Oct 24, 2023 Special Joint Meeting Quasi-Judicial Training - BOA & HPB

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL TRAINING.

IT'S TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24TH, AND PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIONIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUST FOR ALL. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

>> KUSHT. >> PRESENT.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, PRESENT. WE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER

GAINES HE MAYBE A LITTLE LATE. >> I HAVE TO LEAVE AT 10 MINUTES TO 11:00. I HAVE A VERY URGING BUSINESS ISSUE I NEED TO BE AT 11 O'CLOCK.

>> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW.

[4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Chair, as this section of the Agenda is limited to fifteen minutes. The Board will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Board and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

ARE WE READY? >> NEXT WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM

THE PUBLIC. >> THIS IS A TIME FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. MS. COX WILL GIVE YOU A

THREE-SECOND WARNING. >> FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS MINISTER WILCOX, 5227 OAKLAND LAKE CIRCLE.

FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. I WON'T BE LONG.

I WON'T TAKE UP THE THREE MINUTES, HOWEVER, ■I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTER COMING HERE. IF I'M ADDRESSING YOU APPROPRIATELY TO GIVE OUR WORKSHOPS ON QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS. I THINK THIS IS EXCELLENT FOR OUR COMMISSION. I MEAN WE ARE IN A POSITION, YOU MUST, I WILL SAY MASTER YOUR CRAFT.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE DIFFERENT WORKSHOPS BECAUSE IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN SOME ISSUES. YOU KNOW THAT IS BROUGHT BEFORE ANY OF THESE VARIOUS HEARINGS. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE PARTICIPATION FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLORE HOW TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT.

THIS IS RIGHT NOW DURING WORK HOURS.

SO, PERHAPS WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THE YOUNG MAN HERE, WE COULD SOMEWHAT DO A COMMUNITY TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC WHAT IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. WHAT ARE THESE THINGS? WHAT TAKES PLACE. THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO YOUR

CONSTITUENTS AS WELL. >> THANK YOU.

SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> SORRY. GOOD MORNING.

MICHELE, I WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR HAVING THIS WORKSHOP.

I DID REVIEW THIS. THIS WAS THE OLD ONE.

JUST FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH QUASI-JUDICIAL, IT'S INTIMIDATING TO THE AVERAGE PERSON.

NOT EVERYONE IS TYPE A PLUS PLUS AND WILL DELVE INTO THIS AND TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT. I DID PRINT THE MATERIALS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATION AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN ALSO MAYBE HAVE SOME COMMUNITY LIAISONS LIKE YOU KNOW FOR IT TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE LIKE IN THE PAST.

MAYBE MR. WILCOX OR OTHER PEOPLE.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. YES, SIR.

>> MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, I HOPE YOU REMEMBER ME.

I WAS HERE LAST TWO, THREE MEETINGS AND WILL KEEP COMING.

>> NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> 2326 [INAUDIBLE] BOCA RATON.

>> I DID LIKE TO, I HAVE TO BE IN YOUR NEXT MONTH'S MEETING BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION OF THE ECONOMY.

IT'S REALLY HURTING ME. CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE 10% AND I'M HOLDING A LOT OF PEOPLE BEHIND ME.

EVERYBODY IS EXPECTING ME TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN TEAM AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM. I NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE AN ACTION. EITHER IN MY FAVOR OR AGAINST ME. I DON'T KNOW TO DO AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I CAN WAIT. I REALLY NEED YOUR HELP AT ONE POINT. PLEASE PUT MY PACKAGE TOGETHER.

IT'S REALLY EASY TO SOLVE IN MY OPINION.

IF SOMEONE HAS, YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SOLVE IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE TO GO TO SOLVE THAT.

[00:05:01]

I LIKE TO BE IN YOUR NEXT MONTH'S MEETING IF POSSIBLE.

>> THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND THIS IS BEING VIDEOTAPED AND WILL BE ON OUR WEBSITE. IS THAT CORRECT MS. HEDGES OR WHOEVER? SO FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT, IT IS THERE AND SO, WILL BE THERE.

>> YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

WE CAN MOVE ON. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS THE MEETING

[a. Meeting Procedures and Quasi-Judicial Hearing Training- Randy Mora, Esq.]

ESQ. >> DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE ANY LEAD

IN? >> JUST BRIEFLY MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS RANDY MORA.

HE IS AGREED TO COME AND DO THIS TRAINING FOR US TODAY.

HE WILL BE DOING THE TRAINING WITH YOU THIS MORNING AND ANOTHER THIS AFTERNOON. I PROMISED HIM I WOULDN'T DO A HUGE BIOON HIM. SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO

HIM AND LET HIM AGAIN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WELCOME MR. MORA. >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU ATTORNEY HEDGES. MY NAME IS RANDA MORA.

THERE WE GO. THERE'S THE LONG BIO.

I AM AN ATTORNEY. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE INTRODUCTORY SLIDE. I AM BASED OUT OF CLEAR WATER, FLORIDA. I AM CITY ATTORNEY FOR TWO CITIES IN FLORIDA. I SERVE WITH THE FLORIDA MUNICIPAL TRUST. I REGULARLY REPRESENT COMMUNITIES IN LITIGATION AS IT RELATES TO TODAY.

I OFTEN HAVE HANDLED APPEALS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS FROM MY CLIENTS. ADDITIONALLY, A THIRD PART OF MY PRACTICE IS JUST BEING SOMEBODY WHO REALLY TRULY BELIEVES IN THE POTENTIAL OF OUR SYSTEM, AND SO I DO TRAVEL THE STATE AND EDUCATE ON VARIOUS MATTERS TYPICALLY AROUND PUBLIC MEETINGS, PUBLIC RECORDS, ETHICS, OCCASIONALLY TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES AND I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. I WANT TO START BY LETTING YOU KNOW I KNOW I AM HERE AT YOUR MEETING.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION. TO THE SAME END, YOU COULD WATCH A YOUTUBE VIDEO OR SOMETHING OF THE SORT BUT I BROUGHT ME HERE.

I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE VALUE ADDED IN THAT REGARD.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, ANYTHING I SAY THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, SPEAKING TOO FAST, ONE OF MY FINANCE DIRECTOR HAS AN OVER UNDER ON HOW MANY WORDS I WILL USE THAT NO ONE KNOWS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS THE INFORMATION YOU ARE HOPING TO GET. I TRULY DO BELIEVE IN THE BCS AFTER MY NAME. THAT'S FROM THE FLORIDA BAR FOR BOARD CERTIFIED BOARD SPECIALIST IN CITY, COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

OUR DOMAIN NAME IS AT CITY.COM DOMAIN.

I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS AND APPRECIATE THE INVITATION.

I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN MAKING SURE WE HAVE SHARED EXPECTATIONS.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT TROUGHOUT THE DAY TODAY OR THE TWO HOURS. NOT THE DAY.

BUT AS I BEGIN WE WILL START WITH ETHICS.

CORE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. GET INTO PUBLIC MEETING.

AS DEFINED BY STATUTE. WE WILL GET INTO PUBLIC MEETING AND HOW THEY GENERALLY WORK TO BUILD A FOUNDATION BEFORE WE GET INTO THE NICHE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

IT WILL START WITH BACKGROUND AND THEN WE WILL GET INTO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL MATERIALS. IN ADDITION TO WELCOMING ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AS I GO, I WILL HAVE SLIDES THAT SAY QUESTIONS ON THEM. PAUSE FOR THE CAUSE.

MAKE SURE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.

AS OF RESPECT FOR YOUR TIME. LET'S GET TO WORK.

OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION IN YOUR SERVICE.

A PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST AND THE PEOPLE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECURE AND SUSTAIN THAT TRUST AGAINST ABUSE.

THIS IS WITH THE GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY.

WHILE YOU MAY HAVE YOUR OWN PASSIONS AND CONVICTIONS THAT HAVE BROUGHT YOU TO THIS MOMENT I'M SURE IT'S NOT LOST YOU YOU'RE HERE TO IMPROVE AND SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY IN SOME WAYS THAT HAS GIVEN BACK TO YOU. THAT'S OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE AS WE TALK ABOUT HOW WE CONDUCT OUR MEETINGS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS. THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT WE SEE REFLECTED IN CHAPTER 112 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. THE ETHICS CODE.

AND WOE TALK ABOUT ETHICS IN THE SENSE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT JIMIMMY CRICKET OR YOUR A PASTOR OR RABBI.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLORIDA STATUTES FROM THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION YOU WILL SEE IT STATES NO OFFICER SHALL HAVE ANY INTEREST WHICH IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF HIS OR HER DUTIES. I'M PARAPHRASING.

[00:10:08]

WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE LIMITATION RESTATED IN THE FLORIDA STATUTES IN THE ETHICS CODE.

THIS IS OUR NORTH STAR. THIS IS OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE THAT WE ARE HEAR IN SERVICE OF PUBLIC AT LARGE.

SO, AS WE GET AWAY FROM THE IDEA OF YOUR, OR FROM THE IDEA OF YOUR OFFICES OF PUBLIC TRUST, THE WAY THAT YOU DO YOUR BUSINESS AS A COMMISSION IS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.

NO SURPRISE TO YOU. IN MOST COMMUNITIES, IT'S MAYBE 12 MEETINGS A YEAR. SOMETIMES 24, IF YOU DO WORK SESSIONS OR TWO MEETINGS A MONTH.

TYPICALLY SPEAKING YOU HAVE ABOUT A DOZEN OR TWO DOZEN OPPORTUNITIES TO REALLY DO THE PUBLIC'S WORK BARRING SPECIAL MEETINGS. SO, IN FLORIDA, THE ONLY WAY THAT ALL OF YOU CAN DO BUSINESS IS AT A PUBLIC MEETING.

THIS IS CALLED THE SUNSHINE LAW. I HAVE A SLIDE HERE THAT SHOWS YOU INTERESTINGLY THE SUNSHINE LAW IS NOT JUST FANTASTIC BRANDING FOR THE SUNSHINE STATE, IT ACTUALLY COMES FROM JUSTICE BRAND ICE IN A LETTER WRITTEN TO HIS GIRLFRIEND AT THE TIME THAT IF THE BROAD LIGHT OF DAY COULD BE LET IN UPON MEN'S ACTIONS, IT WOULD PURIFY THEM AS THE SUN DISINFECT SAYS.

PUBLICITY IS JUSTLY COMMENDED AS A REMEDY NEAR SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISEASES. IT'S TRANSPARENCY ELIMINATES OR AT LEAST ERODES CORRUPTION OR NONTRANSPARENT ACTS.

WE DO OUR BUSINESS IN THE SUNSHINE.

THAT'S WHY WE GET THIS NOTION OF SUNSHINE LAW.

IT'S ALL HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE.

AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SUNSHINE LAW, THERE ARE THREE REALLY CORE REQUIREMENTS AND I WOULD SAY A FOURTH ANCILLARY ONE THAT IS STILL KEY BASED ON HOW THE FLORIDA STATUTES OPERATE.

THE THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF A PROPERLY HELD SUNSHINE LAW PUBLIC MEETING IS NOTICE, LOCATION, AND MINUTES.

AND THE FOURTH ELEMENT BEING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

NOTICE SIMPLY HAS TO BE REASONABLE UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE NOTICE WE GIVE WHEN WE SAY HURRICANE IDALIA IS IN THE GULF AND WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT EMERGENCY PROCEDURES IS DIFFERENT THAN WE WILL CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND REZONE AN ENTIRE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTE FOR THAT SORT OF THING. NOTICE IS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. LOCATION, YOUR MEETING SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT ANY PLACE THE PUBLIC CAN DO.

THE PUBLIC CAN GO TO A DENNY'S BUT SAY WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CUT OF THE JIB. WE WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC OBSERV US DOING OUR BUSINESS AS WE DO IT TODAY.

MINUTES ARE CRITICAL ELEMENT IN TERMS ARE THEY ARE THE OFFICIAL RECORD FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO REMEMBER THE SITCOMS THAT FOCUSED ON YOUR PERMANENT RECORD IN SCHOOL.

THAT'S WHAT THE MINUTES ARE. THE PERMANENT RECORD OF YOUR BUSINESS AS A BODY. THE CLERK DUTIFULLY DOES WHAT SHE CAN TO PRODUCE TO, CAPTURE THOSE AND YOUR JOB TO SAY, YES THIS IS THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE YOUR AGENDA THAT SAYS APPROVE THE MINUTES. THAT'S A CRITICAL ACT AS IT RELATES TO THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THE LAST AS WE WILL TALK ABOUT AT LENGTH IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

I WILL SPEAK MORE TO THAT. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE IDEA OF YOUR TRANSPARENT OVER PUBLIC MEETINGS, THIS IS COME FROM THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WHICH SAYS ALL MEETINGS WHICH OFFICIAL ACTS ARE TO BE TAKEN OR PUBLIC BUSINESS SHALL BE DISCUSSED SHALL BE OPEN. THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

RESTATED AGAIN IN THE STATUTES, WHEN WE WERE TALKING IN ETHICS WE STARTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND WENT TO CHAPTER 112.

WHEN YOUR TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC MEETINGS, YOU GO TO CHAPTER 286.

[00:15:07]

READ BOTH ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND YOU MAY GET THERE.

IT MAY BE DENSE BUT AS VALUE. ALL MEETINGS WHICH OFFICIAL ACTS ARE TO BE TAKEN ARE DECLARED TO BE PUBLIC MEETINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES. AS WE DO THIS MEETING TODAY, WE ARE NOTICED. HAVE A LOCATION OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE. WE DON'T SAY, OKAY IN A HALF-HOUR WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE DOOR AND EVERYBODY HAS TO LEAVE. WE HAVE OUR MEETING OPEN AT ALL TIMES TO THE PUBLIC. NO RESOLUTION OR OFFICIAL ACTION SHALL BE BINDING EXCEPT AS TAKEN AT SUCH MEETING.

WHICH IS TO SAY, IF WE DON'T DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, OUR ACTIONS ARE VOID. INVALID.

THEY WERE NEVER VALID FROM THE MOMENT WE DID THEM.

IT'S CRITICAL WE ADHERE TO THE PROCESSES AS WE HOLD OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE LAW, YOU ALSO WANT TO START WITH THE TEXT AND THE PRIMACY. OUR NEXT SOUR OF LAW IS COMMON LAW. WE TALK ABOUT THE COMMON LAW.

