[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:09] >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.E LIKE TO CALL THE CHARTER REVIEW [MOMENT OF SILENCE ] COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A MOMENT OF SILENCE IN LIGHT OF WHAT IS GOING ON OVER IN EUROPE RIGHT NOW. SO WE'LL DO THAT, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. A MOMENT OF SILENCE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] MR. JETT, YOU WILL LEAD US INTO THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY [WELCOME] AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TONIGHT AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME FROM YOUR BUSY SCHEDULES TO COME OUT AND JOIN US.T'S ALSO NICE TO HAVE A FULL QUORUM TONIGHT, SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE, OF COURSE, GOING AROUND THE ROOM WE HAVE FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE MS.CHRISTINE BLANCHETT , OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. MS. COURTNEY GRIMM. (NAME), AND DEPUTY MCDADE, [ROLL CALL] THANK YOU. AS WE GO AROUND THE ROOM -- WHO ALSO ARE WE MISSING? DID I MISS ANYBODY GOING AROUND? I'D ALSO LIKE TO GO TO ROLL CALL. SO IF WECOULD START ? MR. THEUS? >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS MR. DAVID THEUS. >> AND JUAN YUL MCNAIR. >> ROBERT DEWS. >> JIMMY JET. >> DEBBY TERRY. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.AS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW MINUTES? THERE AE TWO SETS. OF COURSE, FEBRUARY 3 AND FEBRUARY 15. SO WE WILL TAKE THEM INDIVIDUALLY. MOTION TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 3? >> YES. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND THE SECOND BY MR. TIMBERLAKE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. NOW, FEBRUARY 15 MS. MINUTES. DRIVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? ALL IN FAVOR? [PUBLIC COMMENT] VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. AND JUST TO NOTE THAT I HAVE TWO CARDS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT NO , AND THEN AT THE END OF THE MEETING. OKAY? YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. THE TOPIC IS OPEN TO YOU. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. ONCE YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP, WILL ASK YOU TO PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. AND HOLD COMMENT AGAIN UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING. ANY QUESTIONS ON EQUITY SO I MOSTLY GOING TO NEED SOMEONE TO SET THE TIMER. COURTNEY, YOU'VE GOT THAT? THANK YOU. OKAY. I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT. THE FIRST CARD I HAVE IS FROM MR. GREG (NAME). THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> I LIVE AT 44 21 -- --. EARLY IN THE 90S, A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT TO LIMIT THE TERMS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND VARIOUS PUBLIC OFFICES BLOSSOMED NATIONWIDE. AFFIRMED TERM LIMITS FOR STATE AND LOCAL OFFICES.IN A GROWING NUMBER OF STATES, THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT IS FIGHTING BACK. QUIETLY MOST CASES LAWMAKERS ARE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT THE IDEA OF EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF TERMS VOTERS CHOSE TO LIMIT. OR TO APPEAL THE RESTRICTIONS ALTOGETHER.BUT THE REASONS THE TERM LIMIT CONCEPT CAUGHT ON IN THE FIRST PLACE REMAIN STRONG AS EVER. [00:05:01] LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST TERM LIMITS. THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE TIME TO LEARN THE ROPES. WOULD SUGGEST IF SOMEONE NEEDS THAT MUCH TIME TO LEARN THE ROPES, THEY MAY BE WEREN'T QUALIFIED TO DO THAT JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE. SECOND, TERM LIMITS MAY ATTRACT A BETTER QUALITY OF PEOPLE. THAT'S A CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE WHICH ASSUMES THERE ARE NO OTHER QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN THE POPULATION. THIRD, THAT WE HAVE TERM LIMITS IN THE FORM OF ELECTIONS. WE ALL KNOW THAT 90 PERCENT REELECTION RATE FOR INCUMBENCY, DUE TO THE POWER OF INCUMBENCY, SINCE THE 90S, TERM LIMITS HAVE EXPANDED. JUST THIS PAST WEEK, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE HB 1467 ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.TERM LIMITS WILL ESTABLISH AN EXPECTATION FROM THE BEGINNING. THAT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THEIR JOB, ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DO THEIR JOB IN THE BEST MANNER THEY SEE FIT. AND THEN, RETURN TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. IN CLOSING, THE PEOPLE OF CLAY COUNTY HAVE PARTY DECIDED THEIR OPINION ON TERM LIMITS. AND I ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD TO LET THEIR DECISIONS STAND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.AND THE NEXT CARD IS FROM MR. KLINZMAN. SIR, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> THIS IS MY FAVORITE QUOTE OF SO MANY DIFFERENT GREAT QUOTES. >> SIR, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? >> I'M SORRY. I JUST CAN'T WAIT TO GET TO IT! RICHARD KLINZMAN -- MIDDLEBURG FLORIDA. THIS QUOTE I HAVE USED AT MANY, MANY QUORUMS. AND IT NEVER SEEMS TO SINK IN. BUT I'M GOING TO KEEP READING THIS TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE UNTIL IT FINALLY CONNECTS. HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE ALMOST UNIQUE IN HAVING THE ABILITY TO LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS ARE ALSO REMARKABLE FOR THEIR APPARENT DISCRIMINATION TO DO SO.AS THIS INCLINATION OF THE CRC BEGAN, I STATED THAT THE ISSUES SOME HAVE BROUGHT UP HAD BEEN TRIED BEFORE AND FAILED.SPECIFICALLY RAISING SALARIES FOR COMMISSIONS. THE OTHER TWO THAT WERE BROUGHT UP WERE TERM LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONAL'S AND CHANGING THE LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN CRC MEETINGS, GOING FROM FOUR YEARS OR LONGER. THE COUNTY WAS VERY CLEAR. THEY DO NOT SUPPORT IT AND WITH VERY GOOD REASON. I BELIEVE THAT THE REASON TO BE THE OUT-OF-CONTROL AND RECKLESS GROWTH FUELED BY GREEDY DEVELOPERS. GROWTH ALONE IS REASON ENOUGH TO SAY NO TO THIS PROPOSAL. THE PEOPLE THAT WE KEEP ELECTING KEEP FAVORING DEVELOPERS. AND THEY KEEP DESTROYING THE LANDSCAPE AND ABOLISHING THE WILDLIFE. ALL FOR GREED. PURE GREED. GROWTH ALONE IS REASON TO SAY NO. OUR ROADS ARE TOO CROWDED AND REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO SLOW TO COME AND EXPENSIVE. YET, COMMISSIONERS CONTINUE TO APPROVE -- ON LAND. I ASKED THE CRC PUT MANDATORY 1 TO 23 HOMES PER ACRE IN PLACE. THAT WAS IGNORED. WE CAN FIGHT BACK ON WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTY. WE CAN. