Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. We are going to call to order the March 31st 25 meeting of the chart review committee and move to Madame Clerk for the roll call. Okay. Kevin Cox here. Guys here. Andrea Honeyut here. Val Marillo here. Yiko Mley. We are all here. Agenda is to um meeting the minutes of the meeting from the March 3rd meeting. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Second motion first and second. All in favor? Motion carry. Okay. So, we're going to move into the initial review of the select charter provisions and the charter language revisions provided to us by um the town attorney um by way of the post law firm. Hello everyone. Um, as you can see, our firm has provided a memorandum with some uh just items we had pulled out that we thought might benefit from a cleanup. uh either a cleanup to clarify what the meaning is or to get rid of some requirements that for various reasons might be particularly ownorous or um just not feasible uh for the town to accomplish in the time period specified. Um so I'm not going to go through each one of these tediously. Um I know that all of you have had some time with the agenda packet and so I thought that if

anyone had particular items that they wanted to pull out for discussion um we could do that. So for number one the issue of what does it mean to have permanent residence in a town comes into play. We want to address we want to say that that's not important. Um yeah, that that would be an item for discussion. Most of the charters and other towns don't do any better job than we do of defining that. The only one that was a little bit different was Bell. And they basically said, "A resident shall be considered a bonafide residence under this section if it is subject to a valid homestead exemption in the record. That's basically what is anybody else having? I think my inquiry in response to your question would be is there for charter purposes? I don't believe so. Now, there may be, you know, some definition tucked away in some statute for residency as used in some other

context. Um, but I if I were going to look at what does residency mean in a charter context, I would be looking at case law most likely. Yeah. In reading through it, there was another one too where I think the word qualified was used in a different section. And same thing it it implies what we understand what qualified is but they see any reference name would be for resident the avoidance we could just that out what think it is whether it's ace or statute or something just to put it to bed that's my opinion we can define it um which part or section are you are you referring to are you which part the the word qualified. Uh I believe that would be section 2.4 um qualification. It reads only qualified electors of the town who have resided continuously in the town for at least one year preceding the qualifying stage to be eligible. And so I think based on the prior The question would be what qualifies a preceding year and obviously that was kind of defined at home for one year. Okay. Um that is I will take a note of that one and look into how we might define qualified. Is that that all right? Yeah. Just for the avoidance of that right unless a strong

feeling just say hey it's as referenced here or there. I think more specifically the contin resided continuously would be the more specific inquiry as to what defines continuous residency. Obviously we say you know homestead exemption maybe leaning to some case law clarifyes of the committee what that is compris the one issue that came up when I was uh talking with someone else was the issue of a snowbird What if someone wants to live in Oakland, you know, during the night? I mean, it's it's one of those things. It doesn't happen, but it's an opportunity. you need to be a resident of it now something delineated. So under section 2.5 subsection B2 of the charter um that is the provision governing forfeite by absence and that section provides that if a commission member is physically absent without good cause from any four regular meetings of the commission during any calendar year or is physically absent without good cause from any three consecutive regular meetings of the commission that constitutes forfeite by absence.

So I'm to me this would narrow down on is being a snowbird good cause for missing a whole bunch of mission meetings. I tend to say no. Um because that's you know it's not an unforeseeable illness or accident or or something like that which I would generally say that that is what good cause would be. So I can sort of see nothing in town and the commission members all get along fine with them and uh then someone says, you know, I think I'm gonna go up north for a few months. I'll be back for the meetings or I could see that just because hey, you're my Well, that really doesn't sound like me. So, I have a I have a question. It is the concern about like legal residency or participation in the community, right? One kind of implies. So, if if I'm a legal resident, but I never leave my house, I never participate, I never come to the meetings, I never go to any of the events, is am I am I qualified, right? Like I'm I'm asking I don't know like is is it just a legal definition of I'm a resident or um do I have to be a participant? I guess I'm trying to figure out which one. It in my legal opinion there would not be a way. So, the word residency does not involve community involvement. That would be a a different requirement. Um, if that

