All right, I would like to share a motion to approve the meeting. On the motion to adopt the zoning hearing officer, I voted in favor of that, but in the minutes it's reported that I voted in discussion the motion to adopt the language for the zoning hearing officer. So I moved on a second and it was kind of crazy, but you approve. Okay. Who was the first one? Should we know? Second. Great. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you for the end of session. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to let people know one way to condition. Yes. Thank you for the second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot my back. So for tonight, if necessary, that is a fact, etc. A question that is fairly popular is when we manage to propose a runway completion with you. If I look right at the end of that, how tonight goes. I know I saw this as well for the record. Tonight was going to be a little bit more straightforward, but on Friday we received a memo regarding the last charter permissions suggested changes, not all making on to the ballot, but then becoming represented in the current charter, which means we were looking at sections that were on sanctions. So we need to discuss as a group. What would be with that? I'm going to try to review discussion. Obviously, we're going to revisit the work candidate on the inspector general language for you to provide feedback on on his research regarding what other counties have done or cities have done around accountability for project completion. The third one was on hearing officer. The third one was on hearing officer. We chose a more prescriptive language, but reference during appointment process that can explain his account report. So that's what we're going to do there. And then this this last one, in fact, will end up going away. If you remember last time that we stayed late talking about whether we should return the council, we should return the council regarding Councilman Coulson's motion. Keeping it very simple or understanding that there's no desire for us to return and that we can proceed. How that works, protocol-wise, we'll find out how we've seen it. So that's sort of a non-agenda issue, but we don't do our members now. So that's what we're up to tonight. That's sort of the runway. I'm going to have you guys to think about this. The next conversation could shape this. So we're here on July 28th. I'm going to propose this again. It's just me thinking out loud about the work to come. So we complete our actual conversations around the charter itself here. And the reason you'll see the big X there, and it doesn't mean we need to do that. There's some work that's needed to actually draft a final report and work with everyone in this group to concur that it's what we want to send forward. So in lieu of that, my suggestion, again, let me know what you think, would be to give us a respite from this meeting. I'll be working on it again. In the province's vision, there's more than just putting the amendments down. I'd like to really cover our process, our approach, what worked, what maybe didn't work as well, a package that would be valuable to the administration, to the council, and to the future CRCs of the world. But then come back in person for a final in-person meeting on the 25th, by which point you would have all then sent something from you. So we can then collectively discuss it, get feedback, make sure you feel inclusive to that process. There's a little bit of time then to revise whatever you indicated you'd like to see, revise a virtual meeting on the 11th, the final item, the final submission deadline on the 17th. Again, very collaborative. These are just arrows, but it would be, you know, check your email more free to see what's sent out. I'll give you a process or submit your comments. I've explained all that ad nauseum so everyone would understand it. My only concern is if we bleed into here and we're still talking about some of these topics, there just might be a schedule constraint that would mean that. It might be difficult to make it all it should be, I'll just be honest. That's going to be, you know, a little bit of effort. And I know my standards for you, all of you are too, but we really want to be a really polished, impressive, really reverberate us all the hard work we've done and tells our story around this, which is maybe second to the actual amendments, but it's equally important to us too. Yeah. Well, I just, I'm throwing this out for the group. The reality is at some point we're out of time and, and the only concern I wouldn't really maybe care about that too much. Other than the fact that that report is not a small effort. And I think we need time. I know I do. I think they're all too. So I'm going to stop. Can we have, sorry, I was just going to ask, can we have some, I don't, I've got a question as to whether we need to, or want to have narrative around the recommended changes. I mean, I don't think we did that last time. If we do, I don't recall. And it creates a bit of a commentary record around the changes, which I, I feel like they maybe should speak for themselves. So I, at least for me, I'm not assuming that we need a narrative document in addition to the changes. Well, thanks for that. I was thinking more narrative around, you know, what we learned from the process, Ron, not so much the final recommendations. Even in the beginning, when we had some back and forth around decisions regarding public streaming decisions, regarding other things, even attendance requirements. Right. You know, we revisited, which I want to go, but definitely. And I, I think we certainly learned that some things work, but I think SharePoint works. So I think what I was, what I was getting at, Ron, is just more, more context around the process and other things that might be a benefit to a future CRC as they go down this road. Not necessarily explaining our recommendations as much as telling the story of the charter. I mean, you know, the CRC, you know, how we did what we did and what we learned from the process. If you disagree. Yeah, I appreciate that, Rob. I, I feel like, I mean, you could have discussions with council members on the process after the recommendations go in and we all collectively can. I'm not, I mean, we certainly had a shared experience. I'm not sure, I just think it's going to be a lot of time and I'm not sure the value. We all have a different perspective on what worked and what didn't. And I think we're going to get into, if we try to do that as a group and vote on something that's process oriented at this stage, I just feel like it could detract away from the substance of the comments, which are important. So certainly the lessons learned from you that you would like to communicate to the city council for, for future, you know, that that's your business to do that. And I think we all have the ability to do that. I just, I, my instinct just is, it's not a good idea. Not that you wouldn't do a good job, Rob, but it's not a commentary on you. It's just a, I don't think we should try to write a document on our experience during this. I think we should just let the changes speak for themselves. What does everyone else think? I don't really have a force in the race. I typically think of ways to go along and beyond, but maybe that's the negative. Bill? Well, first priority is, is the language to put the plan for the changes, right? That's the most important thing. I do think it makes sense to at least have some explanation of the process we went through. I'm not talking about some of the same issues that when Ron was just talking about. What I'm talking about is, you know, a compilation, we discussed doing this. I thought we were all in agreement to just reflect the time and effort put in, the number of speakers we have, and just a document. I think Kathleen, in fact, spoke about it, and it just showed the effort and time put in. I think the number of speakers is important if they were things like that. We have a lot of input from not just the collective wisdom of this group, from others. But, Ron, I do agree, we don't need to justify. I concur, and I didn't think Rob was even suggesting a justification of why we came down to the DOC or . Again, that already is reflected in our audience. Anyone, if they want to, can go back and listen to the debate. So, I think a bit of a narrative on, you know, the things we did and how we got who we were is appropriate. I agree, Ron, I don't think it appropriate to spend a lot of time justifying. Bill, are you talking about, like, a few paragraphs? The committee was comprised of nine members, you know, one appointed by each council person, two appointed by the mayor. We met 17 times, that kind of thing. Or, I mean, I think what Rob was talking about. But I also think looking at, I agree with what Billy just said, Ron. I think having them say we had experts come in. You know, we had, I mean, you feel like you can tap into resources to get additional education to go through the process. But there's a difference between, you know, a couple paragraph preamble. And I think what Rob was suggesting is something that would take a month to draft and a lot of time, which I took to mean details about, you know, went into a level of detail of what we discussed and how we discussed it and what we did procedurally. And he mentioned what worked and didn't work, commentary on that. So, Bill, I think what, Bill, the part of what you're suggesting, if I understand it correctly, which is sort of a few paragraph preamble of how many meetings we had, how many speakers we had, who they were, who was on the committee, that kind of thing. Certainly, that's just contextual. But beyond that, I still think it's not a good idea to get into narrative on, you know, what worked and what didn't. And I just, I don't know. Yeah, I was thinking when I proposed it last time when we discussed was, you know, two or three paragraphs that sort of did what Billy just outlined. Guys online, we're going to get some folks in the room a chance to jump in here. I know you can't probably see them as easily. Bobby and Steven, just thoughts on what the report might contain or not. I guess we're going to figure out what our straight interpretation of what you said is. But what I interpreted that narrative to be was kind of just a restatement of the record kind of in black and white outside of what we discussed in the Charter. So similar to what Ron said, we've been this many times, was composed of these people. We discussed the rules for this and that. We agreed on this and that rule in our discussion. Like Bill said, we had this speaker talk about this. This is what we talked about. So, I mean, it just provides context, as I was imagining you said, because we're also including these other non-charter recommendations in there, and that also provides additional context. So I thought of this all just framing. Agreed. Yes. And this could be stoked up or down, right? So we talked about listening to the speakers. It could also be all of the action items that came out of our group to others, whether it was Council or the Mayor. Just a chronicling of the important facts behind our work. Steven? I think we should just attach all the minutes. What does that mean? I think we should attach them to the minutes for our meeting, or perhaps a chart that explains what was talked about. That's a good idea. And I was also thinking about hyperlinking of resources. They're all out there now, right? And again, I guess in my mind, and I'm not really tied to it either way. It's up to this group. Maybe Council wants. But, you know, if our provisions go through 12 years from now, someone starts this process, I could have used certainly more information about how to do this better right out of the gates. So I'm thinking that way. It doesn't mean it has to be in this report. It could be a separate thing. But in my mind, I feel like we've learned a lot about process, and I'm a process guy. So I want it to work better next time for the city. Alan? Alan? My question would be, do we include in this any mention of really what we talked about, that the questions that were given to us by the city council were not specific to the report to determine what the problem is. So I wouldn't leave it alone. Okay. What are you going to put ahead? I'm just saying. Falling here? No. In a minute. No. If they want to drop it, we drop it. Maybe, maybe we're, first, before I do a proposal, let's maybe something else happen though. This is helpful for me. Any other input before I suggest something to move us forward? And then we can talk about schedule, which may in fact change depending on that. Any other input, comments? Yeah. The only thing I was going to ask Rob is I would suggest anything that is a narrative or a report be a separate document than the actual charter and that we vote on the two separately. All right. I agree on that too. I was going to suggest that. So that's one thing. The other was if I could take an opportunity to interpret what I heard and be very precise with an outline to maybe share with this group and get your feedback. Okay. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thank you for that. That being a case, this may be less than a month's worth, to use Ron's word, not mine. But this might be the way we get there, depending on what we have today. But if we finish today, honestly, I don't know that we need the next meeting to cross the finish line. If we don't, we will, which has just been the way it's been. So we need to do that open-ended. But it still helps us to see some time is going to be needed. And granted, if we just package amendments, we can knock that out in no time at all. And maybe that's it. So maybe it simplifies it. But we'll see where we are. Remember? One comment. Yeah. The meetings will have to be here in person. The whole room cannot do a patrol. Okay. Sunshine loan requires that you have a full day of physical forum in place. I will be in Africa September 7th through the 21st. So. The key that we have a forum. Oh. Okay. Well, I will let it be. I'm here. Yeah. Until September 7th. I mean, if I had a new picture, let's go. I need this. I'm fine. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That was helpful for me. Hopefully for you too. Let's see where we end up. September 11th of Friday. If it is, I screwed up. I'm sorry. Thanks a lot. Sure. I meant it to be the settings you have today. Yeah. Well, you have time to fix that. I'm not quite a bit today. I don't know I'm taking on the floor so you can. But all of you have printed outs. And the email that came through. I don't even know until the property comes today. Friday afternoon. Around the fact that five changes did not make it onto the ballot or reflected in the version of the chart we reviewed. And we just need to, we really just need to decide what we do with this now that we know. And Ken, if you want me to pull up the memo, I can or not. So I'm saying, can you pull up the charter? Yes. And for those of you who are online, hopefully you can get this out of my email. I provide printed copies of what I emailed out earlier today. So Ken, did you say you emailed it today? Yes. It was in the email. In the city email. Okay. If you could put it up on the screen, that would be great. I think you want to. I have a very good one. I'll let me scroll on this. Can you want to be able to first move? Yeah. Let me give you, yeah, the first one is in 602. Can you get better? Let me walk you through just the basics of what happened according to the city attorney's office. Uh, the 2018, uh, proposal amendments to the charter, uh, that went on the ballot in 2019. Uh, the city wrapped them all into one ordinance, and all of them are in the ordinance text. The city then attached an exhibit, which had each of the ballot questions by the items that are in the text of the ordinance did not make it into the ballot questions. Okay. Did it make it in there wrong? Someone who's fumbled or they voted not to include? No, there was clearly drafting. Oh, no. So were these statewide, were these from the prior charter review, or were these from the ones that city council unilaterally decided to put into it? I didn't see that. This is from charter review. This is the last time. They were all packaged together, as one said. They're all here. So what, the reason why these ended up in the charter, is when the Munico company that handles the online charter received the ordinance, they simply tracked what was in the ordinance. They didn't track what were in the ballot questions. So the items that, and this, the person who found all this out, if you triggered it, is Bob. How about the last thing? What about the last thing about, was the implementing ordinance for the initiative and referendum states? When I tracked that there was not an initiative and referendum ordinance, I apparently prompted for review of the prior ordinance. It turns out that section, which prompted another ordinance, was never put on the ballot. Well, that's 1 of the time. So, so what does it mean? What would you do? What is it just walking through that? You basically review the charter that has 5 sections that we're done. So, I'm going to want to use it in 5 and we got to decide if they accurate or not, simply I'm presenting them to you. So, you know, what the actual language of the charter currently is, you can decide nothing about, or you can decide. You want to put the prior to review more data or do something else. So, I mean, so can you have full information that we received Friday at the end of the day? Ken, I just want to make sure I understand correct. So, um, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. One second. We'll get to that too before you. Uh, Alan