Charter Review Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Uh, you want to start with our opening  prayer? Yep. Sure. Let's stand. Heavenly Father,   we just thank you for this opportunity to come  together today to do the business of our city.   And we just thank you for uh the men and women  around this table and their their dedication   to and love for our city. And Father, we just  pray for uh wisdom and discernment uh and all   of the deliberations today. And uh uh we pray  for Brandon that's not able to be here due to   emergency. We just pray for him and his family  and and whatever those circumstances are and   that you bring him back safely uh in the  new year for our next meeting. Uh, Father,   we do again just continue to pray for for your  wisdom and your guidance and your hand upon all   that we discuss here today. In your name we pray.  Amen. Amen. You'll face the flag and join saying   the pledge. 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. Chairman Berg, Mr. Vanzy, yes. Mr. Ferrer,   here. Miss and Mr. Anderson Jansenius  is not with us today. All right. Um, approval of the minutes. Have you guys had an  opportunity to review the minutes last time? Yes,   I'm finished. And I do have some requested  changes. Okay. Sure. Um just with regards to   the voting issue with me. So at the end when we  figured out that there was no prohibition for me   participate and that Brandon had participated  remotely before we said okay well it's a good   thing that I documented my votes and I had  asked and everyone agreed that it would show  

as a regular vote. But the way it's written,  everybody their vote is taken and then Cecil   um indicates her position. Yeah. So I understood  at the end we were going to clean it up and   then it was going to be my vote would be  counted which wasn't going to achieve any   outcome but I wouldn't be singled out as saving my  position three time. I would just be in the vote.   any opposition to having the minutes amended  to reflect that her actual vote was included   as opposed to the mention of support? No. But  I do want to be clear though, we did not record   Mr. Henderson Jensenius's votes that when he so  he participated virtually in the deliberation   but not in the voting. Okay. Okay. Well, he he  said it differently but we will look to accept.   I guess I want to be clear. So, Nevin, can  you vote remotely or not? Um, if it were co,   you could, no doubt about it. Commissioner Hughes  is going to vote remotely at the next meeting   because he has a medical emergency and there  are attorney general opinions that establish how   that is. Um I felt when this came up because this  wasn't a city commission that it you kind of set   your own rules. The issue though it's a sunshine  law issue and u and because it's a sunshine law   issue this meeting has to be noticed. This meeting  has to be open to the public or it doesn't have   to be but well it does by law it has to be. And  um and so because of that then there's an issue   of of voting remotely and uh and it's it's not I  mean the safer thing is that that we don't vote  

remotely but it's but there's a difference of  opinion really if it's not the city commission   can you have is every advisory committee that  is covered under the sunshine law under the   same rules as far as you cannot vote remotely.  Let me let me make here is is there an expressed   prohibition on a on a board or committee like this  voting remotely? I don't believe so. Okay. Then   then I would support you allowed to vote remotely.  Yeah. Okay. All right. Let's that's why I wasn't   going to say anything. So going back to the point  of two gas and that's what actually you you said   that at at the end of the last meeting when  you looked at it he said there is no specific   prohibition. It's not prohibited. We all want to  allow it. So and we all know what you want to do.   So let's have the meeting reflect her actual  vote rather than just a a mention of support.   Not not to muddy the water, but I think if my  memory is correct, if you have a quorum present,   then somebody can vote remotely. Like you can't  have a quorum. Oh, they don't count towards the   Yeah. Or the core. So that would be the only  thing that I think about that. Yeah. Are any   other substantive comments? Is there a motion?  I think we did make you did you did just make a   motion. Do we vote just now? I I know we're  in support of it, but if you Okay. Yeah,   can make a motion. Yeah, Cecil can make the  motion and JP second. All right, there we go. Um, okay. Staff reports. So, we were going to talk  about election data history data. Who's presenting   that? I will, sir. So, if you look at the memo  that I sent, there's actually two memos connected   together. So, I would go to the last page uh  of that attachment first, which is a memo dated  

October 28th uh of 2025. That memo was distributed  and then um one of the board members asked for   some additional information. Uh and that's what  um sparked the second memo, which I'll touch on   second. But if you look at the onepage memo dated  October 28, um what was requested was kind of   comparison uh of the voter turnout election  data over approximately the last 10 years,   the last decade, comparing city election turnout  percentages to the primary general election   received from the Bay County SOE. Um the takeaway  is that turnout is consistently much higher in the   November gubanatorial and presidential elections  in the evening years. So, uh, I I did try, uh, to,   uh, compare apples to to apples, meaning that  I was not wanting to rely on entire countywide   turnout, uh, but specifically turnout for the  August and November elections inside the city   of Panama City only. However, um, the issue  is is that, uh, if at that time no one pulled   that report for the SOE, then they don't have it  available. So you'll see that on a couple of them.   Thankfully though, uh the last two big cycles,  uh both 2022 and 2024, those reports were pulled.   So the most recent data that you see down at the  bottom for um primary general elections in August   of 2022, November 2022, August 2024, November  2024, those percentages are strictly within the   city of Panama City turnout. So you'll see going  back a decade uh Panama City's uh elections are   anywhere from you know uh 13 to to you know to  25%. Um and then if you look at uh really the last   two elections uh cycles for the primary general  which 2022 was gubernatorial 2024 was presidential  

year you basically had uh 51.9% uh in November  of 2022. So even in the goop of the pearl year,   it's more than double uh that turnout. Uh and then  in the presidential year of November 2024, uh it   even exceeded 70% turnout in the city of Panama  City uh for that November election. So again,   uh turnout is consistently much higher in the  November guminatorial and presidential election   years uh in the even uh years. So, if there's  no questions about that particular memo, I think   that's a data was a lot more straightforward.  A lot more information in the second one. Okay.   Moving to the second memo which was dated November  7th uh 2025. This is additional uh data requested   by a member of the charter review advisory  board. Mr. Henderson Jensenius requested it   um to get some additional information from  the city of Tallahassee following their change   and when their municipal elections were held. uh  additional historical information from the census   data of Panama City. Basically, we've updated  our um population in our registration numbers   um at current with um uh with the supervisor  of elections office. Uh and then additionally,   the undervote raise undervote concern was  raised in Bay County also included in this. So,   there's kind of three uh kind of three different  chunks of information here. So, first off,   historically, Tallahassee made their change  uh to move from kind of the spring uh to the   um to the fall in the year 2000. Now, it's  important to note that Tallahassee, excuse me,   had their elections in the spring of the  even year. So, they weren't totally off,   but they were uh in the spring of the even years.  And so, you can kind of see before they made it,   you see kind of 96, 97, 98, and they had elections  every year. Uh and so they had they did both but   the change was in uh in the in the even year and  so um you could see that you know they were low in  

you know 15% 17% kind of in some of the low 20s.  Uh and then when they made the change in 2000,   uh it jumped to uh 33% for the primary and then  similar numbers to the uh you know to us with you   know presidential years kind of pushing 70 um you  know and then more a little bit lower around 60   uh for the gubanatorial year in 2002 and then of  course 2004 uh definitely uh much higher and so   uh very appreciative of the city of Tallahassee  uh helping uh provide that information. So that's   a I know that's it's been about you know 15 um you  know to 20 years but still uh some of that data is   the change that they made. Um I know we initially  had shared some voter registration data but   um as of uh and and just want to be clear  I I think I said population but I I meant   the the voter numbers is what's updated  because we won't update the census again   uh until 2030. But uh as of uh 2020, the census,  you can see the breakdown uh of of the of the four   different wards. Um and uh and of course, as a  reminder, the census includes kids. Um you know,   it's it's not just voting age uh folks. Um  and then uh Miss Ward's office did provide   uh as of November 6, the most recent and  up-to-date registered voters in each ward. Uh,   and you can kind of see um as spelled out that  again W two and W four are under reppresented   um as a as a percentage with obviously W four  being uh the most underrepresented uh with Ward   three uh kind of seeing the most growth which  doesn't surprise us because that includes Panama   City North uh and then folks continue to annex in  around the Kings Point and Pretty Bayou area. So,   uh, that's just the the the current data, uh,  for the number of voters, uh, in each of our   four WS. The other concern that was raised, this  is the second point of data, uh, in history here,  

uh, for, uh, for Bay County was just kind of the  concern of under votes, especially further down   the ballot. And so, I just went through and,  and, you know, it may seem like a lot, but,   I I I didn't want to I wanted to be careful not  to be accused of kind of cherrypicking a few. So,   I picked a number of different options here.  So if you look at for example November of 2022   um you had undervotes even in a gubanatorial year  uh in in even something like the Florida Supreme   Court you see that drop off at at you know almost  10%. But even the gubanatorial election, you have   people uh or even our state senate here uh people  know very well um you still have people that   choose not to vote and this would have been uh you  know the second election um behind uh the we had a   US Senate race uh in uh at November of 2022. And  then if you go to the uh the summer of 2022 which   would have been the primary um you had a state  house universal primary u under votes. Again,   all these numbers in this section are under votes.  People that did not cast a ballot or a vote rather   in that election. U you had, you know, 4%, excuse  me, uh decide not to not to not to participate in   that election. Same thing with the school board  nonpartisan. Uh if you look at November 2020,   um we had a a county commission election and  you you had uh almost 14,000 under votes,   pretty high percentage. And this was even with  six candidates. Uh county property tax exemptions,   uh you only had about 6,000 um um u uh under  votes. And interestingly, the county property tax   exemption was lower than the county, you know.  So So it's it's it's further down the ballot,   yet people jumped over the county commission uh  election for that. Jumping into 2020, uh and this   is where it it starts to get interesting where you  have nonpartisan races. Um you have uh different  

interestingly these uh the first two races uh  school board nonpartisan uh backtoback um on   the ballot yet you had 4% skip it in the first  race but the second race you had 8 and a half%.   Uh and so and then the next one you had 6%. So for  whatever reason folks chose more people chose to   vote for the first one than the second two. Then  the state attorney primary same thing. Um and then   moving into 8 uh November 2018 again gubanatorial  year again uh you had under votes with the US   senate state attorney general um state supreme  court justice. Now, very interestingly here if   and this is the point if look at the very bottom  of page two. Um we had a bunch of amendments if   you remember November of 2018 um the um uh one  of them was the the dog racing and that was the   very last item on the on a very like a two-page  ballot and yet it had a significant number of less   u under votes than a Supreme Court justice that  was even higher up. So, the point in that is is   that if people are passionate about something,  they're they'll it doesn't matter if it's the   last item on the ballot, they they'll go to it  uh and vote on that. And then August of 2018,   uh you even had a US Congressional District  primary. Um you had, you know, 700 under votes   schoolboard member, which was below that. Uh you  had 1,700. Uh but then uh below that uh you had   the school board certax referendum uh and you only  had 1.7 um percent uh non show up and so again   people are jumping over to go down. So again it  drives it if people are passionate about something   uh they'll certainly go uh to vote for it. Even in  the Florida governor's primary uh you had people   decide not to vote. So whether it's nonpartisan or  partisan or whether it's at the end of the ballot,  

