Charter Review Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

do this virtually unless he wants to. And Jonathan, do you mind doing it? I'd be happy  to do it. Let's please stand. Heavenly Father,   we just thank you for this opportunity to come  together to do the important work of our city.   Father, we pray for uh your wisdom and your  guidance on our deliberations today. Father,   may everything we uh think, do, and say  bring honor and glory to you and for the   betterment of our city. Uh we pray for  the men and women around this table and   and just their dedication to be civil  servants and and to just serve again   our great city. Uh we ask all this in the  name of Jesus Christ our savior. Amen. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America  and to the republic for which it stands.   One nation under God, indivisible,  with liberty and justice for all. All right. Uh, anyone do the roll call? Chairman  Brandenburgg here. Mr. Brandon Henderson Jansenius   here. Mr. Ron Dansancy. Yes. Mr. JP Ferrer  here. And Mrs. Ms. Cecile is not here yet.   Hopefully she'll come. I did leave her a message  about five weeks ago. Um I know we have minutes   to review and I get way more emails than I I  care to admit. Were these sent out ahead of   time? They were and I'll Any other comments or  suggestions about the meeting minutes? Move we   approve. Second. All right. All in favor? I post.  All right. So, show those being approved by David  

Co. All right. Um staff reports. Uh I got one  email to our um email, our new charter review   uh advisory committee email. It is attached under  item six to your uh packet. Um he is this person   is um disenfranchised because the meetings  are during the business day. Um I told him I   would pass his concern on to the board. If you  have a better response for me, I'll be happy. Yes, we could uh staff could make him  aware of the town hall on November 1st,   Saturday morning. Coffee and donuts included. Um, board members, any other thoughts or   suggestions on how to address  this or if to address it? No. So, Jonathan, if I could also add, yeah,  make make sure it's clear all the avenues   for participation in person. And obviously on  Saturday, they'll be as I sent an email out,   but I'll be there on the town hall on Saturday  that uh you have your meetings with managers or   manager as well. And then I mean just a a general  acknowledgement that this email address is is   monitored. And so any suggestions that he wants to  put in writing like have I please I can encourage   participation. Totally fine with that. And we we  have Mr. Chairman, we've modified the um the uh   community announcements for the city commission  meeting of next Tuesday to include announcing the   the charter review advisory board will be joining  the city commission for the town hall on Saturday,   November 1st, and public affairs will continue  to promote that as well. Good. Yeah, I mean I   respect that, but I also I'm trying to be mindful  of also the the time that the other board members  

are putting into this throughout the the day and  compromised family time on that. I mean, it's it's   very hard to make it available to everybody. So,  I think we've done enough virtue of the town hall   meetings and the meetings with the manager and  the email address and and so, but the last thing   we want to do is stifle participation, but the  email's going to get just as much acknowledgement   as anything else is. Yes, sir. All right. Thanks  for sharing that. Um, Jonathan, what other staff   reports do? None at this time, sir. The the  attorney has also attached some documentation.   Um I put it on staff reports. It is in response  to um a letter that was written by his office to   the commissioners uh about the redistricting uh  that may be of interest in your discussion and one from the um yeah he's of elections. Oh  okay go ahead. Thank you Jan. Uh good uh good   afternoon everyone. There an issue came up as  far as the old lawsuit. It's called the battles   lawsuit. Caroline's there and she'd be the best  one to answer any questions about it. But this is   uh at the time that the city did redistricting  a couple of years ago. We went through   uh the the voting rights act as well as  the litigation. The commissioners did   redistrict and they included a uh majority  minority district which is one district   where majority of the elect of the population  were minorities. And so they did do that. And   uh but then also we had a brief discussion,  very brief about the battles uh litigation.  

It wasn't really talked about that much.  uh we did have representatives from the   ACLU that were involved in the discussion  in the NAACP but the actual litigation   itself it was talked about but it wasn't uh  instrumental I don't believe in the policy   decisions that the commission made a couple of  years ago that's provided for your background   information and of course u it's there as  it may be relevant today or in the future When Evan, when you say it may be relevant, like  maybe how? Well, if you wanted if the charter   uh committee wanted to deter wanted to put in  the charter that the districts would be at large,   then obviously that's relevant as far as  whether or not the battles litigation would be   u would be binding or the order is binding today.  So that would be one thing but that so first is   that something that the policy issue is would  the charter review committee think it's better   for the city for a variety of of good policy  reasons to have atlarge elections just like   uh Bay County. If the answer is yes, we  think that might be a good idea, then we   need to look and see if there's flexibility to  put that in the charter as it relates to the   litigation. I know that the status quo is we have  a court decision mandating a minority district,   but that's not obviously not codified in the  charter or any. It's just the way the lines   are drawn. We're in compliance with the order  as it is now, right? The question would be we  

want to do something that that strays from  the language of the or that's correct. Okay. So that's how it's relevant. Uh as far as if you  want to do something different than status quo,   we would obviously need to look at that.   Um, I also have two documents that I  put um at your at your uh table. Um,   let's see. One addresses some questions that the  um board had regarding um other municipalities in   the state of Florida that use um potentially use  plurality voting. Panama City Beach does um versus   majority plus one voting which is what Panama  City does. And then um also you had asked for some   examples of how other municipalities um deal with  compensation for commissioners and the mayor. And   so um that's the larger document stapled. I did  a table and I reviewed a sampling of 21 different   uh municipalities and their charters and  provided um uh a fair amount of information   for you to review so that you get a feel for  what other municipalities are doing in general.   And then the second document um is um from  Tallahassee. It's an ordinance from Tallahassee um and from their charter, excuse me. And um it this  addresses the issue that you were talking about  

previously as to when to hold the elections. And  I know within that discussion um we we discussed   that um Florida statutes um allow for a commission  to set the dates. But in terms of the process as   to whether to have one election date with um  a plurality, so only one versus um having the   majority plus one where there's um the the primary  ahead of time, which is what we do now sort of   um and then moving that to uh November. This was  all part of the same discussion. So I've um I saw   how Tallahassee does it and so I wanted to provide  um what they do as uh because it seemed like it   um addressed So what do they do? Well, first I'll  explain what Panama City does. We have a um we   have a general election in May and then we have  a nominating primary in April and the not only   are do we hold it in the spring at a different  time but the mechanism is slightly different. Um   if we have um two two people running for election  and the election then then the primary nominating   primary is in April and one of those individuals  gets a majority then they don't go to the general   election in May. It's just dealt with in April  and then it stops. In Tallahassee they do it the   opposite. If they have uh only two people in the  August primary, then they skip the August primary.   They skip the first election and then their names  are put on the general election in November. So,  

it's just reversed. Um our system, we skip  the second election if it's not needed,   they skip the first one. And this allows for there  not to be a runoff after the general election.   Um you have the you have your primary which  is still in coordination with the state or   the federal elections wi-i which gets the largest  amount of turnout which was part of the discussion   in terms of motivation for moving it is getting  the larger amount of turnout. So it seems to   uh check off all those boxes. So I just wanted  to share how they were doing it. I I'm aware Mr.   chairman that there are some um and I know  this was I think talked about um by some of   the elected officials in the past because we have  talked about maybe shifting the elections and um   you know that example you know if there were you  know more than two qualifying candidates then you   would have that primary in August but as it stands  now um you could have five candidates in April but   if one of them pulls off 50% plus one, they win  in April. Uh that this change and I believe how   Tallahassee does and how other cities have done  it, it doesn't matter what you get, the top two in   August move to November regardless of what those  percentages are. So what it does is it does it   basically this would guarantee two candidates in  November every even year. Um and to add to that,   uh we had the discussion that um you know what  part can this uh can does the charter what role   does the charter play and then what role does the  commission play? Um the commission can move the  

dates but that mechanism that style of having  two candidates at the second election versus   um the election being decided at the first primary  election. That would be where the charter would   come in. All right. So the runoff primary system  is determined by the charter but the actual date   of the election can be changed by the commission  regardless of what's in the charter. Correct. Um, can we double back on this battles case  again real quick? So, and Mr. Chairman,   uh, Mr. Sc has joined via Zoom. Oh, great.  Cecil, can you hear us? Okay. And everything? Yeah. Sorry. I had sent a email saying I was going  to be appearing um from afar because we're going   to go and see our we're seeing our grandchild and  of course my son he counts too but and his wife   but um I I got the the Zoom link so I I joined  in. I heard I heard a few minutes. Okay. Yeah.   I mean we were where where did you join? Is there  anything we need to go back on? I I shouldn't see.   I joined about 8 minutes in. Okay. All right. Um,  and you being remote the other day, didn't No,   it was fine for us. Yeah. Okay. Um, any other  question? If you don't mind, can we move through   the next couple of items because the article  uh item number 10 is actually discussion about   the elections. Before we get too deep into the  business of the of the board, can we go ahead   and take care of audience participation and your  discussion items? Um, yeah, I just have one more   thing about the Well, okay. I want to flush out  the rest of the staff stuff and then we can do   Yeah, we'll get to them. Um, any other questions  for staff about the election procedures stuff? So,  

on the on the battles case, just to get the full  context of that. So, that was somebody challenged   that there was a there wasn't a minority district  at the time and then whatever happened in the   litigation and then the the city settled and said,  "Okay, we'll have a minority district." That's   right. Well, the the city's charter originally  was set up back back at the beginning of of   um Panama City's existence was set up as wards  like we have now. And then um along the way I know   by I know by the uh early 1960s that's when that  is when it changed. That is when it changed and uh   it was changed to at large. And then the city was  sued in the early 1980s under a voting rights act   um violation. And the settlement was that the  city would go back to single member districts   but then add a major what what is called a  majority minority district where where the   um the neighborhood is kept together. the the  minority neighborhood is kept together as part   of one of those wards and then that's been in  place ever since. Correct. And then what's the   context for there's other it looks like this thing  got kicked around a little bit back in 2021 2022   and there's a letter in here looks like from the  NAACP challenging that I what's that stuff? Well,   the NAACP uh w wanted the city to um do  redistricting because our our wards had become   um population wise. We're no longer within the  um minimum 10%. Uh and and this was a lot due   to the hurricane. Uh because when the census came  out, you know, the Glenwood area was damaged very   severely. And so um so it got um too far apart  in terms of war population. And so they had just  

sent a letter saying that they were aware of that  and that they encouraged the city to um do the   redistricting. And so that was really part of it  and they they they wanted to participate in that   and go ahead there there's two issues you know  one issue is atlarge election. The issue that we   were dealing with two or three years ago was that  every 10 years you look and see whether or not the   wards need to be redrawn. And in the process of  drawing those then the ACLU and the NAACP said,   "Well, don't forget um this Panama City has  had a history of a majority minority war."   In other words, so that's that's where their  involvement. So that census triggered this and   the redrawing of correct correct and and the  whole at large discussion was just a really   a minor issue that was mentioned. The real uh  discussion had to do with drawing the district   lines and the population demographics  within those districts. Okay. Any other   questions about that registering stuff or  anything for council on that? You good? Um, yes. I think I'll come back to  him once we get to Yeah. I mean,   we're going to have like substantive  discussion on it and not that we can't   ask questions during that time, too. Now's  kind of the time to get all that flesh out   also. Okay. All right. With that, then um  audience participation. I have one comment. My comment is um you'll need your name and address  for the record, please. Really, Miss Jan? Yes,  

ma'am. I know we met walking out today. What?  What is your name again? My name? Yes, ma'am.   Brenda Lewis Williams. I'm at 2748 Oak Hammock  Drive, 32401. Thank you. My comment is as I look   at this and navigating the MUN code, whatever that  thing is called, to find the articles that you're   addressing in here is really not that easy. And  for folks who do not have access to technology,   it's even harder if they're looking at  home, etc. My suggestion is to do as the   city commission meeting does is to highlight  it and add that additional information so that   folks know what you are speaking of. It took me  a day a couple of days to navigate that system   and I'm not that that there's not a neon sign on  my forehead flashing stupid. But aside from that,   it's it more than anything, it is to keep the  citizenry informed of what what's going on at   these meetings. When you say highlighting, what do  you mean? At the city commission meetings, there's   you they have the agenda item and then there's the  um the explanation is in blue so that you can tap   on it and and have readily available information  and or dig further from that information. You don't do that with this this one. Okay. Yeah,  that's actually Yeah, seems like a super easy   thing to fix. So like almost have like a hyperlink  on there to where they can click and get access to   the charter on the notice. Well, that's probably  what it is, but I'm technologically challenged,   so I have to speak the language I speak. I I I'm  hearing what you're saying. The thing in blue that   you click on. Absolutely. Yeah, that's a Jane, is  there any issue with putting a link on the notice  

to the um to the charter? Can do that. Um and then  on the I mean on the notice it's on the agenda   um which we'll get to that as well to the extent  that we can put on the notice the substantive   articles that we're going to be discussing. I  think that would help as well. We are I mean we we   pretty much know that answer we've scripted that  out throughout the rest of the the years here.   So in a meeting notice you mean? Yeah. Okay. Can  we not do that? Sure. You want to read? Well, the   the hyperlinks are typically backup information  as provided by the respective department on that   item. So, we have like agenda item request. We we  don't have an agenda item request. Putting putting   a link to the charter is that's very easy. Yeah,  that can just go stock on the notice. In fact,   um we can probably even put that on the agenda  page as its own link like for the charter if   you want because we're putting because you're  racking and stacking the um the agendas anyway   for the charter. We could put a button for the  directly to the charter. I mean the charter is   on this website. Yeah, it is. Panama City has  there such that you can it says uh charter Panama   City Charter. You hit the link and bam, it's right  there and you can you're readily the information   is readily available. So the city commission  does it well. Is that what you're saying? Yes,   they do. All right. Well, then Jan and Jonathan,  to the extent that we can model our notices and   meetings after what the city does, let's try  to do that and we can work together on the next   notice and agenda to make sure that happens.  Pretty easy. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Brendon. Got something. Yeah. I just wanted to say um on  this topic of I need your name and address please.   Daniel Schultz, 330 Mercedes Avenue, Panama  City, Florida. Um on the topic of um elections,  