and then I think Steven. Does this mean that if you do nothing here or things that are in city charter? What they think the city attorney is planning to do at this point is to have unique code updated to reflect, to remove. This is maybe at a time made, uh, that'll walk you through, uh, whether or not city council can decide to go back to the promoters on these amendments if they wish, uh, or you can propose them if you wish, or they can leave them as they are. So, to give them as they are, I think what we're saying is they become part of our recommendations. Meaning that they look like with the former CRC recommended it. It didn't get all heard. If you just started, if you took an affirmative action, let's say, build past what the prior to review board, then we would include these in your proposal. If you take no action on them, they simply default back to what they were in 20. In the red lines reflect what they did or what's actually in what I did. And look, the blue, you know, are these changes from today. The yellow, the highlights that were already in there are the changes you proposed. So that's, that's the differentiation. This takes us back a version? Correct. This takes us back to the 2018 charter in certain sections. In certain sections. Just these five sections that didn't make it on the ballot. Okay. Steven, you've got a question. And Ron, you're actually going to talk to that. Steven? Um, are any of the changes in blue? Okay. We're not. They did not do it to the referendum. Um, are any of them being altered by any recommendations that you would ask you to go ahead? None of them cover changes you made. Well, none of the edited, the assumed changes cover things that you changed. So, uh, but since you haven't seen this language yet, I don't know the other. So is there any reason why we're not addressing, addressing this under the business rather than relaring the changes? Only because I, I didn't think anyone would concentrate in this at the end. Cause it's that important. Right? I mean, it's a pretty big announcement. So I thought it would be better. We can, we can get into the substance. Wait, go on. Yeah. But I wanted to at least brief you on, brief you on, which is sponsored. Ron, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. And sorry for speaking over folks earlier. Um, Ken, just a couple of questions to make sure I understand correctly. Um, if I understand correctly, the charter document that the commission here has been working off of was incorrect in that it included language or revisions that were never effectuated in the law. Correct. Okay. And those things that were included, if I understood correctly, were things that the prior charter review commission recommended, but they did not end up ultimately on the ballot before the voters. Correct. Uh, let me add in the piece that they were recommended to city council. City council passed them in an ordinance, but the ordinance that was passed was defective as to the ballot question portion. And so that, uh, explains why they didn't get on the ballot. Correct. Right. The ordinance text includes all those, all the revisions we've talked about today, but the ballot questions, they broke down basically each change that was proposed into a separate ballot question. They didn't do one overall question and these particular items did not get picked up by the questions that they put on the ballot. And, and when did someone identify that? Like back then, no one identified that the ballot language didn't capture the same thing as the ordinance, or is this a recent discovery? According to the city attorney, they just recently discovered this. So we've got to deal with it. So let's just, you know, I don't do though. I mean, we've been waiting on these two big issues for a while. We can do this first. Should we just, the only reason we're bringing this up is to make sure you're reviewing the actual chart. So to make sure that you're going to have in there in case you wanted to make changes since you've gone through the entire journey. Yeah. But you don't have to take any actions if you want. You could just say that everything you said. Yeah. You can lower the columns. Okay. It's part of your recommendations. That's the fastest path. Because you did talk about the sections. You didn't realize they should have been there, but you did. That's it. They were, we were looking at any decisions based on those. That would be the simplest way. We've certainly spent the time on the content. So that would be the simplest. So we can come back to this. We can go to the other ones. I just wanted to tee it up because it was a bit of a surprise. Well, what do you all think? I mean, we worked pretty hard on a lot of stuff. This isn't our fault at all, obviously. I think we've made good recommendations and we should just move forward and the city can deal with this on the back end. Let me just ask. So the language on the screen that reference says the mayor election of 1979, that was not in what we saw. Yeah. All right. Well, what if you saw this and what is it now? It's taken out. Yeah. And so, Garrett, part of the issue, what you said makes absolute sense, but there's a caveat to it is some things weren't in what we saw. So there's new language like the sentence on the screen that we didn't know existed. And I think at some stage in our review, we probably do need to look at these because otherwise we were going to miss things that do exist that we didn't know exist like this language that's on the screen. We did go through all the sections of the charter and we talked about all of these sections. It seemed like we were okay with the language that was in there when we talked about it. What's the last question? The salary. We talked about the salary, but we ended up taking no action on that. There was the issue of residency, which we talked about for a little while, but we took no action on that. So what I see in the sections here appears that we've kind of discussed the meat of a lot of them, and we were okay with the way they were. So I would personally be in favor with like repeat the same recommendations that came from the prior charter review. It just depends. That's what I can do. Five. Oh, this is to me it's. You said five. Five. Six. A lot. What about me? I would just like to get some. One point of verification. One point of verification. And I don't know if it's been updated. I don't know. So my question to you, just to make sure that I'm understanding is we see the terms of all offices under. Is that what was supposed to go under the ballot with strike from an underline or is this is now the reverse. This is putting it back. This is putting it back. So, so if you give me one second, if you look at the exhibit, that's what was supposed to go on. Yes. This is what was supposed to go about. Perfect. That was my question. Thank you. I think Bobby was suggesting that we maybe, Bobby, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, that maybe we just readopt what the prior charter review did if we agree with them. Yeah. If that Bobby is what you were suggesting, I would be comfortable with that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, one thing. So I guess we have to do a decision. You can either see if your group supports that or go wrong by one to maybe still end up there or not. Each of these guests. Sometimes it's really this group's decision. Maybe someone wants to make a motion. That might be the fastest way. You see how we feel about this, but I don't want to short trip this either. We can't even spend time. Yeah. Okay. What was the. Charter as a red or the lot far with you, and what was supposed to change right here on this section? Just so I understand. Oh, the best way to look at it is if you look at exhibit a, let me see the attorneys now. Okay. You see each of these sessions. This is what was, what should have been devoted to the voters as the changes. Okay. None of these were included in the ballot questions. So none of these changes were actually made. If you read the changes, I don't think they're going to bother you. I think he's going to look at anything. I don't think it's going to take us a whole lot of time to just look through this. What part do we look at? Are these, you looked at those being included in the chart. Got it. I mean, folks assume those have been passed. So you can use this as an example. Yeah, I think they're really just clarifying statements. I don't, I mean, I read through them this afternoon. I didn't think they were sort of contentious and based on the discussions that we've had, but everybody should be, everybody should be comfortable with that. The key from my perspective is making sure since we were alerted, you looked at an inaccurate version of the charter, we let you know what the accurate version is as of this moment in time. That no commentary as to whether these are good or bad ideas. That's what happens. Um, can you confirm what actually was a substantive change? Or just a clarification? And that, and also, were any of these since amended? To my knowledge, you know, since amended, because the subsequent amendments, those sections. As to whether it is substantive, I think they're going to move it over. Uh, whether or not you believe having a majority of, you know, you were the four votes of council as the majority of the council and salaries. The one, one that is offered is 605. Yeah. Yeah. The reason it's offered is the residency requirement was voted on by the voters in 2024 to remove that. But it was previously voted by the voters. Uh, so the prior charter people took it out of the oath, but didn't take the requirement to be a resident out of the charter. That was in the section 601. So since then, 601 was amended to remove the residency requirement, but now the oath is returned. So we have an awkward situation where there's not a requirement, but there's. No, some can administer the oath. They don't have to be a resident of the city. Is that right? No. No. It's what you're saying. Right. This now says you have to take a note that you're a resident of the city. Even though it's not a requirement. Even though it's not a requirement, because we removed that requirement. So this is what happens when we have a time to work. So here's a, I'm going to, um, probably to not pay a motion, so I can't second it. But if Bobby, we're just making a motion. Well, you made a motion. Especially if they're all right. So there are a lot of words there. And I certainly don't want to rush anyone. I don't read these words. Um, and you cannot say that none of them are substantive because they added in, um, zoning and the comprehensive plan to initiative by Brendan's that substantive. There is nothing to me that is remotely controversial. All of them are things that we thought were already in there and had no problem with. And I am completely comfortable if I have read them and feel that they were what we, well, they are what we looked at. I'm going to assume we're there. I have read them. None of them problem me. They weren't any of the ones that passed that I was like, oh, I want to support that. To me, although I cannot say they're substantive, none of them are, um, earth shattering. I think the biggest change is when they're voting on salaries was the majority of no fewer than four votes, which is a majority of city council. But if you only had, you know, five people, you know what I mean? Like none of these are going to change anything that we thought we were doing. And so I am 100% comfortable making a motion that we add these to what we were, uh, Make it yellow. That we, that we, that we, that we, that we, that we, that we, that we, that we, that we Yeah. I'll, I'll second that. Okay. Be on the ballot. Do you see? What about the clerk issue though? Right? In order to have a clerk in the city. This doesn't change us. This changes the oath. Just the oath. So, and I, they took it out because not all officers were doing. Not all officers are required to be a resident. So if we don't change that one, do you really? Do you really? Do you want to show me the difference? Do you have to be required to be a resident? Right. But they have to swear that they live. So that one actually probably has to get a little bit of the money. Um, even if you're not comfortable with any of the others, but. Second. I'll second. What was the motions? My motion is to, um, take the changes to the charter. It is to the charter that were recommended by the last turner review. We believe that by error were not presented to the voters and recommend to city council. They put them to the voter this time. Second. Okay. So we'll be in favor of the second session. And the versions. The charter we looked at was the updated version that. The city. The city. The city. The city. The city. The city. The city. The city. Okay. I'm indu�� surround. All right. Hyder. All right. Here is. All right. Absolutely. Okay. Actually. Day. Actually. Actually, something just came from his voice. A 20-page brief. So, in general review, we talk about these three. I'm going to basically take this through this for standard work, and then we can decide what we do with it. I'm going to start with... Now, we're going to do this a little bit in reverse order around whether or not the notion that the charter has language enforcing and reinforcing the notion of timely completion of projects. This was the item that Ashley brought back. Her colleague talked to her about this. And I think as a group, we thought it was a good topic. So, the takeaway, you can just say, has anyone else actually chartered this before as opposed to the other things? So, I'm going to take this there now. And I can't describe it. It's very windy because I'm going to be a screen real estate challenge this year. That's the value chart. That's not many more screens. Right. That's that. That's that. I think it's out. So, we bring this back up. And in Florida, how do we check? The short answer is, could not find any other city, and maybe it's going to be charters that have this kind of regulation. The closest we could come to was a Jacksonville ordinance that dealt with progress and closure of capital improvement projects, which had set dates on progress reports, how things would be put back as far as having this concept to try and speak it along. In case you wanted to have some kind of language like this. We worked up a proposal based on the Jacksonville ordinance, where you could have a proper support being placed on a consent agenda that would be done on a certain date. We just picked out on a 4G one that was what had been done in Jacksonville. I think that's fits the budget timeframe. They're typically looking at these things. But you this would be the first. We're not aware of any other charters in the state that have this kind of a problem. And I think the reason why I think that this needs to be in the charter, like I was saying before, it takes the pressure off of council members to on whether or not they ask about certain projects over others. Some may be forgotten when I met with possible. And she said there's projects that have been one over four years. So it's it's it is an issue. And they hear the issue. People do come and complain to them about it. We don't hear it. So I think it's something that we if it's going to be for, I don't think anybody should be forgotten, but at least I think there should be something in the charter that I don't want to try to share this document with me on the last day, I mean, I guess they started doing this how the initiative progress that forward. And with it, they have to. They have to put it by the name, the budget, the CAC recommendation of CRA Google date phase status. And then there's like a description on if there's a delay, what the delay is, and it's a public accessible document. And it's she said that they have to update this monthly maybe for the city. They would only need to update it quarterly. So it's not something that it needs to be updated every month. But at least people would know what's going on. This is great. This is awesome. Once a year, this is something that's happening. But in addition to that, I think, I mean, that's just something they can go seek or run doing internally. And if they knew people wanted to see it, this would be nice to. But this is a step forward that may be actually more attainable. They don't want to do an update report. Thank you, Ashley. I'm interested if Steve and Rebecca had a reason why this would be logistically problematic to me. I don't find that offensive at all. I think, you know, recording, you know, I mean, we're all accustomed to just advising and updating. That's simply what this is. You see, in any way, any downside to something like this? It's simply updating once a year seems to be a proper thing to do. Ken, can I ask a question? I asked Steve the benefit question. I was waiting. Oh, okay. Go ahead. Well, I'm just going to say, I mean, I'm assuming that June 1st is . I mean, is that where that, like, the June 1st, was that, did that come from the language that you? Right. I can't have . So, I mean, that's where, I think it just needs to be the time that's constructive to the intervention process. Is that appropriate, or would you suggest a difference? Is that where you can go, Steve? Um, whatever the fun balance is. So, I would need to look and see what it is. You could find that out. I mean, it should be a time where there's something they can do about it, and also that's in between when the budget goes to them. So, I think the budget goes to them around that time. So, that's what I'm saying. It seems like it should be six months after that, not right? Or after they get the budget, because they're going to get a status at based on projects anyway, because