HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-22 - City Commission Public Hearing Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE Y TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722.5900
MAIL REPLY TO,
December 21, 1983
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
Please be advised that the.City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING
on Thursday, December 22, 1983 at 10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers
at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose
of this PUBLIC HEARING is to consider CHARTER AMENUvEM presented
by the Charter Board to be placed on the General Election Ballot on
March 13, 1984, by Temp. Ord. #1.074, Second Reading.
The City Council may consider such other business as may come before
it.
The Public is invited to attend.
Carol A. Evans
Assistant City Clerk
Pursuant toSec:tion 28 .Ox0 5, F106t° w ie tut '
it a person decides to appeal any decislor, rr,-A i y ii;Fs
Council with respect to any matter considered at so,,'+
hearing, he will need a record of the procee.°ing.v.+
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim rein r i
the testimony and evidence upon which the aPPS?a it to be
"An Equal Opportunity Employer"
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING.pN
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS
DECEMBER 22, 1983
Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Walter W. Falck called the meeting to
1 order on Thursday, December 22, 1983 at 10:00 A.M. in Council
Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT. Mayor Walter W. Falck
Councilman.Philip B. Kravitz
Councilman David E. Krantz
Councilman Jack Stelzer
V/M Massaro was absent and excused.
ALSO PRESENT_ City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans
City Attorney, Jon M. Henning
Secretary, Roslyn Brauner
Mayor Falck read the Notice of Public Hearing into the record
and stated that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to
consider Charter Amendments presented by the Charter Board
to be placed on the General Election Ballot on March 13,1984,
by Temp. Ord. #1074 (Second Reading).
City Attorney Jon Henning read the revised Ordinance by title.
C/M Stelzer said yesterday Council received a copy of the Charter
Board minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1983.
C/M Stelzer stated that on December 6, 1983, the City Council
publicly discussed all the Charter Amendments submitted by the
Charter Board, which Amendments were approved and signed by all
Charter Board members. The Charter Board reviewed all the City
Council's actions at the Charter Board meeting of December 9, 1983,
the minutes of which were made available to the City Council about
noon on December 21, 1983, approximately twenty hours before the
Second Reading was scheduled.
C/M Stelzer said he would object to some of the statements made by
Mr.Sydney Stein., the Chairman of the Charter Board. On Page 6,
he states, "Councilman Stelzer was the spokesman for the Council".
C/M Stelzer commented that the dictionary defines a spokesman as
one who speaks for or on behalf of another. C/M Stelzer said if
he was a spokesman for the City Council, then Sydney Stein should
charge him with a violation of the sunshine law or refute his
statement.
C/M Stelzer said that on November 28, 1983 he wrote to the Mayor,
with copies to Councilmembers, City Attorney and City Manager, and
said, "I would appreciate if you would permit me to lead the dis-
cussion at the Council meeting as I have written up comprehensive
comments on each Amendment and feel I may be in a position to
focus attention on several debatable points".
C/M Stelzer stated that Mr. Stein further said that he (C/M Stelzer)
withheld the second proposed Amendment from the people.
C/M Stelzer said he did not withhold the Amendment from the people.
He recommended to the City Council that they should not place this
Amendment on the ballot and the Councilmembers were.in agreement.
The Amendment then returns to the Charter Board as they have the
right to a final vote. If they cannot get a 4 to 1 vote, then they
withhold the Amendment from the public, not the City Council.
-1- 12/22/83
/rb
C/M Stelzer commented that Mr. Stein is trying to pass the
buck to him and to the Council. The buck should stay with the
Charter Board.
C/M Stelzer said that further on in the minutes, it is stated,
"Syd Stein stated that C/M Stelzer is saying that unless the
Charter Board accepts the Council's Amendments, they never get
to the people". C/M Stelzer said he would defy Mr. Stein to
show him that this statement was made, either on the tapes
or in his notes.
