

SO COMMISSIONER MILLER MADE THE MOTION. EXCUSE ME.

COMMISSIONER MYERS MADE THE MOTION SECOND. MR. CHANDLER SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? I JUST BEFORE YOU BEFORE YOU VOTE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS PRIOR TO THE AGENDA BEING DISTRIBUTED, CORRECT? PRIOR TO THE AGENDA BEING DISTRIBUTED.

SO IT COULD BE IN THE AGENDA. SO IT HAS TO BE IN THE AGENDA.

HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE I DO IT? USUALLY ABOUT FIVE DAYS AHEAD.

OKAY. POINT OF ORDER. YES. WE DIDN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT.

EXCUSE ME. AFTER THE MOTION AND SECOND DISCUSSION.

DISCUSSION? YEAH. DISCUSSION. YES, SIR. OH, WAIT A MINUTE.

LET ME START HERE FIRST. GO AHEAD. YEAH. FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDIENCY.

OKAY. TO SUBMIT SOMETHING IN ADVANCE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF AND TIE UP TERESA AND PUT IT IN THE AGENDA IS LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THE THE CHARTER ITEM BY ITEM AND DISCUSS IT AND GET IT SETTLED.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER.

I THINK SOMETIMES A PERSPECTIVE CAN COME UP IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, AND WE MIGHT WANT TO PROPOSE SOMETHING ELSE.

I THINK LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND COME TO A SENSIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE MUCH HINDERED BY LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO MAKE MOTIONS WHILE WE'RE AT THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER CHANDLER.

NO. I'M NOT IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT. BUT MATTER OF FACT, I THINK IT AT THE FIRST MEETING, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THINGS IN WRITING. AND SO I'M JUST REITERATING THAT I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, AT LEAST HAVE A FRAMEWORK. SO TO TO THE CHAIR'S POINT, WE'RE NOT SITTING HERE FOR EXTEMPORANEOUS AMOUNT OF TIME TRYING TO FINAGLE LANGUAGE TO FIT WHATEVER NARRATIVE WE WANT IT TO FIT. SUBMIT A FRAMEWORK AND WE CAN GO BASED OFF OF THAT FRAMEWORK AND DICTATE THE LANGUAGE THERE.

BUT TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT LANGUAGE, I THINK IS JUST GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME. YEAH. JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR CAPACITY TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AND TO ADAPT IT.

IT'S JUST TO HAVING A STARTING POINT ON THE ITEMS SO THAT THEN YOU CAN DISCUSS IT AND THEN CHANGE IT.

[02:10:02]

AND WE ALREADY HAVE IN OUR MIND WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE DIFFERENT. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO LIMIT YOUR CAPACITY TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.

IT JUST MAKES IT EXPEDIENT AS FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED, SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT IT.

BUT THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT COME UP IN THAT DISCUSSION THAT MAY LEAD US TO FEELING WE NEED AN EXTRA MOTION, AND YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THAT. YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN ONLY DO IT IF IT'S IT'S SUBMITTED A WEEK IN ADVANCE.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT BEFORE WE DISCUSS AN ITEM, WE NEED TO KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THE ITEM.

SO BY SOMEONE GIVING THEIR WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DISCUSS, IT GIVES EVERYBODY TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT SO THAT WHEN THE DISCUSSION STARTS, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT. AND THEN WE CAN ADJUST ANYTHING, INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE, JUST AS RUTH CHANGED HER LANGUAGE ON THE MOTION BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, YOU STILL HAVE THE CAPACITY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING, CHANGE SOMETHING, ADAPT, AND THEN HAVE A FINAL PROPOSAL OR MOTION SO THAT IT CAN BE PASSED.

SO IT WON'T IT WON'T INFRINGE ON YOUR CAPACITY TO DO SO.

IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING BEYOND THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SUBMIT IT AGAIN FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AND THEN WE CAN GO BACK AND DISCUSS IT AT THAT TIME.

OKAY, BUT AREN'T YOU CLOSING THINGS ONCE YOU VOTE ON A SECTION? WE'RE ALLOWED. BUT IF WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE SESSION AND YOU'VE ALREADY SHARED WHAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE, THEN WE'VE COME TO A CONCLUSION. AND SO YES, WE ARE VOTING ON THE CONCLUSION.

IT DOESN'T LIMIT YOU TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING AND TO ADAPT.

IF THE PERSON, IF THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE ADAPTED, CAN BE ADAPTED TO YOUR SUGGESTION DOESN'T LIMIT THAT CAPACITY.

BUT YES, BUT ONCE IT IS VOTED ON, THEN THEN IT'S A DONE DEAL.

THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH, I JUST SEE THAT AS LIMITING.

SO. YES, BUT WE WE CAN ALSO GO BACK IF WE WANT TO AS LONG AS IT'S IN WRITING.

