►
From YouTube: Tampa City Council AM Special 6-14-21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning,
gentlemen
morning,
citizens
of
tampa,
we
have
a
special
call
agenda
today
june
14
2021.,
this
time
we'll
have
invocation
and
we
will
do
a
moment
of
silence
and
then
we'll
go
for
the
pledge
of
allegiance.
B
A
Mr
you're
recognized
sir.
D
Thank
you
good
morning,
members
of
the
tampa
city
council,
martin
shelby,
the
city
council
attorney
today
is
monday
june
14th
of
2021
we're
here
at
old
city
hall
for
a
special
call
meeting
pursuant
to
city
of
tampa's
council
rules
of
procedure,
rule
3b7
it's
being
held
during
the
covet
19
state
of
emergency.
The
purpose
of
this
special
call
meeting
is
to
discuss
the
meeting
of
the
city
council,
chair
and
the
mayor
relating
to
issues
involving
the
citizen
police
review
board.
There
will
be
no
opportunity
for
public
comment
today.
No
official
action
will
be
taken.
D
Any
official
action
will
be
required
to
be
taken
at
a
subsequent
noticed
public
hear
a
meeting
with
the
public
having
the
opportunity
to
speak
now.
The
public
today
is
able
to
view
this
meeting
on
cable
tv
on
spectrum,
channel
640
and
frontier
channel
15
and
streaming
on
the
internet
at
tampa.gov
forward.
Slash
live
stream
and,
as
you
heard,
this
meeting
is
conducted
in
person
virtually
in
city
council
chambers
with
a
physical
quorum
present.
D
However,
in
response
to
the
covet,
19
public
health
considerations,
members
of
the
public
who
don't
have
access
to
cable
tv
or
the
internet,
can
come
to
the
second
floor
of
old
city
hall
this
morning
to
virtually
watch
the
meeting
through
audio
and
video
through
communications
media
technology.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank.
A
Back
on
the
27th,
you
entrusted
me
with
a
roll
call
vote
to
meet
with
the
mayor
and
reference
to
some
things
that
transpired
in
our
our
meeting
brought
us
to
the
crb
board
and
this
morning
I
want
to
tell
you
how
that
meeting
went
so
there's
full
transparency
of
what
was
said
in
the
meeting
and
who
was
attendance
in
the
meeting.
A
A
I
started
the
meeting
off.
First,
I
told
the
mayor
straight
out
that
council
was
a
little
bit
upset
about
the
press
conference.
We
felt
that
at
that
press
conference
heard
the
chief
said
we
didn't
do
our
job
and
that
we
thought
that
was
unfair.
I
told
her
that
we
received
information
at
the
ninth
hour.
Some
council
members
did
not
receive
the
information
that
we
were
going
to
have
the
agenda
item.
That
came
up,
I
told
mayor.
A
Usually
you
know
this
has
been
a
ongoing
thing,
we're
getting
things
like
in
the
ninth
hour
and
that
can't
happen
that
we
get
things
in
the
council
gets
in
an
uproar
because
we're
getting
late
information
or
councilmembers
aren't
able
to
chime
back
in
to
find
out.
What's
going
on,
I
told
the
mayor
that
basically
that
in
february
we
thought
that
we
had
broken
a
deal
over
7-4
with
a
5-2
vote.
A
I
told
the
mayor
that
during
that
period
we
thought
it
was
coming
back
and
it
was
going
to
be
a
done
deal.
We
hadn't
heard
anything
because
normally,
if
we
make
a
deal
or
decision
and
staff
or
the
administrator
doesn't
like
it,
they'll
run
down
or
they'll
get
on
the
camera
and
say
and
ask
us
to
hope
that
that
didn't
happen.
I
told
them
that
did
not
happen
that
day.
A
So
this
council
thought
that
we
were
down
a
path
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
you
know
this
council
had
been
waiting
and
then
at
the
ninth
hour
we
got
that
information
and
then
apparently
we
had
a
train
wreck
on
that
that
day,
I
told
her
that-
and
I
apologize
for
some
of
the
comments
that
some
of
our
council
members
made,
but
I
also
said
I
thought
it
was
a
kind
of
fear
that
on
both
parts,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
work
together
and
not
be
compatible
against
one
another.
A
I
did
tell
the
mayor
that
council
felt
that
the
7-4
would
give
every
council
member
a
vote
of
a
person,
and
she
had
four
and
again
just
to
make
sure
that
I
kept
saying
it's
not
a
power
thing.
People
keep
saying
it's
a
power
thing
that
and
to
me
it's
not
a
power
issue,
but
I
did
tell
the
mayor.
I
think
this
council
would
be
willing-
maybe
compromise-
maybe
a
6'5.
A
I
don't
know,
I
couldn't
speak
for
the
council,
but
I'm
just
saying
it
could
be
thoughts
that
could
transpire
and
it
could
happen.
I
pretty
much
finished
up.
You
know
what
I
thought
that
could
try
to
get
with
administration
to
work
out
some
issues.
I
did
tell
them
here.
I
thought
the
orders
was
a
good
ordinance.
A
A
Then
I
let
the
mayor
speak,
and
the
mayor
told
me
that,
but
before
I
spoke
I
I
did
say
that
I
didn't
agree
with
some
of
the
the
city
attorney's
interpretation,
but
she's,
the
city
attorney
ms
grimes
and
she's,
a
wonderful
person
and
that's
her
job
to
interpret,
and
I
did
tell
the
mayor
that
I
believe
that
her
job
is
to
set
policies
and
rules
for
the
police
department.
A
But
when
it
comes
to
legislative
matters,
this
body
is
entrusted
in
legislative
matters
and
then
there
was
a
disagreement
with
that,
but
that
was
fun.
We
can
settle
those
things
out
later
on
down
the
road
about
who
does
what?
How
when
and
where
so
I
let
the
mayor
speak
and
the
mayor
said
that
she
felt
that
she
did
have
the
power
and
authority,
because
charter
tells
her
about
about
the
management
of
the
police
department,
and
I
agreed
about
the
policy
and
so
forth,
we're
not
getting
on
any
charter
issues.
A
I
did
not
want
to
go
there.
The
issue
I
want
to
get
on
was
basically
dealing
with
how
we
proceed
with
those
numbers,
because
I
said
we
were
going
to
deal
with
those
things
down
the
road
way
down
the
road
or
whatever
the
mayor
said.
She
was
strongly
felt
that
she
had
done
everything
she
could
do
as
far
as
giving
everything
she
thought
that
she
could
give
at
this
particular
time.
A
She
felt
that,
and
I
told
her
I
said
you
have
you
yeah,
I
can
say
you've
done
a
great
job.
Then,
mr,
but
mr
bennett
chimed
in
and
said.
We
know
we're
debunking
the
buckhorn
situation,
which
I
thought
was
noble
to
say
that
some
of
the
we
were
giving
more,
and
I
thought
the
ordinance
did
have
more.
A
A
So
apparently,
my
interpretation
of
the
one
would
be
either
a
council
with,
would
make
the
appointment
and
then
make
the
recommendation.
The
mayor
would
say:
okay
or
vice
versa,
but
then
the
meeting
concluded
I
said.
Well,
may
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
You
know
I
can't
make
any
decisions
for
this
council.
I
will
not
make
any
deals
at
this
particular
point.
The
only
thing
I
would
tell
you
that
as
a
chairman
that
we
want
to
work
together.
A
I
don't
want
any
lawsuits,
because
we
have
a
housing
crisis
right
now
and
I'm
concerned
about
housing
right
now
and
all
the
monies
that
we
have.
We
need
to
be
focused
on
spending
on
housing,
and
I
I
made
it
clear.
I
didn't
want
to
get
into
a
fight
about
an
issue
going
to
court
or
anything
refers
that
this
body,
and
I
hope
that
we
will
try
to
bring
this
in
for
landing
with
both
parties.
A
Then
we
the
meeting,
adjourned
cordially
we
we
raised
and
I
left,
and
then
I
was
thinking
about
all
week
how
to
play
out,
and
I
got
a
call
from
on
friday.
Mr
citro,
you
made
a
point
at
the
last
meeting,
sir,
you
said
no
one
had
talked
to
the
crb.
A
A
And
I
sit
there
and
I
listen
to
those
folks-
and
these
are
incredible-
people
that
are
on
this
board,
some
very
smart
people
who
are
known
in
the
community
and
who
do
a
lot
of
good
work
and
felt
that
they
should
have
been
in
the
conversation
a
little
bit.
A
A
Is
that
the
one
the
one
is
the
the
kicker
keeps
coming
up
the
the
organizational
piece
to
that
and
they
all
said
the
same
mr
shelby
brought
up
was
well
what,
if
there's
another
organization,
why
that
organization?
Why
not
this
organization?
Or
how
do
you
fix?
So
everyone
gets
an
opportunity.
Well,
I
couldn't
answer
that.
I
had
no
answer
because
we
had
never
discussed
that.
A
We're
here
for
the
citizen,
and
you
know
the
in
the
the
the
union
kept
coming
up
in
the
meeting
sometimes,
and
I
kept
saying
that
as
far
as
a
person
who's
been
a
part
of
the
union
who
understands
the
union,
I'm
in
a
difficult
position,
because
I've
been
a
police
officer,
I
understand,
but
I
was
elected
by
the
people
to
do
a
job,
so
I
I
would
probably
won't
make
anybody
happy
and
that's
unfortunate.
A
I'm
not
gonna
make
anybody
happy,
but
decisions
have
to
be
made.
I'm
willing
to
have
my
big
boy
shorts
up
and
make
whatever
season.
I
have
to
make
for
the
good
this
community
and
get
it
for
the
police
officers,
because
I
understand
both
sides
of
it.
A
You
know
to
me:
it's
not
a
win,
lose
a
draw.
I
don't
I
don't
care
about.
You
know
somebody
saying
well
the
mayor
office,
one
you
guys,
I
don't
care
about
that.
I
care
about
the
citizens
and
we
always
can
always
add
to
the
game.
If
something's
not
right,
I
think
you
can
always
do
better
2015.
They
got
some
stuff
in
and
to
get
it
moving.
Now.
Here
we
are
in
2021
to
make
it
better.
A
It
may
be
20
23,
it
becomes
better
22
22..
We
have
our
annual
report
each
year.
I've
never
seen
one
two.
I
just
got
one
last
week,
so
my
my
purpose
today
is
to
hear
what
everyone
has
to
say:
kind
of
see
how
we
can
go
so
the
administration
know
where
we
need
to
go
and
still
try
to
work
this
thing
out
because
on
the
17th
I
don't
want
to
come
on
the
17th
and
we're
here
taking
up
a
whole
agenda
idol
all
day,
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
A
We
need
to
make
some
decisions
a
b
c
and
d
put
them
on
the
table
and
on
the
17th
we
come
away
with.