answers your question. Yeah, I I can't presume that we would even attempt to define what participating member of the community is, right? So, I'm trying to figure out what can be defined, what should be defined, um, and does that satisfy the concern? So, if it helps at all, I do believe AOYA addressed this in their last election. I think um I was just talking to their city clerk and she was going to send me their ballot language and a little bit of wording because I think they may have addressed this specific issue a little further. I'll try to get that for the next meeting. Just as a matter of qualification is the resol is the the check in balance of residency abiding information that they're claiming homestead in another what if what if they're renting that makes sense if let's say you know someone is a snowbird but they're claiming homestead in another That was kind of in a late term. I repeat, so it may not be homesteaded, but they could be a renter that been registered to vote in the town of Oakland for a period of provide a lease. They're renters, then they should be able to provide a lease. Yeah. So Kurt, that's that's a really

good question because currently under your charter they they would be allowed to run, but if you know if you did a homestead without having an exception for renters, then that would be an issue, right? I think that's a that's a very good point. Um, particularly because I would I would want to look more into if there could be some sort of kind of inherent accidental discrimination against renters. Um, and and we wouldn't want to be doing that. So, thank you for that. Just from a position, one of the requirements was that I was a registered voter. So that may be our look into the dynamics of a rental but a registered voter in the open alternate andor provision. Do we know what the requirements are to be a registered voter in Oakland? I couldn't say, so I apologize. Doesn't it have to match your address on your driver's license? I I would imagine that's I mean, personally, when I register to vote, I do it with you can do it at the DMV or get the little card in the mail. Well, I mean I'm personally fine with the word

person per have it as their permanent residence. I don't know how you change you start getting into weeds and go down paths that could discriminate against people who are residents that actually rent um that go away for the summers and if they come back to meetings that's fine. and they're engaged in the community. They live here. This is where they pay their taxes. This is where they register to vote. You start trying to define it much more than that, I think you're going to ask for problems. I I can say that the term residency generally wouldn't include things like, yeah, you know, I own a second home there and I really don't spend a lot of time there and it's not where I intend to grow old and die. that would be someone that I would say is not a resident of Oakland. So the word residency does does mean a lot even though it is undefined. Um if in case that kind of informs anyone's decision on this map number two amendments next page Okay. So, this this this may be what they were referring to, which it's question number two, amendment of the Koi City Charter to authorize city commission to judge candidate qualifications. Section C10 of the city of AOE's charter shall be amended to provide that the city commission has authority to judge the qualifications and eligibility of candidates for the commission establish procedural rules for C10 ensuring including ensuring that notice and due process is given to affected persons and

provide for review of such decisions by a court of competent jurisdiction. I'm sure that's the one she was referring to. So, I was trying to understand what you were saying there. Does that mean the commission votes on who gets to run against them? The commission gets to vote who's qualified to run against them. I think it sounds like if there's a question as to qualifications, the city commission and a COE makes that final decision. I do however candidacy may be um signing an access that prove your residency are accurate um until and and that's your statement until another one. If that were contested, it would put you in a disqualify. Yeah. So, we don't ask for proof of residency. We require they have to certify that they meet all the qualifications and it's very specific as to what those are according to the charter. Again, absent someone contesting a residency They have signed a declaration of candidacy once they have fixed their signature that the best of my knowledge truth and belief or whatever the course may be. They're saying I'm a resident or someone were to challenge it that finding be true then it would lean to disqualification.

But for purposes of actual residency, whatever's listed there on our sorry current qualifications. Is that what you're asking? No, I think you were leaning to the actual maybe declaration of candidacy, the things that it requires a residency to like check and yeah, it's just to basically say they're a resident of the town of Oakland, a registered voter. Um, those are basically our requirements. And so I just have them sign and certify that that's the case. So they're self-declaring. Um, just to be clear, the the clerks are not responsible for verifying the information. They're just basically doing the admin administration part. Um, I learned that one early on. Um, so I'm looking real quick just to let you know for voter registration, the ID requirements are a current and valid Florida driver's license or Florida ID card number or last four digits of your social security number. It's really all they require. I think that the uh one of their main purposes was that was If I may, in my view, that charter

provision would be more likely to result in litigation because if if the town commission were to make a decision that someone did not agree with and did not like, that would be the cause for I mean, the first suit I would have would be is why are you qualified to judge to me. They're not all attorneys. They're just members of the community who voted into office. I would have I would think that would create more problems. I'm not have one I guess question. clarification on number four section 3.4 to another section. Oh, okay. I just want to make a point of clarification that indicating based off regarding that whole residency definition and maybe we can research that a more clarified provision case laws that I'm okay with the provision as it reads. But there was a little conation of that or I will certainly as a sort of preliminary matter I can say that the case law uh revolves very closely around the person's intent uh where they intend to remain where they intend to live. Um but I will bring you some more concrete definitions out of the case. Awesome.