I mean people are going to you're always going to  experience undervotes regardless of the election,   I think is the point. Uh and and so um and then  things could also be at the very end and and have   much lower under votes reported than folks further  up the ballot. So the other question was asked was   city elections with three or more candidates.  How often does that happen in in in our city?   uh and and so these are specifically listed here.  So uh in April of 2019, the mayoral runoff was not   required. One of the three candidates achieved  50% plus one. Uh in May of 2019, there was a   war two runoff from the April 2019 election.  So that's so that election of spring of 2019,   uh the mayor's race did not require runoff  even though it had three candidates. Wo did   require runoff uh with the three candidates from  from April to May. uh in 2023. Uh more recently,   uh the mayoral runoff was required from  April of 2023 because none of the three   candidates got 50% plus one. However, W three  um one of the three candidates did achieve 50%   plus one. And so there was no runoff needed for  W three. And then most recently in May of 2025,   um W one did require runoff uh from the  April 2025 election. Uh, and I'll just um,   as a reminder, even though we had the mayor's  race uh, in ward four at the same time,   there were only two candidates in each of those  races, so no runoff was required. So again,   just a summary, key takeaways. Tallahassee saw  a tremendous increase in voter turnout when they   shifted from the municipal election in the spring  to align with the state and federal primary and   general elections. Uh, while many down ballot  races do have under votes, candidates and issues   do drive people to the polls and further down the  ballot. with a lower number of undervotes uh for   down ballot races at times. Um, one thing that's  interesting to compare is the Florida CFO race  

uh in November of 2018 as compared to the attorney  general. And if you uh if you look at that, so um   the state attorney general, you had about 750 uh  under votes, but then the CFO, you only had 450.   Uh that's because Mr. Patronis is way better known  here in Bay County and so he he more naturally   uh who was known uh was able to garn more garner  more votes in Bay County. Uh second one the dog   racing amendment in November of 2018 as compared  to the state supreme court justice retention   um and and again this applies in nonpartisan  or universal primaries as well as shown by   the school board certax referendum compared to a  school board members race in August of 2018. So,   um, folks were more committed to as far as  not undervoting on saying no to the sir tax,   but not necessarily the people that would decide  how that money is spent. And so, I just take   that for what it's worth. So, in a review of the  last decade, about half the races for the city of   Panama City only um had more than two candidates.  So, runoffs usually are necessary usually uh but   not every single time. And then just one final  note, Mr. chairman and board about the uh the note   that Calah the Tallahassee made in 2000 and and  again I did express um this was big help from the   Lyon County Supervisor of elections himself uh and  then the city manager for the city of Tallahassee   were very helpful in getting me this information.  Um originally when Tallahassee made the change   in 2000 if only two candidates qualified that  election was settled in the August primary. Um,   however, the charter was later amended to move  the election to November. If only two candidates   qualified, meaning so if two people qualified in  June, um, there would be no August primary, they   would go straight to the general in November. Uh,  and if three or more qualified, the August primary   advanced the top two vote getters to November. And  this was regardless of the percentage that they  

received. And the reason for this is this ensured  that the elected official was always chosen in   November of a gubanatorial or a presidential  election year. So, and they made that change,   I think maybe a little bit less than a decade,  maybe eight or nine years after implementing in   2000, they changed it uh kind of going into the  second half uh of uh of that of the 2010s. So,   um that's that's all the information um that was  requested. if I'm happy to clarify. Um I know I   did email all this in advance, so y'all had this  for almost a month now. So hopefully this answered   all the questions that that y'all had and happy  to go and get some more information if needed. I   can tell I can tell you want to touch on Oh yes,  sorry. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you, Madam   Clerk. So um Mr. Jensenius um Henderson Jensenius  did send an email this morning and um uh I we just   provided it as printing but he says regretfully I  will not be able to attend today's charter review   meeting in person or online. Um but he wanted  us to share with y'all that uh he had 91 local   participants um regarding moving the municipal  elections to align with the primary in general and   uh of almost 100 participants 82% were in favor  of moving them. uh and I believe you each have a   copy of this uh at your at your position. So um  he just wanted to provide that information and   he does regret not being able to be here today.  That's all I have. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate   that. What questions do we have for Jonathan about  the data and the information he has provided? Well, but clearly if the citizens have been  responding and when they moved it in Tallahassee,   they it kept up a high percentage and we  have a pattern where the November time  

period for elections. We're getting a higher  percentage in the past. We are it is higher   in the presidential year. That's just to be  clear. um you know it's kind of mid mid to high   50s for gubanatorial and we usually exceed  70 in the presidential election cycle. So,   um, you know, it it has been, I think,  suggested that, excuse me, if you do have,   you know, like the the mayor, you know, if  we do shift him or her to a four-year term,   um, that is truly citywide, that that would  be best to align with the presidential cycle   so that the maximum number of people are  the ones voting citywide for for your miss. You have a questions about understanding the data  or anything to extract from? It's just such a good   memo. If it was to your credit, yeah. Yeah. Um,  all right. So, there's a citizen comments. Yeah. I   have a citizen suggestion. Excuse me. 5B. Yes. 5B.  Uh, I've received a couple of um emails. Actually,   the top one was handed to me on paper. And then  the second one starting with the page that says   sample preamble uh was provided via email.  So the um several suggestions on what items   for the charter uh review advisory board to  consider is um you provide these suggestions.   Is that anonymous or confidential or anything  like that? Uh, no. Yeah. And can you share with   like where these came from or how? Uh, the first  one was came from Commissioner Street. Okay. Um,   and then the second one I don't remember the  lady's name. Is it or something? Yes. V9 received  

that. 5B is from commissioner's chief. Uh, there's  two actually that start the one that starts   uh sample preamble. That's the last two pages  are separate, right? That one came via email. I don't think I have that on my phone.  Um, how do you guys handle these? Really just information. Yeah, I I don't  know if you want to if you want to just   read them and we'll come back to them or if  there's a reason to discuss them or we can go   over them. I'm open to any of them. I mean,  is there is there any interest in this the   pay issue for the part of the board? I think  at some point. Yeah. Um today, I thought I   thought this was interesting, but I'm not sure  how I feel about putting that in the charter,   but Yeah. Yeah. But we can we can set this  for a discussion maybe at a later time. So,   I know there are some commissioners that wish  they did not have to make that decision. Yeah.   Currently commission makes that decision and  there are some that wish that we would make that   decision or the charter would make that decision.  Having been an elected member that's just part of   the game you have to vote on you know so I didn't  really matter to me but that's that's the issue.   Yeah, I I'll share um uh I've talked with  every I've talked with four out of the five   commissioners and um and Josh shared these  exact same things with me and um just like uh   uh Ron said just you know kind of a an awkward  conversation that the way Josh represented it   to me was not that he feels like he's underpaid  or overpaid or it wasn't anything about that. It   was just about it's a conversation that needs to  come up and it's just awkward to talk about your   own pay. it's politically sensitive. And to Ron's  point, that's just what you signed up for perhaps,  

but that was what he expressed. It wasn't like it  wasn't a money grab or anything along those those   lines. It was just a a general leaning towards a  preference of having a formula to establish it,   whatever it is, so that it doesn't have to  continue to be considered. Um, on the uh fiscal   stability, a conversation that we need to have  when we get to this section, his concern was that   um the there's no mandate for any sort of  savings account for the city. It's it's   uh they're responsible for their own fiscal  budget, savings, spending, all of that type   of stuff. There's no constraints for for better  or for worse on what the city spends or saves   or borrows or any of that stuff. And so what the  city does have and Jonathan please if I'm if I'm   not explaining this correctly like please and Evan  that there's a an ordinance that explains that the   city is to save 16.7% of its operating budget as  kind of a a working capital fund something along   those lines which is approximately approximately  two months worth of operating expenses. That's   not what that's not what's in the ordinance.  ordinance requires a a goal. We set a goal   of 30% of operating expenses as um emergency set  aside for emergencies. So emergency reserves and   another 10% of uh operating expenses for um uh  unreserved fund balance. of the savings account.   Uh the 16.7% is the GFOA recommendation. It's not  in the ordinance. Got it. Okay. Exc Sorry, either   I misunderstood or Josh explained it differently.  Um I think the consensus is that's great policy.   There's no teeth to it. There's no consequences  for not doing it. And it's not even worth getting   into at this point like where it is and how much  is safe or whatever it is. But right now it's   it's it's just not being not not intental. It's a  goal, right? But then if you don't meet your goal,   there's kind of a and then what? So that was what  Josh was suggesting. Um I don't mind sharing that.  

I talked to Brian Granger who agreed in spirit on  that sort of uh rainy day fund reserve whatever   you want to call it. But then uh discussed having  some sort of mechanism to you figure out how to   have a savings account or emergency fund. There  needs to be a condition upon which the emergency   is defined. So we can have it, but then there's  got to be a reason. Okay. when if it's break   class in the case of emergency, when do we break  glass? That's kind of what he he explained. Um, municipal elections. Oh, okay. We're we actually  are going to discuss that today. Yeah. A couple   other things, too, and I can share those later,  but I truly don't remember what they are. Okay. Racial equity plan. Any other discussion about  the citizen suggestions at this point? Well,   I think there's very specific and important  things to consider, but I'm not sure that we're   ready to make decisions on anybody wants  to chat about it before we move on. Well,   I think they're important, so I would like  to discuss them at a later time. Perfect.   Then um any other staff reports? That's  all I had. That's all I have sir. Just   the only thing is that we set by email couple of  things. I think Tuesday one was send it to me. I got it to the clerk. You would have a copy of it. Yes. Um so we sent  to the committee members and we have cop we have  

cop liver I guess and that is uh and one is a a  memo from Caroline that that she can discuss in   a minute and then also a just kind of a sample.  We there was a question that came up during the   elections, this last city election, over how long  someone had to be a resident in order to qualify   to run as a commissioner in a war. And the answer  to that is you had to be a resident of the city   six months prior, but you had to be a resident  of the ward that you're running the seat you're   running for on the date of qualification.  So, it's kind of two different standards.   And that's by not by charter that's by divorce.  So that was there and that dealt and what did and   then Caroline had also prepared a memo that  answered some of the prior questions. This   was just a a list um from the last meeting of  requests for samples of what could a potential   um change in the charter look like.  Um, of course it's it's, you know,   obviously any anything that you wanted to add or  change or delete. It's just samples um to give you   a starting point to think about based on the list  of of changes that were um discussed last time. I apologize now, but this is from October of 2024.  So I may very well have gotten this in email. You do. She's trying to show you a  little grace. I'm on the CC line,   so I must have gotten it. I'll accept  it. No, we send an email that attached  

that email from Okay. And as well as the  memo from Caroline. Okay. Two days ago. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And obviously we'll  discuss the proposed amendments. That   kind of works its way into  the actual discussions here.   U have a copy of the proposed amendments  because I that's one thing I didn't put out. Thank you. No, this is not what you can have that but  that's not what we asked for. This is this   is the clean copy of the chart.  Here we go. Sorry. There you go.   Um while not including in our our  packet, I think we could also incorporate   um Mayor Branch's Yeah. comments as well as  sort of citizen suggestion. So you guys have   an opportunity to read his email. Yes. Yes.  Okay. Any thoughts or discussion about that? I mean the the mayor. Yeah, I mean we  can do it now opportunity if they want to have any seem like you have  something. I have sure but I   think that's it's just feeds into the discussion. Okay. Now, how about audience participation? You  got to have something, right? I do. Yeah. Okay.   All right. Let's go. Start your start your clock.  Daniel Schultz, 3:30 Mercedes Avenue. Great to be   back. Um, uh, Jonathan, that was an excellent  memo and an excellent recap of both of them,   uh, as well. I think we're in, um, a similar  spot to where Tallahassee was at the turn   of the century. Uh, similar to what Miss  Skoon said, which is that, um, you know,  

we are seeing a higher turnout in the, you  know, um, presidential and the governor's um,   races. Um, I believe that, you know, similar  to the data that we see in Tallahassee,   it would carry over if we made that change  to Panama City. Um, I think it's important,   um, just to raise a few points that have been  brought up. I mean, um, the under vote, I think   that was a real really good look at that. You know  what I mean? Um, because it was brought up that,   you know, what if city commissioner and mayor get  thrown on the end of the ballot and there's not   as much attention paid. Uh, I think the data that  we've seen here proves that that does not always   happen and that people will vote for just whatever  they most, you know, have have an interest in. Um,   that's pretty much all I've got. Um, you know,  I uh am adamantly supportive that that we uh   consider changing the election dates to align  with the presidential and the governor's race. Uh,   Brandon had done that that poll. In addition,  I've spoken with many, many members of my ward   um and I've only heard one or two um concerns and  it was concerns. It wasn't an outright no. It was   well what would that look like? Um pretty much  everyone is um adamant that uh it should at least   be entertained in addition to um that many people  have asked why we haven't already done this. Um   so the public certainly has an interest in it  and I think it's important. That's all I got. All right. Um, do we have somebody else  online, too? I think we're ourselves are   considered online, but I see we have  two participants. Miss, as a reminder,   she was a former clerk several years  ago, and she did attend last time. Okay,   that's fine. I just have to look up  and see two people. Yeah, great. Okay,   discussion. We got um article 2, sections 18  through 30. I think we're going to kind of  

do a top bottom review of article 2 and I'm  happy to start wherever anybody would like where you want to start think is there disagreement on section  19 that no commissioner can serve   as the city manager seems straightforward. Well, let me let me suggest something else. Yeah,  not that I'm trying to No, you're fine. For better   or for worse, if you'll go to the color version  that I have, some of this is just pure scrier   things. Um, but these are suggestions, but I'm not  it's not needed to play any stretch. Um, what I   proposed in section 14 and I guess uh Nevin,  do you have it as well? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um,   section 14 was purely cleaning up language and  then just a a general throughout of I found that   the just the use of commissioner at large and  then use of the term mayor just was confusing.   I just think just it's the mayor. They're called  the mayor. They're the mayor. They identify just   call a mayor. Like I don't know why we why the  city did that back in the 60s, but just a general   um calling a mayor. The uh first line there  in section 14 where it says there is hereby   created a city commission that consists of  five members. That just makes it clear that   the commission speaks as the body. You've got  four commissioners and a mayor that make up the   commission. Um one commission, one commissioner to  be elected from each ward and one commissioner who   shall be the mayor. And so that was my suggestion  just to kind of make it clear. You've got a five   member commission with four commissioners and  a mayor. Um section 15, the manner of electing  