What
are
we
going
to
come
away
with,
but
we
have
to
make
decisions
and
we
cannot
keep
holding
the
police
department
at
bay,
the
police
department's,
a
paramedic
organization.
They
take
orders.
So
no
matter
what
the
mayor
says
when
it
comes
down
they're
going
to
follow
rules
and
then
they
get
over
it
and
it
would
work,
that's
how
it
works
over
there.
A
A
A
I'll
start
out
with
miss
maniscalco.
E
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
I
you
know,
I
brought.
E
Comments
at
one
of
the
last
meetings,
just
giving
a
my
historical
point
of
view
on
this
whole
discussion.
I
was
elected
in
2015
and
a
few
months
later,
this
discussion
began,
and
here
we
are
six
years
later,
with
the
same
discussion.
Different
mayors,
different
administration,
things
have
changed,
certain
things
have
happened
since
then.
E
E
Me
I
try
to
you
know,
I
believe
in
forgiveness,
I
believe
in
moving
on.
I
don't
like
being
at
a
stalemate
with
anybody.
I
don't
like
being
at
odds
with
anybody
and
unfortunately
it
seems
that
you
know,
as
was
presented
a
couple
weeks
ago,
and
you
said
it
already.
E
You
know
I
mean
we
voted
on
something
in
february
and
it
was
quiet
until
basically
the
day
before
the
day
of,
and
the
discussion
opened
up
again
and
here
we
are-
and
you
know
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
thursday,
is
going
to
be
a
long
meeting
because
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
public
comment.
You
know
we
saw
a
lot
of
public
comment
and
rightfully
so
last
summer
I
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
this
thursday.
E
My
thing
is,
you
know
the
public
perception
is.
The
mayor
is
a
former
chief
of
police.
You
know
who
appoints
the
chief
of
police,
so
there
are
people
that
will
say
or
can
assume
that
well,
the
police
run
the
city.
No,
you
know
we're
elected
officials.
The
city
council
has
one
body:
the
administration
has
another
body,
you
know
we
we
respond
to
the
people,
we
try
to
pass
a
budget
and
whatnot,
but
when
it
comes
to
this
board,
you
know
we
need
a
balance
and
I've
said
and
we
voted
on.
E
E
I
don't
see
an
issue
with
it,
but
some
people
don't
agree
with
it
and
I
understand
it.
I
think
that
if
we
could
move
forward
with
city
council
appointing
the
seven
people
and
then
the
mayor
having
the
rest
but
taking
the
discussion
of
subpoena
power
and
outside
counsel
off
the
table
and
just
close
it
out,
you
know
if
it's
about
a
balance
there
of
who
appoints
what
and
then
end
the
discussion
there.
F
E
You
know
you've
already
made
mention
to
you
know:
something
was
was
approved
and
passed
and
the
board
was
created
in
2015
now
we're
making
it
better.
The
ordinance
has
been
provided
to
us,
you
know
is
better
as
an
improvement
and
in
the
future
we
can
improve
it
even
further.
You
know
we
can't
do
everything
all
at
once,
because
we
see
how
things
work
and
then
you
know
we
fix
what
we
have
to
fix
and
move
forward.
It's
it's
a
perpetual
thing.
It's
a
you
know.
E
As
they
say,
the
constitution
is
a
living
breathing
document.
We
can
revisit
this
in
the
future.
If
we
see
more
issues,
you
know
I
don't
know
where
council
stands.
I
know
you
know.
We've
had
our
our
votes,
that
five
to
two
vote
of
of
we
have
point
seven
and
then
the
the
administration
of
points.
Four.
Perhaps
we
can
move
forward
with
that
and
then
take
off
the
discussion
in
the
future.
The
workshop
whatever,
regarding
subpoena
power
and
outside
attorney,
I've
thought
about
the
outside
counsel.
There
is
someone
that
is
hired.
E
I
believe
it's,
mr
brody,
to
look
at
this
he's
not
from
here.
He
doesn't
have
a
dog
in
the
fight.
I
think
he
can
be
fair
and
partial
and
neutral.
Do
you
know
we
have
that
which
is
separate
from
our
city
council
attorney
our
city
attorney.
So
that's.
That's
balance.
The
subpoena
power
people
have
issue
with
you're,
not
subpoenaing
police
officers,
but
you're
subpoenaing
private
individuals.
What
about
those
private
individuals
that
may
not
want
to
appear
and
testify?
How
do
they
get
out
of
a
subpoena?
I
don't.
G
E
I
don't
know
I
mean:
can
we
reach
an
agreement
where
we
just
agree
on
the
appointments
and
close
out
everything
out
and
move
forward?
I
think
we
could
do
that.
If
not,
you
know
we,
we
figure
out
a
way.
Those
are
just
my
thoughts
and
I'm
happy
to
listen
to
what
everybody
else
has
to
say.
Thank
you
and.
A
H
There
he
is,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
for
people,
the
many
watching
this
at
home,
I'm
in
dc
right
now
on
the
family
vacation.
So
that's
why
I'm
appearing
here
with
and
what
appears
to
be
a
hotel
room,
because
I
haven't
tell
them.
Mr
chairman,
I
I
first
wanted
to
thank
you
for
your
leadership
in
volunteering
a
lot
of
times.
I
think
one
of
the
great
you
know
essences
of
leadership,
is
where
you
have
nothing
to
gain,
but
a
lot
to
lose.
H
You
know
a
lot
of
people
go
after
things
where
they
have
something
to
gain.
You
know.
I
think
that
for
you,
mr
chairman,
what
what
you're
looking
to
gain
is
just
to
do
the
right
thing,
and
I
really
appreciate
that.
I
think
we
all
appreciate
that
and
politics
sticking
your
neck
out
either.
You
know
by
asserting
yourself,
like
you
did,
I'm
an
admirer
of
that.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
I
appreciate
it
because
that
really
really
shows
leadership,
and
I
think
that
today
I
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
everybody,
but
I
mean
I
heard
councilman
maniscalco's
words
and
by
the
way,
guido.
If
anybody
wants
to
hurt
you,
please
let
us
know,
but
I'm
joking
what
you
said
in
the
beginning,
but
I
think
that
when
it
comes
to
dialogue
and
talking
on
this,
I
think
we
all
want
to
have
your
back
in
that
regard.
H
So
I
think
we
all
just
really
really
appreciate
it
and
whatnot
you
know,
hearing
from
the
crb
is
something
that's
very
important.
I'm
glad
that
you
know
folks
are
reaching
out.
I
had
reached
out
to
some
of
their
members.
You
know-
and
that's
something
that's
bothered
me
throughout
this,
which
is
that
we
we
have
not
reached
out
to
the
crb.
H
I
I've
spoken
to,
I
think
four
other
members
throughout
the
duration
of
this
process,
but
there's
kind
of
been
a
a
cloud
if
you
will
over
some
of
the
crb
members
because
of
how
the
2015
board
occurred,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
want
to
do
is
we
don't
want
to
make
that
that
created
cloud
worse?
We
can
make
it
better
by
passing
an
ordinance
that
does
the
job
that
I
think
we
all
want
to
have
done.
I
think
it's
very,
very
important
and
whatnot.
H
You
know
when
I
look
at
today
what
what
divides
the
vote
that
happened
from
city
council
and
the
mayor.
There's
a
lot
of
misunderstandings
going
on
there
there's
one
thing
that
really
divides
us
and
that's
one
vote,
one
vote,
whether
you
call
it
five,
five
one,
whether
you
call
it
six
five.
H
Whatever
one
vote:
seven:
four
versus
six
to
five:
seven:
four
versus
five
five
one
I've
talked
about
for
probably
seven
or
eight
months,
having
a
five
five
split
with
one,
whether
it's
what
whatever
organization
organizations
appointed
potentially
confirmed
by
council,
whatever
whatever
it
may
very
well
be
having
that
go,
that's
very
little
that
divides
this
from
being
a
universal
signing
ceremony,
and
I
think
we
have
to
keep
our
eye
on
that.
110
percent.
H
In
my
opinion,
there's
a
lot
of
legal
issues
that
have
been
brought
up
in
that
regard,
that
if
council
goes
forward
as
I
as
I
understand
the
position
of
the
administration,
if
council
goes
forward
with
the
seven
to
four
and
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
this
ordinance
then
won't
be
implemented
and
then
there's
gonna
be
a
legal
fight.
And
so
my
question
is
over
one
vote:
do
we
want
to
have
that
fight
with
the
associated
cost
and
time,
etc,
etc?
H
When
we
have
an
ordinance
that,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
in
most
people's
opinion
is
very,
very
good.
In
my
opinion
and
whatnot,
you
know
last
time
I
talked
about
de-escalating
things.
The
escalating
things
happens
to
all
of
us.
It's
happened
to
me.
H
It
happens
to
everybody,
but
where
you
know,
passions
arise,
etc,
but
I
think
that
we
focus
on
the
fact
that
we're
only
talking
about
one
appointment,
one
appointment-
I
I
think
that's
very,
very
destructive,
there's
other
issues
out
there
subpoena
power,
the
and
with
the
attorney
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
the
terminology.
Every
attorney
is
independent.
H
Every
attorney
has
to
be
by
virtue
of
their
ethical
constraints.
Independent.
The
issue
is
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
have
an
attorney
who's
outside
or
not.
I,
I
think,
that's
certainly
something
that
that
could
be
looked
at,
but
those
are
issues
that
are
not
before
us
today.
Frankly,
especially
on
the
subpoena
issue.
I'd
love
just
the
pulse
city
council,
because
you
know
we
keep
on
hearing
about
subpoena
powers,
subpoena
power.
Where
did
city
council
stand
on
that
issue?
H
Just
something
to
think
about.
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
we're
all
on
board
with
99
of
this
ordinance.
We
got
to
talk
about
that
one
percent
and
we
got
to
remember
why
we're
doing
this.
You
know
why
we
did
things
over
the
last
year,
like
spending
millions
of
dollars
on
body
cameras,
something
that
we
should
have
done
something
I've
been
on
city
council
for
four
years,
something
that
I
should
have
been
pushing
for
years
ago.
H
Like
I
said
when
we
took
past
this
about
a
year
ago,
things
like
body
cameras
the
implicit
bias,
training
that
we're
having
now
for
all
of
our
city
of
camp
employees,
something
that
was
brought
up
in
mid
2018.
I
remember
bringing
that
up
and
I
believe
councilman
maniscalco
seconded
me,
if
I
recall
kind
of
went
nowhere
until
the
last
year.
