►
From YouTube: TCC CHARTER WORKSHOP 11/1/22 PT. 2
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
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
E
A
F
D
D
E
And
it
looks
like
we
kind
of
know
the
way
the
boat's
going.
So
if
you
guys
want
to
do
these
fast,
we
can
do
them
really
fast,
but
I
would
I
would
make
a
motion
to
and
it
and
and
we
were
accused
of
bringing
up
things
that
we
brought
on
the
charter
review
commission,
but
I
will
bring
this
one
up
just
because
I
I'm.
E
Okay,
yeah
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
regarding
4.01
and
we
were
accused
in
advance
of
bringing
it
of
whether
we
would
bring
up
things
that
were
in
the
charter.
View.
Commission
and
I
only
have
one,
but
I
want
to
bring
it
up
just
so,
we
can
have
an
up
or
down
vote
in
the
in
the
first
paragraph
here.
If
you
look
toward
the
bottom,
it
says
no
person
who
has
or
but
for
resignation
would
have
served
as
mayor
for
two
consecutive
full
terms
shall
be
elected
as
mayor
for
the
succeeding
term.
E
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
that
we
again
have
the
city
attorneys
outside
attorney,
come
back
to
us
on
the
first
date
of
ordinance
to
to
present
this
removing
the
word,
this
4.01
removing
the
word
consecutive
and
removing
the
term
for
the
succeeding
term,
and
so
the
effect
of
that
is
that
a
person
who
has
been
mayor
for
two
full
terms,
not
a
partial
term
but
for
two
full
terms,
can't
run
again.
E
E
Yeah
to
follow
so
to
to
in
the
I,
don't
know
which
sentence
this
is,
but
in
the
sentence
that
starts
with
no
person
and
under
4.01,
the
first
paragraph
for
4.01
I
would
I.
Would
my
motion
is
to
remove
the
word
consecutive
and
remove
the
words
for
the
succeeding
terms,
so
the
new
sentence
would
read.
No
no
person
who
has
or
but
for
resignation,
would
have
served
as
mayor
for
two
full
terms
shall
be
elected
as
mayor
foreign.
E
A
E
The
argument
the
argument
against
this
is
well
the
it's
up
to
the
voters
to
decide
whether
they
want
to
bring
somebody
back,
but
it's
also
up
to
the
voters
to
decide
whether
they
want
to
prove
this.
If
they
reject
it,
then
they
then
they
show
that
they
have
that
they
want
to
be
able
to
vote
for
whoever
they
want,
but
if
they
approve
it,
they
show
that
they
don't
want.
Somebody
coming
back.
D
F
I
correct
public:
if
the
public
wants
it,
if
you're
going
to
put
on
the
on
the
ballot
without
taking
we're
taking
those
things
out,
then
that
person
can't
run
again.
It's.
D
E
H
D
D
E
E
I
would
I
would
suggest
adding
I
said
a
here,
but
I
would
add
at
the
end,
that
quote,
the
legal
department
is
a
department
of
the
city,
as
described
in
this
section
5.01,
whose
purpose
is
to
provide
legal
advice
to
its
clients
as
defined
below
it
is
not
the
judicial
branch
of
the
city,
so
I
guess
I'm
I'm,
suggesting
putting
this
in
5.01
a
at
the
end
of
5.01
a
so
the
the
idea
here
is,
that
is
to
clarify
just
because
the
City
attorney
has
the
it's,
not
these
exact
words
but
the
final
legal,
the
final
official
legal
representative
for
the
city,
it
doesn't
necessarily
say
it
has
the
final
legal
opinion,
but
the
the
final
official
legal
representative
for
the
city.
E
It
does
not
mean
that
the
the
City
attorney
is
a
judge
or
jury
and
and
by
the
way,
they're
outside
attorneys
are
not
judging
jury,
although
some
recently
have
acted
as
if
they
were.
The
idea
here
is
to
clearly
state
the
legal
department
is
under
the
the
head:
Department,
it's
not
a
branch
of
government,
and
so
all
this
does
is
it
says
the
most
important
line
is
the
last
one.
E
It's
not
the
judicial
branch
of
the
city,
so
I'd
like
to
move
that
that
the
city
attorneys
outside
attorney
come
back
on
the
date
that
we
pick
for
the
first
reading
to
add
at
the
end
of
5.01
a
quote:
the
legal
department
is
a
department
of
city,
as
described
in
this
section
5.01,
whose
purpose
is
to
provide
legal
advice
to
its
clients
as
defined
below
it
is
not
the
judicial
branch
of
the
city.
D
I
F
It
well
let
me
if
I.
F
I
At
it,
except
that
last
last
year,
or
rather
when
this
body
convenes
as
the
four
of
us
at
least
that
were
on
the
charter
review
commission,
that
was
one
of
the
first
things
we
did
was
request.
Everything
go
to
gender
neutral
language,
but
even
in
the
most
updated
copy
of
the
charter,
it
still
has
yet
to
be
done.
So
maybe
we
should
just
have
that
again,
because
it's
all
over
the
place
and.
E
D
E
D
D
E
D
E
5.01,
just
adding
to
the
end
of
5.01
a
the
quote:
the
City
attorney
is
appointed
by
the
mayor.
According
to
section
6.03
below
the
City
attorney
may
be
removed
by
the
mayor
or
by
a
super
majority
five-member
vote
of
city
council.
E
They,
the
the
the
purpose
of
this,
is
that
the
the
City
attorney
by
by
bar
rules
has
to
represent
city
council,
but
it
that
office
has
not
and
without
getting
into
all
the
details
of
anybody
who
looks
at
the
media
can
see
that
the
City
attorney
has
not,
and
so
what
this
does
is
it
simply
says
that
the
City
attorney,
unlike
the
communication
Department,
the
the
or
the
other
department
heads
communication,
Department
technically,
should
report
to
city
council,
but
at
the
very
least,
the
City
attorney,
because
they're
obligated
by
Florida
bar
rules.
E
We
have
by
a
super
majority
or
if
my
colleagues
don't
like
super
majority,
we
go
to
four,
but
by
a
super
majority
city
council
can
remove
that
person
and
that
would
be
a
further
incentive
for
the
person
to
be
objective
in
reviewing
city
council
that
by
itself
you
know
the
the
the
essence
of
the
problems
we've
been
facing
last
two
three
years
are
not
coming
from
city
council.
It's
not
personality
conflicts,
it's
nothing
from
city
council.
E
F
F
That
means
that
that
City
attorneys
automatically
out
whether
he
or
she
was
doing
the
job
or
not,
is
irrelevant,
and
that's
what
I
can't
swallow
that
it
could
be
not
to
say
that
this
board
does
that
other
boards
in
the
future
could
make
an
argument
that
they
just
didn't
like
the
opinions
and
they
want
to
get
rid
of
the
City
attorney.
That's
just
why
so.
G
Kind
of
confused
and
I
didn't
pay
it
all
the
time
because
he's
been
here
a
long
time
but
early
he
talked
about
this
Council
five
votes.
If
I
don't
I'm,
not
mistaken,
he
said
five
volts,
so
I'm
confused.
Now
that
we're
saying
no,
but
earlier
we
said
this
Council
anybody
we
need
to
do
when
you
do
five
volts,
but
I
don't
see
that
in
a
charter
as
it
as
it
retains
to
five
votes,
because
what
I'm
understanding
once
we
appoint
someone
it?
G
You
know
we'll
get
to
that
section,
but
once
we
appoint
somebody,
they
belong
to
the
mayor
and
we
have
no
authority
to
do
anything
so
I
know
he
says
about
five
votes,
so
I'm
confused
about
this.
So
if
there's
an
explanation
because
he's
the
the
general
here,
if
he
can
explain
that
because
my
determination
is
that
once
they're
appointed
and
we
give
the
goal
it's
over,
we
can't
do
anything
and,
let's
say
somewhere
in
the
chart.
I
don't
know.
F
Yeah,
yes,
I
think
the
five
votes
is
misunderstood
as
the
five
votes
it's
override
the
mayor
on
an
ordinance
for
or
against.
Certainly
this
Council
or
any
other
Council
has
a
right
when
we
start
going
into
department,
heads
and
there's
many
of
them
in
the
city,
what's
to
say
that
the
attorney
or
the
chief
of
police
or
the
fire
police
they're
all
department
heads.
So
it's
a
City
attorney.
So
what
are
we
saying?
F
Then
we're
just
going
to
pick
on
one
and
not
the
other,
for
whatever
reason,
I
mean
I'm,
looking
at
it
much
more
objectively,
I,
believe
long
term
for
the
association
to
have
an
upswing
and
balancing
the
problems
that
how
they
handle
their
job
I
can't
just
leave
it
to
one
person.
I
may
not
like
the
City
attorney
and
I,
don't
mind
telling
the
City
attorney
101.
That
doesn't
mean
that
that
I'm
on
a
farm.
Well,
that's
because
I,
don't
like
them.
It's
about
the
work
performance.
Just
like
we
have
a
same
thing.
F
I
And
actually
that
feeds
into
really
good
reason
why
we
should,
because
the
City
attorney
is
the
only
director
of
any
agency
that
should
also
report
to
us.
So
no
one
can
fire
the
city
council
attorney,
except
for
us,
but
the
city,
the
city
attorney,
is
also
supposed
to
work.
For
us,
none
of
the
other
heads
of
departments
are
supposed
to
work
for
us,
so
I
I
mean
I.
Think
that
argument
is
great,
but
it
it.
I
It
just
feeds
what
what
councilmember
Carlson
proposed
I
believe,
or
at
least
it
gave
me
more
incentive
to
vote
for
it
following
that
rationale.
So
thank
you.
I
That's
exactly
what
it
says.
It
says
the
City
attorney
and
the
City
attorney
may
be
removed.
It
doesn't
say
anything
about
other
department
heads
because
other
department
heads
aren't
aren't
supposed
to
represent
us,
whereas
the
City
attorney
has
a
very
specific
role
to
to
represent
the
mayor,
the
city
and
the
city
council.
So
in
this
case
it
really
is
a
person
who
who
you
know,
should
report
to
us
or
not
report
to
us,
but
you
know
it's
if
he
or
she
is
supposed
to
to
protect
us.
I
We
we've
we've
had
differences
in
the
past
recent
past
about
whether
that
has
occurred.
F
Miranda
one
more
comment
not
to
be
a
dead
horse
when
you
understand,
if
you
were
the
City
attorney
any
one
of
us,
and
you
know
that
what
you're
going
to
say,
you
have
to
satisfy
five
council
members,
because
I'm
not
saying
this
Council
again
any
Council.
F
E
Yeah
I
mean
we're
like
the
board
of
directors
of
a
corporation,
and
you
know
typically
positions
like
this
report
to
the
board
and
sometimes
board
and
CEO,
and
you
know
sometimes
Executives
of
this.
The
city
like
to
belittle
us
and
say
you
know
when
they
do
plan
use
or
whatever,
but
we're
also
in
charge
of
a
1.9
billion
dollar
organization.
And
it's
our
duty
to
look
through
all
these
things
and
I.
Don't
want
to
get
in
all
the
specifics.
E
But
we've
had
multiple
multiple
cases,
even
the
last
year,
where
the
City
attorney
did
not
work
in
the
best
interest
of
city,
council
and
I'll,
just
read
from
section
5.01
A.
It
says
the
the
I'm
just
going
to
take
excerpts.
The
legal
and
they're
talking
about
the
City
attorney
is
the
legal
advisor
of
the
mayor,
the
city
council
and
committees
thereof,
and
all
of
the
several
departments,
officers
and
Boards
of
the
city
government
that
wasn't
followed
at
all.
In
the
last
year.
E
Also,
we
were
told
by
a
former
City
attorney
that
well
we
don't
represent
City
Council
Members
individually
in
the
next
paragraph
or
later
on.
It
says
and
defend
the
rights
and
interests
of
the
city
or
any
officer,
any
officer
of
the
city.
It
doesn't
say:
city,
council
Soul,
it
says
any
officer
in
the
city
in
any
suit
or
prosecution
for
any
act
in
the
discharge
of
His
official
duties,
we're
in
any
estate
right,
privilege,
blah
blah
blah,
and
none
of
that
happened
in
the
last
year.
E
And
so
my
point
is
that
if,
if
we,
if,
if
a
if
a
City
attorney,
does
not
follow
bar
rules
and
represent
their
clients
as
defined
in
the
charter,
the
only
remedy
we
have
is
we
can
sue
them
or
we
can
file
Florida
bar
complaint
and
instead
of
doing
that,
because
that
will,
when
I
talked
about
grave
danger
for
the
city,
if
we,
if
we
individually
or
collectively,
start
filing
lawsuits,
because
the
City
attorney
did
not
represent
us
individually
or
collectively,
or
we
file
Bar
complaints,
that's
going
to
send
the
city
into
chaos,
and
it's
going
to
cause
investors
not
want
to
come
here.
E
E
If
you
hire
an
outside
attorney,
the
outside
attorney
is
going
to
represent
your
interest
and
there's
an
inherent
conflict
with
having
all
these
clients,
and
so
what
we
need
to
make
sure
is
that
the
as
the
as
the
the
only
other
branch
of
government
that
they
represent
us
also
and
if
we
simply
have
by
super
majority
of
the
right
to
also
fire
the
mayor,
can
fire
at
will.
If
we
also
have
that
right,
then
it
gives
it.
It
reminds
the
City
attorney
that,
yes,
they
do
represent
us.
They.
D
D
We
have
three:
we
have
Mr
Carlson,
Miss,
hertek
and
Mr
Goods.
A
D
E
A
again-
and
this
just
happened
yesterday-
what
happens
to
the
City
attorney
when
they
have
conflicts
of
interest?
Yesterday,
representative
city
attorney's
office
was
representing
tpd
in
a
discussion
about
today's
meeting,
but
there
was
no
one
from
the
city's
attorney's
office
representing
the
position
of
city
council.
It's
not
only
the
responsibility.
E
So
I
would
make
a
motion
that
City
attorneys
outside
attorney
review
and
potentially
edit
the
following
to
present
at
the
first
hearing,
and
it
would
be
amendment
to
section
5.01,
a
quote:
should
the
City
attorney
face
a
situation
that
creates
a
conflict
of
interest
in
representing
the
city
attorney's
clients?
The
City
attorney
will
offer
each
party
outside
Council
to
provide
an
objective
opinion.
E
E
What
this
really
says
is
that
both
sides
need
to
be
represented
by
objective
counsel
and
and
what
happens
in
real
life.
I've
talked
to
a
lot
of
attorneys.
By
about
this,
if
an
attorney
has
a
conflict
of
interest,
they
say:
I
can't
help
you
I've
got
a
heart.
You've
got
to
go
to
another
Council.
So
what
is
what
does
the
city
council
do
they?
They?
E
If
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
have
a
dispute
or
the
mayor
or
the
city
mayor
in
a
department
head
or
the
city
council
department
head
or
whatever
Florida
Barbers
would
say
that
attorney
cannot
represent
both
sides.
They
have
to
get
outside
counsel.
This
should
this,
but
it's
not
it's
not
stated
in
that
Charter,
and
so
this
simply
States
what
what
should
happen.
Typically
flying
Florida,
Marbles
and.
E
F
Yeah
I'm,
not
what
we're
doing
is
whoever
the
City
attorney
is
the
way
I
read
this
thing,
maybe
I'm
not
reading
it
right.
Should
the
city
of
my
business
raise
conflict
of
Representative?