their budget is going to stay days into everything then, so. I don't know if you don't have any comments. I don't know if you can confirm the dates. Any other logistical issues for Bill's question? I don't think that I'd be the person with the expertise to pick whether or not this was a problem. Is there a general feeling of liking this language and feeling it's important? I think innocuous was your word, Bill. I would agree. Ron, that question. I'm sorry, Ron. Go ahead. Yeah, thanks. A couple questions. Ken, the last phrase, including those funded in whole or in part by grants that have not been completed, what's the need for that phrase? Isn't the prior language kind of self-executing without it? Or why did you include that other language? It was simply because of the model that was presented at the Jacksonville Department. Do you think it would accomplish, from your opinion, the same thing without that language? It comes down to whether or not they're classified as projects. If there's any reason why they wouldn't be if they're considered part for grant. Even if there's a particular item that that city looked at, I don't think there's a problem taking it out. It's just a clarification of the idea of what projects are. It's more detail. Got it. Thank you. To my peers, my suggestion would be to take it out just because it sort of begs the question of why are you calling out grant funded as opposed to maybe other things? And in the preceding sentence seems to be all, it doesn't exclude it. It doesn't exclude grants on its own language. Ken, do you know, I think, would this capture projects that are funded by the CRA as opposed to just the city? And if so, is the disposition of those projects within the control of the city? My take on this, and obviously it's up to the city attorney to later interpret it, but it would not include other agency projects. Okay, thank you. It might make sense to, you know, Ken, and I would defer to you on drafting just to make sure that that's clear. Well, the charter in of itself does not regulate the community redevelopment areas. So, therefore, the project of the city on the charter would not pull that in to be like if it was an airport authority project or any other kind of project. It's a separate government entity. I have two hands. I have a question for Steven. Today, on the CRP, do they not already have, with the products and the budget, the delays or issues for completion day? today is that not included at this point well i'm not um an expert in the cip i think that in terms of i think what you're asking is the fire elements of the cip and um the requirements of the cip are not necessarily what is presented there there's a lot of additional that goes into that that speaks more almost to what's going on than i'm very familiar here um and i'm i can't confirm that if the delay is like projects that have been delayed are shown and in the way that it seems to be five you shouldn't have arisen like i don't believe that like the project status of taking that it's just the funding these guys will see in five years well when he is going to go around that and then there's a lot of them are not going to work hired in the cip but they might not have there have been buildings that may not necessarily be included in order to be but it could be commented on if it's relevant for the budget because the out there looks well on there maybe they chose one time or limited status so if something's not on the track i don't know about for every project they're on track i had a comment to bobby's point about and uh like with what councilwoman kind of told you a project's been delayed by four years that says a progress support identifying any delays etc does does this go as far as you had hoped like hey like as in hey here's the report it's delayed for years maybe is there is this if this was a charter would this give council's legislative uh subpoena power or investigative authority could it take now it'll take that further okay yeah that does just bring it out putting this into a charter and that does the chain needs to test the game this is just sorry yeah yeah it's just sort of where it's better than nothing certainly i've been with you on this but you know we're saying hey this is delayed right i don't know well what do you have to play because typically when they report it when i delay is reported and then when i can see that key it says it's a delay meaning the funding for construction was budgeted in fiscal year 2026 we didn't spend it and so it's being moved to discreet reconnected that is that's a supply for a referral but like a delay could mean they told me they were going to start next week and they haven't started which isn't the same thing isn't necessarily appropriate for a budget problem well so now there's your project management and there's project right suddenly could that be clarified maybe it is so it's a point of place because i know this place you're you're talking budget what this really gets to is the concept of a baseline so you you have a schedule you you can read baseline which means everyone accepts things have changed right and then they have no delays anymore and then you get delays against that so that's one common for the groups consideration the other is when i've ever done this and again i want to inject myself here an element that would bring more rigor to this would be an explanation of how those delays or issues will be resolved by land yes all this is saying is things are broken it's not saying how we correct course right yeah i throw that out for you guys to consider yeah in my overall i would if i'm really uh turning the screws on an important project that would be included yes and thank you for the suggestion um but all i have is like i told you i would have the mayor or whoever needs to come up and report on why something delayed so i'm ready to go whatever height we need to go to to figure out how to get these projects done if it gets approved the money gets approved for something i feel like there should have already been reports like you know like because it was not about nia says when they're up there on the guy is somebody will what's the update on this and what's up in on that they legitimately do not know they should be able to go through something and say oh there's a tree here and they haven't gotten it removed yet like there should be some kind of detailed reason as to why x x x x x x x x x x x amount of money has not been used and we voted for that and used for that so i think it makes sense so is the advantage here that at least this would be giving members of the city council information about what is happening to a project and the question would be do they have other mechanisms available to them to then seek answers to why you know like something about an additional hearing regarding a specific project but very so my support of this was to provide the information to the public and to city council um in one format where they don't have to ask about every project you convinced me that that that was a welcoming i am not going to support providing micromanaging of product of projects any more than i have this information i want information about why this was delayed they have that ability now i am not for providing city council the ability to get into the middle of projects and make directions because that is the wholesale term the charter on its head and i'm not going to support that at this point unless we're going to change everything the charter um so i will support this um i think that this is a great idea um if there's you know some minor changes that people who deal with this area more than i do want to do i certainly open to that but i'm not open to a wholesale this is changing the right direction this is giving information that allows them to then get information yeah and a partner support is something written or somebody has to comment what is that it says it's on city council agenda which would be consent agenda which would be a threatened document all right yeah we call the staff reports i don't know if that's what city calls them i'll be that it's different this is the same kind of a consent agenda that it is it's the percentage of that it doesn't require something you don't speak right if someone from city council had a question they'd like now have this daddy in front of them but it's made out it doesn't matter who project is important project their constituents so they're complaining about that project they have the ability to call someone in from the city anyway i do not think it should be the mayor but someone from the city to come in and explain okay we've been waiting for this part for two years okay and that's sometimes i don't know can can we have the appropriate time i'd like to make a comment too they explain it's wrong like this project is delayed i can't imagine there's there's just a there's a difference between a regular reporting requirement there was an expectation informationally available and it promptly requests i meant like no i meant that the request would come after i got my report there's this report that bills would figure or whoever is sitting on that city council not me would be asking hey i'd like to follow up the next meeting can you bring somebody here to explain why this project that i'm looking at my report yes late then if that ability is here this works this is the city council the ambition they need to call people and get an explanation actually i think this is it's the right first step right without adding yeah i don't think that well it's not i don't think you don't think it was our chance yeah yeah i was just gonna say um from a drafting perspective ken did a great job at just a couple of um uh things uh in the third line where it says any delays or other issues i would i would replace the word annie with material um i mean we're we're drafting law here so we want to be precise and i think any is casting a too broad um net there and then um similarly in the one two three four fifth line toward the end where it says comma and all previously funded projects i think i i would strike all and have something that indicates that we're talking about things that are ongoing or pending because the way the language is drafted it could mean they've got a report on things that are completed too so those would be a couple of changes i would suggest the other thing is i wonder about the june 1 date and if we need to put an exact date or just say at least once each fiscal year or something like that um anything else too that i just want to circle back on i i i think that cra funded projects do actually funnel through the city budget so i would want to clarify that this doesn't i think it should i think it should you know it should be council once that i think it should be because i think we should ask that for the cra unless it's in if it's in the city budget it's in the city budget but if it's a cra project and it's not funded to otherwise for the city it's just it's city council it's not city council it is a separate legal person they take each city council number of it and have different people sitting on it it's a separate legal thing and it's not governed by the charter so if it flows to the city budget fine and then this would capture it anyway but it's not so i don't think we need to add anything is it possible it's funded by both if it's funded by both then it's covered by this because any city funding was recovered by this the point about the cra is we can't affect them either way uh when it comes to the chart and city council can answer questions by era only funded projects when we're sitting in the cra when i try no i agree and i i thank you for clarifying that that i could i for projects where the city is executing them on behalf of the cra and i would like to explicitly make clear that we expect this to be i don't say what i would not i just thought that i was a bit earlier that they may not be satisfied just ken's gonna run as a ground force i don't like any delay i like any delay today um i think you ordered that just fine because material what's material in an echo material so if it's one day late you want an explanation it's going to come come june first the report was on june first right or where it must be just let the council decide it whatever day yeah yeah my question actually was i think what you were saying was if a project is delayed by a single day you want that to be reported with an explanation no i didn't say that oh sorry i misunderstood no i said any delay that's what i said i think you also said what does material mean because i would think of that being the same thing right and i feel like that can be interpreted all these different ways well that's not really material that's not material material anything now if it's one day late um i guess they would do everything i feel like would be on this matrix if it's one day late it will say one day late it doesn't mean that somebody has to come up with a whole shield about it but you're going to list every project if there's any delayed project it's going to show that the new date was uh january 2nd and right now it's june whatever so if it's what is it uh may 31st if it's june 1st and it's delaying it's going to show up in late it's not going to put any red flags on it but it is delayed so but i'm not yet molded the language doesn't say whether it's currently delayed it it seems to indicate it's in the past tense any delays or issues that have arisen so i read that to mean legally that we're talking about over the life of the project so if it's on june 1 and something was supposed to be delivered on april 1 and was delivered on april 2 it's going to have to be included in the report it's a list of what needs to be in the report and the current status is one thing and any delays or issues that have risen as a second thing so the current status is not part of the delays it's it's a separate item but right if you added current after the word any i think it accomplishes what your current satisfies your concern that's not my my concern was things that are material um not necessarily whether it's current but i think i was just responding to ashley's comment that it is qualified by it being a current status report which i don't think it is qualified in that way my concern bill is that again we're we're putting into the charter a legal requirement that a report be drafted and when bill you know i don't want to speak for you but you know this when you see something like any delays or issues that's a pretty comprehensive requirement and i i think it could be burdensome so what is it how do you define a material of the life what is the threshold you would have to someone would have to otherwise well there's a real there's sort of an implied relativity there to a time frame and if this is once weird then it's like it's a delay since the last time this report was given that's an entire year so what is i guess what is the i don't need to eat the horse but like i feel like this whole point of review yeah because i just thought as maybe it can be interpreted if you just say any but this says all the projects all the current status any delays or issues that have arisen and anticipated completion date for each capital improvement funded uh probably couple improvement project funded in it's saying all of them are going to be reported on anyway so in that column under status it's going to say uh if it gets done before i guess this project and it's completed but you know if it had a delay you're saying they shouldn't have to you shouldn't have to yeah that's fabulous i think you brought up a question for me a delay can be meaningless or meaningful i think what we're wanting here is something around any delays or issues that will cause the project completion date to shift because you may be delayed midstream and fix it and never change the completion date for a project we're talking about completion i think that's what you care you're not caring about interim milestones you're not caring about the delivery of supplies just three days late otherwise that gets on a report because i think you're talking about you said you'd be done october 1st is that in jeopardy and if so why is that i'm just throwing that out for the group because that's typically at a more executive level than how you make this awesome and i don't know if the person that's supposed to be bridging divorce if he's uh consistently consistently late on other products wouldn't they want to know that because they'd probably find somebody else in other words if i said just as an example right if someone's building your house for you and they say you're going to move in october first yeah the public should then i think it's right yeah that's that's right right but if if if you're moving into my house on october 1st um do you care that the faucet was delivered late to the house if you're still going to be able to move in on time that's the kind of question we're asking you may not because it doesn't risk it and you're like that's fine when you get as long as i can move in i think the public wants to see completed projects um um steve actually alan and steve i'm trying to know i'm sorry i only agree with steven saying that we need to find what the show needs because if the project was scheduled you can agree with a human first and it's interesting i don't think that's a mature delay and i i don't i don't think the object here would be to make a burden some um you know that burdens and i think i think what we've kind of been agreeing on is that this is a really good first step to at least giving the public and the city council an idea of status of a project and go from there i guess they could ask for something different it's not what they want to see on