H
We
have
to
thank
our
friend,
councilman
dingfelder,
for
picking
up
an
important
reform
which
is
having
mental
health
counselors
go
with
police
officers
on
calls
that
deal
with
emotional
or
psychiatric
issues,
taking
a
look
at
use
of
force,
the
duty
to
intervene,
different
things
like
that
that,
I
think,
are
really
really
good.
You
know
these
board
changes,
there's
so
many
good
board
changes
that
we
don't
want
to.
You
know
lose
perspective
of
that.
H
So
again,
we're
very,
very
close
in
my
opinion,
and
the
question
we
have
to
ask
ourselves
is:
do
we
want
to
go
through
this
legal
battle
with
all
the
associated
turmoil
over
one
vote
over
one
vote?
That's
certainly
something
that
we
have
to
look
at,
but,
mr
chairman,
I
just
again
wanted
to
thank
you
for
putting
this
together
as
well
as
for
your
leadership
and
whatnot.
I
I
look
forward
to
you
know
going
forward
with
this
ordinance.
H
Nobody
wants
to
be
against
this
ordinance,
but
we
want
something
that
will
be
implemented
and
that's
not
going
to
lead
us.
That's
not
going
to
lead
us
on
a
train
that
I
don't
think
any
of
us
to
a
destination
where
I
don't
think
any
of
us
want
to
go
so
that's
it
for
now.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
everybody
I'll
be
talking
off
at
about
10
a.m,
because
I
I
want
to
go
with
my
son
to
the
lincoln
monument
or
something
this
morning,
but
thank
you
again,
everybody.
I
appreciate
it.
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Mr
shirley
brought
some
attention.
You
know
I'm
trying
so
many
thoughts
in
my
head
this
morning.
Folks
and
I
forgot
to
mention
it
attorney
attorney
general
grimes
was
also
intense
at
the
meeting.
Just
for
the
record,
which
grounds
was
at
the
meeting.
Mr
carlson
you're
recognized
sir.
I
Thank
you,
sir,
and
I
want
to
echo
the
comments
of
my
colleagues.
Thank
you
for
for
moving
that
forward.
It
showed
great
leadership
and
wisdom
and
in
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
community
and
the
city
council
and
the
city
and
the
mayor's
office
all
work
together
and
moving
forward.
I
also
want
to
thank
chief
of
staff
bennett
for
his
ongoing
help
the
last
couple
years,
but
in
particular
the
last
couple
weeks.
I
The
meeting
that
you
talked
about
was
very
difficult.
I
was
not
briefed
in
advance
on
the
options
that
were
going
to
be
presented.
I
found
out
about
them
that
day
and
I
was
surprised
by
the
comments
from
the
city
attorney
in
particular,
and
also
from
the
police
chief
and
then
also
from
the
press
conference,
and
you
know
the
mayor
is
a
political
person,
so
she
can
say
what
she
wants,
but
the
police
chief
said
things
in
this
room
and
on
tv
cameras
that
night
that
were
inflammatory,
and
I
think
some
of
them
were
borderline.
I
Not
true.
If
not
true,
one
of
them
is
this
issue
about
subpoena
power.
I
went
back
and
watched
the
meeting
from
last
time
and,
as
far
as
I
could
tell
the
only
time
subpoena
power
came
up
was
when
mr
dingfelder
said
that
the
city
attorney
had
told
us.
We
couldn't
do
anything
unless
we
had
a
charter
amendment,
we
didn't
make
any
motion
on
it.
We
didn't
put
it
on
the
agenda,
but
somehow
that
became
the
key
message
in
the
tv
news
coverage
that
night,
which
I
think
is
highly
inflammatory.
I
It
was
not
called
for,
and
I
think
that
that
that's
not
the
kind
of
way
we
we
should
communicate
with
the
public.
We
should
be
honest
and
direct
with
the
public
about
what
happened.
The
other
thing,
the
police
chief
said
here
in
on
tv,
is
that
we
didn't
do
our
job,
that
we
kept
kicking
this
down
the
road
and
it's
not
true.
I
We
passed
an
ordinance
that
day,
it's
completely
false
to
stand
up
on
tv
and
say
that
we
didn't
do
anything
when
we
just
passed
something,
and
so
I
think
that
we
need
to.
We
have
no
power,
apparently
by
the
city
attorney
over
the
police
chief,
but
I
would
call
on
him
to
tell
the
truth.
If
he's
going
to
get
before
cameras
and
also
in
front
of
this
body,
we
think
about
why.
Why
are
we
here
in
the
first
place?
I
This
is
not
something
that
that,
where
people
don't
like
the
police,
the
problem
is
that
we
had
a
mayor
who
pushed
racist
policies
and
not
this
mayor,
the
last
mayor-
and
it
is
a
fact,
this,
the
the
just
the
u.s
justice
department,
came
in
and
condemned
the
city
of
tampa
for
civil
rights
violations,
and
we
somehow
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
does
not
happen
again
and
part
of
the
fight
was
strengthening
this.
I
I
So
I
think
that
seven,
if
we
had
seven
it,
we
fully
represent
the
different
districts
of
the
community.
We
would
represent
a
cross-section
committee.
The
reason
why
I
did
speak
to
a
couple
of
the
crb
members
and
I
one
if
somebody's
gonna
get
on
tv
and
say
that
we
didn't
speak
to
crb
members.
I
wish
they
would
ask
us
first,
they
didn't
ask
us
whether
we'd
met
with
them
or
not,
but
the
reason,
as
mr
vieira
said,
the
reason
why
people
haven't
met
with
the
crb
members
is
unfortunate.
I
Beca
for
them
is
because
there's
a
cloud
because
of
the
way
this
was
designed
the
last
time
they
were
seen
as
being
represented.
Many
of
them
were
seen
as
being
representatives
of
last
mayor
who's,
the
one
who
put
these
bad
policies
in
place
in
the
first
place
and
we're
spending
our
time
trying
to
fix
this
and
to
the
crb
members.
I
didn't
speak
to.
I
apologize,
I
should
have
spoken
to
more
of
them
and
gotten
their
point
of
view,
and
I'm
glad
that
mr
goods
chair
goods
did
that.
I
I
appreciate
the
mayor
working
with
us
on
this.
For
a
year
it
has
been
to
and
fro
I've
also
spoken,
the
the
pba
multiple
times
and
between
february
and
may
there
were
changes
made
that
benefited
for
justice
aclu,
but
also
the
pba,
and
so
we
are
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
fair
process
and
the
reason
why
it's
taken
so
long
is
because
we've
been
hearing
from
all
voices
which
didn't
really
happen
at
last
administration.
I
I
I
tell
people
that
on
the
day
that
the
mayor
announced
her
version
of
this
about
a
year
ago,
I
already
had
a
meeting
set
up
with
the
city
attorney's
office,
with
some
activists
from
the
community
and
the
mayor
allowed
that
meeting
to
continue
and
we've
we've,
we've
edited
three
or
four
times
since
then.
So
I
appreciate
her.
I
appreciate
chief
bennett
and
helping
us
move
this
forward,
some
key
technical
things.
I
think
it's
important
that
the
vote
is
representative
of
the
community.
I
prefer
a
7-4
vote.
I
I
understand
that
we're
talking
about
one
vote,
but
it
is
important
for
the
to
be
represented
the
community,
as
I
said,
to
darla
from
the
pba.
What
happens
if
you
get
an
anti-police
mayor?
Do
you
want
you
want
it
to
be
equal?
If
you
get
an
anti-police
mayor,
nobody
thinks
that
that
would
happen
in
the
future,
but
it's
we
have
to.
We
we're
not
designing
it
for
this
administration,
we're
designing
it
for
the
future,
but
the
two
things
that
that
I
really
want
in
this
and
trying
to
represent
the
community
number
one.
I
I
Can
we
use
the
may
version
that
has
the
changes
that
happen
between
february
may,
and
the
second
thing
is
that,
as
I
understand
this,
this
version,
other
people
use
the
word
the
name
of
the
last
mayor,
but
the
the
the
public.
Many
people
in
the
public
see
the
last
version
as
being
very
biased.
It
had,
whereas
clauses
that
were
bad,
that
infringed
on
the
charter.
I
They
they
saw
it
as
being
designed
the
the
the
the
mayor
order
was
seen
as
being
spiteful
against
city
council,
but
the
way
I
understand
this
is
that
if
we
pass
an
ordinance
on
thursday,
if
the
mayor's
okay
with
it,
then
she
will
not
only
accept
the
ordinance
and
work
with
it,
but
she
will
also
rip
and
replace
the
executive
order.
I
So
there'll
be
a
new
executive
order
and
a
new
ordinance
that
will
supersede
the
last
executive
order
and
the
last
the
last
ordinance
and
we're
working
from
the
may
version
is
that
are
those
two
points
correct.
B
So
good
morning,
council,
john
bennett,
chief
of
staff
and
good
morning
public
to
answer
your
question
specific,
but
chairman
I'd
also
like
to
to
fill
in
some
other
comments
at
some
point
today.
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
it
is
the
administration's
vision
to
hold
the
may
version,
except
for
the
portion
of
the
the
balance
of
the
board.
B
You
know
the
administration
is
looking
for
the
same
thing:
a
progressive,
unbiased,
balanced
board
to
serve
the
community
in
the
the
citizens
review
board
for
the
police
department
and
the
services
they
provide.
So,
yes
to
be
specific,
it
would
be
the
may
version,
except
for
the
way
the
board
is
structured.
I
B
Is
correct
one
of
the
one
of
the
goals,
as
I
understood
it,
at
least
from
a
few
councilmen,
was
to
have
a
a
a
new
ordinance,
supported
by
a
new
executive
order
and
start
anew
and
and
if
that
was
one
of
the
big
pegs,
the
other
one
was
to
make
sure
beyond
the
progressiveness.
The
unbiased
and
the
balanced
ordinance
was
to
have
a
balanced
board.
I
I
As
I
speak
to
the
community,
that's
interested
in
changing
it,
they
would
much
rather
have
the
may
version,
with
one
less
vote
than
have
the
february
version
with
one
more
vote,
and
the
most
important
thing
I
think
for
most
people
is
to
is
to
make
sure
we
do
away
with
the
bad
versions
in
the
past
and
that
we
supersede
them.
So,
thank
you
all.
G
Mr
chair
I'd
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
taking
leadership
in
this.
This
is
this
is
not
a
good
look
for
the
city.
It's
not
a
good
look
for
the
mayor's
office,
not
a
good
look
for
us.
G
G
G
With
the
aclu
and
miss
laurie
friedel,
I've
heard
a
lot
of
citizens
talking
on
both
sides
of
this
issue,
I'll
make
it
short
and
sweet.