I think um I think at large elections u could be  a mistake. Um I think the idea of uh having each   ward uh is important in the vein that the needs  of my ward are not the same of someone else's   is's ward. Um, and I think by oversaturating these  areas, I think you could disenfranchise a lot of   of voices, and we don't want to see that happen.  Um, in addition, I want to say I think it would be   a great great idea to move um the election to the  November ballot. I think that's a great idea. Um,   our number one goal as a local government should  be participation. And uh there is no question that   we'll get uh a much larger participation in the um  local process if it was on the general ballot. Uh   something that we've talked about uh but that uh I  think uh should be a serious conversation for sure   because we see such a small turnout locally  anyway. So if we give people an opportunity   um to learn more about city politics, they  will. So that's all I got to say. Jonathan,   is it appropriate for us to ask the public  questions? Uh that's your prerogative,   sir. Do you guys mind if I ask Daniel? Ask me a  question. So you ran, you went through a runoff.   I mean, I would say me and you were friends.  We've never hung out socially, but we've seen   each other around. What's your feeling on the  primary versus runoff procedure? Do you think   it makes a difference? I Let me make sure if that  I that I understand it. So, if we were to have uh   we wouldn't have a municipal inate, but we would  instead have a primary in August. Is that right?   Well, the current system that you went through was  um what the charter calls a nominating primary,  

but that if one candidate receives a majority plus  one, then there's no general election. You don't   go to so you skip the second election. Um the  the example that I provided uh based on this the   discussion that was um at the last meeting um and  moving to November would be that the if there's   two c only two candidates um that qualify then  the primary is skipped and it goes to the general   election. So, it's just which it's just a question  of which you can do. You can do like one election,   winner or take all whether they get all the votes  or none of whatever. Just whoever gets the most   wins. You can do a system like what you did where  if you don't get the majority, then you run off   with the first and second place. Or you can do  like a primary system where you narrow it down   to two and then two go onto the general ballot and  then then winner goes there. How would a primary   system work with a nonpartisan office? It's just  top two vote getters move on whether or or or you   say top two move on no matter what the top two  get or you could say uh if the top vote getter   gets a majority then they just win and that would  look like August and November is that if I may   Mr. terms. So a very specific example would be and  there are nonpartisan elections. The school board   primaries are yes but in the uh in the example of  the last election so upon qualifying which would   probably shift to June to align with state um Mr.  Reese and Mr. street would have immediately gone   to November because only two candidates qualified  in W four in W one y'all would have all the before   correct in uh August sorry the three of you uh  in August and then you and Mr. Hughes would have   advanced to November the other advantage being  you would have had nine weeks for runoff rather   than 30 days. Yeah, I quite like that uh that  idea. Yes, I did. Was one of the primary ones?   The primary idea. Yes, absolutely. The only thing  that was throwing me was the, you know, because  

primary sounds so partisan, but but a non a non,  you know, a partisan primary. Yeah. I thought the   same thing when I heard it, too. I thought primary  inherently means partisan. That's kind of, you   know, I was like, who's nominating? But no, no,  I think that uh that's a great idea. Absolutely.   The idea of having a runoff or or an opportunity  for someone else to move on gives the public more   opportunity to get to know those in individuals  to learn more about the the election to tune   in in more. Um, and it gives an opportunity  for outsiders like myself to come in. I mean,   I don't think if you have a winner take all system  uh that you'll get much uh stagnation or change.   um it will be um um um it will become stagnant  um and I don't think you'll see diversity in the   uh elect because there's not as much of an  opportunity for an outsider to win. So go   ahead. Um just to add just and to clarify so  the charter uses really the term nominating   um as opposed to primary. It does become  confusing in that way, but it's not really   a partisan primary. It's a nominating election.  It's just a we nominate whoever for this office,   who the two two top candidates are. Yeah. And  the other example would be um how it would   show up on an August. For example, if you were  say NPA, like that's your actual registration,   then only a school board race, Panama City's  race, maybe the judges, that would show up on your   ballot. But if you were nominating a a you know, a  Democrat nominee for say Congressional District 2,   or for Republican, you would also have that one  on your respective ballot. But if you're NPA,   but everybody would get the everyone would get  that just like the school board. Same. Okay. Yeah,  

I think that's a great idea. The school board.  So, we would essentially model it after the school   board. It would be pretty close to their system.  Is that right? We would have a primary and then   they move on to a general if they have another.  No, I'm pretty sure the school board is winners   all the Interestingly, the county used to have  a runoff. It was 30 days after the primary in   August. if you didn't get in either a Republican  or a Democratic uh primary, if you didn't get   50% plus one, there was an run off 30 days later  to determine who would go to November. But that   was changed what 20 years ago. Mr. Dancy, one  of my elections, there was three of us and in   the August primary in the August and I missed the  50% plus one by just a few and then had to move to   November and finally win. Yeah. Yeah. So, Daniel,  when it comes to moving the election to November,   I I'll go ahead and signal. I tend to agree with  you. I tend to agree that more participation is   better. The counterargument though is also if you  run in November, it's very noisy politically, that   there's presidential elections or guminatorial  elections or congressional elections and that   it inherently becomes political because that's  what's on the news. That's what's in everybody's   mind. And they immediately start asking you  about statewide or national issues which have no   application. you know, you don't have any say on  the city commission about abortion or gun rights,   right? Um, so that's kind of the counter. I'm just  kind of curious what your take is on that. I think   you're absolutely right. It'll happen. Um, but  I think it it's a trade-off, you know. I mean I   mean everything is a trade-off and I think it's  worth it for the increased participation. I can   tell you that when I ran uh those were still some  of the most uh mostly asked questions. I mean,   I was asked quite often, you know, do you  support Trump? Do you not? I was, you know,   uh, people do ask that stuff anyway. I mean, it's  just, it's just kind of we have, the country is in   a a partisan place. It's in a political partisan  place. So, it would be impossible to hold hold  

elections that were not incredibly partisan.  Um, and so I think that, uh, like I said,   if we get increased partisanship, but we get  increased turnout, I think it's worth that hunt. So just for the record if I may, Mr. Chairman,  so you still felt there was kind of this partisan   undercurrent even in the spring of an odd year.  Yeah, definitely. I appreciate that. That's what   you should doubt. You should run and maybe  I'm I'm good in the seat I'm in right now.   Thank I got you. Um, other board members,  any other sort of dialogue or questions for   the public comments or anything like that?  But you're doing a great job. By the way,   this is So far, we haven't done much time. Very  the top very important board. I agree. Yeah,   the importance of it. We'll see. So far, it's  been good, but Brandon. Yeah, Cecil. Sorry. Okay,   that's okay. Um, I I it's sort of hard to  be in the room and then look, you know,   at the screen to see. So, I'll just I'll raise my  hand and I'll also make a a verbal comment when I   want to say something to let you know. I I'm um  largely persuaded by what Dan has said also for   pretty much some of the same reasons. Um, I think  that there are things that can be done in the   uh process to um reaffirm that the race is  nonpartisan. Um, some can be done by volunteers,   you know, like the League of Women Voters  when they hold their uh forums and uh we can   really emphasize that and that can be part of the  education that you know the city city commission  

can put out there um about that. But you there's  going to be people asking those questions anyway.   But I think the the additional noise of having the  city uh commission race in November um is can be   muted by in terms of causing the concern of having  so much information out there at a very important   election. I think we can sort of try to anticipate  and try to work against that and then we'd have   the benefit of more participation. So, I'm I'm  definitely leaning in that direction. Thank you,   Cecil. And I'll also I apologize. You  were not one of the spotlight people,   so you're obviously on the screen, but you're  kind of tucked up in the corner. And then Jan,   thank you. You beat me to it. So, now you're front  and center. and I will make an effort to make sure   to call on you because I know you're a little bit  of a disadvantage not being here in person. So,   sorry about that. Um, any other questions or  comments before we get into discussion items? All right, audience. Thank you guys. And and  and we're not so rigid that if you if you've   got strong thoughts, please chime in. We'll, you  know, we're going to debate amongst ourselves,   but I'm not going to stifle anybody. Um, just  real quick, I know we're going to get into to   agenda item nine here, but um, it does seem like  word's been getting out on the actual charter   review process. Their staff did a press release  on this. News, picked it up. Um, Tom Lewis, who   is literally my next door neighbor, teched me, and  um, asked me to be on their local politics show   and talk about the charter. So, that was kind of  fun. So, we did that. Um, I think they just aired   it the other day and then it's on their website,  too. So, just getting more exposure on those types   of things. And then if you guys do check it out  or or want the opportunity to speak, Tom said he's  

happy to have they need content for that stuff.  There's plenty of local politicians to to talk to,   but you start they want to do it every week and  you start running out of people to talk to. So,   um you know, if any of you guys also want  opportunity to do that or or if you think   something got misrepresented, please tell me.  Like I'm trying to just speak on behalf of the   board. Um and then we have Jonathan. You're all  of y'all are welcome, but I'm going to go to the   town hall meeting Saturday. That's in person here,  right? November 1st. Yes. And um um it everybody   was flagged. It's on everybody's calendar. And  we're planning to set up for all five of y'all   to be there. So, well, in that case, yeah, please  show up. I don't want to have like four years.   Okay. It will be with the city commission.  Uh it will be with the city commission. So   um and and again it's really the the town hall  is for um both the advisory board but as well as   the city commission just to hear any feedback  from the community. So the town halls are for   the community whereas the workshops are more  for the elected officials. So, this is just,   you know, obviously there'll be some dialogue,  but it's really just to hear from the community   their thoughts on anything regarding the city or  the charter review process. And then, what was   it? Two Mondays ago, I joined you for your coffee  with the manager. You did? Yes, sir. On the first   Monday of October. And so, you know, Jonathan gets  a very engaged I mean, half a dozen people there,   maybe more at times and then probably another  10 or so online. Yeah. So, I think we're we're   getting to the audience that's the most likely  to have comments and so it works again. Like,   how John Gez, Daniel, how did you find out  about it? I know you're pretty engaged. I just   know about everything. Yeah. I mean, I I mean I'  I've just known that you you you've had it. I've   watched a few online and so thought I would show  up in person. So, you know, you're going to my   my perception is you're going to almost have this  grassroots effort of the people that are the most  