you so this is fine i just the only thing on here that i think is sort of missing is odd is the anticipated date of completion because otherwise like yeah and not start with all of that sort of meaningless um i don't know how i don't think it should be asked to us to define that i think it needs to be up to the people that are implementing the projects to say where they think it's going to be done and then hold themselves to that that makes sense and if they if they're not ready to then that's sort of point that there's too many items in the project they can't find completion they so like i think it should be self-defined and self-reported i don't think that we should kind of let it happen i think i said first you mentioned that there's no completion date on this um but they there were some notes i got a while from last meeting um i just got this so i was like well i'll share with you so we have this because i do think that sometimes there are expectations set in the public about how long things take and how long they might take and unless it's coming from the city they're coming from the new effort this year right that story's going to be filled that way what would we like can to do this because we've got about four or five variables we talked about date the words around material the grant text at the end there's there's like four or five refinements we discussed but they're refinements conceptually we're i think all on board with a reporting requirement any kind you're not you're not there i'm reporting well i mean for delay specifically i think this whole thing is about us and transparency and like for instance i've had a slide that my city part that hasn't been fixed in months and months and months my peers been out for two years if they fix it tomorrow it's not good enough for the public like oh they fixed it finally after years why what took so long so i think keeping it as is a good move i think that's the entire point of why at least i was advocating so i saw one lesson here so you supports you support this is written um so that's what i meant conceptually this is the concept up there of a reporting requirement are you on board with or not i'm confused yeah yes but i think some of the changes that were discussed but i don't fundamentally change what this is yeah okay well i guess depending on how the vibe is i won't be emotionally accepted as is uh otherwise there's you know there were changes we discussed around date the last part of our grants and lebron's comments steven get it yeah that's good i think you guys don't have to change that city council pick the date we just talked about that along with other possible changes okay so it's really nice to decide if someone wants to make a promotion and accept this as it is or accept it with some revisions i can walk through what was discussed and then maybe we can at least get to a decision on this one or the next thing i think that's where some of the only thing i thought i heard no one object to what was just eliminating the part about the grants of the body agnostic so we're going to be a brave soul and try that motion to see how the group feels that'll tell us where we're out shouldn't we just do hands on the specifics we that's another way to do it that's technically all i do it let's try and see if you're good there so let me go through the things that we discussed one is around do we keep a date or let counsel aside two move the grant tax at the end three um narrow any to material four change your previously funded to active because it's legal language and so technically means you might be presenting stuff from from the past beyond what anyone cares about confirming that CRA is covered and then um putting the word current before delay so a lot of words that i think type tweaks to this that i guess we have to ask ourselves is that going to really change what the world does with this and in trauma i don't know and it may not so that's why i was thinking media motion otherwise we're going to get around i mean maybe someone could start the process but i could do this too can i move where i'm not out loud okay thank you thank you thank you you can pass the gamble to the vice chair this is the register down here right right you guys get paid yeah there you go okay i like to um i know that we adopt the section 7.12 parts of city projects uh as an amendment to the charter i don't care really what's happened in the past if it's done it's done i don't know what's happened but we talked about any current delays do we want are we interested in past delays i still can't get my head around i don't care really what's happened in the past if it's done it's done i don't know that they should be reporting on path there's probably going to be any current delays this is a current catalog movement so is that when that so it doesn't fix that you just put current after the word any and before delays okay that's maybe someone can add those pieces to revise motion current and i guess you can't accept the language because we don't got it before let me make a suggestion uh you can make a motion you can then do this office for honors rolls we'll go with friendly amendments you can propose a friendly amendment she can decide whether or not she accepts it incorporates that into the promotion i move that we approve section seven point one to move progress uh progress of city projects as an amendment to the trail and then i can make a friendly amendment about a date okay so you can you can include that right now in your motion if you want okay with the amendment of the date being determined by the city council members we have a second and the word current or the word current and adding the word current okay before delay uh it's after any and before delay after any and before the ladies okay okay i think what was what was the vote rob sorry everyone uh revised but i think you wrong correct correct it's can't mean can't mean they just have to step away i shouldn't know you so didn't didn't get as well people wanted to lie that's what happened now i'm here okay did you do you i'm sorry ron i the the they took a vote and i think um just to make sure i understood correctly the motion that was voted on was a motion to approve the proposed section one seven point one two with changes of removing the june one date and adding language to to let city council set the date with adding the word current uh in line three before the words any and delays and um i think there was one more amendment to it rob so far not or maybe not just those two or actions just those two yeah and i think again and say that again supports supports it so that's um all eyes and ones made for all correct that's where we said that's where we landed i think we're good almost going twice okay good i think there was an older project i mean the answers about what was literally before and it is still not done you're saying that whatever the practice is well people want to know why something took so long i just think that's important i mean i'm happy with it i think it's a step forward and but there's no one else to say hey who's what who's our project when okay that's first required i'd like to move us to the next topic which is inspector general which is what a bit of this context is changing the team and body provides the context to us a lot i am going to yeah i thought you did a great job you didn't great you got a common secret uh based on your discussion last time uh a lot of this came from the dural model uh that was out there the most recently adopted and something similar uh as you can see it adds on a new article uh it didn't seem to be an actual fit in any of the current articles for this since you wanted to have something that was not in the legislative not in the executive part of the charter so it's an additional article 12 as the charter establishes the office uh it gives the scope of the the projects work here and the powers that are vested in it uh created a separate selection and retention committee uh modeled on several other examples that were out there uh the individuals that are listed is simply trying to find a cross section here that seemed to be fitting what you were describing uh we've got the mayor that does need the church city council that doesn't need uh president hillbrook county bar association that doesn't need president university of south florida that doesn't need state attorney chief judge and of course over their business the idea was also to have the designees have prior experience in law audit accounting and public administration to provide uh some background here as to what it is they would be then pointing a person to the uh should someone fail to decide they're not going to serve to fail to make it it doesn't mean it has an alternative mechanism with the mayor that can make an appointment confirmed by the council so obviously you're asking outside parties to participate whether or not they want to participate in any particular time we'll be able to that includes a time frame then on how this is supposed to to act to make sure that it doesn't just sit uh there are certain things that each one is supposed to take their various steps and includes then an update every six months with the inspector general go over uh how they're doing and make other recommendations the provisions on removal uh on vacancy and sets out that anything that's not covered here i try to specify all things that came to mind that you typically do in an ordinance as opposed to putting in a charter so it's the idea here was to give enough guidance to make this a charter office that uh has some ability and powers while putting the rest of the details out to an ordinance that both city council would have to you mentioned the idea of making sure there was the option to go to a contract basis uh so it has a provision that there just have to be a full-time employee that could be done otherwise uh the rest is simply the implementation time frame that gives them six months uh in order to get this moving after it's adopted by the voters and gives the ability excitement act the goal here was trying to encapsulate everything you talked about last time so let let me know if there's other pieces that uh you might to include or this uh needs your expectations no i have promised your chance to say anything in addition to that based on the content we should um yeah i've put together a document um maybe some focus on time to read it um but i'm happy to dwell on this and make marks as as needed i have some recommendations for changes so i'd stay with this for now and then kind of cross the bridge and leave it so i really sure thank you volunteer yeah um okay so you kind of thought you did a great job and i really appreciate you bringing up the issue of the inspector general because i think it hit on a lot of the overall things that everyone kind of kind of talk about and it's really helpful for me to see it in writing um the way that it has ended up being put together i have a lot of issues with you know in front of them quickly hear me do that it works on this but if what is created here is a super broad inspector general and we hit on a bunch of different things than inspector general could do some of which we already have people do some of which um we thought may be better in a third party and i'd say we some of us all of us um but they're in investigations audits reviews in addition to that they also have the power of oversight of city matters including contract programs projects and incentive so there's two overall areas and there's one of the third one um preventing broad waste and mismanagement so we started with like a super broad really broad thing that this person is supposed to be doing and so i'm going to kind of write it down into where i have my concerns one is so you're kind of like reviewing agencies for way fraud and others and i think we can all agree that's a super important thing to get done but i've got two problems one is even one person or even one agency can't do a good job doing a review of local agencies i mean we're looking at durrell which i don't know how many people they have but we're talking it's not in a sort of city also most of the ones that have inspector generals etc i believe jacksonville likes would be wrong um i did a quick review we're not strong air forms of government um and so you were actually having like this inspector general who is serving your board or your council who is also trying to manage all these different areas so it's a very different thing you don't have someone who's already responsible for being the administrator and doing the administration so back to my point about one person or one agency you have enterprise funds you have the normal departments you have the legal department one person one agency isn't going to have expertise to go in and do a good job um providing evaluations with all those different entities not to mention the fact that like transportation is different from planning that has different needs and parks is completely different animal and recommendations that somebody with expertise in an enterprise fund running like a business is not going to be the person that you're going to want to make your recommendation for parts so that troubled me um second i think it should be the mayor who makes the choices of what agencies um do the evaluations of the different departments because they are the person who's going to be implementing them and i think you've kind of turned everything on its head if you have a separate agency and stronger former government who's making all these recommendations and you have a mayor who has not bought in on any of those you're literally wasting all your experiment if the mayor doesn't buy in on who she's a person who's responsible and elected by the citizens to be in charge of the agencies and how they are running and if we're getting recommendations from somebody that she doesn't buy into um it's it's completely wasting everyone's time money whereas if you have a mayor who gets to choose who's giving her those recommendations which they generally do when they come in and the mayor says um they're going to buy into that and so that's one problem that i have with how this is set up um i really really one of the things that really i don't want to say intriguingly that's not the right word but one of the things that really seemed important about this idea was when you're getting like complaints from hr and allegations of fraud and then you're going to the people who are in charge of the people who are having the allegations of fraud i that that has a lot of merit and and i you know having worked in city government and i'm not saying i'm talking about allegations of fraud but when people have problems with hr and then you have to go to hr i've seen that that has not necessarily worked in a way that you know has always seemed productive or fair um that means that i i feel like we're still we're still ending up with a lot of conflict so you have hr and you have the administrator in charge of this and then you have this other entity and they give a report like who went right well i i agree with that i appreciate what you're saying the only question i would have is isn't that basically what happens with internal audits right now well the internal audit is like in practice under the mayor yeah and they make those things they're provided to state council so it comes to the letter review them and ask questions um and they go to the mayor right and they get implemented and they don't but it is from a person who has buy-in from the mayor and so i mean that goes back to and i don't think that the internal auditor i think this is one of the things that bobby said doesn't do all the things that we were talking about they they're they're going to be spoken what they're doing i mean i'm not saying that they're doing a great job but their job isn't to go in and do a complete you know review of best practices and you know what are the best practices for our first department or what are the best practices for these enterprise ones that we have you know they're looking to make sure everything can fill me and they might have some suggestions but it's not this whole scale review but at the same time well i think it's a great idea to have this whole scale review and i think garrett is one of the ones who's really talking about that i mean if he just did it for a couple years and i'm like yeah that really makes a lot of sense but if you have it from this entity that is not someone who chose it from the mayor and i'm not like just saying oh the mayor has it like has a choice the mayor is literally elected to be the person to be in charge and so if she doesn't buy-in on this third party i'm kind of going back to my first point so i so anyway so going back to you i do think that there's a gap somewhere and i don't know a gap in the charter or a gap in just like the world and how things were but where you have complaints and where did they go um so do we have is it enough to hire a full-time physician for those fines that we do have complaints and we don't have somewhere to go because right now they can go to city council city council has the ability to bring up these issues they do they do have their investigative authority um and it seems to me that they have the ability city council has the ability now through their investigative powers and through their their budget to contract with an entity who could be a third party person to review from their point of view because it's so fair to look at some of these issues and see if there's fraud and to see if there's um you know hr right i'm just the one that sticks in my mind but you know hr issues that are not being handled in a way that are fair and according to all