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT. AND THINGS ARE ONLY GETTING WORSE. SO WHEN YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO RAISE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES TO GET A BETTER QUALITY COMMISSIONER, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THE PEOPLE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, AND THE PEOPLE THAT WILL COME AFTER, ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME OVER AND OVER. BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIMARILY BACKED IN THEIR CAMPAIGNS BY DEVELOPERS. WE WERE ALSO TOLD THAT GROWTH PAYS FOR ITSELF. THIS IS A LIE. IF THIS WERE TRUE, WHY DID WE RECENTLY AGREED TO TOURSELVES? TO GIVE OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AN INCREASE IN PAY TO KEEP THEM HERE? WHY IS THE SCHOOL BOARD SEATING YET EKING ANOTHER INCREASE FOR SCHOOLS? IF THAT GROWTH WAS SO GREAT, WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR TAXES RAISED AGAIN AND AGAIN? THEY ARE LYING. YET ANOTHER REASON IS THAT [00:10:01] FOLLOWING YEARS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT OUR GARBAGE REMOVAL SERVICE, THESE COMPLAINTS WERE IGNORED.AND TWICE THE CONTRACT WAS RENEWED OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE TAXPAYERS. >> MR. KLINSMANN, YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. THANK YOU. THAT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS PART OF THE MEETING. WE WILL PICK IT UP AGAIN AT THE END OF THE MEETING. AND IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PASS THESE CARDS OVER TO MS. [OLD BUSINESS] BLANCHETT. THANK YOU. UNDER OLD BUSINESS. THE FIRST ITEM YOU'LL SEE ON THE AGENDA THERE, MR. RUSSELL HAS REQUESTED TO REMOVE THE TOPIC OF COMMUNITY ACTIVIST COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE FROM THE TOPIC OF SUGGESTIONS. THANK YOU.THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA 'S PROPOSED TEXT FOR THE SALARY RECOMMENDATION FOR INCLUSION ON THE BALLOT. WE'VE ASKED MR. TAYLOR TO PUT TEXT TOGETHER WHICH WAS SENT TO EVERYBODY. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. AND IT IS NOW. SO --. >> I'VE ACTUALLY READ HIS EMAIL. AND I LIKE IT. BUT WE KEEP HEARING THESE STORIES -- ANYWAYS, I READ WHAT HE SENT OUT IN AN EMAIL TO ALL OF US. AND I'VE HEARD THE SAME COMMENTS THAT WE'VE ALL HEARD SINCE DAY ONE. FROM OUR FIRST MEETING. SO I ASK EVERYONE HERE TO PLEASE READ EXACTLY WHAT HE DID FOR QUESTION ONE -- FOR THE PBALLOT. JUST READ THE FIRST 19 WORDS. [CHATTER] (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). WHEN I READ MR. GLENN'S SUGGESTION, I READ THE FIRST 19 WORDS. AND IF YOU READ THE FIRST 19 WORDS THAT ENDS AFTER COMMISSION. IT READS SHALL CLAY COUNTY CHARTER -- 37,000 PER YEAR SALARIES (INDISCERNIBLE). WE ALL KNOW THE VOTERS DON'T READ FROM WORD TO WORD. THEY SKIM THROUGH IT. IF THEY READ THE FIRST 19 WORDS, THE ANSWER IS NO AND THEY WON'T FINISH READING IT. I'M ASKING THIS GROUP TO LOOK AT THE HANDOUT I JUST GAVE YOU. AND REMEMBER OUR OBJECTIVE IS NOT TO INCREASE THE SALARY, WHICH IS WHAT THE FIRST 19 WORDS SAY. OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO ADD A COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALARY, IT'S JUST A COST-OF-LIVING. SO WHEN I WAS BANGING AROUND THE KEYBOARD WHEN I WROTE THIS, I THOUGHT THE BLUFF -- BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT. SO LET'S ASK THE VOTERS TO LOOK AT A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. I CHANGED THE WORDING A LITTLE BIT. BUT I WANTED YOU TO ACTUALLY SEE IT SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT. BECAUSE SITTING HERE HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH SOMETHING YOU CAN SEE IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT. THAT'S ALL HE NEEDED TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. COMMENTS? >> MY ONLY CONCERN, MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE WERE TOLD THAT THE SALARY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE WORDING AT $37,000 PER YEAR. IS THAT TRUE? >> YES. THERE IS CASE LAW (INDISCERNIBLE). >> OKAY. >> ANYONE ELSE? MR. THEUS. >> MR. RUSSELL, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. I THINK IT'S DANGEROUS ON OUR PART TO ASSUME THE VOTER CAN'T [00:15:04] READ AND DOESN'T READ. I'M NOT BEING FLIPPANT. IT'S JUST THAT I HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME. THAT THE VOTER DOESN'T PROCESS -- I THINK THEY DO. THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T SPEAK UP. HAVING SAID THAT, IF THE CASE LAW SAYS WE HAVE TO PUT THE NUMBER IN THERE, I THINK THAT'S MORE TO THE (INDISCERNIBLE). >> I AGREE. AS AN ADULT EDUCATOR, WE HAVE TO TALK TO THE LOWEST LEVEL AND WE HAVE TO SPEAK AT ALL LEVELS. THAT'S THE 18-YEAR-OLD HIGHSCHOOLER AND THE 84-YEAR-OLD WHO LIVES IN FLEMING ISLAND SEAGRASS. OUR AUDIENCE IS VERY BROAD. AND IT TALKS TO HIGH SCHOOLERS TO THE SENIOR OF ALL SENIORS. TRYING TO REACH THAT GROUP, WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO GET THEIR ATTENTION FIRST. TELL THEM WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND TELL THEM WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO. IN THE 37,000 SALARY? I DON'T THINK THE FIRST 19 WORDS THAT SAY WE WANT TO INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- IF THAT'S THE FIRST WORDS WE ARE SAYING, I GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE A DEFENSIVE APPROACH FROM ANY VOTER. I DON'T CARE FROM 18 TO 84. >> JUST LOOKING AT THIS -- IF WE WERE TO -- AND I'LL JUST THROW THIS OUT TO THE GROUP. FOLLOWING THE WORDS SALARIES IN YOUR PROPOSED TEXT, IF WE WERE TO PUT SALARIES OF 37,000 PER YEAR, SOMETHING IN THERE LIKE THAT, OR MAYBE NOT THERE, BUT EVEN AT THE END? JUST SO THAT ONE, WE MEET THE REQUIREMENT. AND 2, THE POINT YOU WANT TO MAKE IS WE ARE GOING TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT UP FRONT WHAT WE ARE REALLY DOING IS TO AMEND THIS TO INCLUDE THE COST OF LIVING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ENCOMPASS WHAT EVERYBODY SAID. AND THAT IT IS CLEAR TO THE VOTER -- WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THEY VOTE ON. >> YET. I'M NOT OBJECTING TO ANYTHING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN HONEST CONVERSATION. AND I WANTED TO THROW MY OPINION OUT THERE. WHICH IS WHY I TOOK THE TIME TO TYPE IT OUT IN RED. SO WE CAN HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ANYWAY YOU WANT TO DO IT OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO FINISH IT. >> AM OPEN TO IDEAS. MS. TERRY? >> I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT. BECAUSE THE SALARY IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVER THIS. IT DOES KIND OF LEAD US THERE THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE. ACADEMICALLY, IT DOES CHANGE. THEY ARE GETTING COST-OF-LIVING. THE BASE SALARY -- I COULD SEE IT BEING MISLEADING. AND I APPRECIATE MR. THEUS -- I JUST THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE THEIR PRECONCEIVED