you you you you you Good evening. I evening. My name is Susan Boyer. I'm the facilitator for the Charter Review Committee meeting to this evening. We'd like to begin with Madam Clerk. Member Feeslier. Member Hathaway. Here roll, please. Yes. Member Pusley here. President. Member Hathaway. Here. Member Ison. Here. Member Palmer. Here. Member Poole. Here. Member Rashida. Here. Member Rokia. Here. Member Smith. Here. Member Wilson. There. Member Billings stated he would be late today, and Judy Riker has an excused absence. We have our assistant city attorney here that will address the committee. Just. He would be late today and Judy Riker has an excused absence. We have our assistant at City Attorney here that will address the committee. Just as a brief reminder, I know we have a few folks that are new this evening and one new arrived a little late last time. This meeting and all the other future meetings are subject to public records as well as the Sunshine Law. I know you're all very well familiar with it. We do have a section under tab 8 for your reference. In addition, if you have any questions, please feel free to stop by after the meeting. Any questions you may have. Thank you. All right. So the first thing on the agenda for this evening is approval of the minutes. I would look for a motion. I make a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? All right. All right. All those opposed? I abstain. I abstain as I was not the last lady. All right. Thank you. All right. So before we head into the preliminary discussion this evening for the proposed charter amendments, there are a couple of items that I think we need to probably bring up just to get us kind of all back to the same page. I have heard from several of you committee members and some of the public in relation to where you would like to see public participation on the agenda. Right now public participation is at the end of the agenda. I know some people wanted to see it at the beginning. So I think that's one of the first things I'd like us to clear up this evening. And I leave that up to the committee for discussion. I have no personal preference or recommendation whether you do it at the beginning or the end of the discussions. Every committee does it a little bit differently. So. City Commission has a public participation very beginning. Did you that the city commission meeting has public participation at the beginning of the meeting. I think that's fine for myself. I agree with that. I prefer the beginning of the meeting as well. In the last review committee had public participation at the beginning in the end, which is kind of time consuming. But given the choice, I'd much prefer the beginning, just because people read the agenda and they come here to express their opinion of what's gonna take place this evening. Yeah, I agree also because I think it gives an opportunity for us to hear their positions or concerns against the agenda items as opposed to here and following that DM. That's correct. Also, there's nothing worse than having to sit through an entire meeting if you don't really care about most of it to make up to say what you say. And so having the beginning maybe will give people a little bit more of an opportunity to come to the meeting and then they can leave when they're done. Okay, great. Then I think what I'm hearing Madam Clerk is they would like to have public participation move to the beginning of the agenda. And would you like to do that this evening? Would you like to start there this evening? Yes. Okay. Then I would say, let's see. Well before I do my other comments, why don't we just start with that? I'll come back to my comments. I have a couple other things. But if we would like to take public participation now, we can do so. Anybody from the public sitting out there would like to speak? Come on. you I'm going to go through the committee. As the meeting was to be an organizational meeting, I didn't expect to see specific revisions made to the charter. I thought being the person I am that you would just go through each section and it would be discussed and you would have time to come back and after listening to the citizens then make your decision about voting. I think more time should be given to the committee before voting on the changes so that you can hear from the citizens. The charter review is a big deal. I don't think it should be rushed through. I think the current charter must be adhered to as written until the changes are made. The 2020 review was done after decades of no reviews and it stated a review to be held in 2026 and every 10 years thereafter. After last meeting, which I had watched, I scanned the current charter in section 703 states that a review should be held in 2026 and every 10 years thereafter. This is not 2026. If we're to abide by our charter, how can we make the changes in 2025? Seems like this would throw off the 20-year schedule as well The charter represents the rules we are governed by are we not breaking our own rules? This change also would would require a special election for the charter changes to be voted on by the citizens The election would be extra cost to the city. And I'm thinking that the previous review committee was planning on 2026 election cycle though that there would not have to be a special election. I may be totally off on, off base on all of this, but these are my thoughts. And if I'm out of line and I'm misinterpreted I certainly apologize and I appreciate you guys giving your time because as I said this is a big deal thank you. Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak? Good evening, Randy Herman, 108 Esther Street. Is there a fire? There's smoke everywhere. Yeah, not that it should infect us, proceedings, but I thought what's going on. I'd just like to build on what Miss. Doug has just said. And I wrote this to your consultant. I hope when you come to each item that you state the reason it is in the current charter, the rationale, and that you state the pros and cons for changing so that in 2030 or whenever this is next reviewed, that group will benefit by your logic and rationale. I think that will really carry things forward for the city because some of us probably won't be here in 2030. I hope so, but I hope you can do that because I think it will really make your deliberations more meaningful. Thank you very much. Good evening. I'm Karen Francis, 261 Menorca Beachway. I'm puzzled. I don't understand why we're conducting this charter review in 2025, a previous speaker mentioned. I'm not aware of any urgent issues for this year. The current charter allows for a review in 2026. By conducting a review in 2025, I assume this will mean a special election this year. I would like to know what cost that will incur, rather than waiting and combining with the standard election in 2026. We have to be prudent, we have to be good stewards of our cities money, and I don't see any reason why it's happening this year rather than in 2026. Additionally, can you please confirm the role of the city clock as a charter officer? I'm hearing different things and I'd like clarification on that point please. So hopefully somebody will get to me if you're not going to answer now. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. PJ Arvetson, 1314 South Riverside. How are you doing? Miss Duga said just said just about everything I want to say, and she said it so much better. And the other general lady there said, what's the rush? What's the hurry? But on the street, what I've heard is this whole charter business is so the mayor doesn't have to run a second term this term. If we can get it passed in 2025, he's good for four years. Is that the main reason for this changes? That's all I want to say. Thank you. Any other public comments? All right. Hearing none, let's move on to a couple of other items that I have on my list here. One of the things that we talked about was from the last meeting you all had asked for information on what elected officials were paid along the east coast of Florida. In your packet you have a spreadsheet on that that came from the Florida League of Cities. It shows what they're making. It's actually shocking. Some of the littler cities pay more than the big cities. But anyway, very interesting. That is just an informational item that you all had asked about. We are still waiting to see what the legislature is going to do with that. We just had a conversation about it. They haven't made any, well they've changed some things but they really haven't made any forward progress so to speak. So we still don't know what the outcome of that is going to be. So hold that information in your back pocket. It may come up again or it may be told to us what we're going to do. So we'll have to wait and see. And any questions on that particular spreadsheet though, it was pretty enlightening though when you take a look at it to see. I just want to make note that everybody understand this is 2021 data, so it's four years old. Correct. And they should probably, by the time we get to this, and we know at the legislature it's going to do, the league will have done an update, and they've got three years' worth of data. they've had their own issues so they haven't compiled it where they can sort it for us, but as soon as they can they will provide it to us there as well. The other item that I have here is, so let me see here hold on. We already moved at that. So one of the things I have talked with several of the committee members about this past week was there was been a lot of questions on what they do in 2020, you know, why do we do that? Questions along those lines? Yeah, I can't answer that. I wasn't here. Some of you weren't here. We can't really answer that with any great surety. So one of the things that I've talked with several of you about is that we could do a spreadsheet, basically, you know, with some columns on it. Here's the item that we're talking about. Here's what we want to change. And here are some of the reasons why. We're going to change it. Pretty simple little spreadsheet. Oh, yes, sorry. Pretty simple little spreadsheet that has maybe three or four columns to it. What we're looking to change, what the section is, why we're looking to change it, and what the rationale was, why you all are putting that recommendation forward. I'm happy to put that together. It would be obviously a week behind our meetings, but we would have that. And then in the end, you would have that basically for historical purposes going forward. None of you are around and somebody wants to ask the question, they would at least have, besides the minutes, they'd have a really quick and easy reference document to look at on why the changes were made. So I know several of you might like to talk about that, Mike. Yes, I think it's a good idea because once we got the red line documents from 2020, by the way, thank you. There was a lot of work done on the last charter. I really, really, really needed it. But unfortunately, we just don't know the why. So, and that is a long time ago now. We're today looking forward instead of in the rear view. So I think it would be important for the why. And we're document with boxes or a spreadsheet, whatever method that's easier for Sharon to record on. But ultimately, the Y, the why I think is really important Especially if we got to wait 10 years for another charter review then they'll understand because It may what we decided and all approved Will make total sense and it'll be the right thing to do but 10 years from now they're gonna go Why did they do that? Well? Here's the why and that way it's all. And then we can use that to share our information out to our citizens of the city. Here's what we're doing. This is the why. So that's why I'd recommend that. Yeah, and I think that the why is very important. So that's a great idea in terms of how we document that, pass that on. I'm also concerned with the how. So as we're in this kind of a forum, how are we gonna make decisions? There was actually votes that were done last week that never had any discussion. It was simply a matter of eight or nine people giving their personal opinion and then moving to a vote. So I'm really concerned with how will we do the how? How are we gonna collaborate? How are we gonna look at these topics and have an open dialogue about this and come to conclusion rather than just have opinions? And one thing that I had an idea on is the simple whiteboard approach, which I use in my business all the time. How can we use something like that through this system to be able to say, here's the opinions, and here's what came out. And then how do we actually dive down deep into whole opinions mean and make a decision. So I think that's an important thing for us to figure out how to do. I tend to agree with you and I like your suggestion for us putting something forward to the facilitator so that she can produce a worksheet because I can see that worksheet become the work plan for the rest of our meetings. And I think if we look at it, each of us come here probably with some specific idea. We put that out, lay it out with the rationale, and then including that, what it might look like if it got changed. I know it's some recommended language, not necessarily legalese, but at least describing what you want to try to accomplish with that. Then take that and set that up against the next couple of meetings out so that we take, depending on how complex the requests are, we take one or two of those a night, discuss come to the table prepared with whatever materials you want to do for and against. or two of those a night, discuss them, come to the table prepared with whatever materials you want to do for and against, come to some conclusion and then the consensus and then have the city attorney give us a draft back. I think that's the best way to set it out and that way would be clearly in the agenda each time we're going to talk about X tonight. So come prepared for X. I'm trying to understand because the last couple of items that we discussed and voted on, we had discussions on the diodes and each one had their own opinion on it. So if that wasn't sufficient, what is sufficient? What I'm not saying if that wasn't sufficient, the discussion we had among all of us at the last meeting, what is sufficient? If that wasn't sufficient, what is sufficient? Oh, okay. What I'm talking about is more of a planning for the meetings and then the And. I don't know if I'm talking about Dan here, because Dan was saying that we did not discuss. We didn't. I