Good morning, everyone, and um I'm Marita Davis Johnson, chair of the ops committee, and I must apologize to everyone for being a little late getting started this morning.

But um my um commissioners that serve on the committee with me is Commissioner uh Ladina Bolton and also Commissioner Robert Patrick.

And uh with that said, um we're going to begin our meeting.

And we also have um Commissioner Ted Terry here with us today.

So welcome.

Okay, so uh with that, we're going to these special call meetings that we have.

We discuss the first 30 minutes, we discussed the charter review, and afterwards we we will discuss uh standing procedure rules, and we alternate that at each committee meeting.

So with that said, uh John uh Madison will be will help us begin our discussion today.

Good morning, commissioners.

Um today we're going to begin with charter review.

You have two documents for charter review.

You have the memo from the law department and then a copy of the charter review itself, a red line copy of the charter review.

So we're going to begin on page 12 of the memo and page 23 of the red line version.

So page 12, we start with, and what we're doing today is going over section four of the memo, which is CRC Charter Review Commission recommended changes that may or may not need state action, depending on final language.

Um the law department recommended that we uh adjudicate these items first so that we could understand exactly what we needed to send to the state delegation.

Um so that starts with section nine powers and duties of the commission.

Um is again on page 23 of the red line, page 12 of the memo.

The substantive changes uh recommended by the Charter Review Commission are clarified.

The planning and zoning ordinances must have an affirmative vote from either the district or the superdistrict commissioner where the subject property is located.

Uh, it also changed the maximum penalty for ordinance violation to comport with state law and simplify it subsection 18 regarding fixing, levying, and assessing license fees and taxes.

Um as far as the changes, the main change here relates to courtesy and changes the requirement for pre-approval to a requirement that the district or super district commissioner vote for a zoning item in order for it to become effective.

This can likely be considered a cleanup item.

Uh former CEO Thurman supported this change.

Current CEO Cochrane Johnson uh seems to be indifferent, but does request clarification on the language.

So, and just to to frame the discussion a little bit, remember that we're looking at two questions.

One, whether you all can act on a particular item within your home rule powers, and then if not, if it is going to take state legislative action, is it at the level that will also require a referendum?

Okay, that generally turns on whether it affects powers within the commission.

And so the the section that we're talking about today, section four, are where um cleanup items were requested by the Charter Review Commission.

But in the opinion of the law department, whether or not this affects powers is going to uh be determined by exactly what language is changed, if any.

So I think this first one is a really good example of why we're needing direction from you all before we can determine which path this will follow.

Okay.

So ward courtesy is what we're talking about here.

As we all know, um, the language around ward courtesy that it currently exists in the blue book doesn't match the process that you all actually undertake.

What it says now is that no planning or zoning ordinance shall become effective unless approved prior to consideration and adoption by the governing authority by the member or members of the commission representing the district or super district.

Well, the problem there is what is approved prior to consideration and adoption mean.

You all approve by voting in public.

So how do you approve before you approve, right?

In practice, you all have long simply voted, and the majority follows the will of the district or super district commissioner in most instances.

So the idea here is that we would modernize the language to match the exact process.

So we're clarifying the recommendation from charter review is that it would say no, and I'm on the top of page 24, that no planning or zoning ordinance shall become effective, and here's the new language, without an affirmative vote from either the district or super district commissioner in whose district the subject property is located.

If that's the language you all agree to, I I believe this is simply a cleanup item.

It doesn't switch any powers, it doesn't adjust powers between you all and the CEO.

It truly does change this language to match the practice that has long been used by this board.

So as we go through this section, that's gonna be the question.

How do we want to clarify what have we interpreted it to mean before and what will it mean moving forward?

Right.

Um yeah, I think that um and I'm gonna hear from my commissioners, and then if uh commissioner Terry has a comment.

Um yeah, I'm fine with that.

Uh because the um I'm fine with that change.

Um is it any comments from commissioners?

I think it's reasonable.

Any comments uh okay.

Any comments?

Um yeah, the only comment um is maybe more for section 18, because it's a a lot is being deleted.

And so I'm just wanting to understand if y'all have any thoughts on any unintended consequences because we're removing a lot of verbiage and kind of just shrinking it down to basically a sentence.

So I don't I don't know if that if we're if I'm missing something here.

I mean, this is a a lot of text that's being deleted.

Um, but maybe that's fine.

Um, but just trying to understand Matt if y'all have any okay thoughts on the okay.

Are we okay?

Is that the same section that we're speaking on?

So it's within the same it's within um section nine, but we put section we put provision eighteen in a different category.

So again, we've categorized the changes based on how to do that.

So we're gonna be discussed.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so is that okay, Commissioner T?

Okay, so just comment on the number 10 uh section nine.

Below you'll note so the the third bullet point in section nine says they've simplified the subsection eighteen regarding fixing levying and assessing license fees and taxes, but these all still fit within your powers.

It's not changing any of the powers again in section 18 between you all and the board of commissioners.

It's simply modernizing and condensing this language.

Okay.

Okay, I'm I'm fine with the cleanup language.

I think that's a good point.

Just make sure it's a clear it's a vote.

Okay.

Um so that's fine.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Patrick, you good.

Okay, so we go with that.

Great.

Yes, Commissioner.

Your next section is going to be section 14 on page number 18, though.

Okay, okay, we're we'll we'll get to it.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, the next section would be section 14 on page 13 of the memo, page 31.

Page 31 of the same section.

The red line.

Uh-huh.

Um, and this is concerning uh powers and duties of the chief executive.

Um recommended changes are restated and expanded provision regarding the CEO's management of all internal and external relationships.

Also clarified that the CEO represents the county in all intergovernmental matters.

Um I can't see this.

