Town Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi, Mayor, yes. There's a lot of feedback.

Yeah, we've got an issue probably with the Zoom.

Mayor Danziger?

Present.

Vice Mayor Van Merge? Present. Commissioner Trevany?

Here.

Commissioner Vidostegui?

Present. I'm going to try if headphones reduce the feedback.

Commissioner Weingart?

Here.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Chief, if you'll lead us, please, in the Pledge of Allegiance.

They took away the mic, right? No, no, this is working, but the other one, it's gone.

You don't want it?

I don't know. I mean, it's whatever. I can use this one. It's fine. Yeah, yeah.

Congratulations to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Moving on to item two, resolutions and proclamations. Item 2A, rescissions, modifications of town of Surfside, number 2024-3336. Mr. Mayor, do we have opening remarks? Not on this meeting, no.

We did at the last special meeting.

Okay, but again, it's not on the thing, so we're all...

It wasn't on the agenda then either, but we...

Okay, you want an opening remark? Go.

Yes, I would like one. All right. Please take the three minutes, though, Commissioner. Sure. I want to just say that one of the things that I love most about being a commissioner and one of the things that attracts me to the job is the possibility of open dialogue and debate, honest debate where we work together with people who may agree with us or may disagree with us and try to arrive at the answers. What I feel is happening today with these two meetings is a travesty of those ideals. Everything about these meetings, the short notice with which they were called, the sheer volume of the material that's being put up for discussion, the timing of them. is meant to thwart democratic processes. This is legal, but it is not right. And it's something that I think brings shame to our town. I am distressed that it has come to this, that we would do this much important work in a rushed meeting on a Thursday morning in the middle of the summer. I am especially disappointed in the town attorneys because their client is the town and it has not served the interests of the town to take up so many matters in this fashion the back-to-back nature of the meetings i want to specifically highlight that including the noon meeting where first reading ordinances have already been teed up shows that the attorney was working uh to make this travesty possible and i think that is a dereliction of their responsibility to the town of surfside it shows that they're serving individual politicians um given the volume of material in these meetings it is really not possible for anyone to study at all and know all the nuances of the things we're going to be asked to vote on i especially think that's true of the two newest commissioners uh commissioner uh weingott and the vice mayor who i think before their election had no involvement at all in the public life of the town um i don't think that but even i i don't feel prepared to talk about these things And I was a key player in many of these decisions that are being rescinded today or being attempted to be rescinded today. I'll say finally that the legislative work that went into these resolutions and ordinances was hours and hours of careful thought, debate, public input, debate on the dais. countless hours and uh the attempt to to erase all of that with minimal process minimal notice is really uh is deeply disappointing i think uh you know i really think we should move to adjourn the meeting right now it's it's a disgrace um but i i need to call out the people who are responsible and i think the attorneys for for making this happen deserve special blame all right thank you commissioner your concerns are noted um anybody else want to say anything before we begin

well yeah i'll i'll go just real quick it's it was it was very hard to be prepared for this meeting i mean uh we got the agenda what like four or five pm 4 p.m yesterday i think there's a lot of stuff a lot of history um so i i i don't see why we couldn't have done this conversation with time, maybe after we tackle some of the more urgent emergencies that we have and we make sure that we have a town manager, that we fix some of the other emergencies that we have. So some of these are easier, some of these items. Some others are, I don't know, I don't have the time to look into that. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Just a brief note. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've received calls and emails regarding different matters, and I want to let everyone know I'm doing my best to respond to each and give proper attention to them. understand that we have a population of about 6,000, of which about 3,400 registered voters. So while I receive emails of opinion and encouraging me to vote one way or the other, there are many factors that I weigh in. Independent research, I take this stuff seriously. I devote a tremendous amount of time to it. And I appreciate everyone's involvement.

Thank you. Any other comments? All right. I'll just, I guess, because we're doing this, I'll just legally or quickly address some of the issues in front of us. It was stated that this is legal but shameful. Again, I feel the same way about a lot of the stuff that was put on the agenda and passed initially. I get it. There's a lot of items here, but it's pretty simple. It's all essentially one item. It's a rescission of code. of advances that were made in the last two years that some of us up here may feel restrict our ability to do our job. They were put in the last few years. Some of them are quite shameful, and we'll get to those individually. But again, it's pretty basic. Whatever was crossed out within the last two years is underlined. Whatever was underlined is crossed out. It's very simple. And so there's no new code to study. There's no effects you have to figure out. It's, hey, do you want to continue in the same path by the previous commission? Or did we come in to make changes and affect changes and go a different path? That's the decision we're making up here essentially today.

And that's really it.

And quite frankly, a new commission was voted in, new direction, and I hope we'll see that new direction play out today. So again, moving on to item 2A, rescission modification of town resolution 2020-4336. Madam Clerk, if you'll read the title of the resolution into the record, please.

Yes, Mayor, a resolution on the Town Commission on the Town of Surrey-Side, Florida, approving and adopting the Town's Travel, Transportation, and Mule Policy for the Town Official and Employees, providing for authorization and implementation, and providing for an effective date, item 2A.

All right, thank you. So I'll just do a quick introduction, request a motion. This is a modification to the travel policy. I don't have it in front of me, but the travel policy was changed over the last two years. Some of that vindictively to, oh, we'll have public comment in a moment. Some of that was specifically to restrict the ability for someone up here to, and by someone I mean anyone up here, to lobby. Now, ironically enough, this commission, when we were addressed with some of the bigger issues at the beginning of our term, said, hey, we're going to ask for money. We're going to ask for money. And it's very nice. We took the steps. We got the right lobbyists in place. However, we still need to show a face there. Every commission goes up to Tallahassee. Every commission goes to D.C. There's a lot of money in FEMA for a coastal community. There's a lot of money to be asking for for some of our initiatives. Again, I was the only mayor that ever went up and asked for it and the only one to get it in the last decade and a half. specifically in appropriations, and that's because we need to show a face. So trying to restrict that inhibits our ability to get money. I know people complain that over the course of two years I spent $3,000 traveling, but I brought back over $12.5 million in appropriations and grants. And all of that obviously has a great turnaround for the city. There's a lot of projects we have on the books. And quite frankly, these things were put in out of spite. So in order for us to do our job effectively and revert, again, revert back to what was previously, those are the changes here. So if I could get a motion to pass the resolution as adopted, and then we'll open a public comment.

So moved.

All right, second. All right, so we have Ms. Salzauer. Two minutes, please. All right, three minutes.

Hi. I want to reiterate what the commissioner said is that the ambush style of this meeting is just that. It's an ambush on residents' rights. It's an affront to residents' ability to participate and it is a It is a reneging of the promise that you all made when you campaigned to residence. You sat up here during the debate. You sent out mailers. You went door to door. You looked people eye to eye and you said, I'm here to listen. I want you to participate. It's not going to be like in the past. The mayor himself said, I've changed. I'm a new person. I learned from my mistakes and I've listened. That's not what's happening here today. It is a Thursday, August 6th, in the middle of summer break. I just got back to town a day ago for my nephew's wedding, and some of you were at my nephew's wedding, and that really tore me up to see our community that's supposed to be celebrating Simchas together divided over stupidity like this. Self-serving stupidity. We have a travel policy. You can go places. You just need to request it. Like at any company, when I worked for a company, I couldn't just jump on a plane and go where I wanted. I had to talk to my boss. I'd like to go to this event. Here's why I want to go to this event. It's going to cost X amount of dollars, and I want to be reimbursed, and I'll save my receipts. That's all this policy makes you do. None of these policies were created out of spite. These policies were created because the prior time that the same mayor was in office, he saw our taxpayer dollars as his personal slush fund. He traveled nonstop. He spent more time in other places than he did here in Surfside working on Surfside issues. He is not the elected official to DC. That is a different position that we are gonna vote for in the coming election. That is not what we voted for. When we voted for a mayor for the town of Surfside and the mayor cannot even look up and make eye contact because he knows that he lied to residents when he said that he's changed and he wants everyone to participate and he's gonna listen and contribute. None of these resolutions were passed and now he's gonna interrupt me because he loves to do that. None of these resolutions that were passed out of spite. These resolutions were passed to protect residents so that residents' voices can be heard. Now, you can listen to us and you can disregard us, as you are going to do. This guy Kagan on Nextdoor apparently has the inside scoop. He knows how all of you are already going to vote. I don't even think he's a real resident. He's probably someone hired or he's a false identity. But this guy already knows. He's posting things on Nextdoor about things that already happened, not knowing that you haven't even voted yet. Somebody already knows how you guys are going to vote. I mean, I'm wasting my breath here. So I'm really here to just say to all of the residents who made the mistake of giving this guy a second chance, I told you so. Leopard does not change his spots. Zebra does not change his stripes. Please, I'm egging Commissioner Weingart, Ben Murgy, you guys are new to this. We've seen this old hat before. He's dragging you down the ethical sewers with him. And just like Rose and Lansman, you're going to wind up in the same place. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Salazar. Mitchell Kinzer.