of the handbooks and everything um they have the ability to contract at the beginning it's one of the things that we talked about you know does city count do we need like this third person to kind of like mediate or city council have the authority to do investigative powers and they're like yeah we need to do it well they have the ability to contract with these third party people and it seems to me that would be a better way to do it than creating a charter position that is like a full-time charter position and then we have a with contracts um and then i did appreciate that that i still have my first part of my problem with the entire them being able to review all the agencies it doesn't seem like that's the best use to spend the money if you don't have the mayor or the administrative sideline they need to be spending that money picking the people and having people to review the suggestions okay i'm going to go out in person and you know when i think about the inspector general i think about this is the federal government i know that you know whether you're talking about the department of defense or any federal uh department they have much more resources and expertise um but i'm not looking at this as an inspector general that will necessarily provide prescriptions for solving problems i i look at it as some of something somewhat independent of the administration of the city council to look at issues and report findings to the public and to the city and to the mayor and then the city mayor the city council mayor could and the public could do what they will with it but the idea is again uh almost a entity a step back from under anyone's direct control uh to at least look into uh issues of public concern and how what are the issues of concern is that just issues of fraud is it just issues of malfeasance or is it i mean this is super broad and then once this person's in there they are given charter authority to do everything in there and including oversight of city matters and then coming back to my second point which is it is then um implemented through an ordinance and the ordinance gives them the power to talk about who they report to and then instead of through ordinance which is legislative power they can then have a report back to city council which then is again doing that backward at the very end of the day flip of you know who had power over this person and not say that they're supposed to be independent but we're supposed to be independent right we're traded by ordinance and we see what that ordinance did and it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't um a mean ordinance or isn't a terrible ordinance it just was a very restrictive ordinance um in what was supposed to be independent and this and this is broadly leads to city council the ability to prescribe many things by ordinance almost limitless bill and i'm sorry that i came from like with all these listed things but when we read it i really hate that and it's a good thing when i read it i looked at these the purpose the office shall not exercise it but i'm not sure it's entertaining this may even feel better in exercise legislative executive or administrative powers is it okay and then i then i asked okay what are his powers which refers with the committees and it shall the power of the subpoena witnesses and the difference here with the city council remember the city council when it was i think had a big limitation of the legislative issue but here it says you can subpoena witnesses administer oaths and require the production of records in order to conduct its investigation in arms and should then have it doesn't say then but should have the power to file ethics compliance to that so refer it out refer matters to internal or external authorities who can publish independent public reports of its findings so to me when i read that it gave me some comfort that really what they're doing is just bringing things to light with them they don't have punishment unless i'm i might not pick this up elsewhere but i didn't read it having any punishment authority anything beyond i ever hear this is bad um that doesn't fix any of your problems i guess no i i i kind of um echo rebecca's thoughts on this um i'm a little bit concerned about an unfunded mandate and what the budget impact would be on this and and honestly i'm a a bit of a smaller government check and balance and you know we see these kinds of offices that get weaponized for political purposes we're we really don't have a fundamental problem at the city we haven't in this area um we've got financial audits that get done we've got eoc type reviews of things we've got a very active state attorney who does a great job in our community um i just creating another person who could subpoena any of us at will um doesn't sit comfortably with me and i'm the deployment of resources um for something like this when the city's got a lot of needs and if the property tax um initiative passes in in november we're going to have you have more fiscal needs that are unfunded um doesn't seem responsible to me i guess just might be a question and um because i haven't looked at the internal audit role last time it's the job description maybe you touched on this and i said is this um how does that role exist alongside of this one or if you come there are savings and you're going to be one person it regards that out to do something that we've dealt with in the ordinance provision uh because that is handled under the mayor right now uh it makes sense to codify that process here so but it calls out that it needs to be dealt with in the ordinance and the internal audit will position it's a charter called out thing to have but it reports to the mayor and how is actually functioning and how this will function uh is something to be dealt with so they're they're separate with this language i think this under means that that position will change the correct there's no change i don't know but go ahead sorry ashley the way things stand right now if something goes fraud separate harassment whatever the way things are right now the city attorney has to try to do the investigation is that what it is right now or what was the house that was the what's the if something happens to the city with a city employee and they go to hr what happens right now yeah as to staff process for example that's beyond a typically handle but the right now under the charter the executive part of the government deals with these issues uh how they deal with it from the day-to-day aspect some in hr to ask them and so well we're imposing that he traumatized so that this would not remove anything that exists today okay and this creates a third the idea of an inspector general is just a third party that has the ability to review both the executive and legislative parts together that's that's the concept of an inspector now but they don't have as was noted they don't have the power to override the mayor they don't have the power to override the council they're purely a reporting entity right yeah can i say one more thing i know we really maybe just one more at the end like the whole thing that i said at the beginning about you know meeting the administration's buying for the things that they are responsible on stands the other part that really really concerns me is you have really really broad authority for this inspector general oversight of city matters basically oversight of everything and yes all they can do is write reports i get it but then they are then created by well they're not created by ordinance they're created by charter they have further regulation by ordinance including the appointment reappointment term functions authority powers and reporting obligations it's basically an armed state council that has oversight and for that to not be said to be training our charter form on its head they're independent except they're created by ordinance and that's the accountable who creates their function okay and authority what's the power works and reporting knowledge what letters that the goal of that language was to give the the ordinance the ability to further define how this would function it could certainly narrow anything i had no complaint with anything i mean very difficult right and then to still somehow have a further defined how you have a further defined other than ordinance i don't have an answer to that right but at the same time you're delegating to city council the authority for them to shape this office and basically make an arm of city council and for you i don't need you know i just meant yeah right i have quite a few edits to the uh proposal from canada did any did anybody else have any edits to it i had some iron ones do you guys want to get my answer yeah okay city council arms when you're saying like they they they have to report with the city council and they have to like they could hire something because i feel like the mayor has a bunch of arms why can you have some arms they can't have arms but this is both supposed supposed to be independent okay but yet it is should be independent of both parties but it is so are we and yet it's created by ordinance which allows it and not just allows it says that it should create its authority its powers reporting obligations and its relationship to other oversight bodies but we should eliminate that okay so there's a um just a couple a minor one um we can start with a little thing through the underhand toss so um in session a the last sentence um promote the public trust and increased understanding by the operation of government um if we're all still in favor of having an inspector general and using this is the way we kind of shape what that looks like it's talking what we have in front of us are we ever able to change that language to promote public trust in the transparent and accountable operation of government instead it's just like a language uh um promote public trust in the transparent and accountable operation of government instead of the understanding of it it's more like a sharp stylistic change but i'll just just go on one by one for what i have okay um the next thing that got my eye was in an appointment and thank you again for drafting this it gives us something to work off because i think last time we're just kind of whistling in the wind it means like not really sure where we wanted to go with it so it's so helpful to have something to actually talk about so thank you for putting this together i would strike um so i would reshape this as in a selection committee and strike retention um because further on in the proposal has a six month periodic review and my perspective is there would be a selection committee that makes an appointment and then that um decision is filled for you know i think it was a period of so four years in here but there's some definite period it wasn't it wasn't in there no it's a term was left to the ordinance issue and she asked question man okay that's a question that i had to do um but i i think i would rather see the position be filled by the committee the inspector general keeps that position without this recurring like six month review there would just be a new selection based on um the terms of of that office so uh if the inspector general did something illegal or wrong there's no way to remove them no there there should be uh the way there's pretty general there's there's not an ad hoc i mean the language we have now there's no ad hoc removal procedure and as it stands it's just a six month periodic review essentially i heard what you're saying bobby i thought the mayor is essentially the council could well there is a removal to get out okay together you need the mayor you need the city council to agree and they could remove something i mean there's a second balance i'm in favor of that yeah ken what was the purpose of the retention in that section they came from other charters where they sought to keep the group that selected them engaged with the office and give another reporting ability uh out to these folks that are involved and six months i thought just to jump can i jump in i thought six months was way every six months is way too free if you're going to have that it's something that is out and bobby what was your concern with having that group do an evaluation it was the frequency i felt the same the six months might be too for some to get a whole committee of these high ranking and four people together for you know we can hold people here in the city but it was mainly the frequency of the recurrence thank you what did you think of the uh the committee composed to make the appointment that's another point that i looked at um i would suggest yeah i wouldn't have the mayor or the chair of the city council on there i would replace those with two individuals who are not elected officer within the city of tampa it it doesn't trouble me that they're in there bobby there's there's seven here and then i absolutely have you've got a nice list but you got the state attorney you've got the chief judges the third chief these are all great that you know people have here but you should also have the bug if you're going to have a state attorney and somehow absolutely should have involved in that do we you have anybody it's an even number but that's not so weird here and it doesn't i mean it doesn't offend me that they got designated voices and room full of eight people and these are all eight personalities and you're not going to have any you know shrinking bottles there i think the underlying thing for for some of the changes i've had is i would i would try to completely remove um any reference to mayor or city council as much as possible other than for um if this if this decision has to be terminated for some office or such but i would strive the inspector general shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by majority of the council i would strike that and just say the selection committee appoints i will get i'll get city council mayor out of everything this is should be a completely independent body okay so this is my local government hearing question um and not my overarching thoughts on this um i agree that if you're going to have the state attorney you should have the public defender that means that um under what authority um does the charter have to make these people serve on this committee that was my question there's no authority to make them do it okay there's a provision if they decline to do it how will be firm instead of they decline to do it i'm sorry if they define the deal then it goes to mayoral appointments by city council the same as other positions i shouldn't know always outside what if they say no what are we so yeah so so far their um semantic channeling a language flourish change in section a i would strike appointed by the mayor confirmed by city council in section c and just have the position appointed by the selection committee i would strike the mayor and the chair of the council from the selection committee and have the public defender and maybe a representative um fdle if there's a regional director or maybe police chiefs association other body or individual that represents law enforcement i would extend the the period if the committee fails to make an nomination within 30 days it's a little bit of a tight turnaround especially if you're getting these busy people together to look at something i would extend that to 60 days that's just arbitrary and we can discuss that if something people would like to discuss um what i don't have very clear is uh if they fail to appoint how do we get them back or get somebody in to do it uh let's see and then there's the question which i think all of your commentary was very incisive and i appreciate that you thought so much about this but there's also the question of um the interplay between the internal auditor and inspector general's positions which i think is something that you touched on and that's that's what my proposal tried to address because i was also thinking about the same kind of issue as as you were but maybe came from it from a different perspective um and i kind of see this on it on a spectrum so on one end of permanence you have the one off you know we don't really change anything the city council can just contract with somebody if they need to that's you know on the far left of the permanent spectrum then all the way on the other end is my proposal it's like we should restructure everything and then get a permanent position with an office etc etc which obviously i'm in favor represent um but maybe you know other people have different opinions about somewhere in between because i think those are two kind of bookends of thinking about about this right now and i think that's really an unanswered question to identify um the point statement can we pause maybe gary share your thoughts and steven i want to make sure everyone's voices you heard again i was just thinking i think the bookend is a little bit further shifted since we've already voted to establish offices by new federal um so it's just a matter of what it all comprises of and why why are these specific or worth this it was simply modeling on other ones that are out there that tried to have an outside group as opposed to it purely being the mayor and the city council yeah and that was the the concept of two years right it kept the the current appointment process involved uh that the mayor nomination from this that came out of this committee and city council can turn on that person otherwise the process starts as the fails it goes back to the advertised and goes from there it gives every a piece of advice here as part of the appointment on the uh the board that's language what you're basically saying is any amendments to this or changes on the group of ordinance