commissioners. That was something that we  table for last from last time that we need   to revisit. I guess if you want to get into  16. This I I cobbled together the suggestions from proposed charter amendment two and  I basically used sample one and then the   the second paragraph of sample two. you want  to discuss discuss that because I read the   same thing where you're a resident of the  city but you have to be a resident of the   ward the day your nomination is due right on  the day that you lie well right sorry okay I   mean that that struck me as weird I don't I  don't the difference yeah and I don't know   if that was intentional I don't even know  if you guys you were probably there right nice sometimes you have these  consequences of drafting. Oh,   shoot. I didn't realize that. But I have no idea.  We were surprised when we went back for edit. So,   the the language that I cobbled together here was  that the city commissioners shall be qualified   electors of the city and residents of the ward,  which is what we have discussed. The mayor shall   be a qualified elector of the city. The city  commissioners elected from the various ward   shall reside in the ward no less than six months  uh in the city and their respective ward. mayor   shall reside in any ward must have resided  for not less than six months in the city.   And then there was the language that I really  liked that was at the second paragraph of the   Fort Lauderdale charter where you've got to be a  citizen of the United States voting you eligible   to vote which we didn't have any of that type of  stuff which I'm I'm I doubt there's a circumstance   where somebody's a resident and a noncitizen  but it just seemed to amending it anyways we   might as well put in there the idea that we'd  have an elected official that's not a citizen   of the United States just seems strange to me or  otherwise qualified to vote. Um, and so I pulled  

out the language largely from that paragraph and  added it in there as well. Other thoughts on that. Love it. Hate it. Republic. That was in the other that was  in the Fort Lauderdale thing and I I it   just seemed interesting to me. Um, it's a  statute. Florida statute makes sense to me dual office holding so I can't be a commissioner  and a state representative at the same time dual office for punishment right the person that  would want that I don't want them to be all it's   a self- selecting group yeah they they need  a day job I I do have and this is maybe too   much in the weeds But what does quali qualify to  vote versus registered to vote? That's a good I   mean I copy the language. It's a great question.  Qualified is would go to citizens citizens. Well,   I think I reckon what I'm trying to say is I  think you ought to be a registered voter. Yeah.   To me qualify to be not that I'm the lawyer,  but Ne would answer this. I mean qualified   just means you could be registered,  but you're not necessarily registered,   right? But you're saying you better. You would  say qualified I guess and registered because   from the from the lease point of view the word  qualify means citizenship. So and register so   there's two things. Doesn't doesn't register imply  qualify? Are you registered and not qualified?   If we just use the word qualify that would  encompass both terms, right? Well, there are   very few minor situations where nonitizens have  registered. I know they don't take those qualify

qualified lawfully qualified register  lawfully attorneys can work that out   just you know qualified way to find it to  you are a citizen and then registered that   you took the time to show in advance  that I'm a participant in civic world   and I'm not just jumping we actually had a  candidate in years past that did that had   never voted had never and ran for office  and it is really kind of shocking. So,   we're five lines down on the very right hand  side. Shall be duly qualified to vote at city,   state, and national elections. And the suggestion  is to revise that shall be lawfully registered. Is   that what you're saying? Is it a dy? Let me look  at that language here again. Where is it? What   line? Section 16, fifth line down. starts with  Lord and you go to the right hand side after the   semicolon call shall be strike through dulies  and qualified and change it to want registered that would subsume the quality of the quality How do I not have a section 16 or 17? It was  clean version Caroline. It's my version because   it was superseded by He gave us the extra  one's running around. There should be Oh,   here here. Oh, thank you. chairman work. Yeah. Sorry, not yet. So, if we adopt 16 as provided  here with the with the revision   of change dually qualified  to lawfully registered. So,  

it'll read shall be lawfully registered to  vote at city, state, national elections. We want to do a motion for that to move on  to or not and then so to keep the language   um be a citizen of the United States even  though it's implicative but that's what   we're saying you could yeah well for people who  are not as fine tuned into the law they would   understand what we're doing so I for that reason  I would leave it So I move that um we make the   modification to the blue instead of qualified  rehab shall be lawfully registered to the car. Is there a second then we promise you have to  finish up you need a second or you reading? I   I'm still reading because there was a case if  I'm in ward and and I move out of the ward I   vacate my office. That's the way I Okay,  that's that's that's that's good because   the very last line who ceases to possess the  qualifications regarding here in shelf forcul. Okay. Any other discussion? the I just want to  clarify because I'm trying to make sure I didn't   miss it. There was some discussion that you could  be in the ward for one day. The way it's currently   written, and y'all correct me, is you have to  live in the city for 6 months. Yeah. And live   in the ward the day the qualification is due. Oh,  so we would be changing it to the six months. Six   months for both. Got to live in the city, got to  live in the ward for 6 months. Yeah. Otherwise,   you're good. And then one of the considerations  that I had was what the term reside means. But  

then I read something that you guys put together  that that that is defined somewhere else. Yes.   Defined somewhere else in the charter. It's in  the statutes somewhere. But I think what we're   wanting to do is make it so a lay person knows  what's going on. We don't want to make them that's   such a critical issue. I think we should define  res. It's not in the charter. It's not. Then I   I think we we beholden to put that information  there. Would you suggest that? Would you suggest   including the actual language of what it means  to be a resident or just refer to the statute   the language we want to be user friendly and  the site to you could the statute they could   read further if they want to but I would put  you know resident is the place where you have   a vote or where I guess we could define it how  we want to. I mean there there are issues that   pertain to this with regard to voting and other  things because technically there are some legal   definitions as you know where it's where I'd  like to be. I mean the hospital you know I had   experience I was in the hospital in Atlanta for  almost a year of getting treatment but I my home   and where I wanted to be was here so my residence  never changed. Do you know what I mean? 100%. The   question would be do you just want to make a uh  reside as defined under Florida statute whatever   or actually have the the copy in the I think we  should put the copy in the charter I think it's   important and then also the site so person could  go into the law if they wanted well that this is a   very practitioner thing I would not do both that's  confusing I either have our own definition that   mirrors what's in the statute or just kick it  to the statute and if the statute changes so be   it but I wouldn't do both that's because what if  statute changes in our definitions they become you   don't site to two sources I see that's I wouldn't  but I don't have strong feelings so I'll totally   defer you if you want the actual language great  if you want to just say follow the statute I'm  

fine with that too I would like the language  because I'm for making this accessible to as   many people as possible well can you do that I'll  make a note okay all right so any other discuss so   considering that we're going to uh incorporate  the def the statuto definition of resident   as it's basically written in the statute  then um any other considerations for this   provision. Just a question, how does this play  into section 22? The commission shall be the   judge of their qualifications. Are there any  other qualifications or trying to figure out   what how what that is and how that plays into  what other qualifications then would need? That's that's that's kind of what I'm wondering.  Now that we have explained and laid out the   qualification, can we Well, it's an excellent  they're kind of judge and jury at the same   time. So, if if somebody came forward and said,  "Actually, JP's move. He doesn't actually live   here anymore." Then somebody has to say, "All  right, we've reviewed it and voted on it, and   we've decided you're right. JP doesn't live here  anymore. So, you're off. Somebody's somebody's got   to make that decision." And I guess that's where  we need we need to have some type of removal and   that's the whole Yeah, that's exactly well I  mean I've never had to deal with this before   but I would imagine let's just say for example  Allen moves to you know where Alaska there's got   to be some decision that the commission would  have to meet and say Allan has moved away. We   hereby vote that you're in violation of section  16 and you're off the commission. Right. Okay.   So they're they're the decider of these criteria.  Somebody like you said somebody needs to do it.   If somebody disagrees with that decision they  can take him to court. Okay. All right. Who   would have standing to take him to court ordinary  citizen? Um maybe this gives them standing. Well,  

and is there any other procedure besides Well,  obviously commission is the judge using Allen   again. Allan would have standing if he didn't  think he should have been removed of course.   But if a citizen wanted to complain about it, I I  don't know if the citizen would have stand. Well,   I what this is bringing up is I think there needs  to be a simple procedure set here or somewhere of   how to do it. Well, that's I mean, isn't isn't  that what what section did you just sign? Well,   that's kind of the question. Is there a procedure  or is that is this is the It's not there's not   a clear because I know that there's a procedure  for Well, there's recall city manager, right? But   there I don't know if the other ones that they're  recall. Yeah, there's there is uh we have we have   looked at the issue has been asked, well, how  does a city commission remove a commissioner?   Yeah. And there's really no procedure for doing  that or even the self policing body. I mean,   that's a different discussion. If there's some  like rea procedure, but but in your language,   it says if you if you're don't meet the  qualifications, you forfeit. That says   it to me. You're done. It doesn't take any  action. But my point is if if Allan moves to   Alaska and he's like, I I I'm just visiting. I  haven't changed my residence. Then somebody has   to decide are have you forfeited it or not?  And I think the commission would then be the   decider of its own should be. Yeah. I think that's  covered. Okay. All right. Anything else with 16? Hi. Hi. Um, the term of office in 18 I incorporated uh uh  the suggestions with the exception that I I I s I   suggest striking through the sentence there that  talks about taking office in 1985 and 1987. It's   just obsolete. Yeah. And then the term of office  of commissioners elected from the ward shall be  

four years until their successors are elected.  The term of office of mayor shall be four years   until their successor is elected and mayor shall  be elected with the commissioners of ward. What   what and I just just threw in 2028 because if  we're going to do that that that fully implied   uh alignment with the general election. I I didn't  really now that I'm reading it out loud that was   not the intention. I just picked a day but um  we can put a pin in the date but if the rest of   it's okay we can move on. Well, the date would  date would have to be 2028, right? I guess it   could be April 2028. The charter the charter gets  voted on and changed. That would be in time for seven. No, they've already pencled in or kind  of penciled out the dates a little bit. The uh   date the current term expires in April or May of  27th. Yeah. And so there the the uh for the mayor,   right? and for uh two of the commissioners,  Commissioner Lucas and Commissioner Grers's   boards. The um we've talked about extending  that term if if this were approved to change the   uh election dates. So in 2028 would be the  first new dates uh that the elections would   would happen. And so the term would be extended.  Am I getting it right? would extend it or you   could or you could shorten it by six months or  extend it. Would you guys be willing to make a   motion to approve 18 as written but just leave  the date out? We're going to have to double back   on that when we decide on the elections but  just move to approve move to approve without any other discussion. All in favor? Okay. 21.

This is this is purely based on the comments that  we received about um uh dealing with staff and I   made this up. All right? And this might be rogue  and I'm fully able if you guys are I don't want   to talk about this right now and nobody's even  asked this is purely Brandon's got a little out   of over his skis on this thing. Um I suggesting  language in 21 that the the the substance is that   the the commissioners who have the authority to  hire legal or say legal hire hire administration   their own like admin like a legal aid like it's  it just seems strange to me that you have these   commissioners that have all this responsibility  and don't have I know I know they have the full   support of staff don't get me wrong but everything  goes through Jonathan he's doing a great job but   like they can't have a it sounds They can't  have like a secretary. They do. Yeah. They   Lindsay is their executive assistant. And for all  of these things that you've asked for or that you   suggested, she does that for them. She's paid  half out of uh the city commission budget and   half out of the city manager's budget.  Uh and she is their executive assistant   uh and mine. Um but scheduling, correspondence,  research assistant, um administrative function,   she does all that for them. She books all their  travel. uh drafts letters for them to send.   Uh they come in and sign it. She she already  does that. Keeps their schedules. Keeps their   schedules. Man, are they authorized if they  said, "Hey, we all want to hire our own." So,   you're talking about hiring five more employees.  I just don't Would they have the authority to do   that? When I walked out of that when I walked out  of that open meeting that we had, it sounded like   to me that and I I I truly don't remember who  mentioned this to me. They were like, "Yeah, we   don't we don't really we have I guess they didn't  mention forgot. What's your secretary's name?   that just didn't come up in the conversation.  They're like, I I I don't have anybody to turn to  

