P&z Board - Special Meeting

Councilman Herzberg.

Thank you, Mayor. And of course, thank you to the commission. Thank you for listening to me. I was up here and emailing you guys. Thank you to the town attorney. We went back and forth on a bunch of emails and phone calls as well. So I really do appreciate that. There's questions in here that I brought up my concerns, and you did listen to those concerns for a lot of them. Our job is not to decide on the questions, but we are, I mean, I'm voting yes, obviously, because that's our job here. So there's a few questions here, maybe they're not needed. I mean, everyone knows the one question I'm against is the six to four. I do think that's a mistake, but the voters will decide at this point. So yeah, I remember watching the meetings, you guys, the first few meetings were a little like, where's this going? But then towards the end, you guys really started Really knocking things down and did really good work. So this shows it there's a lot of questions because there's a lot of ideas so I wish we could make it a little smaller, but we'll see how the voters go and You know, we just got to push this forward. It's really nothing else for us to to do on this That's our job is as long as it's legal and the town attorney says it is then let's let's take it to the ballot Councilman Sanchez

Well, to the committee, thank you for all the hard work, the dedication that you put in, the hours, the countless hours, and the monotony that is the English language and making sure that every I is dotted, every T is crossed. We know how much time you dedicated to this. I was also here in the chamber once in a while to listen in and give an opine on some of the topics that you discussed for the charter. And yeah, just to really on what my colleagues say, this is a dedication of work that you put into it. There's some things in here that I don't agree with, but obviously that's just my opinion. I was up to the town of our proverbial quote unquote bosses, the residents of the town. But I thank you very much for all the work. The differences of opinions, it creates a good environment to see different perspectives, different types of viewpoints that led to this outstanding document that we have displayed in front of us. So I just want to say thank you. And I hope that your interaction with the town government and your civic engagement doesn't end just because the charter revision is over. Thank you, guys.

Councillor Fernandez, you want to say anything?

I'll just thank you guys again. It was an honor to serve with you guys. And the will of the commission is before us, so I think it's time we gratify it.

Thank you very much, Councilman. And I also want to thank all of you for your time and your effort as the member of the 2016 Charter Revision Commission. I remember what that was like, spending even weekends coming in here to beat up the charter and really think about what would be changes that would improve the functioning of our town government, right? And as the chairman had mentioned, I believe at your inaugural meeting, the changes at least are gonna stand for 10 years. And in some cases maybe even more. So it's very important work and it's important to be deliberative and I know that at times literally went word by word of each section of the charter. But I wanna commend you all for the work that you've done. um and i also want to you know specifically thank the chair from one presiding officer to another i know that sometimes you know when you're trying to um to get something done and everyone you know wants to make sure that that with uh what they view is an important change or an important discussion to have you you have to balance making sure that it gets heard with making sure that you stay on schedule and that's not always easy but i want to commend you and your and your members as well for getting this to us on time Secondly, though, I do have some amendments to the order of what is being proposed, and I'm gonna explain why. And this is me putting my hat as someone who served on the Charter Revision Commission previously, and also as someone who has been involved in town politics for a very long time, and politics in general, right? Understanding how voters think when it comes to charter amendments. There are 14 questions before us, and there are some that are more urgent, in my view, that should absolutely pass than others, right? I think we would agree that making sure that we have a runoff election is a huge substantive change that we want to make sure passes and, you know, you know when you look at questions like question one which is more about you know changing verbiage and technical changes while important and it should pass you know because there are 14 items that are going to be after town elections after congressional elections after senatorial elections after state elections after county charter uh amendments etc that there's a good chance that they're further down the ballot these an item is the less likely it is to succeed right voters at some point either start Christmas treeing the ballot or they are ultimately going to vote no because they just are burnt out and they just don't understand it right so in that spirit obviously we cannot say no to any of these items right the Charter requires that we put them forward but for me what i identified and now and i hope the attorneys are paying attention because they're you know i did break it down and again it's 14 but to me items or ballot questions 2 3 5 12 14 and 7 should be at the front of the pack. Those should be the first amendments that are proposed to the voters. I'll go through it again. Two, three, five, 12, 14, and seven. I think I threw in the seven there mainly because I had missed it when I was flipping through here. then followed by all the other ones in whatever order they land.

Mr. Mayor, when you stated it that way, is that the order that you want them to appear? I'm sorry? So you said two, three, five?