THE COMMON LAW IS A FANCY WORD LAWYERS USE FOR WHAT DO JUDGES SAY THIS MEANS? THEY TALK ABOUT THE SENTENCE LAW, FLORIDA'S COURTS SAY ANY GATHERING OF THE MEMBERS WHICH FORESEEABLE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN WAS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY THE SUNSHINE LAW. THE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO FRUSTRATE ALL EVASIVE DEVICES.

IF YOU THINK YOU FOUND A WAY AROUND THE OPEN MEETING LAW, YOU MAY HAVE FOUND A WAY TO VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW UNLESS YOU FOUND A NEW PLATFORM. THE LAW MUST BE CONTRUED TO PROTECT ITS PURPOSE. THE REAL MEETING IS THE MEETING OF THE MINDS. IT WARRANTS EMPHASIZING, IT'S NOT JUST WHEN YOU COME TOGETHER IN A COFFEE SHOP BUT ON YOUR TEXT MESSAGES OR FACEBOOK PAGE. A MEETING ON NEXT DOOR.

IF YOU'RE EXCHANGING IDEAS AND CONCEPTS WITH YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AS IT WERE HERE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING IN A PUBLIC MEETING. NOW I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT I'M NOT SAYING. SOMETIMES ESPECIALLY WHEN I MAKE A PRESENTATION LIKE THIS FOR THE PUBLIC.

THEY HEAR I SAW THE TWO OF THEM AT AN APPLE BY'S AT A MEETING.

OBVIOUS VIOLATION THERE. NO VIOLATION.

YOU ARE FREE TO ASSOCIATE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

YOU CAN BE FELLOW PARISHIONERS ON THE SAME SOFTBALL TEAM.

ALL FIVE YOU CAN BE ON THE SAME SOFTBALL TEAM AND PLAY IN A LEAGUE TOGETHER. YOU CAN HAVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE MARRIED OR MOTHER AND SON.

AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT CITY BUSINESS WHEN YOU LEAVE THE CHAMBERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW HEALTHY THAT MAKES YOUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS YOU HAVE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE THAT WAY. YOU ARE FREE TO ASSOCIATE.

IT IS AMERICA. MAKE FRIENDS.

TALK TO PEOPLE. YOU'RE POLITICIANS.

GET TO KNOW YOUR COMMUNITY AND ONE ANOTHER.

I WOULD ARGUE THERE'S REAL VALUE ON EACH OF YOU ON SOME LEVEL GETTING ACQUAINTED SO WE DON'T LOSE THE SIGHT WE'RE ALL HUMAN HERE GOING THROUGH A ROLE AND THE BETTER ABLE YOU'RE TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY AT LARGE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SUNSHINE LAW. THERE'S A MINISTER OR PASTOR IN THE ROOM, THE RULE OF THUMB WITH ALL RESPECT, WHEREVER TWO OR MORE OF THE TWO BOARD ARE GATHERED IN DOING THE CITY'S BUSINESS, THAT SHOULD BE A PUBLIC MEETING.

THAT'S REALLY THE CORE CONCERN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW. THAT IS UNIQUE TO FLORIDA, I WILL TELL YOU. IF YOU HAVE PEERS IN MICHIGAN OR IOWA, YOU MEAN A QUORUM RIGHT? JUST LIKE THREE OUT OF THE FIVE OR FOUR OUT OF THE SIX? NO, IT'S TWO OF YOU HAVING MEETINGS OF THE MINDS. YES, SIR.

>> I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF SERVING ON A VARIETY OF BOARDS AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR EIGHT OR NINE YEARS. FORT PIERCE IS A SMALL CITY.

I'M A BUSINESS PERSON LOCALLY. OUR BUSINESSES ARE MEMBERS OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO RUN INTO OTHER COMMISSIONERS, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ALL THIS. >> YES, SIR.

>> AT THOSE PARTICULAR MEETINGS, IT CAN BE FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY IT'S A CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING.

WE HAVE A PRESENTER PRESENTING THAT DAY.

I'M DEVELOPER X. I'M GOING TO COME IN AND THROW MY PLAN IN AND MAKE TO DO PITCH TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

THAT IS SOMETHING THIS BODY WILL BE DEALING WITH IN THE FUTURE.

DID WE WALK INTO THE MEETING KNOWING THE PRESENTATION WOULD

[00:20:02]

THIS IS A PIECE OF BUSINESS SITTING OUT THERE THAT MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION OR LOWER LYING BOARD.

CAN YOU SHED LIGHT ON THAT? >> HAPPILY, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION BEING WHEN YOU ARE OUT WHETHER PERFORMING YOUR DUTIES AS COMMISSIONERS OR BUSINESS MEMBERS OR INVOLVED MEETINGS OF THE COMMUNITY.

YOU'RE ALL INVITED TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH ON A SUNDAY FOR CALL FOR PEACE. SOMEONE PRESENTING SAYS, WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS THIS CITY AND THE OFFICIALS TO GET BEHIND A PLAN THAT DOES X. YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS

TO HAPPEN. >> SURE.

>> THERE'S NO PROBLEM FIRST OF ALL WITH ANY OR ALL OF YOU SITTING THERE AND JUST LISTENING.

THAT'S NOT A SUNSHINE LAW PROBLEM.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AND AGAIN, I WANT TO FIRST CAUTION BECAUSE I SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS ON THE FRONT END.

AS I TOLD YOU, MUCH TO THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF MUCH OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS, I'M A LAWYER. I WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE

COURT OF LAW. >> WE DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE THE INDULGENCE. I'M TALKING TO YOU ABOUT A COURT OF LAW. SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

IT'S FAR MORE HARSH WITH RULES THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS CLEAR.

SO I WILL TELL YOU FROM A COURT OF LAW POSITION, ALL FIVE OR SIX OF YOU COULD BE IN THAT MEETING, NO PROBLEM.

RIGHT. THE ISSUE COMES NOW LET'S SAY AND NOW I'M REALIZING THE CITY MANAGER.

FIVE, APOLOGIES. IF MAYOR HUDSON COMES TO THE MEETING AND MAYOR HUDSON IS INVITED TO SPEAK.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS? WE'RE STILL NOT TOTALLY THERE. WE HAVE NOW THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE ONE OF COMMISSIONERS IS SPEAKING ON THE MATTER.

BUT IF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DECIDES TO REPLY AND SAY, MAYOR, I LIKE YOU SAID THAT BUT WHAT WE REALLY SHOULD TALK ABOUT IS REDEVELOPMENT. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS? NOW YOU'RE HAVING A POLICY DISCUSSION OUTSIDE POTENTIALLY OF A PUBLIC MEETING. I WILL TELL YOU SO THE ADVICE, THE WAY I HAVE SEEN THAT HANDLED IN SOME COMMUNITIES, IF IT'S A LARGE ENOUGH EVENT. SOMETIMES THEY WILL JUST NOTICE IT. MAKE SURE ANYBODY CAN COME AND HAVE SOMEBODY PRESENT TO TAKE MINUTES.

YOU HAVE THIS MORE WITH AN INTERLOCAL MEETING.

THE BARRIER ISLAND COMMUNITIES HAVE AN INTERLOCAL MEETINGS.

TO AVOID AN ISSUE, ONE OF OUR MEMBERS WILL BE THE CLERK.

SIT ON YOUR HANDS, DON'T SAY ANYTHING.

YOU HAVE HEARD IT. AVOID THAT.

I CAUTION AGAINST MY ONLY CAUTION THERE IS TAKING THAT TO THE EXTREME. THAT'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE BEING WALKED INTO THAT.

I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST THE MERLOT MANIFESTO.

YOU HAD A TOUGH NIGHT WITH MEETINGS.

IT'S FRIDAY YOU'RE TRYING TO RELAX.

RANDY SAYS AS LONG AS NO ONE RESPONDS WE'RE OKAY.

YOU SEND AN E-MAIL TO YOUR COMMISSIONERS.

YOU WALKED YOUR PEERS AND COLLEAGUES INTO A PROBLEM.

SOME ARE LIKEWISE FEELING THE FRUSTRATIONS AND CAN'T HELP, I HAVE TO RESPOND. MAYBE YOU MISUNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID AND NOW I HAVE TO CLEAR IT UP.

NOW YOU HAVE A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE.

THAT'S HOW I ADDRESS THE ISSUES. >> THAT DEFINES THE QUESTION THAT I WAS POSING RELATIVE TO THAT PUBLIC COLLECTION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE SAME FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION.

THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION EVEN IN COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS PRESENTING THAT DAY. I'M JUST LISTENING AND NOT COMMENTING, THERE'S NO VIOLATION.

IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? >> AS YOU DESCRIBED IT, I WOULD SAY YES. AGAIN I HAVE TO GIVE THE LAWYER IT DEPENDS ANSWER. I WOULD JUST TELL YOU THAT THE ONE THING I WOULD CAUTION HERE IS, MY NEXT SLIDE IS TECHNOLOGY IS NOT AWAY OUT. AND OTHER PITFALLS.

THE LAST ONE IS THE FIRST BITE AT THE APPLE AND NO RESPONSE.

THE OTHER CAUTION IS IF MAYOR HUDSON MAKES A COMMENT NOT HAVING PEOPLE GO BETWEEN YOU AND SERVE AS CONDUITS OR STRAW MEN TO SAY THE MAYOR SAYS THIS, WHAT DO YOU SAY? I JUST TALKED TO HUDSON AND YOU AVOID THAT SORT OF ISSUE.

>> VERY HELPFUL HAD. THANK YOU.

>> JUST A FOLLOW UP, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS GOING DOWN THE PATH OF TYPICALLY TOWN HALL MEETINGS, SOME COMMISSIONERS ATTEND OTHER TOWN HALLS AND THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN CAUTIONED ON. WOULD YOUR SAME LEGAL ADVICE APPLY THERE. TOWN HALL X IS BEING DONE BY COMMISSIONER ADVANCE ET CETERA. SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE

[00:25:01]

SAYING. >> I WILL FIRST START EMPHASIZING I'M HERE AT 30,000 FEET.

I DEFER TO ATTORNEY HEDGES AND WHAT ADVICE YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

MY ADVICE WOULD STILL HOLD AS IT RELATES TO THE EXPOSITION.

IN MY COMMUNITY, MY MAYOR HAS MONDAYS WITH THE MAYOR.

I TELL THEM PLEASE DON'T GO. I CAN'T STOP YOU FROM GOING.

GROWN FOLKS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT GROWN FOLKS ARE GOING TO DO.

THE MORE YOU GO, THE MORE LIKELIHOOD THERE IS EITHER THROUGH THE COURT OF LAW OR PUBLIC OPINION WE INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF THAT HAPPENING. THE REALITY IS, WHETHER YOU GO TO MONDAY WITH THE MAYOR OR NOT, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO RUN AND TELL YOU WHAT THE MAYOR SAID. IT'S NOT ESPECIALLY IN A BEACH SIDE COMMUNITY, IT'S NOT LIKELY THERE'S A WHOLE LOT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WON'T MAKE IT BACK TO YOU.

DO YOU REALLY NEED TO BE SITTING IN THE ROOM IN THAT MOMENT RIPENING THAT ALLEGATION IF YOU WILL? AGAIN AT THAT POINT, IT'S AN ALLEGATION AND YOU KNOW, I JOKED EARLIER ABOUT MY FAMILY SENTIMENTS, I HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER WHO IS A PHYSICIAN AND EVERY YEAR THEY SIT THROUGH MALPRACTICE TRAINING. SAME ADVICE APPLIES HERE.

IT'S THE SAME I GIVE IN ALL PRESENTATIONS.

ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THIS AND HAVE THE BEST PRACTICES.

FIRST RULE, DON'T SCREW UP. SECOND, YOU'RE HUMAN, YOU MAY MESS UP. DON'T AVOID IT.

ADDRESS IT. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS YOU MESSED UP DOESN'T MEAN YOU MESSED UP.

THAT'S WHERE THE NUANCE LIES. I CAN'T PRESENT SOMEBODY THAT GOING ON FACEBOOK AND SAYS PROOF OF SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATION.

HERE'S A PICTURE OF HIM ON HIS CELL PHONE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE CHECKING THE ESPN SCORE OR SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE MANAGER. MY PRESENTATION CAN'T FULLY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. AS WE TALK ABOUT THE SUNSHINE LAW, WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO GET DOWN TO, ANY INTERACTION BETWEEN TWO OR MORE MEMBERS OF A BOARD OR COUNCIL AND IT'S THE SAME BODY. YOU HAVE TO BE MEMBER SAYS OF THE SAME BODY THAT COMES BEFORE YOU IS CONSIDERED A MEETING.

YOU CANNOT DO INDIRECTLY OR THROUGH TECHNOLOGY THAT WHICH YOU COULD NOT DO DIRECTLY. SO THAT COVERS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS PORTION GENERALLY IN TERMS OF SUNSHINE LAW PRINCIPLE.

THE NEXT PRINCIPLE IS THE MEETING MEETING AND PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. GENERALLY SPEAKING PURSUANT THAT 286114. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHALL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD DURING THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS WITHIN REASONABLE PROXIMITY OF TIME BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON EVERY RESOLUTION. YOU WILL SEE IN SOME COMMUNITIES, THERE'S DELINEATION MADE BETWEEN A WORK SESSION AND OFFICIAL ACTION. THAT'S HOW THEY CHOOSE TO DO THAT. YOU SEE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME WITHIN OFFICIAL ACTS ARE TAKEN, IN SOME COMMUNITIES, THEY SAY WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON EVERYTHING.

GIRL SCOUTS, PUBLIC COMMENT. DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN, PUBLIC COMMENT. OTHER COMMUNITIES SAY OPEN PUBLIC IN THE BEGINNING. IF IT'S AN ORDINANCE, OBVIOUSLY OTHERWISE WE'RE GOOD. AND SO EVERY COMMUNITY NAVIGATES

THAT DIFFERENTLY >> THE STATORY REQUIREMENT IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. WHAT WE HAD IS THE KEY PRINCIPLE THAT ALL MEETINGS ARE TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

IT WAS LITIGATED WHERE THEY SAID THEY OPENED IT AND NEVER LET ME TALK. IT EVERY SAYS ANYWHERE IT SAYS YOU GET TO TALK. SO THEY AMENDED IT.

FROM MY PRESIDING OFFICER, THE MAYOR DOES NOTOARD OR COMMISSION TO MAINTAIN ORDER OR DECORUM IN A PUBLIC MEETING.

WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT TIME, AND SPACE RESTRICTIONS. IT'S WHY EVERY COUNTY COMMISSION SAYS YOU GET THREE MINUTES. YOU CAN'T YELL FROM THE BACK.

PLAY FREE BIRD. IT'S VERY MUCH A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO GET US THROUGH THE MEETING PROCESS.

SO THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS SUBJECT TO RULES ADOPTED BY YOUR BOARD AND YOU DO HAVE RULES THAT GOVERN.

[00:30:05]

I WILL ONLY BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THESE.

YOU'RE HERE IN SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC.

THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE, WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE DO BUSINESS.

THE PENALTIES ARE. FIRST I TOLD YOU ACTION TAKEN OUT OF SUNSHINE IS VOID OF THE ISSUE.

ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHO VIOLATES THE SUNSHINE LAW IS GUILTY OF A NONCRIMINAL INFRACTION PUNISHABLE NOT EXCEEDING $500.

IN THE LEAD UP TO COVID,ME THEY WANTED THE CITY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER A SAYS I JUST MET WITH RANDY, REALLY GIVE HIM A LOOK. NOW YOU'RE HAVING A MEETING OF THE MINDS. THAT WAS DOCUMENTED SOMEHOW AND ALLEGATION MADE AND RESULTED IN A FINE.

AND SO THAT SORT OF INCIDENTAL VIOLATION CAN HAPPEN.

ANOTHER ONE IS OBVIOUSLY THE PENALTY GETS INCREASED, THE MORE DELIBERATE IT WAS. KNOWINGLY ATTENDING A MEETING IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. I WILL GIVE YOU A QUICK EXAMPLE, AS THE WORLD WAS SHUTTING DOWN F FOR THE COVID. THEY SAID MY GOSH, THE NBA IS CANCELING. THE CITY COMMISSIONER DECIDED THE MEETINGS AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE THREE OTHER CITY COMMISSIONERS SAID NOT IN MY CITY. THEY USED THEIR KEYS WITH A DOZEN FOLLOWERS, GO TO CITY HALL AND HAVE A MEETING.

THEY FIRE THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY AND THE CLERK, DECLARE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE MAYOR AND WHICH IS BY THE WAY NOT HOW ANY OF THAT WORKS. AND THEY WERE CRIMINAL PENALTIES

FOR THEM. >> THEY ARE RUNNING AGAIN.

>> THEY WERE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND MORE SHOCKINGLY WERE RECALLED. IT WAS NOT ONLY THE FIRST SUCCESSFUL RECALL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND I DID RESEARCH THIS. IT WAS THE FIRST TIME NATIONALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL HAD BEEN RECALLED BY THE VOTERS.

NOT THE FBI INVESTIGATION OF SOMETHING.

ONE OF PEOPLE THAT DID THAT SAT THROUGH MY TRAINING ON THE SUNSHINE LAW AND SAID RANDY SAID I COULD DO THAT.

I MOST DECIDEDLY DID NOT. >> DID THEY FALL ASLEEP DURING

THE TRAINING. >> YOU HEAR WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR SOMETIMES. SO I WILL TELL YOU THOUGH, I SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN APPELLATE OPINION.

WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPEAL USUALLY GET THE MAJORITY OPINION OR JUST THE UNANIMOUS DECISION THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE.

YOU SAY I AGREE WITH THE RESULT BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH HOW THEY GOT THERE. I'M ESPECIALLY CONCURRING BECAUSE I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO EMPHASIZE JUST HOW IMPORTANT THIS LAW IS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN THERE, I ALMOST PUT IT ON THE SLIDE PUT COULDN'T FIT RIGHT. IF EVER YOU'RE IN DOUBT WHETHER YOU'RE IN A PROPER SUNSHINE MEETING, YOUR DIRECTION IS TO ALL CAPS, LEAVE. THAT'S YOUR REMEDY.

DON'T PERPETUATE THE ISSUE. ONCE YOU THINK YOU MADE A MISTAKE. ADDRESS IT.

THAT IS REALLY THE OPEN MEETING PORTION AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF MY PRESENTATION. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS YOU THOUGHT WE WOULD BE ADDRESSING? I WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE BEFORE WE MOVE ON.

>> WE WILL FORGE AHEAD. THANK YOU.

ANOTHER PART OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IS THE VOTE.

THE DECISION. INCIDENTALLY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR THE JOB THAT YOU FOLKS DO.

AND TO MY TWO ABSENT PEOPLE WHEN YOU WALK THIS.

THANK YOU. BECAUSE THIS SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK WITHOUT SOMEBODY WILLING TO MAKE THE DIFFICULT DECISION.

I GET TO SIT IN THE SEAT OFF TO THE SIDE AND SAY THAT'S A TUFFY.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SMALL STREETS AND COMMUNITY TRYING TO BUILD OUT IN MODERATE MEANS. WE ONLY ALLOW PARKING ON THE DRIVEWAYS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE FAMILIES WITH TWO KIDS DRIVING? ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE STREETS AND GRASS. I SAID OKAY WE'RE IN THE WORK SESSION, I NEED YOUR DIRECTION, WHAT AM I DRAFTING? ON ONE HAND I CAN SEE THAT WE DON'T LIKE THE AESTHETIC OF THE CARS ON THE GRASS. IN THE STREETS, THEY ARE IN THE WAY OF RESCUE VEHICLES. IT'S A TOUGH DECISION.

IT MOST CERTAINLY IS SIR. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR

[00:35:02]

UNLESS THERE IS A LEGAL CONFLICT.

AND I'M ABOUT TO SPEAK TO WHAT A LEGAL CONFLICT IS.

I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS NOT. I CANNOT VOTE ON THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE HER AND I WENT TO THE PROM BACK IN '89.

THINGS I HEARD. I CAN'T VOTE ON THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE WE GO TO THE SAME CHURCH AND IT WOULDN'T BE RIGHT.

I CAN'T VOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL ICKY.

IT'S AGAINST MY PRINCIPLES TO EVEN OPINE ON SUCH A TOPIC.

IF YOU'RE PRESENT, YOU HAVE TO VOTE.

FOR THE MAYOR, DON'T FEEL EMBOLDENED.

YOU CAN'T GET THE COPS TO HAUL PEOPLE INTO CITY HALL.

IF YOU'RE HERE, YOU VOTE. NOW I'M ALSO NOT SAYING IF YOU'RE HERE YOU HAVE NOT ABILITY TO LEAVE.

YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE. IF YOU GET THE CALL, HEY WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ORDINANCE AND REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK UP MY GRAND KIDS TWO HOURS AGO, THEY'RE SITTING OUT AT THE SOCCER FIELD AND YOU GO. SO BE IT.

YOU WILL NOT BE VOTING. HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU DECIDE YOU'RE GOING TO TAKA A COMFORT BREAK OR A LITTLE STRESSED AND NEED RESPIRATORY THERAPY BUT YOU'RE COMING RIGHT BACK, YOUR VOTE SHALL BE RECORDED.

SO WE MAY WAIT UNTIL YOU COME BACK TO RECORD YOUR VOTE.

IF IT'S CLEAR OKAY. THIS IS PAST 4-0, WE'RE WAITING ON THE ONE MEMBER. WHEN YOU COME BACK, WE WILL SEE THE MEASURE PASSED BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE MINUTES AND RECORD, WE NEED TO RECORD YOUR VOTE.

WHAT IS YOUR VOTE? YOU CANNOT CREATIVELY AVOID THE VOTE. I SAW IT DONE ONCE, WHEN OUR MEETINGS WERE DONE BY ZOOM, THE PERSON WOULD LOG OFF EACH TIME AND LOG BACK ON FOR EACH DISCUSSION.

THEY ARE NOT DESERVING OF THE THANK YOU.

THE JOB DOESN'T WORK UNLESS YOU MAKE THE TOUGH DECISIONS.

THERE'S NO COROLLARY OF WHAT YOU SEE IN TALLAHASSEE OR DC, I'M PRESENT, I'M VOTING HERE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE JOB AND VOTE.

WITH THAT, THERE'S ONLY REALLY ONE CONTEXT KIND OF TWO, IN WHICH YOU CAN, WHICH YOU CANNOT VOTE OR HAVE THE OPTION TO NOT VOTE. AND IT'S REALLY UNDER CHAPTER 112. WE'RE GOING FROM THE PUBLIC MEETINGS BACK TO THE ETHICS PROVISIONS.

THAT SAYS NO PUBLIC OFFICER, MUNICIPAL OFFICERS MAY VOTE ON ANY MATTER, EXCUSE ME, WHICH WOULD ENDEAR TO HIS PROFIT OR LOSS. IT'S GOING TO MAKE YOUR MONEY GO UP OR DOWN. IF IT'S GOING TO AFFECT YOU FINANCIALLY, NOT REMOTELY, YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE ON THAT MATTER.

OR WHICH YOU KNOW WOULD ADHERE TO ANY GAIN OR LOSS OF PRINCIPLE. I'M THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD ON THIS APPLICATION. I'M NOT THE DEVELOPER BUT I'M THE ARCHITECT. OKAY.

YOU KNOW THIS IS BENEFITTED. YOU SHOULD NOT BE VOTING ON THIS. OR THE SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS WITH A RELATIVE BUSINESS. IT'S YOUR AUNTIE, NOT A PERSON YOUR MOTHER WENT TO COLLEGE WITH.

THAT'S WHAT THE VOTING CONFLICTS LAW SAYS.

YOU CAN'T VOTE IF IT MAKE YOUR MONEY GO UP OR DOWN.

THIS IS REFLECTED IN YOUR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE.

SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC LAW IN 112.312.

AND PURSUANT TO 286012. NO MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN FROM VOTING. THIS IS HAPPENING IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL POSTURE. AND SO ON, I AM CYCLING THROUGH THE SLIDES BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET BACK TO WHERE I HAD THE LANGUAGE. BUT THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS STATUTE THAT SAYS, IN THE CONTEXT OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, LIKE OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BEING A MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON SUCH MATTER IF THE ABSTENTION IS TO ASSURE A FAIR PROCEEDING FREE FROM BIAS OR PREJUDICE

>> THAT'S A LITTLE PERMISSIVE BECAUSE IT GOES BEYOND YOUR MONEY GOING UP OR DOWN. GOING INTO THE PERCEPTION OF A VIOLATION BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THAT'S BIAS OR PREJUDICE, THAT'S

[00:40:01]

THAT'S REALLY THE SECOND PERMISSIVE ELEMENT.

YOU CAN ABSTAIN WHERE THERE APPEARS TO BE A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. APPEARS TO BE A LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I WILL TELL YOU WHY I'M SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS. APART FROM THE FACT IT'S AT THE VERY CORE OF WHAT WE DO HERE. WHEN I WAS A WE BABY MUNICIPAL, MY PARTNER I WAS COVERING SAID, RANDY, WHEN YOU GO TO THIS, IT'S ADVISORY, THEY CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH.

THEY GOT TO VOTE AND STICK TO THE CRITERIA.

THE STUFF WE WILL TALK ABOUT. I GO THINKING IT WILL BE A 15-MINUTE HEARING. GO TO TAKE THE ROLL.

I'M ABSTAINING. OKAY.

HE DIDN'T TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY TRY TO DO THAT.

NOW I HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THE FLY.

YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A LEGAL CONFLICT.

SO I SAID OKAY, WHY ARE YOU ABST ABSTAINING. THE APPLICANT IS THE LANDLORD OF MY PROPERTY. ARE THEY NEAR EACH OTHER?

>> NO, CLEAR CROSS TOWN. AS THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED A

CONCERN? >> I AM CONCERNED MAYBE MY RENT WILL GO UP OR DOWN. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL RETALIATE OR SUPPORT ME. MY ADVICE IN THAT CONTEXT, YOU HAVE TO VOTE. BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS A REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE VOTE.

IT'S A COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE EVENTUALITY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONFLICT LAW REACHES.

THERE IS A FEW TESTS WHEN YOU'RE UNSURE IF YOU HAVE A VOTING CONFLICT AND I'M GOING TO START BY SAYING, BEFORE I GET THERE, THE TESTS ARE GENERALLY FIRST, IT HAS TO BE THE MONEY GO UP OR DOWN TEST. SECOND THE SIZE OF THE CLASS TEST. LET'S SAY YOU'RE REGULATING 101 PROPERTIES. ALL OF EQUAL SIZE.

THAT'S LESS THAN 1 PERSON. UNDER THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS ADMINISTRATION OF THE RULES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 1% MORE INTEREST IN YOU'RE PART OF A GROUP. IF YOU'RE LESS THAN 1%, YOU CAN VOTE. THE LINE MAY SEEM ARBITRARY BUT WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE. SAME RESULT, YOU HAVE 99 PROPERTIES AND NOW YOU HAVE A CONFLICT.

TWO PROPERTIES CHANGE THAT ANALYSIS.

AND THEN THE LAST THAT I SPOKE TO IS THE REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE TEST. IN ONE CITY I WORKED WITH

>> THE COMMISSIONER WAS REGULATING DOWNTOWN PARKING AND WHETHER THE LOTS COULD CHARGE AND HAVE PAID PARKING AND HOW THEY WOULD IMPLEMENT PAID PARKING.

ONE OF COMMISSIONERS OWNED A PARKING LOT DOWNTOWN.

WE HAD TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR INTEREST? NOT JUST IS HOW BIG OF YOUR LOT RELATIVE TO THE AREA WE'RE REGULATING. DOES THIS REPRESENT A .5 PERCENT OF ALL LOTS OR 50% HERE? AND ULTIMATELY, IT WAS FOUND THEY WERE LESS THAN .1 WHEN YOU PUT IT ALTOGETHER.

BUT THEY DID HAVE THE OPTION OF WITH HOLDING SAY IT'S AN APPEARANCE OF A LEGAL CONFLICT. IT'S CLOSE OR MAYBE .7.

I WOULD RATHER NOT. I COULD HAVE BUT OPTED NOT TO.

THAT WAS BASED ON A LEGAL CONFLICT.

NOT IT MAKES ME QUEASY OR UNEASY.

THE PUBLIC THINKS I HAVE A CONFLICT BECAUSE WHEN I WAS RUNNING I SAID WE NEED MORE PARKS.

