Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

All right. Calling the meeting to order at 516. Sorry. Been late there. um so are there any additions deletions modifications to the agenda i i will say that um we are expecting this ward correct and we were gonna the plan was to to add that to the agenda i believe she confirmed she's not here so maybe we consider making that a fluid agenda item that You know, we can kind of plug her in as appropriate when she shows up. It's kind of like pause and pick up wherever she comes in.

She should be here. Yeah, she's supposed to be here. So whatever we're working on when she comes in, we'll pause. Yeah, we can do that.

You guys are okay with that? If somebody wants to motion that. Also, do we want to do them individually or... No, we can do them all the same, and it just dawned on me, we've got to finalize the ballot language for 8 and 9, so if we wanted to add 8 to item 4 to finalize review 8, or the ballot language for 8, and... press from there. It's up to you, whatever you want to do.

Okay, so, and then I also would like to consider just briefly sharing something in regard to a section we have coming up. I'm happy to do it at the end, just prior to public comments. What section would it be? One second, I have to look at that. I think it's 15 is at the vacancy section. Yeah, I don't have a copy. Yeah. Okay. So just the. I want to share and. No, an anonymous email that I received, which is. kind of bizarre in itself, but it's in regard to vacancy. So I just want to read what I received and give you guys something to think about as we lead into Section 15, which will probably take another, you know, few meetings. But I got it today. I want to just read it today so it's out there. I don't know who did it. Literally the random Gmail. So do you want to just... I'm okay just doing it at whatever point the rest of the committee is okay with.

I just want to be able to read it off tonight.

Yeah, so he just wants to share an email that pertains to Section 15 that he received just for consideration. It's not a discussion or anything like that. It's just simply information sharing. Okay. So there's that. There's adding to agenda item number four. It would be a finalized review of section eight and nine because we're going to review the ballot language in addition to finalizing nine. And then there would be the fluid item for Ms. Ward whenever she arrives. So those are the three modifications as of right now. Does anyone else have any sort of modifications or additions or deletions?

You're not here. Okay. Do you need a motion, sir?

Yeah. If you want a motion for the – so I think we would just have the information sharing maybe as the new section – the new item three. And then – The fluid would obviously be fluid. And then we would add finalized review of Section 8 and 9 on 4. If somebody wants to make that motion, that would kind of be the plan there.

I'll make a motion to go ahead and make those changes.

Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. No public commentaries.

Jennifer. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Marler was the second.

Mr. Tucker was the motion.

Thank you.

And if we could, just kind of a quick administrative, if we could just make sure we're kind of sitting up. Because these mics are, we kind of have to talk up a little bit. So it will help Ms. CJ with the minutes when she goes back and reviews that. So I'll try to police myself with that as well. But Ms. Jennifer, would you mind calling the roll?

I don't mind at all. Mr. Tucker? Yep. Mr. Marler?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Scray?

Yes.

Mr. Switzer? Yes. Mr. Langford?

Yes. I thought you'd like that. All right, so moving on to the new item number three, over to Mr. Scray for information sharing.

Okay, so... I forwarded this to CJ for record keeping purposes, but basically today at 335, I got this email that literally says this from anonymous and it's just a random Gmail. So, yeah, I mean, some people, I guess, don't want to be on record knowing who said what. So that's fine with me. But yeah. I read it, I thought I said myself, I think the best way, considering vacancies is a few sections away. It's just. You guys can digest it over the next several weeks and think about the larger picture of of. How vacancies occur and are are filled when we get to that section. So, this email reads 1st off. I truly hope commissioner Judy tender keeps healing and getting better. Nobody doubts. She cares about and wants to serve the city. But this is bigger than 1 person being a commissioner is serious business. They're making decisions on budgets, contracts, growth and city issues that affect all of us. People deserve to know the folks up there can fully follow what's going on and stay engaged in the job. We've had commissioners deal with health problems before, and we supported them. We've also had commissioners attend remotely or miss meetings because of work, military duty, or family obligations. That ain't the issue. The concern is when temporary situations become long-term. Residents have publicly seen agenda items have to be re-explained before votes. That's not gossip, that's happened in meetings. Compassion matters, but accountability matters too. Seems like this is exactly the kind of thing Charter Review ought to discuss before a bigger issue comes up later. That's the intent and entirety of the email. Like I said, I forwarded CJ, so it's on public record if anybody wants to look at it. I read it. I read it again. I thought, how does this apply to the charter other than what I'm saying? And then I went in the last hour or so and I looked through the charter and saw section 15, vacancies, looked at it, thought, yep, that's probably where it'll come up. So what's the best way to do this? My thought was share what was sent to me. I don't know if citizens reach out to you guys. Probably not like this, but maybe on Facebook or something. Just something to digest, you know, for Section 15 is what... How vacancies get created and closed in the city.

Do they have an issue with how vacancies are filled?

I read exactly what was written.

What I understand is they don't think that she is fit to serve because of her physical condition. That's the way I understand it.

I mean, I don't know... but I also read in here, you know, that about they've had, we've had other commissioners miss as well, which is true. And the part that stood out to me is that a temporary situation becomes long-term. So I wonder if it's not so much that commissioners not been able to attend in person, but are we normalizing remote attendance versus physical attendance. Which can be different. Yeah, which, I mean, that was my given first thought was. Which that's not in the, in there. Yeah, I didn't find anything about that, so.

And let me ask you two real quick questions. What did we do during COVID?

I don't know the answer to that. I wasn't hearing it.

I think that email is really premature because she was in the hospital two weeks ago.

The second question is, does the state statute address, I know she's not employed, reasonable accommodations? Isn't that a great question? Yeah.

I know that there may be some reasonable accommodations that are necessary. I know that not all of those laws apply the same way to employees as they do to public officials. So I could do the research. I don't know offhand.

Yeah, I think this is, just like you said, I think it's really for your challenge.

I think as of right now, we just need to digest the information. And when it's appropriate time for that discussion, we'll have that discussion. Is there any way, I believe, we would be able to get a copy of that email, right?

Yeah, if you received it in the course of business, which it sounds like you did. Yeah, it's public record.

If you wouldn't mind forwarding that over if you haven't already. Thank you for sharing that information. Ms. Ward is here. Thank you so much for coming. We kind of added a fluid agenda item there. If you'd like, we're done with that item. If you'd like to present, we're ready for you. If not, we can wait. Thank you.

Yes, absolutely. We have single. Sit or stand.

So what I passed out was just a little bit of voter data that we had collected

The city of Panama City is doing the same thing. So some of the statistics that you'll see on the back is from Tallahassee that the city of Panama City had gathered. So I just put that on here just so you would have it. because Tallahassee did move their elections back in 2000, so they moved them quite a long time ago. So they've got some good stats you can look at. But basically, I went back and looked at your voter turnout. So I've listed that here for the city elections for Lynn Haven for 2025, 23, and 21, and then 2019. And then listed the primary in general turnout so that you can kind of see the difference. There is a little bit of a not only for 2021 and I noted that that was a special county wide referendum that the school board had put on in 2021. So that wasn't your typical city election. However, you see that it was still at 18. 88% turnout. And for that 1, because it did take place in April. I put the cross down here, so I think. Some of you I've already spoke to, but the cost from 2025 for the one early voting site, which was Monday through Friday, 8 to 5, for the runoff and the regular election was $31,000. So that, again, one early voting site, one election day site for the city. Okay. And then also the terms that would require extension are listed right under me. So it would be extending the terms, I think, what, 16 months?

Yeah, I continually come up with about a year and six months, depending on if they were elected in April or May and if they end up in an August or a November term.

Yeah, so if you did push your election date to coincide with the countywide, they would move to even years versus now they're on odd years. So you are extending your terms quite a bit. So mayor in seat 1 and seat 2 would move to 2028 instead of 27, and then seat 3 and seat 4 would move from 2029 to 2030.

So if you don't mind, I just had a quick question regarding the primary and general election statistics there.

Yes.

Are those only Lynn Haven voters?

So some of those are. I can go back and kind of drill down and see what information I have. Sometimes when it's a countywide election, we didn't necessarily run reports for only Lynn Haven, and it's hard to go back and look at past information unless we archived it during that election. that specific election. Some of that may be just Lynn Haven, but I can get you an answer if that's important to you.

The reason I asked is I was looking at the statistics on your website there and it didn't allow me to extrapolate just Lynn Haven. It just did it by precinct. You might have some unincorporated Bay County mixed in with Lynn Haven.

You won't be able to look on her website and drill down to just Lynn Haven. Even on the municipal elections when you go, it's going to Do the turnout for all of the cities that had elections on that timeline. However, for most of the elections, we have archived reports where we ran special reports for the city or vice, you know, by precinct. So we can kind of pull it that way.

So just for numbers wise, these these numbers under the primary and general elections are. kind of an an asterisk beside that then is that what I'm hearing yes okay but the numbers obviously under the city election that's that's 100 accurate numbers everything except for that 2021

where that was that special county-wide referendum. It just happened to coincide with the election that we already had going on for one day then.

And then one other quick question, I'm sorry. The $31,000 for the cost, I know you mentioned that was for the early voting site and the one election day. Is that just for an election, or is that for an election and a runoff? That was for both. For both?

Yeah, there were about $15,000 and some change each.

Okay.

And I think when I looked back, you can see that 5 out of the last 8 elections resulted in a runoff. So more than not when haven ends up in a runoff just to confirm.

What you're pitching for an idea of extending terms. That's just your pitch. I mean, we could come back to you and say, yes, we're willing to switch, but on a different timeline. Right.

That's just if you move to the even year timeline.

Yeah, somebody has to be extended and it has to fall.

