Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the county operations committee.

I'm Marita Davis Johnson, and I chair uh this committee.

The uh commissioners that served on the commission with me, uh Commissioner Ladina Bowden and Commission and I'm sorry, she she just got her four years.

Oh, that's right.

Yeah, she just got her four years.

Uh-huh.

And uh Commissioner Robert Patrick.

And so um with that have oh, I'm sorry, and Commissioner Ted Terry is just like a committee member because he's here every time we meet.

So well, welcome again.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So um have you all had an opportunity to uh read the minutes of June the second, 2026?

Yes, ma'am.

I move to approve item 2026 0369.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

I okay, those um minutes are approved.

Okay, the next one seconds.

Where is my opposition?

Is this okay?

Oh I see the rest.

Okay.

Those are your minutes.

That's not the best.

Um, okay.

Okay, I'm sorry, I'm getting it together.

Our first item is 260764.

All commissioned districts.

It's a change order.

The contract number 1352 862, uh, infinite quality construction, uh, contract statewide contract by use by the Department of Facility Management to obstact to obtain construction services for the Maloof Annex Auditorian.

So you can increase the contract firm funds and term due to December 31st uh 2026 and to ratify the previously provided contract term increase awarded to F H pension as in Nielsen and Associates LLC amount not to exceed 156,965 and zero cents.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh yes, this is uh this is for the Blue Fannyx Auditoriums for the renovation.

We have two things we have uh with the change order.

We have the extension of time to take us out to the completion of the project.

Uh we give that a safe date that allows us to do all the final items we need to do on this project, such as the punch list verifications, uh warranties, guarantees, final payment systems, verification, that sort of thing.

Uh in addition to that, we have uh the change order for 156,000.

That uh what that includes is A V infrastructural electrical upgrades, J boxes for the projector screens, can lights at entry, light bar.

Uh we had uh unforeseen condition at the flooring where there was no vapor barrier, so we had to apply epoxy flooring.

We had some HVAC upgrades, uh, and a big portion of this was low voltage and access control.

Uh we also had the mill work for uh mobile security desk, fire alarm code upgrades, and taking the mop sink conversion to a floor sink for uh code upgrade as well, and that's what's included in the change order.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

Uh I recognize that we recently had a request to extend to increase funds, and and that was just in April.

What was that two months ago?

Just clarify what's different in the last year.

Yeah, and we were trying to expedite that so we could keep the construction going, but at that time we did not have this pricing in.

And especially for the uh the biggest part that we were waiting for with the low voltage and access control.

Uh the system they had before was not was not county compatible.

So we prematurely addressed in April a request to increase funds, even though we didn't have all the values.

I'm sorry.

And so in April, we prematurely addressed the request for an increase in funds because we didn't have all the values available to the government.

Well, those well, those those were for other things.

Uh we would have we would have we'd have liked to have covered them all at one time, but we didn't have this pricing in and those things that y'all approved before.

Uh we've we've pretty much got that into the construction now.

It is there to keep the job going.

Do you foresee anything else that we'll need in the next couple of months that maybe we could wait and just wrap everything up in a single request as opposed to multiple subject requests?

Uh not that I'm aware of, and actually, actually, quite a bit of the items on this list have already been been performed in the field.

We just need an avenue to pay the contractor.

Okay, thank you.

I yield back.

Yeah, I think that uh right after our break.

Um CEO, will you have a opportunity to come back before us and give us the status update where we are?

And I think that would be April the 12th.

Is that our first uh yes on August 12th, you believe?

I mean allow this.

Yeah, it's we'll definitely be prepared.

And I think what this item does is that it's applying funds that have already been allocated.

Um, and it's ratifying.

I believe that's that's what we're doing here.

But we'll be happy to give an update uh because we're all anxious to get the facility open.

Uh uh yeah, madam chair, thank you.

So it looks like as of right now, we're all in at just about two million dollars.

Uh, and this is another 156, 157 or so thousand dollars.

Um you guys are reasonably confident, comfortable.

There's not gonna be another ask or is there something else laying out there?

There's nothing that I'm currently aware of.

Okay, all right.

All right, thank you.

Well, I just say that I always said we needed a new bill building, so if you compare the cost of a new billing with the uh expenditure of two million dollars, you know, I think that we're fine.

Okay, thank you.

Uh is there a motion?

Um motion to approve 0764.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Okay.

That item is approved.

The next item is 260893.

All commission districts.

Change order number four, the contract number one, two five one, two seven one, uninterruptible power supply system, annual contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility management to obtain for benefit maintenance services for UPS systems, seeking increase in contract term through September the 30th, 2026.

Awarded to AC and DC power technology contract increase only.

Okay, good morning.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, madam chair.

Uh this is um we're asking to increase the contract term to September 30th.

Um they're working currently working on the computer procurement process for this, so we need uh extra time to get it completed.