Yeah. Awesome. Um, my question pertain to number four, section 3.4, acting town manager. Anyone had something before that want to go in order or we could just jump to that? All right. So, my question was two-part. Uh, so the language all makes sense to me. Uh, two things popped out. One was the word qualified, right? So it said it reads the town manager shall designate subject to the approval of the commission a qualified town employee, etc., etc., right? What what jumped to me was what's qualified, right? What defines that? Uh and then at the bottom uh at the last line it reads uh as acting town manager until the town manager shall return or his or her disability shall cease. And I was wondering is duration of concern, right? I mean is is the acting town manager put in place until the end of the term? Is it expected to be 90 days, 60 days? like what I don't know. So those were the two things. What's qualified and what's the duration of an appointed um person, right? Uh I'll just So as to the duration, I I understand your question. Um I might offer some practical insight about how things might turn out if we were to add a time limit. Um so this provision is is meant really to govern in the instance that the town manager is seriously injured or falls ill um simply cannot perform her duties for one reason or another. Uh if we were to say a um maximum time period for an acting town manager is 60 days. Then in the event

that the disability or or other reason for the town manager's absence goes longer than that, we might be stuck in a position of having to then have the town manager designate someone who could be less qualified to serve in that person'sstead. So, I think um not putting in a time limit would potentially put the town in the best position of having the the most qualified staff member take on those duties. Um and and qualified in in this instance, um I mean it it really means does the town manager and and the and do the members of the commission think that the person is qualified? um it's um not a very meaningful word when when used in this instance if that makes sense. We pulled this provision. This is a very standard charter provision. The reason why we added this language is because it appears that there was just some sort of clerical error that happened the last go round when all this was adopted and some of the language was simply cut out. So it kind of started mid-sentence and and we're missing some words. So this is this is just the standard um kind of what you see in a lot of jurisdictions that on a quote qualification standpoint there is a provision that the commission um that designation to your qualification point I think that the section 3.4 does provide There are certainly guard rails on this. You know, if an if an acting town manager is appointed and then that person starts doing a whole bunch of stuff that nobody's okay with, um the

town commission certainly can can take care of that. Okay. Yeah. Is that apologies, where is that? So section 3 section four of our actually section 3.4 acting manager if you look through the it's the second part of the recommend. So if you're actually in that's in the I I would I would go to the vote memo. Okay. It's in the proposed one. Okay. It's not It's not even a deletion or addition in the may revoke the appointee. Okay. Got it. Thank you. So, I hate to say this, but I'm a orderly person. So, I know we jumped to section four, but I don't want to not address the provisions that preceded it just to make sure that we um touched them. And so, we did the qualification. There any questions that I think I did have a cleanup item and it would just be grammatical thing for me. Um under my language that commission number and I just would put the word if before the commission number.

So forfeerture by disqualification commission member shall for his or her office if at any time during his term. Oh okay if is that work for you? Okay I think there's many ways to skin the cat on that one. That was the one that we were going to wait. So the next section um in the memorandum would be filling of vacancy. So I have several questions as it relates to the filling of vacancy and not against the language that's being proposed because I do agree with a longer time frame to fill the vacancy. However, um I I'm leaning to the provision that the governor would appoint in 30 days and I'm looking for some guidance as to whether there is any statutory guidelines about when the governor would come in to appoint. And so I guess my question is is there a conflict of law or does the charter control as to when they would allow the governor to I apolog I'm a little bit confused about the question. Are you talking about how long of a time period needs to elapse before it then becomes incumbent upon

the governor? uh the the charter controls in that in that instance and and once that you know be it 30 days, 60 days or 90 days is reached and no appointment is made uh it has been out of the town commission's hands and I can just say as a as a practical matter based on what I've observed I've seen seats go vacant for long periods of time because the governor hasn't it's not at the top of his list to make these appointments sometimes. So then I think the next question would be what would be the pleasure of this committee as to the time frame for filling that vacancy? Obviously the charter currently reads 30. An example of extensions would be 60 or 90 days. How comfortable would we be on what that time frame for filling a vacancy would be before we allow intervention? So, it's 30 now, but could we conceivably keep it there or should we do it longer? Because I think 30 is very restrictive if we're not able to, you know, we have two meetings a month. So that means we have to post we have to give time for the applications to come in have review 30 may be a bit restrictive and so would we want 60 or 90 with an absent seat. Well, first off I think that I'm against the governor getting involved ever. I think that's his role. I mean it's we're too small of a town. He wouldn't even pay attention to us in that respect. Um, and he would probably call and say, "Who should I appoint?" Look for somebody local that would give him advice on that. Um, I think that it, you know, a 90-day period for the commission to come up with an answer is is not

