Joseph Citro 9:02:04AM
Welcome to this special-called communication for a charter review workshop. If we could all please stand and rise for a moment of silence. [Moment of silence] I thank you. If you could please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of our country. [Pledge of allegiance] thank you. Roll call, please.
Bill Carlson 9:03:02AM
Here. Maniscalco?
Guido Maniscalco 9:03:07AM
Here.
Lynn Hurtak 9:03:09AM
Here.
Orlando Gudes 9:03:10AM
Here.
Charlie Miranda 9:03:12AM
Here.
Joseph Citro 9:03:15AM
Here. Thank you, everyone, for being here today. Id like to introduce our facilitator and her assistant today, ms. Anne Schroeder and ms. Robyn Odegard. Ms. Schroeder joins US from Florida Institute Of Government at usf, go bulls. For over two decades, she has worked with the city and county governments, businesses and nonprofit organizations -- [audio feedback] -- for success. Clients have included NASA, Rider Systems, Coca-cola, American Lung Association and the Salvation Army. She has a masters degree from John Hopkins University At Baltimore. In addition, anne earned certificate degree in advanced carpentry along with her husband ed personally built their first home in fort myers in 1979. Also, we have Robyn Odegard, program planner and analyst from the Florida Institute Of Government who will take notes of the proceedings that will be visible on the screen. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take public comment at this time concerning anything that we will be hearing about the City Of Tampa's charter. And as always we have three minutes for each speaker. If you would like to make any public comment concerning our charter or any of the things that we are going to review today, please form a line on my left, your right. First speaker. Its a pleasure to see so many familiar faces. And when I say that, what I am referring to is our common service on the Charter Review Commission. As many of you know, I had the pleasure of being appointed as a commissioner and serving with four of the individuals sitting up here on the dais today. And one of your legal staff. First, I want to say I applaud you for taking the charter very, very seriously. It is the constitution of the City Of Tampa. We all as citizens, the four of you and Council here who -- and a few others -- who served as citizens at the time, as you know, took a tremendous amount of time to review the entire charter in its entirety, debate it sometimes in a very heated way, the provisions of the charter, heard public comment at every single meeting that we had. Did so in the sunshine, and made a series of very detailed recommendations that were ultimately at the time approved by Council and ultimately approved by the citizens of the City Of Tampa. At the time, we talked and debated about the cadence of review of the charter, and we made a recommendation that the citizens ultimately approved to review it every ten years. I believe that thats the proper cadence for it. Im not suggesting that if there is an issue that needs to be addressed, an urgent issue, but I would caution the Council to not do what has happened with the Florida constitution and make it subject to things that would otherwise best be dealt with by ordinance or by other action of the city. Many of the issues that are going to be talked about today are very serious issues. They do need to be addressed. I would submit to you, though, that they likely do not need to be addressed in the charter. They can be addressed by ordinance and, again, would caution you all to not create a cadence here today where were reopening our charter frequently and making the charter a substitute for the ordinance. I thank you very much for your time. I have the utmost trust and confidence in this group and appreciate all that youre doing for the City Of Tampa. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:08:03AM
Thank you. Kella Mccaskill. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this charter review. Earlier this year, The Mayor called for transparency and accountability, which I think is great because we need that. I just have to believe that was her effort to build trust -- rebuild trust of the administration in the city, particularly the citizens. Because, as you all know -- I dont have to rehash that, but weve seen a lot. Weve seen too much happen. I believe it was as a result of the lack -- we dont have transparency and accountability. So as a citizen and spoke with several citizens, I think they would feel better if we were able to have a modified charter to ensure the objective for all of the city attorney clients, which includes City Council and the public, because ive seen firsthand how the city attorney chose to incorrectly interpret the charter and failed to represent, in my opinion, one of the best City Council members that ever existed and we lost that. Im still wounded from that loss. Two others went under attack because I believe they chose to incorrectly interpret the charter. As a result of that, we know that one way out of that is to adjust the charter. I guess at one time they mentioned it would be, go before outside counsel. I dont know if we would trust that. The other option is it would go to a judge. But thats only if there is a lawsuit. I would feel comfortable if there is an issue or issue with charter, if there is a matter that comes before council that they dont agree with, because we still dont have trust with the city attorney, I would like a request to go to the Attorney General, that be the process. Go to the Attorney General for legal opinion and then it comes back because I believe we have enough of those then, in fact, they May need to investigate some areas. If we continue to have issues that comes before the Attorney General. So thats my ask for that. We the people can trust the opinion of the Attorney General. Another one is to address conflicts of interest as it relates to The Mayor. Now, City Council has to address that in writing. Sometimes if we dont give enough detail, they question that. I want to know how you address today and even going forward, how do we resolve the issues with the conflicts of interest for The Mayor? I didnt see that in the charter when I looked it up online, and I still dont know if there is a process, but I would like for this charter, as you amend it, I want you all to make sure The Mayor is just as accountable as you are. Again, thankful for her request to have transparency and accountability. And right now I dont have that. I want to see what that process is for The Mayor. As it relates to the Crb, again, too much happened with The Police Chief and The Mayor. Both of them need to be accountable. I want to see that somewhere indicated clearly so they cant be incorrectly interpreted in the charter. We should be able to have a Crb that makes them accountable. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:11:08AM
Thank you. Connie Burton, a proud member of the Naacp. The reason im here this morning is to, again, echo the concerns of our community of accountability. We believe a Charter Review Board should hold all persons accountable. We have seen things transpire in our communities where contracts have been given to and then we find as you peel back the onion, relationships are either contracts that started one way, ended up benefiting others where the community, and especially African American communities, dont have an opportunity to participate in bidding on the first end of it. As far as the Charter Review Board and the Crb, I can tell you just standing here and being a member of the Naacp, it was that organization that has a long history of standing in behalf of citizens, whether it was through the lynching of Black people and the Naacp raised the banner saying that another Black man was lynched. As Naacp has continued to rise to occasion over the years to express when Night Riders, the clan, and also the police has brutalized our community, I can tell you it is not an easy task coming here this morning because we know firsthand the history of Black people when we have stood to express our issues regarding ongoing oppression, police brutality, the retaliation that comes with it, even down today. We see how people are, whether it was members of the Naacp having their homes exploded. Whether we just see a recent case in miami -- I mean, New York city, where men that was accused of killing Malcolm X have had to reach a $36 million settlement. We believe that if this city is to move forward, why not trust the voters? Why not trust the voters and put it on the ballot to ensure that we can be guaranteed trust and accountability? What we are asking for is that the city removes itself as being the legal arms and the eyes of the Crb, and Independent Counsel come in and that that body has subpoena power. Why not? Everybody is being held to a level of accountability, and we are asking that you, as a Democratic Party, stand in behalf of the community that has been so oppressed. As we talk about voter suppression from tallahassee, we are watching to see if you will have the courage as Democrats to ensure that the citizens of this community can vote their choice. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:14:14AM
Thank you. Don Gregs. Thank you for allowing me to speak here today. Im here to make comment on the issue of adding subpoena power and independent counsel onto the ballot for the Citizens Of Tampa to vote on. I agree that we need more accountability and oversight into the Tampa Police Department. Theres been a number of cases I could reference, a number of things that have happened over the past few years that have shown time and time again that without a proper crb that can actually do something for the citizens on behalf of the citizens and not on behalf of the city, in order to achieve that to have a crb that can actually provide oversight and accountability for US as citizens, I think that they do need subpoena power and independent counsel, and I would like the opportunity to vote on it. Ive heard a lot of things going around about this being like something that fringe groups are asking for or kind of the legal things that will come along with this when it comes to the types of judges and the types of courts it will go through. I think that is all stuff that we can come to after we allow citizens to vote on it. I dont think you should stand in the way of people being allowed to vote on this issue. All right. Thats all I have. Thank you.
Guido Maniscalco 9:15:55AM
Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Phillip. I would like to speak in support of giving the Crb subpoena power and independent counsel. And I wanted to say that giving subpoena power to the Crb has worked in cities such as miami and key west. And I think it would do great here in Tampa as well to make the city a safer place for everyone living within it. And I think that giving the people the power to vote on this by putting it on the ballot would help, let the people who could not be here on City Council today have their voice be heard. And thats it. Thats all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:16:41AM
Thank you. My name is Laura Rodriguez. Im a member of Tampa Bay community action committee. Good to see you all here. Im here to talk about the charter amendment. I think its really important to allow voters to vote on this. Its not something that you guys are deciding. Its something that your constituents want and honestly allowing voters to vote on methods of public oversight, over public service is democratic, and I dont think theres anything faulty about that. We all know that the crb reviews closed cases of the disciplinary actions against cases of police misconduct. I think having all of the evidence that can be found, and as time passes, more evidence can come up from the original case. So I think it will just make assessing these cases and the severity of discipline applied more democratic and more honest. As one of these so-called fringe groups, I think youre not listening to your constituents. Im a constituent. I lived here in Tampa for ten years. I vote. I pay my taxes, and to diminish what our group is doing is honestly like you guys arent listening to US. All weve ever asked is for democratic demands. Were not coming up here yelling, calling you all names, this, that and the other. But, yeah. We think this is a democratic power that the people need to vote on. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:18:34AM
Thank you. My name is Delia Cooke. Im a member of Tampa Bay community action committee. Im also here to speak in favor of letting people vote on subpoena power because its kind of insane this is a big debate when really were asking you to let US vote. I dont understand how were supposed to be a progressive, forward city and when we have to beg to be able to vote on an issue that people care about and that people have shown that they want. People want more transparency in Tampa. After seeing cases like Jonas Joseph and Dominique Mulkey, Black men that were killed, one, a bag of chips, the other I dont know what he was killed for because the case was covered up three different times. We want subpoena power but we want to vote on the democratic demand. We want to be able to vote in the March ballot. We dont want to have to come here and beg to be able to vote for things that the people want, and that would help the people. And because we live here and this affects US, the police affect US. I can hear their helicopters at 3 am. Every night. So we just want more transparency. We want more accountability. We dont understand why the police are so afraid of accountability. Thats all I have. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:19:52AM
Thank you. Hi. My name is David Jones. Im a member of the Tampa Bay community action committee. Im also speaking in favor of putting subpoena power on this March ballot. As it stands right now, were truly not asking for a lot. Were not even asking for it to be pushed through because thats not something you are able to do right now. The actual subpoena power. Were asking that you allow the citizens of Tampa to vote on it. You know, allowing both, like, City Council -- excuse me, allowing both the Police Department as well as, like, the City Office to persuade away from putting it on the ballot, putting it in face of the community is undemocratic. Its essentially kneecapping democracy, something that this country and city is built on allegedly. Allowing for the voices of the people to be shut down before its even allowed to, you know, form it. Is like amoral. Its not right and something you all should actively fight against. The issue is like right now in the city, people dont feel that the police is actively working in their interest. People do not trust the police in the city. If we did we wouldnt have to come up here and this conversation wouldnt start in the first place. If they did, the crb wouldnt have to exist in the first place. It exists solely because the police lacking trust. Exist solely because the people in Tampa saw that they were not, you know, being actively represented by their police or whatever. So, you know, if that issue cant fix itself, something needs to be done. Measures need to be taken in order to cause real change to make things better. Yeah, so, once again, just asking that you all allow the folks to vote, allow the people to vote because at the end of the day who knows what we need better than US. I say this as District 7 Resident. And like truth of the matter is like, you know, were prepared to rally and campaign regardless. I would prefer to campaign around this issue but if need be, we will campaign against you all because silencing the people before they are allowed to speak is not something that should be done by a City Leadership. Thank you all.
Joseph Citro 9:22:25AM
Thank you. My name is Joseph Nohava, member of Tampa Bay community action committee. Here again before you to ask you all to do the right thing. And allow independent counsel and subpoena power to be given to the hands of the voters to decide. This is a very -- or it should be a very easy decision for you all because really, again, all were asking is to just simply step aside and allow the people to decide what they want. And clearly what they want, what they have shown, what they are coming out for and have spoken about publicly is for the Crb to be given these powers. But why? Right? Why is there this distrust? Why is there this issue of secrecy, right, about this whole issue? Why is TPD, why is the mayors office so afraid of accountability and transparency? I mean, as the Police are so want to say, youve got nothing to hide, then whats the problem, right? Thats what I would say to them. If they really and truly have nothing to hide, then this should be an easy controversy-free decision for them to make. Obviously, the fact of the matter is they have a history of misconduct, right, as someone mentioned earlier. The cases of Dominique Mulkey, Jonas Joseph, but also little mundane things, like blowing money at strip clubs and gold teeth and this sort of thing, right? Its strange. Its bizarre. And I dont know why as supposed public servants Police are held to this amazingly, accountability-free standard, right? I dont think the citys Sanitation Workers or the districts Teachers, right, are free of any kind of scrutiny. Why the Police? Like, what gives them the right to be free of any kind of scrutiny, free of any kind of investigation. I dont understand it and I dont think a lot of the people here do either. Again, all were asking for is for you all to step aside. Let the people decide. Very easy thing. Were not asking you to veto or vote up or down on this issue in particular. Its just a matter of giving it to the people. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:25:06AM
Thank you. I was here a couple of weeks ago. Transparency and accountability, those things are what im hearing so far this morning would create trust. I have attended seven of, like, eight approximately that gun violence listening sessions that TPD has put on. Constantly, over and over again, the Chief asks for trust from the community. Its almost like a demand. See something, say something. Its our responsibility in the community, but I would like to think that here today the city has an opportunity to advance trust in the community and partnering with the Police Department to create, not demand trust. I started going to those meetings, and back in February I asked about the Social Worker ride-along program. Thats not part of the Crb, but its something that the Police Department was doing and its a really watered-down program. I was told over and over they are designing it for Tampa. They are not copying St. Pete or Eugene. Whats so hard to understand about a nonemergency number that a Social Worker shows up on a mental health issue? Why cant we advance new ideas? Whats so wrong about providing a lawyer? Whats so difficult about providing a lawyer to the Crb? Had you have an opportunity to -- im just repeating myself again and again, but I had this whole speech going on. But you have an opportunity to create trust, not demand it, and a Police Force. What kind of word is that -- a Police Force? Recently -- and I know it had to do with the death of an officer, but what is a giant lion head about to devour the bad guys in the city? What kind of message are you trying to send to the people living on main street? I wrote all this down. Somebody brought up Dominique Mulkey, a Citizens Review Board, that actually had some power and was able to relate with the community, could answer some questions. Why do the Police say that incident happened blocks away from the store? It was merely down the sidewalk from where the store was. Why so many gun bullet holes in the fence that I put my finger in as we went there for the vigil? Why were the houses in the background lit up with bullets? What direction, theres a video, a screen shot was released of him turning, a second screen shot where originally there was a video and I dont know where that video is anymore, where he was walking, hunched over with his arm down like this away from the Police, while the Police officer dropped a clip and added another clip and fired again but only two bullets hit this man. You have an opportunity to do something, to make the Crb stronger and to follow up what does you unanimously voted for last time I was here as far as the Social Worker ride-along program to do nothing with it. They want a weaken nothing program that will go nowhere --
Joseph Citro 9:28:44AM
Thank You. Im a Volunteer Attorney with the Aclu Of Florida. Im taking off of work to be here today like a lot of people behind me are, but not all of them. Some of them are being paid to be here. I dont have much to say that I havent already said, but I do want to address a couple of things. I understand that each of You were paid a visit recently to discuss this and You were told that it would cost a million dollars a year to have an Independent Attorney and subpoena authority and the statistic cited is thats what it cost miami. Bet You werent told this. Miami employs a Director, Assistant Director, a Senior Policy Analyst, three investigators, Independent Attorney, and Administrative Aide, those salaries are what cost a million dollars. Not enforcing subpoenas. Want to know how many subpoenas the Miami Civilian Investigatory Panel has issued since 2015? One. The one before that was in 2009. Its important to have because You can get voluntary compliance when You have subpoena power. But if You were told that those two subpoenas cost half a million dollars each, they were not being honest with You. It should bother You more than it bothers You when people are dishonest with You. It should really bother You when an Interim Police Chief stood behind this podium and told You, no, we didnt chauffeur people to come speak in favor of the crime-free multi-housing program when they did. The reason that You need to have subpoena authority is so that the civilian -- so that the civilian review board can issue subpoenas to nonparty witnesses. Ask your legislative aides if the Pba Chief made the gesture at Frank Reddick. They saw it. When the Professional Standards Bureau investigated, they talked to two or three people who said I didnt see it and concluded it never happened. Thats why it needs to have subpoena authority. I want to talk about the idea that fringe groups are what supporting this. I saw some of You at the Naacp freedom fund dinner a couple of fridays ago. Dont tell me the Naacp is a fringe group. You ate their chicken. You listened to their speakers. You applauded and then two tuesdays from now youll vote like they are a fringe group because somebody told You that they were. The American Civil Liberties Union Of Florida is not a fringe group. The people in this room took the time off of work because they can. Were all here on behalf of the people who cant. The people want to vote on this. We commissioned a third party poll. 82% of the voters want to vote on this. You were asked by your individual visits to position yourselves in between the voters and voting on something that the voters want to vote on, to stop them from doing that. Thats what You were asked to do. Dont do it. Think about what You were thinking when You first sought office. Were You seeking office to position yourself in between the will of the voters and their right to vote on something? Or were You seeking office so that You can represent the people that You represent? Thank You.
Joseph Citro 9:31:36AM
Thank you. Yvette Lewis. President of The Naacp. First of all, weve been around since 1909. We going nowhere. Whoever said we were a fringe group, thats the lie they tell themselves when they look in the mirror. When I look in the mirror, I see somebody fighting for peoples civil rights. When I also come through the airport or come through the airport the other day, it stated, welcome to Tampa, a diverse city. It said welcome to Tampa where we have a democratic mayor and a Democratic Council. It said welcome, but yet we dont feel welcome because some of our voices are being silenced in this city. Every time we come down here, and when I say "we," im speaking as an African American. We come down here begging, asking, and pleading for your help, for your assistance with something. I dont quite understand why were the only race in this city that has to beg to get the simplest things. But yet you come to our community, you sit there -- you sit there, come to US and have dinner with US and we get nothing. But you want our vote. You want our support. I dont understand why we have to continue to go through this with you-all. Lets say it started back with our ancestors. Lets go back to the African American cemeteries that we still havent resolved the issue on in the City Of Tampa because the land was stolen. We didnt start back with the Police Department. It started with US. They started that. We didnt start crime-free housing, renting while Black. They started with US. We did not start this. We want to live in a diverse city. He want to live where we have a voice. And what we can have an opportunity for our kids to go out and play. The Naacp want a safe community. But we want people to be held accountable. The hardest thing and the most frightening thing is when you riding down the street and you see them blue lights get behind you because you dont know what its going to entail. I fear my life and im the president. All were asking for you to do, and if you want me to say, all we begging you to do is just vote to put it on the ballot and let it stand up or down. Give it to the people. You asked US for our vote. Hell, some of you all members of The Naacp. I saw you all at the dinner. They call your name. You stood up and waved. I would be dying if you called US a fringe group. Been in the city too long. Been fighting too long. All of you all know that. We deserve better and the City Of Tampa bay. This city has attacked this organization just because we stand up and fight for the people. The city has tried to shut US down because we stand up and fight for the people. Were going to keep fighting because this organization has been around since 1909. We aint going nowhere. So whoever you send as your attack dogs, I promise you -- I promise you I got a Legal Department that will shut it down and embark on this city, and we will have an all-out legal war. Give the people something instead of an empty promise and a cup of tea.
Joseph Citro 9:36:06AM
Thank you. Rasheed Aquil, chairman of The Citizen Review Board. Today I stand as a member of the board and the statements that I share today are of my own and no representation to the board itself. Few things I want to bring to your-alls attention to take into consideration. One is through our years of serving on the board, working with various staff members of the Tampa Police Department, we have made -- and I say we -- board members have made all types of requests in reference to Tampa Police Department matters. Every single request was fulfilled. We have 100% support from the Tampa Police Department in everything that we asked for in reference to policy, statistics, presentation, things of that nature. We have not yet seen or need subpoena power as to this moment. It has not gotten in the way of US doing our responsibilities to the city. Not stating May not need it in the future but as of this point, it has not created any hurdle in US doing due diligence in serving this community. The other statement is that we did take into consideration and discussion on our agenda and however we do represent the people. This is a democratic system that is -- we do have responsibility to uphold such stage. In saying that, we did take a vote and the members did vote unanimously to allow this subject to be put on the ballot. It was a unanimous vote taken with The Citizen Review Board. I want that taken into consideration as well as the support of every request asked by members of The Citizens Review Board has been fulfilled 110% and as of this point, we had no need or have not seen any value in reference to even obtaining such power or subpoena power. Thank you.
Orlando Gudes 9:38:42AM
Transparency. I did meet with the Chief on Friday. Would be making a phone call to the Crb chairman. I did speak with him about 20 minutes on the phone, Friday evening, I believe. He did share his concerns. I want all the information what we talked about, did talk about the vote and other issues. He did tell them what transpired during his time as chairman of the board. We as african people should always be thinking about our freedom. Since 1400, we should always be thinking about our freedom. Some of our people and some people are confused about freedom. Some people are confused about freedom, but some people are indoctrinated in a certain way where They begin to believe the propaganda thats fed to them. And some people believe in their own propaganda. Some people are handsome and then They begin to believe that They look so good that They have certain rights over other people. And They think their looks would get them places but in the real world, it dont work like that. Not how the real world works. When people get real, then people need real results, real solutions, real suggestions, people need real representation. They need real transparency. They need real accountability. They dont need talking heads. Who would think in this city, who would think in this world, who would think in this world, in this whole world, with everything thats going on from immigration to separate, the separation from rights, who would think in this world that an african man, blacker than me, would stand before this podium and say we dont need accountability. We dont need subpoena power. Who would say that? Who in their right mind would say that? You can get Jeff Vinik to come down here and say that. He probably could because everything right with him. You could get The Police to say that, because They know everything is not right with them. Quite familiar with the fact that everything is not right with them. They know how They abuse inside the communities. They know how They abuse US when They get US one on one. They know how to abuse US in public. They know, They are supposed to uphold the constitution. They are supposed to uphold the bill of rights. They are supposed to uphold the articles of confederation. They are supposed to oppose 1776 independence and 250 years later and we Black people down here still begging for independence and The Police still catch you on the street and ask you, May I search you? May I search your car? They know good and mfing well you couldnt ask them that question. You couldnt ask them that question if They had a dead body inside their home. You couldnt ask them. They say, no, go and get a subpoena. So thats what The People need. The People need transparency. We need something, and everyone should have a voice. But what you heard before me right here, thats not a voice. Thats someone thats influenced and corrupt by a corrupt system that were trying to get straight. The People need subpoena power. The City needs it because The City needs transparency and They need it. They should be up here asking.
Joseph Citro 9:42:36AM
Thank you. Im Rosio. Im a member of the Students For A Democratic Society, and thats exactly what we want. I believe that we should be able to vote on subpoena power and give the Crb the ability to investigate and have their own lawyers. As he said, the person before me, we know that Tampa Bay is kind of known for running like a mob. They keep crimes hidden, secret and only comes to light after we push and push and maybe someone has some video evidence. So if we want accountability and justice from Tampa Bay pd, were going to need some transparency. I hope you guys allow US to vote on subpoena power in Crb. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:43:35AM
Thank you. Enya. Me and my family lived in Tampa the past 15 years. Im here to speak in support of letting people vote on giving the Civilian Review Board subpoena power and independent counsel. In my time living here, I can remember countless moments where the Police Department betrayed the public trust in so many words. Accountability increases the public trust. Every job requires accountability. I think its extra important when the decisions you make at your job are a matter of life and death. This is a democratic demand. Its letting the people vote on it. I think its very undemocratic that other forces in the City Of Tampa are trying to sway you guys from taking this decision away from the people. So I hope that you will make the right decision and allow the people of Tampa to decide. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 9:44:29AM
Thank you. My name is Simon Roe. Ive spoken here before. Im here to speak in favor of this ballot measure. I want to clarify, like, some things about subpoena power based on what ive heard personally. Basically, we want regular people who live in Tampa to have a chance to vote on this. Youve seen me before. Youve seen a couple of people here before. Were lucky to be able to come to these but not everyone is. Something that a lot of people in Tampa are able to do is access a ballot box right now, so that would be a perfect way to get their feedback. While we are advocating for subpoena power, we are well aware that because of the law enforcement Officer bill of rights, you cannot subpoena police officers directly. Were aware of that but we still want the Crb to have subpoena power. We still think it would be important for them to have it. Also heard mention that subpoena power is some outlandish, strange thing for like a public body to have when several departments of the city have it, the Civil Service Board, the Human Rights Board, the Code Enforcement board. Like even the subpoena power is what City Council has, I think. Imagine if someone insinuated that because you all have the power you would violate peoples rights. No, thats not what this is. It is a very common feature of our justice system. Its not a violation of rights to subpoena people. But when people dont know about it and its hyped up as this big evil thing, it is a fairly commonsense demand. Thats why several other cities here in Florida have subpoena power. I think its something important to have. To speak more personally because thinking back like the Crb members' comments about the hurt, like, people do get hurt by police. In 2021, I was arrested for trespassing, and when I was arrested, during a pat-down, the Officer grabbed the pecker I had in my pants and squeezed it. It was very violating. It really upset me as a transperson. It did not make me feel safe in my own body. This is not something unique to me. This is something a lot of people experience. Im just one person. And even here in Tampa, like Jenny De Leon who was murdered, a year before her murder was choked out and tased by Hcso Officer. And we didnt even see the body cam footage. We didnt even know what happened until someone had to get that information. Someone put in an office request and tally. Please, let our stories be heard. Let US vote.
Joseph Citro 9:47:42AM
Thank you. My name is Gia Davila. Im here with Tampa Bay students for a Democratic Society as well. Here to speak in support of subpoena power on the ballot. What are we as students, as community members supposed to do when the cops dont keep US safe, when the cops hurt US and attack US, when they dont keep our families safe. Police accountability is the only solution to this lack of justice. What is wrong with police accountability? What is wrong with the people having a say over who polices them? Subpoena power is a very basic necessity that the people clearly support in a vast majority. Like so many people said, were skipping school. Were skipping work. This is not like a fun day at the park for US. And people clearly support this. Militarized Police -- sorry, doesnt keep US safe. It doesnt keep the people of Tampa safe, but police accountability can be. And this is the first step towards that, so why shouldnt the people be allowed to vote to keep themselves safe?
Joseph Citro 9:48:56AM
Thank you. Kelly Benjamin, 504 -- street, Tampa. I just wanted to echo some of the comments from our fellow members of the community and provide some historical perspective. Many of you were here several years ago when this issue was first brought in front of the Council. Seven years ago when Chairman Reddick stood -- sat where you are sitting today, Councilman Citro, and the motivation for accountability and creating a better relationship with the Police Department came out of some of the issues that were in the news at the time. Obviously biking while Black, but also incidences that occurred with interactions with the Police Department, the horrible death of Jason Westcott and a few other people that have been in the news. This latest attempt -- and its really unfortunate and shocking that its been seven years that the community has been asking this board for a sense of accountability, a sense of a say in the way communities are policed. Thats all it is, to create a better relationship. I know some of you up there are scholars of local history, the history of Tampa, the history of our nation. Weve seen some progress, I hope, over the last 50 years, during the Civil Rights Movement, during what transpired here where as Councilman Viera has pointed out on his crusade to create lynching memorials in the city, we know the history of this city and we know there is a legacy that still exists with parts of the establishment here. A legacy with segments. I think we can do better, and this is an opportunity that all of you have as elected representatives to help create the kind of community that we want to raise our children in moving forward. This is not and it should not be seen and its so sad that some people see this as some big adversarial thing that is anti-law enforcement, that somehow fringe. It shows that you live in a little bit of a bubble when you say there are fringe groups out here and try and marginalize all the people out here who have been asking for some very clear standards. Subpoena power, and I think there are some issues that maybe the City Attorney should be considering in terms of who this City Attorney represents here. I urge this Council to move the city forward today with an opportunity to vote on this issue and finally get -- and I dont want to get into why that original push failed seven years ago when Buckhorn created an executive order and put all of his people on that Council. So there is a reason why today maybe some of these investigations arent happening properly on the Crb. I think its important to address that issue and important to address the issue that we had appointments that are pushed and tugged by Mayor Castor to make sure that certain people are not allowed on that board. I think its unfortunate. Lets move this city forward today. Have a discussion about ways that we can provide some accountability and really think about the sentiments of the President of the Naacp and the Aclu who came before you.
Joseph Citro 9:52:38AM
Thank you, Mr. Benjamin. Kimberly Heineman, chief assistant state attorney in the State Attorney's Office in the 13th district. Im here today to address the issue of subpoena power with the Citizens Review Board. Our office stands for the same principles as the city of transparency and review. However, today, what I want to talk about, I know Mr. Wiseman, who is our executive director, has talked with the council before, has talked with some of you individually before. My purpose here today is to talk about how this affects the State Attorney's Office and the function of the State Attorney's Office. In addition to the issues that some of the other speakers have talked about where you have to navigate what subpoena power means, which is that transactional immunity? Is it use immunity? What is the judicial oversight over that? Almost every one of these cases involves a corresponding prosecution. And a civil body acting and taking statements from people creates problems with our cases. Thats simply the bottom line. We have had this position since we began the discussion about subpoena power I think really in 2017. That position remains the same today. Our concerns correspond to our ability to prosecute offenders, bring people to justice and do the work that the State Attorney's Office is required to do here in Hillsborough County. Id like to thank you for this opportunity to address you this morning as well as thank you for the work you do for our great city. Were honored to serve with you and the members of the Tampa Police Department in serving the citizens of Hillsborough County.
