Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Charter Review_7/9/2001 , TIT VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 250 Tequesta Drive,Suite 300 0 Tequesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (561)575-6200 ;,l� 5• o Fax:(561)575-6203 CHARTER REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 9, 2001 I. Call to Order and Roll Call • The meeting of the Charter Review Board was called to order at 9:00 a.m.in the Village Manager's Conference Room,250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300,Tequesta, Florida on June 26, 2001. Recording Secretary Betty Laur called the roll, and the following members of the Committee were in attendance: Jim Humpage, Vi Laamanen,Edward Resnik, and Robert Cook. Also in attendance was Richard Berube, who had been appointed as a member but had not yet been ratified by the Village Council. Village.Attorney John C. Randolph and Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr. were also present. II. Approval of Agenda Boardmember Resnik moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. III. Approval of Minutes of June 25, 2001 Meeting Boardmember Resnik moved approval of the minutes of the June 25, 2001 meeting as submitted. Boardmember Cook seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. IV. Appointment of Officers Appointment of a Chair was discussed. Village Attorney Randolph advised that a Chair was needed to conduct the meetings and to report the findings of the Recycled Paper Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 2 Board to the Village Council, otherwise, staff would be responsible to report to the Village Council. Consensus of the Board was to have the Village Attorney act as Chair for this meeting and to defer appointment of a Chair to the next meeting when a full Board would be seated. V. Establish Meeting Schedule Various meeting dates were discussed. Village Attorney Randolph advised that if Charter amendments were to be placed on a November referendum that the Village Council must be in a position to have first reading of an Ordinance at their September meeting. Boardmember Resnik suggested assigning a certain number of pages to be reviewed at each meeting,then to have one more meeting by the first week in September to confirm the changes. Boardmember Laamanen made a motion to approve the dates of July 23, August 2,, and August 17 for the next three meetings. Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VI. Discussion by Village Attorney of Guidelines for the Board The Village Attorney noted most of the members were present at the recent Village Council workshop regarding the Sunshine Law, and advised that none of the members should talk to another Boardmember about the business of this Board unless it was at a public meeting, and the Boardmembers should not exchange correspondence among themselves. This would not preclude members talking one-on-one with member of the Village Council, other residents, any member of staff, or the Village Attorney. Village Attorney Randolph advised that the work of this Board must be completed in time for the Village Council to adopt an Ordinance encompassing the suggestions of the Board by their October meeting in order to have this item voted upon in the November referendum,with first reading of the Ordinance in September. This would mean the Board must report to the Village Council in August,which might require a special meeting of the Village Council, depending on the progress of the Board. The Village Attorney noted that other guidelines would be pointed out as the work of the Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 3 Board progressed, that certain things were antiquated and certain things had been pre-empted by State law,which he would point out. One example of that was the recall provisions, which had been pre-empted by State law, and which could be deleted in entirely from the Charter. VII. Discussion of Charter The Village Attorney advised that although Mr. Berube could not vote at this meeting, his comments were welcomed, and any residents present were also invited to comment. ARTICLE I - INCORPORATION: FORM OF GOVERNMENT Section 1.01. Incorporation Regarding the territorial limits of the municipality set forth in. this section, Village Attorney Randolph noted that a description of the boundaries was needed in the Charter, and the description needed to be checked to see if annexations had been included; however, annexations came into effect automatically under State law and a Charter amendment or a referendum were not needed. Boardmember Resnik noted the boundaries description took seven pages of the Charter and no one except an engineer would know if it were accurate, and requested the Village Manager direct engineering staff to check the accuracy of the boundaries. Village Manager Randolph indicated that to his knowledge there had never been a committee to review the Charter, and the metes and bounds description had been included in Ordinance 189,December, 1971. Discussion ensued regarding whether to include the legal description in the Charter or to attach it as an addendum. Boardmember Cook commented that the Village Council would pass an Ordinance to approve the amendments of the Board and the legal description could be an addendum to that Ordinance. Village Attorney Randolph advised it would take the same number of pages either way in the Code Book. Boardmembers Resnik and Cook expressed their desire to have the legal description attached as an addendum. Boardmember Humpage proposed leaving the description in the Charter. Boardmember Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 4 Laamanen noted annexations were a legal procedure and verified with the Village Attorney that any annexations subsequent to the original metes and bounds description were a part of the legal records of the Village should those descriptions be needed in the future. Boardmember Cook clarified that he was proposing a motion to bring the description up to date,which would include any annexations to date. Boardmember Cook made a motion to have staff check the accuracy of the legal description of the boundaries of the Village to bring the description up to date. Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to have the legal description of the territorial limits of the Village of Tequesta as updated to be appended to as either Annex A or Appendix A to the Village Charter. Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The Village Manager was requested to obtain an estimate from the engineer as to the approximate cost of updating the legal description. Section 1.02. Form of Government The municipal government provided hereby shall be a Village Council.Manager government. Subject only to the limitations imposed by the constitution and laws of this state and by this charter, all powers of the Village shall be vested in an elective Council, hereinafter referred to as "The Village Council", which shall enact local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, and appoint such village officials as are hereinafter prescribed. Except as limited in this charter, the Village Manager shall execute the laws and administer the government of the Village. All powers of the Village shall be exercised in the manner provided by this charter, or if the manner be not provided then in such manner as may be set forth by ordinance. None of the Boardmembers proposed any changes to Section 1.02. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 5 Recording Secretary's Note: The following format indicates deletions shown by a line through the deletion and additions shown by underline in the actual Section (italicized), followed by a description of the discussion/actions of the Board by which those changes were accomplished. ARTICLE II. THE VILLAGE COUNCIL Section 2.01. Selection, Term and Compensation. The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta shall consist of five (5) members who shall be elected at large to Seats 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Councilmen in Seats 1, 3 and 5 shall be elected in the even years, and the Councilmen in Seats 2 and 4 shall be elected in the odd years. The election shall be held on the second Tuesday in. March of each year. Only qualified electors, as prescribed herein, shall be entitled to vote at such elections. The term of office of each Councilman shall commence on the next council meeting subsequent to the date of his election and shall continue for two(2)years thereafter and/or until his successor is elected and qualified. Each Village Councilman shall be entitled to an annual salary to be fixed by ordinance; provided, however, he shall not be entitled to any increase in salary adopted during the term for which he was elected. The candidate for each seat receiving the highest number of votes cast for such office shall be deemed elected to such office regardless of whether or not such candidate shall have received a majority of votes cast. In the event of a tie vote between the candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast for any office, the names of all tied candidates shall be placed on the ballot and shall be voted upon at an ensuing runoff election to be held on the fourth(4th)Tuesday in March. Such election shall be held in the same manner and by the same officers holding the previous election.--No-notiee-neeel-k-givetrofsuelreleetiort-Itt the . (Ord. No. 189, §2, 12-31-71; Ord. No. 247, §2, 2-8-77; Ord. No. 327, § 1, 12-13-83) Editor's note-Ord. No. 247, § 2, passed and adopted Feb. 8, 1977, was approved by the voters at a referendum held March 15, 1977. Boardmember Resnik noted that elections needed to be noticed, therefore the language in the last paragraph regarding no notice should be deleted. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 6 j" Boardmember Laamanen indicated she felt strongly from her municipal experience that Councilmembers should serve three year terms because it took new Councilmembers time to learn their jobs and she felt two year terms were not long enough to allow productivity from the Village Councilmembers. Boardmember Laamanen indicated that the first year was usually a loss, but the second and third years could be more productive. It was noted that two years was the norm within the State and that the House of Representatives only served 2-year terms. Boardmember Laamanen responded that when the House of Representatives terms were established government was not as complicated as today, and her suggestion came from many years of experience, and used negotiations as an example of an item that the Village Councilmembers needed to understand. The Village Attorney commented that one of the risks of his chairing the meetings was his saying more than he should and thus involving himself as a member, but requested the Boardmembers think about the fact that the Charter amendments must go to referendum and the more substantiative things changed, the more difficulty might be encountered in getting the changes approved. Mr. Randolph commented he did not say this to dissuade changes from being made but only that the Board should consider the larger picture. It was clarified that elections were held every year. Boardmember Cook noted although Palm Beach County municipalities had stayed with 2-year terms,he had seen a model code from Florida League of Cities that had 4-year terms. Mr. Humpage commented he hated to see a lot of turmoil in any municipality as had happened in the Village, and it seemed that every election turned things around and caused turmoil.Boardmember Humpage commented he believed there was some merit in the suggestion, since he did not know if a Councilmember could be effective even in two years. To implement the proposal, Mr. Humpage suggested it would not be started immediately but, for example, in 2005 so that future administrations would know it was coming.. The process would then be to rotate the following procedure: hold an election one year, then the next, and the third year not to hold an election. Discussion ensued, in which it was noted that with 3-year terms election costs would be reduced by 1/3, plus staff time would be saved, that elections were becoming more expensive, and communities were looking at this to save money; and that the reason for considering a change would be to get full potential from the elected representatives. Mr. Humpage noted that term limits of two terms would then allow a Councilmember to serve six years. It was clarified that this Board was Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 7 making recommendations to the Village Council, who would consider the recommendations and could approve or make changes. Boardmember Laamanen expressed her opinion that it was imperative that the Village Council understand the reasoning behind the recommendations made by this Board. Boardmember Resnik commented that every recommendation must have an explanation. The Village Manager explained that detailed minutes of the meetings would be provided to the Councilmembers and that duplicate tapes could be provided if desired. Village Manager Couzzo noted that Tamarac had 3- year terms, and explained that the nature of their politics was different than here and it was so much work for staff to hold elections that they had decided to save election costs by not holding an election every year. Boardmember Humpage commented that by waiting until 2005 to implement 3-year terms, no presently seated party would gain politically from this Board's thought process; that 2006 could be the first election for 3-year terms, and that way nobody would be affected immediately; and it would not appear to be political. Village Manager Couzzo indicated staff could research this in South Florida communities to see if there were any cities with 3-year Councilmember terms,and bring their findings back to the Board. Boardmember Resnik indicated he would like to know how many communities had terms longer than two years. Boardmember Humpage requested at the same time to see if the other municipalities had term limits. The Village Attorney commented that the Florida League of Cities might have this information. Mr Couzzo commented that the report would be distributed to the Boardmembers to allow time for review before the next meeting, and it would be the first item on the agenda for the next meeting. Boardmember Cook questioned if there would be any merit to having voting districts. It was pointed out that the Village had two precincts, created by the Supervisor of Elections according to population, but no districts. It was noted that there was over-representation on the Village Council from the Country Club, which had been discussed many times; however, the negative to having districts was not being able to get people living in those specific areas to run for Village Council. Boardmember Resnik commented that with approximately 2500 voters there could only be two districts. Boardmember Humpage commented there could three districts and then the other two seats could be at large-three candidates would have to live within their districts and the other two could live anywhere in the Village. It was agreed that there were drawbacks,that the difficulty would be getting people to run, that many people went north and Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 8 did not want to run, and that it would be expensive, and could be left to the next Charter Review Board to review. Boardmember Resnik suggested replacement language for the last sentence of the last paragraph of Section 2.01to state: The new Councilmember(s)elected in the runoff election shall be sworn and take office at a special Council meeting held no later than the last day of the month of the runoff election. Boardmember Humpage disagreed since in the second paragraph of this section it already stated that the term of each Councilman shall commence on the next Council meeting subsequent to the date of election. The other Boardmembers commented that was the standard and Mr. Resnik's language would create a different standard, because Mr. Resnik's proposal would have the winner of the tie vote being sworn in before anyone else. Boardmember Cook referred to the second paragraph regarding term of office, and described a scenario in which someone was elected on the second Tuesday and was to begin at the next Council meeting which could be the second Wednesday, the last day,or the next month-but whenever that meeting occurred his or her two-year term would begin. If seated on the last day of March, the term would expire the last day of March two years later, so'the next person elected could not take office until two years after March 31, which would not work. Boardmember Resnik explained that apparently erroneously, he had been under the impression that when an election was held on the second Tuesday, the newly elected Councilmembers came to the next Council meeting on the third Thursday of the month, were sworn and took office, and could wait until April to take office. Mr.von Frank commented that he had taken office on April 12, so his term would run two years from April 12. Mr. Berube commented that with a date certain, it would be known there would be enough time between the election and that date to hold a runoff election. Boardmember Humpage commented the runoff election had to occur on the 4th Tuesday of March, and all of the elected officials would be seated at the next Council meeting. Boardmember Cook asked if it were theoretically possible that there would not be as 4th Tuesday in March; the response was it would not matter if the requirement was to take office at the next Council meeting. It was pointed out there had never been a tie, but there could be, and that the last election was very close. Mr Humpage stated whether there was a tie or no tie, the Councilmembers should be seated at the same time and not two weeks apart. Discussion ensued. The Village Attorney commented changes needed to be made because there was confusion during the last election Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 9 about the wording, particularly in regard to who would be seated if there was a special meeting subsequent to the election, but a special meeting was still the next meeting of the Village Council, so those elected would be seated then because the Village would not want to have a lame duck Councilperson voting on matters before the next regular Council meeting. How to change the wording to effect this was discussed. It was decided to delete the last sentence in the last paragraph and to rely on the language in the second paragraph. Mr. Cook noted there could be a scenario where a Councilmember would be elected and take office at the next Council meeting, before the previous Councilmember's two-year term had been completely served. Mr. Humpage noted a quick fix for this problem would be to change "and" to "and/or" so that the last part of the second paragraph would read " shall continue for two (2) years thereafter and/or until his successor is elected and qualified." In regard to the language regarding a tie vote at the end of the paragraph, Boardmember Resnik suggested language that in the event of a runoff the regular Village Council meeting be deferred until after the runoff. During discussion of this suggestion, Mr. Humpage noted that could allow a lame duck to vote if a special Council meeting was called. Mr. Cook described a hypothetical situation where a Councilmember decided not to run again, the two new people who ran tied, and the regular Council meeting occurred before the 4th Tuesday,which would allow a lame duck vote because there had not yet been a runoff, but commented this might be too hypothetical to address. Mr. Berube noted the Village might have to live with this but at least it had been mentioned and it was important that the Village Council know it had been considered. Village Attorney Randolph reviewed the proposed changes to Section 2.01: in the second paragraph to change the second "and" to "and/or" ; and to delete the last two sentences in the last paragraph. Boardmember Humpage made a motion to accept the following changes to Section 2.01 as reviewed by the Village Attorney: in the second paragraph to change the second "and"to"and/or";and to delete the last two sentences in the last paragraph. Boardmember Resnik seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Village Attorney Randolph noted that staff was to look into term limits in other towns and what towns had 3-year terms. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 10 Boardmember Resnik commented he had two general recommendations: To change "Councilman"to Councilmember"wherever it appeared throughout the Charter; and to change the heading to say Tequesta Charter at the top of each page instead of Tequesta Charter on one page and Tequesta Code on the next. It was explained that the heading was printed by the publisher and the Village had no control over the publisher. Suggestions regarding the easiest way to make the entire document gender neutral included scanning or downloading the document. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to make the wording of the Charter gender neutral. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Laamanen and carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Section 2.02. Qualifications and Disqualifications No person shall be eligible to any elective office of the Village unless he shall be a registered voter and resident of the Village. Any Village Councilman who ceases to possess these qualifications shall forthwith forfeit his office. Unless otherwise provided by this Charter, no Village Councilman shall hold any other public office in the Village. forte Any candidate seeking election as Councilman shall file with the Village Clerk a written notice to such effect from and including noon on the last Tuesday in January to and including noon on the second Tuesday in February in the year of the election, and shall pay such filing fee as set by ordinance. Such notice shall be signed by at least fifty (50) registered voters of the Village of Tequesta and shall state the seat number to which he seeks to be elected, his place of residence, his age and any other data required by law. (Ord. No. 255, § 1, 7-26.77; Ord. No. 327, § 2, 12-13-83) Mr. Humpage referred to Section 2.07 which indicated Councilmembers could hold other offices,while Section 2.02 indicated they could not. Village Attorney Randolph advised that it was general law that there could not be dual office holding, and he believed the Board would eliminate that language in 2.07 when Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 11 they reviewed that section. It was the consensus of the Board that Village Councilmembers should not hold other offices and to delete the wording in paragraph 2 "except that of Notary Public,membership in the National Guard,in the organized reserve of the armed forces of the United States, in any other defense agency recognized by the Village, or in a status of retirement from any of the foregoing." The Village Attorney indicated his belief that these were not public offices. Boardmember Humpage asked whether this language was deleted if that was something else the voters would have to consider. Village Attorney Randolph explained that the whole Charter would be printed and appended to an Ordinance, and the whole Charter could be published in the local newspaper, and the voters would vote on adopting the whole Charter Boardmember Resnik asked if it would be lined out and underlined to show deletions and additions, so everyone would know what was being done. Attorney Randolph indicated that was done on the Charter for Palm Beach, and would be done here. The Board discussed whether to change the number of registered voters required to sign a notice for a candidate seeking election, and decided to make no change. Boardmember Humpage commented if there were no signers required, ten people might run, making too much work for staff. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to delete all wording in paragraph 2 of Section 2.02 following the word "Village" in the second line and to place a period after "Village". Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Section 2.03. Oath of Office. Each Councilman, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe the following oath before the Village Manager or presiding officer of the Council, viz: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida against all enemies, domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, loyalty and allegiance to the same and that I am entitled to hold office under the Constitution and that I will faithfully perform all the duties of the office of on which I am about to enter so help me God" (Ord. No. 255, § 2, 7-26-77) Editor's note-Ord No. 255, §2, adopted July 26, 1977, Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 12 indicated that use of the phrase "so help me God"is optional in the taking and subscribing of the oath of office. The Village Attorney noted that the words "so help me God" were optional under law. The Board indicated they wished no changes to Section 2.02. Section 2.04. Removal. Any member of the Village Council of the Village may be removed from office and deprived of the right to serve as such official for misfeasance, nonfeasance, malfeasance or any conduct of an immoral or criminal nature committed while holding office.Failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by said Council shall also be grounds for removal. But, before any such official shall be removed and denied the right to perform his official duties, a written complaint shall be filed with and presented to the Village Council by some citizen or taxpayer of said Village, setting forth in reasonable detail the offense of which the said official is charged. Such complaint shall be considered by the Village Council, and if such Council shall determine that the offense charged is of such nature and gravity as to constitute a ground, or cause,for the removal of such official, the Council shall thereupon set a date for the hearing of the said complaint and direct the chief of police, or some other officer of the Village, to give the official so charged written notice of the date of trial and also deliver to him a copy of the complaint so filed. Upon the trial of such complaint, testimony shall be heard by the Council, both in support and in defense of the charges made, and both the complainant and defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel; and, if a majority of the members of the Council shall find and determine that such official is guilty of either or all of the offenses as charged in the complaint, the Council shall thereupon adopt a resolution removing such official and depriving him of the right to perform his official duties and declaring his office vacant; and the said official shall no longer have the privilege of performing his official duties, his office shall be vacated and his successor shall thereafter be selected in the manner provided herein. Upon the trial under the provisions of this section, all witnesses shall give testimony under oath and any member of the Council present at such hearing, or the Mayer Manager, or the Village Clerk shall be authorized to administer oaths. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 13 • Village Attorney Randolph explained that FS Section 100.361,Municipal Recall, stated: The provisions of this act shall apply to cities and charter counties whether or not they have adopted recall provisions...and.....All municipal charter and special law provisions which are contrary to the provisions of this act are hereby repealed to the extent of this conflict. Attorney Randolph explained that this therefore replaced this section of the Charter, and that it was better than having a Councilmember go to trial before the Village Council, etc. Mr. Randolph indicated he would provide copies of Section 100.361 to the members of the Board. Boardmember Cook commented that the present provision was not a recall provision, that no vote was required of the electorate to remove somebody for malfeasance, misfeasance, etc., it was a vote of Council,which was different than a recall. Attorney Randolph commented he had not thought of that and it was a good point, but his guess would be the State would say you have devised a way to remove a person from office which was contrary to the way they had indicated a person could be removed. Boardmember Cook disagreed, since the Governor could remove a City Councilmember without a recall election, so the Legislature clearly recognizes that there is removal of public officials and there is recall of public officials. Village Attorney Randolph commented according to what Mr. Cook was saying there could be a scenario where the Village Council could remove someone from office and you could have a municipal recall election where the electorate could remove someone from office. Without further research, the Village Attorney indicated he thought the State would say their provision took precedence because both were intending to do the same thing, but the State had adopted a system by which someone could be removed from office. Attorney Randolph indicated research would be needed to determine whether the State Statute pre-empted something called removal and not recall, and asked if the Board would want to keep this section in the Charter if the State law did not pre-empt this section. Failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council being grounds for removal was discussed. Boardmember Laamanen indicated she did not believe missing meetings because of illness was in the same class as malfeasance,etc.,and missing meetings should be in the hands of the local Council. Boardmember Cook indicated his position was that a very ill person who could not attend meetings was neglecting their duty under the State statute and disagreed that one could say the State statute pre-empts neglect of duty for malfeasance, etc.,except for neglect Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 14 of duty by missing meetings. Village Attorney Randolph indicated if the Board wanted something more in the Charter other than missing a meeting 3, 4, or 5 times, or replacing somebody who was ill in office and could no longer perform their duties, then research would be needed to see whether the statute pre- empted. Village Attorney Randolph indicated research could be done to see if there were any AGO's that existed on this. Boardmember Cook indicated he would be more interested to learn if there was a case on this. The Village Attorney clarified that Boardmember Cook was asking whether the Village wanted to have a provision that did not require an election where the Village Council made a determination that someone had been incompetent in office, and leave the existing provision. Mr. Cook indicated he would only suggest that be considered if it were not in opposition to a clear mandate from the Courts of Florida. Village Attorney Randolph commented if it was the will of this Board to have the Village Council put someone out of office for something the Village Council determined was incompetence then research would have to be done. Boardmember Humpage asked who would make the determination under State law for disciplinary action or removal, to which the Village Attorney responded it would be the citizens, the electorate. The process