I think you might could shorten.

for the rest of the committee after i don't want to take up uh miss ward's time while we discuss this but there's a handout here that i prepared three kind of possibilities and i'd like to go through that with you guys um if you want to stay for that you're welcome we can do it after you ask more questions or i can kind of explain to you what i've researched and came up with now There is one correction on this though. If you go to the second page, it's current and proposed alternate A. At the footer it says extend appointed mayor by two years and nine months. That needs to be changed to one year and six months. I miscalculated it and that was two years and nine months was the term from when he was appointed to when the new election would be. So you can just strike out two years and nine months and write one year and six months. It's on the second page. What was the correction? It changed two years and nine months to one year and six months. Yeah. Basically, what I've prepared, I've gone through and kind of pitched three ideas, which are actually different. Well, two of the three are different from what Miss Ward has given us. What I'm proposing is what I believe to be the fairest possible transition and providing the most democracy to our citizens, which is to extend the already elected seats of c3 and c4 which is tinder and wharf by one year and six months so their next election would occur in um 20 20 30 and then we'd still hold our april 2027 election knowing that if this referendum passed whether it be in november or passes on the same ballot in april three people that the voters choose they would choose people knowing there's a possibility that those three people will serve for five and a half years as opposed to normal four. That maximizes what the citizens get to decide on. Proposed alternate A is what Ms. Ward has pitched. It extends the appointed mayor by one year and six months, and it extends the already elected seats by one year and six months each, respective to when their original elections were. In order to change that, it would have to be on the August or November ballot. The original proposal I made can be on any of the three ballots in order to function. And then the proposed alternate B, I like to call chaotic choice, is to hold all five seats in November of 2028. Interesting. Because why not throw a chaotic option in there?

I think it's definitely important to look at how this would affect whichever the decision would go, but I also want us to consider the data first and determine if this is something that's even feasible or something that we want to do or we want to send to the commission before we really go too far in depth in the how it would occur if the change went into place. So just to kind of keep that at the forefront of our minds to really analyze the data and determine what's best for Lynn Haven before we get too far into how we would make it happen. But it is important to look at it.

I think one thing I want to say, too, is as an individual citizen, and Nina knows this because I tour, I absolutely hate the idea as an individual citizen. But sitting here in this chair as a member of this committee, it's not about what Ryan wants. It's about what the community wants and what's best for the community. I conducted a poll on Linn-Avon Neighbors, which, of course, has citizens and non-citizens in it. There's no way to decipher that out. But the results largely were that people would prefer to have city elections in November. Now, like chairing, that is 1 piece of the data. There's so many pieces involved and you're trying to weigh all the pros and cons. For me, as a member of this committee, I have to set aside what I personally individually believe is best for the city and put forth. potential proposal for the commission to consider because that's what they asked at that meeting. I don't know. I forget if the other four of you were there or not, but they've effectively accepted her request to look into this and look at what that proposal would look like. So I feel like we're charged with delivering a solution for the commission to consider, which is, hey, don't change it but if you do change it this is what it should be you know i feel like that's what we as a committee are charged charged with delivering back to the commission what makes you feel uh they listened to her proposal and they directed that we would look into it um so that that's that's what let's say jamie because he's he already probably been around eight years right what if he doesn't want to go another year and a half he would resign and we would follow whatever the vacancies policy is. That's far down the road, though.

It's funny you mention that because I've got a whole other option other than all of these. I kind of tend to disagree on the fact that we should provide them with two options. I think the purpose of this committee is to evaluate the data, look at what we need to look at, and say this is the committee's recommendation. Just like any other recommendation we make to them, they can either throw it in the trash, they can amend it, they can take it as it is, or whatever. I don't think at any point This committee provides the commission with option A and option B. I think the intent of this committee is to evaluate the data and make a decision based on how we vote and what direction that we should go.

Well, I think option A is don't change. Option B is if you want to change, this is what we think is the best. Possibility, so that's what I meant by saying, these are your 2 options because there's always option, which is don't change the charter. Right? Yeah, I think option B is what we're saying is if you're, if you're wanting to pursue this and put on the referendum. After we've done all of our research, this is what we think that looks like. We can even say, you know, we. As a committee, we think you should not take this option, but we wanted to prepare it in case you felt differently because what I would not want is to deliver them, you know. hey, we think this is a bad idea, and then they're allowed to do all the work if they disagree with us. Or they send it back to us, and they're like, well, we disagree with you. Come up with something, you know.

Well, they would also have the opportunity, just like we did with 9-11, is to have a joint workshop. I mean, we could offer them, hey, you know, we don't think this needs to change. And they say, well, actually, we think it does, and we want to have a joint workshop to discuss what it is all about. what led you all to that decision, right? So there are other options, but I mean, I'm open to whatever everybody else thinks. My stance on it is that we will vote on it and we'll provide them with a direction or a recommendation, rather, and it's up to them as to how they go with that. I don't know how everybody else feels about it.

So I said I'd talk to Panama City's charter with you, and I talked to them. I got their minutes. I talked to the clerk again today. And they decided, as you said, that they're going to go to the even years. They don't have terms, term limits. And they voted not to have term limits. And they're going to vote on the mayor as a two-year term. So the only difference we have is, of course, we have term limits for the two eight years plus inclusive of any part terms that are in there. So that's...

It's two consecutive terms, inclusive of any partial term. So in reality, it comes down to it could be anywhere from 10, max 10 to 12 years, depending on if you were appointed a partial and if your second term was, in this case, for example, with Jamie's seat, it could be a maximum of 11 and a half years for him because if we were to go forward and extend his term and he chose to fulfill that term, it would end up being about 11 and a half years consecutive that he will have served.

The only thing that concerns me from Panama City and I'm going to go to Amy for this one. Panama City attorney said if you can do this But if you want to change the election cycle again, you can do it by ordinance and just keep changing it. So they could go back to odd years. Now we have term limits which should conflict with that.

Well, it actually says in our charter when we do our elections. It's not just an ordinance. If you go look at Section 31, it states what it says. It's in your charter.

I'm just asking.

It is in your charter, but state law also allows, actually, this particular change to be made by ordinance without a record, even though it's in your charter. So an ordinance is technically correct without the voters.

Just to change the date. Just to change the election dates. You can do that or not.

One last thing, and then we'll shut up. Sam brought up at the meeting, I don't think, and I'm almost going to quote him, I don't think we should be giving ourselves an additional 15 months. And that's why he passed it back to this committee. So he did my favorite punches pile thing.

Which is why when I looked at this, for example, and I know we'll get into this more later, but when I looked at the possibilities, that's why I want to, if we end up pushing something forward, The only way I could support it as a committee member is if it gave the most opportunity to the citizens to choose the maximum number of people representing them in this process of changing. I wouldn't be able to feel comfortable as a committee member if we said, hey, we're going to extend four or five people's terms In particular, when the people didn't even choose 1 of those people, the fellow commission members did, you know. So, for me, it comes down to its committee members is. If we do proceed, I want to maximize the public input on who's getting extended. You know, if they vote to, like if Sam were to run again and they would vote to vote him in knowing he's going to do five and a half years after the four years he already did, that's the voters choosing, not the commission, not us, right? So that's kind of where I'm at in that regard.

And I said I'd shut up by the way. I agree with the chairman. The data supports that if you went to an even year during regular elections, you're going to get more people out.

Yeah, you're going to get higher turnout, but is it going to be engaged turnout?

Is it going to be a lot of people undervoting? So, I'm glad you brought that up because I did have a question regarding the primary and general elections. Do you have a number for under votes? Yes.

If you turn it over back, I just pulled a quick example that had a super high number of under votes and that was for the 2020 general election. That was a presidential. So we had roughly 14,000 undervotes for a Board of County Commission race. And then looking back at 2025 Linnhaven, you had 47 undervotes. So it was 1.5% of your voters undervoted in the city when you're looking at 14% undervotes. But that's one race.

And we'd be after the county on a ballot, right? So it could be potentially even more undervotes for a city, right?

Yes.

Are there any cities that are on the November schedule already?

Well, now we have Panama City Beach and Callaway have moved, so this will be their first year this year. This fall.

So we wouldn't actually know how bad the undervoting in the city rates would be until they have won other elections.

But I did list several cities that are in our area that have already moved, and you'll see that Destin, Fort Walton Beach, Crestview, Pensacola, Tallahassee. so if you wanted to go and research there because they've already moved to their county-wide timeline um and then this will be our first year like i said for the beach in callaway and then panama city's charter review they've recommended like you said to move theirs but they're going to put it on the ballot in november for the voters to decide so if you are going to move your date i mean I would recommend you put it as a referendum. I think that's what you're planning to do. So that way you are letting the voters decide if they want to move their election.

Can you share a brief history on how they even ended up with the April super voter date as opposed to whatever we had previously?

Yes, let me see. I think I listed. So the city election date was voted to be changed back in September of 2003. So your elections were September 9th of 2003, and then it was a special referendum election where there was a whopping 3.04 turnout that decided to move your election to April.

So we were in a fall odd year election cycle.

Yes, so you were not on the county-wide timeline.

And we got moved to a spring odd year. Correct, correct. How many cities got moved to that same spring year? All of them.

All of the cities because they were all different timelines. And so all of the cities voted and I brought a copy of the referendum that was on the ballot if you want to look at that. So they voted to go to a county-wide Municipal super Tuesday and the only reason why I'm bringing it up to you now is because we've already had 2 cities move. And then Panama City is intending to also costly move. So there's no super Tuesday element anymore to get everybody in April who won't be voting in fall.

If we move, who will be left. In not all.

Parker, Springfield and Mexico Beach and they all vote when April.

Okay. So they're basically in the same situation as us. They just haven't. Determined if they're going to move or not.

Yes.

And your effort is to move them. Obviously.

To me, if we're going to move some cities, it makes more sense to move all just for a voter. Limited voter confusion.

Okay.

Um. We had this was the 1st string that we only had Springfield on our municipal Super Tuesday and the news didn't mention it at all. Nobody knew there was an election. We sent sample ballots to every voter. So their turnout was about the same as it typically is, but you just didn't get the attention. Because it was only 1 city 1 day, they don't have early voting. So it's very limited exposure.

