Charter Review Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Okay.

It is 6 p.m. We call this meeting of the Charter of View Advisory Board to whatever. To order. So looking at the agenda, we've got the item 5A. There's no public comment.

We've got to go to roll call. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. We'll walk you through it. So just ask.

You're OK. All right, so you can start, please. Stephen Harrison, board member. Daniel Kowalczyk, board member.

Robin Sandricente, board member. Jacqueline Dorvis, board member. OK, and we have the Pledge of Allegiance. Stephen, you want to do the honors, please? Public comment?

We have received no public comment, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. Number five, a approval of the minutes. Approval of the December 17, 2025 Charter Review Advisory Board minutes. Does everybody have a copy of that? Of the minutes? Yes.

So if you do want materials ahead of time, just let me know before the meeting. But hopefully, if everyone had a chance to review it.

OK. I'm looking at one of the motions that was made. This was regarding the language in order to borrow money. So the motion I'm looking at is a motion was made by Vice Chair Justice, seconded by Board Member Harrison. to recommend adding the referendum question to the November 2026 ballot. And the motion carried five to one. Just an update on that because at the commission meetings, a few commission meetings ago, that is currently under judicial review because of the conflict in the charter language. So I don't know if we want to do anything with this. as far as tabling it until we get the judicial review decision if there is going to be a charter amendment or can we borrow money?

So the recommendation that you're referring to, that was already sent to commission and then you guys had the joint meeting to discuss it. So there's nothing that the board can do further. So we're just looking for a motion to approve the minutes as presented or with any changes that you might have.

So thank you for that. We can approve the minutes. Yes.

So we'll need a motion maker and then a seconder and then we'll vote.

Make the motion. Thank you. Okay. And the motion passed four to zero. Moving on to item six, a presentation presentation of the sunshine law training presented by the office of the city attorney.