IDEAS WHEN THEY GO TO THAT BALLOT BOX. AND THEY ARE REALLY GOING TO READ THE FIRST 19 WORDS. IT'S NOT THAT THEY CAN'T READ. BUT I WOULD LIKE THEM TO GO IN THERE WITH AS OPEN AND NON-LEAD FOR LACK A BETTER WAY -- I DON'T WANT TO LEAN THEM IN ANY ONE DIRECTION. AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY THE DIRECTION GOES. BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT. IT IS A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. TO THEIR FIXED $37,000 A YEAR SALARY -- BASE SALARY. >> CORRECT. IN THE END RESULT WILL BE A 37,000 ANNUAL SALARY PLUS A COST-OF-LIVING RAISE. AND THEN, IT WOULD CHANGE IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS. SO IT WOULD JUST KEEP UP WITH THE COST OF INFLATION. BUT THE BASE SALARY IS STILL RELEVANT. >> IT IS IN FIXED? THAT'S A BAD WORD. OKAY. >> GO AHEAD, ROBERT. >> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY -- I AGREE WITH MR. RUSSELL. NOWHERE IN THE ORIGINAL DOES IT MENTION THE WORD COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.ND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE THAT DISTINCTION THAT THIS IS A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. SO THAT IS GOING TO VARY EVERY YEAR. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL TEXT, IT LOOKS LIKE A SALARY INCREASE. LIKE WE ARE GIVING A RAISE. AND I UNDERSTAND ESSENTIALLY THAT IT IS GOING TO BE A RACE. BUT IT'S A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.F THERE IS NO COST-OF-LIVING CHANGE THAT YEAR, THEN THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE. I JUST THINK IT DEPICTS MORE ACCURATELY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE. THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE THEM A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.>> MR. THEUS? >> OUT OF FAIRNESS, TO EACH ONE WHO HAS SPOKEN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE SEMANTICS OFF THE TABLE. BECAUSE IN YEAR ONE, THIS PROPOSAL IS AT 37,000. BUT YEAR TWO, THEY HAVE A NEW RAISE AND NEW SALARY. WHATEVER THE CPI HAS INCREASED TO TWO. [00:20:05] SO AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO THE -- I'M A VOTER, I'M NOT IGNORANT. SO I WANT US TO BE VERY CAREFUL. I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS, FIRST OF ALL. BECAUSE AS A FAN OF SMALL GOVERNMENT, ALL WE ARE DOING IS PUTTING IN PLACE AN ANNUAL INCREASE TO GROW OUR GOVERNMENT. LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT SPEAKING IN GIBBERISH AND SEMANTICS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PAY RAISE. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE COUCHED IN A CPI COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. BUT IF I COME TO THIS BOARD IN THE SECOND CYCLE, I'M NOT MAKING 37. I MAKING 37+3 AND A HALF OR FIVE -- WHO IS DETERMINING WHAT CPI IS. WE CANNOT ARGUE THAT NOW THEY'VE DOWNGRADED CPI TO TAKING CERTAIN THINGS OUT OF IT. BUT THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION MAY BE IN FAVOR OF INCLUDING THOSE THINGS BACK. I THINK WE ARE ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR THE SAKE OF US SPEAKING OUT LOUD, ON THE RECORD. LET'S NOT LIE TO EACH OTHER. WE ARE RAISING THE SALARIES. SO HOWEVER WE DECIDE YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO PUT THAT IN WRITING, LET'S BE HONEST WITH EACH OTHER AND THE PEOPLE. >> COMMENTS? MR. JETT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- AS MY COLLEAGUE, MR. THEUS SAID, THIS IS STILL GOING TO BE SALARY INCREASE. YOU CAN CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT. IT'S GOING TO BE A SALARY INCREASE BASED ON THE COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.O IT'S GOING TO GO FROM 37,000 -- $1800 -- SO IT WILL BE 38 EIGHT SOMETHING NEXT YEAR. THE FOLLOWING YEAR, IT WILL BE 40,000.T IS SALARY INCREASE. SO I FAVOR MR. TAYLOR'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE LEAVE IT AS A SALARY INCREASE SO PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER THEIR EYES. IT'S A SALARY INCREASE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THANK YOU. >> YES SIR. MR. HODGES?> I'VE GOT A QUESTION. SPOKE TO MY PCOMMISSIONER TODAY, AND SHE IS NOT IN FAVOR IN ANY KIND OF A RAISE OR INCREASE PERIOD. CAN I ASK IF ANY OF YOU GUYS HAVE SPOKE TO ANY OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AND WHAT THEIR STANDINGS ARE? BECAUSE EACH OF US HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY A COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND I WAS WONDERING WHICH WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS? >> MR. HODGES, I DELIBERATELY DIDN'T ASK HIM. HIS OR HER CONSIDERATION TO ME IS NOT WHERE I'M GOING FROM. THEY MIGHT HAVE APPOINTED ME. THE REALITY IS I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHO PUT ME ON THIS COMMITTEE (LAUGHING). I MEAN, IT'S NICE THAT THEY CAME TO YOU, BUT I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT RECYCLING. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO. >> MAY I MAKE ONE MORE CLARIFYING POINT? IF ANY OF US AREFAMILIAR WITH THE ROLES OF 72 , AT A FIVE PERCENT CPI INCREASE, WE DOUBLED THEIR SALARY IN 14.4 YEARS. I WAS IN FAVOR OF SETTING A PRICE POINT OF A FIXED DOLLAR AMOUNT. WHETHER IT WAS CPI OR NOT. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT ANY OF OUR CURRENT COUNCILMAN, THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE JOB FOR THE MONEY. EVERYONE SAYS WELL, IT'S A PART-TIME JOB. YOU CAN DO 37 -- WHAT IS IT -- 37?2 -- THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE CALCULATING. WHAT IS IT, $74,000? IT'S A PART-TIME JOB. THAT'S WHERE THE 37 COMES FROM, PROBABLY. BUT I DON'T THINK FOLKS LINEUP TO SIGN UP FOR THE OFFICE FOR THE MONEY. THEY DO IT FOR SERVICE. AS A TAXPAYER AND SOMEONE WHO IS BURDENED BY TAXES, IN 14 YEARS I'M GOING TO BE PAYING THIS PERSON DOUBLE. IF IT'S A FIVE PERCENT INCREASE, WHICH I THINK IS A MODEST INCREASE BASED ON THE COST OF LIVING. AND I THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES OF THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. IF YOU ARE A SMALL GOVERNMENT PERSON, THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO KEEP A SMALL GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A WAY TO INCREASE GOVERNMENT. THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT WHY DO WE KEEP RAISING TAXES? THIS IS A VEHICLE THAT DOES IT -- RIGHT HERE. BUREAUCRACY ONLY GETS SUCCESSFUL WHEN THEY GET BIGGER AND BROADER. IF WE ARE CONSERVATIVE IN THIS COUNTY, AND I'M STARTING TO THINK THERE ARE FEWER OF US. BUT IF WE ARE TRULY CONSERVATIVE, THIS IS NOT THE [00:25:01] AVENUE THAT WE TAKE. SO -- I DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONVERSATION THAT OUR VOTERS ARE GOING TO MISINTERPRET WHAT WE ARE DOING. I THINK THEY ARE CLEARLY GOING TO SEE WHAT WE ARE DOING. AGAIN, I WOULD RATHER PUT A NUMBER OUT THERE -- IF IT'S 40 OR 45,000.HATEVER THAT NUMBER IS. AND I KNOW NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO DISCUSS THAT. BUT SET IT AND LET THE NEXT COMMISSION WORRY DOWN THE ROAD. BUT IF WE SET SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT IS GOING TO CONTINUALLY BE BASED ON THIS NUMBER, HELL, WE COULD GET INTO WHAT IF IT'S 18 PERCENT CPI? 12 PERCENT? OR EIGHT PERCENT? THEN WE ARE EXPANDING GOVERNMENT AT AN ANNUAL BASIS WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ROLE OF A SMALLER GOVERNMENT. AND MAYBE WE AGREE TO DISAGREE PHILOSOPHICALLY ON THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, BUT I WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE JUST LIKE YOU ARE AND ALL OF US WERE. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. >> BRINGING IT BACK TO WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE, WHICH IS THE TEXT. ALL RIGHT? SO WHAT WE HAVE IS PROPOSED TEXT THAT MR. TAYLOR PUT ON THE TABLE.WE HAVE AN AMENDED -- OR A PROPOSED AMENDED TEXT THAT MR. RUSSELL PUT UP.SO BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW FROM THE GROUP IS -- TWO THINGS. ONE, WHICH ONE DO YOU PREFER? AND IF NEITHER, AND YOU WANT TO REWORK THIS, THEN WE SHOULD GIVE MR. TAYLOR SOME DIRECTION. AND THEN, HAVE HIM COME BACK. OKAY? BUT WE'VE ALREADY DEBATED WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO HERE. AND MADE THAT DECISION -- TOOK A BOAT AND SAID OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE CHANGING THIS ONLY BY THE CPI. RIGHT? SO NOW, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE TEXT AND HOW YOU WANT IT TO READ. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE GROUP THINKS ON THAT AND WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS. >> THIS IS SORT OF A QUESTION. YOU KNOW, FOR ME, PERSONALLY? THE 37,000 -- THAT'S WHAT I EVEN -- WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT. I SAID I WASN'T OPPOSED TO HAVING SOMETHING IN THERE FOR COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT. YOU KNOW, THE MORE I REFLECTED AND WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT WOULD JUST CONTINUE, I REALLY DIDN'T LIKE THAT. FOR ME -- I KIND OF PREFER THAT 37,000+ THE COST OF LIVING, AS LONG AS THAT COMMISSIONER IS IN OFFICE. ONCE THEY GO OUT -- MAYBE THAT'S A REALLY SILLY THING TO EVEN TALK ABOUT? BUT ONCE THEY ARE REPLACED, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD START OVER AT THE SAME THING? AND THEN, IT WOULD BUILD -- YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD START OVER. THEY WOULD BE A NEW COMMISSIONER, SO THEY WOULD START BACK, THEIR FIRST YEAR AT 37. AND THEN THEY WOULD GET WHATEVER -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE? PMAYBE THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT?BUT I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. >> AT A TIME WHEN THE VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS ARE WANTING MORE TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND FOR GOVERNMENT TO OPERATE IN THE SUNSHINE, IF THIS IS WHAT WE AGREED TO DO FOR WHATEVER KIND OF RAISE, IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT, LET'S NOT DISGUISE IT AS SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT. WHEN IT IS. I DON'T AGREE WITH PUTTING SOMETHING TO THE VOTERS AS A DISGUISE. I THINK THAT WILL REFLECT ON THIS BODY AS BEING DECEPTIVE. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. >> MR. HODGES? >> I AGREE WITH WHAT MR. TAYLOR SAID. THIS IS A RAISE IN ANY OTHER FORMAT AND IT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AS SUCH. WHETHER IT'S A COST-OF-LIVING RAISE, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PRAISE IT. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR TO THE VOTERS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING THEY CAN READ CLEARLY, THEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. AND I'M WITH SCOTTY -- LET'S PUT IT IN THE SUNSHINE. IF WE BELIEVE IT AND SAY IT, LET'S STAND UP FOR IT WHERE THE VOTER CAN CLEARLY READ IT AND HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT IS VOTING ON. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF WHAT VOTERS CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND. I DON'T KNOW MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD READ (INDISCERNIBLE) AS A RAISE. SO THAT MEETS YOUR PARAMETERS. YOU TOLD THEM IT'S A RAISE. [00:30:03] I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE PARSING WORDS? IF YOU WANT TO GO OUT THERE AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE SALARIES THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN BY MR. TAYLOR, THAT'S OKAY. I HAPPEN TO LIKE THIS TEXT BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE LOOK AT SOMETHING AND GO WELL, MAYBE THEY DESERVE A COST-OF-LIVING RAISE. I THINK IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND THROW IT OUT THERE WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE HER SALARIES? I DO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO READ THAT AND SAY I'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THIS ONCE BEFORE AND VOTE THAT WAY AGAIN. AND OTHER PEOPLE HAVING NOT BEEN HERE DON'T KNOW THE PAST HISTORY. AND THEY ARE GOING TO SAY WHY ARE YOU PAYING YOUR COMMISSIONERS SO LITTLE TO START WITH? SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR. AND IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE BLUNT, YOU CAN CHANGE THE WORD ADJUSTMENTS TO READ INCLUDE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT WORD OUT THERE AND THAT SATISFIES YOU? >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. I COULD GO WITH THE SECOND VERSION BETTER. I WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THINGS. >> SO IT WOULD READ SHELBY COUNTY AND CHARTER BE AMENDED TO THE COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARIES OF 37,000 BASED ON FEDERAL CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS. IS THAT CORRECT? AND I THINK IF YOU GO LOOK AT COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES OVER THE PAST 115 YEARS, THEY'VE AVERAGED ABOUT TWO PERCENT. SO I UNDERSTAND RULE OF 72'S, BUT THAT'S GROSSLY INFLATED. >> SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION -- FIRST OF ALL, DOES THAT FINISH DISCUSSION? LET ME JUST SAY THAT -- YES, MA'AM,? >> SO STARTING WITH THE RED, INCLUDE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE CLAY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE 37,000 ANNUAL SALARY. BASED UPON THE FEDERAL CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30 AND THEREAFTER, ADJUSTING ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CLAY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? >> YEAH, $37,000 ANNUAL SALARY. AND THEN, WE ARE KEEPING THE ADJUSTING ANNUALLY, RIGHT? YOU JUST PUT IN READ WHAT YOU WANTED TO