The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-03-01 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes@x- ۥO�� R � R R �R �R �R �R �� - A�� ( � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 4 O �O �O �C ITY OF TAMARAC� �� " � � �` �` �` �` �` �p CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on Friday, March 1, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Bruce Hoffman Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Henry Schumann Councilman Henry Rohr ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Alan F. Ruf, City Attorney Carol A. Evans, City Clerk Karen Jackson, Secretary MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Abramowitz called for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a Moment of Silent Meditation of thanks for the ending of the war. *********************************************************************** PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Any member of the public may speak to any issue which is not agendized for public hearing at this meeting. 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. Irving Katz, resident of the Lakes at Carriage Hills, said a statement was made at the regular Council Meeting on February 27, 1991 regarding a misrepresentation of what the official City ballot was. He said the Tam-A- Gram had been distributed to at least half of the City. He asked who initiated this, who is going to take the responsibility for this, if the City condoned this whether it be the Council, Mayor or City Manager. He asked what the City's intention is to rectify the situation which might have prejudiced the electorate in the City. Mayor Abramowitz said this will be discussed later in the meeting. 2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION regarding the INPACT lawsuit, Case #90-20939. FINAL ACTION: APPROVED filing Notice of Appeal. Mayor Abramowitz asked City Attorney Ruf what the ramifications are of Judge Streitfeld's ruling, what it means, what the options are, and any recommendations. He said he feels this is an informational gathering process and knowledge is needed if there is any action to be done. City Attorney Ruf said the court order was signed late Wednesday, February 27, 1991. He said in late 1989 and early 1990, a review of the Charter was going on in the City by the Charter Board, a special consultant and by City Staff. He said numerous meetings were held and the recommendations of the consultant were reviewed and the concerns about the Charter were prioritized. He said in the summer of 1990, the City Attorney's office was directed to prepare several questions for a Referendum election to be held early in September, 1990. City Attorney Ruf said those ballot questions were prepared and included in Ordinances which were adopted by this Council in July, 1990. He said after the Ordinances were adopted, a law suit was filed by INPACT and INPACT sought a hearing before the court to enjoin the holding of the election in September, 1990. He said INPACT set forth several grounds on which they felt the Ordinance was improperly adopted and they petitioned the court for the election to be enjoined. City Attorney Ruf said there was a hearing before Judge Ward as a substitute for Judge Brescher, who was not able to attend that hearing, and Judge Ward ruled that the election should go forward and that the arguments with respect to the validity of the adoption process could be raised at a later time. He said the elections were held and six of seven of the items on the ballot were passed. He said the two ballot questions which the court has now ruled on received 56% of the vote in favor. He said after the election there was very little action with respect to the case; however, after the filing period for this election, a Motion for some rejudgement was filed. City Attorney Ruf said a cross-motion for some rejudgement was made on behalf of the City which was the defendant in the law suit and Diane Glasser, an individual candidate for office, was allowed to intervene in the suit. He said at present there are two plaintiffs and the City is the defendant. He said a hearing was held on February 21, 1991, before Judge Streitfeld, who was substituted for Judge Bresher. He said Judge Streitfeld announced his rulings which were reduced to an order which was signed on February 27, 1991. He said he had not received a copy of the order until 10:00 a.m. on February 28, 1991. City Attorney Ruf said the judgement finds that the eight counts of the original INPACT suit to set aside the election, which was heard in July or August, 1990, were dismissed by the Judge. He said after the election, a ninth count of the complaint was added and the count is based upon a case by the name of Wadhams versus the Board of County Commission of Sarasota County, which decision was enunciated by the Supreme Court of Florida on August 30, 1990. City Attorney Ruf said the announcement of the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida was a full month or a month and one half after the ballot questions were framed and