Yeah, so again, it would have to be renumbered, and I did not renumber what they should be, but what I'm saying is that ballot questions two three five twelve fourteen and seven should be at the beginning they should be the first amendments so 12 14 and should be followed then by seven uh well yeah i mean again we can always if we really need to come back to revisit this we can always do it at tuesday's meeting um but again i'm just and again seven was kind of just like a i just noticed i hadn't included it as an item that i want to give it a higher chance of passing right okay The others will be renumbered and they can stay in the same order except that I believe, for reasons I will get to in item 7B in tonight's meeting, I believe that ballot question four should be all the way at the back of the pack. Right, and again, I'll go into the deficiencies that I find with that particular item when we get to 7B. But my amendment, just one more time, is to move two, three, five, 12, 14, and seven toward the front of the pack, and then the others continue from there except that ballot question four be placed toward the bottom of the questions. Is there a second?

I'll move it, I'll second.

It's been seconded by Councilmember Garcia. Discussion? We'll begin with Councilmember Garcia.

I agree, Mayor. I think that things that are, I mean, anything to do with the actual seats, the election runoffs, anything to do with that should go in the front. I do believe that you're right, that after a long ballot, and I kind of addressed it earlier, a lot of residents might just decide not to vote, just leave it blank. The ones that are really going to affect the chart of the most should be in the first ones on this ballot. So at least we have an opportunity to address the most serious issues. I'd love to hear what the committee thinks on that item as well. Feels on that amendment, Mr. Chair?

You're not sure if you don't mind mayor. Yeah, I'll go to a chair lay Soto to add or maybe if you want to take a moment to consult the well are they allowed to have a conversation now that their work is done or. Yeah, they can take a formal vote so okay, yes, I don't know if you want 3 minutes 2 minutes is to convene with them being that a majority of them are here to discuss it or.

of the renumbering. As residents, yeah. Prioritizing. Remember, it's only citizens of nations and states. Prioritizing the amendments. What are your feelings on that? Sure, if you give us two minutes, we'll just go talk.

Sure, yeah. And then in the meantime, I guess we'll go to Councilman Herzberg for his thoughts.

thank you mayor and um i agree with you i think we need to think about that strategically but i will say that for me after number seven i number eight is is a major structural issue in this town charter uh regarding the town clerk i think the town clerk should report directly to the council i think the town clerk did the did the research i we might be the only town Municipality of Dade County, the town clerk does not report to the council. So this idea that we have a charter officer that reports to town manager, it doesn't make any sense. And it creates, in my opinion, a conflict for the town clerk. Because her job is administrative, her job is to the council, but then it also can create, well, who's my boss? The town council should be the boss of the town clerk. I mean, I believe even in our town council budget, the town clerk's assistant is under us, right? So I think number eight is a critical item. It's a, I don't know why, why the original charter is drafted that way. I don't know why other charter committees didn't find this issue, but number eight to me is very important as well.

And I guess we can dispense with the current amendment and then move to a separate amendment on that item. I see what you're saying, my guess, right, the town manager was here when when that original charter was put together so he might be able to shed more light on it but my guess is that it has to do and we'll come back to you chair now as soon as I wrap up my remarks but my guess would be that because the job is primarily ministerial right that is why they have them as a report keep in mind that the deputy clerk slash council assistant in theory while they do report to the council or the council members

the at the end of the day you know there's still another employee of the town that's my guess you know but if you if you look at the at the i was looking at the graph recently the chart like the deputy town clerk actually has a line that reports to us it's weird all i'm saying is number eight is a big deficiency i think it's a second up to me it's the second most important thing that this commission proposed after the runoff so we can discuss we can improve this and move things around you're right we can do it on Tuesday I'm just having having the discussion now I'm not making an amendment right now number eight should be in the top three or five in my opinion I think it's just polling other towns we're it my understanding if the town clerk wants to correct me but we're the only ones that the town clerk reports to a manager it just doesn't make any sense a madam clerk did you want to respond to that

I don't remember exactly. I wanna say that you're absolutely correct. I know the town attorneys, Morales and Lorenzo and I, did a research. We reported back to the council probably like three months ago on this topic, if anyone remembers, but you're absolutely correct. If I'm not the only one, I'm one of, it's very few. I wanna say that it was maybe one or two places that the town clerk position kind of had reporting to the council and to the manager.

