HAPPENING HERE. THIS ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE THE MAYOR'S CONSENT AND APPROVING, THE CHIEF'S CONSENT AND APPROVAL BECAUSE YOU ARE DIRECTING THE AFFAIRS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO D THAT. BUT THE FEBRUARY VERSION, THE MAYOR IS WILLING TO CONSENT AND APPROVEOF THAT, AND SO IS THE CHIEF, AND SO THE DIRECTIVES AND THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE FEBRUARY VERSION WOULD BE CONSENTED TO BY THE MAYOR AND CHIEF OF POLICE AND COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO YOUR LEGISLATION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY. AS THE CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS IN THE CHARTER. YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER TO THIS COUNCIL. >>MARTIN SHELBY: DID I HEAR THE WORDS INTERPRETATION? >>ORLANDO GUDES: WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE CHARTER, THE POWERS OF THIS CITY COUNCIL AS RELATES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION, AS PUT FORTH? >>MARTIN SHELBY: SO IF I UNDERSTAND MRS. GRIMES -- AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I AM HEARING THIS IN THIS FORUM AND FORM, FORM -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'M SORRY. IS SET UP. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES, IT'S WEIRD. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IT GOES BACK TO THE REASON I ASKED FOR THE CONTINUANCE ON THE CHARTER ISSUE. WHY I THOUGHT THAT MRS. GRIMES AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND BECAUSE IT WAS MY AGREED WITH ME, TO DO SO, WAS TO SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT WAS CONJOINED WITH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH IS A DISCUSSION I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO, BECAUSE IT'S RESOLVED. OR I THOUGHT SO UNTIL ACTUALLY THIS MOMENT. BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THIS INTERPRETATION IS STILL -- >> MR. CHAIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WHOA, WHOA, LET ME MR. SHELBY FINISH, AND FINISH WHAT HIS INTERPRETATION IS, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IT APPEARS THAT WE ARE BACK TO THE DISCUSSION OF IN EFFECT A SER VETO BECAUSE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER. THE MAYOR DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE TO COUNCIL WHY THE MAYOR DOESN'T SUPPORT IT. AND IF THE MAYOR CHOOSES TO, IF THE COUNCIL STILL IN SPITE OF IT, OR DESPITE IT, STILL CHOOSES TO GO FORWARD, IN THE CHARTER THE MAYOR HAS A REMEDY. IT'S CALLED THE VETO. AND THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN OVERRIDE THE VETO. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PURPOSES OF WHY THE DEPARTMENTS ARE IN THE CHARTER, AND OTHER IN THE CHARTER, AND ONE.TMTS REASONS IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS -- IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE CHARTER, IS SO THAT YOU AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY CANNOT DISBAND IT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. IT'S NOT A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. THAT'S JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT I AM NOT PREPARED TO OPINE ON THIS. I THINK FRANKLY, I DON'T WAN TO CHARACTERIZE IT. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION, AND BE ABLE TO HEAR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POSITION, THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION BEFORE I WOULD EVEN BE ABLE TO FORMULATE YOUR OPTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CARLSON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. THEN MR. DINGFELDER. >>BILL CARLSON: I IMAGINED THE CITIZENS WATCHING THIS ARE APPALLED AND SHOCKED BY THIS KIND OF THING. THIS IS THE THING THE LAST ADMINISTRATION DID IN PULLING THE CHARTER CARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR MS. GRIMES, BUT WE VE SEEN THIS COMING UP CONSTANTLY NOW, AND OUR LEGAL COUNSEL INTERPRETS IT DIFFERENTLY, AND I GUESS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, THE LAST MAYOR HAD A FRIENDLY COUNCIL TO GET ADVICE ON SOMETHING. I FOR ONE AM NOMINATE GOING TO STAND FOR IT. THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER OR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARTER THAT TAKES AWAY THE CITY COUNCIL'S POWERS. YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. WE NEED TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THISOR A FEW MONTHS, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET LEGAL COUNSEL HERE. I'M NOT SURE MR. SHELBY DID CAN DO THAT. WE NEED TO GET AN INDEPENDENT COUNSELOR A JUDGE TO ADVISE US BECAUSE IT'S UNACCEPTABLE THAT THE CONSTANT INTERPRETATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING PEOPLE OF THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE SEEMS TO BE ONE SIDED IN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. I AM NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT. IF MY COLLEAGUES DON'T AGREE I AM NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. AN MR. VIERA.ES: MR. DINGFELR >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I ASKED YOU THIS MORNING, DO WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH COUNCIL'S MAY MOTION? >>GINA GRIMES: YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND YOU HANDED ME THE ORDINANCE WHICH HAS TWO WHEREAS CLAUSES AND MAKES REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS THE MOTION, WHICH COPIES THE MOTION THAT PASSED 6 TO 1, COUNCIL, IN FEBRUARY AND YOU HANDED ME AND I THINK I SAID, ARE WE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE, COUNCIL'S DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE? AND I DIDN'T GET ANY PUSH BACK WHICH IMPLIED TO ME THAT I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO SAY HERE THEY ARE, LET'S BE DONE WITH THIS, WE VOTED 6 TO 1 TO GET TO THIS POINT TODAY AND BE DONE WITH IT, AND ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE. THIS IS A GOOD ORDINANCE. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WE WORKED ON FOR MORE THAN A YEAR, AS YOU DESCRIBED AT GREAT LENGTH. IN CONGRESS THEY WORKED ON LEGISLATION FOR MANY YEARS. WE HAVE WORKED ON THIS FOR A YEAR AND IT'S IN GOOD SHAPE AND IT HAS INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, HAS INPUT FROM THE MAYOR, HAS INPUT FROM US, AND IT'S READY TO GO. NOW, YOU ARE PLACING THAT OTHER ONE ON THERE, AND IN MY HEARING AND INSINUATING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE? WE ARE THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE BODY UNDER A CHARTER PROVISION THAT YOU -- >>CHLIE RAND WHOA, WHOA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M SORRY, IT IS UPSETTING. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LET HIM FINISH. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ARE WE NOT READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S IN MY HAND THAT CAME OUT OF A 6 TO 1 VOTE BACK IN FEBRUARY? >>GINA GRIMES: MAY I ANSWER IT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THAT WAS A QUESTION. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SURE GRIMES YOU ASKED ME TO PREPARE THE ORDINANCE AND I DID. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REVIEWED IT AND THEY DO NOT SUPPORT IT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. AND THEY CAN VETO IT UNDER THE CHARTER. >>GINA GRIMES: SEPTEMBER 24t WHEN WE HAD THE FIVE AND A HALF HOUR WORKSHOP AND I SUBMITTED A LENGTHY LEGAL OPINION, THIS PRECISE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED IN THAT LEGAL OPINION, ABOUT THE CHARGE, SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS SOLELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BUT WE -- >>GINA GRIMES: AND THE MAYOR AND CHIEF OF POLICE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING ANY ORDINANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE TELLING US THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO. >>GINA GRIMES: THIS WAS AN EFFORT, A COLLECTIVE EFFORT, A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT AS WE COMMITTED TO FROM THE BEGINNING, BETWEEN THE MAYORND THE CITY COUNCIL. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO INTERPRET THE CHARTER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUT WE CAN AT LEAST READ IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CRITICAL CLEAR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU HAVE ALREADY READ IT. >> IT SAYS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE -- OF ALL MATTERS RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE CHIEF OF POLICE SHALL BE THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE GENERAL CHARGE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO, ONE, PRESERVE THE PEACE AND ENFORCE ALL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY ASSIGNED TO THE DEPARTMENT, AND FOUR, TO PRESCRIBE FROM TIME TO TIME BY AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAYOR RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF THE DEPARTMENT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHAT I AM HEARING YOU SAY, GINA IS R, YOU ARE READING THIS, AND YOU ARE SPEAKING TO US, AND I BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE ONLY ORDINANCE WE CAN APPROVE AS A BODY AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, IS THE ORDINANCE THAT THE MAYOR HAS SIGNED OFF ON, OKAY? AND THE MAYOR NEVER COMES DOWN HERE AND TALKS TO US ABOUT THIS AND WE HAVE NEVER SEEN HER SIGNATURE ON ANY OF THIS, OKAY? SO I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY OUT OF THE HORSE'S MOUTH WHAT SHE WANTS OR WHAT SHE DOESN'T WANT. BUT I BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE ONLY ORDINANCE WE CAN APPROVE IS THE ONE THAT THE MAYOR HAS BLESSED. AND TO ME, THAT TAKES AWA OUR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, OUR SOLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AS IS STATED IN THE CHARTER. OKAY? AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE NEED THE MAYOR'S APPROVAL, THEN WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT ANY ORDINANCE, ANY ORDINANCE AT ALL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO, HOW SHALL I SAY THIS, YOU KNOW, I AM SEEING A LOT OF ESCALATION HERE, SEEING A LOT OF ESCALATION HERE. I WANT TO HAVE A RESOLUTIONN THE. ALL THE ISSUES TODAY DEALING WITH THE CRB. I THINK THAT WE AGREE ON 80%, 90% OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US. WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE 10%. WE CAN VOTE YES OR NO ON EITHER ORDINANCE ON WHATEVER. I CAN PROPOSED PROPOSE RIGHT NOW, A BUNCH OF EDITS HAVE BEEN CHANGED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING AND I CAN BE VOTED DOWN. THE WAY I INTERPRET THE MAYOR SAYING, OR THE ADMINISTRATION, MAYOR WHATEVER SAYING THAT'S MY POSITION. IF YOU PASS THIS, I AM GOING TO VETO IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MAYOR OR THE ADMINISTRATION TELLING US WE CAN'T PASS SOMETHING. THAT'S THEM MERELY STATING THEIR POSITION. I HAVE AGREED WITH THEIR POSITION IN THE PAST. THERE'S ISSUES THAT I HAVE DISAGREED. THAT'S THEM MERELY STATING THEIR OPINION. WE CAN PASS WHATEVER WE WANT. THEN IT'S SUBJECT TO THE SYSTEM OF OUR CHARTER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T ESCALATE THIS SITUATION, IF WE DON'T PASS SOMETHING HERE TODAY, THAT IS A TERRIBLE FAILURE. WE SHOULD PASS SOMETHING TODAY, SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD. AGAIN, WE AGREE ON 80 TO 9, I THINK ALL OF US DO. LET'S FOCUS ON THAT. THAT'S JUST MY RESPECTFUL OPINION. EVERYBODY WHO IS HERE, I THINK, HAS GOOD INTENTIONS. I KNOW ALL SEVEN OF US, ALL SIX OF YOU ALL GOOD PEOPLE, GOOD FOLKS, ALL THE FOLKS HERE ARE GOOD FOLKS, PUBLIC SERVANTS. LET'S PASS SOMETHING TODAY AND FOCUS ON THE 80 OR 90%. LET'S NOT ESCALATE STUFF. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I AM NOT AS ASTUTE AS MR. VIERA IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT I HAVE HEARD AND UNDERSTANDING -- MAYBE I WAS THE ONE THAT I WAS REFERRED TO 6 1 . WHEN YOU LOOK AT ITEM D, I AM NOT A LAWYER AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN COURT TO UNDERSTAND A DOCUMENT OTHER THAN ONE I.ADOPT WANT TO SHALL LIKE WASHINGTON, D.C. WHERE THEY ARE TEARING APART THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE CONSTITUTION, THE CHARTER REALLY RELATES TO DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS, BUT IT MEANS THE SAME THING. WHAT YOU HAVE THE RATE TO DO, WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO. SO WE AGREE LIKE MR. VIERA SAID, 80 OR 90% OF THIS ONE ITEM, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE THERE'S A WAYE ITEM, B, AND HAVE THESE TWO ATTORNEYS GO BORE A JUDGE AND LET THE JUDGE MAKE THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IT MEANS. I THINK THERE'S A FRIENDLY WAY OF DOING THESE THINGS WITHOUT HAVING ALL THIS CONVERSATION. WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS STARTING A WASHINGTON, D.C. PROBLEM. AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN HERE. I HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITHOUT THAT. SO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITHOUT LISTENING ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER SIDE AND NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE. THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE. AND THAT MIDDLE HAS DISAPPEARED IN AMERICA AND HERE IS WHERE THE COUNTRY IS TORN IN HALF AND THE CITY I GOING TO BE TORN IN HALF JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION IS ON BOTH SIDES WHETHER YOU ARE AN R OR D OR I OR NO PARTY AFFILIATION. THIS IS WHAT'S COMING TO THIS COUNCIL IF WE CONTINUE THIS. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA, I SAW YOUR HAND. THEN MR. CARLSON. >>LUIS VIERA: I SEE CHIEF DUGAN HERE STANDING PATIENTLY I.DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: THANK YOU. ON CHARTER ISSUES, THERE ARE MUCH BIGGER ISSUES THAT OUR ATTORNEY NEEDS TIME TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND, AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TIME TO GET ADVICE FROM CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. THIS ITEM WAS PUT NOT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, THIS IS A CONVERSATION WE HAD AT THE BEGINNING. IT WAS ADDEDDAN AS AN AMEND AMENDMENT AND I AM NOT AWARE THAT ITEM D OR WHATEVER THE OTHER CHOICE WAS PUT ON THE WEBSITE FOR ANYBODY PUBLICLY TO GET INPUT ON IT. I'M OKAY. I THINK WE KNOW WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION STANDS. INSTEAD OF WASTING A WHOLE AFTERNOON LISTENING TO IT, WHY DON'T WE VOTE ON OPTION A AND D AND SEE WHERE WE STAND UP AND IF IT ENDS IN A CHARTER FIGHT BEFORE A JUDGE I THINK WE SHOULD GO BEFORE A JUDGE AT SOME POINT. BUT IF WE CAN APPROVE SOMETHING AND MOVE ON, LET'S DO IT INSTEAD OF SPENDING TIME GOING BACK AND FORTH PLEASE. OR IF YOU ALL WANT TO DEBATE THE CHARTER ISSUE, LET'S PUT IT ON AN AGENDA, LET'S CONTINUES IT FOR A FEW MONTHS AND HAVE THE CHARTER ISSUE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THERE ARE TWO ISSUES HERE. THE MAINFRAME OF THE CHARTER IS YOUR LEGISLATIVE BODY. WHICH THIS BODY DOES. THE SECOND PORTION IS D, WHERE WHEN THIS BODY VOTES ON A LEGISLATIVE MATTER, IT IS THE MAYOR'S DUTY TO FULFILL THE CHARTER LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THIS BODY. NOW, THE SECOND PORTION OF THAT D IS CORRECT. WE CAN APPROVE WHATEVER, BUT THERE MAY BE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ALONG THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR SEES, THAT THEY IMPLEMENT THAT. THEY ARE NOT LEGISLATIVE. AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW WE ARE A LEGISLATIVE BODY. THIS BODY IS A LEGISLATIVE BODY. AND WE GO FORTH WITH THIS DOCUMENT TODAY, THAT IT GOES TO THE ADMINISTRATION, TO SIGN OFF, IF THEY DON'T AGREE, IT COMES BACK TO A VETO, IF IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO A VETO THEN THE MAYOR CAN ENACT THOSE LEGISLATIVE RULES AND POLICIES. NOW IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT YOU COMES UP WITH THE CHIEF'S DUTY, THE MAYOR AND CHIEF HAVE T RATE TO DO WHATEVER THEY DO TO DEAL WITH THOSE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS, UNLESS IT CONTRADICTS SOMETHING OF THE CHARTER OR OUR LEGISLATIVE LAWS AND ORDINANCES. IT'S VERY SIMPLE. BUT NOW WE HAVE PEOPLE'S HEARTS AND PASSIONS THAT HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED IN THIS, AND YOU HAVE THE POLICE UNION, POLICE DEPARTMENT GOINGWAY ONE WAY, ACLU AND FOLKS THE OTHER. SO WE HAVE ALL THESE THINGS EMBANKLED NO DOCUMENT THAT IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO I BELIEVE INTERPRET. I BELIEVE THAT THIS BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS AND LEGISLATION, AND THE SECOND PORTION IS THE MAYOR AND ADMINISTRATION THAT PUTS THOSE OUT, ANY OTHER KIND OF POLICY THAT THEY WANT TO ENACT ALONG THE WAY, THEN THAT'S THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE MAYOR, AND THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT. I'M NO LAWYER BUT THAT'S HOW I READ IT. >>GINA GRIMES: I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE OTHER OPTIONS. IT'S JUST THAT WE SPENT THE LAST YEARN MEETINGS GOING OVER THEM ALL AND AS YOU KNOW WORKING THROUGH ALL THE LANGUAGE, CHANGING IT, MASSAGING IT, I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS THE LEGAL SITUATION THAT WE ALL FIND OURSELVES IN. IT'S BECAUSE THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE REFORM OF THE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD. IT ISN'T JUST THE AVERAGE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD. THERE WERE FOUR DIFFERENT DIRECTIVES IN HERE THAT REALLY CHANGED IT FROM GOING FROM THE OLD CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD, IT DIDN'T REALLY DIRECT THE AFFAIRS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ONE THAT DID, AND NOW THE ENTER VIEW PAL F PROSPECTIVE OFFICERS, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PROPOSED BY CHAIRMAN GUDES. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CHIEF HIMSELF SUPPORTS AND IS STANDING BY READY TO IMPLEMENT. BUT I THINK THAT ALL OF YOU CAN AGREE THAT COUNCIL IS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO ADVISE OR DIRECT THE CHIEF TO ESTABLISH AN INTERVIEW PANEL AND WHO TO PUT IT ON ON IT. THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION UNDER THAT CHARTER SECTION THAT I JUST READ TO YOU. AND SO UNDER THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, YOU HAVE BROAD LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THE CHARTER, WHICH IT IS. THE OTHER MAJOR REFORM YOU ARE ADOPTING IS THE COMPLAINT FILING AND TRACKING SYSTEM DIRECTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME THEY INTAKE A COMPLAINT TO ASSIGN IT A NUMBER, GIVE IT A TRACKING -- PUT IT THROUGH A TRACKING SYSTEM, PUBLISH IT ONLINE AND THEN REPORT ON THOSE COMPLAINTS TO THE CRB. THE COMMUNITY SURVEY. YOU ARE DIRECTING THE CRB TO ADVISE TPD TO CDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY, AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS REASSIGNMENT OF THE CRB ATTORNEY. THAT'S ANOTHER EXECUTIVE FUNCTION THAT'S BEING DIRECTED OR ADDRESSED IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE CHARTER AS A LEGISLATIVE ACT BUT AS AN ACT THAT'S EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE, IT CAN BE DONE. ALL OF US, ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE COMPLYING YOUR LEGISLATIVE POWERS WITH THE MAYOR'S AND THE CHIEF'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS AND COMING OUT WITH A MUCH,UCH BETTER ORDINANCE AND A COMPREHENSIVE REFORM OF THE CRB THAT YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF. AND THIS IS JUST SUCH A HOT BUTTON TOPIC BUT THE END PRODUCT IS EXCELLENT, AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WHEN YOU TAKE ACTION TODAY YOU MOVE AND I WILL LET THE CHIEF ADDRESS YOU AS FAR AS WHAT THE POLICY REASONS ARE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY, I IS A YOUR HAND. I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND. >>MARTIN SHELBY: NO, NO, I EFER, COUNCIL, THAT YOU HEAR FROM THE CHIEF AND THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. CHIEF. >>CHIEF DUGAN: CHIEF OF POLICE, TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT. AS YOU ARE AWARE, WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY. WE ARE OPEN TO OVERSIGHT AND REFORM. WE HAVE LEE