Charter Review Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Oh, look at that.

It looks like you're in a cabin in Vermont, Caroline.

All right, then let's call the meeting to order. And Jonathan, would you do our part for us?

Right. Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for the opportunity to come together today to do the work of our city. We thank you for the men and women of this Charter Review Advisory Board that have done such a great job and put in so many hours and so much effort over the last many months for the betterment of their city. We are grateful for them and their service. We pray now, Father, for just the deliberations today and some of the final decisions. We just pray for your wisdom and your guidance, and we continue to ask for your guidance protection over our troops and our first responders as they go about their mission, keeping us safe and giving us the right to do that which we do here today. We thank you for their sacrifice and for their service to our nation and to our communities. We ask all this in your name. Amen.

Do we call the roll?

Chair Newberg? Here. Mr. Danzey?

Here.

Mr. Pereira?

Here.

Vice Chairman Mr. Henderson-Jansenius?

Here.

And Ms. Scoot? Here. All right. We have a quorum.

Great. Before we get to the meeting minutes, okay, cool. Brandon's there, and then other folks that are in attendance, are those citizens, staff?

Supervisor.

So you have Caroline, sir, one of our assistant city attorneys, and then you have the SOE and her deputy SOE. Oh, great.

Okay. Where's Caroline?

Where in the world is Caroline?

She is... Caroline, why don't you make sure you work? Can you unmute? Tell us where you are.

I'm in Vermont in the middle of nowhere.

We are all jealous.

Awesome. All right, great. Then we'll do the approval of the meeting minutes. I looked at them. I provided some suggested revisions and the thought process behind the revisions is, and I don't know if this was something that I hadn't seen in the past, but I tend to like meeting minutes to just basically say we're talking about something and then here's what we voted on and the action that we took. And there was a little bit of dialogue in there. So it was mainly just cleaning that stuff up and Grant, I sent this, I thought I sent it at 11 something, but I sent it at 12.22, so I know you haven't had a lot of chance to look at it.

There's one, there's a copy of each.

Yeah, I'm just saying, I know you guys have had virtually no time to look at it.

So, like the... Mr. Henderson, you have them in your email, sir, if you saw those.

Yep, thank you.

So, like, under... under section eight, before there was talk about attorney Smith, if I had about the memorandum and topics not contemplated and then talk about powers of the city. And then Ms. Schoon recommended having a statement of liberal construction and then chairman Burr requested the council draft. And one is I thought it was a little bit more, we asked for several things. So my suggested revision is to replace the entire eight, but the board requested council draft language for the charter to include the proposed preamble, the removal of references to books and pages for land incorporated in the city and replace the same with the general reference and language to interpret the charter with liberal construction. And then the board requested from council a completed red line and clean version of the charter. And then I guess as you guys are also reviewing for 10, it just read just awkwardly to me where it said discussing the agenda was fine and then It was my recommendation and JP's motion and then Nevin's comment and then Brandon's comment. And then it just, to me, it was cleaner that we discussed the agenda and then JP, you moved to add the language. This is the language you suggested and then we had a vote. To me, that's more reflective of the action that was taken. And then 13 was basically the same thing. Quite frankly, selfishly. I didn't think that under, what was it? 13. i thought the the board asked for the single member districts to be in the charter because i think we all thought that it was already in the charter and so that was just more of a directive to the city council as a part of the uh yeah council for the city to confirm that that's going to be there and i make a quick request and it's not important

We correct the spelling of my name on the minutes.

Oh, no. Where did I misspelling?

The I is tricky. It's okay.

Yes, I will go through to make sure your name is spelled correctly. I certainly will. I apologize for that.

It's E-I. E-I. Yeah. I know the odds. It's not a big deal.

And the odd order under 13 is because that's the way it happens. It's not 13. Because when I do commission meetings, if they amend a motion, I have to do, you know, clarifies or make a recommendation and then they amend it, I have to do it step by step. So that's why it's like that.

No, I understand that. I'm just going back to the way my dad taught me about meetings. That's fine. Why bring it up? What did you vote on? And what was the outcome? Goodness knows, if we started putting in the meeting minutes, JP said this, and then Brandon said that, and Ron said that. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah.

So I'm sure they will be at the end of this.

Yeah, but I think what you were trying to capture was Not so much the order of the discussion, but an amendment is a point of importance. So I think that what, let me see what you have.

Under 10.

Under 10.

Yeah, it's just 10. I just did it as it was ordered. But yeah, your way is cleaner. It's just I was trained to do it that way. But I have no problem changing it.

The way I recall the meeting was that JP made the motion to amend the agenda provision Nevin then basically gave language to that amendment. Brandon suggested letting the city manager do it. There was never a motion for that. That was just kind of debated. And then we voted on the action item that Nevin supplemented.

No, he amended his motion because I played back.

No, he did amend it. But it's, I mean, all means the same. He came back and amended. It boils down to the same thing, Beth.

I'll entertain a motion.

You need a motion to amend. There was some discussion. Based on that discussion, you amended your amendment, and then we go. It's basically, we would be skipping out a piece that you'd taken out, which we're cleaning it up.

So do we want to entertain a motion to approve the minutes subject to the amendments to section

I'm saying I agree with doesn't have to go with like who said what like that. But I don't remember exactly how it was because I've been focusing on this now. But I would be happy with what you said to start with. Motion for approval to amend the label. And I'm assuming that to me it is false. No, so that would change. Made a motion to allow to...

just just leave 10 as written so the motion would just be i motion to approve the minutes submitted to the amendments for 8 and 13. so moved second second all in favor aye aye so then just update 8 and 13 and disregard my comments on them it's simpler rather than appearing down are y'all good yes Audience participation. Do we have any audience? The discussion on the agenda process.

Yeah, I think that's Mr. Henderson. Default to you. Yeah. Yeah. Blizzard of Oz was kind of going on.

We skipped staff reports.

Oh, I'm sorry. Staff reports. That was unintentional. Sorry.

Nevin, the red line.

Caroline, can you hear me? Do you mind just walking through what you prepared and have distributed just real briefly? I know everyone has it here.