SO IF WE LIST, LIKE WE FOUND OUT THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK AND CHANGE THESE SECTIONS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION WORDING DEFINITIONS.

YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY HAD THAT IN WRITING, BUT IT BYPASSED THIS LIMITING THING.

PEOPLE ARE GETTING LIMITED BY IS IT GOING TO HAVE TO BE VOTED ON? AND SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING, HOW HOW STRONG IS IT, HOW, HOW, HOW MUCH CAN WE GET THE CITIZENS TO VOTE FOR? IT IS BASICALLY WHAT'S LIMITING THINGS. BUT I WILL BE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE MAYBE I DIDN'T GET TO IT THAT WEEK.

I'M GOING TO BE SUBMITTING THINGS THAT I DIDN'T GET TO THAT GOT VOTED ON.

I WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT IT AGAIN. AND THIS IS WHY.

SO WE CAN DO THAT. AS LONG AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE LIMITING THAT.

I'M OKAY. SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? BY THE SOUND OF I, I I I I ALL AGAINST NAY. OKAY. 5 TO 2 MOTION PASSES.

YEAH. YOU HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M SORRY. WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU. BILL BATTEN, I WOULD VOTE PERSONALLY.

I WOULD VOTE NAY ON THIS ONE BECAUSE OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT YOU'D PREFER TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN WRITING SO YOU CAN REVIEW IT.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR OBJECTIVE IS. BUT SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T HAVE IT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPEN AT THE MEETING.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO DOCUMENTATION OF IT. SO I MAKE REQUEST WOULD BE THAT YOU PREFER THIS.

WELL, I PREFER THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING, BUT JUST IN CASE IT DOESN'T NULLIFY THE FACT THAT YOU COULDN'T GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS IT, EVEN IF IT WASN'T PRESENTED EARLIER.

I'M NOT SURE IF IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CAN'T ADDRESS IT.

YES. ONCE IT'S ONCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, YOU CAN ADDRESS IT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT IN WRITING FOR YOU TO ADDRESS IT.

WE'RE JUST WE'RE JUST WANTING TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE BEGIN ADDRESSING IT.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 4.011, THEN AT LEAST WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT AND THEN ANYBODY CAN ADDRESS IT.

AND THEN ON ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU WANT TO REDRESS IT, YOU CAN SUBMIT IT AND COME BACK TO IT IN THE NEXT MEETING.

JUST AS LONG AS EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND THERE'S A QUORUM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YEAH. YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.

WE'VE BEEN HERE NOW FOR TWO HOURS AND TEN MINUTES.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT OUR MEETINGS BE HELD TO TWO HOURS.

IF THE COMMITTEE VOTES BY MAJORITY THAT WE NEED LONGER THAN TWO HOURS, THE MEMBERS CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PENALTY.

DO YOU HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? ALL DISCUSSION.

[02:15:02]

NAY. OKAY. MOTION PASSES. RIGHT NOW IT'S. WHAT TIME? IT'S 815. CAN KEEP GOING, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE IN DIVORCE COURT.

I KNOW MY WIFE IS WAITING ON ME. OKAY. GOD BLESS YOU.

AT ANY TIME, SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, REMEMBERING WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE MORE MEETINGS.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THINGS IN IN A TIME FRAME WHERE WE DON'T GET EXHAUSTED AND OUR MICROPHONES DON'T GO SILENT ON US.

SO. OKAY, WE WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS COMMISSIONER.

TO ACCEPT. TO ADJOURN. SECOND. OKAY. NO. SECOND.

SO WE CONTINUE FORWARD. ALL RIGHTY. AGAIN, 4.01112131415.

ANY CHANGES? NO, I WILL JUST SAY THAT ON 4015.

I DID SUBMIT SOME NOTES HERE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY COVERED.

THE CHARTER ONLY REQUIRES AN ANNUAL BUDGET PRESENTATION TO ME.

IT SHOULD BE QUARTERLY AT A MINIMUM, BUT THAT ALREADY IS HAPPENING IN OTHER AVENUES.

BUT THE FINANCIAL REPORT SECTION UNDER 4015F SUBMIT TO COUNCIL A COMPLETE REPORT ON FINANCES AT THE END OF EACH FISCAL YEAR. YEP, THAT SHOULD BE IMPORTANT.

BUT THEN IT DOES SAY IN G AND H TO MAKE OTHER REPORTS AS THE COUNCIL REQUIRES THEM.

I'M SURE THEY REQUIRE QUARTERLY, SO I'LL WITHDRAW THAT.

OKAY. MOVING FORWARD TO 4.016. 4.017.

40240345. ACTUALLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SUBMITTED ALL THE WAY UP TO SECTION FIVE, WHICH IS BEYOND OUR OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY.

SO MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE? MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE FIRST BY MILLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WEINBERG.

JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE WE ADJOURN.

OKAY. WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR? BY SIGN OF I. I TAKE A QUICK YAWN AND GO TO GO TO BED.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.