I
thank
the
mayor's
office.
I
thank
chief
bennett.
I
think
thank
everybody
involved,
especially
you,
mr
chair.
In
this.
G
G
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
at
this
point
we
can't
say
enough
about
how
much
we
appreciate
your
leadership
on
this.
Just
just
to
jump
in,
like
that
truly
says,
tells
us
and
the
community
the
kind
of
person
new
york,
and
we
appreciate
it
greatly
and
I'm.
I
hope
the
community
does
as
well,
no
matter
how
this.
J
F
G
F
Questions
to
both
of
you,
mr
shelby
I'll,
start
with
you,
hopefully
on
the
easier
one,
if
we,
if,
obviously,
if
we
left
it
at
this
7-4
the
way
we
did
the
where
we
were
back
in
may,
with
the
five
to
two
vote,
we
would
be
in
a
procedural
position
on
this
coming
thursday
to
just
proceed
with
with
with
the
second
reading
and
and
be
done
with
it.
F
I
think
the
other
question
you
know
I've
talked
about
a
little
bit
is
if
there
was
a
slight
tweak
and
we
went
to
some
other
combination
of
five
five
one,
six
five,
something
like
that-
is
it
possible
that
we
could
continue
with
second
reading
this
coming
thursday,
because
I
think
everybody
involved
from
the
mayor
to
council
to
the
community
would
like
to
see
this
done
on
thursday.
D
Generally,
what
I
believe
you're
asking
is,
irrespective
of
whether
you
go
to
second
reading
on
the
ordinance
as
it
is,
or
you
come
to
an
agreement
to
come
to
a
consensus
to
substitute
the
exhibit
a
relative
to
just
the
appointments
and
the
apportionment
of
the
appointments.
Can
you
still
go
forward
to
second
reading
correct
and
the
answer
to
that
question?
D
In
my
opinion,
is
yes,
there
may
be
a
few
little
caveats
in
there,
but
generally
speaking,
fortunately-
and
I'm
very
grateful-
I
did
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
to
ms
grimes
and
to
ms
zellman
and
to
mr
massey
regarding
this,
and
I
understand
that
she
is
online
if
she
wishes
to
address
that,
to
counsel,
I'm
certainly
able
to
answer
that
question,
but
I
prefer
you
hear
it
from
her,
she
being
the
city
attorney,
and
I
certainly
would
concur
with
her
opinion.
If
there's
anything
that
I
need
to
add.
D
I
certainly
would,
but
I
believe
that
city
council,
if
that
is
your
decision,
to
move
forward
on
second
reading
with
those
minor
parameters
that
doesn't
include
a
change
to
the
title
or
a
change
to
the
general
purpose
of
what
that
ordinance
is,
for
instance,
even
with
regard
to
the
appointments.
It
doesn't
change
the
purpose
of
that
board.
It
doesn't
doesn't
change
that
board's
duties,
so
my
opinion
is
that
you
could
proceed
to
second
reading
and
adoption
and
be
able
to
present
that
to
the
mayor
on
thursday.
A
F
C
Yes,
good
morning,
everyone,
mr
shelby,
and
I
had
a
chance
to
discuss
this
issue
on
friday
and
our
office
did
conduct
research
on
the
question
of
making
changes
between
first
and
second
reading,
and
we
believe
that
we
can,
if
you,
if
you
decide
to
make
the
change
from
the
7-4
to
the
5-5-1,
that
it
is
legally
defensible.
C
But,
like
anything,
it's
not
ironclad.
As
you
all
know,
you
make
changes
between
first
and
second
reading,
often
and
whenever
you
do
that,
there's
always
a
risk
that
someone
may
challenge
that
variation
in
the
process.
So
it's
in
this
case
I'm
given
our
opinion
that
it
is
legally
defensible
change.
It's
up
to
counsel,
to
decide
whether
you
want
to
take
that
risk,
given
the
benefit
of
proceeding
with
second
reading
on
thursday.
F
C
F
B
Okay,
I'd
like
to
back
up
for
just
a
quick
second
before
I
get
into
some
of
the
actually
very
small
substantive
points
you
know
chairman.
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
your
leadership.
I
think
we've
tried
as
an
administration,
especially
focusing
on
my
office,
and
my
responsibilities
worked
very
collaboratively
with
council
over
the
last
two
years
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
do
that.
But
you
made
a
comment.
B
According
to
my
formula,
every
time
you
save
a
victim
in
one
year,
you
have
to
resave
that
victim
to
get
another
reduction
the
next
year.
It's
an
additive
formula,
and
I
want
to
tell
you
at
the
close-
and
I
looked
at
this
over
the
weekend
to
refresh
my
data
from
when
I
retired,
in
2015,
from
the
accurate
data
that's
reported
on
our
crime
reduction.
B
That
amounts
to
357
529
people
they're
going
to
be
happy
because
that's
exactly
what
this
police
department
does
what's
very
interesting
is
that
every
major
city
over
250
000
in
the
region
has
two
crime
victims
for
every
one
in
tampa.
So
it's
almost
double
the
rate
of
what
we
have,
and
that
is
because
your
leadership
supporting
their
resources,
their
outputs,
their
inputs
and
their
outcomes
as
well
as
the
community.
We
have
400
000
people
that
interact
with
this
police
department
in
some
form
or
respect.
There's
a
call
made.
B
As
you
know,
as
this
progressed
since
approximately
a
year
ago
and
those
iterations
include
public
engagement,
scholar,
practitioner
engagement
as
well
as
mr.
I
B
Yeah
I
can
tell
too,
but
anyway
again,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
I
just
want
to
go
back
and
say
that
through
this
journey-
and
we
won't
rehash
it
because
that's
not
what
we're
here
here
to
narrow
in
there
was
two
things,
and
I
think
I
mentioned
them
already
in
in
councilman.
Carlson's
questions
is
that
we
wanted
progress
very
important.
B
We
wanted
unbiased
and
we
wanted
a
balanced
board
and,
and
that
required
two
things
one
to
rip
and
replace
the
former
ordinance
I'll
tell
you
I
I
got
partially
emotional
the
other
day
at
that
meeting
with
the
mayor
when
mr
shelby
said
I
really
envision
all
of
us
standing
around
the
table
at
a
signing
ceremony
after
thursday
and
and
that's
amazing
to
me-
that's
an
amazing
show
of
of
what
mr
citro
said
a
few
minutes
ago
about
the
city
looking
at
their
leadership,
the
eight
elected
officials
in
this
city
and
the
over
four
thousand
employees
serving
them
in
a
manner
that
just
is
to
me
undescribable
success,
and
we
want
to
continue
that
momentum
in
the
community
with
all
the
accountability
and
all
the
things
that
we
progressed
with.
B
B
Makes
a
recommendation
on
the
on
the
middle
person
and
the
mayor
confirm
confirms
it
or
it
flips.
The
other
way
around
the
mayor
makes
a
recommendation.
The
council
confirms
that
we'd
have
that
beautiful
balance
of
551
in
a
balanced,
unbiased
and
progressive
crb,
and
the
beauty
of
that
going
forward
is
there's
always
room
to
progress.
We've
talked
about
the
journey
that
the
crb
is
on
the
fact
that
they're
going
to
bring
annual
reports
the
fact
that
you
know
we're
going
to
have
a
transparent,
engaging
progress
with
the
police
department.
B
I
mean
when
you
unpack
this
and
I
have
to
credit
the
city
attorney's
office.
For
this.
They
really
did
a
really
solid
job,
canvassing,
the
state
and
beyond,
for
a
model
policy
configuration
that
was
efficient,
effective
and
equitable
to
go
forward,
so
there's
always
room
to
grow.
So
I
think
the
only
two
things
are
the
may.
F
When
we
talk
about
a
balanced
and
unbiased
board,
you
know
it
almost
makes
me
chuckle
a
little
bit,
because
if
you
look
at
okay,
I
can
test
everybody
here,
including
the
mayor
and
everybody
across
the
street
in
the
administration.
It's
like
tell
us
about
the
variance
review
board.
Okay,
who
sits
on
the
variance
review
board,
who
are
the
mayor's
picks,
who
are
council's
picks
all
right.
Nobody
would
know,
okay,
maybe
the
clerk
knows,
but
other
than
that.
Nobody
would
know,
because
we're
part
of
that
we
picked
some
of
those
board
members.
F
F
F
F
Probably
even
more
important
to
me
is
whatever
we
do
as
a
city
council,
okay,
the
substantive
part
of
it,
seven,
four,
one:
five,
five
one:
you
know
those
issues
come
and
go,
and
the
next
city
council
three
years
from
now
could
change
it.
You
know
the
next
mayor
at
x,
number
of
years
now,
working
with
city
council
could
propose
a
change.
F
It
reminds
me
of
washington
d.c,
where
the
president
goes
sends
his
people
down
to
the
capitol
and
says
we
don't
like
this
part
of
the
legislation
we
suggest
otherwise,
and
it's
and
it's
a
tug
and
pull
and
tug
and
pull,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know
other
than
the
vice
president
and
a
tie
at
the
end
of
the
day.
The
legislative
decision
is
made
by
that
legislative
body
in
congress,
and
I
don't
believe
that
we
should
be
any
different
than
that.
F
F
F
But
let
me
let
me
back
up
a
little
bit
and
talk
to
the
substance
of
this
when,
when
that
may
meeting,
was
very
unfortunate
in
10
different
ways
and
none
of
us
felt
good
after
it
and
to
the
extent
that
I
might
have
contributed
to
the
controversy.
I
apologize
to
anybody.
I
might
have
insulted,
but
I'm
not
going
to
go
backwards.
H
C
F
Issues
and
mr
maniscalco,
you
brought
it
up
and
somebody
else
else
I
think
mr
citro,
you
might
have
brought
it
up
a
minute
ago,
but
I
said
the
same
thing
the
day
after
that
may
meeting,
I
said
you
know
what
I
said.
Council
made
a
decision.
We
made
a
very
strong
decision
to
support
mr
carlson's
motion
on
the
on
five
to
two,
with
the
seven
to
four
seven,
four.
F
F
I
said,
however,
I
think
the
area
that
we
could
give
and
take
a
little
bit
is
on
the
other
sort
of
you
know
the
other,
the
other
person
in
the
room,
the
other
thing
in
the
room,
which
was
this
issue
of
subpoena
power
and
independent
counsel,
because
we
had
pushed
that
off
until
next
february
and
as
mr
maniscalco
pointed
out,
I
think
there
is
an
opportunity
to
to
horse
trade
on
that
issue,
because
that
issue
is
not
set
in
stone.