YOU RAN ON SOME PLATFORM AND EXPRESSED SOMETHING YOU WERE PASSIONATE ABOUT. SOMETHING MADE YOU FILL OUT AN ETHICS AGREEMENT, HAVE A DELVISHLY HANDSOME ATTORNEY COME TALK TO. THAT'S NOT A VOTING CONFLICT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HOW DO YOU AVOID A VOTING CONFLICT? THE FIRST IS A CONTROVERSIAL ASPECT. YOU GOT TO READ THE AGENDA BEFORE THE MEETING. CRITICAL.

READ THE AGENDA BEFORE THE MEETING.

IT'S MUCH HARDER TO DETERMINE IF YOU HAVE A LEGAL CONFLICT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THAT IS THE PROJECT YOU WERE THE ARCHITECT ON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SECOND, CONSULT WITH YOUR CITY ATTORNEY.

IF YOU'RE NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT, YOU SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THAT CALL YOURSELF. EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU'RE CERTAIN, GOING TO HER AND SAYING, I THINK I HAVE A COMFORT. DO I IN FACT HAVE A CONFLICT, IT ALLOWS HER THE TIME TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE ISSUE AND GIVE YOU THE NUANCED ANALYSIS YOU DESERVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE

[00:45:04]

. MY PIECE OF ADVISE AND DON'T WORRY, I'M IGNORED OFTEN IS TO LIVE THE DAIS AND THE ROOM IF YOU CAN. BECAUSE THAT GETS MORE TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION SIDE OF IT.

THEN YOU AVOID HEY, YES, I HAD A CONFLICT.

MAYBE YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELF. MAYBE YOU FEEL PASSIONATELY ABOUT IT. EVERY TIME THE PERSON DOWN THE LINE IS TALKING ABOUT IT. OH, MY GOSH THIS PERSON.

WE KNOW. WE KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING. OR DIFFERENTLY, YOU TUNED OUT.

YOU'RE ON YOUR PHONE BUT RIGHT WHETHER THEY GO TO TAKE THE VOTE, YOUR FOLD YOUR ARMS LIKE THIS.

SOMEBODY WHO IS WATCHING ON THE VIDEO SAYS DID YOU SEE, HE POINTED HIS HAND UNDER HIS ARM, MOVED HIS FINGER AND HE KNEW HE WAS DIRECTING THEM TO VOTE YES. YOU AVOID ALL OF THAT IF YOU'RE NOT IN THE ROOM. WHEN YOU'RE DONE, WE GET YOU.

THAT AVOIDS THE DICHOTOMY OF COURT OF LAW AND COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. IT'S JUST A STEP FORWARDS PRUDENCE IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.

ANY QUESTIONS ON VOTING CONFLICTS?

>> I HAVE TO LEAVE. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

I RECOGNIZE YOU OTHER MATTERS. I WILL BE REVIEWING THAT.

QUASI-JUDICIAL IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO.

THAT'S PRECISELY WHERE WE'RE GOING.

WE WILL TOUCH ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE AND THEN QUASI-JUDICIAL. I WILL CONTINUE.

>> THERE ISN'T A QUESTION BUT I HAVE A COMMENT.

AFTER YOU SEEK OUT INFORMATION AND WORK WITH YOUR CITY ATTORNEY. IN THE END IT'S YOUR DECISION.

>> IT IS YOUR DECISION. >> YOU GET AS MUCH INFORMATION YOU CAN. YOU PROBABLY 99% OF TIME WOULD FOLLOW WHAT ADVICE OR WHATEVER, BUT RIGHT.

BUT IN THE END, THE LAW SAYS IT IS YOUR DECISION.

IT IS YOUR DECISION AND WITH THAT COMES THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY

DECISION YOU MAKE. >> YOU TAKE CONSEQUENCES.

>> I AM A LAWYER SO I'M A BIT OF A RELATIVIST.

THERE'S RARELY THE RIGHT PERSON BUT THE ANSWER WITH DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES. THERE ARE RIGHTS AND WRONGS.

WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.

THE QUESTION WILL BE ASKED. WHEN YOU MADE THAT DECISION, DID YOU MAKE IT AGAINST THE ADVICE YOU WERE GIVEN AND INFORM HOW DID YOU GET THERE? DID YOU MAKE IT RECKLESSLY OR REASONABLY? DID YOU DO AS I HEARD TELL OF ONE OFFICIAL DO, WHAT HAPPEN FIST I SAY YOU NEVER TOLD ME THAT? THAT'S GOING TO LEAD TO A

DIFFERENT RESULT. >> THAT WAS NOT IN THIS CITY.

SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT HOW TO PROPERLY CONDUCT A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.

WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND HOW OUR MEETS ARE CONDUCTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU ADOPTED ROBERTS RULES OF PROCEDURE. I WILL SPEAK THAT WHAT THAT MEANS. THE REASON FOR ANY PROCEDURE IS VERY SIMPLE, IT'S JUST SHARED EXPECTATIONS FOR OPEN COMMUNICATION. THAT'S WHAT OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE. WE ALL KNOW IF HE IS STANDING BEHIND THAT THREE-POINT LINE AND SHOOTS THE BALL AND GOES IN, WE KNOW HOW MANY POINTS THAT PERSON IS GETTING.

THREE POINTS TO THE TEAM. IF IT'S STEPH CURRY AND SHOOTING FROM BEHIND IT'S FOUR POINTS. NO.

THE PUBLIC KNOWS THEY HAVE THREE MINUTES.

THEY KNOW THE FLOOR IS THEIRS, BUT THE COMMENT HAS TO BE GERMANE TO THE TOPICS. AND THE SAME IS TRUE WITH HOW IT RELATES TO THE COMMISSIONERS. EACH OF YOU HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE MAXIMUM EFFORT TO HAVE YOUR POSITION DECLARED AS THE WILL OF THE BODY IN THE INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE BODY.

FANCY WORDS FOR THE MINORITY GETS A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

THE MINORITY POSITION GETS A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY PERSADE THEIR PEERS.

AT SOME POINT, WE WILL SAY YOU HAVE BEEN HEARD.

YOU ARE NOT PERSUADING AND WE ARE FORGING AHEAD.

AFTER EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR WILL THE WILL OF THE BODY. AS IN THE MUSIC HAMILTON, WIN SUGGEST EASIER, GOVERNING IS HARDER.

GET THE VOTES. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE YOU HAVE THERE. I SAID WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT

[00:50:01]

BUT THERE'S FREE SPEECH AND DUE PROCESS WHAT WHATEVER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS WHAT CASE LAW SAYS YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO.

I CAN'T MAKE PHYSICAL THREATS AGAINST YOU.

BUT I DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COME IN AND SAY, I DISAGREE WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD PROVIDED BY I ABIDE BY YOUR TIME AND PLACE RESTRICTIONS.

THEN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION AND STATE STATUTES.

WHAT DO THEY SAY? NOTHING.

BUT THEY TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

THE MEETING HAS TO BE NOTICED. REASONABLE NOTICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LOCATION OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WITH MINUTES TAKEN. THOSE ARE ALL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES. THEN WE LOOK TO OUR CHARTER.

IN SOME COMMUNITIES, THE CHARTER MIGHT TELL YOU WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK YOUR MEETING IS. WHO GETS TO PRESIDE OVER THE MEETING. THEN YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY ORDINANCE AND OTHER COMMUNITIES STILL FURTHER ADOPT THEIR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE. YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION FROM 2019 THAT HAS YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.

ONLY THEN DO YOU GET TO ROBERTS RULES.

THERE ARE SOME FOLKS WHO COME TO PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HAVE A BACKGROUND IN GOVERNING CORPORATE ENTITIES AND SAY WE'RE NOT DOING ROBERTS RULES. THE MAYOR DOESN'T GET TO VOTE.

BUT WE'RE NOT TRULY WHAT THAT SET OF RULES OF DESIGNED FOR.

WE'RE USING THAT AS A SAFETY NET WHEN ALL ELSE HAS NOT CAPTURED IT OR FAILS. AS TO GET TO WHERE WE'RE GOING.

SO THAT'S YOUR STANDARDIZED PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES.

THAT'S HOW WE GET THERE. IN YOUR CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN YOUR SECTION 2-49 B OF YOUR CODE SAYS ALL MATTERS COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, THE PARLIAMENTERY CONDUCT IS GOVERNED BY ROBERTS RULE. YOU'RE OWN RULE ON ROBERTS RULE RECOGNIZES THIS IS THE LAST PLACE.

WE DON'T DO THIS UNLESS EVERYTHING ELSE HAS FALLEN APART. YOUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GENERALLY ACCEPTED PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES SHALL PREVAIN.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, ROBERTS RULES ARE ADOPTED.

IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, THE CITY STEAL IS TO CALL OUT WE'RE LOOKING AT YOUR CITY RULES. SO AS WE TALK ABOUT THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT'S, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WHAT, WHERE, WHY, WHO OF IT ALL. SORT OF OUT OF ORDER THING.

WE STARTED ON THE WHY. THE WHY WAS FOR SHARED EXPECTATIONS. CLEAR COMMUNICATION

>> THE WHAT IS FOR, THE WHAT OF IT ALL IS THESE ARE THE SOURCES.

THE WHO, IT YOUR PRESIDING OFFICERS.

THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE MAYOR. WHOM EVER MAY OCCUPY THE SUIT AND USUALLY THE PARLIAMENTARIAN. THAT'S WHY THEY GIVE YOU THE GAVEL. IN A COMMISSIONER FORM OF GOVERNMENT LIKE YOURS, THE MAYOR IS LARGELY A CEREMONIAL ROLE.

SAY THIS WITH DEFERENCE. YOU GET SEPTOR AND THE CROWN AND YOU'RE ON EQUAL FOOTING SAVE FOR YOU PRESERVE THE ORDER FOR OUR MEETINGS. THAT IS A CRITICAL ROLE AND THE PUBLIC MAY NOT APPRECIATE THAT'S THE ROLE THE PUBLIC HAS GIVEN YOU. THE MAYOR IN MIAMI DADE MAKES ALL THE CALLS. YOU DECIDE HOW THE MEETINGS WORK. I CAN TELL YOU AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR A DECADE.

MAYOR TO MAYOR, YOU SEE A CITY CHANGE OVER NIGHT.

WE WENT FROM MEETINGS ENDING AT 9 O'CLOCK TO 11:30.PWHAT HAPPEN? THIS MAYOR RAN PUBLIC COMMENT THIS WAY.

THIS MAYOR SAID IT'S A Q AND A AND WE WILL GET BACK AND FORTH.

THE NATURE OF THE MEETING CHANGES.

THAT'S FINE. THAT'S THEIR GUIDE.

I WENT IN ONE COMMUNITY WHERE THE MAYOR WAS THE SCHOOL TEACHER. SHE SAID RANDY, I MAYBE THE PARLIAMENTARY, I WANT YOU TO BE SERGEANT AT ARMS. FEEL FREE TO INTERCEDE. THE NEXT MAYOR SAYS I GOT THIS.

STAND DOWN. YOU VERY MUCH DO NOT GOT THIS.

BUT WE DID THE MEETINGS THE WAY THEY WANTED TO BE DONE.

THAT'S FINE. THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE.

OCCASIONALLY, YOU MAYBE ASSISTED BY LEGAL GUIDANCE.

ATTORNEY HEDGERS WHO WHOEVER IS YOUR ATTORNEY, THEY ARE THERE TO GET YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS. TO MAKE SURE THAT RIGHT MAXIMUM EFFORT FOR THE MAJORITY OF BUSINESS IS DONE.

[00:55:02]

NONE OF YOU ARE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES. IT'S NOT THE MAYOR'S PREROGATIVE TO TELL THE PD, HEY I WANT DIRECTED PATROL ON 12TH STREET.

I HEARD REPORTS OF KIDS ON GOLF CARTS.

YOU MAY SAY TO THE MANAGER, I'M GETTING COMPLAINTS FROM THE RESIDENTS ABOUT THIS, COULD YOU LOOK INTO THIS AND USE THE RESOURCES AS YOU SEE FIT. THAT'S HOW THAT DICHOTOMY WORKS.

SO YOU FIRST RELY ON YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.

IF YOUR POLICIES DO NOT ADDRESS IT, YOU'RE FOLLOWING BACK TO ROBERTS RULES. THE OTHER JOB IS TO CALL ATTENTION TO ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDING.

YOU HEAR PEOPLE SAY POINT OF ORDER

>> IT'S NOT A POINT OF INFORMATION.

30 YEARS AGO WE DID A STUDY IN THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER. ALL A POINT OF ORDER IS, MEMBER JOHNSON HAD THE FLOOR BUT MEMBER GAINES IS SPEAKING.

THANK YOU. THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

MEMBER GAINES PLEASE RESUME, MEMBER JOHNSON YOU WILL BE CALLED ON WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN. LET THEM COMPLETE THEIR STATEMENTS. THAT'S A POINT OF ORDER.

WE SET THIS DEBATE AT 30 MINUTES, WE ARE NOT AT 45 MAYOR.

THAT'S A POINT OF ORDER. IT'S USUALLY USED FOR I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND I AM AFRAID I'M GOING TO FORGET.

I WILL TELL YOU IN ONE OF MY CITIES, THE FIRST TIME IT USED.

I FUNCTIONALLY STOPPED THE MEETING.

I SAID FOLKS WE NEED TO STOP AND CELEBRATE THIS MOMENT.

I HAVE DONE THIS THREE YEARS AND HAVE NOT SEEN IT DONE PROPERLY.

IT'S NOT TYPICALLY USED THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

AS YOU PRESERVE THE ORDER, IF PEOPLE ARE CALLING EACH OTHER NAMES RATHER THAN DEBATING THE MATTER, THAT'S A POINT OF ORDER.

WE WILL REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS.

OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE OR CIVILITY CLAUSE DIRECTS THAT.

WE GET INTO THE HOW, WHEN AND WHERE SIMPLE.

THE AGENDA. YOU CAN LOOK ALL OVER CHAPTER 286, THE WORD, AGENDA DOESN'T APPEAR.

THE WORD AGENDA IS MORE A CREATION OF OUR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE OR HOME RULE POWERS. IT'S A QUOTE YOGI BERRA, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING, YOU WILL END UP SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION AND WEREN'T EVERYWHERE EXCEPT WHERE WE WERE GOING.