Yes, I'm happy to. Sorry, I had to unmute myself there. There were quite a few changes. I'm happy to go through each one. They're highlighted in yellow on your red line. copy, but I'll just quickly go through them. And then if there's any questions about any of them in particular, you can speak up, of course. Added to Article 1 was a preamble. Added to Article 1, Section 2 was language that allows in lieu of a list of ordinances, changing the boundaries for the city, instead a map of the boundaries would be kept in the city clerk's office. In keeping with section two, there's also section three regarding the ward districts. So I went ahead and added similar language to that that allows in lieu of the list of ward ordinances for there to be a map of ward districts to be kept in the city clerk's office. In continuing in article one, section eight, There was discussion about how to do the effective date of these charter amendments. There is at the end of the charter an effective date for the charter. Because the Charter is not being replaced in its entirety, you wouldn't have an effective date for the amendments there. The statute, in fact, provides for this. So you don't really need to have an effective date for the Charter amendments. But it says in Section 166.031... subsection two, that there is a procedure for amending the charter and you would put a date on the referendum when these became effective. And if there is no date on it, then it would become effective upon approval by the electors. I went ahead and just incorporated that language under section eight. What had been under section eight before had been edited out by the municipal editor, the muni code editor. So it was essentially blank, but because the title of that section eight is procedure for amending charter seemed appropriate, if we're going to have language like that in that that's where it would go as opposed to at the very end, which is about the effective date for the charter. So I put it there. Do we have to have it? Maybe not. But I think it might be helpful for anybody who's reading this charter, who's looking for guidance for what to do. It might be helpful instead of them having to go to Florida statutes. So I just thought it was useful. So I went ahead and put that in. going on there's article 2 section 14 this added language that aligns the mayor's election with the presidential election and article 2 section 15 was the discussion that miss schoon had about a single member district language is in the code of ordinances which is what our city is operating um Effectively, that is the charter, those election ordinances. But this just makes it, formalizes it, and puts it into Section 15 that they're single-member districts and that only the electors from each ward votes for their particular commissioner district. Then there's Section 18. We added language that requires the mayor's election to... Oh, I don't know. I have that. Sorry, I may have misspoken. Section 18, added language that requires the mayor's election to coincide with that of the presidential election cycle. I think I have a typo in my notes, so I want to go back. But that's in there. Article 3, added sections for powers for the city and a section for a liberal construction... of the charter. I wanted to point out that there had been discussion under article 17 public utilities about the city having the power to provide utilities. There was language that this board voted for to replace all of section 17. Instead of having that in section 17, I put that language under powers so that all of Article 17 is now deleted and the language that the board approved specifically regarding utilities is now incorporated into that same Article 3 section on powers. I also removed at the direction of the board all of the language that in the charter that's been superseded by state and federal law. So you see a whole lot of redlined Deleted sections. And that's what that is. Let's see. Then under Section 26, filling vacancies in the commission. That was not discussed at this last meeting, but in my notes, that was discussed in the December 4th charter review meeting. This section was addressed and discussed as one in which the board agreed very clearly that they wanted to do something with this section. The language had been edited by the municipal code editor, the muni code editor. But I think that we didn't come back to it. So what I did was go to the ordinance that the city's currently operating under for this topic, filling vacancies in the commission. And I copied that language word for word. It's ordinance 10-13. and I placed it in Section 26 with the addition of some bold and underlined language that clarifies that a vacant seat for the mayor is elected at large, while a vacant seat for one of the ward commissioners is elected only by those electors who reside in that ward. It just wasn't completely clear, and I'm That was, I think, just inadvertent, but I went ahead and made that addition. And then also noted that this has been provided for in Section 15, which you did vote for the last time. So that's 26. Then there's Section 32. This was when the commission, I think you talked about it when you were talking about the minutes. There was language that Mr. Ferreira motioned to approve, motioned for and was approved that instead of it being two commissioners requesting that an item be placed on the agenda, it's one instead. Then also there was a residency changes request. for Article 7, City Manager, Article 8, City Attorney, and Article 13, City Newly Named Comptroller, in which all three charter officers are to reside in Bay County as opposed to Panama City. Also, Section 101 in Article 7 under City Manager, you deleted the section on City Manager Compensation And then articles 14 on finance generally was deleted altogether, as well as articles 16 on bonds, 18 on streets and public grounds, and 19 purchasing and contracts. I want to circle back to Article 6 under pensions. There was some discussion as to, I think the Unicode editor had placed under pensions that the city had, the city at one time participated in the Florida retirement systems, that it had merged with it, and therefore that section the editor deleted it i did some research on that and in fact um uh the commission according to the city commission minutes on november 28th 1995 it indicated that at one time the city had participated in the florida retirement systems but on that date it revoked the membership and uh as of january 1 1996 any new employees would be in a new pension plan um except for police and fire, which had their own. So I just wanted to bring that up that we did look into that and confirm that the Municode editor was correct in that instance. I think I got everything. So if you have any questions, please ask.

Obviously, we're going to discuss some of these things. Any questions right now as far as language or whatever? Thank you, Caroline. Any other staff reports? None from C-VAN for sure. So now we want to talk about the agenda process.

Brandon? Yeah, sure. We can talk about it. So can I grab a screen? Let me do that.

Yes.

Yeah?

Yep. Cody will give it to you shortly, sir. Just let him give you the permissions.

Okay. I kind of rewrote it, and I'll talk about it once I kind of throw it out there so you guys can read it and follow it along. Two paragraphs is a lot, right? A lot to kind of keep up with. So... I go back to the city, we have a city manager structure, right? So the city manager should maintain autonomy of that agenda structure. But I do believe that the commission should have an opportunity to be a part of that. So I rewrote, not rewrote, but included some additional language that I think provided that clarity for all the objectives that we're all looking for. Instead of giving that power or autonomy to a weak mayor and giving the illusion that we have a strong mayor system, the mayor gets to participate from a commissioner perspective of any one commissioner request that a specific item be placed on the agenda under the head title commissioner's reports on the agenda for the next meeting. But I'll share here in just a minute when it lets me. Oh, okay. All right. All right. Can you guys see that?

Yes.

Okay. So I marked out. Brandon, can you zoom in just a hair more?

Yeah. If you didn't do the focus on content view, it should help.

Does that help? That does, yes. Thank you. Make it a little bigger. So I marked off the mayor to remove the autonomy that we were trying to give the mayor and give that autonomy to the city manager, which is currently our structure. So yellow words are what I've replaced. Strike three words are what I have removed. Yellow words are replaced and or new words. So I put in seven days for the agenda, no later than seven days, and I removed the 48 hours. And it hopes that, and this is negotiable, but this is to align with the CRA agenda expectations, which is a state, I think a statute-driven expectation, if I'm not wrong there, Jonathan, right? Yes. Yep. So I don't think seven days is unrealistic. And then I also did remove two commissions and put any one commissioner may request that a specific item be placed on the agenda. I included under head title commissioners reports because these cannot be decision-based agenda items. It would be a Josh Triplett- A discussion right at the next meeting for the next regular scheduled meeting upon such request the item shall be included on the agenda under the next regular special meeting and that's. Josh Triplett- I think that's all I put in there to change. Josh Triplett- Open to feedback.