So obviously we have, I believe the primary for this that's coming up is August 8th through essentially the 18th is the election day. So looking at the primary and the general, which is November 3rd, the early voting start on October 19th, and then we would have our own election in April for Lynnhaven. What would be, I'm thinking timing-wise, if this were to need to be on a referendum, when is the earliest and when is the latest? So latest being for the April election, right? That referendum would be on that ballot. If I could get, like, that drop-dead date, really, for when you would need to hear from the commission that we're going to put that on there, and then the earliest, and I guess it would be the middle date and for the general as well.

So to get something on your April ballot, it would be the February qualifying. I don't have the dates in front of me.

Their first meeting in February would be the drop-dead date. Yes, so it goes by candidate qualifying. It's the Friday following their Tuesday meeting.

Okay, so 1st, they need a decision.

That's that's if you want it to go on the April and then June 12 would be the deadline to get something on the August ballot, which the 1st meeting would be officially.

Yeah.

So there's no way that would get it on the November ballot. It would be the week of August 20. Right after the primary, we start coding the ballot for the general and if we do the referendum.

Amy, they have to have a first reading, a second reading with a vote and then public commentary and all that good stuff.

They don't have to. I feel like for transparency, it gives the public some reassurance about this is what they are proposing, this is how they are proposing to change the charter, and this is the ballot language that will implement that charter change if approved. You don't have to do it that way. You could just go ahead, do the ballot language first, and the ordinance can follow either when it's approved or at any time in the interim. I don't feel like it's as transparent because everybody might be like, yes, let's put it on the ballot. And then they see the charter change and they feel like the rug has been pulled out from under them or it does more or less than what they were expecting. So just for transparency and to avoid that disconnect. I like to have the ordinance done before the ballot, but it's not required by the ordinance.

In the environment, watching these folks now, They want as much transparency because they feel like they've just come out of a small hole.

Yeah, you can't over-inform at this point.

And right now they're trying to be extremely transparent. So I think that probably would be the way they would go, just my opinion.

No, that's a good point. I think those three dates that you provided, instead of us calling that a decision point, that's really a transmittal point that they need to inform your office of that.

Yeah, I mean, our date would be obviously earlier. Absolutely.

Especially if we're going to do a first reading, second reading, yeah, all that. So we'll thank you for those dates.

For the November ballot, I feel like our date is probably our second July meeting at the absolute latest.

Yeah, this would be something like the non-Avalorum that's going to be super in-depth that we would want to provide them as much time to discuss. We have a joint workshop, public workshop, whatever needed to occur. So we would walk that date back pretty significantly.

I do. I personally think. The November, we absolutely could as a committee achieve the November day. I think it's pushing. I think the April day is 100% realistic. That's more than enough time for us to work through this issue. Even if we went at the same pace as the non ad valorem. I don't feel pressure to push for the November date based on what I've pitched. You know, it can be on any ballot and the voters will have the same outcome of knowing we're picking three people knowing that if this question passed, they would serve five and a half years as opposed to four years.

So I think the reason I ask the question is, is this is covered in Section 31 primarily, right? And we're on Section 8 slash 9. Yeah, we'd have to bring it forward. And 11.

And 11.

But the meat and potatoes are in 31, right?

Actually, I think 11 is where you set your term limits, and the election shall be in the odd years is what 11 says.

Yeah, 31 is really just – I felt like it was repetitive of what is an 11. And I was actually going to ask you, can we condense 31 down to 11 and get rid of 31?

It confused me too in the public meeting because that article is called elections, but the meat of what you're talking about here is actually in section 18 regarding how conditions get lifted.

Yeah, because my thought was take what's important out of 31 and move it to 11. Because why have things in two spots?

I think just, Ms. Ward, out of respect for your time, if anyone else has any questions for Ms. Ward regarding the data or follow-on questions that she's provided, is there anything else that you would like to go over?

Yeah, I did want to speak to the runoffs. And what Panama City has done or is proposing makes sense. Because if you're going based on voter turnout, and that's what your goal is to increase voter turnout, you really don't want to have your vote ever decided in a primary. So what Panama City is doing is if there's More than two candidates, they have a primary in August. And then the top two go and get decided in November. If there's only two candidates, it bypasses the August and goes straight to the general election in November so that the winner is always chosen in November. So that's how they rewrote their runoff. And to me, that is a good option. I think that's how Tallahassee does it as well. That way you're not... because if you have your vote decided in the primary you can look at the turnout the primary is not much higher than what your city election is currently so if you're going to keep it in the primary there's really no point in changing it in my opinion because you're really not gaining much turnout. But if you're really looking to get the higher turnout, then look at moving that runoff language and changing it.

So if I understand you correctly, you could have two candidates vote in a primary. One of them could receive 51% of the vote and win. You could, but she's saying you wouldn't want to do that.

Yeah, so currently how it's written, if only two candidates, then there's no possibility of a runoff. Somebody's getting over 50% if there's only two people, right? But if there's three candidates, yeah, if there's three candidates, yeah, and it's a tie, and I think you're, I think you have a tiebreaker. I can't remember. Some cities, you're also wrong. It's crazy. I'm not sure what yours is. But, yeah, so if it's more than three, currently, if nobody gets over 50% in the April election, the top two go to a May runoff. Sure. But we would not want to do a runoff after the November election, right? Because then you would have nobody show up in December for a runoff election. So I definitely don't propose that.

It definitely makes sense to me what she's saying. The one downside I already saw to it, though, was Florida is a bipartisan state, right? We have... A rule where in Florida, you that we have closed primaries, meaning as a no party affiliated voter, you are not allowed to participate in a primary. That would be a downside to this is that we would have to as a community. Educate people to understand that, you know, in local elections in fall, there may be a need for you as an NPA or an independent or a libertarian or whatever other party you identify by to participate in that primary because your ballot will have. tangible matter on it, just like we will in August. I mean, any NPA voters in August will have a ballot that has only our referendums on it in Lynn Haven, unless there's something at the county or state level referendums as well.

Yes. I just want to interject a little bit because we are a close primary. However, based on our registration numbers, we are majority Republican in this county. Every elected official currently is a Republican. at the county level. So if we look back at 2024, all of our local contests, county commissioners, school board, state's attorney, everything became what's called a UPC, which is a universal primary. Because only Republicans were running, it opens up the primary, so everybody got to vote on it, and they were all decided in August. So it can get a little... Weird because of that universal primary, just because we are primarily Republican with our voter registration numbers. So typically we we have a UPC on the August ballot like this year. We will have more than likely. We'll have a county commission race. Um. Or either, you know, we have a couple school board races as well. Those are nonpartisan, so those will be on everybody's ballot in the primary. And then we'll have, you know, Republican and Democrat primaries as well. But typically in Bay County, everybody will have something on a primary ballot, even if you're no party affiliation.

Thank you. Any of the other cities that you said are voting in April, are they looking to change them?

And so currently Callaway, Panama City Beach have moved to November. They do not have a runoff. So theirs was kind of cut and dry. They just go straight to November. No matter how many candidates they have, they have winner take all. They don't do ward-specific voting. They just winner-take-all. It's all at large. Panama City is going to have the referendum, but no other cities are looking at it that I'm aware of. I know Mexico Beach has asked in the past, but they have an election every single year and a runoff every single year. So there's this interesting thing.

Are there any other questions for Ms. Ward?

How often do ties happen?

How often do ties happen?

I have not seen one. I've been in the office for 16 years, and I've never seen a tie.

There's a movie about it called Swing Vote.

When I first started, I may have won by four votes.

We had a school board race that was one vote different, and we did a recount, and it didn't change.

I have a question. I like the ends of this because it does increase voter turnout. It Not engagement, which I know Ryan and I really wish the community was better at. Do you... Before other cities moved their dates and when the elections happened, do you know of any other efforts that were put in to increase voter turnout and engagement?

Um... The only thing that I would suggest is what Lynn Haven already does. Lynn Haven has early voting. Some cities don't. So, I mean, that would increase voter turnout, in my opinion. And then sending every voter a sample ballot, which I kind of, I don't want to say forced, but in my contract when I came in, I move for all the cities to at least send a sample ballot. The law just requires that we either send a sample ballot or publish it in the newspaper, and to me, nobody's looking at the newspaper. So that's the two main things that I think, just voter education. And then also just working with the cities, which Lynn Haven is always really good about, putting signage, advertising it in your newsletters, water bills, social media, things like that, to me help, but

You're never going to get a 100% turnout. Yeah, I mean, some of the, if you go look around the country, some of the highest turnout for municipal elections. I mean, there's some cities that have up in the 90%, but they're very small communities. The larger cities that when you get up to our size and even larger, I mean. You'd be happy with 70%. I'd be happy with 40%.

Age also has something to do with it because the older population are the ones that turn out. If we look at my age range, the 60 plus age range, we're looking at 80% voter turnout, 85% turnout. But then you have to average in your you know, 18 to 35 range.

I mean, I analyzed our last election data pretty heavily. And I mean, for me, what was telling was in the May runoff, I was more older number of voter in the May than the April. In the April runoff, it was so bad that at 34 years old at the time, I was like the 135th youngest voter I mean, like at 34, you know, the number of voters under 20 was less than a dozen, I believe. I mean, yeah. And then in the runoff, it was a little bit better. There was a little bit more younger turnout. And I think that was because more active effort was made to get them to turn out. The youngest voter was Chairman Lankford's daughter. Yeah. That was her first ever vote. And there was maybe 25 voters in, like, the 18 and 19 range. We have more than 20. I mean, what was Moseley's graduating class this year? Think about that.

We had a voter somehow. Somehow everybody found out that that was her first time voting. And everybody in there talked about her. I was like, what's up?

There you go.

Do you have data on demographic turnout versus spring and fall elections? I don't need exact numbers, but I mean, is there more turnout across the demographics in fall versus spring?

I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can definitely run the report. Okay.

Yeah, I'd be curious to see what that looks like. Is the turnout, you know, is it... what is that called, where everybody kind of roughly turns out the same, it's just every category increases the same amount, or is it skewed where younger voters are turning out in more abundance in fall?