IF THE VALUE, GREETINGS COMMISSIONER, IF THE VALUE OF OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE SHARED EXPECTATIONS, THE AGENDA IS I'M SHOWING UP AND THIS IS GENERALLY NOT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.

FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, THE AGENDA UNLESS YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE DICTATE OTHERWISE DO NOT HAVE TO SPELL OUT EVERYTHING. AS A CITY, THE COMMISSIONER HIRES AND FIRES ME. IN SOME COMMUNITIES, THERE'S A WAY HOW TO REMOVE THE CHARTER OFFICIAL.

OTHERS IT'S JUST I'M HERE ON THE MAJORITY VOTE.

MAYBE THEY SAY REVIEW OF PERSONNEL MATTERS.

HEY GUYS. ANYBODY KNOW WHAT THAT'S ABOUT? I WILL GIVE ADVICE ON PERSONNEL MATTERS AND I FIND OUT THAT'S MY LAST MEETING. SOMEBODY SAYS THAT'S VIOLATION.

THERE'S NOTHING SAYING THEY WERE FIRING THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT REQUIRES THAT.

ABSENCE SOMETHING IN MY CONTRACT OR RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT SAY SO OR CODES OF ORDINANCES OR CHARTER.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THOSE.

AT LEAST FOR NOW WE HAVE SOME SEMBLANCE OF HOME RULE POWER AND GET TO GOVERN AS WE SEE FIT IN OUR COMMUNITY.

ESTABLISHES THE SHARE OF EXPECTATIONS FOR YOUR FLOW OF THE MEETING. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT SAYS CHAPTER AND VERSE.

WE'RE CHANGING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THERE'S NOTICE WHO HAS TO BE TOLD WITHIN X AMOUNT OF FEET WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING. IN SOME COMMUNITIES, IT SAYS NOTHING WILL BE ON THE TUESDAY AGENDA UNLESS SUBMITTED BY FRIDAY 10:30 A.M., THAT'S A CREATURE OF YOUR OWN RULES.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RULES, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AND I THINK I TOUCH ON THIS IN A MOMENT, THE RULES ARE MEANT TO BE FLEXIBLE. IN ADDITION TO SERVING AS CITY

[01:00:05]

NO. THE DID WE ACHIEVE THE SHARED EXPECTATION? WAS THE WILL OF THE BODY MET? THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE'RE GOING. THAT'S NOT AN INVITATION TO VIOLATE YOUR RULES. OUR RULES SAY WE ADJOURN AT 10 O'CLOCK. WE'RE HERE, YOU GUYS GOOD GOING TO 11:00? SURE.

UNLESS SOMETHING IN YOUR CHARTER OR CODE SAYS SPECIFICALLY NOT, IT SAYS OUR RULES ARE NOT WORKING HERE.

OUR RULES MAY SAY THREE MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH, WE WILL DO FOUR.

IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN FOUR MINUTES.

IF YOU'RE AGAINST IT, GO TO THE HALL WAY, WHISPER INTO YOUR HANDS AND FEEL ASHAMED. WHEN WE HAVE RULES OF DEBATE, YOU MUST BE RECOGNIZED BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

THAT COMES FROM YOUR PRESIDING OFFICER.

AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, I CAUTION AGAINST THE USE OF NAMES OF PROBLEMS. I WILL TELL YOU COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY THAT VARIES. IN SOME COMMUNITIES THEY ARE VERY FORMAL. IN SOME WAY SAY MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR. IN OTHER COMMUNITIES IT'S LARRY.

I STARTED MY CAREER IN NEW YORK CITY.

I WORKED ON THE MADOFF PONZY SCHEME.

I SHOWED UP IN MY PIN STRIPE SUIT.

POCKET SQUARE MATCHING THE TIES AND SOCK SYSTEM.

SIR, WITH ALL REGARDS TO DECENCY, YOU NEED TO LOSE AT LEAST THREE OUR FOUR LAYERS OF CLOTHING.

WEARING GUY HARVEY BEACH SHORTS AND SANDALS.

I NOW WEAR POLO SHIRT AND KHAKIS WHENNY GO TO THEIR MEETING.

YOU ADAPT TO THE MEANS OF YOUR CULTURE.

BUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AVOID USING THE NAMES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY DEBATING ONE ANOTHER. THAT LAST BULLET ON THERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BULLET WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. AS WE HAVE SEEN AN EROSION OF CIVILITY AND SPIRITED DEBATE, YOU'RE DEBATING THE MEASURE NOT THE MEMBER, NOT THEIR MOTIVE. WE'RE NOT HERE TO SAY, MR. MORA, YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND ANYBODY THAT FOLLOWS YOU IS A FOOL AS WELL.

THAT GETS US NOWHERE TO GET THE POLICY HANDLED.

MR. MORA, AS YOU DEBATED THIS, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THE EFFECTS OF A HOUSING COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN RED LINED.

YOU'RE SAYING I FAILED TO CONSIDER SOMETHING.

YOU USED MY NAME BUT NOT ATTACKING ME.

YOU'RE IDENTIFYING HERE'S A POLICY CONSIDERATION WE NEED TO ADDRESS. YOU'RE DEBATING THE MEMBER NOT THE MEMBER OR, OF COURSE YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS.

YOU'RE ON THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU'RE ON THE BOARD.

THIS IS A WAY FOR MORE BUSINESSES TO COME HERE.

THAT'S ALL YOU CARE ABOUT. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AFFECT ON OUR RESIDENTS. THAT'S WHY I RAN AND SACRIFICE MY NIGHTS JUST LIKE YOU DO. SO DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER.

AND BY ATTACKING EACH OTHER OR BETTER STATED, BY NOT ATTACKING EACH OTHER, YOU MODEL THE KIND OF DIALOGUE THAT YOUR PUBLIC SHOULD BE SEEING. RIGHT AND MAYBE YOU GET MORE OF THAT REFLECTED BACK TO YOU. BECAUSE EVERY TIME I START TALKING TO COMMISSIONS ABOUT WELL IT'S NOT REALLY US, IT'S THEM. IT'S WE.

RIGHT. WE ALL HAVE A ROLE IN THAT.

THE WORSE THING I HAD SAID TO ME AT A PUBLIC MEETING BECAUSE OF MY VALUES, I WAS EXPLAINING SOMETHING AND I SAID THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IT THIS WAY.

I'M THIS IS WHERE WE ARE. I DIDN'T CREATE THIS PROBLEM AND I WASN'T BORN WHEN THIS STARTED. SOMEONE SAID YOU'RE SORRY ABOUT THAT. IS THIS WHAT YOU TEACH YOUR CHILDREN? IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY? IT'S PUBLIC COMMENT. I TOOK A MOMENT.

IT WAS CLEAR THEY WANTED ME TO SAY SOMETHING.

I SAID, SIR, YOU HAVE TWO MORE MINUTES.

I DON'T GO BACK AND SAY, YOU WANT TO HEAR WHAT I HAVE SO SAY? MEET ME IN THE HALL WAY. AS WE HAVE THAT DEBATE, OUR REMARKS MUST BE RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.

AVOID ATTACKS AND NAME CALLING. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK I TOOK THIS SLIDE OUT. IT'S ABOUT SHARED EXPECTATIONS.

THOSE SHARED EXPECTATIONS CAN BE FLEXIBLE IN THE MOMENT.

IT'S NOT TO BE WEAPONIZED. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SWORD BUT A SHIELD.

IF YOU FIND YOURSELF STAYING UP AT NIGHT STUDYING TO DO RULE BOOKS TO DO THE ON SIDE KICK FROM THE FIVE YARDLINE, YOU

[01:05:09]

TO QUOTE LAUREN HILL. YOU MIGHT WIN SOME, BUT YOU LOST ONE. YOU LOST THE POINT ALONG THE WAY. THAT COVERS PUBLIC MEETINGS.

IS THERE ANYTHING YOU THOUGHT WE WOULD BE COVERING AT THIS POINT YOU WISH TO ADDRESS OR ANYTHING THAT I JUST KIND OF SKIMMED OVER THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE INTO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL

PORTION OF THIS. >> I'M GOOD.

>> I'M JUST CRUSHING IT. THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK.

>> AS WE CONTINUE, LET'S GET INTO QUASI-JUDICIAL.

THAT'S WHAT YOU CAME FOR. BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD THE HOUSE WITHOUT THE FOUNDATION. WE HAVE OUR FOUNDATION.

QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS ARE JUST A PART OF YOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE SUNSHINE LAW, OPEN MEETING.

JUST A PART OF YOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS.

THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS. LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS WHEN YOU'RE MAKING ACTION. QUASI-JUDICIAL IS THE APPLICATION OF THAT POLICY TO AS AS ASSET -- A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

SOMETHING KIND OF JUDICIAL. YOU'RE NOT A JUDGE BUT KIND OF SORT OF ACTING LIKE ONE. YOU'RE APPLYING THE ESTABLISHED LAW TO THE FACTS IN EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

GREAT DEFERENCE WILL BE MADE TO A LEGISLATIVE DECISION.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT HOW THE COURTS TREAT THOSE AS WELL AS WHAT YOU WILL BE CALLED ON. I WILL TELL YOU, I HAVE DONE ENOUGH IN MY ROLE AS A CITY ATTORNEY THAT RIGHT WHEN WE GO TO A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, I LIKE TO MAKE SURE MY COUNCIL KNOWS. COMMISSIONERS WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR SOMETHING ON THIS VARIANCE. FORGIVE ME, I'M GOING FULL OLD SCHOOL AND BLACKOUT. THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND YOU ARE NO LONGER MAKING THE LAW.

YOU'RE APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT. AS YOU CONSIDER THIS, YOU ARE COMPELLED TO REVIEW THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE YOU. THE DECISION SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVE. HAS ANYBODY DONE A SITE VISIT? HAVE YOU DONE EX PARTE? DISCLOSE THEM.

DOES THAT IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO PARTIALLY ADJUDEICATE THIS MATTER. I'M GOING TO SWEAR EVERYBODY IN AND THEN WE PROCEED. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SCRIPT BUT A REMINDER TO PIVOT YOU, I'M NOT JUST DECIDING WHAT TIME THE SKATE PARK CLOSES VERSUS THE FEES, MY DECISION IS CONFINED TO SOMETHING HERE. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS ARE TYPICALLY DEFINED BY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

IF YOU'RE IN DOUBT, IS THIS QUASI-JUDICIAL OR LEGISLATIVE.

VARIANCES ARE THE MOST QUINTESSENTIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL.

>> IT'S ADVISORY. SO YOU'RE VARIANCES START WITH THE ADVISORY DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR PLANNING AND ZONING AND COME TO YOU. SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT A VARIANCE NEEDS TO BE. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND.

I WANT TO BUILD MY FENCE AND IS SAYS IT ONLY CAN BE SEVEN FEET.

MY PROPERTY IS UNDULATES. NORMALLY I'M BUILDING OUT AN ADDITION, IN THE FRONT, I'M FINE.

WHEN I GET TO THE BACK CORNER, I NEED A SETBACK.

WITHOUT OPINING ON ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE EXAMPLE IS, I BOUT MY PROPERTY AND HAD A DOCK OR SLIP AND I KNEW IT COULD FIT A 10 FOOT BOAT.

I SAW PUFF DADDY'S BOAT WAS FOR SALE AND I BOUGHT IT.

I NEED A VARIANCE. NO.

YOU KNEW WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WHAT YOU COULD FIT.

YOU BOUGHT SOMETHING HUGE AND HOPING WE WILL FIX IT FOR YOU.

THE LITERAL LAW WOULD USUALLY BE THE UNDUE HARDSHIP ELEMENT.

THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY.

TYPICALLY, YOU MAY SEE OTHER HEY, I'M ASKING FOR 12 FEET INTO THE 15-FOOT SETBACK. DID YOU CONSIDER IF THIS COULD

[01:10:04]

12 SEEMS LIKE A GOOD NUMBER. I WAS BORN ON THE 12 GRANTING WOULD BE IN THE HARMING OF ORDINANCE CODIFIED.

IF IT WAS TO MAKE SURE NO ONE AS A WATERFALL THAT TOWERS OVER THEIR HOUSE WITH A POOL, ARE WE DOING SOMETHING COMPLETELY OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE RESTRICTION? CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT.

DOES THE NEIGHBOR LIKE THAT? IT MAY INFORM YOUR DECISION AS TO HARMONY. THAT'S NOT A CLEAR CRITERIA.

YOU SEE YOUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, HAS ITS OWN CRITERIA. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES.

INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL CODES. THESE HAVE CRITERIA.

WHEN HEARINGS ABOUT THESE THINGS COME BEFORE, USUALLY YOU'RE

GOING TO BE >> A QUASI-JUDICIAL POSTURE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

CRITERIA. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR ROLE HERE. I CALLED OUT THE MAYOR FOR A WHILE. I WILL SPREAD THE LOVE.

COMMISSIONERS JOHNSON AND GAINES AND HUDSON AS WELL.

WHEN YOU'RE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTING, YOU'RE LIKE A JUDGE.

NOT QUITE IN KANGAROO COURT. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION OF IMPARTIALITY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHEN THEY COME TO YOU, THEY NEED TO KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET A FAIR SHAKE. IT'S NOT LIKE I LIKE THE FACEBOOK STATUS 10 YEARS AGO. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. LET'S SAY FOR INSTANCE, AFTER THE UNFORTUNATE EVENTS OF SURFSIDE.

YOU GO ON RECORD AND SAY IN MY COMMUNITY, AS LONG AS I'M HERE, NO CONDO OVER 50 FEET. SOMEONE COMES TO YOU FOR A VARIANCE AND SAY I'M TRYING TO GET THIS.

I NEED TO GO TO 52 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THE GENERATOR, THE AC HANDLER AND THE OTHER COMPLIANCE RESTRICTIONS.

THE ONLY WAY IS TO GO TO 52 OR 55 FEET.

YOU MADE IT CLEAR, 50 FEET ONE INCH IS A NO GO.

THEY SAY I AM ASKING FOR COMMISSIONER GAINES, HE MADE CLEAR THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE I COULD GIVE HIM WHERE I COULD PERSUADE HIM. THIS IS NOT AN IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATOR REVIEWING. IF YOU MAKE A POLICY DECISION.

I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF PARK SAYS.

YOU DIDN'T SAY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES COULD I EVER.

THE IDEA IS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE IMPARTIAL FACT FINDER.