That
means
that
if
two
bodies
come
before
that
City
attorney,
whoever
that
City
attorney
is
whoever
the
bodies
are
not
us,
the
mayor
and
the
council,
they
have
a
disagreement.
F
They
come
to
the
city
attorney
and
that
what
they're
saying
here
is
that
that
that
attorney,
City
attorney
cannot
make
a
determination,
and
if
that
other
party,
that
other
party
can
get
outside
counsel,
what
are
we
doing
here?
How
many,
how
many
outside
counts?
Are
we
going
to
have
that's
the
responsibility
on
the
charter
by
the
City
attorney
to
be
the
head
of
both
bodies,
both
the
legislative
and
the
administration?
E
Yeah
it
it
in
it
I
gave
the
example
in
the
in
the
rest
of
the
world.
If
an
attorney
has
a
conflict,
they
can't
handle
the
case.
If
there's
a
dispute
between
the
mayor
and
city
council
or
whatever
the
City
attorney
is
conflicted
out,
the
City
attorney
is
not
the
judicial
branch
of
government,
even
though
we
didn't
approve
that
Amendment,
still
not
the
judicial
branch
of
the
government
and
and
their
opinion
is,
it
could
be
biased.
We've
seen
so
many
cases
of
bias
in
the
last
few
years
that
we
need.
E
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
get
outside
opinions,
and
this
is
to
avoid
conflict
not
to
create
conflict.
There
already
is
conflict
not
created
by
us,
but
be
created
by
those
biased
opinions
that
that
that
take
away
what
they've
done
is
without
changing
a
charter
without
going
before
the
public
and
getting
a
vote
they've
changed
the
chartered
take
away
powers
from
City
Council.
G
G
So
for
for
me
to
the
public.
Is
that
I'm
gonna
do
my
duty,
as
you
elected
me,
to
do
regardless
of
what
the
outcome
is
today
which
we're
not
going
to
have
any
outcomes
we're
going
to
go
through
this
whole
thing
and
waste
the
whole
day,
because
they're
not
going
to
be
any
folks
to
go,
go
through
today
and
that's
fine,
but
I
would
say
you
can't
serve
two
masters
and
I've
said
that
time
and
time
again,
I
can't
employ
you
ma'am
and
you
be
loyal
to
somebody
else.
G
You
can't
be
Lord
nobody
else.
If
I
hire
you,
you
got
to
be
loyal
to
me.
You
can't
be
loyal,
I
care.
What
the
charter
says.
If
I
hire
you,
you
better
be
loyal
to
me
or
I'm
gonna
fire,
you,
if
you
ain't
loyal
to
me,
I,
don't
care
what
anybody
says:
the
city
attorney's
office,
the
City
attorney
not
to
see
each
other's
office,
but
the
City
attorney
to
be
bounded
here
into
the
marijuana
attorney
staff.
Then
fine
city
council
has
their
staff
and
at
the
ultimate
end
it
visit
us
for
you.
G
That's
my
opinion,
and
and
again
you
can't
serve
two
masters.
I,
don't
care
what
anybody
says,
because
if
I
hired
you
or
appointed
you,
if
you
don't
do
what
I
say,
do
I'm
gonna
fire,
you.
J
You
ma'am
I,
appreciate
that
you
know,
and
again
this
is
something
that
we're
seeing
on
first
impression,
my
big
challenge
with
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
we're
seeing
today
for
largely
the
first
time,
aside
from
some
general
discussions,
is
that
we're
being
asked
to
go
forward
on
a
formal
process
on
on
weighty
issues
in
our
Charter
that
that
we'll
have
some
effect
you
know
and
and
certain
of
these
issues
you
know
I'd
like
to
further
discuss
right
if
we
had
more
time
and
again
not
to
relitigate
issues,
but
I
go
back
to
a
month
ago.
J
My
challenge
with
this
is
again
just
looking
at
it
from
the
language
that
I
see
is.
This
could
create
potentially
a
burden
where
we
create
conflicts
where
there
are
not
those
traditional
attorney-client
conflicts
that
we
see
in,
in
my
opinion,
to
the
extent
that
a
council
member
may
feel
that
they
need
a
council
in
there
with
them.
We
have
this
fine
gentleman
here
who
can
fulfill
that
task?
That's
my
opinion
again
upon
first
impression:
I
just
wanted
to
State
my
rationale
to
give
the
process
to
respect
that
it
deserves.
Thank
you.
D
I
And
that's
actually
that's
that's
kind
of
the
point
of
today,
for
me
is
exactly
the
opposite
of
what
you
said
and
it's
just
hey
folks,
we're
not
allowed
to
talk
at
any
other
time
to
each
other.
So
that's
what
this
Workshop
was
about.
This
would
give
us
a
full
month
to
come
back
with
language.
I
It
would
have
two
full
votes,
so
the
public
could
weigh
in
at
that
point
or
earlier,
because
you
know
they
will
after
today,
each
one
of
us
will
get
phone
calls
about
about
our
performance
today,
and
so
you
know
that'll
happen
so
anything
we
pass.
We
also
may
come
back
and
decide
never
mind.
So.
For
me,
this
is
actually
an
exercise
of
hey.
This
is
really
interesting,
I'd
like
to
explore
it
further
and
it
it
windows
down
everyone's
giant
ideas
to
some
to
some
more
specific
ones.
I
That
I
think
we
should
all
focus
on
so
I
I
completely
disagree,
while
I
would
love
to
go
in
depth
about
more
of
these.
To
me,
this
is
really
just
a
hey.
This
is
one
that
kind
of
piques
all
of
our
interests
we
like
to
talk
about
it
more.
We
want
we
want
Council
to
come
back
with
some
things,
so
that
is
actually
what
I
think
the
purpose
of
this
Workshop
today
is
and
why
I've
supported
so
many
different
measures
is
because
I'm
really
cool
with
them.
J
Just
again,
very,
very
not
to
relitigate
the
issue,
but
again
I
I
wish
that
we
could
have
had
additional
time
a
month
ago
to
discuss
these,
because,
when
I
vote
Yes
on
something
I,
don't
like
to
vote
no
on
it
later
I,
just
don't
I
I
like
to
get
give
it
time,
thought
consideration
just
the
way
I
function,
but
but
that's
it,
but
again,
I
I
appreciate
councilwoman
her
tax
words
and
her
hard
work.
Thank
you.
D
E
I
would
just
ask
my
colleagues
who
vote
against
these
if
you
think
about
them
and
discuss
them
with
whoever
your
advisors
are
and
you
decide
you
want
to
bring
them
back,
we
can
still
bring
them
back,
I
think
bring
it
up
a
new
business
and
say:
hey
I,
reflected
on
some
of
these
and
I
I
think
differently,
but
I
I
think
you
know
these
we're
giving.
E
The
purpose
of
this
is
to
give
the
public
the
right
to
decide
and
if
we
don't
approve
some
of
these
tweaks,
we're
we're
going
to
end
up
in
a
situation
where
we
continue
to
have
conflicts
and
and
this
these
issues
will
continue
to
fester
and
I
should
say
some
some
folks
were
asking
me
at
lunch
like.
Are
you
really
going
to
go
through
the
rest
of
these
and
get
a
vote?
No,
yes,
I!
Don't
care
to
me!
E
This
is
not
about
politics,
it's
not
about
being
able
to
tweet
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
won
or
lost,
or
whatever
you
know,
which
I'm
sure
some
people
are
going
to
do.
This
is
about
bringing
up
the
issues
that
are
important
to
the
city,
and
constituents
want
me
to
bring.
They
have
lots
of
concerns
about
the
way
the
city
is
being
run
and
the
way
that
we
City
Council
Members
have
been
treated
by
city
attorney's
office.
E
Now
we've
got
Ms,
Zellman
who's,
new
and
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
putting
that
on
her,
but
we've
got
to
make
sure
that
at
the
very
least,
even
though
these
may
not
pass
the
message
is
out
there
and
it's
not
I
didn't
make
these
up
they're
coming
from
the
public
also
and
coming
from
good
legal
counsel,
and
we
need
to
seriously
think
of
about
the
underlying
issues
here.
So
I
would
I
would
just
ask
respectfully
for
a
vote
up
or
down
on
that
then.
Yes,.
F
No
I
just
want
to
say
one
thing:
all
right
as
we
bring
up
some
other
stuff.
I
have
never
talked
to
Mr
city
council
attorney,
Mr
Shelby
or
the
City
attorney
on
any
issue.
Regarding
this,
none
of
I
haven't
talked
to
any
one
of
these
colleagues
here
to
clear
the
air
that
is
like
the
way
it
was
said.
It
was
like
preconceived
that
the
protocol
was
going
to
be
four
to
three
or
three
to
four
or
five
to
two
or
two
to
five
or
whatever.
The
number
is
so.
F
Let
me
clear
the
air
right
there,
and
if
anybody
wants
to
question
that
we
can
do
that
anytime,
you
want.
D
K
D
E
Got
three
more
quick
ones
in
this
area.
Next
one
is
again
to
oh
sorry,
I
gotta
pass
it
down
to
modify
section
5.01
A
and
it
is
quote.
The
city
attorney's
office
may
not
participate
in
an
investigation
of
a
client
and
then,
in
parentheses,
the
mayor
or
city
council,
a
council
city
council
member
department,
heads
Etc,
as
defined
in
the
charter,
without
first
informing
that
client
of
the
investigation,
the
nature
of
the
investigation
and
I'm
not
bringing
up
a
specific
case.
E
But
we,
if,
if
an
attorney,
is
if
an
attorney
is
representing
you
and
it's
clear
from
the
charter
that
the
city
attorneys
always
represent
city,
council
and
also
city
council
members.
It's
specifically
described
there,
a
city,
a
city,
the
city
attorney
by
Florida
bar
rules
should
not
be
allowed
to
investigate
its
own
client
without
at
least
first
disclosing
that
to
the
client
and
that
that's
basic
information.
F
The
way
I
read
this:
if
there
is
an
allegation
against
me,
let's
say
and
I
don't
see
how
the
City
attorney
can
start
an
investigation
over
the
nature
investigation
without
letting
me
know
about
it.
The
City
attorney
doesn't
make
investigations.
A
law
enforcement
officer
makes
an
investigation
or
State
Attorney
makes
investigations
neither
one
of
her.
F
Unless
it's
you
commit
a
crime
outside
and
they
catch
you
for
it,
whether
it's
me
or
anyone
else,
then
the
police
department
gets
involved
so
I
don't
understand
the
whole
tax
of
it,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
go
into
the
path
of
the
future.
I,
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
it,
but
I
think
the
City
attorney
is
not
responsible
for
what
you
do.
F
Meaning
me
that
Judy
attorney
is
either
going
to
tell
me
by
right
what
I
have
to
do
if
I
want
to
be
represented
by
that
City
attorney.
If
I
feel
that
I'm
under
investigation
and
I
have
a
conference
with
that,
City
attorney
that
City
attorney
is
going
to
tell
me
by
law
what
my
rights
are.
If,
if
they
want
me
to
have
that
City
attorney
represent
me,
that's
what
I
think
it's
about,
but
I'm,
not
sure.
F
D
L
You
know
we
had
a
charter
review
commission
four
years
ago
at
length
with
many
members-
many
that
are
here
many
that
are
with
the
city
and
again
you
know
I
I
started
my
my
comments
this
morning
with
it
feels
like
we've
been
at
war
with
one
another
and
we've
talked
about
hard
reset.
We've
talked
about
a
lot
of
things.
Over
the
last
few
months
we
have
a
new
City
attorney
but
I.
You
know,
I've
I've
been
involved
in
politics
for
12
years,
I
got
elected
in
2015.,
I've
run
three
campaigns.
L
No
one
ever
brought
up
the
charter.
No
one
discussed
a
lot
of
things
that
have
been
discussed,
because
the
main
objective
and
goal
is
to
serve
the
community
and
get
elected
here.
I
appreciate
you
know
this
today,
but
it's
to
me
it's
it's
a
mess.
You
know
and
I
don't
know
we
we
need
to
look
within
ourselves,
I,
don't
know
what
to
do
that.
We
get
along
better
I
mean
because
I
understand
where
a
lot
of
this
comes
from
and
this
could
be
avoided.
All
we
should
do
is
follow
the
charter.
L
D
J
Thank
you
ma'am
and
again.
This
is
something
that
that
could
have
some
positive
results.
My
concern
with
it,
among
other
things,
is
the
the
and
again
just
hypothetically.
This
could
lead
to
a
a
potential
retaliation
against
somebody
that
makes
a
complaint
Etc
again
unintended
consequences
of
going
forward
with
something
that's
my
concern
with.
E
Retaliations
against
law
and
I
think
it's
against
the
handbook.
So
we
we
can't
do
that
anyway,
but
I
will
say
to
council
member
maniscalco's
question
the
issue
of
making
pieces
not
on
our
side.
E
Chief
Bennett
will
tell
you
how
many
times
I've
called
him
and
asked
to
make
peace
with
the
administration
where,
after
the
administration
is
overtly
attacked
me
and
my
colleagues
I've
said,
let's
make
peace
I
met
with
the
mayor
in
February
and
tried
to
make
peace.
That
was
one
of
the
things
that
she
Bennett
I
worked
out.
I've
called
from
not
when
we
continue
to
be
attacked.
We
continue
to
get
biased
opinion
from
City
attorney.
I've
I've
asked
publicly
for
the
mayor
to
come.
E
Apologize
to
city
council
for
using
City
resource
to
attack
us
and
nothing
has
happened.
I've
asked
the
chief
of
staff
to
have
the
mayor
call
me
to
talk
about
these
attacks.
I'm,
not
the
one
that
attacked
the
attacks
were
the
other
way
around
and
I've
been
calling
over
and
over
again
for
peace.
I've
had
several
conversations
with
Ms
Zellman
I
had
conversations
with
her
her
predecessor
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we
got
fair
and
accurate
responses.
So
far,
I
have
not
filed
a
lawsuit.
E
I
have
not
filed
a
bar
complaint
against
anyone,
although
I
have
am
completely
entitled
to
do
both,
and
at
least
one
of
my
other
colleagues
is.
We
haven't
done
that
because
it's
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city,
but
it's
not
don't
blame
it
on
city,
council
or
city
council
members.
This
is
not
on
us.
E
The
reason
why
this
is
happening
is
because
we've
got
an
Administration
that
thinks
that
can
just
get
whatever
it
wants
from
city
council
and
that's
what's
going
to
happen
today
and
they're
going
to
Tweet
tonight,
all
high
five
look
at
it.
We
put
them
in
their
place.
The
people
are
going
to
lose.
Today
are
the
public
because
you
know
why
is
it
that
we
didn't
find
out
about
about
this?
The
Civil
Rights
investigation
by
the
justice
department
for
six
months?
E
E
D
G
G
If
you
had
an
inspector
General
of
the
city,
that
person
could
clip
a
lot
of
this
stuff,
the
ambiguities,
the
interpretations
and
I
think
that's
what
what's
needed,
someone
who's
watching
the
house
and
I
think
An.
Inspector
General
will
be
a
person
who
would
be
able
to
monitor
this
Charter
when
we
go
on
astray
and
be
able
to
monitor
some
of
the
things
that
we're
doing.
G
I
think
that
you
look
at
some
other
counties
that
do
that
have
unexpected
General
that
do
the
exact
things
that
I'm
talking
about,
and
you
can
get
away
from
a
lot
of
us
this
stuff,
because
there
are
some
small
words
in
here
that
that
could
be
redefined
by
someone
who's
interpretation.
A
lot
of
them
are,
you
know
when
we
get
to
603
I,
believe
it
is.