engaged with city operations and then it'll kind  of funnel out from there. So hopefully the spirit   of what we're trying to accomplish by getting  public participation, even just by virtue of   this meeting, you're starting to see should we get  three at this meeting and five? Okay. Um trying to   think if we have any other ways of getting this  out there or any same thing with, you know, we   talked Cecile discussed this with um with staff.  If any of you guys want your own opportunities to   go address the public, you know, they're willing  to help you guys facilitate that. Um, so keep that   in mind. All right. Discussion on article 9, the  city commission and mayor commission structure. I think where to start here? JP, you want to kick  on that? I mean, it's in sections. Can we just do   a section at a time and then Well, yeah, that's  kind of Is that okay? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're not   all over the place. If we take the for Montgomery,  hash that out and make the next block or however   you want to do it through. Yeah. Yeah. Just for  the record and online, it's item number nine,   but it's actually article two. Sorry. Item number  nine. That's what I misspelled. I'm sorry. I want   to make sure everyone knows exactly where you  what section you guys are talking about. So,   not to put words in everybody's mouth, but when  we had our discussion, my interpretation was that   we seem very content with the mayor or commission  manager structure that there there was no appetite   for going to a stronger mayor system or commission  only system or anything like that. That's um there question. Yeah. Yeah. And so  if we're not making any changes,   we don't need a motion or anything. We just  need to keep moving. Correct. Is that how we   want to? Yeah. Do we need a vote on each of them  or how? So I think there will be things that we  

will discuss particularly the term office of  commissioners. So yeah, we will if we need to   vote. I I would I would ask Mr. Zimmerman, ask  the parliamentarian or all things city. I Yeah. I missed the question. Basically, apologize.  What's the as as we reach certain decisions,   what's the formality that we need to do as a  board? Do we need to move to adopting things or   can we just take notes on stuff and council takes  direction on it or how do we need to do this?   Okay, it's uh I I can tell you how our founding  fathers did it back in 1780s. They they had they   worked as a committee of a whole. They voted but  with the understanding they would vote again. And   so the purpose was to vote on a section knowing  just so they put a pin down that yes, that's what   we're going to do, but with the leeway that there  would be one more vote at the appropriate time to   uh approve the entire document. So, it's always  handy to have a vote cuz then we know where at   least you were thinking at that time with total  freedom to change your mind as you know further   things develop. But anyway, that's how they did  the US Constitution. So, and I I don't want to   go off topic here, but I do have a question for  Nevin. As I've read some of the other charters,   even if they have the same general structure,  they they tend to use either different verbiage   or like more more robust verbiage. I mean, it  just seems like Panama City Beach's charter is   just more thorough. Tallahassee's charter is  more thorough. Is there any discussion or do   you guys have any recommendation as far as if  we're going to keep the same structure? Do we  

literally don't change a word or are there ways  to make it clearer or do we need to do that? Um,   we I I don't have a recommendation right now,  but obviously it has to do with uh if we change   things, then it has to be voted on by the by  the electorate. So I if if you're just changing   things to to have it read better, have it be more  modernized, which obviously there are a lot of   things that do need to be modernized. I believe  that it would be voted on, but that's a great   question and Caroline's going to look at it for  us because there are some things that seems like   that are not substantive that maybe we could go  in there and u like an editor and change things.   But but let us let us think about that. That's an  excellent question. There might be certain natural   break points like maybe perhaps after today. First  of all, we're going to change something. the idea   that we meet for six months and then say you know  what is perfect is pretty low right but what I'm   I'm thinking of for example the gender references  are very dated you know so so obviously that needs   to be updated whether we really have to have a  referendum election on it I'm not certain but   we're going to look at that as well kind of what I  anticipate just through my experience of rewriting   governing documents is is like when we get to  the commission, mayor, the commission manager,   mayor structure, elections, city manager, city  attorney. That might be a decent break point to   go, okay, put pen to paper on stuff and then  we can word Smith if we need to from there.   But to Ron's point, I think if we just have  a motion to leave the current commissioner or  

commission manager structure in general, then  we can build up that. If I may, Mr. terms. So,   you know, in a something like that in this  example, if if no one really moves to get into   some big discussion and it's like everyone's like  immediately shaking their head and you move on.   Yeah. But if y'all spend 30 minutes talking about  it with a lot of different ideas and thoughts,   then at the end of that it might be prudent to  say just for clarity sake, you know, we might need   something more formal. That's how I typically  do it as city manager. If if I ask, you know,   would y'all like us to do this? and there's no  objection, no real conversation, I think that is   a pretty clear consensus. But if they ask a lot of  questions and and and deliberate for 30 minutes,   I then say staff would appreciate like a formal  motion and direction from the commission as to   what you guys would like to see done. So I just  offer that just depending on how you you know   well I like the idea kind of to Ron's suggestion  was let's memorialize the the general commissioner   manager structure is what we're recommending and  then we can build off of that. Is that fair? So   yeah, I think that's fair. But our charge has been  to make res recommendations to the city commission   for changes. That's not a change. Correct. So I  mean I don't want to get too far in the weeds,   but I reckon we need to go back figure out what  we're doing. I think so. Each section I think did   we make a formal motion for section 13? Hey, are  we going to make changes? We have a discussion.   We move forward. Then we go to section 14, which  is the commission created. That defines the word   structures and how many commissioners. We know  we're going to discuss that. So, we make a motion   of discussion. Then we move forward with formal  vote before moving to section 15. I'll handle  

however you guys want to. I think we're down in  the weeds. I think we're all on the same page   of how we want to do this. We need to dot what  I win. I don't have strong feelings. Okay. So,   let's try this. I make a motion that we affirm  section fix 13 as written. Second. All right.   Any discussion? All right. All in favor? I I any  opposed? Cecil I what? But I I I'm voting I with   the understanding as we go through we've already  said we may go back and need to either change the   substance of a preliminary vote or decide as I  think you mentioned that uh we want to change   some of the language to clarify in some way. So  with with that understanding I vote I just for   the record Mr. chairman. Uh, Miss Scoon can fully  participate in the discussion, but she cannot vote   um remotely, just for the record. Oh, I didn't  realize that. Yeah, it was. And and I didn't   realize I missed the memo you were calling  in, Cecil, but under the pandemic rules,   you could vote uh remotely, but then the rules  reverted back where you can't vote remotely.   But but just for an example, the motion to  affirm, I still take that as staff will go   back and you all can go back and look at whether  or not the language should be adjusted. So to me,   you're affirming the substance or the substantive  part of that section with total freedom to go back   and we'll look at that for everyone too. Yeah,  I think for purposes of anybody who has to be   remote, if there's something that you had to count  votes and certainly, you know, for legal reasons,  

my vote wouldn't count. But I still would like  to vote just so everybody knows where I stand and   the the everybody, you know, can go from there.  That that is from my perspective that is that is   fine. Okay. Not not to ask Ron to pull back his  motion. But I think the idea there are things as   I'm looking at this in article three that I still  think we want to debate. Like section article 3   talks about the term of the commissioner along  with the perm of the mayor. It also discusses   in section 29 the duties and the powers of the  mayor. Section 13. Yeah. section. That's it. Okay. One. Just one sentence.  Excuse me. Just one sentence. Just made Jam's day. Daniel just said, "What  a great job we're doing." Mess up there,   guys. Okay. All right. Then understood.  Yes. that I'm in favor of of approving   section 13 as written. Okay, great.  Okay, who wants to introduce other   uh issues within article two for  discussion? Well, let's go to sector 14. I mean, I think the big one there is the five  commissioners. Anyone have any thought about   the five commissioners? I do. I I have a thought  on the overarching 10ear census. So, in an effort   to problem eliminate, not problem solve for  future commissions, how do we build in that   there is there's always a 10-year census, right,  that's going to review the battles case? Like,   how do we prevent the battles case getting  brought up every 10 years, right? And we still  

stay within the 1965 voting regulations, right? um  knowing that the census is quickly changing like   W 2 demographics are not what they were in 2019.  They're not today what they were in 2019. So those   are going to shift. How do we build that in so  that we accommodate that shift that it does come   up for review every 10 years? What do you suggest?  You mean about the redistricting every 10 years?   Redistricting um to ensure that the representation  is fair across all boards. whether or not there   is a fifth ward. This has five commissioners. Um  having an opportunity at the tenure one of those   um sir is mayor commissioner at large. So they  five commissioners the mayor is included just the   his technical title is commissioner at large but  we've referred to him as mayor. We've also got is   it work three um in north city correct? That's  new and growing and growing very quickly. Um,   could it be debated that they don't have fair  representation being so far from city as a whole?   How do we ensure that we constantly every 10 years  we do that? I know that is is the population an   automatic thing that sets it off or is there  because you know and like for Congress you got   to do it basically every 10 years or now mid cycle  everybody does it every 10 years but is there is   there something that mandates the city to do it  every 10 years or they just do it once they once   the population has it been done every 10 years you  must do it after the s the after the city has to   redistrict after you can redistrict earlier than  that if there's some huge lifealtering population   shift but as say we annexed in another city, we  could that's but every 10 years it's going to get  

redistricted one way or another. So we're in there  now. I think that this thought that cuz I think   only the charter can add or remove commission  seats, right? Is that the understanding? That   is my understanding. Right. And so the question  then becomes, you know, in this case the city   hasn't done this in 60some years. One of the  thoughts could be that you have a system where   every 10 years the board looks at it to see if  there's an addition. Just a thought. The other   thing that I was, you know, we we talked about uh  I talked about last meeting which but I do think   that if it can't be done by ordinance, it should  be done by ordinance. this I know that and the the   League of City folks told us about how you know we  could recommend for the city commission to look at   something to do that I don't think you know when  I was talking about doing an aortionment sort   of amendment that that's something that might be  handled by ordinance where they look and say you   know right now basically we have 8,500 residents  per ward that the ordinance could do it to where   then something gets added and it automatically  triggers the commission to add something to the   charter That'd be so you know because I they they  mentioned something about writing a memo at the   end for things that the commission should look at  and I think that might be better suited for our   elected officials to go kind of change that way.  Couple thoughts there. Not that they were very   clear but wrong. What do you think? Well, I think  every 10 years you're going to do it anyway. Yeah.   I think the federal court order plays into that  that when you to keep that the letter of the law   when you redistrict you have to keep that was  it minority majority minority um board in the   scope and so with the Supreme Court case pending  about the voting rights act right now but so I  

mean that's that's it's already there you know  it's already there I was if I assume me a little   bit what Mr. Henderson is suggesting and I think  the answer to his question is if we remain with   four separate wards with ward specific voting  knowing the trajectory of the growth of Panama   City it will be very very difficult to maintain a  minority majority district the way the that's just   a mathematics equation with the way it's growing  it was I was not involved in the redistricting   effort I know Miss Smith and Mr. Zimmerman were  three years ago with the prior city manager and   Mr. Mark Anderson. So, I think they could speak  to it, but I believe it was I mean there was   some significant changes that had to move away  from prior uh wards and a large part of that was   because of the growth of Panama City or the now  the development and the and the accelerated growth   of Panama City North and just for we refer to it  as Panama City North and Panama City proper just   for the just so we know what your conversation  about. Separate but related question. Is there   any concerns with the status quo like as we are  today? Any talk about changing the number of   wards or any of that type of stuff? Yeah, that was  my question. Any support for adding a seat? Yes,   for Panama City North specifically, whether  that's today or 6 months or a year from now.   the discussion being fair representation for  Panama City North and then it's going to cascade   into the city commission can take care of this  but the fire department accessed up there those   streets being redone like all the stuff the city  commission is going to be taken care of will be   yeah I mean not not to deflect but I mean before  we talk about growth trends over the next 10 years   are you suggesting that we go to a fifth ward in  in this charter question yeah That's part of the  

question. Is there support today for the addition  of a fifth ward? Is there is there documentation   to support that there's a need for a fifth ward  right now? And what would that documentation   look like? What would I think the the um the  state only does population estimates, so I'm   not sure that there's any valid documentation  that would support the addition of another ward.   What if you crafted some language like each as as  each district reaches a certain number then a new   district has to be added. So it's like you know  you only have 30 kids in your class in school.   That was my suggestion last time. But I but I  the more I've looked at that I think that that's   might be something that this commission has to  take up. I don't know that part partly about not   uh hamstringing future commissions because we  put something into the charter like that and   then they're stuck having to create 20 wards in  the future which creates other problems. Yeah,   I I do want to add that I did specifically look  for that when I going through these 21 charters   and a few other charters that I didn't put on  the list. Um and I did not find anywhere where   there was any kind of triggering mechanism to add  an additional I have strange ideas. I know I have   I I'll admit to that. So I I have two thoughts.  Number one is not to argue with branches that like   I think the status quo works and I think this is a  degree of a solution looking for a problem and I'm   not saying that soon that won't be a concern but  it's just not a concern for me. Like I'm pretty   good about saying my two cents and we may disagree  and I think it could get very complicated to put   in automatic formulas and triggering mechanisms to  create warts. But I do like the idea that either   a certain periodic review or certain objective  criteria then triggers a review cuz then I maybe   we're all assuming the growth is to the north  but I never even contemplated that if the city  

