Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-23 - City Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321.2401 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 May 16, 1989 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL AND CHARTER BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING There will be a Joint Workshop Meeting of the City Council and Charter Board on Tuesday, May 23, 1989 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Tamarac City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss procedures for Charter Amendments. • All meetings are open to the public. CAE/nr -W Carol A. Evans City Clerk AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS r 7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE & TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 May 16, 1989 Rev. 5/23/89 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL AND CHARTER BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING There will be a Joint Workshop Meeting of the City Council and Charter Board on Tuesday, May 23, 1989 at 9:30 * a.m. in the Council Conference Room , Tamarac City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss procedures for Charter Amendments. 0 All meetings are open to the public. CAE/nr Carol A. Evans City Clerk AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL AND CHARTER BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on Tuesday, May 23, 1989 at 9:30 A.M. in the City Council Conference Room. PRESENT: CHARTER BOARD PRESENT ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Bruce Hoffman Councilman Henry Rohr Councilman Jack Stelzer Isaac "Zeke" Feldman, Chairman Dr. Alfred Wald, Vice Chairman Stan Bernard Ron Catronio Muriel Davis ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Richard Doody, City Attorney Alan Gabriel, Charter Board Attorney Pauline Walaszek, Special Services Secretary The purpose of this meeting was to discuss procedures for Charter Amendments. Mayor Abramowitz said the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the difference of opinions regarding placing Charter Amendments on the Ballot. He said he hoped that the discussions went smoothly and the difference of opinions were resolved. Mayor Abramowitz said the City was advised that if the Attorney General's Opinion was not honored regarding the placement of the Charter Amendments, there could be litigation in the future. He asked that the Charter Board members address their concerns to the City Council. Zeke Feldman, Charter Board Chairman, said he would like to defer the Charter Board's comments until Alan Gabriel, Attorney for the Charter Board, addressed the Charter Board and City Council. Alan Gabriel, Attorney for the Charter Board, said there were three existing procedures for placing Charter Amendments on the Ballot. At this time, Attorney Gabriel distributed copies of the procedures (SEE ATTACHMENT). He said the first and third documents were prepared by Page 1 5/23/89 him and the second document was prepared by City Attorney Doody. He said each document was based upon the Attorney General's Opinion. Referring to Document 1, dated April 7, 1989, Mayor Abramowitz said item 4, Third line, "who shall" meant that no matter what, the amendments would be adopted. Attorney Gabriel said he was counsel for the Charter Board when the previous Amendments were created and the City Council was not involved in the discussions of the Charter Board for those Amendments. He said he wanted the procedures to allow the City Council to participate during the discussions of the Amendments, and the Charter Board could or could not use the changes suggested by the City Council. He said if the City Council did not approve of the Charter Board's Amendments, the City Council could place them on the Ballot indicating that the City Council did not approve the Amendments. Mayor Abramowitz said he did not approve of these procedures. He said the City Council was not trying to diminish the importance of the Charter Board. Attorney Gabriel said the City of Pembroke Pines used this procedure; however, the City Council did not have the right to make recommendations and Mayor Abramowitz said the remaining Cities did not have a Charter Board. Attorney Gabriel said the Attorney General's Opinion was not law and there was a recent Case for the City of Pembroke Park in which there were 4 Attorney General's Opinions given. He said one of the Opinions was contradictive to the other three and, when the Case was taken to Court, the Judge ruled to agree with the one Opinion. He said he and City Attorney Doody met several times regarding this matter and could not come to a resolution because both sides had similar interests. He said he would like to see this matter resolved. Mayor Abramowitz said he did not know of any member of the City Council that wanted to usurp the powers of the Charter Board. He said he did not want to fight for turf, spend money and embarrass the City; therefore, he would approve