Loading...
12-5-22 Commission Workshop Adopted MinutesMayor Ford gave the invocation. ATTENDANCE: MINUTES Commission Workshop Meeting Monday, December 5, 2022 - 6:00 PM Commission Chamber Present: Curtis Ford, Mayor - Seat 1 Bruce Bole, Commissioner - Seat 2 Michael Waters, Commissioner - Seat 3 Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 Jessica Ring, Commissioner - Seat 5 Also Present: Shane Corbin, City Manager (CM) Donna Bartle, City Clerk (CC) Jason Gabriel, City Attorney (CA) Kevin Hogencamp, Deputy City Manager (DCM) Ladayija Nichols, Deputy City Clerk (DCC) CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ford called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1. TOPICS A. AB City Charter Article I: Incorporation; Form of Government; Powers Article II: The Commission CM Corbin provided an overview of the Charter and CC Bartle explained the codification process. CM Corbin reported the need to form a Charter Review Committee. CA Gabriel explained the timelines and his plan to provide options related to the Charter Review Committee for discussion at the December 12 meeting. Staff answered questions from the Commission. B. Regular meetings Workshops (i.e. Priority Setting/Visioning, Budget, Projects, etc.) Town Halls • Special Called meetings (i.e. Appeals, Waivers, Emergencies, etc.) AB Code Sec. 2-16 - Time and place of regular meetings AB Resolution No. 13-08 - Town Hall meetings Commission Workshop December 5, 2022 AB Code Sec. 2-17.- Calling special meetings CC Bartle explained this item as detailed in the agenda packet. CM Corbin added comments regarding town halls and appeals. Staff answered questions from the Commission. During discussion, the Commission agreed to keep the town hall meetings on Saturdays at 10 a.m. C. Scheduling/Calendar CC Bartle encouraged the Commission to let staff know of vacation plans. She asked for feedback regarding days and times of the week that are good for extra meetings. Commissioners Ring and Waters expressed their preference as 5:30 p.m. or later. CC Bartle briefly explained the 90 -Day Calendar and its uses, and encouraged timely responses to emails and bringing calendars to meetings. D. Agendas 2023 Agenda Deadlines CC Bartle spoke regarding agenda timelines. CM Corbin requested that agenda items/topics be presented to him for discussion and assistance. He mentioned this helps generate discussion with the community. CC Bartle explained the agenda process and notification. E. Invocation Schedule CC Bartle reported on this item and requested the Commissioners let her know if they will be bringing anyone in to perform the Invocation. She reported that the Invocation schedule will be located at each seat of the dais, in the 90 -Day Calendar, and sent via email invites. She requested that the Commissioners accept the invites. CA Gabriel distributed and explained a memo he created about nine (9) years ago regarding guidelines on Invocations (which is attached hereto and made a part of this official record as Attachment A). Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes F. Meeting Rules AB Code Sec. 2-19. Rules of conduct and procedure at meetings CC Bartle briefly reported on this item as detailed in the agenda packet. G. Process for Public Comments Courtesy of the Floor Public Hearings Commission Workshop December 5, 2022 Speaker Request Card CC Bartle briefly explained the public comment process and speaker forms. CA Gabriel provided additional comments about requirements for public commenting. Mayor Ford mentioned wanting to continue to observe what is currently in place regarding public comments and explained his desire to add a section of public comments to the end of the meeting and possibly make the time limit two (2) minutes. CM Corbin, CA Gabriel, and CC Bartle advised about the process for amending Rule 7, which requires an Ordinance, and agreed to have the topic on the next meeting agenda for discussion. H. Use of City Email CC Bartle encouraged the Commission to use their City email, explaining that most emails are subject to disclosure and all emails sent to and from a COAB account are captured in the City's email Archiver. There was a discussion about responding to emails and sunshine concerns. CC Bartle explained the current set up of electedofficials(c�r�,coab.us, noting the city manager and deputy city manager also receive copies. The Commissioners were encouraged not to reply to all when there are other city commissioners on an email string. I. Board/Committee Liaison Assignments and BMRC Chair Appointment CC Bartle explained the items for discussion and the need for appointing a Board Member Review Committee (BMRC) Chair at the next meeting. Mayor Ford explained the role of the BMRC and asked if any Commissioner would be interested in serving as Chair. CC Bartle provided additional information and answered questions. The Commission discussed which board/ committee they would be interested in being a liaison for and who would be interested in serving on the BMRC as Chair. • Commissioner Ring agreed to be a liaison to ARCC. • Commissioner Waters agreed to remain as the CDB liaison. • Commissioner Bole agreed to remain as liaison to both the General Employees' and Police Officers' Pension Boards of Trustees and on the Beaches Town Center Commission. • Commissioner Kelly agreed to remain as the ESC liaison and the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate liaison. • Mayor Ford volunteered to be considered for BMRC Chair providing there's no conflict with any guidelines or rules. Commission Workshop December 5, 2022 J. Training Code of Ethics, Public Records, Public Meetings (Sunshine Law) • Institute of Elected Municipal Officials - Florida League of Cities (FLQ F.S. 112.3142 Ethics training for specified constitutional officers, elected municipal officers, and commissioners CA Gabriel explained this item as detailed in the agenda packet, provided email, text messaging, and social media