[CALL TO ORDER]
[MOMENT OF SILENCE ]
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
[WELCOME]
[ROLL CALL]
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
[PUBLIC COMMENT]
[00:03:36]
GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA.
WE ARE NOW CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER. WE WILL HAVE A MOMENT OF
SILENCE ON THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> 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 AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A ROLL CALL.
DO WE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? >> ANY EMOTION.
>> MOTION. >> SECOND. >> THOSE IN FAVOR.
COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL RESTART.
GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS DAVID I'M A 23 WIDENER WAY IN ORCHARD PARK.
LET US UNPACK THE NARRATIVE REGARDING THE SEEMINGLY OPPRESSIVE DETERMINANTS THAT IMPACT THE LIFETIME OF GREAT WORK PERFORMED BY OUR ELECTED CONSTITUTION.
WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL'S ARE DIVINELY ANOINTED WITH CRITICAL SKILLS UNATTAINABLE BY MERE MORTALS. AND, THE REPUBLIC WILL FALL IF
[00:05:05]
WE DO NOT INSTITUTIONALIZE THEIR INCUMBENCY. SO, WE TOLERATE THE MERGING OF THEIR PERSONAL BRAND WITH THE OFFICE THEY HOLD BY USING GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO PAY FOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBERSHIPS, FUNDRAISING SPONSORSHIPS, PERSONNEL TO MANAGE PUBLIC AND MEDIA RELATIONS AND CAMPAIGNING VIA PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH THE YOUTHFUL IMAGES AND LOCAL USE. YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC[OLD BUSINESS]
COMMENT? I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT AND WE WILL COMMENCE DISCUSSION FOR OLD BUSINESS. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE OLD ON THE OLD BUSINESS IS THE PROPOSED TEXT FOR OR THE BCC SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS.MISTER ISTER TAYLOR HAS TAKEN OUR DIRECTION AND PREPARED THREE PROPOSED BALLOT INITIATIVES FOR US TO REVIEW THIS EVENING. THE FIRST ONE IS ON THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN DISCUSSION?
WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> VERY GOOD SO THAT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. >> AT THE LAST MEETING I MADE A MOTION AND PUT IN SOME WORDING. AND HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT LOOKING BACK OVER WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DRAFTED I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO MOVE ONE SENTENCE AROUND AND ACTUALLY AFTER CURRENT 32ND THOUSAND PER YEAR SALARIES THIS IS MY WORDING IF I CAN READ WHAT I SHALL THE CREEK COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE IN YOUR COST OF LEVEL INCREASES TO THE CLAY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CURRENT 37,000 ANNUAL SALARY EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 AND THEREAFTER ADJUSTING ANNUALLY BASED UPON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS. IT SORT OF PUTS THE SAME THING EVERYTHING IS THERE.
JUST GO AHEAD AND SAYING THAT IT'S EFFECTIVE THEN. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION AND
I'M HOPING TO HEAR THAT. >> MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE DISCUSSION IS THAT THERE IS AN
ADJUSTMENT. >> IT AMENDED TO INCLUDE THIS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT.
>> ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? >> WE HAVE THIS. >> MISTER CHAIR I'M FINE WITH
[00:10:03]
THE BALLOT PROPOSAL AS IT IS BUT IN FEWER WORDS. >> THEY'RE HAVING THE WORD INCREASE AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CONCERNED IN THE SECOND SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE VERSUS THE SALARY INCREASE. IT DOES CLEARLY DELINEATE THAT THE INCREASE IS A COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT NOT THE BASIS ADJUSTMENT.
IT WILL FLUCTUATE EVERY YEAR IT'S NOT CONTINUOUS. >> IS RAISES THE BAR FOR THE
BASE SALARY. >> THEN WE GO BACK TO $37,000 AS THE BASE RATE EVERY TIME.
QUICKLY BRING IT TO 37,000 IS THT CORRECT? IS THAT THE BASE RATE?