That
issue
is
not
part
of
a
an
ordinance.
F
That's
halfway
through
you
know,
right
now
you
know-
and
I
would
be.
I
was
amenable
three
weeks
ago,
john,
when
you
and
I
spoke
about
it
and
I'm
still
amenable
today
to
to
putting
that
discussion
off.
If
somebody
makes
a
motion
to
take
that
february
workshop
off
the
table
and
put
it
off
for
a
couple
of
years
until
the
next
council
comes
along
and
the
next
council
might
want
to
bring
it
up
or
maybe
they
won't
okay,
so
be
it.
F
So
I
I
you
know
I
would
I
made
that
offer
then
before
mr
chairman,
before
you
jumped
in
and
said
you
want
to
take
the
leadership
on
it.
I
made
that
offer
then
as
a
proposal,
and
I
still
I
still
think
that
that's
the
appropriate
compromise
today
and
that's
and
I
think
that's
an
important
compromise,
because
when
I
listened
to
that
press
conference
out
there,
okay,
they
weren't
talking
about
741
and
551.
What
they
were
talking
about,
including
and
especially
pba
is
they
were
talking
about
subpoena
power
and
independent
counsel,
and
they
felt
very
passionately.
F
F
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
chairman.
I
appreciate
all
your
efforts
to
tell
some
type
of
conclusion
on
this
matter.
You
know
when
you
go
back
and
look
see.
2019
seems
like
it
was
yesterday.
J
J
When
you
look
at
the
charter,
what
this
brought
up,
I
think
was
section
d.
The
first
sentence
in
that
section,
the
last
seven
words
would
be
exact.
Then
you
go
back
and
understand
how
things
are
done.
No
department
head
is
appointed
by
one
person,
they're
recommended
by
one
person
and
they're
voted
on
by
seven
other
person.
J
J
J
What
a
wonderful
time
to
put
something
like
this
on
the
ballot,
let
the
public
decide
that's
called
democracy
by
large
numbers,
not
by
eight
nine,
by
seven
four,
not
by
five
five,
one,
nine
by
six,
three
one,
six,
three,
two,
whatever
it's
called
democracy.
It
settles
the
situation
once
and
forever.
J
I
don't
like
to
sit
here
and
understand.
Tell
myself
gee,
I
wonder,
what's
going
to
happen
in
2025,
let
it
be
clearly
cut
dry,
what's
going
to
happen
because
the
public
has
voted
on
it,
and
you
don't
hear
me
speaking
much
about
that
because
the
public
elected
us,
but
when
there's
some
type
of
give
and
take
and
two
bodies,
wherever
the
bodies
may
be
and
and
you
know
what
there's
nothing
wrong
with
having
a
difference
of
opinion
among
eight
individuals-
that's
also
called
democracy
in
some
places
in
the
world.
J
J
Here
we
have
a
close
ballot.
Everybody
wants
to
say
what
the
hell's
going
on,
because
we
have
democracy
and
you
win
the
popular
vote
and
you
lose
the
electoral
vote.
That's
democracy!
That's
not
right
or
wrong.
That's
the
way
it
was
made
hundreds
of
years
ago,
and
you
know
what,
after
all
the
tugging,
all
the
dragging
all
the
misinformation
by
both
sides-
allegedly
not
this
side,
I'm
talking
about
the
world.
J
J
J
J
Some
of
you
remember
that
some
of
you
don't
what
happened
to
the
yellow
rice
and
chicken
dinners?
What
happened
to
the
ice
factory
speeches
when
we
go
out
and
speak
at
the
ice
factories
and
hundreds
of
people
who
show
up
and
I've
said
it
before.
You
have
a
fish
fry
for
people
to
come
in
the
fish,
don't
even
show
up,
because
now
we've
gotten
lazy,
we
want
to
stay
home,
we
got
tv,
you
got
all
the
amenities
you
have
air
conditioning.
J
J
J
To
get
what
more
people
enthused
in
democracy,
democracy
is
like
a
balloon
filled
with
water.
You
grab
it
on
one
side:
it
moves
to
the
other
grab
the
other
side.
It
moves,
and
maybe
that's
the
beauty
of
it,
because
if
you're
not
satisfied
with
a
balloon,
you
pop
it
and
this
balloon-
I
hope,
never
pops,
because
if
it
does,
democracy
is
gone
from
the
world.
J
Look
what
happened
in
israel
just
the
other
day.
It
could
happen
in
other
countries
the
other
day
and
I'm
not
singling
out
israel.
But
what
I'm
saying
is
that
they
had
this
system
about
anger
or
not
anger.
Favoritism
somebody
want
to
hurt
somebody.
Listen,
nobody
hurts
somebody,
nobody
hates
us.
They
have
a
different
opinion
of
us
and
I'm
happy
with
that.
J
Here
you
have
the
opportunity
to
have
the
chair
of
this
fine
council
go
meet
with
a
mayor
and
discuss
things
out,
come
to
some
type
of
a
compromise.
What's
on
the
floor
now-
and
it's
been
alluded
to
similar
to
a
zoning
hearing
where,
between
first
and
second
reading,
there
are
discussions
on
whether
it
changes
the
facts
of
the
original
hearing.
J
There's
a
change
being
made,
and
some
of
these
are
very
minor
and
can
go
between
first
and
you
see
the
attorneys
tell
you.
Yes,
we
can
make
that
change
and
it
could
go.
However,
doing
this
from
the.
In
my
my
opinion,
so
opinion
going
from
this
from
first
to
second
reading,
without
going
back
to
first
reading,
could
be
a
detriment
to
what
you're
trying
to
do
if
there's
a
challenge,
and
it
loses
what
happens
then
always
think
not
of
today
and
not
of
tomorrow.
J
J
I
I
want
this
if
we're
really
really
thinking
about
the
future
of
this
document
that
we
have
and
the
strong
mayor
former
governor
in
the
city-
and
I
believe
in
that
I
believe
in
a
strong
mayor
of
this
city
and
I'll,
tell
you
why
it
pinpoints
responsibility
and
he
or
she
whoever
sits
in
that
office
is
the
one.
That's
got
to
make
the
choice
of
what
type
of
person
and
mayor
they're
going
to
be
written
in
the
history
of
this
city.
J
J
The
urgency
is
here,
but
is
it
going
to
tear
a
chapter
out
of
the
four
years
that
this
government
serves
together?
I
don't
believe
it
will,
but
it
could
so
to
take
a
risk
of
that
size
over
one
vote,
and
sometimes
one
vote
makes
a
difference,
a
big
difference
and
it's
not
one
vote.
It's
one
vote
that
changes
the
change
of
the
future
of
things
that
come
for
many
years
to
come
and
therefore
I'm
not
willing
to
take
that
that
chance
right
now.
J
H
A
Let
me
say
this
gentlemen:
when
I
first
became
a
polish
council,
you
know
you
always
heard
of
charlie
miranda.
You
know
you
hear
me
at
times
calling
the
legend
someone
who's
been
around
this
council
a
long
long
time.
I've
seen
it
all,
and
I
can
remember
two
points
when
I
first
got
on
this
council.
A
A
A
So
I
thank
you
for
that.
Sir
number,
two,
when
you
talk
about
compromise
here,
the
legend
came
again
when
we
were
dealing
with
me:
stopping
the
budget
rivers
to
the
fire
rescue
in
east
temple.
I
think
you
guys
recalled
that
and
we're
back
and
forth
and
the
legend
stepped
in
again
and
asked
for
a
recess.
A
And
went
in
the
back
and
met
with
mr
bennett,
he
told
mr
bennett,
let's
come
away
with
a
compromise.
Let's
make
it
happen,
it
happened.
Gentlemen.
It
happened.
I
didn't
want
to
get
into
any
charter
issues.
I
I
really
didn't,
but
some
colleagues
have
chimed
in
on
that
again.
The
legend
spoke
about
the
people.
A
Many
times
you
heard
me
say
that
we
are
delegating
on
situation.
I
said
our
charter
is
a
little
bit
outdated.
Even
though
we
had
a
charter
review
commission
and
we
went
over
some
things.
We
didn't
go
through
everything
in
that
charter,
and
sometimes
we
were
kind
of
you
know,
upset,
because
we
were
stonewalled
on
trying
to
do
some
stuff
and
I
think
a
lot
of
councilmembers
who
were
here.
We
get
frustrated
because
of
what
people
say:
a
strong
form
of
mayoral
government,
which
that
is
nowhere
in
our
charter.
A
It
says
anything
about
a
strong
former
government.
It
says
two
branches
of
government,
I
don't
recall
ever
seeing
strong
marriage.
I
guess
it's
something.
You
know
people
come
up
words
and
you
know
it's
been
that
way.
That's
why
we've
always
done
it
and
I'm
not
advocating
taking
a
strong
former
government,
but
what
I
would
say
when
you
look
at
how
we
legislate
and
how
the
administration
does
policy.
A
That's
down
the
road
when
you
talk
about
department
heads
mr,
this
legend
is
right
again
this
body,
before
any
department
head,
becomes
ownership
of
the
mayor's
office.
We
have
to
empower
them
many
times.
You
know.
I
tell
people
the
police
chief
and
the
mayor
are
the
two
most
important
positions
of
this
city.
A
Everybody
relies
on
the
police
chief,
the
police
department,
for
service
safety
and
for
rescue
time.
Don't
leave
them
out
because
they
do
they
do
it
all.
They
don't
do
just
one
job
the
water
department
they
whatever
they
need
to
be
at
that
particular
time.
The
policeman
is
that
person
at
that
particular
time,
because
people
are
in
distress
or
need,
and
they
want
answers
at
that
particular
time
and
the
policeman
has
to
find
a
way
to
get
it
been.
A
There
understand
that,
and
I
always
wondered
what
you
know:
it's
been
a
thing
to
wear
again:
that's
what
we've
always
done
it
when
you
talk
about
appointments
that
are
coming
from
the
administration.
We
I've
never
seen
the
council's
every
question.
It's
just
we
just
a
rubber
stamp
and
it
goes
on
there's,
never
any
confirmation
of
meeting
with
those
departments
before
they're
coming
for
this
body
to
see.
If
this
body
likes
that
person,
would
you
say
well
we'll
go
with
whatever
the
administration
says?
A
Mr
moran,
the
legend
brings
up
a
lot
of
different
points,
gentlemen,
and
those
issues
have
to
be
dealt
with
down
the
road,
but
today
we've
got
to
kind
of
come
up
with
something
to
get
this
going
and
then
down
the
road.
Like
mr
miranda
said,
I
mean
it
it's
going
to
come
to
that
point
and
it
has
time
changes
he's
seen
it
all.