I will be very brief for you guys because I am in all of your meetings as well for CRAP and for PISA. My name is Caitlin Coughlin. I'm one of the city attorneys here. I have been teaching the police department for the last two months. So this is beautiful. I love this for us. And like I said, I know you've definitely had it before, Robin. So I will be brief. It's just a high level overview of what you have to follow as part of this advisory board for the city. I don't want anybody to get in trouble for taking their time and volunteering their time to help our city. I think this is probably one of the most important And I think this year is definitely, hopefully we'll get together more times too. So Sunshine Law and public meetings. What's the Sunshine Law? It's essentially the right to open government. So the reason that everything is being recorded is because Florida is open government. It essentially is going to be that, hey, I'm not the city commission, why do I have to follow these rules? Well, it's because we wanna be open to the public and we need you guys to obviously follow them as long as you are making certain recommendations to the city commission. Public meetings, what's the definition? This is probably the most important part of my entire presentation is that a meeting doesn't have to be necessarily in this room. You can get in trouble for carrying on a meeting So what does that mean? That could be any conversation. If there's two or more of you in a room on a text message thread, on a reply all, I'll tell you a little bit about reply all later, but that potentially could be two somebody who's not present there and now we're all getting in trouble for having that so keep that in mind it also applies to members elect what are the requirements is obviously that we have an open meeting it has to be publicly noticed and then the meetings as we have the clerk here he's going to be taking all of those meetings You're not prohibited from socially meeting. I know, as we were just talking, neighbors, you know, there's going to be times where this is possible. I think I've ran into every single person here out and about. So it's not deterring you from having a social gathering or a conversation or something like that. It is so that you are not having secret conversations about what you want to send to the city commission. They're going to be listening to what you have to say, and you don't want the appearance of impropriety. You don't want the appearance that you are trying conversations if anything I feel like for this board especially the public's really going to be interested in your take on it and the approach that you are guiding Like I said, this could be telephone conversations, text messages. It happens more than you think. And that's why I just want everyone to be very wary about that. I always get Chuck English asking me every single time about the reply all. And it's a great question because you always see at the bottom of everyone's email, do not reply all. And the reason for that is so that you accidentally don't, and I'm not talking like, hey, I'll be there tonight, you know. or we file on accident, and it causes the appearance that you're having those conversations and you're being swayed one way or another. Social media, this is another one. The comments on social media potentially could get you a Sunshine Law violation. I say that because we have a lot of North Port. I book on it almost every day. Listen, there's a lot of good information on there. When you start commenting under the different social medias, that's when we run into an issue. The commission can't do it, you guys can't do it, so just be mindful of that. You can't use any newsletters to communicate. These are just AGO opinions. For those who are not familiar with an AGO opinion, the attorney general essentially goes in and he'll weigh on what the legislative intent of the law is. We use them as persuasive and a lot, especially for to the Attorney General and find one of theirs. So these are a couple good ones I found. A newsletter to communicate among yourselves on issues that foreseeably could be coming for the board. That's not okay. Anything on the city's Facebook page, a discussion on something that may foreseeably come up. What does foreseeable mean? Well, we're a It's really as simple as that. Same with me, I'm on certain boards and we can't have those side conversations. Same thing with any letters being sent to board members and private discussions. I have two phones. If I communicate with law enforcement, let's say on my private phone, I'm creating a public record. I try not to do that ever. Obviously emergencies happen, but I am, doesn't matter where I'm at, it could be Your private email, your work email, whatever that means, just don't do it. Same thing with personal devices. I know for me, at least, I have two phones and I keep them very, very separate. The reason it's mandatory is because there are a lot of examples, especially lately, and where you're getting penalties. Nobody wants removal from office, attorney's fees, criminal prosecution, or non-criminal fines. Here was an example in Holmes County. This one, is there a video? At Paralegal, it's so amazing. Okay, we're actually gonna pause it though. Anyways, I'll skip that so we can jump ahead. But on this one, they were found guilty of a misdemeanor. They met with everybody that night. They did not notice the public. They voted to fire the city attorney, the city manager, the city clerk from office and removed the mayor from five days in jail very broad example but you know if when we're dealing with the commission especially that could have been something you're not thinking um and so i'd like to reiterate that public records i will i will cruise through this i think it's very uh everything's subject to disclosure and florida in general is going to when in doubt, disclose. There's an entire Sunshine Manual that I would do at times if they need a legal redaction on it. The clerk's office is in charge of redacting all of the public records for exemptions. But for the most part, any record the public wants is going to go out to the public. How you could essentially tell yourself these things, the clerk, always going to have my emails right but if you are creating a public record outside of let's say your email through the board make sure you don't destroy that if somebody asks for it it has to be forthcoming and that's really going to be on yourself I know when the clerk when they message me I have to look through I have to spend that extra questions and you'll have all of this in there but are you receiving it because of your position on this advisory board is it in connection with the transition or transaction of official business and it isn't used to perpetuate communicate more formalized knowledge thank you text messages from private computers or phones anything that you're communicating with is going to create in favor of disclosure. I do not envy them at all in the amount of public records requests we have, but I will say it is such a great tool as well. I know my parents live over at Madeira Beach, and they're having equally as many issues with rebuilding, essentially. After the hurricane, we're all dealing with stuff like that. I think the biggest thing there is like, hey, do a public records request. Sometimes people aren't going to give you the answers you want. And for this board especially, they may or may not want to know what you guys are talking about outside this room. Retention, if you do create a public record, just make sure that you properly retain them or produce them. I can't see in this situation where you are creating a public record outside of this room, quite honestly. But I say it just in case. If you have questions, you'll know. You cannot, obviously, not give public records if you fail to respond. That's a huge no-no. I remember I was on the female before me who was our senior attorney. She was on vacation. I told the clerk's office, once and only time, I told them that. I said, she's on vacation. We've got to wait until she comes back. And they were like, absolutely not. That is not what the law says. It says in a reasonable amount of time, you're to produce those records in a reasonable amount of time. And her being on vacation is not reasonable. So obviously, if you ever get a request for documents as your position on this board, contact one of us. We'll get it in the system. We'll handle all of that for you guys. An ability to comply with a public records request is also not an excuse. Like I said, the vacation thing, this is all going to be on the clerk's office and the city attorney's office for the most part. But just so that you know, if you're unable to find a public record that you may or may not have created, keep that in mind. And then obviously legal fees are crazy. Let's just be completely honest. If you do anything over 30 minutes and I'm redacting, it's absolutely insane. And so that's really the biggest issue of why it's mandatory that we teach it. Ethics, I think that all of these are very self-explanatory in the sense that they can be hard to find. The number one thing I suggest, if you ever think that you are having a conflict, whether that be internally, externally, whatever the case may be, call the ethics hotline. I utilize it for myself in the Florida bar. If a judge asks me to do something I'm not comfortable with or I don't know if it's against my bar license, I have called anonymously to say, like, I don't know how to handle this. And the same thing for the commission, right? If your brother's uncle's sister owns a business that we're now doing business with, the best bet is to not look like you have any, you haven't been persuaded one way or another. So I put those up there and I would utilize those, or myself included. Just sometimes it's easier to explain to somebody you don't know who doesn't work for the city. So solicitation or acceptance of gifts, unauthorized compensation or misuse of a public position, all of those things could be Very, very simple. I went out to coffee with an attorney when I first started working here. And he went to pay for mine. And that's an absolute no-no, because we hire outside counsel, and he's technically getting paid by the city at some point. In my head, that was de minimis. It was something like that. But if you're going out with a contractor, you see somebody who owns Welland Park out, and you're buying them a beer, it may have the appearance that it's different. You're accepting a gift or giving a gift to somebody. Unauthorized compensation, that goes without saying. And then misuse of a public position. I was a state attorney before this for nine years, and I can't tell you how many new state attorneys they told us. We get this cute little badge, and they're like, do not flash your badge when you get pulled over. But we're 22 years old. Of course we're going to flash it. I did not. But every single one of them gets fired, right? And because you don't get a special privilege because of your position. And I thought that was a good example. Abuse of a public position or disclosure or use of certain information. If you learn anything, I can't see where I can't think of a good realistic example for this group right here where you're ever going to be talking not in this room. So prohibited relationships, obviously, if you have a spouse or a child, there's any reality or you're getting anything. The cure for all of this is not that you are some terrible person who just has a lot of friends. It's that you're not going to vote, right? It has nothing to do with who you know, what you know, but the cure on it is that when you guys are making a decision that the commission is going to potentially take your ruling on, you're just not going to vote on that. Same thing, exactly this. It just gives you the Florida state statute. You can't abstain from voting unless a conflict of interest exists. And it specifically says as set forth in the ethical statutes. If you read the ethics statutes, it's clear as mud. So where you may have, like I said, a sister or brother's aunt, and you want to know. So I would give them a call. And then you're prohibited if, obviously, you have any financial interest in what you're voting on or if you're relative or business associate. Relative is pretty all inclusive. I put that in there just because I was surprised how many great-grandparent or step-great-grandparent. There's a lot of people that would be inclusive of that. And of course, the reason for this is for the penalties. And then lastly, we have meeting procedures. As we learned this morning, it'll become more clear as we go, and it'll just be second nature. But you make a motion, it should be a clear statement about what the decision is. I don't know what you guys have in front of you here, but I know for the commission, the clerk actually will have certain motions so that they have it done properly. It does require a second. Discussion opens, beginning with the person who made the motion, and then the board will debate the motion. Stay on topic. Talking about something else is out of order. We'll kind of keep you in line if we feel that there's maybe something else we're going into, not because we don't want you to talk about it and have an idea on it, but mostly because it wasn't noticed to the public. And we don't want you guys getting in trouble for your good ideas when we can just put it on the next meeting and we'll move on. Time limits per person. Obviously, if somebody wants to talk longer, especially in a smaller group, it just needs to be a two-thirds vote. and then make it consistent. You know, we're not going to give public comment, a commission any different. It has to stay consistent. Then each board member is going to speak unless no one's waiting to speak. I keep this in here just for alternative members so that we can have a quorum more often. We'll guide you through that. And then lastly, just if you guys need anything that may or may not be a public record right now, what could that look like in RFP potentially? There's a lot of different, I'm always trying to think of practical examples, if there is something you guys need that hasn't been a public record, ask us. You guys will do a unanimous vote that you want a copy of it. We'll get it through one of us. And then we'll respond to the request. So I'm here every time. So if you guys have any questions, you know where to find me. Thank you. If anybody has any questions.