>> THAT IS THE BASE RATE NOW BUT THE BASE RATE WILL CHANGE EACH YEAR BASED ON THE CPI.
IT'S CUMULATIVE. AS WITH ANY OTHER. THE EMPLOYER DOESN'T TAKE THAT
AWAY AND GIVE YOU A NEW PERCENTAGE. >> SO WE'RE BACK TO DOING IT
AS A SALARY INCREASE VERSUS COST OF LIVING. >> BUT IT IS A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE BECAUSE LIKE ANYTHING ELSE IF IT WERE A CHRISTMAS BONUS AND BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR SURE BUT THAT'S A ONE TIME GIG. THIS IS A SALARY COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT. A SALARY INCREASE BASED ON COST-OF-LIVING.
>> I'M JUST READING. IT'S A DISCUSSION FROM THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.
>> I THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS COMPARATIVE AND THAT'S THE DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE IT SO YOU ARE PROPOSING THAT WE TAKE IT TO 37,000 SO THAT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS OF THE NEXT YEAR. EVERY YEAR THEY GET A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.
>> YES THAT'S CORRECT. >> OF THE BASIS TODAY'S WHICH IS 37.
IF THIS MEASURE PASSED IN WHATEVER THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX PERCENTAGES FIGURED, WHATEVER IT IS FOR. OF TIME THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT WOULD BE WHAT WILL BE
MULTIPLIED INTO THEIR 37,000. >> SO IT'S EXPONENTIAL? >> IS NOT EXPONENTIAL.
IT'S CUMULATIVE. SO FOR EXAMPLE LET'S SAY THIS YEAR TO 3%.
IT WOULD BE 37,000 TIME 1.03. WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS. THE NEXT YEAR WOULD BE 1%.
IT'S GONNA BE THAT $37,000 TIMES 1%. >> EXACTLYY THAT'S HOW IT IS CALCULATED EACH YEAR. THE BASE WE DECIDED TO DO IS NOT INCREASE THE BASE.
WE LEFT THE BASE OF $37,000 SO THERE ARE PROPOSALS IF YOU REMEMBER TO BRING THE BASE UP BY WHERE IT IS FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE STATE. ABOUT $79,000 AND THEIR OTHER PROPOSALS TO BRING IT TO JUST $10,000. ANOTHER 2% TO $47,000.
WE ARE OVER THAT MAP ON THIS THING AND FINALLY SETTLED ON LEAVING THE BASE OF 37,000 AND
JUST INCREASING IT YEARLY BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. >> BUT THERE WEREN'T ANY ACTUAL LEAVING THE BASE OF $37,000 BECAUSE EVERY YEAR THE BASE WOULD BE DIFFERENT CRACKS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THIS IS THE STARTING POINT. I THINK THE VOTERS NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT THAT 37 IS NOT THE BASE. EVERY YEAR THERE IS AN INCREASE. WE WENT TO THE 79,000 IF ANYBODY HAS WATCH THESE.
WE WORK IT DOWN VOTERS CAN SHUT THE DOOR ON THIS AND SAY WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GET A RAISE REGARDLESS OF ITS COST-OF-LIVING OR ANYTHING. THIS IS KIND OF THE VOTERS
[00:15:01]
CHANCE TO PUT THAT! YES, SIR NO.I DON'T WANT ANYTHING REGARDLESS OF ITS COST-OF-LIVING BUT I GET IT. THAT'S LAME POINT LAST WEEK AND WE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT IT.IF WE'RE DOING THE 37,000 AND CAN BE COMMITTED. IF WE ARE SAYING AND PEOPLE
WANT TO VOTE IT DOWN AND THEY VOTED DOWN. >> IT JUST NEEDS TO BE CLEAR TO THEM THAT IT'S NOT A BASE OF 37,000. EVERY YEAR THE BASE IS GOING TO
CHANGE THAT WHAT IS WHAT I WOULD ASK. >> I WOULD THINK MOST OF THE WORKING PUBLIC IS AWARE OF THE COST-OF-LIVING RAISE FROM THE EMPLOYER.