of a resolution. However, in the event that the City Council and Charter Board did not agree with the Amendments, a Joint workshop meeting should be called to try and resolve the differences. He said the City Council was given 4 Amendments for Referendum last year and only one Amendment was not submitted for Referendum because of a discrepancy on a word. Stan Bernard asked who would make the final judgment if the City Council and Charter Board could not agree on an Amendment. Mayor Abramowitz said he was bound to follow the Attorney General's Opinion and the Charter Board and City Council should be able to share each other thoughts on matters. Stan Bernard said he did not want to go to war on such matters; however, if the City Council refused to place Charter Amendments on the Ballot, it was a veto on the Charter Board's rights. He said the voters were the ones to decide on Amendments and the City Council should give the people the right to make the decision. Page 2 5/23/89 C/M Rohr said there have not been many incidents in the past where the City Council disagreed with Amendments of the Charter. He was concerned with the Charter Board thinking that the City Council was intending to turn down further proposed Amendments by the Charter Board. C/M Rohr said if there were problems with Amendments the City Council and Charter Board could meet at a ,joint Workshop meeting and discuss the problems. He said it was not appropriate to anticipate problems that were non-existent and it was possible to lose more if the matter were taken to Court. Dr. Alfred Wald, Vice Chairman, read from the Charter and he said that the existing Charter indicated that the Charter Board had the right to make Amendments and place them on a Ballot without City Council input. He said the Charter Board was elected by the people and had the right to act on the Charter as provided by the Charter. Vice Chairman Wald said the Attorney General's Opinion was not the law and the City Council should act on the law of the City, which was the Charter. He said if the City Council was going to follow the Attorney General's Opinion the Charter should be changed or the City Council and Charter Board should come to an agreement. C/M Hoffman said the City Council was following the State Law which was precedent over the Charter. He said as a former member of the Charter Board, he learned that there could not be two legislative bodies in the City and for years the Charter Board had tried to legislate the Charter Amendments. He said it was possible to have two Charter Amendments on the same matter passed by the people. C/M Hoffman said there was provision under the State Law whereby the City Council was the only Body to put forth Charter Amendments. He said the City Council could not delegate the responsibility; therefore, the right could not be granted to the Charter Board. He said the Attorney General's Opinion stated exactly what he had been saying for several years and the City Council should follow the Opinion. Ron Catronio said he agreed with C/M Hoffman that there should not be two legislative bodies in the City. He asked why this matter ever started and he said the only thing that everybody was going by was legal opinions. He said the Charter Board's Investigatory Powers were in tact; however, he did not know for how long. He said he agreed that the City Council and Charter Board should meet regarding the Amendments to resolve the difference of opinions. Ron Catronio said the decision made today may require the Charter to be Amended by an Ordinance placed before the voters. He said there were several changes since the 1988 Election and he was concerned about what would happen at the 1989 Election. He said the people that were once friends and communicators were now unfriendly and non -communicators because of past events. He said a resolution was needed and he would like to see resolution as soon as possible because nothing has been accomplished since the matter became an issue. Page 3 5/23/89 Ron Catronio said the Charter Board once reviewed the Charter verbatim to make necessary changes; however, this no longer was happening and he would like to see the review continue. He said if it was necessary to hold Joint Workshop meetings to discuss differences of opinion then those meetings should take place. He said there were several disruptions in reviewing the Charter and the City Council and Charter Board should work together. He said any one of the three procedures could be adopted with minor amendments providing the procedures were followed. Mayor Abramowitz asked C/M Stelzer to respond as to why this matter became an issue. C/M Stelzer said for 7 years he was trying to get an Attorney General's Opinion regarding the placement of Charter Amendments on the Ballot. He said this City Council asked City Attorney Doody to get the Attorney General's Opinion and the Opinion given was the same that he has always had. C/M Stelzer said there were problems in the procedures