So the CEO supports this change.

Um, the specific language is at the bottom of page 31 and at the top of page 32 for this section.

So again, these additions, so when you look at the bottom of page 31 of the Charter uh Review Commission's actual recommendations, they add a new section A or subsection A to Section 14, and then add a sentence at the end of Section B.

While these are largely functions that the CEO currently provides or serves, because they are fresh language added out of whole cloth to this section, we do believe that these would be seen as affecting the powers and would likely need referendum.

This could be adjusted, the language could be adjusted to be um potentially within your home rule powers, but again, because there is a full entire new section that asserts uh it's giving power to the CEO, this one most likely would be safest to take through referendum.

But again, what it does clarifies that essentially the CEO represents the county in intergovernmental matters and interfacing with uh folks at other levels of government.

And that is um CEO.

Yeah, and so it's saying now that um expanded the CEO's manager of all internal and external relationships.

Okay.

Okay.

I don't I don't have any problem with that.

Uh Commissioner, um I'm sorry, we have Commissioner Masaya on the Zoom as well, and she does have her hand raised as well.

Okay, okay.

Um thank you, John.

Um thank you.

Hold on, hold on.

Uh Commissioner Savaman I want okay.

I want to first take my members, and then you'll be after our members.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Bolton.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chair.

One of the concerns I have about this is our chief executive is managing relationships with other legislative bodies.

Um I could understand if it was mayors or other chairmen potentially if there are other chief executives, but I I think we should adapt the language with respect to that because we do want to maintain relationships with other legislative bodies just as we are a legislative body.

Okay, can you somewhat explain that?

Uh first of all, uh do you want to respond to what she's saying, Matthew?

These are suggestions we can adjust the language however you choose.

The only if again in this section, how the language is adjusted will determine what path we think we should take forward.

Okay.

So my question is does this prohibit our inactive I interactions with um other legislative bodies?

I wouldn't read it that way, ma'am, but it does seem to indicate that the CEO's team would take the lead, so to speak.

It says they would manage those um conversations and relationships, but it certainly doesn't exclude the board from being a part of those discussions.

Uh-huh.

And so if you can explain exactly what um if you can explain exactly what do you mean by interaction?

I'll use last year's NACO meetings as an example.

Um some of the commissioners, and I and I know that was a new experience, something that in past years hasn't been done, but it was communicated that last year because for example, we were meeting with our congresspersons and and senators and such.

The commissioners weren't given an opportunity to be a part of the planning and adding to that conversation.

CEO took the lead, and we were essentially co-signing what was presented, and this language to me isn't in inclusive of the board.

It says that the CEO manages it, and to me, it looks like we may or may not be a part of the conversation with other legislative bodies, but I think it's important that we are a part of the process, and I don't see that in this language, even if we allow the CEO to lead.

But I think it's important that we are a part of the process, and I don't see that in this language, even if we allow the CEO to lead.

Okay.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, sort of following up with what you said, my question would be what is the context of the word manage?

You know, are we in the junior position or are we at the table engaged with the conversation and too much of uh commissioner Bolton's point, you know, having some influence on the agenda and the dialogue that takes place uh would be a question I'd like to get a little more fleshed out on.

Okay.

The other question I have, um, and again, this goes into managing uh relationships with other county officers and elected officials.

So, how does that impact the Fab Committee's relationship with the uh constitutionals when they come to us to talk about what their budgetary needs are or concerns that they have that are going on?

So that would be some more information I'd like to get on on uh this particular section.

Okay.

Um uh and then Commissioner Terry.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Um, essentially, um my colleagues including Colton has echoed exactly what I've been saying for the last um year and a half as we've been uh contemplating um addressing this matter and particularly after NACO and um also I mean to be quite frank, um, a premise that um I hear and a half um during my election.

Um I am very mindful of where there is a change of delegation of duties um to be quite frank um that specific question that does during my election.

Um I am very mindful of where there is a change of delegation of duties, um to be quite frank, um that specifically that um does during my election to do that is able to communicate and gets along with uh our president CEO, but this is to think ahead for years to come when um we might not be in these seats or likely will not be in these seats, um, and other commissioners are able to communicate.

Okay, um uh commission Massas, and I understand the background and appreciate that.

But if you could give us your recommendation on this so that we can move this forward, we're trying to get uh so we don't have time for long dialogues, but if you could give us your recommendations, and I understand the background we would consider and talk about give us your recommendations on this for that, madam chair.

It would be as it relates to uh external um interactions, particularly those that are within within the legislative term, that that be a function um suited and explicitly the as providing uh for the legislative external government and not to the CEO, with that I yield back to you.

And let me ask you this you're talking about external communications to whom I'm sorry, and powers, so managing the powers where it provides um the powers we're talking about the general assembly when we're talking about our um members of the United States Congress, because it says uh manage external relationships that that should be to the legislators to the commissioners.

I I would expressly say that it should be additionally to the extent that the CEO is involved, that it's not a that should be reverse where legislators have the thought that we are specifically helping to drive policy because that's our responsibility, then there's the of course the engagement because we want to make sure it's not where the CEO is the legislators, but it's not that reverse of what we have today.

But I do believe that it should be within our legislative function, particularly dealing with the legislators, um, our external legislators.

I do.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I would be okay with this language if there was some recognition of the board's adoption of a legislative agenda.

And I think I think what this section is trying to say is yes, the CEO is the head of the government, and so you have to be able to talk with other governments and not have to, you know, go through a committee.

Um, but it could be interpreted as now the board of commissioners doesn't even have a legislative agenda, and that would be sort of usurped.