A
A
I
I
when
I
do
the
numbers,
I
see
one
one
on
a
five
five
and
then,
mr
again,
mr
random
made
his
statements,
oh,
how
he
how
he
feels,
and
he
doesn't
feel
it
needs
to
be
a
he
doesn't
believe
the
the
legal
aspect
of
it.
He
believes
it
could
be
a
challenge
on
a
bunch
of
aspects.
A
A
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
appreciate
everybody's
comments.
You
know
the
551
split,
it's
it.
You
know.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
like
you
said,
you
know,
I
have
other
things.
I
have
housing
issues
to
worry
about.
We
have
bigger
issues
in
this
city
to
worry
about.
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
go
down
the
road
of
a
lawsuit,
you
know
more
strife
and
division
and
fighting
especially
going
into
the
budget
season,
which
is
right
around
the
corner.
I
mean
we
have
a
lot
of
stuff
coming
up.
E
E
E
You
know
the
551,
I
get
it.
You
know
that
one
being
the
naacp
member,
that
one
being
that
it
needs
to
be
approved
by
city
council.
So
really
we
had
that
majority
six,
five,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
don't
know
what
the
big
deal
is.
You
know
why
not
a
7-4.
Why
not
this,
but
you
know
we're
dealing
with
different
personalities
and
different
fears
and
and
whatnot
again
you
know
what
does
the
board
think
about
it,
the
crv
board?
E
How
do
they
feel?
What
do
they
want?
What
tools
do
they
need
in
the
toolbox?
Do
they
feel
like
they're,
doing
a
good
enough
job?
What
was
proposed
to
us?
I
mean
there
are
significant
changes.
You
know
if
we
call
it
the
may
ordinance
or
or
whatever.
Basically,
the
only
thing
that
we're
at
you
know
out
of
stalemate
is
the
appointments,
everything
else
I
think
we
essentially
agree
upon.
E
Should
we
revisit
it
in
the
future?
If
things
are
not
working,
we
can
do
that.
You
know.
Can
we
put
things
on
the
ballot
as
councilman
miranda
mentioned?
We
can
do
that
and
let
the
people
vote,
but
to
bring
this
to
bed.
I
mean
we're
repealing
and
replacing
what
was
put
in
in
2015,
so
there
are
changes,
there's
other
modifications
which
we've
all
talked
about
and
what
makes
this
ordinance
different
and
better.
So
it
basically
comes
down
to
the
to
the
appointments.
E
Again,
I'm
not
looking
to
fight
I'm
not
looking
to
flex
any
muscle.
I
don't
have
much,
but
I'm
not
looking
to
you
know,
do
a
power
play
here.
I'm
just
looking
to
put
this
to
bed
and
move
forward.
Again.
I've
been
listening
to
this
for
six
years.
You
know
we
had
something.
Maybe
it's
not
good
we're
replacing
it
repealing
the
previous
with
something
better
and
again
in
the
future.
Another
council
can
decide
differently.
Another
council
can
add
more
to
it.
The
crv
board
members
could
say
they
have.
E
I
Thank
you,
sir,
for
for
the
public
watching
and
we've
spent
a
year
trying
to
make
sure
they're
safeguards
for
the
public
and
the
police.
We
want
to
be
fair
to
everyone
and
we've
added
a
lot
of
that
in
here.
We.
I
What
you've
seen
play
out
this
morning
and
in
the
meeting
before
anybody's
watched,
is
that
is
that
we're
at
the
end
of
the
negotiations
on
this
round,
it's
always
possible
that
we
can
add
something
else
in
the
future,
as
my
colleagues
have
said,
but
but
in
this
round
we've
gone
back
and
forth
back
and
forth
back
and
forth.
This
is
as
far
as
we
can
get
in
this
round.
I
The
most
important
thing
is
that
we,
if
we
change
the
the
voting,
we
have
to
use
the
may
version
and
we
need
a
new
executive
order
that
supersedes
the
the
so
that
the
ordinance
and
the
executive
order
supersede
mr
bennett,
do
we
have
a
copy
of
the
executive
order,
and
would
there
be
a
new
executive
order,
how
it.
B
I
know
that
the
may
version
the
red
light
versions
available.
I
would
phone
a
friend
a
legal
make
sure
that
the
executive
order
is
either
ready
or
could
be
prepared.
For
thursday
I
mean.
I
B
Right,
miss
grimes.
You
want
to
address
that.
C
Yes,
gina
grimes,
the
executive
order
was
a
draft
was
provided
in
november.
Got
some
comments,
I
revised
it,
provided
it
in
february.
I
don't.
I
don't
believe
it
was
provided
for
the
day
meeting,
but
it
was
previously
provided
mr
carlson
and
I'm
happy
to
email
you
a
copy.
If
you.
I
Could
if
you,
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
emailing
us
and
then
please
also
post
it
to
sire,
so
the
public
can
see
it
and
and
then
people
can
see
that
that
whatever
language
is
in
both
of
them
that
supersedes
the
old
part
of
it.
But
thank
you
all
for
for
working
on
this
one
other
last
point
and
just
to
clarify
the
press
conference
from
a
couple
weeks
ago.
I
D
Yes,
martin
shelby
city,
council
attorney.
I
have
the
calendar
in
front
of
me
and
certainly
the
clerk
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
on
february
24th
your
calendar
reads
as
follows,
and
both
of
them
at
9am
beside
the
presentation
of
the
accommodation
to
the
police
office
officer
of
the
month,
a
continued
workshop,
martin
shelby
city
council
attorney
and
legal
department
to
present
a
draft
ordinance
regarding
the
citizen,
review
board
discretion
to
hire
or
retain
independent
counsel.
D
I
So,
just
to
clarify,
so
we
don't
have
another
press
conference,
the
subpoena
is
not
subpoena
powers,
not
the
public,
wants
it.
Members
of
the
public
want
it,
but
we
were
told
by
the
city
attorney
that
that
we
can't
just
add
it
without
a
charter
amendment.
We
can
any
time
before
the
next
election.
Add
it
as
a
charter
amendment,
but
for
right
now
the
administration
doesn't
want
us
to
bring
it
to
put
it
on
the
agenda,
so
we
haven't
put
it
on
the
agenda.
Yet
the
independent
council
is
on
the
agenda.
I
The
only
thing
that
I
would
ask
is
if,
at
some
point
somebody
makes
a
motion
to
take
that
off
the
agenda.
I
think
we
ought
to
leave
the
placeholder
discussion
there
for
any
other
charter
discussions
that
remember
the
purpose
of
that
was
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
multiple
meetings
to
talk
about
charter
amendments.
I
We
would
only
have
one
and
if
that's
not
the
right
date,
we
could
move
it,
but
but
just
if
we
could
separate
those
those
two
issues,
but
I
appreciate
mr
bennett,
chief,
bennett
and
and
chair
goods
for
getting
us
to
this
point.
Thank
you.
A
Mr
carlson,
I
I
probably
would
entertain
emotional
thursday
to
strike
the
the
one,
but
the
latter
has
to
be
done
as
pertains
to
the
whole
chart
in
itself.
So
mr
shelby,
again
he's
been
instructed
to
get
miss,
grinds
reference
to
a
workshop
in
reference
to
the
whole
charter,
because
there
are
some
interpretations,
we
must
clear
up.
G
G
G
G
F
Just
wanted
to
make
sure
the
record
was
clear.
The
I
don't
know
that
I
really
have
anything
to
add
beyond
what
I
said
before.
Mr
chairman,
I
will
say-
and
I've
spoken
with
mrs
grimes
about
this-
I
know
she.
She
has
some
issues
with
the
term
independent
counsel
versus
outside
council
and
and
and
maybe
she's
right
on
that.
So
if
and
when
we
ever
got
to
that
discussion
in
february,
you
know,
perhaps
the
better
term
might
be
outside
counsel,
it's
kind
of
splitting
hairs.
F
But
again,
as
I
stated
earlier,
and
as
I
mentioned
to
mr
bennett
a
couple
weeks
ago,
you
know-
I
think
that
is
that
you
know,
and
and
with
all
due
respect.
Mr
carlson,
the
elephant
in
the
room
seems
to
be
subpoena
power,
so
you
might
as
well
address
it.
F
You
know,
I
think,
if
those
are
big
issues
to
the
administration
and
pba,
and
what
have
you
then
those
are
things
that
we
couldn't.
You
know
potentially
not
deal
with
during
this
four-year
term.
I'm
I'm!
Okay
with
that.
I
do
think
the
ordinance
has
come
a
long
way
and
and
but
I
think
the
most
important
thing
to
come
out
of
all
of
this
is
who
are
we
and
what
are
we
doing
here?
F
You
know
because
if,
if
we're,
if
we
are
not
the
legislative
body,
regardless
of
you
want
to
call
this
a
strong
mayor
of
former
government,
we
form
a
government.
What
have
you
if
we
are
not
the
legislative
body
to
make
the
final
legislative
decisions
on
behalf
of
the
citizens
who
are
in
touch
with
us
everywhere
in
the
grocery
store
in
the
drug
store
on
the
street,
on
the
phone
hit
by
email,
etc?
F
Okay,
we
are
the
we
are
the
day-to-day
connection
with
this
community
and
therefore
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
be
the
legislative
body,
and
we
should
be
making
these
decisions
and
once
we've
made
them,
we
should
we
should
stick
with
them
unless
there's
some
compelling
reason
not
to
so
I'm
comfortable
with
where
we
are
in
terms
of
the
decision
we
made
back
in
may
five
to
two
and-
and
I
think
that
that
we
should
move
forward
with
that.
F
D
D
If
there
is
the
ability
for
you
to
come
to
a
consensus
council,
it
may
be
to
your
advantage
to
be
able
to
come
to
a
consensus.
Today
you
have
the
chief
of
staff
present
in
the
room.
D
If
there
is
a
question
as
to
the
the
administration's
position,
you
have
the
opportunity
to
get
clear
on
it
at
the
time
and
importantly
by
the
end
of
this
meeting,
if
it's
the
chair's
intention
to
do
so,
you
will,
even
though
you
cannot
take
official
action,
you
can
telegraph
what
the
consensus
of
this
board
is
of
what
the
official
action
will
be
on
thursday.
So
there
are
no
surprises
to
anybody,
and
the
public
certainly
will
have
the
opportunity
to
give
input
at
a
public
hearing
as
they
would
be
before
you
take
final
action.
D
So
please
take
advantage
if
council
is
capable.
Forgive
me,
they'll
use
the
word
capable
if
council
is
willing
to
be
able
to
formulate
a
consensus,
to
convey
to
mr
bennett
and
have
mr
bennett's
response,
and
perhaps
you
can
get
some
sort
of
assurance
from
him
of
what
the
administration's
position
is
or
would
be.