which indicated that the Charter Board was to make the final decision on the Amendments and the City Council was to place the Amendments on the Ballot regardless if they approved or not. He said this action would cause a campaign of the City Council against the Charter Board. He said this type of trouble was not necessary. C/M Stelzer said a Declaratory Judgment was needed when the Charter Board proposed an Amendment to the City Charter of which the City Council did not approve. He said this did not exist at this time; therefore, the matter should not be pursued until it did exist. He said there were several Amendments continuously placed on the Ballot that were consistently being turned down by the people. C/M Hoffman said that he agreed with the draft of procedures of April 17, 1989, and Ron Catronio said he disagreed with the first Item stating "may" as opposed to "shall". Chairman Feldman said the City Council and Charter Board should agree today on certain issues such as the City Council not taking away the right of the Charter Board to place Charter Amendments on the Ballot. He said the Attorney General's Opinion was not the Law; therefore, it was not the issue; however, the issue was who had the right to put Charter Amendments on the Ballot. He said the Charter Board has had this right since the Charter was in existence and to take this away would be weakening the Charter. Chairman Feldman recommended that the April 17, 1989 Procedure draft be used with the amendment of replacing the word "may" with "shall" in Item 4. City Attorney Doody said Attorney Gabriel mentioned the Case involving Pembroke Pines and, after having informal discussions with people at Pembroke Pines, he understood that the members of their City Council and Charter Board discuss their differences of opinion to find a resolution. U 1 I - Page 4 5/23/89 City Attorney Doody suggested that the City Council and Charter Board Amend the procedure to state that a Joint meeting would be called for resolution to problems. He said this procedure should be included and, if that time comes, other action could be taken. Ron Catronio said there seemed to be a disagreement because the Charter Board felt that their power was being diminished. He said this disagreement was not of benefit to anyone and he felt that the procedure recommended by City Attorney Doody should be implemented. He said if the City Council and Charter Board entered into a Joint Workshop meeting with an attitude that a resolution would be found there should be no problems. TAPE 2 Mayor Abramowitz said he did not agree that the City Council or Charter Board would change their minds on the agreement made at this meeting. Chairman Feldman said that there were three proposed procedures submitted and the City Council and Charter Board should agree on one of them. Mayor Abramowitz said he agreed with C/M Stelzer's suggestion which was that the City Council and Charter Board should request a declaratory opinion if and when a resolution could not be made. He said he did not expect anybody to agree with the suggestions at this time and he Suggested that the City Council and Charter Board hold separate meetings to discuss today's meeting and meet in a Joint Workshop meeting for a final determination. Vice Chairman Wald said the main issue was forgotten by everyone which was the City Charter. He said the existing Charter indicated that the Charter Board had the right to place Amendments on the Ballot without consultation from the City Council. He said he did not object to the City Council placing items on the Ballot providing the Charter was changed to reflect this. He said as long as the Charter gave the Charter Board this right, the Charter Board should not give up this right. Vice Chairman Wald said the Attorney General's Opinion indicated that the State had right over the City; however, Attorney Gabriel indicated that there were Cases to refer to that Recalled the State Law. He said there may be a chance that the Charter would override the Attorney General's Opinion. He said the City Council and Charter Board should resolve this matter at this meeting. C/M Rohr said when the Attorney General made his recommendations, the Charter Board submitted the Charter to him. He said despite what the Charter Board thought, the Attorney General made a recommendation according to ;is.reading of the Charter. 