Good morning. Mitchell Kinzer, 8834 Carlisle Avenue. I'd like to ask the attorney if, uh, Madam Attorney, Madam Attorney, is this proceeding legal under state sanctions? Uh, I believe it states, uh, Section 166, there's a time period where things have to be presented to the public, notification. Also, when ordinances and things have to be approved, they can't be approved the same day. I believe that's covered in state statute. Is that true?

Mr. Kinser, I believe you were a mayor and you recognize that public comment is not a discussion. Members of the dais here are not entering the discussion. You're free to make your comments.

Okay. I'm going to say that these proceedings are illegal. They violate state statutes and that it's never been done as far as I'm concerned. in the history of the town. And this whole thing is ridiculous. The timing, the special meetings. People haven't had time to go over this, to look at it, to study it. I think it's a terrible thing on your part to seek vengeance and to go after people. If you felt you were wronged, you should have done something about it at the time. and sought some legal remedies or whatever. I don't think to come out now and to expose everybody in the whole town to this kind of treatment. I think that all the residents of the town should take time after today to look and see what you've done. And I don't know, I'm gonna maybe pursue a recall or a violation of the ethics committee or something because I firmly believe that this is blatantly illegal and it's a detriment to the community. And I think one of your campaign slogans was not chaos. This thing only creates chaos and problems. And I'm really ashamed of any of the commission that votes for this and I hope the public will express their thoughts to you and the rest of the commission and the attorneys and everybody else that was involved with this. This is a real disgrace for the town of Surfside and it's something that's gonna be spoken about with other cities and we're gonna lose our standing with the respect that we've gained forever. But thank you, and if you keep on doing it, I think you will feel the repercussions. Have a good day.

Thank you, Mr. Kinzer.

Those are all the speaker cards I have for this item. If there's anybody that wants to speak on this item that hasn't submitted a card, now's the time before I close public comment. All right, seeing none, we're closing the public comment of this item and moving on to Commission discussion. If there's anybody that wants to start,

I would happily start. It's hard for me to see who's moving there, so.

All right, again, Commissioner, I'm going to ask that, you know, if you have a lot to say, we're going to stick to three minimum comments from the commission and move on, and then we can get back to you, but.

All right. Please start the timer now, though. All right. What I would like to say, first of all, because it gets bandied around a lot, the mayor throws around this number that he got $12.5 million for the town. That seems to come straight from his campaign literature. It's not substantiated as far as I know. And I think if you're going to be moved by that to vote for this, we should get clear documentation of what money he's claiming. A lot of the money that we got in recent years had to do with grants that were applied for many years ago. Many people helped to get that happen, like including lobbyists and so forth. And I think the mayor is taking sole credit for a team effort of which he may have been a very small part. The mayor also said that this was motivated by spite. Since I was one of the authors of this change, I want to make it very clear. Nothing I do up here is motivated by spite, but this certainly was. Not. I passed this because I was worried about the many trips the mayor had taken and the lack of documentation. I did public records requests sometimes to say, who did you meet with? And got nothing back. What record is there of a meeting? None. On one of the trips to Tallahassee during his last term, Mayor Danziger went. It was an expensive trip, and he went and spoke to a group called NOLPAC at FSU, a pro-Israel student group. And that trip was made on taxpayer funds. And at the time, Mayor Danziger worked for a PAC called 1,000 Jews of Florida that was lobbying on these issues. And I'm worried about people going on trips. We don't know what they're doing in all their time. One of the things I wrote into this law specifically is a reporting requirement. And if you look at the memo that I wrote in December 25, I think, when I went to the Safe Street Summit in West Palm Beach, I wrote down every meeting that I had at that conference I went to. The commission also gave me permission. I went to the commission. I asked for $500. I got it. I went to the meeting. And then I wrote down every conversation I had so that it's a public record. We're repealing those safeguards for no good reason at all. Finally, we just quadrupled the amount of money we're spending on lobbyists. In addition to that, the mayor is proposing that the commissioners go up there. But here's another consideration. The commissioners only speak for themselves. The point of hiring a lobbyist is that the lobbyist gets instruction from the whole commission and then goes and defends those views in Tallahassee. When individual commissioners go, they can contradict each other. The mayor might go up and lobby for something, and then I might go up the same day and lobby against it. And the town is paying for both trips. That's why we have a single vote. We have a single lobbyist. And if in an extraordinary situation you need to send a commissioner, we can take a vote to do it. We already have the provisions for that. I think what this opens up the door for is a tremendous abuse of the travel policy because the way it was written before, any commissioner can go to Tallahassee anytime they want, and they don't have to give you any accounting of what they did up there. That's what the mayor is seeking to bring back. That's what I was seeking to limit. I want there to be accountability. I want to know every conversation that an elected official has when they go to Tallahassee. I want to know why they're going there, and I want to know what they're saying. And if you vote for this, you are eliminating all of those safeguards. Please consider that, my fellow commissioners. You're decreasing accountability. You're putting more and more in the dark.

Thank you, Commissioner. Moving on.

I'll just share a few thoughts and also respond to my colleague that called me out earlier for not being involved in communal matters. I actually kept a close eye on what was going on and It's exactly the reason why I'm up here. I didn't like what I saw in the prior commission, and that's why I'm here, and that's why I'm devoting my time and effort when I could be putting a lot more time to my family and businesses. Regarding this particular matter, I completely agree with what the mayor was sharing, which you need to be involved. Yes, we have lobbyists and we voted for that and I'm very proud we did that because I know it's gonna bring a lot of value to town and enable us to do a lot of our initiatives. But I've gone to DC. I've advocated for many different matters over the course of my involvement in different things. And you can't just put a hired lobbyist there. The lobbyist opens the door. The lobbyist will set up the meeting. They'll advocate for us. They'll do a lot. But ultimately, we do need to show face from time to time. There absolutely should be accountability and there are checks and balances from the state and county code of ethics there. I don't think we need to be going beyond that. I don't think Surfside's that unique that we need some special set of rules beyond what the state and county have set out for us.

Yeah, so I want to look at this from PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE. TO ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE BENEFIT THAT WE CAN BRING TO THE RESIDENTS. I MEAN, THIS IS THE BENCHMARK, RIGHT? SO WE'VE GOT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFIT FOR THE TOWN. SO I'M GOING TO PUT MYSELF FOR A SECOND HERE IN THE MAYOR'S SHOES AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE. I don't disagree that we can maybe take this up a notch and try to maximize our influence with Tallahassee, D.C. here. But it is true that we have to do that as a team. That's the way I see it. To your point, Commissioner Weingart, it is true that we don't want to create, go above and beyond whatever the county and the state, but this is something different. It's not about regulations. It's about strategy. So we, together, decide the strategy. We say, okay, yeah, it is true. I think we need to get... this point across in Tadasi because we all right then say okay you know the mayor I think it should go and then and then maybe try to uh make our voices heard uh that would be okay with me but if we strike out the the reporting section from the travel policy and the fact that we have to know what was discussed, we have to decide what we're aiming at. Then it is true that, well, with this, yeah, in two months I'm going to go to D.C. because I have something in mind that I want to do for the town. But maybe one of you could have a different vision. He's going to go to D.C. the month after and then advocate for something different. So that's where I think we need to have – something added here that allows us to define a common strategy.

