Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-29 - City Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes11 CITY OF TAMAR.AC JOINT SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL AND CHARTER BOARD MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1992 Tape 1. CALL TO ORDER : Mayor Bender called the Joint Special Meeting to Mier a 61TO a.m. in Conference Room #1, City Hall. CITY COUNCIL : PRESENT : Mayor H. L. Bender Vice Mayor Henry Schumann Councilman Norman Abramowitz Councilman Irving Katz Councilman Joseph Schreiber ALSO PRESENT : John P. Kelly, City Manager Mitchell S. Kraft, City Attorney Phyllis Polikoff, Secretary CHARTER BOARD : PRESENT Muriel Davis, Chairwoman Morton Winter, Vice Chairman David Krantz Oscar Brawer Sam Garber ALSO PRESENT : Attorney Paul Novack 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Any member of the public may speak to any issue w is ss on this meeting notice. Speakers will be limited to three minutes during this item and at public hearings. There will be a thirty (30) minute aggregate time limit for this item, and speakers are encouraged to sign up in advance with the City Clerk prior to their participation. Nathan Peretzman, resident, expressed his concerns regarding the Amendments which Council recently approved for the September referendum. He briefly mentioned Section 4.02 of the Charter wherein it stated the length of time the Councilmember could serve in office. Melanie Reynolds, resident, expressed her concerns about the City Manager and two members of Council and in her opinion, there had not been a proper Charter Board in several years. She said in. her opinion, prior Charter Boards had not reviewed the Charter properly and Charter Board members did not investigate complaints she brought before them. Mayor Bender CLOSED the Public Participation portion of the Joint Special Meeting. 2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION on proposed Charter Amendments. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION TABLED to in epen ently review the suggestions made by Attorney Novack. Council and Charter Board will hold independent meetings. Chairwoman Muriel Davis said she was happy to sit down at a Joint i Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/PP Page 2 Meeting with the Council. She said in 1989 a Resolution was passed wherein proposed Amendments, either from Council or the Charter Board, would be discussed if there were differences. She said this had not been done. Chairwoman Davis said Council recently passed three Amendments which only concerned Council members and not the Charter Board. She said Council suggested Charter Board members should be appointed rather than elected and in her opinion, the present Charter Board was the best Board the City had in many years. Chairwoman Davis said Charter Board members proposed nine Amendments for consideration and indicated their priorities. She said a procedure was drafted on how complaints should be handled if the Charter was violated. She said a recommendation was made with regard to having a population study done and the Board wanted to revise the Charter, as needed. Chairwoman Davis expressed her annoyance with Mr. Kelly's suggestion of appointing members to the Charter Board. John Kelly, City Manager, said he suffered more because of his direct involvement with the Charter Board. He said his recommendation to appoint members was more beneficial than electing members to the Board. Mr. Kelly said in his opinion, elected versus appointed was irrelevant because no one had been elected to the Charter Board who was not supported by a majority of the Council. He expressed his concerns about the Charter Board's relationship with Council and how it affected the rest of the City. Mr. Kelly said one Charter Board function was investigating complaints and this was done with his assistance. He said the Board had subpoena powers but they could not protect him or his Staff by providing immunity. He said if a complaint was dismissed, the complainant would invariably go to the State Attorney and he would have to repeat his involvement. He said if the Board ruled in favor of the complainant and against Council, the findings would be filed with him to take action on behalf of Council or for Council to take action against itself. He said he worked for the Council and he was caught between the Charter Board and Council and this was due to the way the Charter Board was structured. Mr. Kelly said to his knowledge, the Charter Board never positively resolved any matters and the complainant usually went to the State Attorney or the Attorney General. Mr. Kelly said in his opinion, the Charter Board did not work and it put Staff in a compromising position of the City Manager working against the group of people who appointed him. Sam Garber expressed his concerns and said the Board acted as a buffer between the malcontents and Council. He disagreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about an elected Board and cronyism and said there would be more cronyism if Board members were appointed. He. said in his opinion the Board members would be friends of the Council because they were appointed by the Council. Mr. Garber said since he was elected, Council approved several proposals made by the Board and he believed the Board was acting in the right manner. He said the citizens elected the members of the Charter Board and Board members should be elected. Oscar Brawer expressed his concerns about the structure of the Charter Board and its relationship with the City Manager. He said the Board was at the mercy of the City Manager who could withhold investigatory powers and assistance. He said the Board only had what the City Manager gave to them. Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/PP Page 3 Mr. Brawer said his only complaint was that there was very little. space to interview complainants. He said if Board members were appointed, the Charter would have to be completely revised and this was a Charter Board function. He said it was wrong for the Charter Board to be submissive to the City Manager and he agreed with Mr. Garber about electing Board members. David Krantz expressed his concerns and asked why Mr. Kelly was so anxious for Charter Board members to be appointed. He disagreed with Mr. Kelly's comment that the Board was overly friendly with members of the Council. He said only one past member of Council supported him as a candidate for the Board. He said in addition to having investigatory and Subpoena powers, the Board should also be involved with the budget and with redistricting and he agreed with Mr. Brawer and Mr. Garber that Board members should be elected. Vice Chairman Morton winter expressed his concerns and agreed with Mr. Krantz, Mr. Brawer and Mr. Garber that Charter Board members should be elected. He said C/M Schreiber also wanted a strong Charter Board and this could only be done by having the members elected. Attorney Paul Novack said he disagreed with some statements made by Mr. Kelly. He said elected or appointed members and changing the structure of City government was not a minor issue. He said the Board was a check -and --balance in matters involving the authority of the Mayor, the Council and the City Manager. Attorney Novack said the citizens created the Charter Board and they did not want to make any changes. He disagreed that Mr. Kelly was harassed by the Board and reiterated the Board was a necessary check -and -balance on his authority. Attorney Novack disagreed that the Board was dependent upon the City Manager for information because all information in City Hall was public information. Attorney Novack said the Board adopted procedures which he be alleviated some concerns of Mr. Kelly and the Council. He said a complainant had to file a sworn and notarized complaint and indicate what portion of the Charter was allegedly violated. Attorney Novack said he believed some things Mr. Kelly was concerned about could be worked out through discussion whereby the language in the Charter could be amended and the Board could remain an elected Board. Mr. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Garber's comments that the Charter Board was a political hack and Mr. Garber withdrew his statement. C/M Schreiber said the City spent many dollars for Carla Coleman to review the Charter and to prepare a report. He said Page 21 of the report indicated the Board should be retained as an appointed Body; it should meet for one year every five years to review the Charter and make recommendations to Council on changes for the ballot; any powers relating to investigations should be deleted. C/M Schreiber reiterated his comment about wanting a strong Charter Board. He said the Board was presently an elected Board and in his opinion, three members were greatly influenced by C/M Abramowitz. He said the Board should be independent and it was not and the citizens did not feel the Board was important enough for the members to get a salary. C/M Schreiber said the citizens believed the Charter Board was a watchdog agency to see that the Charter was not being violated but in his opinion, this was not being done. He said the Board Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/pP Page 4 recommended changes and Council put amendments on the ballot but the amendments were not worded properly. He referenced terms of office and limits of terms of office. C/M Schreiber asked why a complaint had to be taken to the Charter Board when a complainant could go to the Ethics Commission in Tallahassee. He said it was of no concern to him whether Board members were elected or appointed but the Board should be an independent body. C/M Katz said it did not matter to him whether Board members were appointed or elected and that City. Attorney Kraft should determine what the Board's actual duties were. He said in his opinion Council and the Charter Board were historically antagonistic towards each other and when complaints came in, they were not all treated the same. C/M Katz said he believed involved in the Redistricting final decision. He said there were investigations. Tape 2 the Charter Board should not be process because Council made the were usually conflicts when there C/M Katz said a question