which no actually uh anything that is not defined here that needs perfect definition is done by ordinance the the ordinance couldn't override the the charter language uh they started with this is the basis and then anything on the base level and then each piece would go above that by all means i somewhat agree with bobby keeping it entirely independent um this board was appointed by the city council of the mayor and we sort of see how that's gone politically uh where we're comfortable i wouldn't want to establish something like this and have it be subject to the same issues so i think i agree with bobby if we could further remove the politics out of it there's no black people in the fashion scene black people represent the representation of black people that would be comfortable that's not going to be black you know what would you be suggesting let me ask that i don't know what but i just know they would not you would not have a black person you would not be a part of that committee and to say you know well that's okay if you know i can't get behind that either but the mayor may designate a person of color or the city councilman right designate a person of color but now will they do that you can eliminate the mayoral seat bobby and the city council seat and sub in there uh got something put in the the president of the university of south park to go to the president which is an example you wanted to like um whatever i don't know i don't know what's in here i'm not doing that that's a tougher one to deal with because you're going to designate something which i mean are you suggesting you designate a specific season it's a wonderful color no no but if you get at least a if you're trying to be fair we are absolutely trying to get an atmosphere that that's fair we are now we're creating a leadership that is in tampa that is predominantly white and so we are like within the city right now already scared comfortable they would definitely not do that give me an idea of what to put up there i mean i i i understand your concern we all do give you an idea well you have presence of organizations i got you one georgia bar association it is an african um the florida hillsborough county bar eliminate the president hillsborough county bar with the jiba president it is always an african government seriously and in addition to that if you're going to remove numbers i'm having a member of the public um i don't know you know qualification but that might be interesting too to be more representative yeah that's a tough subject right that's a really big one yeah who who picks that person and you've got a constant guys i mean if you add the g for one you've got it that is the chair of the ethics commission chief of the 13th circuit i mean that you know that rotates to be broad it is it will please please pause a second steven's just your input to the conversation because i want to make sure everyone was heard it i'm not i want to keep this okay okay okay i make one other point yep and again particularly but my model is that that the um ig system in the federal government was created in the 1970s and the two core duties are charged with investigating fraud and waste abuse and illegal acts in cyber federal federal agencies and however those who conduct independent audits and religious findings directly both agency has just the administration and congress and i think that in some shape or form takes removes the embedded biases from both the legislative and the executive branch because both branches and the public are going to be getting the same information it frees both the administration and the legislative branch from um accusations of favoritism and uh so i mean the federal system is not something that uh carries a hammer that mandates certain reforms it just for course and i think that if there are issues that get out into the public by this way by by an ig that has no uh perceptible you know bias is really what the plan of law this is if i could i i think it has them reading the room maybe straight one and two replace one and two it's different roles are we all on the board with that different what different how about you just do the university of uh tamar president strike number four and said three change it to the president of the georgia bar association a support change to three i think i'm hearing public defenders should be on board so i just i'm thinking in one if we focus on one and two we have agreement on striking one and two if we replace with someone else what do you need to represent would be allowed how strict are we going to get uh no offense contributions of conversation from that i'll just i don't want to eliminate anything but all right this this group is allowed to ask anybody questions this group can ask me all this is what you said thank you and again college is created third generation however you got another college person you are now putting together in particular at school so which you potentially could consider being an union person someone who is books on the ground blue collar so you have a diverse view uh whoever that that board who's investigating as long as they should get my experience of law audit account your book you want to be union has their own auditing they have to do the books they have to do negotiating they have lawyers or i'm just which union so i've done i'm afraid i don't want to talk about what we agree on or what we don't agree on yet but you're welcome to continue to discuss that all right we're trying to figure out how we advance what if we're discussing changes and then we don't finalize any changes you can read a room bobby most everyone you're shaking your head yes all right bring on that yes okay something like a better portion but not yet keep going yeah all right so then we're back to one and two i don't like the mayor or the chair on there does anybody support the chair and the mayor being on this selection committee i do and i'll tell you why bobby because fundamentally this is the business of the city and the person should should discharge their duties independent of influence but i don't think that the chair of council who is elected and the mayor who is elected are both answerable to the people should be left out of the process of of who is selected to be someone who has ultimately duties of the city of tampa to discharge will they be under session i agree with that uh yeah that being broad analysis support one's position on that whoever any other comments to that effect or is that i always generally think separating completely i don't support separating completely you're looking to have someone selected who god willing ought to be under that law understands government and um you're having a lot of people know nothing about government making that decision and i don't think that that's a good choice for uh for me it's either or i think bob you suggested to remove even the appointment right initially i think you said that yeah i would i would strike that too inspector general shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by a majority of city council or i would strike all that and the inspector general shall be appointed by the selection committee for me i think it's either or i think if the mayor they would share or not others themselves or are allowed to pick it designate i think at least there should be point or here or either one but but i mean just think about the implication of that we are the citizens of the city of tampa and we're we're going to allow four individuals potentially who are not answerable to the citizens of the city of tampa to appoint that person and there is a check and a balance on the mayoral appointment and the confirmation by by vote of of city council and all of those people are answerable to the citizens of the city of tampa the city council right this is drafted they only pick from the person that's recommended by that committee so the committee yes i mean then but they they don't have a choice to go elsewhere if they say no to that one then the committee sends them another one right i mean so you know bobby that's it's a little comfort right well that's another i mean i guess that's an operational question i mean who's receiving applications for this job is it the city hr department and there's some preliminary sorting procedure or or does the selection committee get the applications there's can i would say maybe that would be the selection committee that they publish and the applications coming in under it it leaves it to the city to advertise and handle yeah i don't have to do that right and the committee won't have the resources unless you require that to uh to yeah they'll go do an advertising process so wherever the advocates come in right yeah and they advertise they would get all the applications the committee's applications you get 50. you're going to get the committee's got to go through them committee's going to decide who they're going to interview they're going to vote they're going to argue they're going to debate and they're going to make a recommendation and the mayor and the city council they either approve it or they don't and if they don't then it goes back to the committee so the committee's got the final you know i say the final they're the ones sending the names up that's possible okay steven and all right all right yeah there's there's already a kind of defined process that the clerk facilitates these types of positions so i think it would just follow that uh process to be advertised like an appointment you know basically yeah it's not imagine if it worked the hr department would post the position the applications would come in they would receive a batch of applications that would go to the selection committee correct i would i'd be curious to know anything bobby if real quick ron if um if this this uh selection committee was nine members and it was appointed by council and the mayor but we removed the confirmation um it would almost be like we would be operating in the same capacity to putting things directly on the ballot that may remove some political issues that were brought up because to me i'm like president of the usf you know they're going to be interested in specific things i think i don't know what do you think about that i i would i just want to point out um gear too that i think the way this reads now it could be an employee who goes through the hiring process it could be a consultant that's engaged through contract and in answer to your specific question i think the people on this list are intended to be people who generally have high integrity and really their job is to just hire and oversee an inspector general it it shouldn't be politicized it should be um someone who has high integrity and that's why i don't support having a mayor and the chair of a city council on here the people that we have on a selection committee should all be highly qualified highly with high integrity as you mentioned and should be politicized anytime you have an elected position making a decision about who's going to oversee the operation of their range of the government they're you're injecting at least some degree of politics into it that's why i'm so hard line on on having this completely independent with no influence and no involvement with the mayor or chair of the council at all they shouldn't get to pay in my view the hardline view who's going to be watching them they should be completely independent in every regard and i wait for to know if with mayor and chair and the mayor appoints it's not it might have been but i'd take a hard line on this one well let's see but bobby i also i also feel strongly that you have you froze i was just gonna say i i feel strongly that there needs to be some can you guys hear me okay yes are you guys able to hear me yeah okay sorry about that i i also feel strongly that there needs to be some accountability to the voters of the city of tampa and those are the only two appointees that serve that constituency and i i feel like if you had if you have seven there are two of seven votes so we're also presuming that they would be in lockstep or coordinating something which if if you know if our own personal experiences or anything they're probably going to have bring different views to the to the discussion so i i i think it just would be a mistake not to have anyone who's accountable to the voters of the city of tampa participating in that decision you feel different and all i'm going to say is that we you know we can talk about this issue for a long long time but but i think we need a straw vote on this issue as to where people stand on whether the you you know two things right the committee do we have the mayor or nerd is our designate and the chair all right we're going to get back to i think everyone's agreed on chiba and have the public defender but you know can i just put it to a straw book who thinks the mayor and the chair of city council should be on this committee selection committee so we've got becca bill yeah alan braun i think you can't see you yes or no you may have lost her she said yes she's probably like you may not be okay and then realize or or so okay what's your answer is that likely kathleen are you if you can hear us are you in favor of the mayor and the chair being on the committee or their designees yes we may be more confident it is exactly is that a yes yes i'm for it you guys i'm sorry i'm dealing with sorry you're you're just the health situation up here i know yeah yeah yeah no i'm i'm for it totally for it right so now i mean you still have the appointment so we have five people who are for keeping them on committee correct is that what i heard right here's your scroll poll correct correct yeah i wouldn't get it all at the end and then we're all in agreement on uh the president instead of the president with the eligible academy bar and she but and then i think we're all comfortable with any of the public defender to pay yeah yeah and then the question is do we want to have any you know i almost said it mentioned something or something like that i think that's real that's what we're doing right here right so you have two new additions to the special committee but that's as far as we've gotten so far correct correct and at least you had some lot of changes your language but in terms of substance content sure that's where we stand at at the moment so based on this last crawl poll there and a chair do not okay where are we on the next time that the victor general is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by a majority of council on nomination from the selection committee that's confusing to me i think the selection committee should just pick it on it it's their job are there any other positions like that that we have where like can we select and then i'll just say well now we're going to just grab it in such a way can the mayor and the city council must select from the recommendation from this committee yes they either select the nominee or it bounces back and they have to re-advertise and go through the process i think the general team i picked up from other respects in general was to have buy-in across the government at the beginning of the process uh that's that that was my intuition that was the trend that's wrong possible yeah i was just going to say one of my fundamental problems with this whole thing is you don't have any buy-in and you have someone spending all their time doing this that no one has any respect for and they're not going to listen to them so it was really just um i i still don't think it's the challenge to address my concern so that at a minimum i feel that they need to um be appointed and confirmed it's too strong about how many how many are in favor of keeping the current language with the mayor reporting and council confirming show of hands in the room two people online kathleen are you in favor yeah i'm supportive of them that's three and ron i believe you are i don't know speak to you i yeah i guess i i'm a little hesitant rob because i got a lot of other um concerns but if you're saying if we do this do i prefer to have it the way it's drafted as opposed to um having it just be the seven or so individuals select without the mayor and council's involvement the answer would be yes i prefer as draft as opposed to that change you go along check it is that gives the file i think that's the same it's fine we're on that so that would mean keeping the their current as of as a process yeah okay um employment and so confirmation for grant three we've agreed to actually and keep them in there on the panel on the selection committee okay so four things actually they are on the on the selection committee mayor and council involvement nomination and confirmation and then adding to the members of the selection committee that's where we stand so far next issue there's a periodic review second ground we talked about maybe extending from six to at least 12 by virtue of that it's fairly quick i think there's consensus on that show fans that we would increase the time period from six to 12 you know one two three four five everyone in the room agrees follow once makes more sense than six ron and kathleen do you agree for a review uh time frame we're just getting these in pieces wrong to get yes i do i mean again i'm with ron and rebecca i don't know where because on this proposal but yes for this conversation yes i'm for that and the question is six months to how long uh currently it's written as six months reviews and the group seems to be moving with all the six months is very quick and comes quickly might be a burden and it's just just eliminating it no moving from six months to 12 months for months okay sure okay you can get there anyway um but reviews okay next one next time for removal it