|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 110688 |
|
|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 110688 |
| Clerk's Official Copy |
| File Number: 110688 | File Type: Resolution | Status: Adopted | ||||||||||
| Version: 0 | Reference: R-214-11 | Control: Board of County Commissioners | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Requester: NONE | Cost: | Final Action: 3/24/2011 | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Sunset Provision: No | Effective Date: | Expiration Date: | ||||||||||
| Registered Lobbyist: | None Listed |
Legislative History |
|||||||
| Acting Body | Date | Agenda Item | Action | Sent To | Due Date | Returned | Pass/Fail |
| |
|||||||
| County Attorney | 3/25/2011 | Assigned | Geri Bonzon-Keenan | ||||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 3/24/2011 | Special Item No. 11 Amended | Adopted as amended | P | |||
| REPORT: | Commissioner Heyman noted there were eight (8) Special Items relating to salaries and term limits and suggested the Board consider taking a straw vote on each of these items. Chairman Martinez questioned County Attorney Robert Cuevas’ earlier comment about preliminary votes, noting there was no accompanying ordinance(s) which would include all items. County Attorney Cuevas responded that the Board would consider each of the eight (8) Special Items relating to salaries and term limits and would then vote on these items. Chairman Martinez clarified that Special Item No. 5 would not be considered further. Commissioners Gimenez and Heyman suggested that straw votes be taken on each of the following items with yes/no votes: • Eight year term limits • Twelve year term limits • Outside employment • State formula • Lobbying Commissioner Sosa suggested that a straw ballot be taken to determine whether to combine all the issues or to consider each item separately. Chairman Martinez responded that one combined item would be created out of all individual issues. Discussion ensued among the members of the Board on the Charter amendments being proposed at today’s (3/24) Special Meeting, regarding County Commissioners’ salary, term limits and outside employment, whereupon the following straw votes were taken: Chairman Martinez asked that a straw vote be taken by the Board to determine its support for each County Commissioner to serve no more than two (2) consecutive four (4) -year terms in office. The proposal, upon being put to a straw vote, failed by a vote of 8-4 (Commissioners Barreiro, Bell, Diaz, Edmonson, Heyman, Moss, Jordan, and Chairman Martinez voted “No”), (Commissioners Gimenez, Monestime, Sosa, and Souto voted “Yes”). Chairman Martinez asked that a straw vote be taken by the Board to determine its support for each County Commissioner to serve no more than three (3) consecutive four (4) -year terms in office. The proposal, upon being put to a straw vote, passed by a vote of 9-3 (Commissioners Barreiro, Bell, Diaz, Edmonson, Heyman, Jordan, Monestime, Moss and Chairman Martinez voted “Yes”), (Commissioners Gimenez, Sosa, and Souto voted “No”). Chairman Martinez asked that a straw vote be taken by the Board to determine its support for each County Commissioner to receive an annual salary in accordance with the State Statutory formula. The proposal, upon being put to a straw vote, passed by a vote of 12-0. Chairman Martinez asked that a straw vote be taken by the Board to determine its support for each County Commissioner to hold no outside employment. Prior to the straw vote, Commissioner Monestime noted that he owned a small business for the past 15 years and questioned whether holding no outside employment required that he closed his business. County Attorney Cuevas responded that this requirement would depend upon the actual wording and the effective date of the proposal. He said that any proposal worded “devote full time service to the Office of County Commissioner” and “no outside employment” would prohibit anyone from serving in both capacities. Chairman Martinez noted that this requirement only applied to County Commissioners and other County employees had the right to engage in outside employment. Commissioner Barreiro questioned and County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that a County Commissioner could not receive salary income from his/her business; however, could receive dividend income from that business. County Attorney Cuevas said that the proposed language prevented a Commissioner from receiving income from work in another capacity; however, this language could be rewritten to accommodate the Board’s intent. Chairman Martinez relinquished the Chair to Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson. Commissioner Heyman noted the proposed language stated a commissioner shall devote “full time service to the Office of County Commissioner” and did not indicate being a full time employee. She said that only five (5) out of 66 counties that offered a salary for service or employment specifically addressed no other income received by its commissioners. Commissioner Heyman said this reform was intended that commission service remained a priority obligation and a legitimate salary provided in return for a significant time commitment devoted to the position. She said commissioners should have the flexibility to multi-task and perform other work beyond the scope of their commission responsibilities as time permitted and without work conflict issues. County Attorney Cuevas noted that a problem existed inasmuch as a definition of full time service did not exist. He said that there would be a consequence once adopted and enshrined in the Charter and the definition alternatively interpreted. He said the County Attorney’s Office would address any exceptions the Board believed appropriate as a matter of policy; however, full time service was not a term with an objective standard to rely upon if challenged. Commissioner Heyman noted