guidance to the Commission, explained Form 1 and ethics training requirements, and answered questions from the Commission. K. Civility Pledge Civility Pledge Mayor Ford spoke about having the civility pledge on the speaker forms but not reading it at each meeting. He suggested having him use the power of the gavel instead, when there is a need to rule someone out of order. Discussion ensued about what has been done in the past and the purpose of the civility pledge. DCC Hogancamp shared that he would provide a copy of Resolution 21-07 to the Commission (which is attached hereto and made a part of this Official Record as Attachment B). Mayor Ford noted they could have a further discussion on this later. Attachment B to 12-5-22 Minutes L. Vision, Mission and Values Statements Vision Statement and Mission and Values Statements DCM Hogencamp explained this item, answered questions, and advised that these statements are readily accessible on the City's website. M. Establishing Priorities AB Commission Priorities est. Jan. 25, 2022; adopted by resolution Feb. 28, 2022 CM Corbin explained the process for establishing priorities and noted that past Commissions collaborated with Linda Lanier to assist with the priority -setting workshops. CM Corbin encouraged the Commission to come up with a collectively agreed-upon list, because of limited time and resources. Mayor Ford commended Linda Lanier for serving as the facilitator. Commission Workshop December 5, 2022 N. Commission -Manager Form of Government City of AB Certificate of Recognition (Florida City & County Management Association) International City/County Management Association Q&A CM Corbin introduced Mr. Hanson. Former City Manager Jim Hanson, Senior Advisor on behalf of the Florida City and County Management Association, explained his role, provided details about Council - Manager form of government, congratulated AB on their 65th anniversary of being recognized as a Council -Manager form of government, and presented a certificate to the City. Mayor Ford thanked Mr. Hanson. O. Resources International City -County Management Association publication: Making it Work: The Essentials of Council -Manager Relations CM Corbin advised about various available resources including the detailed 2022 orientation packet. P. Miscellaneous Commissioner Bole encouraged that the Commission and the CM support each other as well as the City Clerk and City Attorney. CM Corbin added additional comments to Commissioner Bole's statements and encouraged the Commission to direct any administrative affairs to him. Commissioner Kelly requested to be involved with the homeless and Mayor Ford acknowledged. She stated that she was one of the founding members of Mission House. Commissioner Waters provided comments regarding collaborating with the CM and expressed interest in using the consent agenda more efficiently. Mayor Ford explained plans to move in that direction. Commissioner Ring thanked staff and inquired about the date for the priority setting/visioning workshop. CM Corbin answered it is scheduled for January 30th. Mayor Ford recognized CA Gabriel and encouraged citizens to reach out to CC Bartle if they are interested in serving on a committee or board. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no speakers. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Commission Workshop December 5, 2022 Attest: Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Date Approved: 11,7123 rAl Curtis Ford, Mayor Commission Workshop December 5, 2022 Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 117 WEST DUVAL STREET SUITE 480 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 PHONE: (904) 630-1724 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Council President Clay Yarborough FROM: Jason R. Gabriel, General Counsel RE: City Council Invocations DATE: September 24, 2014 1. Background. The City Council has been contacted by certain organizations and individuals with questions about, or support for, legislative invocations. Accordingly, the Office of General Counsel has reviewed the subject issues and has prepared this memorandum providing legal advice on this matter. The term invocation is used interchangeably with the term prayer in this memo. 111. Questions Asked. (1) May the City Council open its meetings with a prayer? (2) If so, how do United States Supreme Court decisions impact City Council Rules with respect to legislative invocations, the process for selecting an invocation, or the process for selecting a Council Chaplain? III. Short Answers. (1) The City Council may open its meetings with a prayer for the legislative body, so long as there is "no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." (2) The Supreme Court's decisions indicate that Council Rules may be implemented as follows: (1) a designated Chaplain may give the invocation on Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes behalf of the legislative body, or (2) the legislative body may open the process to rotating ministers and theologians, on behalf of the body. Either approach may be employed, so long as it is on behalf of and for the benefit of the legislative body (i.e., an internal act) and the chosen method does not disparage, proselytize, or advance one religion. The City Council Rulet permits the Council President to select a colleague to serve as Chaplain, and the Establishment Clause does not limit the Council President's choice of Chaplain. IV. Discussion. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes an Establishment Clause, as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. A legal analysis of legislative invocations falls into a narrow area of First Amendment, Establishment Clause case law governed by Marsh v. Chambers,2 rather than the typical Establishment Clause cases governed by Lemon. v. Kurtzman.3 Marsh v. Chambers One of the lead decisions by the United States Supreme Court regarding legislative invocations is Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)4. Here, the Supreme Court looked to the country's long history and tradition of opening legislative (and other deliberative body) meetings with prayer, as it noted the coexistence of such practice with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. The Supreme Court noted that the very Congress which adopted the Bill of Rights also approved the use of paid chaplains: 1 City Council Rule 1.106 (Chaplain) states the following: "The President may appoint one Council Member to be Chaplain of the Council, who shall arrange to open each meeting of the Council with a prayer/invocation. The President or Chaplain may invite or designate others to provide appropriate ceremonies." This rule grants the Council President discretion to choose any of the current Council Members to serve as Chaplain. 2 463 U.S. 783 (1983). 3 Aside from legislative invocation cases, the Lemon test governs Establishment Clause cases. There must be: (1) a legitimate secular purpose, (2) primary effect is not to endorse religion, and (3) no excessive entanglement. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1975). 4 Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, 134 S.Ct. 1811 (2014) is the other lead decision by the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to legislative invocations. 2 Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a Chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the States, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. 463 U.S. at 790. In Marsh, a state legislator challenged the constitutionality of a practice of the Nebraska legislature of opening each of its sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid with public funds. The Supreme Court held that such practice did not violate the Establishment Clause, even though a clergy member of only one denomination (Presbyterian) had been selected for 16 years, in Nebraska, and even though the prayers were in the "Judeo- Christian" tradition. The Supreme Court in one portion of its opinion stated that the opening of legislative sessions with prayer is "part of the fabric of society" as follows: In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than two hundred years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. 463 U.S. at 792. In short, the Court held that so long as "no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief," 463 U.S. 794-95, the legislative invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court closed its decision with a conclusory remark as to the importance of history and tradition in this context creating a presumptive validity of the invocation, stating: "The unbroken practice for two centuries in the National Congress, for more than a century in Nebraska and in many other states, gives abundant assurance that there is no real threat 'while this Court sits."' 463 U.S. at 795. Town of Greece On May 5, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided the Town of Greece case. Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, 134 S.Ct. 1811 (2014). Since 1999, the monthly town board meetings in Greece, New York have opened with a roll call, a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a prayer given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory. While the prayer program is open to all creeds, nearly all of the local congregations are Christian and thus nearly all of the participating prayer givers have been too. Citizens who attended meetings to speak on local issues filed suit alleging that the town violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by preferring Christians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sectarian prayer. They sought to limit the town to "inclusive and ecumenical" prayers that referred only to a "generic God." The District Court upheld the prayer practice on summary judgment: finding no 3 Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes impermissible preference for Christianity; concluding that the Christian identity of most of the prayer givers reflected the predominantly Christian character of the town's congregations, not an official policy or practice of discriminating against minority faiths; finding that the First Amendment did not require the town to invite clergy from congregations beyond its borders to achieve religious diversity; and rejecting the theory that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that some aspects of the prayer program, viewed in their totality by a reasonable observer, conveyed the message that Greece was endorsing Christianity. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Second Circuit and reversed the judgment. In Town of Greece, the Supreme Court found that (in referencing the Marsh case) the respondent (citizen's) insistence on nonsectarian prayer was not consistent with the long tradition followed by Congress and state legislatures: The Court found the prayers in Marsh were consistent with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic theism but because the Nation's history and tradition have shown that prayer in this limited context could "coexis[t] with the principles of disestablishmcnt and religious freedom." 134 S.Ct. at 1820. The Court here distinguished dictum from the County of Allegheny case which suggested that Marsh permitted only prayer with no overtly Christian references. The Court noted that such stance would be irreconcilable with the facts, holding and reasoning of Marsh, which instructed that the "content of the prayer is not of concern to judges," provided "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." 463 U.S., at 794-795 (Marsh), and 134 S.Ct. at 1814 (Town of Greece). The Court reasoned that: To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town's current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact. 134 S.Ct. at 1814 and 1822. The Court warned against government prescribing prayers to be recited in public institutions in order to promote a preferred system of belief or behavior. In such respect a government may not mandate a civic religion "that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy." 134 S.Ct. 1822. The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public 5 County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). 4 Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian." 134 S.Ct. at 1823. In rejecting the suggestion that legislative prayer must be non-sectarian, the Court does not imply that no constraints remain on its content. The relevant constraint derives from the prayer's place at the opening of the legislative sessions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values long part of the Nation's heritage. The Court concluded that prayer that is solemn and respective in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves that function. Absent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a particular prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation. 134 S.Ct. at 1814. It must be noted once more that the analysis would be different if a town board (City Council) directed the public to participate in prayers, or solicited audience members to engage in any aspect of prayer. Any action of prayer/invocation by the Council though it may be intended to be inclusive, must never be coercive. 134 S.Ct. at 1826. As the Court concluded in the Town of Greece case: [C]eremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgement of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. 134 S.Ct. at 1827-1828. This ceremonial prayer however need not be prayer devoid of religious content. Throughout its opinion, the Court in Town of Greece reiterated the validity of a sectarian invocation, completely rejecting the argument that the Town of Greece council should create rules for prayers. In reaffirming its holding in Marsh, the Court reiterated the notion that chaplains have the right to pray to the dictates of their own beliefs, this being true even if, as was true in Marsh, the same chaplain had delivered the invocation for more than 15 years: The tradition reflected in Marsh permits chaplains to ask their own God for blessings of peace, justice, and freedom that find appreciation among people of all faiths. That a prayer is given in the name of Jesus, Allah, or Jehovah, or that it makes passing reference to religious doctrines, does not remove it from that tradition. These religious themes provide particular means to universal ends. 134 S.Ct. at 1823. Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes As for legislatively chosen chaplains, they may choose their own invocations, "so long as the practice over time is not 'exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief'Marsh, 463 U.S., at 794-95." 134 S.Ct, at 1823. Other Legislative Invocation /Establishment Clause Cases This is not to say, however, that all practices of prayer at the opening of all sorts of public legislative meetings are constitutional. In fact, the opposite has been held to be true here in the Eleventh Circuit, the federal judicial appellate court which controls in Florida (and Alabama and Georgia) at the intermediate federal appellate level. In Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, 547 F. 3d 1263 (11`h Circuit 2008), a taxpayer filed suit against a county as to the offering of religious invocations at the beginning of sessions of the county commission, and at the beginning of county planning commission meetings. The United States District Court below had found at trial that a process that the county planning commission had used to select clergy persons to give opening prayers at commission meetings violated the Establishment Clause. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and found to the contrary, but within certain important limitations. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Cobb County Commission was a public body entrusted with making laws for the county. It also held that the Cobb County Planning Commission, as an entity that assisted the County Commission with its work, likewise was a legislative body. Similarly, the Jacksonville City Council unquestionably is the principal legislative body for the Consolidated Government here in Duval County. The Eleventh Circuit held that use of opening prayers in the two legislative bodies in Georgia did not violate the Establishment Clause as long as the prayers "did not advance or disparage a belief or affiliate government with a specific faith." 547 F.3d at 1269-78. See also, Aetheists of Florida v. City of Lakeland, 713 F.3d 577 (11"' Cir. 2013). The Court in Town of Greece confirmed the reasoning of the 11'h Circuit. In discussing the Town of Greece policy of inviting ministers, the Court stated that "[t]he town made reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders and represented that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one." 134 U.S. at 1824. It then added two somewhat conflicting statements: [1] So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non- Christian prayer givers in an effort to achieve religious balancing. [2] The quest to promote "a `diversity' of religious views" would require the town "to make wholly inappropriate judgments about the number of religions [it] should sponsor and the relative frequency with which it should sponsor each," Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S., at 617, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (Souter, J., concurring), a form of govermnent entanglement with religion that is far more troublesome than the current approach. 