So you're absolutely correct the vast majority reports to the elected officials through the chair and well first now that the chair is here at the podium why don't we hear from him first and then and then well I had a follow-up question to come from Herzberg and then Or maybe it's to you guys, but then let's hear what they have to say and then we'll continue the discussion Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Garcia, to your question, is from our perspective as the commission members, obviously we didn't take an official vote, but just in briefly discussing, the order wasn't specifically a discussion item during our meetings. So we don't necessarily have an issue with the orders that you guys have. We'll defer to you guys on the orders that you have. Obviously taking into consideration, I'm sure, public comments and discussions from others as to what's very important in the ballot. We hope that everybody takes every single question important. I was also asked to convey the possibility that you guys may consider is to request the supervisor elections to have this as a mail-in ballot option, to take it away from the major, as we stated, that there's going to be a lot of things going on November 3rd, and to have it as a mail-in option. But I was asked to share that with with the Commission. Does that answer your question?

Yes, I appreciate it that that clarifies a lot. Thank you so much, sir.

Thank you very much And so councilman Herzberg my question to you or whoever knows the answer to this right and and and obviously this is not going to impact the vote one way or the other right, you know, it's still a an important structural change to your point right the substantive change and And again, I ended up writing it at the back of the, what I considered, you know, the lower priority, but you're right, I just kind of was making sure that my numbers added up to 14. So, you know, and again, we can always revisit it Tuesday or tonight. But my question is, so how does it work then when they're trying to fill that role?

just like we would fill a town manager. We can create an ordinance and we would do a search or just do an application. The town manager would still send out the application, work with HR and things like that, but I mean right now, my understanding is that the council still approves the clerk, is that correct? So the town, right, but we can't fire the clerk.

I think we can, actually. Can we? I think we can vote to remove the clerk. We can, ultimately, the manager's nomination requires that we approve it. Right. So, you know, yes, in terms of, yeah.

The selection's not the problem. The problem is that the clerk is a charter officer. Charter officers should be reporting to the elected officials, just like the town attorney does, just like the town manager does. I think it creates, sometimes, an issue, but then, the clerk can be getting different responses, right? So who does a clerk report to? Just the town manager right now. Other municipalities don't do it that way. Most of them. We might be the only one. We can double check and maybe come back. But it makes sense for the charter officer to report to... the town council and that's what the commission you know thinks or at least wants to propose a question again i think it's the second most important question they pose because it is a odd thing that we have here it's not the norm of other municipalities

Thank you very much. Okay, so on the amendment though, any further discussion on the amendment? Vice Mayor Morera.

So first and foremost, I do want to echo the comments of Councilman Herzberg. That was actually one of the more higher priority items for me because I actually didn't realize until it was brought up at the charter revision that that was the case. I thought all three charter officers fell under us completely. I was not aware that the town clerk was not it makes complete sense that we're the oddball uh... out of all of our sister municipalities because that doesn't make any sense to be honest it it rightfully belongs as representatives of the people the charter officers should report to the representatives of the people that that's first and foremost on that as far as the and your amendment, because your amendment at this stage does not yet include what he's proposing, right?

Well, no, it includes it. It just does not include it toward the top.

You will your amendment doesn't place. Number 8 within the with with the top will fix.

Yeah, whatever was okay even count the know how that how they would be remember a couple questions and number one.

When you say 2, 3, 5, 12, 14, 7, are you posing it in that order or could it be within those 6 numbers could that order be altered.

Well, that order will be altered at some point when we discuss 7B, if 7B were to pass. Now, for the time being, I would say, the issue with 7, and I guess, but it's not really an issue, but something I did wanna note for the council in my conversation with Supervisor of Elections Garcia, is that she made it very clear that she would not be doing a runoff election in December, excuse me, early voting for any runoff election in December. She just said, you can request it, but I've decided that we're not going to do that. So I think I need to flag that first and foremost for everyone's benefit. And again, we are going to have an ability to get a change done with time before their deadline on Tuesday if we need to. But right now, just to move this forward expeditiously, that's why I just said 2, 3, 5, 12, 14, and 7. And I'm more than happy to entertain an amendment to the amendment uh with respect to eight right i guess my my confusion comes in i don't really know what i'm voting for because we haven't discussed 7b uh so i don't have the full picture it's hard for me to know really what am i waiting for well i don't want you to over complicate it either right because the reality is like i said there's going to be a discussion uh on tuesday pro more than likely uh you know on this right or there's so or you can propose a reordering uh if you'd like right and you know I remember and at the top of the conversation I recall that you had mentioned that you would you know come up with other changes as we went along so you know I guess what I'm trying to say is you know we can always revisit you know this order after we take up 7b and 7c you know actually we will have to revisit the order of this but being that this is item 7a and you know as within that 7a you know we can we can We can consider there we go that was what it was before we can consider items 1 to 14 as currently proposed by the CRC, you know, I'm talking about the amendment as of the items they have proposed at this juncture.