'C/M Rohr said he felt that there were not circumstances evident right now; therefore, the matter should not be pursued until there were problems. He said the City Council could not make a precedent of allowing the Attorney General's Opinion to be ignored because there may be problems with other City Councils in the future. City Attorney Doody suggested that he and Attorney Gabriel draft another procedure including that a Joint Workshop meeting would be held between the City Council Page 5 5/23/89 and the Charter Board if there were disagreements. He said after this draft, another ,joint Workshop meeting would be held to review the draft. Mayor Abramowitz said the Case regarding Pembroke Park was ruled because the Charter did not address the matter; therefore, the Amendment could not be implemented. Attorney Gabriel said Pembroke Park went to Court to follow State Law; however, the Charter did not provide or make reference to a means to Recall an elected official in the City; therefore, the City did not follow State Law. Stan Bernard said the City Council was the only legislative body in the City; therefore, the Charter Board could not make legislative decisions. He said if the Charter Board proposed an Amendment it was to the voters of the City and not anyone else. He said the Charter Board only wanted the City Council to put the Amendments on the Ballot regardless if they agreed or not. C/M Hoffman said the Charter Board may have the power and the State Law indicated that the Charter Board did not have the power. Stan Bernard said the City Council should not use their own discretion regarding the Amendments being placed on the Ballot. C/M Stelzer said an Amendment was placed on the Ballot by Ordinance and the Charter Board could not pass an Ordinance. Stan Bernard said the voters should be allowed to vote on the matter and, if the voters wanted the Charter Board to place the Amendments on the Ballot, the City Council should comply. Mayor Abramowitz said the voters did not mandate the City Council on how they must vote. Chairman Feldman suggested that another Joint Workshop meeting be called when City Attorney Doody and Attorney Gabriel complete another draft and all AGREED with this suggestion. With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 10:35 A.M. CAROL A. EVANS, CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $68.40 or $4.89 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council and Charter Board of the City of Tamarac. Page 6 ATTACHMENT; City Council Meeting 5/23/89 Page 1 I DRAFT 1 April 7, 1989 1, The Charter Board shall propose an amendment oan direct the City Clerk to submit the proposed amendment to the Council for review. 2. city Council, after review, may accept the proposal and adopt same as an ordinance and direct the City Clerk to place the proposed amendmeno� before the electorate at the next general special election. sed 3. Or, the City Council may r Board the ro heir amendment to the Charter recommendations for revisions. 4. The Charter Board may modify its proposed amendment, at its discretion, and resubmit the proposal to the City Council who shall adopt the Charter Board's proposal as an Ordinance with a recommendation for approval or denial and then direct the City Ct rthe° next the general proposal or before special the electorate a election. F) ATTACHMENT: rITY;COUNCIL MTG. 5/28/ 89 Page 1. April 17, 1989 1. The Charter Board may propose amendments to the City Charter and direct the City Clerk to submit the proposed amendments to the City Council for review. 2. City Council, upon review, may accept the prop salto e and adopt same as an ordinance and direct the City Clerk the proposed amendment before the electorate at the next general or special election; or 3. The City Council may return the proposed amendment to the Charter Board with their recommendations for revision. 4. Upon receiving the City Council recommendation for revisions, the Charter Board may modify its proposed amendment, at its discretion, and resubmit the proposed amendment to the City Council who may, in their discretion, adopt the Charter Board's proposalas an andOrdinance directtthe recounendation for approval or denial City Clerk to place the proposal before the electorate at the next general or special election. a ATTACHMENT: City Council Mtg. -5/23/89 Page 1 ®RAFT April 26, 1989 1. The Charter Board may propose amendments to the City Charter and direct the City Clerk to submit the proposed amendments to the City Council for review. 2. City Council, upon review, may accept the proposal and adopt same as an Ordinance and direct the City Clerk to place the proposed amendment before the electorate at the next general or special election; or 3. The City Council may return the proposed amendment to the Charter Board with their recommendations for revision. 4. Upon receiving the City Council recommendation for revisions, the Charter Board may modify its proposed amendment, at its discretion, and resubmit the proposed amendment to the City Council who may, in their discretion, adopt the Charter Board's proposal as an Ordinance with a recommendation for approval or denial and `then direct the City Clerk to place the proposal before the electorate at the next general or special election. S. Upon the City Council's failure to adopt the Charter Board's proposal as an Ordinance the Charter Board, by a vote of at least four (4) affirmative votes may resubmit its proposed amendment to the City Council who shall direct the City Clerk to place the proposal before the electorate at the next general or special election. agdoc.425