that I can talk to because we can't we can't deal  with staff. And that's what Nevin talked about   was that deal word is a problem. And so if I' if  I've hit on a third rail here, I didn't intend to   do that. I was just trying to help give them the  authority to bring on more supports if they needed   it. You're reacting to the word deal because what  does that mean? Yeah. Well, this we know that it   doesn't include the notwithstanding the foregoing,  you're just making it clear that clearly they can   have administrative support and uh they don't have  to go through Jonathan to schedule a meeting that   they can do that directly with the this was purely  drawing on the the conversation that we had at the   uh public forum and just my own experience working  in the House of Representatives where every   representative has a legislative aid and they can  deal with them. Now, they can't go direct all the   rest of the house staff to do whatever on a whim.  That's not the intention here. But it's purely   just if they if the the spirit of this was that  if the commissioners want to get together and say,   "All right, between the five of us, we're going to  have uh you know, one person is going to work for   two of us and two of us and the mayor's going  to have support and that now now we have an   administrator that we don't have to go this solely  deal with language." But um I guess the first   thing would be from the board, is this something  worth entertaining? Do we want to put in this do   clearly heard, I think at least two of the  commissioners stated, "I was waiting to get   information on this for two months. I couldn't  do anything." And that was concerning. They were   talking about historical experiences, their lived  experiences. And I think what you're bringing up   is a way for them to get direct access someone  directly under them who's going to make them hashy   and not be balancing all the other things they've  got to do to get the answer. It was very the way   I drafted it was very broad. If they want to hire,  they can. If it's got to be in the budget, they've   got to decide how they want to handle their own  administrators. But that that was the idea. Ron,  

what do you feel about this? Am I um Jason  Windmill here? as a former elected official, I had   somebody at the district, but that person was was  called the board secretary. She just handled the   board. Obviously, she she came under the the um  board chart of superintendent, but you know, she   reported to us and one for all five worked. Um but  I guess what what you're saying is we have a half   of a person. Well, and more than that, I mean, the  problem is that just the practical problem with   this I see is that like those people th those  whether it's one person or whether it's five,   um they're not going to be the subject matter  experts. They're still going to have to come to   the city manager or the city clerk or the police  chief or the housing and community services   director or the planning director to get the  information they need. And sometimes it's going   to take too much. And sometimes it takes a while  depending on what they're asking for. So to me,   if they're asking for information and we're not  being responsive, then probably one of the three   of us needs to be terminated. And that's that's  no I mean I I but I So the issue is I mean I   can honestly tell by your body language it's not  sitting well and that's not what I'm trying to do   here. So I want to have like a candid conversation  about this. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's great. So I think My bosses are probably watching this, but  I just know that the that there first off,   we have a very new commission right now and so a  lot and I think they all would admit that they're   learning a ton right now. And so I think that's a  natural feeling um you know as as part of but even   to Ron's point I mean you know all the employees  do fall under an executive to some to some degree.   So now what what would probably be better is to  put in a budget where you kind of have like you   could have a second we used to have two assistants  in the in the city manager or city mayor and  

commissioner's front office and and and you know I  didn't feel that there was really enough warranted   for two of them plus we were making some cuts and  so we decided not to replace that one position.   Um I I think the issue for me though is on what  what research they're wanting done. If you hire   more an executive assistant type position or  even an administrative assistant, again, they're   not going to be the subject matter expert. So,  they're going to rely on whatever the issue is,   the issue area is that they're they're going to  they're going to rely on that. And so, that you   potentially could have, you know, the the board's  and it's not it's more than a secretary. It's more   like an executive assistant kind of going around  asking questions and and the director is going to   be like, well, you know, I don't report to you.  I'm going to go through the city manager. So,   I I could see it muddying the waters. What I would  spell is that uh or maybe spell out like what what   is the problem that we're trying to solve? If  they if they truly if it's a research position,   then maybe that's position we create that's a  research assistant. the the problem that I'm   perceiving and I'll tell you no no no commissioner  or the mayor hasn't expressly announced this to me   other than the feeling that I got and some of the  comments that were made at that public meeting was   that the it is a very very demanding position and  timeconsuming position to be a city commissioner   or a mayor particularly a mayor as evidenced by  Allen's email and yet uh and the pay is fine but   it's not a full-time you know for based on the  time that you put into it the pay that you get   not a gig. Okay. So, the idea was if there's a if  there's an ability to provide more direct support   to help them be more effective and reduce some  of the more like time consuming, data gathering,   arranging of things that is just kind of giving  them more support and that was the idea here. And   then when I heard the comment about deal that  they can't deal with staff and that was one of   these hindrances, I was like, well, let's try to  put something in here that solves that problem and   allows the city to put more resources directly  behind the people that are putting forth the  

time and making the decisions and reduce some of  the laborious data gathering, you know, calling,   following up, that type of stuff, scheduling  type things so that they could have more direct   support. That was the idea. Got it. Certainly,  it certainly wasn't to create this weird web of   Yeah. uh personnel or or or have people under  you or next to you or whatever else. Well,   I mean, just as practicing lawyer myself and I've  had three people working for me, half person,   you know, I've had various sizes with the family  and everything of my law practice. But it it is   extremely helpful to have someone you can turn to  and say, "Run this down." And they will still have   to go to the subject matter expert, but they're  going to read the rules. they're going to go into   it versus me the lawyer who I'm trying to make all  these decisions at the top level and I'm doing all   this administrative stuff. It's very very very  time consuming. They have three people. They   have three people. Run it down. Run it down. Run  it down. That's I mean that's what you're talking   about. We're their assistants. I mean if they need  something they come to us and they ask for it and   they have and they have an executive. I was I'm  just telling you what it feels like for to be in a   decision making situation. Am I going to sue? Who  the plaintiff is going to be? All those decision-   making at the top level. If that same person has  to be the one that's asking and following up and   oh, there's a document that goes with it that  drags on time. I think the challenge Yeah. I the   challenge in this situation is it's not really the  commission's job to make recommendations. That's   staff's job. So, I don't know what recommendations  what I mean like I don't I mean I guess if they're   wanting to to research something to put on like I  said I would be I would be in favor of and that's   a budget decision. We can put a second we can  put a second person back in the front office and   and peel the the daytoday, you know, like like  scheduling like true secretarial work back to  

like an admin assistant. And then the executive  assistant can be more free to serve uh and not   have to deal with like you know name tags and  tent cards and that kind of stuff. But purely   be it a truly executive assistant back to but that  was I mean that's just a budget decision and and   um and I made it and I asked Lindsay I was like  hey do you feel like this is in fact I just asked   her Tuesday I was like is this too much for one  person? She goes it's really not. And uh I said,   "Well, please tell me if it ever does cuz you  you know uh you know cuz I want to make sure that   you're not burned out." As as a suggestion  maybe to we might have to come back to it,   but I think the problem is the word deal.  The problem is what does it mean? And   uh and it hadn't been a problem until it was.  Okay. I mean, you know, for 13 years that I've   I've been city attorney and then we're looking  at what what does it mean? Well, it it you know,   it could be I've seen with the county when I was  county attorney. I was involved when the county   manager form of government ordinance was written  and I believe it says direct and not deal. uh deal   is is much more ambiguous than direct. And I so  I've always interpreted the word deal as direct,   but yet that's that's not exactly correct. It's  it's uh looser than that. So, it could be that   we could go back and look at other ordinances as  far as go back and look at the county ordinance,   look at other cities that have a city manager  form of government and see, you know, there's   got to be a better word than deal, a better Let's  do this. Let's put a pin in this one, okay? And   we can talk with you guys offline. I I talked to  Allan regularly. I I didn't even tell him I was  

putting this in there. I put this in at 10 a.m. or  whatever time it was. And um because the the the   spirit of this was like the it makes perfect sense  that you don't want commissioners going down the   line and going to people and around supervisors  to nobody's suggesting that but there's also needs   to be a path where if the commissioners are  like listen I'm spending so much time on this   stuff and I need more direct support and I want  somebody I want a chest to poke who can give me   stuff that's my person or our person or whatever  and that's not anything with you guys because you   guys have your own responsibilities. you have  your own departments with your own people,   whatever else. So, there's a reason why you have  secretarial support or legal aids or whatever you   want to call them. And so, but let's let's pause  on this one because we have other bigger things   to do. We can come back to it. But I in general,  I like what you were saying. You were suggesting   just put it back to the way it was. Yeah. And just  to be fair, I just kind final point, Mr. Chairman,   board. So, you know, I actually I'm okay with  limited like if the elected officials want to   just ask a director a question, but I know there's  been past city managers that are like, you know,   don't even look at them. And I'm not talking  about Mark McQueen way in the back. You know,   it's because you I don't really want to play the  telephone game. You know, you ask me, I asked the   director, the director asked the superintendent,  the superintendent asked the foreman, the foreman   asked the crew leader just, hey, did we take care  of this yet? So, you know, there's those kind of   things, but and I want to get them information,  but again, like we said, I don't know how long   I'll be in this seat. We don't, you know, it's not  about Jonathan Hayes or Allan Branch or Jan Smith   or Nevin Zimmerman. So, some of this can be done  with um commissioner or board training as well   because the board sometimes has to reminded they  have no authority except when they're together.   You know, a commissioner has no authority. the  mayor really has no authority other than when he's   at a commission meeting, you know, and so some  of that is commission training if nothing else   to be able to know who to go to. Is this a Nevin  question? Is this a Jonathan question? Is it a  

Jan question? And you go from there. Some of that  is probably not for the charter. That's in board   training. What I call board training for sure.  C can I ask for a clarification for next meeting   about what the current is about communications  from the city commissioners to Can I get some   filling in of the what's allowed, what's not  allowed, those type of things? Because as present   as stands, what are we what's the status quo? What  are we dealing with with this shall deal and shall   not directly interfere? Is there anything or is  that it? Is are they allowed to call directors?   Are they not are they? As far as I'm concerned,  I want everything to go through me on my staff.   But is that but is that a absolute prohibition in  here or is that just the practice that's developed   over time is sort of my question. That's my  interpretation. Is there practice? Is this a   loose we everyone does it differently or is there  an absolute prohibition of city commissioners   having communication with staff directly? It's  kind of a policy. Is there well they they clearly   stated that their practice is not to do that.  Correct. But is there a prohibition currently   or is that just what has deal means? Yeah, that's  deal. That's my interpretation of deal. That's and   that's the issue the reality interpretation of the  word been understood that they cannot have direct.   Well, yeah, but if this doesn't actually prohibit  it from from my okay, the issue come to find and   ultimately it ends up on my at my desk and I say,  well, I mean, well, sure, they can ask questions.   I mean, citizens ask questions, commissioners can  ask questions, but that's different than dealing.   Well, because I've always interpreted dealing like  directing. But then you can ask questions in a way   that is just not harassment but just where it be  it's there is not a clear how can you decrease my  

water bill Charlotte no I don't want any of that  yeah that's not that's not a just a question for   yeah there is there is no fine fine line as far  as that clearly describes that so I think it   might be worth looking at how others have dealt  have dealt with it, how others have defined it. I will do this for myself and I would  encourage other board members to talk   with the commissioners, particularly the ones that  appointed them to see if this is an issue or not.   Perhaps it's an operational issue that we can just  clarify through internal controls. Perhaps it's   something that we need to address in the charter.  Or perhaps it's something that's working fine and   I'm just creating an issue that doesn't need to be  created. So let's move on to 21 22 23 24 I didn't   make any revisions to those. Any considerations  to your felony or off the off the commission possessive qualifications are  off the commission vacating. What about I'm still sorry I still think we  might want to consider some type of express   procedure for from the the governor removes  the governor removes. Yeah. So I'll but I'll   I'll mention that in a memo. But that's but  that's how you get a commissioner removed.   Okay. You ask the governor to do for like for  committing a felony or something or or Well,   yeah. Conduct. Um they're not qualified. I  mean, but let let me look at that. It says   four things. Well, there must be a statute that  points to that or something or something. Okay.   But so there's there's maybe a vote from  the city commission before or does it go   right to the governor? The governor does what the  governor wants. But but let me research that. Got  

a little bit. So JP, sorry. You're suggesting  that you said 20. No, I we were just the 22 23   24 this whole how how is a city commissioner  removed from office kind of question. Yes. the four consecutive meeting. Yeah, I left  that in there. Seems reasonable because   there's also the excused absences in this doesn't  mention excused the last unless such absences under 26. I was just curious how you how do you  fill a vacancy? Is it the other commissioners? Do we want to state that or just leave the  editor's notes in here? I think we should   state it. So, currently we have an ordinance  that says how the vacancies are filled. They can change that. Yes. And they  can change anything in the chart. So, only state law. Um yeah, we can just we can  give you a copy of the ordinance so you can   see how it and then you can look at it. But  essentially um the commissioners just vote   and appoint somebody would be finish out.  The question for us then would be leave it   as the commission can the commission  can decide how the commissioner or   vacancy would be filled. I guess they could  also have like a special election, right?   or do we want to modify it in here that it's  based on the vote of the commissioners? So,   does it need to go in the charter at all? And if  it does, then what do we say? I think it should  

be in the charter and it should say by vote  or whatever process. Ron, what do you think? Why did it get removed from the charter,  Evan? Is it state statute or superseded   by um municipal home rule? So So if we put  it back in, could it is it still superseded?   I'm not I'm not We need to look at that.  Okay, we need to look at Good question,   Ron. I I didn't want to verbalize it. I have the  same one. I think the question is is, you know,   do you want it to, you know, kind of have the to  feel more like the US Senate where you, you know,   you appoint or like the US House where appointing  is never an option and have to be elected by your   constituency to be their representative. So, you  know, I don't know if it was ever like that or   if it changed. Um, I mean, the process worked  okay because I can't remember her name, but   Nancy Wingle, now Man Hudson. Yeah. Yeah. You  know, she resigned and some of us put our name   in the hat and they picked Mike Nichols at that  time, which he had run for the office in law,   so that was, you know, Yeah, it was a  good deal. And it worked. It was fine. We'll get you more in. That's certainly  going to be cheaper and quicker than   calling a special election. Yes. and  just to have them appoint whoever to   finish out that term and then at the next  scheduled election it's an open seat. That's probably one of those things you  can make an argument either way. I think   I can also see people like no really the  people of that ward should decide who   their representative is. Sometimes it's they  will at the next election. That's correct.