took on another municipality. There could be  other instances where at that point it just   deserves more scrutiny and then another board  can compete and provide a recommendation. That   would be my two cents. I think I'd be apt to do  that every 10 years for the census have a formal   review that doesn't get forgotten about for 50  years. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, that to me is like a   deal breaker. We can't do this every 50 years.  Yeah, that's the problem. The charter has to,   you know, the review board has to meet every 10  years to then look at the census and say, "Okay,   it's maybe time to create a new board and let  the current commissioner at the time make that   decision." Exactly. That's right. I I think that's  the one of the one of the challenges is um you   know we think you know voting and representation  but you know the wards are not um created based   on registered voters you know our kiddos are  in the census number for ward one because they   be representing so you may have and I'll just  pick an even number you may have 5,000 voters   across all four wards for 20 thou sorry 5,000  residents across all four wards for a total of   20,000 population. Um but you may have you know a  th000 voters in ward one you may have 800 voters   in ward three you may have 1100 in ward two and  you could have 1300 in ward four it just it really   you know so you don't seek and Mr. Zimmerman, Miss  Smith, please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but you   know, you say Miss Smith, too, you're actually  killing two birds with one stone. You know,   you you're not you're not I mean, to my knowledge,  you're not you're not creating the the wards based   on registered voters. It's on population. Yeah.  So, people living there. Yeah. And and again,   that includes our kiddos who aren't even anywhere  close to being adults. It's it's one years old  

to 108 years old. I mean, it's everybody.  It's not just registered voters. So go back   to Brandon. I mean, do you do you want to have a  discussion on adding another word in this charter? The males. So then if we do some degree of  charter review, which I think we all agree   needs to happen, is it just purely chronological  5 years, 10 years, less than 60? I think we all   agree on that, right? or is it based on some  degree of population growth or is it tied to   the you know within so many months after every  census? What's what's the best way to do that?   I guess I'm looking more so like for other board  comments than should there be some requirement to   require a charter review x number of years every  10 years and then that has to be done by the   commission right the commission is the one that  has to create that unless you all put it charter   and then it could be automatic and we put that in  the charter that we have to meet every 10 years there there are many city charters  that have that I think we should   have a charter every 10 years moving it as  needed to like a required timeline. Well,   because I think it solves this problem because  I feel that I will certainly be politically apt   every time after every census they'll want to  talk about how many seats there are and if we   need to add or take away. The census is done every  10 years. Yes, sir. Yes. So, was it 2021 2031? It   be it's the second year of each decade. So, it'll  happen again or it'll be publicized like in 2032.   Yeah. Redistry normally happens two years. Yeah.  typically. So when you get to the new decade,   they kind of start the process and then it's  effectuated in that second year. So 2022.   So what if we what if we mandated one in the  fourth year of every decade starting in 2034?

Looking at you. Sounds good. Sounds good to me,  too. Mr. Zimmerman, any concerns? I got to check   my schedule. Oh. No, no concern at all. It is  common to have mandatory reviews and and required   to appoint another charter review committee. I  I think that's very reasonable following every   every redist every time the city's redistricted.  I think that's a good trigger in my mind. I think   I think so too because I feel right now it's too  early to pull the trigger on changing the boards,   but I know that it's going to come and it will be  a problem. I I couldn't agree. I couldn't agree   more. That's I think that's the sense I have.  It's too early now, but it's going to continue   to change. So, you guys know the mechanics I'm  asking staff better than I do of a sorry of the uh   um census. Would it be sufficient to just say the  fourth year of every decade or within 12 months of   a new census or does it matter? The the statute  usually says so many months after a census. I   think but there wasn't so we can mandating another  census in the interim. Did I am I making that   up? I mean if any president were to trigger  that I would assume that based on the wording   that I'm hearing y'all talk about that it would  probably trigger a mid decade review as a city.   I would to me it makes sense that if there's  a census we need to convene the advisory board   within we'll we'll look at that and make a  recommendation suggestion 12 months of the   results. Yeah. Yeah. In a sense because that way  we could have the re well that we get the trick   there. You got to do the board before you do the  redistricting because then the redistricting folks  

will know how many boards they're drawing.  We'll leave that for 10 years from now. So, Brandon, yes, Cecil. Okay. One comment.   We're in a time of a lot of legal flux as every  time you look at the news there's some challenge   some precedent that's being changed or challenged  or but I want to share with everybody that may   have an impact on us tying automatic reviews to  any thing that's done politically and that is   there's a case of United the um with the United  States Supreme courts 2019 case and I'll get the   site in just a minute. I'll look at my phone. But  um that's the uh Rucho versus Common Cause. And   in that case, the United States Supreme Court  by close margin 5 to 4 decided not to prevent   political germandering out and out. I think it  was in North Carolina. we are doing this because   we want more of this party uh congressional  representatives or something like that.   very very heated discussions and it was decided  and the quote was pretty much we're going to allow   this because the United States Constitution does  not have uh what Florida has and Florida has fair   districts amendments which the United States  Supreme Court looked at and used as a priming  

example of preventing political germandering.  And they said that those um the law of the   fair districts would essentially would prevent  political germandering and that they were clear   and enforcable. And that was their response to to  the descent that thought that allowing political   germandering was horrific. And what the Supreme  Court said is, "We're not saying it's good.   We're not saying it's bad. We're just saying we  don't have a Florida fair districts preventing   this across the nation." And the Florida was  the number one site. And they cited four or   five other states that had also taken action to  prevent political gerrymandering. All that to say,   we need to be careful about putting any in any  automatic triggers just because a political entity   um somewhere whether it be national, state um is  urging that to be done because we have our f our   foundational uh document which is our our state  constitution says no, you cannot do it. And the   Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court  has looked at it already and has held it up as   an example of ways to prevent it. So, all  that to say, if there were a challenge down   the road because there was political uh there's  political discussion going on now for, you know,   um out of cycle, so to speak, uh redistricting.  And if there's a legal challenge, the Supreme   Court has already evaluated our federal district's  amendments and said that they would essentially  

prevent that. So, I just don't want us to tag our  automatic let's look at this again in the charter   to things that are political. Yes. Okay. And you  think that the perception would be that tying it   to the updated census becomes political? If the if  there is a census that's called and that's what's   on the table right now for political reasons,  then yes, that would be a big problem. The the   10-year census, which is the standard, I do not  see a problem. So that's a big improvement from   the 60 years that our charter has remained  untouched and possibly unlooked at you know   so to to for that would be I think a reasonable I  don't see as outright political at this point but   um to tie it to the 10ear census but to tie it  to when any political figure says hey I want to   do you know a redistricting I think is going to be  a major problem. All right. So your your position   is that any off cycle census is inherently  political. So we should not tie a mandatory   review to every census, but only tie it to the  the typical 10-year census. That's essentially   you're good at winnowing things down. I'm a little  more long-winded. Yes, that's what I'm saying. And   I'm saying that this has been looked at and argued  extrenuously. And the Supreme Court recently has   said that our fair districts forbid this. Okay. So  then do we have alignment on requiring a charter   review on the fourth year of every decade? So  I did want to clarify one thing and I having  

served or worked almost a decade in Congress,  I do know. So when you say the 2030 census,   that'll be the next census is 2030. that actually  happens in 2030. And so let's do this. Yeah. So   I'm saying so keep in mind go d I think the spirit  of this is clear. When the data comes out on the   new census there should be a charter review.  Correct. Yeah. However the language needs to   work. I don't whenever just go draft a provision  that says when when the de whatever the language   is that says that the census is out the numbers  are out that on that regular 10-year interval then   the charter review should convene. May I comment  on this? Um what I see commonly in in charters is   they will pick a beginning date for something and  then say for example 20 2034 which you mentioned   they'll say you know this will happen in 2034  and then every 10 years afterwards to keep it   simple and since uh the census is mandated in the  US constitution it's supposed to happen in 2030   regardless of what's going on. So you could tie it  to your date as opposed to does the spirit of what   we're I think we're asking for clear. Yeah, we  want them to write the language and work through   the dynamics. We don't have to do that. Yeah, the  trick I think there's some detailed trickiness,   but yeah, so we need to agree. Would you like us  to come up with some language? The spirit is very   clear that which is every 10 years. Yeah. When  the data comes in the census on those that 10   year basis within a year the charter review should  be convened. Okay. Yeah. Census the regular 10ated census is mandated by the US  constitution. Yeah. Let me  

just before I forget. I found the site  for the root show case. It's 588US684 2019 and they actually they act I mean they actually  talk about Florida. It's really kind of powerful.   I was disappointed with their final decision,  but I was very proud that the work done with our   uh fair districts amendments was held out.  And they actually also cited um litigation   that the league had done 172 southern 363 with  approval and that was on the redistricting case.   I have another comment to make and that is just  generally something for us to be careful about   with minority majority districts. It will be  interesting and painful for somebody whatever   the decision it comes out in the recent uh oral  argument on redistricting. I forget what state   maybe it was Louisiana but the state that it was  just argued in. It looked like there would be some   further uh deconstruction of uh voting rights  act I guess section two and how does that how   would that comport with the battles case and  I think that's a really complicated difficult   question and one that we should be very careful  of. For example, if if the Voting Rights Act,   Article 2, if there's a ruling that now  in 2025 that we no longer have to do that,  

I wouldn't say that that would automatically  uh give uh weaken the battle's case. you know,   it it doesn't necessarily work backwards because  the historical um facts and the evidence that was   placed in that case could be very very different  from what's going on in the state. I think it   was Louisiana, but uh so I I don't know that the  battles case is going to go down or be weakened   necessarily by any present day review of the  Voting Rights Act. So Caroline and I guess   Nevin just like over time as laws have changed  either the charter gets updated automatically or   certainly the city commission commissioners can  ask that something if something you know some   legal significant event happens the commission  can obviously propose a charter to the citizenship   without the the review committee at all. Right.  Yes. Yeah. So if that happens, I think they can   just take it on their own valition to Yeah. And  and and I believe Caroline and I we we have a   sense of what you're looking at. So we don't need  any further clarification on the every 10 year   uh uh if you have to redistrict or if you do a  look after a census, then there also be a charter   review. We'll give you some suggestions to choose  from. So that adds a sections to the charter   because I don't find where this charter has any  review date in it at all presently. It it would   be a whole it would be a new section that would  set up a automatic review automatic appointment of   u probably a charter review committee. I like it.  Okay. Um you have something you want to add. Yeah.  

I just wanted to ask so it we're all on the same  page that we don't want to have to to review it   you know uh multiple times within a 10ear cycle  if it was ordered from the state or from you know   the federal government. So if new data is produced  um by the feds or by the state in the middle of a   decade, does that affect us at all or do we just  come back and look around at it at what we have   locked in as the 20 304 deadline where we will  reconvene and look at it? What happens if prior   to then new data comes in? So the city commission  can always propose changes to the charter. They   could do it every meeting if they wanted to and  have it get it approved by the citizenship. And   then our understanding in Nevin police department  mayor Caroline is that as laws have changed over   time even even this document that was originally  adopted in 1963 has evolved to say compliant with   the current law. So there's a degree of living  document plus if something pops up and this is   us as a review board are just mandated to look  at it with fresh eyes from start to finish.   But if there's some discreet issue that pops up  that the commission says this must be addressed   because we're not in compliance with the law then  they can work with council to fix it. Okay. Yeah.   I'm not in supportive of the you know I mean you  know having to redraw it you know every time we   get new new data. The 10 year is a good standard.  So I was just concerned what would you know what   that could look like if you know we get new data.  Um any other if I'm looking at section 14 then it   sounds like we're in alignment on the status  quo of or commissioners one at large. Um do   you feel like we need to do a motion on the  tenure review or let staff go draft that we   can we can approve it the next time? Do do  you do you need a motion for that or that

is that one of those those dropping a pin that Zim  Nevin was talking about so that we would know if   that is needed then I would make a motion that  my two cents having a staff directive that we're   all seeming in alignment on and I don't I don't  love it just feels weird to approve something   without pen to paper on it. So come back to the  next meeting with language on that and we can   approve that at the next meeting. Understood.  Yeah. Yeah. All right. Um now I do think we can   probably approve section 14. Does anyone have any  thoughts about the atlarge mayor or in agreement   there? I think it's okay now. Now yeah. I mean  if you wanted to simplify you could take out the   commissioner at large and just stick with mayor.  Americ said the same thing like three times. Yeah.   And I think that the term commissioner at large  is helpful because for those who are advocating   for at large, that's letting them know that  some element of what they're advocating for is   um is is the status quo. And that, you know,  I think that's helpful of if I was an advocate   for at large, that would be significant to me  that there's one member of the commission who   is supposed to look at everything evenly equally  across the board. All right. So, does anybody have   any suggested revisions to section 14? Because if  we don't, let's get that approved and we'll keep   going. Everyone okay with those powers? Granted,  what's the other? We'll do a motion there. So, JP,   you want to Move to approve or adopt section 14.  Second. Anybody second? Second. Any other further  