C/M Stelzer said he had suggested several changes, most of which
the Charter Board agreed to, according to the minutes of the
December 9, 1983 meeting and he said to simplify things, he will
take these up one at a time.C/P2 Stelzer said firstly, the Charter
Board wants to change the placement of the questions from the top to
the bottom of the ballot and asked the City Attorney what had to be
done. Mr.. Henning said this can be accomplished by motion to amend the
temporary Ordinance before it is passed on Second Reading today.
City Attorney Jon Henning explained that the Charter Board has
provided the Council with a draft of their ballot statements.
After that, he sent Council a memo explaining that based upon
Florida law, as well as the fact that the questions have to be
answered by "yes" or "no" there has to be some kind of a question.
Mr. Henning said he put in'the draft the language, "Are you in favor
of" at the beginning, and then added their agreed language, "A
proposed amendment providing.....". The Charter Board is
asking that instead of saying, "Are you in favor of an amendment...
just say, "An Amendment providing that the elected officials of
the City......" and then insert, "Are you in favor of this
Amendment". It can also be stated as "this proposal" or
"the above amendment". In the Charter Board minutes, they state,
"Are you in favor of the above amendment?" The Charter Board is
asking that be placed at the end of each ballot item instead of
at the beginning.
The City Attorney said it would be appropriate at this time for
Council to make a Motion to Amend this Temporary Ordinance to
have the question, "Are you in favor of the above Amendment?°'
placed as the last statement before the " Yes" or "No" on each ballot
question. C/M Stelzer said he would so MOVE. The MOTION died for
lack of a SECOND.
C/M Stelzer said he would like to discuss the Amendments approved
by the Council, with or without modifications.
FIRST PROPOSED AMENDMENT - In the Amendment limiting thenumber
of terms C/M Stelzer said he had suggested the word "different"
be inserted on Page 3, Line 8. C/M Stelzer said lie does not know
whether the Charter Board has approved of this insertion.
Mr. Sydney Stein, Chairman of the Charter Board, stated if the
word "different" is inserted on Second Reading, it will be approved
as the Charter Board has no objection to it.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to Approve Amendment #1 on Second Reading.
SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed.with no response.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
THIRD PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said that Council had
agreed to Sections d) and e) which state that the Charter Board
shall have certain duties and he 14OVED to Approve the Amendment
relating to the duties of the Charter Board with respect to
Sections 3 d) and 3 e). SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response.
-2- 12/22/83
/rb
City Attorney Henning stated that there are now two possibilities
of proposed questions regarding the duties of the Charter Board.
He said he had removed Subsection c) and used #12, which appears
at the end of the language.
C/M Stelzer said that is not needed since the Charter Board is not
making a change. If the word "may" is left in, then the Charter
is not changed at all and it should not go in as an amendment, and
the c) section can be dele,td.d.
Mayor Falck said he would agree with that.
Mr. Sydney Stein stated that the Charter Board has accepted the
removal of c) and it will not appear on the ballot. Therefore,
a), b) and c) are Same, and the only sections that were changed
were d) and e).
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
FOURTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said the Amendment on the
Redistricting Committee was approved as written. However, there
is a deletion relating to the delivery and asked the City Attorney what
should .be done to remove the deletion.
City Attorney.Jon Henning said he sent a memo to Council this
morning suggesting that regarding this roposed Amendment, on Page 6,
Lines 19 to 22 be deleted. The deletedp language
is, "The City Clerk shall be responsible for delivering the
redistricting report to the Supervisor.of Elections forthwith,
after the presentation at the joint meeting".
Mr. Stein said this statement was not inserted for any particular
reason except that the Charter Board thought it had to be done that
way. If the Council deletes the wording, the Charter Board would
probably go along with it and approve it at the meetinq next week.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to approve the Redistricting Amendment to be
placed on the ballot with the deletion of the delivery clause.
SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed.
Mr. Ben Lieber, resident, said if this is not done, there is no require-
ment for the City Clerk to deliver. Council could not act on it
because there will be no information before any sitting body.
He said this should be mandatory and an absolute requirement.
Mayor Falck said it is not wanted by the. County.