thought we did. I thought we had a discussion. I heard some comments from some people up here as to why they thought that was a change. But I'm looking for something that lets me come to the meeting prepared against the specific item as opposed to just having a discussion. I heard the same thing you heard Cal. I was comfortable with the discussion. And that's what I'm trying to find out. I mean, it's, I'm trying to find out the way that we are going to vote on a item. So if that, the discussion that, that meaning was not sufficient, then I need to know what is the responsibilities of us in order to vote on the item. I mean, that's what I'm looking for. Yeah, Caledon, I'd love to answer that. And I think some of the comments from the audience, you know, stated, we've got to look at the pros and cons of both sides of a discussion. So last week, everybody gave an opinion. We didn't go back and challenge. I think some of the comments from the audience stated, we've got to look at the pros and cons of both sides of a discussion. So last week, everybody gave an opinion. We didn't go back and challenge those opinions and discuss, for instance, just on the mayor's term from two to four years. I've got a document that I put together that'll be happy to share. And it just went through, what are the discussion points for a four-year term? What were the suggestion points for a two-year term? And one of them was the city encouraged added cost by having the mayor election every two years. Well, I'd like to know city Encourage added cost by having the mayor election every two years Well, I'd like to know what is that added cost? Right how much more does the cost for us to have that mayor term on the ballot every two years as sort of four years as from an incremental cost standpoint and Yeah, it's so I just want to have a point where we can you know the white road or approach put the pros and cons and talk openly and make some decisions moving together rather than just be eight people or nine or 10 or 11 presenting an opinion and then having a vote. And I do think it's very important. I read back through the notes and back in the third meeting of 2020, right back in the minutes before. A guy named Fred Cleveland stood up in front of the commission and said, hey, it's really important for you guys to look at both sides of the issues and really talk about why you're doing this and how you're going to come to that decision. So I thought that was very insightful at that point and something that we should do right now. So there's an election every two years whether the mayor's honored or not. We have staggered terms. So I think the additional cost would be nothing. Exactly, so that's one of the points. But somebody raised that as one of the arguments that we gave the season, Kering added class. My feeling is we're not in Kering added class because there's So I think the additional cost would be nothing. Exactly. So that's one of the points. But somebody raised that as one of the arguments that I said, the season is incurring at a cost. My feeling is we're not incurring at a cost because there's already an election and that incremental part of the ballot is, is, you know. And I think one of the things we brought up the last time, and I know I mentioned it because this has always been the discussion that I've heard the contrary argument to doing a four-year term. This whole purpose of having the two-year term for the mayor is that every two years the citizens can throw out the majority of the... discussion that I've heard the contrary argument to doing a four-year term is this the whole purpose of having the two-year term for the mayor is that every two years the citizens can throw out the majority of the commission right changing that to four years takes away that that ability for citizenry I think that's probably the strongest argument to not do it and I think it's even more than and this is the discussion that I want to have when we get to this point in the agenda again it's for everybody to be able to look at what we talked about last time and then have an open discussion because building on that, we have the opportunity to vote out a mayor every two years. Right now we're very fortunate, right? The city's lucky we've got a mayor with high favorability that's doing a great job. But what I'm concerned about is if we take away this ability for the electorate to make decisions. We're taking away our ability to make a change in the future. that's doing a great job. But what I'm concerned about is if we take away this ability for the electorate to make decisions, we're taking away our ability to make a change in the future because sometime in the future, we're gonna have a mayor that we're not happy with. All right, so now's not the time to be changing from a four year or two year term to four year. We need to protect that. Unless there's compelling reasons to make the difference. And again, I'm sorry, Caled, I don't want to make this discussion have it. These are the kind of discussions that we need to have. I think it's important that I think what I mentioned at the last meeting, when I voted for the four-year term, our form of governments in the city of Nusman-de-Beech, the mayor equals a commissioner. The only difference is he presides over the meeting. So it's a ceremonial position. So if that's the case for two years, why don't you do a two year for a commissioner? It's almost the same thing. Yep, and ask. If you have a strong mayor, I would agree with you. I mean, that's my discussion at the time when I said about the pros for having a four year term for the mayor. The other thing is for a mayor when they come in. I work with seven mayors. And none of them really had the two years not enough for them to do the goals and the accomplishment they're trying to do. Same thing for the commissioners. So when you have a four-year commissioner, it takes them almost, I would say, between a year to two years just to get into the system. So, I mean, that's why the pros and cons that I had on the four years. Great. So, this is the pros and cons discussion that we need to have, or we need to come to, not just opinion. So I'm glad that we're starting to do this, and we need to find a way to do this, you know, in each item. Right? Because you've got some comments that I'm being ceremonial position. I'm not so sure that it really is a ceremonial position. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a section in our charter that says duties and responsibilities of the mayor. There's a specific section that outlines why that position is different than the other positions. And Susan, I don't want to debate this now because we're talking process. So let's move on to how can we create a process of foster's discounted collaboration. Well, I think you all have had a good conversation. Now, obviously... So let's move on to how how can we create a process that fosters this kind of collaboration? Well I think you all have had a good conversation now obviously the the conversation you're having now is one of our agenda items tonight so I think we need to hold the rest of the conversation until we get to this item but I think you've illustrated what the committee is looking for I mean I think I'm watching the heads move up there saying okay we want to have more discussion, perfectly fine we can do some more discussion but I think for now I think everybody's in agreement where will you want to go? Back to process and in support of what he's saying here. Now he's got his frozen cons that he's listed out so what I'm looking for in order to set the scene for the discussion when we take it up is that that's his issue he wants to address, that he submits that to you and then you distribute it back to us. So we all come to the table understanding where everybody is from and what the pros and cons and then we can take each of those and accept the reject. Well, I'm not sure I'm going to get written information and comments from every single person, but I think everybody has the opportunity when we're here having the meeting to express whatever their opinions are. And I think a lot of people will, it's hard until you start hearing each other speak about what your pros and cons are. It may change people's opinions. They may come in with one opinion and then hear others speak and change their mind. So I'm not sure, I understand where you're coming from, Mr. Wilson, but I'm not sure that that will always be the case for everybody, you know. But we could try something. Well, some of us may not have a specific area. Some of us may be looking generally at the charter. Others may have an area of the charter that we're interested in, and we'd like to get it out on the table for discussion. So for those folks who have that, a simple memo to you that says, here's an area I'd like to look at, and here's the reasons why I want to do that, and here's the areas that I think of that larger section or specifics that need to be highlighted. Then you can take that, it would help you program out by looking at it and saying, well, you know, Caled sends in something and that may only be a half hour discussion, but Palmer sends something and that's gonna be a whole meeting discussion. That lets you plan out your meetings where you wanna go and then we can have a cogent discussion of each of us understanding where the rest are and then we can debate it. That's what I'm looking for. That's the only thing. I'm not suggesting that you publish the discussion in advance. I'm just suggesting that you publish an agenda item and here's some of the issues that were brought up regarding that to pluses and minuses from the group and let's discuss it. You don't even have to say you submitted it. Just give us an idea of what has generated that interest. All right. Any other comments from anybody? Regarding the process or. Regarding the process. So I do want to bring something up and before we get into actually section three here. And it was brought up by a couple of the public participants, but after last week or two weeks ago meeting, that very next morning I sat and I thoroughly read the chart and through read it through several times. And I got to section 7.03 and I really do think that it deserves a reading here for all of us to make sure in case everybody hasn't seen it, right? But at least to read it and make sure that we understand what's going on. All right, so I'm just gonna read, you know, section 7.03 of the current charter, you know, which was adopted and voted in 2020, November. There shall be a periodic review of this charter by the Charter Review Advisory Committee, which is us appointed by the City Commission in 2026 and every 10 years thereafter. So each zone of the City shall have representation on the committee. So we've got the representation, but I still have that question of why are we doing this now in 2026 and not in 2025. So now I mean, see why are we doing it in 2025 and not in 2026 as is written in the charter? And the charter was reviewed by the City Commission and voted on by the electorate. So my two concerns are from a legality standpoint. Are we breaking the charter by doing this in 2025? And then number two, are we breaking the trust that we have with the electorate in doing this sooner? Well, I think the city attorney probably could answer the question a little bit better, but when you read a shawl language, it means to me, it hasn't been full disclosure. I'm a lawyer, so I'm so sorry. And then sh's, uh, shall means you shall have you shall do it by 2026. There's nothing in the chart that says the city can't bring it earlier. Uh, shall I looked up shall as well as legal sample? I'm an engineer. I'm not a lawyer, right? But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, shall is a very strong word. and it says they shall create the committee in 2026. The wording doesn't say shall create it by 2026, it says in 2026. And I'm a stickler for words in detail, so that's why I really jumped out of me. It doesn't prohibit the commission from convening the charter committee earlier, and that's what they've done, which is why we're here, because the elected body has chosen to do it this year. I think it's also important to know that the last time this was approved or reviewed was 2020 which makes 2020-25 years. So I think that's part of the rationale that is 2025 because it's been there for five years, take a look and see if anything else needs to be done. That's what I took from it. And I was also in both of the commission meetings where this was discussed, you know, as part of the public. And the section 7.0 through was never read. It never said anything about 2026 or in 2026. You know, the whole discussion with the commission was based on, hey, we had this review back in 2020 and we were going to take a look at it after five or six years, right? So nobody looked and specifically read the language. language is important so I'd like to really understand the impact of this. Any other comments or questions on that issue? Do we know if the intent behind that clause was to say that the review wasn't to get the review done and completed so that it could be on the 2026 ballot? Because if that is the case, then starting in 2025, partway through the year would be the appropriate time, right? By the time you get everything settled, you get it through the commission, you get it onto the ballot. Do we know what the intent was for the 2025 review that we're doing? I would have to defer to the city attorney. I have no way of knowing. I read the minutes, but it doesn't give me any clue in there. So. There's nothing that precludes the commission from calling this committee sooner, and that's what they did via that resolution to call for this to happen now. There's nothing that precluded it from happening again in 26, 27, 28, any year that the City Commission puts forth a resolution which was adopted unanimously to start the charter the question. And here we are. Does not the answer I think you were looking for Dan, but does that answer your question? It's the answer that I was looking for because I just wanted to make sure that everybody here was aware of it. You know, I still have deep concerns over this, especially in terms of how it's perceived by the public and especially by the fact that the last meeting had a very strong rush to judgment. How can we get this done by in time for a special election? We talked about the agenda and the timing through August and people commented, can't we get this done sooner? Do we have enough