Any questions? I have a question. Yeah. Going back a while, I spoke with Heather. regarding maintaining records for public records requests emails social media posts and so forth and she had stated that if we make a post that might be forthcoming with no board members comments we should send that to her yeah I would if you think you've created a public record let's say and

If it's not, it's not responsive. Somebody would really have to ask for any correspondence of yours to get that as a responsive document. But I would. If you think that you've created it just in case somebody asked for it, especially when you'll have something, typically the people who are asking for it are big in this community, you know, and not big in that sense, big in the sense of like they know what's going on. So they've probably seen it. If it's not in there, then you're like, oh, wait. But I would. Anytime you think you're creating one, I would forward it.

Do you get a lot of that? No, not really.

I know. I was going to say I can't. But so if you do think of it, and you know what, that might be a good example of like, hey, I think I created a public record. Like, would this be something that you need to retain?

Yeah. Otherwise, then you would contact us, because there's been a lot of inquiries. I want to see such and such calendar.

Yeah.

Right. So then you would contact the board member and get that for a public records request, correct? If it's responsive.

So I will say that a lot of people think that asking for a record that is not in its original form, so like my piece of paper or something or my soda bottle, if you ask for a record like my calendar, And I don't have a record of that. I can't pull a record. I'm not required to. So a lot of that is going to be... No records exist? No records exist. Yes. The same thing with the police department was out on a call not too long ago. The defendant or whomever was getting arrested had seen them using their WhatsApp on their phone. So records contacted them to say, have you been transacting any business on your WhatsApp? And that's when they would produce any records that they hold. But yeah, I would keep it. But I don't know that you necessarily need to give it to her right away if you want to just at least ask her, though. Yeah, I like that. I like that.

So obviously for us board members, we can only speak in this setting. You know what I mean? And it has to be on the agenda, of course. So what about speaking to commissioners? There's no public comment.

No, I know what you mean. So as long as you are not telling them your position as you're ruling in this room, is how I would say it. If you're going up there and you're fighting for what you just ruled on, that potentially could be a problem. Does that make sense?

So you're not loving or whatever. So if you're not disclosing your, let's say, vote or how you're going to vote on a topic that comes before this board, then that's okay.

You're a public commenter in that you're not a part of crap.

Yeah, like I always say.

Yeah, you do a good job.

That I'm part of it, but this is my own opinion. I don't represent the board.

I think that's fine. I can find you case law on that so we can be absolutely sure. While you guys continue to do the rest, let me plug that in and see if I can find anything on it. I don't want to say yes. I know exactly what you're saying. You do get up there. You introduce yourself. Where is the line crossed as your position?

Good questions.

Yeah, let me do that while you guys are doing the rest of your matters. I'll find that one and I'll bring it back up.

Any other questions? No? Okay. Moving on then, we will do item 7A, new business. Item 25-2851, discussion and possible action regarding recommending new verbiage allowing charter offices to live outside the city. We have attachments, the ordinance 2024-49. Are we going to look at that on the overhead?

We could certainly pull it up. And I just want to say that this was originally brought up by, I might have to steal this computer. Sure, you don't mind. I'll pull it up. Give me one second. And then, so... Requested by board member justice who isn't here today to speak on it, but We could still speak to it. All right, the computer starts, so it's gonna be a minute So I know that it was

voted on, right, and it failed, meaning the city attorney and the city clerk still have to live within the city, right, and I believe it's a year they have to get residency within the city. I did have a question, though. I don't know if anybody here can answer this, but does the city clerk or the city attorney, do they get, they don't get a take-home vehicle, right, or a mileage allowance for a commute?

It depends on their contract. I know the city clerk does not. I can't speak to this. I believe the city attorney.

Right now for the city attorney, because he's commuting from Clearwater, he'll get a mileage for the commute, but not the take-home car.

