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