All right. All right, so I'm going to address a couple of the items that are things that were discussed. First of all, to, you know, Mayor Kinsdrew got up and was very shameful and made certain accusations. I just want to remind the public that most of these things that we're changing and adopting existed during his term. These are reversions and rescissions going back to what previously existed, not new code. um to my fellow commissioner gerardo i think you you kind of highlighted what this is right your three minutes turned into a rant against my credibility um it was extremely accusatory of my motivations um talking about a trip to tallahassee speaking to students i can look back at my calendar and tell you every meeting i had there because every meeting that i have is in my town calendar And it is readily accessible to anybody that wants to pull those. And if somebody asks me while I'm there and fly out to speak to students, while I'm there, somebody asked me to speak to students because I'm there, that's fine. I didn't go to lobby for anything. And I don't think I was involved in 1,000 Jews for Surfside at the time either, by the way. But again, going to this conversation turned into what did Shlomo do versus what is the best policy for the town. And I think that was highlighted in your item. Now, to some of the points, Commissioner Trevani, you brought up, it's fair enough, right? Now, yes, one commissioner can go up and say one thing and one could say the other. Now, if we go up to Tallahassee as a group, which most commissioners do, you may find you're an outlier, right? Yes, if we're all standing in front of our state representative or a senator or any other representative. And we ask them for something and Gerardo, for example, comes in and ask for something different. Well, they're going to listen to the majority of us, just like everything that happens up here. We are the majority. Furthermore, I'm going to again remind by our charter, the mayor is the spokesman and the face of the city. So you're going to find that if I go up and ask for something, it takes precedence over a commissioner asking. Of course, I would love to go up with everybody and make this a joint effort. It only makes our position stronger when we go together. And this is not about that, but that's about policy. So if you're concerned you're going to go up and argue, that's fine. You're free to do so. And quite frankly, that's what the people elected you for, right? You don't agree with the other three or four on the commission, but you had a majority of the vote that put you up here, and you represent those people, and you have every right to go to Tallahassee and advocate for what it is those people put you in to do, whether it aligns with the entire commission or not. Now, you may find that you don't necessarily have the ear of anybody up there if the majority of the commission has asked for something else, but that is your role. That's what you were elected to do. to be the face of your constituents. So you have every right to go up and ask for that. But again, this is the position. This policy, again, puts it back the way it was. That's all it was. There was a lot of personal animosity.

Can I ask you a question?

Sure. Because I wasn't, and I'm sorry if it came out that way, I wasn't advocating for all of us go up there. What I was saying- But I am, by the way.

I want us to go up there.

No, no, but I mean, that could be excessive, I think. But- What I'm saying is why not having this reporting system that allows us to discuss these things before you or any one of us goes?

Well, there's reporting and there's discussing ahead of time, right?

Yeah, yeah, ahead and after. That's what I would like to see. That's what I would like to keep.

So again, every meeting that is done is in my calendar. The fact that you try to put in this reporting and then penalize somebody who doesn't submit a full report, read the code the way it was written, right? It's actionable. This was done in personal animosity, as was very clearly described by the commissioner. because this went against my virtue. This wasn't against any other mayor that walks in. This is a problem with Shlomo Danziger going and asking for money. And then that's what this became about. And that's what all these items that we're bringing forward today. They are done in personal animosity, and again, You know, Gerardo is free to make his comments, but you're going to see they all have a personal aspect to it. It's what I did, not what was done for the town, what was in the best interest. And the proof is that this existed for years before I got into office.

That was changed afterwards.

All right, Gerardo, I'm going to remind you again. You can't just talk over me. This is a meeting. You need to be recognized, right, as per our rules. So please ask for the floor. I'm trying to, but I'm on Zoom, remember. Yeah, yeah, that's fine, but you can't just keep talking over me. So I'm going to ask you again, just be recognized. We want to hear what you have to say, but there's a process to this, okay?

Of course.

Go ahead.

Well, if I may, and I want to say to you directly, Mr. Mayor, I have no animosity towards you. That was never a motive. What I what I question here primarily is that this is structural. This is institutional. The reporting requirement is a protection against anybody going to Tallahassee for reasons that are not related to the town. If you get rid of that, what's to stop somebody, anybody who has a business or another interest from going to Tallahassee and lobbying for that on the town's dime? So I'll answer that very quickly.

No, no, I would like to.

Yeah, you're going to say four points and I'm not going to be able to respond to the first. So let me just answer that. It's a very simple, Gerardo, it's very simple. The law.

No, no, no. Listen, please. As the chair, you have given me the floor and I would like to make my comment now. You question my motive. I'm explaining...

All right. So I'm just going to respond very quickly. The law, the law prevents me from going up there and having personal personal. OK, I can't go up there and lobby on behalf of myself. I can't lobby for things that are not within the city purview because I will go to jail. OK, I hope that's clear.

Why did you do it? You got to do it. This is not all right. The reporting requirement is to make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. And why would we get rid of that if people aren't doing the wrong thing? That's not personal, that is institutional. That is good government policy, okay? The second thing is you claimed that the calendar was transparent. I made record requests in 2023 about those trips and they came back empty. so and the the meetings don't tell you what was discussed i encourage everybody on the commission do a public record request for my memo from the safe streets summit in west palm beach you'll see a detailed list of every meeting i had what was talked about and and what i did the whole time that i was there i think that's a fair thing to ask of a public official of an elected official if they're going on the town dime the public should know what they're what they're paying for And I have to say, you know, I have those empty public records requests that I can share. I still don't know what you were doing in Tallahassee. That's not personal. Again, I have no animosity. I just want a better government. I want transparent government. That's why I propose this law.

Great. So again, to respond to you, there are already checks and balances. The state has very strict laws when you go to lobby. If I go up and I do anything personal in there, it's a criminal act. State, county, all has this. Now again, you are going to propose to be the arbitrator of ethics. Yours was the commission, I'm going to remind the community, yours was the commission that changed our laws to allow a commissioner to vote remote knowing that she didn't live here in violation of our laws. So to sit up here and arbitrarily tell me that you have worked very hard on an ethical law to control the commission when your commission changed the laws to allow Nellie to vote remotely knowing that she lived in Cocoa Beach where she is homesteaded is, to me, tells me that your motivation is outside of ethics. And that speaks for itself.

I don't know where she lives. I have no knowledge.

Of course not. All right. Madam Clerk, let's call the roll, please.

Commissioner Trevani?

I have to vote no because I'd be inclined to vote yes if there was a modification, including the reporting. If there was that, I'd vote yes. But the way it stands now, I've got to vote no.

Commissioner Velostegui? No. Commissioner Weingart?

County and state established requirements are sufficient for me, so I vote yes.

Vice Mayor Van Merge? Yes. Mayor Danziger?

Yes.

Mayor, motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on, item 2B, rescission of the town resolution number 2025-3358. Madam Clerk, if you'll read the title of the resolution into the record, please.

Yes, Mayor. A resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Surfside, Florida, reestablishing and reinstating all sister cities' relationship between the town and the region, of Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico, resolution number 2024-3319, the city of Hialeah, resolution number 2024-3248, and the region of Shomron, Israel, resolution number 2022-2924, providing for implementation and providing for an effective date, item 2B.

