What the **** are we doing?
That is literally what was going through my head at the "end" this meeting. I had to leave at 330, but most everything was done by then.
Oh man.. Where to begin. This is going to be long but loaded with government talk and pointing out process and procedure. If that is your thing, this will be a great day for you.. If not, skip to the Cliff notes below... but I do strongly suggest you read the entire thing for context.
Sales tax.. oh sales tax.
The board had "consensus" to direct county attorney Denise Lyn to create the referendum language to get sales tax on the ballot. I use quotes because this word will come into play in a bit.
What exactly did the board "agree" on... Sales tax for a duration of 4 years and the specific use of "Pavement Management Program". What exactly is that? Well, in short, it is not just resurfacing. Some roads need full reclamation. Others need a different process. Those roads are beyond resurfacing...
So if the referendum language was "Resurfacing", some of those roads will not get fixed. It was decided that "Pavement Management Program" is what it will be called. It will be narrowed further to "exclusive to open grade resurfacing, milling resurfacing and resurfacing". My understanding is that this would not include expansion projects like widening, turn lanes, etc.
So that is it.. if that is the final language, the sales tax revenue can ONLY be used for what amounts to resurfacing projects. If approved, it would sunset in 4 years. A future board can put it back on the ballot in 2030 to extend it if voters approve... or change it to something else... or just let it go away.
The good news... This is EXACTLY what my survey says will pass (pats myself on the back).
The problem... my survey was not statistically sound. If I missed the proper demographic (likely), well then who knows what the real answer is.
Bigger problem.... The Chamber and the steering committee.
Biggest Problem.... Not following proper process.
Biggest problem first... Process.
Cliff notes version: Commissioner Bays brought this to the board without an agenda item and used a process to push it through that does not follow our county ordinances. Not only does it NOT follow our Administrative Regulations... it does NOT follow our county ordinances. Therefore, the action by the board was not allowed.
1) Our Administrative Regulations outline how items are added to the Agenda.
2) Our Ordinances direct how meetings are to be run
3) The sales tax was NOT on the Agenda
4) Our county does not recognize "consensus" direction by the board
5) Even if we did, Davis' dissent means there is no consensus, and thus, no direction can be given to Ms Lyn to proceed.
6) As an "official action", board direction to Ms Lyn would then be required to have a motion, a 2nd and public comment on that motion.
Full version.
Citizens simply do not trust the board. There are a number of reasons... the 491 fiasco being one of them. Simply put, the board needs to restore the trust of the citizens.
The start of this sales tax process was doing that. Get another entity involved that would survey the public, do an education campaign and then provide feedback back to the board. Then use that feedback to shape the referendum. It would then be a citizen led initiative with the BOCC on the sidelines.
Ok cool.
Long story short.. Chamber shared their results. I saw a potential flaw in the survey and did my own. All results were shared with BOCC. Commissioners agreed to hold off a bit for more information.
That was the last meeting.
Then things changed.
Between the 7th and 21st, Commissioner Bays had a change of heart. Normally that would be fine... bring it back on the next agenda and have a discussion. Happens all the time.
Except... there was no agenda item on Tuesday's agenda to discuss the sales tax. There was an item under Commissioner Davis that is loosely related to the sales tax, but no agenda item for a sales tax discussion.
I had heard Monday that sales tax might be discussed, as someone had changed their mind, but was not sure who that was. I won't speculate on the reasons for this change... but once I get them, I will share.
Problem is, Monday is too late for an agenda item. The deadline for this agenda was October 10th. That is dictated by Administrative Regulation 3.02-17.
The relevant text:
"The County Commission can place any item on the Agenda up to 9:00 a.m. on the Friday prior to the Tuesday delivery of the agenda."
There are some things that can be added to the agenda late.
"Additional Agenda items are not to be presented for consideration unless they are of an emergency nature, cannot wait for action until the following Board meeting, or are deemed of sufficient importance by the County Administrator or County Attorney to warrant immediate Board review. Those authorized by the County Administrator or County Attorney shall not be made part of the published agenda and will be made available at the meeting site."
Is the sales tax discussion an emergency? Nope. Can it wait for the next meeting? Yup. Is it deemed of sufficient importance by the Administrator or Attorney? This was presented by Commissioner Bays, not the Administrator or Attorney.
Further:
"The Commission Chairman section of the Agenda is reserved for items that the individual Commissioner desires action, discussion, policy direction or is of informational value to the other Commissioners and all advisory board announcements and nominations regarding positions on the individual boards."