A LOT OF THESE FOLKS ARE STILL WORKING. I THINK THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH
THE TERM. >> CHRIS, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT BUT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU THEY HAVE NOT RESEARCHED BACK. THEY ARE INTERESTING THIS TO US.
SO THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN IT TO THEM. >> OUT FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANY HIDDEN AGENDA HERE. WE DID STATE UP FRONT IN THE FIRST 19 WORDS THAT THE
COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. >> YOU CAN TAKE A BASE OF 37,000 WITH THE WORD CUMULATIVE AND IT. AND THAT WOULD MAKE IT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
THAT WOULD TAKE THAT $37,000 IS THE BASE TO 37,000 CUMULATIVE. WHAT IS THAT MEAN?
>> MISTER CHAIR I DON'T CLAIM TO BE A SCHOLAR BUT THIS IS PLAIN READING TO INCLUDE AN ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE CURRENT 37,000 PER YEAR. THAT'S AS PLAIN AS YOU CAN GET
TO SAY THAT WE WILL INCREASE IT EVERY YEAR. >> INTO THAT CAN WE HAVE A
MOTION TO MOVE THIS ON? >> WE CAN. >> WERE VOTING ON THE SINGLE
CHAIR? >> YOU BET. >> NEED A MOTION.
>> I MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MAKE SURE CHRISSY THAT YOU HAVE THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ACCEPT THIS LANGUAGE AS IS.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT THEN WE WILL CALL FOR A
VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> OPPOSED? NUMBER WHAT WE HAVE, 123? 1 TO 3 ARE OPPOSED. IN 123 FOUR FIVE, SIX SO THREE SO THREE OPPOSED TO JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT ATE. >> MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ONE. E.
THIS WAS THE ISSUE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES AND REMOVING THE ERMANENT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THIS UP FOR R DISCUSSION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION.
>> MISTER CHAIR YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION TO OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
>> IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION W QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD WE ARE INITIATING AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL THE TERM LIMIT AT NO POINT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AND DID SOMEONE APPROACH ACH THE ELECT DOOR O REPEAL THE TERM M LIMIT. IF ANYTHING IT IS TO SUGGEST THAT WE FOLLOW THE STATES TERM LIMIT AT NO POINT DURING THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ONE VOICED
[00:20:01]
AN OPINION FOR TERM LIMITS AND ANOTHER VOICE AN OPINION AGAINST TERM LIMITS BUT OUT OF FAIRNESS TO BOTH OF THEM I DID NOT LOBBY FOR EITHER. MAYBE WE'LL CALL IT A TOSSUP.ONYOU ARE A POLITICIAN THAT ANSWERS TO VOTERS. THE VOTERS CLEARLY SPOKE.
I'M TROUBLED SLIGHTLY THAT WE HAVE A METHODOLOGY. CLEARLY THE VOTE WILL BE A PUBLIC OPINION AND SPOKE AND THEY DIDN'T. THEY GET A CHANCE TO DO IT
AGAIN. >> NOT TO BE A THORN IN THE SIDE THAT WE IF WE WENT BY WHO PARTICIPATED WE WOULD'VE BEEN HAVING A ONE MEETING AND HAD BEEN DONE.
WE HAVE ABYSMAL PURCHASE PATIENT BY THE COMMUNITY AT E. I'LL TAKE THE OTHER TACTIC.