Mr. Henning said the Amendment states, "A copy shall be kept on
file for public inspection by the City Clerk".
City Manager Stuurmans said the requirement is still there for
delivery to be made to the Council and the Charter Board. There is
also a requirement that it be kept a public record and available
for public inspection. She said the portion stricken is the rdgUire-
ment to take it to Jane Carroll'soffice because .that office has no need
for that information.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
FIFTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer stated that the Unanticipated
Surplus Amendment was changed to eliminate the last sentence in the
first paragraph. The language, "It shall also show projected
fixed expense for the next five (5) years and expenses for pensions,
if any, and debt service" was stricken.
Mr. Stein said as he recalls, there was no objection from the
Charter Board to that deletion.
-3- 12/22/83
/rb
C/M Stelzer MOVED that the Unanticipated Surplus Amendment
be placed on the ballot, eliminating the last sentence in
the first paragraph. SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
SIXTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said the word "different"
was added to the Amendment on Vacancies, on Page 9, Line 6,
and he would MOVE the Amendment relative to vacancies be
approved to be placed on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
SEVENTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said the Amendment to
adopt the State election laws was considered and rejected. Mr. Henning
said there is a new Ordinance on this and it will have a Second-xeaaing,
on January 3, 1984. He said the Charter Board has agreed to
accept the Ordinance in lieu of the Amendment to the Charter,
and it will become effective for this coming election. Section 2
of the Ordinance will state that the Amendment to the Charter
was rejected.
C/M Stelzer MOVED that the Amendment adopting the State election
laws NOT be placed on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
The public hearing was opened and closed with no response.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
NINTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said that regarding the
Amendment concerning emergency expenditures, he had requested
the word "may" be changed to "shall" and he MOVED
that the Amendment regarding emergency expenditures be placed on
the ballot, and that the word "may" be changed to "shall".
SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with -no response.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
City Attorney Henning stated that for the record, the word "may"
was changed -to "shall".on Line 24 of Page'10.
TENTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/PQ Stelzer said there was no change
in the Amendment regarding annexation and he would MOVE that
the Amendment regarding annexation be placed on the ballot.
SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed, with no response.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
ELEVENTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said in the Amendment
regarding consultants' negotiations, it was suggested to change
the word "repeal" to "amend", and the word "amend" was voted on.
C/M Stelzer MOVED. that the Amendment regarding consultants'
negotiations be placed on the ballot with the chance as the text
reads, from "repeal" to "amend". SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
-4- 12/22/83
/rb
C/M Stelzer said he would now like to discuss the Amendments
the City Council did NOT approve..
SECOND PROPOSED AMENDMENT -C/M Stelzer said the Amendment
providing a new method for placing Amendments on the ballot
was turned down. Ile said he charged the Charter Board was
hiding the fact that they were bypassing the City Council
and asked if they were afraid the people would turn it down. He
said oh Page 8 of the minutes of the December 9 meeting relating
to this Amendment, Mr. Stein said, "I'd like to have someone
move that it reads, An Amendment that provides the method for
the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for
referendum without review by the Council, and also provides
for a Public Hearing". C/M Stelzer said this was moved, seconded
and all voted. --i.ye .
C/M Stelzer said the Council had originally voted this down
and how that the Charter Board has come out in the open and
says in effect, that they are bypassing the City Council, the
subterfuge is disappearing. He said he would like to approve this
but would like to insert after the words, "without review",
the words "or approval". Therefore, it would read, "An Amendment
that provides a method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments
to the Charter for referendum without review or approval by the
Council". C/M Stelzer said he noticed this change was not made.
City Attorney Henning said this was not changed in the Ordinance
because it was passed on First Reading, .and there was a Charter
Board meeting in the interim and this was the recommendation made.
He said it would be appropriate for Council to discuss whether or
not it is desired to change the lanauaae of the ballot question
which now reads, '"Are you in favor of an Amendment that provides a new
method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter
for referendum and also provides for a public hearing?"