G
We
talk
about
performance,
there's
a
lot
of
mess
in
that
that
needs
to
be
cleaned
up
and
and
if
council
members
aren't
aware
of
that,
we
had
a
situation
that
we
all
were
lost
and
baffled
about.
So
when
we
get
to
that
discussion,
I
really
want
his
people
talking.
Then,
because
you
know
we,
there
was
a
whole
community
that
was
an
opera
about
some
stuff.
G
So
we
have
silence
then-
and
we
know
something's
in
the
fix
here,
but
I
would
just
say.
Maybe
California
can
look
at
in
their
minds.
Maybe
An
Inspector
General
will
be,
would
be
good
to
be
able
to
Monitor
and
deal
with
our
Charter
issues,
and
we
talk
about
investigations
and
ethics
and
all
kind
of
stuff,
but
they
can
expect
the
general
will
be
good.
D
E
Thank
you
two
more
in
this
section
real
fast.
The
next
one
is
again
an
edition
of
5.01
a,
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
the
memo
that
Miss
Zellman
sent
out
last
week.
That
is
a
reiteration
of
a
memo
by
a
former
City
attorney
from
five
or
so
years
ago,
where
that
City
attorney
had
the
opinion
that
city
attorney's
office
solely
has
the
right
to
not
only
negotiate
settlements
but
also
sign
the
contracts
and
pay
them
without
city
council
approval
I'm
completely
fine.
E
If
we
wanted,
if
we
want
to
give
them
the
right
by
ordinance,
to
do
that.
However,
considering
that
there
is
a
a
an
opinion
by
a
City
attorney
that
is
wrong
and
I'll
pass
this
out
too,
since
there's
a
an
opinion
by
a
City
attorney
from
2018.
That
is
wrong.
We
need
to
put
this
in
the
charter
so
that
we
don't
get
a
wrong
opinion
again.
I
mean
this.
This
opinion
in
two
paragraphs
change
the
charter.
E
The
charter
does
not
in
any
way
say
that
the
City
attorney
can
take
away
the
the
right
of
city
council
to
prove
contracts
and
payments.
We
can.
We
can
delegate
that
to
the
City
attorney,
but
they
don't
have
the
right
by
Charter,
and
so
what
I
would
suggest
again
that
the
city
attorney's
outside
attorney,
look
at
this
and
edit
it
with
a
proposal
back
on
the
first
date
that
we
meet
amendment
to
section
5.01a,
which
would
say
quote.
I
Gonna
second,
this
and
I'm
going
to
say
that
of
all
of
them.
This
is
the
one
that
we've
heard
from
about
citizens
the
most
when
it
comes
to
the
Hannah
Avenue
project.
We've
heard
from
countless
people
that
that
this
is
oh
no,
this
is
the
settlement,
but
just
yeah.
Well,
we've
also
had
settlements
for
large
amounts
of
money
that
we
should.
I
That
happened
to
this
very
Council,
not
that
long
ago,
that
that
should
have
come
before
us.
Anything
with
six
digits
should
not
be
just
the
purview
of
the
administration.
J
You
ma'am,
and
you
know
it's
funny.
This
is
something
which
we
could
take
a
look
at
with
ordinance
on
a
larger
Workshop,
where
we
take
several
hours
to
talk
about
this
one
sole
issue,
because
there
there's
a
lot
of
gray
there
with
with
approving
of
settlements,
Etc
I
remember
when
I
first
got
on
Council,
we
used
to
approve
settlements
that
suddenly
it
never
happened
again
right.
Just
and
I
went
hey
what
happened
to
that,
but
the
the
challenge
is
with
the
kind
of
settlements
that
are
out
there
to
you
know.
J
Maybe
we
could
take
a
look
at
something
on
approving
settlements,
either
dealing
with
council
members
or
settlements
dealing
with
ordinances
that
were
passed
by
city
council.
If
we
do
a
one-size-fits-all
approval,
which
again
would
probably
require
and
I'd
be
glad
the
second,
by
the
way,
a
workshop
on
this
issue.
But
if
we
do
a
one-size-fits-all
charter
provision
potentially
for
settlements,
everything
from
sidewalk
slip
and
Falls
to
commercial
Vehicles,
pedestrians,
Etc
et
cetera,
I,
don't
know
how
many
settlements
this
city
deals
with.
J
There's
a
lot
that
goes
into
approving
a
settlement,
the
veracity
or
The
credibility
of
a
witness
things
that
may
occur
on
the
part
of
a
particular
party
that
one
party
knows
about
that.
Doesn't
want
the
adverse
party
to
know
about,
and
it
could
potentially
come
out
in
public
in
a
in
a
hearing
to
approve
that
very
settlement
which
is
predicated
upon
confidential
information.
J
So
there's
a
lot
of
gray
there
that
by
going
here,
we
would
potentially
not
do
a
good
service
in
the
city,
but
we
should
do
and
I
would
strongly
support
a
workshop
for
maybe
a
more
narrowly
tailored
policy
on
this
issue
through
ordinance
on
on
again
on
things
dealing
with
ordinances
that
the
city
council
passes
things
directly
with
council
members,
that's
very,
very
reasonable,
but
again
there
is
so
much
that
goes
into
settling
a
case
right
that
could
go
out
in
public
and
then
undermine
the
settlements
of
that
particular
case
and
there's
a
lot
of
potential.
I
But
to
bring
that
back,
you
actually
make
a
really
good
point
that
I
didn't
realize
that
these
used
to
come
in
front
of
us
and
just
stopped.
So
if
they
already
came
in
front
of
us
we're
already
a
problem
or
weren't
a
problem.
Rather
then
why
did
they
stop
coming
in
front
of
us?
And
so
to
me
that
seems
more
of
the
issue
of
hey.
It
was
okay.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
Miranda
and
then
Mr.
F
Good,
thank
you
very
much,
I
think.
There's
the
whole
conversation
here
bases
on
two
words
in
this
memo
that
was
sent
back
in
August,
16
2018,
and
it's
just
two
words
that
I
just
picked
out
and
it's
called
legal
matters,
not
all
settlements,
but
legal
matters.
In
other
words,
if
there's
a
lawsuit
going
on
and
whoever
the
City
attorney
is,
makes
a
judgment
decision
that
it's
fine
to
pay
that
amount
now
or
pay
more
later.
F
That's
a
decision
if
somebody's
going
to
have
to
make
I
am
not
qualified
to
go
into
a
legal
matter
and
understand
what
that
person
has
of
years
of
experience
and
handling
these
types
of
operations
in
the
courtroom
to
find
out
who
is
right
and
who
is
wrong.
I
am
not
an
attorney
I,
don't
practice
law,
but
when
I
read
legal
matters
that
tells
me
that
that
person,
whoever
that
person
may
be
in
this
Council
or
upstairs
that
make
that
decision.
That's
up
to
that
person
in
this
case
is
a
City
attorney.
F
Who
makes
a
decision
should
I
pay
this
amount
or
should
I
wait
and
go
to
trial
and
whatever
those
are
legal
matters
and
I,
don't
think
maybe
Mr
Vieira
who's,
an
attorney
and
this
side
of
the
aisle
elected
officials
can
make
that
decision.
I,
just
I,
don't
feel
comfortable
making
it
with
anybody
else
unless
it's
somebody
in
the
legal
department
that
makes
that
decision
that
it's
a
legal
matter
and
based
on
that
experience
of
that
person.
G
We
have
legal
matters,
see
we
go
into
a
closed
session
and
the
attorney
discusses
the
legal
matter
and
they
discuss
the
settlements.
They
discussed
those
issues,
so
you're
informed,
so
you
can
make
a
decision
if
you
want
to
pay
that
they
give
you
options.
So
there's
a
way
to
do
things
and
I
can
take
the
Sports
Authority.
G
Does
it
right
over
there
because
they
go
into
session
and
they
look
at
what
the
attorney
comes
back
tell
them
what
our
options
are
and
so
forth,
and
in
that
way
the
attorney
knows
how
to
take
the
lead
from
the
board.
You
know
and
I've
read
a
lot
of
documents.
If
we
talk
about
settlements
and
things
like
that,
I
think
Mr,
Shelby
I
think
you
probably
can
elaborate
because
actually
I
believe
every
quarter.
G
Hr
is
supposed
to
bring
the
list
of
settlements
back,
but
I'm
not
mistaken,
right
right
supposed
to
bring
that
back
to
tell
us
what
was
settled
and
I.
Don't
think
I've
ever
seen.
Anything
like
that
ever
so,
I
think
when
you
talk
about
again,
we
talk
about
these
issues
in
Charter,
but
you
know
when
you
look
at
it.
We
there
are
some
subscriptions
here
and
I
know
some
don't
want
to
deal
with
it
today
and
that's
fine,
but
eventually
someday
would
have
to
be
deal
up.
G
Even
if
it's
10
years
down
the
road
which
I'm
now
as
I
said
or
as
I
sat
on
that
board
I
review
back
10
years
is
too
long.
It
should
have
been
fired
like
the
county
should
have
been
five
because
there
are
issues
here,
and
maybe
this
board
may
eventually
make
a
motion
to
change
and
reverse
that
to
five
years,
because
we,
you
know,
we
don't
know
when
we
get
an
election
year
coming
up.
Nobody
wants
to
rock
the
boat
I,
get
it
I'm,
not
a
politic
guy
I,
don't
care
about
being
reelected.
G
I
just
came
by
doing
my
work
right
now
for
the
people,
and
they
were
they
giving
me
their
marginals
and
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
stand
strong
as
a
soldier.
Do
what
I'm
supposed
to
do
right
now
and
I'll
deal
with
the
rest
later,
the
cosmos
later,
but
I
think
we
look
at
what
we're
not
doing,
because
a
lot
of
things
that
we
are
not
doing
with
legal
matters.
E
I'm
going
to
read
this
and
I'm
going
to
leave
out
a
few
words,
but
the
City
attorney
has
the
final
authority
to
settle
any
legal
matters
that
involve
the
city
of
Tampa.
This
includes
the
authority
to
settle
all
claims
and
litigations
involving
the
city
of
Tampa.
As
such,
it
is
not
necessary
to
submit
the
settlement
of
any
legal
claim
to
the
city
council
of
the
city
of
Tampa
for
approval,
any
resolutions,
executive,
orders
or
ordinances
in
conflict
with
Section
1.0
5.01
of
the
city,
Charter
and
City
Tampa
does
null
and
void
an
unenforceable.
E
This
is
not
from
the
charter.
This
is
from
a
two
paragraph
opinion
by
a
City
attorney
in
2018
councilmember
Vieira
mentioned
that
the
city
council
was
presented
settlements
before
and
suddenly
they
disappeared,
I,
don't
even
know
I
wasn't
here
then
I
don't
know
if
city
council
was
informed,
but
a
City
attorney
made
a
decision
that
changed
the
charter
and
the
voters
didn't
vote
on
this.
E
If
you
look
at
7.02
and
8.01
clearly
in
the
charter
city
council
has
the
ability
to
approve
contracts
and
expenditures
now
to
councilman
Rivera's
point,
we
can
delegate
that
and
we
might
decide
to
delegate
that
on
Thursday.
But
what
happens
when
we
decide
to
delegate
on
Thursday?
If
we,
if
we
propose
an
ordinance
on
Thursday,
where
we
say
we
would
like
to
delegate
settlements
below
a
certain
dollar
amount
of
a
certain
type?
E
Is
the
City
attorney
going
to
stand
up
and
say
well,
former
City
attorney
in
2018
said
this
and,
and
his
opinion
is
like
the
the
Supreme
Court
and
so
we're
going
to
listen
to
that
and
we
don't
care
what
you
think.
Is
that
that's
what
has
happened
in
the
past
and
so
I
without
having
a
longer
discussion?
I
would
ask
the
City
attorney
to
please
understand
the
new
City
attorney
to
understand
that
she
represents
city
council.
E
She
said
in
her
Memo
that
she's
open
to
us
passing
an
ordinance
if
she
allows
us
to
pass
an
ordinance.
That
means
that
this
opinion
is
null
and
void,
and
that's
will
be
my
goal
on
Thursday,
but
because
of
that,
I
would
like
to
put
this
on
the
charter
to
make
sure
no
City
attorney
ever.
Does
this
again
we're
not
we're
not
changing
anything.
We
already
have
the
power
we're
just
clarifying
that
we
have
the
power
and
then
we
can
delegate
it
we're
not
saying
that
all
all
settlements
should
come
to
us.
E
F
E
D
F
F
Yes,
I'm
not
opposed
to
something
being
being
changed.
What
I'm,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
that
we
should
we
don't
know
the
facts.
We
don't
know
what
number
we're
going
to
put
it's
going
to
be
five
dollars
or
five
thousand
or
Twenty
Thousand
or
a
hundred
thousand.
We
haven't
decided
that
so
I
think
that
Mr
Viera
had
a
good
point.
We
have
a
workshop
on
that
I'm,
not
opposed
to
that
I'm,
not
opposed
to
making
this
change
when
I'm
opposed
to
it.
We
don't
know
the
what
ifs
of
it.
F
What
if
what
we
don't
know
what
the
city
attorney's
going
to
tell
us,
we
don't
know
the
amount
that
they're
going
to
settle
on
or
we're
going
to
settle
with
them,
I'm
serving
that
they're
not
going
to
tell
us,
because
every
time
we
got
one
for
a
hundred
dollars.
No
that's
not
going
to
happen,
but
we
have
to
have
some
understanding
of
the
facts.
That's
all
I'm
saying
right
now:
I'm
not
opposed
to
it,
but
I
can't
reward
on
it
because
I
don't
know
all
the
facts.
E
Miami
has
a
an
attorney
for
the
mayor
and,
if
we're
going
to
demand
rights,
we've
just
rejected
all
of
them,
but
by
the
way
anything
that
was
just
rejected.
It's
already
in
the
charter.
It's
already.
These
things
already
exist,
we're
not
changing
city
council
Authority.
All
we're
doing
is
protecting
them
so
that
a
future
City
attorney
can't
come
over.
The
opinion
like
this,
but
I
I
would
I
would
make
a
motion
to
modify
5.01
a.
E
Let
me
pass
this
out
to
say
that
add
additional
paragraph
that
says
that
the
mayor
May
appoint
an
attorney
to
represent
the
mayor's
office.
This
attorney
would
be
duly
licensed
with
a
Florida
bar
and
would
advise
the
mayor
in
her
his
role
as
mayor
and
not
as
an
individual.
The
mayor's
attorney
would
provide
legal
opinions
to
the
mayor
based
on
the
attorney's
interpretation
of
law.
E
However,
no
action
or
opinion
of
the
mayor's
attorney
shall
be
construed
to
be
the
official
legal
position
of
the
city,
and
such
official
legal
physician
and
actions
shall
slowly
shall
be
solely
within
the
scope
and
powers
and
duties
of
the
City
attorney.
So
all
all
this
really
does
is
just
like
city
council
has
an
attorney.
The
mayor
would
have
an
attorney
and
it
further
it
further.
This
is
a
new
position.
E
This
would
be
a
change
and
the
purpose
of
it
is
so
that
the
public
and
the
and
the
city
attorney's
office
would
not
misconstrue
who
their
client
is.
Their
client
is
not
only
the
mayor
which
they've
in
effect
represent
the
past
their
their
client
is
all
the
clients
that
are
listed
in
the
charter
and
so
that,
by
having
a
mayor's
attorney,
the
mayor
could
get
advice
and
not
representing
the
mayor
individually,
but
in
the
office,
and
then
the
city
attorney's
office
could
be
more
objective,
because
city
council
already
has
its
attorney
as
well.