I HAVE TO CLEAN THIS UP. A LITTLE BOY DIDN'T SPEAK FOR FIVE YEARS AND HIS MOTHER AT THE PLATE OF CREAMED SPINACH AND HE LOOKS AT IT AND HE SAYS ABOUT FOUR SWEARWORDS AND THROWS A SPINACH ACROSS THE WORD AND SHE SAID YOU COULD TALK WHY HAVEN'T YET HE SET UP UNTIL NOW EVERYTHING WAS OKAY. MAYBE IT WILL TILL NOW EVERYTHING'S OKAY MAYBE WANT THIS CHANGE. I CAN'T PREDICT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
PERSONALLY I'M HORRIFIED THAT THEY WILL BE LEAVING AT THE SAME TIME BUT WE CAN CATCH THAT. UP UNTIL NOW THINKS MAY HAVE BEEN OKAY.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT TO THE POINT I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> FOR ME I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IF WE WERE GOING TO PUT THE STOCK ON THE BALLOT. I HAVE FAITH IN THE VOTERS.
THIS IS THEIR CHANCE TO STAND. THIS IS THEIR CHANCE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CZAR WHICH I ACTUALLY ASK QUITE A FEW PEOPLE AND THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND SO I WAS LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYBE WE CAN PUT IT BACK ON THERE, CLARIFY IT AND
[00:25:02]
LET PEOPLE SAY I DON'T CARE WHO THEY ARE. I DON'T WANT TO.OR OKAY I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ME BACK IT OUT. THAT'S MY REASONING AND DOING IT. THIS IS WHERE DID WHERE IT'S VERY CLEAR AND THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION AFTERWARDS SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON. THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING HOW I AM
ON THAT. >> THIS IS ARTIE BEEN DECIDED SO I ASKED THEM TO KEEP THE TASK AT HAND AND THAT IS TO DISCUSS THE LANGUAGE AND CLARIFY.
OUR DUTY TONIGHT IS TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AND MOVE >> MISTER CHAIR I AGREE WITH
MISTER TIMBERLAKE. TIMBERLAKE. >> MISTER CHAIR I APOLOGIZE I DISAGREE BECAUSE I THINK THAT FOR THE RECORD JUST AS THE STUDIO SAID. WE HAD ANOTHER PERSON GO TODAY
AGAINST TERM LIMITS OR I'M SORRY FOR TERM LIMITS. >> LIVING FOR SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE COMMITTEES THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT.
I PARTICIPATED IN THIS AND I'M CRITICIZING MYSELF ALSO. >> WE HAVE TO HAVE HEARINGS.
>>: ME IF I'M WRONG BUT STATUTORILY WE MUST PUT IT IN THE BALLOT AND HOLD HEARINGS.
>> THESE ARE HEARING. >> MISTER CHAIRMAN I MOVED THAT WE USE THE LANGUAGE THAT MISTER TAYLOR HAS WRITTEN UP AND WE GO WITHOUT LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN.
X DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN IN SECONDED BY DEBBIE. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> OPPOSED QUICK SO WE HAVE THREE OPPOSED.
>> CHRISTINE, DAVID AND CONNIE. >> MOVING ONTO THE LAST ONE THIS WAS TO CHANGE THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO MEET FROM FOUR
YEARS TO EIGHT YEARS. >> I LIKE IT THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT.
>> I SUGGEST WE CALL THE QUESTION. >> I PERSONALLY READ LAST TIME THAT THIS IS THE EXACT PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT LANGUAGE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN 8220.
SO THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHARTER
REVIEW COMMISSION EVERY FOUR YEARS TO EVERY EIGHT. >> THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AND
I STARTED TO COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE. >> JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON AND
[00:30:06]
I'M SHOWING IT HERE JUST BEAR WITH ME. UNTIL I WAS HAS TO BE ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT. I DIDN'T KNOW IT EXISTED.I THOUGHT WHAT? SERIOUSLY. IN MY MIND I ASKED MYSELF THE QUESTION. HOW MANY PEOPLE IN CLAY COUNTY ASKED YOU KNOW? THAT THIS HAPPENS EVERY FOUR YEARS. I GUARANTEE THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT WITH THE PURPOSES AND MY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO HELP THE COUNTY GROW IN THE NEXT 4 TO 8 YEARS. THEY ARE ALREADY SET UP PRETTY GOOD.