The seven days concerns me. I think that's, I don't know that we need a seven days before. And I think that it's important because that was my discussion last time about allowing the commissioners to add something that they want to add to the meeting. I I'm I'm a little concerned about the city manager shall retain discretion to determine whether and how such items appear on the agenda. I understand that, you know, we have a city manager system, but if the commissioners want, that's their purview as the elected officials to put something on the agenda, you still have the notice of the 48 hours. So that concerns me. And if they want to put something on there within the 48 hour notice, they should be able to bring it to people's attention to both. There was one other thing that I don't remember now and I'll think about it when I come back around. Those are my two initial concerns.

I like the seven-day alignment with the CRA expectation and I agree with Brandon Berg on our citizens shouldn't be surprised or the appeal or perception that we sneak items onto the agenda that have the ability to make a decision. So, if we can keep the consistency, seven days, I don't think is unrealistic. I think we can change that to five days or whatever. 48-hour is the written notice currently. I don't even think it's current. I think it's just a standard right now. It's not mandated.

It is. Mr. Chairman, by practice right now, we do post it seven days in advance. But that is a practice, not a policy.

There's been commission meetings in the past where things got added to the agenda and the residents had no clue. And had they had notice, whether that's two days or seven days notice to review that agenda and have confidence that it's not going to change, they get to make an educated decision whether they attend that meeting or not. We do have the policy now or the practice, I don't think it's a policy, it might be a policy where Participants can only discuss items that are on that agenda when they approach the dais. That is, I think, subject to change based off of commission in the future.

Correct. That's in the rules of procedure.

Mr. Chairman, I do think it's important to note sometimes there's emergency items that come forward or there's an item that may have been delayed due to maybe, I don't know, ongoing negotiations with the contractor or sub-consultant or whatever that get added last minute the morning of a commission meeting. It's through our addendum process. We hate doing those because it makes us look unprepared, but there are instances

be included if we're going to detail out this much cecile you raised your hand i was like which one um i'm in full agreement with jp i think that it should not be the work of the city manager it should be the city commissioners and they should i I seem to remember some conversation and maybe that's part of what the other Brandon is talking about. People kind of like jockeying to get things on the agenda. This just gives people being commissioners a clear cut path. The citizens will learn this pathway and they'll go into now that they're I think this will help the commission now that they're empowered to get something on the agenda. And it doesn't have to be wink, wink, nod, nod, you know, stuff that they feel is happening or not happening. That there's a pathway that we set out that every commissioner is treated equally. You know, the mayor also is in that 24 hours. I think that's going to bring a lot of on this and a lot more conversation with citizens with their particular needs. a ward commissioner. You know what I mean? Because that'll be like a known pathway for them to have that conversation. So I think that's really going to increase attention, focus, and possibly attendance either in person or digitally because they'll have communicated with their designated representative. And that representative is going to feel more empowered and look more powerful to their citizens. So I think it's going to lead to good things. I think we are blessed with because we always say how much we enjoy working with you, which is an absolute truth. But I've definitely seen situations where the city manager was not doing the right thing. So I think we have to play the game to the middle. And this is another way to check some balance.

So we could simplify this.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was waiting because he was driving in real time. Real time amendments.

Yeah. We could simplify this and remove this language and say the city manager shall include item requests submitted by commissioners. If we keep the seven-day language and we mandate that seven days the agenda is published and the city manager prepares the agenda and he shall include commissioner requests, the public will have seven days notice for whatever is put on that agenda by the city manager or the city commission to make decisions on whether they attend that next meeting.

And that is what happens today. If any commissioner has an item that needs to go or they would like on the agenda, they let us know and we put it on the agenda. It is, there are voting items. I think I heard maybe they would be informational items only, but there are items that they actually vote on under the commissioner's section.

And so what have been Posted.

Yes, they would have been posted prior with the agenda seven days prior. Any backup that the commissioner gives us, we include and attach on there. Sometimes they choose to just do a presentation, but they want an item on the agenda to do a presentation. So there's no attachments sometimes, but that is the practice today is we... mayor commissioner wants anything on the agenda it goes exactly how they want it to the only time that i've said no in my time as city manager is because the agenda was already published and we're like hey it's already finalized and it you know we can put it on the next one you can bring it up at the meeting and if you have a majority you can add it to the meeting then if the agenda is already out published so let's do this if we can talk just kind of a little

and we can debate as long as we need to I think seven days is too long I think well you can post it you're posting it now in seven days but when is it in concrete when it's posted when it's posted so seven days And then if, let me just get my thinking straight. If we are at a commission meeting and we, the commission, I, a commissioner, want to add something to the agenda and I get favorable responses from the city manager and the other commissioners, it can go on the agenda, but only for discussion, right? No voting. Is that his quote? about the status quo. It's dangerous for me to have something come up, unless it's an emergency, at the meeting, put it on the agenda, and vote for it. That's very dangerous.

This needs to be very clear. The current status quo, the legal requirement is that the meeting be noticed, just noticed, seven days in advance to the public. There is no legal requirement that any agenda be posted. I understand practice. We're just saying the minimum legal standard is that the citizenship has an opportunity to know that they are meeting about something Seven days in advance. And that is it. The internal practice, if we post an agenda and we follow it, that's all internal protocol. The legal standard is purely tell them that we're meeting and they can find out later on. And so we're suggesting putting something in the charter that then kind of balances interest.

Here's another idea. Do we have to prepare anything inside of the charter or can we put pressure on the city commission that they file an ordinance that states so that this is clear? They work through this together.

I mean, there's, if I recall, and we have the track changes here, there was no mention of any of this stuff in the original charter. Nope. So you could just go back to the own internal standards of we have a policy and we try to post notice and, or sorry, we try to post the agenda and something comes up last minute, we amend the agenda and just go back to the way that it was or the way that it is. Yes, Sue.