So that that but what I want to confirm is what you are proposing is yes, 1 to 14. But then reordered to 2, 3, 5, 12, 14, 7, and then everything else. And maybe not in that order I said, but you're just making sure that those six are the first in a particular order. Yes.

There we go.

Okay. Later on, we can revise that order. Yes. Okay.

So with that said, I guess I'm making, you know what, let me take it as a second amendment. Let's dispose of this current amendment first. Any further discussion on the current amendment?

I see number 8. No, not yet. I'm going to make that as a 2nd amendment or I'll give councilman hers with the opportunity to make that I just want to quickly say so besides changing us from 6 to 4. Councilman and I mean this is a major change in the way the town clerk does her does the business with with the town and with us so I mean I agree it should be up there in the in the top and at least the top 4 but just my my opinion on the on this item.

Well, then I'll just go ahead and do it as a as an amendment to the amendment to and again, this is just to dispose of this particular item first right again. There are going to have to be changes to the order anyway. Once we discuss seven B and seven C, assuming they pass right. So how about this? The amendment to the amendment will be just you know just to include it there in the first 7 then I will call the first 7, 2, 3, 5, 12, 14, 7, and 8. Right and that will be the amendment to the amendment is there a second on that.

I'll second.

It's been seconded by council member Garcia. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendment is amended and we're now back on the amendment as amended and with that any further discussion on this particular councilman Herzberg.

And sorry, guys, I'm very passionate about the charter. You guys all know that. I'm passionate about our state constitution. You all know that as well. Why do you, and this is a question to you, Mr. Mayor, why do you believe number 12 is important? Honestly, I was up there saying get rid of it. Do we really need...

something in our charter that says we comply with state law the charter state law will preempt that was the impression i got from watching and you were watching it too uh the impression i got from the attorneys that it would be a best practice to go ahead and go ahead and have the charter conform to state law i really don't care personally but you're putting it up in front so i would make an amendment to the amendment that has been amended to get rid of number 12. well we already okay well i see your point But you're free to make an amendment. But again, I think we're also overly complicating this right now, right? I think it would be better just to let everyone digest the revised order when it becomes available and then make amendments on Tuesday. You know this is coming back to us on Tuesday, they can you know you can you can but we all done it before that's not act like we have it we can submit a late filed item with the rule and then here.

Yeah, I mean we can just tell the town attorney bring it for us to say yes, you can amend it is. change the substance of the no, I know that I'm just saying I have to to get this going. I agree for go see it back on Tuesday. Then let's we can discuss it Tuesday. So I'm just going to request the town attorney during your town attorney report to bring this resolution back on Tuesday to see if we want to make any other additional change will call it the final final report.

Yeah, or what you do tonight is just give me instructions as to how you want the final version to look like and I'll bring it back on Tuesday.

I'll move to provide the instructions. It's out of order at this time. The reason being is because it's not germane because we're talking about what you're talking about the order of the amendment, right? But I really don't see like, do you need an actual vote of the council to bring a report?

No, but I think listening to all of you is that my report can be actionable, so I can bring the resolution back as amended so you guys can vote on it.

Aren't all your reports normally actionable?

Yes, but not all my reports include a resolution attached to it. So this one would have this resolution attached to it. So if you want to, you can give me instructions to come back with a resolution as amended. All right, so here's what we're going to do then.