federal and State examples of legislators providing full time service to their offices while receiving additional compensation. She suggested that the definition of full time service was included somewhere else other than in the Charter. County Attorney Cuevas responded that the language could read “full time service to be defined by ordinance adopted by the Board” and the specific definition of full time service could be clarified later. Commissioner Bell concurred with Commissioner Heyman and supported placing the full time service provision in the Charter and clarifying the definition by means of an ordinance. Commissioner Heyman noted that placing her Florida Bar license in an inactive status would compromise her ability to perform pro bono work. She said that this proposed requirement would have a chilling affect on many licensed professionals. Commissioner Heyman noted she supported commissioners serving a 12 year maximum term in office with a salary based on the State Statutory formula and full time service. Commissioner Jordan noted her item did not address outside employment. She said the language under consideration would prevent a commissioner from holding office unless he/she was independently wealthy, retired or unemployed and would discriminate against young people running for office, trying to make a career, by requiring that they earned just the State Statutory formula. Commissioner Jordan said that limiting one’s income would limit individuals’ ability to serve on the Commission. Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson said that specific items needed to be publicly vetted which was evident by Commissioner Heyman’s comments. She noted concern that commissioners would not be able to maintain their professional certifications which presented a problem for them once no longer holding public office. Commissioner Edmonson said she did not support establishing a salary cap or limiting one’s ability to determine their income. Commissioner Sosa noted that holding no outside employment would prevent a commissioner from voting on a contract or project which would be in conflict with his/her commission service as a result of that employment. She said she was not opposed to a commissioner who was not doing business with the County from engaging in outside employment and earning a living. Commissioner Sosa noted the County Attorney could determine the proper language to eliminate the potential for a conflict of interest and at the same time preserve the ability for commissioners’ to engage in other business opportunities. County Attorney Cuevas responded that the solution was for full time employment to be defined by ordinance. Commissioner Gimenez noted he was compelled by Commissioner Heyman’s arguments and those of other colleagues. He said the major contention was over the conflict of interest and proposed the following language: “no outside employment that poses potential conflict of interest as determined by the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust (Ethics Commission).” Commissioner Monestime questioned and County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that the Ethics Commission had an ethics code which governed the conduct of commissioners and County employees. He noted this code prevented conflict of interests and attached consequences to these situations. Commissioner Sosa noted her belief that Commissioner Gimenez’ proposed language was a solution and supported the independent decision from the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. County Attorney Cuevas responded to Commissioner Martinez’ question that it would be a challenge to accurately reflect the proposal into the 75 ballot word limit. Commissioner Jordan noted that several commissioners currently worked for the Miami-Dade Public Schools (MDPS) and that it was important to obtain an Ethics Commission opinion on conflict of interest issues. She said she did not want to include language which would contain unintended consequences in terms of conflict of interests. County Attorney Cuevas clarified that the language suggested by Commissioner Jordan would enshrine the County Commissioners’ qualifications in the Charter. Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson said she had been advised by the County Attorney and the Ethics Commission that a conflict of interest did not exist for commissioners working for the MDPS. County Attorney Cuevas noted that the concern was much broader than a conflict when voting on a particular issue. He said the concern related to county commissioners’ responding to issues in order to fulfill their obligations on behalf of the community. Commissioner Heyman proposed the following language: “each county commissioner shall devote full time service as defined by County ordinance.” County Attorney Cuevas responded that he had no problem with Commissioner Heyman’s proposal, but rather with Commissioner Gimenez’ proposal, and the ability to express all the proposed language in 75 words. Commissioner Gimenez noted the full time service issue must be tempered and the public was concerned with conflict of interests within the Board. He said the full time service issue needed to be addressed in order to resolve the perception of conflict of interests. Commissioner Gimenez noted he did not want to deny commissioners the right to earn an additional income. He concurred that no outside income or employment would limit the quality of future Board participation; however, a method was needed to assure the public that conflict of interest did not exist. Commissioner Gimenez asked County Attorney Cuevas for recommendations to develop a method that would not limit candidates willing to serve on the Board. County Attorney Cuevas responded with the following language that could be included in the Charter: “shall not vote on an item where there would be a conflict” or to include Commissioner Heyman’s suggestion “full time employment to be determined by ordinance with the recommendation or input of the Ethics Commission.” Commissioner Gimenez noted that someone with a conflict of interest needed to decide between being a full time commissioner or their present situation. He said that he believed his proposed language solved this situation by requiring a commissioner to choose between public service or engaging in business with the County. County Attorney Cuevas responded that Commissioner Gimenez was proposing placing limitations on a commissioner. He said that those commissioners with outside employment obtained an Ethics Commission opinion about the types of issues they were eligible or precluded to vote upon, considering their particular employment situation. Commissioner Gimenez noted that the Ethics Commission already provided an opinion about items which a commissioner would be eligible to vote upon; however, the public’s perception of conflict of interests continued to exist. County Attorney Cuevas then suggested as an alternative that “no commissioner shall continue in any outside employment which presented a conflict of interests.” Commissioner Gimenez added to County Attorney Cuevas’ recommendation the language “as determined by the Ethics Commission.” He said this would resolve Board members concerns as well as the public’s perception of conflict of interests on the Board. Chairman Martinez resumed the Chair. Chairman Martinez noted that public input was necessary and it was not the appropriate time to consider Charter revisions as evidenced by the depth of this discussion. Commissioner Diaz questioned whether the issues under consideration would be put to a public vote as Straw Ballot or a final vote. He also questioned whether these proposals would be forwarded without public input. County Attorney Cuevas responded the public vote on Charter changes would be a final vote and there would be no public input on the development of these proposed Charter changes if approved by the Board today (3/24). Commissioner Diaz noted the public had expressed concern about the Board making decisions without receiving public input and these Charter questions were being forced upon the public. He said he agreed with Commissioner Gimenez’ proposed wording. Commissioner Diaz noted the Board needed to be careful about the County’s future and the people wanting to represent its residents. He said he believed that despite these efforts, the conflict of interest perception would not go away. Commissioner Diaz noted he was participating in the process; however, expressed concern about making decisions without public input. Commissioner Monestime concurred that issues should be publicly vetted; however, noted that the community had addressed the term limits issue for quite awhile and it did not require further discussion. Regarding outside employment, Commissioner Monestime questioned whether consulting work would be considered outside employment, and if so, how a determination would be made if the consultant had more than one client. County Attorney Cuevas confirmed that consulting work would be considered as outside employment and that it was difficult to determine whether any conflict existed when a Commissioner performed mutual consulting jobs. He said that language was being written to address this issue in a general manner and that it would be the Ethics Commission’s responsibility to determine specific conflict of interest issues. Commissioner Monestime questioned whether a commissioner who was lobbying the State, federal government, or other municipalities on behalf of another entity was considered to be engaged in outside employment. County Attorney Cuevas responded that lobbying would be considered outside employment and according to the proposed language; the Ethics Commission would determine conflict of interest issues. Commissioner Monestime questioned whether there was a way to identify whether County employees worked as a consultant or engaged in other outside employment. County Attorney Cuevas responded that personnel rules required County employees to complete a form detailing their duties, compensation and responsibilities and to obtain authorization from their Department to engage in outside employment. He noted that an Ethics Commission’s opinion was not needed for employee authorizations. Commissioner Monestime commented that County employees engaged in consulting work could influence decisions made by Administration. He noted that the Board and the public had no knowledge whether a conflict of interest existed in these situations. Commissioner Moss noted he had never been a proponent of term limits; however, it appeared that the public supported term limits tied to restrictions on outside employment in exchange for a salary. He said the work of a county commissioner was a full time job and members serving in this capacity deserved a full time salary. Commissioner Bell said that a conflict of interest was being confused with outside employment; that it was the responsibility of a commissioner to obtain an Ethics Commission’s opinion on conflict of interest situations; and to act in an ethical manner. She recommended the ballot include: a 12 year term of office going forward; a salary based upon the State formula; and full time employment. Commissioner Heyman read the existing language utilized by Broward County, noting that their commissioners were paid according to the State formula; that they were full service county commissioners; and that they were allowed to engage in outside concurrent employment. She concurred with Commissioner Bell over the usage of full time service, not full time employment, noting that commissioners were elected officials and not County employees. Commissioners Heyman and Bell asked that the Board take a straw vote. County Attorney Cuevas clarified that Special Item No. 11 would read as follows: shall the Charter be amended to