Does anybody have any other questions for Ms. Ward?

I appreciate your time.

Thank you so much for coming and talking to us. So As she makes her way out, I just wanted to be respectful of her time, but we kind of have two options here. We can choose to move this up and discuss, you know, potentially at the next meeting, or we can leave it on schedule and discuss it when we get to that section. Which is 11, correct? Yes. I believe so. I think whatever changes occur in 11 is going to affect 31, and we're going to have to go to 31.

We're going to visit it out of Section 11 and not wait for 31. Which, I mean, we literally have a begin review of Chapter 11 on this agenda. Right. I don't feel like we need to dig into it tonight. I think this was more of an informative session. I think we can start digesting individually and when we get to 11, we get to 11.

Since we're not pushing for an August.

I just wanted to bring it up for us to kind of discuss and think through that.

That's the way we need to be doing these things.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, we're at a deliberate, you know, taking a deliberate, you know, methodical approach. I respect the charter in its entirety to a high level, so I want to make sure we maintain that methodical approach, but I don't want to jump in.

Yeah, I don't think just following the organic path for this topic, I think that leads to most likely it ends up on that April ballot if it ends up on the ballot at all. Okay. And I think that's perfectly fine for our community because, you know, that's a viable ballot to have a referendum on. And I would imagine that we will have additional things for that ballot as well.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. So back to the agenda there. So we finished up the info sharing from Mr. Scray. We finished up with Ms. Ward. So I guess we'll move on to the new agenda item. We'll call it five, which would be approval of minutes. Does anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes? Move. much by mr scray is second by mr marler there's no public for public commentary miss jennifer would you mind calling the role uh mr scray yes mr marlin yes mr tecker yes mr switzer yes mr langford yes mission passes so um before we get into the next uh finalized i'm sorry

Moving eight before nine.

Well, we're going to finalize review of section eight and nine. I was going to ask, would it be okay if we took a five-minute restroom break? Five minutes? I apologize. I've been drinking this. I wanted to get the water.

I apologize.

in their county, so you've got to call the county.

It's a shame. I drove down his house, and the grass is literally weeds are six feet high. I don't know how he gets in there.

How large of a lot of supers? How large of a lot?

About two acres.

A lot. Got to get goats. All right. Thank you guys for your patience there. So moving on to finalize review section 8 and 9. So Ms. Amy pointed out that she added the word new in section C there.

Or 8C. Yeah, two things. So in 8B, in the Version, it looked like the word department was missing from the Florida Department of law enforcement. So I added that word, which I feel, which I checked was consistent with what it was. My insurance had proposed to you. So it just got missed. Um, and then in C, I added the word station, not acquire new, because I feel like I'll talked about that. And that was. If I did wrong, I need you to call me out on it because I repeat that new word and the ballot language that is on the other side of that page.

We did talk about it in that instance.

We did. In the discussion, I remember we were like, was Chief Blanchard going to type up this entire list of current surveillance stuff that we have now and have that approved or is it, you know, whatever. But I just wanted to point out those two things. And if everybody's good with that, then we can move on to the ballot language for eight. If not, then we can discuss it more.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, I think the word new doesn't need to be in there because we added the sentence about replacing existing resources due to them not being serviceable. I think that was the tryout.

Oh, I didn't put that in there. I didn't see it.

It's on... Page 10 of the PDF of our agenda.

I missed it. Okay. So mine is missing that.

Okay. Yeah. So that was the trade off was rather than saying new, we said that they could, it's a one for one replacement. You know, if, if, uh, if, uh, the much to Davis, this may, if the ALPR stops working, they're allowed to replace that one ALPR.

Okay, perfect.

Without selling everybody in the whole wide world for two meetings. But if they want to add an additional ALPR, then that's new technology, and they have to. Okay, got it. Thank you. Yeah, it's not that. It's not, yeah.

Specific to surveillance.

What was it? What word?

The new is also in the ballot language. You may want to keep it there because I don't get into all of the replacement stuff, but if we change the ballot language to get into the replacement statement. Again, we've got the 75-word notation.

You need to leave it there. Were you maxed out already? No.

No, we're at 62, so we have some wiggle room. Yeah.

I just missed that.

Well, first sign off on the language of eight, and then we'll move to ballot language.

So as long as we have that sentence for replacing unserviced, you know, no longer serviceable.

Yeah, got it.

This paragraph does not apply to the replacement of existing resources.

Yeah, as long as that's included, then we can get rid of the word new in the first paragraph.

Yeah, it is.

So I think probably where we're at is we're okay with adding the word department in section B or paragraph B, so 8B, in front of law enforcement. Do you see that there, Ms. CJ? Actually, I don't know if you have the soft copy of what Ms. Amy has.

I know it just says Department of Law Enforcement. or it's a Florida law enforcement. Oh, yeah.

The printed copy has the word, but the usual one doesn't.

In 8C, can we add in that list, monitor, track, select, analyze, or retain? Can we add share in there? Up to you.

Your policy.

What would you explain further here?

For purposes of this section, surveillance technology is broadly defined. to include tools that monitor, track, collect, analyze, or retain information regarding members of the public. I want to just add share.

Do you want share in the charter amendment or the ballot language? Because I tracked exactly your charter language.

Do you have a device in mind that can share but can't do these other things?

That was exactly my question.

No, I just want it covered. So to that point, though, that you're talking about something that a computer is involved, surveillance that can't share.

I mean, a computer would already be covered. If they want to buy more computers to do surveillance with, they would have to put public notice saying, hey, we're buying more computers that are going to support surveillance processes. Specifically for surveillance. Just attached to the surveillance process at all.

Yeah, I don't see what I don't see what share would add to this, but.

Well, you can't really. I mean. Because the city right now is sharing my information with 1,500 other agencies.

But they're doing that with technology that's already covered by this definition. Right. That's what I'm saying. They're doing that with computers, David, and computers are already covered. So that's why I ask, not the devil's advocate, but what device do you feel exists or could exist that could share something without doing any of these other things? I mean, to me, computers analyze or retain covered computers.

Okay. You know what?

We're at a point if you don't want it, then we can not add it.

And you're more than more than welcome to make a motion to add the word share if you'd like. And we can go from there.

Okay. I want to make a motion to add share.

Okay. There's a motion to add the word share in paragraph C after the word analyze. Is there a second? There's no second heard.

Motion fails.

Are there any other discussions regarding what's in the agenda packet? So we discussed the addition of adding the word department. Can we agree that that was a clerical error in nature and not a substantive error or do we need to Do you all want to make a motion to add the word department?

I consider it.

Scribes there. Okay. And then. So, Miss Amy, it sounds like we kind of want to stick to what's in the agenda packet there with the addition of the word department in there.

My form does look a little bit different because it's got to be in legislative format.

Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot to mention that. So the meat and potatoes of Section 8 is done. We can move on to the discussion of the ballot language. Ms. Amy's provided two options here for ballot language associated with Section 8. If you guys want to take a second and read over that, we'll discuss it.

Well, 8B and 8C are two separate issues, though, correct?

They are.

They're not. It's this or that.

These are not options. I'm sorry. It's one option for each section. I'm sorry. Well, I suppose I could have done one question for both sections, B and C. I did not do that.

Okay.

They were different enough that I felt like it's just let alone.

I think AB is missing a word. So should the charter be amended to require that the city ensure the city police department are aligned?

It could be is.

Like, but what is aligned? Policies, procedures, behaviors. I feel like we're.

Policies and practices is what your charter amendment speaks to.

So should we say that in there? We have the word count to do it. So that ensure the city police department policies and practices are aligned with state law and recognize best practices.

Best practices, and they're not the word policies and practices.

So, Jamie, my job would be like, I need the document, too, that I'm comparing and what I'm comparing it to. And that's kind of where my brain is at for that. You should do it. And so AC would strike the word new.

Well, it's up to you.

I would like to strike it because it doesn't wouldn't match.

Then we need to know it doesn't speak to replacement at all. So we might need to place that back. Or place it in there somewhere. Yeah, because it doesn't distinguish.

Which applies to every except to replace unserviceable equipment or something to that effect.

I mean, you could just say that this would not apply to the replacement of existing resources determined no longer.

That's more words than I think we have available. I think we're going to do about 13.

We can do that. So for purposes of this section, surveillance technology is broadly defined to include tools that monitor, track, collect, analyze, or retain information regarding members of the public, but not replacement of existing resources. That will work. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. That works.

In common terms, it makes sense to me.

So are there any suggested changes to 8B and 8C or on the ballot language for 8B and 8C that we've not already heard? No. Okay.

If they get three new officers and they need three new cameras, then yes, it potentially would.

Miss Amy, I think we motioned and voted on the resolution to the ballot language in the previous submittals. Is that what you recall?

I didn't provide you a resolution. I only provided you a ballot.

Okay.

I provided you the form of resolution just to say I didn't ask you to write on it.

And I think I think if I remember right, some of the last submittals, it was kind of same process once we kind of. I think we voted on on the language and then you package it up in a resolution and send it towards the committee. Yeah, I think we've committed that.

We don't need to see the specific revolution as long as it's including the ballot language and the changes.

Right? So with that, does anyone want to make a motion to finalize or to approve the ballot language as we've discussed tonight and authorize that for transmission to the commission once it's time?

I'll make a motion.

Second. Okay, so a motion by Mr. Switzer, a second by Mr. Scrae. There's no public commentary. Ms. Jennifer, will you call the roll?

Mr. Switzer? Yes. Mr. Scrae?

Yes.

Mr. Tucker?

Yes.

Mr. Marler?

Yes.

Mr. Langford?