was asked with regard to putting referendums on the ballot and the Attorney General's opinion was only a legislative body could do this. He said in his opinion, authority should remain with Council. C/M Katz reiterated his comments regarding electing or appointing Charter Board members. He said his primary concern was to have the actual duties of the Charter Board defined. He said the Charter Board had to be made to understand there was one legislative body and authority rested with Council and not with the Charter Board. C/M Katz said there had to be a fair way to screen violations and Attorney Novack had indicated this was being done. C/M Katz suggested the Charter Board's name should be changed to Charter Review Board because the Board was to do this. He suggested these issues should be put on a referendum and that City Attorney Kraft should define what he thought the duties of the Charter Board should be. C/M Abramowitz said in response to C/M Schreiber's comments that five and not three members of the Charter Board were his friends. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that appointing or electing members was not the issue. C/M Abramowitz agreed there was a history of antagonism between the Charter Board and Council and believed it should be that way. He said the present Charter Board was composed of people who were truly concerned with the City. C/M Abramowitz said it did not matter to him whether Charter Board members were elected or appointed but problems existed with regard to what the Board's functions were. He said it did not make sense for the Board to have Subpoena powers when they could not grant immunity. C/M Abramowitz said in his opinion, the Charter was a disgrace because it was put together for political purposes only. He said in his opinion, there were items in the Charter which should be eliminated as well as some that shuld be added. C/M Abramowitz said he voted against having an appointed Charter Board and he wanted an elected Board. He reiterated his comments about the present Charter Board and it did not matter whether the Board was elected or appointed. He said he believed the Charter u J Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board b/29/92/PP Page 5 was unworkable. V/M Schumann said the Charter was changed by Referendum and he suggested many Sections should be revised. He said he did not know the full extent of the Charter Board's functions with the exception of its investigative powers. V/M Schumann said he was Chairman of the Charter Review Committee in 1985 and the Charter was not a watchdog of Council because their watchdog was the State Attorney's Office. V/M Schumann agreed with C/M Katz that the duties of the Charter Board should be to review the Charter and to make the necessary recommendations and changes to go on the ballot. He agreed with the other Council members that it did not matter if the Charter Board was elected or appointed. V/M Schumann agreed that in the past eight years the Charter Board had been adversarial in nature. He said each year money was budgeted for operating expenses but the monies were used to file lawsuits against Council which, in his opinion, were mostly unfounded. V/M Schumann said the second paragraph pertaining to Subpoena powers should be deleted because the Charter Board did not have power to grant immunity. Mayor Bender said he checked several sections in the Charter. after Ms. Coleman made her recommendations. He said portions of the Charter had been superseded by State Law but the Charter had not been changed. He referenced Article VII - Financial Procedures wherein the Charter required one set of books and the State required one set of books. He said there were items he classified as "Housekeeping" items and he asked why the Charter had to give housekeeping rules and regulations because they were administrative duties. Mayor -Bender said he did not care if the Board was elected or appointed but that he wanted a Charter which would work. Mayor Bender said Council did not ignore six of the nine recommendations proposed by the Charter Board for the next ballot. He said the recommendations were prioritized and they would be put on the ballots for the next two upcoming elections. He said the Charter had to be corrected. C/M Katz said in his opinion, all Council members wanted to know what the Board's duties were and why they were duplicating the efforts of the Council. Be agreed the Charter Board was adversarial in nature toward"the Council and it was detrimental and a disservice to the City. C/M Katz suggested the recommendation to define the duties'of the Charter Board should be put on the November ballot. He also suggested the name should be changed to the Charter Review Board. Mr. Garber said there was a difference between Charter Board and Charter Review Board. He said a Charter Review Board, in his opinion, would meet every four to .five years to review the Charter and it had nothing to do with the amendments. He said he believed that all Council members were against an elected Board and the Board should be kept the way it was. Mr. Brawer said he disagreed with some of