discussion? All in favor? I I All right. It looks  like there's nothing to do with 15 or not. Yeah,   I think we do, right? I think that's part of the  discussion that we're having about the way they're   elected. Or am I wrong about X I think that's  I think the language here this goes back to   it needs to be clear and now we're under charter  review providing clarity in the language. This is   probably ordinances or something that has happened  in the past that has changed this language over   time. So removing some of these changes to keep  the charters clean. What does section 15 currently   state that still stands? Right now there's just  two editor's notes. Butler stats that exhibit   a there at the back. Do you got all that? Yeah.  Maybe somewhere else, right? Just rewriting your   stuff. It's just it's effectively just codifying  that each ward elects their own representative.   Well, we have two things going on here in section  15 manner of electing commissioners and mayor   commissioner. We have um uh due to the Florida  Elections Code, I know it says Municipal Home   Powers Act, but it's the Florida Elections Code.  Um you have your municipal code ordinance 2326,   and that's that additional ordinance in the back.  Um, and I've different different municipalities do   it differently, but it's not it's not unusual to  do it the way we have where we have an ordinance   that's adopting the Florida elections code  and then it makes it part of the charter.   That's what that's essentially how um you have  an ordinance adopting the Florida election codes  

that says what? uh this is how your elections are  going to be run. So we have that but then we also   have the adventurers note uh regarding the battles  case and that has that has to do with of course   uh we're going to have single member districts. So  you can put that in the charter. Um right now it's   it's not because it's an editor's note because  uh federal law changed our charter for us. Um,   so I mean I like the idea of having it in the  charter that we have wards that are all elected   by members of that ward, whatever that's called.  Yeah. You can you can do that. Yes. Correct.   You're just you're just adding to the charter how  it already exists. Yeah. From from a a readability   perspective, it's a heck of a lot easier if we  just have the actual language in there rather   than a reference to an editor's note that we have  to go search for that. Mhm. But that's what we   just voted on in section 14. Each ward elects one  commissioner and then one at large as a mayor.   That gets that language, right? Or am I crazy?  I think section 15, we have contracted that out   to supervisor election. It's duplicative is what  you're saying. And sometimes you'll sort of see   that. Sometimes it'll get it slightly repeated or  there'll be sections that kind of overlap. But in   um you know 14 it tells you how many commissioners  there are going to be and that one of them will be   um a mayor at large. How do we feel about but then  15 um will we'll talk about the manner in which as   it's titled the manner in which they are elected  there's going to be single member districts   uh except for the mayor which will be  at large. That's what the language would   be for that. But that's all done by ordin  ordinance. Now that's not in the jar. Well,  

the the election itself and how the election  is done. Um that's by ordinance and when the   election takes place now by ordinance. Um but  um having having the the single member districts   um is is the second note. So there's two things  that that went on that changed this particular   section. So as we wanted to change the timing of  the election, section 15 is where we should put   it in. If we wanted to move it as part of the  charter to the fall, is this where it needs to   be? That's what is odd is that we have article  4. Oh, if it's a duplicate and we remove section   15 and I'm clarifying article 4. I agree with  Mr. I think I think you could add one sentence   to section 14 and you could strike 15. Well, the  is the issue with the wholesale removal of 15 is   that we don't have an expressed acknowledgement of  following that final judgment of the battles case. Before we even get to that  just the most here just sorry We're all in agreement that we all want  single district wards that are you have to   live in the ward and the ward votes on their  own representatives. Right. Okay. Caroline,   can we make sure that's clear? Because I think  it's I to to Ron's point where it says to be   elected from each ward. Me being lawyer nerd  here, I could say, well, they're from the ward,   but they're elected by the all like that. I I  don't think this this quite in encapsulates or   incorporates that. We would want language in here  that makes it very clear whether it goes in 14 or   maybe even 15 that says they're elected from each  ward by each ward and they have to live in that   ward. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, can we make sure  that that's clear wherever you guys feel like it  

needs to go? All right. We're in alignment  on that. Okay. Then I know we want to talk   about election dates, but then to Brandon's  point here talking about the second editor's   note about formally the method of electing city  commissioners from at large has been changed to   election by district voting only pursuant to the  final judgment in the basically in the battles   case which that case stands for the proposition  that we are going to have a majority minority   district and single member districts. Yes. And  sing is the single member district. It's not   so much the our right because it's not that you  we're saying five then we let them redistrict the   five to be but the key is and that battles case  was removing at large. I didn't I didn't realize   it was the first one but I get I get it now.  Okay. What I have seen and I'm sorry I'm looking   I'm trying to look for the ordinance in here. I  believe I'm not sure where I have it exactly, but   uh what I have seen in a lot of charters where um  by ordinance they have uh adopted the the Florida   elections code and also move the elections,  there will just be a a sentence that says   um we refer you to the ordinance that adopts  this and uh and it'll be stated in there. And   essentially what that's saying is that you know  uh yes we know that the commission can make these   changes and we know that the Florida election code  is part of our charter but the state may change   or alter the Florida election code whatever  that is that is we're saying here that that's   part of our charter makes it much more simple to  make that just make that simple reference. Um,   and then as far as election dates, so before  we get to that, let's let's finish that. I I   like the idea of it being in the charter that it's  single member districts elected by that district  

and that's in the charter and that that's not by  ordinance or anything like that. Yes. Yes. Okay.   That's that's how I that's how So if somehow  the Florida election code changed and the the   commission says forget it, we're going to be  everybody at large, whatever. I want it to be   confined by the charter. That's my two cents.  Yeah. That Yeah. two different subjects. Yeah,   that's why I was pointing out it's two  different subjects going on in this in   this section. Right. So then in lie of the manner  of elected commissioners and mayor commissioner,   we clearly define the district. Then we have  four districts and you have to well I see from   the district by the district. Yes. Yeah, that's  where I'm at. Yeah. And then one of March. Okay,   we can do that. And then and then you started to  touch on the election timing. Do we want to go   that direction or do we need to do something  address the battles case for the majority   minority district? Do we leave that alone? You're  you're addressing the battles case by having the   four single member district wards. Um you're  addressing that. Um, but as far but a separate   issue is the date for the election and how I've  seen other charters do it and I've seen it both   ways. Sometimes they actually put the dates in.  We want to have it in, you know, August primary,   November, but I've also seen it say, uh, we do  it by ordinance be because in reality that is   how it's done. Um it because even if you put  it in here, we want it in November. It could   be changed by ordinance. So I've I've just  seen it both ways. All right. So members,   let's debate. May I add one more just to clarify?  So what the distinction is is that the charter   when the election happens is by ordinance and  the commission deciding but how the structure  

of it would be part of the charter which is  that uh explanation that I gave earlier where   um if we only have two candidates running then  we skip to the November election. that would be   a charter change. So those kind of in my opinion  those kind of work together. I can I know exactly   what you're saying that the dates not mandated  but when you start also considering runoffs and   when the date is strongly suggested even though  it's not binding and then you have a runoff in   December those to me work together. So like as  the board members does somebody want to start   with the discussion on basically do we put this in  the charter and if we do where does it go and then   what the election procedure should be? We can.  So, are we going to wrap up article two before   we move to article four, which is the election,  or do we want to go ahead and jump ahead? I think we all know where we stand on the  article four and and it's in both places. I mean,   we're about to be terms and all that. I mean,  it's all Let's let's give ourselves some grace   and this is naturally just leading down to this.  Let's go up to four. So, a conversation from me   is and from I've received this information from a  lot of people in Ward One is moving the election   to the general. Um, the Tallahassee initiative  was actually something that I've had some   neighbors discuss with me of doing if you have two  candidates, those candidates are not part of the   what we call it the nominee nomination election  that moves to the general election in November,   right? and or if there's more than two candidates  and potential for a runoff that runoff will be   aligned with the general election. So would be  August. Yeah. Which would be right November. The   runoff would be November. It would take I'm  misunderstanding. Say it one more time. The   nomination election in August if there's more  than two candidates. If there's more than two  

candidates, two nominations and if there's only  two there's only two it would be play. So, you're   familiar with the Tallahassee um style and that's  what you're suggesting to feedback. Although   I think Mr. Chairman, the only thing the board  needs to consider to provide clarity on is right   now our charter prevents a runoff if somebody  gets 50% plus one. The Tallahassee initiative   says it doesn't matter if you have, you know, four  candidates and like two of them get like two or 3%   and one gets like 80 and another one like 18,  then the 80 and the 18 go to November for the   purpose of having there's always the decision will  always be made in November amongst two candidates.   That's the way Tallahassee is set up. That's what  I was trying to explain. So that's also I would   say no to that. how we say it's 50 plus one 50 it  would still be 50 plus one that that's that's how   Tallahassee arranges it um is that it's so the  question would be there's three candidates in   the nomination period primary whatever you want  to call it and one of the candidate gets 50 plus   one do they automatically win or do the top two go  that's how our system is Tallahassee says top two   candidates no matter how many they get the top two  candidates go to the general in November and that   way the largest number of turnout is voting on the  there could be three candidates. One takes 50 plus   one in August and or they don't have to they take  the election. So something to think about, you   know, and and I will pick two separate counties.  Okay, I'll pick Elatchua County and I'll pick   Bay County. Okay, Elatcha is more Democratic. Bay  County is more Republican. You could conceivably   have a primary in August where you don't have as  many Democrats showing up in August just like in  

Elatchua County, you may not have as many  Republicans. That's why November everybody   shows up. It's so I think that I think that's the  thing that I would consider is that if you truly   want the most number of people deciding who your  commissioner or mayor is, that is always going to   be in November. I think that's the spirit of the  Tallahass. So you say in a way that there will   always be either a runoff or a primary election  in November. Well uh well it would be a general I   wouldn't Yes sir. That is correct. Either only  two people qualify and they immediately go to   November or the way Mr. Bird just described  it doesn't matter what your percentages are.   The top two vote getters in August if you have  three or more candidates advance to the November   general. I would that's how that's how Tallahassee  set it up. I would disagree having been in those   positions before that if I work my tail off  and get 50% plus one I'm done. I you have to   go I don't have to go to another election. But if  you but if I don't like I have and I got 48% then   I do move on to November. But if I get 50 plus  one I'm I'm done. But from a voter perspective,   protecting the integrity of it's not my fault you  didn't turn out to the election. You could say   that in the spring, you could say that in April  of 2023 as well. Exactly. Right, Sil? Yeah. Um,   I I hear what what Ron is saying and having been  the spouse of somebody who ran for office. It is   a lot a lot of work and I'm very sympathetic  on a individual basis, but this isn't really   about the candidate. This is we are trying to  engender a broader connection with more citizens  

because that we feel that that will create more  acceptance of laws and ordinances passed by the   city commission of more people participating with  sharing more ideas because you you're going to   have different ideas from different segments of  society that may not have participated earlier.   and ju just the benefit of that I  think outweighs the discomfort of   the individual candidate which I completely  agree with Mr. Dancy, on a personal level,   that's quite true. It's It's a hardship on  the candidate, but I I still lean in favor of   um moving the uh final election to  November regardless of the percentages. JP, few things. First of all, I think guiding  principle we should have is that if the   commission can do it by ordinance, it's better off  for the commission to do it as the duly elected   representatives of the people. I think that they  took this up last year. They decided not to move   the date of the election. I don't think that our  role as the charter board should be to get into   something as a political decision for the people.  I think if the political elected officials want to   change it, that's the place where that decision  should be made. So that's sort of number one.   Number two, I don't like the idea of moving the  date of the election. I think that we're confusing   this notion that quantity of voters will somehow  improve the quality of the participation. I think   that this will be a item that's stuck at the  bottom of someone's ballot and half people won't   even know who the candidates are for their city  commission. I think that it's been really good the   way it is that people who are actually turning  out to our city elections want to participate.   I think it in a sense helps the candidates  because their target audience is less. I think  

it will make these elections more expensive, more  complicated and will not improve our governance. I agree with you. We got a lot of hearing opin who said that they agreed. I I think if people who are not in the screen, it  would be really helpful to say your name also for   the record before you speak and I'll try to do  the same too because I'm not in the room. Ron,   how do you feel about the date of the election?  After hearing JP, I have been swayed, I think,   um because um a busy November ballot busy and  there are always undervotes meaning that people   meaning that people will come and vote for the  president or the governor and nothing else.   Mhm. They're having participations, hundreds of  them just in Bay County that only vote for one   and they might vote for a county commissioner and  nothing else. And so to JP's point, which now it   it does give the city our own space. And there  again, like I said, we're not in control of who   comes out to vote. We do our best as a somebody  running for an election to get those those folks   out and but it I I like JP's idea that it does  give us economy if that's the right word. Yeah,   it definitely attracts a more engaged voter,  right? They're there to vote in the Panama  