Yes. Motion passes. So we're good on the ballot language. Did we need to go back and formally close out Section 8 with a motion or a vote? I think we're good on that. Alright, so that completes Section 8 with both the ballot language and the and the charter there. So moving on to Section 9. So we left off in Section 9 and We discussed that there were a couple things, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but the intent was to go at least every five years on the charter review. I was speaking with Ms. Amy a little bit beforehand, and I couldn't remember. I know that we discussed about the committee that actually does the charter review. and saying, okay, well, like right now, let's just say we're done with the charter review tonight. Tonight's going to be our last meeting, right? Everything's been submitted to the commission. Everything's done. Is this committee still in effect? Or I kind of want us to talk through, you know, like for instance, the previous charter review committee, right? They reviewed the charter. The commission wanted... the charter to be reviewed for the city clerk position, right? They appointed all new committee members to do that for whatever reason. But before that happened, if one of the old charter review committee members would have wanted to Serve on the planning board or the financial review board. Could they have done that? Because they're technically still on the charter review committee. I don't think that's the end point.

What's the intent of our work? Is it convened or not? Like once it's convened and they serve on it.

Yeah. Like, for example, let's say whenever we as a group decide and vote on, we're convened and the commission has no further, the last thing we proposed to them, they worked it through, it's gone to referendum, we've effectively stood down, we've ended our assignment. We're no longer members of this committee at that point. The committee still exists, but it's in its hibernation phase. Until the commission stands it back up, which is following either the 5 year timeline. Or sooner as they see fit, I actually thought of maybe instead of saying 5 years saying prior to every 3rd election cycle. because then it's you know two years two years and then it's that you're basically getting thing things charter review amendments and referendums on it every third election cycle there could be referendums or sooner if they see fit because i know there was some debate about when the five years starts so i am really glad that the chairman brought this up because i do feel like as not as amended but as written it does there is an interpretation where

The intent of this provision is to set up the committee by resolution and that the committee lives for five years. I think the intention is that I think the charter gets reviewed every five years by a committee that is not the commission is what I think the real intention is.

Yeah, I believe that is the spirit of what Lynn Haven citizens wanted when they passed this originally.

And so I would like to suggest, and you can see it on the page that had the Section 8 language, moving the every five years to qualify specifically the review and not the appointment of the committee. That's not what you did at your last meeting, but I was to suggest to avoid that alternative interpretation.

So I had. Came up with this charter shall be reviewed by committee appointed by resolution of the city commission prior to every 3rd election cycle or sooner. As advised by the commission, starting with the 2027 election cycle. which we may need to change to 2028 if we do that, being the first counted for scheduling. And then we could also add in a sentence to the effect of when the committee votes to stand down their release of their commitment to the committee or something to that effect. Because, I mean, like, for example, let's say I'm going to pick on Tommy. Let's say when we're done, Tommy says, you know what? That got me fired up. I'm ready to be a commissioner. So now he has to formally, you know, resign from this board. Or if David says, hey, this got me excited, I want to be on the planning committee. you know our commission i mean yes you know i feel like when we're done with our business that's when we say hey we're we're done yeah we're moving on to other things i don't expect to have i don't i feel like i'm not entitled to have a seat on this committee the next time it comes back I agree. Yeah.

You know, I say two things. I know where you're going with it. Every third election cycle. I kind of I'm more partial to every five years. And then we can debate, you know, when five year clock starts and stops and all that. But we can even state when it starts. Yeah, exactly. Even better. Right. But the whole resolution, you know, the. the committee could be appointed by resolution, the resolution could state that this committee will be dissolved upon completion of the charter review. And we wouldn't have to put it in the charter. Now, by doing that, you might have five different people up here by the time, and it might get lost. So, you know, you could just say another sentence in here that that, you know, the resolution would terminate the completion of the charter review or something like that.

Yeah, right.

So however we want to go, I just want there to be a delineation between, obviously, you know, the charter's reviewed every five years, which is what it says now, but, you know, we're saying at least every five years, and then delineating that the committee, once the charter review is complete, the committee is stood down.

Their term is over.

Correct. So the appointees will yield their appointment at the conclusion of their review, something like that. where the term shall their term shall expire review yeah yeah I'm okay with that I agree with that the appointees terms shall expire at the conclusion of their review yeah fire or terminate simply put it makes it more fine finite there's no question and we're concluded that

Well, I will say, you may think you're done, and it goes up to the commission, and they don't like it. They want to throw up all over whatever has been given to them, and they want to remand it back to you.

I'm saying when it's done, though. So, Ms. CJ, if we have resolution in that second sentence there, we'll have to undo that strike three there.

Yes, ma'am.

I'd also like to add Anybody got a good optometrist that doesn't have a three-month wait? The problem is I call around and they all have 90-day wait. After the five years, or at least every five years, I'd like to add from the completion of the last review,

Can we make it a whole new sentence so that we've got the review and the appointment not running on the same schedule?

Yeah, I'm not literally locked on that. Or sooner as advised by commission.

And if you want to literary that, I'm fine with it.

The intent is that the charter will be reviewed at least every five years. The commission will appoint the committee to do it, and the committee will, appointees will terminate their seats at the end of the review.

Let's do three sentences then to hit those three points.

I just put below and a hark from the end. What? Below and a hark.

Look at that. Hit the Google. Hit the Google. I haven't read Shakespeare in a long time, David. I feel like that's where I would find those words.

And we can...

Temporary calm, quiet interval in a storm. That doesn't happen. There's no low. A quiet interval in a storm? Is that what you meant? A quiet interval in a storm?

Well, like low, you know, just like words, like old English.

The act of soothing someone to sleep? A low. A low, yeah. Now, heart.

old-fashioned or literally listen or pay attention we'll pay somebody to come in dressed like that roll out the parchment

No, yeah, I pull around to all these optometrists. I mean, the last time I went, I had to go to Destin. I know. She said that if I weren't just taking it. If you hadn't taken it, you would have already been. The problem is I don't know what I've got going on many days from now. I've never had that. My dentist always wants to do that, too. Schedule six months out.

It's Tuesday, whatever.

Ask me three weeks before and I might have a better idea. Three weeks before I rolled up, it was like I got dentists. I'm like, cool, I guess I got to cancel all that other stuff.

I didn't see you in three months. I don't know what I got.

Three months, I don't know. I kind of hate that alliteration.

I don't make that one. Next time they say that, it must be Grim Reaper decides sooner. Exactly. It may not be that. And then you get sharks from the sea to play. So that's everything except for the five-year clock starting at the completion of the previous review.

I think you can put it in now because it's already in tempo. I think the first time it was put in, maybe it didn't make sense or something, but at least every five years from the last review, from the conclusion of the last review.

Sure. I did. I've done this on my professional life.

How long have you been in campus?

I was in there for five years, but I had 34 years with the state. Yeah. It was judiciary, so...

Do you say, like, fully? In its entirety. I was just thinking of that. In its entirety? So after review, in its entirety?

Good thinking.

It should be undertaken.

It should be completed.

Conducted. Conducted.

We don't like the word undertaken.

It goes with expire and terminate, you know, undertaken. I just keep thinking of that WWE rest. That's what I was going to say. Conducted?

You can do Conducted. It sounds pretty much like Conductor. It's good. Conductors of democracy. It's there.

It's there.

There's an extra period before and after commission. What are you looking at for us?

appointed by resolution of the city commission. There's two periods there for commission.

Right there. Yeah. It's warm out.

You get cold water in the summer.

Water line's too shallow. I need to backspace that too. Extra period runs.

There's a bacon to the right right there. I think 1 extra space. It's just because of the. Gotcha. Yeah.

Okay, so that's. So, if everybody wants to review 9, 9 a, there. So, this is just referring to the general charter. Yes, sir.

Again, looking at poor Panama City, because there was every 10 years. They hadn't done it in 30 years. You can imagine the headaches they have. That being said, they added a part of the charter review. or in case where it says, for instance, as needed or sooner as directed by the commission. So you've got changes in state statute that affect our charter. What do we do?

So if you have – if there is changes to state law that are inconsistent with what is in your charter, your charter is – that charter section, the piece of it that is inconsistent with state law is essentially unenforceable and no longer of any force of effect. Just because it exists on paper, it doesn't matter. So if there's – if it's still four years until – But not the whole section, just what conflicts. Just what conflicts. So if it doesn't get amended for four years, you're okay. The fact that it's inconsistent, you can't rely on it. The state law will always trump it.

Just makes their jobs harder.

So would the commission then, when it says sooner, could the commission put a committee together to address?

Absolutely they could. They can right now.

I mean, I don't even think they need to, right? They could say, hey, we want staff to go through and take all the state law corrections. I mean, they don't need a committee. They could do it themselves. Or they could stand up the committee three years.

Not the way the charter is written, because they want the review to be conducted by someone other than the commission.

Correct. Oh, gotcha. Understood.

Yes, they have that authority. They're delegating it here to someone else.

Which, hey, good opportunity for people to get involved. If nobody else wants to, we might be back here in five minutes.

You can get rid of it, or, I mean, Munich will do whatever they want. Sometimes it's real stupid.

The reason I brought that up, you probably saw it. The Santos has it. It's calling for a special election.

I'll delete it from the version I get to that.

Yeah. That's going to throw a monkey wrench in everybody's budget. Yeah. It's going to be assessment city if it passes. Just not necessarily just so we can see nine and nine. Yes. Perfect. Right there. I don't know.

All right. So if we could just kind of review what's on the screen for nine and nine a.

Everyone's reviewed that. Is there a motion? What's there? Motion by Mr. Sprague to approve charter changes. I'm paraphrasing.

Yeah.

To approve what's up there.

We would still be expected to get ballot language for these.

So, yeah, I definitely think it's necessary on 9A. On 9, I probably would have just sort of included it in a global. When you're doing a comprehensive change to the charter, I usually have one ballot question that just sort of allows for general and conforming changes clarifications and it doesn't call them out specifically your change to nine i would put in that sort of omnibus ballot that very general catch-all um but 9a i think is probably appropriate to call out um because setting up a charter review committee was so important at the last charter i think you want to give some reassurances that you're not taking it away right okay

So you want to restate your motion?

Yeah, so my motion is to proceed forward with preparing ballot language for the Charter Review 9A and directing to include the change to Section 9 in an all-encompassing ballot referendum at a later date, because I know we're going to have more of that stuff.