THE FOLKS IN THE COUNTY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING OR WHAT IT
SHOULD BE DOING. >> WE CAN'T EDUCATE THEM IN THE SHORT AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT WE HAVE SOUGHT ON HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE IT ANY MORE CLEAR THAN IT IS.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET ANY MORE CLEAR OR PRECISE THE MESS.
I THINK IF WE TRY TO EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO DO IT I THINK IT'S OBJECTIVE IN A
MATTER OF OPINION. >> YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AS TO THE PINYON IS JUSTIFYING IT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. IT'S ANY OTHER JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY IT WOULD BE ON THERE BUT AGAIN, THIS IS DECISION IN THE VOTERS OF THE ONE THAT DECIDED. THIS IS THERE!
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. >> I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT IN HERE WOULD BE A TRUE STATEMENT. AGAIN I THINK IT COULD BE READ INTO IT.
IT COSTS THE TAXPAYERS MONEY TO COME IN HERE, TAKE THIS ROOM, HIRE MISTER TAYLOR AND BRING THESE THINGS ON THE BALLOT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU CAN ADD THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN
THIS REGARD. >> OUT OF FAIRNESS I THINK I TO HAVE EMPATHY FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.HAT WAY THEY ARE CLEAR IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO BUT THE IRIS HAS THIS FUNNY SAYING THE IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO EDUCATE THE VOTER. WE ARE COMING TO THIS DISCUSSION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW AND WE'VE SEEN THE PROCESS THAT I HAVE TO COMMEND EACH ONE OF THEM. WE HAVE A BIASED OPINION. IT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY IF WE PUSH IT OUT EIGHT YEARS THEN THEY WILL NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX IT.
WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW IS A CONQUISTADOR COUNCILMEMBER COMMISSIONERS TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE BALLOT. THEY RUN I GET 10,000 PEOPLE IS THAT THE NUMBER FOR A CITIZENS INITIATIVE? ARE THEY CAN COME TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY I LIKE THIS ONE BECAUSE I'M SITTING IN THIS CHAIR.
[00:35:03]
THE EIGHT YEAR MARK. I COULD BE WRONG AND I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE FOR THE VOTER. I TRUST THEM TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND LIVE BY IT.I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS IT MAKES SENSE. >> MISTER CHAIR CALL THE
QUESTIONABLE LANGUAGE AS IT'S WRITTEN. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.
>> AND I SECOND. >> CHRIS YOU HAVE THAT? >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT
THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN. THOSE IN FAVOR SYAYE. >> THE MOTION CARRIES.CARRIES.
>> OKAY VERY GOOD.OD. I CAN OPEN UP THE PUBLIC, AND AGAIN THE PUBLIC, IS OPEN.
IT SEEMED ON THE PUBLIC, AND IS CLOSED. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY NEW
BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD? >> YOU LOOK OKAY ABOUT TO GO
[CRC MEMBER COMMENTS]
TO SLEEP. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOOD BUSINESS BUT I WANTED TO GIVE THE CHAIRMAN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROCESS FOR THE VOTER WHO MAY BE LISTENING ON FACEBOOK WHEREVER YOU ARE. WE ALLUDED TO IT TONIGHT THESE ISSUES GOING BEFORE US AND THEN
THEY MOVED TO THE BALLOT AND ULTIMATELY THE VOTERS. >> YOU DO IT YOU'RE THE
CHAIRMAN. >> TELUS PROCESSOR. >> THE FIRST THING FOR EVERYONE TO REALIZE IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE UP TO TONIGHT IS ADVISORY ONLY.
WE ARE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT'S IT. WE HAVE NO POWER TO ENFORCE ANYTHING. WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SAY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO CLAY COUNTY WITH REGARD TO THESE THREE. IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN NEXT THERE WILL BE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TENTATIVELY THREE DATES IN MAY.