Second,.
E
D
D
D
G
Mr
Shelby,
he
didn't
I
submitted
something
to
him.
G
He
didn't
add
it
on
this
on
the
sheet
of
paper,
as
it
relates
to
remittance
of
the
nominee,
but
I
think
for
all
intents
and
purposes
as
you
look
at
the
example
of
corrective
language,
the
chain
shall
appoint
to
shall
nominate,
allow
for
interim
appointment
until
confirmation
of
the
nominee
by
city
council,
which
shall
be
a
period
of
90
days,
which
may
be
extended
in
additional
nine
days
and
should
be
filled
only
by
a
person
who
is
an
existing
employee
of
the
city
but
and
also
in
the
ending
of
that,
which
we
didn't
wouldn't
add
it
that
that
person,
if,
if
that
of
the,
if
the
nominee
is
stricken
down
by
this
Council,
cannot
be
resubmitted.
L
H
I'm,
looking
at
the
the
memo,
I
believe
that.
G
An
opposition-
and
he
has
a
select
somebody-
the
interim
person-
has
to
be
from
the
city,
Arya
City
employee,
and
then
they
could
nominate
whoever
they
want,
after
that,
they
put
to
bring
forth
selection,
but
to
take
somebody
and
then
put
them
in
a
position.
They
need
to
be
nominated
for
and
approved
by
this
body.
But
if
you
have
a
vacancy,
a
city
employee
can
feel
that
war
because
they
know
City
policy
City
business
already
it
can
function
until
the
appointment
is
made.
J
You
ma'am,
and
you
know
what
this
is:
one
that
makes
sense
safer
and
I.
Don't
want
to
say
like
this
part.
It
makes
no
sense,
in
other
words,
that
I
would
find
some
problematic
issues
with
the
idea
that
if
Council
turns
it
down,
then
saying
the
mayor
may
not
appoint
him
or
her
again.
Maybe
that
precludes
a
little
too
much
on
the
part
of
the
of
the
executive,
but
on
other
issues
the
the
risk
and
mind
you.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
any
past
experiences.
J
I
I'll,
I've
voted
for
chief
O'connor
and
I
know
she's
doing
a
wonderful
job,
Etc
et
cetera
and
I
support
her,
but
when
you
have
the
potential
of
appointing
somebody
and
then
they're
on
the
job
within
longer
than
that
15
days,
in
other
words,
kind
of
tightening
up,
that's
something
that
could
make
some
sense
to
this
guy.
That's.
D
G
G
So
I
don't
understand
what
you're
saying
because
again
they're
going
for
the
appointment,
if
they're
denied
by
the
council
they're
denied
but
I'm
saying
if
a
person
is
a
is
avoided,
position
and
I,
say:
Miss
hurte,
You're,
Gonna,
Be,
My
interim
right
now,
you're
the
employee,
you
know
the
city
business
until
I,
decide
to
you.
If
you
want
to
want
this
job,
you
apply
it's
like
anybody
else
and
then
I
take
my
list
and
then
I
look
at
my
list
and
you
may
not
be
that
person.
I
chose
somebody
else.
F
Thank
you
very
much
if
a
mayor,
whoever
that
mayor
may
be
chooses
someone
to
be
ahead
of
something
then
as
I
understand
it
after
the
mayor's
here
15
days
within
that
15
days,
she
got
to
turn
it
into
the
council,
and
then
the
council
got
to
appoint
all
the
department
heads
and
that's
the
way.
I
think
it
works
to
some
degree
and
and
then
that
person
should
be
we're
talking
about
residency
included
or
just
the
person.
F
G
For
the
change,
yes
to
use
the
word
from
a
point
to
a
nominee
and
then
the
interim
person
has
to
be
the
interim
person
within
and
then
again
has
to
be.
This
is
the
same
employee.
The
mayor
wants
to
take
that
person
later
on.
That's
fine!
They
come
before
the
board
for
appointment,
no
difference.
If
you
know
you
still
have
to
apply
for
the
job.
I
It's
number
eight:
if
you
have
the
suggestions
from
Mr
Shelby,
yes,.
H
G
You're
not
going
to
resubmit
10
times
it
doesn't
make
any
sense.
You
know
so
I
think
the
one
the
the
you
know
when
you
know
you
go
through
Council
votes
it
down.
It's
done.
Mayor
has
to
look
for
look
for
another
camp.
D
I
Yeah
I
I
can
I
can
give
you
that
language,
yes,
yeah,
the
interim
person
I
mean
I,
see
what
you're
typing
the
interim
person
has
to
be
an
existing
employee
and
down
at
the
bottom.
It's
the
second
sentence
from
the
the
end.
Second,
to
the
last
sentence.
I
suppose
it
says
the
mayor
within
90
days
thereafter
shall
submit
or
resubmit
to
the
council
the
name
of
the
important
appointee
council
member
Goods,
wants
to
take
out
the
words
or
resubmit
to
make
a
person
only
have
one
option.
D
We
have
three.
We
have
Mr
Carlson,
Miss,
hertech
and
Mr
Goods.
D
It
does
not
pass
at
this
point.
I.
E
Have
another
one
this
could
either
go
I'm
going
to
see
my
memo
says
7.03,
but
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
under
6.06.
E
I
know
councilman
councilman
vieras
can
is
concerned
about
when
it
when
a
salary
raise
would
take
place,
but
we
we
should
never
have
to
vote
on
a
on
a
salary
again.
Also,
although
the
mayor
is
the
executive,
we
also
city
council
is
in
charge
of
looking
through
we
all
individually,
because
there
are
seven
of
us,
it
doesn't
mean
we
have
to
do
any
less
work.
E
We
all
individually
have
to
look
through
all
the
same
documents
and-
and
you
know,
read
a
thousand
Pages
a
week
or
whatever
it
is,
and
then
closely
watch
the
budget
and
so
I
agree
that
we
shouldn't
get
what
the
mayor
gets,
but
we
should
be
able
to
get
some
smaller
percentage
of
it,
and
so
I
would
make
a
motion
to
as
the
city
attorneys
outside
counsel,
to
to
look
at
section,
6.06
and
review
the
following
language
for
proposal
to
city
council
at
the
first
date
of
re
hearing
and
the
the
my
proposed
language
is
quote
once
every
five
years,
City
staff
and
or
an
outside
consultant
will
conduct
an
analysis
of
the
salaries
of
mayors
of
the
five
largest
cities
in
Florida
and
or
American
cities
of
a
similar
sized
to
recommend
the
new
salary
of
the
mayor.
E
This
new
salary
of
the
mayor
must
be
approved
by
city
council
and
the
mayor.
City
Council
salaries
will
then
be
set
at
60
percent
of
the
mayor's
salary.
These
salaries
will
be
eligible
for
annual
cost
of
living
increases.
If
we
pass
this,
you
might
not
agree
with
the
percentage.
I
think
we're
worth.
At
least
60
percent,
because
we
do
a
lot
of
the
same
work,
but
if
we're,
if
we're
not
pick
another
number,
but
even
Morris
Massey,
recommended
that
we
bring
this
up
in
this
session
a
few
weeks
ago.
E
My
particular
solution
is
that
the
best
kind
of
benchmarking
is
to
look
at
what
other
Mayors
are
making
I
think
our
Mayors
paid
too
little,
not
the
person
but
the
the
position.
And
but
if
we
look
at
the
five
largest
cities-
and
we
look
at
cities
of
a
similar
size
and
we
find
that
that
the
salary
is
correct
or
should
be
higher
or
lower,
then
we
can
come
back
and
say:
okay.
D
B
Well,
for
as
long
as
it
takes
to
get
through
the
charters,
well,
I
was
hoping
we
would
be
further.
A
B
Than
we
are
right
now,
what
is
the
pleasure
of
council.
L
A
F
And
I
can
so,
if
going
to
the
questions
on
the
floor
or
discussion,
60
of
180
is
one
hundred
and
eight
thousand
dollars.
So
the
mayor
is
going
to
go
up
to
200
council
members
are
going
to
make
120
000.
the
three
largest
cities
around
us,
which
is
Orlando,
Miami
and
Saint.
Petersburg
I
think
we're
about
a
thousand
dollars
difference
in
salary
today
to
one
of
the
Cities
once
at
54
once
at
58
months
at
60..
So
those
are
my
memories
I'm
going
by
mine.
F
I
I'm
going
to
second
that
about
councilmember
Carlson's
and
for
me,
I
think
this
is
such
a
beautiful
amendment
to
the
Constitution,
because
everyone
here
who's,
saying:
oh
we're
paid
too
much
or
not.
You
know
we're
in
equal
amount.
This
actually
puts
that
decision
in
the
hands
of
the
voters,
takes
it
out
of
our
out
of
our
hands
and
I.
Think
that
that's
exactly
for
the
folks
who
are
saying
we
don't
need
an
increase.
We
have
people
who
say
we
do.
I
We
have
people
who
say
we
don't
this
literally
just
puts
it
in
the
hands
of
Voters
I.
Think
that's
a
great
idea,
I'm
open
to
changing
the
percentage,
but
I
think
it's
pretty
much
exactly
what
we
need
to
do
and
as
far
as
the
procedural
rule,
I
can
stay
here
all
night.
D
L
You
very
much
as
I
stated
recently
I
didn't
come
here
for
the
money
I
came
here
to
serve.
The
people
allowed
me
to
come
here
and
give
me
this
honor
to
serve
and
and
I'm
happy
doing
what
I'm
doing
some
days
are
easier
than
others,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
a
community
service.
Yes,
we
get
paid,
but
I,
don't
believe
in
supporting
a
salary
increase.
Just
like
my
wife,
she's,
a
teacher
she
comes
so
stressed
every
day.
She
complains
a
lot.
L
B
You
Mr,
facilitator
I
think
that
the
job
needs
to
be
defined
on
whether
or
not
it's
a
part-time
job
or
a
full-time
job.
I,
don't
know
if
too
many
people
that
are
out
there
that
are
making
ninety
seven
thousand
dollars
working
a
part-time
job.
I
will
be
here
at
eight
o'clock
in
the
morning.
I
will
stay
here
until
midnight,
which
I
have
some
of
us
have,
but
to
set
that
high
of
a
pay
scale
for
a
part-time
job.
F
L
F
Get
not
that
we
don't
work
hard,
we
do
but
there's
a
sensitivity
of
doing
what
you
can
to
make
the
city
better,
not
only
by
myself,
but
all
the
other
six
colleagues
and
salary
is
one
thing.
That's
important,
I'm
not
going
to
deny
that.
However,
42
percent
is
high.
This
based
on
the
formula,
whether
it's
60
or
40
percent,
whatever
it
is.
This
represents
about
a
70
increase
in
salary
and
and
I'm
just
quickly
off
my
mind.
F
So
what
I'm
saying
is
I,
don't
mind
a
whatever
four
percent,
whatever
the
general
employees
get
we're
no
better
than
they
are
they're,
the
ones
that
are
making
the
city
go,
we're
making
the
city
Administration
and
legislation
work,
but
those
individuals
that
work
for
the
city
are
the
ones
that
make
this
city
the
place
to
live
in
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
got
to
leave
in
about
20
minutes
to
make
their
own
time.
Thank.
D
I
The
beauty
of
this
is
I
actually
because
Mr
goodst
talked
about
you
know
talking
about
this
today
and
so
I
went
through
the
charter
and
the
great
part
about
this.
Oh,
the
great
part
about
this,
is
that
nowhere
in
the
charter
does
it
say
it's
a
full-time
or
a
part-time
job,
so
I
think
it's
just
an
assumption.
I
That's
always
been
there
that
it's
been
a
part-time
job,
but
nowhere
in
the
charter
does
it
say
it's
a
part-time
job,
so
I've
taken
that
to
meaning
it's
a
full-time
job
so
which
is
how
I
approach
it.
My
actual
second
job
is
done.
You
know
on
a
part-time
basis
now
so
so
I
actually
again,
I
would
really
love
to
defer
to
the
voters
on
this.
G
She
took
the
Thunder
because
I
I
called
that's
okay,
because
I
called
the
supervisor
election,
because
I
know
years
ago,
these
put
part-time
and
we
I
researched
it
and
it's
not
there.
We
went
through
the
charter,
this
thing
that
says
full-time
or
part-time,
so
I'm
curious
to
know
what
the
county
language
is.
G
Hillsborough
County
is
what
their
verbiage
is
and
because
I
don't
believe
it
was
in
theirs
either
and
we
kind
of
looked
and
I'd
seen
in
well
on
their
website
either
to
their
Charter,
so
I
think
a
definition
of
that
well
or
not,
but
I
do
think
that
you
know
when
you're
doing
a
job,
no
matter
if
you're
elected
and
you're
here
to
support
the
voters,
your
District,
but
it
also
weighs
on
your
family.
G
You
know
and
I'm
glad
that
I'm
retired
some
people
aren't
and
I
have
the
luxury,
but
still
at
times
you
know
they're
financial
difficulties
and
you
you
want
my
constitute
my
Constitution
wants
me
want
me
everywhere
and
I
am
everywhere
all
the
time.
So
I
haven't
heard
the
voters
in
the
city
hall
about
not
getting
a
pay
increase.
Their
city
council
shouldn't
be
paid.
We've
heard
the
opposite,
so
I
really
kind
of
a
perplexed
of
this
Council
here
talking
about
we
shouldn't
get
a
pay
raise.
Everyone
deserves
a
pay
raise
for
their
work.
G
When
you
put
into
work,
you
deserve
to
get
paid,
I,
don't
care
who
you
are.
You
can
volunteer
all
day
long,
but
you
know
when
you
volunteer.
Sometimes
volunteers
do
get
something
they
get.
It
was
a
pat
on
back.
They
get
something
they
get
something
so
for
me,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
let
the
voters
to
decide
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
that.
You
know,
but
I
just
think
that
to
say
we
shouldn't
get
a
pay
raise.
It's
it's
asinine.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
citro,
one.
B
B
B
E
E
That's
what
I
would
approve,
because
I
think
that
I
believe
in
good
government
and
the
governments
that
I've
studied
around
the
world
that
are
run
really
well.
They
pay
a
decent
amount
and
they
get
good
people.
It's
not
it's,
not
fair.
I,
don't
need
the
salary.
I
could
turn
it
down.
I
could
turn
down
the
increase,
but
it's
not
fair
to
everybody
else.
Not
to
do
it
at
some
point.
We
could
change
the
percentage.
We
could
also
change
it
to
start
in
2027,
so
that
may
it's
possible.
E
But
we
can,
we
can
set
it
like
that
if
you
want,
but
what
what
happened?
The
last
time
we
discussed
this
is
that
suddenly
the
media,
instead
of
covering
the
substantive
issues,
that
they
wrote,
a
bunch
of
stories
about
the
salary
discussion,
I,
imagine
the
administration
pushed
that
story
out
I'm
going
to
withdraw
this
proposal
and
bring
it
back
in
new
business
on
another
day,
because
I
don't
want
to
put
my
colleagues
at
risk.
We
don't
have
the
votes
and
I
don't
want
to
put
them
at
risk
of
having
a
negative
editorial.
E
They
can
write
whatever
they
want
about
me.
I,
don't
care,
can
I
I
want
to
I
want
to
make
another
proposal
to
a
different
section
before
Mr
Miranda
leaves
and
I
don't
I
would
have
to
jump
the
order.
So
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
another
urgent
one
they
want
to
discuss
about
before
he
leaves,
but
I
would
like
to
bring
this
one
up.