unreasonable. And then if they can't get it, then we'd go to a special election. Yeah, that that's how I read it and would agree. Right. If we could do 90 days, um, I'd like to see that. Gives everybody time to wrap their heads around it. And I I would be also in favor of special election. Are there any cons to stretching it as far as 90 days? Would that disrupt any functions at all? Um, so the the commission can function as a a fourperson commission. Um, so I don't see other than, you know, maybe not having a quorum because then if two people get sick, um, under normal circumstances with five commissioners, you can still have a quorum when two people get sick. But that's really the only circumstance that I'm seeing where it would be extremely disruptive over a period of 90 days. Now, if you're talking about a full year, um, you know, you're probably going to see situations where two commissioners can't can't come sometimes. Um, but this I I will say too, the longer the time period we have, the more time to get the word out to residents who may not be aware that there's an opening and and so you really, you know, get your your full group of of interested folks rather than having to, you know, um, meet a deadline and and maybe some folks weren't aware was going on during that time. And that's the limit. It doesn't require them to take the full 90 days if there's a qualified candidate. Right. Exactly. I think I just want to add that um as we move forward there is a section on for quum and voting and how to resolve those issues. I've got questions on that later but um as a four member commission I

think there's some guidance in the forum and voting section maybe a deadline Would you all like for me to bring you back some proposed language at the next meeting on this? Because I didn't do a strike through and underline, just had kind of given some ideas of where we might go, but it sounds like um folks are are liking the 90 days and special election. Is that accurate? Yeah, I'm in favor of that. Okay, I will bring back some proposed language to you at the next meeting then. Next meeting next week. I will get right on it. Yes, I did know that. acting town manager. So, we propose um revisions to the quorum and voting. We didn't address uh paragraph 3, which is section 2.5 filling of vacancies. I'm fine with the change. Oh, you're absolutely correct. And I had a question there. And I think I want my inquiry is kind of maybe not fleshed out, but when we look to the filling of vacancy than a candidacy, um obviously death, withdrawal or removal.

I think it's contemplating a early voting situation in section 3D1 when as it relates to the qualifying um period. And so obviously if it results in two candidates remaining then we will proceed to those candidates otherwise null. want a little more explanation on that um of the the filling of vacancies in candidacy. Um yes, so this is when there is a vacancy in the candidacy of the people who are actually running. Um so you're right, this one does come into play while the election is going on. Um if you could just give me one moment. I need to review what this while you're reviewing it. The way I read that is that the qualifying period is the date as which you have to be able to put your name on the ballot. After that date, when it's locked in, if there's still two that are available, the election goes forward. If there's less than two, that one person still there becomes appointed to the position without an election. I do have a question. Um, so they don't maybe I'm reading it wrong now, but they don't get on the ballot and prior to the end of qualifying

period. Okay. So I'm just wondering if this just to say without the from the ballot if the death withdrawal or removal of a qualified candidate following the end of the qualifying period results in at least two candidates remaining for that office the election shall proceed. So you double check that because if they were to die while they were qualifying or withdraw then they wouldn't ever make it to the ballot if that makes sense. So that brings to question my inquiry when my notes said early voting. So let's say that the ballot was prepared and we had two candidates on the ballot one and early voting. So, let's say I don't know that early voting would be in this scenario, but that's a general or whatever election and we're allowed to early vote and they're saying that any votes for that person would be null and void if they be moved after the I kind of didn't really understand Are you asking specifically how it works or Right. So let's say there's a ballot and we've early voted and that person dies during that early voting period there. The the people who voted for that person their votes will be null employed. It gives the the instance of two candidates. What if there what would be the reaction? candidate. I I don't know if there's already something built in to state law that I will ask Wade that question. Wait, does our office's

election I'll I'll just ask because I'm curious and I didn't commit all this to memory just yet, but if I'm understanding correctly, the way the language is written or being proposed to be changed, if there's a vacancy and only one candidate puts themselves forward, the end of the period for accepting candidates there is no election that one person gets that position. Is that correct? Okay. So I think that stresses the importance of notifying the public that a seat or something is available. Is there anything about that in here? Making the public aware that No, they should. I know everybody should, but I'm asking in here, is there anything that says announcement of positions or some that would be from experience I know that as soon as a vacancy that's been a function of and to post and whatever. Yeah. So, like last time it was all posted. People just didn't pay attention, right? So, I mean, but we're as transparent as we can and again that is procedural. That doesn't really have to be put in the charter. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Now with provisions would be section 4.1 forum and voting.