We're gonna have an amendment then to the existing amendment, stating that the approval of this still means that it has to come back in an actionable report by the attorney. How about that? Because I don't want us to start getting, especially since the clerks have to go back and transcribe all this, we're gonna make it very complicated, right? So simplicity is key. So with that, that is my amendment, adopting it for the vice mayor to require that the final order come back after this passes. All right, is there a second? Second. It's been seconded by Councilman Sanchez. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. And now on final passage of the revised order on 7A. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion carries. 7A passes as amended. We are now on item 7B. So with that, and I thought I had submitted this to the clerk. I guess there was a miscommunication from my office. In essence, the problem with ballot question four is twofold. And I'm going to read directly from the memorandum I had prepared that unfortunately did not go out. With all due respect to the charter revision commission, ballot question four is incomplete and therefore will be improperly before voters at great risk to the structure of our government. First, the text of the proposed amendment does not contain the language of the 45 day nomination period when the mayor may make a nomination for a vacancy on the town council. For those of you that were following the deliberations, you would know that this was something that was considered and had support. And for those of you that had been following the council meetings or were there during the last, well, not the last time there was a vacancy, but the one prior, before I became mayor, There was clearly a lot of issues with the 30-day timing, right? So that's first, right? There's an address extending the 30-day block that the mayor has to make a nomination. Number two, second, the text of the amendment and the proposed question and ballot summary do not address by when the town council must act on the mayor's nomination, creating an unacceptable risk of nonstop gridlock that would grind the people's work to a halt as previously occurred in 2023-2024. I propose the following altered amendment text and ballot summary to voters. I ended up, as it turns out, I think that's actually what happened here because I see the X's. They were waiting on me to go ahead and provide my proposed ballot summary, right? But in essence, what I'm proposing with item 7B is that as an alternate amendment to ballot question 4, the charter would be amended, and I guess I need the attorneys to make sure they're jotting this down in case this passes. The mayor would have 45 days to make a nomination, right? The council would have a Actually, let me ask the town attorney. Mr. Attorney, do you remember what we had discussed as a possible date by which the council must act? I think we had said 60 days, right? 45 days to make the nomination. By day 60, the vote must be taken as to whether to accept it or not. Correct. And then if not, it goes to the runoff, and if it does, then they serve out the remainder. And those two changes, and leave it at that. No further changes with respect to, and keeping rather, I guess I do need to specifically state it, keeping the existing language that if six months or more remain in the term, the mayor is permitted to make a nomination until the next general election. We're next regularly scheduled election, right? That would be the motion to address what I see as the issues that come up with the proposed ballot question four. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by the Vice Mayor. Is there any discussion beginning with the Vice Mayor?

Thank you Mayor so I guess I want to be clear on this it's not that we're removing number four because we cannot this is almost a competing item with with number four and it'll be up to the education campaign to to see which result comes out depending on which side you you want to fall on that and And I guess that's, again, where the order comes in, and as former President George W. Bush would say, the strategery. So, all right, I think it makes complete sense, first of all. We've seen what happens when there's a breakdown in you know, who has what power in that scenario. And so I don't think any of us wants that. No matter where you sit, no one wants our government to come to a standstill. So I'll definitely support that.

Thank you for the discussion on this item. Councilman Garcia.

I was under the impression that the 45 days took into consideration. The 30 days you had to do the nomination and then we had 15 days as a council to approve it and that added to 45 days. I guess you're saying the language doesn't is not that specific. It says with council confirmation.

It would be forty five and sixty now right because let me so going back to twenty three twenty four right when we had that vacancy in seat six because of the actually had that just my name is vice mayor's your seat six not five OK no because I could have won you had said you anyway So with that, so when that vacancy occurred, right, it happened right before the Thanksgiving holiday season, right? The 30 days listed there created a lot of confusion, not to mention timing issues, right? the members of the council wanted to interview the nominee. And of course, when you're getting to Thanksgiving and getting into the Christmas and holiday season, you have all sorts of commitments that create a real hassle there. So just going based off of that trauma, if you will, that PTSD, I felt 45 days would be a lot better. you know in terms of uh you know the time for the mayor to make a a more deliberate decision right without having to rush right and then also giving the council therefore an additional time because obviously there's nothing stopping the mayor from making an earlier nomination you know but um giving the council up until day 60 to consider that nomination right yes or no right whether they're going to accept or reject it i think that time frame works better than what's currently there. Because again, the 30 days does seem like a lot of time, again, until what happened where you're bumping into people's busy holiday schedule, they're traveling, whatever the case might be. It just gets a lot more difficult to have a really deliberate discussion or a to have a really informed discussion with the proposed nominee it when it happens during that season right and hopefully it doesn't happen again but again you know we're trying to head off these things no makes sense makes sense just a question to you to you mayor and against the town attorney the less than a year remaining the time frame that starts

uh in the beginning of the 45 days or after everything is is complete like does that 45 day window um is that part of the six month or before the six months or after this no so so what the committee had proposed was only for uh for vacancies that were a year or less i believe right correct a year or less the mayor would have the right to appoint

So I also think that's problematic because there are clearly other situations, as we've learned, where there are longer vacancies or vacancies that could involve a term, not vacancies, but a term that is longer than that period of time. And scheduling a special election itself can also be quite challenging.

I guess the question I have is that six-month previous or one six-month or less six-month time frame.