YOU ARE DETERMINING ARE THE FACTS SATISFIED TO CHECK THESE BOXES? SO WHAT DOES FLORIDA STATUTE SAY? IN THE CONTEXT OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, A MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN IF IT'S TO ENSURE A FAIR RULING. I HAD IN ONE COMMUNITY ON A LAND ACQUISITION OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY WERE A PARISHIONER AT A CHURCH SEEKING RELIEF. THAT'S NOT A VOTING CONFLICT.

DIDN'T MAKE THEIR MONEY GO UP OR DOWN.

THEY ARE ONE OF THOUSANDS OF PARISHIONERS.

IT'S NOT LIKE, THE TIDE NEVER GOES THE OTHER WAY.

SO THEY'RE NOT GETTING 10% OF THE LAND ACQUISITION.

THEY COULD SAY AS A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH, THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH WANTS TO DO ON THE LAND. DEVELOPMENT I'M GOING TO SIT THIS ONE OUT. AND THEY SAT IT OUT.

AND THEN IT CAME BACK LATER DUE TO A SERIES OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO FOR YOUR PURPOSES AND HAD A DIVIDED COMMISSION. IN ORDER TO DO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS, I HAVE AN OBLIGATION ON VOTE.

I ASTAINED THE FIRST TIME AND BALANCING THAT AGAINST THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS GETTING DONE AND I WILL STEP UP AND VOTE.

THAT WAS HOW THAT WORKED DIFFERENTLY.

BUT IN ALL QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS, UNDER YOUR OWN RULES, THE GOVERNING QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS MUST BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND NOT YOUR PERSONAL BIASES.

ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? >> IT'S NOT A QUESTION, BUT, WE PRETTY MUCH UNDERSTAND THAT AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T REALIZE THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENT THEY HAVE TO PRESENT. I THINK THAT'S A BIG CHALLENGE

FOR US. >> I WILL SPEAK TO THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. I QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING IS JUST DIFFERENT. THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS AND I WAS RELAYING THIS TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY.

[01:15:05]

IN THEIR CODE SITE PLAN APPROVAL WAS A QUASI-JUDICIAL THING THAT NEEDED TO GO BEFORE TO DO COMMISSION.

SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUIRED YOU TO SHOW THAT YOU HAD ADEQUATE PARKING, ADEQUATE VENTILATION AND DRAINAGE.

SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THEY DO THE WHOLE SCRIPT.

SWEAR THE PEOPLE IN. CITY STAFF SAYS THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT SAID YOU HEARD HIM. WE DON'T DISAGREE.

LET'S MAKE THIS HAPPEN BABY. THEN WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE QUASI-JUDICIAL THING WE HAVE A 3-1/2 HOUR HEARING THAT GETS INTO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE COLUMBINE. 9/11.

WE WENT ALL OVER THE PLACE. AT THE END OF IT.

MY COLLEAGUE THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS COMMISSIONERS, NOW THAT WE CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT. IT'S MY DUTY TO TELL YOU WE ARE HERE ON SITE PLAN APPROVAL. NOT A SINGLE THING IN THE LAST 3-1/2 HOURS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CRITERIA AND IT'S MY ADVICE IT BE DISREGARDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF YOUR DECISION.

WHAT WAS COOL ABOUT IT, A BITTERLY DIVIDED ROOM SUDDENLY UNIFIED TO BOO THIS MAN. THEY FELT THEY WASTED THEIR TIME. I CAME HERE TO HAVE MY VOICE KNOWN AND THE COMMISSIONERS ARE BEING TOLD BY THEIR ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT A COMMISSIONER OR RESIDENT HERE TO IGNORE ME.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ON WHETHER WE LIKE GUN RANGES OR NEED MORE GUNS IN OUR COMMUNITY OR INVITE STRANGERS INTO OUR COMMUNITY WITH GUNS. THAT'S NOT THE DECISION.

IF WE DIDN'T LIKE GUN RANGES, WE HAD HAVE PUT THAT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SAID THIS IS NOT A PERMITTED USE.

THIS IS GOING ON U.S. 19. FOR OUR PURPOSES OUR LARGEST THOROUGHFARE AND ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS ROADS IN FLORIDA.

IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL USE TOTALLY PERMITTED.

THEY HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THEY WENT TO DEVELOP IT BASED ON THE WHAT THE CODE SAID. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT OR LIKE IT. IT SEEMS BUREAUCRATIC AND DESIGNED TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

THAT'S THE PROCESS. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS IN YOUR CODE. I DID IT.

CHECKED ALL THE BOXES. NOW YOU JUST DECIDE IF I DID OR DID NOT CHECK THE BOXES AND WE MOVE ON.

SO I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO YOUR EXAMPLE.

AND I WILL GET TO THAT AGAIN IN THE IMPARTIAL FACT FINDER ELEMENT. YOU HAVE CFP, CITY OF FORT PIERCE. IT HAS A WHOLE LANGUAGE ON UNAUTHORIZED COMMUNICATIONS. IT SAYS IN ALL QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS, ALL RULING SAYS MUST BE BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING. EX PARTE HEARING CONVERSATIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE IN ADHERENCE TO FOLLOWING PROCEDURES.

THERE'S A WAY YOU CAN ADDRESS THIS.

AND YOU HAVE ADDRESSED IT. BUT THEY'RE PERMITTED IF YOU DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY AND MAKE IT PART OF THE RECORD.

IF IT'S A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION I GOT AN E-MAIL, THAT COMMUNICATION IS MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO READ EVERY SINGLE COMMUNICATION.

IF YOU GET 100 LETTERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE AND READ FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF. DISCLOSE ANY INVESTIGATION OR SITE VISITS AND DISCLOSURE MUST BE MADE BEFORE YOU DECIDE OR RULE ON IT. WHEN YOU HEARD YOU DO MY BLACKOUT SCRIPT. I ASKED, COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE A SITE VISIT TO EVALUATE IT.

DID YOU GO THERE IN MIND TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION.

TWO OF YOU SAY NO. I WILL SAY COMMISSIONER GAINES SAYS YES. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU DID? DID YOU SPEAK WITH ANYBODY ON THE PROPERTY? WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT? WE ALL KNOW WHAT COMMISSIONER GAINES KNEW. MY FINAL QUESTION IS DO YOU FEEL IN ANY WAY THAT IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO IMPARTIALLY ADJUDICATE YOUR DECISION? WE HAVE IT OUT AND THE RECORD IS IT CLEAN. SIMILARLY, DID ANYBODY HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? DID YOU TALK WITH THE APPLICANT? THE DEVELOPER CAME TO ME. I SAT WITH HIM FOR AN HOUR AT PANERA. WE NEED TO GO OVER THIS.

MAYBE YOU MADE YOU BIAS IN THE PROCESS.

[01:20:01]

YOU'RE HERE TO DECIDE BASED ON WHAT IS SHOWN TO YOU.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO A SITE VISIT OR HAVE AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, YOU'RE GETTING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE HEARING AND WE'RE CONCERNED YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISION BASED ON SOMETHING NONE OF US KNOW. I WAS IN A HEARING ON A DOCK VARIANCE. IN ORDER TO GET THE DOCK, YOU HAD TO HAVE A SEA WALL. THE PERSON SAYS I DID A SITE VISIT. LATER ON, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOCK THIS OR DOCK THAT.

THERE'S NO SEA WALL THERE. THIS IS ALL A MISTAKE AND THE APPLICANT AND STAFF SHOT UP THERE'S ABSOLUTELY A SEA WALL.

IT'S UNDER A BUNCH OF GRASS BUT BEEN INSPECTED.

THERE'S A REPORT THAT SAYS IT'S BEEN, IT'S ENGINEERING SOUND.

SO NOW THIS JUDGE IS BRINGING THINGS INTO EVIDENCE.

THE BETTER WAY TO DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE THAT INKLING OR KNOWLEDGE WOULD HAVE BEEN, SORRY APPLICANT IS THERE A SEA WALL ON THE PROPERTY? WHAT WAS THAT CONSTRUCTED? HAS IT BEEN INSPECTED? YOU MIGHT HAVE A REASON YOU'RE ASKING THAT. I DIDN'T SEE ONE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S EVEN ONE THERE.

NOT YOU'RE GETTING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE STAFF OR APPLICANTS.

ON OCCASION I HAVE DONE THIS, PEOPLE SAY I'M A VISUAL LEARNER.

I NEED TO SEE SOMETHING AND HAVING SOME PERSON TALK TO ME AT 8:30 AT NIGHT, DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

MAYBE YOU DECIDE TO COLLECTIVELY STATE, WHEN WE HAVE THESE, CAN WE HAVE AN AERIAL IMAGE OR THEY ALLOW US TO TAKE PHOTOS OR SUBMIT PHOTOS TO HELP US PERCEIVE THIS.

YOU GET THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT YOU BEING THE FACT FINDER YOURSELF AND INTRODUCING IT. I WOULD NOT WANT TO GO TO A CASE ON WHETHER I RAN A RED LIGHT. ACTUALLY AFTER I GRABBED MY STARBUCKS, THAT LIGHT IS RED FOR FIVE SECONDS.

IT WASN'T THAT FIVE SECONDS. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU PUT IN EVIDENCE NOBODY ELSE IS SPEAKING ABOUT.

SAME THING IN YOUR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

TRY TO AVOID DOING YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT. GET IT AT THE DAIS ASKING THE PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

HAVE THEM MAKE THEIR CASE. THERE WILL BE TIMES WHERE YOU WISH TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON YOUR OPINIONS OR INKLINGS.

YOU PROBABLY CAN GET SOMEONE THERE.

YOU'RE TELLING ME THE BLUE COVER YOU'RE PUTTING ON YOUR DOCK AND ALIGNED WITH THE BLUE IN THE CITY'S SEAL.

IS THERE ANYTHING UNIQUE THAT MAKES YOU NEED THIS? IF WE WANTED THESE ON OUR DOCKS, WE WOULD HAVE LANGUAGE ALLOWING FOR THIS. WHAT ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY IS UNIQUE THAT REQUIRES THIS? OH, I JUST SAW ONE AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEAUTIFUL. THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS.

GROUND YOUR DECISIONS AND RATIONALLY IN THE CRITERIA.

SIR. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING NOW. WE THAT TYPE OF PROCEDURE WHERE WE ASK QUESTIONS ANY SITE VISITS.

WHAT I'M HEARING NOW IS, ALMOST TELLING ME DON'T HAVE THE DEVELOPER COME TALK TO ME. DON'T GO OUT AND TRY TO SEE ANY SITE VISITS. WHEN I GET THE CALLS FROM THE DEVELOPER. IT'S ALMOST TO A POINT WHERE YOU KNOW, LET ME JUST READ WHAT IS IN FRONT OF ME AND NOT GO TO THE SITE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I DON'T CARE WHAT I SAY.

IF I GO TO SITE AND SAID I VISITED THE SITE.

THAT I PUT THAT ON RECORD. >> SO --

>> FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO ASSUME I HAVE SOME TIME OF AGENDA IN MY MIND BECAUSE I TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE OR VISITED THE SITE.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. IS IT BEST JUST TO SAY NO TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SHOW ME THEIR PRODUCT AND NO DON'T GO TO THE SITE? BECAUSE I'M GOING TO USE THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF ME BUT PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO ASSUME THAT I HAVE SOME TYPE OF WHATEVER BECAUSE I HAVE GONE TO THE SITE OR TALKED TO THE DEVELOPER OR

WHATEVER. >> FANTASTIC QUESTION.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE LAWYER, IT DEPENDS ANSWER.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> SO I HAVE GIVEN A VERSION OF THIS. I DO PRESENTATIONS WITH THE

[01:25:02]

I HAVE NO FEWER THAN THREE OR FOUR CITIES SAY YOU TOLD MY COMMISSIONER NOT TO DO THIS. YOUR RULES SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATE YOU CAN DO THIS. I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT

ALLOWED TO. >> I'M ADVISING ON A LITTLE BIT OF LAW AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PRUDENCE.

YOU MISSED ME SPEECH ON I'M HERE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT A COURT OF LAW. THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION IS FAR MORE HARSH AND REACH CONCLUSIONS A COURT OF LAW WOULD

NOT. >> I SAW IT.

I DIDN'T MEAN DISRESPECT. >> I WAS WATCHING.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, I WILL TELL YOU, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY HE'S BIASSED.

AND SOMEBODY SAYS YOU MEAN TO TELL ME, THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOTEL YOU EVER BUILT AND YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT DIRT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THAT'S WHY I SAY THANK YOU FOR THE HARD JOB THAT YOU DO. YOU HAVE A BIT OF A HOBSON'S CHOICE OR CATCH 22 WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT IS THE PERFECT WAY TO DO? IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PLEASE ALL SEVERAL THOUSAND MEMBERS OF YOUR PUBLIC PROCEDURING IN ONE WAY.

I GUARANTEE AND LAWYERS GUARANTEE, YOU ARE GOING TO FAIL. YOU CAN'T MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY IN ONE WAY. YOU HAVE TO DECIDE A DECISION THAT COMES WITH EVERYTHING YOU DO.

WHAT IS YOUR RISK TOLERANCE AND WILLINGNESS TO BE PART OF THE NEXT NEXT DOOR POST OR FACEBOOK POST? FOR SOME IT'S VERY LOW. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ETHICS STUFF.

I DON'T LET ANYBODY BUY MY COFFEE.

THE MOMENT I TOOK OFFICE, I SAID YOU DON'T BUY MY COFFEE.

I DON'T CARE, I DON'T NEED IT. OTHER PEOPLE SAY, THE LAW SAYS I CAN ACCEPT GIFTS AND YOU HAVE TO REPORT THE ONES OVER $100 AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT GIVEN TO INFLUENCE ME.

I DID A PRESENTATION FOR THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES.

ALL OF YOU CAN GIVE ME A THOUSAND DOLLARS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T STOP ME. IT'S NOT GOING TO INFLUENCE ME AS LONG AS I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE SMOKE AND THE HEAT.

YOU MOVE THROUGH THE WORLD THAT WAY.

THAT'S A DECISION ON YOUR RISK TOLERANCE.

>> WILL YOUR PRESENTATION TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PUBLIC'S

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE? >> I'M GOING TO GET INTO THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD. WE'RE STILL ON PACE.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. THERE IS PROVISION FOR PARTY INTERVENERS. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION A PERSON MAY INTERVENE IF THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

I'M RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

TO THE HOLIDAY INN GOING ON THAT NEEDS THE VARIANCE THAT NEEDS TO GO TO 53 FEET. I'M GOING TO BE A PARTY TO THIS.