time to have a special election? And my concern is why do we need a special election? We've got a great charter, right? And we're going to talk about special election later on. But we have a great charter. As Susan said, we're not tying horses up on the streets. So what is the necessity for us to be pushing forward so quickly? And I'm just concerned that it creates creates a perception of there being an agenda that's trying to be achieved and for what reason. So I'll speak to a couple of those things and I absolutely appreciate those comments, 100%. I think several of people that were pointed to this board and I know them in their backgrounds, we're not coming into this with the blank slate. I mean, these aren't ideas that we just came up with overnight. I mean, I've run for office in this circuit a couple times unfortunately and I'm very bad at it. I'll tell you that. But these aren't new ideas for me. I mean, I've lived some of these things and I don't come to this table completely foreign to these discussions. These aren't know. I've known Mr. Rashidat since I was, he worked for the city when I was born. These are discussions that have taken place beyond this. Before we even knew there was going to be a charter review community. I had no idea I was going to be serving on this and if you had told me I was two years ago, I'd say yeah, I'm sure. But there are some things in the charter that are very, very good. There are a lot of things that took place in 2020 that were very, very good. There are a lot of things in 2020, I think, that based on the discussion last week, a lot of people agree. We're not that great and have impacted the city in a negative way. I don't think we came up here in a rush to change anything. I think there's just some very common sense things that people agree on. And I have no qualms about delay in it, so I'm talking more about it. Absolutely. in a rush to change anything. I think there's just some very common sense things that people agree on. And I have no qualms about delaying it, so I'm talking more about it. Absolutely. Let's talk until everybody's very comfortable. But I just, I don't want it to seem that we're all here. We've got to evolve, decided we all met in the back and came up with this plan. No, that's not what happened. There are a lot of us that have been involved in the city government. Judy Reiker was the vice mayor and commissioner for many years. A lot of people up here have been involved with local government coming to meet. Mr. Wilson has run for office. He has been around for office too since I think back in 2012, or even before then. So it's not like we're coming to the DAIS, completely absent minded. The first time I read the charter was not before this meeting. I mean I've read this charter many many times many times going into it So I absolutely appreciate the Necessity for contemplation and more discussion and I welcome it, but some of these things I think are fairly obvious Anybody else want to speak to this particular item? Okay. I think we've about beat that horse. So I think you're good. Sure. Okay. All right. I don't have anything else. So let's move on to the very first item under Section 4, charter discussion. The first item on there is the discussion of the special election. I've reached the age where I can't see. So we're skipping section three and go to section four. Section four. We need to review the city attorney's adjustments from the last meeting. Oh yeah, I skipped that. I'm sorry. See, I've reached the age where I can't see all of you unless I have my glasses on and I take them, and I can't read with them on, so I just on and off, on and off thing. So all right. So therefore I missed that. Sorry. We're looking at 3A. Well, do we want to push 3A until after we've discussed 4? Well, I definitely want to push 3A out, you know, until we have a, you know, so that we can add that discussion and make sense. But I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable is skipping to 4. I'd much rather talk about 4. I think four implicates three quite a bit and four probably is the one of the biggest decisions we probably need to make our timing. I think that's correct. I agree with you 100%. So my attitude to be we should talk about four first. Well, well you just want to take them out of order. I mean because the first one for under 3A is going to be Article 2 which is the City Commission? Yeah, it's a 3A is basically the proposed charter revisions which we really didn't have a full You know agreement on last week and that's basically getting into the two-year trimverse to the four-year term and that needs a lot more Discussion and work. Well an applicability do we want as a committee? Do we want our changes to go before the voters to be effective for the 26 election or do we want it to be effective on a special election so it would be not effective till the 2028 election. I think that's a huge discussion that we probably need to, if we're not on the same page on that, let's get on the same page on which we want. Well so, okay so do we want to go ahead and start as it's laid out here and start with the City Commission in Section 2 point due composition and creation of the Commission you have from the City Attorney You see her her line Changes as it relates to terms of office So I think that is the first discussion. I think she crossed off to input in four. That is correct. So is that still, that was the discussion last time, was to change it from two to four. That was the discussion that had a very premature vote before it had time for discussion. So we do need to, you know, so I think we start there. Let's have that discussion. Let's try and weed this out. So we've got the line, basically the red line document from the City of Attorney, looking at changing the language to change it from two years to four year terms. Obviously the composition of the commission isn't changing, but the terms are. You see that in section 2.02 and then over in, well that's basically the two sections there 2.02. I'm sorry that's basically section 2.02 so I'm going to open it up to the floor for discussion. Are we still wanting to go to from two-year terms to four-year terms? Well, let me ask you a question. Maybe I'm reading this mark up incorrectly, but the copy I have still shows a two-year term. Michael Hong. I don't know what that gender is. I don't know. The revisions below it. People to that gender? Yeah. It says a term of two years. I like it. People to that gender? Yeah. It says a term of two years. I'll be right there. Yeah. So that's your palm, sorry. Look down below. Yeah. Go to that gender palm off your... Okay, okay. Thank you. I'm my error. I was reading it wrong. Okay. for the correction of top. All right. Okay. I'm good. So as it is redlined here, is that the pleasure of the group? Or are you all rethinking your position? Well, once again, the group hasn't discussed this situation. Everybody had formed an opinion. And I'm looking for some sort of a way first to facilitate a discussion on what was actually said and come to alignment on it. So I mean, I'd be happy to start and take my approach to it unless somebody else has a better approach. And maybe just for a simple point of discussion, I've created a one-page document with reasons for a four-year term and the reasons for a two-year term. I think this would be a great way for all of us to have a conversation about what's important. So if you, you know, wouldn't mind me passing this on, it's just one form out of having a discussion. Okay. Palmer, would you mind passing One of these down down You ready? You can count all that you pass these on be sure you pass a copy down to the clerk I gave one to Sheren perfect You need me to take a copy back And for the benefit of the folks that are listening at home and are in the audience You're gonna read it I presume I'm going to read it. Yes All right. And Spencer and team, while I did here was there was a lot of opinions that were based last week or two weeks ago. So there were opinions and discussions for a four-year term and discussions for your term. So basically the pros of each. And all I've done in this kind of an exercise, there's no wrong input, there's no wrong item, this is simply a whiteboard exercise based upon what we've all said last week in our opinions, and now we'll have the chance to really dig down deeper into what does that mean. So the first bullet point under a four-year term, with a two-year term, the mayor's constantly campaigning, and that time could be better used actually governing the city. I don't know who said that, but does that make sense and does everybody recall that being said? That's a valid reason for a four-year term. Yes. better used actually governing the city. I don't know who said that but does that make sense and does everybody recall that being said as a valid reason for a four-year term. Okay, so I'm just going to read through first and then we'll come back and have a chance to discuss that. All right, second bullet point, the city incurs at a cost by having the mayor election every two years. Do people, but do people remember that being said? Yes, I think. It was said. All of these, all these were said. I'm just reading it for the benefit of the audience and so that we can facilitate a discussion. If you want to just move forward to discussion, I'm very happy to do that. Keep going. I think not everybody sees it. OK, so it was said the city encourage they had a cost by having to make a little election every two years, some people said that's not true and I agree that's not true, which is why I want to have the discussion and move away from opinions to facts. Okay? The next bullet point campaigning every two years is a financial burden for the mayor. Yes. That was said, right? Yes. So we'll come back to that and we'll see, is it true? Is it really a financial cost to the mayor? Yes. that was caused born by political donations and so forth, which is all public records. It's a culture. It's a culture, OK? The man. the mayor or is it those costs borne by political donations and so forth which is all public records. So it's both. Okay. The mayor's role is equivalent to other city commissioners except for some serial-money old duties and since the city commissioners have a four-year term the mayor should as well. That's a comment that was made. I'm sorry. I disagree with that as well. Now however, that's what I want to see. This is the point I want to get to is how do we say what was said, which are opinions, and now build us into a collaborative discussion. So thank you very much. That's the kind of point I want to get across. And then obviously what additional discussion? What are other pros for having before your turn? I think one thing we discussed in was that it's difficult for the mayor to get anything done when he starts developing his relationships with city staff, etc. in two years. And we all talked about that, correct? So I think that's one thing that should be added to that left side. Very good. I agree. I got one too. We use the term ceremonial, but in reality he's responsible for running the City Commission meetings. I think somebody mentioned that the other day. So he has an additional responsibility. Toss into that, that in many cases he has more external responsibilities where he's actually going to specific meetings or representing the city at a specific event as opposed to while commissioners go to some meetings too, the mayor tends to go to more of them than the commissioners do. So there's an added factor too in terms of the scope of his employment. I mean, I was affording when I sit as a work with commissioners and mayors, the terms of power for the commission and the mayor that equal. In Caledad, I'd love to come back to that. So for right now I just wanted to list the pros on the board. I'm just submitting to his comment. But you're very right. I mean this is the discussion I want to have. Is this really a ceremonial role or is there more to that mayor's role that would allow for that differentiation in terms? If the mayor has more power on voting, I would agree with what you said. But to me is the mayor has one vote and the commission has one vote. Okay, so we'll come back to that then as we get it. And then- And then- And then- And then- And then- I have another one for the left side. I think the four-year term would allow, I don't know if the term, the best description is better continuity, or it would just get both staff and residents out of the mode of feeling like they're always getting somebody new up to speed haven't changed on change over right? Sure. So I think that's true. I think that's true. It's hot to know again. Yes. Did we mention that maybe I'd sit here somewhere. Did we mention the fact that having one vote like the other four puts him on a balance with the same weight of a vote as a commissioner does? What do you mean, Palmer? I mean, in terms of the fact that he runs the meeting, but he ends up when they make policy decisions, he votes and he has one vote. So his vote could swing a three-two vote, just like any commissioner could swing a three- two vote. So there's an equality of weight of vote that would infer the shibyun equality and length of tone. Sure. And I think dad on the left side column stability I think is something we should flesh out because if you talk about what we've seen in I don't know if anybody's been watching these lately, but there's several local cities, and I won't name names, because it's not polite, that the mayor has come out and stepped beyond what her role is in some of our neighboring cities, and it's caused some bad press, let's say, for the city, which contributes to a lack of confidence in the government. It makes it seem like we are in that city, I won't say which one or which ones, may have a dearth of leadership or it may look like they're an amateurish group. And that hurts when you're trying to recruit a new city manager, it hurts when you're trying to recruit a new city chief of police or city attorney or city clerk. So that's one piece I think that having a stable mayor for a longer period of time is good. That can also be a negative. If like you say, we don't have the mayor that maybe the city deserves at the time, which can happen. And frankly, I think another piece that I would like to throw in that left hand column is what's often described as the bully pulpit. The mayor is less likely to take on controversial issues if the mayor is the first one to face the electorate. The citizens are not