Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Charter Review_09/05/2007VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA CHARTER REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 I. Call to Order and Roll Call The Village of Tequesta Charter Review Board held its regularly scheduled meeting at the Tequesta Village Hall, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, September 5, 2007. The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by Recording Secretary Betty Laur, who then called the roll: Present were Chair Joseph Capretta, Vice Chair Mary Hinton, Board Member Dottie Campbell, Board Member Geraldine Genco, and Board Member Russell Von Frank. Also in attendance were Village Attorney John C. Randolph and Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Village Clerk Lori McWilliams arrived at 2:16 p. m. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Randolph stated he wanted to make a correction to the minutes following the approval of the Agenda. Ms. Genco advised the numbering of the Charter was no longer correct due to the addition of the attorney and auditor item and stated Item 2.11 under "Unfinished Business" should be 2.12. She asked to add discussion on Item 3.02 to the agenda. Ms. Campbell pointed out Item 3.02 was approved as written during the August 22, 2007 meeting and Mr. Capretta explained the Board would readdress the item. MOTION: Vice Chair Hinton moved approval of the agenda as amended. Board Member Campbell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. III. Approval of Minutes of August 22, 2007 Meeting Ms. Genco pointed out that Section 7.04 did not have a motion or a second for approval and believed as a matter of procedure this needed to be adopted. MOTION: Board Member Campbell moved approval of the minutes of the August 22, 2007 meeting as submitted. Vice Chair Hinton seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Vice-Chair Hinton asked if she needed to put a motion up to reconsider Item 3.02 for discussion so that Board could vote again. Mr. Randolph advised that was not necessary. IV. Unfinished Business Mr. Randolph provided a redlined version of the Charter changes to date. Section 2.01 -Selection, Term and Compensation He explained the Charter read, "only qualified electors as prescribed herein be entitled to vote at such elections" and it was noted by Board Member Campbell that nothing was prescribed within the Charter as to the qualifications. Therefore, he suggested adding, "as prescribed by State Statute." Board Member Campbell clarified that everywhere the Charter referred to "State Statute" that it would be written "under the laws of the State of Florida" for consistency. Consensus of the Board agreed to use the wording "State Statute" at the recommendation of Mr. Randolph. Mr. Randolph noted the next change was to the paragraph that read, "Each Village Council Member shall be entitled to an annual salary to be fixed by ordinance; provided, however, a Council Member shall not be entitled to any increase in salary adopted during the term for which such Council Member was elected," and explained that from "... provided, however" forward was deleted and the paragraph would end at "... fixed by ordinance." Board Member Genco clarified that the Board was okay with the Council voting for their own salary increase and Board Member Hinton pointed out it was done this way by the Legislators and Board Member Campbell did not want anyone to be penalized. Section 2.02 -Qualifications and Disqualifications Board Member Genco pointed out the word "holaP' should be inserted in Section 2.02, "No person shall be eligible to `hold' any elective office..." Section 2.05 -Vacancies Mr. Randolph explained he was to review the language of Section 2.05 Vacancies and noted the new language would read, "...misses three consecutive regularly scheduled monthly meetings where such absences are Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 3 not approved by the Village Council in three successive months or six regularly scheduled monthly meetings where such absences are not approved by the Village Council in any one year." Section 3.05 -Department Heads Attorney Randolph explained previously the Board voted to approve as written, however the Clerk was to make sure there was an ordinance regarding Department Heads and everything else on that page was approved as written. Section 5.01 -Powers of Village Council Mr. Randolph explained subsection (8) was changed from "the relief of the poor, and for" to "for the support of any charitable purpose designated by the Village Council." Section 6.01 -Power of Initiative Mr. Randolph noted the wording "as certified by the Supervisor of Election's Office" was added. Section 6.02 -Power of Referendum Mr. Randolph noted the wording "as certified by the Supervisor of Election's Office" was added. Board Member Genco asked if there was a difference between the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections and the State Supervisor of Elections and should the wording note "Palm Beach County." Vice-Chair Hinton stated the County provided the certification. Board Member Campbell stated the document from the Supervisor of Election's Office that was sent by the Village Clerk, which read, "... the voter's registration is a registered signature. It is compared to the signature on the petition. They say it is checked to verify ..." and asked if the wording should be verify or certify. Vice-Chair Hinton agreed that the wording should include "Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections." Village Clerk McWilliams arrived at 2:16 p.m. and took over for Ms. Laur. Section 6.03 -Form of Petitions Mr. Randolph pointed out the word "genuine" was deleted. Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Board Member Campbell mentioned the Election's Office was asked how John Smith, Jr. would be distinguished from John Smith, Sr. particularly if they lived at the same address and they responded the signatures were compared to those on file and suggested the Village revise the form to include the birth date. She explained the birthdates were on the forms received by the Election's Office; however it was hard at times to locate the correct one. Discussion ensued on the downside to residents wanting to provide their date of birth. Board Member Hinton stated the signatures were being verified by the Elections Office and did not believe a birth date was needed. Section 6.04 -Filing, Examination and Certification of Petitions Board Member Campbell noted that the (s) following "persons" should be consistent throughout. Mr. Randolph noted that anytime the number of days was referenced "business" days would be inserted. 6.07 -Consideration by Village Council Mr. Randolph explained numbers would be placed in parenthesis for consistency. Board Member Campbell inquired on the word "certification" being used and Mr. Randolph explained he did not believe there was a difference between certification and verification. Village Clerk McWilliams agreed to check with the Supervisor of Elections Office for the correct wording. Section 7.02 -Public Meetings Mr. Randolph explained the wording, "and the rules of the Council shall provide that the citizens of the Village shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at such meetings in regard to any matter pertaining to the Village," and replaced with, "pursuant to the provisions of state law." Vice-Mayor Hinton asked if it the public's opportunity to speak was part of state law and Mr. Randolph concurred to which Ms. Hinton clarified she wanted to ensure the state statute provide for their ability to speak. 7.04 -Conflict of Interest Chair Capretta asked Clerk McWilliams about the motion for this item. Ms. McWilliams pointed out the Recording Secretary had a motion and vote listed and she thought it was a typo and should have been 7.04 rather than 7.03. Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 5 1. 2.01 - Selection, Term and Compensation - Determining Successful Candidate Mr. Randolph explained this item was brought up at the first meeting by Vice- Chair Hinton. He mentioned discussion ensued at that meeting regarding the candidates for each seat receiving the highest number of votes. Board Member Genco stated the original discussion was that the Board was going to go with who won the majority and the alternative was to look at 50% plus one. Vice-Chair Hinton felt it was becoming vogue to put a teaser candidate in the race; thereby winning the race with small percentages. However, when discussed all the way through, it was mentioned the Village run-offs traditionally had a small voter turnout and voiced she was good either way. Board Member Genco said she saw Vice-Chair Hinton's point, and agreed a dark horse could be thrown into the race to cause the vote to swing; this probably had happened and could happen again. She asked if the burden of running a run-off election, with a low turnout, was worth avoiding the complication. Chair Capretta felt the process should remain unchanged. Board Member Genco pointed out that if the wording was changed it would discourage throwing in the dark horse. Vice-Chair Hinton felt that when five candidates run head up and one received 50% plus one of the vote then they would be the official winner; but she could argue both sides of the issue. Board Member Genco noted that with the last election, Mr. Arena was a good candidate and came close, but the bottom line was he lost because Mr. Paterno received the most votes, not necessarily the majority; and everyone was upset that he did not win by the majority. She felt candidates would be more serious about why they were running and who they were running against if the wording was changed to dissuade the third candidate. Vice- Chair Hinton commented it was a major charter change. Mr. Randolph pointed out that if this was a controversial item and all the other items were non-controversial and the whole Charter was placed up for amendment, residents could vote the Charter down due to controversy. Board Member Genco said the Council would have to discuss this as well and if they received more public input that this was something that should not be done then they would not include it in the Charter. She suggested proposing Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 6 the change and letting the Council decide. Board Member Campbell commented on the costs of a run-off election and felt the highest number of votes had worked well. MOTION: Board Member Campbell moved approval of Section 2.01 as written; Board Member Genco seconded; motion carried 5-0. 2. 