the Ordinances were adopted by the City. He said Judge Streitfeld found, with respect to count nine of the complaint, that the provisions of Florida Statutes 101.1611 were not complied with and that the ballot summaries were misleading and failed to disclose the prior term limitations and the fact that the amendments would expand rather than limit the length and number of terms for which a person may serve. City Attorney Ruf said the original counts of the law suit were all dismissed by the Court; however, the Court did find, on a basis of a suit decided by the Florida Supreme Court a month and one half after the ballot language was prepared, that the ballot questions fell short of the statutory requirement and the Court ruled that Sections 4.02 and 8.01 of the City Charter, as they existed prior to the election in September, 1990, are in full force and effect as they appeared prior to the passage of the stricken amendments. City Attorney Ruf said this means that the terms of office for Mayor, Councilmembers and Charter Board go back to two, two-year terms as the Charter provided initially. He said the City raised several affirmative defenses and the Court dismissed the City's affirmative defenses. He said there was another ruling at the end of the order which is in Paragraph 2, and the Court has made no specific findings at present as to the eligibility of the incumbents for re-election. He said the Court has retained jurisdiction for the purposes of determining whether the effect of these rulings should be stayed pending any appeal in order to consider such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. City Attorney Ruf advised Council that the Court set a Hearing for 3:30 p.m., Friday, March 1, 1991, at which time the Elections Commissioner, Jane Carroll, will be represented and the newly added individual defendants, V/M Hoffman and C/M Rohr, will be represented. He said he spoke with Holland & Knight, Special Counsel for the City, regarding what would put the City's case in the best possible posture for the Hearing this afternoon and for any future consideration. City Attorney Ruf said Holland & Knight recommended that the City immediately authorize the filing of a Notice of Appeal. He asked on what basis would they prosecute an Appeal on behalf of the City if authorized to do so. He said Counsel pointed out four specific grounds that they felt would be appropriate for Appeal: 1. The question of the standing of INPACT to bring the suit. He said the Counsel for the City believes that Judge Streitfeld has inappropriately used a special exception to the standing to bring action against municipalities; which special exception has been restricted to zoning cases in the courts at present. He said the Special Counsel finds no election case or other case in which such a generous opportunity to file suit against a City are provided; therefore, the question of INPACT's standing to bring the suit, in Counsel's opinion, is subject to appellant review. 2. That the INPACT litigants waited too late in the process to bring their Motion for some rejudgement after the filing period was closed and that the effect of a ruling in favor of INPACT's position deprives the electorate of a choice for candidates. 3. The untimely joiner of C/M Rohr and V/M Hoffman. That they were joined in the process after the substantive relief in the case had already been decided by the Judge. 4. The ballot questions, as presented to the voters of Tamarac, are not misleading under the Wadhams decision, and that the facts in the Wadhams decision are distinguishable from the facts in the City of Tamarac's case, and that the Judge has made a ruling in error as a matter of law with respect to the interpretation of the Wadhams decision. City Attorney Ruf said that concludes his summary of the case at present. Mayor Abramowitz asked if this ruling depends on the decision from the Hearing at 3:30 p.m. this afternoon. He asked if the decision to be made at that Hearing is going to inform the City if V/M Hoffman and C/M Rohr may run in this election. City Attorney Ruf said he suspects this will be an important part of what happens in the Hearing; however, he does not know for sure. Mayor Abramowitz asked if a Notice of Appeal is filed, can it be dropped at any time if the feeling or situation has changed. City Attorney Ruf said a Notice of Appeal can be dropped at any time. Mayor Abramowitz asked if this is an expensive process and City Attorney Ruf said the costs associated with filing the Notice of Appeal are $300.00. Mayor Abramowitz asked if this is the City Attorney's recommendation and City Attorney Ruf said he is interpretting the recommendation made by the Special Counsel. City Attorney Ruf said he has great respect for the job they have done on behalf of the City. He said he feels the questions which are before the Court to present, which is the validity of the changes in the Charter sections, were approved by the electorate of the City, they affect not only the participants of this election, but the participants in future elections, and