The Charter Board is recommending something very similar to what
it was earlier, and that is, "Are you in favor of an Amendment
that provides the method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments
to the Charter for referendum without review by the City Council,
and also provides for a public hearing?"
C/M Stelzer said he would like to insert the words, "or approval"
after the words, "without review", and he MOVED the
words "or approval" be placed after the words, "without review".
SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
Mayor Falck opened the public hearing.
Ms. Alice Norian of the Charter Board, said that C/M Stelzer
stated that the Charter Board wishes to bypass the Council.
She said the Charter Board is an elected body and has
assumed a responsibility to
say they will consider Amendments, the Charter, etc.
The Charter Board provides for public input and at no time is
anyone in the City, particularly the Mayor and the
Council, ever disrespected or disregarded by the .Charter Board.
Ms.Norian said as a matter of point .and information, the Charter
Board is most respectful to the Mayor and Council and always
welcome comments at Charter Board meetings in the same manner
that the Council respects the Charter Board at Council public
hearings such as this one.
Ms. Norian stated that she believes it would be in the best
interest of the public that the Charter Board have the right
to perform their duties to the public as it is the Charter
Board's responsibility to do so. There was no other thought
intended. For clarity and for
the fulfillment of the platform on which she ran to be a member of the
Charter Board,she would state that the Charter Board is
determined to do their duty.
-5-- 12/22/83
/rb
Mr. Sydney Stein said he would ask the Council to reconsider
the action taken at the beginning of this meeting. He said
the Charter Board requested that the questions be placed at
the bottom of the Amendments rather than at the top and
C/M Stelzer made a Motion to that effect which was not Seconded.
Mr. Stein said this places him, as the Chairman of the Charter
Board, in a very unenviable position because technically the
Charter Board will have to override the Council as although
the Council is approving the Amendments, they are not being
approved in the form they were set. Therefore, the Charter
Board will have to say they disagree with the Council when
actually the Charter Board is.not disagreeing as most of the
Amendments have been accepted.
Mr. Stein said he would suggest that when the Council has
completed these Amendments, the Motion made by C/M Stelzer be
reintroduced to put the question at the bottom of each Amendment,
so that the Charter Board will not have to override the Council.
Mr. Stein said he does not know what C/M Stelzer is referring
to by the term "subterfuge". He said the Charter Board is very
explicit. This Board was elected for a purpose and that purpose
is to amend and compose Amendments to the Charter. The Charter Board
does not feel these have to be submitted to the Council for vote
and approval. Mr. Stein said the Charter Board does feel these
should be submitted to the Council for review and all these proposed
Amendments were discussed with the Councilmembers. In fact, four
or five of these proposed Amendments were suggested by various
members of the Council.
Mr. Stein further stated that the Council can propose an Amendment
directly, without consulting the Charter Board. He said C/M Stelzer
finds -nothing wrong with that, but he does find fault with the very
body that is created to review the Charter and must go before Council.
The Charter Board is saying they would like to have the right
to propose Charter Amendments to the public in the very same manner
that the Council does. He said if C/11 Stelzer feels there should
be a review by a Board, he would agree with.that and the Council
should then have to send its Amendments to the Charter Board; but
not have one body say they don't have to do it yet another body is
wrong if they don't want to do it.
Mr. Stein said he is happy that the Council has brought up the
two rejected Amendments as he was going to do it but could not
until the Council did so.
Mr. Stein stated that he would appreciate it if the Council would
follow through with the Charter Board's attitude and put these
Amendments to the people to decide whether they like them
or not; and not have anyone take them off the ballot by a 3 to 2
vote or a 4 to 1 vote. He said he feels these Charter Amendments
are vital and the public should be able to decide just how they
feel about them. This is the feeling of the Charter Board. It is
a feeling that the public should have the right to decide what is
right and what is wrong.
Mrs. Melanie Reynolds of the Charter Board, stated that C/M Stelzer's
statement that the Charter Board is bypassing the Council really
has no basis. She said that under Chapter 166, the Council may,
by Ordinance, put their own Amendments on the ballot. They have
the freedom to do that and they do,not have to pay attention to
the Charter Board in that instance.
