The Pensacola City Council is doing a charter “checkup” tomorrow without any input from the Charter Review Commission chair Crystal Spencer or any of the experts who helped draft the document. The charter review process took 18 months. It is probably the most thoroughly researched, studied and openly debated document in the city’s history.
After the final draft was presented to the city council in July 2009, the City hired Mary Crotty to review the document and help the commission fine-tune it. The council approved the revised charter and approved a referendum.
The charter passed by a nearly 10-point margin.
In 2010, Pensacola voters had a choice between keeping the status quo by re-electing Mike Wiggins as mayor who pledged to keep all the same staff and do pretty much the same as always or elect a newcomer, Ashton Hayward, who pledged to change how the city operated. The voters elected Hayward as their first strong mayor.
The IN asked Charter Commission chair Crystal Spencer for her notes on how the charter came about. Spencer, whose husband was elected to the council in 2010, told the IN that there is no “balance of power” between the city council and the mayor. Her commission and its final charter document made it very clear that the mayor runs the city.
Here are the notes from the August 2009 meeting with Crotty and the September 2009 council meeting:
August 19, 2009
– CRC reconvened for the purpose of consideration of all suggestions for Charter amendment received from City Council meeting of August 11, 2009. Many of the changes were minor clerical or administrative changes or typographical corrections, and were accepted without objection unanimously.
– During the discussions, input was accepted from the following members of the public in attendance:
o William S. Cummings
o Debra Nelson
o Derek Cosson
o Dan Lozier
o Travis Peterson
o Jack Van Art
o Sam Hall
CRC accepted the following such changes without much discussion and without objection:
• Clarification of Mayor’s position
• Clarification of City Attorney position
• Move City Clerk position to a separate line
• Reword the term “just causeâ€
• Clarification of budget veto language
The following items were more thoroughly discussed and either accepted unanimously or voted on if indicated:
• Mayor’s veto power over ordinances and resolutions. The word resolutions to be deleted, and only show veto power of ordinances.
o Vote taken to accept, passed 9-1, Mr. Holmes opposed
• As recommended by Ms. Crotty, change power to establish organization of city government from City Council function to Mayoral function.
o Vote taken to accept, passed 9-1, Mr. Horton opposed
Editor’s Note: This vote makes it very clear that the organization of city government would no longer be a City Council function, but under the power of the mayor.
• Vacancy in Mayor’s position changed from being filled by the Chief Administrative Officer, to being filled by the president of the City Council.
o Accepted unanimously
• As recommended by Ms. Crotty, powers to conduct investigations should be a function of the City Council, and not also the Mayor.
o Accepted unanimously
• As recommended by Ms. Crotty, salaries of elected positions should be set by ordinance, and not in the annual budget
o Accepted unanimously
• Private employment of Council and Mayor discussed. Decision made to add the word “elected†before position in both Council and Mayor prohibition against holding other office.
o Accepted unanimously
• City Council and Mayor position prohibitions against holding other positions. The word “elected†was added to specifically prohibit holding other “elected positions†while a council member or Mayor.
o Accepted unanimously
• Extensive discussion regarding full-time position definitions of the Mayor’s position. The word “public†before employment was struck to leave the prohibition against other employment without a modifier
o Accepted unanimously
• Per Ms. Crotty and others, City Council meetings were changed to once per month in the Charter.
o Accepted unanimously
• Council voting procedures were reviewed as recommended by the City Attorney. After a lengthy discussion including public input, it was decided that no change would be made in the draft charter.
• CRC held a lengthy discussion regarding residency requirements for all elected and appointed positions. CRC then entertained a motion to remove residency requirements for the City Clerk, City Attorney, CAO, and all department heads:
o Vote taken, motion passed 7-3, Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Prim and Mr. Horton opposed
• Per recommendation from City Attorney, the words, “City Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor†were added
o Accepted unanimously
• Under definitions of CAO position, the words “Management experience in municipal government†were struck.
o Accepted unanimously
• Clarified that the City Attorney may be removed with the concurrence of the City Council
o Accepted unanimously
• Clarified definition of “Ideal District populationâ€
o Accepted unanimously
• Ms. Stopp gave explanation of new language added as paragraph 6.08 (b) regarding redistricting. Language added came primarily from the Model Charter.
o Accepted unanimously
• Under paragraph 7.03 regarding referendum, the word “measure†is inserted
o Accepted unanimously
• Per Ms. Crotty, under paragraph 7.05, percent of voters is changed from 15% to 10%. Motion is entertained to accept all of paragraph 7.05 as re-written.
o Vote taken, passed 8-2, Ms. Ritchie, Mr. Hinson opposed
• Per recommendations received from citizen input, the time periods for the referendum processes were reduced.
o Accepted unanimously
• CRC held discussions about the effective date of Charter implementation.
• Since no substantive recommendations had been received for Article 8 of the draft, CRC made no changes in Article 8.
