Minutes for October 24, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board of Trustees
Workshop Meeting
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
5:00 p.m. – Building D&E
Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein requested a moment of silence in prayer that these meetings today be good ones. Amen
Ms. Weglein led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. McCahan called the roll. Mr. Smith was absent from the workshop. Mr. Keegan suggested the audience be allowed to speak on the charter until Mr. Malek arrived. Mr. Malek was held up by a train and had the new charter documents with him.
Jeanne Osborne commented “this” is not the charter the Charter Study Group had presented. The Board had several meetings in which they decided the Board would go from 9 to 5 members in an orderly fashion over the next 3 elections, they would take no salary, etc. The document evolved into those changes plus public input. Mr. Torpy was going to contact the Brevard legislative body to come up with wording. The number of signatures required on a candidate’s petition of election to the Board is changed from 25 to 3% of the registered voters in the last general election. Shall candidates for election to the Board of Trustees be elected by receiving the highest vote totals at large rather than by individual seats? Shall the term of office for Board members be increased from 2 years to 3, with term limits of 2 terms (6 years)? Shall the Charter formally establish positions of district attorney and community manager as charter officers with assigned duties? Shall the spending limit for approval by the Board of capital items (buildings, new equipment, and amenities) without referendum be increased from $25,000 to $125,000? Shall the District establish a disaster recovery fund targeting 3 months of operating funds annual budget allowing? Shall the Charter be revised to allow the Board to make changes to the charter without a referendum by holding two public hearings and a successful vote of the majority of the Board plus one? Ms. Osborne said these would be the ballot questions and she would respectfully submit the Board consider placing these issues on the ballot.
Mr. Keegan asked Ms. Osborne to clarify what she said about the highest vote getters being seated on the Board. Ms. Osborne replied if there were 3 seats open, there could be 50 people running for those seats, and the top 3 vote getters would be seated.
Jim Malatos was one of the original members of the charter study group. Mr. Malatos said he had been on other charter committees, and they were charged to bring the document to the voters, not any board. He said he thought the final meeting of the study group was held before he went North last year, but when he came back he read in the newspaper about the 18 proposals. He said Mr. Hunt promised to send him the final copy before it went to the Trustees. Mr. Malatos has tried several times to get a copy of the proposed charter, and each time he was put off. This evening he asked Ms. Weglein and she told him she didn’t have it. Mr. Malatos further objects to Mr. Hunt inserting himself and the attorney as charter members. He said in most places a new charter committee convenes every 5 years to review, address mistakes and concerns, and tweak the charter or change it if necessary. There are term limits or there aren’t. He asked if the amendments would be voted on individually, or is it one vote for the whole thing? Mr. Malatos commented the Board should open up the process and let the people have a say before voting.
Ms. Weglein commented the Board decided at the August 31, 2006 meeting that Mr. Torpy was going to tweak the language. She phoned his office last week and asked him about it. Mr. Malek thought the legal office had sent something to Mr. Hunt. Ms. Weglein feels if the Board gets the document the day of the meeting, it’s useless because they haven’t had time to look at it.
Mr. Malatos felt the Board shouldn’t authorize billable hours when the State Legislature could let us know what they want. Ms. Weglein responded the document had been there and been kicked back to the Bay. She and Mr. Malek have each spoken with Mr. Poppell’s office.
Jeanne Osborne said she had not done anything as a former trustee. She reiterated her list of what the Trustees had voted on themselves. She understood when the Charter Committee completed its study it was turned over to the Trustees for their action. There are only two or three issues the legislature needs to review, the rest the Trustees can do themselves. Ms. Osborne said whatever she had done was because she wanted to see the charter amendments succeed, not because she needed publicity.
Ms. McCahan commented that the implication that Mr. Hunt wrote the charter is erroneous. The charter came out of workshops and many Trustee discussions. Ms. McCahan acknowledged Mr. Malatos views; however, the Board had given the document to Mr. Torpy only to make the language legal and more easily understood. Mr. Malek arrived and passed around the charter amendment document.
