Charter Review Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning. Good morning.  All right. We'll call this meeting to   order and we'll start with opening  prayer and pledge of allegiance. Please stand. Let's pray. Sorry. Heavenly Father, we just thank you  so much for this opportunity to come and   and just handle the business of our city. We  thank you for the men and women uh on this   advisory board that have selfishly given of their  selflessly given of their time uh just to help   uh serve and give back to their their city and  their community. Father, we just pray for uh all   that we uh address here today. We pray that uh we  would have wisdom and discernment. We do pray for   uh Chairman Berg. We pray for safe travel for him  and his family. And uh we again just ask that you   bless our time together today. Father, give us  wisdom and give us courage in all that we think,   do, and say for your honor and your glory. In  Christ's name we pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. That   was a good one. I pledge allegiance to the flag of  the United States of America and to the republic   for which it stands. One nation under God,  indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, clerk call the roll. Uh, Mr. Ferrer  here, Miss Skoon here, Mr. Banzy Y. And vice   chair Henderson Jansenius here. You have quorum.  All right. Okay. Has the board had an opportunity   to review the minutes from the last meeting? Yes.  Yes. Any discussion items? I move to approve. Can   I put the two different months together? The  October minutes and the December minutes. We're   very good. I second that. Okay. All in favor?  I All right. Do we have any staff reports?  

Uh I don't have anything. Do you have I have  none. I mean there was my the ask that I had   recently I believe that I addressed all of  the uh data and information request via the   two memorandums that I circulated about  five weeks ago. So and there hasn't been   any emails or anything come in. So the only one  I did I did forward an email from Chairman Berg   uh about two hours ago. Um he asked me  to pass along one uh one item. Uh you   were copied on it as well, Madame Clerk. Um in  regards to just his perspective on some of the   uh some of the discussion today. So did everybody  get that email? Yeah. Okay. We'll probably review   that during section 8. Yep. I'm happy to read  it officially on his behalf if y'all would like.   Okay. During that time. Okay. Work. All right.  We'll move to audience participation. two audience   members. Good to see everybody. Happy New Year.  Hope everybody had a good holiday. Um once again,   um I'm here to speak about election timing and  process. Oh, Daniel Schil 330 Mercedes Avenue. You   know, I haven't missed that in a while. So that's  You're slipping. I'm been out of it for a little   while. There you go. But um um once again over the  holiday I had quite a bit of time to speak with   um people in my district and my ward um about  what the potential could look like for changing   the dates of the collection um regardless of what  the logistics of it looks like. The overwhelming   um response that I heard was that yes, we  would like it to be aligned with the general   in November. Um this committee is tasked with  a you know a huge task taking up a uh document   that hasn't been reviewed in what 60 years. Um  there are big changes in here that can be made   and that should be made. Um if we're considering  adding things like uh time onto terms, but we  

don't want to look at the alternatives for how  do we increase participation at the same time. I   think it could send a wrong message to voters. So  I think for me um one of the most important things   to come out of this board uh could be and should  be the changing of the elections. That's all I got discussion. I appreciate our chairman sending his opinion  and his recommendation but I strongly agree   with the audience um information statement and we  had discussion I think we are here to take action   we spent a lot of time discussion on it kicking  it down the road doesn't make me feel very good   whichever way we voted up or down I think we  should take action we're here charter has not   been changed for for over 60 odd years. This  is our time. This is our effort. And you know,   there's good and bad on both sides of it. To be  honest, I lean in favor of changing it because I   think audience I mean citizen participation  is huge. I think there are a lot of things   happening in the world. There are a lot of things  happening in the nation. And I hear people saying   in response, I just I'm overwhelmed. I can't get  involved. I don't know this. I don't know that.   what's happening. This this person said we need to  protect ourselves locally and we need engagement   locally. Not only is it good for the city, it's  good for our nation. And every locality, I think,   should be working at getting people to feel  comfortable to participate. And the evidence   presented by Mr. Hayes and basically  it increases significantly in November.   And I think this is a really critical issue that  I'm hopeful that we go in that direction. Again,  

I understand democracy in our vote and however  it comes out, I will abide by that. Hopefully   not grumble too much. If it doesn't go the way  I've recommended, but I don't think we should   kick it down the road. I'd just like to point  out that the deputy supervisor of elections,   Mr. Cow, has joined the call. If you have  something to share, perhaps Mr. chairman.   Okay. Yeah. Uh Jonathan, well, actually just  move straight into the next one into the   election discussion. If you do you want to read  the email from Brandenburg this morning? I will. Give me one second. Um for the  Charter Review Advisory Board,   uh my main, this is coming from Chairman  Brandon Bird, who's unable to be here today.   My main substantive point that you can share is  that I'd like to leave out the election timing   and process. I still think the alignment with the  general election is the way to go. But given the   really good debate over the topic, I think it's  just too challenging of an issue to include in   the charter at this time. I think it's something  the commission should be encouraged to address   either during their review of the charter or via  an ordinance. Again, chairman Brandon Burke. All right, JP Ron, any feedback of you able to speak. What has happened? No, I  I mean I've made my position on this clear. I   I'm still of the position and sort of echoing what  Chairman Bird says that I don't think we should do   it. But I understand there's popular support for  it. I think it's better suited for the commission   to take up with their ordinance. I just want to  make the point that I think last meeting we sort   of had a agreement at least with maybe three to  move the general to to the general. So that's kind  

of I think where we are now. Um but I my position  still is that we should either leave it as it is   or again leave it to the commission to make that  change. Um, I know Ron was the one who was kind   of in the middle, but that's a question about if  the three of you agree to move it to to the to the   general, so that's not to put all the pressure on  you, but Well, I think that's where we were. And   I think we this is a good time to remind us that  these are all going to be recommendations to the   commission and they could thumbs up or thumbs down  any of it. So, yes. Um, and I I still am sitting   the fence a little bit um quite honestly, but I  believe that the uh what I hear in the community   is that it makes more sense to move it to November  um than it does to keep it separate um as far as   the date goes. Have a primary in August um if  you have to. Um, somebody gets 50 plus one,   they're elected or you go to November for runoff.  Um, so I'm I'm okay with recommending to November.   And and just a s a suggestion because I know last  time there was some debate about how to do the   general. So maybe we can have a vote on moving it  align with the general and then have a second vote   or a second discussion how exactly the details  would work out there. I said I'm sorry. Sorry. I   apologize. I wasn't here for the last meeting, but  you guys got my note. I I watched the video. Thank   you guys for including me. Um I watched the the  video and you know I did pull the way I there's   a lot of emotions behind this and there's a lot of  emotions in the community. I think objectively at   this table our emotions are probably a little  bit more invested and a little bit higher,   right? because the burden that we've signed up  for to carry this and we have a collection of  

shared experiences here that kind of elevate us to  be have this conversation. We go to city meetings,   right? We're actively involved in the community.  We all have different areas. So, we carry that   emotion a little bit differently. But when I  look at the purpose and the burden that elected   officials carry in representing all the people,  it's important to say what does the majority   of the people say and that's where I did that  poll. You know, 100 people said the experience   was important to them, the election experience,  right? And if we kind of just kind of simplify it,   homecoming is the same time every single  year. Prom is the same time every single   year. graduations at the same time. Like that was  the feel that I got a lot of feedback I got from   voters was election season should be an experience  too and it should be the same time, right? Um   whether there's voter apathy or participation like  there's all those different dynamics that we take   into consideration. Are we over complicating it  or are we listening to the people and saying maybe   like what you're saying everybody said November  general election. We're stuck. I think we have   pretty much consensus and we want to move it  to the everybody wants us to move it to the   general election. We're stuck on the dynamics  of what that look like now. I think so. So,   do we do we have a motion to or should we wait  until I mean this is a big one for now? We've got   months where we can come back, but if you want to  take an action, I move that we move the election   to November as stated by um Mr. Dy. Okay. And then  we have and Mr. JP said we can the second motion   could be particulars. Yeah. Because I don't know  there was agreement about the particulars of the   model. So Jonathan now that we have a a movement  a motion on the table. Is there let's talk about   that. Can the can we align the foundation that the  the structure of the election can align with the  

general election, but then by ordinance the the  board can change the dynamics of what that would   look like from there? That's probably more of a  question for the city attorney, I think. Um, was   there a second for that motion? I was second. So,  we can go ahead and have discussion. Thank you.   Thank you. Thank you. Um I you know I I do believe  the uh our charter specifically speaks to the   um you know to the runoff procedures you know  and having you know the election is generally   in April of the year and that if there are more  than two candidates and no one achieves 50% plus   one then there's a shall be a runoff within 30  days. you know, this would need to be altered   because you're talking about August and November,  which are obviously more than a month apart. Um,   and you're also I don't believe it speaks to  like April or or or May, but it does talk to   there being 30 days apart. I think you would have  to address that part in the charter to align with,   you know, basically with state and federal. That's  probably the right wording would be with state   and federal elections which are even years and  are then August and November as a suggestion.   Um if this vote were to pass then um you could  also say hey we'd like at the next meeting to   look at the different options on how to implement  it and then we can come back and then just address   it and we wouldn't have we could talk about it  while we're at this meeting but we could then   pick it up at the next meeting. We could give you  when I say we, Caroline and all of us staff could   give you something specifically to look at which  is one I believe there is a sentiment to have the   primary or the first election in August and the  final election in September. I mean November that  

maybe but that would be something that would come  back to you. So what's one decision is okay how   do we do this and do we have a runoff or is it  a plurality but then we can give you something   specific and then hopefully that would shorten the  you know the discussion and so probably it's not   a plurality probably still want 50 plus one and  probably um but then do you decide well if only   two people are running do you then just have  the election in November rather than so those   are I think we could do up couldn't we Caroline  Caroline can do up a menu for us that that will   make hopefully that decision you know methodical  and we can go through it second issue which I do   think is is is purely well all of these decisions  are city commission do you shorten or lengthen the   terms of the existing commissioners that's you  could legally You can do it either way. Uh it's   we're you can either lengthen them by 18 months  or shorten them by 6 months. So I think that's   something and and there you may decide at the end  of the day. Hey commissioners, we've given you   language for either shortening them or lengthening  them. You decide, you know, what you want,   you know, if that's what you want to do. But we  could give that to you at the next meeting, too.   Does that help? U Brandon, I have a question.  So, is the manner of elections governed by the   charter or can they alter that by ordinance?  I mean the the plurality majority that only   is ordinance or I mean only charter is charter.  Only charter. So the city commission can't alter   the well today. They can alter my question is  they can alter the dates but the commission  

can't alter the manner of the election in the  sense with a primary and then a potential runoff   the plurality and the what unless the charter's  changed. That's what I'm saying. The commission   can by ordinance change that. No, I mean you  I mean yes, you're correct. They cannot they   cannot they can only change the date. just  the dates apparently but we couldn't just work or should we I don't I don't think so I think  the way that and the timing of their own election   should be kept in the charter so they can't decide  their own so in my mind Mr. Chairman and board   members and Mr. Zimmerman, I think there's kind  of three items. There's moving them to align with   the state and federal elections, yes or no. And  then kind of dealing with the specifics of how to   handle August versus November with the percentages  and runoffs and all of that. And then the third   one is is the terms of the elected officials. Do  you shorten or do you lengthen it? You're going to   have to do one of those. Correct. Yeah. I think  those are the three. transitional terms. Yeah,   transitional terms. So, to my my opinion, there's  kind of three decisions in front of this board. Okay, the chair. Any further discussion  on this one before we take vote? And this   is only to move them to align with  Yeah. state and federal elections. I think are you okay with that amendment? align  the state and federal regulations in November.   I mean, yeah, that in August the general.  Yeah, there's I mean, if the motion passes,   I would like I I don't know how quickly you  guys could pull that, would you call it? the  