he feels his recommendation through the years has been that if there are any grounds to appeal and they are not spurious, a Notice of Appeal should be filed to preserve the City's legal rights until such time as the City has the opportunity to review and research all of the facts and all of the rulings. He said his recommendation would be to file a Notice of Appeal in concert with the recommendation of Holland & Knight. Mayor Abramowitz said he read this order and Page 9, Paragraph 2, has confused him. He said where it says, "Section 4.02 and 8.01 of the City Charter are in full force and effect as they appeared prior to the passage of the stricken amendments", which indicates to him that the Judge has stated there will be two, two-year terms and City Attorney Ruf agreed. Mayor Abramowitz said the next line states, "The Court makes no specific findings at this time as to the eligibility of the incumbents for election." He asked what this means. He said he feels this says that the Judge has not made a ruling whether the incumbents can run or not. City Attorney Ruf said the Judge made it quite clear that he intended at some time to consider this question specifically. He said he presumed it would be considered in the Hearing this afternoon. * V/M Hoffman MOVED to APPROVE proceeding with the filing of the * Notice of Appeal, SECONDED by C/M Rohr. V/M Hoffman said he does not see this matter before Council as an issue between himself and his opponent or between C/M Rohr and his opponent. He said he feels this is a matter between the people of Tamarac, who voted for a Charter change and those who would deprive them of their rights to democratically elect their representatives because of a possible technicality which was not the fault of C/M Rohr or himself. He said he feels his rights are not an issue at present. He said his rights will be defended at the Hearing this afternoon by his own attorney. He said the past few weeks have been very difficult and confusing. He said he had a campaign stategy plan, but due to the inaction of the Court, his entire time table has been thrown off course. He said he does not know whether he will be permitted to run with less than two weeks to the election. V/M Hoffman said he will have to wait until the Judge makes a decision on that matter and the City will have to decide further on how to proceed. He said it is not his desire or intention to cause the City any undue problems or any undue costs. He said he will consider only what is best for the City of Tamarac as well as himself in evaluating his future course of actions. He said he will make his future decisions public when he has evaluated his possible course of actions. He requested that Council protect the rights of the people of Tamarac to make a choice by going forward with an appeal. C/M Rohr said it appears to him that this country was built on the vote of the individual and has been a beacon for the world. He said the country is finishing a war for freedom of thought and action. He said this country was built on the democratic idea that everyone's vote is important. He said the citizens are urged at each election to vote as a responsibility and there is a situation in Tamarac where two people wish to skirt the whole idea of democracy. He said he feels that if they had permitted the vote by the people to go through, that those people who felt that they did not understand originally, would certainly not vote for V/M Hoffman and himself; however, they would have had a choice. C/M Rohr said he feels what has been done has taken away his choice as a resident and voter of Tamarac, to make a decision. He said he does not feel that Tamarac is going to stand out as a very fine City with the actions that have gone on in the past couple of weeks. C/M Schumann said in reviewing the court order, the Judge finds that the requirements of the Florida Statutes were violated and he found that he would not allow any voting public to compound that. He asked if the Courts are going to permit the voting public to compound that violation if the Statute is invalid and has been violated. City Attorney Ruf said the Judge found that the ballot questions fell below the requirements of the Florida Statute. He said he does not feel competent to reflect on what the Judge may or may not do in the Hearing this afternoon. He said the Special Counsel for the City, including Chris Carsky, his partner, have carefully researched the Law and they feel that even though the Judge has ruled as he has, the elections should go forward. He said the case law seems to favor holding the election. C/M Schumann said the Judge states in his ratification that the defect of the ballot summaries cannot be cured by election results. City Attorney Ruf said that is what the Judge says and that is what the Wadhams case says; however, Holland & Knight believe that the facts in the City's case are distinguishable from the Wadhams case where they simply reprinted the entire Ordinance change, exceeded 75 words by 3 or 4 times, and Counsel believes a reasonable argument can be made