Well, I think this is the kind of thing that would get the citizens very interested. We want them to take this seriously. We want them to consider it. And I think what was proposed essentially by JP, and I also read some of these But it's the kind of thing that acknowledges the importance of notifying and putting people on notice. And the fact that we took that burden to try to fix, you know, a potential problem, things haven't gone off the rails all the time. but occasionally it has, and it does cause tremendous ill will and lack of trust. I think this is the kind of thing that people will talk about. And we talk, I don't know if we're going to have any more public presentations to the public, you know, during the explanation of what's in there, but in my ears, that rings like a real positive of, that is a hook to bring them and look at the whole thing and consider the whole thing. So I'm totally against going back to the way it was. One, I think we lose that opportunity and two, we can do something.

Did you have a suggestion on leaving the language as we amended it last time? Yeah, that's right.

I'm still a little... I'm a little agnostic or conflicted about whether or not it's a city manager or mayor. So I don't have a strong position on that. I know that was part of Brandon's suggestion, but I still like the language that we decided on last time better than what's being suggested here today.

Me too.

Yeah, I mean, I would agree with JP. I certainly like the language that we had better than this language for a variety of reasons. You know, I still go back to, I feel like we captured all the commissioner's concerns by letting them have their say at the meeting. And then basically my concern with allowing any commissioner to have anything on the agenda ahead of time is, could be abused and bringing up issues that wouldn't even get a second. Yet now we're discussing these things and to do it at the meeting itself, at least acknowledges that somebody else wants to talk about it too. And it's not somebody's pet project or they're not teeing it up to embarrass somebody or something along those lines. So I think we kind of had the catch all there to make sure that if there's somebody being obstinate, not putting something on the agenda, it was a pretty easy threshold at the meeting to say, Hey JP, you want this on the agenda next time? Yeah, I do too. Cool. Well then next meeting it's on there. I'd love to see it go back to the way that we had it originally, but I know where we're at.

I don't like the idea of an elected official controlling or preparing the agenda. Elected officials can only be fired by the people, and it is a long and lengthy process. If the city manager does not do his job, there are four or five other people on that board that can remove him. It is his job to prepare and hold accountable that agenda. If we give autonomy to one elected official who has no other power than anybody else, I believe we would be violating our charter.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, Brandon. I just disagree. I get it, and I'm not saying you're wrong. My feeling is that to have somebody who is not a member of the body setting the agenda feels very bizarre to me. That the idea that i would be sitting on a board and making decisions and i'm not i have no role whatsoever and well i shouldn't say whatsoever because yours does but somebody else is setting our agenda for us just has a very just kind of awkward feeling to me um i think it just bestows a it effectively lets the city manager set policy at that point which they're not a policy making board but they're saying what policy the board is going to consider is that by a decider at that point. I mean, I get it. I just, I think we disagree on this one, Brian.

I'm in full agreement with you. But this is, I mean, and that's the tension potentially between those who set policy and those who execute the policy, you know, and I've seen a lot of occasions where there's kind of usurps them and can control, you know, I've literally seen it go back. Yeah, for sure. And so this way, if a commissioner shows their tail by doing, you know, abusing this process, that will come, the public will see it, it will be known, and that they'll get punished at the next election.

As far as the timing goes... Probably like JP, I don't have super strong feelings on, I know you said something else, but I'm trying to balance between citizen protection and creating unnecessary friction with the board. And I'm not saying between them, I'm just saying in the apparatus. I think any sort of governance, a little bit of friction is probably good.

There's a reason why it takes a long time for Congress and the Senate to pass stuff.

Jonathan was still saying that no life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. And so to balance those interests, and very practically, like I think the lion's share of the people that are contemplating attending a meeting probably look at it the day before or the morning of and make that decision. I don't think they're planning it weeks in advance. So I think you're, you know, to your point, it's to do this seven days in advance. And then also I'll just share my own practice with clients. When I need to get something in front of one of my association boards and I have to tell the vendor or whatever, hey, guys, I got to post this notice 48 hours in advance. I need it by Thursday. Otherwise, we're not going to be able to consider it. That's a pretty decent tactic. And then goodness knows if for whatever reason we get it the morning of, then I just got to tell the board, we're going to have to come back in 48 hours and get this thing approved because I didn't get it on the agenda in time. So I'm pretty content with a 48, but good there. And so the... I tend to like the idea that to get something on the agenda needs more than one. And if there was a reasonable way to have more than one get it on the agenda ahead of time, but because of sunshine laws, that's just not a thing. So I'm kind of stuck on this. I kind of build on these principles. I mean, if the public deserves notice, I think somebody has to be the final signer offer and I'd have no problem. And I just think it's, you're potentially creating more issues by letting one person dictate what's on the agenda than you're solving. And then if you want to give at least two, like just a soft second, you just practically can't do it without violating the Sunshine Laws, without doing it at the meeting. That's kind of the process that I've got.

Could we have another idea then? Because I can distinctly, I'm like Cecile on this one. She says she knows, she can distinctly remember where city manager in the past has taken advantage of this. I can distinctly remember a specific mayor that our city would look totally different today if he had this level of autonomy. I don't have to name any names, but we all know who I'm talking about. I'll say that. But here's another way to look at this. Can we say the city or the mayor and the mayor pro tem, because we do define a mayor pro tem each year, shall prepare the agenda. So it is a set of two. They have to do it together. And then two commissioners will have autonomy to set the agenda.

I think we're missing the flavor of what that means. There's no way that the mayor can set the agenda without talking to staff. It's not going to happen. And so I think we're kind of using the word city manager or mayor, whatever goes in there, neither one of them can do it by themselves, really. If I was mayor, I would want to meet with the city manager, and I don't know how to write it this way, before the meeting so that I don't get caught off guard as being running the meeting. And I would want as much notice as I could get. How to articulate that in a charter.

Our charter says that our mayor and the city commission cannot deal with staff. That is the job of the city manager. The way that this is written, this gives complete autonomy. The way we signed off on this last meeting, we are giving complete autonomy to the mayor. He can't legally meet with city staff to set the agenda because our charter violates that. We're giving him complete autonomy to set whatever he wants on the agenda. One elected official.

And I think you could deal with the concern that you have, Brandon, by saying something like in consultation with the city manager, the city mayor saw that the agenda. Shouldn't have to tell them, but again, it's a public statement that the public knows the mayor has the authority because it is the and he's representing that position, but he's gonna, we're saying he has to consult, which he's gonna do anyway, but on paper, it says in consultation with the city manager. So set the agenda. I think that maintain the proper balance and not allow the operational to appear to be doing the policy. Do you know what I mean?

We have language that was approved at the last meeting. And at a certain point, it's either going to be somebody makes a motion to propose new language, or we send this to the commission.