I'M GOING TO GET ADDED RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE.

YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME THERE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S YOUR CORE CONCERN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT'S PRUDENT YOU ADDRESS IT.

WE'RE NOW THERE. YOU MUST MAKE FIRST OF ALL YOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE YOU. SO WHAT THAT REQUIRES WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THE HEARING. MY FAVORITE COUNCILMEMBERS AND IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH, I REVIEWED THIS VARIANCE.

I'M NOT SEEING THE HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT JUST I WON'T GET TO DO THE THINGS I WANT TO DO. THEY'RE NOT BEING TREATED FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND I'M NOT SURE THIS IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE AND I WILL BE VOTING NO.

NOW I HAVE OH , HE'S REVIEWED THE FACTS, HE'S MADE A CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED ON THAT, VERSUS MOTION, SECOND, NO, NO AND NOBODY KNOWS WHY. BECAUSE IF AND WHEN THEY APPEAL THAT AND WE GO TO THE TRANSCRIPT.

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THIS. THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THAT.

THAT SUPPORTS THEIR CONCLUSION EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T OUTRIGHT SAY IT. YOU SHOULD BE MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. YOU HAVE TO GET OUT WHY DID YOU GET HERE? WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AND I WILL GET TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF. THE APPLICANT MAY CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE PUBLIC AT LARGE DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT CROSS-EXAMINE. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE AND THAT'S THE SAME IN EVERY COMMUNITY.

[01:30:02]

COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH ESTABLISHES A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FROM WHICH THE FACTOR CAN BE INFERRED.

BASICALLY YOU NEED SOME EVIDENCE.

IT IS NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT WE IN THE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM >> IT'S NOT EVEN A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. 51%

>> IT'S SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION YOU DRAW.

IF CITY STAFF COMES IN AND SAYS, THIS CRITERIA IS NOT SATISFIED.

THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.

AND THE PROPERTY OWNER COMES IN AND SAYS, ACTUALLY, ABOUT 50 YEARS AGO WHEN THEY PLATTED THIS LOT, THE CITY HAD A RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT GOES 10 FEET FURTHER THAN ANY OTHER LOT ON THE ROAD.

THERE'S A UNIQUE FEATURE AND THE CITY IS NOT ADDRESSING IT.

YOU GET TO DECIDE, YOU HEARD TESTIMONY TO BOTH EFFECTS AND WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION, YOU CAN SAY, WELL I HEAR THAT TESTIMONY, I DON'T FIND THAT CREDIBLE OR THINK THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE SIDE SETBACK IN THE BACK CORNER.

IT'S NOT A UNIQUE FEATURE HERE. THEY ARE SHOVED TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE BACK AND I DO FIND.

THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE AS THE JUDGE.

COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INCLUDES FACT OR OPINION EVIDENCE OFFERED BY AN EXPERT ON A MATTER THAT REQUIRES SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE. IT'S EVIDENCE A REASONABLE MIND CAN ACCEPT AS HAVING PROBATIVE WEIGHT.

WE WILL GET TO ANOTHER SLIDE THAT ELUCIDATED THIS.

IT'S NOT I LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 40 YEARS.

YOU PASS THIS, THERE WILL BE NO DRIVING ON U.S. 1 EVER AGAIN.

THIS IS GOING TO DESTROY TRAFFIC.

PROPERTY VALUES FRANKLY ARE GOING TO PLUMMET.

I AM IN FEAR FOR MY FUTURE INVESTMENT, YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS. DID YOU GET AN APPRAISAL.

EVERYBODY IS NOT SITTING UP HERE.

I NEED EVIDENCE. THAT'S A FRUSTRATING RESULT TO THE PUBLIC, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE.

GIVE ME SOMETHING MORE THAN EVERYBODY KNOWS OR PEOPLE ARE SAYING. IT'S EVIDENCE A REASONABLE MIND CAN ACCEPT AS HAVING PROBATIVE WEIGHT.

IT'S NOT THE SAME RULES OF EVIDENT YOU SEE IN A COURT.

BUT IT HAS TO BE SOME EVIDENCE. SO HYPOTHETICAL SPECULATIVE, FEAR OR EMOTION THAT DON'T ADDRESS THE RELEVANT ISSUES IS NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

>> ATTORNEY MOORE. I WANT TO GO BACK.

THIS IS THE POINT, THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE CAME HERE FOR IS TO HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THE ONE KEY WORD IN THAT STATEMENT ABOUT EXPERT. WE RECENTLY HELD A QUASI-JUDICIALS IN THE SAME CHAMBER INVOLVING CELL TOWERS.

OKAY. AND THEY WERE THINGS OFFERED NOT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. MUCH OF PUBLIC OPINION LIKE YOU GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF. AND SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HELP THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WHEN IT COMES? YOU GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF, DID YOU GET AN APPRAISAL. IS A REALTOR TO TALK ABOUT PROPERTY VALUE. THOSE ARE THE THINGS I THINK I WANT TO PUT ON RECORD AS PEOPLE REVIEW THIS.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT QUASI-JUDICIAL, YES PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS THEIR OPINION. THAT'S FINE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> I THINK I HEAR YOU SAYING THAT. BUT ALSO IT'S WHEN I'M EVALUATING AS A JUDGE, I'M LOOKING AT THAT EXPERT WHO IS STANDING THERE SAYING I'M AN EXPERT IN REAL ESTATE.

I'M AN EXPERT IN BLANK THIS BLANK THAT ET CETERA.

EVEN IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE OF CELL TOWERS, THE FCC PREEMPTS BASED ON WHAT CAN BE EVIDENCE COMING IN.

I THINK THAT WAS A PART OF PUBLIC DIDN'T GET EITHER.

IS THIS UNIQUE SITUATION, WE'RE PREEMPTED TO EVEN HEARING STUFF BASED ON THE FCC SAID WE CAN SEE AS EXPERT STUFF.

>> MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU ON THAT.

NOT ONLY THE FCC BUT THE LEGISLATURE.

>> RIGHT. >> I LIVE IN A BEACH SIDE COMMUNITY. I WORK IN A BEACH SIDE COMMUNITY. IN ONE OF THOSE COMMUNITIES THEY HAVE A RADIO ANTENNA. THE NEIGHBORS SAY THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT. THIS IS X FEET TALL.

THIS IS NO GOOD. AND ONCE I FINALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RESEARCH, REALIZED WE CAN'T JUST SAY NO.

WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY NO LATER.

BUT WE NEED TO MAKE FINDINGS THIS PARTICULAR ANTENNA CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED IN A LOWER WAY. LAW FAVORS THEM HAVING TO HAVE

[01:35:01]

THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL ANTENNA TOWER TO SAY NOTHING OF FCC AND 5G AND 4G AND SOMEBODY COMING THROUGH AND SHOWING YOU A FACEBOOK POST THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW ELON MUSK SAYS 5G WILL GIVE YOU CANCER IN TWO MONTHS. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY COMPETENT EVIDENCE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT AS I JUDGMENT BUT BY COMPARISON. THIS IS THE BENEFIT FOR ALL OF US. IT HELPS US AS OFFICIALS TO BE REMINDED OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON A FEW OTHER EXAMPLES.

AS THAT IMPARTIAL FACT FINDERS. LOOK FOR AND ADHERE TO CRITERIA.

ARTICULATE THE BASIS. FOR ATTORNEY HEDGES MAY WISH TO APPEAL THE DECISION OR DEFEND YOUR POSITION WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, I THINK YOU GOT IT WRONG. WOW, NOW I HAVE A RECORD AND THEY SAID THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE AND NOT RELYING ON.

I HEARD BOTH BUT I DON'T FIND THAT CREDIBLE.

I SEE THE FACEBOOK POST. I DON'T THAT AS CREDIBLE.

YOU'RE BOUND BY THE RECORD FOR IMPPARTIALITY.

YOU MAKE YOUR RULES ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT PROVIDED YOU MAKE THE FULL DISCLOSURE. SO, BEFORE, THE NEXT AND FINAL PORTION OF THIS IS GOING TO FOCUS ON HOW COURTS TREAT CHALLENGES TO QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURINGS.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT LEAVES THE CHAMBER.

BEFORE WE GET THERE. ANY QUESTIONS ON HOW DO THESE WORK BEFORE HOW ARE THEY UPHELD OR VALIDATED? IF YOU HAVE THEM, JUST ASK. LET'S TALK ABOUT AN APPELLATE REVIEW. IT'S LIMITED TO THE RECORD BELOW. WHEN YOU'RE DONE AND SOMEBODY IS APPEALING YOUR DECISION, THEY HAVE TO PRODUCE A TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, SO EITHER THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE AUDIO RECORDING. SOMETIMES IN THE CONTROVERSIAL ONES, YOU WILL SEE A COURT REPORTER IN THE ROOM.

THEY WILL GET ALL THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND STAFF REPORT AND MADE YOUR AGENDA THIS THICK WILL GET SENT TO THE COURT AND ONLY THAT STUFF. IF WHEN I APPEAL I GO YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COMMISSION DIDN'T REALIZE WAS THERE WAS A STUDY DONE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS.

NO. YOU DIDN'T GIVE THAT TO THE BOARD. YOU SHOULD HAVE PUT IT IN THERE.

NOW IT'S TOO LATE. SO THEN THE COURT IS ONLY LOOKING AT THREE THINGS. YOUR DECISIONS OF APPEALED TO A CIRCUIT COURT. WAS THERE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, 1? DID YOU ADHERE TO THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW? TWO, AND WAS IT SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I WILL TREAT THEM IN THE ORDER BECAUSE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE GETS THE MOST ATTENTION. DUE PROCESS REQUIRES ADEQUATE NOTICE WHEN MAY VARY BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. SO IF I SAY WE NOTICEDED THE HEARING AND GAVE YOU THREE WEEKS TO SHOW.

I DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BECAUSE THAT'S MY POKER NIGHT. I WAS TRAVELLING.

DID YOU HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK ON YOUR BEHALF? MAYBE YOU CAN'T BE ABOUT OR PAY SOMEBODY OR FIND A FRIEND TO MAKE IT KNOWN THEY HAVE YOUR AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON YOUR BEHALF? YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

WHETHER YOU CHOSE TO ENGAGE IS DIFFERENT.

WE TALK ABOUT NOTICE. NOTICE MAY VARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE'S STATUTORY NOTICE, REQUIREMENTS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

VERSUS A HAVING VARIANCE. YOUR CODE MAY SAY WE POSTED HERE OR POST THE PROPERTY AND MAYBE SEND IT TO, SEND THE MAILER TO EVERYBODY WITHIN 200 FEET AS THE CROW FLIES.

BUT NOTICE DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU FOR EXAMPLE TO SEND A POSTCARD TO EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY EVERY TIME THERE'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL FOR EXAMPLE. SO YOU WILL GET PEOPLE WHO SAY, THIS VIOLATES MY DUE PROCESS. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS? WERE YOU TRYING TO KNOW? WE PUT IT ON OUR WEBSITE AND THE CITY BOARD. MAYBE THOSE AREN'T THE WAYS YOU INTERACT WITH THE WORLD AND YOU DON'T.

THAT DOESN'T LEGALLY INVALIDATE THIS.

[01:40:02]

ONE OTHER ELEMENT OF DUE PROCESS IS A PRECONCEIVED BIAS.

WE WILL SPEAK ABOUT A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

GOING BACK TO MY VAGUE EXAMPLE OF GUN RANGE.

IF YOU GET IN THERE AND SAY I'M STEADFAST AGAINST GUNS.

I AM VOTING FOR THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED GUNS IN THE COMMUNITY. YOU MADE IT CLEAR NO QUANTUM OF ANY OF THOSE COULD HAVE GOT YOU THERE BECAUSE YOUR BIASSED

AGAINST WHAT THE END RESULT IS >> THAT'S NOT A FAIR PROCESS.

REASONABLE NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND A FAIR PROCESS.

THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. DUE PROCESS.

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. DID YOU APPLY THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD? I HAVE HANDLED APPEALS WHERE THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY ARGUES, THEYED THEY WERE APPLYING SECTION 2-52.

BUT WHEN YOU READ 2-52, YOU CAN'T REACH THAT CONCLUSION.

WE APPLIED THE RIGHT LAW. YOU AGREED.

YOU JUST THINK THEY REACHED THE WRONG RESULT APPLYING IT.

IF WE SAY THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IS GOVERNED BY 210.

AND WE WERE HERE A HEIGHT OF FENCE VARIANCE, BUT YOU USED THE HEIGHT OF ROOF, THEN YOU DEVIATED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. YOU ARE NOT GOING BY WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT.

ARE YOU READING FROM THE RIGHT SHEET OF MUSIC? EVEN IF YOU SING A NOTE OFF KEY, YOU APPLIED THE RIGHT LAW.

SO THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTROLLING STATUTE IS AN ESTABLISHED LAW. MAYBE YOU SAY THERE'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING ON THE REGULATION OF SMOKING, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE A THING. IF THERE WAS, YOU SAY, WELL WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE EVERY FORM OF SMOKING.

THERE'S ONE YOU CAN'T REGULATE IN PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, UNFILTERED CIGARS. YOU DEVIATED FROM THE STATUTE.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THE SAME PRINCIPLES EXTEND TO YOUR ORDINANCE. IF YOUR ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THIS AND YOU SAY, THAT'S JUST NOISE.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO THINK ABOUT IS THIS, YOU'RE DEVIATING FROM THE ESSENTIAL CRITERIA OF LAW.

SAYING SOMETHING LIKE I SEE THE CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED.

REAL THING I HEARD. I SEE THE CRITERIA IS SATISFIED.

I'M HERE FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK IN PURPLE TEE SHIRTS WHO VOTED ME IN. YOU MADE IT CLEAR YOUR NOT GOING BY THE LAW. ONE IS PREJUDICE, YOU CAN SHADE THE VEN DIAGRAM IN THAT BIG ACT. HERE'S THE BIG ONE.