happy with things are happening in the city that may not be the mayor's sole responsibility. They're going to take it out on the mayor simply because he is the face of the city now that also could be a Con for both sides. Yeah, and some people say that's exactly what we want We want to take out the leader in the face of the city when things aren't going the way we want But it also means that that person is less likely to take on the more difficult Questions if they know that they might be thrown out in two years the two-year term I can tell you from personal experience is a detractor from people running for that position. I know several qualified people that I've spoken to over the years. Over many years people that would have been phenomenal mayors that said I can't stand up for this every two years. I can't go through this process every two years. It's not an easy job. Being the mayor is a very very thankless job. You get calls literally 24 hours day. Somebody didn't pick up my garbage. This police officer pulled me over and I didn't like the way you talk to me. You're a piece of garbage. They leave flaming stuff on your store. I mean, I've lived this. It is terrible. And to say that you've lived through that process every two years, it takes a really special kind of character for somebody to stand up and say, Yeah, I'll sign up for that for $20,000 a year. It's a tough job, but somebody that really loves this city and somebody that really wants to give back and somebody that is qualified to do it, I think merits four years. And I think that's worth the discussion and some of the things I said, I think could cut both ways and I can, you know, what I I do for a living I could take either side and argue either side and we could go back and forth. I think more to my side for a second your Spencer. Absolutely. Sorry I can talk and I will not shut the cut. So on the right side of the page here I just listed discussions for two year term. And clearly there's a historical precedence the staggered for your commission's term versus the two-year mayor's terms, allow for a majority of the commission to be voted out in a given election. And that's the historical preference here and why that was there. But I really took that one step further. So keeping the two-year term really gives the electorate that right to make a change and make a vote. And again, I really want to emphasize, you know, we're at a great part of our city's history where we've got a mayor with a super high approval rating, you know, one in two landslide victories in the last couple of elections. So I'm not concerned about his ability to win again and what he's doing, you know, this isn't about the current mayor. This is about the opportunities that we have, you know, as an electric to make a change, there will come a time in the future where we're going to have a mayor who's not as popular, who hasn't built the relationships with city and staff, who's not working well with the electric and you want to have what out of office. So we're definitely as you move from two years to four years, you're taking something away from the residents and a power that they have. So I'd really like to understand what do we gain with the four-year term. And that would be the time for anybody else to build on to what are other good reasons for having the two-year term that I may have missed. Because they were really glanced over in the last two. Sure. I'm sorry, and I want to talk about this, but I just want to say historically, and it is an interesting factor. I just want to throw this out there. Back going back to 1978, there's only been two mayors that were voted out after, that were voted out. And both of them served more than one term. Every other mayor served multiple terms and most almost all of them stepped down. There was only two mayors in the last 50 years that were voted out of office going back to to mayor must mayor must and died in office mayor vandegraff was voted out. Mayor McKay were voted out of office. Going back to Mayor Mus and died in office. Mayor Vandegraff was voted out. Mayor McKay was voted out. Mayor Barenger did not run again. Mayor Oendon ran again. Mayor Hathaway didn't run again. So there has never been in recent history and Mayor that was thrown out after two years. But I think again, that could be on either column. there goes ahead, but they're constantly running for reelection. I think to me that makes more sense to say, we'll just give them the four years anyway, because they're not going to tackle the major issues in the first two years, because they know they've got to run in two years. But for discussion, I'll shut up for a while. I would kind of add to that too. I understand where you're coming from with the ability to load out, but there's no guarantee that's going to happen. Okay. And the chances are, at least as long as I've lived around here watching the commission, you really don't see majority changes. Right. I've never seen three of them get voted out at one election. You tend to maybe see one, maybe two, but usually it's one. So I think that while it's theoretically correct, I'm not sure that in reality that really happens. Mr. Palmer, were you? Yeah, this Palmer and Palmer first name last name. Yeah, last name first name. You know, I thought that we did discuss all that stuff, but he said we should discuss again. I thought we did. That's what I was going to say. We're reiterating the same things we discussed previously concerning these. Now, the fact that you wrote them down, I really, really appreciate it. I think it's a big deal. Yeah, I do too. Well, all I've done is write down what people say. Absolutely right. So we never debate and discuss each of the items. I think that's, if this is the list, then everybody agrees with this list. Now we should have that discussion. So, you know, I'd like to understand the second bullet point. Somebody have said the city incurs cost for having the mayor election every two years. What is that cost? Now we should have that discussion. So, you know, I'd like to understand the second bullet point. Somebody had said the city incurs cost for having the mayor election every two years. What is that cost? That was said as one of the reasons to move to a two year term, is it's gonna save the city money. Well, I, you know, I know, I've heard that the, I know that the city has an election anyway every two years, on not sure whether or not there's an increase in cost if the mayor is included in that election. I don't know. I don't know Now somebody said that the city is incurring an extra cost by having the mayor elected every two years Yeah, that's that was probably some Yeah, I thought that was in reference to the primary versus general right that's correct Yeah, no same situation primary versus general is there an added cost to the city There is a there's a lot of times there isn't a general election and local elections if there's three versus two It happens it but yeah, I think that was the conversation but if you had to move to the runoff election You're what's the incremental cost for that? Well, if we were the only thing on the ballot, and the person who got 50% plus one in the primary, there'd be no need to have a general election. Correct, and that's another thing that's coming up. But, okay. I thought that was, I think that was the discussion where the state cost savings discussion happened. That was my recollection. I could be wrong. No, you are correct, Spencer. Let's go on and talk about that. Okay. Latted discussion over the mayor's role being equivalent to other city commissioners except for ceremonial duties. Does everybody believe that the mayor's role is equivalent to the other commission's except for ceremonial? Sorry. Did you speak in a mic? Sorry. When you say, when I said ceremonial, because I speak into the mic we can't hear you. Besides over the city commission meeting. You know, represent the city going into different events, different boards. But that's going on behalf of the commission. of the commission decides that they want the mayor to go, I mean they could do that. You have the vice mayor, vice mayor acts on behalf of the commission when the mayor is out. So do we say, okay, let's have the vice mayor for two years as well? To me is it's a ceremonial position. If the mayor has more votes or a stronger vote, then the commissioner than I would agree with you. But to me, it's both that equal. Caled, let me ask you a question. When you were city manager, I would city manager reports all the time and will say to the mayor and the city manager are tenant. Did you predominantly, if you were going to these meetings with somebody, was it predominantly the mayor or would it be balanced out with the commissioners? Most of the meetings that you saw on that report, it's, we go and mostly there mayors from different city and some other commissioners as well. I mean, everybody could. Yeah. But that's that specific meetings like for example take the round table. One should come around. I mean it's the mayor's and also the county council and city managers and anybody else who could attend the meeting even the public could attend the meeting. So it wasn't just the mayor's and the city of manages, but it was quite open to the public. Anybody could have said. Well, I get that, but what I'm saying is in your experience did it tend to be the mayor more than a city commissioner? Yeah, that's what I said. I mean, the mayor goes into a a lot of events, a lot of meetings but I'm talking about when when the mayor sits on the dius He doesn't have more power than the commission. I agree completely when the mayor sits in the dius He doesn't have more power, but the mayor is the face of city government Right, there's a section in our charter section 2.13 powers and functions of the mayor that spells out the added responsibilities of functions that the mayor has. And if it really is true that it's just a ceremonial role, why wouldn't we have that mayor role rotate amongst the five commissioners and use that rotating form of government? Because that's the way the election is. I'm sorry? That's the way the election is. The way the election is, the election is, elect for a mayor. I mean that's the way that the former governor wants. Now here's the way the election is. The way election is, the election is, elects for a mayor. I mean, that's the way that the former governor has. Now, there are some other cities have strong mayor. That one agree with you. That's one, the mayor has like, for example, the mayor of Orlando. That's a full-time job. It's the mayor has more power than the commissioners. You know, I think as a society, you know, as humans, as social beings, we want a leader. And it's a natural thing, I think, for one person to be the leader. And I think that's why this system works as well as it does. My question to Collid would be, after all the mayors that you've worked with, have you ever seen or been in a situation where the mayor was able to influence the commissioners? I have not seen it, to be honest with you. I have not seen it. I mean, every commission that I worked with, that all have their own opinion, they listen to each other, depends of how they value the opinion of the other ones. But it's been my experience as well. But since you've been so involved with it. It's a it's a unique perspective that we have here on this In this group, but believe me everybody have their own opinion I mean, I remember going to the the briefings and I get five opinions, right? I mean, it's It's a normal process I think to answer maybe Jan's question is you do have some cities out there where they pass the gavel every year, or maybe not, maybe the same person keeps the gavel. But the commission themselves elect their mayor who's gonna act as that ceremonial person. And then you've got what you have here in New Samarna is probably the most common where the people elect the mayor. But you do have that other option out there. Collin, I agree with a lot with you, so not everything. The mayor does have more duties and responsibilities outside this dice. He does the state of the city that he's required to do that by charter. So there's lots of things that he does outside of that in a leadership role for the city. So I think a mayor is important and I think we always strive to have the best mayor we can and I agree with Spencer in the fact that if you start have these two year terms you're going to lose good people that can't fight the fight every two years to do the campaigning and asking for the ask for the money does the finance of campaigning. You said, where's it coming? Well, there's donors, but trust me, every mayor in this city has gone out of their pocket to pay for lots of things. Okay, so I don't think that's really a fair question, but there it is. But I don't want my comments to be misunderstood. I didn't say that the mayor has not have responsibilities. I didn't say that. You said on the diocese. I got what I said is it's an important position. I was talking about the power on the dio. The mayor has more responsibilities than any other commission. There is nobody disagree with that. The power on the dio. The mayor has more responsibility than any other commission. Yeah, more responsibility. Now when they are on the dias, they're equal. That's, that's, that's, I agree down the dias. The mayor has more responsibility than any other commission. Yeah. More responsibility. Now, when they're on the dias, they're equal. That's that's I agree. Down the dias are equal. So by whole point in this conversation and I'm very glad that we're digging in and having this discussion because the fact that the mayor's role is equivalent to other city commissioners except for serimono roles. Therefore, they should have the same four-year term. I don't buy that as a valid reason on the left and that's why I want to have that discussion. However, if it is worth to discuss, would you attract more candidates and higher quality and different mayoral candidates if it were a four-year term? That becomes a valid discussion place under the left. I believe it does. But that's entirely different than saying that it should be for the term. I'm saying that's another item to be added. Thanks for forcing that issue, man. Appreciate it. Good discussion. Absolutely. Any other discussion? So, you've had your discussion now. What do you want to do about the language as it's rewritten at the city attorneys? You know, we're back to two year for your terms for the mayor. I'd just add from a