Is there a specific question about her? discussion. Emergency ordinances was a recommended cleanup item. I think maybe I would Well, no. I I'll retract. It was just a no further discussion. We would move to section 5.1 regarding elections. Yes. So the uh the proposed amendment would get rid of the need for a runoff election. Um, and and those, as I alluded to in the memo, can be very time consuming and expensive and generally are not needed. Um, and so

this this would provide that uh in the instance where a runoff election would have been required previously under the charter, uh, that the candidate who has the most votes is going to win. I would concur with that recommendation. A lot of jurisdictions have done away with runoff elections. Um, Bill Kel's, supervisor of elections, was also recommending that jurisdictions do away with runoff elections if possible. I think the idea is generally, you know, folks came out and cast their votes and um you know, they voted for who they want and just because somebody didn't get 50% doesn't mean that they didn't win the election. I guess the mentality I think from a point of um public transparency if we could possibly obtain information with regard to the town population, the voter turnout maybe in the last few elections. Um because you know oftent times residents you know become alarmed when you know things like that happen. But to understand the expense and nature of a runoff election, maybe providing committee with that type of data to have in our to relate what that cost, you know, let's say we had 20 members in the audience right now. If we want runoffs, then we need to be able to provide data that our decision move forward with the

recommendation. If no additional comment on that particular um vision which would the 5.1 elections forward only question I would have it may not be in this section what happens what where's the language that talks about if there's a tie in terms of elections correct whether you have the current situation of 50% they both give 50% or this new requirement where could get 40%. What is the procedure to process for a tie? Some some places do coin flips, some people do draw straws. Do we have anything like that in our charter? Not see anything in charter. I will look into ways that that is handled jurisdictions and way may have some input on that. Yeah, because I think that would come into play more in the under the new rules because you're going to potentially have two people, you know, clear sometimes when somebody's 50% or better, but you could end up with somebody both getting 40.1% and then you then what do we do at that point? Well, I will say this is we would need when we're talking about a tie, I mean a exact mathematical this number of votes, not percentages. Correct. Yes. um because the the uh proposed language does say that the person receiving the most votes would win. So if it's off by even one vote, correct? A tie is a is a statistical where they have statistics. It's the actual same number of votes. I will look into some some ways to handle that. Thank you. I don't think cage matches are still in play, but probably not.

Okay. No additional comment. Um moving forward section. So I have an inquiry with regard to if conflicting amendments are adopted at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. And so this is my hypothetical mind saying we have two conflicting amendments and we're going to go with the one that has the greatest number of opponent votes. And so I think my inquiry would be what would be the safe guard provision for revetting those conflicting amendments versus the one that received the And obviously I know that we have first second readings of particular amendment. Um what would be that? I'm sorry could I don't understand. Did you say ve vetting it? And maybe I'm using the wrong language, but you know, if we have conflicting amendments and adopted at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative vote, and while I understand presentation of amendments would require, you know, first and second reading, I think I'm a little uneasy with resolution of that langage. And so I want a little input from your office as it relates to the procedure or the why of that provision.

So this um this provision is talking about uh once the amendments go out on the referendum and are then voted on by the public. Yes. And so our office's position is that really there there should never be any scenario in which two conflicting amendments are placed on the ballot for the public to vote on. Um I mean even with this provision, right, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. What that means is one prevails in its entirety. the conflicting amendment would remain but the conflicting portions would be pulled out. So you kind of end up with a Frankenstein of the two. Um and I mean as a legal matter that is just plain messy. can see how this can happen with an ordinance because town can but I don't see how we could have charter they have to come this committee exactly yes and so we would would suggest considering just removing this language about conflicting amendments because there really shouldn't be a circumstance in which it should apply Okay, I'll resend that comment. I think it was in my mind the commission and not I I understood. Yeah, I think that takes us through the uh recommendations, right? Yes. one one question I had from I think last time or it was in the the minutes or the notes and it had to do with the timing of elections and I was wondering if we could talk about that a little bit because I did have a little question

