10-09-14 Minutes Minutes
Charter Review Committee Meeting
October 9, 2014
City Hall, 800 Seminole Road
In Attendance:
Committee Members Staff
Mark Tomaski,Vice Chairman City Manager Nelson Van Liere
Joan Carver, Secretary City Attorney Richard Komando
Mike Borno City Clerk Donna Bartle
Catherine Carithers
Sally Clemens
Judith Leroux
Absent
Don Wolfson,Chairman
Tom Goodrich
David Vincent
Call to Order
Dr. Mark Tomaski,Vice Chairman,called the eleventh meeting of the Charter Review
Committee (CRC) to order at 5:00 p.m. on October 9, 2014.
Approval of Minutes
Vice Chairman Tomaski asked if there were changes to the minutes of September 25, 2014.
Dr. Carver stated that in the minutes the date should be changed from September 25 to
September 11 under Approval of Minutes. She also stated that the minutes of September 11
and of August 21 should be changed to show Mike Borno present since he was
inadvertently left off the list of committee members present. Ms. Carithers moved the
acceptance of the changes and Ms. Clemens seconded the motion, which was approved by
the CRC.
Vice Chairman Tomaski stated that the committee would postpone discussion of Sections
40, 45, 59 and 62 until the next meeting at the request of Chairman Wolfson when he will
be present. In order to be courteous to both the Committee and the chair and because those
sections are complex and may relate to other sections in the Articles, Vice Chairman
Tomaski said the committee would postpone discussion of Articles IX, X, XIV and XVII, the
articles in which these sections are located.
Unfinished Business from the Previous Meeting: Contracts for City
Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney
Members of the CRC had been distributed copies of the contracts for the City Manager, the
City Clerk, and the City Attorney for their review prior to the meeting. City Attorney
Komando stated that the issue raised in earlier meetings was that of the evaluation process
for these positions, whether it was built into the contracts, whether it should be in the
charter and if so, how it should occur.
There was then discussion of the evaluation of those in these three positions, whether that
should be specified in the charter,and if so how.
Ms. Carithers stated that it seems fair to treat the three positions the same with respect to
evaluations. Ms. Clemens stated that the requirement for an evaluation should be a part of
the charter but not how the evaluation will be conducted. Ms. Carithers and Mr. Borno
agreed.
Vice Chairman Tomaski suggested that in each of the sections relating to the positions of
city manager, city clerk and city attorney there could be a statement that each would have a
yearly public review that should include public participation,
Ms. Carithers suggested that a public review might be in order because then the
commissioners could discuss the evaluation without violating the sunshine law.
City Attorney Komando described the evaluation process used in one community in which
each of the commissioners grade the manager from one to five on a written form and the
results are given at a public meeting. Each of the commissioners grades the manager
independently based on their own experiences. He believes the commissioners get
feedback during the year from the public relating to the manager.
Mr. Borno cautioned that in an open public meeting you could get a witch-hunt and not get
to the real problems.
Vice Chairman Tomaski expressed the view that it was better to err on the side of openness
and that he likes a system in which the commissioners have to indicate publicly how they
rate the official.
Ms. Clemens suggested that the evaluation should come when the contracts and salary
increases are considered. She believes each commissioner should review the official. She
would like each commissioner to use the same questions with any additions they might
want. She suggested members of the public sending in opinions should do so in writing
with their names.
Mr. Borno stated that the CRC should not get into process; the issue being considered is
how to get the requirement to evaluate into the charter. He noted that in the past the
requirement of a review has been in the contract, but not all mayors and commissioners
have done the review. He suggested a statement in the charter that all five commissioners
will perform an annual review.
Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes of October 9,2014 Page 2 of 5
Ms. Leroux suggested that the human resources person might handle the review.
City Manager Van Liere pointed out that the problem with that suggestion was that the
human resources director reports to the city manager. He noted, however, that the director
is working on an evaluation process for the manager based on International City
Management Association guidelines. The city commission wants to have an evaluation
system in place before they hire the new city manager.
Ms. Leroux wondered if there was a way to have a group evaluation involving all of the
commissioners. Dr. Tomaski said that the sticking point is determining what is a public
review.
There was further discussion of how best to ensure that the city commission will conduct
regular evaluations of its staff. City Attorney Komando stated that he didn't feel there was
any magic wording.
City Manager Van Liere pointed out that the reality was that the year goes by and if
everything is going well, the commissioners may ignore the evaluation requirement. He
suggested that if the evaluation were tied to the annual salary consideration, the city
manager would be motivated to prod the commissioners for the evaluation.