But I do think it ought to be in the charter.  So dam if you could. Yeah. So let's let's let's   document that. So the motion is to Ron. Would  you like to have a motion to add for 26 to codify   that the vacancies filled by appointment  by the remaining commissioners? So moved. You want to stand out or not? I thought we were  at the place where we were going to get more   information about how this mechanism worked and  then come back to it rather than appointment. I   think the point of the motion is that what's in  practice now should be in the charter right now.   It's just about so you're putting it back  in the chart but we may change the process.   So by voting for appointment then I'm deselecting  a special election. Correct. So I'm not I'm I'm   not ready to make that decision. You're not  ready to make that decision either? Okay,   that's fine because I I mean I'll go ahead and  signal like I'm I'm I'm in favor of what Ron's   saying, but if you are going to vote no and  that's fine then we'll come back information   and then we do need to address it and I  agree with you. It needs to be clearly   stated whatever it is here in I think it's  unanimous that whatever it is it needs to be   correct come back and put see what it is.  Okay. So I'll I'll get more information. Um the revisions that I proposed  to section 27 were purely just   uh clean up. Um the legislative power of the  city shall be exercised by the city commission   and said city commission shall be cloth with  the powers and duties. It just seemed the way   it was worded. It was just extra extra words.  Um the uh language in 28 I struck that through  

mainly that it was just redundant and I could  take three lines and turn it into the language   right after uh in the new 28 that says the  mayor shall be and act as chairman of the city   commission. I just I encompassed all of 28 into  that new that new phrase right there. And then   I changed all the references to he he he to the  mayor the mayor the mayor. Okay that's good. So now this is the language the way it is now.  Correct. Okay. So if if you're okay with that   stuff because I I did add significant language in  32 that kind of goes along with um the the public   notice of the agenda and how the agenda system  would work. Um, that is something if you guys   open to it, I'd like to discuss that in depth.  So, if y'all can take us motion 27 and 28, so   you can do that. So, I make a motion to Would you  like to excuse me, would you like to address the   mayor's email here in this section? Um, let's do  that because it it goes into 32. So, at this point   this point, Ron, you just want to move to approve  approve 27 and 28 as amended by the chairman. I   second. I do have a question. I'm assuming on  27 the second line where you crossed out S and   said city commissioner I think you probably meant  to cross out ER and S so it would mirror line one yeah very much be a typo there the  legislative power of the city shall   be exercised by the city commission and said city   commission shall be closed power so  take out the E and the R as well yes okay all right So there second  for motion. Yeah. All right.  

All in favor? I All right. Y'all read 32 room.

All right. I'm ready. I think it's still got I was just  Mr. Hayes, how is the agenda done currently?   Um, so the clerk, you know, kind of controls the  final agenda, but I mean, under my section, as   long as my team gets everything, you know, in on  time. Um, and there's a lot of things where like   none of us really has a decision if it goes on the  agenda, not like zoning stuff. Yeah. Annexation   stuff. So, I mean, my only comment to this is  that I mean, I wouldn't even give the city manager   authority to just remove stuff because I a lot of  times I don't have a say whether or not it goes on   the agenda. Uh, public hearings um um and then  uh quasi judicial type hearings, a lot of that   is initiated because again, people are want to  change their zoning. Uh they want to they want to  

come into the city. Uh they want to merge parcels,  that kind of stuff. I mean, that's probably what   a third to a half of the agenda most of the time  anyway. And then the other items that come on the   agenda are um like you know uh usually budgeted  items, but they're if they're over $100,000,   you know, because of purchasing commission has  to kind of sign off on it. Uh that's the kind of   stuff that would fall under city manager. Uh we  also have um special events if it requires road   closures. Uh if it involves um the selling of  alcohol, uh that's if there's if it's going to,   you know, potentially violate the noise ordinance.  The commission has to approve all of that kind   of stuff. And so, you know, I mean, and I may not  like an event, so but it's not my decision. And so   we put it forward and the commission, you know,  kind of decides that. But the end of the day,   the the clerk's office finalizes the agenda with  what she or he he or she's been given. And then we   but we've actually publicized it what a week out  now. We've been doing that for what maybe four   months now is. Yeah. 48 hours is like a special  call. Yeah. An emergency meeting. Uh everything's   out a week at least. So how does that flow? So  like all the hearings you just mentioned that   goes to you first and then it well first it goes  it comes to staff and planning and then it goes   to the planning board and then the planning board  makes a recommendation and staff either concurs or   does not concur and then it comes you know to the  uh it's its own section on the agenda and that's   not even really under me or the clerk or the  attorney that go that's automatic public hearings   are they're the front they're actually ahead of  audience participation and thing. So, so, so let   let me share why I prepared this the way that I  did, my context for it, and then if you feel like   I'm even advocating too much for this because  I'm very passionate about this, then I'll even  

step aside as the chair and take over, whoever  else. Okay, so the number one frame of reference,   as I told you guys, I do community association  law and all my condos and all my homeowners   associations have to post their agenda 48 hours in  advance so owners can see it and decide whether or   not they want to attend the meeting. The idea to  me that a city is not similarly bound and that as   a citizen I don't know for certain what's going  to be discussed at a city meeting is insane. The   the specific example of this is it just is what  it is. But it wasn't that long ago that all of   a sudden there was a discussion about doing an  entire ground lease over the marina that wasn't   even on the agenda until the meeting started. To  me that is that is absurd. And now that that that   process has been more publicized and out there,  there's a lot more public participation with it   and rightfully so. So to me, the idea that like I  should be able to look at that agenda and I know   it's it's it's kind of theoretical, but I should  be able to look at it and say, "Nope, they're not   talking about anything that I'm interested in. I'm  not going or oh shoot, I've been waiting for them   to talk about this. I want to go." So, and this is  not a very high bar. Every one of my little rinky   dink condo associations can do it. And I just find  it very hard to believe that a municipality can't   do the same thing. It doesn't owe it to the  citizens to do the same thing. Next will be,   y'all know I'm very close with Allan and Allan  sent an email this morning. He called me up at   7 a.m. this morning and and he never we texted all  the time, but he he calls me at seven. I'm going,   "You okay, bud?" And he's just like, he goes, "I  get all of the complaints. The you know, everybody   just by default reaches out to the mayor." just  a it's a stock thing that the the mayor gets the   disproportionate share of the the complaints from  the citizenship. That's just how it works. And yet   there uh for all practical purposes at this point  just commissioner at large. And so he has been   very very clear with me about there is no desire  whatsoever to implement a strong mayor system at   all. That's not that's not the goal here. there's  got to be some degree of or he's desiring for some  

degree of something more than just commissioner  at large. And so that's what we've been discussing   is the ability to set the tone of the meeting,  set the agenda. Not that anything that's been   requested hasn't ever been put on the agenda,  but balancing between who sets it and giving   the public the opportunity to see what's going on,  but then somebody has to make the decision of what   goes on there in the first place. So that's kind  of why all that there I'm just a big fan of there   needs to be a champion for a thing and somebody  has to wear the hat of agenda setter and I think   that just the logical conclusion is it's the  chairman of the board it's the the mayor. Then   I also started giving consideration to well what  if you have an obstinate mayor that just won't   put things on the agenda. That's where I created  the system where if you're at the meeting and two   of the commissioners say, "I want this item on  the next agenda," then that item will be on the   next agenda. Then then then they're going to have  to discuss it. And that was that. And then I gave   consideration to uh what if something emergent  pops up and the mayor won't put it on the agenda?   That's where I said if two of the commissioners  reach out to the city manager and say we want   a special meeting on this topic then the city  manager shall set a meeting at the most reasonable   time after that long as the 48 hours thing goes  there was discussion about what if an emergency   comes up. Well my response from my condos is I  don't know what emergencies is going to come up   that you can't do it 48 hours from now. You have  meetings every two weeks and you know the whole   ounce of prevention in a pound of cure or your  failure to plan is not my emergency type thing.   If if something happens, if we've got a meeting on  a Tuesday and something happened on Monday that's   so emergent that it needs to be discussed, I I  just don't know what that situation is that we   can't meet on Wednesday. I I I don't know what  that is. I mean, if you guys can tell me what   that would be. Um I mean, sometimes we have  to declare a state of emergency. The state of   emergency is all kind of statutory powers to  do things that you don't need in the charter.   It the city has to declare a state of emergency.  When the governor declares a state of emergency,  

the gloves are off. the city can do whatever it  needs to do. Well, it it it's no, you have there   there are provisions as far as adopting emergency  ordinances where you wave notice and it requires a   fourfist vote. So my suggestion was going to be  that if you had a fourfist vote then you could   talk about something. I mean, in other words, have  an extraordinary voting department. When when when   Michael is swirling up in the Gulf on, you know,  Tuesday morning, the city can do and the governor   has declared a state of emergency. Y'all can do  whatever you need to do to prepare the city. You   don't need to have a city commission meeting  for that. You there's there's no way requires   a a state of emergency declaration for to get  reimbured voted on by the commission. Yeah. What did this what did the city do? Like we all  know this timeline very very well when Michael   came through. Nobody was paying attention to  Michael on Sunday and Monday it was just kind of   an annoyance and Tuesday it kind of ramped up and  Tuesday night it got gnarly. Tuesday we had a city   commission meeting. Did you see Michael Sch. It  just happened to work out with Michael. But I have   gone to emergency meetings for the sole purpose of  declaring a state of emergency so we can qualify   for FEMA funding and things like Okay. But we,  you know, we can stuff like that. Okay. So,   as a board's concern, is this good? Is this bad?  I'm Jane as a board. Sorry. Okay. The third line,   the mayor may remove items from a proposed agenda  at the mayor's discretion. Um, that was a little  

concerning. Okay. Awesome. Well, let's say people  had asked for something to be on, you know,   the the other commissioners had said and two had  said and it's on the agenda. The way that reads   and I I know we just need to work out the way it  is. he could just pull it for any reason at any   time. So that's just a little bit unsubscribed.  It's it's a little too broad the way it's written   in my opinion. The idea behind that was if they're  the ones setting the agenda, they they wouldn't   be allowed to add anything else. But if for some  reason they're like, "Hey, we're not ready to talk   about this now." They wouldn't have to talk about  it if they didn't want to at that point anymore.   But if you think though, if it's on the agenda,  it needs to get discussed. Yeah. Okay. All right.   Fair enough. I just don't want any unnecessary ill  will towards the mayor, you know, because again,   we're trying to clarify how things get on the  agenda and there have been I like your other   suggestions and then to just give a I can just  take it off. Sure. It doesn't feel good because   we're trying to build a process to get it in.  Ron, what do you think? Well, just drawing from   experience. I mean, in as chairman of the school  board, I met with the superintendent sometimes two   weeks before the next meeting to help set the  agenda. Staff would bring stuff and you have   timelines that you can't do anything about that.  That's automatic. But there are always some other   things that as a chairman I could say we're not  ready to discuss that yet or we don't have enough   information yet. you know, um it w it was a dual  effort between the chairman or the mayor and the   city attorney or the superintendent to finalize  the agenda be before you posted it. Then after   it was posted, only in an emergency situation um  would something be So you guys had a very similar  

system with the school board. Yeah. How often or  how far in advance would y'all post it? um a week   and schoolboard members had all the material  for the meeting a week in advance at least. That's how we do it. Just I was one of those that read every word  front and back. You know, some board members   and commissioners don't do that. Some open the  packet when they arrive at the meeting, you know,   but you know. So then so so you you're in favor  of the overall concept. Yes. Are do you are you   thinking 48 hours is appropriate or you is it  more or less? I like more than 48 hours. Well,   they're doing more. Yeah, they're noticing the  meeting itself. The existence of the meeting,   not the agenda. Yes. Correct. Agenda's posted a  week out. Yeah. The agenda can change up until the   moment of the meeting as it's written right  now. Well, as it's written usually doesn't,   but I don't know how it's written right now.  If I may, Mr. chairman, the incident you're   speaking about like board voted to add  that agenda item at the last minute. So,   and I believe it was unanimous uh when they added  the um when the item didn't get put on the agenda   for the downtown marina. So, we requested in my  opinion that's inherently unfair to the citizens.   I agree with that. Yeah. That a decision like that  would be considered at a meeting even though it   was unanimous amongst the commissioners that the  citizens had no idea that that was going to be   discussed at that time. I would totally agree. I  would agree as well. Yeah, because that Yeah, that   was really not an emergency. So, no accusation  that the that the commission did anything wrong   whatsoever. They did everything they could have  done and that that's that's fully within their   purview. I I I don't think that's a service to the  citizenship and that's why I'm suggesting this.