That's what's already in the charter.

it's already in the chart and the 45 days is it it would be new because right now it's 30 days in the charter no i understand that but uh that's what i'm i guess i i guess how do i how does the 30 45 days is that included in the six months does it add to the six month timeline to put to over six months no because that's a separate analysis right the 45 days is from the day of the vacancy

On the day of the vacancy? Yes. Okay, perfect. The six months or more has to do with the balance of whatever the time is left on that particular seat's term. Okay, perfect. At the time of the vacancy. Yeah, so those are two separate- Thank you for the clarification, Mayor. Councilman Herzberg.

So, first of all, I agree with you that this was an issue that needed to be discussed, and the commission discussed it, and I also agree with you. I think, too, just filling the two-year term was fine because of how long it can take to just fill that seat. Like, even a year, you'll have a special election, potentially for a seven-month term or something like that. But I'm confused on what you believe is wrong, other than the 12-month vacancy, because the red line I have says, the confirmation vote of mayor's nomination shall be conducted the next regular scheduled meeting following the nomination, unless the majority of the council votes to hold a special election. So there is something in the red line charter that requires the vote to happen. So I'm just confused on what, I agree with your issue on making the 45 days clear, and I agree, personally I think the way, I think the only problem we had in the charter wasn't how long the term was, but

it was how the appointment and nomination happens right so i i just i want to know what you believe is wrong with that language well again hey i was working off of an older draft as it turns out or you know so so if that's the case that's fine but you know i also just want to state it because i want to make sure that it's comprehensive enough right you know so that there's no um or rather so that it's clear that if one prevails that would be the one that prevails if that makes sense right i mean i guess maybe we'll see the final language on tuesday yes so i'll vote for it for now i just uh i think the only thing we might be competing on is the the length of the vacancy which i'm on your side on that one but let's let's see what the final but i also think it would be great just to again for clarity's sake right because remember that if there's a conflict between the two right the one that uh receives the most votes wins right so i wanted to state that as part of the motion and to make sure it's including the ballot tax because if the other one gains more than or rather if this one gains uh more than the than ballot question four then that amendment you know would uh would in my opinion potentially have a defect right so i just want to restate if that makes better but i was working off of apparently an older draft so i want to apologize for that um any other questions the final language will be cleared up and then yeah exactly okay anyone else All right, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it, 7B passes. Now on 7C, which is the last one I had added to the agenda. This one, to me, is just something for your consideration in light of what the supervisor of elections told me directly by phone. that there would be no early voting, you know, in-person early voting in the event of a December runoff, which is one of the questions here, right? And I'd actually be curious for the chair to give us a kind of a quick rundown of how this discussion went, because what I'm proposing with 7C is to have a simple August primary, November runoff, right? which I also think in situations involving these charter amendments would be beneficial, right? To have an election where there'll be more turnout, but also won't be overwhelmed in drawing out the others. But I don't fully remember what the discussion was on that, so if you can provide us with a quick rundown of how that discussion went before I go ahead and finalize the motion.

Sure, which specific discussion did you wanna, I wasn't clear.

With respect to the change in the primary and runoff system. And I know, for example, you had a proposal on having in cases with only two candidates in a particular seat, they would skip the August primary and go straight to a November primary in essence, right? But if there were more than two candidates in a particular seat, they would have an August primary and then go, the top two would go to a November runoff. But that was one proposal you had. I know, I believe it was Commissioner Abad that had mentioned or had discussed at least what I've just brought up just for the council's consideration of a simple August primary, November runoff. And then you know how we ended up with the final product which which I I favored I spoke about this at the at the December Chamber meeting Chamber of Commerce meeting last year But again, it was just the comments from the supervisor that had me a little concerned then, you know Are we not going to have early voting if we adopt the December runoff timeline? but if you can give everyone a run-down of how the the discussion among those three items went, that would be great.

Sure, Mr. Mayor. So first of all, is the comments from the supervisor elections weren't part of our discussions. We weren't aware of it. I'm just for learning today. So that wasn't part of our discussions at all. Nonetheless, is as to that item, when it first came up, there was a initial proposal that had passed, which was to have a August meeting. Pretty much our primary when there was going to be more than two persons that are qualified for a seat to run. And then there was a lot of debate going between how that would move forward. The initial proposal was gonna be that the top two vote getters would then move on to November for a final. And there was also a consideration that the person that received the most votes, if they received more than 50% plus one in that primary, even though there was three of them, if they received the 50% plus one, that that would be the version. after much debate and Reconsideration is the Commission ultimately voted on having on keeping to have the vote only in November with a runoff to occur in December Moving forward the current timeline for a runoff which puts it into generally is almost in the Thanksgiving time period So he put it into the second week of December time period and that's how that transition and that was the ultimate decision of the Commission