Ms. Carithers and Dr. Carver had concerns that tying the evaluation to salary increases
might make it less likely to take place or less critical.
Ms. Clemens stated that each commissioner should have a private review with the city
manager.
Ms. Carithers pointed out that if Atlantic Beach is abiding by the sunshine laws, the public
would know if an evaluation were done.
Mr. Borno stated that using the phrase that "the commission will" is good because it gives
the commissioners no choice in evaluating or not. In the past some commissioners decided
to perform the review while some did not. Some commissioners met weekly with the city
manager and some did not. It went back to the responsibility of the individual
commissioner. In his view, evaluation should not be a choice and the results should be
public.
City Attorney Komando suggested on the basis of the comments of the committee members
the following wording: All commissioners shall perform an annual review of the city
manager, the city clerk and the city attorney. The review shall be published at the next
commission meeting.
Ms. Clemens believes the provision should state each commissioner would perform an
annual review.
Vice Chairman Tomanski stated that the committee members agreed on the desirability of
putting the requirement of an annual review in the charter and had put forward several
wordings to achieve this: the commission will evaluate...; each commissioner will
Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes of October 9,2014 Page 3 of 5
evaluate...; all commissioners will evaluate...; some also include the requirement that the
results be made public.
Ms. Carithers moved that the following provision be added to Article XI, Sec. 9.
Powers: The commission shall perform an annual review of the city manager,the city
clerk and the city attorney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Borno and passed by
the Committee.
Discussion
XI. Recall Elections. Sec. 56. Procedures.
No Change.
XII. Franchises. Sec. 57. Granting of Franchises.
A question was raised regarding the requirement that any franchise for fifteen or more
years must be approved by referendum. City Attorney Komando stated that he was not
aware of any franchise granted for more than fifteen years.
Mr. Borno stated that there is a lot of lobbying in Tallahassee connected with franchises. If
there were no referendum requirement, companies would have greater freedom to do
whatever they want. The fifteen-year limit gives officials time to review the contract and
make any necessary changes.
City Attorney Komando pointed out that without the fifteen-year limit stops the
commission from granting lifetime franchises.
Art. XIII. Tax Administration. Sec. 58.
No Change.
Art. XIV. Zoning. Art. 59.
No Change.
Art. XV. Municipal Borrowing. Sec. 60. Authority to Borrow.
No Change.
Art. XVI. Suits Against the City. Sec. 61. Suits.
There was discussion of the words "arising out of an alleged tortuous act" in the first
sentence in Sec. 61. City Attorney Komando noted that there is no advantage to having
those words in the provision. Mr. Borno moved and Ms Leroux seconded the motion
that the words "arising out of an alleged tortuous act" be deleted from Sec. 61. The
motion was passed.
Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2014 Page 4 of 5
There was discussion of the second paragraph in Sec. 61 relating to suits. City Manager Van
Liere expressed the view that the commission should be kept informed of potential suits.
City Attorney Komando stated that he generally advised his clients not to make a written
report since it might be used against the city in a lawsuit. Such a report could be perceived
as official and raise liability issues for the city.
City Attorney Komando stated that, working with the City Manager, he would bring a
revised Sec. 61 to the committee at the next meeting.
Discussion on Committee Report to the City Commission
City Attorney Komando suggested avoiding definitive statements about what is being
recommended since the CRC may want to reconsider some decisions before its final report.
Mr. Borno's statement that the report should be an overview summary appeared to be the
consensus of the Committee.
City Attorney Komando stated that he would not be present for the last half of the
November 6 meeting of the Committee.
Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors
Michael Hoffmann, 176 Camellia Street, stated that he does not believe Atlantic Beach has
fair elections as a result of the at-large voting for city commissioners. He asked Vice
Chairman Tomaski to ask the City Attorney to look at voter dilution. Courts don't assert
themselves unless there is a case. Mr. Hoffman stated that he would like to address the
turnout issue. He stated the turnout is irrelevant. By both law and tradition districts are
based on population size not on turnout. He noted that the lower turnout is a function of
age and income. The three districts on the east side have a population that is older, better
educated and more well to do than his district which is less well off,less educated and more
mixed ethnically. To get more participation in Atlantic Beach elections, he suggested
making them coincide with presidential elections when his district has a 30 to 40 percent
turnout. He noted that the representative of his district had not won a majority of the
voters in his district in either of his two elections.
Chris Jorgensen, 92 West Third Street, observed that the former police chief did not live in
Atlantic Beach. He stated that to be the district representative, he has to be elected by those
who live in the district he represents. He stated he liked living on the west side; it is a nice
neighborhood.
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
on Wolfson, Chair
Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2014 Page 5 of 5