So, we go ahead just just for your information. Uh  the city commission has adopted rules of procedure   And I don't know if those were ever given to  you. That might be interesting for you. But   the rules are procedures, were they? Okay.  But it deals with uh agendas review deals   with you can add things uh or take things  off at the meeting and and the process for   that by a motion. I think it's unanimous  consent to add things, stuff like that. I know, Jan. I'm sorry. I know I stifled you  because I want to have the board discuss,   but what were your thoughts? The the only  thing that concerns me is it says the mayor   shall prepare the agenda. I'm that doesn't that's  not I don't think that's really going to happen. But if you'd like the mayor to prepare certain  certainly step aside. So I guess take off the word   shall prepare set. We just go the mayor shall set.  Yeah. Okay. Good point. With with incorporation,   I guess, as Nevin suggested that when there's  a state of emergency, like a a meeting can be   called for emergency purposes. Okay. All right.  Any other I mean, usually what do you want to do   a motion on this? Well, I So, are any other  comments? My only question though, I mean,   in order for this to happen, I mean, the mayor is  I mean, I they're going to have to be way way more   involved in the day-to-day operation in the city  in order to fully understand what goes into the   agenda. I think that's the only So, I think you  might need to consider some type of hybrid type   setup or something if you really want them because  there's just there's just so much that goes into   it and and to without changing salary or hours  or something like that in order to fairly ask  

that of whoever sits in the mayor's seat. um you  know there's there's just there's so I mean even   so much of the agenda that um that even I don't  really have a say in. And so I just think to to   put that on a part-time elected official for  30 something thousand a year. Um so like with   you Ron you know you would get together with  the superintendent. I would imagine there'd be   kind of a proposed agenda to to start with.  You'd have a working document and then you   would kind of line item things would you not?  Okay. Yeah. that would put together, you know,   with the superintendent's direction the agenda the  agenda because like we said, there's some timeline   stuff you really can't do anything about. It's  got to come, but there's always policy matters   and sometimes even a budget matter that can, you  know, so what would we would stop say, you know,   you draft the agenda, send it to the mayor. All  right. Hey, here's the agenda for next Tuesday and   then mayor goes, "Yep, sounds good, except for  this one's not ready." And then go from there.   I mean, I I I think here's the problem. So, you're  basically wanting to expand the power of the mayor   because right now he doesn't have that authority  and and we may know the majority of the commission   supports that decision, but you may have a mayor  in there that doesn't. And it's like, well,   I don't know. It just seems to me there should be  a valid reason because they could have, you know,   they could have nefarious intentions to and they  don't have the they don't have the responsibility   to to run the city in a dayto-day and there may  be things that you need the commission to kind   of weigh in on. So I don't um you know I don't to  some degree they they they have that authority.   They can actually remove items from the agenda.  they can suggest at the beginning of a meeting,   hey, I've thought about it more and I'm not really  happy with us dealing with this today. I'd like us   to consider removing it and or or tableabling  it. And that happens occasionally. Everybody  

can do that. All five of them can do that. So,  I just to me the um the the preparation of the   agenda and more than just physically typing  it up, but actually like what goes into it,   all of the background information and everything.  Um, I mean that's just that's a pretty heavy lift   and and there's a like to Ron's point, I mean  there's sometimes even months of work behind   it and um yeah, I don't see that changing though.  Yeah, I don't you know that's where you I I have   to draw on my experience and kind of what Ron's  saying and just my experience and seeing how my   condo associations do it and in virtually every  situation the manager will prepare the draft   agenda, send it to the association president  saying, "Hey, here's all the things we need to   go over." I would truly say probably 85% of the  things are things that the president's like, "Oh,   I'm so glad you're running with that. Good.  You got it under control. We got to get that   approved for you to make sure you can be able  to do your job effectively." There may be some   things that are on there where the manager said or  the the president says, "Eh, we're not we're not   ready for that one yet, but let's keep working on  it." Or there may be projects the manager's like,   sorry, the president says, "Hey, we got to  get this on the agenda. I want to make sure   we discuss this at this point." So, it's it's  90% done when it hits the deciders's desk.   It's just the little critiquing here and there  and then the ultimate stamp that says, "All right,   this is what we're going to talk about." So, I  don't see the process changing all that much. So,   does the mayor see the agenda before the other  commissioners at all? No. My my assumption is   the commissioners will have a problem with this.  That's Jonathan Hayes's personal opinion. Um,   because they all see it at the same time. Well,  I take that back. Some of them I meet with on   Monday and some of them I meet with on Tuesday.  But, you know, so they some of them may see it a   day or two early, but but you know, they when the  final agenda is done with all the attachments and   everything that that goes out at the same time.  Currently, three of the five want the binders and   two of those just want it virtually and they use  their iPads, but the final one is sent out at the   same time, but we go through the agenda uh every  week uh and and talk through it in detail and  

answer questions in the office. So, um, it's it's  it's it's challenging to argue against that the   uh board that will be discussing the agenda should  be the body that decides what's on the agenda. And   I I can appreciate that right now it's a very  fluid system or collegial system or whatever   words you want to use this, but right now it is  not the board's decision what goes on the agenda. That if we're if we're going if we're going to  match which I think this board please speak up   if I'm misguided here as as a board the public  has an the public has a right I think the I think   the the moral ethical right thing to do is give  the public an opportunity to see an agenda and   decide if they want to go to a meeting I think  that's what we're saying so therefore there has   to be a decision prior to the meeting what goes  on that agenda and that decision should be made   by the body that's going to consider the agenda  and it's impossible to have all five people vote   on an agenda 48 hours in advance There's just  sunshine laws you can't have. So therefore,   it's got to be somebody and therefore by default  it's the mayor. There's there's no other person.   You can't pick word four inherently gets there or  two or one or whatever. So just by default that's   that's where it has to go. Maybe okay. Any other  discussion? Well, do you think the wording the way   you have put it that that makes it clear that the  base of the agenda is going to come from Jonathan   and they're going to have an early review? I don't  think that this I think Jan's points will take in   about the prepared take the prepare out part  because that's not that's not what happens in   practice or in paper. It's what I'm talking about  the actual looking at the substance that you're   saying needs to be done and I'm in full agreement  with you and that would be done by the mayor.   I don't think that this wording clarifies that  that's going to happen. That that the body of the  

work of the city that all of Jonathan's employees  are working on that doesn't really need I think   that's a day-to-day operational thing that that  goes into how they conduct business rather than   actually in the chart. But does that go into the  agenda? I'm sorry. Yeah. the the work that he's   talking about that needs to be on the agenda so  that particular citizen knows that this piece of   land that I want to buy that my neighbors arguing  with I'm coming to argue about that you know all   the business part that that has to do with buying  a garbage truck. I assume that would be part of   the rules of procedures in the city. Yeah. Well,  I'm it's not it's not referenced here. True. So,   I'm just I'm what we're what I'm looking for is  a document that pretty much speaks for itself.   If there's another process that we need to look  to, it needs to be mentioned. In other words,   someone should be able to pick up the charter  after we're done and pretty much know what's   going on. That that's that I disagree with. I  think that's an operational day-to-day level   decision about kind of like how you would deal  with the the superintendent. That's not in the   whatever the equivalent of the schoolboard charter  is. That's just how we do our business is that the   expectation of staff would be to deliver a pretty  much ready-made agenda to the mayor within enough   time to make a decision to post it and then go  from there. But I don't think that would go in   the charter. It says, "Hey, the city manager has  to provide it to the mayor 48 hours before the   48 hours." I Yeah, that that's how they just need  to run their own day-to-day stuff. I'm with you,   but I just don't think it goes in the charter. I  I do think potentially this could cause tension   on the board because and I won't be too specific,  but I'm using a specific example where I know that   there was um an item this calendar year where  the mayor wasn't that wasn't happy with it,  

but I knew a majority of the board was. And so we  put it forward and it passed. And um you know it   passed and and so um you know in that scenario  you know you've you the mayor could effectuate   that from coming forward um not with the if two  people but then you're like so then I have to go   to two commissioners be like I really I really  need you guys to help push this issue and then   and they're going to be like oh okay all right  you know and I don't know I I I try to keep you   You try to want to keep tension amongst them  and it's another two weeks. Yeah. Before it   can be read. If it takes two readings, it's  another two weeks. It's the speed of government,   right? I mean, we're already we already creep.  Sometimes sometimes that's a feature not. Yeah.   That Yeah. Well, that now that it's too slow at  times. I would just say I mean I I first off,   you know, Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with  you that that one particular item. Um, you know,   I that the way that went down was unfortunate and  that we definitely want to avoid that. Um, and um,   I'll just it wasn't me, but I'll take the heat for  that one particular one. Ultimately, this all goes   up to the city commission anyways. Y'all y'all  feed it to us and we feed it to them and then it   goes to the citizens. So, I mean, we're we're  pretty low on the totem pole on said and done   for us. I think they have a lot of confidence in  y'all. Look at the caliber of the folks around   here. They want you guys to do the heavy lift for  sure. So, um yeah, I just um and I'd love to find   out other ways that cities kind of, you know, kind  of do that. Um but, uh I don't know. I I see um it   is kind of interesting like almost create like  the where the superintendent like doesn't report   to the board, reports to the people, the men and  women and children of Bay County. Um, and so that  

the little it is a little different. I'm just from  experience I since the mayor is like the chairman   of the board, you might as well say. Yes, he runs  the agenda. He runs the meeting. I would not want   to be in that position with not having some  influence on what the agenda was going to be.   Well, I think you know, I said in one of our  earlier meetings, I think I said I'm surprised   that the mayor doesn't have any agenda. I think  one thing we need to clarify is the mayor and the   commissioners can add whatever they want and they  can be moment. So, the deadline is Monday, Jan uh   December 8th for the 16th meeting. Allan can put  on there right now, hey, I want Jan Jonathan put   under mayor. I want I want all the papers to be  changed to pink and it's going on the agenda for   discussion. By opposite, we're not going to want  to tell him no unless they missed the deadline.   We would do, but other than that, I mean, we have  two years of history of putting a lot of stuff on   the agenda with the prior commission. What what  you don't have right now is individually the   mayor being able to say, "Yeah, I don't like that.  Take that off." now just directing me by him or   herself. But at the beginning of the meeting,  any of the five can be like, you know what,   I don't really think we're ready to deal with  item 14K just yet. I I would entertain a motion   for us to either table it to a date certain  meeting or to remove it until such time the   commission votes to bring it back. And then the  then the commission only takes three votes to do   that at the beginning of a meeting. So they have  the ability to add whatever they want right now as   the five of them if they so want. Um and then they  can remove it as a group and and honestly unless   it's something really controversial I I they  they all have influence over what goes on the  

agenda influence for sure. We have do we need more  discussion on this or do we want to move on or I   mean I can make one more point. seems like we're  go ahead and make the point. I'm curious what it   is. You have competing policy concerns. Everything  you're saying is true, right? Objectively true.   The inherent flaw in that right now is that that's  a disservice to the public. the idea of adding   things to the agenda and things like that at the  last minute, the the the to use your example that   if the commission decides unanimously or not that  at the meeting they're going to make the decision   to paint Harrison Avenue pink, I me as a citizen  would probably like to know that, right? So, I'm   basing this all on the predicate that a decision  has to be made 48 hours in advance to be able to   tell the public what's going to be discussed at  the meeting. So we're taking everything off the   table of this amending the agenda at the actual  meeting part. So then if if that's the baseline   assumption that a decision has to be made 48  hours in advance, we don't due to sunshine laws,   we cannot make a decision by committee. So then it  has well I can't make a decision by committee. So   it's either got to be a staff decision or a policy  decision by the board. And since I can't make it   as a board as a group, then I've got to make it  as a board as an individual. That's where I'm at.   I see what you're saying. Then my advice would be  take it away from all of us. Absent a very clearly   spelled out emergency. Nothing can be added by um  at the you know after it's published. That's what   we have. Yeah. That was you. We're on the same  wiggling. That's what I unless it's in a bonafide   emergency and would have to define that. Yeah. So  use your example. So they go Yeah. But so so some   commissioner goes I want Harrison painted pink as  soon as possible. like it's going to take you two   days, but we'll paint a pink on Wednesday, right?  And then you go, "Okay, cool." And then notice the  