Normally, this is where individual items the chair (and other commissioners under their names) are added to be discussed. These follow the agenda deadlines. Under Commissioner Bays on Tuesday was this agenda item.
I do not see sales tax listed there.
County Ordinance Section 2-50 also applies:
"The normal order of business shall be as provided on the published and noticed agenda. Matters requiring a vote of the board that are not included on the published and noticed agenda will not be taken up until a subsequent meeting where the matter will appear on a published and noticed agenda. However, upon approval of the board, items may be added to or removed from the published agenda when of an emergency or time sensitive character or when not ready for consideration. The board shall approve or amend the published agenda at the beginning of each meeting."
Again, not on the agenda. Things are added to the agenda late all the time. This was not requested to be added to the agenda. That means there can not be a vote on this. I will discuss in a bit about this "non vote" that took place.
Why is this important? Because the agenda, in part, is what the public uses to determine if they want to show up to a meeting, email the board, etc. I know there are plenty of people fired up about the sales tax on both sides of the discussion. If it were on the agenda, I would be willing to bet someone would show up to talk about it. Not on the agenda, no reason to show up right?
Wrong.
Bays brought this to the board anyway.
Watch the video on how this went down. It starts around the 1 hour, 50 minute mark.
The interesting observation here is that she finished her original agenda item with a vote. She then moves on to the next agenda item, the County Attorney. Ms Lyn has nothing, so Bays moves to the next Agenda Item... Open to the public. No one gets up for that. Bays then begins to recess the meeting until the 3:30 time certain.
Then.... Looks out into the audience (coincidentally or not)... then decides to go back to her agenda again and brings up the sales tax for discussion because "we left it hanging". Then she asks the board what they want to do.
Wasn't that decided last meeting? Wait for more information, perhaps someone doing a proper market research study or to see what the state does with property taxes... since this does not have to be decided until late March.
She asks the board for their opinion and Commissioner Kinnard chimes in with his opinion. And off we go.
This whole thing is odd and reeks of behind the scenes shenanigans like we saw with 491. Maybe not to that extent, but something is up.
The "tool" she uses is something called "consensus". Basically, this allows board direction without a formal vote. This happens all the time, but it is generally an item on the agenda. It looks like this.
This was the agenda item on October 7th regarding the sales tax. Of important note... this died because there was no consensus (agreement), as reflected by the minutes.
This was the September 9th meeting.
As you can see, consensus is a "normal" process and the items are on the agenda for discussion. However, just because it is "normal" does not mean it is following proper procedure or county ordinances.
THIS WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
Now... that does not mean it was illegal or violation of state laws. Courts have ruled that boards can consider items that are not on the agenda. This is seen in the Law & Info. Services, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach (1996) case. It does however violate county ordinances.
Also, Administrative Regulations are NOT laws. They guide how government processes work via policies and procedures. We have a policy and procedure to prepare the meeting agendas. Why are we not following those policies and procedures?
Ignoring that for a moment.
Is consensus even legal in Citrus County?
I went into the county ordinances. I see no mention of "consensus". That word does not appear ANYWHERE.
Division 2 of the County Ordinances discusses county meetings: Rules of Parliamentary Procedure. This is the procedure the meetings follow.. Think Robert's Rules of Order.
Section 2-41 is key.
"Main Motion: In order for the board to take any official action on any subject, a commissioner must propose a main motion. A proposed main motion will not be recognized by the chair until another commissioner agrees to second the motion. A second does not require the commissioner seconding the motion to support the motion. A commissioner may withdraw a main motion that he has made at any time before the board has voted on that motion."
Notice that it says for the board to take any official action, a motion is needed. Is the board directing the county attorney an official action? I would assume so.
"the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit."
Sounds like directing the county attorney to craft a referendum would be an official action based on that definition. Therefore a motion is needed.
Section 2-50 of county ordinances also applies:
"The normal order of business shall be as provided on the published and noticed agenda. Matters requiring a vote of the board that are not included on the published and noticed agenda will not be taken up until a subsequent meeting where the matter will appear on a published and noticed agenda. However, upon approval of the board, items may be added to or removed from the published agenda when of an emergency or time sensitive character or when not ready for consideration. The board shall approve or amend the published agenda at the beginning of each meeting."
Why was a motion not made to direct the county attorney? That is an official action as defined above, right? That requires a motion.. and more importantly, that will open up the discussion for the public to chime in. Bays apparently wanted to avoid that because it was not an agenda item and as such she did not want it to be "official"... although that is determined by the action, not the process.
*Side note... violation of county ordinances is a punishable offense.