Thank you madam clerk, let's get a brief introduction, this is one of those items that I actually wrestled to see if I should bring it back or not because I don't want to make this a personal back and forth every 2 years, but this is more about. recognizing, remembering, and establishing, and I think 2B and 2C are kind of together, the work that is done prior to when we sit in this chair. And if we are going to get in the habit of coming in and undoing commission initiatives, undoing relationships that are built, and if you look at the original resolution in front of you, specifically for Hialeah, you'll see a lot of partnership opportunities that were created with this. And I get it, you know, this became, and I'm gonna say it again, this was a personal, hey, everything Shlomo built in the two years we're gonna undo, And you used, yeah, it wasn't done in the sister city process. You know, sister cities international, which is a private organization that retains a record. There is no requirement for any municipality to go through that process. This is a legislative matter. It's done by resolution of two cities and two countries or whatever it is. There is an organization that retains a record if you pay $300 a year. And if you're a smaller town, they'll help you establish one. if you are not big enough to go do your own, but there is no requirement. But that was used as an excuse to destroy relationships that were built. So to me, again, this is not a personal thing. And quite frankly, I'll be honest, nobody came here to protest it when it was dissolved, right? I didn't see Hialeah come here. I didn't see Israel come in here. I didn't see the community come out and protest. So to me, this is not a personal thing because if they don't care enough, neither do I. But to me, this is about retaining the work and the history and the motivation of the commission that was done ahead of time and respecting that process. And if we are going to create this process where every time a commission comes in, they're going to undo what the last ones did specifically for building relationships and establishing new initiatives and then taking down signs because they don't like them. This is a very dangerous precedence, and it was set by the previous commission, and hopefully we can establish and put things right, and we don't do this again. But if every time a new commission comes in they're gonna take down the sign of the old one, it sets a very dangerous precedence, and you as a commissioner, who's going to want to put in that work and effort to create something in town only to watch it get undone? So this is about reestablishing something positive that was done for the city. And that's why I ended up ultimately bringing it forward, because it creates and sets a precedence here. So if I can get a motion to approve the resolution as written.

So moved.

Second. And now we will open up public comment before discussion of the commission. Solita Krasner. I'm setting it to two minutes because we're running out of time. I'm sorry, we have a lot to get through in this meeting.

Soledad Kressner, 8840 Garland Avenue. Well, these two things start to be very inflexible, and what I am really frustrated is that we were expecting that, as per the words of Mr. Dessinger, his authoritarian system has been changed, but obviously we are back on the former track. So I completely disagree that to manipulate that any sister-sitter is something special when it is not. I don't know if you are aware, but there are terrible problems right now in Mexico for repealing this type of establishing in some communities that they are not necessarily Mexican. They are appealing to the Israel government that does not necessarily is a Mexican government. And it should not even mention that it's a government, nor even the local government. It is very nice to be friends from every other city and everybody place, but also to bring back the Hialeah issue, it sounds more like not a sister city, but at a lobbyist, because there are not absolutely any type tied with Hialeah except to try to make things talk nice about Mr. Densinger after election or when he was endorsed. So there is no really substantial benefit to do that. And it should not be used and manipulated and bring town of residents to that issue. I was suspecting that Mr. Deisinger's totalitarian system has been changed more than his little ponytail to be really more inclusive and not now even to try to cut all our participations and make these rush meetings when he knew and he sued the city for delay elections. So then why he does not delay these meetings? Why we do not have established appointments for these cities?

Thank you, Mrs. Kranzer. Mrs. Salazar, two minutes, please.

I would like to request my three minutes as I am allowed, okay? What just happened where he just cut it to two minutes is a perfect example, okay? He scheduled a meeting at 11 a.m. with one hour to discuss a laundry list of items that should require thought, conversation, and discussion, not crammed into 55 minutes so we can have another meeting right after. That is, that's what I call Your poor planning is not my emergency. Now you tell that to your teenage children, their poor planning is not your emergency. Not our problem that you decided to schedule it this way. I'm entitled to three minutes legally. So the fact that you just shortened it to two is one count, one that will be reported to ethics, thank you. Okay, so going forward. Process is important. As a supposed experienced mayor, you understand that the process is everything. You don't go to a cocktail party, shake hands with someone, and go, yeah, you're my sister city now, man. There are organizations for that. And the way that you go through it, you want to be partners with Hialeah? You want to be partners with Mexico? You want to go back to Shamron and open up that can of worms? Go for it. But go through the sister city organization like every other grown adult does. Every single person has to go through the process. You don't just get to decide on your own who you want to be friends with. And by the way, when you did that little Shamron deal, you got yourself a free trip over there. I have all the records. You had little coins made, commemorative things. You made up some baloney connection between the Champlain tragedy and Shamron, which had nothing to do with it, like zero. The leader of the whole recovery effort for Miami-Dade was Palestinian. And you could care less, OK? You spit in his face. You spit in the memory of all of the deceased. And you went with Shomron, which has nothing to do with Surfside. You want to be friends with Netanya, Tel Aviv, let's go. Let's name every town on the coast of Israel. Yeah, you pick Shomron. Why? I don't know. Because it works for you. And then you went over there and you stayed in a fancy hotel. You had coins made up. You gave them out. You made all the papers. There were pictures of it. We did a record request. We have all of it, OK? All of it. And yet that was, by the way, on the tail end of your free trip to Dubai that you still haven't turned over records for. So that's another reason why reporting is important. But for this, if you want to be sister cities, go through the proper channels. Yes, we're going to undo every illegal move you make.

Thank you, Ms. Salzauer. If there's anybody else that wants to speak on this item that didn't submit a card, now's the time before we close public comment. There's no minute, Mrs. Granzer. Okay, I'm not going to get into an argument with me. We spoke? All right, we're closing public comment at this time since there's no other speakers and moving on to commission discussion. I will introduce the item again. I QUESTION WHAT PROCESS IS THERE? THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR CODE THAT DESCRIBES A PROCESS FOR CREATING A SISTER CITY. THIS IS A DIPLOMATIC PROCESS DONE THROUGH RESOLUTION. YOU CAN GOOGLE IT. YOU CAN CHECK IT. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL PROCESS TO ANYTHING. IT IS VERY SIMPLE. DO YOU WANT TO UNDO WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE OR NOT? AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK I MADE MYSELF PRETTY CLEAR WHEN I INTRODUCED THE ITEM AND THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO SAY ON THAT ITEM. SO GERARDO, I ASSUME YOU WANT YOUR THREE MINUTES.

I do. Thank you. Well, I want to hear especially, Mr. Mayor, your point that this is motivated by spite fails because the Quintana Roo sister city was created, in fact, by the Burkett Commission. So the Burkett Commission repealed its own sister city. And that shows that this isn't being done out of any desire to erase. It was done out of principled reasons. And that's the proof right there that the Mexico City is on this list. principal reasons let me explain these for anyone who wasn't part of the discussion and i thank vice mayor paul for bringing the sister cities organization into the into the mix their process is good because it is a months long process it's like dating between the two cities where you individuals and groups from the two communities get together. They find common interests. The senior group can get together. The youth councils can get together. The bird watching clubs of the two places can get together. And at the end of that process, you declare the sister city. So what was, I think, objectionable was the process. That in both, especially the two that were created, I mean, all three really, it was all about relationships between politicians. It seemed to me that the Shomron one had more to do with the mayor's desire to have a connection with Yossi Dagan. And the Hialeah one had something to do with Esteban Bovo, the former mayor and candidate for county mayor. And that's not what a sister city relationship should be. It should be about genuine grassroots connections between the people in the two communities. That's what the sister cities organization really is about. And that's why their process was so useful. After we passed this resolution, and I want this to be on the record, I was proposing, let's have a sister city relationship in Israel. And I spoke with Ayelet Black, the acting consul general of Israel, when I saw her at a Bay Harbor Islands meeting. And she floated the idea of having a relationship with Starot, which had also written at the time to Mark Blumstein. And I put that on the meeting agenda. And we didn't pursue that, but I think we should have. I think they eventually went with Hallandale Beach, if I'm not mistaken. But the idea was to start a months-long process where the community can actually be the sister city and not the mayor. And I think the reason why all of these relationships were questionable, and I'll start with the one in Mexico, is that they were all about the politicians. Mayor Burkett put that on the agenda because Commissioner Rosen Gonzalez from Miami Beach asked him to, and nobody knew the first thing about Quintana Roo, Mexico. That's an extreme case, but sister cities should not be about relationships between politicians. It should be about lasting relationships between the people of the two places. And I'm very happy that I cast a vote for this resolution in the past because it was... designed to create a system where surfside if surfside is going to be a sister city it's going to be something meaningful between the people after mayor dancing or lost re-election in 2024 we never heard anything from shomron or hialeah i didn't hear we never got a letter of congratulations we never got any overture and that's a problem if the sister city relationship is so dependent on the nature of the politicians i don't think it's really something worth keeping I propose that we keep the resolution, work within the sister cities organization, find true human-to-human connections first, then at the end of a process, let's find a new sister city, and I would love it to be someplace in Israel as the first one.