So whether it's wordsmithing this section or another section that just clarifies, you know, by board action, here's our legislative agenda, state federal, um, and that would allow us agency, you know, if a board approves this policy, this legislation, you know, we we also can quote unquote manage um the efforts that we all agree on in terms of that um board approved resolution.

Okay.

So you're saying that okay.

So last year we did like a joint session with legislations and the governing authority uh to put our legislative agenda together, but it was the commissioners that voted on the legislative agenda.

So are you saying that it should be exclusively, there should not be any input on our legislative agenda from the CEO's office?

Um no, no, I think what I'm saying is um that I think the term manage is a broader thing.

And there's some things that we don't really need to deal with, but um, I don't want to box us out.

Right.

So if there was a way to massage this language, yeah, or in another section, maybe in the commissioner's powers, it's you know, if the governing authority adopts a legislative agenda that gives us the agency to you know advocate for those issues that we all agreed on.

Right.

Okay.

Just following up with what Ted said, that was my question is what's the context of manage?

Okay, where does that where do we fit in into that account?

Okay, just to make sure that's not losing our position.

Do you understand uh the intent and and uh commission masayah is that similar to what you were saying?

It it is, madam chair, it is.

Okay, so yeah, I think I have it.

What I understood from Commissioner Messiah is that uh her preference or her recommendation would be that uh the allowance for you all to communicate with other legislative bodies be maintained, and then from Commissioner Terry, I think that fits right in with the idea we would add a reference in section nine to your ability to adopt um an individual or joint legislative agenda and your ability to pursue those items, and then we could adjust this language uh to allow for that.

Now, those are powers to be clear.

So we're we're talking about things that would take legislative action and likely referendum, but we can certainly uh draft it in that way to allow for the address the concerns you all see in 14A.

So um CEO, do you have any comments?

You could okay.

Okay, well, good.

So we gotta understand on that one.

Okay, uh John, how much time?

We have until we have 10 more minutes.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

Um so just to be.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Uh Commissioner Massaia had a comment.

Okay, uh, Commissioner, very brief.

I I I was just gonna say I'm gonna make it brief.

And to that end, I would like to the extent that we can.

Um, if we're gonna have to um go through um essentially is not uh an ability for us to make these changes.

If it's going to be something we have to go to the Georgia Assembly about, I would like for us as a governing body to be able to identify what that process specifically is in terms of determining what our legislative priorities are.

If it's gonna be something that's driven by um the legislative branch, then fantastic.

In joint and in conjunction with the CEO, then fantastic.

But we identify what the process is, particularly, it'd be great to have a time frame.

Um, who is gonna initiate it, and then what specific priorities that process as to what we actually present and holding ourselves accountable to that because even with again this year, and and I believe there's the same challenge last year, where the CEO um there was, you know, she went ahead and met with the delegation before us, before we had an opportunity, it's been um separate, it's not been something that's been joint, and then we're meeting with, and even there is a general the CAB County Day with the General Assembly that the CEO is managing and marketing without um any of the pictures or even um the names of the board of commissioners.

So I would like to see us identify specifically what this process is gonna be going on.

Okay, okay.

Well, you know, we presented to our state legislat, I mean our state uh delegation a couple of weeks ago, and the CEO was not there.

And of course, that is a function of our presiding officer.

So I think that if our presiding officer coordinate with the CEO, then uh we should be able, and and with the input of the commissioners, yeah, we should be able to iron those issues out.

But our presiding officer represent the board, she's uh presiding officer, and so I think that those are um items that we can discuss with her.

That'd be great.

I just know that there is and I listened to it on the meeting.

Uh no, there was something else that was there was something else that had been added that was outside of or a couple of things that had been added that was outside of what we had determined in our retreat and and follow-up um votes as to the Yeah, well, we we voted on the agenda.

The board voted on the agenda that we would present to our delegation.

And I was there, and I'm sure some other people at this table were there.

And so, what is it in particular that was presented to our delegation that we did not vote on?

Well, um, for one thing, as it relates to the judges, and I had asked, um, speaking of Madame PO, I'd asked um for the language because when I heard that, um, she had, you know, that wasn't something that we had discussed that was within our documents, because I literally was following and hopped on both when the CEO's um delegation meeting um that took place after a special well, during a special call, BAB was called during a special call, BAB, but hopped on, but then also the delegation meeting that we had subsequent to the CEOs.

And with that, I asked for those um points just to understand what had been presented to the delegation.

Um, so asked Madam PO that uh about that.

My understanding is that Dan pres uh provided that had not got a copy yet, but there were additional um priorities that were not discussed or voted on as body.

Okay, you know, there were questions asked that required a response from there was questions as from the delegation that may have required a response, but whatever that response would be would not be part of our um legislative package that we voted and presented to them at our conference with the delegation.

I completely understand that it was mentioned as a talk, but just if we can have the opportunity to clear uh clarify the process, it would be fantastic.

Yeah, it was a couple of things that was even asked.

Uh it was a couple of things that we even asked at the commissioners' uh conference that was not a part of our delegation of our legislative package.

And although we answered or we may have answered some of those questions, it was not part of our legislative agenda that we presented to them.

And I'm seeing then in the back.

So in real time, if someone asks you a question, whether, especially if I representatives asked us a question that may not be a part of our agenda, it doesn't mean that it can't be answered.

No, I get that.

That's not what yeah, that's not what I'm speaking of, but I completely understand that.

Yeah, and go back to you, um, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And good morning, Dan.

I don't know if you've been there all morning or not.

I'm just noticing it.

Okay, so I tell you, uh, Dan, John and uh Matthews doing such a good job.

We have needed you so far.

Okay, John.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, so are we good with those changes that Matthew just talked about?

Yeah, we'll we'll incorporate those.

We'll draft some new language and recirculate.