2.11 - Interference with Administrative Department (will be Section 2.12 once the Charter is renumbered) Board Member Genco heard from the Board at the last meeting that this section needed more clarification and based on her experience being on Council agreed. She brought examples with her where she asked had for specific information, such as the garbage removal and hurricane related costs and could not receive it because she had to deal with the front office. She noted every request had to go through the Manager. She stated an investigation was different from an inquiry and said an inquiry was a request for records that were readily available and did not see any purpose for having to go through the Manager's Office for routine public records. She questioned why a Council Member should be denied getting a public record because of the word inquiry. Chair Capretta clarified the question was how a Council Member received the information they wanted and he said they have to go directly through the Village Manager. Vice-Chair Hinton remarked this went to the heart of village government and concerned her. She understood Ms. Genco's issue; however stated that under a strong manager form of government it would open a Pandora's Box if Council started dealing directly with department heads. She felt if the Manager was not providing Council with information it was a manager issue not a governmental issue. Board Member Genco stated it was not dealt with because of the word "inquiry" and if he was on vacation or did not answer his phone she could not get the information. She indicated this was the reason she quit because she was a financial professional and when she requested financial information she wanted that information without alteration; and when she asked for it, it was altered because they decided she did not need that information or felt it was not important. Vice-Chair Hinton stated there were four people sitting at the table that had served as Tequesta elected officials. She said it sounded like this was not a problem with the procedure in the government but the person administering Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 7 the procedure. She strongly felt if the Manager was not providing the information a Council Member requested then someone needed to address that person and not the form of government. Board Member Genco stated the Finance Director understood what she wanted, but unfortunately, the Manager did not and therefore she never received the information she needed. She felt as a Council Member she had to make financial decisions and if someone decided to get information about her and it comes out publicly where she was on a witness stand testifying someone could say she requested and received this information and was happy with what she received. She said they could question her about not knowing the difference between this and that and she would be dead on the witness stand. Vice-Mayor Hinton advised she would be dead on the witness stand because of the person that provided her with the information and not with the form of government. Board Member Genco stated she could not argue in court and blame it on someone else. Board Member Campbell asked what the process was for filing a request and asked if there was a form to fill out. Clerk McWilliams stated it was not a requirement to fill out a form; however she fills one out to know exactly what was requested. Board Member Campbell asked Board Member Genco who she was mad at the Clerk or the Manager. Board Member Genco stated the Manager and noted she had a list of 30 things she requested over a two year period from the Manager and never received. She stated those were all reports that other departments had that she would use to judge if they really needed the budget or staff, if they were addressing issues properly. She stated just because the Manager believed she should not have the records did not mean she should not and she argued with Mr. Hawkins until she was blue in the face and he would not back her up. Vice-Mayor Hinton agreed if a Council Member requested information they should receive it; however this sounded like a person problem and not a government problem. Board Member Campbell told Board Member Genco she had the reputation of asking for more reports of more detailed things and had practically in some instances crippled the operation of Village Hall. Board Member Genco rebutted that she had not requested anything burdensome to the Clerks and none have ever told her the requests were unreasonable or difficult. Board Member Campbell agreed with Vice-Mayor Hinton that the Board could not change the Charter because of the person involved and must keep the mechanics of the government in place. Board Member Genco argued the Board was changing it to meet the person there but not the person with the Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 8 ultimate liability -which was Council. She pointed out an instance where Council directed the Manager to involve the Finance Director on negotiation issues and he did not. She referred to the recently approved CPI index of 4.4% given to employees and noted there was no backup provided and questioned how Council could vote on something without backup. Chair Capretta commented that Board Member Genco was unusual and needed three times more information than .the average Council Member. He said if other Council Members had the same problems they would have changed Village Managers; but it was never an issue and it was not an issue with him. He stated he would not change the Charter to accommodate Ms. Genco's inability to get information from the Manager. He commented on the $200 that Board Member Genco declared the Council owed her and the discrepancy on being elected and sworn in late and stressed these were not Charter issues. Board Member Genco stated the $200 were for phone calls when she was out of the service area on Village business. Vice-Mayor Hinton stated as a resident it was disconcerting to her that the Manager would go out of