Orlando Gudes 9:54:31AM
Mr. Chairman?
Joseph Citro 9:54:32AM
Councilman Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 9:54:33AM
Are you representing the State Attorney's Office?
Orlando Gudes 9:54:36AM
I have one question.
Martin Shelby 9:54:37AM
If I can, Mr. Chairman, We have the Facilitator. We are a bit off the road map that She was going to be using. If its councils pleasure, its the time, We do have her here for the purpose of facilitating.
Joseph Citro 9:54:55AM
Thank you, Mr. Shelby. You have been with the State Attorney's Office how many years?
Joseph Citro 9:55:00AM
Thats representing the Past State Attorney. Never changed.
Joseph Citro 9:55:08AM
Please continue, Councilman Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 9:55:09AM
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Shelby. My question would be today, if youre saying this -- what makes what youre saying different than what dade and Broward and some of the others are doing? Seems like a conflict here if youre telling me it will hinder versus they have been doing it. Im trying to figure out the difference, maam. This is for the public. Councilman Gudes, I cant speak to the other jurisdictions and what they do because I dont operate there. I can only tell you that our office has given this careful consideration and talked about how it affects our cases and thats what were here to address this morning.
Orlando Gudes 9:55:44AM
Thank you, maam. My name is Ej Salcines. I have been asked to share with you some of my experiences in my career in law enforcement here. I was asked earlier in the proceeding, does the City Council, in your opinion, have authority to create a subpoena power? I would think that under your home rule your attorneys will tell you yes, it is established that you have authority to create a subpoena power. However, remember the word "subpoena" implies that there is some judicial authority behind the compelling authority to bring someone to testify. Therefore, yes, you May create a power to subpoena. However, remember, your power extends only as far as the limits of your city. Therefore, your subpoena power is not beyond the limits of the City Of Tampa. Thats why historically for over 150 years, municipalities have depended on two major investigatory agencies in every one of our 67 counties. Number one, the resident State Attorney's Office has the judicial authority to issue subpoena, not just to testify, but to produce documents and records called subpoena duces tecum. The second most powerful is your county grand jury. The county grand jury exists in every one of our 67 counties. They generally are presided by the chief Judge of the circuit. Therefore, at any time that the Tampa Police Department, the Plant City Police Department, the Temple Terrace Police Department, the Sheriff's Office, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Florida Highway Patrol, the Florida Wildlife Commission, whenever they need a subpoena power, the door in the State Attorney's Office is open and subpoenas are issued. Assume that the city creates a subpoena power for the Citizens Review Board on which ive had the privilege of serving as one of the founding members of that board. What if the person refuses to appear? What if the person refuses to bring forth the documents that you are subpoenaing as the Citizens Review Board? You do not have authority to conduct a contempt proceeding. That is done exclusively by an independent judicial functionary that we call a Judge. Therefore, the subpoena power is based on a judicial function and not an administrative function. So sooner or later, if you created the subpoena power, your board would have to ask a Judicial Officer in the circuit or the county to intervene on behalf of the City Of Tampa. The next thing that I want to also call your attention --
Joseph Citro 10:00:02AM
With respect your honor, with respect, ill give you 30 seconds more. With respect, your honor, ill give you 30 seconds more. In closing, let me say that with the subpoena power you cannot forget the constitutional guarantees that are guaranteed to all citizens under the constitution of the State of Florida as well as the constitution of the united states, namely the fifth amendment. If someone refuses, you cannot compel the person. If you were in front of a Judicial Officer, then other issues could come up. I alert you that by giving a Local Committee a subpoena power, the other problem is the mine field that you are creating for that agency. That is, by subpoenaing someone or documents, are you creating a transactional immunity, a use immunity, limited immunity, plenary immunity? Those are issues that are very complicated and I urge you, have your City Attorney review those issues with you so that you can proceed constitutionally and in compliance with your wishes to serve the community. Thank you very much.
Joseph Citro 10:01:41AM
Thank you, your honor. Brandon Barkley, vice president Tampa Pba. Im here today to discuss the Crb. For two years we helped negotiate the Crb rules and here we are yet again in voiding that entire two-year debate. Lets cut straight to the facts. The Crb has not requested or voted on giving their self their own power. You just heard from the chairman himself who said they dont even need it. A request did show Mr. Shaw of the Aclu and Mr. Valdez on the Crb have been working extensively together to push Mr. Shaw's agenda. This is clearly laid out in the e-mails which indicates there are telephone calls and zoom meetings which take place regularly between the two. Mr. Shaw's claim that its for transparency, that this transparency narrative is false. This is about advancing the Aclu, its attorney and one Crb members opinion. The agenda is fairness. Its fairness to everybody except for the Tampa Police Officer. And for that, were going to amend our entire charter. There are six levels of review for a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. I noticed nobody here clearly laid that out for you. Criminal Justice Training Commission, Internal Affairs, Criminal Investigations Bureau, State Attorney's Office, Fdle, all of these organizations watch over everything thats done. For them to say theres zero accountability is laughable. Of the 47 Crb cases that have been heard, only four of those cases resulted in a different recommendation. Of the 47 cases, only four of them was there a disagreement that currently have been heard. Mr. Shaw is vehemently opposed and hostile to all law enforcement of any kind, as is evident by his recent facebook post mocking deceased master patrol officer Jesse Madsen's memorial. James Shaw referenced deceased master police officer Jesse Madsen's memorial dedication as the following, and I quote. This is just the beginning. They are also going to rename an elementary school after him in his honor, then they are going to relocate a memorial sculpture to the newly renamed elementary school right in front of the door. I hope that they do the same thing for me when I die. So please remember that when you support this, youre supporting Mr. Shaw who makes no attempt to hide his disdain for the Tampa Police Department. If this is how he speaks about officers killed in the line of duty, imagine how hes going to treat them once you hand over the Crb to him. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:04:24AM
Thank you. May I?
Joseph Citro 10:04:29AM
Please, Mr. Shaw, please be seated. Is there anyone else within chambers that wishes to speak during public comment? Carlos Valdez. I am a member of the Crb. I just want to share and state that my communication with Mr. Shaw was to get educated on different items and aspects as it relates to the discussion as it relates to putting these issues on the ballot. So we had just one discussion. It was not a relatively long discussion or any type of planning. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:05:04AM
Thank you. Is there anyone within Chambers that would like to make a public comment? Seeing none --
Joseph Citro 10:05:15AM
We do have online. Thank you. Mr. Deangelo. Are you online? Mr. Deangelo? We will go to Ms. Poynor. Ms. Poynor, are you online? Ms. Poynor? We will go to ms. Carroll ann Bennett. Ms. Bennett, are you online? Im sorry. Can you hear me?
Joseph Citro 10:05:55AM
Is this ms. Poynor? Stephanie Poynor. I found it quite interesting something that happened before this meeting that ive really never seen before. The mayor and the former mayor posted about it on social media. Kind of shocking to me. I want to talk about something completely different than what most folks talked about. I have to say im with those folks being concerned about whats going on behind the scenes in our city without having any ability to make that happen. The individuals personally offended by charter amendments might be put on the ballot -- im sorry, as individuals personally offended -- okay. Forget it. Im sick and tired of one person denying the voters' voice at the ballot. Offer transportation twice. Andrew Warren's removal, once. And, of course, Councilman Dingfelder's forced resignation. Isnt that enough bullying from one person for the voters of this city, for the voters of the county? We need to get away from the thought that one person gets to dictate terms to everyone in our area. I look at the items on the agenda and the list that Mr. Shelby has submitted with full understanding behind each request. If you dont understand why someone is asking for some of these amendments, maybe its time for you to pay more attention to whats going on in our local government. There are so many important items to be addressed today, but my passion lies with the absolute need to deal with the ethics investigations that have cost our city $325,000 over the last year or so. We have a Nonpartisan Ethics Commission, but the investigations of both City Councilman Gudes and City Councilman Dingfelder ignored that commission. Why? Thats what I want to know. I want to know who had that investigation started. How is that legal when the purse strings of this city are held by the people who are sitting on that dais? The comment in social media about four of you folks were on last years charter review, I would argue that likely you guys know better than anyone because you were on the charter review why these amendments need to be made. The world is a different place since 2019. Weve lived through a pandemic, Black Lives Matter Movement, Me Too Movement, housing crisis, hurricanes etta, ian and more. As a teacher of history, we had the articles of confederation and They were crap. They were so bad They had to be trashed and we had some of the best thinkers in the history of our country rewrote a new document called the constitution, and it still has amendments. So why the push back on amending something thats not currently working I just dont understand it. I would also like to note if the Naacp didnt somebody give Them a hundred thousand dollars out of the budget? If They are a fringe organization, maybe somebody should look into that further, but im kind of thing that legitimizing the Naacp by giving Them $100,000 of our tax money kind of makes the statement that They are I think from a real issue for me. Have a good day. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:09:32AM
Thank you. Ms. Bennett, are you online? My name is Carroll Ann Bennett. I dont know what the solution is to all the problems, but I can tell you what the problems are and how concerned I am about them and how I believe something needs to be done about it. Im very concerned that three council members were attacked and that coincidentally the three council members had a similar voting pattern. Im concerned that slap lawsuits will be used to remove council members who are only doing their jobs for the citizens. Im concerned that lawsuits are being weaponized to put fear in elected officials. Im afraid that the weapon of crushing legal fees will be used to control our elected officials. We must do something that would protect the independence of our elected officials so they can do their job. We must take action to defend them so they are not afraid to vote the way they think is the right way to vote. Im concerned that $300,000, which, by the way, is half The City's annual sidewalk fund, was spent on one complaint by one person that had not filed a lawsuit. There was no sworn testimony. There was no cross. Examination. There was a written request from the employee begging The City to stop the investigation. If a Corporation settled a complaint like that with no lawsuit, no sworn testimony, no cross-examination, and a written request to stop, the stockholders would sue. Tax money was spent on $100,000 in legal fees. We have an Ethics Commission. Why wasnt this sent to them? Id like to know how many other complaints against The City have been settled this way, and this is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know how many other complaints against The City have been settled this way? Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:11:52AM
Thank you. Is Mr. Deangelo online?
The Clerk 10:11:58AM
Chair, Mr. Deangelo did not sign on this morning, so that would conclude public comments.
Joseph Citro 10:12:03AM
Thank you very much. I also have Ms. Mccaskill on the list, but I believe she appeared earlier and spoke in Council Chambers. Councilman Carlson.
Martin Shelby 10:12:16AM
Mr. Chairman.
Bill Carlson 10:12:18AM
Can I just speak first? In response to some of this and also the tweets last night. Unfortunately for the Mayor and her predecessor, this is the United States and we have a separation of power in the United States. We believe in democracy in the United States. We believe in a balance of power in the United States. The people who formed our government and also formed the city and the state formed it in a way that there is a balance so one person couldnt control everything and so that the public would have adequate representation. That representation has not been able to be shown because of a lot of things that have happened inside the city. People come and talk about modifying the charter. Its always been the charter that the City Council could modify it. When we were on the Charter Review Commission, we added the Charter Review Commission coming back every ten years. Its not breaking the rules by doing that. Thats one of the ways. But the reason why im here and my concern today is there is a third way of editing the charter, and thats by prior opinions of prior city attorneys. They have made opinions that have in effect changed the charter. For example, the claim that City Council cant delegate subpoena power because we dont have it. Its in section 2.14. I can read it if you all want. We have it. Why would a City Attorney give a false opinion like that? They said that only the Mayor can name buildings. Thats not in the charter either. There are many, many claims that the City Attorney -- former city attorneys have made with two paragraphs effectively changing the charter. This is not democratic. Even if we vote on something today, it has to go before voters. The voters will decide this. Why not let voters have the decision. Its about much more than the crb here today. Its about the balance of powers and making sure that we have adequate legal representation for the voters that we represent and we have to undo these other things. Theres been a discussion about charter versus ordinance, and if the Legal Department is now going to make that claim today, I would say since weve been discussing this for more than a year, why havent they come forward before now and said, why dont you put these things in ordinances? They have not. We have to provide oversight. Unfortunately for the administration, City Council is tasked and voted to provide oversight. Why is it took six months for US to find out who made the decision to not put hanna avenue out for vote? Why took almost six months to figure out that the City Of Tampa is under the United States Justice Department civil rights investigation? Second time, biggest thing that happened in the city and took months to find out. Why is it last week I asked questions about the incendiary plant and staff wouldnt tell me the answers. Wouldnt tell me what the 10 year costs or the 30 year cost. The rome yard contract, couldnt get answers to it. Why is it when we ask questions about toilet to tap they give different answers and try to hide answers. The public wants US to provide oversight. To provide the oversight, we need proper legal counsel. Why is it there is lobbying? Why is it yesterday my aide had a City Attorney represented, TPD, and not a City Attorney representing City Council? City Attorney also represents City Council. The City Attorney is supposed to be objective in representing its clients or its supposed to make clear which client it is representing and that didnt happen in my briefing. I dont know about the rest of them. More importantly, why is the administration and Former Administration afraid? What are they afraid of. The tweets last night represent fear. Are they afraid well provide more oversight, afraid well get proper legal counsel? Afraid that the Legal Department will be objective and not skew it to what we want. Are they afraid well call them out on being lobbyists? We have four members of the Charter Review Commission here and two on legal staff. We have unique experience to be able to bring to the table today to edit some of the things, fix the problems so the public has proper representation. This is about the public, not US. Ultimately the public is going to decide. Why shouldnt the public decide these things? Ultimately we are all, I think, going up for election in March and maybe again in May. The voters are going to decide whether they agree with US today. They are going to decide about decisions were going to make. They are going to decide about whether we should have allowed lobbying within the city. They are going to ask US if we provide oversight. The Mayor is not going to decide whether we get reelected. In fact, the Mayor is probably below 50% in popularity right now. Thats why theres movement for millions of dollars to try to find somebody to run against her. Its time for US to represent this city and provide proper oversight and get legal counsel that represents US. Somebody mentioned a Corporation. If there was a Corporation and I found that my law firm was representing my opposition and working against me, I would fire them and sue them. I would make sure they get disbarred. If we dont amend this charter, were going down a path where well have big problems in this city because we cannot go on with bias counsel, bias coverage. We need to properly represent the city and Voters Of The City and we need proper legal counsel. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:17:20AM
Mr. Shelby, please. Chief Bennett, there were some serious questions asked. Would you like to answer any of those questions?
John Bennett 10:17:32AM
Good morning, Council. Good morning, chairman. Good morning, public. John Bennett, chief of staff. We are here for the public today, and I think over the last three years of this administration weve demonstrated that as an administration, I dont get into politics. I dont do tweets. I dont do social media. I just come in and work 15 hours a day along with a lot of my colleagues to try to get the city to move forward. Ill take literally three seconds and show something that I think is a picture of a thousand words. I asked for this picture and nobody else did. The reason I asked for it is because I went through the crb process with you, with the Police Department, with the public over an extended period of time. This was the signing ceremony where the Mayor, the Mayor stood down the process and moved together to bring an ordinance and an executive order and united. This is progress. Weve been showing progress. Im asking what is the gap that we havent closed? Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:18:40AM
Mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby 10:18:44AM
Council had directed me to hire a Facilitator to facilitate the process. And the process was set forth by the Facilitator and it was done for a specific purpose and, frankly, Council has invested in having the Facilitator to control the process and achieve the outcomes which havent, quite frankly, and the overview of the process hasnt even been discussed yet. That being said, Mr. Chairman, respectfully to you and to the rest of Council, the purpose of having a Facilitator is to be able to have the Facilitator control the process with councils assent. And up until this point, I dont believe she has even stepped to the podium and weve already had public comment and weve had comments of City Council and staff. Its councils pleasure how they want to conduct this meeting. But it took some time --
Joseph Citro 10:19:38AM
Mr. Shelby, therein lies the question that I am going to ask our facilitator. Thank you. Ms. Schroeder. Good morning. Come on up to the podium, please. I have two sets of directions, and im wondering which one you would prefer. We have for Mr. Shelby a list of 21 items that were e-mailed to US to be discussed. We also have the purpose and the proposed process of the charter discussion. And the number one thing up there says, each City Council member will review one by one their list of suggested charter amendments. How would you like to proceed as the facilitator that is being paid with tax dollars? Before I address that, if I May, let me just explain my role and certainly good morning to the commissioners, chair, and to council attorney shelby and members of the administration. My role as the facilitator is neutral. I am neutral to content. I did help in design the process and May make procedural suggestions. The content comes from you and, of course, from the public. If we could just for a moment, weve got a slide. There are simply two outcomes for today. As you can see that its to explore, discuss, and develop charter topics and then determine next steps. Along with those next steps, of course, will be a timeline. And we do have a memo that mentions the timeline to get it on the ballot. As chairman citro mentioned, weve got two ways to proceed. Either the order as they are in the charter sections or those commissioners who wish in turn to make suggestions. My understanding also is that instead of a supermajority, that we have a vote of four in order to indicate that that particular issue will go forward. Am I correct? I see heads nodding. Thank you. For the purposes of keeping this very visual, we have a real-time note-taker that will be putting information up on the screen. That will be wordsmithed later because you know wordsmithing can be a very delicate process, and wordsmithing will come out of Mr. Shelby's office and will fit the timetable that has been laid out. Back to your original question. Let me put it to the group how you would like to proceed. How many of you by show of a vote would like to go in order as it is laid out in the charter? I know most of US have a print copy. Am I correct? Mine happens to be supplement 135. You May have supplement 120. Nevertheless, we can go by sections. How many of you would prefer to go in that manner simply in order and then whoever has that issue would simply raise his or her hand?
Joseph Citro 10:23:12AM
Orderly fashion. Yes, maam. I cant tell whats in your head. Yes, Mr. Viera.
Luis Viera 10:23:23AM
Yes, maam, thank you. Can you list the second option just so were all -- could you restate the two options? One option is that whomever wishes to speak raises his or her hand and said, heres my issue, and we proceed in that fashion. The second and perhaps I have said these in the opposite manner, but nevertheless, the second one is simply to go in order of how the charter is laid out. If thats your issue, thats when you would speak. Either way youll get a chance to speak.
Charlie Miranda 10:24:01AM
Both set --
Joseph Citro 10:24:06AM
They do. In my opinion, if we go by the list we have here, we wont be going round-robin. We will talk about each discussion in an orderly fashion. However, it is the pleasure of Council. How many wish to go in the order as its laid out? All right. We have enough votes for that. Due to the time, its 10:30. Ill call for a stretch break. Well come back in ten minutes and proceed -- yes, Mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby 10:24:40AM
When you say the list, what list are you referring to? In the charter?
Martin Shelby 10:24:48AM
You are holding up two different documents. Thats why I want to be clear on it. Mr. Chairman, May I just address very briefly the 21 items?
Joseph Citro 10:24:56AM
The 21 items. Thats what I was referring to. 21 items you sent to US.
Martin Shelby 10:25:02AM
That is not an exhaustive list, as a matter of fact. That list, as a matter of fact, I hadnt even intended to speak to it unless it was interest of Council. Quite frankly, this was a list compiled from discussions of charter-related issues over the course of the term of this Council. And my basis was, at the direction of the Chair at the time, whereas concerns were raised with the language of the charter or issue taken with interpretations of the language within the charter. Now, Council, I do not intend to advocate for any of these. They are not mine. They were raised by Council over time, a basis of certain issues that are overarching. One of them being primarily the separation of powers. Its not my intention to advocate for this list, and I will assure you that this list is not necessarily reflective of what this particular Council wants to discuss.
Joseph Citro 10:26:06AM
Please, one second.
Joseph Citro 10:26:11AM
Actually, the facilitator. Councilman Carlson, give me one second. Please and thank you. It took the Charter Review Commission 13 months to go through the charter. I do not believe we can accomplish that in one day here. That is why when Mr. Shelby sent me this list of discussions that were going on during the course, thats what I thought the direction we were going to be going. However, since I have some council members that are shaking their heads, lets try and accomplish getting 13 months' worth of work into one day. Councilman Carlson. When I said go through the charter simply meant going in order without going through each section. So, for example, we would start with article I, section 101, 102, 103, 104, which of those would someone like to speak on? Thats what I meant.
Joseph Citro 10:27:21AM
Councilman Carlson.
Joseph Citro 10:27:24AM
Councilman Carlson.
Bill Carlson 10:27:26AM
One of the tweets the Mayor sent last night was complaining that Mr. Shelby's memo went out at 1 am. Yesterday. Our rules that we agreed to a couple of months ago always said that each City Council member would present their own. We dont have an obligation to let the Mayor know in advance what were going to present because that is the process we agreed to. However, I want to let the public know and just for disclosure to everybody, even if we approve something today, the Mayor still can veto it. If the Mayor vetoes it, then it comes back to US and we have to get five votes to still move it forward. If we have, we originally -- I suggested we have five votes for something or we dont push it forward. But we said four today. Something gets four votes, goes to the Mayor, she vetoes and comes back to US. Even if we approve it and the Mayor doesnt object, then it has to go for two readings, public readings. For anybody who thinks were going to put something on the ballot today, we cannot. For anybody who is concerned that something is going to be squeezed through without public oversight, weve got at least three points of public oversight beyond this today. Thank you.
Joseph Citro 10:28:36AM
Thank You. Youre asking for a ten-minute recess?
Joseph Citro 10:28:40AM
Thank you. Lets take a ten-minute recess. [ sounding gavel [recess] sounding gavel
Joseph Citro 10:42:03AM
City Council is back in session. Roll call, please.
Guido Maniscalco 10:42:10AM
Here.
Charlie Miranda 10:42:11AM
Here.
Lynn Hurtak 10:42:12AM
Here.
Bill Carlson 10:42:14AM
Here.
Orlando Gudes 10:42:15AM
Here.
Luis Viera 10:42:16AM
Here.
Joseph Citro 10:42:18AM
Here. Council Members, without objection, we will break for lunch at 12, or as close to thereafter. Thank you very much. Ms. Schroeder.
Anne Schroeder 10:42:32AM
Welcome back. Just to reiterate then with our process, what We have found is it tends to help if We have a few protocols that We can work with. And We have those up on the screen as well as over here on the chart. And I will just go through those very, very quickly. Obviously, were good at sharing the floor. Allow each person to finish comments so that were not talking over one another. Strive toward economy of words. If at all possible, be succinct. I will ask you when its time to give your comments, to give something in the form of a headline to basically say heres my topic and then fill in and heres my rationale for why I would like that change. And then We will have a discussion. Well ask that you just speak from your own knowledge and own information. In other words, withholding personalizing comments that from your experience this is how you would like to present your information and, of course, working toward desired outcomes which is to get through as much as We possibly can, as Chairman Citro said, rather than 13, well do this in a few hours. Breaking at lunch, at noon, is what were working toward. Just a reminder also on the timeline. There is a memo that states the first reading is December 1, possibly the second reading December 15 or January 5th. It goes to the printer January the 20th to be on the ballot March the 7th. And wordsmithing will take place through Mr. Shelby's office. We have real-time note-taking, and she will change that as needed as We go through it. So it will appear and then you will see changes based on other kinds of comments.
Martin Shelby 10:44:32AM
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Im sorry, Ms. Schroeder. You said wordsmithing would come through my office? Are you saying that the ballot language would be prepared through --
Anne Schroeder 10:44:42AM
Wordsmithing before you bring it back to the first reading, there has to be possibly wordsmithing. Were not assuming that well get the final language today. We will get as close as We can.
Martin Shelby 10:44:54AM
You and I had not discussed that in terms of that.
Anne Schroeder 10:45:00AM
There will be wordsmithing. Lets put it that way.
Martin Shelby 10:45:03AM
There has to be wordsmithing, but I assumed, at least speaking with Ms. Zelman that that would be through the staff of the Legal Department.
Joseph Citro 10:45:11AM
Councilman Carlson, you are recognized.
Bill Carlson 10:45:14AM
In some of the original motions we made to this, we said we would like the City Attorney hire outside counsel because the City Attorney is backed up. Theres no way well hit the deadline if they do it themselves. Ultimately they have to review it but they would have to hire outside counsel with input from our attorney.
Anne Schroeder 10:45:31AM
That sounds fine. As long as we recognize that wordsmithing will be done and that were not going to spend the time to necessarily look at every grammatical issue, every comma, but to get the main essence of what youre attempting to put across.
Bill Carlson 10:45:46AM
I think the City Attorney offered US to pick the attorney we want from the list of preapproved attorneys. If were not prepared to do that today, maybe we could do that on Thursday.
Anne Schroeder 10:45:57AM
Thank you. Understandable. So if We could, as We mentioned, go in order simply as the charter is laid out and whoever wishes to speak on anything from article I incorporation and form of government. We have four sections. Who would like to speak to one of those? Raise your hand and let US know what your topic is and We will proceed. We have purpose -- im looking at supplement number 135. I think you May have supplement 120.
Martin Shelby 10:46:35AM
If you can go by sections, that would make it clear.
Anne Schroeder 10:46:39AM
Section 1 is purpose. Two is Body Corporate. Three is powers. Four is separation of powers.
Martin Shelby 10:46:48AM
If I May ask, Mr. Chairman, just so that im clear, its councils desire to review the entire charter during this workshop?
Joseph Citro 10:46:57AM
No.
Lynn Hurtak 10:46:59AM
We already talked about this.
Martin Shelby 10:47:01AM
Is it going to be --
Lynn Hurtak 10:47:02AM
Isnt She leading this meeting? Im confused. Who is allowing me to talk here?
Martin Shelby 10:47:08AM
Thats the question.
Lynn Hurtak 10:47:10AM
I thought She was taking over. Are you taking over?
Joseph Citro 10:47:13AM
Yes, She is.
Lynn Hurtak 10:47:14AM
She can recognize me. No offense. Im frustrated because We already talked about this. Were just going down the line. Section one, anybody have something on one, two, three or four? No. Okay. Lets move on. Sorry. I dont mean to be snippy. We have a lot to cover and We already discussed this. Just before We went to break. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 10:47:35AM
So nothing in section one.
Orlando Gudes 10:47:38AM
Yes, 1.04. Am I recognized, maam?
Anne Schroeder 10:47:44AM
Yes.
Orlando Gudes 10:47:46AM
Section 104, you talk about separation of powers. Mr. Shelby has laid out the question and the example. The question so the public can know, question of how to resolve dispute between the Mayor and City Council, dispute interpretation of language in section 501, 5.01a, The City Attorney shall be the final legal representative for the city. The example of -- language in the event of dispute between the Mayor and City Council which cannot be reconciled, the city shall utilize independent counsel in court of competent jurisdiction. Weve seen that happen several times. I think when there is a conflict, sometimes I dont want to say that all information has been given to this council, but at times we have to fish ourselves. I think the battle sometimes of finding fact versus fiction doesnt happen all the time. I would suggest that we look at making sure that we have that. So you have the City Attorney's office. But if there is a conflict with the interpretation of the Legal Department, with City Council, and the mayors office, I believe that another jurisdiction should look at that to give US a competent decision on what the interpretation should be.
Anne Schroeder 10:48:56AM
Thank you, Mr. Gudes. So in referring to the document that Mr. Shelby had put together, you are reading the curative language.
Orlando Gudes 10:49:03AM
Yes, maam.
Anne Schroeder 10:49:04AM
That youre saying thats your rationale.
Orlando Gudes 10:49:07AM
Yes, maam.
Anne Schroeder 10:49:09AM
Other discussion? Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 10:49:12AM
I agree. I think that makes perfect sense. My only disagreement is I do not -- I believe Council Member -- I dont remember who spoke about it this morning, about sending to the Ag. I disagree. I think it should be an outside independent counsel that would arbitrate a dispute between the Mayor and Council. So thats what I would like to see, which I believe is this language, but I just wanted to reiterate that I would prefer that and not the ags office.
Anne Schroeder 10:49:45AM
Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 10:49:46AM
Should we raise our hand and You call on US?
Anne Schroeder 10:49:52AM
Yes.
Bill Carlson 10:49:52AM
I was something that I would like to propose for section 6 as a new section, 6.09, But its relevant or an alternative to what Mr. Shelby put down. Should I read this one now or should we hold the one that was just proposed and discuss them both under 6. Ill read mine. I suggest new section 6.0 -- the issue here is that when the City Attorney gives an edict, which sounds like a Supreme Court ruling, it sounds like they are the judicial branch of the city, which they are not. And if we disagree with it, for example, only the Mayor has the right to name buildings. Its ridiculous. Its not in any way described in the charter. How do we resolve that? The only way to resolve is if we collectively file a lawsuit or individually file a lawsuit. I want to avoid lawsuits. The way I do it in the Private Sector is by setting up an Arbitration Panel. If we go before a Judge, I presume, unless legal has a different opinion, we have to file a lawsuit to go before a Judge. Heres what I recommend. We obviously need a conflict resolution. Everybody who is complaining about what we do with the charter. Number one, we need a conflict resolution process because otherwise well have lawsuits. We have City Council members who have been attacked and not protected by the City Attorney which they should have been by charter. The charter clearly says in section a under section 2, defend the rights and interest of the city or any officer of the city in any suit or prosecution for any act in the discharge of official duties. The City Attorney has not done that. What is our option? Individually we can sue as a collective body we can sue. What I suggest so that we dont allow the City Attorney to become the judicial branch and change the charter without a vote of the public, we should have a conflict resolution clause. Im suggesting 6.09. Here is the language -- sorry. Here is the language I propose. Should a conflict arise between City Council and the Mayor or between either party and the City Attorney, such conflict should be resolved in a quick, objective, and collegial manner so as to best represent the interest of the city -- of the residents of Tampa. In the event of a conflict, the two parties, under coordination by the City Attorney, will appoint an Arbitration Panel consisting of three arbitrators who will be jointly selected by the two parties, either through their attorneys or outside counsel appointed by the City Attorney, the two parties will represent their case to the Arbitration Panel. The Arbitration Panel will give their judgment on the matter and both parties bound by the ruling. I think the choices we go before a Judge or go before the Arbitration Panel or call the Attorney General, but all of those -- the Judge and the Attorney General escalate some things, the decision about who can name buildings, its ridiculous that former City Attorney made that an edict. And we have to figure out how we can navigate this. Its easier -- in the Private Sector, both sides pick three arbitrators. That way its clear that they are objective. Whats happened in the past is City Attorney will pick an outside attorney. But that attorney reports to the City Attorney, the City Attorney reports to the Mayor, and there is bias in that process. The public wants it to be objective. So we either need a process to go before a Judge or we need a process to go before an Arbitration Panel. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 10:53:13AM
So in following up with Mr. Gudes' comments, you would like to add a piece to that curative language.
