Loading...
Minutes 09-12-11 MINUTES OF THE BOYNTON BEACH CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 AT 6:30 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOM A BOYNTON BEACH CITY LIBRARY, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Jeannie Taylor, Chair James Cherof, City Attorney James Brake , Vice Chair Brian Edwards David Katz Paula Melley Chair Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:27 p.m. Motion Vice Chair Brake moved to approve the August 8, 2011 minutes. Mr. Katz seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Previously, the Committee had agreed to discuss Article IV and IV.A and collect any readability issues. ARTICLE IV Administration Sec. 49 (a) General Provisions Ms. Melley had concerns this Section gave the City Manager all the hiring and firing rights. She was under the impression Human Resources handled that. Attorney Cherof indicated Human Resources handled the issue as a subordinate of the City Manager. The City Manager does not do the footwork on the process. The City Manager was the Chief Executive Officer, so all department heads, including Human Resources, answer to the City Manager. Only the City Manager had the authority to hire and fire employees. That was done at the recommendation of staff. Ms. Melley felt the City Manager had excessive authority in overseeing all personnel hiring and firing. Mr. Edwards reiterated that the City Manager was the CEO, and any organization’s CEO had the overall authority, but he or she answers to how that was delegated down to the department heads. Ms. Melley felt a process was lacking. Attorney Cherof advised there was a process in place. The City now has a Personnel Policy Manual that sets forth all the requirements and procedures for hiring, and advancement through the system itself. The Personnel Policy Manual was actually Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL September 12, 2011 approved by the City Commission by Ordinance. It governs the details of the day-to- day operation. Ms. Melley advised she had numerous readability issues. Under Sec. 49 (a), she read “………There shall also be such other departments and agencies as may be established from time to time by ordinance and as may be prescribed by ordinances adopted by the City Commission…..” She felt that sentence needed to be rephrased and would be more streamlined if it were to read, “There may be other necessary departments and agencies that must be established to address City issues. These other departments and agencies will be adopted by the City Commission in the form of an ordinance.” There was discussion as to the proposed change. Chair Taylor expressed concern with the word “must” rather than “may”. Mr. Edwards cited the CRA as a good example of creation of an agency. Ms. Melley interpreted her wording to say the City would not arbitrarily set up an agency or department, but would do so only if there was a need. She explained that was her justification for using the word “may”. Chair Taylor suggested the word “necessary” was confining as these are departmens that are discretionary. Mr. Katz indicated an additional department would not be set up by the Commission, but rather a reorganization plan. The administration may want to create a new department which may combine two departments. Attorney Cherof provided an example of another municipality that had a Public Safety Department, which was a combination of Police and Fire and decided to move away from the combined function and create two separate departments. There was continued discussion regarding the addition and deletion of wording in the Article. Attorney Cherof stated he did not have a problem with the changing of the wording. Motion Mr. Edwards moved to approve the new language. Mr. Brake seconded the motion which unanimously passed. The article would now read, “There may be other departments and agencies that may be established to address City issues. These other departments and agencies will be adopted by the City Commission in the form of an ordinance.” Sec. 49 (b), Supervision by City Manager Ms. Melley suggested changing the wording of the Section so that the City Manager was mentioned first. Mr. Katz commented that the way the suggested wording sounds was making it incumbent on the City Manager to appoint a department head no matter what. Ms. Melley disagreed. There was discussion on the wording to make it read that the City Manager was not the only one to appoint managers. As it reads now, there 2 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL September 12, 2011 was administrative responsibility by each manager of departments, not necessarily appointed by the City Manager. It was also mentioned that the changed wording defines the City Manager role instead of a provision for each department to have administration. The purpose of the article was to give a provision for administration, not for the City Manager’s role. Motion Mr. Katz moved to keep the language the same in Sec. 49(b). The motion was seconded by Mr. Edwards and unanimously passed. Sec. 49 (c), Commission/Manager Integration with Administration Ms. Melley commented about getting information from department heads, indicating it had to go through the City Manager. She inquired if the Commission had an issue, could they not go directly to a department head, or would one have to go to the City Manager first if it pertained to City business. Attorney Cherof advised it was written and interpreted so as the Commission could not direct employees to do a particular task, but they could get information and delegate to a department head. Ms. Melley continued her review. She mentioned the word “integration” in the title did not fit, and suggested changing it to “interaction”. Attorney Cherof mentioned that this subsection was referred to in other charters as a non-interference clause. There was consensus to change the word to “non-interference”. Motion Mr. Katz moved to make the one word change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edwards and unanimously passed. Ms. Melley inquired if all sections notated as “deleted”, “moved”, “reserved”, could be deleted and the remaining sections renumbered. Attorney Cherof advised the format was adopted by the editor of the Code, not by the City. All the notations of deletion are editorial comments by the publisher, American Legal Publishing. He advised we could request that all of the deleted sections be moved to a location at the end, possibly titled “Historical Reference” or similar. There was consensus among the members to attempt this request. Motion Mr. Edwards moved to remove the deleted numbers and move it to an archive at the end of the document and renumbered so the Sections are in numerical sequence. Vice Chair Brake seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 3 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL September 12, 2011 Sec. 55 (c) (Referencing Consumer Price Index in Commission salaries) Ms. Melley commented that where increases in the consumer price index were mentioned, she was under the impression this was now addressed as a cost of living increase. Vice Chair Brake advised it was decided to figure the increase based on the CPI to figure out what the increment would be. Attorney Cherof was under the impression they waived the adjustment of the Mayor and Commissioners’ salaries, although it was a charter requirement to do the adjustment. The Charter now reads that salaries “shall be” adjusted. Mr. Katz made a suggestion to delete the mandatory increase in the salary, because