to a three Judge appellant court that Judge Streitfeld has improperly interpreted the Wadhams decision in this set of circumstances. C/M Bender said this court order states, "The Court finds there are no genuine material issues of disputed fact and that each of the claims and defenses asserted in this action may be disposed of as a matter of Law." City Attorney Ruf said both sides agreed that this case turned on a question of Law. He said an appeal would be to decide whether or not Judge Streitfeld properly applied the law in the case. C/M Bender said another term that was used when the Judge indicated that, "he declares the proposed amendments, 90-1 and 90-3 to the Tamarac City Charter, should be and are hereby stricken as illegal and null and void." He asked if the term "illegal" may have been misused. City Attorney Ruf said the City has two levels of appellant review of any Circuit Court Judges' decision and it would be the position of the City, as advocates, that the Judge improperly ruled on the basis of the Wadhams decision. Mayor Abramowitz said he had hoped that the Judge's Hearing would have been reversed with this meeting for a better understanding of this situation. He said he feels this is not a situation involving the candidates against each other. He said he had worked very hard for the passage of these changes because he had found that a two-year term is absolutely catastrophic to the City. He said he feels there is a cloud hanging over this election which is not the fault of any one person in particular. City Attorney Ruf said the Notice of Appeal can be withdrawn at any time within a reasonable amount of time. VOTE: C/M Rohr - AYE C/M Schumann - NAY V/M Hoffman - AYE C/M Bender - NAY Mayor Abramowitz - AYE 3. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION regarding the case and settlement of Hart versus Bender. FINAL ACTION: Agendized for discussion. Motion to require Larry Bender to reimburse the City FAILED. C/M Rohr said he has sat on Council for four years and has tried to do what is right for the City. He said in the recent past, due to an error on an individual's part, a sum of approximately $13,000.00 was paid in a settlement and legal costs for C/M Bender. He said he feels there was no connection with any City business that caused the suit. He said C/M Bender was not acting as a Councilman and there was nothing at all that involved the City. He said he feels that if there has been a mistake by one individual, that the City and the taxpayer's should not have to incur that expense. * C/M Rohr MOVED to APPROVE the reimbursement by C/M Dr. H. Larry * Bender, the defendant, of all monies dispensed by the City of * Tamarac in the case of Hart versus Bender, SECONDED by V/M * Hoffman. C/M Schumann asked who made the decision to undertake the defense of C/M Bender. C/M Rohr requested that City Manager Kelly explain who authorized this expenditure. TAPE 2 V/M Hoffman said it seems strange that no one knows who authorized the expenditure of $13,000 which was paid without being presented to Council. He said he feels the question is a valid one. He asked who authorized this and who has the authority to spend $13,000 of tax payers money without presenting it to Council for approval. City Manager Kelly said the Risk Manager handles all of the City's insurance cases. He said C/M Bender approached the Risk Manager and asked that this be handled through the City's insurance. He said the Risk Manager thought it was an appropriate expenditure and signed off on it, the City Attorney signed off on it and he himself subsequently signed off on it. He said the settlement authority for the City is a $10,000 limit. He said the settlement on the case was a $3,000 cost. He said part of the concern is that the monies paid to the attorney representing C/M Bender, was made over a period of time. He said the City does make payments to attorneys with which the City is dealing who are representing other cases on that basis. City Manager Kelly said there were not internal flags established to identify those costs and as they were ongoing, it was spread over two fiscal years. He said in the first fiscal year which ended in October, 1990, less than $5,000 had been expended for legal fees. He said in this fiscal year through approximately February, 1991, an additional sum of approximately $5,000 was also incurred. He said City Attorney Ruf moved quickly to try for a settlement of $3,000 which was reached and the City was able to make that sign- off. City Manager Kelly said he backs the decision of the Risk Manager that she felt it was an appropriate expenditure. He said in retrospect, it has been determined that this will not happen again, due to the concern of the Council and the public and to try to protect the integrity of the City system. He said a policy has been established which has been distributed to Council that in the future, the Risk Manager is not to consider, entertain, or initiate any action on any law suit or settlement involving any one or more members of the Council, which includes the Mayor, unless