Bill Carlson 10:53:22AM
Whether in section one or section six, we need to choose one or the other. We cannot -- if we do anything today, we need a conflict resolution policy because were head toward multiple lawsuits right now. The only way to protect the public, when the -- staff last week would not give US the information we asked about the incendiary plant. They wont give US accurate information about the pure project, toilet to tap. They wont give US the information we need. The only option we have and then when the City Attorney is defending them and not defending City Council, the only choice we have is to sue. Thats not good for the taxpayers. We shouldnt have to sue to get transparency and accountability. So the choice is we either go to a Judge or we go to an arbitration panel. I dont know of another choice. But those are the two things id like to put on the table as options.
Anne Schroeder 10:54:13AM
Other discussion? Mr. Viera.
Luis Viera 10:54:14AM
Thank you, maam. My thoughts on a lot of issues that were discussing today, I guess on procedure, not necessarily on substance, is that were dealing with hefty issues changing the City charter. Again, im not opposed to changing the citys charter like ive said on issues with due consideration, et cetera, et cetera. We had a meeting about a month ago that we canceled at 11:00 saying we didnt have enough time. Moved it to today. Now were dealing with a lot of issues upon first normal impression, right? That May be right, May be wrong, May be misguided. May be correct. May be reactive, May not be. Just the consideration procedurally that were getting just bothers me. This does not include the crb changes, by the way, which have been around for years. People are familiar with this issue. We can deal with those issues today and give our thoughts, et cetera, et cetera. But on some of these larger procedural issues, I think this, I think that, were trying to cram potentially a size 46 waist into size 32 pants right now with these issues. Thats what bothers me. The procedural issue, the time given. Should be more thoughtful and more hefty to such issues. Again, that does not include the crb. That should be taken care of today. People here for that, et cetera. Just a concern that I have. Not saying ill vote no based upon that, but just something that weighs upon me and I think should weigh upon reasonable folks. My opinion. Thank you, maam.
Anne Schroeder 10:55:44AM
Yes, understandable, that when there is a time constraint, meaning we have a day, we have supposedly until this afternoon and we would like to accomplish -- you would like to accomplish as much as possible. Its not the final language as we have mentioned earlier. So if you were to add anything to the curative language thats been suggested by Mr. Gudes for this, what would you add? Would you add something to that?
Luis Viera 10:56:12AM
Im looking at this, et cetera. Im not ready for a public comment on it yet on this particular proposal. Thats the whole issue. Its first impression. Got to think about it, et cetera. Talk to people who are professionals in the area, et cetera. Thats my whole objection. Its not anything dealing with you. Again, We had this issue scheduled a month ago and We left at 11:00. We could have used that time to deal with the issues, and now were having many of them upon first impression. Just something that bothers me. Again, procedure, not substance, in my opinion, excluding the crb issues. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 10:56:47AM
Yes. As your neutral facilitator, my comment is not on the content but on your process. Though from what im picking up, this is certainly a large issue. Mr. Gudes, would you like to add anything to that?
Orlando Gudes 10:57:04AM
Just pretty simple. Been here almost four years. Weve seen what happens. I dont see the big argument or have outside people that look at this anatomy. I think the suggestion Mr. Carlson just made could probably go along with that to counter that. I dont see that as a big issue to move something forward. Some of the things on our list are very small and can be dealt with today and be done with and the voters can look at it, come back first, second reading. But some of these things are very simple that can be tweaked and they need to be tweaked.
Anne Schroeder 10:57:39AM
Do I understand you to say in agreeing with Mr. Carlson, the issue about the judge or the Arbitration Panel?
Orlando Gudes 10:57:45AM
Yeah, I think that would be fair. Could cover some suits. I think that would be fair. Needed to resolve some of our issues. At times there are conflicts.
Anne Schroeder 10:57:56AM
Yes. Mr. Miranda.
Charlie Miranda 10:57:58AM
Thank you very much, Ms. Schroeder. Ive been listening and not saying much. Ive had the opportunity to work with Mayor Poe, Mayor Greco, Mayor Iorio, Mayor Buckhorn, and now Mayor Castor. They are all different. They all had a different attitude. They all have different personalities. Each one of them were different but they all had one thing in common. They wanted to make the city better than how they found it. They ran on that platform. You know what? That intuition of making it better, its where it got US where were at today. I dont see it, as most of City Council, other members see it. If I got to tell somebody to go he double hockey sticks, I go tell them right to their face. I dont need an arbitration. I dont need a person to try to smooth things over because I handle it one on one. Not in front of the media, not in front of the City Council to bring my city down. If I have a difference of opinion, and thats just my opinion, and im not saying my opinion is correct, I take it right to where its got to go. What I see coming here from the limited conversation weve had, were going to create a slower process to go even longer because now youll interject another layer of an arbitrator or a lawsuit. I havent heard of a lawsuit coming, but maybe some have. I dont twitter. I dont go on the internet. I dont do none of those things. I dont even watch national news. The opinion you get, somebody who hasnt been force fed to do it one way or the other. If there are lawsuits coming, let them come. Thats what the courts are for. But im not going to start setting bodies everywhere for everything we do to say we cant do this and cant do that and this is wrong and this is not quite like I want it. We have a problem, in my mind. The problem is that we have eight elected officials, and we work under the strong Mayor form of government. It doesnt mean that you cant change something if you have five votes. Anything the Mayor does with five votes, you can overrule the Mayor. Anything the council does that whoever the Mayor is, of the five, happened once with Poe. Happened in 1974 on a vote with a Union, Firefighters' pay. We agreed to a salary and the Mayor rejected it. He had the right to do that. On a 5-2 vote, he was overturned. So it does happen. All you need is five votes from elected officials to say yea or nay, no matter who the Mayor is. These things were going through now, and youre going to listen to a lot more, by the time were finished with all this, huh, youll be climbing a long ladder to hell because you aint going nowhere. Youve got to understand the system is this is a strong Mayor form of government. That doesnt mean that that person, the five ive had the pleasure of working with, can ramrod everything they want over you. That means that you have the right to negotiate with five votes. And thats your safety belt right there. Were going to do a lot of talking today and fine with me. But I also have today an appointment at 3:15 that I have got to keep and ive got to be there by 3:00. Thank you very much.
Anne Schroeder 11:01:43AM
Thank you. May we understand then that you do not support the curative language that the city shall utilize Independent Counsel in the Court Of Competent Jurisdiction.
Charlie Miranda 11:01:55AM
No, maam, I do not. You already have -- under the charter we have, heres where the problem is, one person, He Or She, State Attorney, He Or She handles both sides. Theres another conflict.
Anne Schroeder 11:02:10AM
Thank you. Mr. Carlson and then --
Bill Carlson 11:02:13AM
Yeah, the problem in this case is not necessarily between the City Council oops mayors office, although part of it is because the City Attorney reports to the Mayor, but we have opinions of the City Attorney which in effect change the charter. And what we need is a dispute resolution process to figure that out. Because when the City Attorney makes an opinion, its hard for City Council to overrule that. Example, we had a case recently where we found out that the administration had not put a very expensive project up for bid. Then we asked to review it and asked to discuss it and asked to potentially cancel the contract, the City Attorney informed US we couldnt even discuss that in this chamber. There was no way we could cure this without going to some other kind of legal counsel. The private legal counsel I got said that not only was the City Attorney's review, called the ccna process incorrect, but that the City Attorney's attempt to stifle US was incorrect as well. We should have been able to talk about it, but what the City Attorney said is we would each get individually sued and the City Attorney would not protect US if we even discussed it publicly. Theres got to be a way to resolve that. We cant allow our own attorney, imagine if you hire a private attorney for your company or individual, and your own attorney is working against you and threatening you, they can give the opinion but the attorney is not the judge and jury. I dont know what your process is. I would make a motion, I think we should vote these up and down. We dont need a long discussion. I would just recommend, unless council member Gudes wants to recommend something else, I want recommend that for conflict resolution, I recommend the paragraph I have here, a new 6.09. By the way, if we say yes, what this means is that the City Attorney will look at it. One-on-one conversations with the City Attorney and then presented back for first reading, the public and City Council will have plenty of opportunities to discuss it. But I would make a motion that we move this forward for the City Council, for the City Attorney's office to edit.
Anne Schroeder 11:04:17AM
Mr. Carlson has made a motion. The 6.09, On my supplement 135, I dont see that.
Bill Carlson 11:04:24AM
Can you hand that to her, please? Ill give you my copy.
Lynn Hurtak 11:04:29AM
It would be adding a section.
Anne Schroeder 11:04:31AM
Yes.
Bill Carlson 11:04:37AM
If We dont have a second, then its dead. We can move on to the next one.
Anne Schroeder 11:04:46AM
From what im being told from this side is that The City Attorney wishes to make a comment. May I do so? May we be brief? Thank you. And then we will reentertain the motion.
Andrea Zelman 11:05:06AM
City Attorney. Ill be very brief and focus on this issue. The City cannot sue itself. The City cannot bring a dispute to a court of competence jurisdiction if it is between two parts of The City. We can ask an independent counsel to provide an advisory opinion, which has been done in the past when The City Council and The City didnt agree on something and The City Attorney, I believe. But The City cannot sue itself. It is a waste of time to add language talking about bringing a disagreement between City Council and The City Attorney's office or City Council and the Mayor to a court of competent jurisdiction for an Arbitration Panel because it cannot be done.
Bill Carlson 11:05:53AM
Arbitration Panel would be in place of the City Attorney hiring Outside Attorney. We know hiring Outside Attorney ends up potentially having bias connected to it. Weve seen how investigations have gone and others directed by the administration through the City Attorney. And what we need to do is make sure we have competent objective legal advice for the City Council. I dont see how an Arbitration Panel is not a lawsuit.
Andrea Zelman 11:06:18AM
They resolve civil disputes. And you cannot have a civil dispute between --
Bill Carlson 11:06:24AM
The point is what is the process by which City Council can get a fair hearing? If City Attorney who reports to the Mayor hires an outside attorney, we know what the outcome of that is going to be.
Andrea Zelman 11:06:35AM
I wanted to be brief, but let me be clear. I represent the City Of Tampa. What I hear coming from you, Mr. Carlson, is differences of opinion that youve had with past city attorneys, with past mayors, with others. What I would suggest is that a charter amendment is not necessary to resolve differences of opinion.
Bill Carlson 11:07:06AM
Were going to find out in a second whether We have four votes.
Andrea Zelman 11:07:09AM
I would suggest talk to my office, talk to the Administration, let US set up meetings. We can resolve these issues. You and I had a discussion about the settlement process. I proposed solutions in a memorandum to You. You all approved a process regarding naming. If You dont like it now, we can readdress that. We dont have to amend the charter to resolve differences of opinion. But, again, I wanted to just stick to the very issue that was in front of US. We cannot take disagreements between branches of government to a dispute resolution process thats provided for civil litigation because the city cant sue itself.
Anne Schroeder 11:07:58AM
Thank you, Ms. Zelman.
Martin Shelby 11:07:59AM
If I can be recognized, please. Martin Shelby.
Anne Schroeder 11:08:05AM
Before that, I did see another hand. Yes, Mr. Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco 11:08:08AM
Thank you very much. And I appreciate everybodys comments. However, I feel like weve been at war with each other for about three and a half, almost four years. And its very unfortunate because all eight elected officials are good people. I know them all. I worked with them. I spend a lot of time with them. However, in discussing this issue, I know that Mr. Shelby, one of the hardest working individuals I know, is the first city -- first and only City Council attorney. We didnt have that position until 2004. Before that, we just had a city attorney. We had the opinion of that Individual and their office and the position was created for City Council to have their own separate independent attorney that is hired and fired by this body. The Mayor has no say. Having said that, there is a separation. There is the balance, in my opinion, because we now have two opinions. Unfortunately, in the last year, other things have happened with other council members that we May not agree with. And the charter is very clear in what it says in regards to the city defending council members and whatnot. I dont think that needs to be changed or updated. We just need to follow what is existing in the charter. Having this arbitrator, this third party panel to settle disagreements, I thought that was settled when we hired our City Council attorney. We have a different opinion here. Its an independent Individual from The Mayor's Office. So why is it that we have to have this Mediator essentially to settle conflict? I understand it, but at the same time I dont know if its necessary. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 11:10:01AM
Thank you. Mr. Shelby and then well go back to a motion.
Martin Shelby 11:10:12AM
The memo that I sent out seems to be changing the process. And that is an unfortunate, unintended, frankly, circumstance. Thats something that I think is -- when I suggest curative language, certainly I did not -- it was an example. It would have to be vetted. Im looking more at the issue of lets say, for instance, separation of powers. When I look at the separation of powers, that generates a lot of discussion within the charter, and thats an overarching discussion. And there are things in here that sometimes repeat themselves with regard to when these kind of issues of separation of powers comes up. And maybe this is not the forum to do that. I dont want the fact that, what an example is, its an example. Its not something -- its not a recommendation on my part. Its better if Council looks rather than what curative language what might be, because, frankly, I did not really have an opportunity or in hindsight to be able to do that. Would have been better if vetted with the City Attorney. They have not had much time to comment on this and I dont think Council should put much weight in the language. I think its more important, Ms. Schroeder, for the overarching discussions about how to resolve some of these issues. Council, I want to say its not my recommendations that you take this curative language because, frankly, and Ms. Zelman made that really clear, they havent been fully vetted and that is something that I really think is hurting the process, just to focus on that.
Anne Schroeder 11:12:03AM
Thank you, Mr. Shelby. Yes, its really important to understand the intent when words are being used or a suggestion. Mr. Carlson and then Mr. Gudes.
Bill Carlson 11:12:12AM
I would just like to -- based on what the City Attorney said, im not using the language that was proposed by Mr. Shelby. Im proposing the language that I put in here, but I will modify my motion to say that I would like to move that the City Attorney look at this language and either edit it or propose an alternative to present back to Council.
Anne Schroeder 11:12:40AM
Thats the information I was handed on the sheet of paper that I passed over to the Note Taker.
Bill Carlson 11:12:45AM
Yes. The modification is to edit it or propose an alternative and present back to Council.
Anne Schroeder 11:12:51AM
So heard. Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 11:12:53AM
I will accept that. As the seconder, I will accept that. If you add a date of like really soon.
Bill Carlson 11:13:00AM
But I think all these are coming back on a certain date, right?
Martin Shelby 11:13:08AM
Thats an issue because, Council, it depends on how many you make and what the turnaround time is, whether it can be. Ms. Zelman and I --
Bill Carlson 11:13:18AM
Did we not set a schedule for the first reading?
Martin Shelby 11:13:21AM
The schedule on the first reading is what is required to work backwards from the date that the Supervisor of Elections has to get this for --
Bill Carlson 11:13:30AM
I will say add it to my motion to be presented at the date that we agree on at the end of the day for first reading.
Anne Schroeder 11:13:37AM
Right. Because thats one of our outcomes is to look at next steps and timeline. Does that make sense?
Bill Carlson 11:13:44AM
Yes.
Anne Schroeder 11:13:45AM
Mr. Gudes and then it looks like we want to call for a vote to move this forward. Yes, sir.
Orlando Gudes 11:13:49AM
You know, as I sit here, I guess I still have a police mentality that this back and forth, theres something on the table. You make a decision. We make a decision. We move on it. Mr. Maniscalco is a good friend of mine. He talks about whatever he talks about getting along. But at the end of the day, what this man always hears and it frustrates me to no end, not the City Attorney. I have -- Mr. Maniscalco just say we have our own City Attorney and he tells -- thats not how its been operating. Thats not how ive seen it operate. Time and time again, he says I have to go through legal and go through the City Attorney for approval of this, this, and that. I heard it time and time again. So he does not have the authority to do certain things. He does not as counsel. Sometimes he doesnt speak up about things that I think he should speak up about. Thats why I have an issue with this. Still, you have one body who is still dictating what goes on versus if there is a dispute, who will settle the dispute? Thats the issue I have. And I dont understand how this Council doesnt see that or doesnt understand it either. This is not for political points. Do whats right. Dont be a coward. You know when something is wrong. Fix whats wrong. If you got a problem, there is a problem here. I yield back.
Anne Schroeder 11:15:10AM
Mr. Gudes, so the information that was shared by Mr. Carlson, everyone at the dais has a copy of that?
Orlando Gudes 11:15:18AM
Yes.
Anne Schroeder 11:15:19AM
All right.
Bill Carlson 11:15:20AM
And the Clerk.
Anne Schroeder 11:15:21AM
And the clerk. Mr. Miranda.
Charlie Miranda 11:15:25AM
As I stated earlier, you see the problem. The public can hear the problem. It makes no difference who the City Attorney is. Makes no difference who the City Council attorney is. Youre going to have the same problem. Because thats the way it is. Theres eight elected officials and somewhere along the line we cant even make vegetable soup because the ingredients are there but were not boiling it. Were boiling it without water and, therefore, you are going to get nothing but slop. We have a personality problem. Like I said earlier, five mayors I worked with. They were all different and all tell you to come into the office anytime you wanted. At least ive been told that. You just walk in. I dont care what Mayor is there, they are going to come out and talk to you and hold whoever is there in the office. Thats the way the system works. Its been working like that for a hundred years. And all of a sudden now we want to hire more attorneys, more this, more that, more aides, more this, one or the other and yet I got people who cant even pay their rent. Thank you very much.
Anne Schroeder 11:16:34AM
Thank you. I believe we want to call for a vote. Mr. Carlson, could you restate what it is that your motion is calling for? We want to see it up on the notes thats been taken over here.
Bill Carlson 11:16:58AM
My motion is to ask the City Attorney to come back on the first reading that we will decide at the end of the day with proposed edits or alternative to the following: the following would be to propose a new 6.09 Conflict resolution. Should a conflict arise between City Council and the Mayor or between either party and the City Attorney, such conflict should be resolved in a quick, objective, and collegial manner so as to best represent the interest of the residents of Tampa. In the event of a conflict, the two parties, under coordination by the City Attorney, will appoint an Arbitration Panel consisting of three arbitrators who will be jointly selected by the two parties. Either through their attorneys or outside counsel appointed by the City Attorney, the two parties will present their case to the Arbitration Panel. The Arbitration Panel will give their judgment on the matter and both parties will be bound by the ruling.
Anne Schroeder 11:17:58AM
Thank you. May we call for a vote to take this forward? We need a second.
Charlie Miranda 11:18:05AM
It was seconded by --
Lynn Hurtak 11:18:08AM
Yeah, im not going to second it.
Orlando Gudes 11:18:13AM
Ill second and see where it goes.
Anne Schroeder 11:18:17AM
Please restate that. Im sorry.
Bill Carlson 11:18:21AM
He seconded it.
Anne Schroeder 11:18:22AM
He seconded it. Thank you. It carries with a vote of four.
Anne Schroeder 11:18:31AM
May we see the four?
Charlie Miranda 11:18:32AM
Somebody has to call for a roll call vote.
Martin Shelby 11:18:37AM
Or a voice vote.
Anne Schroeder 11:18:41AM
I can see by hands, yes. If We have four. We need to see who votes.
Bill Carlson 11:18:46AM
Are we voting now?
Anne Schroeder 11:18:49AM
Yes.
Bill Carlson 11:18:52AM
Its 1-6.
Bill Carlson 11:18:56AM
You asked US to raise our hands, right?
Anne Schroeder 11:18:59AM
Yes.
Bill Carlson 11:18:59AM
Is It 6-1? Its dead.
Martin Shelby 11:19:05AM
Wait a second.
Orlando Gudes 11:19:06AM
We didnt vote.
Anne Schroeder 11:19:11AM
I asked for a show of hands. We had one hand up. Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 11:19:17AM
Its dead. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 11:19:23AM
As we move forward, again, if you were looking at article ii, Legislative, depending upon the --
Bill Carlson 11:19:33AM
Can I make one more comment? This puts our city in grave danger. Its not a personality conflict. This is a conflict where there is a separation of powers and We have to follow the charter. And when somebody inside the city is not following the charter, were responsible for sticking to it. And We have no ability to fight it. So I hope that there would be other modifications to the charter. But this puts US in grave danger of putting the Taxpayers at risk here. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 11:20:02AM
Thank you. Ill call on Ms. Hurtak in just a moment. Mr. Carlson, you referenced another part of the charter that touches on this. Might there be an opportunity there?
Bill Carlson 11:20:11AM
Lets just go on through the list like You suggested and see.
Anne Schroeder 11:20:15AM
Yes. Ms. Hurtak, did you have a comment on this vote?
Lynn Hurtak 11:20:19AM
I actually wanted to have a separate motion on the same idea. I agree. We have to solve this. But I just want to go back to the example of curative language and take out in a court of competent jurisdiction. So my motion is -- and im not quite sure -- let me just make the motion and then maybe we can talk it out. My motion is to add -- and sure, ill make it a section 6.09. In the event of a dispute between the Mayor and City Council which cannot be reconciled, the city shall utilize independent counsel.
Bill Carlson 11:21:03AM
Second.
Anne Schroeder 11:21:04AM
Period.
Lynn Hurtak 11:21:05AM
Well, thats, I guess, my question for my colleagues is if our city attorney is saying we cant use -- that we cant sue and if they are saying that arbitrators, we dont have the ability to use arbitrators, but she is saying that we can use outside counsel, im just not sure how. Mr. Carlson, did you understand that because I did not?
Bill Carlson 11:21:30AM
I would add, please that it report to the City Council Attorney.
Lynn Hurtak 11:21:33AM
Okay. Independent Counsel that would report to the City Council Attorney?
Martin Shelby 11:21:44AM
Ms. Schroeder?
Lynn Hurtak 11:21:48AM
Then I amend that motion to say in the event of a dispute between the Mayor and City Council which cannot be reconciled, the city shall utilize independent counsel that would report to the City Council attorney?
Anne Schroeder 11:22:02AM
We have a question by Mr. Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Hurtak.
Martin Shelby 11:22:05AM
This is an interesting discussion because this charter is an organic document. It is a holistic document. One section relates to the other sections. For instance, the issue with the separation of powers, it comes back to the section 501a. You havent even gotten to that yet, and that says that the City Attorney shall be the final legal representative to the city, to have somebody report back to me does not accomplish anything pursuant to this charter. Im concerned about looking at these things piece meal rather than organically because -- and maybe it was not the best choice to put this in the section where something can go because youre going to find overlaps in sections other where the separation of power just comes up. So the memo really makes things more complicated, frankly, than it needs to be. Because I dont want Council to be in a position of making motions that are going to require the City Attorney to do some work by first reading and have it come back. It wont make it to the ballot. The issue should be whether it makes it to the ballot by this point in time. What im saying to you now is that to the maker of the motion, to have somebody report to me does not imbue them with any power because that would be in violation of the charter. Were not at that point where we can have this kind of discussion at a workshop. Its true, over a long period of time, the city Charter Review Commission was able to discuss these things and debate them. For instance, this one time, this one little subject, I think the Chairman is right in terms of what effect this is going to have, what is ultimately going to be accomplished by the end of the day.
Anne Schroeder 11:23:59AM
Before I call on Mr. Gudes, Ms. Hurtak, that was directed at you. Did you have any comment to modify?
Lynn Hurtak 11:24:07AM
Sure. Ill just take out that we report to the City Council Attorney and just say shall utilize independent counsel to resolve the dispute.
Bill Carlson 11:24:14AM
Second.
Anne Schroeder 11:24:16AM
May we have a vote on that as the other motion on the floor with a second? Im sorry. Mr. Gudes, I did say I would call on you.
Orlando Gudes 11:24:25AM
I think you still run into an issue with the section 5. I think still after the Independent Counsel has made or rendered a decision, it will go back to the City Attorney for the ruling because at the end of the day, 5.09 Says it is the ultimate decision. I think once the decision is made, youll put that in for 6.09, I think it has to come back to the City Attorney that the decision was made. Just my rationale because I think youre bumping into a situation because 5 says the City Attorney make the ultimate decision. Make the ultimate decision and youre saying well have Independent Counsel for the dispute, it should go back to the City Attorney so the decision can be forth right and put out. My opinion.
Bill Carlson 11:25:09AM
I think we should just vote up or down on this. Ive got a lot of suggestions for Section Five and other people can weigh in on that, too.
Anne Schroeder 11:25:17AM
All right. Again, because its organic, if something needs to change, this is not final language at this moment. Were simply trying to get something on the table that has as much of your input and much of your thoughts as possible. We can still go back. We can circle back and modify. Theres not a final decision today. With the motion as was made by Ms. Hurtak and she amended it by taking out court of competent jurisdiction, could we have a vote? Four will carry it. If you could raise your hands, we will call on you that you will carry it forward. We have three. Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak, and Mr. Gudes. That does not carry. Lets move forward with article ii, legislative and we have section 2.01, City Council, 2.02, Qualifications, 2.03, Organizations. 204, Staff. 205, Exercise. 206 Ordinances and resolutions, so on. There are many. Who would like to comment on anything in section ii, please raise your hand if thats one of your areas. I saw Mr. Carlson's hand. Yes. Would you please call out the section.
Bill Carlson 11:26:37AM
Yes, section 2.04. I dont know if theres one for the Facilitator. If We have one at the end, well give.
Anne Schroeder 11:26:53AM
State the section.
Bill Carlson 11:26:54AM
204-b-1. So toward the end, what I want to do is further in defining the role of the City Council attorney, again, well get to 5.0 In a minute, but just add that we need to explicitly add that the City Council attorney has the right to hire legal staff or outside counsel as approved by City Council. Yes, this means not going through the City Attorney because we need objectivity. The problem is the City Attorney cannot be an employment law attorney, a litigator, a charter attorney, and ethics attorney. He cant know everything, although he knows almost everything. We need to be able to hire specialists to answer questions when we need them and especially when we get opinions from the City Attorney that we dont agree with. We can modified section five in a minute, but the City Council attorney needs the ability to hire outside, either legal staff or outside counsel. So I would move that we, again, ask the -- its not going to be the City Attorney. The City Attorney is going to hire an outside attorney that will pick. The City Attorney through their outside attorneys would review this and propose an ordinance to be presented at the first hearing date that we will decide at the end of the day.
Anne Schroeder 11:28:27AM
Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 11:28:28AM
I have a question of where You want to put this. In section one after b-1 at the end, because that says, and providing independent advisory opinions as requested by the City Council. So are You proposing to add this as number three under b?
Bill Carlson 11:28:52AM
Its been so long since I did this that I forgot. Lets say add this in section 2.04 And then we can sort it out.
Lynn Hurtak 11:28:59AM
I think it fits under --
Bill Carlson 11:29:01AM
For the City Attorney. In regard to the City Council attorney.
Lynn Hurtak 11:29:05AM
Oh, City Council Attorney, yes, okay.
Bill Carlson 11:29:11AM
Yes, it would be adding a number three. So it would be section 2.04, Three, defining the role of the City Council Attorney to add the language that the City Council Attorney can, quote, hire legal staff or outside counsel as approved by City Council.
Lynn Hurtak 11:29:29AM
B-3 is what youre adding?
Bill Carlson 11:29:32AM
Yes.
Lynn Hurtak 11:29:33AM
Okay. Ill second that.
Anne Schroeder 11:29:35AM
Yes. Mr. Viera, did I see your hand earlier on?
Luis Viera 11:29:38AM
Yes. Thank you very much. You know, this is very apparently narrowly tailored proposal. My concerns with it is, is number one, with the outside counsel, in other words, maybe it is a question for legal, is there something that precludes, or Mr. Shelby, is there something that precludes Mr. Shelby from potentially retaining outside counsel already that would necessitate a charter amendment? Number one. Number two, the potentially overly expansive inclusion of, quote, unquote, legal staff which could be so vague, personal opinion, call me naive, I dont think Mr. Shelby -- and, again, were looking at future City Council attorneys, so not just this one, but I dont think there is presently a need for legal staff. I havent heard that from Mr. Shelby. Maybe im wrong. He can correct that record if that is so. Again, my issue with this, why go through the charter with this if its not precluded already and maybe the expansive nature of the legal staff. That is the one that bothers me the most. Just questions I pose. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 11:30:39AM
Yes. Mr. Miranda had a hand.
