Loading...
Minutes 06-13-11 MINUTES OF THE BOYNTON BEACH CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 AT 6:30 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOM A BOYNTON BEACH CITY LIBRARY, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Jeannie Taylor, Chair James Brake , Vice Chair Brian Edwards David Katz Paula Melley (arrived at 6:35 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: James Cherof, City Attorney Chair Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Mr. Edwards thought an organized process would be helpful and he prepared a draft agenda which the members discussed. He commented the agenda was flexible. Ms. Melley arrived at 6:35 p.m. Attorney Cherof suggested a method used by other municipalities was to post one or two meetings, and those were the meetings when the Committee would receive input from the public. He has seen Committees of this nature not have public audience at every meeting. The Committee worked, then listened, worked and then listened and the public saw the work product along the way. The members were amenable to the method, but agreed if the public was present at a meeting, they would speak before the Committee discussed the items as opposed to after. The meetings would be listed on the City calendar indicating when and where they would be held, and there was further agreement the members would follow a simple agenda template without the Pledge of Allegiance, due to the lack of a flag. At the last meeting, the members had also agreed to each submit their top five priorities and the Committee would select three to work on. It was acknowledged that at some point, the members should go through the entire Charter to ensure all provisions of it were current, or needed to be adjusted. The members’ selections and associated comments are listed below. 1 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL June 13, 2011 Mr. Brake’s five priorities were: Districting. Mr. Brake was concerned about the areas between Districts III and I  as there were two areas that cut a neighborhood in half and in the past, individuals showed up at the wrong voting precinct. He commented I-95 was a good dividing line between the east and west. The City used Boynton Beach Boulevard as the dividing line from north to south. Another department used Old Boynton as the dividing line. Mr. Katz explained when the districts were drawn, plus or minus numbers were used. Lance deHaven-Smith, who had previously done the redistricting, kept the districts within the parameters of the Statute. The way the Police divided the districts had nothing to do with elections. Mr. Brake commented other cities use city districts to divide everything. He felt it was more important to divide east to west and found it interesting it was used in some areas of the City and another entity divided it somewhere else. Attorney Cherof pointed out he signed off on the agenda cover sheet for the FAU contract for the study, recommendations to deal with equal apportionment, and the methodology used. If a member of the Commission or staff noticed any pockets that needed to be addressed they could request an adjustment be made. He also explained the projected timetable to complete the study was four months. Elections. Mr. Brake questioned whether to hold elections in November or March  and commented there was low voter turnout. He also wanted to discuss the 35% and the 50% plus one rule. Compensation. Mr. Brake noted the Charter indicates the Commissioners and  Mayor are paid and the salaries are adjusted yearly. He was unsure if that was taking place. Term limits. Mr. Brake was unsure if the way term limits were written applied  differently to different districts. A Commissioner in District I cannot be a commissioner twice and then run for Mayor because the terms run back to back. A Commissioner in District II or IV could. He suggested adding language to indicate a Commissioner must stay out of the election cycle for one term. He wanted to ensure the wording reflected what was intended. Readability. Mr. Brake wanted to ensure the Charter was easy to read and  understand. Chair Taylor’s priorities were the same as Mr. Brakes except she listed elections first and wanted to ensure they covered the entire charter. 2 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL June 13, 2011 Mr. Katz’s priorities, not in any specific order, were as follows: Districting. Mr. Katz thought adjusting the districts to see how they should be  aligned may be of benefit. Charter Amendments. Mr. Katz thought the committee should consider requiring  a Charter Amendment be approved via a supermajority of four as opposed to the current three. Make the Charter gender neutral;  Commission Compensation by Charter Amendment. Mr. Katz noted  compensation was referenced but the Commission could raise or lower their rate of pay. He felt if this is done, it should be done by the voters. Readability. Mr. Katz thought the Charter should be reviewed for ease of  readability and if the voters want to recall an election. Attorney Cherof explained recall is accomplished by Statute and it preempts the Charter provision of any City in the State. Mr. Edward’s priorities were: Redistricting. Mr. Edward’s concerns pertained to the boundaries.  Charter Review. The thought was the four-year cycle may be unreasonable  based on the 10-year census and when high growth occurred. Term limits.  Elections. Mr. Edwards agreed the March to November election cycle issues  should be reviewed. Readability. He agreed ease of reading the Charter should be addressed.  Ms. Melley’s priorities were: Term limits.  Redistricting. She noted the east to west contingent of the City has very varied  needs. She commented everything done was paralleling what was done by the Subcommittee on Communication and Governance (American Assembly) a few years ago and she suggested incorporating that information if permissible. Article IV. A. The Merit System. The provision was deleted; however, she felt in  this climate, merit and accountability was important. The Subcommittee also reviewed the Administration, such as the relationship of a strong city manager and weak Mayor and visa versa. Ms. Melley wanted to review the efficacy of a strong mayor-type government and review other municipalities who use it, such as West Palm Beach to determine its worthiness. She thought it may behoove the Committee to review the structure. Readability. The Charter contained various notations such as “Reserved” and  “Deleted”. She thought clarification of the notations should be addressed. Elections. She wanted to review the November and March elections.  3 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL June 13, 2011 At the last meeting, the members agreed to select the top three items from the priorities listed. Discussion followed about adjusting the Districts. There was agreement this item was the most important; however, the study would be completed in about four months. Accordingly, there was agreement to defer this item until the study was done. The three priorities selected by the members were: Elections, Article 7. This pertained to the November and March election  questions. City Commission, Article 2, Term limits and the City Commission.  