E
D
E
There's
no
there's
no
formula
for
what
to
do
if
a
mayor
has
a
conflict
of
interest.
E
I've
asked
several
different
attorneys
about
this
there's
very
little
case
law
and
there's
very
little
official
guidance
from
the
ethics
commission.
I
picked
up
bits
and
pieces
of
information
about
this,
but
we
need
to
have
a
process
right
now
to
be
fair
to
this
may
or
any
other
mayor.
There's
no
process
by
which
the
mayor
can
recuse,
herself
and
I
think
we
need
to
provide
that
option
so
that
she
doesn't
get
criticized
for
something
that
she
shouldn't
get
criticized
for
or
whoever
the
mayor
is
in
the
future.
E
The
mayor
will
a
disclose
that
Conflict
at
the
next
available
city
council
meeting,
either
in
person
or
through
a
representative
B
notify
staff
in
the
affected
Department
that
the
mayor
may
not
participate
in
this
item
and
will
not
pass
judgment
on
the
outcome.
C
ask
the
city
council
chair
to
approve
and
sign
any
affected,
RFP
Awards,
memos
to
city
council
or
others.
D.
Ask
the
city
council
chair
to
sign
any
contracts
or
payments
to
the
organizations
affected.
E
Now
what
this
means
is
that
if,
if
the
mayor
has
a
conflict
of
interest,
the
mayor
as
it
stands
right
now
really
has
no
choice
but
to
sign
all
these
documents
or
to
stand
with
the
press
conference
and
there's
no
way
for
a
mayor
to
disclose
a
conflict
of
interest.
We
have
to
fill
out
a
form
8B
and
provide
it
in
public.
We
have
to
read
it
and
we
have
to
provide
it
in
public
to
to
everyone
around,
and
in
case
you
all
don't
know.
E
E
It's
not
completely
filled
out,
so
we
don't
know
the
nature
of
the
conflict,
but
there
is
a
form
here,
and
so,
if
the
mayor,
if
the
mayor
has,
has
a
conflict
in
a
Port
Authority
building,
it
is
possible
or
likely
that
the
mayor
would
have
a
conflict
at
the
city,
and
there
has
to
be
a
process
for
the
mayor
to
handle
this.
This
with
by
this.
E
What
we're
doing
is
trying
to
protect
the
mayor
by
creating
a
process
by
which
the
Americans
step
aside
and
allow
the
city
council
chair,
who
would
step
in
if,
if
in
in
the
old
days,
if
the
mayor
was
out
of
the
city
or
if
something
happens
to
the
mayor-
and
so
this
case
it
just
it
just
allows
the
mayor
to
have
arms
linked.
So
the
mayor
is
not
unfairly
accused
of
anything
Marty.
Here's
the
this
was
the
form,
a
b
that
the
mayor
handed
out
at
Port
Authority
board
meeting.
E
Again
in
this
specific
example,
we
don't
know
the
details
and
we
don't
know
the
nature
of
the
conflict
because
it
doesn't
say
it
on
the
form.
But
but
if
you
just
presume
that,
if
the
mayor
filed
a
form
8B
in
another
body,
there
must
there's
a
likelihood
that
there
will
be
a
conflict
and
we
just
need
a
process
to
to
handle
this.
D
E
F
Mr
Miranda
to
some
degree
I
just
don't
know
what
the
city
council
chair.
What
part
is
that
individual,
whoever
he
or
she
may
be,
that
has
to
be
brought
up
to
speed
on
something
that
that
person
may
not
know
unless
the
mayor
at
the
end
of
the
day.
That
means
that
the
city
council
chair
may
have
to
sign
both
as
city
council,
chair
and
as
acting
mayor,
because
the
bear
can't
sign
anything
when
you
pass
a
resolution
or
something
in
this
body.
F
It
goes
to
the
mayor's
desk
and
the
reason
I
say
that,
because
I've
been
there
and
I
know
what
happened
in
fact,
I
got
one
resolution
where
I
stand
in
his
chair
the
next
day,
I
signed
it
at
the
American
critical
was
out
of
town.
So
all
those
things
happen
so
I
don't
know
exactly
how
to
grasp
it
and
that's
what
I'm
alerting
myself
to
that?
There's
a
mayor's
have
conflict.
F
J
M
I
just
want
to
declare
there's,
there's
voting
conflicts
and
there
are
conflicts
of
interest.
So
it's
it's
not
accurate
to
say
that
no
complex
rules
govern
the
mayor's
activities
here
at
the
city,
because
certainly
the
city
ethics
code,
the
state
ethics
code,
has
numerous
conflict.
Provisions
that
govern
the
mayor's
Behavior.
The
the
port
form
that
you're
talking
about
had
to
do
with
her.
M
It
was
a
voting
conflict
issue
which
I
happen
to
know
about
only
because
Charles
klug
contacted
me
and
we
went
through
it
and
frankly,
it
was
a
misunderstanding.
The
mayor
didn't
want
to
vote
to
avoid
an
appearance
of
a
conflict,
but
she
didn't
have
an
actual
conflict,
which
was
why
she
didn't
complete
the
form
Charles
klug
had
started
it
for
her.
M
She
signed
it
and
then,
when
it
got
to
the
part
where
she
had
to
identify
the
conflict,
she
didn't
have
one
so,
but
in
any
event,
that
that
dealt
with
a
voting
conflict,
which
is
what
you
all
deal
with
on
a
regular
basis.
But
it's
not
accurate
to
say
that
there
aren't
conflicts
that
the
mayor
cannot
have
in
the
exercise
of
her
Authority
as
mayor,
because
she
again
ethics
rules.
The
state
ethics
code
are
all
very
clear
on
what
the
mayor
can
and
can't
do
so.
M
E
And
one
of
the
things
that
this
does
is
that
just
like
city
council
members
are
required
to
publicly
disclose
not
only
fill
out
form
but
to
publicly
disclose
in
a
public
forum.
What
a
says
is
that
either
the
mayor
or
chief
of
staff
or
someone
would
come
before
us
and
say
by
the
way
on
this
matter.
The
mayor
has
a
conflict
of
interest
and
and
we
would
like
to
disclose
that
that
way.
You
know
the
mayor
talked
about
transparency
and
accountability.
E
This
would
provide
that
and
it
just
provides
a
process,
so
the
public
knows
and
if
a
conflict
is
disclosed
and
there's
a
process
by
which
the
mayor
can
recuse
herself
from
being
involved
and
I'm.
Not
just
talking
about
this
mayor
but
any
mayor,
then
then
there
will
not
be
unfair
accusations
flying
about
the
mayor's
involvement
in
something.
D
D
We
have
two:
we
have
Mr
Carlson
and
Miss
hertak.
Thank
you.
D
So,
just
back
to
the
procedural
question,
it
does
somewhat
feel
like
it
might
be
time
for
a
break.
Am
I
correct,
good,
so,
let's
be
back,
can
we
be
make
it
three
o'clock
sharp
and
be
ready
to
to
to
to
work?
Thank
you.
Okay,.
K
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
M
D
Thank
you
yes,
so
in
section
six,
is
there
any
other
element
in
section
six
that
you
want
to
respond
to,
because
we
have
two
procedural
issues.
One
is
that
we
plan
to
end
at
the
very
latest
at
five
o'clock,
preferably
4
30.,
and
we
have
other
elements
on
the
agenda
that
we
want
to
address
that
went
out
to
the
public
so
back
to
six
any
other
elements.
In
section
six.
D
D
B
I
see
here
on
the
sheet
that
Mr
Tech
cousin,
Wonder
Tech
I
see
her
on
the
sheet
that
was
sent
to
us.
We
got
supplemental
provisions,
8.05
pleasure,
Council,
no,
okay,.
I
I
And
my
my
rationale
behind
that
is
that
it's
very
confusing
about
how
boards
are
made
and
I
think
the
addition
of
The
Comma
just
adds
to
the
confusion.
So
this
is
just
more
clarification
language,
in
my
opinion,
and
because
it
talks
about
how
both
city
council
and
the
mayor
can
make
committees
and
since
it's
a
different
method
by
separating
those
two
sentences,
it
it
clarifies
it
for
both
the
public
and
for
us.
D
J
This
upon
first
impression
appears
to
be
reasonable.
I
see
no
problem
forwarding
this
again,
I'll
inquire
further
on
it
Etc,
but
this
appears
to
be
right
not
that
by
the
way,
if
I
may
not
that
other
ones
are
unreasonable
by
the
way
aside,
yeah
just
didn't
mean
that
it's
a
shot
at
anybody.
I
I'm,
sorry,
then,
my
yeah,
it's
it's
I
meant
by
it's
the
same
sentence
that
Mr
Shelby
mentioned
I
just
wanted
to
do
mine
a
little
bit
differently,
so
adding
a
period
after
ordinance.
The
word
ordinance
correct.
So
if
you
could
put
that
in
quotes
just
to
maybe
help
people
maybe
created
by
ordinance
had
that
phrase.
I
Just
so
folks
know
what
I'm
talking
about
created
by
ordinance
and
then
yes
and
then
start
a
new
sentence
with
ad
hoc
boards
and
committees
shall
be
created
by
resolution
so
on
and
so
forth
to
finish
the
sentence.
So
if
you
could
add
those
ellipses,
yeah
I
didn't
mean
to
stop
it
there.
Thank
you
for
asking
for
clarification,
because
that
is
exactly
what
I'm
going
for.
D
D
Shelby
I
think
I
I
may
have
misspoke
number
21
on
Mr
Shelby's
comments
deals
with
10
10
Charter
review.
D
B
L
And
I
appreciate
that
you
know:
we've
had
a
a
long
day
here
and
a
lengthy
discussion
on
a
lot
of
big
issues,
but
they
Merit
further
discussion,
and
you
know
the
reasons
for
a
lot
of
my
no
votes
is
because
I
was
here
as
a
as
a
city
council
member
when
we
created
the
charter
commission,
the
charter
review
commission.
L
My
appointee
is,
is
here
now
as
a
city
council
member,
and
they
spent
a
lot
of
time
a
lot
of
volunteer
time.
Council
members,
her
attack,
Goods,
Carlson,
citro
and
others.
Others
in
this
room
a
lot
of
time
discussing
a
lot
of
issues
that
are
very
significant
and
we
brought
those
to
the
ballot.
So
I've
heard
people
say
that
it
shouldn't
meet
every
10
years.
It
should
meet
every
five
years.
Now
it's
scheduled
for
that
that
10th
year
and
we
can.
L
We
can
change
it
to
every
five
years
and
I
think
that
makes
more
sense
to
have
deeper
discussions,
because
we're
playing
with
the
city's
Constitution
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
again
like
there
was
that
full
board
and
many
many
many
meetings
and
many
hours.
We
should
continue
having
that
and
as
at
a
higher
frequency,
I
think
that'd
be
very
good.
I
I
would
make
a
motion
to
to
say
that
to
commencing
I
mean,
would
we
want
to
change
the
year
or
let
it
start
10
years
from
now
or
from
then
okay?
That's,
that's
fine,
I
I'm
not
going
to
argue
about
that,
but
if
we
did
the
every
five
years
thereafter,
the
only
thing
I
would
like
to
add
to
that
because
I
found
it
confusing.
As
a
member
of
the
charter
review
commission,
it
says
here
down
toward
the
bottom.
I
An
independent
person
shall
be
engaged
by
the
city
council
to
facilitate
the
charter
review
process.
I
I
do
the
Curative
language
this
this
and
that
is
in
Council
membership
city
council
Shelby's
memo
is
actually
from
conversations
he
and
I
had
because
the
one
thing
that
was
the
most
confusing
is
we
had
two
separate
lawyers
talking
to
us
and
as
members
of
the
public
and
not
Council,
it
was
really
hard
to
determine
who
was
doing
or
or
who
to
listen
to
and
so
I
love.
I
The
idea
of
independent
legal
counsel
doesn't
mean
the
other
two
can't
be
there,
but
just
someone
who's
who
so
that
the
city
can
have
their
opinion.
The
city
council
can
have
their
opinion
and
then
someone
to
kind
of
guide
the
the
members
because
again
not
having
any
real
City
experience.
When
I
I
sat
on
the
charter
review
board,
that
would
have
been
very
valuable
because
oftentimes,
we
would
ask
for
clarification
and
get
two
separate
answers.
I
M
D
G
Well,
I'm
glad
somebody
finally
did
something
today,
we
finally,
you
know
got
you
know
we
got
a
real
small,
What,
I
Call
Food
on
the
ground
at
the
last
one
I
just
walked
in
you
just
voted
on
something
that
was
wasn't
controversial
that
nobody
would
be
upset
about.
G
G
That's
why
we
we
talked
about
doing
something:
I
wasn't
looking
for
a
total
fix
of
everything
today,
but
I
think
that
some
things
should
have
went
to
the
voters
should
have
some
things
that
the
voters
were
talking
to
us
for
a
while
about,
but
again
I
know
it's
political
I
know
it's
election
year.
Anybody
wants
to
be
in
controversy,
entwined,
but
I
do
support
and
I
wish.
We
could
go
back
and
take
the
10
years
out,
because
I
think
it
needs
to
be
revamped.
G
I
looked
at
every
five
years
between
the
2027
I
think
it's
too
long.
We
know
we
have
issues,
but
we
sometimes
we're
afraid
of
issues.
I've
never
been
afraid
of
anybody.
Nobody
I
don't
care
who
you
are
things
all
what
they
are,
but
I'm,
not
afraid
to
say
when
something
needs
to
be
done,
but
I
I
just
don't
think
we
need
to
wait
till
2027
about
10
years
down
the
road
after
that
now
it
needs
to
be
every
five
years
because
we
know
there's
some
issues
that
need
to
be
resolved.
I
Would
you
take
a
friendly
amendment
to
maybe
2025
to
me,
so
it's
kind
of
more
consistent
or
2023
and
like
throughout
a
year.
G
I
can
I
can
do
that
doing
miss
her
check,
I
I'm,
a
compromiser,
but
I.
Just
think
that
you
know
very
disappointed
about
how
this
saw
went
down
today.
Very
disappointed
and
I.
Just
I
just
just
understand
what
happened
today.
I
really
don't
but
I
can
be
comfortable
today.
I
D
L
So
I
was
thinking
about
the
change
in
year.
Today
we
had
a
like
a
like
a
Midway
discussion.
You
know
within
that
10-year
period
kind
of
now
we've
changed
it
to
2025.
Would
it
be
for
it
would
go
on
the
2026
ballot?
Is
that
correct?
That's
a
good
point.
It
would
go
into
an
even
year
and
not
into
a
city.
Election
year
now
you're
looking
at
2027
would
be
the
city
election
year.
You
would
be
meeting
in
2025..
That's
a
that's
a
gap.
There.
L
L
We
have
a
full
board
discussion
on
the
charter.
Today
we
brought
up
a
lot
of
issues
that
are
very,
very
important,
I
understand,
but
that
Charter
review
commission
with
how
many
members
it
was
13
members
whatever
it
is.
You
need
deeper
discussion,
I
think,
but
I
would
be
happy
to
support
it
for
2026
and
then
going
from
there,
which
would
roll
it
into
the
2027
election
a
year.
Cyclone
ballot.
I
But
but
but
then
every
five
years
would
not
be
able
to
go
by
ballot.
If
we,
if,
if
ballot,
was
the
reason
we
wanted
to
do
it,
it
would
have
to
be
every
four
years
right.
I
mean
because
we
go
through
an
election
every
four
years.