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And so again, that conversation, by the way, happened toward the end of your deliberations after you had voted on this and everything. So that's why, for example, you and I didn't have a conversation about that. And it was something actually that I learned in my conversation with her while discussing what her attorneys had viewed as deficiencies with the wording in the initial report, or when we were gonna consider the final report, what was it, like now, 30 days ago or so. So, you know, that's why I wanted to just raise it for my colleagues as an alternate thing, right? Because my priority ultimately was to deal with the issue of no early voting in our runoff system, right? And also, you know, how to boost turnout because the issue that we experienced in 24 was people were traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday and without any in-person voting, they only were able to vote realistically either on election day or absentee ballot. So I wanted to kind of have this discussion on the days by adding an alternate proposal there and discussing the merits of that. Councilman Sanchez and then Councilman, well actually first. I'll move it and then it's been seconded by Councilman Herzberg. We'll begin with Councilman Herzberg and then Councilman Sanchez.

Thank you, Mayor. So I remember Signing on, I think Councilman Sanchez also chimed in on this issue. The problem I have with that is we're trying to fix one problem with a new problem. August elections, unless there's a presidential primary, which no, presidential primaries don't happen in August, they happen in May in Florida now. There are low turnout elections too, 20%, 18%. So we're trying to solve a problem uh with putting it to another low turnout election it's unfortunate to hear that the supervisor election won't provide early voting i don't know why since the town pays for it but um i think that another thing that i that i that this commission discussed And I thought they were going the wrong way on a few of the issues was they discussed, hey, why aren't people running for elections? You know, last one, people were unopposed. There's a lot of reasons why people were unopposed. And six months before that, five people ran for one seat. But doing this makes it harder to run. Plain and none. Putting a primary in August makes it harder for normal people to run. It costs more money.

Are we abnormal?

No, I'm saying people that are not connected, not politicians, not incumbents, it makes it harder for them to run, in my opinion. Because now you're looking at, unless you only have two people running for your seat, you're looking at having to do two campaigns. It's going to cost more money. And I think one of the big things that people don't like about running for office is you've got to go out and ask your friends for money. I hated it. I hate doing it. But unfortunately, it's part of the business, right? You have to do it or else you can't run. It takes money to run a campaign. So I would much, personally, I would rather keep it the way it is, go with the December runoff, because I think that was the biggest issue. I think if we have a December runoff like Hialeah does, like the majority municipalities have a December runoff. The clerk did the math. I think only Miami Gardens does this August runoff. And I saw the email of the supervisor of elections trying to push this August runoff idea. I think it's a terrible idea. August 5th. Primary, right, primary. And then I think moving the runoff to December will increase the voter turnout. I think the mayoral runoff was 10%. I think we'll get to 15 to 20%. And you know what? That's what an August primary is too. 20, 25% on a good year. So I don't see how it solves the turnout issue. solve the early voting issue, but the turnout's still gonna be low no matter what, and I do really think that it makes it harder and more expensive for people to run for office in August, and that's one of the reasons why I spoke out against that. Councilman Sanchez.

Also got to take into consideration the question of qualifying. So does that mean that we would have two qualifying periods? One for August. Let's say that one person qualifies and no one else does. Does that mean that it ends there? Or if three people qualify, then we move into now a November type of situation with an election in August and then again in November. So would we have multiple qualifying periods?

So let me take them in turn. Again, I'm indifferent on this personally, right? And I'm bringing it up as an option. Although I do wanna say I completely disagree that it necessarily makes it harder, right? When you sign up to run for office, you already know that you might have a runoff election, right? And if you're telling me that the turnout in a November or in a December runoff are gonna be the same as the turnout in August, really what the real danger is is that you're gonna have a backloaded election where August is actually gonna be easier for candidates to run. Because now you're going to have 15% turnout in the town, which is the same as it is in December, let's say, right? You know, for hypothetical purposes. So in a way, you're actually making it more accessible, right? Because now the electorate that they need to reach is smaller than the November electorate. If anything, you make it more expensive on the back end. But the barrier to entry in some ways gets easier, right? And again, look, this is more of an intellectual exercise. I really don't care.

And I enjoy these discussions. I know you do too, Mayor.

Yes, I do.