And the city manager does. But he has to maintain residency within a year. Okay. Okay. So, I understand why they would want this to get, like, to get rid of the residency requirement. Right? So we can get a better pool of candidates and, you know, obviously expand upon, you know, where we're drawing from. But instead of completely getting rid of the requirements. I was thinking maybe we can see if we can, like. Allow them. to either live within this county or like a touching county, you know what I mean? Meaning like Manatee, DeSoto, or Charlotte County, right? Because we're so close to Charlotte County. I know for myself, I commute to Manatee County. You know what I mean? It just makes sense that, you know, within Sarasota County or touching county, they can live and they have to maintain that residency. And of course, we can put in the language that the commission can determine, you know what I mean, like a case by case or per their contract if they want to restrict or limit the residency requirements for their contract. exclusively those two positions so the city manager has to as well but this what this referendum was just for the city attorney and city clerk correct yep we are assuming that um

that the city should try to hire within the city. And then in the event that they cannot find suitable candidate that fulfilled the requirements of the position, then they have the option to go outside of the city, based on what you're saying. But the first call should be to try to hire within the city, if that was the call. I don't know, that's, I would say.

All right, I've got a clarification because what the... Item is talking about charter officers. So a charter officer is commission, city clerk, city attorney, city manager. They're all charter officers, correct?

Charter officers are going to be the city manager, the city clerk, and the city attorney.

But the referendum question was just, if you scroll down, Matt, it was just for the city clerk and city attorney.

City clerk and the city attorney, like you said.

Two positions.

Keep going down. Because the commission will have their own role based on their district.

It's in bold. Down, down, down.

Right there, city charter, city clerk, and city attorney. All right. And the board can make a recommendation regarding any, all positions, whatever you guys feel is appropriate.

It doesn't have to be just limited to this particular referendum. Like if we wanted to discuss the commission, commissioners, according to section 205, the commissioners have to be residing within one year.

Yeah, I would say that doesn't fall under this agenda item, but maybe we could add it if you want to discuss that. As a future agenda? Yeah.

OK.

Right, this one's just about the charter officers. Yeah, because they have districts.

Yeah. My opinion on that was I know they wanted to get a better pool in order to, and I don't feel that they really need to reside within our city. As far as an attorney goes, they're statewide. They're county-wise. So the education in the pool is greater instead of just limiting it to the city of Northport. Same thing with the city clerk, with the educational background that they've got to go through. It's not just limited to the city of Northport. It's encompassing, really, state.

I think when they originally thinking that if they live in the city they have a better commitment or more attachment to because they belong to the city so they're here they understand what's happening in the city they are committed to the city and probably that's why they want somebody from the city that's why I was saying like we should try to hire within the city that would be our first call you know that's the tool that we would like to get first the first call from people and if we cannot find anybody from here then we should Like, let's try to find somebody who's here, who understands what is going on, who's very involved with what is going on, and then we cannot find anyone, as you said. Florida is, you know, they know everything else, but let's try to hire somebody. That should be the first call, try to get somebody from within our house. I'm just looking now. No, it's okay. It's like when you're trying to hire, when you have a company, you first try to hire from within, and then nobody wants

year after year, and it kind of limits. And again, in my opinion, an attorney is statewide. So for the attorney to be subjected to just living within the city of North.

No, no, but what I'm saying is put that within the addition setting. You can go find, and then you're OK to go out.

But when they put out a job posting, they're going to get applications from all over. I don't know if they can just say, we're going to limit it to, let's say we're going to limit it to a certain amount of time period in order to see whose applications come in. And then if it's outside of that time period, then we then go outside of the city limits.

That, I don't know what would be the policy. it was said internally, we will have it posted for 90 days. If nobody applied for the position, then we go out. But I don't know if that's something that North Port will do, you see? Or we are limited. The possibility is to fulfill the position faster, right? Yes, Daniel.

I think for me, my consideration with that, I don't know specifically, as I'm not an attorney. I think it's twofold. One, I don't know if we potentially run into some sort of Equal Rights Act violation, potentially, by limiting geographically. That I don't know. I think to your point, though, Jeff, and I fully agree that, you know, I think it's a noble idea to try and hire within the city. I think especially for something like administrative law, where it is a much more specialized field. I kind of like to your point is I do like maybe the idea of having it as a, like, Charlotte for that reason, right? I think maintaining that eventual requirement to have them within your, I think especially as you see higher prices that do increase in Northport, you know, comparatively to 10 years ago, right? It might be able to attract us, you know, especially for, comparatively for saying private sector attorneys versus public sector attorneys. So I think it is noble. I just struggle to see where a recommendation might fall into a potential legal violation because of restricting it by geography.

I understand that, but then I think far when we need to get into relocation expenses because we need to bring that person or it's only going to be like you know mileage and whatever you know that maybe I don't need to we don't need to get into that conversation maybe it's not our conversation because it's finances and relocation and all that stuff but once again my reference is corporate and that's

what's going on in the legislation now and everything with the budget cuts that we're now going through, then that's an added expense that I don't think we want to pursue as a city, adding all that expense.