Perhaps
on
that
consensus.
A
A
I'm
sure
he'll
be
able
to
take
back
some
of
what
he's
heard,
we're
willing
to
compromise,
I'm
hoping
the
administration
is
willing
to
do
so.
It's
no
win-win
her
or
us.
It's
just
making
the
city
go
in
the
right
path.
Mr
bennett,
you're
recognized.
B
B
In
from
what
I
understand
from
the
collective
of
the
administration,
I
don't
need
to
rehash
the
again
the
due
diligence
that
we
felt
we
worked
collaboratively
together
with
all
facets
of
the
community
to
bring
us
where
we
are
today.
I
will
say,
though,
that
you
know
when
you
serve
a
city
of
this
size
and
this
magnitude
I
heard
things
about
you
know
the
history
of
the
police
department.
B
I
think
the
value
here
is,
in
my
opinion,
the
experience
of
the
mayor
when
she
said
one
it's
time
to
progress
the
ordinance
and
was
willing
to
rip
and
replace
it
and
bring
in
a
new
ordinance
signed
by
signed
by
the
mayor
after
the
approval
and
adoption
from
council
and
complement
that
with
the
appropriate
executive
order
to
allow
not
only
progress
today
but
progress
in
the
future.
This
is
the
beginning
of
additional
progress
if
we're
not
continuing
to
improve
we're
sitting
still
and
if
we're
sitting
still
we're
going
backwards.
B
So
I
think
that's
the
element
of
progress.
I
think
the
element
of
of
unbiased
and
balanced
comes
down
to
the
makeup
of
the
board.
The
mayor
clearly
gave
up
a
7-4
for
the
recommendation
today,
as
and
now
being
very
prescriptive
here,
of
a
5-5-1
5
recommendations
from
council,
five
from
the
mayor
and
one
recommended
and
confirmed
by
council
or
the
administration
and
confirmed
by
council
or
the
administration
and-
and
I
think,
there's
value
in
that
for
the
following
reason,
especially
in
law
enforcement
crime.
B
Yes,
the
law
enforcement
can
continue
to
do
their
job
and
they're
going
to
enforce
the
law,
but
I
think
the
difference
comes
down
to
leadership.
We
all
know
that
whatever
team,
you're,
managing
or
coaching
it
comes
down
to
leadership
is
the
difference
maker
in
a
community,
and
this
department
has
been
led
by
great
leadership
in
elected
positions,
partner
partners
in
the
community,
the
public
and,
of
course,
the
very
officers
that
are
doing
the
work
on
the
front
line
and
the
support
staff
that
supports
them
every
day.
B
I
think
we
can
move
the
city
forward
and
there's
always
room
for
improvement,
and
I
think
this
appeases
the
crb
as
a
board,
the
police
department,
the
union,
the
other
stakeholders
that
are
involved
in
all
the
iterations.
That
led
us
to
the
may
version
which
we
are
today,
and
I
think
that
to
mr
to
councilman
maniscalco's
point
that
leads
us
into
the
next
chapter
of
working
on
the
budget.
I
Just
one
quick
thing:
the
members
of
the
public
who
are
involved
in
this
and
have
been
for
six
years,
the
this
final
issue
they're,
I
should
say
the
public.
There
are
lots
of
things
that
are
in
this
that
are
different
than
the
original
version.
If
you
go
back
six
years,
it's
very
different,
correct
we've
been
talking
about
from
one
version
to
another,
but
there's
significant
progress
in
in
this
may
version.
G
One
last
just
clarification
for
myself:
the
the
community
activist
group,
whether
again,
whether
it
be
naacp
or
whomever
that
would
be
chief
bennett.
Who
would
be
the
pointing
there
city,
council
or
mayor.
A
Well,
mr
moran
already
said
he
wouldn't
anything
other
wise.
He
wouldn't
wouldn't
support
on
thursday
period,
because
if
it
would
be
a
legal
matter,
so
if
we
look
at
going
with
the
may
five
five
one
and
mr
maniscalco
was
kind
of
lean
that
he
would
be
possible
to
maybe
compromise
and
citroel
seems
that
way.
Mr
dingfeller
seems
to
be
still
7-4.
I
I
want
to
see
I
want
to
read.
I
appreciate
chief
bennett
working
with
us
and
you
know
we
all
need
to
go
back
and
talk
to
our
constituents
about
it.
But
I
think
that
in
the
version
that
we
just
talked
about
is
better
than
having
nothing
and
having
start
of
a
illegal
war,
and
we
could
go
back
and
negotiate
this
another
more
another
time.
I
We've
got
so
many
good
things
that
we've
negotiated,
and
I
would
ask
everybody:
please
go
back
to
the
version
from
six
years
ago
and
look
at
where
we
are
today.
It's
significantly
different
and
we
need
to
approve
a
version
so
that
we
can
come
back
and
edit
it.
But
if
we
end
up
in
a
big
fight,
it's
not
going
to
be
approved
for
months
or
years
in
a
legal
battle,
but
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
be
particular
or
prescriptive
about
thursday,
we
also
need
to
clarify
one
final
point.
I
Originally,
the
one
was
that
the
mayor's
office
had
proposed
that
the
one
would
be
the
naacp
and
that
the
naacp
would
would
propose
somebody,
and
then
city,
council
or
the
mayor
would
would
approve
them.
Are
you
changing
that
definition?
I
think
legal
needs
some
definition
of
what
would
be
in
this,
so
they
can
present
the
language
to
us
on
for
thursday.
D
Mr
chairman,
martin
shelby
city
council,
attorney
before
ms
grimes
would
address
that
I
do
have
the
ordinance
that
was
passed
on
for
us
reading
in
front
of
me
and
I'm
sure
the
city
attorney
does
too.
Mr.
A
Just
before
you
get
to
that
point
because
that's
been
brought
up
by
the
crb,
mr
citrus
brought
that
up
too.
You
know,
I
think
the
word
organization
or
civic
organization
versus
a
pacific
name
of
an
organization
and
again
that
was
brought
up
by
the
crb
and
again
some
councilmembers
have
brought
that
up
too.
So
I
just
want
us
to
shed
light
on
that
as
well,
but
central
before
you
get
to
the
show,
mr
citro,
you
recognize.
D
You
recognize
well,
I
I
believe,
council
and
I
and
council
member
carlson,
raises
a
very
good
point.
Obviously,
between
now
and
thursday,
council
will
need
to
see
that
language
and
so
will
the
public
to
the
degree
that
they
can
by
the
time
of
the
public
hearing.
If
council
chooses
to
go
forward
with
the
second
reading
as
it
stands
now
that
would
need
to
be
clarified.
I
don't
recall
of
how
it
was
drafted
in
the
february
ordinance.
D
If
there
is
a
problem
with
adopting
that
minor
amendment
to
exhibit
a
replacing
it
substituting
it
and
adopting
it
on
second
reading,
if
there
is
a
problem
with
that
ordinance,
it
is
of
a
technical
nature.
It
is
that
somebody's
going
to
challenge
it
on
the
basis
of
the
fact
that
it
didn't
comply
with
florida
statutes
and
the
effect
of
it
was
they
would
have
to
bring
a
lawsuit
and,
ultimately,
the
remedy
is
to
ultimately
go
back
to
what
is
existing
and
the
way
council
can
cure.
D
That
is
to
go
through
the
process
of
going
through
another
first
reading
and
second
reading.
That
is,
on
a
cost
benefit
basis
to
anybody.
Who'd
want
to
challenge
that
ordinance.
There's
nothing
really
to
be
gained
except
to
be
a
spoiler,
and
I
don't
believe
the
the
risk
is
as
tremendous
as
warranting
just
even
on
a
fast
track
council,
because
of
your
council's
recess
for
the
summer.
D
D
And
ultimately
you
have
the
the
issue
that
councilman
miranda
raised
that,
ultimately
that
if
you
want
to
do
put
this
before
the
voters,
then
you
would
be
operating
continuously
under
the
existing
ordinance,
the
2015
ordinance
until
it's
put
before
the
voters
and
then
depending
on
what
the
voters
do
then,
and
depending
on
what
the
question
you
put
before
the
voters,
you
won't
know
what
that
decision
is.
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
in
that
context.
Thank
you
shelby.
Yes,
sir.
A
I'm
gonna
let
mr
dean
fellas
chime
in
that
I'm
gonna
say
something
reference.
What
you
said
just
said,
sir.
It's
deeply
recognized.
F
So,
mr
chairman
and
mr
sietra,
are
you
suggesting
that,
instead
of
using
the
words
naacp
that
that
we,
that,
regardless
of
which
ordinance
we
we
go
with
or
which
head
count,
we
go
with
that?
We
substitute
instead
of
the
words
naacp.
Something
like
a
a
local
civil
rights
organization
is
that
is
that
what
you're
you're
proposing?
Because
I
do
think
that
ms
grimes
and
mr
shelby
need
need
some
direction
from
from
this
body.
Again,
I
would
say
that
would
be
a
minor
technical
change
that
you
know,
regardless
of
which
way
we
go.
G
Yes,
thank
you
councilman
dean.
Fellow,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
That's
what
I
am
proposing
organization
is
the
key
word
there
that
way
that
they
are.
You
know
they're
they're.
They
are
recognized
as
a
community
active
activist
group
organization.
Excuse
me
whether
it
be
naacp,
whether
it
be
some
other
community
activist
group.
So
yes,.
A
And
that
way
it
gives
everybody
a
chance
to
serve,
but
mr
shelby,
I
I
I
as
a
chairman,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
do
things
aboard
board
in
illegal.
Yes,
I
don't
want
to
where
we
have
to
be
challenged
on
anything.
If
we're
going
to
do
something,
we're
going
to
do
it
and
do
it
the
right
way.
I
don't
care
if
it
comes
back
in
july.
A
D
No
I'll
make
sure
we
do
it
right.
Well,
mrs
grimes
office
has
done
the
legal
research,
the
attorneys
upstairs
and
have
taken
a
look
at
it
and
and
they
can
go
more
into
depth,
but
the
answer
is:
if
you
want
to
know
what
the
safest
course
of
action
is
and
council
comes
to
a
consensus,
you
could
go
back
to
first
reading
on
thursday,
but
then
what
you'd
have
is
you'd
have
another
public,
a
hearing
and
a
second
reading
in
july.
If
that
puts
counsel
at
ease,
then
then
the
delay
is
necessary.
J
Well,
it's
not.