I'll make a motion. OK. In the old language, add in that the mayor in consultation with the city manager set the agenda and let everything else flow.

And when you said old language, you mean the language that's in front of us now or the one that we had for a couple months before that?

The one that we developed.

So this one. This one here where it talks about any commissioner can request an agenda item by notifying the city manager ahead of time. So the evolution of this was originally it was... Mayor sets the agenda, and then at any meeting, two commissioners ask for an agenda item that shall be put on the next agenda. And then this language got revised at the last meeting. I think we took out that part. And instead, any commissioner with $48 notice can put something that they want on the agenda effectively. So I'm just clarifying. Are you saying, because when you said old language, I was just confused.

Yeah, no. That might have been one of the meetings that I wasn't physically here. Oh, it could have been, yeah. Yeah. But the one that allows commissioners to put something on the agenda through the mayor, as long as it's what I think you said, more than 24 hours.

So your language, and you probably, one of these things will be caught in front of us.

Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, you're right. There were good things in both of them that I sort of blended together. What section? 32? Yes, ma'am.

So the new language there is highlighted in the middle. What used to say notwithstanding the foregoing, two commissioners may at a public notice meeting request the item. It was approved at the last meeting to replace that with notwithstanding the foregoing, any one commissioner can ask that a specific agenda item be added basically before the meeting gets posted, notice or the agenda gets posted. So is your motion to leave this proposed language as it is plus add in mayor in consultation with the city manager shall set the agenda.

Yeah, that's generally what I would like. The idea of, I'm just curious, as an aside, a little bubble, how would two people, two of the commissioners, if they can't talk to each other, how does that work?

So, the way I suggested the language prior is that they would have to mention it at the meeting itself. So they'd be in a meeting, say we're the city commission, we're at a meeting, and I would say, I really want this issue talked about next time. Cecile, do you too? And if you say yes, I do, then it's on the next agenda. What JP's language is, that got approved at the last meeting, was I could just reach out to Jonathan and say, hey, I want this issue on the next agenda, and it would be.

So the communication would be in public, which answers part of my question. So a sunshine violation. But it would be obviously postponed. Because it has to be dealt with at the next meeting.

So the process in my head would work like this. I can imagine we're the city commission and you want to hand out candy canes on Harrison Avenue. All right. Under the first system that we had, you contact Jonathan and say, hey, I want this on me. I want candy canes on Harrison Avenue on the agenda. Jonathan prepares it, puts it on my desk as the mayor. And I go, we're not talking about that. And it gets struck from the agenda. Then at the meeting, if you said, I really want to talk about my candy cane thing, does anybody else want to talk about it? And JP says, I want to talk about candy canes too. Then it shall be on the next agenda, even though I struck it on this one. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Under the current system that we have, you just go tell Jonathan, I want candy canes on the agenda and it's on the agenda.

Jonathan is not one of them yet.

No, well, it's kind of both. Right. I mean, because it says the mayor sets the agenda, except for any commissioner can also add something to the agenda by written request. So the other path would be under the prior system.

So with the two, that pretty much is going to put a lot of downward pressure on foolishness of people, of any individual commissioner, You know, wasting time.

That's my position, is that this could lend itself towards commissioners adding things onto an agenda that are pet projects. So back to your example. Yeah, your example would be you ask for candy canes. I get the draft from Jonathan. I go, we're not talking candy canes. You show up at the next regular meeting saying, hey, guys, what about my candy cane thing? And we all just stare at you. and you don't get a second or anything, we're not talking about candy canes. But if J.P. says, it's a great point, let's talk about candy canes next meeting, then you would. The way this system works is you just go to Jonathan and we're talking candy canes.

I like assuming the best, but sometimes you have to play the game for the worst outcome too. And I don't think it's a... I think that what the citizens would still understand, it may not be immediate response, but that their ward commissioner still has the opportunity to take whatever they're asking that person to do and bring it to the table. It may not happen right away, but I think the fact that there is a pathway and that it will be aired out at the commission for someone else to join in or not. dies with lack of a second, I think works.

I think there's going to be general consensus that there needs to be a pathway to get things on the agenda in case you have an obstinate mayor. The question is, is it a one person before the meeting can ask for it or does it take some degree of public notice?

I'm willing, now that you've explained it very carefully, to go with takes two and it goes on the next meeting. That part, I was in love with the idea of facilitating and by empowering the representative, the citizens who rely on their representative feel empowered too. But I think it's just a little bit of a slowdown to require two and put it on the next. But it does put a brace on what I was referring to generally as foolishness or just pet project type things.

Ms. Schooner, would you rescind? We didn't have a second. Would you rescind your motion and let me try one?

Yes.

Okay. The city manager and what's the word? Correlation or whatever with the mayor shall prepare the agenda. That's the first sentence.

The city manager?

The city manager in consultation. Because I think the city manager knows more about what has to be on the agenda than the mayor will. And so you still don't consult with the mayor before you get there. And then what y'all were just, so that's the first sentence. And then jump down to the middle of the paragraph. Notwithstanding the foregoing, two commissioners may request at a meeting that a Pacific ought to be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. So they have to do it at a meeting to be on the next meeting.

So the city manager in consultation with the mayor will prepare the agenda and then go back to the way the language was before.

Correct. Except that I think we need to put in, and I don't think it was, that the two commissioners may request that a specific item be placed on the agenda at the next meeting. Does that say that they're at a meeting when they do that?

Yeah, the prior language said out of duly known as public meeting.

Okay, all right.

I'll make that motion, what we are just saying.

Okay, for a second.

All right. Now what?

I think I now can make a better motion for what I made. Yeah. So basically what he said, except I would still, because I think it looks bad to the citizens to give it to the city manager. I think it should be the mayor in consultation with the city manager. So set the agenda. And then pretty much the other things that you were saying that, you know, it takes two at a duly notice meeting. to put it on for the next meeting.

Okay. Is there a second? All right. Parliamentarian, I can second that, right? As the chair? Yeah, I'll second that. All right, so the motion is that the mayor, in consultation with the city manager, sets the agenda and then effectively go back to the language like it was before. Notwithstanding the foregoing, two commissioners at a duly noticed meeting may vote to require that a specific agenda item be on the next meeting.

KEN HOWARD- Kevin Berg, is that two additional commissioners, or is it one commissioner that would effectively sponsor the additional item?

KEVIN BERGMANN- It would be, yeah, any two.