menu menu together um to help me take back to  the community on my side to provide clarity   like I'm getting the same question I'm coming to  ask you kind of the different options or varying   options but the consistency in communication  would be important as we gather our thoughts on   it right and then we take it to the public and  we ask questions and we get feedback from them   on what are our preferences because it's it's  almost like it's a menu preference now I think   couple weeks We've done a fair amount already.  Yeah, we've already said quite a bit. Now,   if this motion passes and you and if and if you're  ready to say something about the next two issues,   I think uh Jonathan did a good job summarizing  it. If you're ready to say how you want to   handle the August and November election plurality  majority, you could adopt another motion and then   if you're ready. But I was really I don't know  that you're ever going to be ready to say to   the existing commissioners whether they ought  to shorten or lengthen their terms. You know,   that's a tough one for you all to weigh in on.  So you might just leave that. But you're saying   that would be a consequence of moving the dates  anyhow. You would have to do one or the other.   So to add that I that would be a commission  issue as opposed to the charter issue because   um they are allowed to move the elections and then  whatever is necessary to implement moving it which   hence would be uh they either need to choose to  shorten their terms by 6 months or extend it by   18 years. So they don't have to weigh in at all.  Not really. So take that one. Yeah. decide on that   one together. Okay. I said I guess there's only  two. There's only two. All right. Want to take the  

role? Mr. Ferrer. No. Miss. Yes. Mr. Danzy. Yes.  Chair. Vice Chair Brandon Henderson Jansenius.   Yes. Motion passes 3 to two. 3 to one. 3 to one.  Y. Okay. Anything else to discuss in the elections   article? As as far as the number two, as far as  the timing, it makes sense to me that we mirror as   close as we can what's in existing with the state  and federal, not not try to create our own thing.   Make it be August, make it be November, whatever  those dates are. And not a September runoff. I   know. and and try not to do anything just for us  since we contract with the supervisor of elections   anyway. Yeah, that that may be another moot  point. Let them let them do it. Yeah, since this   was before the Thanksgiving holiday, if I may,  Mr. Chair, just kind of re recess my uh my memo.   So again, Tallahassee changed their elections to  align with the state and federal elections in or   state and national elections in the year 2000. And  um originally, if only two candidates qualified,   the election was settled in the August primary.  However, the charter was later amended to move   the election to November if only two candidates  qualified. So they're basically they they bypassed   the the August primary which is very similar in  a partisan primary. You know if only one Democrat   or only one Republican were to qualify for a  specific office there is no August primary. They   go straight to the general election in November.  Same principle, same concept. Additionally,   if three or more qualified, the August primary  advanced the top two vote getters to November.  

Regardless of the percentage um received, and I  know this might be a sticking point, but it's only   because if you look at the turnout percentages  in August, you're still looking at, you know,   it's more of a partisan nominating election is in  August for a myriad of different offices, local,   state, and federal. And so the the thought  was is to ensure that whoever was elected at   the local office that that decision was made in  November with the highest amount of percentage   turnout. And just for some of those uh percentage  reminders. Um so even even looking at like Panama   City um and andor Bay County. So for example, the  most recent one August of 2024 turnout was 24.8%.   November of 2024, 71.9. So if you did have say  one person out of three get 51.3% in August,   that would be 51.3% of only 24.8% of the overall  turnout as opposed to that. So that's why   uh Tallahassee made the change. Again, this  ensured that the elected official at the local   level was always chosen in November of either a  gubanatorial or a presidential election year. So,   and I will say again, I I hardily disagree with  that. Well, I'm just I know I know that's what   I'm sharing. I'm just sharing the numbers.  Um, having done that, if if I work hard and   I get my voters out in August and I get 52%,  I win. I don't have to run again. This way,   I work really hard and I get 60% of the vote,  but somebody else gets the the top two. That's   just not I'm not going to ever be satisfied with  that. People that show up to vote, that's not my  

problem. I hate to say it that way, but that's  not, you know, so I just I think I would add and   I did have conversations with the Lyon County SOE  and the Tallahassee city manager and and I think   the way they were I think the way they looked at  it is that it kind of really was a primary in the   sense that it was the August election is not  going to determine who's going to hold office.   the August election is to determine who will  stand in the in the uh general election in   November. That's I think maybe that's the way that  they differentiate. That's probably a better way   that I've communicated it before. So the August  election, same thing. It's even if say US Congress   or or you know um superintendent of schools you  know the the purpose of the August election is   to maybe superintendent school is probably a  good example but in August even if nobody else   qualifies for US Congress you still have to stand  in the November election. So that is I think that   is the difference there. And so that's why if only  two people qualify, you don't need to have the   August primary to determine who the two candidates  are that are going to stand in the November   election because only two people qualified. So  that's why if you have more than three, sorry,   more than two, you okay, how do we determine  who those two are that will stand in the general   election in November? That's how you that's why  they have the primary at that point. And again,   it does get to the point so that the purpose of  the November election is to select your elected   official who will then, you know, serve in that  capacity. So, I think maybe that was a better way   to explain why they made that modification and why  I think a lot of other cities did do that as well.   I think so. I see it a little bit differently  than Ron does. I see the elected official and   we'll talk about this one once we get down to  the city manager position. The elected officials,   how do you gauge how successful they are?  Because our our current structure success  

comes from the city manager. The city manager  executes, right? The board doesn't execute. The   board makes decisions. But the way I measure  how successful an elected official is by how   many votes they bring to the table, how much trust  do they build with the people and how many people   do they get to the polls, right? And in the powers  of our commission, the mayor and the commissioners   who have no autonomy to make decisions, the only  thing that they can be good at is communication,   right? And they have to be great at communication.  If they're not, they're probably not a good fit   for our structure. It takes time to build  that trust. And I'm okay with the time   frame from August through November. If it takes  a little bit longer for us to gather more votes,   that's their only job cuz they have no job that  is action focused. They can't make decisions. They   can influence, but they communicate and that's  the most effective form of what they're elected   to do. Does that make sense? Got something else?  Yeah. I just wanted to say Jonathan, you know,   last um meeting you had made a good point  which is that for most elections apart from   the city election, we're kind of in the minority  of that most elections you do have somewhat of a   nominating period where you shorten the amount of  contenders that you have such as an August primary   then moving on to a general election in November.  More concise. Exactly. So, in terms of um if we're   looking to increase turnout, which is I believe  the goal with your vote um just a few moments ago,   uh a winner take all system in August would be  the exact same as the system that we have now,   but more political partisan elections. The most  partisan elections that you have are primaries in   August. And the amount of turnout that Jonathan  just read, which I believe was 24, is around the   same turnout that we had in my election in April,  just last year, which was around 25. So if we're  

looking to increase turnout, sacrifices will  have to be made at the expense of the Canada   at the for the people. And I truly think that  um I'm I'm like I said, we're in the minority   of not having to have a nom nominating period  or you know weaning out candidates whereas   uh you know just about every other election has  got some kind of a you know period like that. So you would be comfortable in a threeperson  election in August and the winner gets 80% the   next one gets I would call hypothetical gets  5% but the guy that got 80% has to run again.   how many we pulled previous election but we  pulled previous elections to look at what the   turnout was in those elections to see if that had  ever happened and I don't believe there's ever   been a time where someone got 80% and use that  as an example but it but we're making choices   in in reality not in hypothetical and that's  a hypothetical so I would just I'll just add   Mr. chairman that um the what what I have noticed  looking at all I'm a bit of a political data geek   nerd my comment I'm about to make is is anecdotal  so it's not like a a true like going in and really   systematic looking at data but I I do agree that  I 80% is probably unlikely you most likely would   see would be someone would barely creep past  the 50% mark and get something in the low 50s   in a potential August primary if there were three  candidates. Are there examples where someone hit   or exceeded 60? Probably. But I think that would  probably be it would be the exception. And then   the you know the other advantage and and again  these are just anecdotal comments I've heard you  

know over the last you know five or six years  is it is tough because you know you have if you   have a race with three or more people man like 30  days as we do it now is I mean like really before   you've had time to come down from the first I I  don't even think the election's really necessarily   certified yet and you're already like it's time  to start sending out the mailin ballots. So having   more of that nine weeks. In fact, I think a lot  of states kind of do stuff more in, you know,   March, April, and June. And we, you know, we do  ours in at kind of the end of August, which is   tough. And and I had to do that many moons ago  in a congressional race. It was like, you know,   we we won and it was a pretty fierce primary and  then we had a nine-week sprint, you know, to to   the general and it was so it's I think having a  little extra time in there is is nice if there is   one. But I I do I I mean I see Mr. Danzy's point,  you know, as far as how you do work hard and do   it. But I think the way a political minded person  be like, "Wow, this guy has if you do that well,   then you have all the momentum on your side going  into the November election and having to reschedu   that uh runoff like a month after when when I had  it. The number one problem I had was that people   didn't remember the new election date. it was uh  oh is it you know uh uh they did not understand   the runoff process as well whereas here it would  always be in a November there would be no question   about it you would if you had to have that which  uh if you had to have a runoff this would be the   runoff and then it would always be the same  date so you wouldn't have that problem just   like Jonathan said of when's the election and then  you don't have as much time and you know all those   issues yeah I think if I had experienced what Ron  has experienced and I was there at 60% I would   want to be done had I experienced that. But then  from a voter perspective, that additional time,  

it is election season. I'm already in the spirit  of educating myself on what I'm looking for.   Right. From a elect like an official perspective,  I'm completely agree with Ron. But from a voter   perspective, having the two the August versus  the November, but we can discuss that at the   next meeting, our menu of choices. All right.  Ready to move on to the article 7 city manager. All right. Where do we want  to start with this one? I have a question. So at the last meeting  JP, you asked I heard you asked for like a   communication flowchart. what communication  look like from the city commission, the city   manager to the agenda? There's a lot of agenda  discuss agenda discussion. Do we do we Jonathan,   do we have like an org chart for the city like  a visual for what it truly looks like as far as   where autonomy rolls up? What you're talking  about specifically for like an agenda? No,   not necessarily for agenda. For the organizational  structure of our city. Yeah, sure. Yeah, we do   have one. Yeah, I have an organizational chart.  We have wine does one every month. Yeah. Favorite   thing to do. You did say was I would love to see  it. Tell us give us a cliffnotes version of what   is your job as a city manager. Okay. So yeah. So  as the city manager, I'm the chief administrative   official for the city. So, you know, all of the  pretty much all of the departments and divisions   with the exception of, you know, accounting and  payroll um and in the clerk's duties, you know,   fall to to the city manager. So, that would be uh  you know, public works, uh fire, police, housing  

and community services, uh parks, culture and  recreation, logistics, and uh and that's it. So,   in community the community redevelopment um uh  agency and so um and in that role I also serve   as uh as the executive director of the CRA so  I have the responsibility for the again for   the day-to-day operations of the city um with the  exception of the collections of the monies that's   under the clerk and treasurer I have control  over the budget and then the clerk treasurer   has control over the finances the checkbook so  um that's That's really it. So through, you know,   um, senior staff, you know, two assistant city  managers and then a number of department heads   or directors and chiefs, uh, they they, you know,  they run their respective departments. And so,   um, you know, typically most of  my interactions during the week   would be either with the two assistant  city managers or one of the directors,   okay? Or slash chiefs. define control as far as  accountability versus responsibility. Oh wow. Um so you know this job is obviously bigger than  any one person. Uh you know you can't you can't   be out in the weeds on every single thing. So  you have to have a high level of confidence in   your senior staff. And so you know you you have  the responsibility to uh you know to to make sure   that they're doing their job. uh in accordance  with obviously the charter of the city, but also   uh you know our all of the ordinances that the  city has uh our purchasing uh and procurement   policy that the city has uh any other policies  that we put forward. And so the expectation   is that you know those respective directors  and chiefs you know execute those over their  

respective department and they're accountable to  to the city manager who is then accountable to   uh to the elected official to the commission.  And so you know you you kind of have that you   have that that you know that control over it but  but you know you're not going to be able to manage   every little thing that happens out in the field.  you know, a very a very defined chain of command   has to exist out in the field. I'll give you  an example, very practical. So, I would never,   you know, reach down and give direction to like a  lieutenant or a sergeant out in the field. I would   deal with either the chief or the deputy chief  or maybe in very limited circumstances one of   the captains, but typically it's going to be the  chief or the deputy chief. Same thing with public   works. I would mostly deal with the director  or perhaps the city engineer and in certain   limited cases with the superintendent who is, you  know, kind of managing things out the field. Did   I answer your question? Yeah. What in regards to  finances, because I know we've got the city clerk,   I'll talk about that. We got the attorney.  You're not accountable for the things that she's   necessarily responsible for. Correct. Our duties  are specifically spelled out in the charter. Okay.   So accountability is the department operations  basically. You make sure that the city operates.   That is correct. From a financial perspective,  you build the budget. We build the budget with   input from all of the, you know, all of the  department heads, you know, because they're   the ones that have the responsibility to know  what they need in order to meet the objectives,   uh, and, you know, and needs of the city. And  then you know we we put together the budget and   and then once the budget is adopted and and you  know so then the finances which is the the actual   spending of that money and the in the cutting of  the checks or the wiring of the funds that's under   the clerk treasury the administrative flow of yes  performing against that budget. Yeah. That's how   we have checks and balances but that shifts  responsibility as far as or flow through her  