Thank you, Commissioner. I need to move on. Anyone else?

I'll go very brief. I didn't have the time to really dive DEEP INTO THIS. THERE WERE MANY ITEMS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE SISTER CITY ORGANIZATION. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL. AND FRANKLY, HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING NOW WITH ALL THE EMERGENCIES AND THINGS THAT THE TOWN MANAGER AND THE STORM WATER AND THIS AND THAT THAT WE GOT TO FOCUS ON. I'm not even ready to discuss this.

All right.

I think sister cities are a really nice idea. As a resident at the time, I thought it was really nice to have these. I didn't necessarily know all the background of each one and which commission, each sister city was established, but I do feel that it's nice to have and I would like to bring it back and I'm in support of this. Thank you. Vice Mayor.

I think everybody's position is very clear and I'm ready to move on.

ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS TWO OF THE ITEMS. TWO OF THE ITEMS. YOU KEEP SAYING THIS WAS A MAYOR YOU KEEP SAYING THIS WAS A MAYOR INITIATIVE TIED TO THE MAYOR. INITIATIVE TIED TO THE MAYOR. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY HERE I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY HERE THAT THESE ITEMS, THE TWO THAT THESE ITEMS, THE TWO SISTER CITIES AT LEAST THAT SISTER CITIES AT LEAST THAT PASSED DURING MY TERM WERE PASSED DURING MY TERM WERE PASSED 5-0. 5-0. EVERY SINGLE COMMISSIONER EVERY SINGLE COMMISSIONER APPROVED THIS. APPROVED THIS. THIS WAS DONE AND WE ARE THE THIS WAS DONE AND WE ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE approved and move forward on these things. That's the process and that's very simple and if you're complaining why you didn't hear from Hialeah when you were elected maybe it's because you tore down their sign within the first week of being elected at the park. Madam Clerk let's call the roll please.

Commissioner Villasegui?

No.

Commissioner Weingart? Yes. Commissioner Travani?

No.

Vice Mayor Vanmerge? Yes. Mayor Danziger?

Yes. Thank you. Moving on to item 2C, rescission modification in town resolution 2026-3509. Madam Clerk, if you'll read the title of the resolution.

A resolution of the town commission on the town of Surfside Floor restoring the naming of the park at Bay Drive and 92nd Street as Flamingo Garden and the restoration of the original plaque. Providing for authorization, implementation, and providing for an effective date. Item 2C.

Thank you. Again, this item is tied to the first. It goes with the history. And there was something that created where there was none before. This wasn't a new bush that was planted. And I know someone's going to say, well, we planted a new hedge. Great. Where are we sodding the park now? Should we take down the sign and put our own? That's not the process of this town. And for all the older elected officials here who have been here for decades, I'd be curious how you feel if we decided to take down your signs and put something else because we repainted the side of a building. So it's pretty straightforward and clear. This is about legacy for every commissioner that is sitting up here. You can vote for it, vote against it, but it's tied to the first item. And again, it has to do with maintaining our history. And therefore, I would request a motion to adopt a resolution as written.

So moved.

I'll second. We'll move on to public comments. Salida Kranzer, two minutes, please.

Mitchell Kinzer, 8834 Carlisle.

Salida Kranzer, sorry.

Sorry?

Kranzer, Kranzer?

Kinzer.

No, there's a Salida Kranzer. Oh, I'm sorry. But you know what, you have a card, so just go ahead.

I believe that the naming of the park was done by the public and the name was chosen by somebody. And to rescind the naming of the park after somebody voted for it and the town approved it, I think is highly irregular. And I think all these proceedings, I mean, this is the first meeting. We've got about eight more minutes till you got to 12 o'clock meeting. So it shows how ridiculous all this is, lumping it together, not giving the public and yourselves, as you have admitted, that you haven't had time to really study these things. And the public has not had time to decipher and digest and go over all of this. And it seems very strange to me that most of these items are not emergencies. They're not anything that have to be done right away, that could not be done during regular meetings. And I don't understand the urgency other than to move along and seek revenge and to create chaos and to inconvenience the public and members of this commission that have trouble meeting their needs. People work for a living. People have families. And they need to have time to do the job of the commission. And if you're doing things at the spur of the moment and shooting off the hip, it creates chaos. Something that you thought was not needed in this town. And you're adding to that chaos. And you will be known as the mayor of chaos. Thank you. Thank you.

Salida Krasner. Two minutes, please.

Soledad Krasner, 8840 Garland Avenue. Mr. Dessinger, I remember that you have signed for this position, and that means that you'll be having availability, disponibility, and commitment. So to try to change everything and adjust it for your convenience, it is inappropriate. You have been an entity that have cost us a lot of money to the taxpayers. So to come now and to review something that has been done just because the good sake of trying to do your proselytism and to get a friendship or to sponsor your elections or your future elections that you sponsor others, it's unacceptable. Mr. Weigert and Mr. Ben-Marie, I will be very surprised if you ever vote no towards Mr. Dessinger. I am very disappointed that you are officials, commissions, elected for the well-being of the entire community, not for Mr. Dessinger's agenda. And I am very, very frustrated and disappointed that instead to really see a teamwork, I see that it is constant attacks to Mr. of Mr. . Last session that I was here, Mr. , make a big scandal because there were some differences in making appointments. Well, this is a good sample. Look at the sound. Look at the room, OK? Citizens, residents deserve the time, not to be lobbies or to be paying involuntary the salary to Mr. Dissinger that he has been always in the agenda to try to promote and making special efforts to come to validate his personal agenda as these subjects are. Please, I really call to your common sense for the well-being of the entire city and I do not appreciate your replies because unfortunately I already know

All right, Mrs. Salzhauer, two minutes, please.

Eliana Salzhauer, 9317 Bay Drive. What Mitchell Kinzer just said really summed it all up. People work for a living. It is Thursday in the middle of the summer when people are either away on their vacation or working for a living. This is not a job. Each of you were elected to serve like people on the board of directors at companies, right? They have other jobs. They have other accomplishments. This is where they lend their expertise and their free time and their volunteering. The people whose job it is to run the town, Mr. Diaz, Sandra, they're good people, great Qualified people that work in this building that run the town, you all don't run the town. Trying to create this, turn this into a job is what Mr. Danziger is trying to do. He's trying to create himself an office, give himself a place to go, have meetings, take trips, have meals paid for. This is grifting. This is the definition of grift. Turning something that is not a job into a paid side gig. And as many residents have been saying, while this is legal to put these meetings on 24-hour notice, to barely have the agenda up one minute before you're able to, This is shady. Look up the word shady. This is the definition of shady. This is not okay. When you campaigned, Commissioner Weingart, when we talked about this and you said you were going to be above board, transparent, you're not your own man, it doesn't look like it. There was zero discussion on the last item. Commissioner Ben-Marie had nothing to say about it. And Trevani hasn't even been able to research it because you got this agenda yesterday. We got this agenda less than 24 hours ago.

Okay?

What kind of joke? If you were at work and your boss handed you a project and said, I need this by noon tomorrow, you'd be like, whoa, whoa, whoa. What? No, we know. We need more time. Take this job seriously. If you take this job seriously, then you would say, excuse me, I need more time to do a thorough, prepared job. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to all the residents. It's now almost noon, and you have like a dozen discussion items that you're not even going to discuss. No matter what we say, you're going to go, yes, yes, yes, yes. Why? Because as Kagan says on Nextdoor, the fix is in. You guys already decided. Hey, go along with me. And we have been betrayed by our own time and time again. Don't fall for it, because I'm watching it happen.

And I don't give a crap what you call this park. Thank you. Thank you. All right. No other speaker cards on this item. Closing public comment. Moving on to the commission. Again, this is pretty much hand in hand with the other item. It's aligned. I'm not going to sit here and waste out our two minutes having the same conversation.