Charlie Miranda 11:30:41AM
Im not opposed to making changes, but the more changes we make, the more conversation were going to have on the changes. Us and future council members. I dont know if the Legal Department now upstairs has legal aides that does the research. I guess thats what this is addressing. Im not sure. I would say they do its very limited. Can I ask that question of the City Attorney?
Anne Schroeder 11:31:05AM
May you ask that question?
Charlie Miranda 11:31:08AM
May I.
Anne Schroeder 11:31:09AM
Yes.
Charlie Miranda 11:31:10AM
City Attorney, can you answer that? I really dont know.
Andrea Zelman 11:31:17AM
I apologize. Can you repeat the question?
Charlie Miranda 11:31:19AM
I made a statement without knowing the answer, which is perfectly legal with me. That way im not bias. When You do your -- You have a case come before You, do You have aides that do your legal research or do the Attorneys that work for You do it themselves?
Andrea Zelman 11:31:37AM
I would say most of the Attorneys in Our Office do our own research. We have a few Paralegals on staff, but I can tell you from my personal perspective, and I think most of the Attorneys in my office are that way. Even if we have a Law Clerk or a Paralegal do preliminary research for US, we always follow up with our own. Its our name that goes on the pleading.
Charlie Miranda 11:32:02AM
Were going to create another legal firm and have two firms and two different opinions. We have to come to some commonsense grounds so We can live together. Thats the problem weve got in the world. Thats the problem weve got in Washington. And I dont want that problem in Tampa. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 11:32:18AM
Thank you. Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 11:32:21AM
[Inaudible] Mr. Shelby, does he think he needs staff or paralegal? Weve got the thing of an attorney he May be out.
Anne Schroeder 11:32:38AM
Mr. Shelby asking for an opinion on your part.
Martin Shelby 11:32:44AM
To have an outside counsel still comes back to the issue of separation of powers and the role of the City Attorney. In terms of staff?
Orlando Gudes 11:32:56AM
Do you need Staff? Do you need any of this that were asking?
Martin Shelby 11:33:01AM
If You dont, You dont have to put that in the charter necessarily.
Orlando Gudes 11:33:05AM
That wasnt my question. Mr. Viera asked -- you tell me, do you need help, you dont, do you think this is valid? Thats all im asking.
Martin Shelby 11:33:15AM
In the 18 years ive been doing this job, I have not had that help, certainly, this Council is different in a lot of respects. And if I do have any concerns, I do have the opportunity to be able to address them. I dont know whether this relevant with the time constraints being what this is, whether this is necessary to be in the charter. Thats my position. Youre asking me a staffing question right now, and thats outside the scope of this charter. Youre saying, okay, youre saying now do I need to have the opportunity to hire legal help if I need it?
Orlando Gudes 11:33:54AM
There you go, Mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby 11:33:56AM
As of right now, the answer is no. As of right now.
Anne Schroeder 11:34:03AM
Mr. Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco 11:34:03AM
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Shelby, for answering that. My question is, why do we have to put this on the charter? Dont we have money within our City Council budget should we need to hire a Legislative Aide or a legal aide or whatever, if that arises. You said at this point no, but the money is there to expand in your department, in your capacity, correct?
Martin Shelby 11:34:28AM
Well, the answer is, if its additional staff, at the end of section 2.04 It brings it up how you can be able to do that. I really dont want to discuss this publicly, but I was thinking of having conversations with the City Attorney with regard to use of a Paralegal should I need one, but I havent discussed that with her personally or publicly. I didnt anticipate that. So the answer to your question is, yes, if its a budgetary issue, it could be put into the budget. You can add that position.
Guido Maniscalco 11:35:02AM
No fewer than five members of the City Council, correct? Thank you, sir.
Anne Schroeder 11:35:09AM
There was a hand with Ms. Hurtak before Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Lynn Hurtak 11:35:14AM
Never mind.
Anne Schroeder 11:35:19AM
Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 11:35:20AM
Ask a question of The City Attorney. Please.
Bill Carlson 11:35:34AM
If the City Council Attorney wanted to hire outside council or hire his own staff, in your opinion is that allowed by the charter as it stands now?
Andrea Zelman 11:35:46AM
The charter says that you can hire other staff in order to support your legislative functions.
Bill Carlson 11:35:51AM
Its your opinion that He can hire outside counsel. If He wants to hire a Law Firm that reports to him and not to your department, He can do that?
Andrea Zelman 11:36:01AM
Well, if youre asking the question about the power of that outside opinion, which I think is what Marty was getting to earlier, the charter still says that the city attorney is the final legal opinion of the city as a whole. So if, for example, Mr. Shelby wanted to hire outside counsel to help him with an issue that he wasnt comfortable opining on, he could, but it would still ultimately be up to our office to determine whether that is the position of the City Of Tampa.
Bill Carlson 11:36:33AM
If we put in the budget, hiring staff or hiring outside counsel, youre not going to object.
Andrea Zelman 11:36:39AM
I believe its already in the Charter. The Charter says you can hire additional staff with five votes in order to assist you and your legislative functions.
Bill Carlson 11:36:48AM
As far as I remember and have to go back and look at it, at least one of your predecessors said, no, they have to be hired by the City Attorney and then they can work with the City Council attorney. But the reason put this in there is so no City Attorney can interpret the charter, following that narrow line that says that the City Attorney is the last word, former City Attorney's, justify we cannot hire staff for the City Council attorney. You just said on the record thats not true.
Andrea Zelman 11:37:16AM
Im saying it depends -- if the purpose of getting the outside counsel is to arrive at a final decision of the city then no because ultimately thats our office. If the purpose of getting outside counsel is just to get another objective opinion which can then be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office, I have no objection to that and no reason I should.
Bill Carlson 11:37:38AM
Like the situation years ago around the Crb when the Former Mayor said I alone have the right to set up the Crb and City Council said no. Former City Attorney, one of your predecessors hired an outside attorney, very well-respected but came back with an opinion that supported what that Mayor said, the City Council members I knew objected to that, didnt agree with that. If that happened now, then we could hire an outside counsel that would also give City Council an independent review just like the Mayor is able to go through the City Attorney's office to get outside review, correct?
Andrea Zelman 11:38:13AM
If youre talking about the Gwynne Young opinion, which I have a copy of --
Bill Carlson 11:38:18AM
I dont want to go into specifics.
Andrea Zelman 11:38:20AM
-- that wasnt about the creation -- I mean, it arose during the discussion about the creation of the crb. But ultimately she was opining on whether there was a conflict between the council and the Mayor and what the role of the city attorney was. And I agree with her opinion. Im happy to share it with all of you. As I said, at the end of the day, whether the outside counsel was hired by my office or by Marty or if you want to have one of your attorneys write an opinion, ultimately I still have to review it, consider it, and determine what is the final opinion of the City Of Tampa.
Bill Carlson 11:38:58AM
Another example, the Former City Attorney said that only the City Attorney has the right to sign contracts for settlements and pay those. And so if we disagree with that and City Attorney hires an outside counsel, Former Bar President to opine on that, is Marty allowed to hire a Former Bar President to opine on it also and then we can get both former bar presidents to stand up and say what their opinions are? If they disagree, sure, the City Attorney's opinion is the final opinion, but we will then have equally prestigious person who May disagree with the person the City Attorney brings forward. But youre saying its okay by the charter now that the City Council attorney could hire that person.
Andrea Zelman 11:39:45AM
The City Council can hire additional staff to assist it in its legislative functions with five votes. If that staff is used to hire an Outside Counsel to provide an opinion, theres nothing in the charter that would prevent that. But again, at the end of the day its ultimately my determination whether that is the final legal opinion of the City Of Tampa.
Bill Carlson 11:40:08AM
So to my colleagues, we have this City Attorney on the record. We know shes different. Were not criticizing her for past mistakes of City Attorneys, but we have her on the record saying we can do this. However, if I remember correctly, heard other City Attorneys opine differently. So I would recommend that we pass this because its better to have it clear in the charter rather than have any ambiguity that could be disputed by some future City Attorney.
Anne Schroeder 11:40:38AM
Mr. Carlson, if I May paraphrase what I heard based on this discussion just so there is clarity is words make a difference. Meaning because somebody inhabits a particular office, that person May change. You want it stated such that no matter who is serving in that position that the opinion is clear of what the City Council attorney May do.
Bill Carlson 11:41:03AM
Well probably go through this on every one of these. Whats happened is everything -- my style is to try to discuss in private and have private conversations with everybody and then im told no, no, we cant do that. Charter prevents it. Charter prevents it. If we try to bring it up publicly because we got told no, then a City Attorney will jump before US and say youre trying to usurp the strong mayor form of government. Ill say it says right here in the charter, heres what it says, and theyll disagree with US. What I want to make sure of is that City Council has objective opinions and objective advice. This is really important because the only person who reports to US besides our aides is the City Council attorney. If that person is not able to get objective advice for US, then we rely on the City Attorney's office which in the past I think has not always represented City Council. Which, by the way, the charter clearly says that the City Attorney does represent City Council not only collectively but individually. We need to stop saying that it doesnt. Thank you. I would suggest we call this for a vote and keep moving.
Anne Schroeder 11:42:09AM
Yes. Do we have a motion of exactly how you want that to be?
Bill Carlson 11:42:14AM
I would like to move that we ask the City Attorney's outside attorney to come back on the date that we will agree on as to the first reading with a new -- an edited version of the following, a new section 2.04-b-3, Quote, hire legal staff or outside counsel as approved by City Council. Again, this is defining the role of a City Council attorney.
Anne Schroeder 11:42:43AM
Yes, Sir. Second?
Charlie Miranda 11:42:46AM
I just want to say --
Anne Schroeder 11:42:49AM
Ms. Hurtak raised her hand.
Lynn Hurtak 11:42:50AM
Ill second.
Anne Schroeder 11:42:52AM
May We have a vote? Well vote. In order to pass We need four. We have three. We have Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak, and im sorry -- do it again. I saw a third hand. Mr. Gudes. Thank you. It did not pass.
Bill Carlson 11:43:14AM
Just remember to my colleagues, The Public is going to reelect you, not the Mayor. The Public wants US to provide oversight. If this Mayor does not want to provide transparency and accountability, one way or another well get it for The Public. Were not going to allow this Administration to continue to run over City Council and to set up City Council to get sued and thrown out of office.
Anne Schroeder 11:43:36AM
Yes, sir. Mr. Miranda had his hand and then Mr. Viera.
Charlie Miranda 11:43:41AM
Let me say thats what elections are for. Someone get elected whether anyone on the board or not. And thats the only way of doing it. However, that being said, its really sad when you have to bring up an election during a budget hearing, not a budget hearing, but a review of the charter, and theres nothing to fear in an election. You see someone wins and nobody loses. Somebody just doesnt get enough votes. And thats how you have to look at things at life. When I sit here and listen to this, $1.9 Billion company and yet as much money as it sounds, those budgets are very tight. Out of all the ad valorem money we collect, all of it, doesnt pay for the police and fire. In fact, about $26 million short. So when I look at these things, its imperative that we understand that the publics money should be spent wisely. I have no evidence from the City Council Attorney, he said no when he was asked if he needed any more help. We have to have continuity and you have to believe in each other and you have to trust each other before you take a step forward. If you dont, youre going to fail. Theres where were at in my opinion.
Anne Schroeder 11:45:11AM
Yes, sir. Mr. Viera.
Luis Viera 11:45:15AM
I want to respectfully caution all the City Councils about, how should I put it, straw man, straw woman, whatever you want to call it, of the Mayor. Certain things I agree with on the Mayor. Certain things I disagreed with the Mayor on. I remember the issue of so-called crime-free housing program was requested to support that. I said no. I do not support that. Come out very strongly against it. Just the way it is. Certain things I agree. Certain things I disagree. When it comes to our charter amendments, there is one I committed to vote for where I disagreed with the executive on. My votes have to do with -- im only speaking on behalf of myself. My votes have to do with what I think about the process, what I think about each individual issue that comes up. It has nothing to do with my relationship with the Mayor, with anyone else. Just my opinion. I firmly respect the hard work, the analytical, the analysis, et cetera, that Councilman Carlson has put into all of these. I really, really do, which is why they each deserve scrutiny and rationale as to how you vote. I respect 110%. Again, as for me in my house, thats the rationale I use for each vote. Nothing to do with anybody else as in the past, et cetera. Just my opinion. Thank you, maam.
Anne Schroeder 11:46:29AM
Thank you. So lets decide. We have 2.04 Thats been dealt with. What else in section 2 would someone like to bring up for discussion? And just call out the section, please, if so. All the way up to 2.14. Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 11:47:09AM
Never mind.
Anne Schroeder 11:47:17AM
Do we move to section 3? We can circle back if needed, but do we move up to section 3, City Clerk? Anything there? Section 4, article 4, executive. Weve got 4.01 And 2. 1 is Mayor. 2 is absence and succession. Please identify yourself if you would like to comment on section 4. Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 11:47:56AM
Yes. Separation of powers in 4.0.1, To discuss the difference.
Anne Schroeder 11:48:18AM
Section 1, 4.011 That reads the administration and enforcement of all laws, is that the line youre referring to?
Lynn Hurtak 11:48:28AM
Yes. And to add I guess to number 12, as number 12, rather, an executive order in conflict with law or ordinance shall be void. Im going to agree with --
Anne Schroeder 11:48:52AM
Lets give that a moment for the Note Taker and get that up here. Could you say that again?
Lynn Hurtak 11:48:58AM
An executive order in conflict with law or ordinance should be void -- shall be void.
Anne Schroeder 11:49:09AM
This was also the example of curative language that Mr. Shelby gave in his document.
Lynn Hurtak 11:49:13AM
Yes.
Anne Schroeder 11:49:20AM
Discussion on this please. Something that you want to modify. Yes, Mr. Citro.
Joseph Citro 11:49:29AM
Are you referring to all City Laws? Talking to state laws also?
Lynn Hurtak 11:49:34AM
City laws in conflict with law or ordinance. With city laws. With our charter and our ordinances and our laws.
Charlie Miranda 11:49:49AM
Im sorry. I dont understand exactly the preference of it. Tell me again what that is? Did you get the understanding of what it means?
Anne Schroeder 11:50:07AM
Thats fine that You raised it. Youre raising it to someone to please explain that further to You. Yes, Sir.
Martin Shelby 11:50:15AM
If I can.
Anne Schroeder 11:50:18AM
Mr. Shelby, yes.
Martin Shelby 11:50:20AM
This goes back to separation of powers and this goes back to the issue of the ability of home rule authority of City Council. This is a much bigger discussion, frankly. One of the issues that came up and was raised, does an executive order preempt -- preempt the City Council from subject matter to be able to have an ordinance that would be reflective of the public policy that was in the form of law. Actually this goes back to 2015 crb. And what happened was that City Council was contemplating doing an ordinance. The Mayor executed an executive order and the Mayor was quoted in the newspaper saying that City Council no longer had jurisdiction, words to that effect, because it could not have an ordinance because it was the executive order and it was not subject to City Council getting involved in that. That was the basis of that. So the question is, what is the role under home rule of City Council that goes back to the separation of powers issue? And the question is whether or not that the executive order has the same weight as law because one is legislative and one is executive. And that was the subject of a lot of discussions that this Council, this particular Council has had about the authority, and that was raised I guess by Councilman Carlson most recently with the naming authority. Its the kind of question that -- its an overarching question, and if it is a form of government, certainly with a strong Mayor form of government that its a public policy question whether or not the Council wants to give greater weight to law to be able to override perhaps an executive order. Thats what goes back to what Mr. Miranda said. The mayors remedy to that is a vote of five. Excuse me, the councils remedy to a mayoral veto is a vote of five. Whereas if Council doesnt have the authority to have an ordinance, then that doesnt even apply.
Anne Schroeder 11:52:32AM
Thank you. Mr. Miranda, did that answer your question?
Charlie Miranda 11:52:36AM
Let me respond to it. Seven years ago, some Mayor, I guess it was the previous Mayor, made a statement to the Newspaper. Whether its correct or not correct, I dont know. I didnt make the statement. The City Attorney at that point is the one that says who is right and who is wrong. Did it ever get to the City Attorney? I dont know. I dont know. I dont recall that debate. I know at the beginning of the formation, there was some conversation into who would appoint the Board and how many individuals were going to be on the Board. And we said -- where it was at the end very equitable and everybody agreed to it. And thats how the Board was formed. That doesnt mean at the beginning there was not a tuggle between difference of balances, and thats what that court law does that lady holding the two sides. Who is right and who is wrong doesnt matter. Its the results that really matter. Looking at it for substance? Are we looking at it for whatever reason? If that Mayor made that, so he made some news. Whether it was good or not, youve got to ask him. Thats all. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 11:53:57AM
Thank you. Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 11:53:58AM
Im confused. I dont see how an executive order would override an ordinance or law when the book clearly states in the charter that City Council sets legislation for the city and its the job of the Mayor is to carry out the orders of City Council for legislative body. So I dont know how an executive order would overturn an ordinance or law that this council puts in. I do see the part of putting the language in so its clear that an executive order cannot be in conflict with an ordinance or legislative law by this council. I could support that today because that would be right. An executive order cannot be in conflict with an ordinance from this council per what the charter already says, that we set the tone and the rules for law.
Anne Schroeder 11:54:50AM
Clarifying exactly what the curative language had offered, that in conflict seems to be the critical phrase in that piece. Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 11:55:01AM
Two quick examples. The example the crb, the whole problem with the crb is that folks in the room and others that arent tried to create the crb in a certain way back in 2015. The last Mayor disagreed. So he passed an executive order. And then those of you on council know City Council then, there was this whole fight where the city Attorney got involved. Hired outside counsel. City Council passed an ordinance anyway and there was kind of a compromise of having both of those, but that was never tested as to which one would stand. And then when we re-did the crb with the picture that Mr. Bennett showed, supposedly the old executive order was superseded. That was part of the deal, and then the new executive order was there. But lets say the naming process, naming of buildings, im using this as a simple example because it doesnt bring in a lot of other issues, a very simple thing, the new process was put in place by executive order. There are whereas clauses in there that say that only the Mayor has the right to name buildings. The Legal Department agrees with that. So if we pass an ordinance that says were going to name something or if we pass an ordinance that says only City Council has the right to name buildings, then were going to have a legal test. Thats why I thought we needed a conflict resolution clause because if the city Attorney disagrees and says that the mayors executive order supersedes the City Council's ordinance, then we have a conflict because we have a legal opinion that doesnt agree with the way we read the charter. Anything we can do to clarify this I would be in favor of. And if theres not a second, ill second.
Anne Schroeder 11:56:41AM
Thank you. Noticing the time, do we have enough information to have a motion on this and have a vote? Do we have enough information?
Orlando Gudes 11:56:49AM
I think its clear. The charter says no executive order will be in conflict with Legislative Body. Legislative Body put in the ordinance it is the mayors job to carry out that legislative duty. Thats pretty clear. [Inaudible] I make the motion.
Anne Schroeder 11:57:12AM
Yes, Sir.
Anne Schroeder 11:57:21AM
May we have a vote?
Charlie Miranda 11:57:24AM
Speak on it.
Guido Maniscalco 11:57:32AM
Thank you very much. I was here in 2015 when the issue came up regarding the creation of the crb. From my understanding, the opinion from the City Attorney at the time was incorrect in the executive order thing. I disagree with. I think ordinance shows existing ordinance. And I asked this question I think of the City Council Attorney seven years ago that City Council had the authority to do that. Its clear in the charter. Its clear from -- im not going to cite the ordinance, but the information is there. That didnt go to a further discussion because a settlement was reached with that Mayor. How do I know that? Because I tried to work it out with him and we ended up moving forward without escalating it to a bigger issue. However, its already existing in the charter. Somebody decided to interpret it their way. I can read. I even have an english degree on the wall in my office that shows it. Whatever. But I have interpreted it correctly back then. Its clear. Someone gave a different opinion in 2015 that I still disagree with. But I dont see the necessity in having to change that. Myself, im not an Attorney, an Attorney, anybody else could clearly interpret it if they read that. We have the authority under ordinance, which is the existing law, that we can create these boards and whatnot. So in that case, we disagreed, but already clearly stated in the charter.
Anne Schroeder 11:58:57AM
Theres no need, as youre stating, to have this modification.
Guido Maniscalco 11:59:01AM
Exactly. Yes.
Anne Schroeder 11:59:03AM
Mr. Viera, did you also have a 20-second comment?
Luis Viera 11:59:06AM
20 seconds. Thank you very much. Again it appears to already -- its almost like a restatement of fact or a restatement of already something that exists within the charter and our present law. Therefore, it makes it unnecessary. Its not a hurdle. I dont think theres any adverse consequences of it. I havent seen the case presented on why a restatement of present charter language in effect should be incorporated. Thats my question. And thats it. Thank you, maam.
Anne Schroeder 11:59:32AM
Would you please read what the current language is? Can you locate that? Can somebody locate that?
Orlando Gudes 11:59:38AM
Can I make a statement on that, maam?
Anne Schroeder 11:59:40AM
One second. Does anybody have that current language that you said is already in there?
Luis Viera 11:59:47AM
Well, in other words -- May I?
Anne Schroeder 11:59:49AM
Yes.
Luis Viera 11:59:50AM
In other words, its My understanding that already an executive order does not override an ordinance. Thats always been My understanding. In other words, My question, if I May is, why is this necessary? Something that is a restatement already of our reality. Thats the question that im posing. Im posing it as a question for folks for purposes of My vote.
Anne Schroeder 12:00:10PM
Yes, I hear your question. Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 12:00:12PM
I dont know what time frame were in. I really dont. Its been stated. But Mr. Maniscalco said, there was an issue. You might have worked it out, but it wasnt clear to others who May have a great english degree that you have to understand. And to Mr. Viera to say, I mean, its here. I could read it all day long. Obviously, theres been conflict. So how do you resolve conflict? You make sure that people can see where it needs to be so they never have this issue again. So if its in section 4.01, That an executive order in conflict with law or ordinance shall be voided, I dont see the big issue of putting that in number 4.01, Its number 12. It states that again in the charter again, but I think it needs to be there. So theres no misinterpretation of that rule. So I dont understand -- I just dont understand today what were doing here. I just dont. And to me, I dont want to say were political. Some of the stuff is common sense to me, especially 4.01, Yes, its down further in the charter, but I think it needs to be in the mayors section that executive order in conflict with law and ordinance should be void.
Anne Schroeder 12:01:24PM
If I might paraphrase, youre saying if there is a potential for misunderstanding, why do we not go ahead and suggest that this be added?
Orlando Gudes 12:01:32PM
Correct.
Anne Schroeder 12:01:34PM
We had a motion on the table. It was seconded. Do you want to vote on this that We --
Bill Carlson 12:01:42PM
A Prior City Attorney --
Anne Schroeder 12:01:45PM
Mr. Carlson, yes.
Bill Carlson 12:01:46PM
Just like the example that council member Maniscalco gave, there are many interpretations by the City Attorney that havent been correct. And so we need, even if its redundant, we need to clarify it so that future city attorneys know clearly what the charter says. We had a City Attorney come to US when we started talking about the crb a couple of years ago and said City Council cannot delegate subpoena power because City Council doesnt have subpoena power. I will read section -- its short -- section 2.14 Investigations. In the exercise of its legislative powers, this council or any special committee thereof shall have the power to conduct such investigations and hold such hearings as the council shall deem necessary, expedient, and proper and shall have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence by the issuance of all forms of subpoena and shall have the power to punish for -- blah, blah, blah. So the point is that we get these -- do we get these opinions. Can I ask the City Attorney a simple question? I dont want to go back and opine on all these past -- its a separate discussion about the former inaccurate interpretations. But I just want to ask your interpretation. Does the charter now say that an ordinance supersedes an executive order?
Andrea Zelman 12:03:08PM
Before we get to that, I want to correct the record because You and others keep saying it. Our Office did not advise This Council that it could not delegate its subpoena power. It said that in order to delegate its subpoena power, This Council would have to amend the charter to so state that.
Bill Carlson 12:03:34PM
It says right here, the Council or any special committee thereof shall have the power. We dont need to change the charter. Thats why I dont want to go into this issue.
Andrea Zelman 12:03:46PM
You ignore the advice at your own risk. It was based on case law is my understanding. Im not the expert on this. But it was based on case law. The court is always going to look to a subpoena to determine whether the party issuing it had the power to do so. So the advice was that if you want to delegate subpoena power to a board, you need to amend the charter to say that the City Council May delegate its power to that board or any other board.
Bill Carlson 12:04:15PM
I have to hire My Own Attorneys because the City Council Attorney cannot hire attorneys, but I have to hire My Own Attorneys and they give me an opposite opinion. We could talk about that issue forever.
Andrea Zelman 12:04:25PM
But I just want to be clear that The City Attorney didnt say you cant delegate your power.
Bill Carlson 12:04:28PM
I disagree with that, too.
Andrea Zelman 12:04:29PM
They said You have to amend the charter to so state that youre going to delegate the power.
Bill Carlson 12:04:36PM
I disagree with that recollection. But anyway, can you just answer simply, in your opinion -- you are a New City Attorney -- in your opinion, does an ordinance -- as the charter is written now, does an ordinance supersede an executive order?
Andrea Zelman 12:04:45PM
Its not a question of superseding. The example that you keep describing back in 2015, the issue wasnt whether executive order trumps ordinance. The issue was whether the City Council had the authority to adopt an ordinance that governed practices of a Police Department that only the Mayor had the authority to manage. That was the issue. So it really wasnt a question of executive order versus ordinance. The Mayor, I believe, tried to codify his position in an executive order. But, again, I dont want to argue the past. Thats all been fixed.
Bill Carlson 12:05:26PM
Again, setting aside specific cases, if an executive order and on ordinance are in conflict, does -- as the charter is written now, does an ordinance supersede an executive order?
Andrea Zelman 12:05:37PM
I would have to look at the ordinance itself. Because I think the bottom line is, the Mayor cant -- a mayors executive order will be void if it isnt consistent with law. I mean, its kind of redundant. I think this is what Councilman Viera was trying to say. We dont need to amend the charter to say you cant do something against the law. We already know we cant do something against the law.
Bill Carlson 12:06:03PM
If an executive order was done based on an opinion of a City Attorney and a new City Attorney, an Outside Attorney, shows it is the wrong interpretation of the charter, then isnt it then against the law and it would be void? The executive order would be void andor City Council can just pass an ordinance to supersede it?
Andrea Zelman 12:06:21PM
Im sorry. Im just not sure im following you.
Bill Carlson 12:06:25PM
There are past opinions where a Prior City Attorney said that the Mayor had certain rights, and if you have a different opinion, or if an Outside Counsel comes in and has a different opinion, then does that mean that all of those executive orders based on the former opinion are now void?
Andrea Zelman 12:06:45PM
I cant answer a hypothetical like that. Each would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Bill Carlson 12:06:51PM
Again, if an ordinance and an executive order are in conflict and it doesnt affect any other part of the charter, but if they are in conflict, which one supersedes the other?
Andrea Zelman 12:07:02PM
Again, youd have to look at the facts of that particular case. What was the subject matter of the ordinance? What was the subject matter of the executive order? Did council have the authority to adopt the ordinance? Or is it governed by something that the Mayor has control over and thats why -- again, going back to the Crb, that was the argument that only the Mayor had the authority to manage the affairs of the Police Department, so only he could do it by executive -- create the Crb by executive order. But, again, it was very fact specific, and im probably talking about it at a 30,000-foot level, and I think there was more to it than that. But its going to depend on the facts. But I think the point being any executive order thats inconsistent with the law is void. Again, you dont need to say the obvious.
Bill Carlson 12:07:55PM
And the law You mean an ordinance. So an ordinance passed by City Council, it becomes law, is law, and an executive order in conflict with an ordinance is void. Thats what You just said.
Andrea Zelman 12:08:06PM
I dont want to say that globally because I saw what happened in the past. Again, the point there was that the subject matter of the ordinance was something that was reserved to the Mayor.
Anne Schroeder 12:08:20PM
Thank you, Ms. Zelman. Our time is getting close here. Were sort of past the 12 noon that We expected. But nevertheless, this needs to be put to rest, if We might do so. Do I have permission to go forward for a few minutes? Mr. Chairman?
Joseph Citro 12:08:36PM
Yes, maam, please.
Anne Schroeder 12:08:37PM
Mr. Gudes and then it looks like we need to make a decision on this. Yes, sir.
Orlando Gudes 12:08:42PM
Motion I made. I think it needs to be put in section 4.01 As number 12.
Anne Schroeder 12:08:49PM
Im sorry. I didnt hear you.
Orlando Gudes 12:08:50PM
I stand by the corrective language, executive order in conflict with law or ordinance shall be void for section 4.01 And make it number 12.
Anne Schroeder 12:09:02PM
Do we have a second on that?
Anne Schroeder 12:09:07PM
Lets have a vote that you want to adopt this as it is. Weve got three. Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak, Mr. Gudes. It does not carry at this point.
Orlando Gudes 12:09:18PM
I dont think anything is going to pass today, to be honest with you.
Anne Schroeder 12:09:21PM
Lets look at the time. Hold on one second, Mr. Miranda. So lets look at the time. Lets assume we leave here at 12:15. So that would give US until 1:15. Is that a reasonable time frame, 60 minutes for lunch? Is that okay?
Joseph Citro 12:09:42PM
Lets do 1:15. Thank you. 115 is fine. Were adjourned. [ sounding gavel
Joseph Citro 1:16:50PM
The workshop is back in session. Roll call.
Guido Maniscalco 1:19:37PM
Here.
Charlie Miranda 1:19:41PM
Here.