was described. Boardmember Cook indicated the Board did not need to do anything regarding the process since it was set by State law, but that the question was whether the Board wanted additional removal power vested in the City Council, if possible, if it was legal. Mr. Resnik commented this would allow the Council to try the person rather than taking it to the electorate,which he favored. Mr. Humpage commented if he were a Councilperson and did something considered malfeasance and if this wording were removed from the Charter, the only way he could be removed from office would be by the State Statute, taking him before the electorate. Mr. Cook indicated he was in favor of keeping the wording currently in the Charter. Boardmember Laamanen indicated she thought any such procedure should involve a public hearing. Mr. Humpage commented on the next page it stated a public hearing was required. It was the consensus of the Board to leave the language of 2.04 in the Charter. The Board discussed the number required to vote to determine a guilty verdict,and decided that omitting the words "present at such hearing" would accomplish having three members of the Council required to vote in favor of declaring someone guilty; and the accused would be allowed to vote. Mr.von Frank questioned what would happen if one member of the other four was sick or out of town and one of the three called a special meeting; then it was discussed that including wording, "other than the accused" Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 15 which would take care of that problem. The Village Attorney advised the Village did not have the legal right not to allow the accused to vote. After all of the discussion, it was clarified that the language as it existed would allow two people to vote out the accused if only three were present; if the wording"present at such hearing" was stricken then a majority of the Council, or three votes, would always be required. Boardmember Cook, referring to the last paragraph, asked if the Mayor could administer an oath. It was decided to change "Mayor" to "Manager" since the Village Manager could administer the oath of office, and section 2.03 contained the language "oath before the Village Manager". The fact that this would be a quasi-judicial hearing was discussed. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to eliminate the wording "present at such hearing"in the next to the last paragraph; and insert"Manager"instead of "Mayor" in the last paragraph. Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The meeting reconvened following a short break. Section 2.05. Vacancies. In the event of a vacancy on the Village Council because of death, resignation, removal j from or forfeiture of office, and the period of the vacancy will be more than three months, the Village Council may shall within 30 days appoint a substitute until the next general Village election in March. If the period of vacancy is three months or less, the Village Council may in its discretion, appoint a substitute until the next general election in March. Criteria relating to the selection of this individual shall be established by Ordinance. Boardmember Resnik noted that the way the language was now, the Village Council may or may not appoint a successor for a deceased or otherwise absent Councilmember, but no time period was specified, which could elimination of one Councilmember for extended periods of time with only four voting members,which might lead to numerous tie votes without a fifth person to break a tie. Boardmember Resnik therefore suggested inserting after the word office the phrase: "and the period of the vacancy will be more than three months", changing "may" to "shall", and adding a second sentence: "If the period of Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 16 vacancy is three months or less, the Village Council may appoint a substitute until the next general election in March." Mr. Resnik explained that the whole purpose was to maintain five members on the Council if the period was going to be more than 30 days, and allow the Council to appoint someone if less than 30 days. Boardmember Laamanen suggested adding "within 30 days" following "shall". Councilmember Resnik agreed, and commented that this situation had occurred in the past,when Councilmember Cameron was sick with cancer and missed many meetings and was never replaced until he died; another time when Ron Mackail retired, and another time when Mr. Meder moved away. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to make the following changes to Section 2.05: Insert after the word "office" the phrase: "and the period of the vacancy will be more than three months", change "may" to "shall within 30 days", and adding a second sentence: "If the period of vacancy is three months or less, the Village Council may,in its discretion,appoint a substitute until the next general election in March." Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Wade Griest commented that when Alex Cameron passed away,there were seven names on the ballot to replace him, and Mr. Griest was one of the candidates. Three of the others he had spoken to afterwards had indicated to him that they did not know how they came to be on the ballot. Mr. Griest explained that the Mayor at that time said Mr. Griest was not qualified because he had not been interviewed by a Councilmember,which was true-he had been recommended as a former Mayor, and as a result Mr.Griest was not to be voted on, only the other six, and Village Attorney Randolph had at that time said that anyone in the room could fill the vacancy. Mr. Griest commented this had been very embarrassing to everybody, including him, and three of the people on the ballot did not even know they were considered. Mr. Griest commented there should be something in the Charter about how they pick a substitute. Village Attorney Randolph commented this was the bare bones of what would be done, that if indeed the Village Council decided when someone was out of office that they would like people to submit names and they would only consider names submitted within the 30 days, they could do that because there was nothing in the Charter that precluded it. The Village Attorney commented that the question raised by Mr. Griest was whether the Board wanted to be that definitive in this provision as to tell the Council the mechanics of how they should do it. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Berube agreed that should not happen again and suggested that an Ordinance be created aside from the Charter that set forth a specific procedure. Boardmember Cook commented the Council should rely on the Village Attorney in the lack of an Ordinance. Mr. Berube commented that Mr. Griest's reliance on the Council did not do a very good job that time, and the situation had been very messy. Boardmember Humpage commented that after this Board had been dissolved, the Chair of this Board could bring before the Village Council under Any Other Matters or Communications from Citizens a recommendation from the Board that they create an Ordinance to set a criteria. Village Attorney Randolph suggested a second sentence could be added to this Section stating criteria relating to the selection of this individual shall be established by Ordinance. Boardmember Humpage made a motion to add to the end of Section 2.05 the following sentence: "Criteria relating to the selection of this individual shall be established by Ordinance." Boardmember Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Section 2.06. Mayor and Successors. The Village Council at its firsts meeting subsequent to the date of the annual election of Village Councilmen shall appoint one of its members as and to be Mayor ef said municipality and another of its members as and to be Vice-Mayor ' ate. Said officers shall serve at the pleasure of the Council for one year and/or untila successor shall be appointed and qualified. The Mayor shall preside at all meetings; shall be recognized by the courts for the purpose of military law; and shall, oe-V-illage-Geucneil, execute all instruments to which the Village is a party as approved by vote of Village Council unless otherwise provided hereby or by ordinance; but he shall have no administrative duties. The Vice-Mayor shall act as Mayor during the absence or disability of the Mayor. (Ord. No. 189, § 3, 12-31-71; Ord. No. 255, § 3, 7-26-77) Boardmember Laamanen expressed her opinion that the Mayor should be elected by the populace rather than by the Village Council,with the Vice Mayor appointed by the Council, and asked the opinion of the other members of the Board. Boardmember Resnik commented if this were not a manager-council form of government then the Mayor should be elected, but in a manager form of government the Village Council should elect a Mayor. Boardmember Laamanen Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 18 commented she did not think the people were aware of the authority of the Village Manager. Village Attorney Randolph commented Gulfstream was a council-manager form of government but had historically elected their Mayor, that Palm Beach had a Mayor in addition to five Councilmembers, but the normal way in a council-manager form of government was for the Council to elect the Mayor. In the communities that elected their Mayor, the Mayor's term was the same as the Councilmembers. Boardmember Laamanen asked if this issue would be best left as is. Boardmember Cook commented the Mayor in Palm Beach and in Riviera Beach were essentially figureheads and only voted to break ties, and in a manager form of government the voters did not elect the Mayor. Mr. Berube commented regarding Boardmember Laamanen's feeling that she did not think the people were aware of the Village Manager's authority, that might be a topic to explain in Smoke Signals. Boardmember Resnik agreed the residents did not know the Village Manager ran the Village. Mr. Berube commented the lead-in could be: As a result of the Council's suggestion. The other Boardmembers agreed with Boardmember Laamanen that the residents should be better informed about their government. Boardmember Resnik suggested the wording "when directed to do so by the Village Council" be removed, and add "as approved by the Village Council" after the word "party", so that an instrument would not be executed unless approved by the Council. Mr. Resnik commented "direction" would only be done by a vote. Boardmember Cook suggested adding "by vote of' the Village Council. Boardmember Cook questioned whether the Board agreed with removing the word "regular" in the first sentence of Section 2.05, because of the possibility of a special meeting before the regular meeting. Village Attorney Randolph advised this would put Village Councilmembers in a position of possibly having to select a Mayor one day after they were elected. The Board decided that it would not matter, but that special meetings were called for special issues and in this case election of the Mayor would have to be added to the agenda. Boardmember Cook commented in the case of the Mayor's term having expired or not being re- elected, there might be no Mayor unless one was appointed at a special meeting. Boardmember Cook indicated the words "of said municipality"which appeared twice, were unnecessary and should be removed. Boardmember Cook also pointed out the issue of election of someone for one year and until a successor Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 19 shall be appointed, and suggested replacing "and" with "and/or" until a successor shall be appointed as had been done in a prior section. The Village Attorney clarified that the term "military law" as used in this section meant the Mayor would act in times of emergency. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to delete the word "regular"in the first line of Section 2.06,delete"of said municipality"in the third and fourth line, delete "of said municipality"in the fourth and fifth line,add "for" to"and" in the bottom line, and delete "when directed to do so by the Village Council", and add after the word "party", "as approved by vote of Village Council". Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. C` 7 07 D.wer to Appoin L:ors- > > > > , pleasure-of theValage-Couneit-attel-the-Goutteil-shall-fix-the-eompereadon-ofsuelreffiens of-thc-vae . 7 2677) Boardmember Resnik proposed deletion of the words "A Treasurer, a Tax Assessor, a Tax Collector" in the description of Village Officers, and deletion of Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 20 "for a term of one year and" because he believed one year was too short a term for Village Officers to serve and was not consistent with good management. The Village Attorney advised that one-year terms were typical. The Village Manager commented that although many municipalities used one-year terms it was not a Charter requirement. Boardmember Resnik commented having to be re- appointed each year placed a strain on the individuals, not knowing if their jobs would continue. Boardmember Laamanen inquired regarding tenure, to which the response was there was no tenure for any position Village Attorney Randolph explained that Florida was an "at will" state and unless there was something in the Village Charter or in an Ordinance giving someone security in their position, anyone could be terminated without cause. Boardmember Humpage recommended deletion of the words "for a term of one year and". Boardmember Resnik commented there was adequate provision in the Charter for terminating Village employees, and these employees should be hired by contract. Village Manager Couzzo indicated he had been hired by contract but the contract was subject to this provision. Boardmember Resnik responded he did not understand that. Boardmember Resnik commented if the Village Manager and Village Clerk were hired by contract they should not be reappointed every year. Mr. Berube commented Mr. Couzzo had to move to Tequesta, move his family, change schools, etc., and one year later would not know if he had a job,which was a perfect example of why this should be deleted. Others on the Board indicated they would not take a job under those conditions. Boardmember Humpage commented that regarding the 3-year terms which were going to be revisited, new Councilmember von Frank would only have 11 months in office before he had to decide whether to reappoint the Village Manager, which was not fair to that Councilmember or to the Village Manager. Mr. Resnik commented the contract should carry. Village Attorney Randolph commented the contract was subject to these provisions; that he thought it was good not to have to reappoint each year; but advised the Board not to give up that the Manager served at the pleasure of the Village Council. Boardmember Resnik responded that was adequately covered. It was agreed to delete "At the regular meeting subsequent to the date of the annual election". Boardmember Cook asked whether the Village Council needed to appoint the Village Clerk. Boardmember Resnik explained that at one time the term "Village Officers"was defined as the Village Manager and Village Clerk and three other positions which were later deleted by State law, leaving only the Village Manager and Village Clerk as officers. Boardmember Laamanen asked if the Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 21 Village Clerk had to be certified. The Village Manager explained that the job description, which he had written, required the Village Clerk to be certified within six months of date of hire. Boardmember Cook noted that the previous Village Clerk had not been certified for many years but did an excellent job. It was agreed that under a strong manager form of government the Manager should appoint the Village Clerk as well as the other employees. Village Attorney Randolph commented it might be difficult to make all these changes to the existing language, and distributed a sample Charter that the Board might consider instead. Boardmember Cook commented if the Village Manager was going to appoint the Clerk, Section 2.07 was not needed at all. Village Attorney Randolph agreed, and advised that this could be re-addressed under the Powers and Duties Section 3.02. Boardmember Cook made a motion to delete Section 2.07 in its entirety subject to readdressing it in Section 3.02. Boardmember Humpage commented the ability to appoint the Village Manager could be addressed at the beginning of Section 3.01. Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Mr. Berube had to leave at this point, but requested one of the next meetings begin at 4 p.m. It was decided to hold the Monday,July 23 meeting at 4 p.m., keep the August 2 meeting at 9 a.m., then regroup and decide the time for the August 17 meeting on August 2. Scction 2.08. Bond. , The Village Attorney advised that this section was not needed, that under this Section anyone handling money would be bonded, but it was not necessary. Boardmember Humpage made a motion to delete Section 2.08. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 22 Boardmember Resnik seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Section 2.09. Miscellaneous Powers; Meetings. The Village Council it shall meet at least once per month. Special meetings shall be held when called by the Mayor, Manager,or independently by any two members of the Village Council. The amount of notice for special meetings shall be determined by the Village Council by ordinance. Boardmember Humpage commented the Supervisor of Elections was the judge of elections, not the Village Council. Village Manager Couzzo indicated the Council had the final word and could disagree. Boardmember Cook noted that the wording regarding powers was redundant since it was covered by State law, and what was needed in Section 2.09 was how often meetings were held and how special meetings could be called; and suggested deleting wording in the first paragraph following "The Village Council" so that the entire paragraph would read as follows: "The Village Council shall meet at least once per month." Discussion ensued regarding the second paragraph as to how two Councilmembers could call a special meeting without violating the Sunshine Law. Boardmember Resnik commented he looked at this as being done at a regular Council meeting rather than outside a public meeting. Discussion ensued. It was pointed out that a resident could call all the members of the Council and request a special meeting and if two of the Councilmembers independently called the Manager, not communicating with each other, to request a meeting it could be called; or one Councilmember could call the Manager and then the Manager could call another member to ask for their support. Village Attorney Randolph advised there was a provision in the ordinance , 2-17, Special Meetings: "Special meetings may be called at any time; however, at least three days notice must be given. Such notice may be by announcement at a regularly scheduled Council meeting or may be in writing signed by the Village Manager or Mayor. If notice is given by mail, it shall be mailed to the residence of each Village Councilman and the notice period shall Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 23 begin on the date of mailing. Contents of the above described notice shall be placed in a conspicuous place in the Village Hall."Attorney Randolph noted that did not mention two Councilmembers. Boardmember Laamanen indicated notice should not be required in event of an emergency such as a hurricane. The Village Attorney advised there was no reference to an emergency meeting but it was implied that calling a special meeting was for something special, and if emergency was mentioned who.would determine what was or was not an emergency. Boardmember Laamanen indicated that within 24 hours would be an emergency. Boardmember Humpage indicated he wanted to keep language in the Charter indicating a special meeting could be called by two Councilmembers, which would prevail over the Ordinance. Village Attorney Randolph noted that the next section in the ordinance said: "If all Councilmen consider the matter to be taken up at the special meeting to be urgent and of sufficient importance to the welfare of the Village, the 3 days notice set forth in Section 2-17 may be waived by unanimous consent of all five Councilmen," which meant all five would have to be called to determine an emergency. Village Attorney Randolph commented the Village would have to look at amending their Ordinances later, but now the Board needed to determine if it was important for the provision relating to two Councilmembers and the Mayor calling a meeting to remain in the Charter. Boardmember Humpage commented that his avenue to get something done was to go to all the Councilmembers to request a special meeting and if two of them felt it was worthwhile they would call the Manager. Mr. Resnik indicated he was uncomfortable authorizing two members to call special meeting without clarifying they could not discuss it between themselves. Boardmember Cook suggested the following language: "Special meetings shall be held when called by the Mayor, Manager, or independently by any two members of the Village Council." It was discussed that the Manager should be able to call a special meeting because he would know there was an emergency. It was decided not to change the wording "The amount of notice for special meetings shall be determined by the Village Council by ordinance." The Village Attorney noted that if the Board had extra time after review of the Charter had been completed, they might start eliminating some items which were not really necessary. Boardmember Laamanen made a motion to amend Section 2.09 so that the first paragraph would be: " The Village Council shall meet at least once per month." and the second paragraph would be: "Special meetings shall be held when called Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 24 by the Mayor, Manager, or independently by any two members of the Village Council. The amount of notice for special meetings shall be determined by the Village Council by ordinance." Boardmember Resnik seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Section 2.10. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Council shall constitute a Quorum to do business, but no action shall be taken except to adjourn, when only three members are present unless their votes are unanimous; provided, however, in the event of a vacancy of two members of the Village Council, under the provisions of Section 2.05, then and in that event a majority of the remaining members of the Council may act.A majority of those present may adjourn from time to time and compel the attendance of absent members in such a manner and under such penalties as may be prescribed by ordinance. No member shy" b_excu...a rom vote. Village Attorney Randolph commented this section said business could not be done with three people unless the vote was unanimous, and this was basically boilerplate language. Boardmember Humpage commented it had recently come up about when a person excused himself from voting, and asked what "official conduct" meant. The Village Attorney suggested the whole last sentence of section 2.10 be deleted since it was covered by State law, and that the language regarding official conduct was antiquated since the State law said one could only excuse oneself from voting when a matter inures to one's special or private gain and the State law prevailed. Boardmember Laamanen made a motion to delete the last sentence in Section 2.10. Boardmember Cook commented that the word "quorum"did not need to be capitalized, which might have been just a typographical error. Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4- 0 vote. Section 2.11. Ordinances. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 25 [as] further prescribed as sct forth- by ordinance. (Ord. No. 255, § 5, 7-26-77) [Superceded by State Law] The Village Attorney advised that Section 2.11 should be eliminated since it was covered under Florida law. Boardmember Laamanen made a motion to delete the entire Section 2.11. Boardmember Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Section 2.12. Electors and Elections. .hall be as proscribed by Florida law. (Ord No. 255, § 6, 7-2677) [Superceded by State Law] The Village Attorney advised that Section 2.12 should be eliminated since it was covered under Florida law. It was noted that citizens would be concerned with Sections 2.11 and 2.12 being deleted, and a suggestion was made that when the Charter was printed with the strikeouts that on that version it would state under each section [Superceded by State Law] as information to the citizens-not to be printed on the adopted version. Boardmember Laamanen made a motion to delete the entire Section 2.12, but to include the following explanation under Section 2.11 and Section 2.12: [Superceded by State Law] . Boardmember Humpage seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 26 Section 2.13. Interference With the Administrative Department. Neither the Council nor any of its members shall in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any Village officers or employees whom the Manager or his subordinates are empowered to appoint, but the Council shall have the power to remove the Village Manager as provided by this Charter and may express its views and discuss all matters with the Manager. Except for the purpose of inquiries or investigations under this Charter, the Council and its members shall deal with.Village officials and employees solely through the Manager and neither the Council nor its members shall give orders to any such officials or employees either publicly or privately. Boardmember Laamanen questioned the purpose of this section, which the Village Manager explained was so that legislative people would not function in an administrative capacity. Boardmember Cook commented it was to avoid micromanagement, and also that it was very important that the Councilmembers did not individually call the Village Attorney to request research that was not the wish of the entire Council. Boardmember Resnik commented the chain of command could be detrimental to the Village Manager if he did not have a good assistant who could run interference for him because all the Councilmembers called him and he could be on the phone constantly. Boardmember Resnik expressed his opinion that a system of an assistant to the Manager should be set up that people understood, an assistant who could help the Village Manager by taking problems, get them resolved, and get back to the people, but that person must be responsive. The Village Manager responded that this section protected employees because if a Councilmember requested an employee to do something they were not going to say they wouldn't do it; and it held the Manager accountable, provided division of separation of government, and a distinct understanding for the employees, otherwise there was no order. Mr. Couzzo clarified that each Department Head was a second in command. Boardmember Resnik questioned if Mr. Couzzo agreed that every Councilmember who desired support from one or more of the departments under Mr. Couzzo's control should go to Mr. Couzzo and not to the Department Head. The Village Manager responded that was the way the Charter read, and he agreed with it because there was separation of powers. The Village Attorney commented the Village Manager should tell his Department Heads what to do as opposed to a politician coming in and telling them what to do. Having a Deputy Manager was I . Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 27 discussed. Boardmember. .Laamanen commented that when she was an Administrator she had a Deputy Administrator who acted on her behalf. The Village Manager commented a deputy could be hired tomorrow, but it was a matter of cost and whether one was really needed. Boardmember Laamanen explained that Councilmembers could go to her Department Heads to request items but the Department Heads then had to check with her. Boardmember Humpage asked why not just go through the Manager in the first place. Boardmember Humpage noted that the Village Attorney had said in his presentation on the Sunshine Law that the Council was like an executive branch and policymakers; while the Manager was the engineer of the railroad who ran the day-to-day activities, and he believed it should stay that way. The Board made no changes to Section 2.13. ARTICLE III. VILLAGE OFFICERS Section 3.01. The Village Manager Appointment, Removal, Qualifications, Disability. The Village Council shall appoint a Village Manager who shall be the Chief Administrative Officer under the direction and supervision of the Village Council. The manager shall be chosen by the Council solely on the basis of his administrative and executive qualifications. time-of his-appoinimen4—bufshall-beeeme-wraitlent-within-six-mant-Its-afthe-elate-of-stteh Manager: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.07, the Village Manager shall be appointed by affirmative vote of at least four members of the Council, and must be removed by a like vote of said Council. At least thirty days before such removal may become effective, the Manager shall be furnished with a formal statement in the form of a resolution passed by a majority vote of at least four members of the Council stating the Council's intention to remove him and the reasons therefor. Upon passage of a resolution stating the Council's intention to remove the Manager, the Council may suspend him from duty, but his pay shall continue until his Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 28 removal shall become effective as herein described. In case of the absence or disability of the Manager, the Council may designate a qualified administrative officer of the Village to perform the duties of the Manager during such disability or absence. Boardmember Resnik commented that he did not understand the requirement that the Village Manager live in the Village. Boardmember Resnik commented that elected officials must live in the Village, but someone hired for a position was hired to do a job and so long as he performed his duties and was in his job location when he should be,where he lived should be of no concern, and he did not understand the requirement. Boardmember Resnik commented that over the past few months there had been articles in the newspaper regarding the City Manager of Palm Beach Gardens living in Wellington when they had a requirement he live in Palm Beach Gardens. The issue had come up as to why this requirement was there if he did his job. Research had indicated that the key requirement was that it was there because in time of natural or manmade disaster , civil strife, or any other conflagration that created a possible hazard to residents, the Manager had to be present to control staff. Mr. Resnik commented if the Village Manager lived within reasonable distance to allow him to reach his place of business within a reasonable time to do the job he had to do in an emergency which occurred outside normal business hours, that would be fine. Boardmember Resnik suggested the following language to begin with the second sentence in the section: "The Village Manager shall be chosen by the Council solely on the basis of administrative and executive qualifications. The Village Manager need not be a resident of the Village at the time appointed; however, if the Manager lives more than