Can I have a word? Yes. Number one, there is no chaos here. I feel that now, please, thank you, respect. I feel that now we have a new commission in place, now we're actually getting out of the chaos that we've been in since the last term. What we're trying to do here is basically undo the dictatorship, the Burkett term, that they tried to basically tie our hands. This is very clear, all the things that it was done by Burkett administration. And I want to say a personal experience, me as a resident. I live right there. We live across the street, Commissioner Valdosta. And I remember driving by when that park, the Flamingo Park, was being funded that day. The members of the commission were there, and they were putting the plaque, the name, and I'm like, wow, this is... This is so nice. I'm actually having some green area in my corner. This is so beautiful. Wow, like, I like it. Great. Then that term passed, and then the other term came, and then I see again the next commission members also being there, standing, taking pictures, a new plaque. I'm like... What is this, is this a joke? They're trying to take away the credit of the previous commission. This is basically undoing what they did. And again, nothing against that park. I know you will take it a little personal because you love it, Commissioner Vildosky. That park is beautiful. I love that you go planting with the students. It's a beautiful thing. I would love to be part of the planting situation. It's beautiful. Everybody can go there and plant and be part of it. It's a beautiful thing. This is not something against you going planting. Nothing against that. It's just giving credit to who build it, who put it there. That's it. And again, one thing I want to be clear. When you go there and give your opinion, I value your opinion. But when you accuse and you attack and you lose it, no.

All right, I'm going to pass the gavel and make a motion to call the roll.

No, I'm sorry. I'd like to speak on this item as well.

Gerardo, there's a privilege motion on the table right now. Is there a second?

Wait, we haven't even had a discussion. This is important. This is important. All in favor? I'm missing submission.

All in favor?

This is not right.

Aye.

Is the vote called? Aye.

Commissioner Weingart? Yes. Wait, there's no discussion. How can there be no discussion of an item?

Commissioner, there's a privilege motion on the table. It needs to be responded to right now.

Point of order, I want to ask the parliamentarian. How can we have a vote without any chance for discussion? There was no opportunity. The vice mayor got a chance to speak. We should all have a right to speak. Come on, what is this? And I have facts that are relevant to the vote that need to be stated.

Understood.

So, please, I would like a chance to speak right now.

Understood. There's a privilege motion on the table that needs to be responded to. Okay, but come on. Madam Clerk, can you finish the roll, please?

Vice Mayor, can you give me a chance to speak? You know this is important to me. Vice Mayor, don't call the roll right now. I have facts to offer.

Excuse me, Commissioner, I'm going to ask you to allow the process to go. We've heard you. Madam Clerk, finish calling the roll, please. Isn't that a point of order, though?

Point of order, yes.

But there was a point of order. Which was responded to. It wasn't really a question. By the parliamentarian? A point of order. Madam Attorney, if you want to respond and explain the concept of a privilege motion to Commissioner Valdostegui, we can respond to that point of order. There is a privilege motion to call the roll.

Yes, that's correct, Mayor. However, after the privilege motion, I think we should let the Commissioner chime in and speak his part.

Is there a privilege motion on the table or not?

There is, Mayor.

Does it have to be responded to or not?

It does not have to be responded to. It has to be voted on.

That's what I meant. Thank you. Madam Clerk, let's finish calling the roll.

I do have a privilege motion then. I move to suspend the rules.

Madam Clerk, again, there's a privilege motion on the table. You can't override a privilege motion. I think I can.

I think the parliamentarian, I think a motion to suspend the rules. All right.

I think you are playing your hand. You're trying to delay this process and keep it going.

No, I'm trying. who's not letting me speak.

Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Trevani.

What am I voting on?

The privileged motion to call the question.

So what, and I'm sorry, please educate me. What is that?

Madam Attorney.

That is a motion and privileged in order to call the roll by the mayor.

As the chair of this meeting. So that precedes the point of order, basically.

It's a different thing. He put the privilege motion first, and it needs to be passed or not and ruled on.

Oh, okay. So, no.

Commissioner Villalostegui?

No, please let me talk. Let me say something that you don't know. Vice Mayor Van Martin? Vice Mayor, please, don't do this.

Yes. Mayor Dunsinger?

Yes. Madam Clerk, call the roll, please.

Commissioner Trevani? Yes. This is on the actual item.

This is on the item. And this, so with the yes on the privilege motion, the point of order was superseded. That's the way it works?

The point of order was responded to. The point of order was requesting from clarity from the town attorney, which we got. Okay, so. All right. Now the roll is being called. It's a yes or no, that's it. It's a no. Okay.

Commission Vidocei?

Look, the discussion of the current plaque is completely not based in reality. The existing plaque recognizes Mayor Danziger and the previous commission. This vote is being based on false information. I'm trying to screen share the existing plaque. If you go and you look at it, it is- Commissioner, it's a yes or no at this point.

The name was changed.

But the name is changed, but the mayor is credited. There is no-

Guys, discussion is over. Commissioner, please respect our rules. Vote yes or no. You can make your comment on why you want to vote yes or no, but the discussion is over at this point.

I'm so disappointed in those of you who called the question no. Understood.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Vermerge? Yes. Mayor Danziger?

Yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

Thank you. Moving on to item three. I'm going to request we link these items as a discussion since we are already five minutes over. Can I get a motion to link the next one, two, three, four, five, six items into one discussion?

So moved.

All right, all in favor?

No, these are too important to be lined together like this.

Who seconded the motion?

Myself.

Commissioner Velostegui?

These are like six ordinances. No, this is ridiculous.

Every ordinance is going to come back as a separate item.

The process is discussion items. This is this is this is rushed and this is a garbage process. Understood. Commissioner Wangot.

Yes.

Commissioner Trevani.

I'm lost now. So no.

Vice Mayor Van Merge. Yes. It's a number three. The sixth.

I know, but we're combining, but then discussing, then we didn't discuss the preview. I'm going to explain it very simply.

I mean, I studied. It's a lot of stuff in two hours, guys.

Exactly. We don't have two hours now. We're already outside of this meeting and in the next one. The next meeting literally covers every single one of these items, and every comment you're going to hear now is going to be repeated in five minutes. So it's linking the items. Let's move it forward for the next meeting and start our next meeting, which we're already seven minutes overdue.

Mayor Densinger?

Yes.

Mayor, the motion carries.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP VERY SO I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP VERY SIMPLE. SIMPLE. AGAIN, THIS IS A RECISION OR A AGAIN, THIS IS A RECISION OR A DISCUSSION ON THE RECISION OF DISCUSSION ON THE RECISION OF THESE ORDINANCES. THESE ORDINANCES. I HAVE DRAFTED THOSE I HAVE DRAFTED THOSE ORDINANCES. ORDINANCES. THEY ARE FOR THE MOST PART THEY ARE FOR THE MOST PART SIMPLY JUST UNDERLINING WHAT WAS SIMPLY JUST UNDERLINING WHAT WAS CROSSED OUT IN THE LAST TWO CROSSED OUT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS AND UNDERLINING WHAT WAS YEARS AND UNDERLINING WHAT WAS CROSSED OUT AND CROSSING OUT WHAT CROSSED OUT AND CROSSING OUT WHAT WAS UNDERLIN of this vendetta, and we'll go through every item again individually. But for now, we didn't make a motion to direct the town attorney to bring back these ordinances as drafted in this next meeting.

So moved.

Second. All right, we are, since they're moved, we've got Salida Krasner. Two minutes, please.

Excuse me, madam, it's my time to talk, okay? Well, first of all, can you start from zero because she's interrupting me and I haven't even start. Okay, thank you. Mrs. Bermenguer, you know, we are not gonna discuss accent because your accent is as hard as mine and I just remind you that.

So let me start, please.

The same way that you are laughing right now is disrespectful, so you cannot demand respect from us if you are not giving us respect. Mrs. Kranzer, please stick to the items on the agenda. Excuse me, let me finish, because she is the one that is doing that and is acting and performing this. Mr. Dessinger, if you are not qualified, capable, and available for this position. I don't know what you are doing here. And I call all my resident fellows to be aware that no matter what fate or what politics is your stand or what country is your background, but we should not be accepting these motions where nothing is resolved. But as he, I'm quoting his words, is his draft. So that means that not the entire board has been agree with this or has been discussed, and we are not making any progress. We are going completely backwards. And the reference of Mrs. Ben-Marie about who has the tights, the hands tights, well, they are tighting us right now doing extremely rigid and totalitarian decisions. No, my position is very clear. This cannot be discussed at 11 in the morning when most of our residents are out of town. There are a lot of priorities that we should be discussing, Mister. We are priorities where the entire community was in danger to die on the community center on the day of the 4th of July, and you have been overriding and you have not respond. And there were several violations as per documentation that came back from the companies that they have been standing up for the lighting.