about that. Okay. I I may I may need to um get an answer from Wade for you, but So, there was a note in here about the financial implications of election timing and it said uh election timing timing of elections such that align with presidential uh preference primaries and significantly impact costs. Yes. Can you talk a little bit more about that? So when we piggyback with Orange, so Orange County runs our elections in the town of Oakland, right? Um when we piggyback with a presidential preference primary, then they pick up almost all of the costs because they have to run a ballot, they have to run a a polling place anyway. So it saves us a lot of money to be able to do that. But we could also run it concurrently with the normal November election. We could. Our charter just doesn't say that at this time. But that advantage would also still be there. Orange County is running elections at the same time as well. Correct. I just think you get better voter turnout if you do it when everybody else is doing it. As far as the general election, Yeah. Know that that that's where I'm going with it, right? Is if you're going to get better turnout, better participation if you align with something that's got national recognition. So I that that'd be something I would consider. Is is it disruptive to do that based on how everything's worded now? You know, we would have to change all that wording in the charter. Not that we couldn't do that, but that wouldn't be in effect for like the March 2026 election, right? It have to be

future. And just a question a question about that as well. There's no early voting in the March elections, is there? There's early voting. It's just at Orange County Supervisor of Elections. There's a few other locations locally, but not in Oakland. So, there is an opportunity. It's just um the one for the general elections longer has more opportunities. Both those are at the library as well, right? Yes, that's correct. Language provision for clarification provided by public comment section of the public comment. All right. So, I had a few thoughts for the next meeting. Um there were two items that stood out in my mind from the last meeting as being things that you all were at least interested in discussing further. Those two being term limits and districtricting. Um so few uh thoughts that I have. If we want to look at districting, I would advise trying to schedule some meetings where somebody from the supervisor of elections office or perhaps the supervisor of elections can come and explain a little bit about

what the districtricting process would look like as a practical matter. Um, I also was thinking that it would probably be helpful if you guys are interested in looking at both of those. I can sort of do a little survey and look at uh similarsized municipalities around Florida and see do they have term limits and do they have districtricting um because in in our offic's view the feasibility of both of those things is is sort of tied to the size of the municipality. how many folks are are going to be running for office and um how many voters are there and where do they live? And I think um in my review of the charter, I think there's this erroneous belief that we don't have term limits because it says that we're elected for four-year term, which means that at the end of four years, there would be an electoral process opened up for residents to, you know, announce their candidacy or intent to v for a particular office. And so in my reading and clarify if I'm wrong, we do have four years for the office. Absolutely. Yes. Um I think when other folks are are talking about term limits, they mean, you know, maximum of two terms or or something like that. So you have a sort of an aging out of of your elected officials. You're absolutely correct that there are terms and so I think there would be it would be um advantageous to have some just data and comparison with towns that have term maxes. I say I'd say maxes not limits but um just to understand

what another municipality of our size demographic and um voting percentages would look like. Sure. I'll I'll bring you that data. So, I I was thinking about this since last time with the districting and bouncing some stuff back and forth and I don't know if you want to discuss it here now, but what problem are we trying to solve if we do recommend districts? Yeah, that's a good my issue. Um, and I have been very active at the meetings for a while now. And I don't feel like any of the commissioners have an obligation to represent me and the issues with my neighborhood, my dirt roads, and etc. And that became very clear to me. when the vacant seat for the commission came about and my gut feeling really just a gut feeling is that if I had one commission member that was in charge of my district that I could hold that person accountable how I feel and what I'd like to see done for me I think that would work better and current method that we have. No, that that that's fair. And that that was kind of like where where I was going is ultimately like if if we feel or if the community at large feels that there's you're a member of the community

and feels that the commission does not represent it, then is do districts solve? It's a great question. Um, I've done a little preliminary stuff on this because I amed in it and out of gave us address. They have a non voting rate. They have seven commissioners even though the town is only about 7,000 but they have eight on they have threeear terms. They have they have seven districts. So anyway, I think there are a lot of different Oh, in response, I think um you obviously um advised that you would look into other district what that looks like. Give me an idea of what that response, you know, what what that what your thought process is as to the