So that's why in the beginning I asked about if they have the take home, which they don't. I believe that they only get the you said currently because he lives in Clearwater but outside that once they maintain residency they only get it for special assignments correct like if they have to drive out to conferences or things along that sort not regular commute to City Hall correct so I live I'm not a charter officer but I live in Northport I don't get my commute I get if I go to court so yes exactly what you said so right in my head what makes sense to me is the city like we want the most capable right attorney and we want the best you know which we have great ones you know but we want the best possible right and if we restrict it to just northport they have to stay within north i feel like that really kind of restricts the city as a whole you know as a city standpoint we're not going to be spending a lot of money initially yes but you know what i mean they're not once they're here or within a county, a touching county, right? We're not going to be spending money, right? Because that's going to be on their personal commute, you know what I mean, on their personal vehicle. It's not going to be the city's responsibility to assume the gas and the maintenance of the vehicle. So for me, it makes sense. I kind of wrote this down. I don't know what you think, but there should be something that says it shall not be required for a charter officer to be a resident of the city at the time of appointment. However, the charter officer shall establish and maintain residency within Sarasota County, Florida, or within a county contiguous to Sarasota County, Florida, within one year from the appointment date and throughout the duration of employment. For purposes of this section, counties are included Sarasota County, Manatee County, DeSoto County, and Charlotte County. The City Commission may require stricter residency availability and response requirements through the city charter officer's employment contract. That's what makes sense to me. I mean, of course, the very fine wording could be changed. You know what I mean? It's our job to bring it to the commission and then they obviously put it how they like, but that's what makes sense for me.

Yeah, I think it's a fair recommendation. I think, you know, in order to get better candidates, in order to have better options to get the best to the best of the county, it makes sense. I think it would be somebody else to decide, like, what would be the employment conditions that you're going As I said before, do they want to pay relocation or they want to say that this is without relocation? What are the benefits? That is something that we cannot decide. I don't think that would be something for us.

Yeah, I would agree with you.

I would agree with Stephen. And I would agree with you.

We all have definite opinions. And it looks like we're all in favor of they don't have to reside within the city of Northport initially, that we can go outside the city. Because again, it's all statewide law is law. Municipality law is municipality law. And a learned attorney practicing for that many years knows what the state law and the county and all that. So I'm in favor of that. And I like what you had stated, Stephen. I think it's just a little too wordy. Because again, we're limited with wording, the number of words on a referendum. So maybe we can get a legal look at it. Are you able to do that, to look at what we're trying to put together?

I don't believe not at this time. I can. I think once you present it, then legal will look at it.

Yeah. Well, we make a motion, right? And then that goes to commission. So we could make, so I have something written down if we agree upon it, right? Like, we can make a motion, and then once it gets there, then the attorneys will review it and then kind of change the order. Just like they did with the, yeah.

And that'll cover, that'll, like, So are we all done with the discussion? Are we ready to make a motion? Stephen? I'll make it.

I move to recommend that the city commission consider placing a charter amendment before the voters to amend the residency requirements for charter officers by replacing the current city only residency requirement. With a reasonable regional residency requirement, allowing charter officers to reside within Sarasota county. or contiguous county, specifically Manatee County, DeSoto, or Charlotte, while allowing the City Commission to impose stricter residency availability or response requirements through employment contracts. Second.

Second. Seconded by Daniel. Anyone have a vote on that? Yep. Jacqueline, yes. Daniel, Stephen, and Ami, yes. That passes four to zero.

Since you have that written down, do you mind if I borrow that? I definitely didn't get all that. That was really good. That was a lot.

advisory boards over anything possessed First Amendment speech rights, which needs to be balanced against the government. information obtained through your board service I don't see how that would be applicable and then refrain from invoking their board position to security special treatment so basically what the ethics statutes is that you have your first amendment rights you are being ethical and not persuading anybody and you're fully within your right to do so so every time I come up just do the same thing like I just say exactly yeah okay and honestly if you're not speaking on if you're speaking from you then you have the

OK, so we're still on item 7a. Do we need to make any kind of motion to amend the charter section 2.05b or anything like that?

So you can't. I mean, the board obviously can't amend it. But if you want to make a recommendation to, you can. But if it's just going to be kind of the same thing as this,

to follow the guidelines of the referendum and then amendment, amending the charter in order to coincide with the...

So I think making the motion to place that as a referendum question kind of naturally follows that the charter would be amended assuming the referendum passed. But I mean, If you want to add in something extra, you could, just for extra clarity. But I think that kind of follows naturally. If the commission agreed to add this on the referendum, the referendum passes, then naturally the charter is going to be amended subsequently.

That's what I figured, but I just want to get it out there.

Yeah. Yeah, good question.

OK, so are we all good on 7a then? Yes. OK. Moving on to item 7B, 26-0252, discussion and possible action regarding recommending changes to sections 5.01 and 5.02 of the city charter, which I think we just covered. I can pull that up there, but I think you all have the handouts too. That would be nominees for candidates for a commission district seat must be a resident of that particular district for a minimum of one year prior to the close of the qualification period for nominees. This is what we're talking about commissioners.