134 U.S. at 1824. Attachment A to 12-5-22 Minutes The Court suggests that nondiscrimination is important, but that the search for diversity contains its own constitutional risks. This should be taken as a warning that if a legislative body chooses to invite speakers, then it should be careful not to engage in discrimination. These comments do not, however, modify the Court's clear confirmation that a legislative body may choose its own chaplain, and the chaplain may choose her or his own invocation. V. Conclusion. The constitutionality of legislative invocations is considered on a case by case basis with judicial outcomes that are contingent upon the detailed facts of each case. There are no bright -line rules and everything is subject to interpretation based on express or implied purposes, history and tradition, context and the process that the City employs. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, there are essentially two constitutionally protected ways to handle a brief invocation at the commencement of meetings: (1) a designated Chaplain may give the invocation on behalf of the legislative body, or (2) the legislative body may open the process to rotating ministers and theologians, on behalf of the body. Either approach may be undertaken, so long as it is on behalf of and for the benefit of the legislative body (i.e., an internal act) and the chosen method does not disparage, proselytize, or advance one religion. Finally, Council Rule 1.106 (Chaplain), grants the Council President discretion to choose any of the current Council Members to serve as Chaplain. The Establishment Clause does not create rules for selecting the Council Chaplain. As noted with respect to choosing an invocation, the Establishment Clause prohibits discrimination against religion and also prohibits governmental efforts to define appropriate religion. The Council Rule does not by its terms discriminate against or define appropriate religion. The Rule simply permits the Council President to select a colleague. The Establishment Clause does not limit the Council President's choice of Chaplain. Absent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation under the Establishment Clause. I trust that this opinion provides the guidance you seek. I am available to discuss this with you at your convenience. 7 Attachment B to 12-5-22 Minutes RESOLUTION NO. 21-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING A CIVILITY PLEDGE FOR THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the open exchange of public discourse is essential to the democratic system of government; and WHEREAS, civility can assist in reaching consensuses on diverse issues and enhances the opportunities to establish and maintain mutually respectful ongoing relationships; and WHEREAS, Section 286 of the Florida Statutes (Government -in -the -Sunshine Law) establishes a basic right of access for our citizens to City Commission meetings and business; and WHEREAS, in Florida Attorney General Opinion 08-07, it was concluded that the use of a website blog or message board to solicit comment from other members of a board or commission by their response on matters that would come before the board would trigger the requirements of the Sunshine Law; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to adopt the following pledge of civility: In order to promote civility and respect in our community (whether in person, media, or online) and to respect the time and availability of our citizens, we will: 1. Listen respectfully to people who have views different than our own, be mindful to avoid stereotyping, and not use language that may be insulting or derogatory to others. 2. Encourage and support efforts to bring people of different points of view together in our community to have civil and respectfiil conversations. 3. Execute due diligence in review and research of matters, agendas, and relevant topics and confer with staff regarding such matters before formal discussion in Commission meetings. 4. Exercise caution in discussing Commission business across online platforms in order to maintain our commitment to transparency, avoid potential Sunshine Law issues, and by favoring publicly noticed forums, reaffirm the right of all citizens to participate in Commission business. 5. Make a conscious effort to conduct Commission business promptly and succinctly with a desire to adjourn meetings on a timely basis. Attachment B to 12-5-22 Minutes NOW TIIERENORE, be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach its follows: SECTION 1. ]'he City Commission hereby approves the adoption of a pledge ofeivility its provided in this Resolution; and SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Atlantic Beach, this 81h day of February, 2021. Ellen Glasser, Mayor Attest: 40-nInA vloiti?Ze Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Approved as to form and correctness: Anmmv4 M. burden, City Attorney Resolution No. 21-07 page 2 of 2 Attachment B to 12-5-22 Minutes A Pledge for the City Commission of Atlantic Beach Submitted by Commissioner Norris In order to promote civility and respect in our community (whether in person, media, or online) and to respect the time and availability of our citizens, we will: 1. Listen respectfully to people who have views different than our own, be mindful to avoid stereotyping, and not use language that may be insulting or derogatory to others. 2. Encourage and support efforts to bring people of different points of view together in our community to have civil and respectful conversations. 3. Execute due diligence in review and research of matters, agendas, and relevant topics and confer with staff regarding such matters before formal discussion in Commission meetings. 4. Exercise caution in discussing Commission business across online platforms in order to maintain our commitment to transparency, avoid potential Sunshine Law issues, and by favoring publicly -noticed forums, reaffirm the right of all citizens to pairticipate in Commission business. 5. Make a conscious effort to conduct Commission business promptly and succinctly with a desire to adjourn meetings on a timely basis. Signed on February S '2021. � C Ellen Glasser, Mayor Br' ny orris, _ yor Pro Te Commissioner L Candi� acey, Commissioner Bruce Bole, Commissioner Michael L. Waters, Commissioner