And if we can just back up for a moment to Commissioner Terry's concern about um section 18, or excuse me, provision 18 of section nine regarding, and and he's right, there's a lot of blue line language here back on page 24 of this report.

Um there's a lot of blue line language there.

But what that is, it's a recitation of the powers you already have under state law.

So what the Charter Review Commission did was consolidate it, and we actually prefer to see this language right as authorized by law that you see at the edit end of the red.

So rather than lay out every power as it exists in the law, which if the state law changes, then we've got conflict.

This just refers to the state law powers.

Okay, just to clarify.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so our next item uh Yes, ma'am.

Your next item will be section 16, Chief Operating Officer.

This is on page 13 of the memo and it starts at the bottom of page 34 of the red line version and moves over to page 35.

Um the changes in this section allow the CEO to delegate to the COO matters concerning the operation, supervision, and administration of departments and agencies within the CEO's authority.

Uh it also remove restrictions of the number of administrators the CEO has the authority to appoint.

Um amendment to add language referring to three deputy COO positions in this section.

If this expands the areas the CEO can delegate or alter the ability to appoint, then it changes the powers and will require state action.

Right.

So specifically here, if you look at page 35 of your charter review uh recommendations, we are talking about sections B and F in Section B.

Uh it already stated that the CEO uh can uh excuse me, that um when directed to do so by the CEO, the COO can exercise essentially all of the CEO's powers.

The Charter Review Commission added the line in red at the end of section B.

It simply lists out some of those powers.

To us, this is a clarification and wouldn't need uh state action, because again, as currently written, the CEO has the ability to delegate essentially any and all of her powers to the COO.

So uh the reason we put it in this section is because if there was a desire to limit what she could delegate, that would of course be a change of powers and would require um a vote.

But again, as recommended here, this isn't a limitation, but simply a recitation of some of the powers that she does have in section B.

Okay.

Section F previously said uh that uh the chief executive should have the power to appoint, remove, and fix the compensation of two administrators to assist uh the COO, the limitation of two has been removed.

Because the CEO already has the power to essentially administer the government, we don't see this as a change of powers necessarily.

Um it does remove a limitation from two to more than two, but arguably she would have had the power to appoint more than two already.

This this would read as a minimum, not a limit to me.

Okay.

So again, if if these are approved as written, we don't believe these would require um referendum or state action.

Okay.

Any comments on that?

Okay.

Well, we good.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, moving right along.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh moving on to section 17, veto power of the chief executive.

This is also on page 35.

Um specific language has been added, making items effective if not vetoed in the specified time.

Eight days.

Uh if this changes the CEO's veto power, then it will require state action.

And madam CEO does not support this change as it is unnecessary.

Okay.

That's always been our interpretation.

Yeah, it's always been our interpretation already that if it wasn't vetoed, it becomes affected by operation of of law.

And uh in my discussions with the CEO, that was also her understanding, and she didn't see this quote unquote clarification as being strictly necessary.

Uh, what is the legal opinion of it?

Well, again, we've always interpreted it, we've always interpreted this section to read this way.

So it would be superfluous language.

Okay.

Um committee.

I just in the notes, it says Madam CEO does not support this change.

Correct.

She doesn't believe it to be necessary.

She doesn't believe the clarification is necessary.

Oh, okay.

And then it might raise questions about what the power was before.

Yeah.

Okay.

No comments on this one for myself.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think that's ahead and then I mean not Commissioner Terry and then Commissioner Massai.

And this will probably be the last one.

We'll be able to.

Okay, so I think they were trying to just clarify that I guess maybe they just felt it didn't quite say for a fact, if it's not vetoed within eight days, it becomes law or adopted.

So but you're saying you've always interpreted it as if it's not done within if the veto isn't executed within eight days, the veto power evaporates and the item becomes law.

That's always been our interpretation.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Massai.

Thank you.

So you go and eliminate this.

I I think it should be explicitly.

And I think that you ourselves and the constituents a disservice to assume that just because it's something that we may have put into practice when we do, that it is something that's expected to be in practice.

Part of this is for folks to be able to read and understand what's expressly um expected of us in terms of how we govern.

Um if it's something that we do and uh anyway, then why not make sure that it is clear in the verbiage?

Okay, so let me ask let me ask you this.

Where is it written?

Is it written anywhere in state law that she has eight?

If it's not vetoed within eight days.

Well, within within this section itself.

Back in A, the chief executive shall veto the ordinance or resolution within eight business days after its adoption by the commission.

And we've again all and that's in section A as it exists.

Okay.

So it's already in the section.

Uh uh now together.

No, what's not in the section is the next part of it, which specific expressly says if the chief um executive and it should have officers, so we should modify and make sure it says opposite after that, but does not approve or veto an ordinance or resolution within eight business days after its adoption by the commission, it shall become effective without the chief executive, it should be officer's approval.

Yeah, my apologies.

They appear to simply be moving that line from B to A.

Okay.

So it's but it's already in there.

So it's already in there.

It's already in there.

It's just moving it from one section to the other.

But the the limitation does exist in the existing org out.

My apologies.

Okay.

Actually, what it does not say is that it will without the chief executive officer's approval.

It does not expressly say that.

And that's what it's clarifying.

It is making clear that if it does not take place within the eight days, then um become effective without the chief executive officer's approval.

I have an agenda, I have an item right now that is um I've dealt with that.

So I think that it should be made clear.

Okay, hold on.

Hold on, because uh Matthew is looking now.

Yeah, in the existing org act, which I'm I'm looking at Municode right now, the last line of section B, uh section 15 subsection B, the last line reads if the chief executive officer does not approve or veto an ordinance or resolution within eight business days after its adoption by the commission, it shall become effective without the chief executive's approval.