And I can give you a draft of what that catch-all provision looks like.

Can we keep, like, a running tally almost? Because I'm sure we have some others.

Yeah, we could.

So far. Can you please repeat that notion? My motion is to proceed with our changes to Section 9, allocating that the change to Section 9 specific.

You just changed it.

What?

You just changed it. Earlier on you said to proceed with preparing the ballot language for Line A and approve changes to Section 9 in its entirety. Okay.

I don't remember what I said the first time. Can you say that again?

To proceed with preparing the Bennett language for 9A and approve changes to section 9 in its entirety for the next four as I got.

A later referendum. Thank you.

Okay. There's a motion by Mr. Scray. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Marler. Poor Ms. CJ. She's going to have to replay that again. There's no public for public commentary. Ms. Jennifer, will you call the roll?

Mr. Scray?

Yes.

Mr. Marler?

Yes.

Mr. Switzer? Yes. Mr. Tucker? Yes. Mr. Lentz?

Yes. Motion passes. Is it okay if we have another two-minute restroom break? I suppose.

You know, they get pills for that. Okay, so we finished up with nine. We're going to address ballot language for nine at the next meeting.

So we're going to begin review of section 10. Mr. Scray, I believe you had some additions there for the separation of powers and administration. Do you want to discuss that? You're talking about what's already there?

Yeah, 10A. Yeah. First off, I want to say that I did a lot of research into a form of government, and you really see our size really only got three options, what we have. What we have, which is commission manager plan, where we have a legislative body that appoints a city manager to run the day-to-day operations. You have a week mayor system, which effectively, I might get this wrong. Amy, if I'm wrong, correct me, but effectively the commission appoints a weak mayor to have some administrative dues over the city, and then you have a strong mayor which elect it and basically takes place of the city manager. Commission manager plan is by far the most popular throughout the state of Florida from what I've found and even into further portions of America, except in certain cases of certain size cities which don't apply to us. A lot of large cities tend to have different forms of government than what we have. I think what we have is great because it covers the trifecta of government that we have in our nation. You have a legislative body, you have that legislative body appointing somebody to run the day to day. And so you have a little bit of a check and balance there. I think to move to anything else, any other kind of system would be premature for a population of what 25,000. I don't think we need a full time anybody up there on that diet, except for the city manager. As far as 10, a, what I'm proposing is. I feel like there's in the past almost 6 years that I've lived here. June 1st will be 6 years. I've seen. You know, 3 mayors. I've seen 2 city managers I've seen. and maybe a little more than 10 commission members started with, you know, Dan Russell and Pat and Mayor Margo Anderson and Commissioner Tender over there. And we've had, you know, a lot of changes. I've seen a lot of conflict arise at times in multiple administrations, like all three of these forms of administrations that we've had kind of conglomerate. And what I think what it comes down to is that The legislative body needs to remember that it's a legislative body, and it's not somebody who's in a position of. Running day to day operations in the community. So I'm proposing here is effectively some language that does 2 things. The 1st thing is it sets in the charter that respect of that city manager. Um, commission relationship. And that it, it lets the body know that neither the mayor commissioner, nor any commissioner shall individually direct or interfere with the performance to do by city manager or by city employees under the manager supervision. And also that administrative authority and day to day operations, the city are vested exclusively in the city manager. So we don't have any of our. Congress members of our city basically trying to tell the executive department of city what to do. They can go inquire, they can ask questions. They don't need to be giving direction because there are five of them. I don't want an office space thing where Ty Ferris says, man, I got six bosses. I got the city manager plus five other bosses. No, the city has one boss, a city manager. That person has 5 bosses and that's okay, because that's the form of government that we have the 2nd sentence or section here basically similar to kind of what Congress does is whenever there's a. New member of the of the commission. The commission shall set. Meeting rules and protocol within the 1st, 45 days after that appointment or election. And it shall be approved by the majority of commission what this does that's the precedent that. This legislative body, at least by majority will agree to how it will conduct a business. Toward the city and the citizens and amongst itself, because we've seen a lot of conflict and infighting that I think could be reduced by. Them agreeing to how the function some examples would be. The meeting conduct rules, you know, rather than letting 1 person. You know, say how that's going to go all 5 of them can can. Their 1st act as a complete commission can be to say, hey, we're going to set rules in place. We're going to review the current rules. We're going to talk about any possible changes and this is what we're going to put forth that way. The citizens, the city and the commission all are on the same even keel of expectation of this is how city of 1 haven commission meetings will be conducted. You know, if they want to change public commentary to two minutes, they will have voted on that and agreed to it. If they want to say you can only talk about what's on the agenda, they will have voted on it and agreed on it. If they want to say, you know, you can bring visual aids to the podium, you know, you can do that. If they want to say, hey, you can address individual members of the commission instead of the chair, they will have voted on that. If they want to say how agenda gets set, they can vote on that. So that's kind of where I'm at. I mean, Congress literally does it. That's the first, every Congress that's set up, that's the first thing they do is they go through their protocol. That's usually bill number one for that section. So that's kind of what I'm pitching there.

I see where you're going with this, and I don't disagree with it. I think there are going to be some administrative challenges with this. Number one, you know, we have those name tags up there, has seat one and seat two and seat three and seat four, and then that one says mayor. That mayor pay is different than the commissioner pay. So, effectively, if what you're proposing goes through, then we need to. We need to make the mayor's pay is the same as the commissioners back.

No, there's additional duties that the mayor commissioner that should say mayor commissioner. And there's duties that the mayor commissioner has. Such as, um, I believe they sign. What financial they signed the checks that there are additional duties that warrant the mayor commissioner role having additional duties and they are charged with running the meetings. So that separation of the fact that they are a mayor commissioner, they have all the same duties and responsibilities of a commissioner, but they have an extra set of duties. Right? A lot of people don't realize that the mayor commissioner in meetings can make motions and second motions without passing the gavel. There's this misconception that they can't. They have all of the duties and responsibilities and authorities of another commissioner. They are, in fact, a fifth commissioner. So I don't think we have to change their pay or anything like that. I think we have to remember that they're a fifth commissioner and they get paid to do a little bit of extra work.

So, Miss CJ, how set the agenda for the meeting? It's all five going to. going to set the draft agenda for that? If this were to be in here, how would you do that?

What has happened in the past is that they have met with the city manager and discussed that individually, each, with the city manager. And then the city manager feeds that information to me. How it will work in the future with the city purpose, I guess they would do the same thing.

They can define it with that second sentence. They will define as commission how they can set their agendas. They can say, hey, Any commissioner that wants an agenda item, it will be put on the agenda as long as they want it on there. You just have to inform the city manager. Because when it comes to the meetings, if the other commissioners don't want it, they can vote to delete it. Right? So, let the legislative body define how they're going to set their agenda. Just set the facts in place that they need to agree on how they're going to do business. And they're going to set those rules and protocols in place. um and that they're not one person in charge or five bosses they're a collective body i think that's what they forget sometimes whoever's up there it doesn't matter i think sometimes the people in governing positions forget that they're a body not individual members but is this going to change anything Am I adding a sentence? The first, in my opinion, the first sentence is going to put in place an expectation that an individual member of the commission going to the city and interfering is something that the rest of the commission can hold them accountable against, right? I already... I mean, is it? It's happened and nothing happened about it. And the second sentence is an actual actionable item that they would need to produce within 45 calendar days of somebody being elected or appointed. They would need to have an agenda item that says, hey, we're going to re-review our rules and protocols of our commission and we need to make any changes we want to make and vote on it and move forward.

They would send emails and she would decide what went on and what didn't go on the agenda. Currently, they'll send emails for adding agenda items and they're put on. Their request is respected and it's up to them whether they want to go to them.

Okay. Ms. Amy, I'm sorry. Did you want to say?

So it would depend on who they're working with as the city manager, I guess.

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Amy?

With regard to the separation of powers, I will say that other local charters that follow the manager commission form of government have similar language. I know Pamela City Beach has that sort of no commissioner directs anybody supporting it to the city manager. And I think it is good to set that expectation and to allow for the other board members to hold people accountable. It has become necessary.

You said subordinate to the city manager.

Subordinate to the city manager. So anyone underneath the city, of course, they can direct the city manager. He is their employee. But they can't direct. And what I understand this provision to do is they can't direct anyone subordinate to the city manager.

Right. For example, a single member of the commissioner. Sam can't go to Ms. Hodges and say, Ms. Hodges, you need to do X, Y, Z. That's direction. What Sam could do is he could go to Ms. Hodges and say, hey, I'd like some information on this topic. And then when he gets whatever information and he asks questions and what would this look like? How would that affect you? He can do all of that. But when it comes time to actually be direction, you go to the city manager and say, hey, I would like the assistant city manager to do this, and then the proper answer for the city manager would be, great, we'll put it on the agenda and you can discuss it with the rest of your legislative body.

So in the same vein, it could be interpreted that the city manager will not interfere with the new clerk.

I mean, there's a separate clerk section, so we would probably have to talk about that. Now, there's a city manager section that we haven't gotten to yet that we could potentially look at that there as well.

The city manager and the city clerk are the peers, so the city clerk will not be subordinate to the city manager. But he's a subordinate to the city

subordinate to the commissioners?

He's direct report. And of course subordinates.

So a current example is that the city manager and the city attorney are effectively peers. So the city manager goes to the city attorney and says, hey, I need you to do, I need you to pull this, start this case right something legal um if the city attorney feels like that's a violation of what they're supposed to be doing they have five people they can talk to about it and say hey city manager's asking me to do this and if it's something that requires them to say yes you can do this then that's a vote and it needs to be on the agenda it comes in part of city attorney's report

Yeah, I would do it in the city attorney's report.

Right. And hey, the city manager asked me to do X, Y, Z. Is the commission okay with that? And if the commission's okay with that, they should make a motion. There should be a second, a vote, and done. No walking quorums, no head nods.