CHANGE? YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO TAKE THAT OUT? >> I'M NOT TAKING ANYTHING OUT. IT BEGINS THE SAME AND IT ENDS THE SAME. >> OKAY. >> SUSIE, JUST FOR THE GROUP, WOULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN? FROM THE BEGINNING? >> OKAY. SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE CLAY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, $37,000 ANNUAL SALARY, BASED UPON THE FEDERAL CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS. EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2023 AND THEREAFTER ADJUSTING ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION. >> OKAY. IN ORDER TO GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ON THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND THEN, WE CAN OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. SO YOU WILL MAKE A MOTION AND READ THEM. THE FIRST TIME IS PRACTICE! >> OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT QUESTION ONE REACH THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING -- I THINK WE NEED TO PUT AND -- SO SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE AN ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE CLAY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS $37,000 ANNUAL SALARIES BASED UPON THE FEDERAL CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS. EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2023 AND THEREAFTER, ADJUSTING ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION. >> OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.> MR. HODGES. OKAY. THE ITEM IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION? :. >> I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT CHANGING THE WORD INFLATION -- BECAUSE WE AREN'T ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION.E ARE ADJUSTING BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (INDISCERNIBLE). >> SO THAT WOULD READ ANNUALLY, BASED ON --? >> CPI. >> SO AFTER ANNUALLY, YOU ARE PROPOSING THE WORDS"BASED ON CPI ?". >> REPEAT THAT FOR ME? >> WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THIS WORD SAYS ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION. THE LAST WORD IN THE PARAGRAPH. AND THAT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE [00:35:04] CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. OR CHANGES IN THE CPI. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING IT FOR INFLATION. AND INFLATION AND CPI ARE NOT THE SAME THING. SO WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING THEN -- I'M SORRY. >> THEREAFTER, ADJUSTING ANNUALLY, BASED ON THE CPI -- BASED ON THE RATE OF CPI OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. BASED ON THE CONSUMERPRICE INDEX. IS CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CONSIDERED ONE WORD OR IS A CONSIDERED THREE? WHAT IS THE WORD NUMBER WE ARE LIMITED TO IN THE BALLOT ITEM? >> 75, RIGHT? >> WE ARE ONLY AT ABOUT 45 WORDS HERE. >> OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY DONE MORE HOMEWORK. BUT IS THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ONLY FOR URBAN EARNERS OR CLERICAL? (INDISCERNIBLE)? >> THERE ARE REALLY TWO DIFFERENT (INDISCERNIBLE) (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). -- -- IT WAS A REFERENCE TO HAVING IT ALONG THOSE LINES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR THE GROUP -- FOLLOWING THE PROCESS, TO RETURN IT BACK TO MR. TAYLOR TO CLEAN IT UP, AND THEN SEND IT BACK OUT AGAIN FOR THE NEXT MEETING? OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE IT AS IS WITH WHAT WE HAVE HERE AND VOTE ON IT? MR. TAYLOR? >> WHATEVER THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO, I'M HAPPY TO DO IT. P>> OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT EFFICIENCY HERE. >> I'LL HAVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. SO I'LL BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE UP OF THOSE TO MAKE SURE I GET IT CORRECT. >> I'D LIKE TO KICK IT BACK TO MR. TAYLOR. WERE NOT IN THIS TIME CRUNCH WERE WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME, RIGHT? I THINK WE SHOULD KICK IT BACK. >> OKAY. MR. RUSSELL? THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THE WORDING IS CORRECT? I'M NOT SAYING FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, I'M SAYING DO YOU NEED TO REVIEW THIS WITH ANYBODY TO MAKE SURE WE'VE STATED IT CORRECTLY? >> I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF RESEARCH. I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE PROPOSING -- I LIKE TO KEEP THAT 37 IN THERE. BUT OTHERWISE, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO GO AHEAD, SUSIE, WE ARE STILL ON DISCUSSION. >> OKAY. SO FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES, I WAS JUST THINKING WHEN MR. GILLIS BROUGHT UP THE WORD PERPETUITY? I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS NOT -- IT SAYS ADJUSTED ANNUALLY, BUT WHEN YOU'RE JUST READING IT AND YOU DON'T KNOW THE BACKGROUND THAT WE KNOW UP HERE, I FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU JUST SAY ANNUALLY, IT'S KIND OF LIKE OKAY, JUST FOR A FEW YEARS OR SOMETHING. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD INCLUDE THE WORDS ANNUALLY BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX? >> IF THAT'S WHAT'S THERE. >> WELL, I WAS GOING TO -- I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THAT THAT, TO ME, THIS DOESN'T GIVE THE WHOLE PICTURE OF WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO DO. SO I'M OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS. >> THE TERM BASED ON CHANGES WAS BROUGHT UP. SO YOU ARE QUESTIONING THE TERM ANNUALLY? OR SHOULD IT BE WHENEVER CHANGES ARE MADE? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO GET TO HERE? >> QUESTION, IF I MAY? I THINK WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET TO IS THAT THERE IS NOT A TIME LIMIT ON THIS AMENDMENT. > RIGHT. >> AND SHE SAYING DO YOU NEED TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE TO INDICATE THAT IT IS IN PERPETUITY? >> YEAH. BECAUSE ANNUALLY -- OBVIOUSLY, ANNUALLY IS EVERY YEAR. EVERY YEAR FOREVER. AND IT'S GOING TO KEEP BUILDING AND GROWING. >> UNLESS YOU PUT A STOP DATE ON IT, IT WILL BY DEFAULT. >> RIGHT. OKAY. WELL, I MEAN --. >> I AGREE. >> THAT'S WHY I HAVE THE WORD THEREAFTER. BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO WHATEVER THE COMMISSION SAYS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> OKAY. SO WE HAVE AGREED, THEN, AND I GUESS WE SHOULD TAKE A VOTE TO [00:40:01] SEND IT BACK TO MR. TAYLOR TO CLEAN IT ALL UP. AND THEN, PRESENT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING? OKAY. IS THERE AN AGREEMENT ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSE? WE HAVE TWO OPPOSED? OKAY. SO MR. TAYLOR, TAKE A BACK. ALL RIGHT. MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM WAS THE BALLOT PROPOSAL FOR REMOVING THE TERM LIMIT PROVISION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. MR. TAYLOR, AGAIN, CAME UP WITH SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT UP. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS MAKE A MOTION TO DISCUSS THIS. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> YOU CAN JUST DISCUSS IT. >> OKAY, FINE. WE CAN DISCUSS IT WITHOUT EMOTION. THE FLOOR IS OPEN. MS. TERRY? >> WE JUST NEED TO SPELL SHERIFF WRIGHT. >> YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. MR. RUSSELL? >> CAN WE ADD THE WORD COUNTY FOR THE MISSPELLED WORD SHERIFF?> SURE. >> BECAUSE WE MENTIONED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. I KNOW WE'VE ALL HAD THIS DISCUSSION IN RECENT MEETINGS. A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE COUNTY -- PROBABLY IN THE STATE -- REALLY DON'T KNOW -- AND THIS IS WHY WE PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN HERE. THEY DON'T KNOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE. WE SPELL THAT OUT IN THIS. I WAS JUST ASKING IF WE WOULD CONSIDER E WORD COUNTY FOR SUPPORT SAYS CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF, PROPERTY APPRAISER'S DEPAKOTE JUST ADD THE WORD COUNTY ONE TIME? IF IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING, LET'S DO IT. IF NOT, THEN IT'S TRIVIAL AT BEST. >> DISCUSSION? >> IF YOU DID THAT, WOULD YOU NEED TO PUT A SEMICOLON AFTER COUNTY? TO INDICATE THAT WORD APPLIES TO ALL THOSE TERMS? IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, IT INDICATES COUNTY SHERIFF AND (INDISCERNIBLE). (INDISCERNIBLE). NOT IN DANGER OF OVERSTEPPING 75 WORDS YET -- YET. >>, OR SEMICOLON? >> OKAY. COMMENTS? MR. JETT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST GOING TO THROW SOMETHING OUT FOR CONSIDERATION. YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS AND FOUR MONTHS AGO, THE COUNTY COMMISSION VOTED TO PLACE THIS ON THE BALLOT. ONE OF THOSE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS NOW A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER. SHE WAS VERY VOCAL. SHE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE. AND SHE VOTED FOR PUTTING THIS ISSUE ON THE BALLOT. IN ALL FAIRNESS TO HER, SO SHE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE HYPOCRITICAL AND SHE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE SELF-SERVING. BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED, SO HER POSITION SHOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED. OTHER THAN NOW, SHE IS A TAX COLLECTOR. SO I THINK WE SHOULD, INDIFFERENCE TO HER, THE TAX COLLECTOR, TAKE HER OFFICE OUT OF HERE AND LEAVE IT WITH THE TERM LIMITS APPLYING TO IT SO WE DON'T PUT HER IN A POSITION TO BE HYPOCRITICAL OR SELF-SERVING. >> I DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING! (LAUGHING)! >> COMMENTS? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. JETT. I WAS ACTUALLY THERE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. SO I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM. [00:45:04] >> CAN SOMEONE UNPACK THAT FOR ME SINCE I WASN'T THERE? [LAUGHTER] >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION! >> I DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING! >> AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT, I LIKE TO RECAP FOR THE RECORD -- WHERE ARE WE IN THIS? WHAT IS THE BOAT? LAST I REMEMBER IS MR. TIMBERLAKE SAYING I WILL RESEND THIS WHOLE THING AND WE CAN'T DO THAT. AND WE VOTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO -- PUT THIS ON THE REFERENDUM FOR THE BALLOT TO BE REVISED. WHAT WAS THE BOAT THAT WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD TO STROKE THE COUNT? BUT PLEASE UNPACK WHAT YOU SAID, MR. JETT. I'M SORRY. I'M IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE. >> THE HISTORY IS WE HAD A COUNTY COMMISSIONER WHO WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE AND VERY VOCAL OF PUTTING THIS ISSUE ON THE BALLOT TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. SHE WAS VERY VOCAL. IN OUR COLLEAGUE WAS HERE AT THAT MEETING. SO IN ORDER TO NOT PLACE HER IN A POSITION TO BE HYPOCRITICAL OR SELF-SERVING NOW THAT SHE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, THE EASIEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO TAKE HER OFFICE OUT AND ALLOW IT TO STAY AS A TERM LIMIT OFFICE AS SHE WANTS IT TO BE. >> WHAT -- THAT IS VERY ALTRUISTIC, AND I DON'T THINK SHE CAN BE CHARGED BY WHAT THIS BODY DOES BY WHAT HER INTENTIONS WERE. THE SECOND THING IS, THEN, DO WE CREATE ONE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE THAT HAS TERM LIMITS ON THE REST DON'T? THAT DOESN'T FLY. THAT'S WEIRD. MY CONCERN WITH THIS WHOLE THING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TERM LIMITS. IT'S A FACT THAT WE WILL LOSE ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONALISTS AT ONE TIME. THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED POORLY THE FIRST TIME. SO I DON'T KNOW. WE LEAVE ONE CONSTITUTIONAL THAT WAS TERM LIMITED --. HER TERM LIMITS. >> MR. TAYLOR? >> IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT, WHEN THIS CAME ABOUT, TERM LIMITS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, IT WAS A TIED VOTE IN THE LAST CRC. SO, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. ATTORNEY, A TIED VOTE -- IT FAILED. SO IT THEN WENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE EXACT VOTE ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION -- I BELIEVE IT WAS A 3-2 TO PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT FOR THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT MR. JETT IS ALLUDING TO.HEN THAT TRANSPIRED LAST TIME. >> THANK YOU. COMMENTS? >> DO WE HAVE CONFIRMATIONS THAT ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONALISTS WILL TURN OUT AT THE SAME TIME UNDER THE CURRENT STANDING? >> YES. >> YET. >> SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS STILL THE PROPOSED TEXT. ALL RIGHT. AND WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? IF NOT, DO WE WANT TO TAKE -- WE HAVE MADE JUST ONE SUGGESTION IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN HERE, WHICH IS THE COUNTY. WE WANT TO INCORPORATE ANYTHING THAT MR. JETT HAS BROUGHT UP? MR. TIMBERLAKE? >> I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT. I WOULD GIVE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER THE OPPORTUNITY TO (INDISCERNIBLE) AND SAY I CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THIS AND I WILL TURN MYSELF OUT AT THE END OF MY TERM. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE WISE ON THIS COMMISSION'S PART TO SINGLE OUT A PARTICULAR OFFICE AND TREATED SEPARATELY. BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT YOU MADE. >> NO PROBLEM. >> OKAY. POINT TAKEN. MS. LUDWIG? >> AND I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I KNOW THIS WAS VOTED ON A LITTLE WHILE BACK. BUT JUST TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. THAT A LOT OF VOTERS MAY NOT KNOW WHO THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES WERE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT. AND AGAIN, IF PEOPLE VOTE IT DOWN, THEY VOTED DOWN. [00:50:02] IT'S JUST WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE TRANSPARENT AND CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS THEY ARE VOTING FOR. SO --. >> SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION, FIRST OF ALL, TO AMEND -- TO PUT THIS FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT OF THE TWO WORDS, THE COUNTY? OR, SINCE MR. TAYLOR IS GOING TO TAKE THIS BACK, OR TAKE THE FIRST ONE BACK, HAVE HIM COME BACK WITH BOTH? >> (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). GOING TO MAKE IS THE COUNTY AND:, I THINK WE CAN SATISFY THAT TONIGHT AND (INDISCERNIBLE). >> OKAY. THEN WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT. >> A MOVE. [LAUGHTER] >> I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MAKE THE SMALL WORD CHANGE ON QUESTION NUMBER 2, INCLUDE THE TWO WORDS THE COUNTY,:, SHERIFF -- --. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MR. TAYLOR? >> AND CHANGE THE SPELLING. A LITTLE SPELLCHECK GOES A LONG WAY! >> AND MR. TAYLOR SECONDED IT. ALL RIGHT.NY FURTHER DISCUSSION?LL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSE? OKAY, MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. >> MAN! >> AMAZING! [NEW BUSINESS] >> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT SECTION 4. IN SECTION 4, UNDER NEW BUSINESS, SECTION 4.2 POINT BE WHICH IS AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS BY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THERE THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT. THREE ITEMS, ACTUALLY, IN THE COMPOSITION. WHICH IS THE CURRENT COMPOSITION THAT WE HAVE. THE MEETING INTERVAL, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS A DISCUSSION POINT. SO MY QUESTION THEN IS IF WE LOOK AT THIS, DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS COMPOSITION OR LEAVE IT AS IT IS? PTHAT'S THE FIRST ITEM. SO IF YOU GO TO 4.2 POINT P ON PAGE 12. THE FIRST SECTION, POINT ONE IS 15 ELECTORS AS MEMBERS AND FIVE ADDITIONAL ELECTORS AS ALTERNATE MEMBERS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THAT? NO? OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM WAS THE INTERVAL. CURRENTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THE BOARD MEETS (INDISCERNIBLE). THERE IS TALK ABOUT CHANGING THAT INTERVAL. SO DO WE WANT TO PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THAT INTERVAL OR NOT? PEN FOR DISCUSSION. >> I PROPOSE TO CHANGE IT TO EIGHT YEARS. >> EIGHT YEARS. OKAY. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE INTERVAL TO EIGHT YEARS AND A SECOND. MR. TIMBERLAKE?> I HAVE NO DISCUSSION. >> IT'S BEEN TRIED RECENTLY, OF COURSE. THEY TRY TO EXTEND --? >> I DON'T THINK SO. >> I HAVE HERE SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FROM EVERY FOUR YEARS TO EVERY EIGHT YEARS FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER 2018 GENERAL ELECTION. YES WAS 20 AND NOAH WAS 80 PERCENT. >> OKAY. SO ANY DISCUSSION? >> I'M GOING TO TREAD LIGHTLY. THAT IS, I THINK MARK (NAME), WHEN HE LED THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS DOING AND WHAT THE CHARTER IS, THAT IT IS AN OVERARCHING DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDES BROAD GUIDANCE. AS SUCH, IT DOESN'T LOOK TO BE CHANGED EVERY TWO OR THREE OR [00:55:01] FOUR YEARS. THAT IT SHOULD BE LONGER REACHING THINGS. OR WE TURN IT INTO NOTHING MORE THAN A JELLY DOCUMENT. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE TO INDICATE THAT AS AN OVERARCHING DOCUMENT, OR SOMETHING TO THAT TERM, THAT WE COUCH IT, THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT WE CHANGE THE COMMISSION'S TENURE EVERY EIGHT YEARS INSTEAD OF EVERY FOUR YEARS. I WOULD GO FOR 10, BUT --. LET'S GO WITH 12 AND WE WILL MEET IN THE MIDDLE AT 10. I THINK WE OVERDO THE PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT SERVES A DISSERVICE TO THE CONCEPT OF THE CHARTER. EIGHT YEARS ON THEIR CHARTER REVIEWS. THAT INFORMATION WAS HANDED TO US AT OUR FIRST MEETING OR OUR SECOND MEETING, BACK IN OCTOBER. MANY COUNTIES DO FOLLOW AN EIGHT-YEAR TERM IN THE CHARTER REVIEW. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL ALSO ADD THOUGH THERE ARE SOME CHARTER COUNTIES THAT ON THE FIRST MEETING, THEY ALL GET TOGETHER AND SAY WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHANGES. AND THEY OPEN AND CLOSE IT AT THAT FIRST MEETING. JUST FOR DISCUSSION. >> MR. THEUS? >> I WOULD SUPPORT THE EIGHT YEAR -- WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT. BUT OUR FRAME WAS DESIGNED FOR THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM TO MOVE AT GLACIER SPEED. I THINK EVERY FOUR YEARS WE ATTEMPT TO MAKE CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE HASTY. WHEN AT THIS LEVEL -- THE CHARTER. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT LEVEL OF THE COUNTY. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE SET IN STONE. THE CHARTER ALLOWS FOR THREE AVENUES TO MAKE CHANGES -- OUR COUNCILMAN, THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE, AND THIS COMMITTEE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE PWITHHOLDING THE VOTERS THE CHANCE TO MAKE CHANGESIF SOMETHING WERE TO COME UP IN THE HIGH-SPEED GROWTH WE ARE EXPERIENCING. BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT -- A TEMPTATION TO GET INTO A BIT OF A TINKLING MATCH EVERY FOUR YEARS. AND SO, I KNOW ALL OF US COME TO THE TABLE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS. BUT CHANGE FOR CHANGE SAKE IS AND ALWAYS THE BEST PREMISE. SO I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE EIGHT-YEAR MODEL. >> ANYONE ELSE? MR. TAYLOR? >> I AGREE. EVERY EIGHT YEARS IS ENOUGH TIME TO PRESENT SOMETHING BACK TO THE VOTERS. >> SO WE HAVE -- (INDISCERNIBLE). >> I ALSO WOULD AGREE WITH AN EIGHT-YEAR TERM. BUT I WOULD LIKE THE TEXT AMENDED TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE MR. TIMBERLAKE SAID. AS BEING AN OVERARCHING DOCUMENT. SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE JUST PUTTING THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED WHY WE WOULD OFFER IT BACK UP AGAIN. SO --. >> THANK YOU. IT IS THE COUNTY'S CONSTITUTION. IS IT NOT? AND SO, WE SHOULD PROBABLY REFLECT THAT SERIOUSNESS IN THE DOCUMENT. SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE, AGAIN, GIVE THIS TO MR. TAYLOR FOR COMING BACK TO US WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE. >> YES, SIR. (INDISCERNIBLE) 2018, HOPEFULLY. >> WE AGREE ON THAT? >> YES, SIR. >> VERY GOOD.KAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES IN SECTION 4 THAT YOU WISH TO DISCUSS? NO? OKAY. THAT WOULD CLOSE NEW BUSINESS. BY THE WAY, JUST AS -- VOTE ON THAT? I'M SORRY, YOU ARE RIGHT. WE NEED TO VOTE ON YOUR MOTION. WHICH IF YOU WANT TO RESTATE IT, PLEASE. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CHANGE -- MAKE A CHANGE THAT REFLECTS A MEETING EVERY EIGHT YEARS. AND WE WILL LET MR. TAYLOR WORD THAT UP. >> THANK YOU. AND A SECOND FOR MR. TAYLOR? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSE? [01:00:02] OKAY. YOU'LL TAKE THAT, SIR? >> I CERTAINLY WILL. >> JUST A NOTE TO EVERYONE.F NEXT MEETING WE FINISH ALL THIS DISCUSSION, VOTE ON IT AND AGREE, JUST WANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE NOTE I SENT TO YOU ALL. THAT FOLLOWING THAT WOULD BE THREE PUBLIC HEARING'S. AND THAT IS A CHANCE, OF COURSE, FOR THE PUBLIC TO COME AND COMMENT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE ARE MAKING FOR THE BALLOT. AND BASED ON THAT, WHEN THAT'S FINISHED, WE WOULD THEN PRESENT IT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND IT WOULD GO ON THE BALLOT. AND JUST TO REITERATE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COURTNEY, THOSE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND WE DON'T VOTE ON ANYTHING AT THAT POINT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> RIGHT (INDISCERNIBLE). >> JUST MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT. [PUBLIC COMMENT] WITH THAT SAID, ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN, IF THERE ARE ANY. MR. KLINZMAN. AND OF COURSE, THREE MINUTES. >> (NAME) KLINSMANN, MIDDLEBUR . (LAUGHING) THIS WAS A GREAT EXERCISE IN DEFINING MY FIRST STATEMENT. MY FIRST TIME UP. I WAS ON THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS SO POORLY RUN AND IT WAS SUCH A CLASH OF PERSONALITIES THAT MR. (NAME), WHO I BELIEVE WAS CHAIRMAN AT THAT TIME, OF THE BCC WAS SO DISGUSTED WITH THE CRC. HE'S THE ONE WHO ADVANCED, EXTENDING THE TIME BETWEEN CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETINGS . AND AS MS. LUDWIG -- I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT THAT RIGHT -- SAID, THE PUBLIC REJECTED THAT BY 80 PERCENT. THAT'S -- THAT'S UNHEARD OF. THE PUBLIC HEARD ABOUT IT. THEY VOTED ON IT. 80 PERCENT SAID NO.O YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THE CHARTER IS OUR LITERAL, MINI CONSTITUTION. AND IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING WRONG OR WE DON'T LIKE, OR WE OPPOSE -- WE HAVE EVERY FOUR YEARS TO BRING IT UP TO A WIDE ARRAY OF OUR CITIZENS TO TALK IT OVER AND AMEND IT IF IT'S NECESSARY. MAKING THE PUBLIC WAIT EIGHT YEARS OR 10 YEARS IS ANOTHER SLAP IN THE FACE. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. BUT LIKE I SAID, I WAS ON THE LAST ONE. AS FAR AS EVERY FOUR YEARS, IF YOU THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING OVER IT AGAIN -- AT THE NEXT CRC -- AND SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING, LET'S ADJOURN. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO CHARTER REVIEW YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS ON THAT ONE. WE MET AND WENT OVER A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED AND WE ADJOURNED. WE SAID THERE IS NO POINT OF CHANGING ANYTHING. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE DONE. THIS GROUP SHOULD BE A TAXPAYER DRIVEN, CITIZEN DRIVEN GROUP. YOU SHOULD BE TALKING TO ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS, AND GET THEIR INPUT. TOLD THE SCHOOL BOARD WHEN THEY BROUGHT UP CONTINUALLY TRYING TO GET RID OF MR. VAN ZANDT. THEY WANTED AN APPOINTED SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. I TOLD THEM IT'S GOING TO FAIL. BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY FAILED BEFORE. AND I GOT THE SAME NONSENSE WITH WELL, THERE ARE A LOT MORE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY NOW. WE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS TIME. COMMISSIONERS SALARIES? 61 PERCENT SAID NO. THEY DID NOT WANT THE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES TO BE TOUCHED. TERM LIMITS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCREEN 56 PERCENT SAID YES. I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THEM, BUT 56 PERCENT SAID YES AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. >> TIME. >> OH HISTORY REPEATS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC [CRC MEMBER COMMENTS] COMMENTS? NO? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY OTHER CRC MEMBER COMMENTS? I'M LOOKING AT THE NEXT MEETING -- I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE 29 MARCH. I BELIEVE THAT DATE IS OPEN. I'M GOING TO ASK COURTNEY AND KRISTI TO CHECK -- IS THAT DATE OPEN? [01:05:02] IT'S TUESDAY. >> CHAIRMAN, I WON'T BE HERE. I'LL BE ON VACATION. >> GOOD FOR YOU! >> TERESA IS ON VACATION -- I WONDER IF IT'S A THREE WEEK VACATION? >> OKAY. DOES THAT WORK FOR MOST -- TUESDAY EVENING? >> I DO HAVE A COMMENT. WHILE WE WERE TALKING, I LOOKED UP -- AND WITH DEFERENCE TO DR. (NAME) WHO SPOKE, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SCHOOL BOARD TERM LIMITS PASSED IN THE STATE LEGISLATOR FROM WHAT I READ. HE SAID IT PASS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD INFLUENCE ANY -- I THINK WE DECIDED TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH TERM LIMITS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. ND I WILL DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH. IT'S HJR 1461. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WENT TO THE BALLOT. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR? THIS WAS MENTIONED TO ME BY ONE OF SEVERAL PHONE CALLS I'VE GOTTEN FROM CONSTITUENTS. (INDISCERNIBLE). THEY REFERENCED THE COMMISSION SALARY BASED UPON THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS. SOME JUST GOING TO THROW THIS OUT THERE -- I DON'T KNOW, AND I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DIG INTO THIS, BUT I'M CURIOUS IF ANYONE IN THE ROOM KNOWS -- IS IT TRUE -- AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT IS -- THAT COMMISSIONERS RECEIVE A RETIREMENT THING. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PART OF THE FRS OR PART OF CLAY COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM? THAT AFTER SIX YEARS OF SERVICE -- SO I'M GOING TO SAY THIS. I HAD THE SAME BIG WHAT?O WITH THAT SAID, IF IT REALLY IS A PART-TIME JOB, THEN I WANT TO GET THAT JOB. DO SIX YEARS PART-TIME AND GET RETIREMENT? I'M GOOD. ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW OF ANYBODY IN THE ROOM KNOWS ABOUT THAT? >> I CAN TELL YOU. SIX YEARS IS TRUE. THREE PERCENT PER YEAR BASED ON YOUR TOP FIVE YEARS OF SALARY. AND YOU CAN (INDISCERNIBLE) YOUR RETIREMENT AFTER SIX YEARS. IT WAS 62 -- THEY GET THREE PERCENT PER YEAR, AS OPPOSED TO REGULAR EMPLOYEES GETTING 1.68 PERCENT. >> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.