City municipal elections and that, you know, not  because of some other reason. Daniel, primaries.   Um, Daniel Schultz, Cecil, um, primaries attract  the more fringe voters. When you look at the data,   the more far right and the more far-left  candidates that pay more attention to the   news tune in and vote more often. So you do have  a point there when you say that you might have   a more informed electorate. But my question is  how do you improve the aformed electorate? If   we constantly take the opinion that the public  cannot learn or will not do something they never   will. And so I think once again we do have  uh a semi-informed electorate, but I would   not call what could we get a a survey on what the  uh percentage was of the um municipal turnout for   this last election. We can look that up. Yeah, I  would have to look it up, but it is it's it's low.   It's low. So my I would not call that satisfactory  by any means. Okay. uh when you have, you know,   less than 2,000 um people selecting a commissioner  in a ward of 7,000 plus, uh I I I I don't I would   not call that satis um factory. So even if  you had a few hundred people that only clicked   president and clicked um you know whoever else  I think it is important to give that opportunity   um for more people because I cannot tell you I  mean you know as someone who ran I cannot tell   you how many people ask me did you win can you  imagine that that people on the street ask me   oh are you still running did you win they don't  know. That's how uninformed the electorate is. So,  

I think by increasing the ability for people to  vote, just like Cecile said, there is so much   opportunity for nonpartisan organizations like the  League of Women Voters and others in our um town   as well as the city itself to advertise and make  clear that these are nonpartisan elections. here   are the responsibilities of a city commissioner  and here's why we think that we should move it to   November so that we could catch more fish. So you  understand that adding voters makes that problem   worse of what you're talking about that there's  going to be more people who are less informed.   So so it doesn't solve the problem of you of  information will be giving it its own space   and keeping that election in spring the way it is  now. What are you basing the uninformed nature of   the voter on? Well, because it's the same thing,  right? We have a 10% or 5% turnout. Just because   you're adding more people, it does not mean that  they will be more informed about city politics.   Doesn't mean that they won't either. I mean,  be less informed. By putting it on the ballot,   um, you get a sample ballot. Everybody gets  a a sample ballot. Okay. Something that I do,   I go down my sample ballot ahead of time and pick  what I'm going to vote for for everything um ahead   of time. I know many informed citizens who do  that. Citizens that don't feel that local politics   has any effect on their life don't vote in it, but  they vote in national politics because they feel   as it is more important. Maybe we haven't done  a good enough job at selling how important city   politics is. And a good way to start um doing  that is to get more people involved in it. And   that is by moving the election. Um like I said,  if you give the sample ballot, like I said, how  

many people will look down that that that ballot  and see, oh, I have a new um office here. Who is   this and who will I choose? I don't think there's  as many Willy Milly voters that just Christmas   tree their ballot as we are anticipating. You  get a sample ballot for the April election too,   right? Yeah. Yeah. All elections get sample  ballots, not just not just the presidential.   I got you. But yeah, but it is fair that there is  a lot more energy and chatter around our November   elections every even year. I think we all would  admit that. votes. Okay. So, there's I have I have   three things here. Number one is I actually gone  back and forth on this on having an independent   election or aligning it with a general election. I  walked in here thinking the more people the better   that that that you know that's always a good  thing. But I really do appreciate that you know   you're getting asked the same questions in the  independent election as with the general election.   Ron's point is that you have undervoting and  then it also seems like you're going to be   tied to if you have some political movement  nationally whether it's Obama getting elected   and drives a bunch of that vote or Trump getting  elected and driving a bunch of that vote. It it   it kind of just sways the tide of who's going to  show up. Um, you probably I I think you probably   have less informed voters on the whole because  you have people that are voting for the national   level because they're passionate about that and  then they're either not voting for the thing or   they're like, "Oh, I saw Daniel's sign and it's  got pretty colors and there, you know, whatever   you end up doing with that." Um, to the more I  think about it, I think having an independent   election of whether it's a lower number, but it's  more engaged makes sense. But then with that said,   the second part to JP's comment, you know, is  this something that we mandate in the charter   or if it can be done by ordinance, like let them  let them fool with this. the political branches.   I I my vote right the second is I would prefer it  be independent but I my overall vote would be just  

leave it out of the charter as it is now but then  we have the the primary runoff type situation and   if I was in Ron's shoes 100% I would be exactly  saying what Rob was saying but I mean I like the   idea that you have a general election and then  the winner walks out from the general election   no matter what it is that that's sort of like the  runoff thing just feels awkward to me that you   you know you feel like you win but you don't you  keep going And then you know well also um I just   want to add that well last point is I mean my vote  would be top two candidates regardless of votes go   to the general election whatever that would be and  then the winner walks out. My apologies I didn't   I finished. Um uh to address your concern, there  is um I I believe the Tallahassee um style is if   there's only two candidates, then there isn't um  a prime an August primary, they they would skip   that. It's only if there's more than two. to to my  point of having run an election more than once is   that if I'm in the primary and I get 60% of the  vote and then the other two split, that means   I've got to run again having a majority against  somebody that's 20% when I've clearly already   won. That's just my point. You know, I probably  won't down that hill, but that's, you know, the   the the challenge, Mr. Danzy is that in August,  whether it's gubernatorial or presidential year,   the turnout percentage is not that much higher  than than our spring odd year elections. Uh you're   looking at 24% and 23% respectively the last two  August primaries and we were 19 and 23% for our   our elections. So again, the November elections,  if you want to be elected, that's the argument.   Not saying I agree, I disagree. The argument  is you see just a phenomenal higher percentage  

in November of the even years than you do August  of the even year or spring of the uh odd years.   Could we get some numbers on that? Like some some  real data to what the what the increase is. We can   just kind of look back over the last like maybe  decade and already gave us. But we we'll put it   in a neat one page. Are are we I'm not calling for  a voters want to kind of gauge in the room here   at least on the issue of putting in the charter  the date of the election. Is it something that   we want to do or not? I think we should this is a  seal we should after debate and consideration and   getting the numbers. I think I think our role  is a very special role as nothing has really   changed in 60 years. And normally if there were  active review and active going back and forth,   I could be convinced uh JP your arguments were  excellent, you know, and and to the point and very   persuasive. But I think we're coming in and we're  we have a heavy lift. We're trying to bring people   along and have people start thinking about looking  at the method of governance after being sort of,   you know, u mixed metaphors, you know, the  the we've been Rapunzel or asleep, you know,   whatever that fairy tale is where someone's  asleep for a long long time. We're waking   it up. Waking everybody up and we're shaking our  locks or I know I'm mixing up these fairy tales,   but we're waking everybody up and we're getting  everybody re-engaged. And I think going forward   then it would be in a better position to leave  the work to the commission. But I think we're   trying to kind of like clean things up. So are you  are you suggesting I'm saying I think we should I  

think your initial question is is this which is  what JP was mentioning should we even deal with   this in the charter and my comment to that is yes  um I am leaning towards moving it to November but   I've heard some very persuasive arguments not  to but I I do think we should address it in   the charter the date I think it's important that  be something this important. There is a standard   and then whether the commission or the board at  the time agrees with it or wants to change it,   there's a standard, right? And it's clear what  that standard is. We have an opportunity now to   review the charter every 10 years and that  standard may shift at that time. I don't   think having a subjective tie to whoever's on the  commission at that time saying I want and I'm not   saying that they will because they had done it 60  years but having the flexibility like should there   be a standard for voting? We know that there is  one for the national election like the season and   the spirit of voting. It comes down to convenience  and if you take the subjectiveness out of it and   the emotional side of they might not be educated  they might be right both ways like ultimately what   is the standard that we from my seed I've gotten  tons of feedback on this one of yes we want to   move it to election season like that's convenience  and it's it's it's not convenient to show up in   August it's not convenient to show up in April  like we've heard heard this. We've all heard   this. It's hard. I mean, the guy sent us an email  saying it's not convenient for you to meet in the   middle of the day. Um, when is it convenient  to get or capture a vote? And then I do tend   to agree with Mr. Danzy that if we're going to  do a primary in August if whoever takes the plur  

is it plurality majority majority majority takes  majority takes the election. There is no more need   to have it printed to another election ballot.  No more money spent. Like the locals have spoken   and that's speaking in August. We don't need to  make a shift away from that. We're just shifting   a time. Ron on the election. I think I asked  this and I just forgot. On the election date,   do you want that in the charter? And  where do and if so, where do you want it? I I'm really sitting the fence. I hate to say that   because I'm not that kind  of guy. Yeah. You know, um I have always thought, and I may  be wrong, convenience is nice,   but I haven't missed an election since  I've been voting. If you want to vote,   you're going to go to the polls and vote. I don't  care if it's Christmas Day. If you want to go,   you're gonna go. And so I I really uh  moving it is fine and dandy. Not moving   it is fine and dandy. I mean with with  me um if you're doing it for convenience,   that's a whole another conversation. Um  now whether it should be in the charter,   I'm I I think it should be in the charter. We  just the five of us have to remember that the   commission may not go for it and the voters may  not go for it because all we're doing is making   recommendations. So we just need to remember that  um because com president commission minus one   didn't minus three didn't put it in there. They  chose not to move it some months ago. So, [Music]

Brenda, but I'm sorry. Sorry. Go for it. Go ahead  and finish, Mr. Dancy. But, but if we're ready to   move on, I'm I'm ready for a motion either way.  Yes, ma'am. I was at that commission meeting when   the commission voted it. Damn, they they didn't  want it. Additionally, I I think you're missing a   major point here is whether you do it at one time  or we continue as we're doing it now, the point   that you're missing is voter apathy. And you're  not going to get any more voters out at a general   election than you would at your primaries, etc. be  in education as much education that is done over   and over and over because I participated in some  of them. I have done some of those educational   processes. The the sentiment quite honestly  in the community is it really doesn't make a   difference whether I go and vote or not because  they're going to do what they wish to do anyway.   So, I don't believe that changing the dates is  going to make a difference. And to Daniel's point,   education, there's some of us who, yes, we can  understand it. We're educated enough. We do   self-education, but you have a tremendous amount  of voter apathy in Bay County. Period. I'm not   from here, but you have a tremendous amount of  voter apathy. I have worked worked the polls for   almost 20 years. I don't do it now, but I worked  the polls for almost 20 years when I starting when   I retired. And I saw it I every single time.  If it wasn't important, they didn't come out.  