KEN HOWARD- OK. So the presenting, and then he'd need one sponsor. KEVIN BERGMANN- Correct.

KEN HOWARD- Want to debate this?

Is the mayor included as one of those second commissioners?

Could be.

I guess in my head it was, yeah. But also as a practice, I think you're bringing this up under the assumption that the mayor didn't put it on the agenda in the first place. I suppose I could. You can always pass a gavel anyway. Then I'll just Any other debate comments?

Yeah. I don't like the comment the least flawed. I don't think we should put any type of flawed anything inside of the charter. I would say this is going to be a foundation item that they have to do. I would probably go back to making a motion that we don't make any changes and we put this back on the board to be driven by policy, not by charter. That way, once it's in here, it cannot be adjusted unless it is adjusted by charter amendment. And if we don't have it right, it's not right for the charter.

Well, procedurally, or maybe it's a point of order. I made a motion. Yeah. Yeah.

So we're still, well, we're having discussion about it now. Yeah.

So yeah. So this is this. I don't think Brandon's motions on the floor. He's very simple. Taking the spirit of what he's saying. We do have a motion. I'm not, but we can still debate it. Yeah. Okay.

Just wanted to be sure.

I think it is not our position to decide on the foolishness of the elected city commissioner. I think that if a city commissioner wants to be foolish, I think that because I've heard a lot during our year together about the wisdom of people and the need to have the public elect their officials. I think if that city commissioner wants to be foolish, then so be it. COMMISSION MEETING. THAT'S A GREAT MISTAKE. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN THE PROCESS, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, WE'RE TAKING AWAY SIGNIFICANT POWER FROM THE COMMISSIONER. BE RESPONSIVE TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM IN PLACE. RIGHT? AND WE'RE CREATING THIS SLOWDOWN PROCESS. WHEN I'VE SPOKEN TO COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE COMMISSION WHEN THIS GOES BEFORE THEM, WE ARE TAKING POWER AWAY FROM OUR ELECTED COMMISSIONERS And in a sense, putting the mayor in a position above them, which is not what we decided when we discussed the other issues.

Yeah. I agree. We're handcuffing and we don't know the full consequences of what we would be doing to the charter if we can pass this.

Ron, what else? Call for questions.

All right. Call the roll.

Mr. Danzy?

No.

Mr. Ferreira?

No.

Mr. Henderson-Jansenius?

No.

Ms. Schoon?

Yes.

And Chairman Burke?

Yes. All right.

Motion fails.

All right. So I would like to make a motion that we go back to the... commission and give them the autonomy to make this change to any type of agenda via ordinance or resolution, and we do not include this in the charter.

Is there a second? Okay.

Just for discussion. You can either second it or I can tell you that we'll continue to have the discussion.

All right. So for lack of a second, now what?

Ron?

Is it broken? And do we need to fix it?

My only thing is I like what Brandon has said about the meeting notice issue. I think that's a real issue. And I really believe that is something that needs to be dealt with, where people don't put something on the agenda and vote through and nobody knows about it. And you've cited examples of that. So I like the spirit of that. I think that's important. But the reason I have my deep middle-aged man side is that I know that when I've talked to commissioners, they have a lot of problems with this. So maybe I just need to put on the record that I do hear, I did listen to the commissioners, but this is something that I personally think needs to, I think we need the notice. To me, I think that's important. So that's kind of where- Can you make a motion? Well, I think that we've arrived at the best compromise that we can. So that's where we are.

I will share this. There's I'm okay adding that friction and I'm okay with the commissioners being opposed to it. But it's not for the commissioners. It's not against the commissioners. This is for the public. There's very few things in this charter. I think we've done a lot of really good things and we've cleaned things up and we've made it more efficient and all the things. There's very few things that we've done in here that I think can equal the impact of citizen protection as this provision. And I'd hate to see this thing go. we can do a lot with this thing, but this is the one that definitely gives me the most, like I feel like we've done the most benefit for the public. So while I think the language could be tailored, I think the most important thing, well, for me, the most important thing is a requirement to post the agenda ahead of time. And if this is the way it gets through, then so be it. Exactly.

Regardless of who sets the agenda. Right. Correct. Yeah.

Correct. That's kind of, that's... Jonathan, quick question. So that can still be adjusted by ordinance. We can adjust the agenda being seven days or 14 days by ordinance, correct? They wanted to do more.

Yeah. You can make it more restrictive. You can't make it less.

I can't understand why we would have to have a charter restriction when our elected officials have autonomy to fix this problem right now. This could be fixed during a special meeting or a workshop. I don't think that this has to be a charter item. And we're not here to effectively make our residents' experience with our elected officials any better. We're here to make sure that our city is protected. for the long-term integrity of our city, right? And it's their jobs to make sure that our residents' experience is protected. They're the elected officials. So this is effectively a problem that they should be fixing, not us.

I see those as one and the same, Brandon, that an effective city represents its citizenship well. I don't see those as independent priorities. Yeah, or competing priorities.

The standard today could be two days. The standard two years from now could be seven days, but we are effectively handcuffing it in a charter at X amount of days, and we will not be able to shift that standard away from it without a charter revision.

I see that as a feature, not a bug. Okay. Happy to entertain more debate. I think we all understand where we stand. We have a new status quo as of the last meeting. So respectfully, if there's another motion, we'll entertain it. Otherwise, I think we have our language.

Can we read where we're currently at? I think it reads still that the mayor shall prepare this agenda is what the last motion that we passed.

What we passed last time.

With consultation with the city manager. in the first sentence.

Yes, but I don't know what effect that has.

That's a lot of things we're doing. I know that's the plant the flag and let everyone see what's going on. Citizens are just really, really busy. And they might glance at this quickly. And they go, Yeah, I'm glad he has to talk to the city manager who knows well the details. You know what I mean? It's just you do things for Leveraging.

Keep in mind that we also, this has to go ahead of the commissioners. Yeah. We have four other commissioners who have to pass this. If they feel that we're giving the mayor too much autonomy, they could completely shut this down depending on how this gets packaged. Yeah. So not just this, but they could shut the entire charter review down and say we're not passing anything. Right. So we were trying to package this up in a one package deal. We are looking forward to what this needs to look like in the future. So but they do also retain autonomy to change it before it goes to.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make sure that we all agree. What is before you and what was set out prepared by Caroline has already been approved. Correct. So if nothing's done, then what you see will move forward. Yeah, we all appreciate that. Thank you.

I'm to the point now, unless there's going to be a motion, then we have our language, yes.