"Section 4. Unless another penalty is expressly provided, every person convicted of a violation of any provision of the Code or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed 60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
Man, that would be a sight to see. Commissioners locked up for violating county ordinances. The possibility exists... but will never happen... Moving on.
This "consensus" stuff is a way to get something through without public input. As you see from the ordinances, a motion requires a vote... and that vote allows public comment on that topic... consensus speeds up the process if you will because it is not a motion nor a vote... but again, we do not recognize that in our ordinances. Again, just because it is something done normally, does not mean it is right.
Now, as I mentioned, this consensus stuff is "normal". I can see it on countless agenda items. I never really had reason to question it because it was an agenda item. I usually do not catch things until it no longer makes sense. This does not make sense.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume it is allowed, normal and doesn't violate county ordinances.
The consensus option is similar to the unanimous consent option in Congress. This is where when everyone agrees to do something and without objection, that something is done.
This is generally viewed as an alternative to Robert's Rules of Order, but it requires EVERYONE to be on board. The benefit to consensus is that it can be quicker.. if everyone agrees.. move along.. but it can take longer if someone is not in agreement.
"'consensus' means unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee established under this subchapter, unless such committee— (A) agrees to define such term to mean a general but not unanimous concurrence; or (B) agrees upon another specified definition;"
The idea behind consensus is that it helps shape things in a way that everyone can agree to. It does not mean that everyone agrees on every detail of the idea, but they can agree to allow it to move forward... essentially, they can live with it, but may not be in total agreement... but not in enough disagreement to derail it.
Makes sense?
Commissioner Finegan's stance on this sales tax is a perfect example. She feels it will fail, but she is ok with adding it to the ballot in whatever capacity the board wants. Consensus if you will.
The important thing here is that consensus REQUIRES everyone to be on board. One person can block it, which is often why Roberts Rules are followed and a motion made. But even that can "silence" voices in the minority because the majority can ram it through. Consensus requires everyone to give and take. No one is coming out with 100% of what they want, unless that 100% is what everyone wants.
The monument signs from a few weeks ago is a perfect example. Commissioners all said "Hey, great idea, let's do this".. and consensus was given to proceed.
There was no consensus with this decision. When Bays asked for consensus, everyone agreed except for Commissioner Davis... who stated prior she wanted to see a process with proper market research and more citizen input before deciding the language. That should have ended it right there and then... No consensus, no board direction. Period.
But, Bays ignored that and pushed it through anyway.
Regardless of all of that... Our ordinances do NOT allow consensus.
You might be able to make the argument that the board can do consensus for some procedural issues.. but even then, something like approving the agenda requires a motion and a vote... why isn't that done by consensus (state law)? Even the thing called "Consent Agenda" is approved with a motion and a vote.
They can direct the county attorney to craft a referendum without a motion and vote? Not buying it.
Then again, no one could have challenged them on it because 1) there was no official motion or vote and 2) Bays had already opened and closed open to the public portion before bringing this up.
Convenient huh?
Man, I should write a book.. hahahaha
So again, all that to say
1) Our Administrative Regulations outline how items are added to the Agenda.
2) Our Ordinances direct how meetings are to be run
3) The sales tax was NOT on the Agenda
4) Our county does not recognize "consensus" direction by the board
5) Even if we did, Davis' dissent means there is no consensus, and thus, no direction can be given to Ms Lyn to proceed.
6) As an "official action", board direction to Ms Lyn would then be required to have a motion, a 2nd and public comment on that motion.
Now remember earning back the public's trust after 491? How is this supposed to show the public that the board can be trusted? They are openly violating policies as if they do not matter. That is supposed to make the public trust them enough to support a sales tax? Good luck. It is already an uphill battle... they do not need to make it Mt Everest.
Now I get it, this is over a year out.. a lot can change.. people forget... but more self inflicted wounds will derail this, if it is not already too late. I challenge all commissioners to follow the proper procedures. Show the public you can be trusted. Seems simple enough, but here we are.
Why could this not have waited until the next meeting or the one following that? Why the rush yesterday and doing this bypassing the normal agenda process?
Changing your mind is fine. Put it on the agenda, have the discussion and call the vote. If it passes, move along. I would not be here today writing a novel on the violations and poor decision making to shortcut the processes that we have in place.
This is 491 all over again. All they had to do with that was bring it to the board and get direction to proceed. Simple and straight forward. Rather, they did it behind the scenes, bypassed our senator, directed staff to sign papers with wrong information and so on.
What is going on behind the scenes here? We will find out!
I will address the 2nd big issue tomorrow.... The Chamber and Steering Committee.