department. you're still ultimately accountable to  the execution of that management plan. The budget,   correct? So, if we try to do something outside  of the budget, we know that it's not contained   in the it's not budgeted, then we have to we  have to do a budget amendment and show where   that money's coming from. And then the board,  the commission has to they have to sign off on   that after the budget's already adopted. Correct.  Okay. Even if it's one penny. What? Well, I mean,   I'm just trying to make the point with some  exceptions. With some exceptions, but yeah,   they don't make pennies anymore. They don't That's  right. Albert Lincoln. So, I have a question about   the removal sort of of officers cuz in article 5,  you're the administrative sort of person over all   the officers. We're in another one, but it ties in  kind of my question about city officers. Okay. So,   you're administrative only on those departments  that you listed, not the ones that would fall   under the city clerk or do you also have removal  administrative power over the people who work in   the city clerk's uh art? How does that work? That  area does get a little fuzzy. So, I mean, I am the   personnel director for the city. Um, but from a  dayto-day, like I don't pick our employees. Um,   you know, if if I think the only thing that could  really be a problem is if one of her employees did   something that I felt they should be terminated  and she wanted to give them a second chance   that might cause tension. But most of the time,  I'm just going to defer to her specifically for   accounting, payroll, and customer service. They  fall under her. But when it comes to uh, you know,   the the signing off on their, you know, she signs  off on their time, but again, I'm the personnel   director. I don't know there's ever really been a  gray area. It is a gray area. I am the personnel   director, but for her particular divisions, I  just completely because I only have four direct   reports. So, my direct reports are above the  accounting and utility billing departments. So,  

and those departments fall under the city manager?  Well, no, those are my those are under my control,   but my direct reports are only four. So,  everybody underneath there reports to them.   But ultimately it would be his decision. Right?  So ultimately your decision the only people you   cannot remove would be the two of them. The  two of them. That is correct. But you could   in theory remove everyone else. I could have a  very I'm not saying I'm not saying that you would   I'm just trying to understand how I think the  way it's written that would be myation. That's   the way we understand it. Now I could terminate  every employee with the exception of the two of   those two. Correct. Okay. That's what I wanted  to make sure I was in the right direction. So I   would never do that without talking to you again.  So we're starting it is a little bit of a gray   area when it comes to that. I mean and and I think  from a practical standpoint, it it works because I   mean if I go to any of her employees and just, you  know, ask for information, their response is yes,   sir. They recognize me as a city manager. But  if I would go in there and try to like modify   schedules, that's the kind of stuff that would  cost because she's the one that's operationally   responsible for those teams. Um, and so that would  kind of fall more towards just like the director.   Like I wouldn't go to another director and say,  "Hey, I think you need to check." Like that's just   kind of it's just counterproductive. Just even if  I have the authority, it's just counterproductive   to the operation. So, it's a different kind of  relationship than what um the the um chair was   talking about with the whole deal with issue  with the commissioners addressing the staff,   right? That doesn't apply to them. That doesn't  apply to, right? Yeah. So, that level of gray   area is kind of what I would hope that we can  work through as a board to close the gap on some   of that. that gray area 60 years ago is totally  different administratively today. Does that make  

sense? So when I ask for like an org chart and the  current org chart, understanding that there's an   opportunity for us as a board to review making  some adjustments to that and really streamlining   the workflow. Um I'll share this with you guys.  So last spring, I forget what we called it, but   there was a um we got to meet all the departments  in the ratunda downstairs. They all set up. So,   police chief, fire chief, HR, strategic planning.  I think it was a strategic planning session,   which was great. Open house. Yeah, it was turned  into an open house. Y um and I went around and   I got to meet everybody. I got to talk to the  finance department, the water ladies. Um and they   love Dana to death. They say they do love. There's  actually there's actually one man in there now,   not just water ladies. Good. So, uh, my point  is I had made it a point to ask questions like   structure and organization. The fire department  has a phenomenal structure, right? The police   department has a phenomenal structure. Um, the  HR team, when I asked her, I said, you know,   what does, if I'm a city employee and I want to  advance inside the city, what does that look like?   What does an opportunity for growth look like?  And she said, well, we don't have anything written   out. We don't have like a process for that. Um,  if they're interested, you know, we would ask   them and talk to them. And I said, "Okay, well,  what does if I'm not performing at my job well,   what does that look like?" And she said, "Well,  you know, we have conversations. We maybe find   you another spot, another department, and see  if there's a better fit somewhere." Um, and my   offspring go to we start moving props like and we  start to throw people at problems instead of Yeah.   instead of having a process in place, right?  And the process being, do we have a phenomenal   organizational chart that's clear, right?  He's about to put it on the screen. Okay. And   understanding what does the or chart look like? Is  there if I'm a if I'm not doing my job well, do I  

have clarity on what I need to do to move forward  and do my job well? And I look at this from your   seat from a department head perspective, right?  You're accountable to a lot of things. We have a   city manager government. I do see our current  charter blurs policy versus administration,   right? And I hear the board asking for autonomy  and I hear them asking for more power. What is   more in regards to that? And is that really the  right thing when you're ultimately accountable   to execution of that power? Right? And I've  seen being in Panama City all these years, I've   seen different boards and different commissions,  different city managers in the role, right? And   everybody operates differently and there's a level  of autonomy that's great that empowers that but   that's not scalable as we continue to grow and our  city's growing. So what level of or organization   do we need as a foundation inside the charter?  Make sense? Yeah, makes sense. But I don't believe   that comes underneath the charter. If we hire a  city manager, that is up to the city manager to   get into the weeds and put together a team. That's  not I think that's great. That is not the part   of the charter. Could that level of expectation  be part of the charter that the city manager is   accountable to having a strate strategic plan  that's executed and implemented once a year,   signed off by the board, but it has to be clear.  It has to be intentional. And then the people have   to know what the plan is for the city. It can't be  in the city manager's head. Does that make sense?   Yeah, that makes sense. But do we have a process  in place? And same way for you on the finance   side. Jen might not be here tomorrow. J might  not be here for 20 years. But the foundation of   how we report and how we present all lines back to  there's a standard way for communicating this one   to Jonathan who's ultimately accountable from  Jonathan to the board and then our phenomenal  

communicators which is our elected officials to  the people that make sense so we look at this   city manager this is the city it would be the  city manager structure correct and of course as   you note. So, Mr. Zimmerman, Miss Smith, and I  all equally report directly to the commission. But under this structure, it looks like the city  clerk and treasurer is accountable to the finances   for the city, not the city manager. The city  manager is only accountable to the assistant city   managers, public city affairs, the assistants,  the budget managers down to the department   heads. Well, if if you want to open that and talk  about the city clerk's position at the same time,   I'm of the opinion that the city clerk should  be hired and done by the city manager, not by   the commission. Then that changes the um chart.  somewhat and but I don't know how many cities   do it this way versus that way. I'm just know  what's we do in business and um you know city   manager should my opinion everything should flow  in and out of the city manager's office and just   to piggyback on that question the question what's  the reason for the separation there I understand   it's the actual writing of the check and that part  of it to make sure that you're not writing a bunch   of checks you know I is that the purpose or What  is the purpose of that separation of those duties   with the city clerk and the manager when it comes  to the financial aspect? My understanding is that   it's a system of checks and balances. Right. So  what can you give me in like what's so give me  

just so I understand it fully. But the checks  and balances if the city clerk's office made a   blunder, they're going to go to the city manager.  They're not going to go to the commission. Well,   they I mean, if something happened, if something  happened bad and they get the budget and or see   something that we can't afford or whatever,  they're going to go to the city man and say,   "Jonathan, how did you let this happen?" That's  why I think the the Well, the CFO, if you will,   ought to be under the Well, I think the the  thought, Mr. chairman would be that if one of my   directors is doesn't follow the purchasing policy,  I mean any any charge has to go through both   purchasing and through the the clerk treasurer's  office. Exactly. And so you know if one of the   directors or one of their direct reports is you  know made a purchase without following you know   the purchasing policy correctly which happens and  you know they have to be counseledled potentially   written up um it falls to both the purchasing  division which falls under Mr. myself as   logistics director andor Miss Smith and her team  to bring that to my attention. And I can assure   you both of them do that when it happens. But if  if if something is spent incorrectly and it gets   through both purchasing and the clerk's office in  this current environment, then I think myself, Mr.   Self, and Miss Smith would all have some questions  to answer. That's correct. I think the I think the   key distinction is the the separation of duties  that the the manager doesn't have control of all   of the moving parts. If some if the manager does  if the if something happens uh and the manager  

wants to spend more money than he's allowed to,  there's no there's nowhere for the clerk to go   except to the manager. There's no there's no  third opinion to to apprise the commission that   something untoward is going on here, right?  There's no because the attorney doesn't get   involved in any of that kind of stuff. So, it's  a it's like it like you said, it's a check and   balance that if the manager had holds all the  cards, he can tell the commission whatever story   he wants to tell, right? Whether it's true or not.  Um, similar to I guess what happened at the TBC,   the guy made up the story and nobody followed up  to check on his story and Sure. Go ahead. Yeah.   Um, and and it and it has it has happened. I know  because I've worked under um through several city   managers and um I'm sorry. Would you just say your  name? Just so people know who you are, who are   Terry Lillard. I live at 1016 West 9th Street and  um and you I'm a former city clerk treasurer and I   had been in the finance department for many years  before that and um I I have experienced times that   the city manager has wanted expenditures  to go through that hadn't gone through the   proper authorizations. Usually they should have  something that should have gone through the city   commission and I didn't pay it. So, you know, and  that was totally within our realm to do that. So,   I think that's what the checks and balances  are about. We're still blending. We're blending   accountability with responsibility though. Because  he's accountable to that doesn't mean that he's   accepts responsibility. He's got department heads.  There's old saying, I got to do your job for you.   What I need you for, right? So if our COO or  administrative operations manager for the city  

has to do department heads jobs, what do we need  them for? Cut the budget. Let them do it. Let them   own it. But like that's not how we're structured.  Are we structured for growth? The city is growing.   And look at I ask you, Jan, when's the last time  you had a performance review? We're going through   it right now. Okay. And is it clear and objective  and you know exactly what the areas are you need   to improve on? Everybody has opinions about that,  right? No comment. And figuring it out. So like   right now there's no framework for evaluations or  performance reviews. And I'm with wrong on this.   When you look at a business structure because  our city operates as a business, right? And   you look from a a people lens, what's the one  thing everybody goes to complain about? Well,   that too. Money. We're broke. We ain't got no  money. It's always goes back to finances. Our   one person who's accountable to that is the city  manager. He develops the budget, right? He's not   responsible. Each of the department heads have  department head accountability to perform to their   individual budgets. It's like every department  has an assigned line item on their financial plan   for execution that rolls up to the enterprise to  the whole city budget. When you look at levels of   business structure, our structure is currently not  clear. I feel like we're tasked to provide that   clarity and streamlining what does our structure  what does it need to look like for now and for   the future currently it's not as scalable as it  should be does that make sense not that Jan would   be accountable to the city manager but there  should be some sort of hierarchy and shared   responsibility shared accountability as they  both report I think the the what is the it says   You both of these positions all of these  positions including the city attorney serve  