I agree.

All right, cool. So a couple little things just before we prove this. What did I have? I did see one thing, and I emailed you about this, Nevin, about the supermajority removal we had voted at, like the April meeting that all city officers served to the pleasure of the commission, and I saw that language was still in there.

That should be the email that was sent at 1-11, if y'all look at that. What section are we talking about? 102?

It just looked like a...

of all the revisions it was one that just didn't get um reflected in the document i'll ask caroline about that caroline could you comment on that yeah we did what should the language be we at one point we voted out of that the city manager telling the removal And so we voted in April to remove the, basically put a period after word commission. And that change didn't get reflected in the document.

Yeah, I missed that. So I'll go back and put a period after the word commission.

And take out by a super majority.

Yes. Right. That was already decided. I'm just saying, I mean, in all of the shame, nobody did anything wrong. I'm just, that's one of the things.

I think that might've been the meeting that you missed.

Okay. Yeah. On the vacancy language, and this is kind of a question for Nevin, I sent over some suggested language. Those timeframes on the vacancy seemed really short, like 10 days to build a vacancy, 21 days have to have an election.

I believe we left the timeframes as is, Caroline. That's correct. Right. And I agree. It's very aggressive. I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, my suggestion 90 days before the meeting, 90 minutes before the meeting was basically fill the vacancy within 30 days and then hold an election as required by law if they can't fill the vacancy.

This is on page 12, section 26.

So my quick research was that Florida law does mandate that the vacancy be filled. It mandates that the city have some provision to do that. Right now it's by ordinance. And then right now the ordinance says we've got 10 days to fill it. And if you can't fill it in 20 days, you gotta have an election within 21. My feeling is that getting people interested in vetting them and holding a meeting within 10 days is nearly impossible, especially to do it correctly. So my suggestion was to have the commission fill that spot within 30 days. And then if it's two to two and they can't fill it, then you just hold a regular election and however long the supervisor of election takes to tee up an election.

Do we need to hear from you now?

I mean, we can. I mean, my intent, my suggestion, Lane, was just an open-ended, open election as required by Florida law and all of that.

Yeah.

30 days instead of 10? Right. And then strike the 21 and just say, hold an election as required by court law.

I believe those are good changes. We just took the ordinance.

Yeah. So moved. For a second. Any debate? All in favor? Hi.

Hi. So we will use your language. They're going to invoke the burden.

Okay.

What else? I've just got a few things for clarity. Now I'm on the, not the red line edition. I'm on there. So I'll just give you the section, section 10 and 11. That's a lot of lawyer stuff. Does it need to be in here?

You're on the clean version.

I'm on the clean version. It just says this is contained and this ain't contained. And so does it need to be in there?

The acts not affected by charter.

Yeah. And the acts repealed. Does that need to be in the chart? Caroline, what are your thoughts? I'm just thinking of readability is what I'm, for the public.

You know, I have not studied this, so I'm reluctant to give you my thoughts on it.

I have a suggestion for you. Ultimately, what it's going to be is, depending on what else you have, approval of the charter as presented with basically defer to counsel that if it's legally required, leave it. But if it's not legally required, take it out. And then you guys make that call.

And Ron, I can't think why we have to have it in here.

That's fine. Okay. And just for clarification, this may be in the section 19. Commissioner may not serve as a city manager. So do I resign before I apply or do I apply and then resign? I know that's in the weeds. I'm just asking silly questions.

No, it's a vote without you then.

That may be something we don't even need to discuss.

I was just, you know. I would think you're not city manager until you're hired to be city manager. You can't vote to hire yourself because that would be a conflict. And you're going to have to execute yourself. It's your own interview scores.

I interview myself. And the other thing way over in Section 105. This is another lawyer call, and since I'm not one. Qualifications for the city attorney. What if Burke and Blue hired somebody from Georgia and they came in? Or what if the city decided to hire inside counsel and they were from Timbuktu?

the florida bar that has no no idea about yeah so i don't know there again i don't know if i'm in the weed but that's okay we kind of discussed this where sort of like uh our marshall police chief yeah all these people are are chests that you can poke and there's there's got to be one attorney that's the city attorney and my understanding is i think you're either w2 or 1099 with the city but there is no limitation on the also got an engagement letter with Berkman Blue. And I'm sure there's also other firms for other bespoke issues that come up that doesn't limit that. But at the end of the day, there's got to be a grieving body that has passed the bar for five years that has the hat on of city attorney.

And to clarify, they don't need to be a Florida bar person for five years. They need to be admitted to practice of law for five years. a middle and practice yeah all right okay yeah in good standing with the floor okay i'm good it's kind of not clear i mean it needs to be a lawyer but he's by there's a beach city attorney that's okay that's it for me yeah someone if you hired someone and they moved here from say virginia how fast could they take the bar

Only twice a year.

Every six months. February and July. And you apply for, what, four or five months in advance? So it's not very frequent.

Twice a year. I would have no need to know that. Now you know. I don't have anything. I don't know if

So can we get a motion to approve the updated charter subject to the last two provisions and the recommendation of council on what Ron suggested?

Well, any of them, you know, Brandon, they were more legal. Yeah.

I think this was decided when I was asked to clarify for me where we were headed. was with regards to the old city clerk we were going to pull out the administrative work, put that under the city manager, and leave the oversight separate. Is that where we ended up?

Yes. That's the way we did it, where we moved all of the administrative functions that are typically attributable to a clerk, like maintaining records and meeting minutes and stuff like that, as a direct responsibility of the city manager, however it flows. the position to comptroller and basically has a pure financial oversight function.

What section is that?

It's in a variety of sections. I'd say that takes me back. Yeah.

We discussed it right down to the wire and then we were tired and said let's come back. My little hospital visit.

On the red line version, it's on page 27, article 13. This is on page 27.

Is that page 27?

Yeah, the red line version is where we cleaned up the terminology.

And then it would be under the city manager. Page 24. Section with no new duties of city clerk.

Thank you.

Do you want to make a motion?

Are we, Nevin, what's the proper motion? Are we recommending this to the commission? What's the, what wording do we need?

the charter revisions as presented to the city commission for approval.

Pending one final legal run through, right?

Yeah.

If you find something. Okay. So moved. Is there a second? It's that one.

Any other debate? Call the roll on this one.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Henderson, Jansenius.

Yes. Yes.

And Chairman Burke. Yes. Motion passes five to zero.

If after we review it, we'll send it around to everybody and the chairman can always call you back together if there needs to be.