procedural standpoint, you can decide as a group to vote tonight at the next meeting or Save all of this for the final meeting. That's why you guys are here to have these Productive conversations, but to decide as a group how you want to run these meetings. Just because you have the language tonight, that's not an indication that you have to vote tonight. You can table this for the follow on meeting or even continue it. Like I said, and have all the proposed language throughout the entire charter and just vote on one final night if that's what you decide to do as a charter committee. Yeah, that makes sense. And we can decide together what we want to do. Just procedurally again here, we're going to recommend a revised charter, which is then going to go to the commission and then go to the electorate. Well that revised charter be a one and done this is the whole charter or will be a series of amendments or referendums that we would say item 2.02 increase in my restroom item 2.3 or whatever the next one is. They will be they'll all be individual Items it won't be this one huge document give it to the public because in 2020 It was a huge document that was passed on to the electorate for a vote and they voted on one document The baby out with the bathwater. I'm sorry. I individual items. But I guess this committee can make that decision. There was a summary of each item that we voted on. Is that wrong? No, it was one document that was voted on. As a new charter. I think we talked about it briefly last time. We did talk about it that we have to be cognizant and have the fact of, depending on what election cycle this is going to be on, that if we have an individual vote on every change we make to this charter, let's say there's seven, then our voters are going to have a 20-page ballot. And that, to me, is, I think it's an abrogation of our responsibility. The citizens elected the commission appointed us to make a determination. We put it to the citizens and make them make a decision on every line item. Half the stuff's gonna be under votes. Most people won't vote on it at all because they're not gonna understand some of these discussions. A lot of folks, there's five people here. There might be 100 at home. But they're gonna understand a 22 page document that is a city charter and they're gonna understand what's different about that city charter versus the current charter I think we owe it to the citizens to be transparent All right and say here are the changes that were proposing to make and there's probably going to be five or six changes that were proposing Right, we're not going to rehash all the wording because that was done really well in 2020 This is going to come down to more to what are these four or five salient issues that the commission wants to bring forth? I hope you're right. No, I think- We're not going to rewrite every- I mean, they did a great job of that in the past. I think you're probably right, but I don't think that's a decision you have to make tonight. Whether it's- We give the voters the whole document or we give them five individual items. because we don't really know how many items we're gonna have just yet. I think you're probably right. It'll probably be half a dozen maybe at the most, but we don't know that yet. I think all we really need to focus on right now is that the language that's being proposed for change is that the language you all want to see. Does that encompass the recommendation of the committee? Let's get those figured out first. What are the things we want to see first? While we're in this section, I have something else I'd like to discuss if we can. No, we've been talking about the term, obviously. Be it to death. But at the bottom where we talk about the mayor and each commissioner shall be elected by a majority of those qualified electors vote in a citywide election election. Another, there are some cities that do it differently where the commissioners that are elected are elected by their zones only. And I'd like to know why we chose city-wide for the commissioners in previous years. I'm just kind of curious. And if there was thought to do on it by zone and then the mayor kind of at large citywide. And that you know I tend to agree with you on that. That was a question in my mind all along anyway. Most cities that I'm familiar with vote that way whether they're all-dremend or commissioners or council members or whatever they are, they're usually voted upon by their constituents as opposed to everybody. It also goes to the merit of the cost that we mentioned with repeated elections. That means that somebody who's running in zone one is gonna have to go campaign in in all four zones of the city as well as distribute his materials in all four zones and his signs and everything else that goes along with the election so I tend to agree to I think we ought to discuss that and determine because it is part of this particular section I'm not saying I'm forward against it. I'm just I just would like to to have a discussion to see what everybody else's thoughts are on it. I, Daytona's zone based, the city of Daytona. So it's Ormond, I think. I think that's probably right. And what I, my experience with people that I know several people serve on both those commissions, it promotes fractionalism. I think it promotes what's in the best interest of just my neighborhood and it's not a city approach. I can understand the counter argument as to why it is that way because that's what you have. But then you get a lot of not in my backyard. You get a lot of that doesn't help zone three. So I'm not going to vote for it. Where's my equivalent? Where's my city park that I don't have in zone two? And it becomes fractured. And I think it leads to less congeniality. I think it leads to less of a city forward mentality. I personally, my opinion, would be adamantly against changing for Matt Larchd based. All right, that's good insight. Thank you. Anybody else? And in this section, would this be where you talk about terminus, if anybody wanted to have terminus implemented? Well, let's finish this thought. Let's finish the one that Diana brought up there. Oh, okay. Now, I mean, I appreciate what Spencer had to say on the top. I hadn't quite looked at it from that perspective. And after hearing what he had to say, I'm happy with the verbiage as it is. Yeah, I think the financial cost to do that and the time constraints to go to every zone independently. That's, that would be challenging. Well, that's what they do now. I think what she's saying is that only people in zone four would vote for zone four commissioner, only in people in zone two would vote for the zone two commissioner instead of having it be a citywide election. And again, I can see both sides there because you know you're going to want someone in zone four who's going to represent the needs of the people in zone four, but likewise you want to have that city forward approach. Right. but it's still something that's worthwhile to discuss and see if we want to do. But I'm not hearing any interest from the group majority of the group wanting to pursue that. Is that correct? I don't think I want to now. Okay. All right. And that kind of dies right there. Yep. All right. Will you bring something else up here? Any other term limits. So, you know, is that something that would go into this section and 2102? Or would that go somewhere else? You know, because I know people in the some people that ran in the last election had a strong position for term limits. I'm not sure what my position is yet, but I think that's something that commissioners had run on and it's worthy of discussion from the folks here. And is this the place to put it? Well, I think that would be in section 3.06, wouldn't it? That's what it is. Where it talks about when term of office commences. I'm sure everybody's tired of hearing me talk. But every two years we have a term that's there called elections. People don't like making a throw them out. I think Termoom it's tend to empower bureaucracy. And we were just discussing this previously about the legislature. And if anybody's been a tallahassee as of late, you can talk to your representative who's been there in the back bench or that was just elected. And they have zero input because staff's running the ship. Because staff will be there when they're gone. Staff will be it was there before they got there. You tend to make the city manager the most important person in the city and that point. And then if you have term limits, you get three people on. staff will be it was there before they got there. You tend to make the city manager the most important person in the city and that point. And then if you have term limits, you get three people on at the same time that have no experience whatsoever. And the first thing they want is we want to change the direction of the city, we're going to fire everybody. And I'm not saying it needs to be two terms. I'm seeing some form of term limits because that's a big concern with the Congress and we've had people that have been on our commission for three or four terms, some who have run on a post in the past. So I think this is kind of a time to bring that up. So again, I don't know if it's in this section or Susan, you might have another area that would want to bring that up. Well, we can have it now. We can always figure it out where it would go. But... Something that jumps to my mind when it comes to a term limit discussion is that when it comes to say, for example, a congressman or someone in legislature, they may be wanting to stay in that position for a long time to develop personal wealth and power. Whereas in a mayoral position in a small town, that's certainly not the case. they're not gonna get that. So I see a real distinction between those offices when it comes to term limits. I think he also have to look at, our commission doesn't have a staff, really. There's city staff that's in departments, but nobody has a administrative aid per se, secular, unlike the county council who does have that, and as you move up, you get more staff. So I think you have to look at it that the term limits, I've always been a term limits person at the national level. I'm not sure it really applies here. It's a good discussion, but I'm not sure I can support it. And interestingly enough, you bring up the county council. They have term limits and their staff is the most important piece of that pie. So to the legislation. But there are arguments for it. I mean, there are rationales behind it. Does somebody gets too solidified in there and they lose contact or they lose understanding and so forth? I think we've been pretty much, as long as I've been here, there's been some turnover, but there's been some people current counts there. For example, there's one commission who's been on there a long time. I don't know how many terms. I think maybe three, four. Can't remember. But three, I think. So there's present constant. but I'm not sure it has apple pick up to here You know I could speak about Our city that's what we're talking about here There's the city is really I mean you look at For the past 35 years years that I've seen commission come and go. I mean, if the citizens, they feel like they need to get one commissioner or a mayor out, they got them out. If that case doesn't happen, then I would agree in the term limits. Now, one of the pros for having, I guess, no terms or no term limits on the commission, that has some stability. Not only that, but for a small city like this, sometimes what happens is you run out of qualified candidates to be honest with you. So. Yeah. and Spencer, I think you talked to that. It's tough to get people to run. I know there's been some initiatives in recent years to get certain commissioners out of here. And I know for a fact, it was tough to find people who were interested in doing that. So I tend to agree with you, Caled. I think that's accurate in terms of getting there. And I think for the most part, because the city, we do this vote that's across the city. Then there's an opportunity for people across the city to remove a commissioner in more context than it would be. And I go back to this last election, and we did lose a commissioner, but the vote for that particular seat, as I recall, was not real high. It wasn't as opposed to the election itself at a big turnout, but the vote for that seat was not high. So we get back to interest, and I'd like to drop back again to the comment about how we're going to get this approved. I'm opposed to this all or nothing, but I'll tell you that right now. It needs to be by each individual change that we make. And there was a public meeting on this, or a commission meeting, I don't recall which last time in 2020, and there was a lot of folks there that spoke against it. But it was obvious that Mayor Owen was hell-bent to have it done all or nothing. And he convinced the rest of the commission to go that route. But there was a lot of people there that said, no, we want to vote. And I think the problem with that vote was, it was too big. Most people aren't going to read all of that. Most people in this city don't even know what's in the charter. So if we can just spell out to them and say, look, here's the changes. Here's what it looked like before and here's the changes and here's why and do some good PR with that so people understand and can make their own decision. I think it's far more beneficial than trying to get somebody to read the whole thing. And look at me, I read these things all the time and I made a mistake reading this thing because I was looking for the strikeouts in the underlines, which Spencer deals with all day long, right? So that's what I was looking for and I didn't see it, but it's there. So I think that's what the key is. So I would just, in our discussions about that, I could encourage you more to do it individually. And I don't think there's a good, gonna meet at many changes. And I have a question for the attorney. If we recommend to the commission that it be broken down by individual or a bull, they still have the ability to say, no, we're gonna send it to the citizens as one. That's correct. Okay, so this is essentially a recommendation to the city. All right, it is. And that's what happened the last time. Okay. Okay. So what I'm hearing is a lot of things, but I think what I'm hearing from you all is that the term limits is not something you're interested in pursuing. Is that the consensus of the group? Okay. Do you want a motion for approval of this particular