Mr. Ray Munitz, resident, said lie would like some clarification
on the subject of placing the question at the end of each
amendment, instead of at the beginning. He said he is
wondering why one would be more beneficial than the other.
Mayor Falck said he feels it would be appropriate to discuss this
further after Council has concluded the discussion of the Amendments.
He said additional discussion would be in order, since the Motion
was not Seconded the first time around. The Mayor said he is
specifically referring to Amendment #2, which is the Amendment
to amend the ballot question.
-6- 12/22/83
C/M Stelzer said he would again mention that he had requested
the words "or approval" be inserted after the words "without
review" and if this is not done, he will move not to place.
this on the ballot.
The City Attorney said this language will appear on Line 3 of
Page 13.
C/M Stelzer said he wants this to read, "An Amendment that
provides a method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments
to the Charter for referendum without review or approval by the
Council". He said if the words "or approval" are inserted,
he will move to place this on the ballot because then his
entire objection would be removed.
Mr. Stein said the Charter Board would agree to that.
Mr. Henning said that for clarification, on line 4, the words
"a new" are to be stricken, and the word "the inserted. On
line 5 after the word "referendum" the words "without review
or approval by the City Council" are to be inserted.
The City Attorney explained that the new language, as approved
by Council, is to be, "Are you in favor of an Amendment that
provides the method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments
to the Charter for referendum without review or approval. by
the City Council and also provide for a public hearing?"
C/M Stelzer MOVED to Amend the ballot question relative to
placing Amendments on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
C/M Stelzer MOVED to place the Second Proposed Amendment into
Section 1 of this Okdinanc.e, .a's Amended. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
EIGHTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said this Amendment
relates to the reduction in the amount that can be spent without
referendum. He said he has recommended this Amendment not be
approved, and the Council has agreed.
C/M Stelzer said he would quote Mr. Stein saying on Page 9 of
the minutes referred to previously, "The only question to this
Amendment is whether or not we accept the Council's rejection".
Mrs. Reynolds then stated, "I vote that we do not accept their
rejection". C/M Stelzer said Mrs. Reynolds did not move; she
voted. Mr. Stein then said, "There has been a Motion that we
do not accept it".
C/M Stelzer said he does not understand what this is all about
and he feels the Council should disregard it.
C/M Stelzer stated that he is still not in favor of the reduction
of the amount that can be spent without referendum and Mr. Henning
has come up with some suggestions he would like to discuss at
this time.
The City Attorney said that this was discussed on Page 4 of
the memorandum he distributed to Council this morning, and at
this point, the reduction from 2--1/2o to 1-1/2% has been rejected
by the Council.
Mr. Henning stated that earlier this morning at a Workshop meeting,
the Council had asked him about the progress of his opinion on
Recreation Fund expenditures. He said he is having a problem with
-7- 12/22/83
/rb
his opinion since the Charter states that there are certain
limitations on improvements involving a cost in excess
of -----(either 2-1/2% or 1-1/2%). Mr. Henning said. there is
a possibility this Amendment will be on the ballot regardless
of Council's approval or disapproval because the Charter Board
has the last word. He said this came up recently and the
Council asked for his opinion.
Mr. Kenning said if Council wishes to insert language
that this involves a project cost of that amount, or a cost
to the City's budget, or a cost to the City's General Fund,
or whatever language will clarify what the cost is attributed to,
it would certainly clarify this provision because right now it
does not say what the cost is.
Tape City Attorney Henning said this goes back to the question .that
2 if the City had a one million dollar grant, with matching funds
of $100,000.00 from the City, would a referendum be required?
In the past, the interpretation had been that a referendum
would not be required because the cost is only $100,000.00 to the
City but the project cost is one million dollars.
Mr. Henning said questions have since come up as to whether it
would be a cost to the General Revenue Fund or to escrow funds held
by the City. This is somewhat complicated and.
perhaps Council would like to discuss it at this time in the
event the question is placed on the ballot. Otherwise, Council
can discuss it at some other time.