seems to be a one-way process the inspector general may be removed by the mayor but only with the the approval of the council etc i think there should also that should also go in the reverse direction the council could call to remove with concurrence of the mayor because right now it's going to the mayor the council votes but it was supposed to be the council can recommend and the mayor sure is everyone here yes yes kathleen just over here divorces do you support bi-directional um initiation for removal council to mayor mayor council not just mayor council which is currently running correct sure i think okay i'm not sure rob so i'm going to be a no okay we still got almost everyone so that last sort of list of yeses um removal initiation those are the words but yeah pay by the url next one vacancy um inspector general may be filled temporarily by the mayor with a similarly a similarly qualified individual for a period of 90 days this goes back to my hard line um you already know where i'm going to stand on on that one and so i have no point belaboring it explain that right now but you said that that similarly call up similarly qualified person must come from a suit you can't a list presented by the committee no this would be purely a male choice the idea was to have it's not someone got an accident right someone the idea of someone hit by a bus there's someone to fill the role on a temporary basis yeah yeah i think you just go back to the drawing board no yeah i'll go back to the drawing board do you want to put time cable on that for the so that is not a year and a half with no one yeah you gotta go fast yeah yeah i mean what we would we extend from the anything 90 days is very much matter i think so suggestion is 90 days remove lane prepackage from the error points temporary roll this is okay does it stay in their process i think it's definitely 98 window okay everyone here in the room support that yes did you hear that are you okay with it uh you just keep going from my perspective rob i'm not really okay so i i don't like the path we're going down but go ahead okay so ross um yeah it was kept in such a nice day yeah all right about the next age employment status we talked about this before we're we're drafting it in office right now um but i think it remains to be decided the permanence of how that position is is filled it sounds like what we have so far there's a placeholder for an inspector general but um the way the language is written inspector general need not be a full-time city employee and maybe retained individually or through a firm um i would i go you know on the far end of the spectrum i would like to see the inspector general so as a full-time employee period um open to the discussion um i sort of see this as being somewhat duplicative isn't the right word because i say the independence gives it a lot more function uh but uh we'll see a point you hook it with the internal law department which is section 501 of the charter um that department has four or five positions plus the directorate department um so that doesn't lose that function that department and the role would be uh purpose under what we would be creating with the oig you're saying with the auditor auditor and is there organizations under the oig i agree that okay and as of both as of the with the ig being full-time employee orders so make the internal audit director of the oig and repurpose the sat to perform those functions at the reporting and appointed based upon how it's been drafted as far with the animals right i would not support taking away the mayor's ability to have audits for department she needs that i agree he or she whoever gets elected needs that and well i feel that this could fill it an alternative role to take that um to take those positions and and the ability to have audits of the departments that you are obligated that you're being elected to run it's i i agree and i think that you can still retain that position with the organization but as far as it being a a required charter position honestly to the point you made earlier there's not really a point there you were correct i've admired she created everything this this this actually puts that function through a lens that is more independent which i think is why it belongs to the charter and the position we're bringing to the mayor doesn't necessarily need to be required sure rebecca that was the point that i've struggled with because i agree right now the internal auditor kind of works as like a managerial tool and i think there's benefits of that if you describe the mayor should know what's going on in the city and things need to be changed so that it can work better um where i think my perspective is different is to stephen's point if we kind of excised that from uh the executive branch that you could just take the auditor department gift it over so it's separate but still gives the mayor um the power to request that you know certain audits be performed i think you could still have that kind of managerial impact sort of work for it function just the mayor can ask for these things it's kind of how it works right now so the general auditor kind of does their own process they have their criteria they rank order their risk stratification for different departments etc they present a plan the mayor said yes sure or no the mayor may recommend something so everything like would be the same the only difference would be the mayor and or so they can just say would you consider auditing in this department as well just something out there just to for you guys what about the option of the ig being a formal reviewer who can comment on the outputs from the auditor so if the i'm just trying to play both sides here so if the auto function i mean it would give you that team opportunity to chime in we're not removing the mayors to prove that his point authority around leveraging that function for the management of the business i'm just throwing it up thanks for you thinking about advocating that again just just trying to if there's a middle ground that's all we're just trying to balance like the cost effectiveness that ron mentioned which i definitely agree with and then just like duplicativeness of government which we all i think agree is an issue so we still want so we're split when you're putting them they're putting it under the ig that would of course they certainly make everybody recording in in that function today and all basically you don't work there works with council and it all goes through with them and they're giving them a whole organization so again i don't understand honestly i guess full-time employees name steve are you suggesting that the ig be a part of the city department there's currently a department that the charter it's a charter department um and the role the job in the job to perform major for work um overlaps certainly the broad oversight that we just accomplished based upon the graphic language so my suggestion is to take that department role and dissolve that department as a charter department and use the resources to create the oig but make sure that the work that was being performed is done by this which i think that are the sort of dials so i thought a lot about what you said that the mayor can then go ahead and it doesn't have to be in charter but you could give her own audits um which answers part of my question but it's still the people would give me on it so that doesn't really love my question so what rob said actually kind of took care of that which is because i think the mayor have to be able to say i want my department audited and it can't be someone being like i'm busy i'm like you know investigating fraud over here so maybe next year that's just not feasible um when you are running a city of this size she's got to be able to have that power and she shouldn't have to do it and then have it over here but having if there is going to be the ig which at this point i still do not support but if there is going to be this ig person then having them be someone who reviews the audits makes sense i'd like yeah keeping it apparently separate and having the ig just have a independent contract you're advocating for a full-time employee position uh contractor position more direct on the wild it doesn't doesn't what i mean by a contractor is sort of avoiding some of those overlap issues but i don't mean they would literally work full-time and i live like employment on all that um if they're an employee don't they have to be within a specific department so therefore they would have to be somewhere of the administration this is going to create a portion of the government so they would function under the office of respectively independent of the administration independent of the executive independent of the administration so it's a data game to pass it together would it be the favor of the clerk meaning if that's how is it similar yeah i mean i support it being someone who is there as needed as the message of me if we're going to have this position as opposed to somebody who is or in for two reasons sorry i'm taking so much time one of the reasons being i don't think one person can do this job well and so i think it would be better sort of be contracted out to an entity who has different people who specialize in different things um unless what everyone is talking about is just creating a huge other segment second bureaucracy where we just hire all those people all the time to do all of those things i know it's like that so i don't think i'm okay the only part i would make is i don't think that the auditor should come from um from the executive branch i i don't you know i don't want to take resources away from wherever the millimeter is uh to do other legitimate uh audits that are routine in the city well i i think my i my proposal shows the bottom overlap with what stephen proposed but i need more help understanding steve steven how like rebecca said the interaction will be formalized between the mayor and then this distinct body that they just go ahead i mean i'm just saying that the director of infernal life does a lot of the functions that are sort of already it just you know the reporting and the appointment is different authorities so i'm raising that as a potential source of redundancy trying to respect the comment that ron had which i agree with which is like let's try not to just blow up okay i don't want to get us off track of this discussion um so i'm going to ask my question you guys can put it um be answered at any point do you guys feel it's appropriate but i would like to hear what that one said with the description for what it was in the federal government because that is narrower in scope from the i have oversight over the entire city government um which just necessitates like creating a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of people it's just so broad um and what alan had said is different than that um it's much more limited in scope and yet still seems to address some of the things that people have talked about although not everything because i think some people support an entire big office of the inspector general to oversee everything that's ever been done but we don't have to talk about that now if we want to keep telling it i just some of the questions that you were saying about the redundancy may be answered if it's a little bit more than what we're asking them to do so they're not in charge of like doing all the audits maybe they're in charge of doing audits when there's you know allegations of fraud or not people not people yeah thank you and what about scopes true one person cannot do that much no so you're automatically directing them yeah it's just in a financial audit is a very highly skilled technical thing that a person trained in performing a financial audit would need to do not generally an inspector general doesn't do financial audits in my experience can i ask can i ask a question um on can can we just look at that list of who the committee is again um i'm looking i pulled up the ethics commission charter and there's reference in the ethics commission charter to a city ordinance 2017-61 that seems to indicate from this document that the chief judge was unavailable to make designees or serve and um and and there's some change by that ordinance and it also um in in talking about the state attorney or federal prosecutors judges things like that in every instance it uses the phrase former which leads me to believe and it would make some sense and bill i don't know if you have thoughts on this it's it's possible that the sitting state attorney the sitting public defender the sitting chief judge can't serve or designate in that capacity by the ethics of their job and what they do um so my first question is ken are you familiar with that ordinance 2017-61 that is referenced in the uh ethics commission charter that um on the face of the ethics commission charter it seems to indicate that it's that that charter deals with this issue of the chief judge being unable to serve in the capacity that was asked of of them i am i know it dealt with the role of that ethics convention that was a choice right choice made in 2017 that the chief judge didn't want to participate uh on the evidence commission and and the rest of the language seems to not have any sitting for instance state attorney judge um etc they're all the the positions are all former it says specifically former which led me to believe that maybe in that context what i'm concerned about is if we have four or so of our people in our charter and that not only can they not do it they can't designate which this sort of indicates maybe we ought to look into that and and if that's the case pick other people we'll just find out honestly you can raise an issue and it's a simple ask for the office uh let's find out from the state attorney the public defender chief in the russia jam chief judge those three positions whether or not there's you know i'm on the judicial qualification commission i know of no ethics rules that would preclude a judge from doing this that it doesn't mean i'm asking the choices these are choices that are made by the restrictions that uh whether or not global ones will decide they want to participate uh but you can list any individuals uh uh well there was an ethics rule that precluded them he was suggesting it's silly for us to say that's a position of time to agree if there's a judicial rule a state attorney you know i don't know that that's what ron was suggesting yeah or just i mean obviously we created an ethics commission and invited those folks to participate and it seems that they said they and the language on this seems to indicate that not only did they not participate but they did not want to appoint people to participate and so it was it was all then put on the uh bar association uh president to to make the appointments in in the ethics i don't know the history of it i'm just looking at it on the face of this i don't know the ethics commission my concern it offline given the limited time you have because the odds of getting a response from all those individuals regarding a possible thing the city council might do down the road are pretty tough uh if i'm any of those are pitfalls i'm going to say i'll wait until city council decides that this is a good idea uh so what i suggest is if you're not comfortable with these individuals we swap them out for someone else given the limit of time that you have with them because i am comfortable with these individuals i think we're all comfortable ron raised a question and i i hear you yeah i'm just i do not think you're going to get an answer at the time that you have left you probably will so i'm happy to ask but i just if you get the entire decision about whether or not to move forward on this item is based on that i'll do your favor right i'll let yeah i mean i just see you know it they may not answer it i'm suggesting i have some involved in a mental want but i will ask them whether or not they're aware of any prohibition of them serving them again they may not choose to but again i think ron's question is not whether will or will not choose to the question is is there some internal rule regulation or something that precludes them from that i'm not aware of that either again but we may as well i'll ask rob can you circulate to the group ordinance 2017-61 city of city of tampa ordinance and the ethics commission charter i mean it would be useful for everybody to look at it and make their own assessment yes going back to what we talked about before i want to go back to it um rebecca's asked about to leave what you did before i think a lot of our decisions around who does this it comes back to the scope of the role so if you do that element and let's use that as a basis to think about how we fix not fix that problem but address that only so let me uh i'll read this again let me also add a real real world example talking about so the federal system of inspector general's was created after and the object was to root out this conduct charged with investigating all the ways to use the legal dynamics inside of the government direct reporting power to conduct independent of all this recorded religious findings directly to both agency fellows and to congress and my my role here the real example of this is you know i accused of a major defense contract of allowing defective process to get into blackboard helicopters and with that allegation comes a lot of embedded political pressure by defense contractors to congress by a defense department that needs these helicopters the inspector general looked into my allegations and i was right about that and the effect of that is that it allowed the administration defense department to take action against the defense