language right here for this section? Well, that's what I'm going to go back to. So what we didn't finalize or vote upon was the very first thing that we started the discussion with, which was on the, whether it's a two year or four year term. Right. And that changed language on there. And again, so the assistant city attorney, you had commented that we don't need to do that vote now. We can do that at the next meeting if we wanted to, or we could say all the recommendations to the very end to meet that kind of a vote. I just want to better understand what those options are. Yes, that's correct. It's your meeting, it's your decisions in terms of how you run this as long as we're meeting the basic requirements of the law. You guys can take a look at this. I want to vote on this. Three meetings from now, because I think there's other conversations we need to have. That's up to you as a deliberative body to make that decision in terms of when you vote on these. And it may work out better in some instances so that we're not trying to go back and look at something that we already voted on. Somebody's changed their mind. But again, that's for you guys to think about individually. Have the conversation that's been going very well tonight and then make that decision as a group in terms of how you want to vote on matters. I would recommend that we go do the other sections that are related to the mayor and the issues and complete that and come back and vote at that particular area at one time. My suggestion is, you know, I would like to wait to the end to vote on all these items because then what happens is you forget the discussions. I think it needs to be within certain time that discussion is still fresh in our mind as well. I agree with that. I think if we have consensus, then let's take the consensus and we have it. And I agree. I will not remember all of the salient points that everybody made tonight four meetings from now. I'm smart I think but I'm not that smart and I think if we've got a group that agrees on the language then let's take what we've agreed on and move on to the next thing and be my opinion. I would agree with that the problem is you know we get too far down the line we forget the discussion we had tonight you've got a lot of items to talk about. So I would recommend you go ahead and take your vote tonight. It doesn't mean we can't revisit it, but I think if we begin to, that goes back to that chart that we talked about earlier, that Michael talked about is we can begin to develop that chart. You'll be able to see why some of the reasons are. We have what we have on the list. I think that will make things clearer down the road. Well for clarity and maybe I wasn't clear. I was only talking about this section here with the term and then the the court hilarious section of how the primary versus the general is then. That's all I was talking about of taking those two because they both impact on the term, one the term in a mayor and second, how we do the election whether it's the mayor or the commissioners. I'm not including the clerk and the other stuff. I'm just, that's That's what I meant by. Let's do both of them and then come back and vote. So let's do section 3.05. I'm sorry. So are you referring to section 3.05? You want to do that one in conjunction with this one and then vote on them together? Yes. Yes. Is that okay with everybody? So there's still going to be two separate votes we're just going to go through this discussion on the primary election. Yeah. First, right? So do you need more discussions on this item? I don't need more discussion. and it's up to you guys in terms of if you want to vote now or if you want to vote. After there's more discussions, like Palmer suggested. I think from the experience we're not with each other, committee, obviously, but with other stuff. I think it's better to vote when it's finishing your mind and the discussions on the dius. I mean, that's just my opinion. I mean, you might somebody have somebody to pick me up. My agreement, Frank, I think I would move to approve the language as drafted right now. All right, you want to make that as a motion, Spencer, and specifically which sections are you speaking to? I'm going to amend the mayor's term from two to four years. I second. Section 2.02. So going from two years to four years? Yes. Is there a second? Second. Who second did that? It was a stereo. It was a stereo, yeah, I'm not sure. I don't know. I'm writing down whoever the clerk wrote down. Who did you write down, she? Thomas Wilson. Okay. Okay. All those in favor? It's a good sign by saying aye. Aye. Aye. I'm going to take a roll. I'm going to take a roll. Please. Oh, call. Member Feuseleer. Hi. Member Hathaway. Yes. Member Eiffon. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Poole. Yes. Member Rashida. Yes. Member Roqueer. No. Member Smith. Yes. Member Wilson? Yes. Thank you. All right. So the motion passes 10 to 1. All right. That's just 2.13. Is that the next one? Pardon me? It's. You saw this. Do we have our order number of which, the next one? Well, we have, I didn't do it yet. What's the next piece that the attorney had drafted for our consideration? Oh, well, you got, you got, the next thing is the election section, which is Article 3 to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. I'm going to have to do that. Oh, I can't count. Thank you. I just counted you guys. I just kept going. All right. So the next part is the section, well, Article 3 elections, Section 3.05. Did you section 3.05. Did you say 305? Yes. Well, actually take that back. No, never mind. We voted on Article 2 City Commission Section 2.02 that was language cleanup and then Section 2.02, the other part of Section 2.02 was composition in term of office. That's the one you all just voted on. Going to from two years to four years terms. So the next section is, like I said, Article 3, the elections. The nomination and election process cleans it up a little bit. Actually, I think we need to go back briefly to point out to the language in our packets has an effective date of the November 2026 election. Am I reading that correctly? Yes, correct. Correct. Well, we, this is a special election because there's no way it would make it to the ballot to the people and then to be effective that election day There's no way it would make it to the ballot by when if we don't if we have a special election It would it could be effective November 2026, but if we don't have a special election There's no way this thing so that was kind of presumptive then for that laying it was just a effective on 2026 Because we haven't approved a special election. We haven't had the discussion about whether we should do an effective So I think for now it should say effective on 2028. Or should we have the discussion about whether we have a special election or not? I think you should have the discussion whether you have a special election whether you're going to recommend a special election or not. And that was the point I was trying to make at the beginning if all these things might affect us. They are linked together. We should probably decide as a group do we We want this to be a special election or do we want this to take effect? Because it would be 2028. I mean, it would have to be. If we pass it for the ballot for two readings for the commission it would be placed on the general election or whatever primary election or general election for 2026 the citizen would vote and then it would take effect in 2028. And last we have special election. Why could it take effect in 2026? Because it would be on the ballot in 2026. You'd be voting on, does the elector want a two-year term or a four-year term? Correct. It'll be on the ballot. You would not go on until the 28 ballot unless you hold a special election. Which is really the driving force behind getting this done now. It wouldn't go on until 20. Right. Which goes into the discussion of this, but the cost associated with it, I think that was in the materials. And I think now that what creates a perception that there's a agenda behind this in order to have this be effective in the 2026 election instead of the 2028 election. And that was one of my concerns right in the very, very beginning and why I made such a big discussion on section 7.03. And then the alternative to that would be if we had the conversation in 2026, it wouldn't be effective to the 2030 election. No, it would be effective in 2028. Depending on what it was put on the general election. Right. If you got the language done in time for two readings and then the acidic election 26 if it was voted through as positive on in November 2026 Then it would still be two years for the mayor's term and then the 2028 election would be a four-year term depending What the terms were and depending on how quickly we the group whoever it would be in 26 is in this hypothetical situation Because even if we go on our timeline this year Which we talked talked about in the first meeting, even if we follow that timeline, we probably won't have enough time to get it on a special election in 2025 if we wait to log. There's no way we're gonna get two readings this year. There's no way we can get it to the future. Let's get two readings and get it posted on the city website, pros and cons of all the opportunities for people to build up their opinions before the election. Otherwise, you're just trying to slide it through as one big document. Which is why I think that discussion probably should be the very first discussion we have. Do we want this to be a special election? Or do we want it to be on 26? Amen. Okay. Okay. We're going to do that. What's up, it's pleasure. Everybody's, you can see the wheels moving. Everybody's thinking. And election win. This year. Absolutely. The cost I think in somebody can refresh me on the whole category. $48,000 when I seem to come up with the protocol. The City Attorney at a City Attorney at a previous commission means she said she thought it would be about 40 so 48ths in the ballpark. That's like buying a new truck for the fire department. Pick up truck. Half of the truck is in the bar. Yeah. I haven't bought a new truck in a while sorry. Yeah. How's it going to see it's going to be a funny looking fire truck. It's going to be a missing part of it. Not a fire truck, pick up truck. Even a pickup truck, but it seems experience should be the overriding factor here. I mean, if we're going to do this, let's do it and get it done. Yeah, I tend to share that same thought. Mainly because in 26, you'll have the Mar Maritime Commissioners being elected. The unfortunate part about us backing a special election will be that there will be some people that think that it's being done because of a hidden agenda. And it's not really that. It's to get it in place to facilitate that 2026 in time for that election. So I can see either way. Or to not delay it 2020. I can't lay it. That comes back to what I said earlier, the why. As long as we have the why that's rational decisions and conversations as long as we share the why, then people can make their own decision is that a good wire bad why. There's also two back stops, the city commission themselves, and then the people. So if they think there's a agenda bindness, and the commission can vote it down. And if the people think there's an agenda behind it, they can vote it down. And they have shown us time and time again. They're not afraid to express their opinion. Yeah, there's a plus to this special election that you're not competing with all the other items on the ballot, which could include state constitutional amendments and everything else. This would allow people to vote for a specific item and have the ability to only concentrate on those. So there's a plus there for that. But the disadvantage to special elections is that the turnout is very, very low. It will take a lot of work to get a good number of people to actually go to the polls. And that's my biggest question here is the special elections can cost $48,000. So the first thing I'm going to ask is, well, it's not half of a truck. It's $48,000. And what's our return on investment for that? What are we getting? And what I'm hearing is we're not saving a lot in terms of less elections because it's already in the ballot. So I really want to understand that savings that we get by driving the special election now. But my biggest concern is what is the voter turn out? in the ballot. So I really want to understand that savings that we get by driving the special election now. But my biggest concern is what is the voter turnout in a special election? I mean, I looked up today, Volusia County election, you know, for participation for the last two elections. We had 80% turnout, 81.6% turnout in the last election, which is phenomenal for Volusia County. That's great. The primary had 23.8%. All right, big difference. And this is important for us to talk about later on as well. How many people will actually vote on a special election, which I believe is going to be a male ballot. So there'd be a ballot that's male doubts people. Only if they they request it. I'm sorry only if they request no the special election I mean how would you handle a special election? I thought it was by ballot. No, no, it's a regular election. You go to an election poll Yeah, okay, right. Well again, so what's the turnout in a special election? Well the one they just said in the Ormond the turnout wasn't huge but there was a lot of work that went into getting people out to the polls So it's going to be on this city, since it's going to be specifically about the city, to generate enough interest and enough reason for them to get out and vote or order a vote by mail ballot. So does anybody have any experience in terms of what the turnout is in an off year special election? Typically between 10 and 12%. So 10 and 12% of our citizenry is going to make the decision on this. That's one of my biggest concerns about a special election. But the thing about special elections and early voting is the people that will turn out during those elections are your super voters. So there's the people that are going to vote all the time. They take the time to educate themselves on whatever they're voting on. So they're good, high quality voters. And turnout doesn't necessarily reflect how many are voting. Remember, if you have an 80% turnout, which is a presidential year, I mean, we're talking about it was, and it was a pretty big presidential year. In the year before was 55.1%, which is still a lot