at the pleasure of the board. Heard Jonathan say  that a million times except for right. What is   the pleasure? Whatever they feel, right?  That means that means they can be removed   whatever just because they want to see a change.  They don't like the color of my shirt. Yeah,   they can they can well there's there's provisions  for removes for city managers after post six   months and that's still not clear. Well, that  yeah and correct me if I'm wrong that is that   a requirement of a procedural due process part  there that removed that special removal revision   is that or is that just something happened there?  they decided to do it for just there. For example,   uh both the city manager and city clerk and city  attorney, we all have contracts and so removal,   things like that are all spelled out in the  contract. So, it doesn't need to be there. But   inside the charter, it does say something about  10 days and city manager. Yes, I disagree with   that. I mean, I've seen a lot of organizations.  It just takes one rogue person. And frankly,   I think we're seeing it nationally. A lot of  things were understood. This was the job of   Congress. This is the job of the president.  Congress can declare war. If you have someone   who doesn't want to follow traditions when things  aren't written down, it's hell to pay to stop it.   So I like having guidelines, you know, and a  process to check and that keeping them separate   is one way. That's very important. But when you  say that the process of removal doesn't have to be   there in our charter, excuse me, the heebie-jebies  because it just takes one rogue person and   everybody's running because this person can fire  everybody in the room who wants to complain. Well,  

talk about whistleblower. This is an area that I'm  very knowledgeable of. Talk about whistleblasters. So, there needs to be check and balance. And I  think that's our job to put it there and not rely   on the gentile ladies and men to do the right  thing because we have examples locally. We have   examples statewide and we certainly have some  examples nationally where written documents are   being challenged and you have to sue to make you  do exactly what it says you have to do and in the   areas where there's nothing written down. It's  just very corrosive. It makes people feel like   there's nothing they say is going to matter. Back  to getting civic engagement and getting people to   believe in the process. I think we need to look  around and see what can happen when gentle men   and gentle ladies attitudes about protocol and due  process and fairness differ greatly. And if that   person who has that viewpoint of the world might  makes right, forget about other groups that we've   long done and things we've long done. That's  a problem. What? Just to clarify my statement,   back it up. No, no. Legally, you don't have to  put anything in the charter because, for example,   there is something in the charter, some due  process stuff for the city manager. There isn't   anything about city attorney or city clerk that  deals with that topic. Don't know why they they   wrote it that way, but you could certainly as a  matter of policy recommend to the city commission   to put to put all that in the charter. It's not  there now except for the city manager. I noticed   that and I think that's Yeah, we that's a not  good one one potential option, Mr. Chairman,  

board members and I'm just kind of listening  to your comments. I mean, as a suggestion   to channel my inner Mr. Zimmerman. I mean, if  your if your concern potentially is, you know,   that that people get, you know, willy-nilly  removed or whatever, you could require, okay,   simple majority to be hired, but maybe a super  majority to be fired so that you don't just have   like political winds potentially having influence.  And I think that would be a step that I mean,   that's just one potential option. So, I don't  think you would ever want to completely tie the   hands of the elected body from removing a charter  official, but if you wanted to try to make it,   you know, a little bit harder to fire someone so  that it's not willy-nilly to, you know, that's one   potential thing that the board could consider. I  feel like there's got to be clear objectives to   if somebody's going to lose their job, one,  they should see exchange and be surprised.   And then two is like we find out after the  fact how we performed against our budget,   right? We get little updates throughout the year  and we get a lot of reporting on cash flow. Um,   from a people perspective and people go crazy  because they think we're broke. Like I see it from   a different lens because we're reporting on cash  flow versus the long-term integrity of the budget.   Ultimately, you're accountable for the budget,  but like did you redeem your budget last year?   So, I think maybe that's the I think maybe that's  the the perspective that you're missing. He's only   accountable for the budget, which is one year.  I've got to keep the city going forever. Solvent   is her job. I've got to keep it going forever. And  it also it also goes back to the deal with issue.   If I'm if the clerk is working for the manager,  then that's another person the commission can't   reach out to and direct. they might want to have  direct control over their their finance director,  

right? And not just the budget director. Um, just  another another issue to keep in mind. Y'all ever   heard the phrase, how do you eat an elephant? One  bite at a time. One bite at a time, right? So,   if Jonathan is accountable to a one bite at  a time budget year over year, small habits   compound like the bigger picture initiative where  we raise a red flag, which you're accountable to,   right? The long-term integrity of the city. He is  responsible for that. But you have accountability.   That's where you answer directly to the  commission. The commission changes every two   years. Like and operationally, you're accountable  year over year to redeeming the budget. Did we win   or did we lose? If the budget came in according  to you did your job, you can't get fired,   right? Those levels of conversations aren't clear  here at city hall. They're definitely not clear   out to the public. I think there's more uh more at  stake if he doesn't make his budget then he gets   fired. That's against state statutes. We have  to have a balanced budget. So there's not it's   not a choice. We don't have a choice. We have to  present a balanced budget and then that's what the   commission adopts and it's even like the timeline  like you know we have to have two budget hearings   in September of every year and this is by statute.  Correct. Yes ma'am. But you look at policy versus   administration. Why does the commission feel  that they are accountable to the budget? Why do   they feel like the people hold them accountable to  the city funds? If you guys are the ones that are   signing off on what gets spent, you build it. They  have to approve the budget. They do. They approve   it. Yeah. And ultimately they top, right? But  they don't get to play around with the money no   more than you get to play around with performance  reviews for Bry's logistics director. Anything   that changes they have any any significant changes  they get they control. So if there's a if there's   an increase in any budgetary line item within re  within specifications they have to approve it.  

So that that gives them the additional level of  control and accountability. I was being a little   facicious with one penny but in all seriousness  so our directors can spend up to 20,000 assists   city managers can spend up to 50 and I can  spend up to a hundred. Anything over that   has to go to the commission for their approval.  However, however, even if we have a $7,000 budget   amendment under police, which happened at the  last meeting, that's well under Mark Smith's,   you know, level of spending authority, but that  $7,000 budget amendment or maybe it was 9,000 had   to go to the commission for their approval. It  depends on if the overall budget is increasing,   right? you can move money inside the budget.  Um, and you'll get your little finance 101   um class. I guess maybe we're here, so maybe the  next meeting I'll I'll put that on the agenda. Um,   so you can move money in in between like the  police has a line item for for uh uh operating   supplies. Well, they don't need they don't really  need the whole 20,000 for operating supplies.   So they want to move 5,000 over for repairs and  maintenance. They need it there. They can do that   kind of stuff inside it. Nothing's increasing.  They're decreasing one line, they're increasing   another. But if the overall budget is increasing,  the commission has to approve that and they're   accountable for that, those increases. Okay. All  right. So getting back on track, some things that   I had wrote down. I said clarify at the pleasure  versus due process. And I think this is what Cecil   was asking. Should that be a charter item? Yes.  So, do we want to instruct staff to help provide   some language that brings clarity to at the  pleasure versus due process, especially in   these roles that do roll up to the commission? I  think all three of them are at the pleasure as the   current stands. Now, correct me if I'm wrong.  I don't see language about the city attorney  

serving at the pleasure. I don't think it's in  there. I think I think that's just a mistake when   they were drafting that they just didn't include  that in there cuz I think that is the perception. I I mean I don't I don't see why that would  have to change because I I think that those I   think those three positions again considering the  limited scope of what the city commission has and   the powers that they have that is one of their  big powers, right? That that is that's the whole   point. That's what they're doing. They're setting  the high level and I think that's part of it,   right? Their power comes from the fact that  they can appoint and remove those three main   officers or however we want to. So I I think  it should stay as at the pleasure. Again,   whether or not we want to change how you know  the vote, maybe it's four instead of three. Yeah,   I had in my notes super majority for  removal. You know, that might be that   might be something we can consider, but I  think it needs to stay at the at the pleasure. And I also wrote in my notes the word stability  because you look at other cities around and they   have new managers every season. That's not good  for a city. So somehow we have to get maybe it's   a super majority, maybe it's but some stability  that office. though a new election happens and   you have new three new commissioners and we are  right and they get rid of the the a great city   manager. We should not somehow we need to I won't  say not let that happen but there ought to be a   check and balance in the in the charter that just  a political whim does not happen. um especially   for a a good run city, even a bad run city.  But you know, it's um stability matters in in  

government. I don't It does. You know, it does.  It does. And I remember so Jonathan got hired,   the last commission, the last mayor said, "I want  a performance structure." And had no clue. Neither   was it the board's job to develop a performance  structure. We should already have one in place,   right? that was fair, consistent, and promoted  stability for the city manager role. But if I look   at what that structure looks like today, I don't  know what it looks like. And the people won't be   privy to his job performing in his job, right?  That's an HR thing. But there's got to be a guide   for that protects the city, protects the manager  position as well that says, "Hey, he's been here   for 10 years. Here's the last 10 reviews. He's  been a great like all of a sudden now we've got a   mayor that doesn't like him and he wants him gone.  Like we these are real life examples that we just   recently I'm not I'm not trying to be difficult  but I I have trouble squaring the conversation   that we had about the necessity for turnout and  the voice of the people versus this conversation   now. So the whole point is that we want to have  more turnout because we want the people to be   heard. If the if they elect some if they elect a  group of three people and let's say they campaign   on I'm going to remove the city manager. That  person gets elected. I I don't understand how   we're going to square this whole thing that people  need to be involved but then we're not going to   allow them to then follow through on what the  voice of the I it doesn't have to be an extreme   in any way, shape or form. There could be bully  guard rails on all the processes because we are   literally observing today where different states  are crashing down guard rails that were assumed   10 years ago assumed. So we're just I'm observing  what's going on and what can happen. And frankly,   I'm thrilled that our little community doesn't  seem from my eyes and others may have a different  

opinion to be doing that kind of we don't care  about the rules. We just want this point of   view to and someone from the top said this so I'm  going to agree even though internally they don't.   I don't see that happening here. But I still feel  like let's have our guard rails reasonable on all   this. But but but in terms of what though I'm I'm  I'm not understanding how that connects. But well,   I'm responding to your your point. We want to  give voice to the people and you are assuming   you know unadulterated. Listen to the people un  with unadulterated listen to what they want. And   if they chose bad commissioners who are also  in um want to harm an innocent city manager is   doing a great job just because the political  winds changed. I think we need to protect in   all areas reasonably. If I look at it I I see  from and I see from yours if a elected official   is campaigning on removing people Yeah. then  they're not educated. They need to be campaigning   on I'm adjusting the process. That's just  hypothetical. And I look at Len Haven for example years ago. Like she managed to a budget. She did  her job. So why did she lose her job? And it's   because the expectations changed. Expectations  shifted and they didn't close the gap on clarity   providing clarity out either for her or in her  role or with the elected officials. Right? And   that's that's where we have to be objective.  Did they do their job? There's a core value per   there's a purpose. Y then there's performance. The  two have to meet. I I I agree to an extent except   for the fact that these are political positions  in government. Yeah. And I think it's different.   I you know if we were if this was just purely a  business then yes. But here we're talking about  

a government position with political appointments  that are being made. So and I think that's part of   it right. That's part of it. This is where again  the the accountability is going to flow down back   from the public. That's the only way that they  have to reach into it. So let me speak from the   point of view of a civil rights lawyer who's been  practicing this area for about 35 years. I sued   the city of Pensacola where the fire chiefs had  black babies with nooes in their around their   necks as a joke in their drawers and testified  to that. nooses were in the fire trucks for   black firemen when they didn't like them. When  you have a community and tradition of racism,   intentional bias, think it's a joke, whatever,  and the community that's been oppressed, has   fears and experiences where we have living people  whose relatives were killed in this area, it's not   documented. The fear is there, the oppression  is there, the sense of being out of the loop is   there. So when you say give full reign to citizens  in areas like this where they're you know two or   30 hund years of in this whole area of oppression  and up into people's live lived experiences who   are still living now I don't take any comfort from  just let the people have their will because there   is the effect of oppression which makes people  disbelieve not trust not want to participate and   I'm talking about primarily black people and a  lot of times poor people regardless of race. So,   it's comforting to them. It's comforting to me  as a direct observer. I should write a book of   the different statements that have been made  by bad actors who thought it was a joke or who   did not connect the dots. So having seen and  heard and dealt with these kinds of things,   it is helpful and brings confidence to the entire  community when you have guard rails because there  