that law suit or settlement has been brought to Council for official action at a duly-called Council meeting. City Manager Kelly said the Risk Manager is to be considered on the same level as a Department Head in the respect that any initiation of any contact by any member of Council is to be reported immediately to the City Manager and no action is to be initiated without the City Manager's authorization. He said he has established that when an ongoing law suit reaches a $5,000 threshold, it is to be red-flagged and brought to the City Manager. He said a full report identifying all settlements and all law suits is to be provided to the City Manager and Council within seven days of the close of any calendar month. V/M Hoffman said the fact remains that this law suit was not directed against the City of Tamarac. He said this law suit was not instituted in any manner or form that required C/M Bender to act on behalf of the City. He said this was done outside the City and the alleged slander took place at a Candidate's Night meeting. He said he feels there is no more responsibility on the part of the City than there would be if he were to get into an argument on the street, punched them in the nose and they sued. V/M Hoffman said the City's money was spend improperly and he demanded an effort be made to get the money back from C/M Bender. He said this was a personal matter, not something directed at the City. Mayor Abramowitz said when this matter was brought before the Charter Board, they sent it to a regulatory agency. He said if there was an impropriety and it is proven to be so, and the decision is made by the regulatory agencies that the money is to be returned, he would vote in favor of it. He said at present he cannot make his decision without all of the facts. C/M Rohr said he feels Council has a responsibility to handle this and not wait for the Charter Board's answer for this money that was spent inappropriately. He said it is the responsibility of the Council to protect the money of the tax payers of the City. He said C/M Bender was not acting as a Councilman for the City of Tamarac at the time the incident occurred. Mayor Abramowitz said if the regulatory agency states that this was a judgement call made by the Risk Manager but there was nothing illegal about it, then there is no illegality. He said he feels that if the report comes back that there is something illegal about it, then the City should move forward and look to recover the money. He said the City Manager and City Attorney did not know anything about this; however, they took the responsibility of it. C/M Rohr said he feels that moral laws are just as important as legal laws. He said he feels this would not have been approved if this had come before Council. C/M Bender said everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, the facts need to be known. He said he took the matter to the Risk Manager when he received the notice of the summons, which is a normal procedure. He said he had asked the Risk Manager to review this document and to inform him if he had any kind of coverage. He said the Risk Manager subsequently after several days advised him that he was covered and that defense would be provided by the City. He said there was nothing illegal and nothing was done underhandedly. He said it was put into the proper cycle. He said he feels the City provided him the service that they said they would and the City complied with everything the City Ordinances and requirements covered. Mayor Abramowitz said anyone can hold a discussion on this since this item was not agendized. Stan Bernard, resident of Tamarac and Charter Board Chairman, said when the $13,000 in funds became known and was brought to the Charter Board's attention, he had spoken to three people present on the dias regarding this and only one gave a direct answer. He said he had asked what was the purpose of the expenditure of $3,000 for Joseph Titone, Attorney. He said two people said they did not know and another said the attorney had done nothing for the City. He said he had found additional money while researching it further. Mr. Bernard said this has been turned over to the State Attorney for their investigation. He said he received a call from one of the assistant attorneys this morning who stated that they are pursuing the matter and will probably call him in for questioning regarding his knowledge of this case. He said he does not know if that money was expended for a purpose that had nothing to do with the City. He said he had heard that there would be no questions if an amount is under $5,000. He said he feels the City should have more control over what is going on. Irving Katz, resident of Lakes at Carriage Hills, asked what the proper procedure is before checks are signed, the backup that is necessary to allow the people who are going to authorize an expenditure and sign off on it and if this is available to every City Councilman. He asked how and what determines the backup necessary for the people who have to sign off to properly inform them of the