You know, it's business. So my question on this, on the first half here, and Ms. Hodges, I guess this would be more directed towards you. So The commissioners have an evaluation of the city manager annually, right? Correct. And I'm assuming there's a feedback that happens prior to that, right? I would think that that evaluation process conflicts with this first paragraph.

I would not.

Okay.

Because the city manager is a direct report to the commission.

Okay.

Therefore, they have... the responsibility to provide feedback and to provide that evaluation to the city manager.

Okay.

It would be in conflict if the commission was evaluating me, for example, or any of the staff subordinate to the city manager. That would be inappropriate. But to evaluate their own report, it would not be...

Even if they're doing a 360 and they want information from subordinates? Doing that evaluation of the city manager?

I mean, to me, if I were a commissioner, what I would say is, hey, city manager. In order to do to conduct your performance review, we plan to get input from all of your directors. This is the way we're going to acquire that please inform them and. And have them participate in, you know, maybe the director, you know, maybe there's like an online thing or something. They fill it out and they send it directly to the forum. They fill out and send it directly back to the five commissioners.

So you're saying that they would have to all do the same. They don't have to vote on this process. Yeah. And say, hey, we all want to talk to department heads and figure out how Ms. Hodges is performing as city manager. So they formally vote on that. And then.

Then they would be allowed to execute their plan. Because what we have right now, for example, and I'm glad you brought up the city manager review. What we have right now is five city managers evaluating the city manager five different ways.

You mean five commissioners?

I mean, imagine in your own professional career, if you're being evaluated and set and giving expectations by five different people and, oh, by the way, six months from now, one of those people is gone and there's a new person in there, right? And now you're going to be evaluated by that person. Right. This is just, it's way too complex. There's no reason that in modern society that the legislative body can't get together and say, hey, this is how smart rules, right? This is how we plan to evaluate our city manager. Let's put some goals in place and we vote on them in different areas, right? Everything's put in place, they vote on it. And so for the whole next 12 months, they know that's what they're being evaluated against. So 12 months from now, even if one of those commissioners swaps out, they can look at this and say, okay, even though I don't like it, this is what they were held to, I can review against this criteria. I don't know if any of you guys have ever been in a position where you've had to do that, but to collect a new subordinate and you have to review their work and you don't know their work very well, but if you're given something saying this is what they're being evaluated against, It's a little easier to do that. What I would hate to see is, like, city manager comes back and says, like, well, you know, you rated me a three in this area and that, you know, you never told me that I was getting evaluated that way.

Just for clarification, that's exactly what has happened. Oh, I know. No, no, no. I developed matrix for the commission. They all reviewed and approved and modified. And they identified expectations, and then they all used the same graph.

But they didn't have to. They could have told you, we're not doing it.

Right. Yeah. I don't want that to be over yet. But they did accept. Now, it still has subjective expectations. because you're going to do a rating and you're going to do a rating and what's important to you might be different. So it's still going to have an objective.

There never will be a 100% objective rating.

But there was some attempt to do some matrix work, however good or bad.

And I'm a firm believer in capturing best practices while they're in play, and I feel like that's what we need to do for consistency in our community, because I don't know about you guys, but I don't like volatility in my community. Thank you.

Yeah, the only reason I'm asking this is, again, I'm not saying I'm against or for or whatever. I'm just saying if this were to be in the charter, you know, thinking through, let's say I'm a commissioner and you're the city manager, and I say, you know, Ms. Hodges, you're performing great over here, but in this area, you know, your interpersonal communication skills are not where they need to be with the department heads. You know, you really need to focus on, you know, maybe some professional leadership courses, VONCs, you know, these categories or whatever. That's where I'm saying is that, you know, when I'm providing that feedback during that annual evaluation, is that – You're one of five. What's that?

You're one of five.

Correct. And is that directing the performance or the duties of the city manager if I'm doing that through an evaluative process? That's all I'm – I'm just trying to figure out what – And in that case, that is the role of the commissioners.

The challenge is when you have multiple – supervisors, you're one of five, meaning if everybody else decided that that matrix or that metric was great and you're the only one who said, I might take the read that you might have the problem and not. Sure, yeah, yeah.

So are you maybe wanting something in there that kind of... Like the word individually.

Like direct, like direct.

Everything is very broad, is what I'm saying. It shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of the duties by the city manager. Like that is all like very... 30,000 foot, and I think that there are going to be instances where either it's the mayor developing an agenda or saying, hey, Ms. CJ, this item needs to be before this item or whatever. There are going to be instances where they're directing an employee what to do.

But the commission, for the examples you provided, like let's say the commission says, you know what, we we like that the mayor commissioner has final say on the order of agenda items so in their rules and protocols they would put that in there and then for the whole rest of the until somebody else is appointed they would or elect it that they would have empowered a member of their own body to be tasked with that duty they can't do that because that resolution that you're talking about those rules conflicts with the first paragraph you can't say hey

Tommy, you can't direct this person what to do. And then I create a resolution saying, hey, Tommy's going to be the one to direct this person what to do.

So you can put in something that says, for example, neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of duties by the city manager or by city employees under the city manager's supervision unless authorized to do so by a majority vote of the commission.

Even then it feels inappropriate. I feel like it feels inappropriate.

Aren't we just trying to stop the commission from getting their hands into getting out of their lane? Yeah. So you need to work operations.

It's already in there. Day-to-day operations. Administrative authority and day-to-day operations of the city are vested exclusively in the city manager. Maybe it needs to be explicitly day-to-day.

Yeah, it's there. But there's a couple of things that I've got for you. who defines and what interference is. Oh, I was just talking to this person that works at the sewer department. I wasn't interfering. See where I'm going with that? How about directly interfere?

Exercise any authority.

Exercise authority? I would be fine with that.

That would make it evident. You just can't tell them what to do.

But I would say they can't do it individually or collectively, not even with a resolution.

Absolutely.

Ms. CJ, if a commissioner needs a document or a public record for something that is coming up for a vote or something like that, let's say that Commissioner Warrick says, hey, Ms. CJ, we're going to vote on this coming up. Can you give me all of the – how many water bill accounts we have, right? How – And I know I'm being very literal with this, but is that directing you what to do? Or directing you to do something?

Because I am the public representative.

Yeah.

And that's part of the scope of the job. So that's just asking for information. If they went directly to Ashley Williams, for instance, and said, give me a list of all your APs from this time to that time, that would be inappropriate. They would need to direct that through me. Okay.

It'd have to be very literal. Even more literal than what you're saying.

Yeah, and again, I'm just playing through these scenarios that could happen, and I don't want somebody to literally do something innocent. And then they get in trouble because it's a charter violation. Oh, you directed that person what to do.

No, I'm being directed to do their job. Correct. To me, an example of interfering with the duties of the city manager is, okay, so let's say Chris says to Ty, hey, you know, we have all this sod. Sheffield needs to be restarted right? Let's go ahead and restart Sheffield because we've already acquired the sod and we have it available right? And the city manager or not signature commissioner said, hey. I live over by Kinsaw. Let's sod Kinsaw first. That's interfering. Like, that's an example.

Or if they said, wait a second, this sod was purchased through a purchase order to sod Les Porter Park. You can't just go start sodding other parks. Yeah. Is that interfering? Is that directing? Is that correct? Or is it correcting?

Even with them asking, actually, Williams, for example, anyone can ask anyone for information in the same... And then it's just that she has to be directed to me. So even the commissioners can ask for information from anyone else in the city.

The commissioner goes to Kiki and says, hey, I need some financial data like the governor's proposal today to call a special session. I need some financial data to know how much money we get that's tied directly to homesteaded properties. they're requesting information, they're inquiring, that's their duties. We've talked about elsewhere in the charter, or we will, I forget what section it is, but we'll talk about the duties of a commissioner and what they have to do. And that's a power that we as citizens give them to do that, is to acquire and obtain the data that they need to do their job that we've elected them to do. Now, if they said, hey, Kiki, you know, hey, we need you to, you know, move money and anything like that. Her responsibility to the city is to notify the city manager. If she doesn't feel comfortable, like let's say it's like she feels like it's a whistleblower situation, there's three people once that referendum passes that she could report that to, you know.

Do you think that if in the section where we define the powers and authority of these administrative, like department heads or whoever, that that will answer the question in separation of powers?

Well, we don't define the authority of department heads, but we will define the authority of the commission.

And essentially, the section that I'm in is just the mayor's commission. Will that results in what you're trying to do here?

As long as we agree to make it that way. Like, I don't know how you guys would feel about, you know, changing that.

But it does need to say individually and or collectively.

Individually or collectively.

Exercise and authority with it. Mm-hmm.

I have a comment.

Yes, ma'am.

Back to your comment about if you were to tell Mr. Ferris, for example, I'm correcting you because you're putting the sod in the wrong place. I'd advise staff that that's when they should just be polite to the commissioner or report to the city manager because that's for the city manager. If Ty got a direction from the city manager to put it at Sheffield, that's the direction he follows. So I don't think the Commission has the authority to correct. And that could be seen as being... Even if they see something illegal? Would this conflict with Section 6 where it says...

All powers of the city except as otherwise provided by this charter or by the Constitution of the state are vested in the city commission and except as otherwise provided by this charter or by the Constitution of the state, the city commission may by ordinance or resolution prescribe the manner in which any power of the city shall be exercised. I don't think it conflicts with that because elsewhere in the charter, we'd be telling them what they can and can't do. And so this section would basically reinforce that, hey, in Section 10, we told you you can't do that. So they couldn't pass an ordinance or resolution and say, yes, we can. No, you can't because it's in the charter. So that, David, is where we spell out what the city commission can and can't do. It's in 6. I mean, it's one of those things where, yes, we went through 6, but if we change something in 10 that we feel like needs us to revisit 6, I mean, if they're linked together, we can always go back just like we reach forward in later sections. Um, the mayor duties, though, the mayor commissioner duties specifically are spelled out in, um. Section 11, which no, sorry not section 11. Where was it? Uh. Section 18, which we will eventually get to.