two hours normal driving time from the Village, then it will be necessary to become a resident within six months of the date of such appointment and remain a resident while serving as the Village Manager." Boardmember Resnik commented it made no difference where the Village Manager lived so long as he could be at the Village Hall or Emergency Operations Center within a reasonable time in the event of an emergency. Boardmember Resnik continued with his proposed language: "The Village Manager should be required to be at the Village Hall or the Emergency Action Center within two hours of notification of any and all periods of national or manmade disaster or civil strife affecting the Village and its residents and remain there until the all clear is sounded." Boardmember Laamanen commented that when the Charter was enacted, today's technology did not exist-there was no Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 29 such thing as a cell phone-but she thought the reason for the requirement had been the idea that if the Manager lived in the town he would know more about what went on; however, she considered that to be a fallacy since she had worked as a Manager for 22 years and cared more about doing the job right simply as a matter of personal pride, which was a trait she saw in Mr. Couzzo. Boardmember Laamanen expressed her opinion it was not essential for the Manager to live in the Village to do a good job. Boardmember Cook agreed, commenting this was out of the scope of reality, since the Manager could live on Point Drive and be two minutes away but that was in the County and he could not live there. Also, if a new Village Manager should be hired for Jupiter Island, where would he get the $2 million that a house on the island would cost. Boardmember Cook commented he did not think the Village Manager should be required to live in the Village and if there was any limitation he suggested miles, not hours, although he did not think that was needed either. Village Manager Couzzo suggested adding miles by motor vehicle since someone could interpret getting to the Village within two hours by airplane. Boardmember Resnik commented he had used two hours simply as a reasonable time, after the Manager received notification. Village Manager Couzzo commented in the event of a hurricane it was his job to be present and he would bunk in for the duration Village Attorney Randolph commented if the Board did not think it was important for the Manager to be a resident that it was his suggestion not to put anything in the Charter, and when hiring a Manager just say to him that he should live within two hours rather than placing it in the Charter.. Boardmember Resnik commented he recognized that so he had added another duty that would preclude this requirement but levy the requirement on him to be here within a reasonable time. Boardmember Resnik commented that some people would look at this who wanted the Manager to live in the Village,but his job was to run the Village when there was a disaster and he should live within a reasonable distance to provide for efficient operation of the Village at all times. Village Manager Couzzo clarified that he was the head of the Emergency Operations Center, but the Fire Chief was in charge of fire emergencies and the Police Chief was in charge of police emergencies, they had the expertise to act in those emergencies and he would not tell them how to handle them. Boardmember Resnik indicated the main thing was for him to be here when needed. Boardmember Humpage expressed his opinion that the Manager should not be required to live in the Village, and commented that in a category 4 hurricane the FEMA guidelines were for the fire and paramedics to leave town Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 30 with their equipment so that when the storm was over they could return and have equipment to work with. Boardmember Humpage agreed that things had changed a lot since this requirement was placed in the Charter, the Village Council still hired the Village Manager, and if two candidates were equal they might make their choice on which one lived closer, but he believed that language should be stricken from this section. Boardmember Cook made a motion to delete the last sentence in the first paragraph of Section 3.01. Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Discussion ensued regarding whether a sentence should be added that the Manager shall reside within reasonable distance to provide for efficient operation of the Village at all times,to make this change more palatable to some people. The Village Attorney advised against inserting any language, indicated _ that he was not looking at how this would sell to the community, but that it was more professional to leave it out, because if the Manager did not perform, the Village Council could get rid of him. The Board decided to leave in the language that it required four members of the Council to remove the Village Manager. Section 3.02. Village Manager-Functions and Powers. The Village Manager shall be the supervisor and manager of all public business and affairs of the Village, but shall be responsible to the Village Council for the Administration of all the affairs of the Village coming under his jurisdiction. His powers and duties shall be as follows: (1) To see that all terms and conditions imposed in favor of the Village or its inhabitants in any public utility franchise are faithfully kept and performed;and upon knowledge of any violation thereof to call the same to the attention of the Village Council. (2) To supervise the management and control of all public utilities owned by the municipality and be charged with the management and operations of all public works and departments in accordance with the ordinances or resolutions of the Village Council. Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 31 (3) To be responsible for the supervision of all departments of the Village and to see that the laws and ordinances of the Village are enforced. (4) To attend all meetings of the Village Council and of its committees, if requested,with the right to take part in the discussion but without having a vote, and to file at the regular meetings of the Village Council in each month a detailed report of all his actions during the preceding month. (5) To recommend to the Council for adoption such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient in the interests of the Village, to keep the Village Council fully advised as to the financial condition and needs of the Village, and to submit for its consideration an annual budget. (6) (7� alone ITEMS (6)AND (7)ARE TO BE MERGED WITH THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE AS PROVIDED BY THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY : The Village Manager shall appoint and when deemed necessary for the good of the Village, suspend or remove all Village employees and appointive administrative officers provided for by or under this Charter or by Ordinance except as otherwise provided by law, this Charter or personnel rules adopted by Ordinance or Resolution, and the Village Manager may authorize any administrative officer subject to the Village Manager's direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's department, Vice or agency. The Village Manager may authorize any any administrative officer subject to the Village Manager's direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's department, office or agency. (8) To act as purchasing agent for the Village; authorized to make all purchase of supplies and to approve allcherss purchase orders for the Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 32 payment of same. In the capacity of purchasing agent he shall conduct all sales of personal property which the Council may authorize to be sold as having become unnecessary or unfit for Village use. All purchases and sales shall conform to such regulations as the Village Council may from time to time prescribe. (9) To make contracts on behalf of the Village for the furnishing of materials and performance of labor;provided,however,that no such contract shall obligate the Village for a sum greater than allowed by Ordinance, and provided,further, also that such contracts shall be presented to the Village Council at the next regular meeting after the execution or awarding thereof for action thereon by the Village Council. (Ord. No. 367, § 1, 4-28-88) (10) To prepare and submit to the Village Council, within ninety (90) days after the close of each fiscal year, a complete report of the operation and business of the Village for the preceding fiscal year. (Ord.No. 255, § 7, 7-26-77) Boardmember Resnik asked why the Village Manager could only sign contracts up to$5,000. Village Manager Couzzo responded he could sign contracts up to $5,000 but still had to have them approved by the Village Council. The Board reviewed each duty, and made no changes to(1), (2) and(3). During review of(4),Boardmember Humpage commented that the Village Manager's report had been the subject of recent controversy; that the report for years had been a two-page report highlighting the major issues and goings-on within the Village;but recently Mr.Couzzo's report had turned into a daily diary and a waste of time,wasting more time doing that than functioning as a Manager. Boardmember Humpage commented the report should be key issues and not a diary, and looking at the reports for the past.12 years and the reports today was a difference of night and day. Boardmember Resnik asked why it had changed; Village Manager Couzzo responded the Council had asked for more detail. Boardmember Laamanen commented this was difficult because what one might consider essential, another did not. Boardmember Humpage suggested removing the words "detailed" and "all". It was suggested to replace "detailed" with "comprehensive". Discussion ensued regarding definitions. The Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 33 Village Attorney commented the trouble with even including something like this in the Charter was that someone could allege the Village Manager was violating the terms of the Charter because he was not doing something comprehensive,not doing something detailed,not reporting all of his activities. Village Attorney Randolph commented that from time to time the Village Council could advise the Manager of how much detail it wanted to see, but if included in the Charter it was the law and could not be changed without a referendum. Boardmember Cook commented this must be the wish of the majority of the Council, that there could not be five different directions from each Councilmember. Boardmember Humpage made a motion that the words "detailed" and "all" be removed from item (4). Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The Board made no changes to(5). Boardmember Cook questioned item (7) as to why the Village Manager had to have Department Heads approved by the Village if he could hire them—that meant he could not really hire them. Boardmember Resnik commented the Village Council should just be notified of hirings. Discussion ensued. Councilmember von Frank commented that providing the resumes to the Councilmembers was good, but the Village Manager was the one who had to work with the people he hired. Boardmember Resnik indicated he believed there should be trust and confidence in the Village Manager to do the job he was hired to do. The Village Manager commented the Village Council did not have the benefit of all the interviews and background work, but had the. responsibility of making the decision,making this a political appointment. The Village Manager commented that when this was initiated in the Charter the Village had been small and the Council may have played a larger role in helping the Manager. It was not even in the Charter whether the Manager could fire a Department Head without Village Council approval. Village Manager Couzzo commented the Village Council should hold the Manager responsible and accountable. Boardmember Resnik commented the Village Council was required to approve based on merit and fitness alone,and questioned how they could know since they did not conduct the interviews. Village Manager Couzzo responded the Council based their decision on the Manager's recommendation. Boardmember Laamanen commented that in her town Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 34 there had been Village Council committees which the Village did not have—Mr. Couzzo had to do it all by himself and it was a lot of responsibility, and he must be given leeway to do his job. Consensus of the Board was to merge items(6)and(7)instead of separating employees from Department Heads. Mr. Couzzo clarified that he delegated the responsibility of hiring policemen and firemen to the Chiefs. Village Attorney Randolph quoted from another charter: "The Village Manager may authorize any administrative officer subject to the Village Manager's direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's department, office, or agency." Boardmember Cook commented Riviera Beach was infamous for firing policemen, and he was not comfortable with allowing a Police Chief to fire a policeman, but wanted the Manager to have to consent. The Village Manager commented that was what was practiced. This item was discussed further. (8) Boardmember Humpage made a motion to merge items (6) and (7) to address both employees and department heads with exact language as provided by the Village Attorney: The Village Manager shall appoint and when deemed necessary for the good of the Village, suspend or remove all Village employees and appointive administrative officers provided for by or under this Charter or by Ordinance except as otherwise provided by law, this Charter or personnel rules adopted by Ordinance or Resolution, and the Village Manager may authorize any administrative officer subject to the Village Manager's direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's department, office or agency. The Village Manager may authorize any any administrative officer subject to the Village Manager's direction and supervision to exercise these powers with respect to subordinates in that officer's department, office or agency. Boardmember Resnik seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Village Attorney Randolph indicated he must leave for another appointment. Boardmember Resnik asked that he remain to comment on Mr. Resnik's suggestion to add another duty to those of the Village Manager: . "To be continuously available at the Village Hall or Village Emergency Action Center during periods of national or manmade disaster Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 35 or civil strife to direct and manage the activities of all Village staff, agencies, in protecting lives and property of all Village residents. If such an emergency occurs during non-working hours, the Village Manager will report to the Village Hall or the EAC within 2 hours of receiving notice of emergency and remain there until the all clear is received. The Manager will maintain contact with the Mayor and or Vice Mayor keeping them advised of the status of the emergency." Village Attorney Randolph advised this was too detailed to go into a Charter, and any Council could require that at any time. Village Manager Couzzo commented the emergency might require moving farther inland. Village Attorney Randolph left at this point. During discussion of item(8)Boardmember Cook inquired if there was a voucher system in the Village, and expressed concern that purchases were made without vouchers. The Village Manager indicated that concern was valid because purchases had been made by credit card, but all that was changing and purchase orders would be used according to a very defined set of guidelines. Discussion ensued. It was clarified that purchase orders should be used for budgeted items to avoid going over the amounts budgeted. Boardmember Resnik made a motion to change "vouchers" to "purchase orders" in item (8). Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. During discussion of item (9), Boardmember Laamanen felt the $5,000 figure was too low for current times and that the amount should be reviewed every 5 years based on current economics in effect at that time. Boardmember Cook commented the Village Manager could not buy a new police car if needed without Council approval. Boardmember Humpage commented there was a photocopier right down the hall that was about to blow up and a new one cost $8,100, and by Charter, the Village Manager did not have the authority to spend that amount so could not replace the copier without waiting for Village Council approval. Councilmember Cook commented everything was not required to be bid in the State of Florida. Mr. Couzzo indicated there were not emergencies that required immediate purchases, and he had not had a problem with Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 36 the $5,000 limit, and a new copier could be leased for 30 days until Council approval was received. The Village Manager advised that the intent was to get organized enough to know when purchases should be made so that 4 or 5 such items could be presented for Village Council approval at one time. Boardmember Cook commented the Village Attorney would say this should be done by Ordinance, that the Village Council should by Ordinance determine how much the limit was for the Village Manager. Ordinance 367 was produced, which amended the Charter, and it was noted that a legal opinion was needed by the Village Attorney to ascertain if it was legal to change the Charter by this Ordinance. Boardmember Cook commented he believed the law might have changed. Boardmember Cook suggested language that would allow legally to amend the Charter by ordinance which could be changed: to replace wording "five thousand dollars ($5,000.00)" and replace with "allowed by Ordinance" in item (9). Boardmember Laamanen made a motion to replace wording "five thousand dollars($5,000.00)"with"allowed by Ordinance"in item(9). Boardmember Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. No changes were made to item (10). Section 3.03. The Village Clerk. The Village Clerk shall be present at all meetings of the Council and shall keep a record of the proceedings of the Council in a minute book to be provided and kept for that purpose. The Clerk shall preserve and maintain an ordinance book for the recording and preservation of all duly adopted ordinances, and shall preserve and maintain a resolution book to be provided and kept for that purpose, the Ordinance Book and Resolution Book to be deemed public records. Copies from said Minute Book, Ordinance Book or Resolution Book, duly certified by the Village Clerk under the corporate seal of the Village, shall be received in evidence in all Courts and places in proof thereof. The Village Clerk may be the registration officer and shall, in addition to the duties Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 37 which are or maybe required by him by this Charter or by any Law of the State or by any ordinance of the said municipality, have the custody of all the general records, books and documents of the Village, and shall perform such further duties as are imposed upon him by the Council, by resolution, ordinance or otherwise. (Ord.. No. 255, § 8, 7-26-77) Boardmember Humpage noted that the Village Clerk did not work with permits, since that was now done by the Department of Community Development. Public records were discussed. Boardmember Humpage made a motion to delete the last sentence in the first paragraph of Section 3.03. Boardmember Resnik seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 40 vote. Section 3.07. Department and Directors There shall be separate departments as established by the Village Council by ordinance upon recommendation of the Village Manager. Each separate department head shall be appointed by the Village Manager and approved by the Village Council. Each Department shall be subject to the general supervision and control by the Village Manager, but shall be directly supervised and controlled by the person in charge thereof, who shall have the title appropriate of the functions. It was noted that the Village Manager had provided language for the replacement wording for the merged(6)and(7)for the Village Manager's duties which should also be used here. It was requested the first sentence be left in Section 3.07. Boardmember Cook suggested Section 3.07 be tabled to the next meeting. VIII. Communication from Citizens There were no communications from citizens. IX. Any Other Matters Charter Review Board Meeting Minutes July 9, 2001 Page 38 There were no other matters to come before the Board. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. upon motion by Boardmember Resnik, seconded by Boardmember Laamanen, and unanimously carried by 4-0 vote Respectfully submitted, /-k,c7ft Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Mary Wolcott Village Clerk Date Approved: