The audio recording of this meeting is on ... - City of Miami Minutes.pdf · Stanley Krieger, Vice...

1 January 19, 2016

CHARTER REVIEW & REFORM COMMITTEE

3500 Pan American Drive

Miami, Florida 33133

January 19, 2016

City Commission Chamber

5:29 p.m.

Committee Members Present:

Jose Bejel

Luis Andre Gazitua

W. Tucker Gibbs

Stephen Kneapler

Stanley Krieger, Vice Chair

Richard Kuper

Melissa Tapanes Llahues

Michael Llorente

Marie Mato

Alex Saiz

Jay Solowsky

Francis Suarez, Chair

Committee Members Absent:

Iris Escarra

James McQueen

Also Present:

Forrest Andrews, Jr., Assistant City Attorney

Julia Cerrato, Assistant to City Manager

Nicole N. Ewan, Assistant City Clerk

Evangeline Kilpatrick, Transcriber, Office of the City Clerk

The audio recording of this meeting is on file at the Office of the City Clerk and can be made

available upon request.

2 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: (INAUDIBLE) January 19, 2016 meeting of the Charter Review & Reform

Committee, beginning at 5:30 p.m.; Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida,

33133. I'm not sure whether we have a quorum but --

Forrest L. Andrews, Jr. (Assistant City Attorney): We do.

Chair Suarez: We do? Okay. Do you want to call the roll?

Evangeline Kilpatrick (Office of the City Clerk): Roll call. Board Member Bejel.

Board Member Bejel: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member Iscarra. Board Member Gazitua. Board Member Gibbs.

Board Member Gibbs: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member Kneapler.

Board Member Kneapler: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member -- Vice Chair Krieger.

Vice Chair Krieger: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member Kuper.

Board Member Kuper: Present.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member Llorente.

Chair Suarez: I believe I saw him in the back there, so I think he'll be here any second.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Thank you. Board Member Mato. Board Member McQueen. Board Member

Saiz.

Board Member Saiz: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member Solowsky.

Board Member Solowsky: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Chair Suarez.

Chair Suarez: Here.

Ms. Kilpatrick: Board Member Tapanes Llahues. Mr. Chair, you have eight members present.

3 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: Which is sufficient for quorum?

Mr. Andrews: Yes, it is.

Chair Suarez: Thank you. Okay, first item on the agenda -- is there any witnesses that we need to

swear in? I guess -- or any minutes that we need to approve?

Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): Yes, Chair. We do have for the Committee's consideration

approval of the regular meeting minutes of the December 14, 2015 Charter Review Committee.

Chair Suarez: Is there a motion? Moved by Board Member Krieger. Is there a second?

Board Member Gibbs: I'll second.

Chair Suarez: Second by Board Member Gibbs. Is anyone in opposition? Motion carries.

A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2015 CHARTER

REVIEW & REFORM COMMITTEE MEETING.

Moved: Vice Chair Stanley Krieger

Seconded: Committee Member Tucker Gibbs

Absent: Committee Member Iris Escarra

Committee Member James McQueen

Motion passed unanimously

Ms. Ewan: Will there be anyone speaking on any of the items today for the Charter Review

Committee Meeting? Chair, there appears to be no speakers.

Chair Suarez: Okay, thank you. And if there are, we'll swear them in at a later date [sic].

Ms. Ewan: Okay. We do have two behind me.

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Ms. Ewan: Can you --

Chair Suarez: I had a feeling that the president of the General Employees Labor Union and counsel

didn't come over here for no reason; well, maybe; who knows? You never know.

Ms. Ewan: If I can have you please raise your right hand.

The Assistant City Clerk administered the oath to those persons giving testimony.

4 January 19, 2016

Ms. Ewan: Thank you, Chair.

Chair Suarez: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is a discussion of the Charter Review &

Reform Committee Annual Report. It's enclosed in the packet. I'm not sure if the board members

have had a chance to look at it. It's not particularly voluminous, so if anyone would like to move

that it be adopted as the Annual Report of the Charter Review Committee and/or amended in any

way, shape or form, I'd entertain a motion at this time.

Board Member Solowsky: So moved.

Chair Suarez: Moved by Board Member Solowsky. Is there a second?

Vice Chair Krieger: I'll second for purposes of discussion.

Chair Suarez: Second for purposes of discussion. You are recognized, sir.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah. The only comment I have is on the third paragraph down. What are

the Board's major accomplishments? It sort of doesn't say anything. It says what we've reviewed,

or what we're recommending, but I think it would be more compelling if the answer provided a

summary of what we've done.

Chair Suarez: I agree, and I think we've already approved certain sections that would be advanced

to the City Commission for the City Commission's consideration, so I think it makes sense to sort

of detail that. I don't see it anywhere, unless we're missing something?

Board Member Gibbs: Yeah, here it is.

Chair Suarez: Where is it?

Board Member Gibbs: Yeah. It has recommended that they be amended. It just says --

Chair Suarez: Right. But I'm just saying -- I think what Board Member Krieger is saying is, more

specifically; more specifically, we voted on specific language so far of specific sections that we're

going to recommend to the City Commission that it be, you know, adopted and made into Charter

questions for the citizens to vote on, so I think it makes sense to summarize those.

Forrest Andrews, Jr.: I'll put that in. Assistant City Attorney Forrest Andrews.

Chair Suarez: So would the motion and the second be amended to include the seconder's concerns

over the lack of comprehensiveness in the answer to the third question?

Board Member Solowsky: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Chair Suarez: Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Motion passes. The Committee Report is

adopted with modifications.

5 January 19, 2016

A MOTION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHARTER REVIEW &

REFORM COMMITTEE, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS/MODIFICATIONS

MADE TO THE ANNUAL REPORT.

Moved: Committee Jay Solowsky

Seconded: Vice Chair Stanley Krieger

Absent: Committee Member Iris Escarra

Committee Member James McQueen

Motion passed unanimously

Chair Suarez: The second item on the agenda -- could you lower the microphone just a little bit?

Because it's -- the volume of it is kind of getting some feedback -- is a discussion of Section -- I

know I'm a little -- my voice is a little out, but not that bad -- discussion of Section 52, which, I

believe, was discussed at the last meeting, which I was not present, and it's the Citizens' Bill of

Rights, and there is a proposal to change the current version of Section 52. Is there any further

discussion on those changes? Board Member Krieger.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah. Last time, I think I recommended that we add a Number 7 to Paragraph

"A," with regard to inspecting and copying of records. I don't know why that was omitted, but is

there a reason?

Mr. Andrews: I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah. The citizens should have a right to copy -- inspect and copy City

records. I would make that subject to the Commission's passing an ordinance implementing it.

Board Member Gibbs: Mr. Chair.

Chair Suarez: Yes, you're recognized, Mr. Gibbs.

Board Member Gibbs: That goes to another question I had that relates to this, because that kind

of language is in the Miami-Dade County Charter in the Citizens' Bill of Rights, and there's a

bunch of material in there that I think would be warranted to be either put in here or referenced.

And I understand in terms of Charter that the Miami-Dade Home Rule Charter applies to the

municipalities; and, indeed, it says so within that document, but it would really, I think, hammer

it home that citizens of the City of Miami can also avail themselves to the -- to this language, and

have it be incorporated within our Charter, I think, would be really a good idea.

Vice Chair Krieger: Another question: Is there anything in the Miami-Dade Charter -- I don't

remember -- that talks about notice requirement? Isn't there something for --

Board Member Gibbs: Yeah.

6 January 19, 2016

Vice Chair Krieger: -- committee meetings, and board meetings, and stuff like that?

Board Member Gibbs: Yeah.

Vice Chair Krieger: So we don't need to put that in here; is that right?

Board Member Gibbs: Unless -- well, I -- to me, either we need to have some kind of -- either

incorporate it by reference in the Charter, or basically put it in the Charter, but somewhere, it needs

to be in our Charter. That's just my opinion.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah, I mean, five days' notice on the web and one circulation, general

circulation newspaper, or something like that.

Mr. Andrews: Do you want the notice provision, as well as the public records incorporated by

reference, or do you want the whole County --?

Board Member Gibbs: To me -- I mean, from a legal perspective -- and you're the City's Attorney

-- I mean, my understanding is, is that the Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter applies

to the municipalities under the Florida Constitution.

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Board Member Gibbs: That's my understanding.

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Board Member Gibbs: And if that is the case, it already applies.

Mr. Andrews: It does.

Board Member Gibbs: I understand that.

Mr. Andrews: Right.

Board Member Gibbs: So all I'm saying is, let's confirm it. The average citizen doesn't know that,

who's going to be looking at this Charter. I don't think it hurts anything to basically say that the

Metropolitan Home Rule Charter Citizens' Bill of Rights applies, as if set out fully here.

Mr. Andrews: Okay.

Chair Suarez: And I would just sort of jump on what you just said, Mr. Gibbs, because a lot of the

things in 1 through 6 are things that are legislated, or are ambits of other governments, like

unreasonable search and seizure.

Board Member Gibbs: Oh, yeah.

7 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: It's not like we could change that through our --

Board Member Gibbs: Exactly.

Chair Suarez: -- Citizens' Bill of Rights; however, it's not a bad idea to have it in our Citizens' Bill

of Rights, in essence.

Vice Chair Krieger: That's correct.

Chair Suarez: So I think that's what you're saying, so what I would ask is that beyond 6, whatever

language is in the County Charter that discusses the topics that they have just discussed that we

should have proposed language, maybe for second reading.

Mr. Andrews: Okay.

Board Member Gibbs: One other thing: If we include some, we need to include them all, because

I don’t want anybody to think that we're trying to exclude sections of the Home Rule Charter, as

it applies to the Citizens' Bill of Rights. So you have issues of convenient access, truth in

government, public records, minutes --

Chair Suarez: To the extent that they don't overlap with the ones that are already here.

Board Member Gibbs: Not a problem; and that's why I say if we just -- to me, referencing it by

saying the Citizens' Bill of Rights applies to the citizens of the City of Miami, I think that solves

that problem without --

Chair Suarez: I wouldn't mind -- I mean, I don't know how the Committee feels, but I wouldn't

mind -- public records is a big issue in the City of Miami, and it's one that we're constantly being

sued for failing to provide enough rapidity. They're documents that people are entitled to, so there's

no reason why it takes us forever to give them. Oftentimes, they're electronic, they're in an

electronic format, so it should be very simple and very cost-efficient to provide them; and yet,

somehow, they're not given, or they're not given timely. What I would like to see is, coming into

sort of the 21st Century, where the City's required as a part of the Bill of Rights for Citizens to

make accessible on demand, or to post on some sort of an electronic platform, public records; in

other words -- and I know they have to be scrutinized by law, and then there are certain exceptions,

and there are certain controls that need to be in place to make sure that, you know, lawyer/client

confidentiality is respected, and a variety of other privileged -- but I just think that we would solve

so many of our own problems if we just made a lot of our information easily accessible to people,

and they wouldn't have to fight us for it. And I think we have -- with electronic resources that are

available nowadays, it's very simple to do, and I think it's pretty cost-efficient, so I've done it in

my legal practice when I've, you know, represented homeowners associations, and helping them

update their bylaws and bring them sort of in the 21st Century, and allow them to do things

electronically that otherwise, or in the past, they were constantly doing, you know, with papers, or

in person, or whatever the case may be. So, you know, I'd like to see something about that, and

8 January 19, 2016

I'd love for the Committee to consider something like that. You want to be recognized? Sound

like you want to chime in there.

Mr. Andrews: No.

Chair Suarez: No? Okay.

Vice Chair Krieger: I've got one more --

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Vice Chair Krieger: -- couple more questions on Paragraph "C." And my question is: Isn't a

board member an official? So why do we need to have "board member"; why don't we just say,

"any elected or appointed public official, or employee"?

Mr. Andrews: I can make that change. It was suggested at the last meeting, just to clarify, that it

actually -- board members are public officials, but just to clarify, it was suggested to put that in

there, but if the Committee wants to just have "elected or appointed employees," or some language

to that effect, then I can make that change.

Vice Chair Krieger: Public -- elected or appointed public officials, right.

Mr. Andrews: Okay.

Vice Chair Krieger: And then the other thing is, "They shall forfeit his or her office or

employment." Does that conflict with the employee's Civil Service rights?

Mr. Andrews: No, it doesn't. We issued a -- the City Attorney's Office issued a formal legal

opinion that should have been -- it's made available online. It was also passed out to the committee

members today, and it's our conclusion that it does not conflict.

Board Member Gibbs: Mr. Chairman.

Chair Suarez: Yes, you're recognized, Mr. Gibbs.

Board Member Gibbs: Related question, based on your -- the opinion that was issued: "Public

official," you say is not defined in the Charter or the Code, but "public officer" is defined in State

Statute. Might it be easier and better for everybody if we just define what we call in the Charter

"public official," and call it a "public officer," if that's where we want to go? But we should have

at least one definition that everybody understands, that there's no confusion between Statute and

between our Charter. It might make sense just to have that, and call it "public officer," because

that goes to the whole issue of board members, as well as elected officials. That's just a suggestion.

Mr. Andrews: Okay, I can do that.

9 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: So we're going to bring back language for second reading that expands the

categories under "A" of 52, yeah.

Board Member Gazitua: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of counsel, please?

Chair Suarez: Yes, sir.

Board Member Gazitua: Through the Chair, wouldn't the Statute supersede, especially when

defining certain officers, et cetera, anything we put in the Charter?

Mr. Andrews: Statutes do supersede that. The Statute that is referenced in the legal opinion, it's

the closest thing that there is, so that's why we borrowed that definition. I don't think that anybody

would interpret the term, "public official" any differently than the way the Florida Statute is, but

to clarify, to make it clearer, I can put that -- I can incorporate it into the -- into Section 52.

Board Member Gazitua: And doesn't the Statute set forth the parameters of municipal corporations

in Florida?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Board Member Gazitua: Okay.

Board Member Gibbs: But I just want to be sure. We're a Home Rule County, and we're subject

to the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter. I want to be really, really sure, because the County

Home Rule Charter is an amendment of the State Constitution. I don't want to get caught up in

this. I just want to make it simple, so that anybody who reads this document understands what the

language is. And if there's a conflict between how we describe something that's in Statute, wouldn't

it be better just to keep that statutory language and the statutory reference as "public official," so

everybody knows?

Board Member Gazitua: I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but regarding home rule, this City existed

long before Miami-Dade County, correct?

Board Member Gibbs: That's not the issue. The issue is, according to the Home Rule Charter of

Miami-Dade County, there's a supremacy clause within that Charter which was adopted by the

State; it's part of the State Constitution.

Board Member Gazitua: For the County.

Board Member Gibbs: No. The County has supremacy over what the City -- believe it or not --

Board Member Gazitua: Okay. We're talking about the County and the City; not the Statute.

Okay, got you.

Board Member Gibbs: That's right. And so what I'm saying is we've got to be very careful

about --

10 January 19, 2016

Board Member Gazitua: I understand what you're saying.

Board Member Gibbs: Okay, that's all.

Board Member Gazitua: Yeah.

Chair Suarez: Thank you. So we're going to come back -- is there anyone else?

Board Member Solowsky: Yeah, Mr. Chair --

Board Member Kuper: I have --

Board Member Solowsky: -- I have a question.

Chair Suarez: Let me recognize Mr. Kuper, and then I'll go to Mr. Solowsky.

Board Member Kuper: I just want to go back a moment to the public records. The Vice Chair

asked to include -- I missed it -- to include copying; is that what it was?

Vice Chair Krieger: Inspection and copying City records.

Board Member Kuper: Okay. The County doesn't have copying in it right now, so. And the other

question, the other concern I have is when it comes to copying, the costs of the copying.

Vice Chair Krieger: Right. That's why I would add, "Subject to implementation by ordinance of

the City Commission."

Chair Suarez: And I would -- and I'll just go a step further and say that's why I would add that

"Where reasonably practicable, the Clerk's Office will provide electronic copies," because those

are transferable, for free, you know. They don't have to be copied. The person can copy it at their

own expense. They're a lot easier to send and to receive, depending on the size, of course, but I

really think we need to sort of set the standard as a City, and start going in the direction of making

records accessible electronically, so that people don't even have to fight us for a record; it should

be available.

Board Member Kuper: That's fine. Thanks for the correction.

Board Member Gazitua: Mr. Chair.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Board Member Gazitua: Just one more thing.

Chair Suarez: I actually said I was going to --

11 January 19, 2016

Board Member Gazitua: Uh-oh.

Chair Suarez: -- recognize Mr. Solowsky, and then I'll recognize you.

Board Member Gazitua: There he is.

Board Member Solowsky: In terms of section copying, I agree with the Chair regarding electronic

copies. I think it makes a lot of sense, but we probably should say "electronic copies in native

format," so there's no issue that if we have a document that is in Excel format, it's produced in that

manner. If we have emails that are produced, they will be produced in their native format, so that

we will not convert things --

Chair Suarez: Sure.

Board Member Solowsky: -- into PDF (Portable Document Format) that were not originally in

PDF.

Chair Suarez: Sure.

Board Member Solowsky: It is easy, it is transparent, and it is certainly less costly --

Chair Suarez: Agreed.

Board Member Solowsky: -- to do it in that manner.

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Board Member Gazitua: Regarding public records, I think we should also take a look at the

Sunshine Law Manual that I'm sure we all had to look at once, prepared by the Attorney General's

Office of the State of Florida that may have a little more information as to the copying. And I do

support you a hundred percent on using the electronic way; much better. It'd be even better if you

had an app (application) for it, but that's a whole 'nother talk show.

Chair Suarez: Yeah. Maybe at the next Charter Review Committee.

Board Member Gibbs: And Mr. Chairman, one last thing.

Chair Suarez: Yes, sir.

Board Member Gibbs: To that point, which is well taken, Florida Statute 119 specifically

establishes those parameters, including costs, including a lot of this; I don't think about the

electronics, but that may be one thing to look at and see -- and copies, yeah, and copies at 15 cents

-- I think it's now over 15 cents a copy now, but it used to be 15 cents a copy, for hard copies, but

they regulate all the way down to the price. So we might want to take a look at -- have the City

Attorney's Office take a look at that, and fashion something that fits within that parameter and does

what the Vice Chair wants to do, as well.

12 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: Yeah. And by the way, we bear costs for public records lawsuits that we have to

fight, you know, that we could be using to scrutinize documents and post them, you know,

affirmatively, which I think would create a lot more goodwill, and would also make things a lot

easier.

Board Member Saiz: Actually, I have a question about the native format issue. If we're sharing

original documents, are we going to be -- is there anything that's going to be done to protect meta-

data, or any data in documents that's being edited out? If you're taking out someone's private

information, things like that, in documents, and we send original documents, that information

would be -- still be accessible; whereas, if it's converted into PDF, we would be able to protect

that. Is that something that we have to define or go into now, or is that --?

Chair Suarez: I would think that any document that we turn over has to have the adequate

protections that are established by law.

Board Member Saiz: Yeah.

Chair Suarez: You know, for example, Social Security numbers is one that comes to mind, you

know, so I would think that whatever document -- whatever format, whether it's electronic, or

paper, or whatever, would have to have those protections in place.

Board Member Saiz: Yeah. My fear would be if we send original documents that can always be

-- that --

Chair Suarez: Manipulated or whatever.

Board Member Saiz: Yeah, it can always be redone, so it's something we -- when we get into that,

specifics, something we may want to think about where we're going to go with that.

Chair Suarez: Yeah. In terms of the dynamics of how you implement it to protect the data from

being manipulated, I think that's part of the cost factor involved. I mean, scrutinizing and screening

these documents, just like you have to scrutinize and screen them for any other issue, privilege or

whatever.

Board Member Saiz: Of course.

Chair Suarez: Okay. So you're going to come back with a second reading on that language?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Chair Suarez: Okay. Then the next item on the agenda is the proposed Charter Review & Reform

provision. Does anyone have a question, comment, or concern, or motion on the adoption of that

proposed language?

Board Member Saiz: Which is this we're talking about?

13 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: This is the -- this is a --

Board Member Saiz: I'm listening.

Chair Suarez: -- this is 2B on our agenda; proposed language for section creating Charter Review

& Reform Committee regular --

Vice Chair Krieger: What's the tab?

Mr. Andrews: Tab 4, Tab 4.

Chair Suarez: Yeah, Tab 4.

Vice Chair Krieger: Mr. Chairman.

Chair Suarez: Yes, you're recognized, Mr. Krieger.

Vice Chair Krieger: I -- the Charter -- the composition, under the composition paragraph, I think

we ought to make it clear that everybody who is appointed to this Committee ought to be an elector

in the City, and shall serve without compensation.

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Vice Chair Krieger: And one -- there are two other things that I'd --

Chair Suarez: Go ahead.

Vice Chair Krieger: -- like. One is, I know that we went over this last -- the last time, but the last

language, "at the next available general municipal election," that could be two years from the day

that we decide something, or the Commission puts it on a ballot. Wouldn't it be better to take that

out and just say that "The City Commission approves for the voters' approval"?


Board Member Gibbs: No, I think that's a good idea. I mean, you could do that, or you could say,

"or 120 days, whichever comes first," because I think it's 120 days, which is kind of the magic

number with the Elections Department in terms of getting something on the ballot. 90? Okay, or

90. I mean, I have no problem with 90.

Chair Suarez: Either one is fine with me; whatever the committee decides. You want to -- is

everyone okay with, "or 120 days, whichever shall come first"?

Vice Chair Krieger: Sure.

Chair Suarez: No objection?

14 January 19, 2016

Board Member Solowsky: I have a question regarding that.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Board Member Solowsky: The fact is that you want any recommendation that would go to the

voters to be presented at a time when you have the maximum voter turnout.

Chair Suarez: Sure.

Board Member Solowsky: Shouldn't you? And if you just say 120 days, how do you achieve that,

if it's not a municipal election where you have the most turnout? How do we achieve what we

would like, which is to have the most possible number of voters at an election to approve something

as fundamental as our Charter?

Chair Suarez: In my opinion, there's only one way to do that, and that's to make it in a presidential

election, general; that's the only way, because that's -- I mean, unless someone has information to

the contrary, I think that's the election day where the most people will vote, generally speaking.

Vice Chair Krieger: But that happens once every four years.

Chair Suarez: Right.

Board Member Gibbs: And --

Chair Suarez: You're hamstringing yourself to that.

Board Member Gibbs: -- Mr. Chairman, that -- there's also an issue -- and believe me, I've done

poll-watching at elections, and I can tell you that if you're the last question on the ballot, nobody

votes on the last questions, and the municipal questions are the last questions on the ballot. Those

ballots -- and you can think about the last several presidential elections, with municipal elections,

State election, Federal elections, the presidential election, and you put a bunch of Charter changes

on there -- talk to the County Elections Office, and they'll tell you that they discourage this kind

of thing, because people will not vote on those questions that are down the ballot, and that's the

concern.

Board Member Solowsky: But while that may be true, would you rather have a Charter

amendment, our Constitution of our City being voted on by ten percent of the voters; or would you

rather have it be voted on by those who would come out for a presidential election, which would

be a much larger percentage?

Board Member Gibbs: Well, the question then becomes, as the Vice Chair brought up, is, are we

going to wait for four years or two years on that? The question is, is how do we want to play it?

There's got to be a middle ground, but I can tell you, even in municipal elections -- what's -- what

was the voter turnout in the last election? Pretty low.

15 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: 13 percent.

Board Member Gibbs: And I shouldn't say that, because there wasn't -- everybody wasn't -- there

wasn't contested elections in every single district, but the point is, is how do you do that? If -- and

at least -- that's when you say 120 days. If it comes down to it that there's no election -- and again,

it's a -- and this is a product of scheduling within this -- within the Charter Committee that's being

put together.

Board Member Solowsky: But it is within our purview, if we have every ten years that we are

doing this. It's not a regular occurrence; it's an extraordinary occurrence that happens, you know,

once a decade. And so, if you have to wait a year or whatever period of time in order to have the

maximum number of voters decide issues of our Constitution, of our Charter, isn't that worth it?

Board Member Gibbs: Yes, it's worth it, but the question is do they vote? I'm sorry.

Chair Suarez: No, no, go ahead. No, no, go ahead.

Board Member Gibbs: The question is whether people will vote. I mean, you can have it at one

of these elections, and you can basically bury it. I just don't know where we --


Chair Suarez: Yes.

Board Member Gazitua: Perhaps the language could be that the election would take place at the

next regularly scheduled election. There will be turnout; you also avoid extra costs of special

elections, which we know are a dent on the City budget. That may be a nice middle ground.

Vice Chair Krieger: Well, I think that's what I was thinking when I said for the voters' approval,

and just take that out completely, because that would leave it up to the Commission to put it on the

ballot; and hopefully, they'll put it on quickly.


Board Member Llorente: Mr. Chair.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Board Member Llorente: Just wanted to point out, earlier in this, you know, draft revision, it says

that the Charter Reform -- Review & Reform Commission shall meet every ten years, coinciding

with a general municipal election, so I think that ties to, you know, the last paragraph, which

requires that whatever product comes out --


16 January 19, 2016

Board Member Llorente: -- of this body be presented to the voters at the next general municipal

election, so I think that's what was contemplated. You know, I think adding a provision, you know,

that requires these items to be taken to the voters, either at the next general municipal election, or

120 days, whichever is first, kind of does the trick, just to make sure that the items are, you know,

taken to the voters.

Chair Suarez: At some point, right.

Board Member Llorente: Right, exactly; quickly, right.

Vice Chair Krieger: I don't think you can have it -- I don't --

Chair Suarez: Let me recognize Mr. Kneapler, who hasn't spoken yet today.

Board Member Kneapler: I don't -- this ten years doesn't make sense, because it seems to me that

we should really talk -- be talking about, for example, the mayoral election, which happens every

four years. So we're going to have a mayoral election in a couple of years, right? Well, I think we

have to have a stub period to start. So, for example, why, in our first period do we have to wait

ten years, and then wait for the Committee to finish its work, and then possibly wait another three

and a half, almost four years for the next election? I think we have to have a starting point, and

then match everything going forward. So why don't we pick an election. Let's assume it's the --

not the next mayoral election, but the subsequent mayoral election, and then two years before that

election, the Charter Review Committee should have enough time to finish its business, and has to

have a mandate to finish its business, even if it's not a hundred percent done, so it gets on that

election. So, therefore, we should have it every eight years; not every ten years. So it ends two

years before that election, and then we get in a cycle.

Chair Suarez: Anyone else?

Board Member Kneapler: Makes sense to me.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Vice Chair Krieger: I was going to suggest that we couldn't do it coinciding with a municipal

election, because we wouldn't have time to do anything. It would have to be a year -- at least a

year preceding, so I --

Chair Suarez: Maybe the way to say it, which incorporates the thought, is to say with a --

coinciding with a citywide general municipal election, because there's only citywide general

municipal elections when there's a mayoral election; that's the only time there's a citywide, so

maybe that will solve the problem.

Board Member Kneapler: But I think we need to pick a starting date, and then subsequent --

Chair Suarez: And it would have to be eight or twelve.

17 January 19, 2016

Board Member Kneapler: No, I think 12 is too long, because, listen, the City's been in existence -

- what? -- a hundred years?


Board Member Kneapler: And we're still fixing it up.


Board Member Kneapler: And we're still going to continue to fix it up.

Chair Suarez: I get it. But, I mean, eight years means that, you know, in six years, you're going

to be back at it, starting, and then --

Board Member Kneapler: Well, what's wrong with that?

Chair Suarez: No, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm just saying if the idea was

ten years, it could be every twelve years; in which case, you start up in ten years, and then you do

it for two years, and then you start up in the following ten years. I mean, that's --

Board Member Kneapler: Well, I'll be 82, so, hopefully, I'll be here.

Chair Suarez: Well, I think you're going to be around. I have a feeling your -- if your spirit is any

indication. Board Member Krieger.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah. I'm happy with ten years, as long as it says that we commence at least

one year before that.

Chair Suarez: The problem is that the math doesn't work out, because you won't have a citywide

election in ten years, because the citywide elections are every four years, so --

Vice Chair Krieger: So then they have --

Chair Suarez: -- it'd have to be eight or twelve.

Vice Chair Krieger: -- then you have to do it at eight.

Chair Suarez: There you go. There it is. So a citywide election every ten -- every eight years --

I'm sorry. Got it?

Mr. Andrews: Got it.

Chair Suarez: Anything else on the actual -- I mean, it'll be the general municipal election that

year, so I don't think there's any -- I mean, is there a need to say, "or 120 days after"? Let's say,

for example, the committee's work ends within the time frame that the Clerk cannot put it on the

ballot. Does that mean that you have to wait more time? Or does it mean that the Committee

18 January 19, 2016

better propose whatever it's going to propose, or they lose their ability to propose for another eight

years?

Board Member Gibbs: Mr. Chair.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Board Member Gibbs: My understanding about how the Elections Department works, the

Elections Department tells the Clerk when they want the document. So if the Clerk says they can't

put it on -- that he or she can't put it on the ballot, it doesn't go on the ballot.

Chair Suarez: Correct. But my question to you is this: For example, we had thought potentially

at the beginning of the Charter Review process that we might get on the March 15 presidential

primary election. The time frame for that came and went, and we weren't finished with our

business, so we could push back to August, or November, or whatever. My question is, in the case

that a committee that's established two years in advance starts their work and is not finished with

their work in time for the general election, does that mean that they either have to just put whatever

they've done, and say, "This is going to go," or forfeit their ability to do anything that year, and

then they have to wait another eight years?

Board Member Gibbs: Or what you can do is use Mr. Krieger's original language, which says, "at

the next available election, for the voters' approval." I mean, it goes --

Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE).

Board Member Gibbs: I hear you.

Chair Suarez: Right. And so that's the point. And so, the point is that you're setting up a time

frame, and you're setting up a time frame where it comes back, and you're setting up a day when

it goes forward, which is very neat, and I like it. You know, I mean, everything is sort of tied up.

And so the -- I guess the concept is either get it done within the time frame, which is a two-year

time frame, which is a reasonable amount of time; or you sort of forfeit your right at that -- that

means it must not have been that important; the changes must not have been that important that

you couldn't figure it out.

Vice Chair Krieger: I think the word that I object to is "coinciding." It can't be -- it can't coincide

with a general election. We have to have some time to do things.

Chair Suarez: The Charter Review shall meet every ten years, coinciding with the year that a

citywide general municipal election is calendared.

Vice Chair Krieger: With sufficient time to --


Vice Chair Krieger: -- complete its -- complete a report for the next (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

19 January 19, 2016

Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: Chairman, how about if we write that the Commission shall

conclude --


Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: -- or submit its report --


Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: -- you know, and coinciding with a general municipal election?

Chair Suarez: I think what you're seeing here, Mr. Forrest, is a desire to start the process two years

in advance of the end date, and to end on a year where there's a citywide general municipal election.

So if you can draft that up --

Mr. Andrews: Yeah, I'll make it work.

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Board Member Kneapler: I may not be here.

Chair Suarez: Well, he's going to come up with that very, very erudite language. Listen, I know

that we want to design everything around your ability to participate in it, but -- so I think that

settles that for second reading. The next item on the agenda is proposed language for the Office

of City of Miami Ombudsman, which I always thought was what the City Commissioners' offices

is, but apparently, they're not. "The City Commission shall by ordinance create and establish an

Office of the Ombudsman, which shall have the authority to investigate citizens' complaints of

excessive or abusive use of power by the City Commissioners and the Mayor. The ombudsman

shall also be authorized to file appropriate suits alleging a violation of this article on behalf of the

citizens in Miami-Dade Circuit Court." Yes, sir, you're recognized.

Board Member Kneapler: (INAUDIBLE).

Chair Suarez: Yeah.

Vice Chair Krieger: The Charter, the City Code, or other rules governing the City operations.

Chair Suarez: That's fine. Okay, anything else?

Vice Chair Krieger: I would have a -- I only have one suggestion. I would give the ombudsman

authority to refer such complaints to the State Attorney, Miami-Dade County Ethics Commissions,

or other appropriate body for investigation and resolution.

Chair Suarez: I'm sorry, what was that?

20 January 19, 2016

Vice Chair Krieger: I would give the ombudsman the authority to refer a complaint -- rather than

deciding it or filing a lawsuit, himself or herself -- to refer the complaints to the State Attorney,

Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission, or other appropriate body for investigation and

resolution.

Chair Suarez: Okay. So it's an either/or? I mean, they could either file suit, or refer it to one of

these agencies?

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah.

Chair Suarez: Okay.


Chair Suarez: Yeah.

Board Member Gazitua: I think this is an extremely noble and wise idea; however, it seems to me

that there are existing agencies that have jurisdiction over this municipality, such as the Inspector

General, the Ethics Commission, perhaps even the Miami-Dade Public Corruption Unit. It seems

to me that this will create an office of an individual whose role really isn't necessary, because the

public will find a way to make their complaints, and it just seems that we're adding an extra layer

of government. Again, if we didn't have these four agencies or three agencies that I referenced, I

think it would be very necessary, but since they exist, I don't know if we really need this right now.

That's something we can vote on.

Board Member Kneapler: (INAUDIBLE) because those agencies --

Chair Suarez: Wait, you're not recognized yet. Wait a second. He's not finished. I'll recognize

you when --

Board Member Kneapler: I thought you looked at me.

Chair Suarez: Maybe in the next Charter Review Committee in a few years, I'll recognize you on

this. Hold on a second.

Board Member Gazitua: Eight years from now or ten? I'm not sure. When are we having it?

Chair Suarez: Yeah, eight years from now. Go ahead.

Board Member Gazitua: As long as he takes care of --

Chair Suarez: Are you finished?

Board Member Gazitua: I'm finished and my -- I defer to my other colleague.

21 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: Let me, let me, and I'll recognize the person who spoke out of turn, and I will

recognize him, and then I'll recognize Ms. Tapanes. Go ahead, Mr. Kneapler.

Board Member Kneapler: (INAUDIBLE) the ombudsman, because those other agencies are

lethargic and haven't been doing their job, in plain simple English. That's my view of the world.

Chair Suarez: Okay. Mr. -- Ms. Tapanes and then Mr. Kuper.

Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: My view of the world is to buttress Andy's point of view, which

is that we need to encourage and support our existing agencies to do their jobs. I know that over

the last few years, they have tried, very much, to really raise their stature in the community, and

take very difficult positions, and I'm referring to the Inspector General's Office, the State Attorney's

Office. So I think just adding another layer of government is not something that I would like to

see here in the City of Miami.

Vice Chair Krieger: Mr. Chair.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Vice Chair Krieger: With all due respect --

Chair Suarez: Wait, wait, I'm sorry. He's right, I have to recognize Mr. Kuper, then I'll recognize

Mr. Krieger. Did you raise your hand? Oh, and then Mr. Llorente.

Board Member Kuper: Yes, just --

Chair Suarez: Go ahead, Mr. Kuper.

Board Member Kuper: -- a point of clarification. I think that the Inspector General's Office is

only authorized to oversee the County Government. I'm not sure. Do you have any knowledge on

that? I mean --


Board Member Gibbs: I can tell you, yeah, the City of Miami has an Inspector General, as well.

Chair Suarez: We have an Auditor General.

Board Member Gibbs: An Auditor General.


Board Member Gibbs: Excuse me. And that Auditor General operates regarding investigations

of the City, but at the direction, I believe, of the City Commission.

Chair Suarez: That's correct.

22 January 19, 2016

Board Member Gibbs: Not of the citizens; that's what the difference is with the ombudsman.

Board Member Kuper: Right. But I agree with my two colleagues who just spoke. I think that

we're -- this is unnecessary. The State Attorney's Office has a Public Corruption Unit. We have a

Department of -- Commission on Ethics with Joe Centorino there. I mean, I don't think that this

is -- and from what I just under -- heard from -- the City has an Inspector General, also. I think

that we're doing an overkill when it comes to this. I think that there's a lot of money that we can

use and the City can use in other ways, and not necessarily in this. I mean, we definitely want the

people being investigated that need to be investigated, but not for the sake of just having another

office to really be redundant. And then, in the -- and then, we're saying, well, in addition to that,

either/or; either he files a lawsuit, or he refers it or she refers it to these other departments. I just

think that's an overkill, unnecessary, and I would be not in favor of that.

Chair Suarez: Okay. Mr. Krieger.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah. When was the last time anybody on this panel saw the State Attorney

file any corruption matter against any public official? It's been years. She just doesn't do it. And

the citizen can't do it, you know, for standing, conflict -- standing reasons and other reasons. And

there are other counties -- Broward County, the ones that are -- that we have in this packet now --

that feel that they need an ombudsman to look out for the average citizen; that's the point. And for

this panel to say, "Well, to hell with the average citizen," I think is terrible, terrible.

Chair Suarez: Let me just say -- go ahead, Mr. Gibbs.

Board Member Gibbs: No, I was just going to say that I think that there's a lot more to this than

just layering of government. I think it's important to know -- as the Vice Chair said, this is

something that represents the citizens, and the citizens' issues with how their government operates.

And too many times, citizens come in front of government, and they don't know what's going on,

they don't understand how government operates. And they may find that they're shaking their fist

about something that is probably not a problem, but they can go to the ombudsman, who is,

hopefully, would be independent, and the ombudsman can say, "Here are the facts. Here's what's

going on. This is perfectly fine." It's a great firewall for the City, it's a great way of dealing with

those issues, but in the case where the issues are serious, yes; they can stand with the citizens, and

they can refer items, if it's an issue for the Auditor; they could refer items if it goes to the State

Attorney's Office. But I'll tell you something: If a citizen goes to the State Attorney's Office and

says that they think something bad is happening, that's not really going to get very far in a city

where we have the crime that we have. The State Attorney's Office is going to have a hard time

really investigating that. But if the City of Miami Ombudsman comes to the State Attorney's

Office and says, "Here is what I found, it's all yours," that comes with an imprimatur on it that a

citizen, by him or herself does not have, and that's why this is so important. We want to talk about

transparency? This is transparency in how government would operate.

Chair Suarez: Wait a second. Before I re-recognize you, did you want to be recognized?

23 January 19, 2016

Board Member Llorente: Yes, thank you. Just a couple of points. I mean, I understand the

intention behind this proposal. I think it's a well-intentioned proposal, but, you know, look, to

create an entire office that is there just to supervise the five elected officials or the six elected

officials of the City, I'm just not convinced that it's, you know, necessary at this point, given the -

- what I believe are adequate avenues to pursue complaints against those individuals, number one.

Number two, to the extent that that person's job would be to serve as a representative of the citizens,

the elected officials are also supposed to serve as representatives of the citizens, and the voice of

the citizens. So, again, not to belabor the point, I think, you know, it's been, you know -- all of the

points have been made, but I just don't think that it's necessary at this point. Thank you.

Chair Suarez: Board Member Kuper, and then I think Board Member Krieger wanted to be

recognized.

Board Member Kuper: With reference to citizens, you know, Mr. Krieger, I am just as -- I'm a

citizen, so I want to be heard, and I want to be noticed. So for you to make a -- look at me and tell

me that I don't care about citizens, I don't think that's fair.

Vice Chair Krieger: I'm not -- or I wasn't pointing you out, sir.

Board Member Kuper: Okay. Having said that, you know, in addition to that, I think that if any

of the citizens go to the State -- well, first of all, let's step back a second. What are the qualifications

of the ombudsman? Is this ombudsman going to be a former prosecutor? Is it going to be a former

defense attorney? Is it going to be an attorney at all? Is it going to be someone -- what are their

qualifications? Because, you know, it's very nice to sit here and say that we need an ombudsman

-- which I don't think we need -- but then again, to stand with the citizen and do what? The citizen

can go to the State Attorney's Office, sit down with an Assistant State Attorney any time, whether

it's in the Public Corruption Office, or any other office, and discuss the case, and discuss the

evidence. If there's no evidence, it doesn't matter if you have an ombudsman or you don't. A lot

of times, when their cases aren't filed, it's because, unfortunately, in public corruption cases and

other cases, there aren't enough evidence for the State Attorney or any other attorney to go forward

on it; any prosecutorial body; that's number one. So what is it exactly that the ombudsman's going

to do that the citizen can't do with the -- sitting down with the State Attorney? If you go to the

Ethics Commission, it's the same thing. You sit down with the investigator on the Ethics

Commission, and you discuss, and they determine and you determine what kind of evidence you

have in order not to go forward. So, you know, we have to step back and really decide, and really

think about what it is that we're creating here. It sounds good. You know, we love to use buzz

words, as "citizens," and "protecting the citizens," and "transparency," but, you know, we really

need to go beyond that if we're going to really move this in a very serious manner, and I don't think

this is the way we need to go at this time. That's only my opinion.

Chair Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Kuper. Board Member.

Board Member Kneapler: You want me to answer your question? What's the point in having the

Civilian Investigative Panel? You have the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation); you have the

Justice Department, who are perfectly capable of investigating the Police Department, but

24 January 19, 2016

sometime in the past, we saw fit to have a Civilian Investigative Panel. They have a lot more

authority than the State Attorney and the Ethics Commission. But let's assume I --

Board Member Kuper: Are you going to answer the question?

Board Member Kneapler: No, no, let me -- let's assume I go to the Ethics Commission or the State

Attorney. I would be perceived differently by them, as opposed to someone -- an ombudsman

from the City of Miami bringing a case to those people. It carries a lot more weight than the

average citizen. So I don't see any different -- then let's just save the money, and let's not have this

-- let's have a Charter amendment, if that's what it takes -- I don't know how it works -- and let's

get rid of the Civilian Investigative Panel then, because the same, the same rhetoric -- same thing

that you're saying would apply there, as well. I don't understand the logic.

Board Member Gibbs: Then we can get rid of the Auditor, as well; the Inspector General.

Board Member Kneapler: Sure, why not?

Board Member Gibbs: I mean, why not?

Board Member Kuper: Is that on the agenda for us to discuss this evening?

Board Member Gibbs: No, but let's put it on the agenda.

Board Member Kneapler: Well, everybody's pontificating, so I have the right to do the same thing.

Board Member Kuper: Well, then let's put it on the agenda. Let's have them -- let's do the research

on it, and let's discuss it, because you may be right. There may not be a reason for it, you know.

And you may be right, Tucker, there may not be a reason for it; I don't know. But right now, we're

discussing creating an Office of Ombudsman.

Board Member Gibbs: No, we're not --

Board Member Kuper: That's totally different from --

Board Member Gibbs: -- but we're not doing that. Excuse me. We're not -- what we're discussing

is -- and this is something we all need to understand -- whether we put this question on the ballot

for the people in the City of Miami to decide if they want it; it's not whether we want it; it's whether

we think it's a good thing to put in the Charter, but the fact is, all we're doing is taking it to the

Commission and asking the Commission to put it on the ballot, and let the people of the City of

Miami decide for themselves whether they want this or not.

Board Member Kuper: Okay.

Chair Suarez: And you're send -- you're not even doing that. You're sending it to the Commission,

which will do that, potentially.

25 January 19, 2016

Board Member Kuper: I just voiced my opinion. That's -- I'm one vote, so let the Committee

decide.

Board Member Gazitua: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I just have one --

Chair Suarez: Go ahead, Mr. Gazitua.

Board Member Gazitua: -- final question. Again, I think it's a great idea. I just think we have

enough offices that are doing that type of work. Would this person be elected? So we would be

putting all these powers under an elected individual?


Vice Chair Krieger: Not necessarily. This needs to be filled in with all -- everything -- all the

issues that have been raised. I mean, you can't just pass this without saying who's going to do that.

They need a budget, they -- what they have to do, whether they're appointed or elected, so this

needs to be filled in, and I would suggest that the City Attorney take a look at the other counties

that they put in here, and try to fill in something for us, but the idea here is simple. The idea is to

take care of citizens, who, obviously, have no other major resource to go to if there's a problem

with the City.

Chair Suarez: Can I chime in on this, guys? Thank you. So I don't feel under-scrutinized -- let's

put it that way -- in my job. I think we have the media; we have bloggers; we have Ethics

Commissions; we have State Attorneys, and we have Federal prosecutors, who, I think, recently

prosecuted two mayors not that long ago; one of which pleaded guilty; the other one -- let's not

talk about that one, okay? But we have a litany of different agencies that we are all scrutinized by,

and some being -- you know, law enforcement in nature, and others just being media-driven. I

think one of the things that I do have a concern with is -- and I hear this often; I don't know if you

all hear this, as well -- is people not wanting to get in politics, or not getting involved in politics,

because it's too much, you know, and good people, I mean, you know, smart people that don't want

to get involved, because they don't want to get involved in -- it's too much risk; it's too much time;

it's too much scrutiny, and that is a concern, because I think the things that we should be doing as

a society is we should be urging good people to run for public office, and to be involved in public

service, so that's just something that I would leave as a reflection. I think some of this is borne out

of the frustration that some people in this community feel that they've had no other recourse but to

sue the City of Miami for decisions that the City has made, and the courts have held that those

individuals lack standing in some cases, okay? And, you know, I've always thought that, first and

foremost, we live in a democracy; and, you know, we all have the power as citizens to decide

through that process, first and foremost, who our elected officials should be, and if they're not

doing a good job, who they should not be. And I think we saw evidence in one of our districts

recently where, you know, someone who was not the best funded candidate, was not the candidate

who had all the support from all the major establishment sources, was able to penetrate through

that and be elected; which I think is a vindication of the democratic process in the City. You know,

one of the issues I have with this particular language, as it's written, is -- so let's say the ombudsman

-- which I like the concept of having someone who is a Charter-defined person as a conduit for

residents to go see and talk to, who they feel is independent. I don't know that that person would

26 January 19, 2016

necessarily investigate elected officials; some of which will be appointing that specific person,

which I think is a problem, and it's a conflict. You know, how do you -- you know, you appoint

the Auditor General; you appoint the City Attorney, but they don't investigate you, you know?

The closest concept to this that I've seen is sort of the special prosecutor, you know, that the Federal

Government has in terms of a concept, which, obviously, investigates the President, but I think it's

a problem where you have the Commission, itself, choosing someone to investigate itself and --

but I like the concept of an ombudsman as an office that citizens can go to, to investigate things,

and for them to get vindicated. For example, a complaint that I get all the time is, why aren't they

getting public records? It's a complaint that I hear constantly, and, you know, if you're getting

stone-walled from -- by the Administration, and you're getting stone-walled by an elected official,

there should be a person whose job is to decipher or go through -- I like to think it's mine, as an

elected official, but maybe not every elected official takes the same position that I do, and this -- I

think the reason why there's a CIP, a Citizens Investigative Panel, is because the current structure,

as it was designed at that moment, was not enough, or was not working, or did not have the

confidence of the people, and the people wanted more. And I think, you know, there's something

to be said about someone whose sole role is to advocate for the people and their issues. I don't

know that the right thing for that person to do is to investigate the elected officials, per se, but

maybe the role is to be an advocate on behalf of citizens, vis-à-vis complaints. Why, you know,

when I sent a -- you know, when I asked a Commissioner or the Administration to, you know, to

do a sidewalk, has it taken two years? You know, why, when I ask them to trim a tree that should

take, you know, 48 hours, or fill a pothole, has it taken a month? The one that I hear all the time

is the containers, the garbage containers. If you call 311 for a garbage container, it could take

months. If you call a Commissioner's office, it takes hours, you know. Why is that happening?

So, you know, the concept of having an ombudsman on behalf of the citizens, I think it's an

indication of something that we're failing to do as a City; maybe some sickness that is there. I'm

not so sure that that person should have the right to investigate elected officials. I think we decided

very recently that our Internal Affairs Division of the Police Department was not going to

investigate our own elected officials, because there's a conflict there; a major conflict, because

there's -- it's ripe for the potential for political vendettas to get sort of ferreted out through that

process, and we don't want to be, ourselves, a product, a by-product -- and I can give you plenty

of stories on that one if you guys really want to spend time here talking about political vendettas

that are vetted through this government. I'm sure you guys have many stories of your own. So I'll

leave it at that. I don't know if anyone wants to make any -- yes, sir.

Board Member Kneapler: When I think about it, it's my opinion that the vast majority of the people

in the City of Miami, whether they're of voting age or not, don't even think -- don't even -- first of

all, don't even know what this word means; and if they did, what type of power does that person

have to even have the right to complain? Because right now, that's the frustration out there.


Board Member Kneapler: It's the whole country. So why not give the average person who can't

afford a lawyer, who would never even think about it, give them the opportunity to legitimately

complain. Maybe we'll learn something from them.

27 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: Why don't we do this -- because I agree with that, also, the point that you made that

we can call it a citizens' advocate versus an ombudsman, which is a very -- a term that maybe one

percent of the people --

Board Member Kneapler: As long as it has some teeth.

Chair Suarez: Right. And then I think you can build some teeth into it, like, for example -- I'll

give you an example, and this is one that I put on the Commission agenda on the last agenda.

People constantly complain that they don't get notices for Planning & Zoning items that are in their

neighborhood, you know. A citizens' advocate can do an investigation as to whether that did or

did not happen; whether that did or did not happen, and produce the proof. We can do it ourselves,

but if the citizen does not feel confident that the answer they're getting from the government is the

correct answer or the truthful answer, then maybe this is a way to create a vehicle by which they

can get something that they feel vindicated in a way that is truthful.

Board Member Kneapler: Well, then change the name, but have the same teeth.

Chair Suarez: But I think -- changing the name makes total sense, because of just branding, I

guess, understanding what it is.

Board Member Kneapler: I had to look it up today.

Chair Suarez: But I think the difference is the function. I think you're talking about investigating

elected officials -- that's dicey -- versus creating a role for this person to vindicate citizens' rights

that are -- like public records, notice, things that are common -- you know, constituent complaints

that are un-responded to. You know, why is an elected official not responding to my constituent

complaints? Sometimes, it's as simple as -- it goes into an email folder. I've had people send me

emails at info@ -- you know, Commission District 4, and I just never got it. You know, I'm pretty

good at responding to emails, so that's not usually an issue, but it could be an issue for someone

else, you know. Isn't a Commissioner actually getting my emails and ignoring them? Or any

elected official, for that matter; or an administrator. You know what I mean? Is somebody just

tired of reading my emails and just deletes them?

Board Member Kneapler: So what are we saying? What are we saying?

Chair Suarez: I think what we're saying is you can create an office that's a citizens' advocate that

has a specific and defined role in terms of what they're investigatory role is, and powers, but I don't

think it should be elected officials necessarily. Sorry.

Board Member Kneapler: I wouldn't expect you to say anything else.

Chair Suarez: Well, listen --

Board Member Kneapler: Well, why don't we take a shot at it and build it from there?

28 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: I would respect whatever the decision of this Board is with reference to that; I really

would, because, obviously, you know, my perspective is skewed based on what I do, but -- and

who I am -- but, you know, I mean, I can just give you my thoughts. Yes.

Vice Chair Krieger: I would be happy to take some time to work with the City Attorney on that.

Chair Suarez: Let's do that.

Vice Chair Krieger: For the next meeting --

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Vice Chair Krieger: -- try to come up with something that we can maybe all agree to.

Chair Suarez: Okay. I think we've heard a lot of commentary on this. Yes.

Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: If I may, many of the comments raised about having someone

at the City, an administrator, dealing with the unanswered emails, or the potholes, it's all about

finding the right person, and I would submit to folks watching us on television that the City's NET

(Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office is meant to be that kind of bridge between neighbors,

neighborhoods, and the City Administration, and they do a good job. Potholes, you can call Public

Works Office. They have someone who picks up their phone and takes your work order number.

I mean, all these issues have a specific person at the City to do that. The question is, how -- finding

that right person. But the City -- and I work at the City every day -- it's a very open Administration

and building. It's just finding the right person. So my view of the world in the City of Miami is -

- you know, would say -- would lead me to believe that all these roles are fulfilled already; it's

finding the right person. And if there is someone not responsive to it, then it's typically an

employee issue, where you have a Mayor and a City Manager to deal with that issue.

Chair Suarez: Right. And again, I view my role as -- within the four corners of this description,

you know, as a citizens' ombudsman; that's what I view my role as a Commissioner, in part. Maybe

not everyone who serves as a Commissioner is that -- or actually performs their role in that fashion,

and, you know, maybe that's why there needs to be this extra person that is somewhat -- you know,

whose obligation is clearly spelled out, and is -- you know, they're obligated to the citizens to get

answers to certain specific questions that they would want that are natural questions that a citizen

might not get answers to if they're not favorable to a specific elected official. You know what I

mean? Yes.

Board Member Kuper: And going along those tunes, when you're talking about frustration, a lot

of the frustration is not necessarily -- and it's not because Commissioner Suarez is here -- it has

nothing to do a lot of the times with the elected official; it has to do with the Administration and

the people that work in the Administration. So, you know, going along these lines, if Mr. Krieger

works with the idea of the citizen advocate, just my one vote, I would be more in favor of

something like that.

Chair Suarez: Thank you. Okay.

29 January 19, 2016

Board Member Solowsky: Mr. Chair, I have --

Chair Suarez: Yeah.

Board Member Solowsky: -- one more comment. Seems to me that this is a slippery slope that

we have to be very careful with. As we go forward, let's assume we would do -- whatever we

would call this, you have some -- in civil practice, we see the dexacious litigants; the people who

file serial lawsuits. They could file serial complaints with this person, and if they're obligated to

investigate each one, on what standard do they determine whether or not it's founded, unfounded;

whether or not it's a probable cause or no probable cause to proceed? How do they deal with a

dexacious litigant? What do they do with situations where they may want to talk to some -- are

they going to have subpoena power? Are they going to be able to subpoena individuals, witnesses?

Are they going to have the ability to subpoena documents? I mean, this -- we have to be very

careful with how we would do something like this, because the costs involved in this would be

tremendous. It can be used as a vehicle by someone who just has a bone to pick, but I agree with

Board Member Kneapler that there are people who are not being heard, and Administration is not

being responsive, and perhaps we could have some kind of an advocate that may assist in that, but

there need to be very well defined limits to that so that we're not just creating another layer of

unnecessary government, where there are avenues of recourse, so.

Chair Suarez: And I think we have to be transparent with our citizens, because, obviously, if you're

-- the question is put to you, "Do you want a citizens' advocate?" I doubt that anyone would say

"no" to that question. I think the answer is, "Do you want a citizens' advocate that's going to cost

a million dollars? Do you want a citizens' advocate that's going to cost more than that, potentially?"

And I don't know; you know, I don't know the answer to that, once you start putting a price tag on

it; but, you know, certainly, I'm -- maybe -- do we have anyone here from Budget? I'm sure maybe

one of our employees might know the answer to this, but do you know how much our Auditor

General cost? You might know the answer to this.

Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE).

Chair Suarez: We don't want to use the City Attorney, because that's several million.

Vice Chair Krieger: Most of --

Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: Civil Service is $435,000; Civilian Investigative Panel,

$717,000; Equal Opportunity & Diversity Program is 370,000.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah, but except for the CIP, those are all total -- those are only with respect

to employees of the City. They're -- none -- either of those do --

Chair Suarez: So there's a cost; there's a cost that's probably going to be several hundreds of

thousands of dollars, if not millions, and I think that's -- the issue for this Board will be whether

we recommend -- if we do recommend a citizens' advocate, do we recommend it with a potential

30 January 19, 2016

price tag to highlight to the people that this is going to have a cost, and do you want to pay for it?

Because it's going to have to be paid for.

Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: You mentioned public records litigation, which is very popular

nowadays.

Chair Suarez: Yeah.

Board Member Tapanes-Llahues: It would be -- this person's job would be to do those public

records lawsuits, so the citizens will be -- that would be part of it.

Chair Suarez: Yeah, maybe, and -- or, hopefully, what you would think is that that person would

have the ability to access those public records more efficiently than -- and I think that's what the

CIP and even Civil Service -- when you talk to employees, the efficiency of the Civil Service

System is to avoid litigation, to avoid a process that might be more costly, and less certain, if you

will. All right. So you're going to get -- you're going to take a shot at it, Board Member Krieger.

Okay, the next is discussion of Section 36. What tab is that, Mr. --?

Board Member Gazitua: 15.

Chair Suarez: 15. Civil Service, Section 36; any discussion on this section?

Mr. Andrews: Mr. Chair, the proposed language is also at Tab 16.

Chair Suarez: Thank you.

Mr. Andrews: This is from the last meeting. I believe it was back in July that we last discussed

this section. There was a proposal to try to, I guess, consolidate the unclassified positions into the

Charter, and so I looked at the Miami-Dade County Charter to see what exactly they had that

corresponded to what the City has, and so I put those in there, so that's what you have there.

Chair Suarez: Okay. That's in Tab 15?

Mr. Andrews: 16.

Chair Suarez: Or in 16. Okay.

Unidentified Speaker: 17, 17.

Chair Suarez: Okay. That's in Tab 17.

Mr. Andrews: 17; I'm sorry.

Chair Suarez: Okay. So, obviously, Mr. Greenberg is no longer on the Board, and we have Mr.

Llorente, who, I think, had one proposal. You want to be recognized?

31 January 19, 2016

Board Member Llorente: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And just again, by way of background for -

- I mean, I think most of us on the Board, and most of those in the audience are familiar with how

Civil Service works, and the different categories of employees, but just very quickly, by way of

background, there are two categories of employees in the City of Miami. There are classified

employees, who are -- you know, who have all the benefits of Civil Service rules and protections;

and there are unclassified employees, who are more sort of traditional at-will employees, who don't

necessarily have the benefits and protections of Civil Service. The way that our Charter reads right

now is that it says that all employees of the City of Miami shall be classified -- meaning that they

have Civil Service protections -- unless they are specifically exempted by the Charter, and there's

a list of exemptions, of exempted employees, or unclassified employees in the Charter. That list

is exceedingly small, and it doesn't really allow for the efficient administration, in my opinion, of

the City by the City Manager. Now, that's what prompted me to sort of flag this section, and make

a recommendation that the list be expanded. As part of my due diligence, in recent months, I've

talked to folks from the City; I've talked to folks from the union, and learned that that section has

been litigated and scrutinized over the last several decades, and is actually a very complicated little

section. As I mentioned, it's been the subject of litigation, which has resulted in settlement

agreements where the City and unions have agreed to expand the list, essentially beyond what's

currently in the Charter. Even recently, there was some litigation that resulted in a revision and

further expansion of that list. And so what has -- what became clear to me is that I'm not sure that

this Board, given the very dicey history, the complicated history, the settlement agreements that

are currently in place, I'm not sure that this is an issue that's ripe for this Board. I'm not sure that

-- you know, I, at least, as the person who brought this forward, am in the best position to sort of

settle the dispute and decide who should be in, who should be out, et cetera. As I mentioned, I

believe there's been, even very, very recently, in the last several weeks or months, there's been

some activity in terms of changing the list, expanding the list; there's been negotiations between

the City and the unions. And so with that in mind, I would like to withdraw --

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Board Member Llorente: -- my recommendation. I mean, I'd like to hear what other board

members have to say. I know Board Member Greenberg, I think, had some ideas; he's no longer

on the Board. I don't know if anybody else has ideas on this topic, but I, for one, would like to

withdraw my recommendation.

Board Member Gazitua: Seems like wise counsel from Mr. Llorente to do that at this time. There's

existing litigation, there's negotiation; makes a lot of sense.

Chair Suarez: Everyone in agreement? Perfect. Oh, okay; one "no," for the record. Moving on

to Tab Number 17. Can you walk us through that?

Mr. Andrews: 19.

Chair Suarez: Oh, we're --

Mr. Andrews: I'm sorry.

32 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: I'm sorry; 19?

Mr. Andrews: Are we moving on to Section 37?

Chair Suarez: Correct.

Mr. Andrews: Tab 19.

Chair Suarez: Got it. Tab 19, which is pension funds; Section 37, yep. Everyone ready?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.


Mr. Andrews: With regard to this section, this deals with the pensions.

Chair Suarez: Sure.

Mr. Andrews: I don't believe that there was a specific suggestion; it was just a general, "Let's take

a look at it and see what type of reform might be necessary."

Chair Suarez: Can I chime in on this for the board members? You know, obviously, our pension

program is a subject of collective bargaining. We, as a Commission, have made reforms to the

pension system over many years; particularly since we've -- since the current Commission has

been there, mostly, if not entirely to save the City from going into bankruptcy in 2010. There were

tough decisions that we had to make. I think they changed fundamentally the way that the program

works. I think we were probably the only city -- we got sued 13 times. I think all of them are

disposed of, with the exception of one, which is at the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken, and

that one is still pending, so it might make sense to wait until the Supreme Court chimes in before

we decide to do anything, I think, at the very minimum; but we definitely at the time were sort of

the leader in pension reform, if you will. I don't think "leader" is necessarily the right word. I

think we had to do what we had to do in 2010 to keep the City from going bankrupt and from

declaring financial emergency. We declared financial urgency, and it was very difficult. We

impacted a lot of people's lives. But the City has turned around as a result of some of those

decisions that we had to make, and now, thankfully, we have a healthy surplus; we have a healthy

growth rate. I think last year, the City grew by like 14 percent, or 13-point-something percent;

which, if it were -- for anybody who's investing money in the audience or here on the dais, if you

were investing your money at 13, 14 percent, it would be pretty good; means we're doing a pretty

good job, all of us collectively, at running a city that is building its brand, and attracting people,

and investment. And so, you know, I don't know how this Board wants to deal with this issue, but

might make sense to wait until the litigation has ended before we take it up, but -- yeah, that's the

one that's pending before the Supreme Court.

Board Member Kneapler: (INAUDIBLE).

Chair Suarez: I think it's the Police Union, actually, if I'm not mistaken.

33 January 19, 2016

Mr. Andrews: It is.

Unidentified Speaker: Both of them.

Chair Suarez: Both of them; they're joint.

Board Member Kneapler: So they affect each other.

Chair Suarez: Correct. We'll be having a different conversation if the Supreme Court decides to

overturn the decision of the City Commission, so.

Vice Chair Krieger: Well, if I have to, I guess I'm stuck.

Chair Suarez: Okay. It'll definitely make our work for this evening a little easier, that's for sure;

not that we want to necessarily do that.

Vice Chair Krieger: Can I say a couple of things?

Chair Suarez: Yes, please. You're recognized.

Vice Chair Krieger: First of all, I appreciate all the work that all of our employees do. They're

hard-working, and they should be paid well for what they do. Many cities and counties around the

State and around the country are eliminating defined benefit pension plans, because they tend to

break cities' backs financially. I -- if I were to make recommendations, which I've been talking

about, I would not include the people who are employed today. I would have them apply to people

who are newcomers, but I think that keeping defined benefit pensions; I think eliminating double-

dipping; I think eliminating the abuse that they do, which we've all heard about, by working

overtime the last two years or one year, and thereby increasing the pensions -- I mean, I have heard,

for example, that Fire chiefs retire with $200,000 of pensions because of this.

Chair Suarez: Not anymore.

Vice Chair Krieger: Not anymore. Good. The private sector has eliminated virtually all defined

benefit plans, and they've gone in favor of either defined contribution plans, or 401(k), and I see

no reason why the City should not do the same thing to protect itself and to protect the people from

what happened in 2010. Those with 15 years' service going forward, you know, we could eliminate

them, too, but I put in the record an article from a commentary magazine called "What Public

Sector Unions have Wrought." Once again, public unions are inherently conflicted, and the reason

is that they tell Commissioners and other officials that, "Unless you negotiate with us and give us

what we want, we won't give you contributions; we won't put people on -- out on the voting booth

to help," et cetera. This is not satisfactory, I would think, and they negotiate benefits with the

people who they -- whom they directly contribute to; in other words, the members of the

Commission, the -- yeah, whomever -- and I think that's inherently conflicting. And another thing

that happens: In the private sector, strikes hurt both sides, management and the unions; but in the

public sector, sometimes, the unions use a strike or a threat of strike as a political weapon. And,

34 January 19, 2016

of course, the government can collect as many -- as much taxes as it wants to pay what they're

doing. So both labor and management in public unions benefit from the increased benefits, and

I'm not saying that they shouldn't get an increase; however, I think there needs to be a little bit

more fairness put into the system.

Chair Suarez: Okay. Thank you, Mr. -- Board Member Krieger. Again, I don't know if this Board

wants to take up this issue right now, when we have a pending Supreme Court litigation, or we

would prefer to wait until after it ends.

Board Member Kuper: Move to defer it.

Chair Suarez: Okay. It's been moved.

Board Member Gazitua: Second.

Chair Suarez: Seconded. I would just say that, you know, having been, I think, the only elected

official in this body that wasn't at least initially elected with union support, because I think at the

time -- I want to say that I forecasted what was going to happen, but I was very honest and

forthright with what I felt was going to happen. And I think part of the reason why I now have a

very good relationship with some of our union presidents is because I think they feel that I've

always been straightforward, and honest, and transparent, and accessible.

Vice Chair Krieger: Mr. Chairman, I'm not picking on any one Commissioner.

Chair Suarez: No; I know; I know you're not.

Vice Chair Krieger: I mean, it could be future Commissioners.

Chair Suarez: No, I get it.

Vice Chair Krieger: It could be a lot of past -- you know, whatever.

Chair Suarez: I get it.

Vice Chair Krieger: I'm just raising the subjects and telling you what the problems are, in my

view.

Chair Suarez: I totally hear you. I've read a lot of the same articles, you know. I know that other

parts of the country have had issues, and I'm not going to say that we didn't have issues, because

we did; and I'm not going to say that there weren't abuses, because there were; and I'm not saying

that we've done everything, but we did tremendous -- we took tremendous steps and we took very

large strides. And, you know, one of the reasons why I can say that what you -- that the scenario

that you posited would not happen under the current system is because one of the things that we

did was we put a limitation on the total accrual of benefits, which, hopefully, doesn't affect many

of our rank and file who are here today. Hopefully, they can accrue the benefits that they deserve,

but it does affect very high-end upper echelon employees, who might accrue -- and actually, they

35 January 19, 2016

could accrue at the time more than their actual salary, depending on how long that they had worked

here, and that was something that we also changed. We also changed for many the multiplier, and

reduced the multiplier, the percentage by which the benefit accrues on an annual basis. So, you

know, I think that year, if I'm not mistaken, the savings was about 40, $45 million, just in one year

in terms of the reform that was done, but we do bargain on a regular basis with our partners, and

we -- the way I look at it is, you know, they have a total compensation package, which includes

pay and benefits. Many of them are working here because of the benefits that the City of Miami

promised them when they decided to apply. Whether that's a good or a bad thing, we can debate.

Whether new people should be offered that or not is a good subject to debate. I think, certainly,

maybe after the Supreme Court opines on the actions that we took, that could be something that -

-

Vice Chair Krieger: I do have one question.

Chair Suarez: Sure.

Vice Chair Krieger: Are all of our pensions funded, or are there unfunded liabilities?

Chair Suarez: You want me to answer it or --? Go ahead.

Sean Moy: Sean Moy, union president, City of Miami General Employees. Yes, our pension is

around 72 percent funded. I think we spoke a lot about there is unfunded liabilities. I think we

spoke -- I'm glad the Board has decided to table this until after pending litigation. I think all the

employees here took significant cuts, and they were dire times in 2010, and the Commissioner

mentioned only a few of them: multiplier; reduction in pay; reduction in benefit. The overall

saving to the City is around $88 million, just from one union, these people that you see here today.

That's why we're here, because it matters to us. Talking to you, honestly, I feel a little let down,

because I feel like I'm -- I've been here 15 years, and I'm having to fight for my pension every day,

you know. I don't see any cops; I don't see any police officers here, but I'm always here, because

it matters to me and it matters to everybody here. We always decide to talk about pensions and --

Chair Suarez: Sean, can I cut you off real quick for one second?

Mr. Moy: Sure.

Chair Suarez: I think the other thing is, you know -- and you and I've talked about this before you

were a board member, so it's not a sunshine issue, even if there is sunshine that applies here

potentially. You know, there is a huge disparity in income in our City, and it's very difficult to

find housing in our City, and it's something that we talk about a lot. And I think you're -- you

know, I always say this to people -- you're the prototypical case. I mean, you're someone who has

a wife, a child, a small child --

Mr. Moy: Yeah, I know.

Chair Suarez: Not too much older than myself; a child, a beautiful son.

36 January 19, 2016

Mr. Moy: Thank you.

Chair Suarez: And you've been working with the City for 15 years, and your salary -- with your

salary, you probably couldn't afford to live in the City of Miami. Do you live in the City of Miami?

Mr. Moy: I don't.

Chair Suarez: Where do you live?

Mr. Moy: Homestead.

Chair Suarez: Homestead. So, you know, I think we have a lot of challenges as a city and as a

government to provide not only for employees, but also find the conditions under which, you know,

people like you and your family can live in the City of Miami, because I think it would benefit all

of us if --

Mr. Moy: Right.

Chair Suarez: -- everyone here in this audience could afford to live in the City of Miami, and can

provide services in the city that they live. I think there would be an additional pride that would go

along with that. I'm sorry for cutting you off. Go ahead.

Mr. Moy: No, I -- in regards to the benefit, I think that the defined benefit is a benefit that the

employee gets. I think the City is looking for talent, and you want to attract a talented individual,

you got to offer, I believe, a benefit, you know. And someone from the outside looking in is like,

"Hey, look, why should I go work at the City? I have to do ten years to be vested; then I have to

also do 30 years to be able to be eligible for retirement." So the way the pension laws have been

created now, you got to work a minimum of 30 years to be able to receive a decent pension. So

use me if you want as an example. I've been here 15. I got to do another 15 more to reach 30

years of service; so does everybody else here.

Chair Suarez: And I would just say one thing, because I'm pretty good at math, but if the -- if

we're talking about a dollar -- right? -- and the dollar can be paid by a lower salary, but a higher

defined benefit, then it's still a dollar, right? And the same dollar could be paid with a lower

defined contribution, like a 401(k), but a higher salary. I think you'd be surprised that a lot of

employees would prefer the former rather than the latter; in other words, they would -- and this is

something that struck me as odd, because sometimes, people say, "I want my money now, I want

my money today." Why wouldn't you want to pay me more today that I can provide for school,

provide for, you know, my child's care, et cetera, et cetera, versus -- and take the risk that the

market will provide for me to -- retirement later versus -- which is the way I view life, you know.

I sort of live for the moment, and try to save money and make it work, and then, hopefully, I'll be

able to retire at some point, maybe when I'm a hundred versus the other way around, but it's still a

dollar. So I think that's interesting, and I think -- I even know young people who will come in,

and they'll want to work in the Fire Department, because they know that benefit is there, and so

that's an -- it's an interesting piece of information.

37 January 19, 2016

Mr. Moy: No problem. It's just that we been through so much, and I think the -- you know, we

made some changes, and we rescued the City, if you will. $88 million, whether you, you know,

think about it or not, is substantially a lot of money, and I can assure you, the firefighters and cops

also put in a big boatload of money to save the City. We did, and --

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah, but you got all that money for how many years before that?

Mr. Moy: Say again?

Vice Chair Krieger: How many years before that were you paid those things that put us in bank -

- that put us in trouble?

Mr. Moy: Well, I mean, there's -- you know, you'll have to get an actuarial study to determine

that, you know, which --

Vice Chair Krieger: Okay. I'm not suggesting that you guys are not worth what you're paid; I'm

not suggesting that, but there is an inherent conflict, and there's a political question, and there's a

monetary question. Yes, we want to be fair with everybody.

Chair Suarez: And I think there's also a legal question, Stanley, as to whether we can do this by

Charter; I'm not sure that we could, because the State Constitution requires collective bargaining,

and it requires it --

Mr. Moy: Correct.

Chair Suarez: -- on a three-year basis. You have to collectively bargain every three years, which

is amazing to me, because I would think that you would have thought that you could do it for five,

or six, or seven; you could have some sort of a deal for a longer period of time, but apparently,

you can't.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah, but I think if you put it in the Charter, then subsequently, you can

proceed.

Board Member Kneapler: Mr. Chairman.

Chair Suarez: Yes.

Board Member Kneapler: Stanley mentioned, unfunded liabilities. I think we glossed over that.

I'm sure that we can -- when we continue this discussion, how do we get the figure from all the

actuarials, from all the unfunded liabilities from all the pensions? I think it's going to be a

staggering figure. I remember eight or ten years ago, when -- I think it was Richard Berkowitz

was chairman of the Finance Committee, and he made a big speech. I think Diaz was the -- going

out as Mayor. I remember a figure of $671 million, and I got a good head for numbers. $671

million --

Chair Suarez: That's okay.

38 January 19, 2016

Board Member Kneapler: -- in unfunded liabilities. So it's got to be more now.

Chair Suarez: Or less; I don't know.

Board Member Kneapler: But those are obligations that somehow --

Chair Suarez: Sure.

Board Member Kneapler: -- everybody has to pay.

Chair Suarez: That's what the word means, "unfunded liability."

Board Member Kneapler: Doesn't mean "money"; it means "unfunded."

Vice Chair Krieger: Well, you know, there shouldn't be unfunded pensions. They deserve to be

funded.


Vice Chair Krieger: Now, how much --

Chair Suarez: You're going to write a check?

Vice Chair Krieger: That's what I'm saying. How much are you going to -- how much tax, property

tax are you going to have to raise to fund this -- I don't know how many millions, hundreds of

millions of dollars?

Chair Suarez: I think, actuarially, and I'm not an actual -- I'm not an actuarial expert -- I think the

way they do it is there's smoothing; there's percentages that it goes above and beyond; and there -

- the annual contribution, which is the normal cost of the plan, plus what they call the legacy cost,

which is that unfunded part, there's an annual contribution that's made to fund that to make sure

that it always equates, if you will, you know, and that's what the cost is.

Vice Chair Krieger: Yeah, I don't know. Somebody has told me that there were three to five

trillion dollars of unfunded --

Chair Suarez: No, I don't think that --

Vice Chair Krieger: -- liabilities in the country.

Chair Suarez: Well, maybe.

Vice Chair Krieger: And if you don't think we are in trouble as a country, you better think again.

39 January 19, 2016

Chair Suarez: Well, I will tell you this: I think if you were to -- and I'm not -- not that I'm debating

that issue that we're in trouble as a country because I think we are potentially on the precipice of

some financial disaster, but I think a big part of it is the reason that -- but let me just say this -- a

big part of it -- and I'm sorry, we're getting kind of off topic here, because we've already decided

this issue, I guess, as a vote -- but a big part of it is the fact that governments can run a deficit;

whereas this government, local governments cannot, nor can the State. And we, in fact, have a

surplus, a pretty large one, in fact.

Vice Chair Krieger: The Federal Government can print money.

Chair Suarez: Well, and that's the problem, because there is always going to be a day of reckoning,

so. Thank you.

Mr. Moy: All right, thank you.

Chair Suarez: Thank you for your presentation. Is there any other sections that we're going to

discuss today, or where do we -- okay, what's next; what's for the next meeting?

Mr. Andrews: The next meeting, I would propose Section 51, which is the CIP section. That's a

pretty big one.

Chair Suarez: Okay.

Mr. Andrews: So that could probably go by itself.

Chair Suarez: And they've proposed some changes, which I will ask -- I'm not sure if they're

ordinance changes or they're Charter changes, but they've given me some documentation, so we'll

discuss that with our office --

Mr. Andrews: Okay.

Chair Suarez: -- and see if that's something that needs to be distributed, if it's not an ordinance

change. If it's an ordinance change, we'll -- I'm pretty sure some of it is an ordinance change, and

then to the extent that there are Charter changes, we'll get that to the members as quickly as

possible.

Mr. Andrews: Okay.

Chair Suarez: Thank you.

Mr. Andrews: Thanks.

Chair Suarez: Our meeting is adjourned at 7 sharp; started at 5:30 sharp; pretty good, an hour and

a half. Do we have a date for our next meeting? Okay, we'll circulate one.

Meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.

The audio recording of this meeting is on ... - City of Miami Minutes.pdf · Stanley Krieger, Vice...

Documents

Transcript of The audio recording of this meeting is on ... - City of Miami Minutes.pdf · Stanley Krieger, Vice...