bigger than 10. Sure, but look at the under votes for the city elections. What was the turnout for people that voted for their district commissioner? I bet you it was half that. And so the people that are voting for those positions are still your super voters. And so to me, I tend to favor an off your election for local government because I want the people that come to the meetings, I want the people that listen online, those are the people I want pick the city commission. I don't want it to be, oh he he told me he has an R next to his name or he told me as a D next are the people I want pick in the city commission. I don't want it to be, oh, he told me he has an R next to his name, or he told me he has a D next to his name, I'm voting down the ticket. Just tell me what to do here. Yeah. Somebody handed me a flyer as I walked in, so I'm picking that slate. I've not researched. I don't even know these people. To me, and this is my opinion, I'm one of nine votes. My opinion is I want the Super Voters making that determination. And to me, a special election in this situation with a technical deal, I think those are the people we need making that determination. And to me, a special election in this situation with a technical deal, I think those are the people we need making those decisions. And then it might be beneficial to have it broken down. This is at least when we're going to get really thoughtful participation from people that know what we're talking about. And if you look at the way a general election ballot is set up, you got to get through all the federal state and then you meander into all these judges that have the people don't even know who they are and then they get to the commissioners and then on the very last page of the ballot here's this monstrous piece of document by that time the voters just either going to not, they're just gonna vote against it because they're tired of voting. So when you do the special election and you have it specifically for these charter, remember this is a charter change. This is not changing in LDR or an ordinance. This is a charter change. And it's encumbered upon the city and the other folks that are interested to get the word out, to educate pros and cons, and to get an election to do it. And I think the special election will allow the focus, and people can walk away. They've had a chance to vote, and either vote or they don't vote. One or the two. And I could tell you this. I think it's having this the charter on the election, which a lot of people are interested in. I think it makes, I think it's going to be the percentage of voters, I think it's going to be higher than the normal, just a normal, special election. That's number one, number two. I agree with Palmer. I mean, when I go to for voting and then you see all these amendments that in the back, I mean, you know, like five six pages. Now, depending on what we do with this, I mean, I would rather have it on a special election to give some people a chance to read and understand. I mean, still the city has to do an outreach in terms, I don't think they could support it either way, but they need to do, you know, a good outreach in terms of, you know, having the pros and cons and the frequently asked questions on. But I think I agree with the group in terms of the special election. I really do. And this is nothing against Caled, but this city spends a lot of money foolishly. So we can certainly afford to take a special election, given a lot of the other money to get stumped one way or the other. And I don't think that's a valid reason for having a special election, because we're wasting money somewhere else. It's an observation. I think to drop in the bucket. But I think what is the return for that trap in the bucket? $48,000. That's what we're discussing. It just seems like it to me. It's not, you know, averse in this to honestly. I just thought I'd bring it up. I thought that if I said yes, we need to have a special election. That would start the conversation and it did. So I'm just sitting back and listening to you guys. You guys got the smart, the guys didn't know about all this stuff. And we can't make, we don't know what the rate of return is going to be until we know what the changes are yet. But it does seem like it's, it would be, that expedience would be... And we can't make we don't know what the rate of returns going to be until we know what the changes are. But it does seem like it's it would be that expedience would be the thing that should be the overriding factor here. We're going to make these decisions. We're going to make these changes. Let's go ahead and get it done. And my only pit my personal opinion is I think the city residents of New Sumerna Beach should have a special election because for all those reasons, you know, they're important. This is an important city. They should have a special election because for all those reasons, you know, they're important. This is an important city. They should have a say so and if there's a ballot, specifically for the city and not county and not state and not judges, they don't know. I think that's really important. I think that. Okay, so good discussion. So do we have a motion? because right now in Section 2.02, composition of term of office, it says that the election will be held November of 2026. Do you wish to change that to a special election? Well, that's just saying when the next election cycle is, and we don't even need to make a recommendation on a special election. That's up to the commission. I mean, do we, we don't need to recommend this? They need to decide if they want to do what when our recommendations get to them. Well, the question's going to become to the men I think may, Madam Clerk, can answer this question. When does the supervisor of elections need the language? If they want to have the option of doing a special election decision? 90 days after the second reading. 90 days after the second reading, the commission does not meet in July. Our last meeting is scheduled for. The commission does meet July this year. They're great. have the option of doing a special election. It'll be 90 days after the second reading. 90 days after the second reading, the commission does not meet in July. Our last meeting is scheduled for. The commission does meet July this year. Their break is in June. Oh. Break is in June this year and they meet in July. They changed that. They changed it up. Okay. So when would Mr. Attorney, how long for two readings, if we finish on our schedule, which I think was, I'm sorry, it was the last date August. August, September, 20. Middle August. I'm trying to do some mental math in my 90 days after second reading. There's no way it makes a special election this year. What would be the drop dead date? If we wanted to give the commission the option to make it a special election. The supervisor of elections said 90 days from second reading. So when is the backup? So it actually would be November. Back up 90 days from November, it's gonna put you in July. I'm gonna put put in July. July, obviously, August. August 1st. Or special election. Correct. Special election is 90 days after the second reading. So if you guys decide to have a special election, then it'll go to court commission for two readings and then 90 days from there. But I think where you two are communicating is, there is no date determined. It's 90 days from the last reading. So it doesn't have to be November the four or whatever. So if we finish, say middle of August here, then two readings with the commission would take you to a little. In December. In December. And then 90 days. Which puts you, 90 days after that, puts you into the year. Sorry, it's been a long day. I forgot a special election to have a specific date. It would be special. That's the whole point. Sorry, it's been a very long day. Yeah, that's what you guys were, yeah. Yeah, sorry. Problem. if it was December the second or whatever day it could be that day it doesn't have to be that November date. It'll be 90 days. So we have time, just. Just. I wouldn't be real keen on recommending, getting the commission to do a special election in December, I think that would be a problem. I think we should probably set a date for ourselves so that we can say, we want to send this to the commission by ex date so that if they choose, they want to have a special election that we can get it to the voters in a reasonable time frame. Typically it's November and I think they like November because that's- I think what most people are here. Yeah. Well, let me ask this question. I know we're scheduled to August, okay. And we've already talked about a couple of things that have come up and there's probably a couple more to really think it's going to last all. There's no mandate that we have to drag this thing out of all of this, but is it conceivable? And I don't know the answer, is it conceivable that we could finish it? I think it is. It depends on how we go on to other items and get them done. But you don't have, I mean, there is no sticking point that you have to go to August. If you finish before that, then you'll find. I have a question. What if we're real close? Do we have to follow the every two weeks, or could we have a out of cycle the following week for a meeting? I mean, if we're really close to the end, I'm just asking that question. Is that appropriate? It all depends on everybody's availability. I think we could have a special meeting, but that all depends on if we're all available. You add to my question, okay, it could you know, understand our options. We could just stay here till midnight every night. I don't think so. Yeah, there. I think the other option, maybe. I was hoping I get a few laughs on that one because I don't wanna do that. I don't know, I don't see why if, and Madam Clerk, maybe you were the attorney can answer this for me, if this particular item you want to take out for consideration to the elected body separate from whatever else you're recommending because you want to vote it on sooner, we could always take that item, you all can vote on it and ask us to send it to the commission early. even if we're not done with the charter review and totality, I don't see why they couldn't send this one particular item forward so that it could get through the election process before the end of the year. Is that attorney? Well, it would be the benefit of that, though. Well you all, I'm just answering the question. Everybody seem to want it to be done before the end of the year. So. That's probably a decision to make as a group. As we see how the rest of these meetings progress, it may not come to that, depending on how the rest of these meetings go. I would suggest, continue with the meetings, continue through the deliverative process you've been doing, pros, cons, and wise, and then make your recommendation from'll determine how many more meetings we need and when they'll be scheduled based on how the rest of these meetings progress. Yeah, they have a whole schedule already, so. Right, so. But I think knowing, I mean, if we're going to go with a special election, I think we need to have that, you know, maybe like a time frame in our mind. Otherwise, what's going to happen is it's going to end up in December, right? Which is probably that's not something that we would like to do. And I think if we are thinking about a special election, then we need to have our time frame in within. Does it mean that we have to rush through things, but at least knowing that this is the time frame for us? And there is an election this year. I think Ponson will elect their commissions, but I mean, it's when is it, is it November? It's November. So I mean, it's not, they obviously not, nobody would ever vote in both of those elections, but there is an election this year. So the supervisor elections would be still ratcheting up this year. How about we do this if I may make a recommendation Let staff bring a recommendation back what I'm hearing is you would like to see if there if a special Election were to be held for this particular item you would like to see it held November Okay, so let's say you want to say a discussion. Second week of November, if that's what your timeframe is, you're looking for, let us at your next meeting, we will bring back to you what the drop dead dates would be in order to hit that election. And then you all can look at it and say, okay, yeah, this is where we want to go. I mean, we can back into the dates right now. We're all trying to do math in our head. It's getting lights. That's so good. So we could look at it that way. And then that'll be on your next agenda. And we can have that discussion. I think the first thing, though, kind of two parts. One, do you want to take this forward? You need to vote on that. And then second, we will bring back a time frame For you to take it forward before the end of this year and on a special election in November So my apologies for showing up late I Just want to make sure my thinking is correct. We called emotion had a second had discussion and voted on this topic last time. Did we not? No, this is the special election we're talking about. Okay, so we're not talking about the terms. No, we rediscovered the terms again, had a lengthy discussion, and then a second vote. My apologies, and they voted on that. Okay, I thought we were trying to get that. We did that, too. Okay, okay. I would try to, I think, I would make a motion or at least for discussion purposes that the decisions that we make as this body would be effective for the November election. So we would make a decision, our recommendation to the commission would be that they have a special election so that the decisions that are made by this body would have the commission would have the opportunity to send it to the citizenry this year So that any changes that the citizens and the commission agree would be effective for the 26th election That would be my hope and desire of this committee. I'll second that motion Who seconded it? But I think we need staff Spence staff to staff to come back with, I think, coming possibility on a day in November, track 90 days back. So this way, you know if this is feasible or not, at least. Agreed. Well, the worst thing could happen, it would slip and we could slip it to January. Would we not want to have any of the retinus? Let's assume sake of our to make five recommendations. Would we not want to have all five of those on this special election, as opposed to that what we're talking about? That's what we're talking