are lived people living now who have seen what  could happen without the garden. So I'm just   speaking you know it's not just you know purely  uh you know intellectual we have to deal with the   residue of being mistreated. I would speak to the  same thing with women. There are so many women,   myself included, coming up, I'm 66, who are  propositioned improperly as we're coming up   by active duty officers who are great men, but  there because there were no guidelines and rules   against it. And when I talked to most women my  age and younger, most of us have experienced that,   you know. So that's why guidelines and rules to  that community are important because it encourages   me to feel strong in my viewpoints and not to  feel threatened if I speak against my manager   who is appear has appearance of white male power  you know even today. So there's a lot going on.   You sound like you've been you know coming from  a world of insulation. people generally who look   like you don't generally have a historical  experience of being mistreated or treated   differently just because of what you look like.  So there's a lot happening here and I think for   us in our environment and the reality of it to  put these guidelines in encourages people to get   over their community trauma encourages people to  participate and encourages people hopefully to run   for office from different segments of society  because they trust the process when they've   been taught by their elders it's not going to work  for you. you have to leave Bay County. I've heard   that so many times for professionals of color or  people wanting to move up in the government. You  

got to leave. You can't get that fair treatment  here. We need to turn that away. And so the what   we're talking about is not just for everybody, but  it's acknowledging and the historical facts of how   people were treated differently. So that's all I  need. I think I need to say on that. So I'm coming   from it from from that perspective in addition  to I don't care who you are, what you look like,   you should be if you have a job is my humble  opinion and you should be given reason why you're   fired. There should be a way to protect your job.  Whether it's a simple administrative hearing of   three people, there should always, in my opinion,  be a way for a person to feel they were heard.   That's we're Americans, you know, we're not we  consider the Russians to be off with your head,   you're out of here, you know. So employment  is considered one of the fundamental rights   and a lot of our constitution is written around  that. And again, when you get into areas where   there's historical factual mistreatment  and different treatment for communities,   it's important to just have those garments.  I don't think removal should be easy or hard,   but it should be quick. May I say something? Sure.  What's your name? Name and address, please. What's   your name? My name JP Ferrer. Okay. Brenda Lewis  Williams, 2748 Oak Hammock Drive, Panama City,   Florida. fundamentally what you're saying is is  legitimate but at the same time I don't see where   you can make a delineation between government  and corporate world because a government entity   is basically a corporation. If you lay side by  side the city manager and a corporate structure,  

you have city manager and you have the CEO or  the president. Your board is the commission and   then whatever the board of directors is and then  you come all the way down. I I believe we need   to get out of the habit of separating those when  we look at evaluations, hiring and firing because   essentially it's the same that they corporate  managers, corporate presidents, CEOs are fired   all the time for whatever the reason, but it  must be justified. Now, I will say that, but   I think you have to stop thinking that political  and corporate are separate because if anytime you   lay one side by side, you're going to get a  a clear picture of what a corporation is. And   I I suggest that your city is a corporation. It  is a business. It functions as you have all the   components of a business within that. So you  if you structure evaluations and that's what   I'm referring to. If you structure evaluations,  hiring and firing aside from any nepotism that   may take place, then you need to look at it as a  corporation because that's what it is. Simply put, um I I kind of want us to get us back on track.  Um if we are looking at article about the city   manager, we kind of need to go section by  section and just deal with it in instead of   um what we're doing now. Well, I would say  this. I think for all important issues,   we've had a generalized conversation just to  flesh it out. This is where Cecil's at. this   is where JP's at to sort of put the flag in  the ground and then we go as you're saying  

it's probably time right now as you're saying to  go to specifics that's really what we have and   and analism but I think I would hope I appreciate  hearing everybody's perspective and their point   of view you as a candidate and feeling I've  carried the ball I don't I've gotten to my 52%   I don't that's really important to me I may not  be persuaded but I now understand your thinking   so Those generalized comments are helpful. Now we  need to get to specifics. Okay. So section 100.   Do we want to make any adjustments to this? How  important is it by the members of the committee   that the city manager live in the city? Is it  important or is it not critical? because we've   had both and it really doesn't influence  their produ um I don't think at the time   of appointment I don't think it matters I think  it matters afterwards well that's not stated here   either right I don't know if it really matters  I mean I may per perform very well be the best   city manager ever and live in Bonaf yeah for that  matter yeah I I my observations is and I've seen   that certainly the school board when school board  members would have their kids totally in private   schools financially making decisions in the public  school to me that just gives me the creeps. You   need to you need to eat what you do and be in  that environment because you have different   u inputs of information because your wife, your  child is experiencing whatever you don't put in   the budget. And I just think that reality  check is helpful. And and the other thing   in this paragraph about not holding any other  offices or I understand the budget, but did this  

um reference I don't know how the League of  City does it, but do they have city managers   that are part of this board or whatever of the  League of Cities? Would that paragraph permit   you from joining a city? Section 100. It says you  can't hold another position other than engage on   behalf of the city government. Would that include  a well no consort a consortium of other cities?   Could you be a member of that or not? Right. I see  what you're saying. No. So I I think what that is   is like I couldn't go and be say you know say the  congressman's chief of staff at the same time that   I'm the city manager. That would obviously be a  conflict. However, I am an elder in my church.   I am I have been involved on the American  Public Works Association's national committee   uh or sorry state committee and I believe my  contract speaks to certain civic organizations   and other organizations that benefit the city of  Panama City. My understanding is that's dealing   with like full-time employment that might pull  my efforts and focus away from the city. I don't   know, Mr. Zimmerman, Miss Smith, is that your  understanding? That would be my understanding,   but we can clarify it. I I'm I'm all for being  involved with the Florida League of Cities, being   involved with the um you know, with the Florida  City County Management Association, being involved   with the public works association has value for  the city, just like Jan's part of the GPO. Uh G   I'm not officer. Well, but but you're a part of  it though. Um GFOA G did I get it right? G GFO,   Government Finance Officers Association officials  say. So, there are certain organizations that   bring value, but it's not a it's not a full-time  job that is pulling me and my efforts and focus   away from the and maybe that's something for  Nevin's office to look at y'all's contract to make  

sure that it's in line with the charter and vice  versa. Yeah, maybe removing some of the language   from here and saying referring to employment  contracts. Employment contracts can change because   I did write that down. I said the ban on any other  business is strict but vague. Like it doesn't   mention what is any other business. Is that  conflicts of interests? Is it outside employment   like teaching and writing? Do you have a second  job you sell at the farmers market? Like I don't   sign for a second. I know that's true. But if you  did, it would be there's no restriction. Should   there be a restriction here or should it be tied  directly to your employment contract? And maybe   you do come. Well, I've got a a secondary business  that I do with my kids where we paint rocks for a   living and we blow them out all over the world.  Who knows, right? But like that shouldn't be in   question as far as a charter perspective. That  should be something that's negotiated on the   front side and you're clear from an employment  perspective because what happens? I've hired   people into my companies and they have two jobs.  You can't serve two masters. That's ultimately   what this is coming down to is this is your  primary job, but what is any other business? So,   should we have that removed and replaced with per  your employment contract? No. Again, employment   contracts, they vary greatly by the skill and  experience of your city uh attorney. I mean,   you I've seen employment crimes are ridiculous  and then some go too far. I mean, that's again   too much of a variable. I think we're setting  guidelines, basic guidelines everywhere. and   the contract wants to lean over the fence in some  way because there's some particular thing that the   city manager potential city manager has got going  whether it's a not for profofit or whatever that   can be addressed with the contract but I don't  think it should be whole hog whatever the city  

attorney and commission come up with because their  level of experience knowledge exposure to laws   which are constantly changing in the employment  area the um Americans with Disabilities Act is   relative relatively new. In the past, you couldn't  walk up the steps. You're out of a job. You didn't   have to have a job. So, it I don't I don't think  the charter needs that be that specific. No, no,   no. Absolutely not that specific. But to  just say take it out alto together and let   the let the let it all be contracted I think  is dangerous. Maybe a suggestion would be let   us look at how others have dealt with this  issue in the charter. And I believe Ron,   you've you're right. It's not crystal clear. What  what you've heard is how it's been interpreted   in practice. But let us look and we can give you  some ideas how others have to concept. So we can   bring back section 100. Yes, that's acceptable.  But I but I do know y'all talked about the at   time of appointment. I do think that needs to be  clarified because the beach, just as an aside,   theirs is a little bit more clear because it  says at time of appointment, you don't have to   be a resident of the city because they may hire  someone from Cincinnati, but within 6 months of   signing the employment contract, he or she must be  a resident of the city of Panama City Beach. So I   think either we need to have that requirement or  we need to provide clarity reasonable to give the   new candidate an opportunity to get settled and  and I think that's an opportunity for commitment   you know they live in Bonaf and they want to serve  here hey this it's important to us that you are   you're here and you're available you're not an  hour or two hours away point good point and if   that's not important to you that's okay we'll  look for the next person that it is important  

Okay, the second part compensation. So this is  something I want to talk about. I know we talked   just you want to see a draft with that 6 months  within six months. Thank you. And then review   the right any other business portion. Okay.  Go ahead. Compensation. This is something we   could probably close the gap on. I know there was  discussion at the last one about compensation for   city commissioners. Did we close the gap on that  side? And is there is there Jonathan right now   compensation is subjective? It's not objective.  My my initial salary uh as city manager was set by   the commission, but then I'm eligible for anything  else that a a regular full-time employee is. Uh as   is Miss Smith. Mr. Zimmerman is not. So based on  because we are paid for by the we are paid for   by the city. Uh so we like like we get our step  increases based on seniority. If there's any cost   of living adjustment um we get the same thing as  all the employees get. So okay so I say this from   from two things. Let me get this out before I get  the was it the last commission meeting. How not   unprofessional was it that a citizen came to the  board and said wanted to scream out your salary,   which we all are privy to it anyhow in that  moment at a decision-based meeting, not an   appropriate discussion. But then two, if I look  from my experience and specifically in following   the Linhaven experience, I've heard that their  city manager was hired in at a lower than salary   than the previous one and then she was fired  and eliminated for that. A lot of discussion,   a lot of hears, a lot of subjectiveness, right? Do  we need to be objective with salaries, commission  

or compensation and pay raises across the Panama  City Enterprise all the way to the board to the   commission? I don't know what their pay looks  like. Who signs off on a commissioner getting   a salary increase? Is it standardized to how much  commissioners make across the state? Is there an   equation for your position, your position, for all  the positions that removes that subjectiveness and   provides objectiveness like a standard? Yeah. So,  I think a lot of people do it differently. I think   some cities do what you just talked about. They  kind of look at there's some formula driven by   the state as far as the elected officials. Ours  is basically the our commissioners make the same   amount as the lowest grade uh full-time position  and then there's the mayor gets a little bit more.   I don't know if that's a percentage or a flat fee  5%. Yeah, I think it's five I think Miss Smith is   right. It's like 5% more as mayor. Um and so as  far as city manager concerned, I mean there's a   lot of different factors um you know I think that  go into that. you know the population of your city   uh you know you have a fire department and a  police department you know u what what you know   for example Mr. Cook and Callaway, you know,  they use the sheriff's department for all law   enforcement. He doesn't have a police chief and a  police department that he's directly responsible   for. Um, the years of experience that you have.  So, I mean, I think I think you need to give my   opinion you you need to leave flexibility for uh,  you know, for your elected body. Um, obviously,   they can't violate federal law uh, in in any type  of employment situation. That goes without being   said. hopefully to some degree, but I think,  you know, I don't know how you would I mean,   I think you see a myriad of issues. I mean, you  know, you got some city managers that make, you  

know, 300k a year. It's almost double what I make,  you know, but again, it's probably a city with,   you know, 700,000 people, you know, and so that's  a lot that's a lot different than Panama City. So,   how how's it determined in the private sector?  Yeah. Is there It's usually revenue based well   a lot of for employees. Well the hourly I think  so like the C executive like I would consider if   we're looking at this from a business perspective  everybody at this level is like an executive type   position. Your position whatever you're a little  different you're subcontracted right? You're not a   city employee. Um, so it's a little bit different,  but it all comes back to a revenue mix and what   that allocation revenue looks like. You know, in  his defense, that plays into a fire department,   a police department, you know, and as we grow,  we're going to add another fire. So, if if you   if you had a s if you had a business that had  a $400 million annual budget, it's probably   woefully underpaid compared to the private market.  Absolutely. I think we all are, man. Well, I mean,   what what most what most governmental entities  do that I've observed and also not for profofits,   they do a survey. They do a state survey. They do  possibly looking at what's national and then they   look at cities that are about the same size  nationally as Panama City but with particular   interest in Tallahassee, Orlando, you know, Bonaf  the low end of what executives or governmental   executives are making with the high end. Same  thing with attorney's fees. When I win a case   and JP knows what we got to do is we I just can't  walk up $600 an hour, which is low probably to a  