But I have a rebuttal to that. This man right here. You ran in a three-person race. He didn't need a runoff. Right now, if you have a three-person race, it's guaranteed you're gonna have to run two campaigns. Guaranteed. because I definitely don't believe that we should have a winner in August be the winner. I don't like that the county does that. I think that's a bad system. But if there's three people, you're guaranteed to have a runoff, right? You're guaranteed to go to November, so you gotta run two campaigns. If you're running a great campaign in November, you can win. Councilman Garcia did it, right? So I understand, and I remember when I first saw the proposal, I was like, yeah, that makes sense, and it'll save the town money, too, potentially. But I do think it makes it harder for people to run, and it makes it more expensive, and I think that's one of the reasons people don't wanna run, because you gotta collect a lot of money, you gotta ask for a lot of money, and that's one of the barriers of entry.

I get it, but I just wanted to respond to that, right? And again, I don't want to bore the audience here with something that we can maybe discuss after we've disposed of this. And I'll get there now. I just also wanted to respond to Congressman Sanchez. I don't see why you would need two qualifying dates because kind of like with the existing system, right? When you sign up and then you're talking about a runoff, you're within the same race. You're now just talking about the top two vote finishers going to a second round. They've already qualified for it.

If I may, Mr. Mayor, to rephrase the question a little bit. So right now, the qualifying period is coming up for the November election. What I would like to know and ask the clerk is, is there a minimum amount of time before the election that the qualifying period has to be? Yes. So if your example, if your qualifying period is for August,

It would be in June as what happens now.

It wouldn't be sooner than that? It wouldn't be maybe four months before that? Because if you only have two candidates and they're going to run in August, is that what you're estimating? Is that what you're recommending? If they run in August, there wouldn't be a runoff in November.

When is the qualifying right now for all the August primaries?

I don't know for the August because we don't have that. That's the county. I know for us.

Well, I'll say it off the top of my head for my recollection as a political nerd. It's usually around late May, early June. Late May, early June.

And the way that I'm thinking is just moving the timeline. If you're moving it from November to August, you're moving it back by four months. So you would also move the qualifying period by another four months.

No, I get that, but it's really not a big impediment. I think the proof of that is how you see many of the state races and everything else pan out. It just really depends on who wants to run. And again, don't look at it as qualifying for November. Look at it as qualifying for August. It's still pretty much the same amount of time before. You're just moving the schedule earlier because your primary now won't be in November. It's going to be in August. But I just wanted to...

to answer you and make sure i did and now councilman gracie i believe you had a question thank you mayor um i think the issue that we were having by moving into the second week of december addressed the problem we felt that uh yeah the runoff in november you know collided with uh with thanksgiving and we didn't get that turnout and moving it to where other towns are doing it uh second week of december addressed that issue um i think that the system that we've had where you have the november election and you're the runoff after has worked for 26 years, and there's been very robust elections with multiple candidates, more than three, four, five throughout the years, and I think it's worked. And I think moving it to the second week, what the charter committee suggested, makes sense to me, and I... I wouldn't want to make that change to an August primary at this time.

I think that's fine. And I just want to point out again that I first brought it up last December. I mean, not that it matters, but the point is, you know, again, it's about finding solutions at the end of the day to these problems. And that was a problem I identified from my runoff that it was definitely a challenge to go ahead and try to remind voters that they had a second round. Some people that I would contact would say, what do you mean? I just voted for you. And that would throw them off. And then now you have a mad dash because the AB requests have to be put in within the following week. And so you're also truncating the time to make those requests. I'm fine with December, right? I just wish that our supervisor would give us the option to also have in-person early voting along with that. And perhaps a future supervisor will feel a little different, especially because we're not so far into the holiday season when we have that, right? I agree with you. I also want to know, for everyone's benefit, and then what I'm gonna do is have a motion to lay this on the table, because I see where this is at. But just to close, to your point, Councilman Garcia, I just want to remind you that it wasn't until 2013 that we implemented a true majority requirement, right? Meaning having a runoff. before you would have multiple candidates run, such as in 2008, you know, when Nick Perdomo ended up prevailing, and it was a winner-take-all system in that race, right? There were four candidates, and I believe former Vice Mayor Perdomo won with something like 38% in a four-person race. So, you know, that's why we had to correct it in 2013. And, you know, this is a system of continual refinement, right? You know, we're only 25 years old, going on 26, so we're always learning with that. I will move to latest on the table indefinitely. Second. Seconded by the Vice Mayor. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. you guys have it the motion is laid on our 7c is laid on the table indefinitely with that I believe there is no further business and we are adjourned at 7 43 p.m thank you everyone