Mr. Malek acknowledged Ms. Osborne’s assertion there were only two or three issues that needed to go to the legislature. Moving the Board members from 9 to 5, and increasing the spending limit.
Jeanne Osborne informed the Board the Brevard Legislation group will meet the first week of December. Their task is to take the charter to the legislature as their bill and ask for approval. Then it should come back to the people. If the Brevard Legislation group does not agree to move it forward, the amendments will be two years out instead of one.
Ms. Richards asked Ms. Osborne approximately when the charter might come back from the legislature. Ms. Osborne replied we’d get word pretty quickly whether or not they’ll approve going forward with it or not.
[The proposed amendment document is attached for reference.]
Ms. McCahan read each article for discussion.
No. 1 : No discussion.
No. 2 : Ms. Donahue asked what the purpose of this one is? Mr. Malek responded it provides a longer grace period to the candidates’ time requirement.
No. 3 : change “perspective” to “prospective” . No other discussion.
No. 4 : No discussion.
No. 5 : Ms. Howard commented this would apply only if the Trustees went from 9 members to 5. “Seceding” is “succeeding”. “Three highest vote getters” will be changed to “the highest vote getters”, deleting the word “three”. This will allow an “at large” election no matter how many board members are seated.
No. 6 : No discussion .
No. 7 : No discussion.
No. 8 : Mr. Malek commented the “non partisan” nomenclature was not in the charter previously. After general discussion, the Board decided to leave in #8.
Numbers 9 through 14 were deleted from the amendment list. Number 15 was renumbered as #9.
No. 9 : No discussion.
No. 10: “Spending in excess of $125,000” shall be changed to say “the spending limit”.
No. 11: Mr. Malek clarified the language as being “the target amount of the disaster recovery fund shall be 3 months of the total operating budget”. Ms. Weglein suggested when the mailing goes out the long version of the charter should be attached.
No. 12: “Property” is changed to “properly”. Mr. Keegan suggested the residents have an opportunity for input before any vote. Ms. Richards commented there seems to be 2 separate choices. Mr. Malek responded we’re going to be adding a section allowing for revisions of the charter by one of two methods. Either or, choice of.
Jim Malatos asked Mr. Malek if it was in the statutes that candidates could pay $25 to get on the ballot rather than having to get a certain number of signatures on a petition. Mr. Malek responded the law states if you can’t afford the $25 you can get on the ballot with signatures. Mr. Malatos referenced No. 12 (formerly 18) suggesting it be written as “at the end of every 5 years the charter will be reviewed” by a study group. Mr. Malatos asked if there would be a vote on the amendments today. Mr. Malek replied there would be no vote today.
Mr. Carillion concurred with Mr. Malatos that a certain number of years to review the charter might be a good idea. Ms. McCahan’s understanding is the Board of Trustees at a public meeting can decide to revise it. That might be in 2 years, or 8 years. Ms. McCahan is not “thrilled” with a static number because this is a laborious process. Mr. Malek said Article 8 gives the Board broader discretion in getting revisions made. The Board can form a charter review commission at any time.
Bill Ferris asked if there were printed procedures and by-laws and where can he get them? Ms. Weglein told him he could get them at the administration office. Mr. Malek said it’s called “The Rules of the Board of Trustees”.
Rob Allan asked if the disaster fund was intended to cover hurricane relief efforts. Ms. Weglein responded previous Boards discussed creating the disaster fund with $50,000 or whatever amount might be “left over” at the end of the year in the budget. Mr. Carillion explained it is an “emergency fund” for a major disaster (like the roof blowing off A Building) that allows the community manager to move on it without having to come to the Board of Trustees first.
Ms. McCahan asked if the language could be clarified so there was no mistake. Mr. Malek commented that at no time would the disaster fund be used for private citizens; it would be used for Barefoot Bay Recreation District property only. Ms. Donahue suggested it might be used for what insurance doesn’t cover. Mr. Bailey pointed out that because of the 2004 hurricanes the Bay went to the League of Cities for funding for this very reason.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carillion made the motion to adjourn. Second Ms. Donahue. The workshop adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928