back to charter committee home page

CHARTER ISSUES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APRIL 25, 2002
MINUTES

Volusia County Library Support Center
1290 Indian Lake Road
Daytona Beach, Florida 32124
5:30 p.m.

Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Jon Kaney at 5:35 p.m. Those present were Jack Ascherl, Doug Daniels, Senta Goudy, James Huger, Jon Kaney, Charles Matousek, Linda White, Dr. T. Wayne Bailey, Matt Greeson from the County Manager’s Office, and Frank Gummey, Deputy County Attorney. Also present was Summer Clayton and Lyda Longa, Daytona Beach News-Journal.

Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of April 18, 2002

Mr. Huger moved approval of the minutes. The motion was seconded. Matt Greeson suggested that they be amended to reflect that the dissenting votes on the motion for the Chair’s salary on page 3. The suggested change was accepted and the motion was approved unanimously.

Discussion Regarding the Position of Chair of the Volusia County Council

Chairman Kaney opened the discussion by asking if Doug Daniels had a proposal he wanted to offer. Mr. Daniels stated that a simpler solution to the idea of the Internal Auditor being appointed by the County Council may be to change the role of the Chair in the firing of the County Manager. He proposed that the Chair could propose the firing of the County Manager, but that it could not actually occur without the consent of the County Council. He stated that it would help alleviate future problems between the Chair and the County Manager because the Chair would be the person who could propose firing the manager. He further stated that he thought this was a mostly symbolic, but significant change.

Mr. Huger asked if the proposal would preclude other members from proposing that the manager be fired. Doug Daniels explained that the Chair would be the only member who could initiate the firing, but that it would have to be approved by a majority of the entire Council. Senta Goudy stated that the Chair would determine whether or not there would be a vote to fire or not. Jack Ascherl asked if that, in essence, gives the Chair veto by being able to control consideration of firing the manager. Chairman Kaney asked if the County Manager would then only have to keep one person, the Chair, happy. Charles Matousek stated that the proposal is thought provoking because it provides the Chair with additional authority.

Mr. Matousek further stated that one of the problems with the current system is that you have elections that result in a large number of new people on governing boards and that it creates instability. He stated that more stability could potentially be created with this proposal.

Mr. Daniels stated that one of the mistakes the 1995-1996 Charter Review Commission made was in proposing that the County Attorney be appointed by the County Council, rather than the County Manager. He stated that his proposal regarding the Chair was in part to limit the number of groups and individuals that report to the County Council and place responsibility under the County Manager.

Ms. Goudy stated that there needs to be a way to make the County Manager and staff accountable to the public. She stated that they are currently not accountable and that they do not have to respond to any one County Council member. Chairman Kaney stated that he thought the proposal to give the Chair more authority in the firing process was terrible and that it moved towards changing the form of government. He stated that a number of people have suggested to him that the models of government should not be mixed and that the system becomes unworkable if elements of each model are used. He further stated that it is the "hybridizing" of the models that concerns him. Doug Daniels stated that his proposal was aimed at making a hybrid of the models.

Chairman Kaney, referring to the appointed of the County Attorney by the County Council, stated that he does not see anything wrong with a County Council being staffed by more than one person. He stated that it is a myth that you can just fire the manager and that, therefore, ensures that they will be responsive to the Council. He stated that the ability to fire is not an instrument for cajoling, managing or leading a County Manager. He stated that in a sunshine law state, such as Florida, elected officials are hesitant to suggest firing the manager. He said that they sometimes break the law and communicate with one another in order to orchestrate the firing or test the political feasibility of firing the manager. He stated that it is an instrument that a willful manager can dare to test.

Chairman Kaney further stated that managers can advocate for policies and that they often block policy ideas of Council members. He stated that his experience with Dr. Kelly was this. He further stated that the County staffs were perpetuators of the status quo. He referred to the Vice Chair Senta Goudy’s experience on the Beach Policy Advisory Committee that has been referenced previously as an example of staff blocking policy proposals. Discussion ensued regarding this matter.

Linda White suggested that boards get creative and come up with many ideas that are not feasible to implement and that are difficult to do within budget constraints. She stated that the Committee needs to stay focused on its purpose. Discussion continued regarding these issues.

Chairman Kaney stated that the question in his mind is how you empower the Council to think big thoughts that are not necessarily the County Manager’s ideas instead of focusing on administrivia. Senta Goudy asked whether it was possible to fine-tune the proposal any more. She stated that the Committee has made great strides. She further asked whether or not the Committee was going to discuss the Internal Auditor. Chairman Kaney stated that while he suggested it needed to be discussed, he had not made up his mind whether or not it needed to be appointed by the County Council. He stated that the idea is to provide another node of power and information.

Mr. Daniels referred to Dr. Tom Kelly’s; former Volusia County Manager, talk and that he had said it could stifle creativity. He stated that he would rather structure the Chair position in a way that the County Manager would have to keep the Chair happy. Jimmy Huger asked why the County Manager should have to make only the Chair happy. Linda White stated that she is concerned that if the changes go too far that the Council-Manager system could be effectively destroyed because all there would be is a bunch of weak positions. Jimmy Huger stated that the focus has been to strengthen the Chair so that they can lead. He further stated that he believes that the Chair has all the tools now that they need to lead.

He stated that it should be remembered that it is the people that elect the County Council members and that they will remind them if they think they are not leading. Jack Ascherl stated that he has concerns about how the other six- (6) positons on the County Council feel about the Chair making more money than them.

He stated that he thinks we are going too far towards changing the Council-Manager system if we adopt Mr. Daniels proposal. He stated that the primary issues seem to be leadership and continuity and that the continuity issue is dealt with through four (4) year terms. Linda White stated that the Committee has to consider what the voters will support and that she is beginning to hear concerns about some of the proposals. Doug Daniels stated that he thinks significant change is easier to make than small changes. He suggested that they just think about his proposal, but move on to other issues at this point.

Chairman Kaney raised the issue of the Internal Auditor being appointed by the County Council. Discussion ensued regarding this proposal. It was decided that they would move on to discussion of other items on the agenda.

Discussion regarding Term Limits for County Council Seats

Jack Ascherl suggested that the other County Council seats, in addition to the Chair, be limited to two- (2), four- (4) year terms. Senta Goudy seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

Discussion regarding the Make-up of the County Council

Mr. Ascherl proposed that there be three (3) at-large positions, including the Chair, and four (4) districts.

Ms. Goudy stated that she liked keeping seven (7) members and the staggering of terms. She stated that there should be six (6) districts and one (1) at-large, the Chair.

Mr. Daniels stated that smaller districts would be saleable to the voting public. Chairman Kaney stated that the other option would be to consider going to five- (5) seats with a Chair and four- (4) districts, rather than seven- (7). Doug Daniels stated that it made the most sense, but that he did not think the voters would support it. Jack Ascherl stated that having six (6) districts and the Chair separates the Chair from the other members. He stated that he likes the balance between at-large and districts that going to a 4-3 model provides. Chairman Kaney raised the issue of parochialism and stated that the assumption that the Chair is strengthened by being the only at-large needs to be discussed. He stated that it should not be assumed that the Chair would be strengthened when they have only one vote. He stated that he is very concerned about parochialism being created by having six (6) districts and suggested that the district members be subjected to an at-large retention vote at mid-term. He further stated that the assumption that just because the Chair is the only position elected at-large that they will be strengthened is not a safe one.

Mr. Matousek stated that a larger district is appropriate at the State Legislative level, but that having only four (4) districts at the local level he thinks spreads members thin. He stated, however, that he is also concerned about the parochialism that could be caused by having six (6) single members districts. Doug Daniels stated that if you have other at-large positions you might set up rivals to the Chair. Discussion continued on the number of single member districts vs. at-large positions.

Mr. Ascherl motioned that the County Council be made up of seven (7) members with three (3) positions elected at-large and four- (4) single-member district and that one (1) of the at-large positions would be the Chair. Chairman Kaney seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-5 with Charles Matousek, Doug Daniels, Jimmy Huger, Senta Goudy and Linda White dissenting.

Discussion ensued regarding parochialism, the role of the County in addressing larger regional issues in the future, and the how terms could be staggered.

Mr. Ascherl restated his motion and added that the terms would be staggered so that the Chair and two (2) districts would run at the same time and that two- (2) at-large seats and two (2) districts would run at another time. The motion was approved 4 to 3 with Doug Daniels, Senta Goudy, and Jimmy Huger dissenting.

Discussion regarding Reimbursement of In-County Expenses

Chairman Kaney asked for suggestions related to reimbursement of County Council members for in-County expenses. Mr. Ascherl suggested that a stipend be provided in an amount of $100 per month for district Council members, $150 per month for at-large Council members, and $200 per month for the Chair. Discussion ensued regarding district offices, availability of telecommunications equipment, and the costs associated with being a County Council member.

Doug Daniels stated that County Council members are expected to be at a lot of expensive functions. Chairman Kaney stated that the charter could authorize the County Council to set the level of reimbursement or stipend. Jack Ascherl stated that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) could be applied to it. Chairman Kaney stated that it should not be made overly complicated. Jimmy Huger stated that the salary should be considered as the stipend to cover all expenses. Chairman Kaney stated that is a valid argument that can be made –that the expenses justify the salary. He stated that it needs to be made clear that the Charter should not bar the provision of facilities such as offices for Council members, administrative support for Council members, or communications equipment like cellular phones for Council members.

Mr. Huger proposed that the salary be used to cover expenses and that no additional stipend be provided or reimbursement be given for in-County expenses. This proposal was approved 4 to 3 with Charles Matousek, Doug Daniels, and Linda White dissenting.

Adjournment with Date Set for Next Meeting:

The Committee proposed meeting on May 7th, rather than May 9th. Without any objections that change in the schedule was made.

Without any further business to discuss, the Committee adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.

back to county council home page

 

Comments or questions?
E-mail the

Volusia County, Florida.