Presidential election is different. That's  entirely different. That doesn't mean you're   going to get the responses that you want. I think  somebody's doing this as a pet project or self   uh uh selfserving because they think that  they're going to get their folks in the way   they want to get them in. And that's not a form of  of sophisticated gerrymandering. To me, if and I   use that term loosely, that's what it is. But you  have a tremendous amount of voter apathy in this   in this county, in this city. You're not going to  change You're not going to change. And I've seen   it for 30 almost 40 years. I'm not from here, but  for 40 years, I've seen it. War I has uh what's   the population in war two? Can somebody tell me  quickly? About 2,000 or something of that nature?   I'm not sure. 8,34. You know how many people  showed up to vote last election? Not even 500. Not even 500. Oh, let me So, sorry. It's the voter  apathy and unless you solve that and it's not   going to be solved by education quite honestly.  You can lead a horse to the water but you can't   make him drink. So, one quick comment and then  Cecil and then we need to call this question. Um,   first of all, I guess on behalf of myself and the  board, I really appreciate you guys participating.   It's it's it's not only wanted but needed to get  public input on this stuff that we've been asking   for for meetings now. So, for for you guys to  take time out a couple hours, I mean, I genuinely   appreciate this. Y'all's insight's been awesome.  You're welcome. You may ask if Miss Pittz wants to   I don't She's been the whole time. I don't know  who she is. She's no staff. She's a member of   the public, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. If Miss Pit wants  to say something, that's fine. And then Cecilele,  

a comment here and then we'll try to put a bow on  this. Did you want to hear from Miss Pitts first?   I think Jonathan just she hasn't asked for  anything or anything like that. Okay. Um,   you know, I think this is about opportunities  and I think uh to assume that nothing would   change with a November uh date is um we don't  know that. I think it's something that could be   uh the combination of the date and the focus and  the energy on that election. I think um we could   see some different results would be my comment.  So I know this isn't Robert's rules because to   call the question you got to have a motion. I I  understand that but I guess do we have a motion? I motion that we adopt the Tallahassee philosophy  of doing the moving the election to August. There   are two there two or more and it happens to run  to a runoff. The runoff would be moved to the   November election. If there is a plurality vote,  it will not majority majority vote. um that will   move to the November election. So the top two no  matter what they get, the top two go to November.   That's that's how Wait, hold on. The the top  two go automatically or if you get a majority,   you win. If you get a majority, you win. That's  not how the talent has to win. But I think that's   how we are reference. That's I appreciate you. I  don't think we need to reference somebody else's   idea Tallahassee in any or anything. I didn't  want to do it so that I properly I'm glad you  

word it. And presently our elections are on odd  years. Is that correct? They're all in odd years   and in the spring. So when we say general are  we saying the presidential general year or are   we saying the state the governor's race I think is  the other just that's every two just the question   right so when we're moving it which general is  the every two years mayor runs every every two   years and some you guys will be addressing that  as well it'll most likely be three will run in   one cycle and two will run in the so just just  so the motion you're you're suggesting that we   put that it aligns with the general election on  the even years and then the there's a primary   uh where the top two candidates go to an  election except for if there's a majority   in the primary that majority wins.  Yes. Okay. There a second for that. Okay. So, any other motions? Can I make a motion,  um, Nevin, or can I say state make a statement   and someone else can adopt it as a motion  since? Yeah, even if you can't do the former,   you can do the latter. Okay. I motion Good.  I motion that we um move the final election   to November and that the earlier election, if  it's in August, the top two go on to November. I will second that. [Music] Nevin, for for sake, can Cecile  make a motion? Not really,  

but I I interpret what Brandon did was  making the motion and then somebody should All right. I'm not going to get hung up  on formalities here. If there's if there's   a motion in a second, then we'll debate it,  right? All right. So the motion on the table   is to align the the election with November and  then have the top two candidates regardless of   results proceed on to the general election  at which winner take you know winner wins I since you whatever maybe if you're seconded  what's your want to talk in favor of that okay was there any other debate on that aspect All right. Call the vote. Yes, sir. You  want to call the vote? Yeah. Chairman   Berg last [Laughter] change. I don't know.  I don't know. Mr. Henderson Jansenius. Yes.   Mr. Dany. No. Mr. Ferrer. No. Miss. She can't.  Well, just for paper. Mr. B. Chairman B. Yeah,   I'm a know on that one, too. Motion fails.  Three to one. One to three. All right,   let's let's separate this a little bit. Is  there a desire based on the motions that are   being made? Is the concern on the date or is  the concern on the method of election? Dates. Who said that? I did. Oh, did Okay. Gotcha. My my my main concern is is the date. I've and  again ideally we don't have to put the date in   there at all. We'll let the city commission  deal with it. The voters should can lobby  

their government officials to change it if  they so choose. You know, there seems to be   some grassroots support for there. They can go  talk to their city commissioners about it. Uh,   in terms of the runoff, not even though even  though it feels awkward because we're not putting   anything in the charter. Do you want to I guess  make that motion? Yeah. I move to not include   the date of the election in the in the charter.  Okay. Second. Any debate on that? I would say I   thought we're very emotionally charged about this.  We're getting deeper emotionally charged, right?   Yeah, I would say we table it for now and let's  ask more of the community because it's not   something we need to make a decision today.  We have the flexibility of tableabling it,   right? Um I did do homework before coming here  prepared for this. I did ask a lot of citizens   like but I've learned a lot more from that I  didn't hear from citizens today, right? So,   having it recorded and we're on Zoom, I think we  can potentially table this to seek more feedback   from the community and maybe we should work for  Yeah. I mean, think like I know a little bit   about Robert Tools. I know we have a motion  in a second. JP would have to withdraw his   motion if he wants to do that. Motion. Okay.  Then then I think perhaps I'm trying to force   a decision here. Not because I'm I'm pushing  some agenda almost. I do look at the clock and   I'm like close. That's barely where my head's  at. So the parade's about to start. Seriously,   the homecoming parade. I guess we're we're going  to be we're going to be here. All right. So here   for a while. All right. So then let let's have  get us to make a decision. Let's have the minutes   reflect that we um discussed the election timing  and the election process and then we're going to  

uh leave that as kind of old business for the next  meeting. Is that fair? Sure. Yes. Okay. Um I don't   know. I mean I I know my calendar appointment  set to we're here till 2. I'm fine. I can be   here until 3. I don't know what you guys do. Want  to keep going? Do a good day. I'm okay. Okay. All   right. Well, let's keep going. Um I guess then  the next thing would be like if we're still I   know we kind of So then we got to go back to Yeah.  Can we think of the terms because I think there's   might be some discussion there. term. Uh, I'd  like to make the recommendation about extending   the mayor's term to to four years. I think that's  makes sense. We're referencing section 18. Sorry   for the my apologies. They're in they're in 18.  I know that I had in the previous meeting started   the conversation about term limits, but in I did a  lot of more research and talked to a lot of folks   about that and I don't think that for it makes  sense for have to have term limits. I think term   limits the elections are better for term limits  there. I think the only change I would recommend   in section 18 is to change our commissioner  at large to be four year to a four-year term. Okay. Why no term limits,  Brenda? Why no term limits?   Well, and I think the best term limits are going  to be the elections where people can get them   out. But I the research that I did specifically  with municipal elections that there seems to be a   lot more games that are played with the folks who  had term limits in terms of passing off the city   commission seat to a spouse or to someone else  because you have a smaller electorate. It led to   more of that those type of things. Do you feel the  same way nationally? Well, again that it's neither   here or I think in because and partly I don't  know that there's pertinent. Do do you feel the  

same way nationally? In wherever to what office  though? Just just do you think term limits should   only not apply municipally or should they not  apply all the way up? Yeah, because I think the   state has its own system that seems to work for  the state and I think we have a different system   set up by the constitution as well and I think  that works well. I Brenda, I agree with extending   uh the mayor's term to four years, but I matter  of fact, when I ran for mayor, I made mention of   that and people told me it didn't make sense. But  anyway, the uh having no term limits, I I I think   that it allows um some amuckness, if you will, in  government. So, I think that those terms should   be we've limited our president to two terms after  FDR, but we need to look at um the practicality   of term limits for for the mayor. There only  two terms. eight term, eight years should be   enough for the mayor to accomplish with the city  commission because the city commission um they   serve four years and if they're elected, they have  another term. They should all the city commission   the commissioner should also have term limits in  my observation but that that will allow the mayor   of number one in a four-year term and if he has  two terms to have some continuity in governing I don't so just can we just do a little bit more  debate and then solicit the public comment okay so   Brandon what do you I I see the same way that JP  sees it as we're not federal government and this  

potentially is a career for a mayor or a city  commissioner, but they also have no decision-   making like and they can't just hammer down and  change everything, right? They are a board. they   make decisions at the board. Um, regardless  of how long they've served on that board,   that is at our the voters's discretion. Right?  So whether there is or isn't a term limit,   I think that comes to overreaching when it's  the voters's decision at at voting, right?   We may want a longer. We may have a local that  is or somebody else that's not a local that we   want for eight years, 10 years. However long they  are willing to serve, they are serving the people,   right? They're not serving themselves. They're not  serving the party. They're serving the people. I   think that's different than local. Cecil, what do  you think on term limits and then the mayor term?   I um I think the mayor term should be extended to  four years too. I think it might be very difficult   for the mayor to focus on his agenda or his or  her agenda, things they want to get done when   they have to pull off every two years and run for  office. I think that must be very distracting. And   then the other question was term limits. Yeah,  I don't I haven't really um thought really hard   about term limits. I'm not sure that eight is  enough. Again, I think we the local situation is   very very different from national and state and  we should keep what they're doing in mind as an   illustration, but their powers and  their authority is so much grander.  

um it makes sense to limit, you know, because they  can really do stuff and make radical changes that   uh what it's more limited and and more um  collegiate, so to speak, I think on the local   level. So, I'm not I'm not sure that 8 years is a  good year, you know, good amount of time, right?   I'm generally not in favor of local term limits  and I do agree that the mayor's position should   be a four-year term. Yeah, I'm in limit on all  that stuff. I think the national stage is much   different. The just the statistics of national  people being there for decades and decades and   the challenges of taking on a national incumbent  are just not the same as a as a local. I mean,   I know there's an advantage to being the incumbent  on a local level, but not nearly to the extent of   a state. And I'm just looking back and Jonathan  shared with us. I mean this is not an issue that   Panama City has had hardly I mean right now we  have all all of the city commissioners the the   longest tenure one has been there for four years.  Correct. Three currently right now today just the   facts three of the five are there because they  beat an incumbent and the prior uh the two that   ran won open seats Ward one and W two uh prior the  two candidates had defeated incumbents. So you you   have an established history going back 25 to 30  years of incumbents regularly being defeated on   the Panama City Commission. So those in effect  are term limits. All right. So then Daniel,   I would agree. I I mean I I don't think uh limits  are necessary for this type of level and I would   agree that you know the mayor's term um I I can  you could not pay me to run for mayor because   you'd have to turn around and run again. I  mean it just there's just no no shot. So I  

totally am in support of that. But I think as it  relates to what we were talking about previously,   we are seeing a bit of a consolidation here. Okay.  So we're talking about limiting the the electorate   by keeping it in the municipal ballot. We are  um talking about extending the term limit of an   elected official as well as we are discussing  not adding term limits as well. So I want to   make sure that you know as it as it relates if  you just view those in a line it looks like a   consolidation of power right there. So there's no  term limits existing now right which we right and   and I don't support them either. I mean what  Jonathan said we have um natural term limits   we don't have the same problem just what you said  about um national you know incumbents and having   to fight that uphill battle. But I do think that  as it relates to the election issue, I think that,   you know, increased um turnout, if we are going to  increase the mayor's term and increase, you know,   um local power in in a sense that it should be  more widely available to the public in relation   to the election timing issue. As I Brenda, as I  look back over some of the history of the mayors   in Panama City, um seemingly it was in the best  interest of the citizens, but that's upfront,   but on the back end it hasn't been. And so  that's why I suggest term limits for the mayor,   two terms, and someone else let someone else  come in because it's almost like a loaf of bread,   if I may use that analogy. If you let it sit too  long, it gets stale and it's not edible. So I I  