contract because they didn't want to accept you know all the helicopters and it also gave cover to congress to do whatever it needed to do because this was not just a situation where a major employer in a particular state uh was being accused of something an independent body weighed in that independent body did not make recommendations it just did a independent uh you know investigation that both the administration and the congress could use and so again i think that comes with a narrowing scope of what we're we're we're contemplating q but not looking at this inspector general to take over functions of the other process that we take from which we see so in that scenario inspector general isn't the source of issues he or she is receiving information that they lead toward investigation depending on the process they use now they screen these things in severity and remember picture right i mean i don't know in the federal system whether the inspector general's initiate uh their own investigations you know there are lower you know statutes and all that stuff all i know there is that they're able in an independent way to sort of meet something that um the public has as interesting that's right so then it goes back to this concept of uh employee versus contractor and then within employee concept the uh suggestion steven made that would would kind of give that person authority over the standard audit work that some of us have said would be a problem for the mayor to remove that function and build with it how do we how do we feel about contract versus employee um first off i think he supported concept of a contractor being paid to do this and the reason was for purposes of scaling not always being paid if they're not working on these and resources who are experts correct yes right we thought on that and can i want to do it how do you deal with that in the budget that's not a that's that's a current project i think what you're saying and periodic and they go up and they go down and then so i'm listening but but they're the same who manages the contractor there may be another question i'd ask who owns the contract to make sure they're delivering and how do we do that without it being tied to the body we want to keep this function apart from just to answer our questions yeah i think a contract is tough for the position so maybe that employee that model concept there's some integrity in the process they are independent if they don't have a contract manager per se but they have inherent authority to do their job i think is the alternative um since that's skewer moving in that direction we're saying that would be a minimalist full-time employer just based on well then who regulates the the employee and then pulling the subtract right and i i don't know that i just don't mean internally there's an office meaning like the city establishes this office and gives a grant to the office and then that inspector general is running their own show managing the contract with the city whoever that may be but it's not it's not like a paving contract or something like that that's well do i not envision it is um there would be no manager that's the whole point it's an independent right it's an independent position but there is no answerable to they are integral to themselves there should be nobody over them overseeing them completely third party who reviews them again every 12 months the review site committee so there is some answerable to someone or some people right what is the uh if they're reviewing them every 12 months let's play it out what does the committee do with them in other words they bring them in and whatever they establish you can have a nice discussion you can talk about what you've done what you've done what you've not done then what does the committee do with that i mean you know there's always going to be a check of balance in other words which is why one of my propositions was to only have a selection committee with a term limit and then repeat for however long a term would be like what are they going to talk you know you go to the selection committee and then like support they can have no power to do anything other than say you're saying they can't be you keep i think what you're saying bobby is they would be appointed for a four seat whatever the term or two and there's no ability for the city to fire this person and that i'm just saying if the both the mayor and the majority of city council come together and you you're not going to say man you know they're out of control i support that okay now what i'm the point i was trying to make was if this ig sits before a selection committee they are just reviewers i mean they can't well i agree with that they don't can't fire that's just the one i'm sure okay wait so now another determination powers the selection the only of the mayor and city council is going to have something forward to so right now it sounds like we're a point where we have an independent all-time employee in this role i think that's right here am i correct to know an employee only of the office of the office yes and it's really sorry actually with the question so i think we need to maybe we'll pull on is that the model we're talking about here can we do that now sure yeah i mean are you to support that modeling the modeling the whole time well kind of doing answerable to the office so there's only one person in the office yes yeah that's why i think steven and i have very similar propositions whether you have an existing body in the internal audit department that already has their own criteria for what they audit they come up with a plan they give they they rank risk stratified what they look at which are not just financial audits and they're not auditors that's true it's more just right that was the clarification i was going to make earlier the internal audit department really doesn't even look at finances they just look at internal controls are you doing what your what your policy guidelines say you should do the city hires an external auditor to look at the books once a year so that's a completely separate thing the internal auditor right now isn't required and important you can speak on the basis it's not fair so steven and i's overlap i think in our conceptualization of this is like you have this group already doing the job let's farm it with a little bit more you know a little bit more investigative authority and it i mean i think this is where we diverge under my proposal that whole section would that whole group that whole division would be completely independent if you're you're pumped about and i think there's something disgusting this is going to get so complicated it's not i think it's a different one they do fat no it's not bringing up the crop right so i think we lost this you know robert was describing it's a whole so we already have it that's just the point we already have to respond but if you move it don't you have to replace it just don't know what a mayor don't just recycle this redefine what their role is that's my vote but we have a mayor we made this too complicated start i'm listening to all of you and everything's moving all over the place so really no no agreement it's all over the place and it's going to get to a point where i think i suspect maybe i'll speak for just myself i'm going to be big fat no because this guy is way too complicated on the entire on the entire yeah i knew where i'll end up it's just the fault because i don't have a clear understanding how they're appointed you know what their job responsibility is how this is going to fit within the budget and how it's actually going to be workable right because if you put just joe smith in this position joe smith is going to want our paper how you're trying to pay for the whole city of tampa okay and it's just not going to work so we need to come up with something that works and just recognize that we're like in trouble right now what would i would suggest here let me let me quick sure say i mean if if i was trying to build a consent this didn't my guess but if i was trying to build a consensus here it would be to go with but i wouldn't i don't you guys are confusing the hell out of me because i can't follow this i would assess the ig office and it would be an office there would be a you know then you know so they could get either they really need to build a contract they would build or a contract and you got your budget your issues i get all but i would have them build their team you hire an ig that person's employment that person's job i'm going to hire my team how many people do any of my team god i don't know that but i would have that i wouldn't start moving departments around you're going to start sounds like you're going to fend the hell out of the mayor along the way and doing that it just seems to me we're making it much more complicated we're going to land in this body it needs to be simple easy it's got to go from here we've got to agree on something it's got to go to city council they've got to understand what the hell we're suggesting right everyone's got it on board right now we're a different way to come and i'm going to add to that very quickly the hygiene you come back within that 12 month review and say hey i really need to hire an extra person right they can occur to that go to city council and get the budget for it and expand the office time so if we're gonna if we're trying to get to yes and we're at risk of smashing our same castle yeah then we are close to get to yes yes i would i would agree with you and say all right let's let's let's start it right here yeah so we've arrived back almost where we began so we all agree or there's had been majority vote that we want this position so they'll concede my uh my elegant formula and say that okay you've made the simple position start there forget about the internal auto yeah so okay because everything involves even though i love them on you know just like the name said we were discussing with uh we compromise that we is it everything that that we wanted no but it's a start and it's a better than better than that what we have been and you know that broad and when i would back up on that you know that language about all city issues and all of that i would look at that and truncate that a little bit that's the establishment so there's one of the time just to go okay yeah yeah so let's do one of the time just to get ken morheny's to to define what he's provided show show fans just to be able to create a position um not follow that all of the other departments that it's independent that's your employee correct yes so that's what we're asking first of all in favor in the room here to get the yes phone okay all of them and then uh ron in favor or against i'm against can i just make one uh suggestion for people to think about too one one of the things that is most troubling to me is the subpoena power um so i know we're coming up on time here today but i would ask my uh colleagues on the commission to give some considerable thought to to that i think it's um very dangerous the way it's for the record i'm against it and could you comment if subpoena power is pretty standard in this position of other municipalities it is so what that means bobby is this person can issue a subpoena to you personally to get your personal records they can issue a subpoena to look through your phone they can issue a subpoena to get documents from your house i mean i i think at least i'll speak for myself i feel like we've got recent instances and fortunately not at the city but where this kind of authority by government on citizens is is dangerous and um serious concerns about it were you going to say something about that bill from a background concept around language city council has subpoena power and they're giving the ig subpoena power and ron i'm always going to say rebecca had a point from where does that come i guess it was just the charter who would enforce the subpoenas i mean it is something to be discussed and by the way if any of us get served a subpoena for your personal information stuff in your house you do not have to automatically turn that over okay you can always subject to additional disappear that is not a fate that could lead in any world i'm calling bill what basis would you object on it if it was let's let's use it for instance where it was um related to your participation on on this commission what basis would you object to it on what on basically my phone there's no there's no relevancy there you want to do it you want to do even the worst you want to do an esi search you can pay to do that i will download anything on my cell phone that has anything to do with the charter view commission but like hell i have to get it no judge in the world will never force me to give over my phone anymore but we can invent that something that all time go ahead if i'm just reading it from the federal system when it comes to subpoenas documents and records inspectors general can issue administrative subpoenas to tell non-federal entities contractors physical or electronic information documents and data they cannot use subpoenas to get documents from other federal agencies they must use other methods in terms of witness testimony most federal agencies cannot legally force outside witnesses contractors or former federal employees to sit for an interview or this one testimony okay maybe at this point let's be about three and a half minutes you just itemize the art that things you have to discuss in more detail so one is uh what is uh this so and then the other was something really you mentioned which was revisiting what what maybe you know certainly rebecca took to be two broadly worded powers in a language so i just want to capture that concept uh are there any other items specifically this group needs to discuss to to arrive at a full approved list for ken to do it so if we visit broad powers language um being high level that can't fix you advice me um to broad powers and then the um further regulation regulation by ordinance which i totally understand how a charter works i understand that they can't enact any ordinance it's not that it's a concept of the charter but this expressly in line with the charter allows city councils we talk about their powers their reporting obligations their relationships their functions eliminate all of them that's super broad and allows them to create something that is nothing close to anything that anyone here in addition they can completely rewrite it rewrite it we don't like that okay and the other big items in this funny i don't have a suggestion for you as a majority of your group agree with that yeah that's a good question um my concern is the section g which uh allows city council to um further regulation by ordinance uh allows them to do some things that make sense appointment reappointment term functions authority powers reporting obligations and relationships to other oversight bodies shall be further established by ordinance and it doesn't at all limit what else can be put in these further regulation by ordinance thereby um city council creates something that is not um in line with anything that anyone here envisioned whether it were an agreement at all it could be something completely different than anybody they can change this order they can't change it outside of what the charter says but the charter they were specifically gives a very broad range of how to set it up as an uninsurping request it means to narrow this provision to the bare minimum as to what needs to be done and by ordinance i don't know if there's some sense of that so just raise your hand if you agree with that that's what's going to be done so i think we've got another level for you to get that to ourselves so what i'm hearing from all of you is to take the edits you've at least a bit of majority of them and we draft based on that yeah and send that out to everyone and then we need that meeting that should be the last we have to have a meeting that should come up in two weeks yeah it has to be yeah it has to be it has to be yeah i'll be here for that i wonder if you just think so for example appointment appointments are already kind of covered in this term language like you would say we don't need that anymore it's already happening here so would that be a fair example of what you mean by narrowing it um yes um another good example is powers i'll just put that one across the mic like a future counseling could do an original as long as it's not in conflict with any of the other sections they can define the powers okay and that makes a lot of sense if you are saying if you say you are the county commission and you're setting up your internal auditor and you are and it's yours and you're setting up the powers because it's yours that's how the county works that makes a lot of sense i don't even work here when you're trying to create something that's completely independent and to allow them to structure who they report to their relationship to other city oversight body it's no longer i think we're going to trust kennedy to interpret this with some very specific but yes we do have to meet again it's a legal jargon i'm sorry it's just so going to start that one i'm not a conference what should we do this today okay Rob if you could still hear me I know we're not in session anymore where did we land on when the next meeting is going to be here I'm still negative they say my What was the best? Same age issue. Same age issue. It's 93. You don't think you should. I don't think you should. I don't think you should. I don't think you should. I don't think you should. What's happening? What's happening? What's happening? My grandfather, been friends for 60 years. There's a note in the progress. Oh. You guys don't change. There's no idea.