This is the communication with commissioners and city staff. Uh, it's gonna be a couple minutes, but I'll go quickly. So. Have you all read the 5.2 or should I read it? Good. Okay. So I'm going to skip that because we know what it says, obviously in the charter. So. For context, this was back in November pertaining to. 5.2, um, when the city received the legal opinion by Nikki day. Uh, so in the brief answer. of her summary. It says that the sections 5.2 is a limitation on the powers granted to the city commissioners from the citizens. There is no apparent conflict between the city's non interference charter limitations. Further on, it says the North Port charter provides a specific limitation on city commission powers commonly referred to as a non interference clause. Non-interference clauses are typically intended to preserve the separation between policy making authority and administrative authority and ensuring city operations remains professionally managed. And in the conclusion of her summary that she gave to the city, she says that the Charter's non-interference clause is lawful and essential limitation designated to protect professional administration. Now, I have dug deep into this because I feel that it's important to our city. So I'm going to read briefly some of the charters around where we live. So this is the charter for Venice, Florida. Okay, so their non-interference clause within their charter, it says, except for the purposes of inquiries and investigations, the city council shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city commission, of the city manager solely through the city manager. Okay. Now, also in Sarasota, Florida, the city of Sarasota, it also says the same thing. Interference with administration is the label on it. It's section eight of their charter, except for the purposes of formal inquiries and investigations conducted pursuant to the provisions of article four, section 17 of this charter, the city commission and its members shall deal with city employees who are subjects to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager. Once again, Charlotte County, the same exact thing in their charter. It says, except for the purposes of inquiry and information, the members of the Board of County Commissioners shall not interfere with the performance of the duties of any employee of the county who is under the direct or indirect supervision of the county administrator. So Sarasota, Florida, Venice, Florida, and Charlotte County, the commissioners, right, they're allowed to communicate with the staff for inquiries and investigations. That's something in a city that we don't have. But everywhere around us that surrounds us has it in their charter. It's clear.

So we don't have it at all?

No, ma'am.

Or we have it paraphrased in another way?

No, that's the part of the charter where it would be. It doesn't exist. And it doesn't. Everything is, all the communication is channeled through the city manager. Okay, so the commission cannot ask inquiry or investigations to city staff. They have to go to the city manager and then the city manager obtains information, right, and then gives it to the commissioner.

Do we know, Nico, do we know if in the past we have any case of like situation that happened that this needed to be, sorry, but I'm an attorney too. So have anything happened that we needed to have this verbiage that avoid this communication? So we need to keep this like this?

i can speak generally generally um so it looks like the ordinance was 2020 22 so i was not here for that when some of the language was changed the way i can just generally say the way i approach ordinances is typically i start with muni code and i see how if we want something done in our city i typically look for the neighboring counties as well as far as strategic verbiage and it being codified that's where i come in to usually tighten it up or do something um as far as why it's not included in here i have no clue it's honestly it's just per ordinance how we decided to and as as years go on some things don't work you know and then things change and it doesn't work anymore either so okay uh okay okay so i'm not gonna beat a dead horse but the same exact language is also in pinellas county and clearwater florida

okay as well as 30 other local governments that i've researched and i continue to find other local governments all within florida right that have this same exact language that our that's what i asked there was a case in the past yes so um in my opinion i believe that the charter should include know except for the purposes of inquiry and investigation city commission and its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager so if that's included you know the commission is not going to give direction to city staff they're only going to do what they are legally allowed to do because it's in multiple other local charters that they're allowed for inquiry and investigations Obviously, this would help for multiple reasons, you know, better informed decisions, transparency, reduces the information bottlenecks, improves accountability, helps resolve citizen concerns. And like I said, it's involved in many other local governments around here.

Daniel?

Yes, I...

Was there a specific event that caused the impetus for your research? I'm very in-depth, I was just curious if there was a specific event or something that caused the impetus for the research.

I can answer that way. Commissioner David Duvall, there was an incident regarding him, which they called a picture game, wherein he was casually talking to staff, not asking for anything that would have required to go through the city manager. And the city manager decided to make a poster of Commissioner Duval's face on it that said, do not interact with this commissioner, and hung it all over City Hall. That was the big thing around this. So yes.

I was just kind of curious in the background. That was all.

I was a outspoken person when that came up. And I actually had a different interpretation to Attorney Day's interpretation of our charter. And I've got over 20 years of legal experience, especially with contracts and charters and so forth. So interpretations vary. And when you have language that is not written specifically, then you've got loopholes all over the place, hence the problem with Commissioner Duval that we had. So if we're gonna seriously consider allowing, and by the way, you're right, 30 municipalities all over the state of Florida don't have the restrictions and that do allow a commissioner to interact with staff on certain levels and not to go past that. So in my mind, I do favor changing the language to allow more open communication with a commissioner and a staff person. as long as it doesn't require, we're going to have to look at the wording on that. So we're not going over the city manager's authority and what staff can talk about and what they can't talk about. So it's going to be all in the wording of how we word that. I think we're kind of all on the same boat.

I think so. Yeah. My opinion, it's just like exactly what you said, Robin. It's just clear communication. You know what I mean? And just for inquiries and information, that's it. Of course, there's going to be no directions. You're not giving commands as a commissioner to city staff. I mean, it's just to obtain information.

It's kind of like open dialogue with restrictions as far as not discussing certain aspects of, I don't know how to word that yet, Did you come up with wording, Steven? Yes. Can I hear that again? Because my mind was going.

So as I said, I looked into all the charters at the other cities and kind of went around how they did it. I said, including in 5.2 it should obviously it would be changing because it's the city manager the city attorney and whatnot but except for the purposes of inquiry or information the city commission and its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager so meaning they can inquire and they can try to obtain information That's it, right?

And it's similar to what the other counties have, right?

Yeah, same thing with Charlotte County, Venice, Sarasota, Clearwater, Pinellas.

Yeah, I know Venice amended theirs because of another situation that Venice had. Oh, really? Because of this. The same thing? Yeah. Okay, I think we can... Are we leaving the door open? If we were to ask your legal opinion, are we leaving the door open if it's worded like that for city manager to say, well, you're asking for information. Now, what is that? Is it the information restricted to? Because are we leaving the door open? Why?