provide that County Commissioners shall; • Devote full-time service to the Office of County Commissioner, as defined by ordinance • No longer receive the $6,000 annual salary established in 1957, but receive instead the salary provided by the State Statutory formula, adjusted annually by the County’s population (currently $92,097) • Serve no more than three (3) consecutive four (4) -year terms in office, excluding all terms prior to 2012 Chairman Martinez said that the straw vote was only on the outside employment issue and a combined item would be considered later. It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that a straw vote be taken by the Board to determine support to amend this portion of the ballot question to ask whether each County Commissioner shall devote full-time service, as defined by ordinance, to the Office of County Commissioner. This motion, was seconded by Commissioner Bell, and upon being put to a straw vote, passed by a vote of 9-3 (Commissioners Barreiro, Bell, Diaz, Edmonson, Heyman, Jordan, Monestime, Moss, and Chairman Martinez voted “Yes”), (Commissioners Gimenez, Sosa and Souto voted “No”). Commissioner Gimenez noted the next item to be discussed was to prohibit lobbying with the County after five (5) years of termination of service. County Attorney Cuevas informed Chairman Martinez that other County employees were prohibited from lobbying activities for two (2) years. Commissioner Heyman suggested addressing Special Items 10 and 13 as separate Charter questions. Chairman Martinez questioned whether the two (2) year prohibition of County employees from lobbying the County would also apply to County Commissioners. County Attorney Cuevas responded that the two (2) year provision was a County ordinance which applied to both County employees and commissioners. Chairman Martinez clarified that Commissioner Heyman was trying to memorialize the two (2) year lobbying prohibition pursuant to Special Item No. 13 in the Charter. He noted that a discussion was needed on whether a separate ballot question on term limits was needed and whether a separate discussion on term limits was appropriate. Chairman Martinez said he wanted to conclude the discussion on Special Item No. 11 as related to term limits, outside employment and full-time service. It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Edmonson. Commissioner Diaz asked whether language could be included to require that the County Mayor’s salary be set by the voters. Chairman Martinez clarified that Commissioner Diaz’ request was a separate question; that it should not be included in the item currently being discussed; and that it could be considered later. Chairman Martinez supported the three (3) consecutive four (4) -year terms; however, did not agree with the terms prospectively starting in 2012 inasmuch as a commissioner would hold office for too long of a period. He explained that eight (8) years was not enough time to learn the system and 12 years was a better option. Chairman Martinez noted that public input was needed on prospective changes and advised against rushing this process. He noted he did not agree with the initial timeframe for the proposed terms. Commissioner Sosa noted the motion included a salary based upon State formula; three (3) consecutive four (4) -year term limits starting 2012. She asked for clarification whether the motion would address the conflict of interest issue. County Attorney Cuevas explained that the language “and hold no other employment” was deleted and “shall devote full-time service to the Office of County Commissioner, as defined by ordinance” was added. Commissioner Sosa noted Charter questions needed to be included on the ballot and not just the replacement of the Mayor and Commissioner. She said that she could not support the motion as presented inasmuch as a 14 year term was too long for true reform and additional language to prevent conflict of interests was needed. Commissioner Sosa noted the role of the Commission was to present Charter questions for a public vote. She supported 12 year term limits beginning in 2012; however, with an eight (8) -year limitation for commissioners already in office. Commissioner Diaz noted that term limits, if enacted, should become effective immediately after the upcoming election instead of waiting until 2012. He said that he preferred obtaining public input and that these proposals be placed on the General Election ballot in order to avoid the perception that the Commission was trying to influence the vote. Chairman Martinez explained that the terms for commissioners elected in both even and odd years would end in 2012. He said that only two commissioners elected in even years would remain and everybody else would have 12 year term limits. Commissioner Diaz said the 12 year count would begin now and would go forward instead of beginning in 2012. County Attorney Cuevas noted the language was currently written as three (3) consecutive four (4) -year terms and could affect a commissioner who was in the middle of his/her term. He said that 12 years would be a better alternative. Commissioner Diaz noted that the Commission was presenting ballot items for a public vote which they believed was correct and that voters only had the choice making either a yes or no vote on those issues. Commissioner Bell noted the public wanted term limits and it should be presented for a vote. Commissioner Bell said that conflict of interest was clearly defined by the Ethics Commission and that the Board should not place restrictions on professionals from serving as a commissioner. She said that being a County Commissioner was a full-time job and required one’s full-time attention. Commissioner Bell said that term limits should go forward beginning with the next election cycle. Commissioner Souto noted he would vote no on this proposed resolution. He said he represented the people and understood that their sentiment