So we're not asking for any additional funds, just uh increased the contract to September 30th.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Okay, if there's none, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0893.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

260942 change order.

Uh number 11 to contract numbers.

You can read the numbers, commercial janitorial services, multi-year contract for use by the Department of Facility Management and Recreation Parks and Cultural Affairs to obtain the development management and monitoring of high quality commercial janitorial cleaning custodial services and day porters.

Seeking contract terms and contract funds increase through December the 31st, 2026 and retired price increases to contract number 1213635 awarded to Bill and Maintenance Service Clean Stock National Inc and Action Janitorial Total N to Exceed 1,928,998.

Yes, ma'am.

This is another contract we're working on with the purchasing, um, trying to get it bid so we can um this will allow us to um complete that if we extend the contract to December 31st.

And um we're asking for adjust the amounts of the monthly services to the end of the year.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Any questions?

I know no questions.

Okay, if there's none, is there a motion?

Yes, I make a motion to approve 0942.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that item is approved.

Uh 0260953, renewal, all commissioned districts, uh contract numbers.

You can read them on call heating, ventilation and air conditioning, our annual contract with two options to renew for use by the Department of Facility Management, Recreation Parks, Cultural Affairs, Water Shed Management, and Fire Rescue to provide on call HVAC services.

Uh existing second, I mean exercise and second renewal options through July the 31st, 2027, and authorizing a consent or assignment to contract number 1384955 to MetSair Mechanical LLC.

Award to B and H BW Mechanical Contractors, Mann, Mechanical Company, and Gagan HVAC, Mechanical Services.

Total amount not to exceed 3,440,000 dollars.

And has this come back for moderate from audit?

I don't know.

No.

Okay, so we'll um discuss that when it comes back from audit.

Okay.

The next item is 260954.

All commission districts change order number five to contract number one two nine seven five seven zero and change order number four to contract number one two nine seven five six zero on call plumbing services on your contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility management, uh, recreation parks and cultural affairs, thought rescue and watershed management to obtain the uh repair, replacement, maintenance, and installation of plumbing fixtures at the cab owned facilities seeking to increase uh in contract funds in terms through July uh 31st, 2027.

Water to 12 Connect Inc.

And B and W Mechanical Uh Contractors Inc.

Or not to exceed 1,800,000 dollars.

Yes, ma'am.

This is for our plumbing repair and maintenance.

Uh we're seeking to uh increase the contract funds and term through July 31st of 2027.

Are there any questions?

No.

No.

Okay.

Well, if there's no questions, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026-0954.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

260996.

Change order to number one to contract.

Number one three four four three nine one inspection and testing.

Oh, I'm sorry.

26096.

All commission districts.

Change order to number one to contract number one three four four three nine one inspection and test center water-based fire protection system.

And your contract second renewal of two options to renew for use by the department of facility management to obtain inspections, testing maintenance and repair of existing water-based fire protection equipment throughout the county.

Seeking contract term and funds increase.

Awarded to all star field not to exceed 177,340.

Yes, ma'am.

This one is for our fire sprinkler system in all our buildings.

So this contract is uh second renewal, and we're adding for uh requesting the uh cap be increased and um to provide the service okay.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

If none, is there a motion?

Um motion to approve 0996.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay, thank you.

The next item is 2603, all commission districts, change order.

No, I'm sorry, it's not all commissioned districts.

It's commission one uh districts one, three, six, and seven.

Change order number two, the contract number one two seven two eight two zero, on call architect and engineering, and design services for facility management for use by the department of facility management, watershed management and fire rescue to obtain on-call architect and engineering services, seek an increase in contract funds for design services for major renovations and construction administration for Fire Station 18, 19, and 20 awarded to POH plus W architects LTD amount not to exceed 1,394,490.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

So uh this is for the uh next phase, uh as you all are aware.

We did a uh preliminary where we seen with a feasibility study to see if tearing down the stations are doing complete rebuilds.

So now we're moving with the design phase of it, and that's what this will be for.

Okay.

Are there any questions for my committee members first?

Chief, just obviously these are for the new fire stations, as you said.

Um within the districts.

Okay, okay, uh, Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um chief and or uh Zach or Mr.

Kingsbury, will the designs of 1819 and 20 uh stations include any um appropriate you know uh design criteria for solar panels or any uh energy efficiency, you know, passive solar, you know, kind of features.

So uh 1819 and 20 are approximately 25-year-old buildings are all prototypes identical.

So what this does is we're gonna demolish and rebuild the living quarter side, and as with the three new stations that are getting ready to go to construction, the designers will not preclude future energy saving.

The roofloads will be considered for future solar, the banks will be there for future wiring.

So best practices to be considered.

Okay, gotcha.

So they'll be they'll design that into it and then we'll just work with sustainability.

Okay.

Uh and then the only other question I had was on the um, because they're all all the new designs have like a meeting room, right?

Is that these are existing stations?

