Agenda Item 10BAGENDA ITEM # 1013
MARCH 12, 2012
Request to Amend the Police Ad Hoc Committee's Charge — Commissioner Beckenbach
Background
During the first two meetings of the Ad Hoc Police Building Committee, it was noted that the
members were not in total agreement about what the actual Commission "charge" to the
committee entailed. The "charge" is derived from Agenda Item 48C of February 13, 2012. This
is the original two page document that Mayor Borno presented when he motioned to establish the
committee of 11 people to study the police building question. On page two on this document, the
last item under Timetable and Sunset is Report. Item 3 under Report reads:
"3) Should the City of Atlantic Beach invest in either remodeling of the existing Police Building,
expand the existing building, or build an entirely new building ?"
The vague wording of this "charge" has led to differences of opinion on the committee about
what it specifically means.
During the first Committee meeting on February 23rd, a committee member questioned whether
an idea to combine the construction of a smaller, one story new building with a renovation of the
existing building would fit within the parameters of this "charge ". This concept had been
discussed at the town hall style strategic planning meeting held at the Adele Grage Center on
January 7, 2012.
The position of Police Building Committee Chairman was that only the specific three courses of
action as specified in #3 could be investigated and discussed. It was his understanding that there
would be no input from the committee on additional options. The Facilitator added that the
"official" position was that it would take too long if the committee ranged beyond the options
that had already been studied as well as estimated by the architects. A number of members
disagreed and felt the parameters should be extended to include any reasonable options
developed by the committee during deliberations.
Subsequently, the Chairman stated that he would resolve this question by the second committee
meeting on February 29th. He stated that he would check with Mayor Borno and get
clarification. Mayor Borno did not bring the need for clarification of the rules to the Commission
and therefore, during the Commission meeting on Monday, February 27th I brought up my
concern regarding the perceived restrictions posed to the Police Building Committee by the
"charge ". The Mayor was asked about his position concerning #3. The Mayor's answer was not
decisive, but he did state that the committee has two capable leaders in the facilitator and the
Chairman. He further stated that this police building committee will be provided with enough
information and parameters to make a decision. He concluded by saying that it is up to the
committee to make a decision and make adjustments.
In the second meeting of the police building committee on February 29th when the following
item was covered on the Police Building Committee Agenda: Feedback on Charge to
Committee, GROUND RULES AND VOTING PROCEDURES, "Feedback on charge to
committee /determination of options under consideration (Jack Varney)"
AGENDA ITEM # I OB
MARCH 12, 2012
The Chairman's report on this issue was that the Mayor confirmed that that the police building
committee was to consider only the three items as delineated and that only these historical
options are on the table for the committee. Consideration of committee ideas and options are not
included because they have not been priced out by the architects.
The Facilitator again stated that the Commission is expecting a response in eight weeks and
therefore the police building committee is limited to the three options as noted in #3 because it
would take too much time to cover the other range of possibilities that could be developed by the
committee.
A committee member asked who wrote the Commission Agenda Item 8C of February 13th that
gave this "charge" to the committee, was it the Mayor or was it the Commission? The Chairman
stated that the "charge" came from the Commission.
Since the "charge" came from the Commission, I would ask that the Chairman's communication
pertaining to the charge from the commission be directed to the commission instead of directing
such a question for clarification to staff or the Mayor. I understand that the Mayor's Chairman is
an unbiased citizen and is focused on directing the committee in such a way as to allow the
committee as much latitude as necessary to achieve a successful outcome, but resistance to other
reasonable options could be forth coming from the Chair and the Facilitator due to their
interpretation of the "charge".
Recommendation:
For this reason I recommend amending the charge in the following manner:
The committee has the latitude to examine any option that the majority of the committee
considers viable.
The Chair and the Facilitator are directed to not discourage discussion on other viable options.
The Committee is assured that the 8 week recommendation to finalize the Committee's work
pertaining to the charge is not a mandate and this Commission is more than willing to extend the
sunset provision if a majority of the Committee is in agreement that additional time is required to
satisfactorily complete their charge.