Well, that's one of the reasons we don't want to wait. We'll

let's let's just kind of talk about the process going forward here so this will magically go in front of the commissioners and then commissioners can do what they want to with it right um we sort of have a working memorandum that i'll add to i know i sent jonathan some language on the compensation stuff and i don't remember if you forwarded it and just knock that out. I'll look at that memo again and just make sure I've covered everything, circulated to you guys, and then we can update it and figure out how we want to do that. And then I guess is the idea that we're done? I mean, obviously, I'm sure if the commission strenuously wants us to come back and meet, I'm not opposed to that. I'm sure you guys aren't either. But

well i want to be clear when you say we're done is there any interest in i guess we have to the first step is wait let's wait and see what the city commission but let's say they approve it or it goes forward is there a role for us to play in communicating with the citizenry about this i think it's a great question i don't know the answer to that um

My two cents would be, I think we're kind of reactive at this point. I'm happy to do whatever they asked me to do or us to do, but I don't know that we have an affirmative obligation. I mean, but I'm not opposed to that.

I guess that was one of my big motivations. One, to just look at it, and it was interesting that it hadn't been reviewed or changed in 60 years. That really kind of rings a bell, especially in the South. But I think us... proposing that we, and it could be with the city commissioners if they wanna be with us, but I think another effort to have some kind of forum or something during the time that it's being reviewed by the citizens, I think would be a gift. To the citizens.

How would you feel about if I put something at the memo that we make ourselves available however they want? I'm also thinking about, I don't know how much I'd want to advocate if it gets a ton of changes and then say, wait a second, I'm advocating for something that we didn't present to you guys. So part of this maybe says, hey, we're available. We want to facilitate it, but I don't necessarily also want to say like, we'll continue to champion this no matter what you guys do.

I hear what you're saying. And I don't know that it needs to go in the memo. I'm just saying we're all here. We can have an easier conversation than calling the Zoom. What is the appetite or do people think it's appropriate in general? I'm assuming that the meat of this stays the same. Hypothetically, is there an interest or a need or a will to have a setting where we can be available to the public?

I have a pedantic question, but doesn't the ordinance that established this board kind of end it at the end of July? Wasn't it a year and then the board is done?

I think it's the end of June, actually. End of June? By the timeline, your last meeting is so early. Does that have any effect that

We literally have no more power from the commission after the end of this month.

I think it was resolution. Resolution. I'd have to go back and look at it. But that can always be amended. In other words, I think if you just indicate we're available and then the commission, we can look at the resolution they can and see if there's a formal role or not. that you're already involved in, like the league or whatever.

That's kind of my question. The formal role may be ending, but we can continue to do it on our own.

But that's an excellent question.

And then, Jonathan, if you want to ask either the mayor or the commission if they would want a brief just, I don't know, announcement at the city commission meeting that, hey, we've voted on this and appreciate the opportunity

to do that too um anything else sort of like substantive about any of this stuff what's the timeline when do you think it will get to the board for them to are you going to workshop or are you going to put it right to so i'm planning to put a workshop together potentially this coming monday or the following monday to find out how they want to how they want to handle the process how they want to execute So and I would assume that by the end of this week, we will we will circulate from Mr. Zimmerman's team the red line and clean version of what you guys have put forward here today. So the answer is immediately we will move forward if we want. But our deadline is we got to have it by Monday morning, August 24th to Miss Ward's office if we want it on the November ballot.

all all of you guys as staff i really appreciate the reports and the updates and the data gathering and and all the things like there's there was a degree of appreciation for the complexity of this when we got into it but the context and the all that stuff y'all put a tremendous amount of time into it and really helped us out um i think you've made these meetings run very smoothly and and there's been a lot of good debate a lot of good substantive contributions i really really appreciate it and then obviously for you guys as the other board members and and i'm looking to bring into on the phone like just i really appreciate the time that you guys put into this the collegiality like obviously we didn't always agree on anything that never never got personal there's always a really good debate um a lot of back and forth i'm very very very proud to serve on this board with you guys and share the board and hopefully feel like served you well and try to run these meetings in an organized way and keep things moving, but have good debate. And so I just really, I'll, assuming this experience is either done or close to being done, I'll look back on this very, very fondly. So I appreciate you guys.

I think I feel exactly the same way. And I want to say, Brandon, you handled the responsibility of being our chairperson and guiding us through. And, you know, you stood up and kind of gave your impetus for us to make a presentation to the city commissioners and things like that. I probably wouldn't have thought to do at the time, but it kind of coalesced us. And I think it probably helped them not to feel like what's happening. So I think that's good. I think you handle it very well. And I'm very impressed with the legal services that you've been provided by Nevin and Caroline.

Well, let me say this. Caroline is the one who had to go to work. And we appreciate it. And I'm also really impressed with the But with the entire committee. But yes, I wanted to thank you, Cecile, for mentioning that because it was Caroline who had the laboring oar on all of the legal issues.

And I would agree with all that because I think the first time that I asked for the charter and read it, I thought there's no way we're going to get through this in a year. I mean, I did because it was just so interesting. to read. And so I had to talk to all of us and Mr. Chairman, you did a wonderful job. Absolutely. Thank you.

It was fun hearing different perspectives. I really enjoyed hearing Brandon's sort of operational, run a big organization, you know, everybody knows their position and place. It was really interesting to hear the different sides of things, you know.

Ron's motion. Well, do we need to keep the June 25th meeting on the calendar? Because it's one of those things we need to either cancel it or leave it because it has to be noticed and it's already kind of on the calendar. So if we need to put it a little over the hard deck, we need to formally do that. I don't say you need to have it.

Anybody else think we need to?

I don't think we need to, but I guess like you said before, you've seen all the stalls.

Yeah. Caroline did say, even though she's in Vermont, she's going to turn around by tomorrow, the latest version.

Well, then how do we approve these minutes from today if we don't have another meeting? Okay.

Any amended minutes?

And the amended minutes, well, they approved those today with their- If you don't mind, can we just keep it, that other date on the calendar, and then if we can't solve this dilemma, we might have to come back.

You're always going to- You're going to have to circulate it to the chairman, and I think we just have an unappreciated chance today. Okay.

I only have one last question. Ms. Schoon. Yes, sir. When are you going to bring that bread again?

Oh, yeah.

That's what I'm going to miss the most.

Oh, you just made my head eat and my head puff up. I will say.

It will be adjourned. I have three minutes in case anyone wants to change. All right. Thank you, guys.