COMPETENT ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE. SUFFICIENT AND MATERIAL THAT A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT IT AS ADEQUATE TO SUSPECT THE CONCLUSION REACHED. WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF CSC? TESTIMONY CAN BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

DO YOU HAVE A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR THE GUN BOARD? WE DO. I HANDLE AMOUNT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS. I HAD PEOPLE ARGUE THE VIOLATION WAS FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL ON THIS PROPERTY.

BUT STAFF DIDN'T SHOW PHOTOS OF SOMEBODY GETTING ALCOHOL.

THEY OBSERVED A BAR AND ALCOHOL ON A SHELF THAT WAS CLEARLY FOR SALE. THE FACT THEY DIDN'T WITNESS IT AND THE WEBSITE SAYS COME AND ENJOY OUR AFTERNOON EVENING BAR IS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

DOESN'T NEED TO BE DIRECT BUT WE HAVE ALL THE TRAPPINGS OF VIOLATION AND WHETHER OR NOT I WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE WEARING MY CITY BADGE IS NOT RELEVANT. I LOOKED AT YOUR MARKETING MATERIALS AND HOW THE PROPERTY IS CONFIGURED.

I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUBSTANTIATE.

IF I HAVE PROVEN IT UP. SAYING ALL THEY OFFERED WAS THE TESTIMONY OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE PLANNER.

ALL THAT TESTIMONY IS COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

PHOTOGRAPHS, QUITE OBVIOUSLY. VIDEO, CAN BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. TRAFFIC STUDY.

APPRAISAL. ALL CATEGORY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IF YOU SAY I'M A REALTOR THAT HAS BEEN HERE FOR 40 YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN AN AVERAGE DROP IN HAD THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD OF $50,000 SINCE THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED, THIS CAN BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

[01:45:03]

YOUR INSTINCTS. I HAVE A SENSE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS. YOU WOULD BE FOOL NOT TO UNDERSTAND. CAN'T YOU GUYS SEE.

USUALLY WHEN YOU START A DECISION THAT WAY, YOU'RE MAKING AN EMOTIONAL APPEAL. YOU MAYBE WELL CONVICTED AND FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW OF AN EXAMPLE IN CALIFORNIA OR NEW YORK IT WAS THE UNDOING OF THE COMMUNITY, GET THAT IN HERE. DON'T SAY WE WILL BE THE NEXT DIXON IF WE DO THIS. SORRY, I'M LIFTING TO A PODCAST.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE REQUESTING. IF HERE ON THE SITE PLAN FOR GUNS QUASI-JUDICIAL. SOMEONE SAYS I CAN CUT THROUGH THIS. IF YOU WANT THIS, PLEASE STAND UP. NOBODY STANDS UP.

IF YOU'RE AGAINST THIS AND YOU HEAR THE SEATS.

THAT'S NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENT.

THE PERCENTAGE OF ELECTORATE IN THE ROOM IS IN FAVOR OF THIS.

IT MAYBE POLITICAL PRESSURE THAT MAY MAKE YOU THINK, CAN I FIT THIS SQUARE PEG IN THIS ROUND HOLE? MAYBE IT GIVES YOU PAUSE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA.

SO THE WILL OF THE VOTERS CAN COME UP HERE AND TELL YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE YOUR JOB. I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER GAINES, YOU VOTE FOR THIS CONDO OVER 50 FEET AFTER WHAT YOU SAID TO ME, YOU'RE OUT OF HERE.

OKAY. IF I DON'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE HAPPENS, WE HAVE A $19 MILLION JUDGMENT THAT WE HAVE TO SATISFY AND I HAVE TO RAISE YOUR AD VALOREM TAX

>> THIS WAS A REALLY THING THAT HAPPENED IN PINELLAS COUNTY.

I SEE THE CRITERIA. YOU HEARD NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THE APPLICANT HAS TOLD YOU.

ALL YOU HEARD IS PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO WELL. AND THEY GO ON APPEAL AND THE COURT SAYS DO IF RIGHT. THEY STILL DO IT WRONG IS GO TO A ARBITRATOR. I CAN PROVIDE PROOF OF HOW MANY MONEY THEY'RE COSTING ME DENYING ME OF MY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IT WAS A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT.

NOW THEY AVOIDED IT THROUGH OTHER MEANS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE COMMISSION THAT STOOD BY RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY CANNOT BANKRUPT.

THAT COMMUNITY DID NOT GO BANKRUPT.

YOU HAVE HERE. YOUR OWN RULES OF EVIDENCE FROM THE RESOLUTION 19 R 35. ALL EVIDENCE COMMONLY RELIED ON BY REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSONS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ADMISS ABLE AT THAT STANDARD. THERE'S A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY.

HEARSAY CAN BE USED. TO SUPPLEMENT OR EXPLAIN OTHER EVIDENCE. BUT IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF. MY PARTNER JIM TOLD ME, JIM IS ACTUALLY A, HE'S A VENTURE CAPITALIST.

THIS GUY IS A BIG DEAL. THIS IS THE KIND OF GUY THAT HE CAN GET YOU A TICKET ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD YOU WANT IT.

JIM SAYS, THIS WILL BE THE UNDOING OUR COMMUNITY.

COOL, BASED ON WHAT? IS JIM HERE? WHO IS JIM? I DON'T KNOW JIM.

I MIGHT PASS JIM AT PUBLIX LATER OR JIM'S DRIVER.

HEARSAY CAN SUBSTANTIATE IT. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE ORIGINALLY RAISED SEAL.

YOU MAY DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S CREDIBLE.

IF SOMEBODY IS GIVING YOU SOMETHING THAT'S A FORGERY.

HERE'S A CASE STUDY WHERE IT WENT WRONG.

IT WAS A CONDITIONAL USE. SOMEONE WAS APPLYING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY.

THIS IS A COURT CASE FROM THIS YEAR.

CITY STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

P& Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THE FINDING SAID JUST LIKE CITY STAFF. THE PLANNING SAID NO, WE DON'T THINK THIS MEETS THE CRITERIA. THEY ARE BINDING TO A AN APPEAL.

THE COMMISSION STOOD BEHIND IT. THEY APPEALED TO THE COURT.

[01:50:05]

DUE PROCESS, ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

SAYS DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED. THEY DON'T GIVE YOU QUOTES.

BUT SAY THIS WAS CLEAR IN THE MAYOR'S PERSPECTIVE, THEY WERE MAKING A PERSONAL DECISION BASED ON WHETHER THEY THOUGHT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY WAS SOMETHING THEY LIKED OR WHETHER THERE WAS A FAVORABLE KIND OF BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY.

WHETHER WE NEEDED BUSINESSES LIKE THIS.

THIS WAS A DENIAL OF BUSINESS. THEY HAD NOTICE BUT HAD A PARTIAL ADJUDICATOR. THEY HAVE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WAS THIS CRITERIA. THEN THEY ALSO WANTED TO IMPOSE LIMITATIONS ON THE BUSINESS, THERE'S A STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU CAN BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSAR DISPENSARIES. YOU CAN'T MAKE WHATEVER YOU MAKE WALGREENS DO, YOU CAN MAKE A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY DO.

YOU CAN'T SAY CAN'T BE WITHIN 500 FEET OF A BAR.

IF WALGREENS CAN, SO CAN THIS. AND THEY STARTED DOING ALL KINDS OF WOULD YOU MIND IF MAYBE YOU DIDN'T OPERATE? I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC FACTS FROM THE OPINION.

BUT MAYBE THEY CHANGED THE HOURS OF OPERATION.

MAYBE THEY SAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH.

WALGREENS CAN, WHY CAN'T I? ALL OF THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

THE COURT SAYS YOU DEVIATED FROM THE RULES OF LAW.

IT WAS CLEAR THEY WERE MAKINGA AN EMOTIONAL MADNESS.

I WAS IN A HEARING WHERE THE COMMUNITY DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW THEM. DISP DISPENSER DISPENSERAR -- DISPENSARIES.

THEY JUST DIDN'T SAY I FIND THIS CRITERIA IS NOT SATISFIED.

THEY SAY I'M FINDING AGAINST. THEY SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NOT COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BUT THE COURT COULD SEE FROM OTHER COMMENTS IN THE RECORD THEY WERE VERY MUCH FITTING THE SQUARE PEG IN THE ROUND HOLE.

WE'RE CALLING THIS CRITERIA WHEN WE FUNCTIONALLY IGNORED IT WITH THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS.

THAT WAS A SITUATION WHERE THE DECISION GOT OVER TURNED AFTER TWO BODIES IN THE CITY SAID WE DON'T WANT THIS.

THE DECISIONS UPHOLDING ARE FAR LESS DETAILED BECAUSE THEY DID IT RIGHT. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? THEY DON'T GO THROUGH CHAPTER AND VERSE.

HERE'S A DECISION THEY WENT THROUGH TWO TIERS.

I TOLD YOU IT STARTS WITH THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, DUE PROCESS AND COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WHEN YOU GET TO THE SECOND COURT.

THE FIRST COURT MAKES A DECISION, THE SECOND COURT THEY ARE JUST LIKING AT DUE PROCESS. IT GETS NARROWER AND NARROWER.

THERE'S A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DEFERENCE TO THE BODY THAT HAD TO SIT THROUGH THE EIGHT HOUR HEARING.

IF THERE ARE CONFLICTS IN THE EVIDENCE.

THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO IMPART TO YOU AS FACT FINDERS.

THERE WAS EVIDENCE THIS WAY AND THAT WAY.

THEY SHOULD HAVE USED THIS STUFF.

THE COURT SAYS IF THERE'S A CONFLICT IN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, THEY WILL UPHOLD THE DECISION IF IT'S FAIRLY DEBATABLE. THE COURT WILL SAY WE USED FAIRLY DEBATABLE DECISION. THE BOARD'S ACTION IS REASONABLY BASED AND AS A RESULT PREVENTS THE COURT FROM SUBSTITUTING OUR JUDGMENT FOR ITS JUDGMENT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY MADE THE RIGHT OR WRONG DECISION.

ON APPEAL WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH RIGHT OR WRONG.

WE'RE CONCERNED WITH DID YOU DO IT CORRECTLY? AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO MAKE.

NOT DID YOU REACH THE RIGHT RESULT.

FROM LAWYERS PERSPECTIVE, FRUSTRATING THOUGH IT MAYBE.

IT'S NOT OFTEN ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG, IT'S JUST DO YOU DO IT THE CORRECT WAY? RIGHT OR WRONG IS SUBJECTIVE AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE CAN REACH THAT CONCLUSION ON THE DISPENSARY, THERE ARE PEOPLE SAYING THAT CAN'T BE A RIGHT DECISION IN ANY WAY. YOUR PROLIFERATING A NARCOTIC IN OUR COMMUNITY. BY WHATEVER NAME.

FAIRLY DEBATABLE OR COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

TO ENSURE IT'S BASED ON EVIDENCE A REASONABLE MIND WILL ACCEPT TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION. THAT BRINGS ME TO 11:55.

[01:55:01]

I'M NOT RUNNING AWAY. IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION, I WANT TO REITERATE. I'M NOT HERE TO EARN BUSINESS.

IT'S A BUSINESS PROVIDING THE SERVICE HERE BUT I DEFER IN FULL MEASURE TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY. THAT IS WHO YOU HAVE ENTRUSTED AS YOUR CHARTER OFFICER TO PERFORM THE DUTIES AND CONFER WITH THEM. RANDY SAID THAT.

SHOULD WE REVISIT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? SHOULD WE CHANGE OUR CODE? DO WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE ABOUT WHAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND REGULATION PLAN SAYS SO WHEN I GET TO QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS, I'M SET UP FOR SUCCESS. IN THE MAJORITY OF THE BODY WISHES TO DO THE BUSINESS. MY HOPE HERE IS YOU HAVE THE TOOLS YOU NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL TO SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST AS WE STARTED OUT. BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE CALL HERE. YOU'RE IN SERVICE OF A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO DRIVE HERE AND BE HERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

>> QUESTIONS? >> JUST REAL QUICK.

THANK YOU FOR PRESENTATION. AND GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S QUESTION, THAT ONE SLIDE THAT YOU PUT UP WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE, WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

>> YES, SIR. MADAM ATTORNEY, TOMORROW AT OUR ONE-ON-ONE MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS SLIDE.

I THINK THIS IS WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER AND THIS IS PART OF PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY NEED TO BRING IN WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESENT US EVIDENCE.

SO, I WANT TO USE THIS SLIDE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO ORDINANCE TO GET THE WORD OUT THAT I HEAR YOU AND IF HALF THE ROOM STANDS UP, I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED WHEN WE'RE MAKING THE HEARING. THE SO I LOVE THIS SLIDE.

I THINK WE NEED THIS. >> IF IT GIVES YOU COMFORT AS SOMEBODY THAT TRAVELS THE STATE. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING UNIQUE TO US. THAT'S A CHALLENGE OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. YOU ARE TOLD YOU MAY HAVE THE IMPRESSION YOU CAN DO THAT. YOU GET HERE AND SOME ATTORNEY FROM OUT OF TOWN TELLS YOU TO STOP.

BUT THREE WEEKS AGO YOU WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS MAGIC SHOW.

SO, UNDERSTAND THAT, FRUSTRATING THOUGH IT MAYBE.

IF IT GIVES YOU PAUSE AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

THAT'S NOT AN INDICTMENT OF THE RESERVE.

>> YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR CRITERIA, EVALUATE WHETHER YOU NEED TO ADD OR SUB TRACT FROM OTHER RESTRICTIONS.

[02:00:03]

>> RIGHT. IT'S NOT MY SUGGESTION YOU SUBPLANT YOUR JUDGMENT WITH THE ATTORNEYS, BUT JUST INFORM IT.

>> CORRECT, I'M SAYING THEIR EXPECTATION IS WHAT IS CREATING, THEIR EXPECTATION IS TO BE LISTENED TO AND THEY DON'T LIKE NOT TO BE LISTENED TO OR TOLD THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN, THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN US COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE AN INSULT.

>> YOU KNOW. >> THE LEGAL LANGUAGE IS VERY

HARSH. >> SO WHEN THEY THINK THEY HAVE.

RIGHT. AND THAT YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM. I THINK YOU KIND OF PUT THAT IN

PERSPECTIVE AND I APPRECIATE IT. >> I THANK YOU.

IT'S YOUR MEETING. I WILL TENDER TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY CLOSING REMARKS MS. HEDGES?

>> MR. MIMS. >> MS. COX.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YES.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE WILL TURN OUT THE LIGHTS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.