was opposed to outside employment, 12 year terms, and salary increases. Upon conclusion of the Board discussion regarding implementing the three (3) consecutive four (4)-year term limits prospectively, and the need for more public input before placing proposed Charter amendments on the ballot, the question was put to a vote. It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted as amended to provide that the Ballot question be as follows: Shall the Charter be amended to provide that County Commissioners: • Devote full-time service to the Office of County Commissioner, as defined by ordinance • No longer receive the $6,000 annual salary established in 1957, but receive instead the salary provided by State statutory formula, adjusted annually based on the County’s population (currently approximately $92,097) • To serve no more than three (3) consecutive four (4) -year terms in office, excluding all terms prior to 2012 County Attorney Cuevas noted the proposed resolution was being approved subject to the inclusion of an election date to be decided upon later in the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Edmonson, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 7-5 (Commissioners Bell, Edmonson, Gimenez, Heyman, Jordan, Monestime, and Moss voted “Yes”), (Commissioners Barreiro, Diaz, Sosa, Souto, and Chairman Martinez voted “No”). Later in the meeting, Commissioner Moss noted that he wanted to change his vote to “No” because he believed the outside employment condition would be considered unfavorably by the voters. It was then moved by Commissioner Moss that the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution as amended be reconsidered. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bell, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 12-0. Commissioner Bell suggested the resolution be amended to include no outside employment. Commissioner Heyman accepted Commissioner Bell’s amendment. Commissioner Gimenez said that no outside employment that was in conflict with Miami-Dade County would satisfy the community. Commissioner Bell withdrew her previous amendment to include no outside employment in order to accept Commissioner Gimenez’ proposed amendment to include no outside employment that was in conflict with Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Heyman accepted Commissioner Gimenez’ proposed amendment. County Attorney Cuevas clarified the language would read: “to devote full time service to the Office of County Commissioner and hold no outside employment that was a conflict with Commission service.” Commissioner Moss responded to Commissioner Gimenez that the proposed language was acceptable. Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal read the ballot question on the amended version of the foregoing proposed resolution. Commissioner Souto noted the community did not support a full-time commissioner while having a full-time job at the same time. He said voters wanted dedicated commission service in return for a salary as well as a term not exceeding eight (8) years. Commissioner Gimenez noted he agreed with Commissioner Souto. He said that it was one thing about being right in terms of what the public wanted and another thing in terms of limiting the number of people that could serve. It was moved by Commissioner Bell that the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution be amended to provide that County Commissioners shall devote full-time service to the Office of County Commissioner and hold no outside employment that created a conflict with Commission service. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman and upon being put to a vote, resulted in a 6-6 tie vote (Commissioners Bell, Diaz, Edmonson, Heyman, Jordan, and Monestime voted “Yes”), (Commissioners Barreiro, Gimenez, Moss, Sosa, Souto, and Chairman Martinez voted “No”). It was moved by Commissioner Sosa that Special Item No. 19 be adopted to provide that County Commissioners serve two (2) four (4) -year terms starting in 2012; hold no outside employment; and receive a salary based on the State formula. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gimenez. Commissioner Heyman noted a point of order that Special Item No. 11 as it related to outside employment and amendments to that issue was currently being considered by the Board, not term limits. County Attorney Cuevas noted the proposed resolution was being approved subject to the inclusion of an election date to be decided upon later in the meeting. It was then moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted as amended to submit to the electors the question of whether to amend the Home Rule Charter to provide that each County Commissioner shall devote full-time service to the Office of County Commissioner and hold no other employment; no longer receive the $6,000 annual salary, but receive instead the salary provided by State statutory formula, adjusted annually by the County’s population (currently approximately $92,097); and serve no more than three consecutive four-year terms in office, excluding all terms prior to 2012. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 7-5 (Commissioners Barreiro, Bell, Edmonson, Heyman, Jordan, Monestime, Moss voted “Yes”), (Commissioners Diaz, Gimenez, Sosa, Souto and Chairman Martinez voted “No”). Later in the meeting, it was moved by Commissioner Sosa that the Special Election on the proposed Charter Amendment be held on May 24, 2011. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 12-0. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Legislative Text |
|