Lynn Hurtak 1:19:42PM
Here.
Bill Carlson 1:19:43PM
Here.
Luis Viera 1:19:46PM
Here.
Joseph Citro 1:19:49PM
Here.
Anne Schroeder 1:19:50PM
Thank you. Good afternoon. I thought it might be helpful just to review the discussion and to mention that things are all going very well with them, and I am getting feedback on the mike now, which I did not earlier. Is anybody managing that?
Anne Schroeder 1:20:27PM
Got a little feedback. We are sharing the floor, so We can allow Each Speaker to finish their comments. This one is tough because We had areas that are important to US, the economy of words, withholding any personalized comments, from your experience, and last, toward our desired outcomes. Is everybody all right with that? Good.
Bill Carlson 1:20:54PM
I think We ought to add an extra one. You can say whatever You want for as long as You want because today is your birthday.
Anne Schroeder 1:21:02PM
I think I understand that there is a birthday today. Good. Where we left off was section 401. The next section is 4 is 4.02. Anyone there making a comment? Otherwise we will proceed to article 5.
Bill Carlson 1:21:32PM
If you guys want to do these fast, We can do them really fast. But I would make a motion to -- and bringing things up We brought up in the charter review --
Anne Schroeder 1:21:53PM
Im sorry, Mr. Carlson, im having difficulty understanding.
Bill Carlson 1:21:57PM
I would like to make a motion number 4.01 And whether we brought up things that are in the Charter Review Commission but I want to be bring it up so we can have an up or down vote. In the first paragraph if you look toward the bottom it says no person who has or resignation would have served as mayor for two consecutive full terms will be elected as mayor for the succeeding term. I would like to make a motion that we again have the City Attorney outside attorney come back to US on the outside, the next ordinance, to present this, removing the word, 4.01, Removing the word consecutive and removing the term for the succeeding term. So the effect of that is that a person who has been mayor for two full terms, not a partial term but for two full terms, cant run again. The way it is now is you run two consecutive terms and you can take a break and come back. So I dont know with the way is vote is going to go but I would like to see if we can get a second and we can vote up or down.
Anne Schroeder 1:22:58PM
Could you concisely state the actual page?
Bill Carlson 1:23:05PM
Yes. I dont know which sentence this is, but in the sentence that starts with "No Person" 4.01, The full paragraph, my motion is to remove the word consecutive and the new sentence would read, No Person who has, but for resignation, would have served as Mayor for two full terms shall be elected as Mayor.
Anne Schroeder 1:23:28PM
Take off consecutive?
Bill Carlson 1:23:37PM
And take out "for the succeeding term." And the argument against this is, while its up to the Voters to decide whether they want to bring somebody back, but its also up to the Voters to decide whether they want to pooh this. If they reject it then they show that they want to be able to vote for whomever they want. If they approve it, also coming back.
Anne Schroeder 1:24:04PM
Im sorry I asked for the second. Any other discussion? Mr. Miranda?
Charlie Miranda 1:24:12PM
I can appreciate what Councilman member Carlson is saying but again I believe its up to the public.
Anne Schroeder 1:24:20PM
Im sorry?
Charlie Miranda 1:24:22PM
I believe its up to the pun.
Anne Schroeder 1:24:25PM
Which would support the motion it would go on the ballot. Is that correct?
Charlie Miranda 1:24:28PM
If the public wants it, if you put them on the ballot then that Perp cant run again. It wouldnt be what he just said without taking the person -- if the person cannot run again, period, whether it masses or doesnt pass in a way, because now it can go back to the original thing.
Anne Schroeder 1:24:51PM
Did you get that as notes? Yes. And we did have a second. And lets call for a vote on that. We need four to put that on the ballot. One, two -- three.
Charlie Miranda 1:25:10PM
The way I understand, the way it reads now, anybody who is Mayor, in the past or in the future, can have two full terms. And He cant or she cant run again. But if He wants to run eight years later or four years later and the People want that person, who am I to deny them the right to be on the ballot? Thats all.
Bill Carlson 1:25:35PM
My argument is We are asking the Voters to decide whether they have that right or not, so. We are voting?
Anne Schroeder 1:25:42PM
We are voting. Lets see a show of hands. Two. Doesnt carry. Stays the way it is for the time being.
Martin Shelby 1:25:53PM
And the two so we know, by a show of hands, by audio --
Anne Schroeder 1:25:59PM
Mr. Carlson and Ms. Hurtak. Thank you for that reminder. I appreciate that. Excuse me, I wonder if you can ask the people in the hall. Its carrying through the door. Thank you. Article 5, start with 5.01, Departments, and go to 5.303, Additional duties. 503. Any discussion on section 5? Please indicate with a show of your hand. Mr. Carlson, yes. Which section?
Bill Carlson 1:26:38PM
Several. What I did is I broke these up into little pieces so we can discuss the pieces, and again we can get a quick up or down vote. It sound like its going to go down but I want to at least have the vote so the public can see. 501, I would suggest adding, I said "a" here, but I would add, quote, the Legal Department is a department of the city as described in this section 5.01 Whose purpose is to provide legal advice to its clients as defined below. It is not the judicial branch of the city. So I guess I am suggesting putting this in 5.01-a. At the end of 5.01 A. So the idea is to clarify, just because The City Attorney has -- its not these exact words but the final legal -- the final official legal representative for the city. It doesnt necessarily say it has the final legal opinion, but the final official representative for the city. It does not mean The City Attorney is a judge or jury, and by the way, the outside attorneys are not judge and jury although some recently acted as if they were. The idea here is to clearly state the Legal Department is under -- the department, its not a branch of government. So all this does is it says the most important line is the last one, its not a judicial branch of the city. So I would like to move that The City Attorney, Outside Attorney come back on the date that we pick for the first reading to add at the end of 5.01-a, The Legal Department is a department of the city as described in section 5.01 Whose purpose is to provide legal advice to its clients as defined below but is not the judicial branch of the city.
Anne Schroeder 1:28:27PM
Could you hand something to Mr. Shelby? Was there something in print? Thank you.
Bill Carlson 1:28:36PM
If theres no second we can move to the next one.
Lynn Hurtak 1:28:48PM
Oh, ill second it.
Charlie Miranda 1:28:49PM
I am looking at a word here, says "His office shall be in City Hall." I dont think it should be just "His."
Anne Schroeder 1:28:59PM
Sometimes one can use the gender neutral with their, His, Her.
Lynn Hurtak 1:29:04PM
Except in the last year, the Four Of Us that were on the Charter Review Commission, that was one of the first things we did was reflect everything in a gender neutral language, and even the most updated copy of the charter still has yet to be done, so maybe we should have that then because its all over the place.
Bill Carlson 1:29:27PM
And so everybody knows who is watching, my proposal doesnt have pronouns in it, so its irrelevant to the proposal I made.
Anne Schroeder 1:29:35PM
For now.
Bill Carlson 1:29:37PM
The charter was not modified. All it says, it clearly states that the Legal Department is not the judicial branch of the city. Its simply serves to give legal advice. Its what the charter says. It just clarifies it further for the public.
Anne Schroeder 1:29:53PM
Ms. Hurtak seconded that. Ready for the vote? As stated, lets do the hands. Does not carry. The vote by Carlson, Hurtak and Gudes. Thank you.
Bill Carlson 1:30:08PM
The next one is the same thing.
Anne Schroeder 1:30:22PM
Give US which section.
Bill Carlson 1:30:25PM
501, Adding to the end of 5.01-a, The quote, the City Attorney is appointed by the Mayor according to section 6.03 Below, the City Attorney May be removed by the Mayor or by Super Majority five member vote of City Council. The purpose of this is that the City Attorney, by bar rules, has to represent City Council, but that office has not, and without getting into all the details, anybody who looks can see that this City Attorney has not, and so what this does is it simply says that the City Attorney, unlike the Communication Department, or the other department heads, Communication Department technically should report to City Council, but at the very least the City Attorney, because they are obligated by Florida bar rules, they should also report to City Council. And all this does is it says, look, if we end up with a particularly bad City Attorney who only listens to the Mayor and is giving US biased advice, we have by Super Majority or if my colleagues dont like Super Majority by four, but by Super Majority City Council can remove that person and that for the person to be objective. The last two or three years, its not coming from City Council. Its because we think its biased viewpoints, and bully tactics. And what we need to do is focus on making sure the City Attorney is objective. If the City Attorney is objective, the opinions we get are going to be clear. But again take it for up or down vote.
Anne Schroeder 1:32:12PM
So thats your motion, to ask that that language --
Bill Carlson 1:32:20PM
Yes.
Anne Schroeder 1:32:23PM
Do we have a second?
Charlie Miranda 1:32:25PM
I want to speak on it. I dont know if we have a second or not.
Lynn Hurtak 1:32:28PM
I second it.
Charlie Miranda 1:32:30PM
I appreciate what Mr. Carlson is saying. However, what if not this board but another board in the future just wants to get rid of a City Attorney, and for whatever reason, that conflict between the Council and the city with five votes that means that City Attorney automatically, whether he or she was doing the job or not is irrelevant. And thats what I cant swallow. And it could be, say this board does that, other boards in the future, could make an argument that they just dont like the opinions and they want to get rid of the City Attorney.
Anne Schroeder 1:33:08PM
To clarify, You are saying this does not indicate just cause?
Charlie Miranda 1:33:15PM
Right. It doesnt say for what cause. It says by a vote.
Anne Schroeder 1:33:21PM
Slugs has been held. Any other discussion? Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 1:33:25PM
We see it all the time but earlier He talked about This Council five votes, if I am not mistaken, He said five votes. So I am confused now that we are saying no, but earlier we said, This Council, anybody to do what you need to do, five-oh, but five vote, because my understanding, once we appoint someone, you know, well get to that section. But once we appoint somebody, they belong to the Mayor and we have no authority to do anything. So I know He said about five votes. Im confused about that. So we need information, because my attorney says once they are appointed and we give the go, its oh, we cant do anything.
Anne Schroeder 1:34:13PM
Mr. Miranda.
Charlie Miranda 1:34:19PM
I think the five votes is misunderstood. Five votes overrides the Mayor on an ordinance or against, any other council has the right. Where we start going into department heads, and there are many in the city, whats to say that the Attorney or Chief Of Police or fire police, they are all department heads. So is the City Attorney. So what are we saying? We are just going to pick on up with an not the others, for whatever reason? I mean, im looking at it objectively, I believe, long-term for the association to have balance. And the problem, how they handle their job, I cant just leave to the one person. I May not like the City Attorney, and I dont mind telling the City Attorney 101. That doesnt mean that I am going to fire them because I dont like them. Just like we have same component, City Council Attorney with the same thing. But City Council Attorney, they reduce to four votes.
Anne Schroeder 1:35:19PM
Thank you. Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 1:35:23PM
Actually that feeds into a really good reason why we should because the City Attorney is the only director of any agencies that will also report to US. So no one can fire the City Council attorney except for US. But the City Attorney is also supposed to work for US. None of the others are supposed to work for US. So, I mean, I think that argument is great, but it just feeds what councilman member Carlson proposed, I believe, or at least it gave me more incentive to vote for it following that last analysis thank you.
Anne Schroeder 1:36:06PM
Ms. Hurtak, your point is it is position specific?
Lynn Hurtak 1:36:13PM
Yes, and the City Attorney. It doesnt say anything about other department heads because other department heads arent supposed to represent US, whereas the City Attorney has a very specific role to represent the Mayor, the city, and the City Council. So in this case, it really is a person that should report to US. Not report to US, but, you know, he or she is supposed to protect US. We have had differences in the past, recent past about whether that has occurred.
Anne Schroeder 1:36:53PM
Thank you.
Charlie Miranda 1:36:55PM
Not to beat a dead horse, when You understand, if You were the City Attorney, any one of You, and You know that You were going to have to satisfy five Council members, because not this Council again, anytime, how would You feel every time You come to this chamber to do something know that You have got to satisfy five people? Only the fact, maam. How do You feel about that? When You know that You have five votes that, bingo, youre out. That person has a very big disadvantage.
Anne Schroeder 1:37:34PM
Mr. Carlson, one more comment?
Bill Carlson 1:37:37PM
We are like the board of directors of a corporation, and positions like this report to a board, and sometimes board and CEO, and sometimes the executives of this city a little less, say land use or whatever, but you are also in charge of a 1.9 Billion organization, and I dont want to get into all the specifics, but we have had multiple, multiple cases even in the last year where the City Attorney did not work in the best interest of City Council. And I will just read from section 5.01-a, It says, just going to take excerpts, legal, talking about the City Attorney, legal adviser of the Mayor, the City Council, and committees thereof, and all of the self departments, officers and boards of the city government. That wasnt followed at all in the last year. Also, we were told by former City Attorney that we dont represent City Council members individually. And in the next paragraph later on it says, and defend the rights and interests of the city or any officer -- any officer of the city. Doesnt say City Council. Any officer of the city, in any suit or prosecution from any act in the discharge of his official duties when any estate, right, privilege, blah-blah-blah, and none of that happened in the last year. So my point is, if a City Attorney does not follow our rules and represent their clients as defined in the charter, the only remedy we have is we can sue them or we can file Florida Bar complaint. And instead of doing that, because when I talk about great danger for the city, if we individually reflectively start filing lawsuits because the City Attorney did not represent US individually or collectively, and we file bar complaints, thats going to send the city into chaos and cause investors not to come here. Instead we can modify this language, the City Attorney by charter and by Florida Bar rules also reports to US already. The only thing is that they report to the Mayor. If you have an Outside Attorney, the Outside Attorney is going to represent your interests, and theres inherent conflict with having all these compliance clients. So we need to make sure that as the only other branch of government that they represent US also, and if we simply have by super majority the right to fire, the Mayor can fire at will. If we also have that right, it reminds the City Attorney that, yes, they do represent US.
Anne Schroeder 1:40:10PM
Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak seconded it. And ready for the vote. Those in support? We have three. We have Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak and Mr. Gudes. Thank you.
Bill Carlson 1:40:25PM
501-a Again, and this just happened yesterday. What happens if the City Attorney has conflict of interest? Yes, the City Attorney's office was representing TPD in discussion with todays meeting but there was no one from the City Attorney's office representing position of City Council. Its not only the responsibility of City Council attorney. I just read that its also the responsibility of City Attorney. But when a representative of the City Attorney is representing one of their clients, they need to disclose which client they are representing and then there should be a representative representing the other clients of City Council. So I would make a motion that City Attorney's outside attorney review and essentially edit the following to present at the first hearing, and it will be amendment to 5.01-a, Should the City Attorney face a situation that represents a conflict of interest, the City Attorney will offer each party outside counsel to provide an objective opinion.
Anne Schroeder 1:41:31PM
Do you have that again? A hard copy? Thank you.
Bill Carlson 1:41:39PM
Marty, do you want to --
Anne Schroeder 1:41:50PM
If that doesnt have a second, I will move to the next one. Ill second it.
Bill Carlson 1:42:04PM
This really says that both sides need to be represented by objective counsel. And what happens in real life, I talked to a lot of attorneys the b this if an Attorney has a conflict of interest, they say, I cant help you, you have got to go to another counsel. So what does the City Council do? If the Mayor and the City Council have a dispute or the Mayor and City Council department head, whatever, Florida bar rules say that Attorney cannot represent both side, theyve get outside counsel. But its not stated in the charter. It simply states what should happen typically according to Florida bar rules.
Anne Schroeder 1:42:48PM
To clarify, this goes at the end of --
Bill Carlson 1:42:52PM
501-a.
Charlie Miranda 1:42:56PM
What we are doing here is whoever is City Attorney is, the way I read this, and maybe I am not reading it right, conflict of interest, da-d -- da, whoever that City Attorney is, whoever the bodies are, the Mayor and the Council have a disagreement, they come to the -- what they are saying is that City Attorney cannot make a determination, and if that other party can get outside counsel. What are we doing here? How many outside counsels are we going to have? Thats the responsibility of the City Attorney to be the head of both bodies, both. The legislative and the Administration. Thats all I got to say.
Anne Schroeder 1:43:44PM
Let me check back with Mr. Carlson. Is that what your intention was?
Bill Carlson 1:43:48PM
Yeah, and I gave the example, and the rest of the world, if an Attorney has a conflict, they cant handle the case. If theres a dispute between the Mayor and City Council or whatever, City Attorney is conflicted out. The City Attorney is not the Judicial Branch Of Government even though we didnt approve that amendment, still not the Judicial Branch Of Government and their opinion could be biased. We have seen so many cases of bias in the last if you years that we need to make sure that we get outside opinions. And this is to avoid conflict, not to create conflict. There already is conflict not created by US but created by the opinions that take away what they have done, without changing the charter, without going before the public and getting a vote, they changed the charter to take away powers of City Council.
Anne Schroeder 1:44:36PM
Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 1:44:38PM
Yes, maam. Well, we have been here for a while. And I have got several calls. And I wasnt going to come back. But I had some people said no, you need to come back, thats your job. This is a totally mockery today. Truly is. We have seen a lot of things that happened. Whether Council wants to be try to make a change or not for whatever reason, and thats fine. I am reminded by Mr. Miranda you cant get mad about peoples vote. For me to the public ears, I am going to do my duty, regardless of what the outcome is today. We want to go through this whole thing because there are not going to be any votes that go through today, and thats fine. But I want to say, you cant serve two masters. I said that time and time again. I cant -- you belong to somebody else. If I hire you, you have to be loyal to me. If I hire you, you better be loyal to me or I am going to fire you if you aint loyal to me its dont care what anybody says. In the City Attorney's office, things are terrible. But the City Attorney here, and if the Mayor wants attorney staff and bond, City Council has their staff, and if theres a dispute, now you have a City Attorney who is unbiased to make a decision, should not be answering the to it Mayor, an independent body, an independent person. This Council and the Mayor communicate to the staff, putting all kinds of stuff by Council members bub we dont have a staff to counter these things. So should not be a department per se, but a City Attorney should be a stand alone person. Thats my opinion. And again, you cant serve two masters. I dont care what anybody says, because I hired you, or if you dont do way say do, I am going to fire you.
Anne Schroeder 1:46:39PM
Thank you for your clarification Mr. Viera, you also had a comment.
Luis Viera 1:46:44PM
Thank you, maam. I appreciate that. And again this is something that we are seeing on first impression, might be a challenge of a lot of issues we are seeing today for the first time aside from some general discussions that we are being asked to go forward on a formal process on weighty issues in our charter that will have some effect, you know, and certain of these issues, you know, I would like to further discuss, right? If we had more time. Again not to relitigate issues. But I go back to a month ago. My challenge with this is again just looking at it from the language that I see is this could create potentially a burden where we create conflicts where there are not, those traditional attorney-client conflict that we see, in my opinion, to the extent that a Councilmember May feel that they need counsel, we have this Fine Gentleman here who can fulfill that task. Thats my opinion, again upon first impression. I just wanted to state my rationale to give the process the respect it deserves. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 1:47:49PM
And I think thats one reason why this is called a workshop, that there are discussion points, and not necessarily a final decision. If it does happen, it does happen. And we get a vote. A workshop. Thank you. And Ms. Hurtak. Let me go to Ms. Hurtak real quickly. She had her hand up.
Lynn Hurtak 1:48:12PM
Thats kind of the point of today for Me, exactly the opposite of what you said, and hey, folks, we are not allowed to talk at any other time to each other so thats to give US a full month to come back with language that would have two full votes. So the public can weigh in at that point or earlier because you know they will, after today. Each one of US will get phone calls about our performance today. And so you know that will happen. So anything we pass, we also May come back and decide, never mind. So for Me, this is actually an exercise of, hey, this is really interesting, I would like to explore it further. And everyones giant ideas to some more specific ones that I think we should all focus on. So I completely disagree. While I would love to go in depth about more of these, to Me this is really just a, hey, this is one that kind of piques all of our interest, I would like to talk about it more, for Council to back. Thats what I think the purpose of this workshop is why a and why I supported so many different -- because I am cool about coming back to focus on these specific ones to bring back. I dont think any ideas today are bad ideas.
Anne Schroeder 1:49:33PM
Thank you. Mr. Viera, you wanted to add a note?
Luis Viera 1:49:39PM
Not to be relitigate the issue, with you but I wish we could have had additional time to discuss these. Because when I vote yes on something I dont like to vote no on it later. I just dont. I like to give it time for consideration. Thats the way I function. But thats it. But again, I appreciate councilwoman hurtaks words. Slow slowed as we conclude, with that he time comes, is looking at next steps and a timeline. So well have the opportunity to look at that process. And is there anything else you want to fold into it before we end? To fully understand your comment and ms. Hurtaks? Yes, Mr. Carlson?
Bill Carlson 1:50:22PM
Yes, and I would just ask my colleagues who vote against these, if you think about them and discuss them with whoever your advisors are and you decide you want to bring it back, well still bring it back. Bring it up in new business to say, hey, I reflected on some of these things and I think differently. But I think maybe the purpose of this is to give the public the right to decide, and if we dont approve some of these tweaks, we are going to end up in a situation where we continue to have conflicts, and these issues will continue to fester. And some folks are asking me at lunch, like are you really going to go through the rest of these and get the vote no? Yes, I dont care. To me this is not about politics, not being able to tweet at the end of the day I lost or whatever which im sure some people are going to do. This is about bringing up the issues that are important to the city, and constituents want me to bring it. They have lots of concerns about the way the city is being run and the way City Council members have been treated by the City Attorney's Office. And we have Ms. Zelman is new, and I am not putting that on her, but we have to make sure at the very least, even though these May not pass, the message is out there and its not how do you make these up? They are come from the public also, and coming from Good Legal Counsel, and we need to seriously think about the underlying issues. So I would just ask respectfully for a vote up or down.
Anne Schroeder 1:51:50PM
Yes. Are you voting?
Charlie Miranda 1:51:55PM
No, I just want to say one thing. As we bring up some other stuff, I have never gone to mr. City Council attorney Mr. Shelby, or the city attorney on any issue regarding this. None of it. I havent talked to any one of these colleagues here to clear the air, the way was said, preconceived that the vote call is going do be 4 to 3 or 3230 to 4 or 5 to 2 or 2 to 5 or whatever numbers. Let me clear the air right there. And if anybody wants to question that, we can do that anytime you want.
Anne Schroeder 1:52:28PM
Thank you, Sir. We are going to call for the vote. And could you read out the motion?
Anne Schroeder 1:52:52PM
I believe we had a second as well. So lets go to the vote. We have three. We have Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak and Mr. Gudes.
Bill Carlson 1:53:08PM
Okay. Next one --
Anne Schroeder 1:53:13PM
Could I intervene for one moment? If we could put back up our desired outcomes. Because I think it really is underscoring what some of you are saying. If you will notice what this says, it uses very specific language. Does that come up on your screen? To explore, discuss and develop. Explore is a great deal of what you are doing in this workshop. Just want to underscore that. Thank you.
Bill Carlson 1:53:40PM
I have three more quick ones in this area. Next again, I am sorry, to modify section 5.01-a, And it is, quote, the City Attorney's office May not participate in an investigation of a Client, in parenthesis, the Mayor or City Council, counsel of City Council, as defined in the charter, without first informing that Client of the investigation and nature of the investigation. And I am not bringing up a specific case, but we -- if an Attorney -- if an Attorney is representing you, and its clear from the charter that the City Attorney always represents City Council, and also City Council members, its specifically described there, a City Attorney by Florida Bar rules should not be allowed to investigate its own Client without at least first disclosing that to the Client. And thats basic -- so the only option is to either file a lawsuit or go to the Florida Bar and make a complaint. So I would like to avoid that by just specifying this here.
Lynn Hurtak 1:54:50PM
Second.
Anne Schroeder 1:54:53PM
We have a second with Ms. Hurtak. Discussion on this topic?
Charlie Miranda 1:54:58PM
I just read this for the first time and I have to digest it for a second here. The City Attorney's office -- the way I read this, there is -- if there is an allegation against me, lets say, and I dont see how the City Attorney can start an investigation or the nature of an investigation without letting me know about it. Law Enforcement Officer comes under investigation. Or State Attorney makes an investigation. Now unless you commit a crime outside, whether its me or anyone else, and the Police Department gets involved. I dont understand the whole sense of it. But I dont want to go into the past or the future. I dont know whats going to happen and I dont want to speak on it -- I think the City Attorney is not responsible for what you do. That City Attorney tell me what I have to do if I want to be represented by that City Attorney fi Feel I am under investigation and I have a conference with that City Attorney that City Attorney is going to tell me by law what my rights are, if they want me to have that City Attorney represent me. Thats what I think its about but I am not sure. So thats why I cant vote for it because I dont know if theres too many investigations, too many crimes. I dont know whats happening, what the text of the conversation between that individual who might be charged or not charged, with the City Attorney. I dont know that. Investigation?
Charlie Miranda 1:56:38PM
Correct.
Anne Schroeder 1:56:40PM
Does anyone want to comment on that, your understanding, your thought? Yes, Mr. Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco 1:56:45PM
Thinking about this and trying to gather my thoughts, I know why a lot of these are, where they stem from, and mismanagement or mishandling. We are here today because of recent things that have happened in the past year, and here we are discussing the charter. We had a Charter Review Commission four years ago at length with many members, many that are here, many that are with the city, and again, you know, I started my comments this morning, it feels like we have been at war with one another. And we talk about hard reset. We talked about a lot of things over the last few months. We have a New City Attorney. I have been involved this politics for 12 years. I got elected in 2015. I have run three campaigns. No one ever thought of the charter. No one discussed a lot of things that have been discussed because the main objective and goal is to serve the community and get elected here. I appreciate, you know, this today, but to me its a mess, you know. I dont know, we need to look within ourselves. I dont know what to do that we get along better. Because I understand where a lot of this comes from, and this could be avoided. All we should do is follow the charter. Theres a lot of stuff here was already said, theres a lot of different opinions over the years that have muddied the waters, and we need to go down a different path.
Anne Schroeder 1:58:24PM
And this is as neutral a comment as I can make, and thats why we have the Supreme Court because of interpretation. So it is certainly an issue. Of how different people interpret. Thats the point of this discussion. Mr. Viera and then Mr. Carlson.
Luis Viera 1:58:44PM
Thank you, maam. And again, this is something that could have some positive results. My concern with it among other things is, and again just hypothetically, this could lead to potential retaliation against somebody that makes a complaint, et cetera. Again, unintended consequences going forward with something. Thats my concern with this.
Anne Schroeder 1:59:09PM
Because everyone has been very cordial in listening to one another. Mr. Carlson and then Mr. Gudes.
Bill Carlson 1:59:18PM
Retaliation is against law, against the handbook, so We cant do that anyway. So I will say to Councilmember Maniscalco's question, the issue of making peace is not on our side. Chief Bennett will tell you how many times I have called in and asked to make peace with the Administration, where after the Administration has overtly attacked me and my colleagues, I have said, lets make peace. I met with the Mayor in February and tried to make peace. That was one of the things that Chief Bennett and I worked out. I have called, not when We continue the attack and continue to get biased opinion from City Attorney, I have asked publicly for the Mayor to come apologize to City Council for using city resources to attack US. And nothing has happened. I have asked the chief of staff to have the Mayor call me to talk about these attacks. I am not the one that attacked. The attacks were the other way around. And I have been call over and over again for peace. I have had self conversations with Ms. Zelman. I had conversation with her, her predecessor to try to make sure We got fair and accurate responses. So far I have not filed a lawsuit. I have not filed a bar complaint against anyone, although I am completely entitled to do both and at least one of my other colleagues is. We have not done that because it isnt in the best interest of the city. But dont blame it on City Council and City Council members. This is the not on US. The reason why this is happening is because We have got an Administration thats just getting whatever it wants from City Council and thats whats going to do today and they are going to tweet today, oh, high five, We put them in their place. Because why is it We didnt find out about this civil rights investigation by the justice department for six months? Why is it that We couldnt get answers as to who made the decision not to put $108 million contract out to bid? Why is it We couldnt get simple answers last week? How much is it going cost for ten years? We dont know. How much is it going to cost for 30 years? We dont know. Thats ridiculous that We dont know these things and part of the reason We cant get the answers is because We dont have any legal support. So I dont want to go into the specifics of whats behind this, but obviously if the City Attorney has a conflict of interest, which they do, because -- and they represent multiple clients, and your own attorney cannot investigate you or persecute you. I have had the former City Attorney say things to me that were slanderous to the media, completely not based on law and should not have been said. And what I am trying to do is avoid a conflict by making sure that We make it very clear that they cant work against US.
Anne Schroeder 2:02:01PM
Again the key words here are first informing the client, pick out the piece about it. We have a motion? Yes, Mr. Gudes, thank you.
Orlando Gudes 2:02:09PM
The gist of this whole charter is oversight. There is no oversight on any of these issues. And we have an Inspector General of the City, that person could clip a lot of this study, and interpretations, and I think thats what was stated. Someone is watching the house. I think an Inspector General would be a person who would monitor when we go astray on some of the things we are doing. I think if you look at some other counties. The exact thing I am talking about. And you can get away from -- there are some small words in here that could be redefined by someones interpretation. A lot of them are. When we get do 6.03, There are a lot in that that need to be cleared up. And the council members arent aware of that, we have a situation, so well get to that discussion. There was a whole community. So we know something to fix it. But I am saying maybe look at in their minds, maybe an Inspector General would be good, to be able to monitor and deal with charter issues and the investigation. But I think an Inspector General would be good.