California civil rights lawyer with 40 years  experience. I have to establish what is the   going rate in my 2 or 3 hour range and that's just  reasonable because it it's some somehow connected.   So, I mean that's something we could consider  giving some guidelines, not the end of what   the number is, but we look to these areas of  information to make your determination. So,   it's not just I like this guy. He's nice. He goes  to my men's club with me. Here, here's your money.   It's based on your experience, what the local  does, and then they come up with something.   Hopefully, it's connected with reality. Yeah. Mr.  Chairman, board. So obviously in the process you   you the Florida League of Cities and the Florida  City County Management Association has resources,   salary studies that they could share with the  commission during and typically what would happen   is uh if it's if it's my position, you know,  the city manager's position, they might task the   clerk and the attorney to work together to provide  information to Exactly. sort the the resumeumés,   working with HR, that kind of stuff. If it was  the clerk's position, they might ask the city   manager and city attorney to do it, that kind of  stuff. So, there are resources out there to help   provide information to kind of get to some type  of of potential number. So, perfect. And then who   does it for the commissioners? So, right now it's  locked in with the charter. I think the charter   specifically says the lowest full-time paid  employee is the salary of the commission. We have   an ordinance. It's not charter driven. Oh, it's  not. Okay. But but it's clear. It's a or Well,   I say it's clear. We Yeah. But but anyway,  it says it's the lowest full-time paid salary  

position for the commissioners and then the mayor  gets a little bit bonus for extra duties. And so,   our commissioners make as much as the lowest paid  full-time employees. And what is that number? Uh,   it's a grade four position. Uh, yeah, it's around  16 bucks an hour. Like 34ishk a year, I think.   Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah. 37 30s 37 37  37,000. Can you Can you pull us a report so that   one we can review that? Maybe not the ordinance,  but whether or not it needs to be a charter item,   but can you pull us something that says what  the rest of the state is doing for their city   commissioners from a salary perspective? Is there  a baseline? Do some cities do it from a baseline?   I remember that was uh Commissioner Street's  suggestion to us in that email he sent us last   meeting or the meeting before where he laid  out those proposals about changing the I just   know listening listening to the commissioners and  being privy to their chief communication officers   right their board they get a lot of communication  but this is not their full-time job they all have   other jobs right but wouldn't it be awesome if  there was if they could maybe not operationally   because they can't get involved in administration  work communication wise they get paid full-time   salary just for the grade four yeah so just  an observation Mr. Chairman and board so you   know it's you know I I keep asking you know why  do people feel like you know they you know they   they have to go to the elected officials when you  know and they'll wait and come to a public meeting   when if they just emailed staff two weeks ago it  already been handled. It's it's very simple. It's   because they just feel like it's easier to get  to the person that they voted for or that they   recognize as their elected official versus some  bureaucrat of city hall. And I may not like that,   but I'm okay with it and I understand it. That's  why. And so I think that's why naturally people  

go to, you know, to them. Plus, in my role, like  they may be, you know, they may be getting ready   to vote on something and they can go out and state  this. I and my communications team can't really do   that because I would be then putting pressure on  them in advance of a meeting to vote a particular   certain way. So, you know, I think, you know, I  I think that that's why there's this even though   even though it's counterintuitive because like  literally like, you know, we had someone come   to someone came to a town hall meeting to raise  a code compliance concern and I was like, well,   have you did you reach out to code compliance?  She goes, no. So, and a part of me I kind of felt   bad because she, you know, she said, "I gave up  my Saturday morning. I needed to come deal with   this." It's like, "If you'd have just emailed us  like a month ago, this had already been handled."   But for whatever reason, she she didn't know  or she felt that she wanted to come talk to her   elected officials that that represent her in that  end. And I mean, people have the right to. So,   I think they just feel like they they feel a  deeper connection to an elected official at all   levels versus just just the staff. So, sounds like  a area for improvement for our city manager. Well,   we're very intimidating. Yes. So, I and I'll  write this down. Listening to the last thing,   the agenda discussion from last time. I'm  sorry I'm getting off track a little bit.   um having giving flexibility to commissioners  to put things on the agenda which they already   have right they do the purpose of that commission  meeting is to make decisions and to take action   right talking we now have an opportunity  that's outside of that what do you call the   workshops right uh yeah the workshops are for the  commissioners and the mayor to discuss their items   the town hall is for us to discuss items that  the public wants to talk about two very specific  

different reasons. Yeah. Being intentional with  those purposes of the commission is a decision   based meeting. We're here to make decisions on  these items that are on this paper. Discussions   can be taped to town halls and workshops. Correct.  Right. Okay. That was just something I wanted to   share. All right. So, compensation, we're good  with leaving. This doesn't need to be a structure   change to the charter. Aside from we were saying  that we wanted some guidelines. Yeah. I was just   gonna I work with with really all three of us  probably work together on kind of like what   what a lot of other cities do is what I thought  y'all asked us to do. Yeah. Okay. And as far as   city commissioners as well, what other cities  do. All right. Removal section 102. Can I raise   something also? And I don't know if this is the  right place for it, but um uh the administrative   officer when we're talking about the powers of  the city manager and we touched briefly on their   ability to release people from the I don't think  that well when you do your menu if you would look   to that too Caroline Caroline the if there is any  process tied to the city manager if he wants to   remove somebody from office. Well, everybody else  is civil service. So, they have the civil service   process. Okay. Good to know. Everybody except  for us three. Service. So, the civil service   by definition there's a hearing notice, hearing  opportunity if they request it. Yes. Perfect. I I would I don't understand the point of section  one of two especially after again my concern was   I maybe there was a procedural due process case  or something knowing that area of law especially  

because it's only upon the first 6 months or  having served six months I guess I don't I   don't see the need for this. Yeah, the fiveday  and the 10day demand seems well below current   standards. Like surely we don't demand a hearing  within five or 10 days being as big of a city as   we are. Like is that even necessary to be in here?  How how would two points I'd like to make like to   Cecil's comment on employees. We do have civil  service. It's adopted by ordinance. There is a   mention of civil service in the charter, but it's  it's just kind of an off-handed mention in section   103 subsection two. And it said and this is under  city manager. It says subject to civil service   provisions to appoint remove all subordinate.  There's no definition of what that means, but   but there is a we do have an ordinance, but it's  not required by the charter for whatever purpose   information that is. But we have an ordinance for  civil service, which has a variety of different   due process issues. This the second point I wanted  to bring up is that by contract we operate by   contract when it has when it comes to removal  of all three of the chartered officers. Um and   all three can be removed without cause if certain  provisions are followed. In other words, there's   severance. U so if there's severance paid, you  don't have to show cause. If there is no severance   paid, then you do show cause. That's with the city  manager and city clerk. With the city attorney,  

it's you just give notice and then there's a  you kind of work out, you know, it's 90 days   and you pass off your work and all. So, it's not  a severance provision. It's just a but it's all   spelled out in the contract. Does the contract say  for your three positions since you are basically   hired by the commission that it's a majority  vote, supermajority, or does that even mentioned   in your contract? Oh, it's majority vote. Yeah. I  mean, it's like any other contract if you want to   change it. Well, no. Termination, it's a majority  vote. All that is majority. anything that deals   with the three of us. So there's the employment  contract and then there's the charter. The charter   clearly defines that he shall have 5 days from  the date of removal to demand written charges   in a hearing. Right. And if we are following an  employment contract which rolls up to a charter   and if we don't do this process, the city is at  risk. No, because that is there to protect the   city manager. Yeah. the city manager has agreed I  don't need that protection. I've got a contract.   So his contract no due process, excuse me, his  contract overrides the defined due process. He's   agreed to a different due process which is I  can be terminated at any time provided you pay   me however many weeks. Should we remove  section 102 from the charter completely?   That would be I would back to having basic  standards that are foundational to the con the   uh the foundation the most foundational document  that our constitution. I think there should be   some basic guidelines. Um we could put a sentence  in there if the city manager clerk choose in their  

contract to weigh these foundational rights that  they can do that. And and Brandon, I was quick to   say because I'm going to defend the contracts that  we have, but everything can be clearer and and and   what Cecilele has suggested does make sense  that I mean this is there to protect the city   manager. If the city manager agrees to something  different in the contract, then that would So your   employment contract supersedes the charter? No.  Is that what I hear you say? No. No. within the   attorneys in the room. The contract cannot is this  a way to get in? You did not follow the five and   it's just applies to the city management.  That's the point. Listen, they get removed   and then they have a second hearing and then the  commission has to vote on it again. That's the way   that it's done right now. The the point that the  contract can't can't can't supersede just like I   can't write a private contract to supersede  the United States Constitution. You know,   I can try but it would be void. So, so what it  is, if we wanted to allow the flexibility I hear   people talking about in a contract, there could be  a sentence added to whatever is left of 102 after   you make changes to give the city manager, the  clerk, and the attorney the ability to differ from   the basic minimum protection with their contract.  You are delegating the possibility, the option,   so to speak. you can make a better deal or a  different deal. Okay, I'm gonna play the devil   advocates. I've never been a city manager, but if  I read, if I applied for the job and I read this   fiveday thing and then my contract was something  different, could I say, "Oh, no, you didn't follow   the five thing in your own charter. You don't have  grounds to get rid of me." If an example from JP's   world, I think people have right to speedy  trials. I don't know if it's constitutional  

rights. state. They never take advantage of  it. But guess what? They wave them every day.   They wave it. They wave it. You're allowed to  wave it. I view this as a waiver of this right   that's in the charter to protect the city manager  if he enters into a contract. That's different. I   think the more basic question is, do we like this  system where if a city commissioner is removed,   do they get another hearing, the commission has  to affirm it or not? That's the question. You mean   city manager? the city the commission, right? So,  the city manager is removed, commission's voted   for it, they get another bite at the apple where  they have to present the written charges. Do we   like that system where they have to come back  and confirm it or reinstate it? That's I think   the initial question here. Do we like that system?  I I like the idea of the employment contract. I'm   going to trust the professionals in the room that  we're paying for employment, right? if that has   to change over 10 years because we're going to be  reviewing the charter every 10 years anyhow. What   I would like from a removal perspective is what's  the process if a city manager is removed for an   assistant city manager stepping into the position  like is that process clear? What if he is removed?   What do we do from there? That's a good question.  Commission just appoints an interim. Yeah,   that's they would call an e they would call it  a called meeting or emergency meeting. You know,   I don't feel like the removal portion of this  is a foundation a structure concern. I think   that the employment contract will cover that.  But I don't think that it's an issue of the   employment contract, but remember this is the  most powerful person in the city. I think what   the point of this process is is that someone gets  fired from the position, they're unhappy with it,   they want to have a public hearing where the  charges have to be presented in the public so   that the public is involved in the discussion and  then they confirm it. And I think that's that's   the idea here. This isn't just the employment  portion of it. Not to mention that it's also a  

protection for the person who's doing it, right?  This is a this is again a political system thing   here. It's not just their employment part. as the  question about do we want that additional hearing   or do we not think that's necessary that that'll  be handled in the process where the commission   chose at first time to remove the city manager.  I think it's nice when people are up exercising   decisions outside of normal fairness and due  process to have a secondary look and he chooses   to do the city manager chooses to do this. He may  he may demand written by the road he gets removed   he's just can leave or he can say let's go or  if he thinks that something's not right with   the commission's decision like to your point about  the fact that you know you think a city commission   he disagrees that's the point of this the point  of this is in a sense the only protects the city   rather than the well it's both it's a check and  balance issue for the city commission when they've   removed the most powerful person in the government  for them to have a public hearing to saying all   right give me the exact exactly what happened  here and are you sure you want to do this? And   I love your extra comment that it also brings in  the citizens. It's not just about one one to two   uh fairness between the power structure and the  city manager. It's an opportunity for the whole   community to understand and feel validated. I  mean, if there was a process like that in some of   the other cities, this might have been addressed  at an earlier level. And I think the reason why   that this is here and unknown is because again  city manager is some powerful person from the   charter that we've got. If I'm being removed  here's the reason why and I'm taking this to   the public% clear. That's the and then that's  why that's it's kind of odd in a sense that you   would figure the commission could vote but then  they could also then later turn around and say   no we're going to reinstate you. Well they might  get more information. That's right. That's a whole  

but that's what that's the system that whoever  wrote this was actually professionally if somebody   raises a red flag the professional thing to do is  okay we're we're suspending you until pending the   the 5day hearing we're going to factf find and  then we can reinstate you potentially. That's   that is the idea and that's the question like do  we like that system or do we think that system   needs to change? That's the idea here. I think it  could be well better well defined. Sure. Maybe if   we bring in would you like us to look once again  how others have dealt with it? Yeah. And I will   and this is a good exercise for me also look at u  Jonathan's contract and as far as how it it goes   with this you know as far as that goes. But let us  see what other charters have done on this issue.   If you don't mind, I would say we do the same for  the clerk and for the attorney and say let's keep   it consistent with a removal language for each of  these primary positions. Yeah, I want a hearing. Okay, ready to move to 103,  the powers of duties. Yeah,   that's the I think that's the one where we  got a lot of the weeds. I I think that's the   thing I think a lot of the issues that  people could raise would be that's it's   the changing in the powers and duties of  each of the each of the three. Yeah. This   is what is accountable for and responsible  for. Yep. This clearly defines that's it. That's the Okay. Let's jump all the way  to uh paragraph nine. Mhm. Jonathan,   are you the purchasing agent? Yes, I am. Okay. within. So there's ordinances that restrict these  policies. There's policy set by the commission.  