TITLE RESOLUTION CALLING A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF MIAMI DADE COUNTY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AMEND THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO PROVIDE THAT: EACH COUNTY COMMISSIONER SHALL DEVOTE FULL-TIME SERVICE TO THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND HOLD NO OTHER EMPLOYMENT; NO LONGER RECEIVE THEIR CURRENT $6,000 ANNUAL SALARY ESTABLISHED IN 1957, BUT RECEIVE INSTEAD THE SALARY PROVIDED BY STATE STATUTORY FORMULA, ADJUSTED ANNUALLY BASED ON THE COUNTY�S POPULATION (CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY $92,097), AND USED BY OTHER FLORIDA COUNTIES, INCLUDING BROWARD COUNTY; AND SHALL SERVE NO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FOUR-YEAR TERMS IN OFFICE BODY WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County established an annual salary of $6,000 for County Commissioners in 1957, when the County�s Home Rule Charter was adopted; and WHEREAS, the demands of the position of County Commissioner have grown substantially, while the salary has remained the same; and WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County is now the most populous county in the State of Florida with a population of over 2.4 million residents and a budget in excess of $7.3 billion; and WHEREAS, other counties in the State of Florida compensate their Commissioners pursuant to a state statutory formula based on population, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. A countywide special election, to be held in conjunction with a primary election, is hereby called and shall be held in Miami-Dade County, Florida on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of Miami-Dade County the proposal for amendment to the Home Rule Charter in the form attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. Notice of such election shall be published in accordance with Section 100.342, Florida Statutes. Section 3. The result of such election shall be determined by a majority of the qualified electors of Miami-Dade County voting upon the proposal. The polls at such election shall be open from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on the day of such election. All qualified electors of Miami-Dade County, Florida shall be entitled to vote at said election. The County registration books shall remain open at the Office of the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections until twenty-nine (29) days prior to the date of such election, at which time the registration books will close in accordance with the provisions of general election laws. The question shall appear on the ballot in substantially the following form: HOME RULE CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO SALARIES, SERVICE, AND TERM LIMITS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL: * DEVOTE FULL-TIME SERVICE TO THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND HOLD NO OTHER EMPLOYMENT; * NO LONGER RECEIVE THE $6,000 ANNUAL SALARY ESTABLISHED IN 1957, BUT RECEIVE INSTEAD THE SALARY PROVIDED BY STATE STATUTORY FORMULA, ADJUSTED ANNUALLY BY THE COUNTY�S POPULATION (CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY $92,097); AND * SERVE NO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FOUR-YEAR TERMS IN OFFICE EXCLUDING ALL TERMS PRIOR TO 2012? YES NO Section 4. The form of the ballot shall be in accordance with the requirements of general election laws. Section 5. Early voting shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of general election laws. Section 6. Absentee paper ballots may be used by qualified electors of Miami-Dade County for voting on this question. The form of such absentee ballot shall be in accordance with the requirements prescribed by general election laws. Section 7. A sample ballot showing the manner in which the question or proposal aforesaid will appear at this election shall be published and provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of general election laws. Section 8. This special election on the proposal aforesaid shall be held and conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the general laws relating to elections and the provisions of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter. The County Mayor or his or her designee, the Finance Director, and the Clerk of the County Commission are hereby authorized and directed to take all appropriate actions necessary to carry into effect and accomplish the provisions of this resolution. This election shall be a nonpartisan election. Election officials in connection with this election shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of general election laws. Section 9. This election shall be canvassed by the County Canvassing Board, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Home Rule Charter. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER ARTICLE-11 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS * * * Section 1.06. SALARY >>AND SERVICE AS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER<<. Each County Commissioner shall receive [[a]] >>an annual<< salary [[of $6,000 per year payable monthly]] >>determined pursuant to general law applicable to non-charter counties<< and shall be entitled to be reimbursed for such reasonable and necessary expenses as may be approved by the Board. >>Such salary shall be payable monthly. County Commissioners shall devote full-time service to the office of County Commissioner and hold no other employment.<< * * * ARTICLE-3 ELECTIONS Section 3.01 ELECTION AND COMMENCEMENT OF TERMS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. * * * >>E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, effective with the term of Commissioners scheduled to commence in 2012, no person shall be elected as Commissioner for more than three consecutive four-year terms. No service as a Commissioner prior to 2012 shall be considered a part of or counted toward the three term limit.<< 1Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. --------------- |
|
Home |
Agendas |
Minutes |
Legislative Search |
Lobbyist Registration |
Legislative Reports
Home | Using Our Site | About | Phone Directory | Privacy | Disclaimer
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to
Webmaster
|
