Though the Pensacola City Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency are, by their own rules, to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, rarely does it really happen. I reviewed the video of the CRA’s Sept. 19 meeting to see if they voted to draft an alternative interlocal agreement regarding the City’s management of the CRA and did they vote on the changes they wanted to the agreement.
Only two CRA members expressed concerns over the interlocal agreement proposed by Mayor Ashton Hayward –Megan Pratt and Sherri Myers. P.C. Wu, Sam Hall, Larry Johnson and Brian Spencer supported Hayward’s proposal. There was little or no comments from the other CRA members.
The motion that Myers made at the 19:25 point was to extend the three current interlocal agreements for 30 days to give the CRA attorney (Doug Sale) time to “weigh in on our concerns.” However, the only concerns expressed were by her and Pratt. The motion was not to draft an alternative agreement.
From the discussion, it appears Myers intended for Sale to come to the next meeting and give legal opinions on the points raised primarily by her and Pratt.
Sam Hall discusses a possible alternative motion that would approve Hayward’s proposal with a 90-day limit. Myers resisted. Johnson asked for a compromise for 60 days. All agreed verbally to those changes. Pratt throws in the she hopes that they will look in 60 days at some of the alternative language that is being proposed—however, it wasn’t part of the original or substitute motions. The board never voted on the alternative language and the entire board never discussed it.
Pratt and Bray again talk about offering alternative language. Myers pushes for the CRA director/administrator to be the CRA board’s employee. No motions are made. No votes taken. However, Hall does suggest Pratt talk with the Sale about her ideas.
Pratt says that it makes sense to have Ms. Bray talk with Sale and look a few options to bring back. There is no mention or vote on what options Sales will review. They aren’t even read into the minutes of the meeting so that public would know what they are. Pratt suggests Sale present the new language to the Mayor and then bring to the CRA board. There is no vote on what she proposed or this process.
Note: Only Pratt and Bray were given access to Sale. Myers, the main opponent to mayor’s proposal, didn’t talk with Sale.
The CRA votes on a motion, but then needs clarification on what it voted for. Pratt restates the motion that it is to approve the agreement proposed by Hayward and that it is only valid for 60 days. There is nothing in the motion about consulting with Sale further or drafting an alternative agreement.
It was a very poorly run meeting, very odd way to conduct business.
Here is the video for the entire meeting:
You judge for yourself what was the intention of the majority of the CRA board. I don’t see any authorization to draft a new agreement. I do see a vocal minority dominating the discussion but that failed to get clear support from its peers.
Clearly Pratt had something she wanted done, but she didn’t ask for a vote to proceed with it. Bray should have pushed for more clarity or pointed out to Pratt that CRA vote didn’t approve drafting an alternative agreement, didn’t really even approve using Sale any further on the issue.