I can't say if the intent behind your motion is for certain things that you plan on also presenting to the commission. My part of my legal review is to what practically works at the direction of the commission. Because if that leaves it too open and so they amend it, I will find the best verbiage so that we don't run into this three years down the road and getting us another opinion. So I do try my best to look ahead. as far as possible, and that will be part of the legal.

So is there any more discussion, or are we ready to make a motion? OK. Steven, you want to make the motion?

I make a motion. For the city commission to review section 5.2 of the city charter to include. Except for the purposes of inquiry or information, the city commission and its members shall deal with city officers and employees. Who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager.

2nd, that was going to 2nd for Daniel and we vote. So we're now moving on to item 7c, 25-2943. discussion and possible action regarding election and chair and vice chair. Do we have any nominations? Any nominations for chair?

No, I don't. Obviously, again, first time. Do we know if any of the prior members have interest or not?

Body is the chair and Mr. Joe is the vice chair currently. Okay.

Do we want, I don't know.

We have a quorum. Okay. So we are able to make suggested nominations, recommendations, nominations, and then we vote.

So based on the performance that I've seen today, which is the only one that I have seen. that will be the vice and the chair and you will be the vice. That's my recommendation.

So we have to follow like a certain order procedure. So first we just need nominations for chair and then once we have all the nominations we'll make a motion to select the person for chair and then we'll do vice after that.

Okay so Jacqueline nominates Stephen Harrison for chair. the nominated chair. Sorry, who made that motion? Who seconded it?

Jacqueline made it. I second. Okay, thank you.

Okay, do we have nominations for vice chair? I have nominated Ms. Robin. Second. And can we vote? I vote not.

That one too, going super quick.

That was Jacqueline nominated me.

And then Daniel seconded it.

You made the motion? I made the motion. All right, thank you. Same thing as last time, got it.

OK, moving on to agenda item 8, future agenda items. Anybody?

So this is the section where if you guys want to add something to discuss at a future meeting, this is the time to bring it up. We can't get into detail about it, but we can bring up the topic to add to the next agenda.

So the previous thing we talked about, right, it's going to go to the commission, correct? The two recommendations from today?

Yes.

So if they were to get... shut down, though, would I need to request that to be on? Because, like, last time I requested it, would I have to request that again to be on this agenda? Yes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, so as far as I'm aware, the two items that we discussed, there was recommendations made and no discussion of, like, bringing it back. Now, when commission does decide on it, I'll make, like, a little update on a future agenda.

So we can still talk about it? Yeah, like under update. Yeah, yeah. OK. Yeah. Because I know it has to be on the agenda. So even if they approve or disapprove of it, it'll still be on here so we can talk about it.

I'll have an update once something happens.

I have a future agenda item that I'd love to discuss. And that would be currently a commissioner turns out after two terms, each term being four years. I would like to see that changed because a lot of times we're losing really good commissioners who've got history, who can act from day one. So I would like to really have a discussion surrounding if it's possible to have a commissioner who already turned out in eight years, you know, the two terms, if we could bring that commissioner back for another candidacy after, let's say, eight years, two more terms.

On a different position?

No, they'd still be running for city commission, but since they can't right now, according to our charter, you term out after two terms, which is eight years, because they're four years each. If after eight years, they can then reapply for their candidacy for commissioner. be allowed yeah city commissioners spots well i don't think no more than four i think there needs to be a balance because with advisory boards you know your term out after a certain amount and then you have to wait a year to reapply yeah so with a commissioner i mean there's plenty of great commissioners past commissioners that are out there and i just worry that there's not enough new people coming in to get that position so should we allow For them to come back after a certain amount of years.

So I'm looking now in our charter section 2.03 term of office, discuss terms of four years each. Now I'm not aware if Florida statutes also has a say in that, but at least in our charter, that section, so we could add that to a future agenda if you want to discuss.

And then by that time, we could have maybe a legal review on that statute. And I can research that too. OK. That was my one. Anybody have any other future agenda items? Not this one. Do we want to look at the charter piece by piece? Like maybe pick a section and look at each section and see if it requires a discussion on our part. You know, like really do a full review of the charter.

So that is actually in the requirements of the board is do a full review of the charter. Now, that doesn't mean we're going to read page by page, but we'll have an agenda item that says review the charter with the charter attached and then anyone can bring up any section that they want to review.

But it's a huge charter. So I kind of wanted to piecemeal it by section.

So we could do that. The problem is that, like I said, we're meeting quarterly. So if we break it down too much, and let's say we don't get a quorum for a meeting or so, we're not going to have time to review the whole charter, which is the requirement of the board. So it would be difficult to do.

OK, then do we want to change our meeting schedule so we're meeting more than quarterly?

I do have something, but it's kind of attached to that. So I would really like to change the meeting schedule, but the problem is the requirements, right? Because I know for myself, I'm a full-time student and I work full-time. You know, and I am actively involved in this city, right? But unfortunately, if I can't attend meetings, now we have a monthly and I can't go to three meetings a year. Now I'm kicked out, but I really pour into the city. So I would like to see if we can have a discussion on changing the requirements for the boards. But that's kind of tied to that because I would love to see for us to meet monthly, you know what I mean? But I also don't want to kick myself out of the board because yeah Exactly because if you missed three you're exactly so yeah, I don't know if we need or you we increase the candidates Then we should increase the absence of your thing Yeah, so if we go like monthly or every two months versus, you know quarterly, you know if now people can't because now we got what three people that couldn't show up now if we're doing it monthly and You know, once you have three, so after two, you get like a formal letter or notification. Like if you miss one more within that year, then you're automatically out. And if you miss the third meeting, you're done.