I
mean
the
only
other
thing
we
could
do
is
we
could
do
four
or
six
years,
because
giving
five
years
means
that
they
we
would
wait
and
wait
and
wait
to
put
it
on
ballot.
We
might
even
yeah
all
right
so
I.
Maybe
four
years
is
better.
J
Just
very
quickly,
if
I
may,
yeah
I
would
suggest
if
we're
going
to
pass
this.
Let's,
let's
just
you
know,
pass
it.
It
comes
back
to
us.
J
We
can
iron
out
some
of
the
more
details
later
on
after
further
discussion,
Etc
and
the
way
that
I
see
supporting
this
in
one
form
or
another
is
to
give
deference
to
the
many
ideas
that
have
been
put
forward
today,
which
have
obviously
had
a
lot
of
thought
and
work
etc,
put
inside
within
them
and
for
them,
and
that
gives
that
some
measurable
level
of
deference
I
think
in
the
process
as
as
far
as
I
interpret
it.
So
thank
you.
E
Just
a
couple
comments:
somebody
said
this
is
not
controversial.
This
is
very
controversial
because
the
last
this
mayor
and
the
last
mayor
didn't
want
any
changes
of
the
charter.
They
like
it
just
the
way.
It
is
why,
because
they
have
all
the
power,
because
they're
able
to
control
everything,
there's
not
a
balance
of
power
at
all.
We've
we've
just
turned
down
all
the
balance
of
power.
They
argued
and
lobbied
heavily
for
the
charter
review.
Commission.
E
The
reason
why
it
took
us,
however,
many
months
to
look
through
it
is
because
none
of
us
knew
what
we
were
doing.
We
didn't
have
any
experience
at
all,
and
now
we've
got
four
people
who
actually
sat
through
that
whole
process
and
we
actually
know
what
we're
doing
and
we
sat
on
city
council.
So
we
see
all
the
problems
and
still
we
weren't
able
to
get
anything
I,
don't
I.
Think
Charter,
review
commission
is
fine,
but
it's
not
nearly
as
good
as
having
all
the
experience
that
we
have
up
here
on
the
table.
E
The
bottom
line
with
what
happened
today
is
the
mayor:
didn't
want
it
and,
and
the
whole
thing
was
said,
all
the
mayor's
staff
or
whatever
all
whatever
briefings
anybody
had
it's
all
set
up.
Obviously,
around
high-fiving,
the
mayor
has
more
power
than
then
three
members
of
city
council
that'll
be
the
the
headline
who
cares?
Who
cares?
Who
cares
if
we
got
all
of
these
past
today
it?
The
only
thing
that
matters
is,
is
whether
the
Public's
protecting
the
Public's
not
protected,
so
we'll
go
through
this
process.
Charter
review
commitment.
E
The
other
thing
about
the
independent
council
is
we
had
the
city
council
attorney
appointed
last
time
to
be
our
representative
and
then
the
City
attorney
or
representative
city
attorney's
office
bounced
in
and
and
started
controlling
everything
actually
screamed
at
me
from
the
Deus
I
mean
from
the
podium
saying
you're
trying
to
change
the
strong
mayor
former
government
I
said
that's
what
city
council
has
to
do
look
at
their
instructions?
E
No,
they
didn't
I
said,
look
and
I
read
it
often
just
like
I'm
reading
the
charter
today,
if
the
city
attorneys
don't
listen
to
us,
if
they
don't
even
listen
to
city
council,
how
does
the
public
have
any
have
any
faith
in
this
government
at
all
and
and
all
the
mayor's
friends
are
high-fiving?
Oh,
isn't
this
great?
We,
you
know
it's.
This
is
not
about
power
and
control,
it's
not
about
you
know
lobbyists
getting
their
their
people
in
charge,
so
they
can
get
the
contracts
they
want.
E
This
is
about
protecting
the
public
from
not
having
the
transparency
that
we've
had
last
week.
There
was
a
probably
a
multi-hundred
million
dollar
project
and
the
staff
refused
to
give
us
answers
on
it,
and
we
can't
do
anything
about
it.
We
can't
get
any
transparency
in
the
city
because
we
don't
have
the
power.
So
let's
have
the
charter
review,
commission
they'll
come
back
and
and
and
whatever
Administration
will
control
it.
E
Just
like
the
last
one
did
and
we'll
end
up
with
nothing
again,
even
some
of
the
things
we've
passed
like
even
even
changing
the
pronouns.
They
didn't
even
do
that
in
the
final
version
they
edited
they
edited.
We
all
know
we
sat
on
the
charter
Vehicles,
they
edited
it
between
the
time
we
passed
it
and
the
time
that
it
went
to
the
ballot
they
edit
it
and
it,
and
it's
not
right.
I
There
is
also
a
typo
in
it
and
I,
don't
I
mean
I.
Just
might
be
the
time
to
fix
that
in
the
same
thing
right
after
the
the
every
10
years.
Thereafter,
all
that
stuff.
I
But
before
the
independent
person
there's
a
sentence
that
starts
with
the
word,
however,
and
it
says,
however,
the
city
council
may
be
ordinance
and
it
should
be
made
by
ordinance
have
the
power
to
call
for
the
establishment
of
the
CRC
more
often
and
the
event
it
so
chooses
so,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
just
on
my
copy,
which
happens
to
be
number
135
I.
I
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
that
can
be
fixed
just
because
it's
a
error:
I
am
not
a
charter
expert
in
that
type
of
Realm,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
would
need
to
add
that
to
the
language.
No,
no,
however,
there's.
F
I
However,
the
city
may
be
ordinance
have
the
power.
So
yes,
it's
in
the
others,
copies
as
well,
so
I
guess
I'm
asking
for
some
direction.
Do
we
have
to
actually
change
that
by
law
or
can
we
just
say,
hey,
that's
a
typo:
is
it
a
scriveness
there
or
is
it
something
that
we
have
to
put
back
onto
the
ballot.
I
That'd
be
great,
thank
you
so
much
because
I
think
that's
one
of
those
things
that
like
finding
the
he's
and
his
is,
and
just
a
few
other
words
that
we
know
we
changed
and
since
you
know
we
well
I
can't
speak
for
others,
but
I
reference
this
often,
but
never
really
think
about
that
sort
of
thing.
So
so
that's
my
motion,
I
guess:
I'll
leave
the
B
out
for
the
time
being,
just
to
not
confuse
people
and
I
believe.
L
I
H
H
That
I'm
sorry
Martin
Shelby
would
that
have
been
true
for
every
10
years
that
because
yeah.
I
I
I
D
Yes,
Mr
citro.
B
Thank
you
very
much
I'm
looking
at
it
from
a
different
angle,
and
it
is
how
much
time
does
this
Chambers
have
about
videotaping
about
having
staff
it
took
us
13
months
last
time,
however,
the
more
we
the
more
often
we
do
it,
the
less
time
it
will
take
to
tweak
anything
that
is
filled,
I
am
sure
after
the
first
eight
years,
if
we
do
it
every
four
years,
that
might
only
be
a
week
so
I
I
I'm.
All
for
this.
D
D
E
and
I
would
add
in
a
new
language,
that's
called
the
naming
of
building
streets
and
places,
and
this
is
the
language.
The
the
naming
of
building
streets
and
other
places
within
the
city
is
an
important
and
long-term
decision
meant
to
honor
those
citizens
that
have
made
a
remarkable
and
historic
impact
on
the
community.
The
mayor
and
city
council
May
jointly
create
a
process
and
committee
to
review,
naming
any
new
name
must
be
approved
by
the
mayor
and
city
council.
E
However,
the
mayor
and
city
council
must
take
great
care
in
researching
these
names
so
as
to
not
name
a
building
Street
or
place
after
someone
who
has
conducted
egregious
acts
such
as
a
civil
rights
such
as
civil
rights
violations,
that
could
harm
their
reputation
on
the
city
in
intimidate
or
hurt
its
residents.
There
should
be
a
comma
there.
D
I
Mr
attack
this
actually
brings
up
a
point
for
me
that
I
may
bring
Thursday
well
I.
Guess
I
could
do
it
at
the
end
of
this
meeting,
but
you
know
a
lot
of
these
sections.
Where
folks
are
saying
hey,
you
know
we
could
possibly
make
these
ordinances.
We
already
have
this
nice
collection
that
you
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
on,
and
others
of
us
have
spent
time
on.
I
If
that
pleases,
you
I
just
I'm
I'm
just
thinking
about
this,
because
this
is
very
specific
and
to
me
it
reads
more
like
an
ordinance
I
would
be
fine
to
add
it
to
the
Charter,
but
I'm
just
thinking
about
all
these
other
things.
If,
if
the
discussion
is
well,
we
don't
need
it
in
the
charter.
We
can
make
it
by
ordinance
yeah.
E
And
and
the
the
only
reason
why
I
propose,
that
is
a
charter.
Amendment
is
because
the
city
attorney's
office
recently
said
that
only
the
mayor
has
the
right
to
do
this
and
that's
not
an
accurate
interpretation
of
the
charter,
and
so
we
we
can
try
to
pass
an
ordinance
that
says
that
the
city
council
and
the
mayor
jointly
have
the
right
to
do
it.
E
I
mean
the
the
the
the
charter
really
is
silent
to
it,
and
just
as
I
asked
one
of
the
city
attorney's
representative,
just
because
the
mayor
controls
the
administration
of
buildings
doesn't
mean
that
the
mayor
can
sell
property
without
city
council
approval,
sign
a
contract
for
a
property
without
city
council
approval
sign
a
lease
without
city
council
approval
even
hire
someone
to
paint
the
building
without
city
council
approval.
So
why
should
the
mayor
have
exclusive
right
to
name
something
it?
E
It
doesn't
make
sense,
and
so
putting
this
in
a
charter
just
prevents
a
City
attorney
from
giving
an
inaccurate
interpretation
of
the
charter.
Thank
you.
J
I
would
explain
my
vote
on
this.
Is
you
know
before
anybody
thinks
that
those
who
vote
against
this
want
to
name
a
building
in
Tampa
after
Strom
Thurmond
or
something
you
know.
This
is
something
that
that
could
be
interpreted
as
being
a
narrowly
tailored
effort
and
I.
Just
don't
want
that
in
the
charter.
Obviously,
I
don't
think
anybody
wants
any
buildings
Etc
named
after
people
who
do
egregious
acts,
civil
rights
violations,
Etc
et
cetera,
just
and
again
out
of
respect
to
councilman
Carlson.
L
Few
years
ago,
I
made
a
motion
to
restore
the
name
of
Laurel
Street
bridge
to
Fortune
Taylor
Bridge
Fortune
Taylor
was
a
a
woman
who
was
once
enslaved
but
owned
about
30
acres
of
land
in
that
part
of
downtown
near
the
Straz
and
whatnot
and
I
was
able
to
get
it
with
unanimous
city
council
approval
without
the
mayor
having
to
weigh
in
and
then
we
had
to
talk
to
other
departments,
I
think
at
the
state
level,
but
the
bridge
is
named
fortunes
Fortune,
Taylor
Bridge
today,
so
you
know,
city
council
has
we've
had
the
authority
to
do
it
because
I
was
able
to
do
it.
L
You
know
so
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
necessary.
I
don't
know
you
know
and
and
I
know
how
tradition
works
with
Mayors
will
name
something
for
previous
Mayors.
You
know
going
back
to
like
Curtis
Hixon
and
you
know
I
mean
I'm
going
back
to
the
1950s,
but
I
get
it
I
mean
there's,
there's
tradition
there.
But
again
you
know:
we've
we've
been
able
to
do
it
at
city,
council
or
honorary
Street
renaming
for
somebody.
That's
deceased
or
you
know,
made
a
major
contribution
to
the
city.
L
E
G
I,
just
thought
of
something
ring
a
bell:
I
just
read
a
written,
an
executive
order
from
the
mayor
in
reference
to
that
and
I
think
you
both
are
kind
of
right,
Mr
Shelby,
if
we
can
do
it
by
ordinance,
I
think
that
might
work
versus
just
putting
in
the
charter.
So
what
do
you
think
about
that?
G
I
I
got
an
executive
order
because
we
both
talked
about
names
from
people
got
some
things
from
Savannah,
scalco
and
I
was
given
an
executive
order,
saying
that
we
could
not
do
that
and
I
was
like
well,
we,
this
Council
had
an
ordinance
but
I
didn't
get
into
it
with
the
person
so
now
I
just
kind
of
my
antennas
of
going
up.
Can
you
elaborate
on
them?
Well,.
E
Could
I
say
while
she's
getting
up
what
this
does?
It
says
it
has
to
be
approved
by
the
mayor
and
city
council.
So
it's
not
one
of
the
other
city
council
can't
do
it
on
their
own,
and
so
you
could
interpret
that.
Maybe
the
charter
as
it
is
that
one
could
do
and
one
can.
This
means
that
we
have
to
agree
on
it.
M
Out
of
the
process,
I
think
it
was
to
give
the
mayor
final
approval.
I
would
suggest
that
that's
something
we
could
look
more
carefully
at
and
I
believe
it
could
be
addressed
by
ordinance.
I,
don't
believe
it
needs
a
charter
change,
and
one
thing
that
concerns
me
is
putting
in
language
like
someone
who
has
committed
egregious
acts,
I
mean
who,
who
defines
that
you
know
even
the
word
civil
rights
violations.
M
You
know
we've
had
instances
at
the
city
where
people
have
been
accused
of
violating
other
people's
civil
rights.
It
just
I
that
to
me
is
is
very
difficult.
Language
and
I
would
hate
to
be
put
in
the
position
of
having
to
interpret
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
E
That's
that's
why
these
would
go.
None
of
them
have
been
approved
on
my
side
anyway,
but
this
would
go
to
the
City
attorney
for
review
and
to
their
attorneys
for
for
recommendations
on
it.
But
but
let
me
ask
you,
in
your
opinion,
could
we
remember
dingfeller
tried
to
name
a
park
after
Linda
salsena
and
that's
when
the
whole
system
got
mixed
up
in
the
then
the
executive
order
came
out
that
prohibited
and
then
dingfellow
was
thrown
out
with
the
help
of
the
former
City
attorney.
E
Let
me
ask,
in
your
opinion,
can
can
city
council
decide
to
name
something
by
ourselves?
Can
City
Council
vote
to
name
something
without
the.
M
M
E
No,
but
we
have
to
vote
today
on
I
mean
you
can
come
back
and
tell
us,
but
but
the
point
is
that
right
now,
but
the
way
I've
heard
the
interpretation
city,
the
city,
attorney's
opinion
in
the
past
has
been
city.
Council
cannot
name
something
by
themselves,
so
the
question
is:
can
the
can
the
mayor
may
name
something
by
his
or
herself
and
prior
City,
attorneys?
I
think
have
said.
That
is
true.
Well
what
this
says.
E
It
says
the
mayor
and
city
council
have
to
agree,
and
that
part
of
that
is
to
prevent
something
from
you
know
some
some
name
from
being
put
up
that
that
the
public
would
object
to.
E
You
know:
we've
had
that
happening
in
the
city
already
and
we
can't
go
back
and
necessarily
change
the
past,
but
we
can
look
forward
and
not
not
make
mistakes
about
about
decisions
that
could
be
made.
I.
M
Charter
specific
typical,
all
over
the
real
estate
and
all
the
facilities
of
the
city,
the
city
council,
doesn't
have
that
same
control
over
the
property.
Nevertheless,
my
understanding
and
I'll
go
back
and
look
at
it
more
carefully
was
that
the
intent
of
the
process
was
to
provide
a
process
where,
if
city
council
wanted
to
propose
the
naming
of
something,
there
would
be
a
uniform
process
followed
for
every
naming,
but.