about. That's why he made it kind of a generic lump all the things together. Because ultimately this commission is going to be the ones that make the first recommendation. The citizens are going to be the final arbiter of what. Yeah, I'm just talking about in terms of our recommendation for a special election that we're not separating any other items that come up. Oh, I think that's a separate issue. Whether we're both binding them together or separating them out. I think this is just if whatever decision. No, I don't mean that way. I mean whether or not if we... Oh, okay, yes. If we, if we end up recommending five section changes that all five section changes appear on the special election. Yes, that would be my, that would be my desire on this one. So another question, Dei, and I raised a really good point. So if we can't make the November time frame work for a special election. Yes, that would be my desire on this one. So another quick question, Deander raised a really good point. So if we can't make the November time framework for special election, could there be a special election in February? That would still allow things to be changed until 20 in the election in 2026. Yes. So why would we ever want to rush our discussions here to have a November election? Why do we pick a date and work backwards if the commission can add a special election anytime they want? Well they can. I think it was just more out of a, I think they're typically the elections are held in November because that's one of the best, most of the people here that's when the turnouts are usually the same. I think in a tradition more than anything. People will be confused. confused. It's like, oh, they're watching in January. And I just looked at the dates, you know, we're here every other Tuesday for two hours each night. And we've almost worked through two of the issues in two meetings. So my guess is, even if we get some other issues raised up, that will still be in pretty good shape, probably, in the June timeframe. I don't think this will go to August. I can't imagine that there's that many changes I could be wrong. So I think we'll be in good shape for making those deadlines. I think you're right. I don't think there's any desire by this group to pick apart what was done in 2020. I think a lot of people agree that that wasn't really well done process. And I don't think we're up here trying to reinvent the 2020 decisions I agree with you. I think we're gonna come to a pretty quick decision on these few issues that we are bringing up. And these are big issues that we're talking about. So that does take time. I'm sorry. I said, in the issues we've already discussed, the issues that we've already discussed have been big issues. So we had a lot of discussions. So it does take time. I'm sorry. I said, in the issues we've already discussed, the issues that we've already discussed have been big issues. So we've had a lot of discussion. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I got another earlier you want to look at, but I don't think it's going to take us a long time, because it's not change this, change this, change that. It's a philosophical issue about whether even belongs there. So I think unless there's other items that come up with this group, I mean, we've been making some good progress tonight. I can't see this thing going to August. I agree. Given every other Tuesday meeting. All right. So does everybody know what the motion is on the floor? Yeah. Yes. OK. So. Explain the motion again, please. Can you read the motions? how the motion maker give the floor. Yes. Okay. So. So. Explain the motion again. Please. Can you read the motions? How the motion maker give the motion. Sure. So the the idea is the motion we made to make the recommendations that we as a body come to effective for the effect take effect for the 2026 election cycle. Which would require a special election. And I'll second that. Mr. Billings. Member Billings second the motion Force through an agenda and you don't need to record that. Member Wilson? Yes. Member Smith? Yes. Thank you. Motion passes. All right. Okay, so we only have ten minutes left but we can begin, I think we can move on and begin. Well, this might be pretty easy. The next section is the elections. If you had had chance to read this on page starting with page two, most of this is a clean up some language there. Obviously this language is no longer really relevant because this was when everything was changing. What section? Oh, article three elections, section one, well section 3.05. 3.05, okay. Yeah, page two of what was in your packet? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Most of that, like I said, is just a structural ending. I think it's our page 10, actually. Is it? Yeah. I don't know if that's how. If we're talking about the change that's on the bottom of page 3 of our handout, that's the one we're talking about. Nomination and election when primary or general elections unnecessary. 3.05. Yeah 3.05 what you just read. Right line 109. Yep. Okay. So I have a question on that and maybe that I'm not reading it right is that the same as a 50 plus one? So you're looking at the old one you need to look at the one that she said by email. Yeah you are you? The wording that's in there now refers to a 3.05 is making it if the primary winner gets 50% plus one there the winner Okay, and that's what that means there because it doesn't really say 50 plus one. Yeah Right, it's the winner if the person who gets more votes and both of the other okay, that's what I want clarification Typically it's 50% plus one, but I guess it's not necessarily We both been there I there. Yeah. I'm not losing it every time. For me. All right, so I'd like to discuss this topic if we can, please. I agree that as an example, what we experienced the last election, that there was such a wide difference in the number of votes cast that it was kind of silly to go on through to the general election. So I can see where this is headed and the goodness about it. I'm just not sure 50 plus one is the right number. So the reason I say that is, you know, in your primary election, you're going to have a much lower turnout than you're going to have for a general election. So I would kind of like to see that threshold just a tad bit higher, like maybe 60%. And I would tend to agree with you on that because 50 plus one for anyone candidate Means that 50 minus one had voted for a different candidate So that's why I think it's important to have you know that general election where the two top people have the runoff And I think that's what you're trying to say 50 plus one isn't enough because that means that 50 minus one Voted for a different candidate, but if candidate. But if one candidate got like a runaway with it, as happened last time, I don't see any sense in going to the general election. So, however we have to word that, but I think just saying that it's just 50% is a little bit too low of a threshold given the difference in turnout numbers at a primary in general election. Well, I was summarizing it actually. The language actually says, however, if in one candidate for mayor or commissioner receives a greater number of votes in said primary election in the combined votes of all other candidates in that particular race, the candidate receiving the majority of all votes cast and said primary shall be declared to be elected. And it shall not be necessary places or her name on the ballot for the general election. So that gives it more? It's not a number. It's not, it could be 50% plus one, but it could also be in the case of me 55% or 77%. But that's the end of this point. That it could be 50 plus one, and that's kind of what everybody's been talking about. So that's too low of a threshold. Only because in your general election you're going to get a much larger turnout than you're going to in your primary. And I think that was the thought process behind the change in 2020. I just have it I just disagree and having been on the receipt losing end of that vote I don't think the vote would have been different in the general election and I think if you see the last two elections You'll see that was the case So so we used to have 50 plus one I believe that that should be that obviously so that used to be yes the rule and when was that changed? 2020 that was the so this is just so the last review committee made that change correct to have the runoff Yeah, the question is For then if it's 50 plus 1, and you say, well, 50 minus 1, they didn't vote for. So what happened when they go to the general election? And one of them got 51 and one got 449%. Well, in the case of them, they got 51 would win, right? But if you go to the general election, then you've got more time. you've got a much higher voter turnout, whoever voted against the 50% plus one, they might get together and say hey we want something different, right? It's a vote against the current candidate. Right, so I do agree that that's too low for pressure. You have three candidates and so one of them got 51%. The other two combined they got 49%. Right, perfect. So now we're going to have the highest of the two to go up against the other one for the general election. You're going to end up, I mean, maximum they're going to get 49%. No, not necessarily. You have a lot more people coming up. You got 83% turnout in a general election versus 30% of primary. So there's a big chance to campaign harder for those two candidates that were finished number two and three. They might have a strong chance of being number one. I just haven't seen it. Have you seen it? I can tell you, when I experienced the 50 plus one, that's what it was when ran way way way back then It was not a huge amount, but it was much more than 50 plus one So as I as I recall the differs I was number two in the the person at one I think was like about 250 300 votes, but there was only like, like, 2500 votes cast total. So it was more than 50 plus one. It wasn't a giant amount. So I don't know if we can set 60% all, you know, to me, it's just, it's taxing on the candidates. It doesn't go a long way to getting people to run when they have to go do it a second time again after they demonstrate that the majority's looking for them. And I don't know the total distance. If we're talking a presidential term, you probably do have a significant larger number. If you're talking about the all-fierrelection, probably less in terms of it. You look what just happened in a special election down there, and it was not a gigantic turnout, but it was a single election for one district, you know, in area. So I think the majority here is as written, and maybe you can say a difference of something, I don't know, I don't know how you can make it better. You're never gonna be perfect, but I think you have to somehow eliminate requiring somebody to go run again when they demonstrate a majority of people want them in the office. I would ask and I agree with the gentleman's comments, do we have the data from other municipalities is 50 plus one standard, is it common? I mean we've looked at other municipalities for various if it's common and it's something that others do could we not benchmark what? Similar or size your your experience what did you say? You know I think it's pretty my phone. I think it's pretty common 50 plus one but you know we have 400 some odd cities in the state. So everybody has their own little quirks. So I wouldn't say there's a blanket out there. I was looking for different reason at the other charters in Volusia County. I did pull all the charters for all the cities in Volusia County. So I go back and look look at that or we can ask staff to take a look at that. I didn't particularly look at that in that. I was looking for something else. I think staff could make a survey. Do we need to vote to extend the meeting or are we allowed to continue on? I say we end with this topic, maybe give staff some direction. We can bring back information on what is common in Volusia County or wherever you want to look on how they do that for runoff elections. I don't know the answer so I mean I would have to look it up regardless. We can do that. We're the only ones in Volusia County that do this. No everybody has some. It's odd that the top two go to November regardless of the vote. I think that's pretty unique to Newspaper. But I won't speak for all the other cities. There's a lot of unique things out there, so as you well know. It would help me if we could then ask staff, given the hour, to pull the information for Volusia County So we could look at it and if it is common to be 51 then I'm comfortable with us being common as it pertains to this Yeah, I mean I definitely don't like the way like what happened last time I didn't see any sense in that at all But and I'm willing to go along with the consensus of the group if that's something that's common across all the cities. I just thought it was a little bit low of a threshold. Do we need a motion to request that information? No. We just asked for it and we can get it. You can just ask for it. We'll look at it and bring it back. Thank you. I think so with that we'll stop where we are. I just want a couple more, a couple quick things from you. So obviously we still have a few more things to cover under the preliminary recommendations to date to dealing with the charter revisions. We didn't get through all of them that the city attorney had drafted. So we'll pick up where we left off for the next meeting. But just in case by some miracle, we get through all of that at the next meeting. We do have a couple of other items that have been brought to our attention for future charter discussion, which is discussion about a special election. Sticks, I can't say that word now. Sustainability, that's article six, that has to do with stewardship, environmental stewardship and historic preservation. And then I did not know if we have any other charter articles that you would like to target for review or discussion. If you do, please let me know or let the city clerk know and she will forward it on to me so that we have those things in our back pocket ready to go if we get through everything at the next meeting we can keep moving Thank you Susan. Alrighty Anything else that anybody wants to bring forward All right hearing none from anybody. Thank you all very much for your time this evening and we'll see you two weeks Thank you meeting is adjour for your time this evening and we'll see you two weeks. Thank you. Reading is adjourned. Oh, happy Easter. you