town and not appoint a replacement. Board Member Genco stated he did not have an Assistant Manager. Vice-Mayor Hinton agreed but said it was usually given to the Clerk or someone and Chair Capretta stated the Manager always appointed someone. Board Member Genco asked if there was better language than inquiry or investigation and Mr. Randolph noted the model charter and Jupiter, Jupiter Island, the Town of Palm Beach and Manalapan all used the same language. Vice-Mayor Hinton felt a Council Member was allowed to ask for a financial statement from a department head as long as it was not an inquiry or investigation. Board Member Genco advised the Manager with Council's support had chosen to say that a Council Member could not make this request. She questioned why a resident could receive the information but not a Council Member and felt this was making a Council Member a lesser citizen. Board Member Campbell asked Board Member Genco what her standing order was for public record requests. Board Member Genco stated she had paid approximately $10.00 over the last eight months for record requests. Board Member Campbell communicated it was her understanding Ms. Genco received the same information that was distributed to the media to which Board Member Genco replied she did review the same information. She referred to a document the Manager did not copy to Council which she felt should have been copied and asked the Clerk to copy Council. She said she Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 9 did not burden anyone any more than anyone else and noted the Clerk maintains a copy of all her requests and the Manager was copied on all her requests. She questioned why the Manager was watching what she requested for public information. MOTION: Board Member Campbell moved approval of Section 2.11 (2.12 when renumbered) as written; Board Member Von Frank seconded; motion carried 4-1 with Board Member Genco in dissent. Village Clerk McWilliams distributed information to the Board regarding the election where Board Member Genco felt she was not properly sworn in. Board Member Genco stated she was wrong and the information provided was correct. She said she was unable to get Clerk Manganiello to certify her. Board Member Campbell commented this was under the old administration. 3.02 -The Village Manager -Appointment, Removal, Qualifications, Vacancy Board Member Genco stated she had a copy of the Village Manager's contract that allowed the Manager to receive six months' severance and one additional month for every year served and 19% in pension benefits. She noted the majority vote of Council Members to appoint the manager was not the same as the number to remove him. However, if he decided that three Council Members did not support him, he could quit and still collect the severance pay, thereby literally firing himself. Vice-Mayor Hinton advised this was a contractual issue and had nothing to do with the Charter. Chair Capretta mentioned the contract was negotiated by Mayor Resnik and the contract was subsequently unanimously approved by Council. Board Member Genco stated they approved it without reading it because Council did not have a copy of the contract. Vice-Chair Hinton stated she wanted to see a supermajority of four and see it consistent with how many to hire. MOTION: Board Member Campbell moved to approve Section 3.02 as written; seconded by Board Member Hinton; motion carried 4-1 with Board Member Genco in dissent. Board Member Genco asserted the contract was written to tailor one person rather than the Charter. Vice-Chair Hinton stated the item addressed her concern that it take four to hire a manager and four to fire him. Board Member Campbell noted the contract could be different for the next Village Manager and did not belong in the Charter. Vice-Chair Hinton asked what the term of the contract was and Chair Capretta advised five years. Board Member Genco responded that Mr. Charter Review Board September 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 10 Randolph stated at the last meeting that a contract could not be for five or ten years and had to be reviewed annually as regulated per state statute. Mr. Randolph answered Council could not bind future Councils and that as long as there was a provision for severance Council would not be bound by the contract. Vice-Chair Hinton asked if this contract would fall under that statute and Mr. Randolph advised it would not because there was a provision that allowed future Councils to terminate the contract. Chair Capretta pointed out that the Council did not previously have the supermajority requirement and Mr. Couzzo requested this be placed in the contract. V New Business Mr. Randolph asked how the Board would proceed from this point forward and Chair Capretta explained the Clerk or attorney would type the Charter up with the changes and bring back to the Board for one final meeting to review the final product. Board Member Campbell mentioned for the record the Board previously discussed the suggestion that the Village Manager and/or other employees be residents of the Village and that it was agreed that they were not required to be residents. The next meeting was scheduled for September 19, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. VI. Communications from Citizens None VII. Adjournment MOTION: Vice-Chair Hinton moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:12 p. m. and Board Member Genco seconded; the motion carried unanimously 5-0. Respectfully submitted, ~- m~~c.Q~-c,GLr+-~ Lori McWilliams, CMC Village Clerk