the comments made by C/M Schreiber with regard to Section 4.02. He agreed with C/M. Abramowitz that portions of the Charter should be changed. Mr. Krantz said he felt it was improper for Council to hold the present Charter Board accountable for lawsuits filed by previous Boards. He said the duties of the Charter Board were to consider J Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/PP Page 6 and propose amendments to the Charter, they could participate with the Manager and assigned officials in preparing and reviewing the budget, participate in the redistricting process and upon request of Council, they would make special studies and investigations. Mayor Sender disagreed with Mr. Brawer that Council voted against having an elected Charter Board. He said this matter was discussed at a Workshop and votes were not cast at Workshop meetings and C/M Abramowitz said each Councilmember voiced his preference. Vice Chairman Winter disagreed with Mr. Brawer that the balance of the term would be stagnant because a lot of work had to be done. He disagreed with C/M Schreiber with regard to the terms of office and that Council and not the Charter Board put this on the ballot. He said, with regard to redistricting, that Council, and not the Charter Board, made the final decision and that if the Board did not agree with the Redistricting Committee, the Board could submit their own report. C/M Abramowitz told Mr. Brawer the reason why the Charter Board offices were so small was that under the Sunshine Law, two to three people could not occupy the same room at once. Chairwoman Davis said she objected to C/M Katz's comments about limiting the Board's powers regarding redistricting, doing investigations and the Ethics Commission. She agreed the Ethics Commission had no jurisdiction over the Charter Board. Chairwoman Davis said the duties of the Charter Board were input with regard to redistricting, input with the budget, the right to investigate, being able to propose amendments for the ballot and the right to do studies, if requested. Chairwoman Davis said the Charter Board proposed nine amendments and Council prioritized three amendments for the ballot which Council considered housekeeping items. She said she was angry that Council did not include the Board at a meeting to discuss what the Board wanted prioritized although she requested a Joint Meeting. She said Mayor Bender advised a Joint Meeting was unnecessary because Council had agreed with the Board's suggestions. Chairwoman Davis said, in her opinion, Council only wanted the Charter Board to review the Charter. She said she was happy C/M Schreiber indicated it did not matter whether the Board was elected or appointed and the Board was influenced by Council. C/M Schreiber corrected Chairwoman Davis and said the Board was influenced by C/M Abramowitz. Chairwoman Davis said she conferred with C/M Abramowitz and Mayor Bender with regard to questions or problems the Board had and she said that C/M Schreiber was also influenced by people in the City. She disagreed with V/M Schumann's statement that the Board should not be a watchdog because they were adversarial by nature. She said previous Boards were adversarial but the present Board tried very hard to work in concert with Council, C/M Schreiber agreed with Chairwoman Davis's statement that he was influenced by activists and an individual could go to the Ethics Commission without first going to the Charter Board. He agreed the Ethics Commission had no control over the Charter Board but he stated he did not say that. C/M Katz said there was no reason why C/M Schreiber was verbally attacking C/M Abramowitz C/M Schreiber said the Charter Board was responsible for making recommendations for changes in amendments to the Charter. He J Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/PP Page 7 said the Board did not address Sections 7.10 and 7.18. He said one other Section was not included in its entirety on the ballot and it permitted former City Attorney Ruf to work in the City of Tamarac and the City of Cooper City. C/M Katz reiterated that a consensus of opinion regarding appointed versus elected was given at a Workshop in addition to a definition of the duties of the Charter Board. V/M Schumann corrected C/M Schreiber's statement that the Charter Board had proposed the amendment pertaining to term increases. Vice Chairman Winter said the Charter Board wanted to work with and not against Council. He said Council prioritized the amendment relating to terms of office which was proposed by the Charter Board. Mr. Brawer said he took exception to C/M Schreiber's statements regarding Section 4.02 and said the Charter Board did act on this matter. He said Section 4.02 pertained to terms of office for Mayor and Council. Mayor Bender disagreed with C/M Schreiber about Section 4.02 and said it was very important. Tape 3 C/M Abramowitz said elections were held every year and they were very costly and hurt the City. He disagreed with C/M Schreiber and said terms of office were very important. Attorney Novack said it was the Charter Board's opinion that the wrong question was asked on the