The equipment page are perfectly serviceable, large enough for the newest equipment, but the way they were constructed, they had a breezeway between the kitchen and living for building new living and cooking, so they won't have the larger community rooms the new stations have.

Gotcha.

These are three existing stations, Shanwee Tucker Road, South Decad, North Cap.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay, so it's not the new station, it's just a right directly.

It's an upgrade to three serviceable buildings, but they need to be understood.

Gotcha.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there's no other questions, is there a um is there a motion?

Motion to approve one zero zero three.

Second.

Uh approved the substitute.

Pardon me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wait.

The substitute.

The substitute.

Oh, I'm sorry.

The substitute was the substitute is the next item.

So just approve the just approved.

Yep.

Okay.

So there's a motion and a second to approve one zero zero three.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

So that is approved.

The next sideup is a substitute.

And that is uh 2607 one.

All commission districts change order.

Number nine to contract number one zero zero zero eight four six public sector agreement for Oracle Cloud Services for use by the Department of Renovation and Technology to obtain ongoing support and maintenance of all products and services for the county's Oracle Cloud Service Platform.

Seeking increase the contract funds in turn to December through December the 31st, 2029, amount not to exceed 13 million ninety-three thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars and seventy-six cents.

And we have a substitute for this, and has it gone through audit?

It has gone through audit, yes.

Has it come back?

It has come back uh in support of this new substitute substituted amount.

Okay.

I got you.

And the substitute.

The substitute is a little bit more.

And and could you explain the difference?

So there was an error in in the original request or a calculation error.

And we we recognized the error in identify and identified that in and reached out to purchasing.

It was already an audit at the time.

So that's the reason for the substitute.

There was an error on our part when submitting the request.

Okay.

Calculation error.

And audit identified that error before it came out.

Audit and IT did it, yes.

Okay.

Okay, great.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, thank you, Director.

The um so for the Oracle Cloud services, so this in essence is all of our this is like the entire county's server capacity for data, for bandwidth, emails.

So this is our all of our cloud subscriptions from CB360 for HCM for CB360 for financials, and this also includes the new Oracle permitting and licensing subscription as well.

It's all those products.

All of the cloud products that is covered.

Okay.

All right, got thank you.

Uh questions.

Uh motion to approve 0771.

The substitute, pardon me.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay, the substitute is approved.

And that is all of our agenda items.

We have children review.

Well, that is all of our agenda items.

We have the child review discussion and the standard procedure rule.

So can you let me know?

Um, I mean, okay, can you let me know what we get through half so that I can half it up?

Okay.

So we're gonna first start with the charter review.

Are we uh starting with charter review, or do you want to start with standing procedural?

I think last time we started with what standard procedure.

Oh, did we start we started with charter review?

I believe it was charter review.

Okay, so let's start with standard proceedings.

Okay.

All righty 20 minutes.

20 minutes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, I believe you all um last time you all ended up, or we'll start on the um the document that's uh entitled items for review by the law department.

Um and it would be the top of page two y'all see that um it looks like what you have is a charter review, Commissioner Patrick.

The um I don't know how to do that.

We're on page 11.

Are we starting charter review or we're just starting standard procedures?

We don't have the standing procedures.

Oh, charter review, okay.

I'm sorry.

I went right to standing procedurals.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, let's go to charter review.

Uh charter review, uh, you all ended uh on it would be page 11 uh on your summary.

Do you have any extra copies?

Okay.

Do you all have y'all have extra copies?

I'm sorry.

Do you have any extra copies?

Jessica's on her way up.

Okay, um, because she doesn't have them.

I don't try to review, but I don't have okay.

All right.

Um so if you were looking on your charter review recommendations, page 11, uh section 21, Department of Finance.

Looks like that's where we should be uh beginning our conversation.

And if you're looking on the larger document of the actual organizational act, um looks like that's page 38 with uh some of the language uh in there.

Uh section 21 is in the department of finance uh section just let me know when you all are ready if you see if you're there.

Okay.

Uh that section 21, Department of Finance.

Uh in um on your chart, uh it states it allows the BLC to change departmental responsibilities via resolution.

And if you look at the actual language uh in the um in the organizational act, they are adding a line um in section 21 in subsection A.

Um, that I'll just read the whole subsection.

It says the Department of Finance is hereby established as a permanent administrative unit of the county government.

The department shall be under the control and supervision of the director of finance.

This is the part that the charter review commission is wanting to add, except as otherwise provided by resolution of the governing authority.

Then the the remainder of that sentence is uh the department of finance shall perform the following functions.

Um so in the uh if you go back to your chart, section 21, the changes, it says this changes uh this change alters the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches as previously established by the general assembly.

Uh the vote for that particular change on the charter review was 13 yeses, 13 A's or ayes.

And uh, if you continue to go on, you see the the notes from uh Madam CEO and uh her office states Madam CEO does not support these changes as they alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches as previously established by the general assembly and blur the lines of responsibilities.

Okay, uh we'll get comments.

I agree that um I don't agree with the language of the charter review.

Um committee, I uh do think that it's um um that it changes the balance of power, and that the finance uh department is not within our purview, and uh I would not recommend the change.

Okay, any other comments from committee members.

I just agree with what your statement said.

Okay.

Uh okay.

You can come back.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, and I'm sorry, what section were we on again?

With section of 21, okay.

Um section 21.

Oh, here it is.

This is one um so I I will just point out that the um I might take a little bit of issue with how the uh law department um highlighted things because when you put everything in red, it is a visual cue that it's a no.

And the purpose of these of this discussion is to have an objective deliberation, and then furthermore within each of the sections.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

You said when you put everything in red, it's a no.

Yeah, red means stop in America.

So when you put things in red, it basically is a visual signal that don't even bother.

This is a no, and that's really not the purpose of this discussion.

So I would just ask that future documents don't color code it based on red, green, yellow, because those have applied meetings, they just need to be the statement.

However, furthermore, the the nature of these of most of these comments is almost is a copy and paste.

It almost always says the CEO does not support this because it changes that alters the balance of power.

Well, that was the whole point of the charter review committee was to address the balance of powers.

So making the statement that the CEO doesn't support it because it changes the balance of powers is in essence saying the charter review committee's purpose is pointless because that was the whole point of the charter review committee to address those balance of powers.

And we have to remember all of these recommendations are ones that got unanimous support, and or a vast majority.

So they didn't give us the things that were considered controversial, they gave us the things that got 13 yeses.

And then the last point I'll make, and I'll keep making the point because it's been repeated over and over again when you say it simply it blurs the power the balance of power, but you don't explain why.

And so there's no one here from the administration or I guess the C's all CEO's office to explain what they mean.

There's no dissection of how it blurs the line.

Does it blur the line a little or a lot?

You know, these are all hopefully objective markers where we can change a word or change a sentence, but what it's setting up is for us simply to give a yes or no.

And basically what I've heard up here, no offense to my committee members is if the CEO doesn't like it, you just say let's remove it.

And then we just move on.

I mean, it's just it seems like we're just going through this for why why?

Why are we spending all this time to go through something that just why don't we just say what the CEO wants us to do?

Why don't we just pass a resolution that just says CEO give us your charter review changes and we will rubber stamp it because that's what we're doing up here.

We're just we're not even debating the issues.

No one from the charter review committee has been invited to provide any context, and the CEO herself has not been here to explain each section why she does not support it.

It just says doesn't support it because it blurs the balance of powers.

From there, we could go into a whole different, many different directions of discussion.

Okay, before you answer want to keep the colors on, want to keep the recommendations on.

Mine is yellow, if he is blue, it's fine.

I didn't, and we have, and I do want to say to the public, we have not rubber stamped what the CEO wants.

There's been provisions that we've changed and we altered, and we are making the determination as the governing authority.

As I stated earlier, the charter review committee gave recommendations, and that's exactly what they were.

Recommendations.

And we are looking and considering those recommendations.

And it's just like our what is the five community council.

Yeah, and it's just like the community council.

They make recommendations.

We are the governing authority.

How we feel it affects the communities and whatever other decision making.

Um we put into it.

But they are they are considerations, and there are consequences behind what those recommendations are.

And so many times I go with the recommendations of my planning commission and my community council, but me as the commissioner have to determine what I feel is best for my district, looking at abroad aspect of it and understanding the consequences behind the decision that I make.

So I don't want to get into it, but I just had to say that once more.

These are recommendations.

What the CEO has given is her opinion on those recommendations.

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

So we appreciate uh your opinion on this, uh, Commissioner Terry, and um we will consider that.

So moving on, I think you had something that you could say, but before I say that again, we are a governing body.

We do not deal with the day-to-day operations of the government.

And so therefore, we don't we don't control certain aspects, certain aspects of the government authority, governing authority.

Uh, I'm not the CEO, I'm only a commissioner, and I respect that, and I know that we can change some things, but when it deals with the operation of this county, I think uh we're headed in the right direction.

We're doing a good job, and if there comes a time where we need to look back and refocus or redo, we have the opportunity to do so.

So with that, I just have a clarifying question that I think the county attorney can help address.

So my understanding is that as a legislative body, at any time we have the authority to go back and make changes to uh the charter as long as we vote on it and we have consensus, is that right?

There are many parts of your charter that would have to be changed through a process that goes beyond the governing authority of the CAP.

For example, what's been discussed in this committee in the charter review recommendations are those items that may warrant action by the General Assembly, some of which may warrant action through referendum by the voters, and if approved action by the General Assembly.

So it's really nuanced based on exactly what we're looking at, and it's beyond just the power of the DeCab governing authority.

I'm sorry, let me restate my question.

At any time, can we initiate that change even if the final decision is by a different authority like the state, but at any time can we initiate that change?

Yes.

Okay, and with that being said, so the only thing that I see here that they want are recommending to be changed in section 21 is it says except as otherwise provided by resolution of the governing authority.

What is there essentially a real benefit to adding this line if at any time we can elect to initiate a change either in this section or in the entire document?

Dr.

Bolton, if I understand, for this section, you can initiate a change.

And yes, for the entire document, you can initiate a change at any time, which seems to be the essence of the question, the timing of when this body initiates the change.

Right.

So the adding this one line essentially does not add any additional rights or values that we don't already have.

Well, it changes the way the finance department would be run.

Right now, there's a statutory construct in the ORGAP.

Adding that sentence gives you the power to then change that.

It's power you don't have right now.

Okay, so the way I'm reading this is it's saying this list one through 11 below where that addition is, that red line is, are some of the items that by resolution it's requesting that we're able to change.

But the fact that it's already here indicates to me, because it's in the charter, we should be able to change initiate a change here anyway, items one through eleven.

You you could initiate a change.

The question is how you actually get the change to take place.

Adding the sent the phrase except as otherwise provided by resolution of the governing authority means a mere resolution could then change this list.

That's the fundamental change that's being offered by the charter review.

And frankly, that means the list could fluctuate.

You could decide through resolution, we're gonna remove items seven through eleven.

And then six months later, a year later, with technically another governing authority, you decide we're gonna add those back.

So it becomes a very different dynamic.

Right now, the governing authority does not have the power to do that.

This is codified, and we all have to live with it.

So this specific resolution will operate differently from the other ones because any other urging or resolution that we put forth would have to be received and accepted and executed by the administration.

But here you're saying this is if we do a resolution, it's automatically changed without it having to be accepted by the administration.

Well, I think you're touching on a nuance that's subtle in the language.

Okay.

The use of the term governing authority includes the eight members of the governing authority.

Okay the seven-member commission as well as the CEO.

So there's a distinction between the commission and the governing authority.

Here the language is the governing authority.

When the Board of Commissioners passes a resolution, how that resolution impacts the entire county government depends on what it says and how the CEO responds, etc.

So forth.

That's what's changing here.

And normally when you pass resolutions, it's this body sending a resolution up, and the CEO responds one way or another, which could be no response, which in and of itself has a legal impact.

Okay.

But okay, so it requires all eight to come together in order to make a decision to move forward specific to this statement, the governing authority.

Right.

The governing authority includes all eight, commissioner.

That is the significance of that being the language used here.

It is moving from the General Assembly changing this to just the eight members of the governing authority having the power to change it.

Except for a remote.

Okay.

I yield back.

I have a quick quick follow-up.

Um I think the in this scenario, a resolution can be passed by four votes, but a CEO can veto overriding a veto is five votes.

Is that right?

It gets really nuanced.

Generally, you're correct, there are procedural mechanisms that would get us from A to B included in that larger discussion, Commissioner Terry, would be whether or not a referendum's needed, except for so far.

Well, no, I'm just saying, like, say this actually was passed.

Well, if let's just let's just say this was actually in our charter, and you want to change one word out of these 11 things, a board of commissioner resolution four to you know, four to three would pass.

That is the process for the governing authority to act in balance that power.

You're right, there is a veto, and the board of commissioners by proper vote may override the veto.

Yeah, so and this is the main, this is the main point I'll get to.

This applies for everything we're doing up here.

Because there are already balance checks and balances in place.

When you so when you talk about changing the balance of power, you're talking about the core constitutional powers, but you still have to have a supermajority to override a veto.

So if a CEO really is opposed to something, but a board of commissioners says we really want to change it, you need five votes.

That's very common in democracies all over the world.

A supermajority can override the executive branch.

But what we're debating right now is whether we should even have the opportunity to do that.

And if we don't make this change, then we're not making then we're not doing that.

And the fundamental issue that we have to ask ourselves is do we want to water this down so much that there might be one or two things that changes the balance of power, and now we have to have a referendum.

And you have to ask yourself does anyone up here want to campaign in 2027, I guess, to change our charter for a little minor little tweaks here and there.

Anyone want to spend their time campaigning and raising money and and going out and getting out the vote for something that isn't really gonna matter that much?

So I'm just I would question this whole exercise is if we are not fundamentally changing thinking of this at actually making some balance of powers, then all of these recommendations that would reforce a referendum, we need to have a hard look at and say, do we really want to battle something in the public for something that's not gonna make a hill of beans?

Well, I think that hilla beans depends on the person's opinion, you know, because um, you know, I feel that that's something that can be dealt with in the legislature.

Um I think that if you're talking about the government authority, if they're really talking about the government authority, then you have eight votes, you know, he says four votes and a and you say four votes and a veto.

If they're saying that this is had to be approved by the government authority, and the CEO is part of the governing authority, that's not the same as we voting on something, and she vetoing it.

I mean, how do we have equal?

Uh, you saying that we have equal power by her veto.

Yes, that's no commissioner.

I'm not suggesting at all that there's equal power.

I think there are distinct roles.

Oh, okay.

Very, very different.

Okay, that's what I'm saying.

And frankly, I think that's what's at the essence of this recommendation.

Right now, as I understand it, and I won't drag you through all the nuances, a finance director is appointed and then confirmed, right?

And then reports to the CEO.

To change this with these express powers in the organizational act for that finance director answering to the administration, to change this, then changes those powers dramatically.

That's that's what I'm asking.

Right.

And I think that's really what you're pointing out.

That's my point.

And that's the reason that I say that um, yeah.

So of any other discussion on it.

Okay.

I'm of the mindset to um keep this portion as what about okay.

Madam Chair, you didn't go over section 21B.

Yeah.

20 21B says is adding on the county websites.

Okay, well, in the 21A.

Yeah.

Um the charter doesn't reflect this addition uh in the actual organization act.

But if you go to section 21B, so we were just dealing with 21A and 21B, they add one line to um, and I'll just read it.

The chief executive shall it's uh literally the last sentence, it's a long sentence, but the chief executive shall call the June 30th and December 31st statements to be published in the official organ of DeCab County one time and a copy posted on the county courthouse bulletin board, and then the charter review committee is adding this line and on the county website within 30 days of each date.

So it's just adding that it will be posted uh not just on the county courthouse bulletin, but also on the website.

Okay.

I don't have a problem with that.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

Okay.

I'm all for taking the power.

Huh?

I'm all for taking the power.

I'm sorry.

We're taking the power.

Oh put it on the website.

Okay.

Uh madam chair.

I do I do have a question.

So I think that we're in consensus that the um, the red line, we don't agree with in 21A.

Yes.

Okay, we don't agree with that.

No agreement on A and agreement on B.

I'm sorry.

On agreement on subsection B of the addition of on the county website.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so do one.

Madam Chair, if I could okay.

This section, it um it appears to me, and I need to check with uh Miss McGraw when she returns.

This section um completes the part that the community um the Charter Review Commission, their recommendations that likely cannot be implemented by home rule only.

Okay.

You all cannot do it, but will require, will is the uh important word require state legislative action.

Right.

That is the last part of that section.

The next section um is, and we're we don't have time to get to that today, but the next section, um, it may or may not take state action.

They it looks like they don't know exactly where they land, whether it can be done through home rule or by state action.

So I just kind of want to get your minds prepared for that portion when you all bring it back up.

Okay, and we'll bring it back up at the next committee of the hall.

Okay.

Um when is the next committee of the hall?

Next meeting.

Our next uh uh ops meeting.

July 7th, July 7th.

Just 70 of the whole BLC.

Oh, the next, you asked for the next option.

And and we meet doing the committee of the whole.

So the next ops will be on 7-7.

That's where we're saying on 7-7.

And so this is where we would.

Not a committee of the whole, that would be actual meeting.

Start.

But yes.

We will start on page 12.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, how much time do we have?

So we have what time is it now?

Two o'clock.

We have 15 minutes until the end of the.

We just skip an item.

I'm sorry.

You did skip an item on the agenda.

I skipped an item.

What's that?

It's on the agenda.

It's the first item on the agenda.

All right.

Commissioner.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So we may not get to it because we skipped an item on the agenda.

And that was 0999.

Let me get my vote.

I don't know how that happened.

Okay.

Okay, 0999.

I'm sorry.

Okay, zero uh 260999.

I'll commission districts.

Uh resolution to create an independent salary commission to review and make recommendations regarding future compensation of members of the DeCamp County Board of Commission.

And since this was your item, you want to speak on.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be brief.

Um, since I know y'all just um are looking at this for the first time.

Um, I will point out that in um September and October of last year I did provide an email to the whole board of commissioners outlining this proposal.

Um, but today I'm bringing forward this resolution to establish an independent salary commission for DeCab County Board of Commissioners.

Uh, we all know that evaluating compensation for elected officials is inherently a sensitive issue and probably controversial.

Uh but it is contribute conversation that by a severe nature can raise concerns about the appearance of political conflict of interests, uh, which is exactly why we need to remove ourselves from the center of this process.

This resolution creates a structured, transparent, and objective path forward.

It establishes a seven-member commission with one member appointed by each commissioner to ensure true independence and expertise.

These appointees must be DeCab County residents with professional backgrounds and fields like human resources, compensation, law, public finance, or even public administration.

And furthermore, we've included strict safe safeguards in the resolution that no current county employees, no vendors, no relatives or household members of this board can serve.

The goal is to model best practices that we've seen from around the country as well as locally, uh, ones that have successfully implemented this in places like next door the city of Atlanta, who approved a salary commission last year, Prince George's County and Multanoma County team a few.

The commission will be tasked with looking at hard data, specifically collecting and analyzing compensation from comparable jurisdictions nationwide.

So, in other words, similar CEO from a government uh commissions uh with different you know and uh branches of power.

The commission will be tasked with looking at that data um and then um you know comparing those governance structures.

Most importantly, the process guarantees transparency.

The commission will operate in compliance with the Georgia Open Meetings Act and must hold at least one public hearing during each review cycle, although more is encouraged.

This ensures that our residents have a direct public voice before any advisory recommendations are submitted for uh to this board for consideration.

Ultimately utilizing the powers of the organizational act, which operates as a lack act, local act of the General Assembly to create this commission is fundamentally about good governance.

It allows us to focus our time and energy on the work that we were elected to do, leaving the compensation review now and and in the future uh to qualified independent community members.

And so I do ask for your support today to um begin the work um on creating this commission.

The commission uh would provide recommendation back to the board uh either for consideration in the charter review uh recommendations and or for our own um ability to decide later on um how to set that compensation.

And with that, I'll yield back.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other comments before I make comments?

I'll just say we don't have a copy of the resolution.

If that's what you were reading from, uh, and it would just be really helpful if we were if we could receive that so we can look through it as well.

Um it's in Legistar, so I mean, it should be in the packet, right?

I mean, it's on the links.

So if it's not in the packet, don't look at me.

I'm not in charge of the committee.

I didn't mean anything by it.

I was just saying we don't have it.

That's cool.

It's okay.

I was just letting you know if you were reading it, we weren't able to read along with you.

It's okay.

I'm just reading just reading a statement of what it is.

Okay.

But I expect the committee to know what they're voting on just by looking at your packet.

It's okay.

Well, uh you know, and that was unnecessary.

Okay.

Okay, um, Commissioner Terry, I think I have the floor right now as the chair.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, uh, what I would say is since I I feel that a resolution is unnecessary.

Uh and I would question the independence of a committee to look into our salaries.

If we are appointing those individuals, because if I wanted to settle a subtle um salary increase, I'm not gonna put somebody, I'm not gonna point somebody that don't have the intentions of um increasing my salary.

And so um I think that uh if we go into, we just need if you want to have transparency and independence, complete independence, uh then I will look at another source of appointments.

Uh secondly, uh our salary has been increased.

We had 74,000 a year.

This is a part-time position.

When we ran, it stated part-time position.

And you can do both.

You can work, I work.

And I mean, if you choose not to, that's your choice.

But the position was classified as a part-time position when we show when we chose to run for the position.

And not only have our salaries increased, we um track for a future increases through the judiciary, judiciary.

So I don't see a need for us to independently appoint a committee to determine our salaries.

The judiciary increase, but that's my opinion.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Um, you know, that's always been a um a fraught topic of how much uh electeds should be compensated and and should they be setting their own compensation.

Um and I can tell you from uh the two municipalities I've been at in the past that that was always a uh a tough conversation to have.

Um as was stated, you know, the legislature has already sort of uh uh bumped, actually, I think the governor bumped our salaries up about five thousand dollars during the pandemic, if I remember correctly.

I don't know about the bidding being lowered.

Um so I'm you know, if if if there is consensus that the board of commissioners feels that it needs a raise or the CEO needs a raise, then we should be able to talk with our constituents directly about that, but to sort of um come up with another organ that's gonna uh review the question when really it's not a question I've heard from residents.

Um they say you're doing a good job, and we expect you to keep doing the same, as opposed to you need more money, and I I just have not heard that.

So um I'm not sure that this gets us where we need to be.

And you know, with all the conversations we're also having about rate increases, uh it it's it's hard to say, oh, by the way, the electeds need extra money too.

So um, but Commissioner Terry, I hear you chit-chatting on that side.

If you need to put the microphone on, most definitely.

Let's hear it.

You do you have anything further?

Yeah, I mean, I'll just add that um I appreciate that y'all have your opinions on it.

Um, and he just tore up the piece of paper.

So I get to deal with children up here, apparently.

Um, but you know, I did research on this commissioners, and this is a best practice.

So the alternative is either we just vote to raise our salaries, so I literally put forward an independent objective process that would make a recommendation that ultimately would come back to us.

But um I'll add a caveat uh to that, Commissioner Davis Johnson, madam chair.

I'll add a caveat to that, madam chair.

I'll let a cat I'll add a caveat uh to this resolution is that if we don't remove the word part-time from the organizational act, then I would not support a salary increase.

But I've been asking for this committee to accept the charter review recommendations of removing part-time.

Uh well, no, because it's a full-time job.

I mean, it's not a full-time job.

Uh-oh.

We just heard that, Commissioners.

Apparently, some of us don't actually do our job full-time.

And I would question why that is.

Um, of course, some of us actually have more to deal with.

Some have 90% cities, so they just have less work to do.

I understand.

That's your perspective, but this is a best practice from other jurisdictions.

So I didn't I didn't just make this up on my own.

Atlanta did it, Multinoma County, Prince George's County.

This is a standard process to remove what arguably would be a subjective viewpoint on our part for our own salaries, putting it into an independent commission.

Now, if you have an issue with us appointing the board, please provide an alternative.

Maybe HR can appoint the board.

I don't really care.

The whole purpose is to have experts from DeCap County that can do an objective analysis of how much work commissioners do.

Our form of government, which is a separate legislative branch.

So if we're gonna have separation of powers, but then not have the ability to exist full time while the CEO is full-time.

And by the way, the CEO got a big salary raise the last time the charter was changed by the legislature.

And by the way, that $5,000 raise the governor gave was basically knocked down because the legislation that Billy Mitchell input changed the percentage and actually lowered our salary by like one percent.

But I mean, they just came up with that on their own.

They didn't consult us.

The legislation has like seven decimal points behind it.

So it doesn't even make sense.

And so look, I mean, I don't understand why I'm being attacked for proposing this.

You know, it doesn't need to be you know personal.

Um I'm trying to recognize that I watched the work that we do all up here, and a lot of us do put a lot of time into it.

And maybe some of us are independently wealthy, I guess.

I don't know.

But if you want a commissioner to do the work that's required, you should expect them to be full-time.

And if you want them to do that full-time work, don't expect them to do it and have another job on the side to make a living.

And that's the whole point is I see that we are full-time commissioners, and if you don't choose to do that, that's up to you.

But I can tell you there's always more work to do in this county.

And by saying I'm gonna stop working for the people because I'm about to do some other work, is actually hurting your role as a county commissioner and your constituents.

Okay.

Um thank you, uh, Commissioner Chair, but I'm not first of all, I would like to say this.

I think that every commissioner up here is doing a fine job for their constituents.

And I think it's up to the constituents, not us, to rate our performance.

And I think that I know the district five commissioners, I mean, district five constituents uh will rate me, and I'm assuming that every other district will be rated by their constituents.

So um I'm not going to um diminish what a person does in their particular district because I want to raise, you know, because I think that I don't know.

I don't know what y'all do in your office.

I'm not your supervisor, and I don't spy on you.

You know, so uh that's left up to your constituents.

I respect uh each and every one of you all to do the job that you all were voted in to do, and that I'm I would assume that if you don't, you will get voted out.

You know, and so um, you know, so I think that commissioner.

Yeah, I just have a few questions because I have had an opportunity to quickly read through it.

Initially, when you were speaking and we didn't have the document, my understanding was um uh a commission that would do a one-time evaluation of our salaries, but this reads under, for example, under section three term and operations section A, salary commission members sh shall serve terms of up to four years concurrent with the commissioner who appointed them, uh, which is an indication that they would be doing multiple evaluations as well as in Section C, where it says the salary commission shall conduct at least one public hearing during each review cycle.

So I would be curious to know what's the frequency of the cycle and the necessity to do multiple evaluations and serve a four-year term as opposed to just doing a single review or evaluation to determine if our salaries are commensurate with what is in the current industry.

Thank you for that question.

Um, I believe that is a standard bowler plate language for appointees.

Um since we've been doing cleanups on our boards and appointments, the law department has um the um law department has I think basically changed all of our appointments to be concurrent with our term.

Um but I don't expect that the board would meet multiple times with within a four-year period.

I think the idea is you just you do it once, you provide a recommendation, and I mean I guess in theory if they needed to meet again, they could, but um the intent of this is not to just do this every few years, it's really to do it once, and in the future, I suppose it could be reconvened.

Um but I would expect that this would be done once it's done, and if it needs to be done in the future, that would be something to to look at.

Um I've seen where other jurisdictions have simply just set the train, basically, they've just said here's what we think the appropriate salary is, and then you attach it to the train, and then from there that point on, you really don't need to um consider it and unless it was necessary.

So why not just elect to do a study as a vote as opposed to forming a commission, hire some third party to do a study?

Well, that would be completely acceptable to me.

I mean, we could simply ask the HR department to convene their own, you know, panel um and let them do the work.

I mean, that would completely separate us from it.

I mean, that's that's reasonable.

The the goal is just to do the survey of all the other, you know, I don't know how many, is it like 30 or 40 counties that are CEO from a government?

And and let me ask this a bit because I'm we run out of time.

So if I could ask this question, would you like to um since this is your um initiative?

Would you like to fund the study?

Well, I mean, HR just did a salarist.

I mean, I just asked, do would you like to fund the study?

If not, well, but just to be clear, that HR does this, like that's their job.

They do salary research.

We don't pay them extra to do it, they just that's their job.

So if okay.

But the salary commission wouldn't need budget, it just is appointees doing the research.

So with this particular resolution, um do we have a motion because we have to move we'd have to move on motion to deny second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

That item is denied.

Um we are out of time.

And so uh is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

I think that's a good question.