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