agenda and and off you go. And then if a citizen  says, "I didn't see it. We posted it 48 hours in   advance. It was on the website. It was every  I don't like you got to check that." So then   you would remove the ability for anybody to bring  even if it's a 50 vote. They can't add anything to   the agenda unless it's that's for the protection  of the public. So I think you could do that and   and really just take that ability away from the  commission at large. And that's what you're that's   really what you're want to do is limit the ability  of the commission, not really empower anybody,   but restrict the ability or anybody staff or  the commission who ultimately decides it to   be able to put anything on the agenda after it's  published with the exception of a truly bonafideed   emergency and then spell it out and to set and  to set a specific time. That's one thing that   I think we've clarified. But the other is the  point that I raised is pulling something off.   you know that's done at the moment. Yeah, I'm  fine with that. So that that's a little bit of   I I well not you see my paper but I just through  that sentence breaking out the mayor may remove   Okay. So if the suggestion is we remove the  shall prepare language. We remove the sentence   that says the mayor may remove items and then  we Nevin you can incorporate a reference that   for states of emergencies governor declared  however you want to define that. not not this   is really important and we forgot to add this  emergencies but like Michael's spinning up in   the golf emergencies and yeah as a board are  we okay with those changes and want to move   forward yes I move to adopt those changes there  second any other discussion all in favor so to   your one of your other policy issues was to give  the mayor a little bit more power have we done   I think this goes a long way. I really do because  it's it's removing some things that could make  

the mayor appeal. Ron, let me ask you, did you  feel like you could do more of if you could set   the agenda or was that was that an impotent tool  or was that I I don't think it it just mine was   more of a um a leadership knowing that I was  running the meter the meeting. I I wanted to   know and that's just my personality. I wanted to  know everything that was going to be and and he   probably has enough time to do that now. You know,  um we we didn't make changes to the agenda unless   it was a bonafide emergency. Well, I can come with  my experience with the with the league for the   state league and we have planning. So, you just  get a lot a lot of things that people want you   to work on and that was the job of the president  with the help of the executive director to set the   agenda. So what we what we did is looked over  everything and sense of timing of what things   needed to be done and we would put that out and  it would be a proposed agenda that we would try   to send to the board members a week to 10 days  out and we would say what else do you think we   have to do and then they would give us and it was  very uh elaborative but there was someone whose   hand was on the helm that we took the time to read  everything. The lawyers always consulted with, you   know what I mean? We were very deeply involved and  the rest of the board relied on our expertise and   long-standing knowledge and that's how but we did  make an avenue for everyone to join in. So that's   kind of the balance that we had. But the power  of setting the agenda is big and if it's done   improperly, it can be a major problem. So, we're  always assuming goodwill and the right people. And   we've had a long time of reasonable good people in  a different seats, but it just takes one person,  

you know, who doesn't want to follow the rules.  And we're kind of looking at that nationally, you   know, we don't want to follow protocol. We don't  want to follow. We're just doing this. We just   made it up. It just takes one situation like that  and you go, "Oh, I I have the same struggle when   I thought about this. it there there's there's  a balance between um putting so many conditions   and restrictions and and things in the charter  that you can't function and also trusting your   electric, right? Because it's like, you know, at  a certain point you got to you can have the best   system on the planet and it just works great and  then you hire monkeys to run it and it's like well   this looks great on paper but y'all are it's you  got the inmates running the asylum here. So um I   have plenty of time. I don't know how you guys are  doing on time. We tabled the issue of the election   and the timing and the process. Do we want to  discuss that today? Are we prepared to discuss   that today? Do we want to I mean I don't want to  exclude Brandon from that. Although it's a living   document. We can always come back at it. You guys  tell me. My thought process was I know that I'm   on the opposite side of the vice chairman on this  issue, but he's very passionate about it. I would   feel better if he were here to have discussion  of the book and I'm ready to discuss it,   but I understand he's not here and he cares deeply  about it. So, I think it would be proper for us   to wait for him to be here to have the discussion  about the timing of the election. That's generous.   Admittedly, I adittly don't remember what his  position was on it. He wanted us to move it to   November. His email and his email. Yeah. Yeah. So,  again, I understand. Well, are we are we on time?   I'm okay. I mean, I have I have a 2:30, but yeah.  Ron, are you open to discussing this? I mean, you   had passion passionate thoughts about us too. You  still more set your way now from one side of the   passion to the other. Yeah. I I you know um you're  talking about the timing of the election. Well,  

have you finished com? Yeah, we voted that um  combination of timing and process. If you want   to do one either or either or sometimes they go  together. I mean my November's fine with me. Um   that really don't matter because I'm going I  I haven't missed voting in an election and I   can't tell you when. But I'm not like everybody  else, you know. So um whenever you put it on the   calendar, I'm gonna vote. But um November is fine.  Um, I do want the 50 plus one in there like it   like it is because if there's three people running  and one pulls it off and gets a majority of the   vote in the primary, it's done. You don't have to  run again in November. Um, really that's that's   my only that's my only only two things. I I don't  like I think it was the Tallahassee that they all   if nobody gets I mean the top two vote getters  win. No, if I get 54 plus I'm done. So where you   at JP? I'm one I still don't think it's something  that it should be in the charter. I still think   it's something that the ordinances control and  that people should lobby their elected officials   to change that if they so choose. And I also don't  agree with moving the election to the general. U   that's still yeah for the reasons mentioned last  meeting. I don't need to revisit the easily. So   I like the idea of moving into November. I'm  somewhat persuaded if I have the 15 plus one,   you know, because you have to balance everything.  Someone's that popular. It's significant. and then   the burden of running again, you know, and then  the cost of it supporting that secondary election  

when they've already demonstrated a high level of  support from the population. It seems reasonable   to and I I've fortunate enough to been on both  sides. I was in a three and got 50% plus one on my   first election and then the one I lost there was  three of us and none of us got you know almost did   but then by the time I lost that election by two  votes it was you know it's okay God was good to me   I don't it's fine into another situation so I've  actually thought about this a ton and obviously   there's no perfect system otherwise everybody  would just do it so there's pros and Honestly,   based on kind of the comments that Daniel made,  like I I I I appreciated the whole like if you   have your own independent election, you have  a lot more not not knowledgeable, but more   engaged voters. Um, and that it becomes very  partisan if you're doing the general election,   but you know, honestly, based on your feedback,  it's partisan at the other election, too. So,   you know, then then the counterveailing uh, you  know, concern is I just have a hard time arguing   against more participation is bad. I I just that  just I can't get that through my head why it's   like just more is better. I just I just feel that  way. So then I'm like, "All right, well then if   it's the general election and then the other part  of it is I just like the finality of the general   election. I just like it where Tuesday nights we  know who won, we who lost." So I don't like the   runoff process. Then honestly, I don't really like  the primary process either. I just kind of like   the show up, eight people, two people, I don't  care. Whoever gets the most votes, you're the   elected official. We do one day, Tuesday night,  we know who wins and off we go. And so I'm in   the aligning it with a general election and then  just winner or take all at that point. No primary,   no runoff, just plurality wins, off you go. What  do you think about that? That's a lot of change.   If you had four people and I get 26% of the vote  and y'all got 25% of the vote and I win. Doug,  

I don't have to get my neighbors to vote for  me. I'm the one you win. You won your runoff.   Are you the one your Didn't you get the most  votes the year? You had three. Yeah. Yeah. So,   you won. Yeah. I won. But I was one though, you  know, and and worked. No, the one you lost. Oh,   the one I lost. Yes. In the first election, you  had the most, right? And then lost in the runoff.   So, you you'd have won. Yeah. I would have won.  Yeah. Yeah. I think I think the 50% plus one is   important from a mandate perspective to coalesce  people around their commissioner. And so I still   think that we need the primary and then a general  with the or if again 50 plus one. So that way you   have people who yeah some mitigating circumstance  there to get the person to mandate that they need   to be the commissioner rather than having some  type of fringe or radical person who comes in   and gets 26% of the vote and we create a problem  for the I get that and I know from like macro very   macro perspective that has been an issue before.  I haven't seen it be an issue here. To me, the the   the the more likely thing that happens is you've  got a uh somebody who gets 45% and then two other   ones that get 15 and 20 or whatever happens and  then you end up with this runoff situation and and   it and for the most part, I think your election  was by far the outlier. The person who got the   most votes in that instance usually ends up  winning and so it just kind of becomes academic.   I understand. I think it becomes more of a  problem when we move it to the general. We got   more expensive elections with more people. I think  it becomes more of an issue if we're moving into   the general as a part of I think the unintended  consequence of this which I'm just putting for   the record is that you know we have the email from  Mayor Branch talking about how his election cost   $100,000. That was with a quarter or a third  of the potential vote. That election is going   to get significantly more expensive when you move  into the general. the type of candidate is going   to change and that's going to be part of it. So I  think I would like the sort of a bull work of the  

50 plus one with the primary as a way of kind of  protecting what we have. Yeah. And I and I JP I do   agree that a city election in some degree might  get lost in all the other stuff that's going in   the November. I do get that. Do you do the but if  you get 50% of the primary you when a person has   a mandate to D I know you raised your hand. Um I  think what you're saying Ron is not a bad idea.   I mean I'm not I'm not opposed to keeping 50%  rule. I mean I think I think that's you know I   mean if you get 50% you do have a mandate. That  is a mandate. Um how however um okay let me I've   got two points. Let let me let me ask you first  what when you had said that that it could be more   expensive in um November. What what is that  based on? Based on the fact that if if you've   ever you've run the campaign you you campaign.  Yeah. I mean you've run an election. Think about   that per vote. All of a sudden now you've got to  get to a lot more voters. Certainly. Yeah. I'm   going to need to knock on a lot more doors. You're  going to have to expand the voter base that you're   going to. That will make the general election  more expensive for the candidate. Have we done   a cost analysis of what it would cost the county  or what or what it would cost the city? You know,   I mean, the supervisor's office if they were able  to consolidate it, would it cost us less or would   it cost us more? Cost us less, right? No, it would  save the city money, I think. Right. So, I mean,   all of that money that you're talking about is  from private individuals. Um, we have a cap on,   you know, in individual donors that says that you  can't donate over a thousand. You wouldn't get   pack money in here. It wouldn't be something  like that. I mean, you you could potentially   see more of that, but we already have guards in  place to prohibit stuff like that from happening.  

um you know if you if you take away the prim I  mean the 50% rule I think you leave yourself just   like what Ron said if you have four people and one  gets 28 you know that I don't know that that is a   good representation of of the district. So I think  in that sense the runoff uh process is important.   Um you know we've kind of muddied it but you know  I I think we're all in agreement that more turnout   is good. You know that November might not be  you know horrible just about what that could   look like. And I think keeping the 50% is not a  bad idea. That's pretty much all I got. And when   you look at on the um national scale just just  what you said I mean uh this would um um reduce   cost for the city and for the county because of um  resources. I mean big states like Montana um have   made the changes in in recent years and they have  seen increased um turnout and less spending on   elections. So I just curious how much does it cost  to put on an election? I know we're saving money.   It depends what you're asking because how much  does it cost to put on a collection for the city?   Right. Right. You know, Jan I think it's about  12,000 $13,000 back. That's not as much as I would   have expected. But yeah, because we were grouped  with a whole bunch of other uh municipalities,   right? We vote with uh Mexico Beach and um I think  it's down to just two Haven. I feel like it's   a little bit more than that. We can confirm, but  it's not $100,000, right? I'm not going to say 12,  

it's 14. Well, it's 14 in that. I mean, no. Yeah.  Then is there feeling about I appreciate what you   guys are saying. I don't necessarily agree, but  I I appreciate what you're saying. Would would   it do you feel uh better about a primary and  then a result of the general or do the general   with primary with the because that way they could  tie in with an election that's already happening.   There will be a gubernatorial primary August  November I think something like that and then you   then you primary with that people will be going  to vote for the governor and their local just put   it on there and then have it with the general.  Yeah. So then is is there alignment about the   putting in the charter to have it aligned with the  general election in November with a nominating I   keep saying primary but a nominating process and  then if at any point they get 50% then they win. I'm still against this the whole way  through. It's just your compromise. Yeah,   that's completely fine. But I I will still  again I just want to my Cassandra moment here.   Um that the unintended consequences of this will  result in the exact opposite of what Listen man,   if you want to if you want to be the first person  not to vote unanimously on the issue that's this   is true. This is why why did the commission  not see that through to move it? Was there a   reason? Yeah, they had meetings and they had  Yeah. Was there underlying that they oh we   have a charter committee coming we'll let them  decide or was it um um commissioner well there   couple of things but I know commissioner street  couldn't make the he was the one that had really   championed it and he couldn't make the meeting  when uh it was to be voted on so they just chose  