• Article 9, paragraphs 9.01 and 9.02 were discussed. Per Ms. Crotty, Charter Review Commissions should ideally have an odd number of members.
o Accepted unanimously
• Article 10, per Mr. Wells, improved language in paragraph regarding discrimination to be more legally precise.
o Accepted unanimously
This concluded discussions and actions on the referred draft Charter.
Next item on the August 19, 2009 Agenda was: At Large Members
– Mr. Holmes moved to add two (2) At-Large positions to the City Council, motion was seconded by Dr. Ranelli. A lengthy discussion ensued with participation of most CRC members and members of the public.
Vote taken and motion passed 7-3. Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Horton and Mr. Hinson opposed.
– Mr. Reeves then moved to adopt the draft Charter as modified and submit to City Council for their action:
Vote taken and motion passed 8-2. Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Horton opposed.
Meeting adjourned.
City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
September 2, 2009
Purpose of this meeting was to review the finalized draft charter as resubmitted by the Charter Review Commission. City Council once again utilized the services of an independent reviewer, Ms. Marilyn Crotty.
Ms. Crotty: The CRC has done an excellent job of taking all of the input from the various sources and addressing those suggestions and concerns that had been raised, and incorporating those into the latest draft.
Ms. Crotty recommended accepting the whole of Article 1 and Article 2 as submitted. Council concurred.
Ms. Crotty noted the changes to Article 3 with objection. Council concurred.
Ms. Crotty raised concerns regarding Mayor’s authority to hire/remove a CAO without Council approval. A very lengthy discussion ensued with a great deal of public input. Council decided to resolve with a formal vote. Vote was taken on a motion to keep the language as written in the draft charter. Vote taken, motion passed 5-4 to keep the language as written in the draft charter, granting the Mayor the authority to hire and remove the CAO without Council approval.
Ms. Crotty suggested breaking out the City Clerk position to a separate line in the draft. Unanimous agreement by all parties.
Ms. Crotty noted that veto power of Mayor is for Ordinances and Resolutions.
She noted that the previous issue she had with Mayoral vacancy had been taken care of, no further action necessary.
She noted that the issue of setting salaries by ordinance vice in the Charter had also been resolved, and that some language would be added to indicate that salary increases would only take effect upon the following election. Unanimous agreement by all parties.
She noted that the issue of conducting investigations had also been resolved appropriately and removed from the Mayor’s function.
She suggested typographical corrections in paragraph 4.02(a)(4), should read, “override ordinances and/or resolutions.†Unanimous agreement. Also, with a change in number of Council members, the number required to override a veto will also change to reflect a super majority, or six (6) votes. Unanimous agreement.
She recommended that the time City Council has to fill a vacancy be changed from 10 days to 30 days. Unanimous agreement by all parties.
She suggested removing the ability of the CAO to call special meetings of the Council. Unanimous agreement by all parties.
She suggested changing the number of Council members required to call a special meeting from 5 to 3. Unanimous agreement by all parties. City attorney agreed to clarify the definition of an emergency meeting.
Under Article 5, Ms. Crotty made one typographical change.
Under Article 6, a general discussion ensued over who had the responsibility for checking potential elective candidates qualifications for the office being sought. It was decided to place that responsibility with the City Clerk, with appropriate language added to the draft to reflect that change. Unanimous agreement by all parties.
For the redistricting commission, Ms. Crotty suggested having the commission comprised of 7 members, one appointed by the Council from each of the seven districts. Unanimous agreement by all parties.
Under paragraph 6.08(e)(1) and 6.08(e)(4), language is changed to indicate “non-partisanâ€, and all language referring to political parties is removed. Unanimous agreement.
Article 7 is discussed at length, with emphasis on the limitations contained in the draft charter regarding Initiative and Referendum. Ms. Crotty notes that the CRC have presented a “very thoughtful process.†Limitations are to remain as submitted by the CRC. The word “ordinance†is changed to “measure.†Unanimous agreement.
Paragraph 7.06 is changed to reflect that the “City Clerk will transmit the petition package to the Supervisor of Elections within three (3) business days. Unanimous agreement.
Ms. Crotty recommends that Article 8 be re-numbered to become Article 10, as those are normally the last items addressed in a charter. Unanimous agreement.
Article 9. Ms. Crotty suggests changing the year of the first Charter Review to be conducted under the draft Charter from 2021, to 2022 in order to avoid the necessity of holding special elections. Unanimous agreement.
She also recommended changing the language describing the task of the CRC from reviewing the “operation of the city government†to reviewing “the City Charter.†Unanimous agreement.
Ms. Crotty once again congratulated the Charter Review Commission on having done, “…a very good job.â€
Ms. Crotty then offered her thinking on different options for presenting the proposed changes at the ballot box. Council made no decisions on those proposals.
Diane Mack moved to send the amended draft charter to the voters. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned.