Patrick that's walking in now and so we um uh we have um commissioner Lone Spears present and us today welcome we um and um from there um I'm gonna ask the committee members have you all had an opportunity to read a review the minutes of the April 21st, 2026 um ops committee uh motion to approve 2026-0796 second okay all in favor aye aye okay those minutes are approved the next thing we have on the agenda I have one thank you I have one new agenda item is that it uh I mean really uh that's innovation and technology that's right two of them was facilities and uh PWI items all right has been moved out of my committee so we have a change order number two to contract number one one nine two six oh nine Tyler Cloud hosting services migration for the for the as world software sole source for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain three year cloud SAS hosting uh service to assess and collect property taxes seek an increase in contract funds and terms through December the thirty first twenty twenty nine awarded to Tyler Technologies amount not to exceed four million ninety four thousand eight hundred and seven dollars and eighty-eight cents good afternoon madam chair and commissioners we are requesting to extend the contract for three years for Tyler this is the IAS World product this is software as a service uh the the departments that use IAS World are the tax commissioner's office uh property appraisal as well as GIS so the tax commissioner they use this uh software to do tax billing and collection and property appraisal this is what they use for camera their computer aided uh system to to appraise property okay and has this um been sent to audit i it's not bad it's not bad it's not bad thank you it is not it's okay well do we have a motion to defer this item to our next uh committee the hope with a stop at our next committee of the whole uh motion to defer for two weeks second all in favor aye all right okay thank you since we have no further um agenda items new agenda items then we will now uh talk about the um focus on the charter review commission and um let me see we have uh about almost an hour and a half left so let's take about 35 minutes for the charter review and the rest of the time let's do 35 minutes for the charter review the rest of the time we will give it to the um rules committee already and we're starting that 35 minute timer now um per charter review recommendations we last ended off on page nine talking about section nine powers and duties of the commissions um page page nine of the law memo okay excuse me uh demetrius can you bring my charter review book yes we stop okay so this is

Yes.

Okay.

So this is okay.

Okay.

Okay, thank you, Shannon.

Absolutely.

And just to reiterate now that we are all situated, uh we ended with section nine power is of duties and commissions.

So uh with your approval, we can move forward with section 12 that's outlined here on page nine, which is the presiding officer.

Uh let's see, recommendation.

Let's see.

The recommendation from the charter review was to eliminate subsection A relating to the CEO's voting rights at the BOC meetings.

This would change section 12 changes would be removal of this provision removes an executive power and presents a practical problem as there would be no method to resolve a tie for a BOC vote.

Um at 15 years out of the Charter Review Commission, and Madam CEO does not support this recommendation due to identified practical concerns.

Agreed.

Yeah, I I agree with that recommendation because the only time that the CEO would have the opportunity to vote would be in the event of a tie.

And so um I'm for um keeping the charter as it is here.

Uh other committee members.

I agree.

Yeah, I agree as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I would be in support of removing the CEO's voting rights on the board of commissioners.

I think we have discussed several other provisions where the CEO has in essence cautioned us to not get into her business, and then now this provision, which is really a holdover from when the CEO was on the board of commissioners, will be getting into our business.

And I do believe that the possibility of a tie ever happening is very, very unlikely, particularly because the vacancy rules and stipulations in terms of law now allow that vacancy on a commission seat to be filled rather quickly as opposed to waiting for eight or nine months.

And so I just I really don't see a scenario where um there wouldn't be seven sitting commissioners and there would be a tie.

I guess someone could recuse themselves, but you know, again, the the the basic point is the CEO used to sit on the board of commissioners as the chair of the commission meetings.

It was removed, but I guess this voting uh provision has has remained has remained.

Um so I would just suggest that we're gonna either pick two branches of government, executive legislative, um, or we're gonna try to bring them together.

But this sort of this kind of hybrid approach where the CEO can dip into our business, but we're not allowed to dip into her business, um, just strikes me as an actual in balance of power towards an already powerful CEO form of government.

Okay.

And um just to comment on a couple of things that you stated, this is not a tit for tat, and I will uh, you know, this is governance, it's not tit for tech.

And of course, we get into the CEO's business and administration's business every day for the benefit of the people of the county when we have a concern.

Uh we have the right to question the administration, and we do that.

We have the right to set over sight for the administration, and we do that, but this is not a tick for tack situation.

This is a situation where, and then the um the presiding officer set the agenda for the board of commissioners.

That was removed.

On one hand, you say that you never see a scenario where you would need a and and and and usually you won't, because I don't think that it has happened.

And I don't think it happened the year before.

So it's really gonna be rare situations where it would happen.

So I um think it's a good um, I think that is something good if we get a tie for the CEO to be able to break that tie, and as I stated, is not a on-gone scenario where she's voting with the board, but for the county to be successful, we have to work together.

And so um I'm like I said earlier, I'm for what I saw question.

Yeah, after and my my understanding of this is that it's similar to the president's vice president in the Senate, whereas of course, you know, Congress and the Senate voted votes often, but if there is a tie in the Senate, then the vice president has an opportunity to vote.

We don't have a vice CEO.

So to me, this is this mirrors the federal government, and and I think it's fine.

Like you said, it rarely occurs.

We are usually pretty good about sticking to our votes.

It's usually seven of us that make the vote, so I think it's fine.

Um did you have anything?

Okay.

Yeah, I just want to clarify.

So it looks like the Charter Review Commission voted 15 to zero to remove that section.

And so we're we're not in this case, we're not accepting the recommendations from the charter commission.

Well, I don't accept the recommendations sometimes from um because this is what they have.

I'm saying I don't charter with the recommendation from my committee members.

Yes or no.

No.

Yeah, we're not accepting that particular.

I'm just asking a question, yes or no.

Is it not no?