not to vote at that time there was um there was  some controversy about it and they didn't feel   strong enough to really kind of work through  the whole issues. There wasn't it there wasn't   a clear message about why they didn't want to  move forward. Some felt it was targeted to them   because it dealt with shortening terms. See, so  it wasn't just moving to November. It was do you   lengthen the terms or shorten the terms? And  some felt that well maybe the shortening the I   mean who knows? But it it was a combination of  both the date and whether or not you lengthen   or shorten the term. Do we need to talk about  whether that is you shortening and lengthening? I mean it's going to if you move it is you know  two or three depending on when it happens are   going to you either going to give them more time  or you're going to shorten their time. There's no   way around it. And you still have an you still  have an election in 2027 that will happen no   matter and either shorten by six months or  lengthen by your charter changes 18 months.   The the only thing I would point out for the board  to consider is, you know, look at the percentages.   I understand you you work hard, you get 52% in  a three-way race in August, but a lot of times   you're looking at a third to not even half  of the number of voters in August. And so,   and only thing, you know, and I, you know,  in order to be to truly keep it nonpartisan,   it's not a political secret that we're in a very  conservative county. And so a lot of times uh our   local Democrat and NPA folks aren't driven out as  much to turn out in August because there may not   be a nominating primary for county commission or  Congress or or what have you. And so you you might  

see, you know, you're always going to see more  turnout in November, whether it be a gubanatorial   year. So I understand the 50% plus one. And  yes, I would love to not have two elections,   but you know, most offices do require you you  win some type of it does get narrowed down some   way. It's kind of a one-twoep process. So, you  could potentially have like look at August 2024,   only 25% turnout that I don't know that that  necessarily captures what it seems like you   guys are wanting to. That's the maximum number  of people weighing in on who sits in a particular   seat. And so I think the the so then the only  option is is if you don't want to do two races   is is in November, but you could you're going  to have a lot more turnout, but someone could   win with 26%. Like Mr. Zimmerman mentioned the  uh county commissioner Doug Moore where you had   six candidates. There were all six Republicans.  So the election basically was determined and you   know in one election and they were all clustered  together. Um no one I don't even know if anybody   got over 25%. And it was less than 25% because you  had six. I want to say it was like 21, 20%, 19%,   16%. Right. I think some would make the argument  that really those top two should have gone so   that someone truly did, you know, represent  the majority of the people. So, it's great   if you've only got maybe three candidates, but  what if you have like five or six? I don't know.   I just pointing out that the August turnout's  pretty low, too, uh, compared to November. So,   are you for the 50% plus one or get it? Are you  are you asking me ma'am? Yes. Um I if if you're   going to have uh if you're going to keep it in  the odd years of the spring basically without   changing it I think it's fine to do that because  you have a very similar amount percentage-wise and  

group of people turn if you're going to move it to  August and November aligning with the gubanatorial   the presidential year your your turnouts are  significantly difference and what I mean by   that if you look at April and May in this in the  off years your your turnouts are very similar.   But if you move it to August and November of the  even years, August is is way less than November.   It's it's more than half and it's almost a third  of the presidential year. So So do we I I'm just   making sure I understand. Are you supporting  the 50 plus one? I'm sorry. My personal opinion   is that the candidate who represents us should  always be selected in November of an even year.   That would be my personal opinion as a citizen. So  just how because there's more no primary. I mean,   you could I mean, I if if you're concerned about  someone winning with like, you know, like in the   20s because you have a lot of people, then I  think having having an election in August and   then the top two vote getters are what the larger  turnout considers in November. Tallahass, like   Tallahassee. My personal opinion is is I think  Tallahassee made the change and then realize, hey,   we really need to we really need to shift this to  be decided in November. And and I think, you know,   I think we should learn from what what they've  experienced. And I think that that to me those   numbers and how that works, like that's that's  not a partisan issue. I realize that Lyon County   is very different than we are politically, but  when it comes to just math, math is nonpartisan.   But I I hear what you're saying because  the NPAs are a third now of voters and   they often don't have a candidate, you know, in  the primary. They're not necessarily stimulated.  

They come out in the primary. Correct. Yeah. In  August, but they're allowed to vote and they're   encouraged to vote in November. So we could be  inadvertently penalizing them or just not taking   into account the pressures and incentives on  them. Yeah. Then by focusing too much attention,   giving too much authority to August and that would  mean that don't rely on the 50 plus one in August   because all the people who don't have a candidate  may not come around. Yeah. So you take the top two   vote getters regardless of their percentage and  then they go to November. I like to win, but I   like to win fair and square. So I wouldn't want  to see I wouldn't want a Democrat county to be   accused of scheduling elections that benefit the  Democrats, nor would I want a Republican county   to be accused of scheduling votes that benefits  the Republicans. You know, just aligning it and   keeping it like and again, I think Tal I think we  can learn from what Tallahassee did, you know, 20   years ago. I hear it. So that changes my view. So  where does that leave you? Me uh Jen, I think you   should go to the second election because this is  this discussion that we from my past experiences,   we've been watching the NPA's grow and grow and  wanting them to be involved and excited about   participating, but they're often blocked out with  the the different setups throughout the state.   So this would be a way to bring them in. You're  suggesting the runoff structure. Yes. Thank   you for clar. Yes, ma'am. You're very welcome.  November election with a runoff. Do you remember   what um August November election or takes?  Yeah. Oh, yeah. Let's clarify. Yeah. Yeah,  

please. What's the proposal? No, I Well, I'm I'm  I think I know. No, I don't have one yet. Um,   if yours is a November election, winner take  all or top two. If if there's nobody gets 50%,   there's a runoff. Or I think maybe the Tallahassee  suggestion that if there's only two, you move   them. That's I did. Thank you, JP. I think  that's what that's if only two people qualify   or that then then there is no August election.  There's no August election. It's two people and   that and you go directly to November. as they  respect more than two, you have an election in   August to determine who those two will be. What  he said. Yes, that's Thank you, JP. I totally   forgot about that. If only two qualify. Yeah. So,  the final decision is made general. Yeah. I mean,   that's consistent, Mr. Chairman and board,  because right now, if you qualify to run as   um either county commission or for Congress  as a Democrat and there's no other Democrat,   you go straight to the general. If you're a  Republican and no other Republican qualifies,   then there's no primary and you go straight to  the November ballot. That's consistent with the   state national elections. But would it be top  two regardless move on or if somebody gets 50%,   they automatically they win? Primary if there were  three in the primary, there's three candidates,   okay, and they get, you know, 40 30 does do the  well, in that case, the top two move on. But if   it's 60 2020 60 2119 whatever I'm moving to  having a second election because NTA's are   so just top two regardless of votes move on  to general so the language is in Tallahass do we have all what's the proposal I don't know I can't remember what um  I know Brandon wants this in November  

I can't remember where he was on the um runoff  primary system. I Yeah, I don't know. Yeah,   I don't know if he was I want to be very clear.  I don't know if he was comfortable with it being   decided only in November without anything in  August, but I do know he felt strongly that   the final decision should be in August.  November, sorry. November. Sorry. Yeah,   November. So, um I I can't speak to whether or  not he was okay with like, hey, eight candidates   in November and you win with 17%. I I don't  know that I've had that conversation with him. So, if I'm counting votes here, Ron is in  the I guess we're all in the camp. Well,   hold on. JP's in the doesn't go in the charter  camp and Ron, all the rest of us are in the It   should go in the charter and it should be in  November. Ron's in the primary and if you get   50% you win. Cecil's in the November and top  two regardless. Move on. And don't know where   Brandon's at. And I currently where I'm at  is November. We're going to take all. Cool. Clear consensus. That's fine. And you've  been reading this. Very good. Good job.   There we go. Nice job. Um, obviously  we're not going to agree right now.   is that there's no need to force this issue  right now. Let's have Brandon come back and   then we'll figure out what other kind  of negotiating chips we can have to   uh get some language in here to get JP off.  I think I made my position from the beginning against it, but he's going to help everything. everyone. Sorry guys, Daniel raised his hand and  I said I'll get to you and then I just I didn't  

mean to, you know, interrupt, but I just wanted  to say I think I've changed my mind on the 50%   rule. I think Jonathan is swaying me on this.  The reason why I think is that you know kind of   what you said is that um you know if you didn't I  learned um at Florida State that primaries are are   the most partisan elections that you have because  uh the people that are most interested you know   and then pay attention the fringes of each party  do primaries. So, I think exactly what you said   is that if we did not if we had that 50% rule  in there and you had half of the turnout that   you had previously, you really wouldn't be in,  you know, introducing the two-party system into   that primary. It would just be, you know, whatever  is the, you know, the fringe populist, you know,   opinion. Uh, and ultimately, Ron, while I totally  agree, I uh, you know, you've run, I've run, too.   I would not want to run again, you know, a second  time. But ultimately, I think um for the citizens,   it benefits them um more even if it does hurt us  as candidates and we are, you know, a bit more   um tired. But I think, you know, the trade-off  that we get with more turnout uh in November,   if we allow the top two to move on, just like  what Cal and Jonathan have said, you get,   you know, much more of a And like I said, how many  threeperson races do we have currently where um or   more than three where it doesn't have a runoff  anyway? You almost always have a runoff when   there are three because it's hard to get that 50  plus one. That's all I heard. But great discussion   everybody. I mean Yeah. Yeah. Um we all get a  college level master's credit. Made my head hurt.   So if we if we kind of stick to our script, let's  just a couple things here. So Nevin, I'll I'll  

send you what I did in a word doc. And so that'll  just make it easier for you guys. I'll send that   to you when I get back to the office. Um, and  then I guess any other stuff that we have for   staff directives. I guess I don't think I didn't  write anything down of any information we need   or anything like that if we do some responses.  Oh, on the resident definition and plug that in   there. Yeah, I mean it's he you'll find out. Um  I believe on our schedule our next discussion is   basically on the officials that report directly to  the commission. So be the city manager, the city   clerk, and the city attorney. And so we'll discuss  those those provisions. What's the date for next?   So, it is January 8th, but I I'm just looking and  I I know Nevin and and Jan schedule pretty good,   too. You know, if you guys want to try to  squeeze in something uh the 17th to kind   of finish up some of this, that's something  we could support or we just wait until Yes,   ma'am. It's two weeks away. We got plenty of time  to notice it. If you want to try to catch up some,   my hope is that Brandon would be able to attend it  then or we just stick with the eth. I just want to   throw that out there for your consideration. Are  we are we behind schedule? I I I don't know. I   just I know that there was y'all. Yes, we had  we had that one like extra meeting in January,   right? That's true. I don't I mean I'm just  just throwing it out there. So, well, one of the   benefits of having the sooners I think we might  remember with JP's help, but that's what I think.   Yeah, thanks JP. Um, you know, it's more in our  minds because we've had a very robust conversation   today and you know, it'll be easier for us to  jump off and finish it up. That's one benefit.  

We're moving closer on this 17 work from what  day is 17? It's a Wednesday. Yeah. At all. Okay. Maybe. I'm a maybe. But don't don't let that  Well, you said don't let that keep you from   having a meeting, but I have I have a try a  case in Pensacola that week. I don't know. So,   you're just not available that week.  It's hard that week, but I depend. Is   the 16th better than the seventh? Just  settle out of court. Unfortunately,   it has to go have I can't settle some. The 16th  would have to just be in the morning. But but   the se because we have a community and that's the  only reason 16th. Yeah. I just want to that week   is difficult for me but you know okay if there's  if there's a strong desire to meet we can make it   work I'm in the camp of I think we're fine with  if we I didn't notice that we had two meetings   in January so I think that that's probably I  think they'll just have to have more meetings   next year just was floating that idea all right  so our next meeting is January is that eight correct January 8th All right. Well, and January  22, right? All right. That sounds great. Okay. Um,   we'll talk about what's your Yeah. manager  attorney. Let's bump in cl on that too. Sure.   That'll kind of work together. Okay. Um, and  then anything else to discuss? Can I make a   personal plug? My daughter is Cindy Luhoo in  the theater show coming up tonight, tomorrow,   and Saturday and Sunday. So, please go check  her out. It's at Bay High. So, it's it's it's   an adult theater production, Panama City Theater  production, but they're doing The Grinch. And so,   she's singing good. So, y'all go check her out.  That's such a great experience. What time is the  

show? Uh, tonight's at 7:00, tomorrow's at 7.  Uh, just go to Panama City Theater Company.com   or whatever it is. Just Google Panama City  Theater Company. It's on there. And so,   yeah. Then, Saturday morning at 9:00 and  Sunday afternoon like two. Are you the Grinch? That would be very proud of her. We'll be a journ. All right.  Thanks, guys. All right.