validity of the check that they are signing off on. Mayor Abramowitz suggested that Mr. Katz have a meeting with City Manager Kelly for the proper procedures. C/M Rohr said no Councilman receives backup on any payment for the City. He said the Councilmembers do not sign checks and there are two individuals that sign the checks in the City. He said there is no backup sent to the Councilmen because they are not involved in the disbursements. C/M Schumann said it appears that City officials made the decision to undertake the defense and pay the judgement or settlement. He said it appears these City officials were working within the perview and scope of the authority given to them. He said this was not authorized or paid by C/M Bender. He said this case is pending before some regulatory agency and/or the State Attorney's office. He said he feels the Motion lacks merit because there was no authority on behalf of C/M Bender to drag this money out of the City. He said the City officials did this within the scope authorized to them and within their authority. VOTE: C/M Schumann - NAY V/M Hoffman - AYE C/M Bender - NAY C/M Rohr - AYE Mayor Abramowitz - NAY C/M Rohr said now that the business of defense of a Council person has been discussed, he feels that V/M Hoffman and himself should have the right to a paid attorney for defending them because of a City suit of which the Judge determined that they would be part of the action against the City. He said he and V/M Hoffman are innocent individuals who have been dragged into this suit. He asked if he and V/M Hoffman have the right to be defended by the City and paid for by the City as Councilmen. City Attorney Ruf said he has not completed his research in this matter. He said he has made several calls to the Counsel for the State Election Commission. He said he is not in the position to make an affirmative statement at present. Mayor Abramowitz said he would vote for approval if City Attorney Ruf were to tell him that he felt it was entirely proper for the City to undertake the defense of anybody involved in City business; however, the information is not completed at present. City Attorney Ruf said he would render an opinion before the middle of next week. * C/M Rohr MOVED to APPROVE the City of Tamarac pay for a defense * of a Councilman or Mayor when the individuals have been acting in * their lawful duty and unless research shows that it is illegal for * the City to do so. V/M Hoffman said he feels the Motion needs to be specific that the City pay for the legal fees in this matter if it is legally permitted to do so and C/M Rohr agreed. V/M Hoffman suggested that this Motion be held in abeyance until such time as City Attorney Ruf can give his opinion. He said he feels it would be more proper to bring it up at a special meeting after the City Attorney's opinion is known and C/M Rohr agreed. Mayor Abramowitz said this discussion is regarding the printing of the Tam-A-Gram which had the controversial sample ballot printed. C/M Rohr said in the Public Information Committee meeting on February 26, 1991, the question about the hands pointing to the incumbents was asked. He said he thought at that time that it was a copy of the original official ballot. He said he made a mistake and it was not intentional. He said he did not need the fingers pointing because his name is in the Tam-A-Gram every month as a Councilman for the City. He said he apologized if inadvertently those things were done. He said it was not intentional, he did not ask for it, he did not know who did it. He said it was an error on his part, he made a mistake and he apologized. Irving Katz, resident of Lakes at Carriage Hills, said he does not feel the responsibility stops there. He said he feels that whoever condoned and authorized the printing of it should be held equally responsible, regardless who it is. He said he feels this should have been flagged prior to the time that it went to press. He said the damage is done and he would like to know who is going to accept the responsibility for it and what they are going to do to answer something that was a lie. Mayor Abramowitz said within one half hour from the time this was brought to the attention of the City Manager and he had brought it to him, the decision was made that the room be locked and no more Tam-A- Grams be distributed. Mr. Katz said C/M Rohr distributed them on Wednesday night, February 27, 1991. Mayor Abramowitz said immediately upon the discrepancy being brought to his attention, the distribution was ceased. He said he does not edit this paper and through conversation with City Manager Kelly, the party who does edit this, who edits extremely strenuously, was out of town and not available. He said in defense of the Public Information Committee, when a Tam-A-Gram edition was distributed, which was solely written by the City Manager in an effort to explain to the public and the residents of the City what the amendments were, the Public Information Committee objected to the language and certain words and the verbiage was edited three times. Mr. Katz