Anne Schroeder 2:03:42PM
Thank you, sir. We have a motion. Do we have a? Ms. Hurtak. Are we ready to vote on this plan about first informing the individual about the investigation? We have three votes. Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak, and Mr. Gudes. Thank you.
Bill Carlson 2:03:58PM
Two more on this section real fast. The next one is an addition of 5.01-a, And this has to do with the memo that Ms. Zelman sent out last week that is a reiteration of a memo by former City Attorney from five or so years ago, where that City Attorney had the opinion that City Attorney's office solely has the right to not only negotiate settlements but also sign the contracts and pay them without City Council approval. Im completely fine if we want to give them the right by ordinance to do that. However, considering that there is an opinion by a City Attorney that is wrong, and I will pass this out, too, since theres an opinion by a City Attorney from 2018 that is wrong, we need to mutt this in the charter so that we dont get a wrong opinion again. I mean, this opinion in two paragraphs changed the charter. The charter does not in any way say that the City Attorney can take away the right of City Council to approve contracts and payment. We can delegate that to the City Attorney but they dont have the right by charter. So what I would suggest again that the City Attorney, Outside Attorney look at this and edit it with a proposal back on the first day we meet amendment to section 5.01-a Which would say none of the above shall be construed to take away City Council's right by charter to approve contract and expenditures as defined in section 7.02 And 8.01.
Lynn Hurtak 2:05:42PM
I am going to second this and I am going to say of all of them this is the one we heard from Citizens if most when it comes to the hanna avenue projects. We heard from countless people that this is -- oh, no, this is the settlement. Well, yeah. We also had settlements for large amounts of money that we should -- that happened to this very council, not that long ago. That should have come before US. Anything with six digits should not be just the purview of the Ad Administration.
Anne Schroeder 2:06:19PM
Mr. Viera?
Luis Viera 2:06:23PM
Thank you, maam. Its funny. This is something which we could take a look at with ordinance own a larger workshop that would take several hours to talk about this one sole issue, because theres a lot of gray there with approving of settlements, et cetera. I remember when I first got on Council, we used to approve settlements, and suddenly it Nevada happened again, right? What happened to that? But the challenge is, with the kind of settlements that are out there to maybe we could take a look at something on approving settlements, either dealing with Council Members or settlements dealing with ordinances that were passed by City Council, if we do a one-size-fits-all approval, which again would probably require -- and I would be glad to second, by the way, a workshop on this issue -- but if we do a one-size-fits-all charter provision, potentially for settlements, anything from sidewalks, slip and falls, to commercial vehicles, pedestrians, et cetera, et cetera, I dont know how many settlements this city deals with. Theres a lot that goes into approving a settlement, the veracity or credibility of a witness, things that happen that one party knows about that doesnt want the adverse party to know about and it could come out in a hearing to approve that very settlement which is predicated upon confidential information. So theres a lot of gray there, that by going there, we would potentially not do a good service to the city, but we should do, and I would strongly support a workshop for maybe a more narrowly tailored policy on this issue through ordinance on again things dealing with ordinances that the City Council passes, things directed to Council Members. Thats very, very reasonable. But again, theres so much that goes into settling a case, right? They could go out in public and undermine the settlement of that particular case. And theres a lot of potential for that, trust me. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 2:08:20PM
Thank you. Yes, ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 2:08:22PM
Thats on our agenda on Thursday.
Luis Viera 2:08:27PM
There you go.
Lynn Hurtak 2:08:29PM
But to bring that back, you actually make a really good point that I didnt realize that these used to come in front of US and just stopped. So if they already came in front of US, we are already a problem, or were a problem, rather, then why did they stop coming in front of US? To me that seems more of the issue of hey, it was okay until the Attorney said its not okay. And just maybe unanimous motion and just took away our power. And im not cool with power being taken away, especially if something that used to come pretty regularly in front of US.
Anne Schroeder 2:09:06PM
Thank you. Mr. Miranda and then Mr. Gudes.
Charlie Miranda 2:09:09PM
Thank you very much. I think the whole conversation here bases on two words in this memo sent back in August 16, 2018, and it says, to word that I just picked out, and its called "legal matters." Not all settlement but legal matters. In other words, if theres a lawsuit going on, and whoever the City Attorney is makes a judgment decision that its fine to pay that amount now, or pay more later, thats a decision that somebody is going to have to make. I am not qualified to go into a legal matter and understand what that person has years of experience in handling these types of operations in the courtroom to find out who is right, who is wrong. I am not an attorney. I dont practice law. But when I read through legal matters that tells me that person, whoever that person May be, and this Council, Uppers that makes that decision, its up to that person, in this case the City Attorney who makes a decision, should I pay this amount or should I wait, go to trial and whatever? Those are legal matters. And I dont think maybe Mr. Viera, who is an attorney, and this side of the aisle, directed officials to make that decision. I dont feel comfortable making it with anybody else unless its somebody in the Legal Department that makes that decision, that its a legal matter, and based on the experience of that person, thats why -- I am not saying its 100% correct. I am saying I would rather not come here. Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 2:10:50PM
In my position over on the Sports Authority --
Orlando Gudes 2:11:00PM
We have legal matters to a closed session, and the Attorney discusses the legal matter. And they discuss the settlements, they discuss the issues, so We were informed so you could make a decision, if you want to pay that, they give you options. So theres a way to do things. And I can take the Sports Authority does it right over there because they go into session, and they look at what the Attorney comes back, telling them what our options are and so forth. And in that way the Attorney knows how to take the lead from the Board. You know, and I have read a lot of documents and We talk about settlements and things like that, and Mr. Shelby, I believe hr is supposed to bring the list of settlements back. We are not supposed to say anything, right? Supposed to bring it back and say what was settled. And I havent seen anything like that ever. So I think when you talk about, again, We talk about these issues, Charlie, but generally We look at it, there are some discrepancies here, and I know some dont want to deal with it today, and thats fine. But some day We have to deal with. Even if its ten years down the road, which now as I sat on that Board, ten years is too long. It should have been five. Should have been five. Because there are issues here, and maybe this Board, and eventually make a motion to change and reverse that, because We dont want to get election year -- nobody wants to rock the boat. I get it. Im not a politics guy. I dont care about being reelected. Just care about doing my work right now for the people and they give me my working orders. Im going to work on what im supposed to be working on right now. And I will deal with the rest later. I think We need to look at what We are not doing because a lot of things We are not doing in legal matters.
Anne Schroeder 2:12:42PM
Thank you. Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 2:12:45PM
I am going to read this and then I am going to leave out a few word. But the City Attorney has the final authority to settle any legal matters that involve the City Of Tampa, this includes the authority to settle all claims and litigations involving the City Of Tampa, as such, it is not necessary to submit the settlement of any legal claim to the City Council, the City Of Tampa for approval. Any resolutions, executive director orders in conflict with section 5.01 Of the city charter and City Of Tampa is null and void and unenforceable. This is from a two paragraph opinion from the City Attorney in 2018. Councilman Member Viera mentioned that City Council was presented settlements before, and suddenly they disappeared. I dont each know, I wasnt here then. I dont not if City Council was informed. But a City Attorney made a decision to change the charter and the voters didnt vote on this. If you look at 7.02 And 8.01, Clearly in the charter City Council has the ability to approve contracts and expenditures. Now, to Councilman Member Viera's point, we can delegate that and we might decide to delegate that on Thursday but we decide to delegate on Thursday, if we propose an ordinance on Thursday, do we say we would like to delegate settlements below a certain dollar amount of a certain type, is the City Attorney going to stand up and say, well, former City Attorney on June 18 said this and his opinion is like the Supreme Court, and so we are going to listen to that and we dont care what you think. Thats what has happened in the past. So without having a longer discussion, I would ask the City Attorney to please understand the new City Attorney to understand that she represents City Council, she said in her memo that shes open to US as passing an ordinance, and if she allows US to pass an ordinance that means this ordinance will be null and void. And thats my goal on Thursday. Because of that I would like to put this on the charter to make sure no City Attorney does this again. We are not changing anything. We already have the power. We are just clarifying that we have the power and then we can delegate it. We are not saying that all settlements should come to US. We can change that by ordinance. All we are doing is reiterating that by 7.02 And 8.01 We already have the power but we have been usurped by this 2018 opinion that did not go before voters. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 2:15:02PM
Basically what You just submitted here is clarification language.
Bill Carlson 2:15:10PM
Yes, it just reinforces what is already true so we dont get a biased opinion like this one in 2018.
Anne Schroeder 2:15:19PM
Mr. Miranda.
Charlie Miranda 2:15:24PM
I am not opposed to something being changed. But I dont think that-oh he We dont know the exact. We dont know what number We are going to put. It could be $5, 100,000, 20,000. We havent decided that. I think Mr. Viera had a good point. I am not supposed opposed to making this change. What I am opposed is to is We dont know the what-ifs. We dont know what the City Attorney is going to tell US. We dont know the amount We are going to settle on. And $400. No, thats not going to happen. But We have to have some understanding of the fact. I am not opposed to it but I cant vote on it basis dont know all the facts.
Anne Schroeder 2:16:09PM
To clarify You are asking for some parameters so You can feel like You could vote one way or the other.
Charlie Miranda 2:16:17PM
Correct.
Luis Viera 2:16:20PM
Cart before the horse, this is something maybe after Thursday once we defined the perimeters, I could supportive of it but a cart before the horse. Thats it.
Anne Schroeder 2:16:32PM
Good clarification. Calling for a vote as it stands. We have three. We have Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak and Mr. Gudes. So it does not pass as stated.
Bill Carlson 2:16:46PM
My last one, miami has an Attorney for the Mayor, and if we are going to demand just reject all of them, but by the way anything thats just rejected you its already in the charter. These things already exist. We are not changing City Council authority. All we are doing is protecting them so a future City Attorney cant come up with an opinion like this. But I would make a motion to modify 5 monte 01 a. Let me pass this out. Just to say that add an additional paragraph that says the Mayor May appoint an Attorney to represent the mayors office, this Attorney would be duly licensed with the Florida Bar and would advise the Mayor in his or her role as Mayor, not as an individual. The mayors Attorney would provide legal opinions to the Mayor based on the attorneys interpretation of law. However, no action or opinion of the mayors Attorney shall be construed to be the official legal position of the city, and such official legal position and actions shall slowly -- shall be solely within the scope and powers of the City Attorney. So all this really does is just like City Council has an Attorney, the Mayor would have an Attorney. And further, this is a new position, this would be a change, and the purpose of it is so that the public and the City Attorney's office not misconstrue to their clients not only the Mayor as represented in the past, their client is all the clients that are listed in the charter. So by having a mayors Attorney, the Mayor could get advice, an not representing Mayor individually in office and then the City Attorney's office could be more objective because City Council already has its Attorney as well.
Lynn Hurtak 2:18:32PM
Second.
Anne Schroeder 2:18:35PM
Just to clarify, You said this would be a new position?
Bill Carlson 2:18:39PM
Yes. It would further help to create objectivity at the City Attorney's Office.
Anne Schroeder 2:18:44PM
We have a second with mrs. Ms. Hurtak. Tampa a vote on this to pass it as it is. We have three, Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak and Mr. Gudes.
Bill Carlson 2:18:52PM
Thats all I have on that section. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 2:18:54PM
Thank you. Article 6, section 6, starts with Officers and goes through -- again looking at supplement 135, goes up to 6.08 Which is the changes. Does anyone have a discussion point on any of those sections? Please raise your hand. Yes, Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 2:19:29PM
603.
Anne Schroeder 2:19:34PM
Appointments.
Orlando Gudes 2:19:36PM
Mr. Shelby, I submitted one that wasnt added on this sheet of paper. And it relates to remittance of the Nominee. But I think for all intents and purposes, if you look at the example of collective language, the change shall be shall nominate, allow for internal appointment, until Confirmation of a Nominee by City Council, shall be a period of 930 days, which May be extended for an additional 90 days and filled only with a person who is an existing employee of the city. And in that should be added, that that person, if the Nominee is stricken down by this council, cannot be resubmitted.
Anne Schroeder 2:20:22PM
Thank You. And so You are primarily focusing on the word appoint and change that to nominate. I do hear You correctly?
Orlando Gudes 2:20:36PM
Yes.
Guido Maniscalco 2:20:39PM
Ye question on the motion. Did you say the nomination has to be from within an existing employee of the city?
Orlando Gudes 2:20:46PM
Thats correct.
Martin Shelby 2:20:49PM
Im sorry. Im looking at the memo. I believe that was interim.
Orlando Gudes 2:20:57PM
Interim. And select somebody before some person from the City, a City Employee, and then they could nominate whoever they want, to bring it before yourself for selection. But to take somebody and put them in a position and nominate approved by this body. Butt if you are a City Employee can fill that void because they know City policies and business already, until the appointment is made.
Anne Schroeder 2:21:24PM
Mr. Viera.
Luis Viera 2:21:29PM
And you know what? This is one that makes sense. And I dont want to say this part makes more sense. But I would find some problematic issues with the idea that 23 Council turns it down, then the Mayor May not pin him or her there again. Maybe thats too much on the executive. But other issues, and this has nothing to do with any past experiences. I voted for Chief O'connor, and I know shes doing a wonderful job, et cetera, et cetera, and I support her. But when you have the potential of pointing somebody, and they are on the job within longer than that 15 days, in other words, kind of tightening up, thats something that could make some sense to this guy.
Anne Schroeder 2:22:11PM
So Mr. Viera, you are also looking at the time frame thats involved as the two words, appoint versus -- I mean nominate versus appoint. Mr. Gudes?
Orlando Gudes 2:22:23PM
If that person -- if a vacancy is open and a city employee is already currently here is filling that void, that person, if the Mayor, he or she says thats my person or my guy, they still go for the appointment. So I dont understand what you are saying because they go for appointment but if they are denied by the Council they are denied. But if a person is in an appointed position, and Mrs. Hurtak, you know City Business, and try to decide if you want to work this job, you apply just like anybody else, and might take my list, and I look at my list and you May not be that person, I chose somebody else, and you go before the Council. And if the Council denies you, thats it.
Charlie Miranda 2:23:08PM
I can only speak for myself.
Anne Schroeder 2:23:15PM
Mr. Miranda, yes.
Charlie Miranda 2:23:16PM
Thank you very much. If a Mayor, whoever that Mayor May be, chooses someone to be head of something, and as I understand it, after the Mayor is here 15 days, oh are in that 15 days, Council has to appoint a department head. And then take that person should be -- we are talking about residency included, or just the person?
Orlando Gudes 2:23:47PM
Person. Residency is something else.
Charlie Miranda 2:23:50PM
I think that Mayor whoever he or she is has the right to appoint somebody, and if the Council Slate is given and you vote individually, if you want to vote on the whole slate you can. But I dont see, whats the problem?
Anne Schroeder 2:24:06PM
Thank you. Other comments on that? Do we have a motion?
Orlando Gudes 2:24:22PM
Yes, to worse the word from appoint to nominate. And the Interim Person has to be -- the Interim Person, and again has to be a city employee. If the Mayor wants to take that person later on, thats fine. And come to the Board for appointment. Theres no difference --
Lynn Hurtak 2:24:49PM
Its number 8 if you have the suggestions from Mr. Shelby.
Anne Schroeder 2:24:54PM
Yes, it is, number 8.
Martin Shelby 2:24:56PM
With regard to number 8, Mr. Gudes, you had an issue with an omission in that because you wanted to say something about -- I dont know if that was part of your motion or to take that out about resubmitting.
Orlando Gudes 2:25:10PM
Not going to resubmit ten times. It doesnt make any sense, you know. I think there was one, when you go through, Council votes it down, its done. The Mayor can appoint another candidate.
Anne Schroeder 2:25:28PM
Can we clarify for the notetaker the motion with the wording and then well see if we have a second? Mr. Gudes, did you want to restate your motion with the word that I heard Mr. Shelby mention?
Orlando Gudes 2:25:53PM
I think Ms. Hurtak did.
Lynn Hurtak 2:25:54PM
I can give you that language. An Interim Person -- I see what you are typing -- An Interim Person has to be an existing employee, and down at the bottom, the second sentence from the end, second to the last sentence, I suppose, it says, the Mayor within 90 days thereafter shall submit or resubmit to the Council the name of the appointee. Council member Gudes wants to take out the words "or resubmit" to make a person have only one option, one bite at the apple, so to speak. Did I get that correct?
Orlando Gudes 2:26:39PM
Correct. And the word appoint to nominate.
Lynn Hurtak 2:26:42PM
Yes, but shes got that part of it.
Anne Schroeder 2:26:46PM
Do we have a second? Mr. Carlson, yes. Lets call for a vote on this. We have three. We have Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak, and Mr. Gudes. It does not pass at this point.
Bill Carlson 2:27:02PM
I have another one. This could either go -- my memo says 7.03 But I am going to suggest 6.06.
Anne Schroeder 2:27:14PM
606? Salaries?
Bill Carlson 2:27:17PM
Yes.
Anne Schroeder 2:27:18PM
Ye okay.
Bill Carlson 2:27:20PM
I think that City Council should never have to vote on its salary again. I know Councilman Viera is concerned about when a salary rise takes place. But we should never have to vote on a salary again. Also, although the Mayor is executive, we also, City Council is in charge of looking through -- we all individually, because there are seven of US doesnt mean we have to do any less work. We have to individually look through all the same document and read a thousand pages a week or whatever it is, and closely watch the budget. And so I agree that we shouldnt get what the Mayor gets, but we should be able to get some smaller percentage of it. And so I would make a motion to ask the city attorneys outside counsel to look at section 6.06 And review the following language for a proposal to City Council at the first date of rehearing, and my proposed language is, quote, once every five years City Staff andor outside consultant will conduct an analysis of the salaries of mayors of the five largest cities in Florida andor american cities of a similar size to recommend a new salary of the Mayor. This new salary of the Mayor must be approved by City Council and the Mayor. City Council salaries will then be set at 60 percent of the mayors salary. These salaries will be eligible for annual cost of living increases. If we pass this, you might not agree with the percentage. I think at least 60% because we do a lot of the same work but if we are not, pick another number. But even Morris Massey recommended we bring this up in a session a few weeks ago. My particular solution is that the best kind of beverage benchmarking is to look at what other mayors are making. I think our Mayor is paid too little, not the person but the position. But if we look at the five largest cities and look at cities of a similar size and find that the salary is correct or should be higher or lower, then we can come back and say, okay, in is what it will be. And then City Council is just set up as a percentage of that, and we never have to vote on our salary again.
Anne Schroeder 2:29:39PM
Thank you. If I might, just a procedural question. Its now at 2:30 and checking on what is your sense for how long you want this meeting to continue? Chairman Citro?
Joseph Citro 2:29:55PM
Well, for as long as it takes to get through the charters. I was hoping We would be further along than We are right now. What is the pleasure of Council?
Orlando Gudes 2:30:06PM
I have to be -- at 3:15 and I cannot miss it. So going to the questions on the floor, or discussion, 60% of 180 is $108,000. So the Mayor ends up -- Council Members make 120,000. The three largest cities around it which is orlando, miami, and st. Petersburg, I think, we are about a thousand dollars difference in salaries today, so one of the cities, one at 54, one at 58, one at 60. Those are my memories going by mind. So dont take my mind because when the sun its hits you get a little radiation, you get the cells working real good, but in cold weather you cant take it. So what I am saying is my mind is right, thats what the salaries come to.
Anne Schroeder 2:30:50PM
Thank you. Well come back to the procedural question.
Lynn Hurtak 2:30:58PM
I am going to second that about Councilman Carlson questions, and I think to me this is a beautiful amendment to the constitution, because everyone here is saying, oh, we are paid too much, or not, you know, an equal amount. This actually puts that decision in the hand of the Voters. Takes it out of our hands. And I think that thats exactly for the folks who are saying we dont need an increase, we have people who say we do, we have people who say we dont. This literally just puts it in the hand of Voters. I think thats a great idea. I am open to changing the personal, but I think its pretty much exactly what we need to do. And as far as the procedural rule, I can stay here all night.
Anne Schroeder 2:31:43PM
Thank you. So she gave clarification that the percent -- percent May be modified but the overall language is appropriate. Mr. Maniscalco?
Guido Maniscalco 2:31:58PM
Thank you very much. As I stated recently, I didnt come here for the money, I came here to serve, the people allowed me to come here and allowed me to serve, and I am happy doing what I am doing. Some days are easier than others. At the end of the day its a community service. Yes, we get paid, but I dont believe in supporting a salary increase, just like my wife, shes a Teacher. She comes stressed every day. She complains a lot. She works very hard, and She -- teachers dont get paid enough money. So its not about the money. She loves what She does. So She leaves it at that, and face as new day. So thank you.
Anne Schroeder 2:32:38PM
Thank you. Mr. Citro.
Joseph Citro 2:32:42PM
Thank you, Ms. Schroeder. I think the job needs to be defined on whether or not its a part-time job or full time job. I dont know of too many people that are out there making $97,000 for a part-time job. I will be here at 8:00 in the morning, I will stay here until midnight, which I have. Several of US have. But to set that kind of pay scale for a part-time job, I cannot vote for that.
Anne Schroeder 2:33:12PM
I think had you one, Mr. Miranda.
Charlie Miranda 2:33:24PM
There would have been a 42% raise. I just dont see how thats equitable to the public to what they were going to get. Know it that we dont work hard. We do. But theres a sensitivity of doing what you can to make the city better, not only for myself but all the other six colleagues, and salary is one thing thats important. I am not going to deny that. However, 42% based on the formula whether its 60% or 40%, whatever it is, this is represented by a 70% increase in salary. And quickly off my mind. So what I am saying is, I dont mind whatever 4%, whatever general employees get. Well, the Mayor. They are the ones making the city go. We are making the City Administration and Legislation work but those individuals that work for the city are the ones that make this city the place to live in. And im sorry, I have got to leave in about 20 minutes to make thereto on time.
Lynn Hurtak 2:34:18PM
The beauty of this is I actually -- Mr. Gudes talked about talking about this today, and so I went through the Charter, and the great part about this -- oh -- the great part about this is nowhere in the Charter does it say its a full-time or part-time job. So I think its just an assumption its a part-time job but no where in the Charter does it say its a part-time job. So I am taking that to mean its a full-time job, which is how I approach it. My actual second job is done on a part-time basis now. So I actually, again, I would really love to defer to the voters on this.
Anne Schroeder 2:35:01PM
Mr. Gudes and then mr --
Orlando Gudes 2:35:05PM
She took my fund thunder. Thats okay. Because I called the Supervisor Of Election and though put part time, and I researched it and its not there. We went through the charter. It doesnt say full time or part time. So I am curious to know what the county language is in Hillsborough County, what their verbiage is, because I dont believe -- I kind of looked at the website for their charter. So I think a definition of that or not. But I do think that when you are doing a job, no matter if you are elected, and you are here to support the voters, the district, but it also weighs on your family. And I am glad that I am retired. Some people arent. And I have the luxury. But still at times, now, there are financial difficulties. I havent heard the voters in this city holier about my getting a pay increase or City Council shouldnt be paid. We heard the opposite sit. So everyone deserves a pay raise for their work. When you put in the work you deserve to get paid. I dont care who you are. When you volunteer, sometimes volunteers, they get something. They get something. So for me, I think its a good idea to let the voters to decide. I dont have a problem with that, you know. But are you saying we shouldnt get pay raises is asinine. Mr. Citro.
Joseph Citro 2:36:47PM
A last bite at the apple, Ms. Facilitator. We all hear from constituents, same constituents. Yes, I consider it a full-time job. But I would rather be at work more than one day a week. This Council needs to work more than one day a week. I still week 35 hours at my second job. Until we can define how many hours a week we get, whether it be 35 or 75. It doesnt matter. I cannot accept this large of a pay increase at this time. It.
Anne Schroeder 2:37:34PM
Thank you. Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 2:37:36PM
I put this in as a placeholder. If you think its a part-time job you can pick 10% of what the mayor makes. You can put 20%. I just put 60% as a placeholder. Thats what I would approve, because I think in Government and the governments that I have study add round the world that are run really well, they pay a decent amount and they get good people. Its not fair -- I dont need the salary. I could turn it down. I could turn down the increase. But its not fair to everybody else not to do it at some point. We could change the percentage. We could also change it in 2027 so its possible none of US except maybe Mr. Miranda will be here. [ laughter but we can set it like that if you want. But what happened the last time we discussed this is that suddenly the media instead of covering the substantive issues of the day wrote a bunch of stories about the salary discussion. I imagine the Administration pushed that story out. I am going to withdraw this proposal and bring it back in new business on another day because I dont want to put my colleagues at risk. I dont have the votes and I dont want to put them at risk in the editorial. They can write about me whatever they want. I dont care. Tonight I am going to make another proposal to another support. Mr. Miranda leaves. And I would have to jump the order so I dont know if anybody else has another urgent want before he leaves but I would like to bring this one up.
Anne Schroeder 2:39:03PM
Is it workable with the rest of you?
Anne Schroeder 2:39:08PM
Which section?
Bill Carlson 2:39:09PM
1004. Theres no formula for what to do if a Mayor has a conflict of interest. I have asked several different attorneys about this. There was very little case law. And theres very little official guidance from the Ethics Commission. I picked up bits and pieces of information about this. But we need to have a process, right now to be fair to this Mayor or any other Mayor. Theres no process by which the Mayor can recuse herself. And I think we need to provide that option so that she doesnt get criticized for something that she shouldnt get criticized for, whoever the Mayor is in the future. So here is what I would propose. Again, asking that the City Attorney get their outside attorney to look at, section 10.4 Ethics, and to review and recommend an ordinance based on the following language. Quote: should the Mayor face an ethical conflict of interest as defined by Florida law or city rule or code, the Mayor will, a, disclose that conflict at the next available City Council meeting, either in person or through a representative, b, notify staff in the affected department that the Mayor May not participate in this item and will not pass judgment on the outcome, c, as ask the City Council chair to approve and sign any rfp award memos to City Council or others, d, ask the City Council chair to sign any contracts or payment to the organizations affected. Now, what this means is that if the Mayor has a conflict of interest, the Mayor as it stands right now really has no choice but to sign all these documents or to stand with a press conference. And theres no way for a Mayor to disclose a conflict of interest. We have to fill out a form a-b and in public we have to read it and we have to provide it in public to everyone around. And in case you all dont know, the Mayor does have conflicts, and I am going to hand out the conflict form the Mayor filled out at the Port Authority board meeting on August 16th, 2022. Its not completely filled out association we dont know the nature of the conflict, but there is a form here. And so if the Mayor -- if the Mayor has a conflict in a Port Authority building, it is possible or likely that the Mayor would have a conflict at the city, and there has to be a process for the Mayor to handle it. This would, by this, what we are doing is trying to protect the Mayor by creating a process by which the Mayor can step aside and allow the City Council chair, to step in, in the old days if the Mayor was out of the city or if something happens to the Mayor, and so in this case, it just allows the Mayor to have arms length so the Mayor is not accused of anything. This is the form a-b that the Mayor handed out at the Port Authority board.
Anne Schroeder 2:42:25PM
Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Would you like a moment to look at that?
Bill Carlson 2:42:48PM
Again in this example we dont know the details or the conflict because it doesnt say it on the form but if you just present it, if the Mayor filed a form a-b in another body theres a likelihood there would be a conflict so we just need a process to handle this.
Anne Schroeder 2:43:05PM
Discussion?
Bill Carlson 2:43:08PM
It doesnt have a second yet so if it doesnt get a second We can drop it.
Anne Schroeder 2:43:15PM
Ms. Hurtak. Discussion, Mr. Miranda?
Charlie Miranda 2:43:16PM
I just dont know what the City Council chair, what part that individual he or she May be that May need to be brought up to speed, unless the Mayor at the end of the day, that means that the City Council chair May have to sign both, as City Council chair, and pass a resolution or something to this body that goes to the mayors desk, and the reason I say that, because I have been there, and I know what happened. In fact one resolution where I served as Mayor because the Mayor was out of town. I dont know exactly how to grasp it. And I am alerting myself to that. Does a Mayor have conflict? I know when I have one, I put exactly what happened, what it was and everything else, so it is what it is. Thats all.
Anne Schroeder 2:44:09PM
Thank you. Someone else comment? Yes, Mr. Viera?
Luis Viera 2:44:17PM
What happens now whenever -- lets say theres a conflict on a resolution or something of that nature, and it requires The Mayor's signature? What presently happens now? On a conflict of interest, its not accurate to say that no conflict rules governing govern The Mayor's activities here at the city, because certainly the City Ethics Code, State Ethics Code, has numerous conflict provisions that govern The Mayor's behavior. But the report form that you are talking about has to do with her, and there was a voting conflict issue for not only because Charles Klute contacted me and it was a misunderstanding. The Mayor didnt want to vote to avoid an appearance of a conflict, but she didnt have an actual conflict, which was why she didnt complete the form. Charles got it and she didnt sign the conflict. She didnt have one. But in any event, that was a voting conflict which you all deal with on a regular basis, but its not accurate to say that there arent conflicts that The Mayor cannot have in the exercise of her authority as Mayor, because again ethics rules, the State Ethics Code are all very clear on what The Mayor can and cant do. So certainly, for instance, she couldnt sign a contract, but somehow we know a personal benefit or that of her family or the other parties identified in the code, for example.
Bill Carlson 2:46:14PM
One of the things that this does is just like City Council members are required to publicly disclose not only fill out a form but to publicly disclose in a public forum. What a says is either the Mayor or Chief Of Staff or someone would come before US and say, by the way, on this matter Mayor has a conflict of interest and we would like to disclose it. That way the Mayor talked about transparency and accountability. This provides that so the public knows, and if a conflict is disclosed, and theres a process by which the Mayor can recuse herself from being involved -- and I am not just talking about this Mayor but any Mayor -- then there will not be unfair accusations flying about the mayors involvement or something.
Anne Schroeder 2:47:01PM
Thank you. Do we have a second on this? Ms. Hurtak. Do we have Mr. Gudes? Do you want to wait inform a vote?
Lynn Hurtak 2:47:11PM
No.
Anne Schroeder 2:47:17PM
Go ahead and vote of the We have two. We have Mr. Carlson and Ms. Hurtak. Thank you.
Charlie Miranda 2:47:26PM
I have got to leave. I will be back if I can.
Anne Schroeder 2:47:36PM
So for a procedural question it does feel like it might be time for a break. Am I correct? So lets be back -- could we make it 3:00 sharp and be ready to work?
Joseph Citro 2:47:49PM
Thank you. We are in recess. (Recess) (roll call).
Joseph Citro 3:06:48PM
As I was saying to the Facilitators, we stopped at salaries.
Anne Schroeder 3:06:53PM
Thank you. In section 6, is there any other element in section 6 that you want to respond to? Because we have two procedural issues. One is that we plan to end at the very latest at 5:00, preferably 4:30, and we have other elements on the agenda that we want to address that went out to the public. So back to 6. Any other elements in section 6? Seeing none, article 7, finances. Im sorry, the salaries in number 7 as well. But 7 starting with budget, salaries, interim budget, millage, all the way up through audit. Any of those elements that you would like to explore?
Joseph Citro 3:08:01PM
The pleasure of Council? Article 8, contract contracts and bidding. Contracts, approval, competitive bidding, all the way up through conflicts.
Joseph Citro 3:08:23PM
I see here on the sheet that was sent to US, supplemental provisions 8.05. Pleasure of council? No? Okay.
Anne Schroeder 3:08:47PM
Section 9.
Joseph Citro 3:08:54PM
901. Councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 3:08:58PM
Who is running right now?
Joseph Citro 3:09:03PM
Excuse me, The Facilitator is but anyone wanting to speak. I am just --
Lynn Hurtak 3:09:11PM
Just double checking.
Joseph Citro 3:09:13PM
That our City Counsel has given US.
Lynn Hurtak 3:09:20PM
I am going to do 9.01 Boards. This does attach to the City Council attorneys list on number 19. At the very end, it says, there shall be such other standing boards that May be created by ordinance. My suggestion is add a period after that. Take out the word "and" after that and start a capital a, ad hoc, and change to the ad hoc boards and committees shall be created by resolution. And the rest of it stays the same.
Anne Schroeder 3:10:00PM
Thank you. Second?
Lynn Hurtak 3:10:04PM
And my rationale behind that is that its very confusing about how boards are made, and I think the addition of a comma just adds to the confusion. So this is just more clarification language, in my opinion. And because it talks about how both City Council and the Mayor can make committees, and since theres a different method, by separating those two sentences, it clarifies it for both the public and for US.
Anne Schroeder 3:10:41PM
A comment is small but mighty.
Anne Schroeder 3:10:48PM
Other discussion, other rationale? Mr. Viera.
Luis Viera 3:10:53PM
This appears to be on first impression I see no problem. Again, I will inquire further on, et cetera, but this appears to be. By the way, not that the other ones arent, butt way.
Anne Schroeder 3:11:09PM
We want to clarify that its correct as submitted on what Mr. Shelby had put together. I believe Ms. Hurtak you added a different word.
Lynn Hurtak 3:11:27PM
Okay, im sorry, then. I meant by its the same sentence that Mr. Shelby mentioned. I just wanted to do mine a little differently. So adding a period after ordinance, the word ordinance, correct? So we need to put that in quote just to maybe help people, maybe created by ordinance, that phrase, just so folks know what I am talking about, created by ordinance. And then, yes, start a new sentence with Ad Hoc Boards And Committees shall be created by resolution, so on and so forth, to finish the sentence. So if you could add those ellipses. Thank you for asking for clarification. That is exactly what I am going for.
Anne Schroeder 3:12:11PM
Can I call for a vote on this, please? Unanimous. Five votes. Mr. Carlson, Mr. Viera, Mr. Maniscalco, Mr. Citro, and Ms. Hurtak. Thank you. Section 9 also has personnel and compensation. Its not on the note from Mr. Selby, but is there any other comment on that? "Mr. Shelby." I think I May have misspoke. Number 21 on Mr. Shelby's comments deals with 10-10, Charter Review. Would someone like to speak to that or any other element in number 10? Supplement 135, its on page 18 of 19. For Charter Review. Mr. Citro, would you like to comment on that one?
Joseph Citro 3:13:36PM
Thank you. When I was on the Charter Review Commission before, I had advocated for every five years.
Anne Schroeder 3:13:53PM
Would that be part of your motion if You were to make one?
Joseph Citro 3:13:58PM
If a motion is to be made, I would like it commencing in 2027 and every five years thereafter.
Anne Schroeder 3:14:05PM
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco 3:14:09PM
I appreciate that. We have had a long day here, and a lengthy discussion on a lot of big issues. But the reason for a lot of my no votes is because I was here when City Council created the Charter Review Commission. My appointee is here now as a City Council member. And they spent a lot of time, a lot of volunteer time, Councilwoman Hurtak, Gudes, Carlson, Citro and others in this room, a lot of times discussing a lot of issues that are very significant, and we brought those to the ballot. So I have heard people say that it shouldnt meet every ten years, it should meet every five years, and now its scheduled for that 10th year, and we can change it to every five years, and I think it makes more sense, to have deeper discussions, because we are playing with the citys constitution, and I want to make sure there, again, like there was that full board, and many, many, many meetings and many hours. We should continue having that. At a higher frequency I think it would be very good.
Anne Schroeder 3:15:22PM
Thank you, Mr. Maniscalco. I did speak with Ms. Cotti About Her Role. Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 3:15:33PM
I would make a motion to say that, commencing -- I mean, would we want to change the year, or let it start ten years from now? Okay, thats fine, I am not going to argue about that. But if we did the every five years thereafter, the only thing I would like to add to that, because I found it confusing, as a member of the Charter Review Commission, the fifth year down toward the bottom, an Independent Person shall be engaged by the City Council to facilitate the charter review process. I do -- the curative language that is in City Council's shelbys memo is actually from a conversation he and I had, the one thing that was confusing we had two separate lawyers talking to US and members of the public, and not council, it was really hard to determine who to listen to. So I love the idea of Independent Legal Counsel. Doesnt mean the other two cant either but just someone who -- so that the city can have their opinion, the City Council can have their opinion, and then someone to kind of guide the members, because, again, not having any real city experience when I sat on the Charter Review Board, that would have been very valuable, because oftentimes when you would ask for clarification you get two separate answers. So that would be -- my motion would be to change the commencing in 2027 and every five years thereafter, that would be the beginning, and then ellipses. To continue that language. And then toward the end where it says an Independent Person shall be engaged by the City Council to facilitate, I would actually change to be very specific to Independent Legal Counsel and a professional facilitator, because an Independent Person could be someone you pull off the street, and I know that we all, all talked about the value of having an independent facilitator, not just a person, that I am almost positive we used that language, so I dont know how it ended up an Independent Person. But thats a discussion for another day.
Anne Schroeder 3:17:55PM
So Ms. Hurtak, you are supporting the language in the document that Mr. Shelby put together which does say those exact words, independent legal counsel and professional facilitator shall be engaged, in addition to your previous comments.
Lynn Hurtak 3:18:10PM
Yes.
Anne Schroeder 3:18:13PM
Do we have a second to that? Mr. Maniscalco. Any other discussion? Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 3:18:20PM
Well, im glad somebody finally did something today. We finally got, you know, real small what I call foot in the ground at the last We just voted on, something that wasnt controversial that nobody would be upset about. Then We have this here which, you know, a person who sat on the Charter Review Commission, understands the inner workings of it. And I felt those who were on there May not be able to respect today. Some of the things that We talked about as being on this council for almost four years, and being on the charter review, going through documents, understanding, and now sitting in this position, to really understand, We can say that We dont have any issues with the charter today. But We all know We do because there were some controversies that went on almost four years. Thats why We talked about doing something. I wasnt looking for a full fix of everything today but I think so things should have went to the voters. Should have. Some things that the voters were talking to US for a while about. But again I know its political, I know its election year, everybody doesnt want controversy, but I do support that, and I wish We could go back and take the ten years out because I think it needs to be revamped, looked at every five years. Waiting to 2027 is too long. I know We have issues. But aint afraid of it, nobody, dont care who you are. Things are what they are. But I am not afraid to say when something needs to be done. But I just dont think We need to wait till 2027, ten years down the road now. It needs to be every five years, because We know theres issues that need to be resolved.
Lynn Hurtak 3:20:27PM
Would you take a friendly amendment to maybe 2025 so its kind of more consistent, or 2027 --
Orlando Gudes 3:20:38PM
Ms. Hurtak, im a compromiser. But I just think that, you know, we are disappointed by what went down today, very disappointed, and just dont understand what happened today. I really dont. But I can compromise.
Anne Schroeder 3:20:59PM
So as it stands, Mr. Gudes, you are fine with commencing in 2027 which --
Lynn Hurtak 3:21:06PM
2025.
Anne Schroeder 3:21:08PM
You want to change that to 2025. And then every five years thereafter. Call for a vote.
Lynn Hurtak 3:21:18PM
Who was my second? Were you okay with seconding the amendment?
Guido Maniscalco 3:21:26PM
So I was thinking about the changing year. Today We had like a midway discussion within that ten-year period of time, but now We change to the 2025. Are We going to 2026 ballot? Is that right? Then We are going to an even year, city election year. We are looking at 2027 would be the city election year. You would be meeting in 2025. Thats a gap there.
Lynn Hurtak 3:21:57PM
2026? Sure.
Guido Maniscalco 3:22:01PM
And then today we brought up a lot of issues that are very, very important, I understand. But that Charter Review Commission with how many members, 13 members, whatever it is, you need deeper discussion, I think. But I would be happy to support it to 2026 and then going from there which would roll it into the 2027 election five-year cycle.
Lynn Hurtak 3:22:26PM
But then every five years would not be able to go by ballot. If ballot was the reason We wanted to do it, it would have to be every four years, right? Because We go through an election every foyer years. I mean, the only other thing We could do is We could do four or six years, because giving five years means that We would wait and wait and wait to put it on the ballot. Yeah. So maybe four years is better.
Anne Schroeder 3:22:54PM
I saw a hand. Mr. Carlson, thank you. Mr. Viera, was it you?
Luis Viera 3:23:02PM
Thank you. Just very quickly, if I May. I would suggest if we are going to pass this, lets pass it. It comes back to US, we can iron out some of the more details later on after further discussion, et cetera. And the way I see supporting this in one form or another is to give deference to the many ideas that have been put forward today which have obviously had a lot of thought and work, et cetera, put inside within them and for them, and that gives back some measurable level of deference I think in the process as far as I interpret it. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 3:23:32PM
Thank you, Mr. Viera. Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 3:23:37PM
Just a couple comments. Somebody said this is not controversial. This is very controversial, because this Mayor and the last Mayor didnt want any changes in the charter. They liked it just the way it is. Why? Because they have all the power, so they are able to control everything. Theres not a lot of power at all. We just turned down all the balance of power. They argued and lobbied heavily for the Charter Review Commission. The reason it took US home months to read through it because none of US knew what we were doing. And now we have four people who actually sat through that whole process and we sat on City Council so we see all the problems, and still we werent able to get anything done. I think Charter Review Commission is fine but its not nearly as good as having all the experience we have here on the table. I think the bottom line is the Mayor didnt want it and the whole thing was -- all the mayors staff, whatever briefings anybody had, ad its all set up around high fiving, the Mayor has more power than three members of City Council. That would be the headline. Who cares? Who cares? Who cares if we got all of these passed? If the only thing that matters is whether the public is protected. The public is not protected so we will go through this charter review. The other thing about independent counsel, we had City Council attorney appointed last time to be our representative and then the City Attorney or representative of the City Attorney's office downs bounced in and started controlling everything, actually screamed at me from the dais, I mean from the podium, saying you are trying to change the strong Mayor form of government. I said what City Council does. Look at their instructions. The f the city attorneys dont listen to US, to City Council, how does the public have any faith in this government at all? And all the Mayor spends phi fiving. This is not about pow -- high fiving. Its not about lobbyists getting their people in charge for contracts. This is about protecting the public from not having the transparency that we had. Last week there was probably a multi-hundred million dollar project and the staff refused to give US answers on it and we cant do anything about it. We cant get any transparency in the city because we dont have the power. So lets have the Charter Review Commission. They will come back and whatever administration will control it just like the last one did. Even some of the things we passed even changing the printouts, they didnt even do that. They edited it. We all know, because they edited it between the time we passed it and the time it went to the ballot. They edited it. And its not right.
Anne Schroeder 3:26:11PM
We have made that note about neutral gender, ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 3:26:19PM
There is also a typo in it, and might be the time to fix that. In the same thing right after the every ten years thereafter, all that stuff, but before the Independent Person, theres a sentence that starts with the word however, and it says, however, the City Council May made the ordinance, and it should be made by ordinance, have the power to call for the establishment of the Crc more often in the event it so chooses. I dont know if thats just on my copy which happens to be number 135.
Anne Schroeder 3:27:01PM
I see it as well.
Lynn Hurtak 3:27:02PM
I dont know if thats something that can be fixed just because its an error. I am not a charter expert in that type of realm. So I dont know if we would need to add that to the language. However, the city -- so, yes, its in the others copies as well. So I guess I am asking for some direction. Do we have to actually change that by law, or can we just say, hey, thats a typo? Is it a scriveners error or is it something that we have to put back onto the ballot?
Andrea Zelman 3:27:44PM
I dont know -- [off microphone] The Scrivener's errors in the charter. I caught a few as well. When I was having to go to the Voters, I would think we wouldnt have to, but I cant answer with certainty today. I will be able to tell you by Thursday.
Lynn Hurtak 3:28:09PM
That would be great. Thank you so much. Because I think thats one of those things, just a few other words that we know we changed. And I referenced this often, but never really think about that sort of thing. So thats my motion. I guess I will leave the b out for the time being just not to confuse people.
Guido Maniscalco 3:28:37PM
2027?
Lynn Hurtak 3:28:40PM
No, 2026. As Mr. Viera said, I think We can fix it between now and then, because We do need to look at election cycles, because if We dont look at election cycle, because they have to be voted on by the voters. So if We do this every five years, after the first one, We wont have another election to do it for several more years.
Martin Shelby 3:29:02PM
Would that have been true for every ten years?
Lynn Hurtak 3:29:09PM
Yeah, every ten years and we wouldnt have noticed it until then. No, I guess not because -- so its the pleasure of the group to, say, 2024?
Lynn Hurtak 3:29:34PM
I think keep it 2025 and keep it to the actual language and We will add a month, and have a month to really debate it and maybe They can bring US a couple of options and We all can discuss it then. Is that fair?
Anne Schroeder 3:29:50PM
Yes. Mr. Citro.
Joseph Citro 3:29:52PM
Thank you very much. I am looking at it from a different angle. And it is how much time does this Chambers have about videotaping, about having staff? It took US 13 months the last time. However, the more often We do it, the less time it will take to tweak anything. Im sure after the first eight years if We do it every four years, that might only be a week. So im all for this.
Anne Schroeder 3:30:25PM
So it looks like I call for the vote as stated. Raise your hands. We have six votes. We have Mr. Carlson, Mr. Viera, Mr. Maniscalco, Mr. Citro, Ms. Hurtak, and Mr. Gudes. Thank you. The last element is 11. I see nothing on Mr. Shelby's memo that went out. There was something on 11.
Bill Carlson 3:30:55PM
Can I propose another one for 10?
Anne Schroeder 3:30:58PM
Yes.
Bill Carlson 3:31:00PM
I think we can take a quick up or down vote on this. I propose --
Anne Schroeder 3:31:14PM
Which.
Bill Carlson 3:31:14PM
Section 10.12. And I would add a new language thats called the naming of building, streets and places. And this is the language, the naming of building, streets and other places within the city is an important and long-term discussion meant to honor those citizens that have made a remarkable and historic impact on the community. The Mayor and City Council May try to create a process and committee to review naming. Any new name must be approved by the Mayor and City Council. However, the Mayor and City Council must take great care in researching these names so as to not name a building, street, or place after someone who has conducted an egregious act such as civil rights violations that could harm the reputation of the city and intimidate or -- intimidate or hurt its residents there. Should be a comma there.
Anne Schroeder 3:32:08PM
Do we have a motion to add 10.12 As a new element, a new section?
Lynn Hurtak 3:32:15PM
I will second it.
Anne Schroeder 3:32:17PM
Thank you, ms. Hurtak. Any discussion? Yes, ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 3:32:23PM
This actually brings up a point for me that I May bring Thursday, but, You know, a lot of these sections where folks are saying, hey, You know, We could possibly make these ordinances. We already have this nice collection that You have spent a lot of time on and others of US have spent time on. I think it would be really awesome if We could try to make some of these just by ordinance. If that pleases You. Im just thinking about this because this is very specific. To me it reads more like an ordinance. I would add it to the charter but I am just thinking about all the other things. If the discussion is, oh, We dont need it, then the charter, We can make it by ordinance.
Bill Carlson 3:33:18PM
Yeah, and the only reason why I proposed it as a charter amendment is because the City Attorney's office recently said that only the Mayor has the right to do this. And thats not an accurate interpretation of the charter. And so we can try to pass an ordinance that says that the City Council and Mayor joint lip have the right to do it. The chart or really is silent to it. Just as I asked one of the City Attorney's representatives, just because the Mayor controls the administration of buildings doesnt mean that the Mayor can sell property without City Council approval, sign a contract for a property without City Council approval, sign a lease without City Council approval. Even hire someone to paint the building without City Council approval. So why should the Mayor have exclusive right to name something? It doesnt make sense. So putting this in the charter just prevents a City Attorney from giving it an inaccurate interpretation on the charter. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 3:34:13PM
Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Viera?
Luis Viera 3:34:18PM
And I would explain my vote on this, now, before anybody thinks that those who vote against this are once to name a building in Tampa after Strom Thurman or something. This is something that could be interpreted as being a narrowly tailored effort, and I just dont want that in the charter. Obviously I dont think anybody wants any buildings, et cetera, named after people who do egregious act, civil rights violations, et cetera, et cetera, and again out of respect to Councilman Carlson, its just my short dealings. Thank you.
Guido Maniscalco 3:34:57PM
A few years ago I made a motion to restore the name of laurel street bridge to Fortune Taylor bridge. Fortune Taylor was a woman who was once enslaved but owned about 30 acres of land in that portion of downtown near the straz and whatnot. And I was able to get it with unanimous City Council approval without the mayor having to weigh in. And then we had to talk to other departments I think at the state level, but the bridge is named Fortune Taylor bridge today. So City Council, we have the authority to do it because I was able to do it. So I dont know if this is necessary. I dont know. And I know how traditional wordsmith mayors will name something for previous mayors, like Curtis Hixon, and I am going back to the 1950s. But I get it. Theres tradition there. But again, you know, we have been able to do it in a City Council. We honor a street renaming, where somebody got deceased so I adopt know if this is necessary. If not we can always look at it as an ordinance.
Anne Schroeder 3:36:14PM
Thank you. Any other discussion?
Bill Carlson 3:36:16PM
As it says in here, the second part of it is, it prohibits City Council and the Mayor from naming after anything who has conducted a egregious acts such as civil rights violations. Thats pretty straightforward and seems like something we would put to put in there.
Anne Schroeder 3:36:39PM
Mr. Gudes?
Orlando Gudes 3:36:41PM
I read an executive order from the Mayor in reference to that, and I think -- Mr. Shelby, if we can do it by ordinance, I think that might work rather than just putting it in the charter. So I got an executive order because it talks about naming some things and I was given an executive order saying we could not do that. I said, whoa, this Councilwoman has an ordinance but I didnt get into it with the person. My antennas have gone up.
Martin Shelby 3:37:12PM
That would be a be question for Ms. Zelman. Because that goes back to what was discussed this morning as to whether something is separation of powers.
Bill Carlson 3:37:20PM
Could I say while shes getting up, this says it has to be approved by the Mayor and City Council. So its not one or the other. City Council cant do it on their own. So you can interpret that maybe the charter as it is that one can do it an one cant. This means that we have to agree on it.
Andrea Zelman 3:37:38PM
[Off microphone] -- of the process. I think it was to give the Mayor final approval. I would suggest thats something we could look more carefully at, and I believe it could be addressed by ordinance. I dont believe it needs a charter change. And one thing that concerns me is putting in language like someone who has committed egregious acts. Who defines that? You know, even the words civil rights violations. We have had instances of the city where people have been accused of violating other peoples civil rights. That to me is very difficult language. And I would hate to be put in the position of having to interpret that on a case-by-case basis.
Bill Carlson 3:38:31PM
Thats why these would go -- none of them have been approved, but would go to the City Attorney for review and to the attorneys for recommendations on it. But let me ask you, in your opinion, because remember, Dingfelder tried to name a park after Linda Saul-sena and thats when the whole system got mixed up and the executive director came out and mr. Dingfelder was thrown out with the help of the Former City Attorney. Let me ask, in your opinion, can City Council decide to name something by ourselves? Can City Council name something without --
Andrea Zelman 3:39:13PM
I need to look at this more carefully. My understanding was that the executive order adopted a process that has been vetted through City Council --
Bill Carlson 3:39:22PM
I dont think we codified it.
Orlando Gudes 3:39:26PM
We never got that.
Andrea Zelman 3:39:27PM
Let US look at that.
Bill Carlson 3:39:29PM
But we have to vote today. I mean you can come back and tell US but the point is right now the way I heard the interpretation, the City Council's attorney has been in the past has been that City Council cannot name something by themselves so the question is, can the name something by his or herself? And prior city attorneys have said that is true. What this does, it says the Mayor and City Council have to agree. And that part of it to prevent something -- some name put up that the public would object to. You know, we have had that happening in the city already. And we cant go back and necessarily change the past but we can look forward and not make mistakes about decisions that could be made.
Andrea Zelman 3:40:11PM
I think the issue is that the charter specifically talks about the Mayor having control over the real estate, and all the facilities of the city, the City Council doesnt have that same control over the property. Nevertheless, my understanding -- and I will go back and look at it more carefully -- was that the intent of the process was to provide a process whereby if City Council wanted to propose the naming of something, it would be a uniform process followed for every naming.
Bill Carlson 3:40:43PM
But it still says the Mayor gets to make the decision, and what this says is its shared. So we could still approve this and the City Attorney can give US opinions on how to change it, but the problem, Ms. Facilitator, and not to blame this City Attorney, but many times City Staff will come before US and theyll say, like last week, we dont know the answer, and then as soon as the meeting is over, well, we knew the answer but we didnt want to tell the public. Why dont you want to have transparency? And as soon as we leave here, well get an opinion that says -- not Ms. Zelman, but prior City Attorney, will say, well, we dont know, we have to interpret it. Then we get done with the meeting and theyll say, yeah, only the Mayor has the power. And this is important because I dont object to the process that was in the executive order but for some reason somebody in the City Attorney's office decides to get a whereas clause that gives the Mayor full right to name buildings, and thats not at all in the charter, not remotely in the charter. And what I have been trying to do all day is to stop the City Attorney's office, not talking about -- prior city attorneys from changing the charter with a couple of paragraphs of interpretation.
Anne Schroeder 3:41:53PM
Thank you. Do you want to call for a vote at this point? Thank you, Ms. Zelman.
Luis Viera 3:42:00PM
Again, this is something that I could, in one form or another, support an ordinance, but again, like I said, Councilman Maniscalco mentioned the issue of prior mayors, potentially the ordinance taking that out so its not narrowly tailored for one thing. Im proud of the fact that a couple of years ago I think I was the first city councilman to give money for moving a Confederate Memorial, the first one to speak at a rally for that. Very passionate at renaming Lee county to ulysses Grant county. Again, I want to narrow this to the larger purpose, I guess, if you will. Just explaining my vote.
Anne Schroeder 3:42:40PM
Thank you for your clarification. So as the motion has been written, the key word here is vote. We call for a vote to put this in. In the charter we have two votes, Mr. Carlson and Ms. Hurtak. Thank you. Do you have a comment?
Lynn Hurtak 3:43:03PM
I know what you went through this by number but Mr. Carlson brought up one section that we have debated quite a bit during the Charter Review Commission. And there were two parts to it. He brought one forward, and I want to bring the other forward. If thats okay if I go backwards a little bit?
Anne Schroeder 3:43:29PM
Let me check on time. Here is what we are dealing with.
Lynn Hurtak 3:43:34PM
It will be quick, I promise.
Anne Schroeder 3:43:37PM
Thank you. We have an agenda that has gone out also to the public and We had skipped over section 2. When I asked for any comments, no one raised their hand, but its on the agenda as a specific item.
Lynn Hurtak 3:43:51PM
Item number 2, not section number 2. I think thats why none of US are talking about it.
Anne Schroeder 3:43:57PM
Because item 2 on the agenda focuses on, forgive me if I stated that incorrectly, but yes, its item number 2 on the agenda and we need to reserve time for that. So how long do You think this next item will take that You are mentioning?
Lynn Hurtak 3:44:12PM
Probably five minutes. I dont think its going to be really -- I just have to bring it up because I brought it up to the Crb -- or not Crb, im sorry. Yes, Crc. Too many acronyms. Historic Charter Review Commission. So maybe ten minutes at most.
Anne Schroeder 3:44:34PM
Pleasure of the group? Go ahead.
Lynn Hurtak 3:44:41PM
This motion has to do with section 2.02 Which is term limits for City Council. Councilman Carlson brought up term limits for Mayors. And during that discussion we also talked about term limits for council. So I would actually like to bring that up. And so section 2, I would take off the end of that section 2.02 Basically letting people have someone in one district or another and basically saying you can run two consecutive full terms, and then not run for the succeeding term but you could come back after four years. We definitely discussed that. It didnt really go anywhere. I dont know if it will go anywhere now. But I really believe that -- I dont believe in hopping.
Bill Carlson 3:45:29PM
Ill second that but can you say what year it would start?
Lynn Hurtak 3:45:35PM
Obviously, the Voters would have to vote on it so it would have to happen after that term. So I guess it would be 2027. And again, it doesnt prevent somebody from going again. They just have to put four years between.
Bill Carlson 3:45:57PM
Second.
Anne Schroeder 3:45:58PM
Thank you for having that in writing. Yes, Mr. Viera.
Luis Viera 3:46:08PM
Just to clarify, you are saying that someone who represents whatever, a single member district can then go city-wide, but they have to wait four years?
Lynn Hurtak 3:46:19PM
Uh-huh.
Luis Viera 3:46:21PM
Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 3:46:22PM
Ms. Hurtak has the motion with whats in writing. Who would second that? Mr. Carlson. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr. Maniscalco?
Guido Maniscalco 3:46:36PM
Commence in 2027?
Lynn Hurtak 3:46:39PM
Uh-huh. Because if you think about it, whoever is voting on this is voting on whoever is running. You couldnt go backward on that. I mean, if someone were elected and we couldnt just talk in our office. So that would be for whatever office that is.
Guido Maniscalco 3:46:59PM
After they are term limited, to two four-year terms.
Lynn Hurtak 3:47:04PM
Yes. And then take a little bit of a break and then come back for two more four-year terms, if the voters will have them. Again, this could be debated later but I know we talked about it during the Charter Review and I think its something we should talk about.
Anne Schroeder 3:47:18PM
Thank you. Could we have a motion?
Lynn Hurtak 3:47:26PM
I have the motion.
Anne Schroeder 3:47:29PM
Im sorry, do we have a second? Mr. Carlson. Call for the vote to pass this. We have four. It passes. Mr. Carlson, Mr. Viera, Ms. Hurtak, and Mr. Gudes. Thank you. You were right, ten minutes. Very good.
Lynn Hurtak 3:47:47PM
Not even.
Anne Schroeder 3:47:48PM
Not even. Thank you for going through all those sections, and your willingness to explore. So if we look at our agenda open page 3 of the official documents that went out to the public, item number 2, file cm 22-76273. May I read to you that the Legal Department to prepare and present a draft ordinance September 22nd, 2022 to put the Citizens Review Board subpoena power and Independent Council on the ballot for voters to decide using the following codes, and the codes follow. The original motion was initiated by Hurtak, Carlson on July 28, 2022. May we have some discussion on that? Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 3:48:59PM
This is my motion, and I asked The City Attorney about if there was a draft ordinance, and she said that we had talked earlier about waiting to see where it went before a draft ordinance was created. So I believe we really heard from the public today regardless of how I feel about the issue. Thats what the public has spoken. So my motion is to, I guess, would be for the Legal Department to draft an ordinance, lets say, to put Independent Counsel on the ballot for the voters to decide.
Guido Maniscalco 3:49:57PM
Are you thinking about separate?
Lynn Hurtak 3:50:08PM
Yes. My motion is to create a draft ordinance based on the ordinances mentioned in the motion which is miami code, miami-dade code, broward code, Key West Charter, Orange County Code, for Independent Counsel to put on the ballot for voters to decide.
Anne Schroeder 3:50:34PM
Mr. Viera, are you seconding?
Luis Viera 3:50:42PM
I would like to make a comment. Thank you very much. So there is for me a split between the Attorney, the separate Attorney, independent counsel, whatever you want to call it, and subpoena power. I think there are separate issues there. One I think is a reasonable choice that I support the independent Attorney. The other one is not for reasons ill state. With regards to the separate Attorney, I think thats reasonable. And I have had this same position on this for about a year and a half, two years, et cetera, which is the Crb having a separate Attorney who is not a direct city Attorney who is paid for by the City Of Tampa out of the attorneys that contract, and there are many, many of them. Thats reasonable. I have never seen any issue with that. I dont see a down-side or detriment from that. With regards to the subpoena power, even if it does not deal with police officers, my big challenge with that, I believe it was mention in their remarks, just because there is something that is closed disciplinary case doesnt mean it is a closed criminal case, and that leaves real potential for challenges there with regard to ongoing criminal cases. I, as an Attorney, respectfully cannot support, and I know there are people who respectfully disagree with me, and thats fine. But just because there is a closed disciplinary case does not mean that the criminal case is closed, and that could lead to a whole lot of trouble with our state Attorney, with Courts, et cetera, that I dont think it was our intent to go there. So thats the real dispositive issue for me with regards to the subpoena power. Again, the Attorney, glad to support it, second it, et cetera. I guess -- so I dont know about the broward, key west. I will have to look at that between now and then. Separate counsel for me is a reasonable step to take but subpoena power is not given that issue. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 3:52:37PM
Thank you. Other discussion?
Lynn Hurtak 3:52:44PM
Thats the only one for right now.
Anne Schroeder 3:52:47PM
To --
Lynn Hurtak 3:52:51PM
To have independent counsel.
Anne Schroeder 3:52:53PM
Independent Counsel. So in here, although it says subpoena power, we are taking that out.
Lynn Hurtak 3:53:00PM
We are doing them as two separate motions. Talking about Independent Counsel and then We will talk about the subpoena power.
Anne Schroeder 3:53:10PM
Thank you. Do we have the second for the Independent Counsel?
Luis Viera 3:53:13PM
Ill second.
Anne Schroeder 3:53:17PM
Mr. Viera, thank you. Other discussions for Independent Counsel? Lets call for a vote. We have four. Thank you. We have Mr. Carlson, Mr. Viera, Ms. Hurtak and Mr. Gudes. I believe I called that correctly. Yes? Good. So the second one goes with the subpoena power. Any other description? I know you said the public has spoken. Any other discussion on that before? Yes, Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 3:53:53PM
First of all, this is not a change. Its in section 2.14. I read it out already. We already had subpoena power and we can delegate it. If we get a correct interpretation by a City Attorney, we dont need to add this. But because of an incorrect interpretation in the past, by a Former City Attorney, we have to have this to try to clarify that we can do this. Based on the charter as it is, we can delegate this already. But because of the incorrect thing we need to have it. The other thing I should say is that to any of the Police Officers watching, we had some of them today, some of them watching. I think like my colleagues I did not have the Pba support but I supported them 100% when they asked for pay raises, when we had 150 people in the room saying we need to cut the Police budget, I agreed with everybody else to increase it. And we got a lot of flack for that but we did it because we want to support the good Police Officers out there and I think 99.9% Of them are good. There are some bad leaders in the past, there are some bad mayors that have given policies that caused US to go into a civil rights investigation like we are right now, but 99.9% Of the Police Officers out there have defended US and protected US. But of that .01 Or whatever it is, we need to make sure we do whatever to get them off the streets and make sure they are scrutinized carefully. And I have mentioned publicly examples of that before. I also voted to separate the health insurance a couple of years ago, and I also voted to give pay increases not just to Police but to all employees. And so with that, the union or individual Police Officers May be upset with US. I think one of the people, my aide met with. It shouldnt hurt morale for anybody who is doing the right thing. People who have do the right thing should not face any kind of problems, if theres objective analysis. And the last thing I will say is when we discussed this before, people said to US, well, you should trust the Mayor because shes a Former Police Chief, and her chief of staff is a Former Deputy Police Chief. Guess what, in the last three years, getting the budget increase, getting the Police Chief the Mayor wanted, getting all the budget increases that the Mayor wanted, the Former Police Chief still has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. The violent crime rate has gone up every year in the last three years. So if the violent crime rate goes up, its not because of this, its because of bad policies in the past and I would argue that policies like biking while Black and renting while Black have led to be a feeling of oppression, hopelessness that leads people to want to have to feel like their only choice is crime. And we have to address the underlying issues and nobody in this Administration has been willing to address those at all. We have a New Head Of Economic Development that I think is interested in it, but the solution is not locking up people who havent committed crimes. Its absolutely for our Police Officers but we need to support our community as well and need to make sure that people that are unfairly treated are protected. And there have been some really bad cases even in the last few months. And no big public investigations, no big press conferences to say how horrible it is, and we need to make sure that our public feels protected, and the Police are doing the right thing, they need to be protected as well. This subpoena power does not apply to Police at all. It only applies to people that May have been involved in some way. And we already have the policy. Its not really changing anything.
Anne Schroeder 3:57:46PM
Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Mr. Gudes, discussion.
Orlando Gudes 3:57:50PM
Yes, maam, thank you. Nobody on this board has ever been a Police Officer but me. Lets talk about morale. Theres something I know about the Police Department. The Police Department is a paramilitary organization. We follow orders. We do what we are told to do. We May not like it, but we do what we are told to do because thats what we are sworn to do. I always say theres a difference between a General Employee and a police employee. A police employee, the Sergeant tells you to do something, you just do it. You dont do it when you get around to it. When citizens calls the Sergeant and complains, the Sergeant is going to call you over, and hes going to say, write me a letter. I work with him. General Employee, its different at that place over there. You do what you are told to do and thats it. Morale. Morale aint going down. Let me talk about money. Police Officers like money. Morale goes down. A lot of policies come out that I didnt like. You move on. But again, morale usually comes with money. And when policies come up a lot of times Police Officers hate change sometimes, but when it comes down, you do it the first couple weeks and after that its gone. What the policy is, its what you got to do. Its what you got to do. And I love my Union friends, but the Police Department, its not the unions Police Department. They support the officers in an investigation and things that might be wrong in the department. Some things, no matter what, the Chief says this is going to be done, no matter what the Union says, thats pretty much how it goes. But I respect the Union. But for me, we talk about processes. And somebody called me and said John Bennett with the Mayor -- I said, yeah, thats part of the process. You have to remember that was a tough day. That was a tough day. And then I asked several of my Council members, listen, me being a new Chairman, I know you guys didnt agree at that time, but would you stand with me? Remember that? I asked a guy to stand behind me and support me. We did that. We started within a years time, wanted the Crb to come back and do what they felt needed to be done. And the gentleman came today and he was clear -- and you recall me a couple months ago, what the people were saying, clarify what they wanted on. And he came today and said that they had a 6 to 2 vote that they thought all this should go to the voters, if I am not mistaken. Thats what he said. They felt they heard. He said they were not a lot of issues. He said that the Police Department was cooperative. He said all those things. But he said his body decided to vote, go with the people said they wanted and for the voters to decide. And they wanted Council to give their blessings to accepted it to the voters, and let the voters decide. I met with the Chief, and her attorney, and we talked. I told them I was going to make phone calls and talk to people. I called down to miami, talked with some friends down there, called my friend in broward, talked to them about how their boards worked. I tell them we werent having any difficulties, no problems at all. Even the process. But right now have to decide, I dont care about an endorsement or anything like that. Thats not my thing. My thing is talking about the people. People elected to do a job. They elected me do a job. My mind is still ticking until she says it calls for a vote, but I can tell you what this gentleman has said, the Chairman up here today and said this board voted to take it to the voters and asked this Council to do that. I have to think about that. I cant be afraid of my decision. I never have. Never will be. So ill sit back and listen to other councilmans comments. But in my mind, a person on that board spoke. I yield back.
Anne Schroeder 4:03:24PM
Thank you. The discussion point is Subpoena Power, Mr. Miranda. Yes, Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 4:03:33PM
I have a few points. We heard, and we have been hearing citizens asking for transparency. I agree with Mr. Carlson. I havent been around as long as you have, but I have supported the Police and everything they asked for, looked through the budget, looks good to me, honestly. I think we should pay our officers more. When we pay officers more it goes back to my job as a teacher, when I was a teacher. You know, everybody hates you, everybody thinks teachers are terrible except for their kids' teacher. They loved US, they loved the school, but all the others are terrible. And so that affects morale. But, you know what you got into. So when I was a teacher, the worst was going to a cocktail party and someone would say, what do you do? Oh, I am a third grade teacher and they look at you like, oh, you sweet little thing. And that happened all the time. They didnt think they could have a substantive conversation with me. I just finished the Police Academy, which is awesome, and by the way I recommend it to everyone, regardless of how people feel. I think it was incredibly valuable. I learned a lot that I didnt know before. But in that, one of the officers mentioned the fact that she doesnt talk about what she does when she goes to the gym. She kind of works out by herself because she doesnt want to mention it. I have been in those shoes. I know exactly what she means. And I think thats sad. I think thats unfortunate. But we all signed up to do a job, and I hate to say it, we know we are going to be criticized but I still wanted to work for the public and do the job that I felt passionate about, and I know all of our officers feel passionate about. After I got appointed, my very first job was the Union Office. I dont know that they have any more support from me now than they did then, but, you know, I had that discussion. I dont mind. I will talk to anybody who wants to talk to me about any issue. In talking to several people within the administration, I got someone to say that they agreed that nothing would really change, because its really a moral issue. And for me the fact that nothing would change kind of sway it. Also the fact that, you know, I do appreciate the Crb voted that they would like to see subpoena on the ballot as well. But we as a board cant think about the people who are sitting on that board, because just like US, they are only there for a certain amount of time. We have to look at the board as a board, with empty seats, like how do we want this to run? So those are my points that I want to bring up.
Anne Schroeder 4:06:34PM
Thank you ms. Hurtak. Yes, Mr. Carlson.
Bill Carlson 4:06:40PM
Just one more quick thing. You know, we talked about body worn cameras. Because if a Police Officer did something bad, it has proof one way or the other. And we have had to tweak that from time to time. But in the case that somebody alleges that a Police Officer did something badly and a body worn camera doesnt pick it up, the Crb could subpoena a camera across the street to look at it. And if the Police Officer did something wrong it could prove they did something wrong. But if it didnt, it also defend the Police Officer. So if you dont do something bad, you dont get investigated. But if somebody unfairly alleges -- if I was a Police Officer I would want the Crb to have access to that information because it might help exonerate me. I have been around enough trials and seen people set up that its essential to have all the information ywould We not want the Crb to have all the information available? So I think even though right now some of the police officers are against it, I think it would as much protect them as hurt them. But as long as they are staying out of trouble, then it shouldnt cause a problem at all. Thank you.
Guido Maniscalco 4:08:08PM
Thank you very much. I appreciate all the comments. And Councilman Viera brought up issues regarding closed cases and open investigation, on the other end, I have issues with fourth amendment rights, what if somebody doesnt want to hand over footage if they have that. What if something takes place in a condo or apartment complex, does everybody with doorbell footage get a subpoena? What if people dont want to cooperate or hand over? Do they get charged with, what is it, contempt or whatever it is when they are not handing over information? I doesnt know. I dont know the answer. And Judge Salcina was here earlier, to discuss further talking points. The state attorney, Grand Jury to the county, getting involved. If there is a bigger case, how that board can look at cases, or remand them somewhere else. Will it change anything? Now looking at closed cases. Within rezoning, I watched and again I brought up the time that I have been here. I was here to vote for that. I was here and speaking with Mayor Buckhorn to find out to come to an agreement for a stalemate back and forth between the Council and the Mayor for that board to be created. Then most recently, and Councilman Gudes talked about cooperation between the Council and the mayors office, and signed their agreement. You know, we have made advances, and would subpoena power truly make a difference? Considering that they are looking at closed cases. What if people dont want to hand over that footage? Then what? Is it absolutely necessary? Is the Police Department doing enough of a good job in internal investigations? I dont know. Some people might say yes. Some people might say no. But, again, I recollect oh the concerns primarily for Councilman Member Viera mentioned regarding it could be a closed case, it could be active somewhere else. Another criminal investigation which also is another set of eyes. So thats where I stand on the issue. Thank you. I think what you might have been referring to was obstruction when you talked about fourth amendment rights. Am I correct? Thank you. Ms. Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak 4:11:04PM
We actually have three citizen boards that are not elected that are appointed boards that already have subpoena power. One of those is Code Enforcement. So I would assume that the Code Enforcement would be very similar, and that they would often ring doorbells and things like that, and ive heard nothing.
Lynn Hurtak 4:11:29PM
But, yes, but you had the power. Thats what I mean. Thats kind of the issue. Okay. It seems like a big kerfuffle about something that just the Board could have -- but I keep coming back to the fact that that Gentleman showed up this morning and said that the Board itself voted to send it to the voters.
Anne Schroeder 4:12:00PM
Other comments?
Charlie Miranda 4:12:12PM
I did hear everything by both sides and the individuals that were here, and thank them for taking the time to come, all of them. This is a difficult one. You are looking at whats going on in america, today, regarding anything regarding Law Enforcement. Its a sad situation hopping throughout the whole country on both side. And its time we step up and do our due diligence ourselves. We have subpoena power. This council has subpoena power. And I dont believe personally that it should be given to another board that was never elected. Not elected at that point in time. I heard what Judge Salcina said today, and he made reference to what if, and I dont remember exactly how he said it but he phrased a situation that if you limited immunity or something like that, that is problem some because if somebody has immunity and it goes to court and you cant do anything, whats the sense of doing it unless you really understand whats going on? So the powers of subpoenas are to the judges, the state attorney, prosecutor, Police, the FBI or something like that, and its a be very delicate situation that we should have and respect at all times. And to give that authority away. Another way I would say you give that authority and be responsible for somebody else what they intend to do with it, I am not going to take that risk. I believe Law Enforcement on both sides on the judicial and the Police Office, Sheriff's Department, so forth and so on, are doing the best they can with what they have today. America has changed. And it hasnt been for the better. All of US have changed. We have a country now where somebody said I could do this and do this and that. Nobody is going to do anything to me, without mentioning names or doing whatever. And instead its been an increase in crime. I dont know if thats the cause. Guns is only part of it. People for whatever reason, there is more murders today in america than ever before. We used to look at the country in central and south america and say look at them yo-yos. Now they are looking at US and saying whats wrong with them? We are becoming something we dont want to be. And its just to the point that somebody has got to take responsibility, and its harder and harder to get anyone to become a Police Officer in this country, for whatever reason. I dont know the cause. I wish I did. But therefore I will not be supporting subpoena powers to go anywhere.
Anne Schroeder 4:15:18PM
Thank you for your clarity. Mr. Gudes.
Orlando Gudes 4:15:23PM
Well, there you have it. Theres no way to belabor it, wait around. Just take the vote. I sat in a district that depends on me to vote by conscience, to do the right thing. I had a Gentleman come here today who was the Chairman of the board. That board be entrusted to do the right thing, gave them rules and regulations to come back within a year, tell US what they felt they needed or they didnt need. They came today. The Chairman came today. He told me he was going to come. So we have done that board a disservice, in my opinion. We cant be afraid of the unknown. I am not afraid of the unknown. But I will say that it will not pass today to the voters, but I am going to support because that board worked hard, and went through all the scrutiny and they were given a task and came back and gave US their opinion for their evaluation and it was-6-2. So I will support it. I know its going to fail but I will say to the voters, you know, hold on, trust in the process and trust that people are going to do the right things. And most of the time they all do work out. Butt for me, I have to support this today and support the decision of the Crb Board.
Anne Schroeder 4:16:55PM
Thank you, Mr. Gudes. It sounded like you were suggesting we call for the vote. Lets call for the vote. And this deals with the subpoena power. Please show of hands. We have three. We have Mr. Carlson, Ms. Hurtak, and Mr. Gudes. Thank you. It did not pass. I would like to yield back to the chairperson, Mr. Citro, as we look at the full agenda. We have item 3 and 4. How did you want to proceed on that? Actually, my role as the facilitator could include that but nevertheless had to do more specifically with walking through the elements of the charter, and Mr. Shelby's document. Number 3 is the Council to discuss the charter amendments to include discussion on the possibility of an attorney representing the position of the mayor. We talked about that to some extent. Number 4, Council, to discuss why or if the city attorney or other parties in the city should be able to approve contracts. How did you want to proceed on these?
Joseph Citro 4:18:17PM
Are these the charter amendment that the Council wishes to discuss? We discussed this.
Anne Schroeder 4:18:21PM
Then this is fine because the agendas did not necessarily match up, as you know, so I want to clarify how we are going to do this.
Joseph Citro 4:18:33PM
This is agenda item number 3 and 4. Thank you.
Anne Schroeder 4:18:38PM
So that concludes the items for the agenda. The next step is timeline to look at. Ms. Hurtak?
Lynn Hurtak 4:18:55PM
Before we go any further I want to say thank you so much for coming today. This has been the calmest meeting that we have had in quite some time. So I want to say thank you for that. I really appreciate it.
Anne Schroeder 4:19:06PM
I appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Bill Carlson 4:19:08PM
Any other comment that would like to make comment?
Charlie Miranda 4:19:12PM
Likewise I appreciate everything You have done, your mannerism, the way You treat it yourself. You have to come in more often. We would be better off. Invitation accepted. Next steps, on the screen, here is what We are looking to do, that the Notetaker throughout, We also had more than one Notetaker getting your comments and making sure You get a full report. So those that did pass, We want to be able to present the ballot language recommendations to the chair by November 18th. Does that work?
Anne Schroeder 4:19:59PM
Has to be by the --
Martin Shelby 4:20:09PM
That would be two weeks from today.
Anne Schroeder 4:20:11PM
Yes. So give US a date. Because this is your timeline. This is not our timeline. We want to do this so that theres a record that you have all agreed how this will proceed. Ms. Zelman, what was it, the 16th we need to have this to you?
Andrea Zelman 4:20:30PM
[Off microphone] November 17th is the Sire deadline for any item to be presented on the December 1st agenda. So the ordinance will have to be written and into Sire by November 17th.
Joseph Citro 4:20:52PM
And that would be two days before it?
Martin Shelby 4:20:54PM
If I can, Mr. Chairman.
Joseph Citro 4:20:55PM
Mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby 4:20:57PM
With the time crunch being what it is, I dont know to what extent I would be able to make that deadline. I guess its a question of working with the City Attorney and the City Attorney's staff, and --
Bill Carlson 4:21:11PM
We said all along it would be an Outside Attorney working from the City Attorney's office and a that the City Attorney gave US a list and We could pick one. So We could pick that attorney on Thursday if We want.
Martin Shelby 4:21:22PM
Thats different from the next steps then. To put this in next steps so --
Bill Carlson 4:21:34PM
To work with the City Attorney and City Council attorney. And so the City Attorney offered US a preapproved list association we dont have the list here unless City Attorney has it, so we just need to go --
Lynn Hurtak 4:21:49PM
I only think we have two things that passed to begin with. So, I mean, I think theres plenty of time to do that, to at least get a decent thing.
Anne Schroeder 4:22:07PM
So we have --
Martin Shelby 4:22:09PM
Now were approved.
Lynn Hurtak 4:22:10PM
City Council Shelby, just to remind you, we only forwarded two things. Yeah, only two things.
Martin Shelby 4:22:22PM
Well, I think if We can, before We close up, I think We should have an agreement as to what is moving forward. Is there a way --
Lynn Hurtak 4:22:32PM
There are four things. So We are not talking like a giant. So We should be able to do that this Thursday and then move on.
Bill Carlson 4:22:40PM
We also have the issue that that only passed by four votes so if the Mayor vetos it --
Lynn Hurtak 4:22:48PM
Yes. So, I mean --
Anne Schroeder 4:22:52PM
We will get a reporting on those four things. Give US one moment. Nevertheless, considering that theres four items, what timeline date did we come up with? We should be able to get you the final votes notes in the next day or two, if not sooner. They are already from the powerpoint. Mr. Viera?
Luis Viera 4:23:41PM
If I May, Councilwoman Hurtak -- just making sure. If we are looking at something within a week, maybe we can delegate to our City Council attorney Mr. Shelby to take a look at the list, find some attorneys from that list that he would find appropriate and proper, just to expedite the process so we dont have to look at a huge list of 10, 15 law firms.
Bill Carlson 4:24:04PM
Second.
Luis Viera 4:24:05PM
Just expedite it.
Anne Schroeder 4:24:10PM
We will add that.
Bill Carlson 4:24:11PM
Can we vote on that?
Andrew Zelman 4:24:13PM
So we have a list of Attorneys that have been preapproved. We dont have the budget. So we also need to discuss the budget as soon as its going to come out of the City Council budget to pay for them. What we can do is from the Attorneys that responded to our rfq, we will identify those, because they indicated which subject areas they wished to be hired for. So we will have to go through them and identify those that would have the right kind of experience or offer to do the kind of work that would be required to draft. If any of you know of someone thats on our list that you would suggest, feel free to tell US but well go through what we got back and see which on the list would be appropriate. And then we have to discuss the budget issue as well. And just to clarify the timing, November 17th is the date to get the ordinance uploaded into sire, so that you all can address it on December 1st, for first reading. But of course you will have time to be review it in between November 17th and December 1st.
Bill Carlson 4:25:31PM
Is it okay if we schedule the first hearing for December 1st and the second one for December 15th? December 1st is either a morning or night and then December 15th is only morning.
Andrea Zelman 4:25:42PM
Thats a question Mr. Shelby had come up with the date so I will let him answer that.
Bill Carlson 4:25:47PM
We didnt vote on that yet, right?
Martin Shelby 4:25:50PM
Those are the dates of meetings that You have available.
Orlando Gudes 4:25:54PM
Question for Ms. Zelman. You said something about City Attorney doesnt have the budget. I am kind of confused when we approved the list, we approved money for the City Attorney's office --
Andrea Zelman 4:26:08PM
No, that was a big misunderstanding that I am trying to explain to people. Each contract did have a built-in $100,000 cap but that didnt mean that You approved $100,000 for Law Firms. Our internal budget for outside attorneys is almost exhausted from the year 2023 already. We had a lot of carryover bills from 2022. So we dont have the money in our budget for this. Again, what You approved was the ability for US to hire those attorneys quickly without having to bring a contract back to Council, but it didnt approve the funding for any of those contracts.
Orlando Gudes 4:26:53PM
Okay.
Martin Shelby 4:26:54PM
How will that work then?
Orlando Gudes 4:26:56PM
Well, you have the finance man Mr. Rogero right there. Mr. Rogero? Mr. Shelby asked a question. So you are the money man. Where does the election, and if we had an election today, where would that money come from? How were elections paid because the city has to pay for elections, correct?
Dennis Rogero 4:27:24PM
Yes, Sir. We have an election appropriation in anticipation.
Orlando Gudes 4:27:30PM
So reference to charter, or a ballot. Because it would be during the election cycle?
Dennis Rogero 4:27:38PM
If You allow me to look and report back.
Orlando Gudes 4:27:42PM
Maybe We can draw some money from there if it would take extra.
Andrea Zelman 4:27:47PM
How quickly could you report back?
Dennis Rogero 4:27:52PM
Very.
Lynn Hurtak 4:27:54PM
So Thursday?
Dennis Rogero 4:27:56PM
Yes.
Martin Shelby 4:27:57PM
Question with regard to the Attorney and Ms. Zelman with regard to the list and the like, that would have to come back Thursday, too, so that would be tomorrow?
Orlando Gudes 4:28:06PM
The Money Man will know what it will cost.
Andrea Zelman 4:28:08PM
It wont take US long to be go through the list and just identify which of the Law Firms that responded, indicated that thats what they have got kind of experience.
Bill Carlson 4:28:18PM
I would like to make a motion to hold the first hearing on December 1st at the night meeting and the second hearing on December 15th in the morning. Bring the ordinances, yeah.
Bill Carlson 4:28:40PM
Can we vote on that, please?
Martin Shelby 4:28:42PM
Why dont we --
Martin Shelby 4:28:52PM
Whats the date? Any further discussion?
Luis Viera 4:28:59PM
My concern would be December 1st, if we have land use hearings, this May take a while and I dont want to do see something where we start these hearings at 7 or 8. Just my thoughts.
Lynn Hurtak 4:29:10PM
I agree to that, but also on something like this, the evening, more public is available, and the thought being really to make it as available to the public as possible. I dont think our calendar has how many items on the evening agenda.
Martin Shelby 4:29:37PM
What date?
Guido Maniscalco 4:29:40PM
December 1st.
Martin Shelby 4:29:41PM
December 1st?
Lynn Hurtak 4:29:43PM
December 1st, ordinance being presented for first -- yeah. Text amendment and a few other things. But I am not sure what else we have. The calendar isnt here. I dont know if anyone is listening to who works in that division could help US out.
Martin Shelby 4:30:05PM
What time is that? 500?
Lynn Hurtak 4:30:11PM
Mrs. Travis, is that you hiding behind the board? I cant see you. Do you have access to the calendar?
Orlando Gudes 4:30:37PM
It is what it is.
Lynn Hurtak 4:30:38PM
Do You know how many agenda items are on that first meeting? You yourself May not know but I know You have the super power to send to others.
Nicole Travis 4:30:48PM
Give me a moment. You had asked to see those. Here they are on one page. These are the ones that were passed. Does everybody see that all right? Mr. Viera?
Luis Viera 4:31:29PM
Thank you, maam. It might be best to come down December 1st. Maybe we tasked enough to give Mr. Shelby all this work but between now, we come back on Thursday, report back to US on Thursday on dates and I say if we have to do December 1st, im fine with that but just tasking Mr. Shelby looking at the calendar for potential --
Luis Viera 4:31:59PM
Among other options. I just dont want to --
Martin Shelby 4:32:03PM
The question is what are the other options? And You want to schedule this the first ideally, in the evening as opposed to a daytime?
Bill Carlson 4:32:15PM
Hes saying He wants You to tell US on Thursday what You think instead of US discussing it now, We will have You come back on Thursday so I will withdraw my motion.
Lynn Hurtak 4:32:26PM
Ms. Travis, where are we at right now?
Bill Carlson 4:32:30PM
I will withdraw my motion. We can change it on Thursday. Lets put it on the calendar so at least We know its there.
Martin Shelby 4:32:40PM
You have a copy of that, right? Set out the timeline for the ballot placement. There is very little wiggle room.
Anne Schroeder 4:32:53PM
So what was your decision?
Bill Carlson 4:33:00PM
We have to wait. Is there anything else we can make today? And we dont have to do anything else except study on Thursday which Attorney you and Ms. Zelman are going to recommend, and then what date we are going to pick.
Anne Schroeder 4:33:44PM
We are clarifying next steps on the screen for a moment, just so We can put a clear wrap on our session today. So We have scheduled the first reading to Council December 1st in the evening, schedule the second reading and adoption by the Council on December -- on the morning of December 15th. If there is no other recommendations to move forward, what else do you want to do here?
Bill Carlson 4:34:30PM
Come back on that, and then if we need to change out Thursday, we can do that. Can we vote on it? So the motion the first hearing would be on December 1st at night and a second hearing the 15th in the morning subject to Confirmation by everybody.
Anne Schroeder 4:34:50PM
Motion and vote. We have four hands. We have all seven. Mr. Carlson, Mr. Viera, Mr. Maniscalco, Mr. Citro, Ms. Hurtak, Mr. Gudes, and Mr. Miranda.
Bill Carlson 4:35:03PM
I would like to make a motion to ask City Council member -- im sorry, City Council Attorney Shelby and City Attorney Zelman to report to US on Thursday as to which attorney they recommend that we work with to edit the language.
Anne Schroeder 4:35:27PM
Good clarification. Second Ms. Hurtak. Any discussion? Call for the vote on that, please. We have unanimous. Mr. Carlson, Mr. Viera, Mr. Maniscalco, Mr. Citro, Ms. Hurtak, Mr. Gudes, and Mr. Miranda.
Bill Carlson 4:35:44PM
Anything else we need to accomplish today?
Anne Schroeder 4:35:52PM
We just have this last question for you to think about. And it simply reads, unless theres any other recommendations to move forward, what might you ask of US or Mr. Shelby to improve the charter interpretation issues and implementation of the charter? I just want you to think about that, if theres anything else from this session that you wanted to take forward. Thank you. Any comments? Mr. Shelby, you are your hand up.
Bill Carlson 4:36:29PM
You all did a great job. Thank you.
Charlie Miranda 4:36:31PM
Thats a beautiful picture. Who got that picture for you? Very nice.
Martin Shelby 4:36:39PM
Excuse me, Madam Clerk. Number 4 on the agenda. Wait a second, number 4 on the agenda is going to be moved to Thursday? Or is it going to be removed from the agenda? Oh, I see. Oh, I see, that was. Oh, I see.
Nicole Travis 4:37:13PM
I am trying to produce You more information on December 1st, You have 12 land use hearings, and 2 comp plan amendment. Off total of 14 items on your agenda. So --
Martin Shelby 4:37:32PM
Wait a second. Excuse me, if I can. If there are 14 items, what is councils decision with regard to -- thats the evening of the 1st?
Nicole Travis 4:37:46PM
We can do it another day. I just wanted to make sure you have that information.
Martin Shelby 4:37:49PM
Okay. Is there a motion and second? (Meeting adjourned) disclaimer: this file represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript. Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings May need to hire a Court Reporter. © - City Of Tampa (813) 274-8211