Thank you, Mrs. Kramser. Michael Kurukin, two minutes, please.

Thank you, Commissioner Michael Carrick and 93-65 Abbott. Just as a point of order also, if I may, I am entitled to three minutes, but I should be able to keep it under two. For the purposes of this being a discussion item, yes, I have some comments on two of the items, but I'll leave that for the next meeting when we get into the specifics. But for these two, in general, again, for the purposes of a discussion item, I think that the information that is being provided on each of these items is rather sparse. I think, as I mentioned in my email to you, it's incumbent upon you to make educated decisions. The cover memos are very, lack any information, any background, any pros and cons from the staff, any specific staff recommendations. I think that, as all of you, you should be asking why each of these ordinances are bad or failed. You should ask the staff to explain that, what problems it created, why rescission is preferable to amendment, and whether staff recommends appeal and why, and what are the operational and budgetary consequences of the items. comments specifically on this agenda, 3A, what will be 2B on the next agenda, and 3E on this agenda, and 2E on the next agenda, which I would urge you to really think through the comments that I gave you and vote no on, at least on those items. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Carrick. And Mr. Salazar, two minutes, please.

Eliana Salazar, 9317 Bay Drive. I am entitled to three minutes legally speaking. I'm also entitled to speak on each discussion item individually. I want to tell you why I haven't been at meetings. Because when you got elected, and I had conversations with some of you, like Commissioner Weingart, Commissioner Berge, and I said, let's give them a chance. Let's see what happens. Let's see what happens. And I sat back, and I just watched. And we gave you the rope. We gave you the rope, and we're here today because you've decided to hang yourselves. Because that's what's happening here. What you just did right now was illegal. You were aware that that was illegal. The attorney, your own town attorney, told the mayor, allow the commissioner to speak. She said that. You can watch it on the replay. This mayor decided he wanted to do what he wanted to do. He tried to bully the attorney into changing her mind. Kudos to the town attorney for not caving and for answering directly. She gave him direction. She said, let the commissioner speak. He ignored it. This is the danger when you get into bed with a guy with a track record of already violating ethic. He's already been, okay, found guilty of violating ethics. He is up again and will be found guilty again for violating ethics. And what you just did right now just got all of you your first case in ethics, okay? You cannot vote on an item without a discussion. That was a commissioner that you just disregarded. The mayor was presenting... fictional facts, okay? The plaque has his name on it. That name for the park was chosen by a town poll that was in the Gazette that people voted on. It wasn't him. He just said, I wrote each of these agenda items. This is not an I. There is no I in being the mayor, okay? You're not supposed to be writing every single thing. We have staff, we have attorneys. You now put every single thing important where you're stripping residents of the right to communicate and you're empowering yourself, okay? That's not what this job is about. Get a real job. with an own office, with a boss and deadlines and a real life. This is not your playpen. You want to stare at me? Let's have a staring contest all day long. You're going to be staring at me when they take you away in cuffs one day, okay? Because that's where you're headed. These violations that you're committing here are not acceptable. And the other people going along with it, there's a name for it. It's called co-conspirators.

Thank you, Ms. Salazar. All right, Mr. Koussos, two minutes, please.

George Kooslis, 9225 Collins Avenue. I want to address one of them specifically, 9F, which is the rescinding the planning board's oversight of municipal projects. I really implore you to not include this in the basket of the others. And I'll give you two very good reasons why this is actually a very good ordinance. Just the other week, this commission was wrestling with approving the memorial, and you approved it and pushed that ahead in a timely fashion because it's time. But you also acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the design, there were deficiencies in the process, and it could have been better. The one body that actually got a look at this, but it wasn't a mandated look, a moment when they could actually react to it and provide a recommendation, it was just a courtesy review, was the planning board. And they reacted very strongly to it. They had a lot of comments. Their comments weren't the most politically judicious comments, but what they expressed was actually correct. The design that they were presented at the last minute just did not meet what they expected there should be there with their talents and qualifications as a planning board. And if I could have a little bit of extra time, because this is an important one. So that's one reason. But for the planning board, if you had them in place, we would avoid these things. And the second reason is also is important. A commission is too late to make qualitative judgments about a project. When it comes to you, you are being asked to approve the money, to authorize going to the next step. It's a little bit late in the process. Somebody else has had to have prepared this meal for you to react because the decisions the commission is making are very important. Are we going to spend the money? Are we going to go ahead and hire a contractor? Are we going to tell this design consultant that their schematic design is sufficient and now we're authorizing to proceed to design development and then to so forth. Every step is important. So you got it.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chrysalis. I've seen no other cards shutting down public comment. I do want to respond to that again. The only thing that wasn't fire and ice and seemed to only be logical sense. This takes away the requirement. George, like this is not, obviously the commission wants input from the P&Z and we have addressed that in the past. But as you saw with the memorial, this almost went on another month or two months before it goes to the commission. The commission sometimes has initiatives, whether it's a park, whether it's park benches that were brought up earlier in this term, there's initiatives that we should be able to push without that requirement to go before a board that actually works for us, not the other way around. They are, you know, they're at our leisure. They work at our leisure according to the code. They're our resource. Provided we have the time, we want to ensure that resource is utilized and we get that feedback. But it's the requirement and the lock-in that, again, adds to a government process that already takes months and months to get anything done, to your point. If there's an initiative, we're having two, three, look, half our initiatives are sat in the nines for months until we get around to discussing it. Direct the town manager, it's gonna go back and forth with design. is there a requirement sometimes under again there's no specificity in this item and it could be anything from a park bench does it really required to go through additional months and months of of going through different boards and committees if we want to move forward on an item and that just gives it again it's options and choices as my former commissioners to say if we want to move on an item we get to move if not then if we have the time and it's a bigger project that affects the town will be going to the pnc to get that input to ensure that obviously another representation of the community has that input. But it gives us the options to move on things when we need to and doesn't restrict us, which is kind of what all these items do. It's very restrictive. And it's just removing those restrictions and that process that is now required that didn't have to be. Not that we want to avoid that process for everything. And again, with the memorial, it had gone to a P&Z process, and the request to bring it back again to another P&Z, it had been done. They gave their input. Commission at the time didn't listen to the input. This commission listened to their input and moved forward on the project. All right. So again, we are almost a half hour late on the next meeting, but opening this up to commission discussion. And again, I will remind everybody here that every single one of these items will be discussed individually in the next meeting as well.

I'll step in, just address a few points, some that were discussed or brought up. As far as having a place to conduct meetings, while I talk to residents on the street all day long, I walk a lot, I run a lot, I engage in casual conversations, some more formal, or meet up in Starbucks. I'm a fellow commissioner at Starbucks last week, meeting with another constituent. And I commend you for your dedication to the town. To be confused, simply reverting to having a office space to hold some formal meetings on behalf of the town to benefit the residents. To try to spin that as grifting or benefiting for us is quite comical. It's twisting things out of reality. We're volunteers up here. Anyone that's saying that we're trying to make money by being able to cover some travel expenses to serve the community, yes, there needs to be checks and balances, and that was earlier discussion, but just tying back to some of the items here, like the office space. We're doing this to help the town. We make $1. I want to clarify, this isn't a job. This isn't paying our bills. It's a lot of time away from our family and from business and from work. And if we treat ourselves with that respect where we have, if we're carrying a meeting, on behalf of the town, and we say, hey, come, let's meet at Town Hall. That's respectful. That shows that Town of Surfside is something important. So please don't spin that as a personal benefit. I don't need that as a personal benefit. I have plenty of accomplishments of my own. I'm not trying to be haughty, but I don't need an office to feel important. The office is a place to conduct business on behalf of the town in order to engage the residents, in order to engage in the process, and I would appreciate if people expand their minds and not just listen to one thing on next door.