Mayor lialck said it is his feeling that this should not be
discussed today, and that Council should now either approve or
disapprove this proposed Amendment. Ile said Mr. Henning has in-
dicated that he is working on a proposal by C/M Stelzer
relating to revenue bonds, and that should be tied in with this
matter.
C/M Stelzer said if it is agreeable to the Charter Board, he
would like this Amendment to read, "a cost to the City's General
Fund".. However, if that language were .inserted, he would still
move not to place this question on the ballot because he feels
1-1/2% is unrealistic. But if the Charter Board puts this through,
at least there will be a better understanding as to what the 1-1/2%
relates to.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to Amend the Eighth Proposed Amendment to include
the language, "to the City's General Fund" to be added in after
"a cost". SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
Mayor Falck opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stein said it might interest the Council to know that of
all the Amendments discussed by the Charter Board as far as
taking them off the ballot, this question is the one the public
is most vehement about not taking off the ballot. He said he
feels that before Council puts this to a vote, there should be
some clarification. He said he understands C/M Stelzer's request
concerning the General Fund, but the thought has occurred to him
that if the City is receiving funds from developers for recreation
and the City has about three or four million dollars, there is a
question of whether the City can build without going to referendum.
According to C/M Stelzer, the City can do that as there are funds
available for that purpose, therefore, the City would not
have to go to referendum. Mr. Stein said before telling the
public that the Eighth Proposed Amendment affects the General
Fund, there should be some clarification since it would infer
that the Council can spend any amount of money the City has in
other funds for any project they wish, without going to the public.
City Attorney Henning said the City does have Ordinances relating
to purchasing and it certainly would take Council authorization
to spend money.
-8- 12/22/83
/rb
Mr. Stein stated that if the words "to the City's General Fund"
were inserted in this Amendment, it would allow the Council to
spend any other funds without going to referendum and the Amend-
ment would only take effect when it would apply to the City's
General Fund.
Mr. Henning said he would add that this money was contributed
to the City by the taxpayers, from ad valorem taxation.
Mr. Stein said it should be understood that all the money is
the taxpayers' money and if the public feels they want to have
some sort of control over the expenditure of their money,
whether the money be from ad valorem taxation or other funds,
then a cap should be set on the amount Council can approve
without a referendum regardless of where the money comes from.
Mayor Falck closed the public hearing with no further response.
City Attorney Henning said that on Line 22, after the word "cost",
the new language, "to the City's General Fund" is to be inserted.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
C/M Stelzer MOVED not to approve placing the Eighth Proposed
Amendment relative to the reduction of the rate of expenditure
from 2-1/2o to 1-1/20 on the ballot. SECO14DED by C/M Krantz.
City Attorney Henning said for the record that if he were asked
by the Charter Board at their meeting, whether or not they could
place the old language or the new language on the ballot, he
would state they could put either language on the ballot.
However, the Council is asking that if they do place it on the
ballot, they use the new language. They have a choice.
C/M Stelzer said he understands they have a choice, and it
will be up to the Charter Board to decide which language they
want on the ballot.
Mayor Falck opened and closed the public hearing with no response.
VOTE:
C/M Stelzer Aye
C/M Krantz Aye
C/M Kravitz Nay
Mayor Falck Aye
Mayor Falck said it would be appropriate for Council to discuss
at this time, the subject of placing the question at the beginning
or the end of the proposed Amendment.
City Attorney Henning said the language that C/M Stelzer is moving
would be that instead of saying, "Are you in favor of an Amendment..."
just state, "An Amendment...." and just before the "Yes" or "No"
the language, "Are you in favor of the above Amendment'" be inserted.
The statement could also be, "Are you in favor of this Amendment?"
The quote from the Charter Board minutes was, "Are you in favor of
the above Amendment?"
Mr. Stein said he would agree with that.
C/M Stelzer said this is strictly a question of form and it has
nothing to do with language.
Mr. Kenning explained that originally there was no question.