The
opinion
is,
is
30
days
going
to
be
a
deal
breaker
as
far
as
the
the
chances
of
something
not
being
applicable
to
someone
and
you
have
a
challenge,
and
you
have
all
this
and
you
get
back
again
and
you're
back.
I
I'm
not
looking
forward
to
something
that
prolongs
taking
the
can
down
the
road,
as
I
sit
out
in
the
streets
and
to
go
forever
and
not
do
anything.
No.
J
But
if,
if
the
issue
is
it's
30
days
that
important
relative
to
what
the
possibility
could
be
that
it's
turned
down
somewhere
down
the
road?
That's
what
we're
looking
at
30
days.
Is
it
going
to
be
a
deal
breaker
on
30
days
versus
that
I
don't
know,
but
I
can
tell
you
one
thing:
I
I
just
I'd
rather
have
something
that
is
more
codified,
so
that
if
it
is
taken
up,
it
was
done
without
any
blemish
that
we
know
of.
J
I
Thank
you,
sir.
Just
two
quick
questions:
chief
bennett,
my
understanding
in
speaking
with
staff
and
then
watching
the
press
conference
with
the
police
chief
and
the
mayor
is
that
their
preference
is
to
to
resolve
this
as
soon
as
possible.
Is
that
still
the
direction
or
does
the
administration
care
whether
we
would?
What
does
the
administration
have
a
preference
as
to
whether
we
do
second
reading
on
thursday
versus
delaying
it
till
july?.
B
No,
the
the
preference
and
hence
the
research,
is
to
to
again
to
calculate
the
the
legal
risk
factors
which
I
think
have
been
done
and
the
recommendation
is
to
try
and
move
forward
on
thursday
again
with
the
5-5-1,
and
I
wanted
to
point
out.
I
mentioned
it
to
mr
shelby
and
he
can
interpret
my
question
if
he
wants
to.
B
In
addition
to
my
comments,
but
the
reason
I
have
a
level
of
confidence,
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
but
the
reason
I
have
a
level
of
confidence
in
in
not
only
in
the
research
of
what
the
legal
department
has
done
in
in
in
sharing
that
with
mr
shelby
is
that
the
551
recommendation
has
already
been
in
front
of
the
public
in
a
prior
version.
It's
it's
not
a
completely
new.
B
You
know
methodology
if
you
will
for
configuring
the
board
that
was
presented
in
this
continuum,
and
so
I
could
you
know
if
we
were
going
to
20
and
two
or
some
other,
you
know
configuration
and
it
was
radically
different.
I
think
it
brings
an
element
of
consistency,
we're
just
toggling
back
to
a
previous
version,
with
a
recommendation
on
that.
One
individual.
I
Could
I
also
just
ask
city
attorney
ms
grimes,
could
you
tell
us
without
opening
a
huge
legal
discussion,
but
could
you
just
tell
us
if
it
it?
It
seems
to
me
that
if
there
was
a
legal
challenge
that
we
could
just
schedule
this
for
first
and
second
reading
sometime
in
the
future
and
pass
the
exact
same
language
and
that
wouldn't
wouldn't
that
supersede
it
and
then
and
then
allow
us
to
have
a
summary
judgment
or
something
like
that.
C
If,
if
there
was
a
challenge
to
the
ordinance
based
on
the
process
and
if
we
did
not
prevail,
the
ordinance
would
be
void,
which
would
then
revert
us
back
to
where
we
are
now
with
the
mayor,
having
seven
appointments
in
council
having
four
and
a
board
with
very
limited
powers.
So.
C
At
that
point,
then,
you
could
re-adopt
what
we're
what
we're
proposing
right
now,
it's
on
a
table
right
now
in
the
normal
course
of
the
process.
If.
I
C
I
F
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
carlson.
That's
pretty
much
what
I
was
going
to
say.
I,
the
thing
I've
been
agonizing
over
over
the
last
two
weeks
and
I've
put
a
call
on
him,
ms
zellman,
to
mr
shelby
to
anybody
who
will
listen.
I
think
I've
mentioned
it
to
mr
bennett
as
well
as
whatever
we
do.
Let's
just
be
done
with
this
this
thursday.
F
Okay,
I
mean,
if
I
can
agree
with
anything
that
miss
grimes
came
up
and
said
to
us
a
few
weeks
ago,
is
that
this
thing
is
dragged
on
long
enough
all
right
and
yes,
anybody
can
sue
us
about
anything.
It
doesn't
cost
very
much
to
walk
into
the
tender
circuit,
court
and
sue
us,
but
the
basis
for
it
would
be
silly
it'd,
be
frivolous.
F
Okay,
the
difference
between
first
and
second
reading
and,
like
you
said
bill
if
they
sue
us,
the
minute
somebody
sues
us
all
we
have
to
do
is
go
back
through
the
process
again
and
pass
it.
We
don't
even
have
to
wait
for
a
judge
to
decide
okay
and
then
the
and
then
the
lawsuit
becomes
moot.
So
let's
just
be
done
with
this.
This
thursday.
No
matter
what.
D
A
A
However,
it
goes
on
thursday,
which
I
think
you
know
I
think
it
will
come
out
to
where
everybody
will
will
be
able
to
to
walk
away
with
our
heads
high.
I
want
to
make
sure
to
everybody
to
the
public
the
administration,
to
those
civic
groups
to
this
body.
There's
no
winner
in
this.
The
only
winner
is
in
this.
This
whole
thing
will
be
the
city
of
tampa,
so
there's
no
win
for
the
mayor.
There's
one
win
for
this:
council
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear:
it's
a
win
for
all
of
us
and
we.
A
If
it's
a
done
deal
on
thursday,
we'll
have
a
press
conference
with
everybody
or
whatever.
That
can
be
that
the
people
know
that
we
came
together
to
make
this
happen
for
everybody's
citizens
and
whatever
goes
down.
The
road
is
down
the
road
for
whatever
other
administration,
whether
it
counts
or
whatever
workshops
that's
downright.
On
thursday.
We
bring
it
to
the
close.
It
will
be
everybody
coming
together,
no
win
for
the
administration
or
for
this
council,
but
the
win
for
the
citizens
of
temperatures.
B
B
John
bennett,
chief
of
staff
city,
attend.
I
just
want
to
leave
lecter
and
crystal
clear
that
it's
it's
my
understanding
based
on
the
dialogue
this
morning-
and
I
agree
mr
shelby
on
everything
about
the
transparency
part-
is
that
the
administration
will
bring
back
a
5-5-1
option
on
thursday
for
council
to
consider.
D
Could
we
be
even
more
specific
as
to
the
5-5-1
that
is
the
appointment
as
to
and
and
the
city
attorneys
heard
this,
but
as
that
to
be
classified
as
a
civil
rights
organization?
Is
that
the
consensus
of
council
activist
any
organization?
Well,
it
depends.
It
depends
what
your
definition
and
and
that's
something
organization.
D
C
Yes,
we
can
refer
to
it
as
a
civil
rights
organization
or
a
social
justice
organization,
whichever
way
you'd
like
and
the
other.
This
is
just
a
procedural
question.
I'm
I'm
not
clear
whether
you
want
me
to
prepare
this
change
before
thursday
or
to
have
it
available
to
you
on
thursday.
I
am
I'm
more
than
willing
to
work
on
it
today
and
try
to
get
it
into
sire
later
on
today
or
tonight.
D
D
D
F
F
You
know
civil
rights
or
social
justice
to
that
draft.
So
then,
that
way
on
thursday
we
have
two
choices:
we
can
go
551
or
we
can
go
seven
four
one,
but
we
have
a
perfect
draft
to
move
forward
with.
D
The
ordinance
that's
with
the
clerk
today,
the
ordinance
that's
been
advertised
for
second
reading-
is
the
ordinance
that
has
the
exhibit
a
as
it
stands
today,
which
is
what
you're
suggesting
being
changed
so
in
effect,
you're
asking
for
two
things
to
come
back.
In
addition
to
the
ordinance
that's
on
the
agenda:
yeah,
okay,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
that
that.
D
G
C
C
G
That
this
woman
has
helped
me
out
immensely.
If
I
had
questions
about
this
ordinance,
there
was
times
that
she
she
informed
me
so
I'd
like
to
also
thank
you,
miss
ursula
for
your
help.
Thank
you.
C
The
one
person
that
has
consistently
appeared
in
front
of
the
crb
during
this
whole
process
and
to
ensure
they're
up
to
speed
on
the
status
of
the
organs.
So
she
has
done
a
really
nice
job
of
making
sure
that
they
are
at
least
aware
of
what
was
taking
place.
I
D
A
D
A
consensus
please,
with
regard
to
the
february
workshop
on
the
discussion
of
the
discretion
of
the
board,
to
hire
or
retain
independent
counsel
that
would
be
presented
as
a
charter
question.
There
was
some
discussion
that
council
would
be
willing,
if
that
was
the
administration's
request,
to
have
that
taken
off
the
february
agenda.
A
D
A
C
What
one
procedural
question,
so
I
will
prepare
two
new
ordinances
consistent
with
the
direction
you
gave
me
and
I
will
submit
them
into
sire
and
if
you
could,
please
ask
the
clerk
to
accept
them
into
sire
since
it's
past
the
deadline
date,
I
will
get
those
to
you
all,
so
you
can
review
them
as
well
as
the
public
having
access
to
those
documents
for
review.
J
J
Look
at
it
and
put
it
on
whoever
let
mr
shelby
agree
with
the
item
and
then
put
it
on
on
the
on
the
on
sire
for
miss
grimes
to
put
her
on
that,
not
on
the
spot,
but
she's
capable
of
doing
a
fine
job,
and
if
she
makes
one
error,
then
we're
all
going
to
look
like
what
are
you
all
doing
now
like
playing
tricks,
we're
not
playing
tricks,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
110
thousand
percent
that
what
goes
on
to
the
public
is
a
hundred
and
ten
percent.
What
we
discussed!
A
F
A
That's
not
what
he's
saying
we
don't
care.
What
time
is
it?
What's?
What
he's
saying
he's
saying
you
know,
and
I
concur
with
them-
is
that
you're,
a
city
attorney
she's,
going
to
write
it,
send
it
to
you
for
review,
yes
and
you
send
it
back
to
her
saying
this
is
a
go
yes,
and
that
way
you
can
tell
all
the
council
members.
That's
your
job,
each
one,
your
clients,
mr
chairman,
I've
met
with
everybody
and
they're.
It's
going
to
miss
grimes
to
go
with
messiah.
D
A
D
A
I
And
ms
grimes
just
just
a
reminder:
please
also
up,
while
you're
doing
upload
the
mayor's
the
the
latest
version
of
the
mayor's
executive
order
that
supersedes
the
last
one.
Thank
you.