Transcript charter review commission overview/presentation

“Your Neighbors - Working On Your Charter”
Overview
 The
role of the Wakulla County Charter Review
Commission (CRC) is to recommend the amendment,
revision, or repeal; or recommend no amendment, revision,
or repeal, of the County Charter.
 The CRC consists of 15 volunteers selected from a pool of 30
candidates. Over 18,500 Wakulla County Electorates were
eligible to serve, however, only 30 total individuals
volunteered (less than .18 percent).
 The CRC met over several months to review the Charter,
take input from citizens, and ultimately generate proposed
amendments. Approximately 300 manhours were utilized
by these volunteers, ultimately saving the County over
$65,000 during this mandated review process.
Overview Continued
 The CRC does NOT make amendments to the Charter. Rather
amendments are proposed, placed on the ballot, and the
Citizens vote whether to accept or reject the proposals. It truly is
the Citizens choice as to what gets amended.
 Amendment proposals came from citizens before and during the
formulation of the CRC, from other County Charters, and from
members themselves.
 Each Article of the Charter was reviewed. Even after months of
reviewing, in depth discussions, and citizen input, etc, only 9
amendments have been proposed.
 Once all proposals have been generated, a final vote will take
place on June 26th at the next CRC meeting (TCC 6p.m.)to
determine which proposals will go forward. Per Charter rules, it
will take 10 CRC members voting for a proposal for it to go
forward.
Key Points
 The Charter was voted on and approved by the Citizens of
Wakulla County in 2008.
 The Charter is a “Living Document”, much like the
Constitution, it can be amended as deemed appropriate.
Furthermore, it can be repealed. The power truly belongs
to the people.
 Amendments or repeal can be made every 2 years during a
General Election if the citizens vote to approve the
proposed amendment/repeal placed
before them.
Proposals can be brought forward by the BOCC (majority
plus 1); the People (petition process), and the Charter
Review Commission (at least every 8 years).
Proposed Amendments
 Are they on target?
 Are more/less amendments needed?
 Will these proposals allow for “better governmental
rule” by the people?
 Think about these questions as you review the
proposals?
Switching All Locally Elected Offices To
Non-Partisan
 Was the 1st overall proposal.
 Passed unanimously with both major political parties
present on the CRC.
 Due to unanimous consent, the proposal was
forwarded to the BOCC for their inclusion on the 2014
ballot. (in case the CRC did not finalize their
review/recommendations before the 2014 election).
5 Single Member Districts For BOCC
 Would make BOCC members elected from those voters in
their own District, not the County as a whole.
 Those in support of this proposal cited: closer relationship
to their BOCC rep, ability for more people to run for office
since they do not have to campaign county wide,
negotiations between BOCC members, and more
accountability by the District BOCC member.
 Those not in support of this proposal cited: a reduction in
the ability to vote for all the BOCC reps that ultimately
effect you, in-fighting between BOCC members wanting to
take care of their own District, and “permanent” BOCC
members.
New Residency Requirements For
Candidates
 Proposes criteria that candidates verify their residency
in a particular District 6 months before qualifying.
 Includes providing a sworn oath, and then 3 other
forms of verification: Drivers License, Florida ID, Proof
of Residency (homestead, signed lease agreement,
etc), voter registration card, or vehicle registration
card.
 Proposed due to lack of detail in the current Charter
concerning residency requirements.
Special Elections & Referendums
 Proposed due to low voter turnout during special elections.
 Those supporting this proposal cited: special elections have
very low voter turnout, while the election costs still remain;
a lack of voter awareness and involvement with special
elections; the need for passing a referendum less than 24
months apart seems unwarranted.
 Those opposing this proposal cited: a concern for tying the
hands of elected officials should they need to propose
something between general elections and their concern
associated with trying to change the system due to voter
apathy.
Petition Initiatives For Ordinances &
Charter Amendments
 The procedures going forth will remain the same, however,
this proposal would require these initiatives be passed by
60% of those voting instead of a simple majority.
 Those supporting this proposal cited: the need to ensure
that such initiatives were overwhelmingly supported by the
electors since it was making amendments to the Charter or
enacting a new ordinance.
 Those opposing this proposal cited: the additional
challenge associated with getting Charter Amendments or
Ordinances enacted, which have been brought forth by the
citizens.
All Locally Elected Officers Shall Be
Subject To Recall Per Florida Law
 The current Charter only identifies that members of
the BOCC will be subject to recall by general law.
 The proposal was brought forth to provide clarity as to
all locally elected offices.
 Those supporting this proposal cited: the need to
ensure the Charter addresses all locally elected
officials.
 Those opposing the proposal cited: the redundancy of
enacting a Charter Amendment when Florida Law
already addresses this issue.
Charter Review Commission Selection And
Voting Procedures
 Due to the challenges associated with selecting the inaugural
CRC as well as the challenges of conducting meetings when CRC
member attendance was limited, this proposal was brought
forth. The original request for the selection process was
generated from members of the BOCC to provide selection
structure for future BOCC’s. Proposal includes each BOCC
Commissioner appointing 3 CRC members, a quorum will
consist of 12 CRC members, 2/3 of which can propose to amend,
revise, or repeal, the Charter.
 Debate was very limited, as the needs were easily identifiable by
both the BOCC bringing the structure aspect forward (and the
CRC members having lived through the process) and the CRC
trying to conduct the meetings by which member attendance
was limited.
The BOCC Shall Provide 3 Attorneys For The
CRC To Choose Their Legal Counsel From
 This proposal was generated by the CRC members due to
various concerns about the County appointed attorneys
that represented the CRC.
 Those supporting the proposal cited: a need for vetting by
the CRC to ensure the attorneys are familiar with Charter
Law, as well as evaluating their procedures relative to
ensuring that the legal costs are kept at a minimum.
 No opposition to the proposal was noted, however, concern
for adding such a measure to the County Charter, in lieu of
mandating this aspect through other means was presented.
The BOCC Shall Adopt And Adhere To A Debt
Policy Along With The Fund Balance Policy
 This proposal would require an annual debt policy be
established by the BOCC, as well as adherence to the
fund balance policy already enacted by the BOCC.
 Those supporting this proposal cited: the need for the
BOCC to look at how they will manage debt each fiscal
year, so as to alleviate the possibility of allowing the
County to become financially unstable due to debt.
 Those opposing this proposal cited: the lack of teeth
associated with a “policy” verses a Charter mandate.
It’s YOUR Charter, Let YOUR Voice Be
Heard!
 We will open up with citizens to be heard. Each citizen is
provided 3 minutes to discuss any NEW amendment they
would like to propose.
 Each proposal will be gone over individually, citizens can
fill out a speaker’s card and speak 3 minutes on each
proposed amendment.
 We will close with citizens to be heard. Each citizen is
provided 3 minutes to discuss any NEW amendment they
would like to propose.
 Like the BOCC meetings, the CRC members will not be
engaging in dialogue with the speakers during these
timeframes.
Any Questions Before We Start ?