YOU WILL SEE THOSE PUBLISHED AND THOSE ARE STRICTLY FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT.
THEY CAN TELL US WHAT THEY THINK OF THESE INITIATIVES. >> OUR ATTENDANCE IS EXPECTED.
THOSE PART OF SIGNING UP FOR IT. OBVIOUSLY CERTAIN THINGS
HAPPENING YOU CAN'T MAKE IT. >> ONE LEVELS DATES BE? >> COURTNEY RIGHT NOW WE HAVE
THE FIFTH, 13TH AND 31ST. >> THAT'S IN MAY. >> 4 MAY, 16 MAY AND 31 MAY.
I'M OPEN FOR IDEAS ON THIS. LET'S LOOK BACK HISTORICALLY. WHEN WE LOOK THROUGH THIS IN THE PAST WHEN HE DID IT WHEN DID YOU DO IT? DO YOU NEED ANYTHING.
>> WE DID IT IN THE EVENING. SO KEEPING IT AT 7:00. >> WE COULD DO IT EARLIER.
WE WILL KEEP IT. UNLESS THERE IS A STRONG OBJECTION 4 MAY, 6 MAY AND 31 MAY. WHAT DRIVES THAT IS IF YOU LOOK IN THE CHARTER WE HAVE THE SCHEDULE THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS APART AND A MAXIMUM OF 20 DAYS APART.
THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE SPACING BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
THIS ROOM IS OPEN. >> THAT WILL BE AN OFFICIAL MEETING.
[00:40:08]
>> SO WE ASSEMBLE BUT IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC TO TELL US WHAT THEY THINK.
>> GOTTA YOU SET UP ON THE LAST ONE YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ELIMINATE THE GROUP WITH?
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? >> IS FOR THE SAME THING WE WERE SAYING ONE OF THE ISSUES WERE HAVING WAS THAT THEY COME OUT AND VOICE THEIR OPINIONS. WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHAT ARE WE DOING. I KNOW WE HAVE THE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE.
>> IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD PUT IT ON THE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE.
IT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE ISSUES ABOUT THE TERM LIMITS THE VOTERS DID NOT COME OUT.
WHAT I'M ASKING IS I WAS STEPPING OUTSIDE OF OUR ROLE. >> WE CAN ADVOCATE ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER BUT CAN WE PUT THE NOTICE OUT THERE. >> IF YOU PUT NOTICE OUT THERE
THERE ARE THREE ITEMS THERE. >> DO WE NEED TO GET THE LINKAGE APPROVED BY YOU BEFORE
WE PUT ANYTHING OUT THERE. >> I THINK YOU SHOULD FOLLOW WHAT IS REP THERE.
>> SO WE DO NOT. >> TO COURTNEY THROUGH THE CHAIR MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TAKE WHATEVER IS PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER AND SIMPLY PUT THAT OUT VERBATIM.
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA THAT WE DO NOT GET CROSS WIRES OF ANY LANGUAGE AND YOU STATED
IT APPROPRIATELY. >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. >> THE CONFERENCE.
>> WHAT YOU SAID MAKES SENSE AND WE CAN'T JUSTIFY SAVING PEOPLE MONEY BECAUSE PEOPLE OUT DON'T ALWAYS LOOK AT IT AS MONEY. THEY LOOK AT AS MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THERE FOR S. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT TO MY ATTENTION IN BRINGING OUT THIS BUT THINK YOU GUYS. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY INTERESTING AND EDUCATING EXPERIENCE BUT I KNOW I'VE BEEN ON DIFFERENT PORTS BEFORE AWARE EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE IT'S IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND EVERYBODY WAS VERY RESPECTFUL
SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR HARD WORK. THE TIME THE EFFORT AND EXPENSE OF COMING TO THESE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.