So my apologies, I I didn't catch that they were simply moving that from one section to another.

The language does exist in the current okay.

Can you let uh commissioner know where it is?

Well, that's great that it uh that it um exists there, but it's not existing in that particular area from which we're dealing with, which is the enactment of an ordinance and a resolution.

So if it's not expressly in that section, it is not to be assumed that that is what is is expected to be.

It's in the org, it's in the org act, and this is what we're dealing with is the OA Act.

It is in section 15B as opposed to 15A.

It's in 15B as opposed to 15A.

So it's so I understand.

Okay.

I I'm just saying expressly as you know, um legal clinicians it being expressed in a particular area in which is uh dealing with that and to ensure that the verbiage is in there, particularly as it has been um made clear by the charter review that it should be.

I don't understand why we would have any challenges whatsoever with ensuring that it is in the section in which it needs to be if it's in the section under a different subsection is in the oil act, and that's what we're dealing with is the oil is the uh act.

So it's in there.

Okay.

It's in there, okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so as um how much time do we have?

We're past our 30 minutes.

Okay.

I know we're almost done.

And so we'll we will complete it at the next um, yeah, we're almost done.

And we'll complete it at the next uh special call meeting.

Yes, ma'am, just to briefly review.

And hopefully, if we can get through the meeting by 12, we can have it at one the next Tuesday.

Okay.

Yeah, I have a uh special call meetings doing, so you can have that spot.

Oh, okay.

Okay, okay.

Well, thank you all.

Um, and uh I do want to expressly thank uh John and Matthews for making this and Matthew uh for making this so easy to get through.

Yeah, I want to give them a hand, they really have uh committee because I thought we would never get through it.

I thought we would never get a procedure to understand it and to get through it, but you all have helped us in that regard.

So thank you so much.

And we should be completed with this at the next um at our next call meeting, special call meeting.

If we get there, but it we'll have a special call at some point.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

So, John, let's get to our rules.

And thank you.

Dan, you sneak sneaking out on us.

You have a good day.

So, commissioners, um, as it regards in regards to our rules and the conversation that we had uh at the last meeting, um, we were discussing uh and we didn't finish this discussion, but we were discussing uh the potential to have two additional commissioners uh support a resolution or an ordinance before it came to a board agenda.

Um it wasn't it wasn't in that document.

It was it's in a it's a suggestion that the chair wanted to discuss.

Um but in regards to that, staff has developed a memo that you all have a copy of.

Um and this memo would be a proposal to add a policy review methodology to the Board of Commissioners standing procedural rules.

Um if if you all are amenable, I'll go through the the memo now.

Okay.

Okay.

So um we we've done some research as far as some of the best practices in terms of creating policy and ordinances from a legislative body, and what we found is that uh a lot of organizations have some sort of policy review methodology before an ordinance or a resolution is considered by the entire body, it goes through this review.

Um I'd like to I'd like to speak about some of the best practices that we found.

Um at the state level, new legislation is drafted by the Office of Legislative Council and then formally introduced in the House and Senate.

At the federal level, a bill starts as an idea and then it passes through a committee review and then Florida Vate debate and then votes.

Um in 2025, we uh initiated a PSE, our Partnership for Southern Equity Equity Study, and it was also a recommendation of that equity study that the county adopt a policy evaluation framework to address and measure internal policies.

And we also see this internationally in other countries, for example, in Thailand, a government agency might propose a policy, and then it is reviewed and analyzed by staff before recommendations are made to uh the prime minister, the cabinet or related agencies.

So what staff would like to propose to the board is this policy methodology, policy review methodology.

Um the scope of it would be it's it's a process that applies to all commissioner-initiated resolutions or ordinances intended to establish or amend county policy.

Uh this methodology would not apply to commissioner appropriations, appointments, or district specific initiatives.

Um part of this process would be an initial consultation.

The process shall begin with the commissioner consulting with central staff regarding a legislative concept or draft resolution.

Central staff and the sponsoring commissioners would then establish a projected timeline for the formal review.

Um this would lead into staff analysis.

Central staff would shall conduct a comprehensive analysis of the proposal, including but not limited to best practices research, fiscal impact, i.e.

cost-benefit analysis, an equity impact, an environmental impact if necessary, and a pre-legal review just to see if the idea comports with state or federal law.

Um, we will report back to the commissioner, the sponsoring commissioner.

The commissioner will then decide whether to move forward with the resolution based on staff's report.

The legislation would then be added as an agenda item to legistar, and then it will be placed on the agenda as a preliminary item pursuant to Article 3 and assigned to the appropriate committee for deliberation.

Um then we would go into committee review.

Um, during the committee hearing, the central staff would present their findings to the committee members, and the committee should use this analysis to facilitate discussion and incorporate any requested or proposed technical changes to the legislation prior to rendering a recommendation to the full commission.

Um that's our proposal.

Uh, and I would you know just like to see if there's some feedback from the committee and the board.

Okay.

I would um yeah, I I think that um I would be in the grant with those recommendations.

I do think that we should have two sponsors uh an additional I'm in a grin with those recommendations.

I do think that we should have an additional sponsor uh for uh legislation, and then to go through uh that process, and that's um uh I think that the recommendation was three sponsors.

I think along with one sponsor, the main sponsor plus two.

I think that this process uh is a good process to go through, but I would like to uh see an additional sponsor, at least two sponsors of a BO or resolution that uh we may submit.

Um, but those are my initial thoughts and my members.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would say coming in as a new commissioner last year when I sat down with most of you guys, that was one of the things that we asked.

How do you initiate getting legislation?

And you might remember that, Commissioner Patrick, because you were the one of the first ones I asked, and there was no concrete process.