said this was not an accusation, but a question with the hopes of an answer. Mayor Abramowitz asked what should be done if a person stands up and states that a mistake was made. Mr. Katz said he would like to know what is going to happen in response to something that could be prejudicial to him, as a candidate, in this election. City Manager Kelly said his office should be responsible for the editing. He said technically they are not supposed to do the editing; however, they do oversee the paper to make sure what is being distributed is appropriate. He said Assistant City Manager Dina McDermott ordinarily sits in on all of the Public Information Committee meetings when the Tam-A-Gram is going to press; however, she was on vacation the week of the meeting when it was determined what was going to press. He said he feels his office should have seen this error. He said he briefly glanced at the proof, but what most stuck in his mind was the fact that all of the incumbents were listed second and that the advantage went to all of the challengers because their name came first and he did not pay much attention to the hands pointing. Mr. Katz said Muriel Davis was not listed as an incumbent and Mayor Abramowitz said Muriel Davis is running for a different seat. City Manager Kelly said the City has frozen the balance of the Tam-A-Grams. Mayor Abramowitz recommended that the Tam-A-Grams remain frozen and what has been distributed cannot be picked up. He said there are two choices as to throw away the remainder of the Tam-A-Grams, or on March 13, 1991, following the election, distribute the balance of them. Mr. Katz asked what type of correction is going to be made so that the people who were issued them are not going to be prejudiced by something that was issued. Mayor Abramowitz said he does not want a Mayor's Message in the Tam-A-Gram; however, the Public Information Committee has insisted that a Mayor's Message has always been in there. He said the Board is very thorough, but he was not present at the meeting to know exactly what occurred. He said City Manager Kelly and he agreed to freeze the distribution of the Tam-A-Gram. He said mistakes do happen. Mr. Katz said he is not looking to vilify anybody and this is not a vendetta. He said he wants satisfaction as an injured party and he would be satisfied if a press release were issued that there was an error and this in no way constitutes an endorsement of incumbents. Mayor Abramowitz said the press is present and he requested that the press make such an announcement. He said a mistake was made. With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 10:20 a.m. NORMAN ABRAMOWITZ MAYOR CAROL A. EVANS CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $114.10 or $2.54 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac." City Council Special Meeting 3/1/91/KJ Page page \* arabic1 City Council Special Meeting 3/1/91/KJ Page page \* arabic1 ~� ��/��N��p�� \ ^ f k q �� . K h � � � 0 2 { } �� D F � � � � � � � � � � , . Q S 0 2 � � A C Y [ l n 5 7 V X � ! �! �" �"F #H #� $ �$ �$ �$ �%� %n &p & �& �&8 ': ' �' �'w (� �� ! _ w(y ({ (} (( � +� + - -& .( . �. �. �./ / / 4 /H /P /_ /a /� 2 �2 5" 5 �7 �7 �8 �8J :L :@ <B <� <� <� >� >� ? �?M @O @� @e Ag AO BQ BH DJ D� D� D� D� DE + EI EK EM EO ER Ep E� E� E� E� E� EF F F j Hl Hw H| H� H� H� H� HI ' I1 I= I? I �I� I� I= K? K% N' N> P@ P� R� Rt Sv Sx S� �� ! _ xSe Ug Ue Wg W1 X3 X� Y� Y[ [� \� \� ]� ]x `z ` �` �` �a �a �a �a �b �b *e, e� f� f[ g ]g }hh �j� jk 1 kK kd k �k �k �ky m {mj nl nj ol o� o� o� o� o� o� o� op M p� p �p �pT qV q [r] r� r� rb ud uS wU w9 x; x� x� x{ ! {z {| {� {� {~ | �| }} } } }� � @ �B �� H �J � �� ރ �� a � �� ރw �y �� ʅ ˅ υ х Ӆ �� ' �) �+ �� * �5 �: �; �I �J �K �L �N �P �T �r �} �� ! / �� \ ^ k q �� . K h � � 0 2 { } �� D F � � � � � , . Q S 0 2 � � A C � ��˰��䰕��0 � p@ ��P�0 �0�# ��p@ ��P�0 �0�# ��p@ ��P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�0 �0�# ��p@ ��P�2 Y [ l n 5 7 V X � ! �! �" �"F #H #� $ �$ �$ �$ �%� %n &p & �& �&8 ': ' �' �'w (y ({ (} (( � +� + - -& .( . �. �.4 /_ /a /� 2 �2 5" 5 �7 �7 �8 �8J :L :@ <B <� <� <� >� >� ? �?M @O @� @e A� �� 簰�� 0 �0�# ��p@ ��P�0 ��0�# ��p@ ��P�0 �# ��p@ ��P �E eAg AO BQ BH DJ D� D� D� D� DE + EK EM EO E� E� E� E� EF F j Hl H� H� H1 I= I? I� I� I� I= K? K% N' N> P@ P� R� Rt Sv Sx Se Ug Ue Wg W1 X3 X� Y� Y[ [� \� \� ]� ]x `z ` �` �` �a �a �a �a �b �b *e, e� f� f[ g ]g }hh �j� jk 1 kK kd k �k �� 0 �0�# ��p@ ��P�0 �# ��p@ ��P �P �k �ky m {mj nl nj ol o� o� o� op M p� p �p �pT qV q [r] r� r� rb ud uS wU w9 x; x� x� x{ ! {z {| {� {� {~ | �| }} } } }� � @ �B �� H �J � � �� ރw �y �ʅ υ х Ӆ �� ' �) �+ �� 0 �# ��p@ ��P�0 �0�# ��p@ ��P�G � � �* �5 �N �P �R �T �r �} �� 0 �# ��p@ ��P� � H eader�� @ " � � �!� �� H � � � w (x S�� ރD E F G � e A �k �� H I J K L A T imes New Roman Symbol& A rial "A vantGarde B ookman 1C ourier R�Fences 1F ixedsys "H elvetica 2�Modern "M S Dialog" M S Sans Serif M S Serif R�MT Extra RMT SymbolN ewCenturySchlbk P alatino� Roman B�Script "S mall Fonts "S ystem 1�Terminal WingdingsB Z apfChanceryR ZapfDingbats. = ? v �� ! ��!��# � �