He was asked to use statements. The Charter Board felt it was
confusing and did not want,questions, and wanted statements instead.
He said that a further investigation of the State Statute, indicated
that the answers must be"Yes"or"No".Tf there is a statement,, the
logical answer would be For or Against, but the law will not permit
that. The ballot question must be"Yes"or"No".The Charter Board is
saying if them must be a question, it should be placed at the
end, just before the"Yes"or"No"so there will still be a statement,
which they feel is clearer.
-9- 12/22/83
C/M Stelzer asked for further clarification,
a>s he would like to know, for example, what the First
Proposed Amendment would state.
Mr. Henning said the Charter Board wants the First
Proposed Amendment to state, "An Amendment providing that
the elected officials of the City (Mayor, Councilmembers
and Charter Board Members) may only be elected to any
particular office for two (2) consecutive terms (totalling
four (4) years). This would amend Sections 4.02 and 8.01
of the City Charter. Are you in favor of the above (or this)
amendment? "
Mr. Stein explained that originally the Charter Board objected
to questions because they did some research and it was found
that the public generally votes"No"to questions. He said
72% of the people vote that way. When the Charter Board
was told the State legislature does not permit statements
on a ballot, the matter was discussed and the decision was
made that it is clearer and more concise if a person reads a
statement first and answers a question later. If the question
is asked first, the person forgets what he is being asked by
the time he finishes reading the statement.
Mr. Stein said he would ask the Council to approve this form
of putting the question at the end of the Amendment, because
if this is not approved, the Charter Board would be in a
position of having to assume all the Charter Amendments are
turned down, because they would be in a form that is not
acceptable to the Charter Board.
C/M Stelzer said it would appear to him that the Charter Board
wants to make a positive statement. The Statute says that
a statement cannot be made and a question must be asked. He said
the Charter Board is trying to get around that by making a
positive statement and then Plating in a question. He said
this would cover the Charter Board as far as the Statute is
concerned. C/M Stelzer said he does not feel it -actuallv_makes a
difference.
City Attorney said the question must be asked somewhere, and
that is his legal suggestion.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to place, "Are you in favor of this Amendment?"
after the statement of what the Amendment is, just before
"Yes"or"No". SECONDED by C/M Kravitz.
Mayor Falck opened the public hearing.
Ms. Alice Norian said there would then be a statement and a
question at the end. She said for clarification,the research
done by the Charter Board encompassed a thorough analysis and
it is known that when the public goes into the booth to vote
a concise statement written for them must include the thoughts
in the simplest language for them to be able to read it and vote
without taking too much time in the ballot booth. She said with
a statement, there is no question in anyone's mind as to the
nature of the Amendment. She said in the past, there were
Amendments on the ballot which were confusing because the
statement was both positive and negative and that confusion
is compounded when there is a question. A simple statement
of .the fact and then asking whether one is tor or against it,
makes it absolutely clear to the person who is voting.
Mr. Ben Lieber 'stated that: for generations, people have
been trained on true and false questions and it would be
unwise and misleading to tell people to make a judgment before
they read the statement. He feels it would be a better form to
make the statement and then have them make the judgement. This
is the way it is done on examinations and people have been
trained to handle it that way.
The public hearing was closed with no further response.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
-10- 12/22/83
/rb
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:25 A.M.
Mayor Palck mentioned that the Ordinance was not yet approved
and it is his suggestion the meeting be reconvened.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to reconvene the meeting. SECONDED by
C/M Krantz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
C/M Stelzer MOVED to accept Temp. Ord. #1074 as Amended on Second
Reading, to include the Amendments by consecutive number.
SECONDED by C/11 Kravitz.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response,
1t16202F
ALL VOTED AYE
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:30 A.M.
���.� � •.... Pik. � � � � 1 - M ',, .: Sl e
City Cierk
0 �'
ATTEST:
r
A STSTANT CTT CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ 98.12 or $2.73
per copy to inform the general public and public officers and
employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council
of the City of Tamarac.
-11- 12/22/83
/rb