So I think um it kind of inhibited some of the things that we would have liked to have suggested and get feedback on because I had no idea where to start, who to talk to, or what that looks like.

So this is extremely helpful, even for new commissioners coming in.

So this is gonna be valuable for years to come.

And we kind of use something similar before.

I think it helps get legislation through quicker and easier because with our blasting ordinance, um, it was the two of us that proposed it.

We talked to central staff to help us draft it.

The one thing that I don't see on here is um getting preliminary feedback from at least one of the departments that it will impact the most with the blasting ordinance.

We did talk to fire, but of course, through committee is how we're cleaning it up and sharing it up to make it um a really strong ordinance, but initially we did get that feedback.

But initially we did get that feedback.

And so they added a lot of value value shared information that we weren't privy to in advance, so we could move some things in and out.

That would be of what you know we've reviewed so far.

I think that would be the one thing I would probably add, um, similar to the initial consultation, but somewhere in here, a preliminary conversation with the department, at least one of them that will be impacted.

I yield back.

Yes, ma'am.

And to address that, I'm I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Okay, I'm not sure to address that.

Yes, ma'am.

Have you had a map?

No.

Okay.

To address that, that is part of central staff's process as is.

Like we we absolutely speak with the departments to understand how this would impact county operations or any any idea that the board may have that they want to implement, how that would impact county operations.

A good example is the tires policy.

You know, it went from idea stage to research stage, and now it's in a passing stage.

We're in a stage to be ready to pass some changes, but a lot of that occurred with conversations with different departments that may have been involved from code.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um I like the policy.

It is very clear.

Uh to me, it makes a lot of sense.

Uh, the only suggestion I would have is uh have this as an either or uh either you go through a legislative or go through this process that Mr.

Manson has spilled out, or you get the the two other signatures to be able to put your agenda item on the uh two of them.

So you see if there's a if there's a three or this.

Three or three, it's it's an option.

If there is something that a commissioner feels is a is a is a hot rush that needs to be addressed, we're all gonna be in that perspective where we want to have some.

Well, I I think it probably defeats the purpose if you have not done some of the basic, like speaking with the departments, as uh she said it, because I tell you, it was really helpful for us to speak with fire on the blessing ordinance.

Because it was a lot that we didn't know that they shared.

Well, really, we didn't know that they shared with us.

And it's better framed when you present it.

So, you know, I understand what you're saying, but uh the either are because three of us would not know what one person in fire would know and the impact that it may have.

So, you know, this doing something where you can get a supporter as far as doing something that you know the impact and the need for the county.

So I I just don't like the either R.

Um, just to be clear, you know, there will be an issue that any one of us feels we gotta jump up on.

Yeah.

And and I wouldn't want to completely restrict that, but the idea of getting the two signatures still is a way to say that this is something that is uh a concern for not the majority, but but the minority is being attention to things.

And let me ask you this, John, if it's something that needs to be expedited to central staff.

Yes, ma'am.

Is it anything in here to say that if it needs to be that address something that needs to be expedited?

There's nothing that addresses an item that may need to be expedited.

Um, but we can craft language or draft language based on what you all recommend.

Okay.

Okay.

Um yeah, okay, Commissioner Terry, and then Commissioner.

Did you say Commissioner Masai's hands?

Okay, and then Commissioner Massad.

Thank you.

Okay, and then uh Zach after Commissioner Massai.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I do agree with Commissioner Bolton's point about um departmental feedback in this policy review.

I I think that's implicit in there, but if we need to like actually say it, I think that's fine.

Um, that only would apply if it's like an operational situation.

There might be other agenda items where they're just it's an ordinance and it doesn't have any bearing on the operations.

Um I like that change.

Um I think this is a great proposal.

I would suggest we just go ahead and adopt it right now.

You know, I think the nature of our ability to change the rules is we can change them at any time.

Even if it was just one rule.

And I might suggest before we kind of go and try to create sort of this either-or situation.

If we all like this, let's just go ahead and adopt it and see how it goes.

And if we think that it's not working, you know, I would be willing to submit.

Um if it doesn't, if this doesn't work and it you know causes even more problems, I would be open to considering going to the having two sponsors um with the bill that Commissioner Patrick's pointed out.

Um I I will note though that from my research from the House and Senate and and Congress, State House, State Senate, um, it only takes one legislature to introduce a bill.

And so I think if we made a change that would make it a higher bar than any other, you know, level of government, then I think we'd be creating um some unintended consequences that could suppress um, you know, at the very least, minority viewpoints, um, or it could just delay you know things moving forward.

Um, so I would suggest that we not change the the number of sponsors yet.

Let's adopt this policy with the the change that Commissioner Bolton mentioned.

Let's go ahead and change that rule and let's let's go and start doing this now.

Okay.

I don't want to change this blue book every other month, you know.

And I think that once this is adopted is once is what we're gonna be required.

At least you can look at it every year, but every couple of months, or every time somebody has a whim to change something from the blue book, you know.

I I just think that we shouldn't do that.

That's the reason we're taking the time to go through it now.

I disagree that they can submit a resolution, but it doesn't get into committee until they have sponsorships on it.

They have sponsors on it.

Madam Chair, that's I I checked with Mr.

Baskerville, and he confirmed that a single legislator can put a well, you said federal, and I and states.

Okay.

But in the hopper.

Will okay, we'll so then there's no, there's no um high bar for every other branch of government.

That's fine.

And so if we're creating another bar for us, uh you know, it doesn't make it doesn't make sense to me.

Okay, I would disagree with that, but then it's me.

Okay, but in any event, Madam Chair, I didn't get a chance to finish my thought though, because my concert of uh of trying to do one wholesale change, um, is that there's certain things within the wholesale change we might not get all the votes.

Okay.