ballot. He said any complainant could go to the Ethics Commission if the complaint pertained to a violation of the State law. He said the Ethics Commission would do nothing if the complaint pertained to a violation of the City Charter. He said Subpoena powers had not been used and would not be used and in his opinion, this was a false issue and the issue could be negotiated. Attorney Novack said citizens had the right to file lawsuits and it did not matter whether the Charter Board was elected or appointed. Attorney Novack reiterated Chairwoman Davis's comments about new procedures for filing complaints which would prevent abuses which had occurred in the past. He said copies of the procedures could be made available, if requested, and he asked Council to make suggestions. Attorney Novack said the Board did not want to be harassed by frivilous complaints any more than Council did. He asked for Council to agree on the following suggestions: 1. the Charter Board should remain an elected Board. 2. the redistricting portion should remain as a responsibility. 3. the Charter Board would continue to submit a report to Council if they disageed with the Redistricting Committee. Attorney Novack said the Charter Board wanted to end the antagonism between themselves and Council. He said the Board would continue to meet with him to draft language with regard to the duties and powers of investigation. Attorney Novack requested that the Charter Board should be given sufficient time to respond to Council's questions and how some language could be eliminated. He said if Council and the Board would agree to an elected Board, redistricting and the ability to investigate Charter violations would remain in place. Mr. Garber asked why individual Councilmembers could not go directly to the Charter Board and indicate they had specific concerns which should be changed. C/M Abramowitz disagreed and J Joint Special Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/PP Page 8 said that is why Council expressed their opinion. C/M Abramowitz agreed with many statements made by Attorney Novack. He asked why Council or the City Manager had to comply with a request for information if the Charter Board did not have the legal right to elicit information. Attorney Novack said a Councilmember should be given an opportunity to make a statement before the Charter Board. He said under the Sunshine Law, any citizen was entitled to see any public document. He said he did not believe there really was a major problem. C/M Abramowitz said according to the Charter, Council did not have the right to demand or suggest that the Charter Board appear before the Council. Attorney Novack said he was anxious to work with Council to eliminate any frivilous complaints in order that abuses could be prevented in the future. He said the Charter Board could presently throw out any frivilous complaint. Mr. Brawer said he understood today's Joint Meeting was the result of the vote taken at a Workshop with regard to appointed verus elected. He suggested that Council should vote now to put an amendment appointed versus elected on the ballot. Chairwoman Davis agreed with Attorney Novack and asked Council to vote on his proposal with regard to trying to resolve the problem between Council and the Charter Board. C/M Katz reiterated he did not care if the Board was appointed or elected providing the duties of the Board were defined. He said he took exception to Attorney Novack's comment that Council should clear the air and allow some portions of the Charter to remain. He said there was no problem with an elected Board if the duties were specifically defined but he could not answer if redistricting were to remain. Mayor Bender said he wanted the Minutes transcribed so Council could have an opportunity to thoroughly review them. C/M Katz said in his opinion, a vote would not be required to determine if the Board should remain an elected Board. Mayor Bender said he also wanted to thoroughly review the suggestions made by Attorney Novack. * C/M Abramowitz MOVED that Attorney Novack's suggestions should be acted upon by the Charter Board and Council should be made aware of the remedy. He suggested that Council should schedule a separate meeting to discuss Attorney Novack's suggestions. The MOTION DIED for lack of a SECOND. C/M Abramowitz said the Council had until August 31 to put amendments on a referendum for the November ballot. Mr. Kelly agreed. * C/M Abramowitz MOVED to TABLE and to ask Attorney Novack to prepare some recommendations for Council to review and discuss, SECONDED by C/M Katz. Mayor Bender suggested the Charter Board should review and discuss what Attorney Novack proposed. VOTE : ALL VOTED AYE Chairwoman Davis asked to have these matters discussed further at a Joint Meeting. Joint Special. Meeting of City Council and Charter Board 6/29/92/PP Page 9 Mr. Kelly said he was happy he had the opportunity to discuss this matter and for Council to allow him to meet individually with the Board with regard to a legal cap on expenses. C OL A. EVANS CITY CLERK 11 H. L. BENDER - MAYOR CITY OF TAMARAC APPROVED AT MEETING OE - P _ �-- J