E
It
still
says
that
the
mayor
gets
to
make
the
decision
and
what
this
says
is
that
it's
it's
shared,
and
so
we
we
could
still
approve
this
in
the
and
the
City
attorney
can
give
us
opinions
on
how
to
change
it.
But
the
problem
as
facilitator
is
that
in
in
and
not
not
to
blame
this
City
attorney,
but
many
times
City
staff
will
come
before
us
and
they'll
say
like
last
week.
We
don't
know
the
answer
and
then,
as
soon
as
the
meetings
are
well,
we
knew
the
answer.
E
We
didn't
want
to
tell
the
public,
why?
Why
do
you
not
want
to
have
transparency?
And
so
what
will
happen
is
as
soon
as
we
leave
here
then
we'll
get
an
opinion
that
says
this
is
not
not
Ms
zelman,
but
prior
City
attorneys,
we'll
leave
and
they'll
say.
Well,
we
don't
know
we
have
to
interpret
it
and
then
we
get
done
with
the
meeting.
They'll
say
yeah.
E
That
gives
the
mayor
full
right
to
name
buildings
and
approve
buildings,
and
that's
not
at
all
in
the
charter
not
not
remotely
in
the
chart
and
this
and
what
I've
been
trying
to
do
all
day
is
to
stop
the
city
attorney's
office
and
I'm
talking
about
prior
City
attorneys
from
changing
the
charter.
With
a
couple
paragraphs
of
an
interpretation.
J
For
20
seconds
sure,
thank
you
again.
This
is
something
that
I
could
in
one
form
or
another
support
an
ordinance.
But
again,
like
I
said
we
councilman
Maniscalco,
mentioned
the
issue
of
Prior
Mayors,
potentially
in
the
ordinance
taking
that
out.
So
it's
not
narrowly
tailored
to
one
thing.
I
mean
I'm,
proud
of
the
fact
that
a
couple
years
ago,
I
think
I
was
the
first
city
councilman
to
give
money
for
moving
of
the
Confederate
Memorial
first
one
to
speak
at
a
rally
for
that
very
passionate.
J
D
D
We
call
for
a
vote
to
put
this
in
the
charter.
We
have
two
votes:
Mr
Carlson
and
miss
hertak.
I
I
actually
I
know
we
went
through
this
by
number,
but
Mr
Carlson
brought
up
one
bun
section
that
we
had
debated
quite
a
bit
during
the
charter
review
commission
and
there
were
two
parts
to
it.
He
brought
one
forward
and
I
wanted
to
bring
the
other
forward.
I
D
I
Five
minutes,
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
really
I
just
have
to
bring
it
up
because
I
brought
it
up
during
crb
and
or
not
crb.
I'm.
Sorry
yeah
CRC
too
many
acronyms
during
the
charter
review
commission.
So
probably
maybe
10
minutes
at
most
because
I.
I
I
Ahead,
so
this
motion
has
to
do
with
Section
2.02,
which
is
term
limits
for
city
council.
I
The
councilman
Carlson
brought
up
term
limits
for
Mayors,
and
during
that
discussion
we
also
talked
about
term
limits
for
Council,
so
I
would
absolutely
like
to
bring
that
up
and
so
section
two
I
would
take
off
the
full
end
of
that
section.
2.02,
basically
letting
people
hop
from
one
District
to
another
and
basically
saying
you
can
run
two
consecutive
full
terms
and
then
not
run
for
the
succeeding
term.
But
you
could
come
back.
You
know
after
four
years
we
definitely
discussed
that
it
didn't
really
go
anywhere.
I
I,
don't
know
if
it'll
go
anywhere
now,
but
I
really
believe
that
that
the
hopping
I
don't
believe
in
the
hopping
can.
I
Obviously,
the
voters
would
have
to
vote
on
it,
so
it
would
have
to
happen
after
that
term.
So,
if
the
vote
is
so
I
I
guess
it
would
be
20
20,
27.
I
J
Viera,
thank
you
ma'am,
so
just
to
clarify
so
you're
saying
that
someone
who
represents
whatever
a
single
member
district
can
then
go
city-wide,
but
they
have
to
wait
four
years
correct,
yeah.
A
D
L
I
Because
if
you
think
about
it,
if
they
voted
on
it,
I
mean
whoever's.
Voting
on
this
is
voting
on
whoever's
running.
At
the
same
time,
you
couldn't
you
couldn't
go
backward
on.
That
I
mean
if
someone
were
elected,
we
couldn't
just
toss
them
out
of
office,
but
yeah,
so
that
would
be
for
whatever
office.
That
is.
I
Yes
and
then
they
could
take
a
little
bit
of
a
break
and
then
come
back
for
two
more
for
your
time.
You
know
if,
if
the
voters
will
have
them
again,
I
mean
this
could
be
debated
later,
but
I
know
we
talked
about
it
during
the
charter,
review
and
I.
Think
it's
something
that
we
should
all
talk
about.
D
D
I
Was
my
motion
and
I
I
asked
the
City
attorney
about
if
there
was
a
draft
ordinance
and
she
said
that
we
had
talked
earlier
about
waiting
to
see
where
it
went
before
a
draft
ordinance
was
created.
I
I
So
my
my
motion
is
to
I
guess
would
be
to
to
for
the
legal
department
to
draft
an
ordinance.
I
To
Let's,
let's
say
to
put
independent
Counsel
on
the
ballot
for
the
voters
to
decide.
Let's
split
it
up.
I
You
want
to
put
them
together.
Oh.
I
Yeah,
so
I
would
like
to
that's
what
I'm
saying
my
motion
is
to
put
a
to
create
a
draft
ordinance
based
on
the
the
quotes
and
ordinances
mentioned
in
the
motion,
which
is
Miami
code
Miami-Dade
code
Broward
code,
Key,
West
Charter,
Orange
County
code
for
independent
Council
to
put
on
the
ballot
for
voters
to
decide.
D
J
Thank
you
very
much
so
there's
for
me
a
split
between
the
attorney
the
separate
attorney
independent
Council.
Whatever
you
want
to
call
it
and
subpoena
power
I
think
there
are
separate
issues
there.
One
I
think
is
a
reasonable
choice
that
I
support
the
independent
attorney,
the
other
one
I
do
not
for
reasons
all
state
with
regards
to
the
separate
attorney,
I
I
think
that's
reasonable.
J
I,
I,
I've,
I've
and
I've
had
the
same
position
on
this
for
about
a
year
and
a
half
two
years
Etc,
which
is
the
crb
being
able
to
have
a
separate
attorney.
Who
is
not
a
direct
City
attorney
who
was
paid
for
by
the
city
of
Tampa
out
of
the
attorneys
with
whom
we
contract?
There
are
many,
many
of
them
that
that's
reasonable,
I
I
I've
never
seen
any
issue
with
that.
J
I,
don't
see
a
downside
from
that,
I
see
no
detriment
from
that
with
regards
to
the
subpoena
power,
even
if
it
does
not
deal
with
police
officers.
My
big
challenge
with
that
has
been
and
I
believe.
It
was
very
briefly
mentioned
in
their
remarks,
which
is
just
because
something
is
a
closed
disciplinary
case.
Does
not
mean
it
is
a
closed
criminal
case,
and
that
leaves
real
potential
for
challenges
there.
With
regards
to
this
board
with
ongoing
criminal
cases
that
I
as
an
attorney
respectfully,
cannot
support.
J
I
know,
there's
people
who
respectfully
disagree
with
me
and
and
that's
fine,
but
just
because
there
is
a
closed
disciplinary
case
does
not
mean
that
the
criminal
case
is
closed
and
that
can
lead
to
a
whole
lot
of
trouble
with
our
state
attorney
with
courts.
Etc
that
I
don't
think
it
is
our
intent
to
go
there.
So
that's
the
real
dispositive
issue
for
me
with
regards
to
the
subpoena
power
again,
the
attorney
glad
to
support
it
seconded
Etc,
I.
J
D
D
E
Yeah,
first
of
all,
this
is
not
it.
This
is
not
a
change.
It's
in
section,
2.14
I
read
it
out
already.
We
already
have
subpoena
power
and
we
can
delegate
it
to
our
30..
We
we,
if
we
get
a
correct
interpretation
by
a
City
attorney.
We
don't
need
to
add
this,
but
because
of
an
incorrect
interpretation
in
the
past
by
a
former
City
attorney.
We
have
to
have
this
to
try
to
clarify
that
we
can
do
this
based
on
the
charter
as
it
is.
We
can.
E
We
can
delegate
this
already,
but
because
of
the
incorrect
thing
we
need
to,
we
need
to
have
it.
The
other
thing
I
should
say
is
that
to
any
of
the
police
officers
watching
we
had
some
in
the
room
earlier
today
to
any
of
them
watching
I
I.
Think,
unlike
my
colleagues,
I
did
not
have
the
PBA
support
me,
but
I've
supported
them.
100
and
I
supported
the
police
officers
100
when
they
asked
for
pay
raises.
E
When
we
had
150
people
in
the
room
saying
we
need
to
cut
the
police
budget,
I
agreed
with
everybody
else
to
increase
it,
and
we
got
a
lot
of
flack
for
that.
But
we
did
it
because
we
wanted
to
support
the
good
police
officers
out
there
and
I
think
99.9
percent
of
them
are
good.
There
are
some.
There
are
some
bad
leaders
in
the
past,
there's
some
bad
mayors
that
have
given
policies
that
have
even
caused
us
to
go
under
civil
rights.
E
Investigation
like
we
are
right
now,
but
but
99.9
percent
of
the
police
officers
out
there
have
defended
us
and
and
protected
us,
but
of
the
.01
or
whatever
it
is.
E
We
need
to
make
sure
we
do
everything
to
get
them
off
the
streets
and
to
make
sure
that
they're
scrutinized
carefully
and
I
mentioned
publicly
examples
of
that
before
I
also
voted
to
separate
the
the
health
insurance
a
couple
years
ago
and
I
also
voted
to
give
pay
increases
not
to
just
the
police
but
to
all
employees
and
and
so
with
that
the
union
or
individual
police
officers
may
be
upset
with
us.
I
think
someone's
one
of
the
people,
my
my
aide
met
with
said
this
might
hurt
morale.
E
It
shouldn't
hurt
morale
for
anybody
who's
doing
the
right
thing.
People
who
do
the
right
thing
should
should
not
face
any
kind
of
problems.
If,
if
there's
objective
analysis-
and
the
last
thing
I'll
say,
is
that
when
we
discussed
this
before
people
have
said
to
us.
E
Well,
you
should
trust
the
mayor,
because
she's,
a
former
police
chief
and
her
and
her
chief
of
staff
is
a
former
deputy
police
chief
guess
what,
in
the
last
three
years
getting
the
budget
increase,
getting
the
the
police
chief,
the
mayor,
wanted
getting
all
the
budget
increases
that
the
mayor
wanted.
The
former
police
chief
still
has
the
highest
CR
one
of
the
highest
crime,
violent
crime
rates
in
the
country.
E
It's
because
of
bad
policies
in
the
past
and
I
would
argue
that
policies
like
like
biking
while
black
and
renting,
while
black,
have
led
to
a
feeling
of
Oppression
the
community
and
hopelessness
that
leads
people
to
want
to
to
have
to
feel
like
their
only
choice
is
crime
and
we
have
to.
We
have
to
address
the
underlying
issues,
and
nobody
in
this
Administration
have
been
willing
to
address
those
at
all.
We
do
have
a
new
head
of
Economic,
Development
I
think
is,
is
interested
in
it,
but
we
can't
we.
E
The
solution
is
absolutely
we
need
to
support
our
police
officers,
but
we
need
to
support
our
community
as
well,
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
people
are
unfairly
treated
are
are
protected
and
there
have
been
some
really
bad
cases
even
in
the
last
few
months,
and
no
big
public
investigation
is
no
big
press
conferences
say
how
horrible
it
is,
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
that
our
public
feels
protected
and
the
the
police
that
are
doing
the
right
thing.
They
need
to
be
protect
as
well.
E
G
G
We
follow
orders,
we
do
what
we're
told
to
do.
We
may
not
like
it,
but
we
do
what
we're
told
to
do,
because
that's
what
we're
sworn
to
do
always
say.
There's
a
difference
between
a
general
employee
and
a
police
employee
see
you
a
police
employee.
If
a
sergeant
tells
you
to
do
something,
you
just
do
it,
it's
not
a
matter
of
you
ain't
going
to
do
it.
You
just
do
it
you
it's
not
you'll
get
around
to
when
you
want
to
get
around
to
it.
G
Well,
the
citizens
calls
the
sergeant
and
complains,
that's
always
going
to
call
you
over.
It's
going
to
say,
write
me.
A
letter,
see
two
officers
in
the
back.
I
work
with
Ed
write
me
a
letter,
General
employee.
You
know
we
always
talk
about
it.
The
Paradigm
is
totally
different
at
that
place
over
there.
G
You
do
what
you're
told
to
do
and
that's
it
morale
morale
and
it
goes
down
when
we
talk
about
money,
police
officers
like
money
before
morale
goes
down.
There
are
a
lot
of
policies
that
come
out
that
I
didn't
like
you
didn't
like
it,
you
didn't
do
it.
You
took
the
consequences
or
you
move
on,
but
again
morale
usually
comes
with
money
and
again
I
sell
you
with.
G
When
policies
come
out
a
lot
of
times,
police
officers
hate
change
sometimes,
but
when
it
comes
down
you
you
get
through
the
first
couple
of
weeks
and
after
that
it's
gone,
it's
just
what
the
policy
is,
what
you
got
to
do,
what
you
got
to
do
you
do
your
job,
you
know
it's
not
and
I
love
my
union
friends,
but
the
police
department
is
not
the
Union's
police
department.
They
support
the
the
officers
for
investigations
and
things
that
might
be
wrong
in
the
department.
G
I
said
yeah.
Well,
you
know
that's
the
part
of
the
process,
but,
as
you
remember,
that
was
a
tough
day.
It
was
a
tough
day
that
was
a
Swing
Vote
that
day
and
what
what
the
police,
with
the
merry
way.
If
you
recall
and
then
I
asked
several
my
councilman
I
said,
listen
me
being
the
new
chairman.
I
know
you
guys
didn't
agree
at
that
time.
But
would
you
just
stand
with
me?
G
G
G
G
He
said
there
were
not
a
lot
of
issues.
You
know
he
said
that
the
police
department
was
cooperative.
He
said
to
all
those
things,
but
he
said
that
his
body
decided
to
vote
for
what
the
people
said
they
wanted
and
for
the
voters
to
decide
and
what
wanted
they
wanted.
Counsel
to
give
their
blessings
to
send
it
to
the
voters
and
let
the
voters
decide.
G
I
met
with
the
chief
and
Miss
Newcomb,
her
attorney,
and
they
told
me,
and
we
talked
and
I
told
I
was
going
to
make
phone
calls
to
talk
to
people
and
I
called
down
in
Miami,
talked
to
some
friends
down.
There
call
my
good
friend
over
in
Broward,
commissioner.
Over
there
talk
to
them
about
how
their
boards
work,
they
told
me
they
haven't,
had
any
difficulties.
Any
problems,
no
problems
at
all
people,
know
the
process,
but
right
now,
I
have
to
decide
on
well
I,
don't
decide
because
I
don't
care
about
an
endorsement
or
I.
G
G
I
have
to
think
about
that
I
can't
be
afraid
of
of
a
decision.