And I would prefer that we pulled out more controversial things.

Because I think a lot of this rule change was mostly cleanup.

And if you remember, Madam Chair, I initiated this rule change only to change one word in the blue book.

And then it then it launched into this two-year process.

Okay, and all I want to do is just change the working group.

Okay, Commissioner, um but I'm well, I'm not gonna get into who initiated change, but we are what we are now.

And so my concern is this.

We're dealing, we're having meetings until five o'clock where we can't even have our committee meetings, you know.

So we have to have some type of filters that would get us back to and it wasn't that past commissioners starting with Maloof.

Did not was not effective in what they did, but they were concerning and how they did it.

You know, and so I think that uh DeCamp County has come a long ways since uh 80s, the 80s, when uh this form of government was established under Manuel.

So we have to have guidelines where we can have our meetings, we can have our committee meetings, we can have our comments and still be effective.

And to do that, we have to have some type of uh avenue to shorten the process and to get through the detours.

And so that's what we're trying to do now.

And so with that, I'm gonna let my other commissioners speak.

And I'm sorry with Robert, and then Massar, and then Zach, and then you commissioner Terry.

The other question is if you could restate what your suggestion was for departmental input, review, analysis, approval, what was it you were looking for?

In the preliminary stages that the department be allowed to get, well, in the early stages, allow the department to give a preliminary review and feedback on the document.

But it would be ironed out in committee.

I yield back my time.

Commissioner Massar.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and um I appreciate the effort and the spirit around where we're trying to do this.

I think it would help if we just have uh a very clear process going for it.

So thank you for taking this up.

Um I wanted to start by yeah, agreeing that from a um a state and a federal level, there's a house of legislative council that can help to advise on certain concerns that I think we should very much take into effect before we're putting forth, you know, any resolution.

And you know, I mentioned um in the past that we consider uh that there's an attestation before we put anything um for it.

I mean, just to for one, consider any um that this is clear in terms of the purpose and the intent, but then also that that we minimize or avoid altogether any potential negative or spillover effects or unintended, you know, uh consequences um based on the um based on what's being proposed.

But that if there are any bills are at least addressed, particularly those that may affect the administration and the operation of the county.

Um with that, I support and suggested that there be a um at least that there's an opportunity or that we attest that we've conferred with central staff um with a department if a department is being affected, or better yet, uh COO, and in some cases we might need law, but then also we add that that that's done within 48 hours of the submittal so that we provide a time frame to be able to get feedback back um from a department from law or otherwise that would there's an adaptation that there's no conflict by the resolutions that we're providing with state or federal law.

Essentially, we're not in violation of the supremacy or any other laws, that the um resolution isn't violated.

Let me ask, let me ask John, and I'm sorry to cut you off, but let me ask John.

Did you send her a copy of your uh no ma'am?

Recommendations.

Well, you send her that because she's not saying that.

Yes, ma'am.

And so, yeah, John has put forth some recommendations for us to consider, and I thought maybe he had sent that to all of the commissioners, but evidently he has not I to be fair.

To be fair, okay.

I'm not okay we we just finished making some changes to this so we will send a final vertical okay.

So they are recommendations in there, Commissioner Massai.

All right, fantastic, just based on what we share.

And then last we just, you know, not to buy that it doesn't violate civil or criminal uh law or procedures, but I will take a look at and look forward to seeing um since our last meeting what has been proposed, and if there's anything that's I feel should be modified or tweak um with the board's um approval, then happy to share those as well.

But that I yield back to you.

Well, the only other thing is that the smart goals, right?

But uh, I'll take a look at things um and we'll go from there.

I yield back to you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Zach.

Thank you, madam chair.

And um actually, yeah, I'd like from a an administrative perspective.

I definitely like where uh the board is going here, where the committee is going.

What I would offer is under staff analysis, uh, putting central staff with the assistance of the COO or designee and county attorney were designee.

So that way you have the entire organization, the whole thing.

And the departments who report through me.

Um, and I would simply add an operational review under these bulleted things.

Maybe it's okay.

Okay, Commissioner Terry.

Um, yes, thank you, madam chair.

Um, so I do I do want to again applaud central staff for coming up with I think a very good middle ground.

Um I I am concerned that if we change the sponsorship number, that we're creating something much more controversial that it has to be.

Um thing I might even add into this framework that might even be a more efficient way to get down to I think what you're talking about, which is we don't want to just have superfluous items that maybe are never gonna actually pass.

And that would be that through our retreat process, we create an annual work plan.

And in that annual work plan, commissioners, you know, and certainly with the administration's support at the beginning of you know first quarter, beginning of second quarter, whatever it makes sense, that we all uh come out of that retreat with here's what we're gonna do this year.

And and then if everyone agrees this is what we want to work on this year, any commissioner that wants just to throw something in, you know, that wasn't on the work plan would need a higher bar.

Um so I think the point I'm trying to make here is that if we all agree here's the priorities we want to work on, it keeps everyone focused.

Law, administration, central staff, um, as opposed to now, which really is we have seven work plans.

Seven commissioners have our own priorities.

Sometimes we align, sometimes we don't.

But if we could come out with an agreed, here's what we're gonna try to do this year, it gives all of us agency to say, let's get these things done first and don't throw something in in the middle of the year that might just add a whole other thing, you know, more review for Matt and his team to do at uh on top of the other ten things they're reviewing.

And um, so I would be happy like with it even within this framework to give consideration to creating an annual work plan that is uh designed around policies.

And if we if we uh approve that, then that would be the bar to to get over.

Um I I I would agree to an annual retreat to focus on what we have commonly, I mean what we can collectively uh see as um issues that we should address in that preceding year.

I think that will also cut down, I agree with that.

Uh cut a lot of time down.