I support term limits for the mayor as well as  for the commissioners. Um, look back over our   city's history and you'll you'll see we with this  infrastructure in this city is lousy and Jonathan   is doing a good job of of coming in and and and  advising the current commission and the mayor   in reference to getting things done. But just  like this um charter review advisory board has   it hadn't been reviewed in 60 years. There hasn't  been work done in this city in 60 years. So you   you need new folks coming invigoration new ideas.  Like I said like a little Fred gets tail. Um I'm   I need to step out. I issue with my mother by  the um you know debate or for a motion. We have   a motion and a second we extend the mayor to four  years. We did not. We did not. The motion did not   include. Yeah. Okay. I was a motion. Yeah, that's  fine. You want to make the motion? Sure. I adopt   that motion. There you go. I did. All right.  That's my motion. It was 43 minutes ago. So,   is there a second? Yes. Uh, Mr. Henderson said  yes. Uh, any other discussion on that? Are you   call? Sure. Uh, Mr. Henderson Jansinius. Yes.  Mr. Dancy, yes. Ferrer, yes. Miss Goon, oh,   she can't vote. Yes. and Mr. Burke. Yes. Motion  passes 40 to extend the term of the mayor to four  

years. Chairman, just for a point for the future,  and I think this is something that Mr. Zimmerman   and Miss Smith and I can bring back at the next  meeting, but I don't know if there's a thought to   align it with certain wards because right now the  histo runs with every ward. Now, you're going to   only put him or her with two of the warts. And  do we just flip a coin and pick which two or   or or that? But I I only bring that up because  that question will be asked at some point. So,   if I can as the chair go ahead and pro this seems  pretty easy just have the current mayor out the   rest of the four-year term and call today. Well,  that would be so the next election will be what   wards uh two and three are up that Miss Lucas  and Mr. Granger. Unless the idea Well, unless   the idea would be the mayor runs for election in  a year and a half or whatever it is 44 have to by   the time we a year away now from preventing this  to the commission and by the time you get it to   the voters, he's going to have to run again. So  it'll be on out quite a few years. So then yeah,   if it's approved then he would he would fall with  ws two and three then yeah he would always do that   discussion now. I think the discussion should be  should he should it go on with one and four or two   and three I don't know that there's a way around  that. Oh yeah. Well I just know that in the um   some of the conversations that Miss Lewis Williams  uh Mr. chairman mentioned in the conversations   and Mr. Schultz did as well. Um it was the thought  was that if we did move to August, November of the   even years that the mayor uh would go in alignment  with the presidential cycle or maximum number of  

votes that was but that was again there was a  reason other than just the ward numbers to align   that. So just again just sharing that as that was  that was one of the considerations and one of the   solutions or options that was provided in order  to choose which two commissioners the mayor would   align with. So okay so it's clear that that's  something that's going to have to be addressed.   I guess I'm asking the board is that something  discussed now or or table that for next time. You can table that. I need to think  about that. That's why I I flooded it.   Yeah. Well, I mean, this is the natural effect  of making these decisions is there's, you know,   subsequent decisions that have to happen. I  just want to know if we want to try to nail   that down now. But if we don't, then we can come  back. Just make that a note in our old business   that we need to discuss if we do a four-year  mayor term when that election alliance. Oh,   because if I have it correct, right, board one  and or the highest turn out ws. So in a sense   you would be motivating the highest turnout  warts to come out and vote and have something   to vote on in the years without voting.  Just as a thought just but I don't know what um that what information would you want from  staff to help make that decision or do you I don't   know yet. I have to kind of game that out in  my head. I will I'll think about that. Wait,   sorry. I don't want to interrupt. No, I need  to reach out to staff with questions and say   and Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I do plan  to bring back a memo at the next meeting with 10   years of of percentage turnouts for both our city  elections and uh state and and national in August   and November. So, y'all have because y'all asked  for that data just to kind of compare. So, well,  

if you can if you can provide that data to us  ahead of time. Yes, sorry. I will provide it ASAP. All right. So then we'll put a pen in that  make a decision at the next meeting. Can I   ask a question? Why would why do we currently have  it staggered instead of having every four years?   We do we could potentially do well I  think the thought is um that so that   you don't have all five up at once  and change all five of your elected   officials in the middle of that could  be very I just as a yeah I think that   would be very disruptive to have five  brand new commissioners on the it's just remember back during election season how  many times that we see on social media. Fire   all of them. Start fresh. Yeah. Like you see that  a lot. You really do. If the people are speaking,   they're they ask for that a lot. But is it  realistic? I've never saw you post that. I'm just wondering the repercussions of what  is disruptive. What would that require? Look,   I respect all five of our elected officials. I've  said that. Anybody that wants to run for office,   I have tremendous respect for. It is not  easy. And it is even after 10 years in DC,   this local stuff is even more difficult. Okay,  I'm just telling you that being said, we have   two of the five are are brand new right now. And  and it it it takes a lot to learn um you know,   how government works, especially both of those  men have a lot of history in in private sector and   and it's different. I I can't imagine having all  five. It would be very tough. I think I think the   the the unintended consequence of that is it would  also entrench staff because if you all of a sudden   had turnover of all the commissioners who truly  had no idea what was going on, it basically vests   all the authority in the staff because they're  the ones that could kind of control everything at  

that point, right? There would be no continuity  of vision, right? There's no there's every four   years you're going to disrupt disrupt the entire  vision of the of the progress of the city. I mean   I think and that would be and obviously yeah I  completely agree with Jan uh on this and I will   just say that observations have been made uh and  I mostly agree with them but if you'd like I know   we talked about the federal which you look at the  state level with term limits and it's my opinion   that term limits at least in the legislature have  weakened the elected officials and empowered staff   which in my seat I should like but I don't like  and the lobbyist staff math and lobbyists have   been empowered in Tallahassee events. Jonathan,  that's very honest of you. I appreciate that. Yes,   ma'am. Cecil, I I would agree. As um a participant  in at least state uh legislative hearings,   I've probably testified and attended, I would say,  upwards of 50 and in the last seven years. Um, and   definitely the old-timers, uh, sometimes they get  a little stale as Brenda can say, but they bring a   knowledge, they bring, you know, this is why we  did this five years ago, 6 years ago, and that   kind of information is helpful whether it wins the  day or not. You just have someone right there who   really knows, you know, the backs, the front and  back of things. And that's very helpful to hear. is the dynamics of the board currently because  the board doesn't make decisions right they just   set policy Jonathan executes that you being  the chief administrative officer of the city   who who writes the vision for the city and  executes that that the direction may change  

based off of guidance from the board. So it  shouldn't matter who sits on the board or   how often it changes. you ultimately decide  the operations of the city from your role.   Correct. With direction from the board. So  the the the vision and direction of the city   um in my opinion should be set by the board  and staff carries it out. And so that's right   obviously a part of that especially your  your senior staff your your appointees   or your charter officers myself Miss Smith and  Mr. Zimmerman along with your department heads. So the the the people may not like the  direction or the vision that's currently   being cast and the way to effectuate that is  to you know change your elected officials. Yeah. Theor in theory the the mission  should be setting the strategy right.   We have a strategic planning session  before each budget annual budget.   They they are the ones that are setting policy  by strategically planning where the money will   be spent in the budget every year. Yeah. All  right. I'm trying to think of where to go with   the next meeting. I know I I have a heart out  at 2:30 because I got to go back to my office   and pick up my daughter. Yeah. I I would say  so also that my 2:30 is isn't a strong end   time for me too. And I would say that if I had  fully understood that I my vote didn't count,   I probably would have made tried a little harder  to make other arrangements. I understood from the   when the other Brandon appeared that I don't think  anybody mentioned whether his vote could count or   not. So I assumed that when you were allowed to  participate remotely as being on the board that   our vote would count. I take it very seriously. So  respectfully, maybe your vote's not on the paper,  

but your voice certainly counts. So that's not  No, no, I I perceive that my vote my voice,   excuse me, has counted and I think you've been  very generous to ask my opinion and everything   like that. But I'm just saying I'm glad that we  clarified, you know, that technicality because   I assumed that when we appeared that  we could vote and there are many other   uh commissions and things like that where that  are very important that do allow people to vote   from a distance. So that may be something that  we consider down the road in the charter also. What's the rationale for not only someone on  this on the advisory board not being able to   vote if they're not physically present, but it  happens at the city commission meetings and other   meetings as well. What's the rationale for that?  Carol, something it's in the law, you know. Yeah.   But let let me just interrupt Cecil. I apologize  for not making it clear earlier, but it is that's   the way city commissions are. It's just the way  the law is. If you're on the county commission,   school board, or city commission, there is you  have to be present. Now the uh city commission   could do different rules for its committees  but just the practice from a staff level has   just been to uh suggest the same rules apply for  city commission committees that apply to the city   commission. Uh but that's that's so it's not it's  not really written in stone. It's just practice   not for the not for the committees established  by the city commission. It is written in stone   for the city commissioners and their meetings.  But you're correct. It's not written in stone.  

it's more of a practice and um but it's we've I  see some rationale for it because you know it's   it's a it's a big responsibility and a lot of  times just the body language and you know when   you're in the room you see someone sit back sit  forward you know you're getting a lot of cues that   is more difficult I'm you know for me when I'm  away it's more difficult for you all to see what   how I'm reacting to so I see um um benefit for it.  But I think most a lot of uh boards, corporations,   foundations are allowing people, you know, that  have a lot of power to participate remotely. They   may limit it in some way so that you don't get  someone who's, oh, I'm on my safari. I'm here,   you know, never there. Um but something to think  about that we we may want to allow that because   pretty much every meeting that we have we are  talking about very important issues and again   our particular time at the bat right now because  it's been nothing happening for 60 years we do   have I think a bigger responsibility a bigger  lift and you everybody on the uh on this board,   I think, wants to have their vote count at all  times. A stale red analogy again to Yeah. I mean,   if if if we're allowed to conduct our meetings  however we want, then I have no issue with virtual   attendance and virtual voting. That's that's not  and it's a distinct without a difference because   it didn't change any votes and we counted a seal  and so whether the meeting is just say four to   zero or five, I I don't care. But anyways, I think  we're on the same page here. So to wrap this up,   I want to make sure kind of we all leave  with the same message. We have decision on um

right uh mandatory charter review somehow  aligned with the regular census on a 10-year   basis and you're going to come back with  the actual language for that that we're   going to have clear language that the the  representatives of each ward are from the   ward and elected by the ward. Um we discussed  elections and we decided to table that not only   does it belong in the charter but what that  election process looks like. And then we were   uh aligned in the revision of the four-year  mayor's term with no term limits for any of   the commissioners or the the elected  the mayor at large that and we voted   to keep the present form of government. Yep.  Okay. So we will come back and I guess we'll   have old business to discuss the election the  procedure and the timing of the election. Um the second thing that we said we were conduct  which election cycle the mayor will run in and   the election cycle for the mayor. Okay. So, you'll  get some and I think maybe um I don't know if   we're ready to vote on it now, but I do think we  should take a formal stand if we will allow remote   participation and voting our our little committee.  I do think we should get that clear on the record.   I appreciate the way you've handled it and I do  feel very put that in our meeting minutes that   we have no issue with remote attendance and remote  voting. Can we get a consensus? All in favor? Yes, I do just want to state from a consistency  standpoint. I did indicate to Mr. Henderson   that he would be able to vote when he said  he needed to participate remotely and we   did state that at the last meeting. I just  think it's important that I forgot it that  

we were consistent with Mr. Henderson,  Jensenius, and Miss Goon. I just going   the consistenc was we were consistent. That's  that's what that's what I was feeling too. So,   I think the way to rectify it is just Jen did  take my votes down. Just change the vote total.   It won't change the outcome. Yeah. All right.  We're on the same page here. Okay. Thank you.   I'm sorry for creating the confusion. There's a  lot going on. We I think are a hair behind our   slated schedule. That's okay. You are dealing  you are dealing with some of the worst. Here's   the stuff we're chang I want to help set an  expectation for the other board members on what   we plan to tackle the next time which obviously we  have city manager city attorney and then I think   there's also some consideration of just overall  mayor definitions and mayoral authority that   needs to be addressed as well. So if are there  any other major things that we want to try to   get to in the next meeting? I think we should  definitely wrap up the powers of the city, the   duties and powers of the mayor. Got quite a bit  under just section article two and then article   four form of ballots qualification of candidates.  I mean, all of this it would be great to get I   know the the elections office wasn't here for this  one. Yeah, I'm not. Is there additional feedback   that they could get us coming out of article  4 to kind of set us up for further discussion? I think if we could wrap these two things up,  Mr. Vegas, before we move on to city manager,   city cler 100%. That's exactly  right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, if  

If we could all read and understand and have  thoughts on the remainder of article two and   then article 4, then we'll be in a great spot  to go into the next meeting and talk about city   officers, city managers, city attorney, city  clerk. Does that sound like a decent? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, do we want to plan for maybe  a larger block of time? The next meeting is   December 4th. Um I don't know that just if we  plan for it in advance if you need extra time   you're not I think I think I think the two hours  is sufficient. I think there's also just some   some waning of debate after two and a half hours  going through this stuff. It's it's not we're not   the founding fathers here. So we can we can take  our time. You're the Panama City founding second the constitutional convention rather than the  articles. Right. Is that what it was? There   we go. Going way back here. Okay. All right.  So, are we good on that? Review article two,   review article four. Have thoughts on those.  We'll come back. Talk about election timing for   mayor. Talk about the election overall election  timing and election procedures. Anything else?   And when when are we coming back? December 4th.  Oh, well then have a great Thanksgiving. Have a   great Halloween. Have a great hall. Oh, the town  hall is Saturday, uh, November 1st, 8 a.m. You   all will have a seat. If you're not going to  be there, please let me know so we don't put   your placard out and and you know that's on the  news. Um, and they will pick up. Yes. And yeah,   so empty. And there will be coffee and Danny  Donuts. So I do is the day after Halloween,   so you know how Halloween is in the Cove, but  I'll be there. You can take a nap after the   town hall. The next meeting is when? December  4th. 11:30 or 12:00. Noon. The meeting is at  

noon. Okay. I move to a journ. Oh, very  good. Thank you. Thank you. All right.   Let's go. Let's go. All in favor of everybody in  favor. I All right. Thank you guys. Thank you.