I
never
have
never
will
be
so
I'll
sit
back
and
listen
to
the
councilman's
comments,
but
in
my
mind,
a
person
of
that
board
spoke
a
year
back.
G
I
Heard
and
we've
been
hearing
citizens
asking
for
transparency,
you
know
I
agree
with
Mr
Carlson
I
haven't
been
on
as
long
as
you
have,
but
I
have
supported
the
police
in
everything.
They've
asked
for
didn't.
Even
look
through
the
budget.
Looked
good
to
me,
honestly.
I
think
we
should
pay
our
officers
more
when
you
pay
officers
more.
It
goes
back
to
my
my
job
as
a
teacher.
When
I
was
a
teacher,
you
know
everybody
hates
you,
everybody
thinks
teachers
are
terrible,
except
for
their
kids
teacher.
I
They
loved
us,
they
loved
the
school,
but
all
the
others
are
terrible,
and
so
that
does
affect
morale.
But
you
know
what
you
got
into
so
when
I
was
a
teacher,
the
worst
was
going
to
a
cocktail
party
and
someone
would
say:
oh
what
do
you
do
and
you
said
I'd
say:
oh
I'm,
a
third
grade
teacher
and
they
would
just
like
start
to
look
at
you
like.
Oh
you
sweet
little
thing,
and
that
happened
all
the
time.
You
know
they
could
didn't
think
they
could
have
a
substantive
conversation
with
me.
I
I
just
finished
the
police
academy,
which
was
awesome
and
by
the
way,
I
recommend
it
to
everyone,
regardless
of
how
people
feel
I
think
it
was
incredibly
valuable.
I
learned
a
lot
that
I
didn't
know
before,
but
in
that
one
of
the
one
of
the
officers
mentioned
the
fact
that
she
doesn't
talk
about
what
she
does
when
she
goes
to
the
gym
she
kind
of
works
out
by
herself
because
she
doesn't
want
to
have
to
mention
it.
I
have
been
in
those
shoes,
I
knew
exactly
what
she
means
and
I
I.
Think.
I
That's
sad
I
think
that's
unfortunate,
but
we
all
sign
up
to
do
a
job
and
we
know
we're
I
mean
I
hate
to
say
it.
We
know
we're
going
to
be
criticized
when
I
became
a
teacher,
I
knew
I
was
going
to
be
criticized,
but
I
still
wanted
to
work
for
the
for
the
public
and
do
the
job
that
that
that
I
felt
passionate
about
and
I
know.
All
of
our
office
feel
passionate
about
after
I
got
appointed.
I
My
very
first
stop
was
the
union
office
I,
don't
know
that
they
have
any
more
support
for
me
now
than
they
did
then.
But
you
know
I'll
have
that
discussion,
I,
don't
mind.
I'll
talk
to
anybody
who
wants
to
talk
to
me
about
any
issue.
I
You
know
in
talking
to
several
people
within
the
administration.
I
got
someone
to
say
that
they
agreed
that
nothing
would
really
change
with
this.
Like
it's,
it's
really
a
morale
issue
and
I
I.
Just
for
me
the
fact
that
nothing
would
change
kinda
sways
a
bit
also.
The
fact
that
you
know
I
do
appreciate
that
the
crb
voted
that
they
would
like
to
see
on
the
ballot
as
well,
but
I
wanna.
I
E
One
more
quick
thing:
you
know:
we
talked
about
body,
worn
cameras,
the
folks
who
wanted
to
protect
the
public,
wanted
them
and
the
police
wanted
them.
Why?
Because
it
has
proof
if
somebody
alleges
that
a
police
officer
did
something
bad,
it
has
proof
one
way
or
the
other
and
we've
had
to
tweet
that
from
time
to
time.
But
in
the
case
that
somebody
alleges
that
a
police
officer
did
something
badly
and
the
body
worn
camera
doesn't
pick
it
up.
E
E
Why
would
why
would
we
not
want
the
crb
to
have
all
the
information
available
and
so
I
think,
even
though
right
now,
some
of
the
police
officers
are
against
it
I
think
it
will
as
much
protect
them
as
it
as
it
could
potentially
hurt
them,
but
as
long
as
they're
staying
out
of
trouble,
then
it
it
shouldn't
cause
a
problem
at
all.
Thank
you.
L
You
very
much
and
I
appreciate
all
the
comments
and
councilmember
brought
up
a
couple
of
issues
regarding
closed
cases
and
open
investigations.
On
the
other
end,
I
have
concerns
with
Fourth
Amendment
rights.
What,
if
somebody
doesn't
want
to
hand
over
footage?
Should
they
have
that?
What
if
something
takes
place
in
a
condo
or
an
apartment,
complex
is
everybody's
ring.
Doorbell
footage
get
subpoenaed
what?
If
people
don't
want
to
cooperate
or
hand
over
the
footage,
do
they
get
charged
with
what
is
it
contempt
or
whatever
it
is?
L
When
they're,
not
handing
over
information,
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
those
answers.
I
know,
judge
salsina's
was
here
earlier,
discuss
further
topics
and
further
talking
points
of
the
State
Attorney,
a
grand
jury
through
the
county
getting
involved.
If
there
is
a
bigger
case,
how
that
board
can
look
at
cases
or
remand
them
somewhere
else?
L
Will
it
change
anything
The
subpoena
power?
One
gentleman
mentioned
that
in
another
County
it
was
used
in
2009
and
2015
twice.
So
we
could
ask
the
question:
well,
what
is
everybody
so
afraid
of,
but
at
the
same
time,
is
it
necessary
to
have
you
know?
The
board
is
looking
at
closed
cases,
I've
sat
in
on
several
crb
meetings,
one
most
recently
that
I
just
observed
I
I
sat
quietly
and
I
watched.
But
again
you
know
I
brought
up
the
time
that
I've
been
here.
L
I
was
here
to
vote
for
that
for
to
be
created.
I
was
here
in
speaking
with
mayor
Buckhorn
and
trying
to
to
come
to
an
agreement,
because
we
were
at
a
stalemate
back
and
forth
between
Council
and
the
mayor
for
that
boy
to
be
created,
then,
most
recently
and
councilmember
goods
talked
about
cooperation
between
the
council
and
the
mayor's
office
and
signing
their
agreement.
You
know
we've
made
advances.
My
question
is,
you
know:
does
the
subpoena
power
truly
make
a
difference?
L
Is
it
absolutely
necessary,
considering
that
they're
looking
at
closed
cases,
considering
everything
else,
I've
said
what?
If
people
don't
want
to
hand
over
that
footage?
Should
they
have
anything
you
know,
then?
What
is
it
absolutely
necessary?
Is
the
police
department
doing
enough
of
a
good
job
in
internal
investigations?
I,
don't
know
some
people
might
say.
Yes,
some
people
might
say
no,
but
you
know
again:
I
I
Echo
the
concerns
primarily
what
council
member
Vieira
mentioned
regarding
it
could
be
a
closed
case.
It
could
be
active
somewhere
else.
D
I
I
I
But
yet,
but
you
have
the
power
yeah
yeah.
So
that's
what
I
mean.
That's
that's
kind
of
the
issue
of
okay.
This
is
seems
like
a
big,
her
fluffle
about
something
that
just
the
board
could
could
have
if
they
need,
but
really
I
I
keep
coming
back
to
the
fact
that
that
gentleman
came
up
this
morning
and
said
that
the
board
itself
voted
to
send
it
to
the
voters.
F
This
is
a
difficult
one,
you're
looking
at
what's
going
on
in
America
today
regarding
anything
regarding
law
enforcement,
it's
a
sad
situation
was
happening
throughout
the
whole
country
on
both
sides
and
it's
time
that
we
step
up
and
and
do
our
due
diligence
ourselves.
We
have
subpoena
power.
This
counselor
has
to
be
in
power
and
I,
don't
believe
personally
that
it
should
be
given
to
another
board
that
was
never
elected
or
Not
Elected
to
that
kind.
A
F
A
situation
that,
if
you
limited
immunity
or
something
like
that,
that
is
bothersome,
because
if
somebody
just
have
limited,
muted
and
it
goes
to
court-
and
you
can't
do
anything
what's
the
sense
of
doing
it
unless
you
really
understand
what's
going
on
so
the
powers
of
of
subpoenas
are
to
where
the
judges,
the
state
attorney
the
prosecutor,
the
policing,
the.
A
F
Or
something
like
that,
and
it's
it's
a
very
delicate
and
situation
that
you
should
have
respect
at
all
times
and
to
give
that
Authority
away
not
a
way.
I
shouldn't
say
that
that
way,
to
give
that
Authority
and
and
be
responsible
for
somebody
else's,
what
they're
intended
to
do
with
it?
I'm
not
going
to
take
that
risk,
I,
believe
law
enforcement
on
both
sides
under
judicial
and
the
police
officers,
the
sheriff's
department
and
so
forth,
and
so
on
are
doing
the
best
they
can
with
what
they
have
today.
F
America
Has
Changed
and
it
hasn't
been
for
the
best
all
of
us
have
changed.
We
have
a
country
now
where
somebody
said
I
could
do
this
and
do
this
and
that
nobody's
going
to
do
anything
to
me.
That's
without
mentioning
names
or
doing
whatever,
and
since
then
it's
been
an
increase
in
crime,
brilliant
killings,
I
should
say
in
America,
so
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
cause
guns
are
certainly
part
of
it.
F
People
that,
for
whatever
reason,
there's
more
murders
today
in
America
than
ever
before,
we
used
to
look
at
the
country
in
Central
and
South
America
and
say:
look
at
them
yo-yos
now,
they're,
looking
at
us
saying
what's
wrong
with
them,
we're
becoming
something
we
don't
want
to
be,
and
it
has
just
gotten
to
the
point
that
somebody's
got
to
take
responsibility
and
it's
harder
and
harder
to
get
anyone
to
become
a
police
officer
in
this
country.
G
Well,
there
you
have
there's
no
need
to
Relentless
wait
around.
We
need
to
go
ahead
and
just
take
the
vote.
Unfortunately,
I
serve
a
district.
That
depends
on
me
to
vote
my
conscience
depending
on
me
to
do
the
right
thing.
I
had
a
gentleman
come
here
today,
who's
the
chairman
of
the
board
that
board
we
entrusted
to
do
the
right
thing.
We
gave
them
rules
and
regulations
to
come
back
here
within
a
year
to
tell
us
what
they
felt
they
needed,
what
they
didn't
need
it
they
came
today.
The
chairman
came
today.
G
He
told
me
he
was
going
to
come,
so
we've
done
that
board
of
disservice.
In
my
opinion,
we
can't
be
afraid
of
the
unknown
I'm,
not
afraid
of
the
unknown,
but
I
will
say
that
it
will
not
pass
the
day
to
the
voters
but
I'm
going
to
support
it,
because
that
board
worked
hard
and
went
through
all
the
scrutiny
and
they
worked
hard
over
a
year
and
they
were
given
a
task
and
they
came
back
and
gave
us
their
opinion
for
the
their
yearly
evaluation,
and
that
was
a
62,
so
I
will
be
supported.
G
D
D
We
have
item
three
and
four:
how
did
you
want
to
proceed
on
that?
Actually,
my
role
as
the
facilitator
could
include
that,
but
nevertheless,
mine
had
to
do
more
specifically
with
walking
through
the
elements
of
the
charter
and
Mr
Shelby's
document
number
three:
is
the
council
to
discuss
the
charter
amendments
to
include
discussion
on
the
possibility
of
an
attorney
representing
the
position
of
the
mayor?
D
B
B
E
B
I
Miss
her
attack
before
we
go
any
further
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
so
much
for
coming
today.
This
has
been
a
calm
as
meaning
as
we've
had
in
quite
some
time,
so
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
that.
I
really
appreciate
it.
F
D
Thank
you
invitation
accepted,
so
let's
spend
just
a
few
minutes.
We
have
next
steps.
If
you
look
up
on
the
screen,
here's
what
we
are
looking
to
to
do
that
the
note
taker
threw
out.
We
also
had
more
than
one
note
taker
with
the
idea
of
getting
your
comments
and
making
sure
that
you
get
a
full
report,
so
those
that
did
pass.
We
want
to
be
able
to
present
the
ballot
language
recommendations
to
The
Chair
by
November
18th.
Does
that
work.
M
I
D
B
H
E
Agree
that
it
would
be
an
outside
attorney,
who
would
work
with
the
city
attorney
and
city
council
attorney
and
so
the
city
of
turning
it
off
offered
us
from
the
pre-approved
list.
So
we
we
don't
have
the
list
here
unless
City
attorney
has
it.
So
we
just
need
to
pick
go
through
the
list
and
pick
one
correct.
I
I
only
think
we
have
two
things
that
pass
to
begin
with.
Yes,.
D
I
No
I
think
I
mean
I.
Think
two
weeks
is
plenty
of
time
to
do
that
to
at
least
get
a
decent
thing.
H
I
I
I
mean
Council
our
city
council
Shelby.
Just
to
remind
you,
we
only
chose.
We
only
forwarded
two
things,
so
yeah
only
two
things:
four.
I
So
we're
not
talking
like
a
giant
so
choosing
the
outside
Council.
We
should
be
able
to
do
that
this
Thursday
and
then
move
on.
We.
J
Sure
I
was
going
to
say,
I
mean
if
we're
looking
at
something
within
a
week.
Maybe
we
can
delegate
to
our
city
council
attorney
Mr
Shelby
to
take
a
look
at
the
list,
find
some
attorneys
from
that
list
that
he
would
find
appropriate
and
proper
just
to
expedite
the
process.
So
we
don't
have
to
look
at
a
huge
list
of
10
15
law
firms.
Second,.
E
M
M
E
H
G
A
M
Each
contract
did
have
a
built-in
100
000
cap,
but
that
didn't
mean
that
you
approved
100
000
per
Law
Firm.
Our
internal
budget
for
outside
attorneys
is
almost
exhausted
for
the
year
2023
already,
because
we
had
a
lot
of
carryover
bills
from
2022.
M
M
G
G
L
An
election
appropriation
in
anticipation
of
that
okay.
G
A
H
I
H
A
question
with
regard
to
the
attorney
that
and
Ms
zelman
with
regard
to
the
list
and
the
like
that,
would
have
to
come
back
Thursday
too,
so
that.
G
Would
leave
tomorrow?
No
the
money,
man,
don't
know
what
what
it'll
cost
us,
whoever
it
was
an
idea.
J
I
I
agree
to
that,
but
also
on
something
like
this
evening.
More
public
is
available
and
the
thought
being
really
to
make
it
as
available
to
the
public
as
possible.
I,
don't
think
our
calendar
has
how
many
items
are
on
the
evening
agenda
of
what
day,
December.
A
H
I
Some
text
amendments
and
a
few
other
things,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
else
we
have,
because
it's
not
the
calendar,
isn't
really
clear.
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
who's
listening
who
works
in
that
division
could
help
us
out,
but.
I
J
J
We
come
back
here
on
Thursday
to
report,
to
us
on
Thursday
on
dates
and
and
I
say
if
we
have
to
do
December
1st
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
just
tasking
Mr
Shelby,
looking
at
the
calendar
for
potential
those
are
you
you're
staring
at,
but
I'm
joking.
H
E
H
E
E
D
D
E
Like
to
make
a
motion
to
ask
city,
council,
member
sorry,
city
city,
council,
attorney,
Shelby
and
City
attorney
Zellman
to
report
to
us
on
Thursday
as
to
which
attorney
they
recommend
that
we
that
we
work
with
to
edit
the
language
good.