Um you know, sometimes circumstances dictate what we do.

And so to to say that if it's not within that time frame during that session, that uh something can't be presented.

I don't agree with that because circumstances sometimes dictate what we may do.

But I do agree with the concept that we have a retreat once a year to just do a year, a yearly plan and a strategy as to collectively what do we want to focus on.

I I think that that's I think that that's good.

So I think if we put all of that in what the CEO uh have said, and give us an opportunity, give all of the commissioners the opportunity to review it.

I think it may work.

What did y'all what are y'all's feelings?

I would almost say that we should have two retreats, one at the beginning of the year and then a final one towards the end of the year that sort of assesses what we talked about at the beginning and where we got to at the end.

Okay.

I mean, I'm fine with that.

What about you?

Probably early November, because I know at some point we're in the rest of the season.

But um, I think that would probably be a good idea.

And the first one should probably be sometime after the budget is is adopted because I know a lot of things are a lot of moving parts right now with the budgetary process happening.

So those would be my two suggestions to the conversation.

Um I would say go ahead.

And I would just say up to two.

Uh up to two retreats rather than making two mandatory.

I would say up to two retreats per year.

Yeah.

So I I don't have a problem with that.

The up to two.

Um I do like that you clarified because of situations or situational awareness, we come up with things that become significant and should be sponsored by commissioners or um the administration.

I will also say, however, we did have a retreat last year and talked about what was important to commissioners and them we didn't do anything with it.

Not when we were determining our legislative priorities when we have the tires went, those rolled.

Yeah, okay.

They really they took on a life of their own.

Yeah, so if we're intentional about it, I yeah, I think it could be amazing.

I I love when we put processes and procedures in place that add value.

Um but I mean I still have my poster in my office from that retreat, but it it was a great experience, but not a whole lot came out of it.

Well, the ties was a whole lot.

It was a whole lot.

I yelled back.

And and sometimes we may not get the one thing out of it.

But it's a significant thing.

And I think those ties are very significant because uh, you know, yeah.

And housing.

Yeah, and housing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, Ted, let's uh No, I just I mean, I agree with everything it was said.

I think um I might sort of just couch it as if since we know the committees and the committees are which all the work and policy flow, if the if the retreat that we do after the budget, which I think makes a lot of sense.

So sometime in March or April, if it focuses around the committees, here's what the committee focused around the what the committees want to work on.

Okay.

So that was very it's very specific to the work.

I feel like we spent more time talking about kind of overarching issues and legislation, but we didn't really get into like all right, committees go into your corners and figure out here's what we want to do this year.

I think that's good.

Um it's redundant.

We got it.

Yeah.

Okay, and cut out all of the redundance.

Uh okay.

That'll help us too.

Thank you, ma'am.

I just want to say uh I agree 100% with Zach's uh suggestion that law be specifically called out, and I just want to say we would welcome this process.

Some of the discussions that we have to have after an item is introduced, if we could have those earlier in the process in terms of what's the right vehicle for this.

Maybe you have a limited power and we need to aim it specifically within those limitations be very, very helpful to us.

Now I I have to add the caveat that the final words always dictate whether legal can approve something to form and move it forward.

But being involved in the early stages so that if there are limitations, we're all aware of them and working within those from the front end would be invaluable to us.

Okay, this is really a good working session.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you, commissioners, for your feedback on our suggestion.

Um, how would you like staff to move forward?

Because we have gotten some language changes and there have been some other things discussed regarding annual retreats and I think that we need to define because one of the points is still lingering is exactly what items this will cover.

And I think it needs to be more defined so that we clearly understand you stated in the beginning there were exceptions, and what exceptions did you um this would only apply to commissioner-generated legislation that affects county policy?

Okay.

So and it would be resolutions and ordinances.

Our county attorney last week said that something needs to be, you know, in there for ordinances.

But this would not affect um district specific legislation, it would not affect appropriations.

Let's put the oral point language in so that it's defined and and it's understood.

Yes, ma'am.

So I guess my final question to you all, it was staff's recommendation was that this be added to uh the procedural rules.

Um but I'm I'm hearing some agreement here that this maybe this should be a separate resolution as a policy that you all pass.

Would you I like staff to be added to the procedure rules, because that's what we're doing.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so staff will work on language to add to the procedural rules.

Thank you, Commissioner.

How much time do we have?

Okay, question here.

John, since you indicated, what would be the difference of it being uh uh you did you say a resolution versus add it to the procedural rules?

Um well, as Commissioner Terry has stated, we're we're trying to do a comprehensive change to the procedural rules, so this would this would go in at that point if it was made to be a resolution, a policy that you all wanted to follow right now, it could be passed and used now, as opposed to when we get to that.

Though there might be concerns with conflict to the existing blue book, because the existing blue book does have an agenda approval procedure that does not reflect this so ideally this would be adopted as part of the changes to the procedural rules just from a legal perspective.

We we can make anything work, um but we don't want to have a conflict between a policy and the blue book because the blue book would control under your rules.

Well, this controller it would.

Yeah, I mean that would be our recommendation.

Yeah.

Yeah we're updating the update the children yes ma'am yeah so well thank you commissioners I thank you thank you all okay I'm sorry yeah we're updating rule book just like we are updating the channel so uh we've made tremendous progress and I don't think that um maybe we should have had the special call meetings earlier but we almost there um where are we on the rules book I know we don't have that much more to go on the charter review and we should be able to complete that at our next special call right uh yes ma'am um we're we're close on the the board section of the rule book as well we still have the the law section that they will have feedback on but we're we're close on the the board section only a couple more pages um that aren't too tough okay well good okay well thank you all and uh without further ado let's see a motion motion to adjourn second okay all in favor all right