Administration and Merit System for Personnel, Article 4 and 4A. These items  tied into the other items and would be addressed together. An inquiry was made about the need or reason to include the history in the Charter. Attorney Cherof explained all notations in the Charter are included by the Editor, American Legal Publishing. The firm follows a standard for publishing their manuals and codes. They have decided it was important to include a historic reference in the event one wanted to research the original of a provision. With issues of interpretation of the Charter provisions, the history was important. The general rule of Charter interpretation or statutory language is the most recent language has greater weight than older language. If there were two competing sections that touched on the same issues, the more recent provision would prevail. The Committee could request the Editor to exclude the notations. Particularly with respect to the term limits, Attorney Cherof explained the City Clerk could provide the documents leading to the current provisions or attempts to change them. Ms. Melley commented on an Article regarding a 1953 Act with respect to annexation of beachfront property. She thought it might be helpful to explain what the 1953 Act specified. A one-line summary in some areas may be helpful. Further dialogue ensued items that are reserved may be included for future reference. Attorney Cherof did not know why the Editor inserted sections, unless it was for the purpose of waiting for some period of time when someone could challenge the referendum that added the amendment. He thought it made no sense to have reserved sections when the Charter was renumbered. He thought he or the City Clerk should contact the Editor to provide some explanation as to why they do it. Mr. Edwards had maps, descriptions of the voting districts and the text, depicting the polling locations in the last election. The Subcommittee had recommended increasing communications to increase voter turnout as sometimes it was only 2% to 5%. Mr. Katz explained November elections did not go well in the past. Boynton Beach referendums were included at the end of the ballot and when there was a presidential or gubernatorial election, voters often made their selections hurriedly to get through the ballot. Historically, the press did not cover the elections as well in November. The idea 4 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL June 13, 2011 was to hold uniformed elections county-wide and to control cost. It was also noted there were more reasons for individuals to vote in March as opposed to November because more residents were present in March. He thought a review of the Statute should occur. As to runoff elections, Mr. Katz explained in the past, the winner in the regular election was one of the two individuals who won in the runoff. It was determined at the time that if one obtained 35% of the vote, they won, and it saved money. It was unknown what kind of research could be done on the matter. Mr. Edwards favored leaving the provision at 35% and thought communities with the 50% plus 1 elections spent a great deal of money. The Supervisor of Elections would need to provide the cost of these run- off elections and the Committee would need to have a serious financial discussion. He opined the exception to the rule would occur infrequently. Boynton Beach used the 35% rule after the 1995 election. Mr. Katz felt, based on the cost of an election taking place in Lake Worth, an election would cost about $25,000. In his opinion, it should return to a runoff election to give people the right to make that exception and it protected the minority. The data did not lean towards going back to the 50% plus 1. He noted everyone else has it. Mr. Edwards offered to come back with a county-wide list of municipalities that have the 50% plus 1 elections. It was suggested the City Clerk may be able to contact other city clerks about it or once the list was provided, the members could contact them. Attorney Cherof agreed to provide the State Statute about the March elections. The Committee sought to find out why other municipalities use the 50% plus one rule. Discussion followed it was often a political matter. There was agreement the list would be provided, questions developed and the list divided up between the members to contact. As to term limits, Mr. Edwards felt the Committee should raise the issue about the value of having an official go beyond the Charter as it pertained to term limits. There was discussion about a strong mayor form of government, and the discrepancy of the two terms. More specifically, one cannot be a commissioner twice and then immediately become a mayor once or twice. Mr. Katz clarified one could only serve two consecutive terms on the Commission, regardless if it was for one term as a Commissioner and then a term for mayor or in the reverse. Then one would have to sit out before returning. Mr. Brake felt there were ways to address the matter. One was to run the mayors term on a cycle different from the Commissioner’s cycle. Additionally, if there were term limits, whether consecutive or throughout one’s lifetime, there should be an amount. Mr. Katz noted it takes three to five years to get any big projects off the ground and the members were cognizant turnover could slow any progress the Commission was attempting to make. Mr. Katz left the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Additionally, if there were a bad Mayor or Commissioner, the public would not want them serving more than three years. Ms. Melley commented having a term limit, going 5 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL June 13, 2011 out and then going back in was not a term limit. The language indicates two consecutive terms and the language was silent about sitting out and re-entering when the office was vacant. Attorney Cheraf explained the word "consecutive" qualified the issue. It was suggested a sentence to clarify the language be added. Attorney Cheraf commented one reason why the language was there was to break the momentum of someone in the office. There was much debate about the language when it was created. Mr. Katz returned at 7:40 p.m. Attorney Cheraf agreed to pull minutes as to when this was done. Mr. Katz explained the realignment of the districts was done at the same time the term limits were changed to three years. It was done because historically, the idea of getting rid of term limits or extending them was discussed ad infinitum and it never passed. The agreement, at the time, was to have three-year terms, limit them to two terms, and realign districts. Ms. Melley suggested reviewing what occurred in other municipalities. The Committee had other Charters available online to compare. Discussion followed comparisons should be with cities of comparable size such as Delray Beach, Boca Raton, and Lake Worth. Ms. Melley would review the Charters fram Wellington and Jupiter. Chair Taylor explained the Committee has a lot of research to bring back for discussion. She requested bringing back readability issues and addressing the readability matters in conjunction with the other two Articles identified to be discussed. The next meeting date was set for July 11, 2011 at the Library at 6:30 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Katz moved to adjourn. Ms. Melley seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Ca~/u/~u O)uAJLLC,- Catherine Cherry 5 Recording Secretary 062711 6