information. I will most likely provide um not sure if it would be as simple as a chart, but right now in my mind it looks like a chart listing jurisdictions uh their populations and whether they have term limits and whether they have a districtricting and as I say that I'm thinking well I'd probably want to provide some additional information in case there's anything interesting like Bell Ale would be a good example you know where things are a little bit different there. So, um may not exactly be, you know, an Excel spreadsheet looking document, but um that would be the general idea so that you can get a good idea of how comparable is this place really to Oakland and how do they look at this issue. And I would just as an aside, I know we talked about um voter turnout statistics. I think that would be essential analyzing the other districts based on the turn. I I will do my best to get those numbers for you. I I may not be able to before the next meeting, but I'll do my best. Yeah. I just think that we're too small of a town to have districts and restricted. We don't get people to run to begin with. You know, the seat that you talked about could have been easily filled if somebody had put their name in. Nobody put their name in behind it. Yeah. I I disagree with that. Okay, that's fine. But I'm Let me Can I finish? Yeah. So, when I look at district, you know, one of Orange County where there's over a 100,000 people, that commissioner represents me just as much as one of the local commissioners here. And in a town of 4,000, I don't think I need to narrow it down to just me and another thousand other people. So, I think that we're we're going to create again problems for ourselves if we don't have people that will step up in those districts, especially if we term limit it. I mean, what do you do in

that situation? Your accountability is you have a vote for all five of them and your vote is is just as valid whether it's to a district or to an individual that's representing the whole town because there are no term limits. Let's say that nothing's going on in the town. Everything's just kind of percolating along fine. Everybody's having a good time. So if there are no openings in the town, I think a lot of people will just say, um, commissioner is a nice guy. Why would I want to run against him? Things are going fine right now. But if there's a vacancy, then I think they're going to be people think I'm interested and I think I might run. And that certainly was the case, you know, previously. Um, so I'm not I understand your points, but I just think that there's a dynamic that that we've missed because I've heard that argument from the other commissioners, too. It's like, how many unopposed races have there been? Well, because you put your name on it. Nobody wanted to run against you. I think that's one one dynamic is that not that we're necessarily unhappy with that commission, but just that there's not an opportunity an easy opportunity for someone else to get Well, I think you're referring to the power of incumbency and and in this case, our our incumbency is they're filling a role and they're not getting paid. If they get paid, it's it's nominal. And I'll just go back to the the last election. Exactly the case you're describing was there. It was wide open for anybody to run for and nobody did. Can I refer to Kurt? When Sal put his name in for mayor, his seat was vacant. Nobody filled it. If one person had put

their name on that ballot, they would have been the commissioner. We would never have had gone to an election. Yes, it was. Absolutely. Was style seat. No, it was an appointed seat. There was an election. 11 people that signed up there. There was an exc there was an election before that seat became vacant and filled in the way that you're thinking. When when Commissioner Ramos ran for mayor, his seat, there was no one running to take his seat. And so we ended up with a vacancy on the commission because no one put their name in the ring. I'll speak to it personally because obviously I put my name in the appointment process. I was very well aware of Sal's vacancy. I looked at putting my name in the hat um to run for the position as maybe premature for my thought process or you know running an election. But the opportunity absolutely existed in December of that year to put your name in the hat to run for that seat at the termination of the period when no one did that. Then that opened up the appointment process. And so, you know, as we talk about the rumblings of, you know, what happened, we're disgruntled, but we're not always apprised of the pro. And so in in hindsight, I I likely should have put my name in the hat and just, you know, leaned on my neighbors and and friends to support me in the election and not worry about the cost of an election or the expense of, you know, running a campaign because actually I probably would not have had to do any of that because it would have allowed me to assume the seat because it would have been an unopposed one. And so I think that um I want to speak to your point in

that because when we talk about elections and term of office, you know, there is also staggering. When we talk about, you know, term limits, there are four year terms that at the end of those terms, it is open for any member of our community to run for a particular state. And section 2.3 speaks to, you know, two and three will be elected in the presidential year and one and four in a gubanatorial election year. And so as a community as a whole, when we think about the fact that there are no term limits, there are terms of office and at the end of each term of office, there's an opportunity each member of our community to put their names in and I understand your point. Well, if we believe that Commissioner Ramos is doing great, why would I oppose them? then why would you come in a meeting and discuss or be disgruntled about the fact that the five members have been so I think that's just a community effort that we'd have to work at another I ju I just want to make two really quick points because people aren't always aware of these two things is if somebody that's an incumbent wants to rerun they have to re-qualify right every time they have to put their came through. They have to go through the entire process. It's not like a given. Number two is during that qualified period, we're not announcing who's running, like who's qualified. We only do that at the end of the qualifying period. So, nobody technically should know who's running against whom until the end of that qualifying period. Does that make sense? So, so really nobody should know like so and so is running unless they're acknowledging it um themselves.

