Loading...
Minutes 08-08-11 MINUTES OF THE BOYNTON BEACH CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 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 6:34 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: James Cherof, City Attorney Chair Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Motion Mr. Katz moved to approve the June 13, 2011 minutes. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Previously, the Committee had agreed to discuss Article VII, Elections, Article II, City Commission, and then the Administration of Merit System from Article IV and IV.A, as they relate to Articles II and VII. An email reflecting the term limits of different municipalities was sent to the members in advance of the meeting. Vice Chair Brake explained he researched a few cities that addressed term limits via Charter from the American Legal Publishing site and copied the language and listed them in a word document. He noted this issue arose as a result of a member who did not like the way the City’s Charter was worded. He noted each of the municipalities worded term limits differently. A term is a term regardless of whether its served as a Commissioner or as a Mayor, whereas others have it as one could serve as a Commissioner twice and then as a Mayor twice. It was not clear. Ms. Melley arrived at 6:34 p.m. 1 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL August 8, 2011 Attorney Cherof read the language in Section 19, as follows: ”All the elective offices shall be for a term of three years and no person shall be eligible to hold any elective office for more than two consecutive terms. For the purpose of this section, elective office shall include both Mayor and Commission member.” Ms. Melley thought the position of Mayor and Commissioner were not the same as they have a different pay scale, electorates, and responsibilities. She felt if one was a Commissioner and wanted to become Mayor, it was a disincentive because they could only serve one term and then sit out. If one served a term, sat out and goes back in, the routine could be used for years. Discussion followed the individuals who want to get involved and run for office understand the provision, but often, the public does not. Mr. Katz differed with Ms. Melley’s thoughts that the Mayor was more involved in the community than a Commissioner. Ceremoniously, the Mayor signs documents, chairs the meetings and is paid slightly more. Other than that, the Mayor was the same as a Commissioner. They each have one vote. As to stymieing momentum, Ms. Melley commented the City has a strong city manager that held the position for 11 years. She inquired why one would be rewarded holding the position without checks and balances and entrenchment with term limits. It was clarified to Ms. Melley that the City Commission holds a contract review of the City Manager every year. She thought it was contrary for an elected individual to serve two terms and then leave while the city manager serves for 11 years. The city manager sits for one year at a time and in reality, he sits for one meeting at a time as the position is an at-will position. The members discussed it was not a detriment to have a city manager serve for 11 years and there are city managers who serve much longer. There is a certain amount of knowledge and education a city manager brings to the table, that someone else cannot. It is important to hire someone with experience when you have a strong city manager and you want continuity because there are term limits. Term limits act as a governor and it slows down one person’s agenda. Vice Chair Brake understood why it was in place, but was concerned about how it was applied. Historically, the City expressed they do not want career politicians involved in the City. Mr. Brake suggested adding the word “not” to “The purposes of this section, elective office shall “not” include both Mayor and Commission member.” There was discussion it could be a political issue. The voters could like one Mayor and then not like the next Mayor. The provision was there to ensure no one could serve more than six years. Vice Chair Brake’s point was he would like to see it changed eventually because it applied differently to half the City. If one lived in the north two districts, they can run for City Commission twice and have a lapse of two years when one can run for Mayor twice. Discussion followed it was the same for the south end, but it was argued one would have to sit out three years. The Mayor has been running under the current provisions. Discussion turned to researching term limits of municipalities of comparable 2 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL August 8, 2011 size. The list Ms. Melley obtained from the State reflected many municipalities imposed a maximum amount of terms and she supported ascertaining the rationale to have a maximum term limit. The advantage of one serving, sitting out and then serving was if a Commissioner did well, the public could reelect him/her. She felt the position of Commissioner and Mayor were categorically different, should be treated differently as it pertained to term limits. Dialogue followed more than half the cities in Florida do not have term limits. There appeared to be agreement to serve a maximum of four terms. Two, three-year terms, followed by a break and then another two, three-year terms. Ms. Melley pointed out most CEO serve for 36 months and questioned why one would permit an elected representative to serve for 26 years. Vice Chair Brake commented he was not opposed to a four-term maximum but still wanted to see the Commission and the Mayor positions split. Chair Taylor also commented the comparison to career politicians cannot be made. Stipends are not salaries. It is to cover expenses and the position is not a full-time job. Until the City changed to a strong Mayor form of government, she did not see a need for the maximum and expressed there is an institutional knowledge in continuing to serve the community, just the same as the city manager. Voters will elect the individual who has the knowledge and understanding of their city to serve it. She did not believe in treating the Mayor differently and commented there are five equal policy makers who each have one vote. Motion Mr. Katz moved to leave the section the way it is. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion. It was noted other parts of this section would be addressed later and it was clarified the motion only pertained to 19.A. The motion passed 4-1 (Vice Chair Brake dissenting). Another provision the Committee wanted to discuss pertained to the 35% versus the 50% plus 1 rule in elections. Mr. Edwards had discussed the matter with individuals in the surrounding municipalities, and was becoming convinced the 35% methodology used by the City should be reconsidered. Mr. Katz supported the 50% plus 1 and commented historically, when there was a runoff, the person who came in first always won and that was why the decision was made to use the 35% methodology. His feeling was the City should protect even the minute possibility it may not happen that way. Whether it be this past election or another, if someone won by 35%, that meant 36%, 40%, or 60% of the population did not vote for the person. It does not mean they do not want the person, but they may not want them in the runoff. Vice Chair Brake commented voters have become lazy, but thought the 50% plus 1 was fairer. Mr. Edwards commented strong voter blocks play a part, but 50% plus 1 encourages strong voter turnout. Additionally, Ms. Melley noted when there are three individuals running, it is hard to reach the 50% plus 1. It will make it so the candidate cannot just market to 37% of the district. In a runoff, the winner will be the individual who obtains 50% plus 1 of the vote. As to funding an election, the sentiments expressed 3 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL August 8, 2011 to Mr. Edwards were it came down to fairness over cost. Vice Chair Brake commented the City Commission needed to hold the discussion. Additionally, some cities have a reserve just for run-off elections and it was suggested a reserve should be considered in the future. Motion Mr. Edwards moved that under Article II, Section 17.C as it pertains to the paragraph of “each Commissioner and each candidate for Commissioner shall be elected from the election district in which he/she resides subject to the 35% rule and runoff procedures set forward in 139 of the City Charter, and once elected the Commissioner from the elected district shall remain a resident from the election district in the City of Boynton Beach during his/her term in office.” That language be added to change the 35% rule to 50% plus 1. It should also be changed in the Charter where ever else it referenced the 35% rule. Mr. Katz seconded the motion that passed 4-1 (Ms. Melley dissenting). The readability issues associated with Article II would be a homework assignment. The members agreed they would bring back issues that they felt needed to be addressed at the next meeting. As to geographic boundaries for the redistricting, the report would be available in September. Discussion turned to the State Legislative redistricting, which was occurring because the districts became too large. An inquiry was raised whether the City was required by law, beyond the City Ordinance, to review the districts once every four years. Attorney Cherof explained it was a requirement that if one has a district- based system, that the districts be balanced from time to time. The members discussed at what intervals to review them. It was acknowledged growth could occur and the rationale for the review every four years was the growth in the City was dynamic and boundary changes would be needed. Due to the economy; however, that did not occur. The Census occurs every 10 years, which would provide real time information. After further discussion there was agreement the Committee’s review process should start no later than October 1st of 2011, and then every 10 years thereafter, no later than 90 days after the Census report is published. If the City Commission wanted a different time interval, that was for them to discuss. Motion Mr. Edwards so moved. Mr. Katz seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The November versus March elections were discussed. Chair Taylor recalled the City switched to the November elections and they did not work. The long ballots were a major issue and she supported March elections. Mr. Katz also noted the March elections saved money. Other municipalities such as Wellington, Coral Springs and Riviera Beach put up signs advertising their elections and it was acknowledged in the 4 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL August 8, 2011 past, different Commissioners and members of the public, before the elections, requested the City do more to get the word out to vote. The information is contained in the Utility bills and the marquee, but it was not very effective. The voter apathy in Boynton Beach was twice the national average. It was poor in gubernatorial elections and even worse during off years. A suggestion was made to utilize the cable stations and League of Women Voters. After discussion, there was agreement to have the elections remain in March and no motion was needed since no change was being made. Mr. Katz inquired about what provision in the Charter addressed the ability of the City Commission to put Charter Amendments on the ballot. Attorney Cherof responded it was not in the Charter, it was provided for by Statute in Chapter 166, dealing with the procedure for Charter Amendments. Mr. Katz inquired if it was permissible, if the Committee decided, to recommend to the City Commission they add a four one vote to put a Charter Amendment on the ballot. Attorney Cherof responded it would be contrary to State Statute on how it could be done. Mr. Edwards requested reviewing Section 147 as it pertained to ordinances that have been enacted but were not yet effective, as it applied to petitions. Often individuals appear before the City Commission with petitions. His community had a neighborhood meeting and to get something done, 100% of the residents had to sign in order for it to create an ordinance. Mr. Edwards read, “All petitions circulated with respect to any proposed ordinance shall be uniform in character, shall contain the proposed ordinance in full and shall have printed or written thereon the names of five electors who shall be officially regarded as filing a petition. . .” Attorney Cherof explained the Statute would trump this when it addressed a very specific subject matter such as recall. When a matter was generic in nature, it did not and the Charter controlled the matter. This section dealt with the adoption or repeal of Ordinances and not charter provisions. State Statute contained the procedure to amend the Charter. The procedure to amend the Ordinance was within the purview of the Committee. The last time this subject was discussed was for height limits. Mr. Edwards thought the language was confusing. Chair Taylor commented at the next meeting, the Committee would discuss Articles IV and IV.A and the readability issues. Elections and Merit System were addressed. Attorney Cherof pointed out Florida Statute Chapter 166.031 contained a provision to amend the Charter and there was an Attorney General Opinion when a City inquired if they had the authority to modify the procedure outlined in the Statute. The Attorney General responded Chapter 166 prevailed over any provisions. He agreed to check 5 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL August 8, 2011 further to see if the Charter could be amended by a majority vote of the City Commission. The next meeting would be held on September 12, at 6 p.m. in Library Program Room A. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was properly adjourned at 7:53 p.m. /J, if' .' ~' . I . ( . r, {f., j' I ! I (l:t^-td, tU~ -1-1VLL/_ atherine Cherry (f ~ Recording Secretary , 080911 6