these positions are not positions that provide a Commissioner or Mayor’s main living income. An inquiry was made as to how to delete the automatic increase clause. Attorney Cherof advised it would be done through a charter amendment. Mr. Katz requested the Committee ask the Commission to delete this automatic increase. Mr. Edwards expressed his opinion that the Commission worked hard and they were setting a precedent by not accepting salary increases when other City employees were having pay increases taken away. He felt at some point, salaries would be increased, the cost of living would go up, and salaries would be adjusted. He supported the clause remaining as it was. Mr. Katz added that Commissioners do not rely on the position in office for their main income, as most have other employment. Someone does not serve on the Commission to continually receive a salary increase; they do it for public service. To automatically increase the salaries of those on the Commission should not happen. The only change in this Section would be to delete the redundancy of “adjusted annually in April each year”, to remove “in each year.” Attorney Cherof mentioned in regard to the Consumer Price Index, there was a national, regional, state, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale sub-category. It was never indicated which version was used in the Charter and they do vary by a couple of tenths of a point. He advised in the actual employment agreements; the index used was specifically designated. Sec. 57 City Attorney – Appointment, Term, Function Sec. 58 Same – Duties Ms. Melley suggested consolidating Sec. 57 and 58. The new, combined Section would be titled City Attorney – Appointment, Term, Function and Duties. She suggested changing “may appoint a lawyer” to “shall appoint”. There was discussion as to confusing the meaning to say the City must appoint an attorney. Attorney Cherof indicated he was appointed and was given a contract the first year he was hired. There was a retainer and categories for other type of work that was not predictable on a month-to-month basis. Those were performed on an hourly rate. 4 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL September 12, 2011 Ms. Melley read her suggested changes to the Committee that combined the two sections to make readability clearer. There was discussion on the wording and clarification from Attorney Cherof. Section 59 Same - Compensation Ms. Melley indicated she felt the readability of the Section was a challenge. She read her proposed changes to the wording. There was agreement among the Committee members that it was better understood. Mr. Edwards inquired of Attorney Cherof why there was never discussion on a review for him and the City Man3ger. He felt everyone, including the Commission, was held responsible for some type of a review, except for the City Attorney and the City Manager. From the Charter perspective, he questioned the rationale. Attorney Cherof indicated he did not know why the process was that way. As far as the City Manager was concerned, if someone had an issue with performance or anything else, there was an opportunity to bring it up to the Commission. He indicated he does, on occasion, meet with the Commission to discuss current items and provide feedback. As of now, there was nothing in the Charter requiring a review process for the City Attorney, as there was for everyone else. There was discussion about going beyond the scope of the Charter Review Committee and possibly go in front of the Commission and suggest creating an annual review process for the City Attorney and the City Manager. Attorney Cherof advised the difference between a City Manager and a City Attorney was the City Attorney was an attorney under Florida law. Attorneys under Florida law have no vested right to their position as someone's private attorney would have. The client decides if a good job was being done. If a Commissioner had an issue with his performance, he or she would bring it up before the Commission and determine if other Commissioners had issues and then it would become a public issue. He represents twelve other municipalities and there was no review process with any of them. The difference between him and the City Manager was that everything was notated down to a tenth of an hour, function, who it was for, and so forth. The City Manager was not required to do that. Any citizen could pull what he had done and any case he had at any time. Sees. 64, 64.1 Reserved (Competitive Bidding Process) Ms. Melley inquired how the exceptions to competitive bidding are currently addressed in the Charter. If there was a provision about competitive bidding, what governing body handled. Attorney Cherof explained the City had an Administrative Procedure Manual that sets forth all the procurement requirements by categories, whether it was for services or buying products and supplies. The County currently oversees that. In three of the last five Commission meetings, someone from the Inspector General's office had been present. They also had attended meetings in other cities in the County for 5 Meeting Minutes Charter Review Committee Boynton Beach, FL September 12, 2011 monitoring purposes. Ms. Melley suggested deleting this section, as well as Sec. 65 and 66, as long as there was an Administrative Procedure Manual. Section 70 Bond for Tax Collector, Treasurer, Police Chief and Depositories Ms. Melley questioned why all the titles were grouped together and why there were bonds. Attorney Cherof indicated if someone held a position of power and the abuse of that power could provide a negative result. It protected the City. It was a surety bond that provided "insurance" on the individual. Article IV-A Merit System for Personnel Ms. Melley inquired what the history of the merit system was. Attorney Cherof indicated the Civil Service System was abolished in favor of a Personnel Policy Manual. At the time it was abolished, employees were given a choice of staying as Civil Servants or taking the benefits of the Personnel Policy Procedures. A handful of employees stayed behind as civil servants. The procedures that would have been for their benefit (i.e. appeal to the Civil Service Board) are no longer applicable, as the Board no longer exists. Ms. Melley inquired about the merit pay clause. Attorney Cherof explained there was a pay for performance system. Some of the collective bargaining units do provide for wage increases based upon performance. There was a system available, but many mid level supervisors that were responsible for evaluations were not good computing them, so there was a tendency to "average up" or "average down". Vice Chair Brake discussed a conversation he had with someone who commented that possibly this Committee should not be deciding some things. It was mentioned that possibly some of those on the Committee are too close to a situation to be involved in decision making and the public expects more. Mr. Katz indicated this Committee does not decide anything, it only makes suggestions. Vice Chair Brake inquired since this was a Committee and not a Board, if someone had a complaint, where would they go to make that complaint? Attorney Cherof indicated a complaint would have zero weight. The remaining Articles would be reviewed at the next meeting, as well as addressing any readability issues. The next meeting would be held on October 10, at 6 p.m. in Library Program Room A. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:49 p.m. rl- J ./1 t;(V.-t l Q/'llA/t & Ellie Caruso Recording Secretary 6