So, the other thing that the last sentence there in the 1st part of this, it ends in city manager. And it should say pending the referendum with the city clerk. I mean, city clerk would be added there. And then I guess it would be the city attorney.

No, I think it's the way I've lived through it in Panama City Beach. All administrative authority is vested in the city manager. He is the one who hires and fires and makes all of the employees.

No, no, I'm saying appoint. They appoint the city manager, but they also appoint the city clerk and they appoint the city attorney.

Right. But the city attorney and the city clerk don't have administrative authority or day-to-day operations over all of those.

So the city clerk would have... We have authority over their own, the treasure that they're saying is HR.

I mean, the clerk is the treasure, whatever the city manager ultimately is the 1 who runs the day to day.

Sure. So potentially introducing a sentence to this to cover who the clerk is responsible responsible for and delineating that they have the responsibility for their own.

Yeah, that's all I'm saying. I mean, if the city clerk passes, then, I mean, you really have, you know, you get the city manager, you get the city clerk slash treasurer is what they're talking about. So, I mean, you will have some sort of administrative authority over the treasury department. Yeah.

Do you think we get 10 on the August ballot or 10 comes later? I think 10 comes later. So we can... add the sentence and delete it out if for some reason the card doesn't pass. Yes, ma'am.

Is that better with what you're thinking? I just changed some of the words.

It would be in the last sentence up top in the black text.

Right.

Right. Down to the right. To the right.

To the right.

There we go. Right in there. So that's where I was talking about the adopt resolutions and appoint a chief administrative officer

So that's specific to the form of government. It's not necessary to mention a city clerk or a city judge.

Okay, okay. That's all. I was just curious. We're saying that we're appointing the city manager. Are we also appointing... You are, but it's not necessary to do that there.

This is specifically to the form of government, and so it's important to mention, call out city manager as the person... Would it be appropriate to put it at the end of the first paragraph of A for delineating out the clerk and their separated duties?

I don't think so. I don't think it's necessary, but this is your charter.

Is that kind of what you mean?

Having a soft mayor, are we required to call the mayor a mayor commissioner? Or can we just say mayor? I mean, in these documents.

You can call him just the mayor. Ryan is right. He is technically a mayor commissioner because his vote doesn't count more or less than anybody else's.

It's a weak mayor.

It already says it. It already says it's 17. Whenever the term mayor is used in this charter, it is understood to refer to the mayor commissioner. You're already covered.

So you can say that.

You've got to remember, we don't have a soft mayor. We don't have a weak mayor. We have a mayor commissioner. If you want to call him a mayor, he's still... you know, currently Dave, Dr. Dave Lowry, Mayor, is Mayor-Commissioner.

Yeah, I'm just talking specifically. Yeah. I don't know if it's like an old school thing or something that just passes on.

Section 17 covers the shortened abbreviated version. We're covered there, but I just stress the importance because there's Ben mentioned that it's a weak mayor. It's not a weak mayor. We don't have a weak mayor system. It is a manager commission plan, so it's a mayor commissioner. But if we say mayor, that's where 17 comes in.

It doesn't change the form of government.

So this kind of, for me, muddies the waters even more when we say nor any commissioner shall individually or collectively exercise any authority with the performance of the duties. I didn't say collectively. Collectively is not in the version I sent out. I know. I'm just saying.

And we added that because, as she was saying before, you would have more than one. You wouldn't cover both sides of it.

No, because that's the intent of this, is that the body is supposed to provide direction and guidance to the city manager.

Explain to me, like, when you say more than one, are you talking about if they held a vote and directed?

Yes.

So how is the commission going to hold a vote and say, hey, Ty, you have to put... No, they can't do that. And they already can't do that. This section doesn't need to further... Correct.

We're not talking about the title. We're talking about the city manager. That says with the performance of duties by the city manager.

Or by city employees under the city manager supervision. Get rid of collective because that's the whole point. They should only be directing the city manager collectively.

Yeah, but this is for interference. No, direct.

I'm going to change the term.

It's so far removed from what I sent up. I would like to start over the intent of this is to say that. No 1 commissioner or mayor commissioner. can individually direct the city manager to do something. If Commissioner Warwick goes to Chris Lightfoot and says, I need you to do this, Chris's response should be, I can put it on the agenda and we can get the rest of the commission to vote on.

That is a true statement. The other part that was built into this, though, was that no individual commissioner, and this is where I think no individual commissioner, individually or collectively, shall directly be subordinate to the city manager.

If we need to separate these out to fulfill that, we can do that, because I don't want something to get lost in the words of the intent of what this is about, which is that that's a legislative body and it needs to act like it.

I do understand what you're saying.

There are two concepts built into what was presented.

So neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall individually direct or interfere with the performance of duties by the city manager, period.

I just want to make sure I want to talk to the commissioners individually about this. Hey, this is in the charter. Can you Can you tell me that this is not going to prevent you from doing something that you should only do? Whether it's a performance evaluation, whether it's a, or whatever. I mean, we can't have a team performance evaluation. I get it, there's a standardized format in the matrix that's used or whatever. But, you know, if I'm talking to a subordinate, I'm going to give that individual feedback and tell them what they need to do to increase where I think that they fall on that matrix. That's all I'm saying. And by doing that, I cannot effectively provide that feedback and that evaluation because the charter says that I can't do that. I can't tell you that you need to improve your interpersonal communication skills.

You can absolutely tell them that. It's just not an effective direction unless it comes from a majority of the commission.

And the majority of the commission would have already agreed on how that review process will occur and that agreed upon and voted on review process can include a subjective section or a section that says, hey, these are individual commissioner goals that we each individually have because I don't expect them to agree on 100% of everything. I'm okay if 20% of the review Is allocated to them individually, because that's the value they have on the commission is 20%.

Ideally, the commission will discuss the evaluation. Publicly not all of them do because it's offline. So, sometimes it's just they do it individually and the city attorney or consultant synthesizes it into 1 document that is then distributed to each commissioner. And they can choose to put it on the agenda to discuss it, or it just becomes a public record and it's the end.

Yeah.

No, I'm all for the spirit of what this sentence, what I'm saying with a couple of words on there, would it make a difference where you say authority over the operational duties of the city manager?

I don't know. I don't know. Just letter of the law, like what it's, you know, Are we going to get a commissioner in trouble for a charter violation when they're really honestly trying to do the right thing? They're not telling Chris, I need you to go buy a new slide for Port Park, right? They're not doing it. We get that, right? But this, in my opinion, is very – it catches everything. And I don't know where to – I don't know how to write that. I don't know what words to use. I don't know. Maybe all the commissioners might say, yeah, that's fine. I don't have a problem with it, whatever. Or they may say, no, well, if that's the case, then the agenda is going to be 50 items long because – Everything that we've got to discuss now has got to go on the agenda. It's got to be a vote. There's a discussion. Are we?

I mean, if they have a problem with it, I'd ask for actual real-world examples. Provide me a real-world example of something you currently do that you think this will now prevent you from doing.

I just talked about the performance evaluation. That's one. How many do you need me to provide? Two more.

I work in government contracts. I like 3 of everything.

Then provide me 3 instances of where an individual commissioner or mayor has directed the city manager to do something.

Okay. So. Overtime for the city manager for the right. Right. They individually gave direction to her to pay for overtime instead of holding a public vote. Not one commissioner, well, actually, I think only four responded because the email was in one commissioner's spam box and they didn't see it. But that was individual direction where it should have come before the commissioner. public meeting okay so there's there's a second right off the top um what was the first one

You said the evaluation, well, I'm providing him 3 and he's going to provide me 3. he's going to run me 3 examples. Okay. You gave me 1. I gave you 1. I'll wait for your 2nd agenda. Hey, let's see James has got to get or. Mr, like, this, this, the mayor put up there. Hey, this is the agenda needs to be moved and we're going to talk about this 1st. So that's that 2nd. All right. That's my same topic agenda.

Commissioner Warwick asked for an agenda item to be put on the agenda and the mayor directs the city manager and not put it on that. There's your second. This is good.

Come on, you guys got me. I'll bring it up there in the next meeting. And that's what I'm saying.

And it really happens more with the employees. subordinate to the city manager wow i feel like we have gotten so skewed oh yeah by maybe administrations on both sides that yeah good gosh we're trying to put in we've traveled the world we're trying to put in the word into these this document can you please just be honest guardrails and guidelines yeah guardrails and guidelines that's the theme of this committee

I just asked AI to use up about 100 gallons of fresh water. Example, a commissioner could say, hey, I'm hearing drainage complaints over on Minnesota Avenue. You know, can you go look into that? Okay. That's direction. But they could not say, they could say that. That's fine. What they could not say is, hey, public works director, send your crew out there and get that fixed. Right? They can say it to Chris. Can you go, can you look into this? You're not telling them to fix it. What they couldn't say to Chris is, hey... Send the crew to go fix that.

Okay. I'm glad you brought this up because this would not be okay for this. All right? They shall individually exercise any authority with the performance of duties by the city manager. Right. So the city manager is sitting there checking his email, right? Right. Mayor Lowry walks in and says, hey, resident called and said their ditches are overflowing on Minnesota. Can you check on them? Can you check on them? Yeah. Is that providing direction to that city manager?

No, you're asking them to check into something and come back with you with information.

So in my mind, based on what we talked about earlier, the city managers say, oh, sorry, Mayor Lowry, I'll put that on the agenda. You guys have got to vote on it. It doesn't need to be. It doesn't need to be because it's an inquiry. It's not... That's where we're going. Okay, well, it's an inquiry. It's not interfering. It's not providing direction. It's like, man... That's why I don't, that's why I'm worried about this is because, well, I wasn't interfering, it was just an inquiry. Or I was asking, you know, it's like, so maybe we need to spell out some examples.

Instead of Lowry going to Chris, he would go to the public works guys and say, hey, this is what we're going to do. That's where they exercise the authority over.

Mr. Chairman, I think we need to table this.