Well, again, that was that whole white paper I provided the commission with on changes for the advisory boards. That is within the charter. We could look at that specific charter language under advisory boards. Because in the past, nobody got a letter. They just, you're out.

So I was going to say as far as I'm aware, that's only in the city code. It's not included as part of the charter itself. So it wouldn't be in the purview of the board.

I thought it was in the charter as well.

If you could find the section, let me know. But as far as I know, it's only in the code. I can search real quick, but I don't think so. I know it's chapter 4. Article 1 of the code, and it talks about board removal, so removal. Board member will be deemed resigned. The seat of the board member has three absences from regular meetings within a 12-month period, and that's just part of the code. So it unfortunately doesn't fall under the charter as far as I'm aware.

Yeah, I know it was in the code.

Yeah.

But I thought it was in the charter as well. All right. I'll table that for now and look at the charter because I thought it was in both.

Can we ask about getting something included in the charter pertaining to that?

About the board's independence? Yeah. Sure. Like if you want to add a new section to the charter? Yeah.

Yeah.

Maybe we could do something like that.

Yeah.

OK. So adding a new section.

You can't think the easier thing. I think that could be something that I could speak to the city attorney and possibly the clerk. I just created a new advisory board. I haven't amended any of the advisory boards yet. So that's something that my office can look into for now. I don't know if that's the proper procedure, though. Sorry.

Well, like I said, the only thing I would say is that it doesn't fall within the purview of the board, the board's roles. It'd be like us making a recommendation for parks and rec. You know what I mean?

We need to research that. OK.

But adding a new section, I mean, that would be something that does fall in the purview of the board.

Yeah.

Because we would be adding it to the board section of the charter, right? Yeah. Now keep in mind, amending the charter is way more difficult.

That's the other reason why I was saying that.

Yeah. I mean, technically, it's way more difficult. I mean, realistically speaking, since it's already in the code, you would have to really come up with a convincing reason why as to the city commission would want to remove it from the code and put it into the charter instead. But if, um, you know, the will, the board, whatever you guys want to do, I think we need to have a discussion on it as a future agenda item.

And I will bring in the white paper I did up on the advisory board recommendations and then you can look at it too and see which is the best way to go. Because yeah, I mean doing a charter amendment on, That would have to be a whole thing under advisory boards, not just one little thing. Otherwise, that could just definitely be a policy change.

So where we are then on the recurrence, so do we want to go? So we're thinking like we have to do four meetings at a year, right? Right.

So that's what the meeting schedule is set at. Technically, you're only required to meet annually. So the board opted to meet four times.

That's the requirement right now?

Yes, the requirement is one time a year at least.

So what about for now until we decide what is going to be, if we want to go through the entire charter and look at it, and then in order to take care of what Steven was saying? and we meet more often, but we also doesn't kill the attendance. So nobody get, you know, kick out of the, so can we said, we are required to come to those four as is required. And then we put the other ones as optional. Or something like that. We don't need to put the word optional, but something like that, that doesn't count as an attendance from those four or something.

So we would still have to have, we would still have to come to the actual meetings, but we could potentially do like special meetings, correct?

Something like that.

Yeah, you can request a special meeting if you want. If you want, yeah.

Yeah, so can we do something like that so it doesn't count like attendance because we will count those four as the official one, but the other ones, if you don't come, it will not count towards you didn't come, something like that.

That's correct. So a special meeting would not count against your attendance if you did not. That's actually a great idea.

I mean, I would be in support of something like that.

So what do you have for the future agenda items?

So this is what we have so far. And keep in mind, too, if we have quite a few, I'm not gonna add them all onto one agenda because then it can get, but so we'll add them in the order that we received or the order that the board wants to add them in. So the first one is the commission term length, section 2.03, the review of the charter, the meeting schedule, and then the fourth one is adding a new section to the charter for board meeting requirements, attendance.

Can you put the advisory board in the same agenda, the two discussions?

So I guess, was there two? Because I only got one, which was basically adding a section of the charter for the board attendance.

Yeah, and then also adding a schedule to discuss the schedule changes.

Is that what the board wants to do is add those two first and then add the other ones maybe later? So meeting adjusting the meeting schedule and then potentially adding a new section to the Charter discussing board meeting requirements or attendance.

So those two should be on the same agenda? Yeah, we could do that. Yeah. And then the other two were the motions that you had come up with on the referendum. And that could be on the other agenda.

So the ones from today are current. So that's going to be to the next, not this one, because the commission meeting is already amended, published. But the following one, that's going to be on there. So, correct?

Let's see. So 23rd. So we'll put it on either... one of the July meetings, either the 7th or the 21st, one of the two. And then keep in mind they don't meet in August, but you guys don't meet until September. I mean, if there's an update, I'll put it on there. If there's no update, then I'm not going to put it on there. But as soon as there is an update, I'll add it back on there.

Any other future agenda item recommendations?

No. Yeah.

OK. So moving on to item 9, public comment. Anybody? No public comment? No public comment.

OK. Too much public.

All right. Item 10 is adjournment. It is, where's the clock?