Do we do we adopt the purchasing and u procedure  sorry purchasing and procurement manual through   ordinance or just through vote? Resolution. Just  a resolution. So yes. So there there's a we have   a purchasing policy that sets spending limits for  department heads, assistant city managers and city   manager even down to the level of you know at what  point do we have to get a comparative quote uh and   then at what point do you have to do a competitive  quote which would be an invitation event. So number seven to keep the city commission  fully advised as to the financial condition   and the needs of the city. and to submit for  its consideration and annual budget. Those are   two different things for me. Annual budget  is the expectation by X date which is the   end of the fiscal year whatever but to keep  the city fully advised as to the financial   condition. This is not clear. This provides  shared responsibility between the two of you.   And you'll see that under the clerk it says um  shall issue What does it say? Shall recommend to talk about monthly statements. All right. And that's what I was going  to add to this paragraph to to put the   monthly in there. Mhm. They're  in here somewhere. Under yours,   but not under the Oh. city manager. If he's  going to advise, if I was on the commission,   I would wanted to be advised every  month. And it may be in dismiss part of the charter, but it's not in  Jonathan. So I think it ought to be in   both places. Just I I agree. I it would  be hard to hold him responsible for that  

when he it's not his the finances  are not his responsibility. Well,   but he is accountable. So good. To the  city manager at any time such a reports,   data information as may be necessary to inform the  latter as to the financial affair that the city that's on 124 the last section there. I know it  says something about4 but I can't find. So should   the city manager be advising the commission on on  financial financial conditions? Yes. Yes. to me,   but the way I'm hearing it is no. Well,  it's it's not clear because the clerk   is the one that's preparing the document  and I guess because it goes on the agenda,   it's going through the city manager.  I'm not really sure how it's done. The financial condition is so subjective.  I think the difference is is I don't really   control the checkbook. She does. But you report  on the condition. And what does that mean? Yeah.   That's the question. Like that means he turns  to Jan and says, "Give us a report." So you   just get the report from her and I would say  this is Yeah. This is a perfect opportunity   for y'all to fix this. Yeah. It is out of whack.  Making sure there's no blindfold here. Yeah. No,   it's not clear. What I see, Jonathan, is like  we've got two commissioners who are finance folks,   right? Brian Granger and Josh Street. Josh  Street on a smaller, but Brian comes from   a different analytical perspective. Their  strengths in that dynamic should be our city   manager strengths. Like you should be the one  that has foresight into our budget. If they're   talking about selling this or purchasing that or  doing this or doing that where you say, "Hold on,  

guys. This was not in the budget. If you do this,  you have autonomy to make this kind of a decision,   but I have to go adjust the budget to make sure  that this works cuz I'm still accountable." That's   what happens. I mean, I can still I can still do  that. That's what happens. But we do indicator.   But we have m I mean, y'all all of y'all know that  government budgeting is different than, you know,   we don't have one big checkbook. You know, there's  lots of different buckets and there's also the   investment accounts, too. Checkbook. Well, you  know what I mean. There's different accounts.   Check. I call them silos. Silos. That's a better  way to put it. And then, you know, then we have   the investment, too. That, you know, we have  that. And that's that's that's really her. So,   well, that's the clerk. We want to try not to  personalize it too much, but it is the clerk's   code. She she manages uh the that that that  investment portfolio on behalf of the city. Okay.   So, we're on number seven. Um under what section?  We're going through your your your section. Oh,   I read you read the others and they seem fine.  So, maybe being too technical. I would like to   hear the city have the city commission hear  directly from the clerk and this sent the way   it's written it's like you give the news even  if you got it from Jan it they they should have   the opportunity to speak directly to the person  who's keeping it check and I think that should   be said here okay I disagree professionally and  I manage $300 million worth of businesses a year   um my CFO speaks a totally different language  than the rest of the world. Jan does too. Um,   and that language has been used against Jan in the  past. And I understand that component because I'm   the COO, which is the Jonathan of the right. It's  my responsibility to I'm accountable, right? She's  

responsible. We communicate peer-to-peer, but I  have to go deliver that to my CEO and to my board,   right? And then I close the gap on the language  and how it feels and what it looks like.   understanding there's a lot of different dynamics  in silos and cash flow integrity money coming in   money going out like investments there's a lot but  that's where that respon the accountability with   who runs the city financial component there's  so much there's been so much lack of clarity   this past year that has eroded trust because the  language isn't clear right and is that because the   right person's not communicating it it's not  what's being communicated it's how it's being   communicated. We're talking from a financial  lens, which is her skill set, but that should   be this the operator's responsibility to go  communicate that to the board. If she gets up   there talking numbers to a bunch of people and  we get new commissioners, two of them that are   not finance driven, it's like speaking a totally  different language and it makes sense to her,   but nobody else. I totally get what you're saying  and it's very logical and makes good sense. again   looking for the outlier situation. If we have a  city manager who is twisting things around and   the only person city commission hears from is the  twisty city manager, it would be nice for it to   be a process where they can go directly to the  person who has the authority. You know what I'm   saying? And I just didn't want this sentence to be  potentially misused. it's my job to speak to the   commission. You don't get to talk to them because  there may be times when they really do want to   talk to her. So, I like this idea of generally  having the the CFO, I mean the C COO be the main  

communicator because that's his or her job. I like  that idea, but I don't want to have the ability   job. I just see it from a lens that there has  always been a gap in this area in our city. Mhm.   There is still a gap in this area in our city  and if I'm looking at one person to solve it,   it would be our city manager to close the gap on  how we communicate finances. I don't feel like   that would be the city clerk's responsibility.  Does that make sense? I do. But I don't want to   foreclose the ability of commission to talk to her  directly if they so chose. Yeah. And I don't think   that that's not what we're discussing, right? cuz  she still answers directly to the city commission   and there's going to be a box for her so we could  address my that's what were you in the restroom   so both of these positions under the powers and  duties have a financial obligation it's just not   clear what does that truly look like and who's  accountable and then moving forward I think we   should maybe this is another area city managers  across the state. What does accountability of   finances look like? He's he's accountable. Yeah. I  mean, he's also accountable. But should he also be   responsible or should the responsibility  on the mouthpiece go to the city clerk? I'm from the business world. The CEO  takes the lead. Yeah. I'm I'm Exactly.   I mean, and and now that I'm in the in the  charter school business, my board expects   out of me as CEO, they're not done. No,  you have to get out of your numbers. Yeah. Do you feel do y'all feel like that's a weakness  currently in our Is that a problem? I don't  

perceive this as a problem. I I think the  way it is now, I mean, it's I mean, I again,   you you can have people with I'm going to step  away from city manager and just go engineers.   Okay. I mean, you got some engineers that yikes  like, you know, they should not comment publicly.   Yes. But then you got others that are just  naturally very outgoing and communicate like   like and not necessarily engineering speak.  I think that applies to CPAs to, you know,   to business lawyers. I mean, so I don't know if  it's necessarily the position or the role. It's   it's it's really the it's really the person. And  so I I perceive that I feel like the commission   now. And I know we keep saying, you know, you  don't want to make it about who's currently in   these positions because we're all going to, you  know, we'll all be gone one day. But, you know,   I sense that the commission appreciates being  able to ask both me and Jan questions about the   operations and or finances of our city and that we  both are accountable to them. And I'm not worried   about, you know, necessarily what Jan might do  to me if I say something or vice versa. Um, yeah,   I'm not if they ask me operational questions, I'm  sending them to Jonathan. I'm not going to try to   make something up and I would hope that he's doing  the same thing when it comes to the finances. So,   cuz I I mean cuz I just I mean I have I mean I I  don't even have access into the accounting systems   and stuff. I mean maybe I do but I don't know how  to get in there which is a good thing. So if money   gets spent like can't really look at me. Well I  can't spend money. I mean I understand what you're   saying. You don't initiate it. You're on the tail  end of it. Yeah. There's been so much opportunity   that gets blended with how we're performing  for the fiscal year versus how we're performing  

enterprise or I think some people in the public  just did that for political reasons. I don't know   how you completely inoculate against that. You  know, true, you know, I mean, and then if you give   a if you give a quarterly meeting or a quarterly  update on the current fiscal financial plan and   then maybe she does it two times a year against a  the bigger picture. We got 12% in our reserves. We   should have 10%. Let's start working to or 15%.  Let's start working towards that 15% with next   year's financial plan. Like eating the elephant  in a smaller bite. We can come back to this, but   I feel like there needs to be additional between  the two additional clarity that is provided. All right. Any other comments on this one?   Any other powers that should  be here that aren't listed? I think. Isn't there a There's a  busting cloth somewhere, isn't there? Are you interested in seeing other charter  provisions? I mean, other charters,   how they describe the city manager? Yeah. It's kind of like a job description that when  I write, you know, the last bullet's always in   any other thing. And number A kind of gets it.  That's every other thing. Whatever comes up by   ordinance or resolution, he has to do that. Kind  of gets it all to me. Yeah, that's that's what I'm votes. Yay. He has to do it.  That's all there is to it.