Stephanie, I guess a question if I think about what I'm hearing is representation um for for the different parts of the town which you know we want to say districtricting might fix it. So, I'm interested in your firm's ability to comment on is there another way to represent maybe underrepresented participants of the community. Um, so that that's one question. The other question that help I can't help think about that goes hand in hand and I don't know where to get more info on this but is there anything we could do as a town and maybe it's out of the scope of the charter review but increase that civil service mindset. Is there anything we could do with I don't know youth groups I something where things are aging out right we mean very common group of people that sit up here and I appreciate what they do but as I look forward and I go okay well one of them is going to retire at the next cycle no one wants to step up what are we doing now to help promote that and I don't again I don't believe it's something that goes in the charter I'm curious those are the two points one tool Um I think your your instinct is is correct that while there is a lot that can be done in that regard, the charter may not be the the place where we want to do it. Um I the first thing that comes to my mind is is potentially some sort of um board with with the power to make recommendations. Um and this is I'm completely just brainstorming on the spot here. Um but if if it was the

commission's desire, they could certainly create a board with um representatives from all around town who, you know, maybe folks can come and make recommendations that, hey, we we feel this um this area of town has this this issue going on and and maybe you all are not aware of it and so we'd like to make a recommendation that this be looked at. Um certainly there are are lots of municipalities around Florida that have those types of boards and and I think the commission is a fan of the Boy Scouts. They come and make presentations sometimes. There is some some community outreach and involvement already going on. Any further com her personal privilege as the chair. I want to commend Elise for her ascension to town manager. Welld deserved and um we appreciate all the work that you have done in your prior capacity and look forward to all the things that you're going to do as a manager. we will move towards our next meeting which is April 7th at 300 p.m. Um I do want to sorry um I I didn't realize you were moving forward but so discussion items for next meeting. Are we closed with that? I think I had some recommendations. So I will be coming with as I said earlier some proposed language based upon our discussions today and some data information about uh term limits and districtricting. Uh, I also would

recommend that each of you take a look at chapters 1 through three of the charter. Um, I was, it sounded like there was somewhat of a consensus at the last meeting that we sort of just take chapters in order and move through that way. So, I think given the the good start that we've already gotten, we could probably do three chapters at the next meeting. Um and and that will be just you know you can all sort of write down items of discussion or proposed amendments and we'll just take it piece by piece. So I think last time we met there were some comments too and they were in the notes. So I don't know did we was a backlog started or like a FAQ. I think that's what I understood last time that there would be the items that were discussing in the next meeting then a list of items that were not going to be discussed at the next meeting but are kind of put up on the board for future discussion. Has that been put together? I think I had a list that were in the minutes on next steps. I think that was a pretty comprehensive list if you so that's the one that and and kind of pick out things that you think might come next. Um you know as as Stephanie said if we're looking at chapters one through three we may be covering some of these things. Um but if there's something else that you think should move as a priority we can definitely think of that at the next meeting. Yes, that's a better question I guess is how does that list next steps align with the two and three or does it not? So I think that based on Stephanie's calculation of what she would be providing at the next meeting would the discussions item items would have been

the term limits the district the districtricting and um any supporting data that she's able to provide in that short time frame. And so those would be her um action items produced at the next meeting. Um and so in addition to that since then there was some interest in um addressing each of the articles of the charter. She recommended that we review items one through three and then we could provide some um commentary or feedback on items within those articles that we would like to have review. All right. Thanks. Any additional discussion? Not from me. I think the only um other personal comment that I may have had about um the charter review committee process is that I don't know and I could be just not in tune with the announcements, but I don't know that I saw many announcements about this meeting occurring via our portal. And so obviously the absence of the public here in a in a physical capacity. I'm not sure who's viewing online. Just want to make sure that we're providing adequate notice of these meetings um to allow for the public to either be present or provide commentary to the town manager. We'll try to do a better job getting it on our Facebook page. It is on our website. It has its own news alert. It's on the calendar on the website, but we'll try to do a better job reminding people on on Facebook. Awesome. Thank you. If there are no additional um

comments or requests, we would move to adjourn the meeting at 4:16 p.m. on March 31st. Meeting adjourned.