Yeah. So, um, all right. So we're doing three, uh, three, eight up to three F. So public participation, I think I'm, I'm going to vote no on this one, like hard. No. I mean, we've, We've been using this new system for the past few meetings. I don't think it created any major disruption. It was an opportunity for the residents to speak more, to let their voices be heard. So I think I understand the reason why, because you're thinking about efficiency and doing things more expeditiously. However, government is always messy and inefficient. There's a certain degree of inefficiency that has to be accepted because we are representing a lot of people and we have a lot of voices that we need to hear. We want to make sure that even if this is going to take longer if the meeting is going to take longer we want to make sure that voices are being heard so now code of ethics it's not clear to me why like there's no side-by-side analysis showing which county state or town provisions duplicate each removed requirement so Again, this is one of the items that why do we have to cram all of this into a one-hour meeting? We could have discussed this two months from now, three months from now, when we have a bit more time, when we're breathing, when we have the town manager. So I don't understand why we have to do that now. The use of town hall offices. This is... so actually matter of fact it happened to me to come here and do a couple of meetings um it's fairly simple i guess i mean there's there's space so you just come here and and and and and have the meeting here if each one of us is going to have a an office here i i mean there's obviously uh cost and organization repercussions which are not spelled out i don't think we have that availability. So I'm not in favor. Sand removal or digging, I don't feel, I mean, maybe I'm missing some of the history. I don't feel strongly about this. So it's negotiable, I guess. I mean, I don't have a strong opinion on that. um what else uh planning and zoning board review so i i think that this is uh this comes this this boils down to why do we need the planning and zoning board right so the planning zoning board is there to ensure that we have a certain consistency and the town FABRIC AND CHARACTER, ESPECIALLY WITH BIG BUILDINGS AND THINGS THAT PEOPLE SEE EVERY DAY. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN ONLY REGULATE BY THE CODE. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU HAVE THIS SPECIAL BOARD TO OPINE ON. SO I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THAT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

All right. So I think that there really isn't time to go through these issues individually. I do want to speak later to Commissioner Weingart's concerns about the office and to some of the specifics. But I'm going to take a very big picture stance here to begin. The mayor presents what's happening here with these ordinances as a simple reversion to past practice. But that's really not, I think, the right way to view this. The departure from past practice, I think happened during the Danziger term. The law stayed the same, but things happened that never happened before in Surfside. You had a mayor basically move into town hall and make a day to day direction of town operations for an extended period of time in kind of contravention of the commission manager form of government, which is supposed to leave the management to the manager. That was a change in reality, even though the law didn't stay the same. You had residents being thrown out of meetings regularly. A change in practice, even though the law stayed the same. So on many of these issues, yeah, we changed the law. But because we changed the law because we wanted things to be the way they were before. We wanted a citizen legislature that knows when to leave town hall and let the professional manager run the show. We wanted a situation where... Residents felt safe speaking at meetings without getting thrown out. So the real conservative commission here, the one that protected past practice, was the one that changed the law because we were trying to make practices like they were before. We were trying to... end the possibility for abuses. Sometimes when you get an autocratic regime in power, they expose the weaknesses in the current law because they're so brazen. They have so much chutzpah that they do things that nobody ever did before. And that's why we changed the law. So when you get rid of these laws, you're not going back to something from a long time ago. You're going back to those bad practices. I also want to say, like, you know, these topics are so broad. You don't rescind anti-corruption and good government laws unless you want to be corrupt. You don't rescind protections on free speech unless you want to violate free speech. And you saw a really nice example there, what happened to me on the last topic. Some of these topics, I don't think that the commission even knows what they're doing. The ordinance on digging was passed because a young girl, I think, in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea died at the beach when she was suffocated by sand that collapsed around her in a hole. This is something that happens in beachfront communities. It's a horrible tragedy. People drown and are crushed in sand. And Vice Mayor Paul had the good sense to bring awareness to this issue by passing the law. Did any of you up on the commission know that that's what this was about? That this was about preventing avoidable death of children? Or because we're lumping all these issues together. I don't think you know that that's what that ordinance is about. I really don't. Finally, you know, the one about planning and zoning review, that's designed to get us good design in the town. We'll talk about that one. But the fact that we're lumping all these things together, free speech protections, anti-corruption laws, and that's what the office law is, by the way. I'll talk about that at the noon meeting. But an ordinance that potentially saves the lives of children by bringing attention to a mortal danger on the beach. We're going to rescind that? Why? I mean, I know why he's rescinding the free speech protections, because he plans to restrict them, as he just did. But are we against child safety? I mean, this is really, it's ridiculous what's going on here. I'll say what I said at the beginning. These ordinances got tens of hours of discussion, debate, public input, refinement, and to lump them all together the way we're doing today, to rush it just for the sake of a another special meeting so that we can rush the process even more that is a travesty of democratic process it may be legal but it is wrong and what we're doing is wrong and it's bad governance this is chaos this is failure to consider the issues and and nothing of what's happened in the debate so far makes me confident that that this commission right now is considering the decisions they're making they're this is voting by reflex thank you commissioner nice mayor anything

I mean, there should be, talking about the sand situation, there should be more. I'm a mother, and I don't let my young kids go alone. So there should be parental supervision in the beach. And I mean, I grew up very close to a beach. I used to dig holes, dig deep holes. But I had parental supervision. We never suffocated because of sand situation. There was no such a thing. Parents were there supervising their kids. And it's part of childhood growing up to dig holes and make fun and make castles. But now you have to like, don't dig, don't do. Everybody's scared to do anything because so many laws to not enjoy the beach. That problem is one in a billion because of lack of parental supervision.

Ladies and gentlemen, please, this is not a conversation. So I'm just going to make a couple of quick comments in response not to go through every item. For those watching this meeting and, I guess, recording, feel free to watch the next meeting where we discuss these items in detail. I'll give some background, but again, Commissioner, I appreciate you making this about me because this is not, again, about changing laws, right? You change laws to stop me, which is essentially what you said, but you don't do that. You vote the person out if you don't like the way they do their job. You don't start changing laws that existed for decades that allow people, even in your books, to do the job that they're elected to do. This does not limit the speech of people. This specifically item addresses citizen presentation and public hearing, which are two separate items. We'll get into it later. Commissioner Giovanni, as far as the P&Z, again, I plan on using them as much as we could. But if there's an item that we want to move, then we move on it. And it gives that ability. But at the same time, we've got this charrette that you've asked for that I think we have support on. And that will give us our marching orders moving forward in this town, what the look is, what the feel. So boards change, come and go. And I think that's the whole point of the charrette. So if we're going to be spending $300,000, $400,000 on a charrette, I'm assuming we'll all follow it. And like I said, there's no guarantees in the future on that. But that sets the precedence. So to require to go to another board and another committee Again, it's just options and choices. Again, I keep hearing what we're doing is wrong. That's your opinion. What we're doing is something you don't like. There's a difference here. We're sitting here with an attorney, and quite frankly, I trust this attorney over the ones that ended us in litigation over and over. To the point with the sand, this item was, you know, you make this about the children and the lives. This was passed by three commissioners that have never raised children. I've raised five. Nobody's ever died on the beach. Having somebody dig a seven-foot hole and then have it collapse, where are the parents in this? This is a one-off. You don't make legislation, and I'll get to it sooner in the next meeting, but I'll leave it at that. Madam Clerk, please call the roll, please.

Commissioner Weingart?

Yes.

They're voting to move forward discussion items.

We're voting to just to be clear to Brett asked the town attorneys to bring back the ordinance is drafted.

The next meeting commissioner money.

So if I vote no if the commission votes no then the discussion all these items dies. Correct. but if I vote yes, then we're going to keep talking about it later. Yes. Yep. All right. Now I'm okay with keep talking about it. Yes.

Yes.

No.

Vice mayor and Margie. Yes. Mayor Dan singer.

Yes.

Mayor. The motion carries.

All right. Thank you. Uh, can we get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

second all in favor aye all opposed all right let's take a five minute recess and then return back at 12 40. seven minutes