I think all of them have that, don't they?  Yeah. In addition to the duty specified. Y do you think we can make it through the city  attorney? Yeah, I think we're working on till   2:00 here. So, okay. I think, like I mentioned,  I don't think it's in here anywhere that the city   attorney serves at the pleasure of the commission.  Unless I'm wrong. It doesn't have the buzzwords,   but and there's no there's no just mirror  that I think. Yeah, that's a good one. Was there a time where the city attorney  was on staff and not subcontracted out? No. just uh kind of a housekeeping thing. The  uh city the city attorney under 105 must   be a qualified elector of the city. And  there's a little difference between being   a qualified elector and a resident. To be a  qualified elector, you have to be a resident,   but you don't have to be a voter. I  guess I guess that's a distinction. Yeah,   I had that on like I didn't know what that meant.  It just means I'm I think if I'm I've always read   it to mean I' I'm registered to vote to vote. Uh,  so I I can we can just put residents, but then we   ought to my point is that city manager if there  to be a a if he's he or she is to be a resident   within 6 months then I can ought to just make it  the same city. I would agree with that. Well, and   since we do subcontract out and it's great that  you are the primary attorney, do you have autonomy  

to does your company are contracts with your  company, right, with Burke? Do they have autonomy   just to throw any attorney in whenever they feel  like it or is are you specifically listed? Yeah,   I am the contracts with me and Burke Blue. Okay.  Okay. And then uh so I I fill the role as city   attorney and then but the contract I'm an employee  of Burke Blue and then in the contract it explains   it it um that we delegate or I control the work  as far as how it gets done and uh but Nevin J.   Zimmerman by name is the voted on city attorney.  the city. Does that answer your question now? What? Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm just processing  that. Yeah. The others just have the title of   assistant city attorney. Would it be helpful?  And that's and I saw that. So the the the   assistant city attorneys are what about you,  right? Is that your decision? Is that right?   The city the assistant city attorneys are in the  contract. There is one assistant city there. Okay,   let me back up. Uh, we have a contract and I I  don't even know that our cont What do you call   the attorneys from Burke Blue that work on city  work? I've just always called them assistant city   attorneys because they're assisting. They're  helping the city attorney accomplish the work.   It is that our contract says is it um anybody  I don't know what it says now I have to think   about it. It's anybody at Burke Blue that has  delegated that work and I'm responsible. It's   my job to make sure it works. Before I forget  it, it might be interesting to you all to get  

to see all of our contracts. Have you have  that been have they ever been sent to you?   Do you want to see them? Yeah, I think it  might be interesting for you. So, anyway,   so we can send you all that. So, no, it's not  an official city commission designation, right?   It's all So just to understand how the power  delegation goes, the commission delegates the   all these powers to you and then it's up to you  to make sure that those powers are executed and   you have some leeway on how to do it, right? Is  the same true for the city clerk in a sense? Well,   do you want now? What's the question? She's not  in this she's not a contract employee like she   is a contract employee but she doesn't she's she  has city employees she's also just a depart she   is a department head right and you don't have  any city employees I have no city employees but you could in a sense that's what  the the charter as it is now no I mean   they could could right okay got I mean  the charter doesn't prohibit But um I   guess it it does not prohibit in-house city  attorneys. Don't know for sure how that work. Okay. Any other changes to article 8? Um, you  mentioned the removal language. You're going to   mirror the removal language here. Did you want to  put something in there about transition? Because   I think an attorney might be a little bit harder  to transition than the manager or the clerk. Well,   not since the contract is with Nevin and Burke and  Blue. If something happened to Nevin, somebody's  

going to be stepping in. That's just Nevin. No.  If, god forbid, something were to happen to Neon,   there would there there would be an emergency or a  special called commission meeting to specifically   name another attorney and it may or may not  be someone from Burke Blue. That's up to the   commission. Interesting. Otherwise, written  as they have to be a voter in the city. Yes.   Yeah. We're going to I think we we agree that it  should just be changed to resident. No. Okay. back   to everybody being in the same pot or or I guess  mirroring the same language the city manager you   know you should get your fingers singed if we  if we have a bad process I mean I think that's   so corrective if we look at the national level and  congressional people voting on who gets protection   with subsidies and the system of health care  but they get free healthcare for the rest of   their life and the people that work really hard,  the same people who are there with them late at   night and bringing the reports that they sign off  on don't have access to it. Everybody should be   subject to what they vote on for other people.  I just think it just keeps a sense of honesty   and a sense of trust. It will give you I think the  point was if I'm just called a qualified elector,   he's called a resident, the city manager. So maybe  we ought to just use the same elector elector.   Okay. So we can use them both as electors.  We'll we'll deal with what they're putting   out. We'll present something so you can make  that uniform. Yeah. Should be uniform. Okay.   And y'all are making notes on all of this stuff.  So when we get worried about what we said six   months ago. Yeah. The assistant city attorney  is taking notes. We're going to tell you that's   exactly. Yeah. to apprent us out a new charter.  I'm going to say I didn't say that. I take a  

little chicken scratching between my little Is  there any specific duties similar to section 103   for the city manager? And I'm thinking through  consistency having the same powers and duties   for the city clerk. Is there anything specific  that should be under the attorney as well? Powers   and duties. I mean, it's got duty to perform  service. Yes. It's all in 104 missing there.   Well, it's under 106, too. Appointment and duties  and then duty to perform services required by   commission. Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah, you're right.  All all of it. I mean, the other and once again,   it's the contract that I really go by. We'll  distribute that around might get some ideas. All right. So, we finished with the attorney. Mhm. Are we done? 11. Pass due. Do we want to  table the city clerk January 22? Just FYI,   just just because we're on a certain level  of understanding and flow, let's just take   a first stab at city clerk and if we need to  come back to it, we can because we, you know,   we've kind of kind of gotten the dust dust  legs dust and cobwebs out of our head with   regards to these three special employees and we  can take advantage of that clear clarity now. Keep going. Yeah. Let's hop down to 13  then. All right. You have section 124. Somebody spent some time on these section. 132.  There's a lot of sections here. 124. City clerk  

and collector. Is that two people or is that one  person? One. What is it collect for? Yes. Now it's   treasur, right? City clerk treasur. Okay. Are we  pulling that language up to today's terminology?   Well, I am the collector. That's still the  collector. Collect I collect all the funds. Okay. Treasur is broader term. I guess treasur is a   broader term because collector  would be in. Are you the CFO? If you don't consider yourself  CFO. Do we have a CFO? No. Is the city clerk section? Is that a I  literally have everything except I have 7,   8, 9, and 10. It's in Oh, yeah. I'm  talking about these. I don't have one   for I have I don't have one for uh  clerk. I have manager of attorney. You have I'm reading out of  the book. Oh, okay. Thanks. Do you want a separate one? I would like one like   you have one like that. Is it How long  do you have that? Is that from today? It's very long. I didn't even I didn't even  uncip my agenda today. I'm just making a point   of formatting, right? We want to follow that city  manager format where the powers and the numbers,   the removal clear. Yeah, I think that the  consistent formatting will be helpful. Caroline,   did you hear that? But I also understand  that the city clerk and collector has  

to have more detailed parts of it. I'm  sure we're buying. Well, first of all,   do we think do we think it's a good idea to have  the duality of the main functions of the job in   one person? That's been raised before because I  just heard my my neighbor here um saying I just   write the check. Like there was something that  was more expensive and in fact she I think you   were saying that anyway. I do this other thing.  So, I said I can't I can't can't write I can't   send money because of my authority. Yeah. Then  there was Yes. Then there was another thing   that popped up that you said that you didn't  do, you know, with um I'm just wondering if   if it's really possible for one person to do  all the things that are laid out. It's a big   job to really do it. To really do it. Why does  the water department fall under you instead of   under operations? Because they collect money.  They collect all the money. Take all the money. What's the difference between collecting  money and paying money? Because all the other   departments pay pay money. Spend money.  I'm not the spender. I'm the collector. I don't know. I've spent I mean I review every  every um check that gets written I and I have   staff that review all the PECAR transactions.  So from a customer service perspective and you   managing the water experience you could manage  funds but I'm trying to figure out how we have   discussed separating those two and it's just not  tenable because they there are so much overlap.   It would require more employees than are  necessary. That's I think was kind of the   discussion. I think what I think we're not going  to be able to drill down to the level because I  

know my energy level is um starting to really  Wayne, but um there were a couple of times that   we were talking about things that fall under the  clerk definition that I got the impression you did   not actually do. So I think as we look through my  staff that do I mean the things that I don't do my   staff are doing. Okay. Well maybe we could clarify  that. Yeah. So at the end of the clarification of   what you do and when I say you you can clarify  my staff does it and then I sign off on it.   If there are elements that in fact you or your  staff are not doing then that would be informative   of whether if if what is not being done if there's  anything that's not being done that we either see   in the description or we come up with that would  inform our decision of whether we need another   full-time job or how we address it if at all. It  could be that the things if any that are not done   don't really matter. we don't care, you know, then  we just roll on. But I just think that we and I   don't know why your section is so wordy and none  of the other sections are. That was my question.   She's more legally it is, but legally is this  ne is all this necessary? Can't we do the like   JP suggested? Did the powers and duties similar  to what the manager is just have bullets for her?   She's not doing all that work. We all know that  she's not doing all this, but her departments are.   So, I mean, you seem like we could shorten it up  to oversight there. There's some very anacronistic   type terminology in here. So, it might be useful  to uh let's let's pull a modern charter and and   look at it. Yeah, this part is the clerk. I don't  know enough about the counter signing and bonds  

and it feels like this was written for a person at  some point or I think they had maybe some issues.   Yeah, I think so. That's why it got complicated.  Very detailed. Yeah. The way it's written,   you shall and you shall not. Uhhuh. It's written.  If we were to say scalable scalability for hiring   a new clerk and collector, this person  feels like a unicorn in our system. Like,   are we looking for another unicorn that's going  to be able to manage this great experience and   budgets and take cash and what they can and can't  do and all these millions of Again, I'm putting   my business hat on. This is a CFO position. Well,  not really because the clerk is the record keeper   for the city. So, the clerk keeps all the official  records. clerk has all the official records but   for the city. So that's a whole another animal  than the finance section, right? So that's why   I say I'm not really a CFO because one thing  for one thing CFO usually manages the budget   too. I don't have the budget. So I'm not I'm only  like half of a CFO and I'm half of a half. Well,   I have to come up with another threeletter  something for you. Yes. The other thing I   wanted to point out that's obvious but I think it  is a critical difference. The resources that you   are managing are basically the monies of the  individual citizens and through their taxes   primarily and that's a fundamental difference from  a business and right you know a business generally   it's a profit margin within professional limits.  You are there to be as profitable as you can.   Provide a basic service. You know, it follow the  safety guidelines that the federal government came   up with after 100 or plus years of people chopping  their arms off and getting blinded by chem,  

you know, all the workplace duty, right? But but  I think that is a a very important distinction   when the monies being managed are directly from  the people versus a purely profit margin. So I   would say that this the business model only goes  so far when you're dealing with the public good. it. I' I'd be interested to see what the roles  and responsibilities as clear for Jonathan and   our treasurer, right? And it it feels like over  the years it's gotten convoluted like you share   different things, you share like and this is our  opportunity to tear it apart and then put it back   into a model that is scalable and prepared for  growth, right? And I hear clerk manages like   public records request. That's operations to  me. Like if people are that's communication,   that's client experience. Same as taking  money. You know, money's going to go in a   bank account. You're going to swipe it. It goes  in through the register. It's not like we're   counting and all these different checks and  balances, receipts at the end of the day and   uh reconciling every single day. Like a lot of our  systems currently do that for us. Yeah. No. Yeah,   it should. Not in the government. It should.  And if we had a CF, if we had a CFO that took   on those bigger picture initiatives of process  improvement, what can we do? How do we improve   this? How do we make this better? How do we make  this more efficient? And somebody was focused   on CFO for the city aside from COO or CEO, but  somebody had that focus. It's scalable to say,   you're accountable for this, right? What are the  three things you're going to do this year that's   going to make this better? What does this look  like as we scale? How do we prevent operational  

errors like the water management and all the  billing stuff? I heard a million different   things this year about it. Yeah. But there's a  shared responsibility here that probably needs to   be split back off. That make sense? Are you right  now in the water division? Are you accountable for   a plan to make sure that all the water meters  are up to date and repaired or replaced across   the city over the 10 years? That's the issue.  There is no water division or water department.   There is a utilities operational division that  includes underground utilities, lift stations,   two wastewater treatment plants in the lab, which  is that's utilities. That's operations. Then   there's a utilities billing division. Okay. Which  is under the clerk. So that there is no like water   department. So water department went away a few  years ago. There's never been a water department.   It's always it's it's always been you have  operations and you have billing. They're separate.   I guess the some of the meters themselves kind  of used to be under the meter readers used to be   the meter readers only that was but I mean but now  really we don't you know we have towers and stuff   so you don't I just put a bucket over my it has to  be metal then we just then we just estimate you I   know wear an aluminum hat too. Yeah. I wouldn't  expect that to be your your skill set to make   sure that we have a water meter replacement plan  for the next 10 years. No. Right. And that's not   what you're accountable to. But I get that's  what I get that's what I'm held responsible   for. And the meters don't work or the or the meter  readers don't work. I'm held responsible for that.   Yep. I would imagine you're only responsible  for, hey, we got to we're paying for this,   paying the county. The meter says you owe five  units. We're going to bill you for five units.   So that's what I'm responsible for. Somebody  else should be accountable to the operational   plan for execution. I think so. We got  some work to do on the city clerk side,  

but I say we wrap up and we kind of start  with a different clean lens for next time.   Okay. We've got a lot today and we've given you  guys a lot of homework. Yes. Good. Okay. All   right. I have a motion. A motion to adjourn.  I guess I make a motion to adjurnn at 234. 224. I 22. Second. All in favor?  I. Good deal. Good job today, guys.