VIEWED AND IMPLEMENTED CHANGES AND KEPT AN OPEN MIND AS TO WHAT OUR COMMUNITY EXPECTS FROM THEIR POLICE DEPARTMENT. AS I HAVE SAID IN THE PAST I WOULD SPEAK LESS AND LISTEN MORE, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE DONE THAT. BUT I AM NOW COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY TO SPEAK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TIME THAT I SPEAK TO YOU, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TOO QUIET FOR WAY TOO LONG ON THIS TOPIC. THE PAST YEAR HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT ON OUR POLICE OFFICERS. THE TIMES OF CIVIL UNREST, THE PANDEMIC, THE CONTINUED CRITICISM OF POLICE HAVE TAKEN A TOLL ON OUR MORALE, POLICE OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS, YET THIS COUNCIL HAS SPENT OVER A YEAR TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE CRB. FIVE DAYS FROM NOW WILL BE THE ANNIVERSARY OF O YR GEORGE FLOYD'S MURDER, AND HERE WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT REFORM, AND QUITE FRANKLY THIS WHOLE THING TODAY HAS BECOME A CLOG IN THE DRAIN OF PROGRESSION. SO I HAVE SOME SLIDES TO PRESENT. WHAT'S THAT? >>BILL CARLSON: YOU JUST BLAMED CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS TAKING A YEAR TO GO THROUGH. THIS IS A NEGOTIATION THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON IT. SOME OF THEM WANT MORE REGULATIONS, SOME WANT LESS. AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, MS. GRIMES, HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COMMUNITY FOR A YEAR GOING BACK AND FORTH ON IT. EVERY VERSION THAT COMES UP, THERE IS CONCERN GOING BACK AND FORTH AND WE ARE TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE CONCERN AND TRYING TO GET WHAT YOU JUST BLAMED US AS IF WE ARE NOT TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM, OR IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGARD FOR THE POLICE. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DELAYED IT IS BECAUSE ONE OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES IS THE PBA AND THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY MY CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE POLICE, AND WE WANT TO TAKE THE POLICE POINT OF VIEW IN MIND. WE DON'T WANT TO JUST TAKE THE ACLU OR THESE OTHER GROUPS AND THAT'S WHY IT'S TAKEN SO LONG. I JUST FIND IT VERY OFFENSIVE, OH, CITY COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE A DECISION. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY WHICH UNFORTUNATELY HADN'T HAPPENED FOR A LONG TIME WITH THE CITY BEFORE THIS CITY COUNCIL GOT ON BOARD AND THIS MAYOR GOT ON BOARD AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE. THANK YOU. >> WELL, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT WE DON'T LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY. TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS A STRONG RECORD OF COMMUNITY POLICING, LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY. SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE HAD TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO, AND MR. DINGFELDER TALK ABOUT GINA GRIMES CARRYING MY WATER. I APPRECIATE THAT BUT NOBODY CARRIES BRIAN DUGAN'S WATER. I HAVE NOT HILT WITH THE MEDIA, I HAVE NOT DELEGATED ANY OF MY DIRT IF I WORK. I TAKE UMBRAGE WITH THAT COMMENT. NOT BLAMING, I HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD AS THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO MOV FORWARD. I AM EXPLAINING TO YOU WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND IF THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH THEN I AM GOING TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD ANYWAY. SO THEY CAN'T WAIT. WE ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT. THAT CAME IN WITHIN DAYS OF THE GEORGE FLOYD MURDER. AND WE IMMEDIATELY MADE CHANGES TO OUR POLICIES TO ALIGN OURS OURSELVES WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES. WE MADE SURE THAT OUR POLICIES REFLECTED WHAT WE PRACTE. WE BANNED NO KNOCK SEARCH WARRANTS. WE DON'T DO NO KNOCK SEARCH WARRANTS. IN MY 31 YEARS AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. COUNCILMAN GUDES, YOU SPENT OVER 25 YEARS THERE. WE DON'T DO NO-KNOCK SEARCH WARRANTS, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE PUT IN THE WRITING BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE BRIANNA TAYLOR INCIDENT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: [OFF MICROPHONE] THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT DOCUMENT AND THAT DOCUMENT, EXCUSE ME, BETWEEN THAT DOCUMENT AND THAT DOCUMENT IS THIS ISSUE ABOUT WHO SELECTS THE MEMBERS. SUBSTANTIVELY THERE'S NO OTHER DIFFERENCE. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. I BELIEVE THAT TPD DOES A GREAT JOB. I THINK WE HAVE ALL DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB IN FIXING THIS ORDINANCE. THIS COUNCIL VOTED 6 TO 1 TWO MONTHS AGO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE, AND THE ONLY THING WE TWEAKED FROM THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT DOCUMENT AND THAT DOCUMENT IS COUNCIL PICKS ONE MEMBER EACH, AND THE MAYOR GETS FOUR, OKAY, WHICH IS A SLIGHT, A SLIGHT DROP. OTHER THAN THAT, I LOVE YOU. WE LOVE EACH OTHER. IT'S LIKE WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE. >> WELL, I AM FEELING THE LOVE, SO YOU KNOW. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WELL, I'M SORRY. ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS YOU KNOW THAT THIS COUNCIL CARES ABOUT YOU AND CARES ABOUT YOUR PEOPLE AND CARES ABOUT TPD, AND WE SHOW IT WEEK IN AND WEEK OUT. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT OUR POLICE OFFICERS CAN CONTINUE TO GO OUT INTO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND POLICE EFFECTIVELY WITH IT HANGING OVER THEIR HEAD AND LIMBO OF HOW WE ARE GOING TO BE SECOND GUESSED BY A CRB AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY WHEN THEY ARE MAKING SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS. WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND -- >> TO CHANGE MY OPINION ON THE THREE ITEMS THAT EVERYBODY IS ARGUING ABOUT -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BUT IT'S NOT EVEN THOSE THREE ITEMS. THE ONLY ISSUE RIGHT THIS SECOND IS BETWEEN THAT STARK OF PAPER AND THAT STACK OF PAPER IS WHO PICKS THOSE MEMBERS. THE OTHER TWO ISSUES WE HAVE ALL AGREED WE ARE GOING TO PUT THEM OFF TILL NEXT FEBRUARY. IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE >>CHIEF DUGAN: SO AS THE CHIEF OF POLICE, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS WAITING TILL NEXT FEBRUARY. LET'S MAKE A DECISION TODAY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THAT'S DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY THOUGH. >>CHIEF DUGAN: WELL, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. IT CAN'T KEEP GOING TO ANOTHER DAY. COUNCILMAN GUDES SAID, WE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. AS THE CHIEF OF POLICE, I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE MAYOR BUT I WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. SO WHY DON'T WE COME TO A CONCLUSION AND MAKE A DECISION? LET'S GET EVERYBODY ON THE RECORD AND SAY, EITHER WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PROGRESS, OR YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DELAY THIS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BUT THIS DOCUMENT IS PROGRESS. AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS IS WHO PICKS THOSE MEMBERS, WHICH I FIND TO BE VERY, VERY INSIGNIFICANT THING. THOSE OTHER TWO ISSUES, I BACKED OFF OF. OKAY? THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL I BACKED OFF OF. I WANTED IN THE THIS DOCUMENT. THE SUBPOENA POWER, I WANTED IT IN THIS DOCUMENT. BUT I BACKED OFF OF IT BECAUSE MS. GRIMES SAID WE SHUNTS DO IT, WE CAN'T DO IT, WHATEVER. TO ME, THAT WAS THE COMPROMISE. SO WE BACKED OFF OF THAT. MY FELLOW -- MADE A MOTION ABOUT THE COMPOSITION AND WHO PICKS IT. WE VOTED 6 TO 1. WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON THIS, CHIEF. WE CAN MOVE ON IT TOGETHER. >>CHIEF DUGAN: I CAN'T SUPPORT DELAYING THIS TILL FEBRUARY. I THINK THESE THREE ITEMS NEED TO BE DISCUSSED AND DELIVERED TODAY SO OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: LET'S VOTES ON THIS ITEM AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THOSE OTHER TWO ITEMS LATER. LATER TODAY. >>CHIEF DUGAN: I THINK YOU ARE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IS NOT THE GOLDEN TICKET THE POLICEEFOR THAT SOME OF YOU THINK IT IS. IT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S DONE. IT'S POLICY, TRANSPARENCY, HOW IT'S DONE. WE HAVE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF IT. IT NEUTERS THE AUTHORITY OF THE POLICE CHIEF WHEN WE THROW EVERYTHING TO THE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE A CIVIL SERVANT BOARD IN THE CITY OF TAMPA. WE HAVE A POLICE OFFICER WHO WORKS FOR US. THREE DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS ARE ALL SIMILAR. THE FIRST TIME, HE WAS CLEARED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE SECOND TIME, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM NOW BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE TWO INCIDENTS, HE WAS SUSPENDED. THE THIRD TIME HE DID THIS, I TERMINATED HIM AS CHIEF OF POLICE, BECAUSE I HOLD COPS ACCOUNTABLE. HE WENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AND GOT HIS JOB BACK. WHAT DISCIPLINE DID HE GET? NOTHING. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? THAT HE WAS SUSPENDED IN ONE INCIDENT, A VERY SIMILAR INCIDENT GETS TERMINATED, AND GETS ZERO DISCIPLINE. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR PRODURE I HOLD COPS ACCOUNTABLE. IT'S TIME THAT WE MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T THINK THE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IS THE GOLDEN TICKET THE POLICE REFORM THAT SOME PEOPLE FEEL IT IS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LET ME SAY THIS CHIEF. AS A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS POLICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ON ONE HAND I UNDERSTAND YOU. ON THE OTHER HAND, I HEAR FROM CITIZENS. I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT'S BEST FOR EVERYBODY. WHAT I SEE NOW, THERE'S A COCK DOCUMENT WE CAN VOTE UP OR DOWN THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES LIKE YOU SAID, THAT'S GOING TO COME UP POSSIBLY DURING OUR CHARTER REVIEW WITH MRS. GRIMES AND MR. SHELBY. MAYBE ATTORNEY, AND I ALWAYS SAY, IF WE HAVE AN OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY MAKES THE DECISION ANYHOW. NOW YOU HAVE A DOUBLE EDGE SWORD WITH THE ATTORNEY SITUATION. THESE ARE THINGS WE CAN'T MOVE ON RIGHT NOW. UP OR DOWN VOTE. BUT THE NUMBERS, THE REST OF THAT STUFF IS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD, DURING A CHARTER REVIEW SECTION WORKSHOP ON ISSUES THAT WE ARE GOING TO PULL OFF THE CHARTER. BUT I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE RIGHT, WE NEED TO MOVE TODAY WITH THIS ITEM. IF THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T LIKE OUR VOTE, THE MAYOR HAS THE RIGHT TO VETO THAT VOTE AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY IF THAT'S THE CASE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND FOR ME REQUEST IS THE BIG DEAL WITH EACH PERSON -- I AM NOT GOING TO PICK ANYBODY WHO I KNOW IS ANTI-POLICE, I HATE THE POLICE, OR HAVE WAY OUT FAR IDEAS, BUT PICK SOMEBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, WHO UNDERSTANDS COMMUNITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. A PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BE A VIABLE PERSON TO UNDERSTAND HEY, THAT COP IS RHT, OR HE'S WRONG WITH WHAT HE DID. ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THAT'S WRONG, THAT COPS COP IS WRONG. SO I UNDERSTAND POLICY. I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY THE CASE. ANY VOTE I CHOOSE IN THE CITY, I NEVER PUT A PERSON ON THE BOARD WHO IS NOT QUALIFIED OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. PERIOD. BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- I AM COUNCILMAN GUDES AND THAT I AM MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION. I HEAR YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOU. BUT I JUST THINK WE NEED TO MOVE NOW ON THE ISSUE. THE OTHER STUFF GETS KICKED DOWN TH ROAD. >>CHIEF DUGAN: MY CONCERN IS THE AS THE CHIEF IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A NEUTRAL BOARD. AND I THINK WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PUT FORWARD IN FIVE FIVE AND ONE WOULD BE MORE OF A NEUTRAL BOARD. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WHAT MAKES IT MORE NEUTRAL WITH FIVE AND FIVE? >>CHIEF DUGAN: BECAUSE WE HAVE FIVE AND FIVE AND ONE FROM THE NAACP. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I DON'T THINK AGAIN ANYBODY FROM THE SCUFF LEVEL SHOULD BE ON THAT BOARD, BECAUSE SOME ISSUES MAY COME UP. THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. URSULA, I WILL LET YOU GO. >> URSULA: I HAVE LISTENED TO YOU TALK ABOUT THE VETO AND I BELIEVE IT'S COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES. ONE OF THE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THE CURRENT EXISTING CRB ORDINANCE IS THE WAY THAT IT WAS IMPLEMENTED. AND I DON'T WANT TO BRING IT UP, BRING UP ANY BAD ISSUES OR ANYTHING, BUT THE WAY THAT THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED, THE PROVISION IN YOUR IMPLEMENTATION BACK IN 2015, NOT YOU SPECIFICALLY BUT CITY COUNCIL'S IMPLEMENTATION, SAID THAT THIS CHAPTER OF OUR ORDINANCE WOULD NOT GET CHANGED UNLESS THOSE CHANGES WERE INITIATED BY THE MAYOR, AND THEN SENT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. THIS ISSUE AS TO THE BOARD APPOINTMENTS WAS NOT INITIATED BY THE MAYOR, WHICH MEANS AS FAR AS WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, IN ORDER TO CHANGE IT, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE INITIATED BY THE MAYOR AND THEN BROUGHT TO YOU. THIS WAS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO BY ITS VERY NATURE, YOU ARE PROPOSINGTO CHANGE LEGISLATION OUTSIDE OF WHAT YOUR OLD LEGISLATION SAYS, THE METHOD OF CHANGING IT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: IF WE GO WITH THIS NEW METHOD WE ARE GETTING THE WHEREAS CLAUSE SAYING THAT A NEW ADMINISTRATION COMES AND CAN'T CHANGE THAT. THAT'S A CONCERN TO COUNCIL, I THINK. >> WELL, I BELIEVE MRS. GRIMES ADDRESSED THAT. WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED IN THE FEBRUARY EDITION WAS I BELIEVE WHAT WE WERE REFERRING TO, AND SO THE NEW LEGISLATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WOULD NOT HAVE TH, WHATEVER THAT TECHNICALITY IS, IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE NEW ORDINANCE, OR EXECUTIVE ORDER. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SO THE NEW ORDINANCE WILL SUPERSEDE THE OLD EXECUTIVE ORDER. CORRECT? >> UNDER THE VERSION THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU UNDER THE FEBRUARY 2021 VERSION, YES, SIR. >>GINA GRIMES: I WAS GOING TO ADD, I SAID TO YOU PREVIOUSLY THAT THIS PROPOSAL REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATION'S APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE COUNC'S APPROVAL, AND SO THE MANNER WHICH WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT IS COMPANION, YOU REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THE COMPANION EXECUTIVE ORDER AND ORDINANCE. WE WERE GOING TO DO WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE -- REPLACE BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW HOW UNPLEASANT THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, THE SENTIMENT ABOUT THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE AND THE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE ORDER, SO WE WERE GOING TO SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE FROM 2015, WE WERE GOING TO SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE OER FROM 2015. HOWEVER, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WILL STATE THAT THE DIRECTIVES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE CHANGED UNLESS THE MAYOR AGREES TO THE CHANGES, TO THE DIRECTIVES, MR. DINGFELDER -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WAIT A MINUTE. >>GINA GRIMES: WHEN YOU -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M SORRY -- SORRY -- ePOINT OF ORDER. POINT OF ORDER. >>GINA GRIMES: WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE SWEEPING DIRECTIVES, IT'S GOING TO REQUIR THE CONSENT OF THE CHIEF AND THE MAYOR. THERE ARE MINOR CHANGES YOU CAN MAKE TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I EVALUATED THAT AS AN OPTION C. BUT THEY HAVE NO WHERE NEAR THE VALUE OR TRANSPARENCY THAT ALL OF THESE COMPREHENSIVE CHANGES WILL PROVIDE. BUT YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT IT'S GOT TO BE A JOINT PROPOSAL BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S SO OBJECTIONABLE. I ACTUALLY THINK IT DEMONSTRATES THE SPIRIT OF COORATI AND WE END UP WITH A MODEL CRB. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY IS TRYING TO DANCE. I WILL LET MR. SHELBY TALK AND THEN -- MR. DINGFELDER AND THEN GO TO YOU, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I HEAR REFERENCE TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE WORD CHANGE. THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. IT SUPERSEDES EVERYTHING. BECAUSE IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS AND THE WA IS BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE SEPTEMBER MEMO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT SHE REFERENCED, WITH THAT INTERPRETATION, IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS OF THE CHARTER, BECAUSE YOU AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY CANNOT CHANGE THAT WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL WEST MAYOR. THAT'S ALL THIS WILL BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PRAYER RESTRAINT. YOU ARE RESTRAINED EVEN BEFORE PROPOSING SOMETHING UNLESS YOU HAVE THE MAYOR'S BLESSING. THE MAYOR IS ALSO BOUND. WHY? BECAUSE IF SHE CHANGES THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE ORDINANCE, THEN SHE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER. AND I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD AGREE THAT THE MAYOR CAN'T DO THAT. SO SHE WOULD -- SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO EXECUTIVE ORDERS BUT SHE CANNOT DO IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COUNCIL. SHE CANNOT DO IT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, COUNCIL, FRKLY, IS CHECK, AND IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESOLVED IN ONE FORM OR FASHION. OTHERWISE FRANKLY COUNCIL YOU MAY VERY WELL, BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, MAY BE STUCK WITH THIS WHERE NEITHER SIDE CAN CHANGE IT UNLESS YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER AS A CITY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CARLSON, MR. DINGFELDER, MR. VIERA. >>BILL CARLSON: FIRST, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT COME OUT THAT MY COLLEAGUES WANT TO COMMENT TO, BUT AS SOMEONE STATED BEFORE, THIS IS FIXING THE 2015 VERSION. THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF LAST YEAR. IT'S NOT ANYTHING NEW. IT'S FIXING THE 2015 VERSION. WHICH SOMEBODY CAN GOOGLE THE HISTORY ON IT AND SEE WHY IT WAS CREATED AND THE ORIGIN OF THAT WAS A STORY BY THE TIMES, AND THE COMMUNITY WAS UPSET ABOUT IT AND THEY SAID WE NEEDED SAFEGUARDS. AND THE REASON WHY THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT BALANCE OF POWER NOW, IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE GET ADMINISTRATION IN THE FUTURE THAT SOMETHING LIKE BIKING WHILE BLACK HOW DO WE KNOW THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED? AND THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD IS NOT JUST BECAUSE A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTS SOMEBODY DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE PRO OR AGAINST THE POLICE. THEY ARE GOING TO PICK SOMEBODY WHO REPRESENTS THE BROAD CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THE MAJORITY OF MY CONSTITUENTS ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE POLICE. SO IF I APPOINT SOMEBODY THAT HATED THE POLICE I WOULD GET THROWN OUT OF OFFICE FOR THAT. SO IT'S JUST ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT IT REPRESENTS THE PUBLIC, THAYOR, WHOEVER THAT IS, IS ONE PERSON WHO REPRESENTS, AND WE ARE SEVEN PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT A CONSTITUENCY. THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT THIS PROCESS TODAY IS THAT WE AND THE PUBLIC, MAINLY THE PUBLIC GOT THIS INFORMATION LAST SECOND. TODAY THERE'S SOME NEW LEGAL ARGUMENTS BEING ARGUED. THERE'S ONE THAT WAS JUST ARGUED THAT I NEVER HEARD BEFORE. WE ASKED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THE CHARTER ISSUES BE HANDLED BEHIND THE SCENES SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS ARGUE NUMBER PUBLIC. I THINK THAT BESIDESSA US GETTING THE DOCUMENTS AT THE ST MINUTE WE ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON THESE ISSUES SO WE COULD HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT BEFORE WE WALKED IN. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANOTHER TWO AND A HALF HOUR CONVERSATION. THE PUBLIC IS NOT EVEN WEIGHING IN ON IT. AT THE END OF THIS, OUR CHOICES, I THINK, REALLY ARE WE HAVE GOT TO DEFER IT SO WE CAN WORK OUT THE CHART CHARTER IRONS WHICH WE ASKED IT BE RESOLVED MONTHS AGO AND APPARENTLY NOT BEEN RESOLVED, WE ASKED THOSE TO BE RESOLVED, THEY ARE NOT RESOLVED. ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR THIS TO SUPERSEDE THE OLD ONE, AND NOW APPARENTLY THE ONE VERSION WE HAVE ON THE TABLE CANNOT SUPERSEDE WHI I JUST LEARNED I.DIDN'T REALIZE% THAT IN READING THE DOCUMENTS. AND SO WHAT I THINK IS WE NEED -- INSTEAD OF HAVING ANOTHER TWO HOURS OF CONVERSATION WE SHOULD VOTE TO EITHER CONTINUE IT SO THAT WE OR WE SHOULD JUST DO UP OR DOWN ON EACH ISSUE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE ISSUES NOW. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA AND MR. MIRANDA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR. YOU WANTED TO POINT OUT, I GUESS FOR FUTURE, CHIEF DUGAN WAS SPEAKING. I ALWAYS THINK THAT ANY SPEAKER, COULD BE CHIEF DUGAN, COULD BE GINA GRIMES, COULD BE ANYBODY, THAT WHEN QUESTIONS ARISE DURING A PERSON'S SPEAKING, IT KIND OF GETS US A LITTLE, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD OFF TOPIC BUT GETS US NOT FOCUSED WHERE WE SHOULD BE. I AM GOING TO USE THE WORD AGAIN ESCALATION. I HAVE USED THAT A LOT TODAY. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE. WE AGREE ON 80R 90% OF THE ISSUES. YOU EVEN LOOK AT WHO GETS TO APPOINT MEMBERS. THE SEVEN TO FOUR SPLIT I VOTED NO ON THAT. THE REASON I VOTED NO ON THAT IS BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THINGS, CHIEFLY, I DON'T SEE A PATHWAY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENTLY SERVING ON THE BOARD TO BE REAPPOINTED BY WHOEVER IS GOING TO REFINE THEM AND I DON'T SEE THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S THE PROPER WAY TO DO. YOU KNOW, TAKING A LOOK AT HAVING THAT 11th APPOINTMENT UNDER A 6 TO 5 SPLIT CONFIRMED BY CITY COUNCIL GIVES US A MAJORITY OF THE APPOINTMENTS. THAT'S A GOOD THING. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY PROGRESS. BUT AGAIN, WE AGREE ON 80 OR 90% OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US. CARLSON, WHICH IS WE OUGHT TO VOTE ON THESE THINGS TODAY. I DO NOT, ABSENT SOME ISSUE THAT COMES OUT OF LEFT FIELD, A CONTINUES ANSWER ON THIS TODAY? I THINK WOULD BE LACKING UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE SHOULD VOTE UP OR DOWN. AND AGAIN, WE AGREE ON VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE ISSUES. AND ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPOINTMENTS AND THE MAJORITY, I THINK WE AGREE ON PRINCIPLE. IT'S A MATTER OF THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION IN MY OPINION. BUT JUST MY THOUGHTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE. I LISTENED, AND WE ARE SO CLOSE, AND YET SO FAR. AND BEING FAR AND CLOSE BEING THE SAME. THAT MEANS YOU AIN'T COMING TO NO CONCLUSION. I SAID IT EARLIER. I SAID IT AGAIN, WHOEVER GETS, APPEAL TO THE COURT AND LET THE COURT DECIDE ON ITEM D. THAT'S WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER. THAT CAUSED ALL THIS ITEM. I THINK THERE WERE SEVEN WORDS AFTER THE FIRST INTERIM AND I FORGOT WHAT THE WORDS SAID BUT IT ENDED WITH A PERIOD BEFORE THE SENTENCE RAN OUT, AND THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAH, AND THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOW. AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT LONG ENOUGH TO MEMORIZE IT. SO THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, MR. SHELBY AND MRS. GRIMES, PRESENT, NOT AS OPPOSITION, ONE VIEW AND ANOTHER VIEW, SIMPLY ON THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY. AND LET THE JUDGE DECIDE, BECAUSE IF NOT, THIS IS GOING TO CARRY ON FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER, 2015, WHETHER THIS MAYOR OR THE NEXT MAYOR, THESE THINGS WILL BE EATING AWAY AT THIS CITY OF OVER 400,000 PEOPLE AND THEY ARE THE ONES THAT GOING TO SUFFER. SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS CLUB TORN IN HALF. I DON'T WANT TO BE WASHINGTON, D.C. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. BENNETT. >>JOHN BENNETT: CHIEF OF STAFF. I JUST WANT TO TALK FROM THE LENS OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A MINUTE. WE HAVE ALL HEARD THE TIMELINES. WE ALL KNOW WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THOSE POINTS IN THE CONVERSATION. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH SOME VERY TOUGH THINGS FROM TWO YEARS AGO, WORKED VERY HARD TO GET THEM DONE. WE LISTENED TO THE COMMUNITY. WE LISTENED TO THE UNION. WE LISTENED TO THE ACLU. WE LISTENED TO COUNCIL. WE LISTENED TO CONSTITUENTS. THERE ARE 64 POLICE CALLS AN HOUR GOING ON OUT THERE. 64 AN HOUR. THAT'S MORE THAN ONE A MINUTE. THAT THOSE OFFICERS ARE MAKING DECISIONS ON. THEY NEED SOME CLOSURE REGARDLESS OF THE REST OF THE JOURNEY IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION AFTER DOING THIS FOR 30 YEARS. I HAVE INVESTIGATED OFFICERS. I TRAINED OFFICERS. I HAVE COACHED OFFICERS. I HAVE DISCIPLINED THEM, TERMINATED THEM, BROUGHT THEM BACK TO BORK, RENAFE NATURED THEIR CAREERS, I HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE COUNTRY CHANGING POLICY, LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION PROGRAM DOING POLICE REFORM AROUND THE WORLD, NOT JUST IN THE UNITED STATES. I HAVE SEEN THIS. I HAVE BEEN A INSTRUCTOR IN EVERY SINGLE FACETS OF THE EMPLOYING POLICE OFFICERS THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE. THAT 80% THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, I WILL USE COUNCILMAN VIERA'S POINTS ON THAT REAL QUICK, THAT WAS 80% FROM WHERE WE WERE. SO IT'S TRULY FROM ZERO TO 80, NOT JUST 80 WITHIN THE ACTUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PASS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION THINKS IS A REALLY BIG LEAP IN PROGRESS. I HM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE. I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WORKING WITH THE ACLU, THE UNION, COUNCIL, CONSTITUENTS USF ACADEMIC SIDE, I HAVE PUT TOGETHER A MODEL, AN ABSOLUTE MODEL CRB PLAN GOING FORWARD. ARE THERE A FEW THINGS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT OVER TIME THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T FEEL SHOULD GO ACROSS? AND I WANT TO POINT OUT TO COUNCILMAN CARLSON'S COMMENTS, I HAVE TALKED TOEVER OF YOU ABOUT WHAT URSULA JUST TALKED ABOUT, BRICK AND REPLACE. THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO COUNCIL THAT WE HAD A NEW FOUNDATION. THAT NEW FOUNDATION IS PUT IN FRONT OF YOU ABSENT OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION THINKS DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN THE VERSION THAT WAS ISSUED IN MAY BUT BACK IN FEBRUARY, AND THAT LIST IS A TREMENDOUS LEAP OF PROGRESS WITHIN THE CRB, AND THOSE OFFICERS AND THOSE CITIZENS THAT ARE RECEIVING POLICE SERVICE DESERVE CLOSURE TODAY. D TH'S HOW I AM GOING TO LEAVE IT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. WE ALL APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE, OF COURSE THE CHIEF'S SERVICE, AND ALL OF TPD. WE APPRECIATE MRS. GRIMES. MRS. GRIMES, I KNOW YOU PUT YOUR HEART INTO THIS AS WELL AS URSULA, MS. RICHARDSON. WE APPRECIATE YOU, TOO. I GO FURTHER THAN 80%, MR. VIERA. I WOULD SAY WE ARE 99%. AND AS OF TWO MONTHS AGO, IN FEBRUARY, MAYBE LONGER THAN TWO MONTHS AGO, COUNCIL SAID WE ARE DONE, WE ARE DONE. VOTED 6 TO 1, AND WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ALREADY. WE VOTED 6 TO 1. AND FRANKLY, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING UNTIL YESTERDAY AFTERNOON THAT ANYBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. NOT A PEEP. HOW MANY DAYS HAVE GONE BY SINCE THAT VOTE UNTIL YESTERDAY AT 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON? I'M NOT GOING TO REHASH EVERYTHING. I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE. I JUST THINK THAT WE VOTED 6 TO 1 TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TREMENDOUS ORDINANCE, THAT IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT OF OVER WHERE WE WERE BEFORE, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ALL WORK WITH TOGETHER, INCLUDING THIS FINE MAYOR. AND I HOPE THAT SHE'S OKAY WITH IT. BUT WITH THAT I AM GOING TO MOVE THAT WE ADOPT AND PASS T ORDINANCE TODAY, FOR FIRST READING, THAT INCLUDES THE EXHIBIT A THAT MRS. GRIMES GAVE US, AND I AM GOING TO PROVIDE THIS FOR THE CLERK, AND IF COUNCIL NEEDS COPY, THE CLERK CAN MAKE A COPY, THE EXHIBIT A THAT WE VOTED ON 6 TO 1 THAT INCLUDES COUNCIL HAVING SEVEN VOTES, ONE EACH, AND THE COVER DOCUMENT WHICH IS THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE, AND THE DESCRIPTION, WHICH HAS TWO WHEREAS CLAUSES, AND MS. GRIMES PROVIDED ME THIS . SO I AM GOING TO GIVE THIS TO THE CLERK. AND THAT'S MY MOTION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. DINGFELDER, MAY I JUST ASK, IS THAT A CLEAN COPY FOR THE CLERK, THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE WORDS ON THEM? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THE WORD WHAT? >>MARTIN SHELBY: DRAFT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THERE'S NO WORD DRAFT ON THERE. THERE'S A CLEAN COPY WITH NONE OF MY HANDWRITING OR ANYTHING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: FIRST OF ALL, IT'S N -- MARTIN SHELBY: WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THIS IS I GUESS PROCEDURAL. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WAIT A SECOND. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET A SECOND. >> SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER'S MOTION. MR. CARLSON SECOND. I WANT TO GO TO MR. SHELBY FIRST AND THEN MR. MANISCALCO. >>MARTIN SHELBY: PROCEDURAL QUESTION. THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED DID NOT HAVE AN ATTACHMENT WITH IT. YET THERE IS A SIGNATURE LINE ON THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY, ALIGN FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THEY SIGN IT LATER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: BUT MY QUESTION IS, SHE PREPARED THIS PURSUANT TO COUNCIL'S MOTION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: RIGHT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THE QUESTION IS, IF IT'S HER POSITION THAT IT SHOULD BE THAT ONE AND NOT THE OTHER ONE, FOR CHARTER REASONS, THE QUESTION IS, IS IT -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: NO, NO, MR. SHELBY. PLEASE DON'T TAKE US DOWN THAT ROAD. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WHOA, WHOA. ORDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M SORRY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HE HAS THE FLOOR. YOU CAN GIVE DIRECTION ON WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING MR. SHELBY HAS THE FLOOR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER RAISED A VERY INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW BEGUN THIS UNTIL YESTERDAY. AND HE DID REFERENCE THE FACT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS AN ISSUE FROM COUNCIL'S VOTE ON FEBRUARY 25th. NOW, AS TO COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO SUPERSEDE THIS ORDINANCE AND RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN015, THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY EXCELLENT SOLUTION. AND SOLVED A LOT OFS PROBLEMS. AND YET TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AS WE ARE SITTING HERE NOW, I AM HEARING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE BASSES IN THE CHARTER THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHETHER YOU SUPERSEDE IT OR NOT. YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT WITHOUT THE MAYOR UNLESS THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GOING TO GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY THAT'S THE CASE. I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE IN YOUR NEW ORDINANCE. NEW ORDINANCE CREATES AN ANNUAL REPORT. AND EVERYBODY WANTS THE ANNUAL REPORT. WELL, HERE IS MY QUESTION TO YOU COUNCIL. WHAT IS YOUR ROLE AND YOUR ABILITY TO RESPOND AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY TO SOMETHING IN THE ANNUAL REPORT? ARE YOU PRECLUDED FROM DOING ANYTHING UNLESS YOU GET PRIOR APPROVAL OF WHATEVER MAYOR OR FUTURE COUNCIL HAS TO GET THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF WHATEVER MAYOR BASED ON THE OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY? SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE AN ANNUAL REPORT, YOU A FUTURE COUNCIL MAY RAISE AN ISSUE AND YET YOU WILL HAVE A CONSTANT OPINION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE NO POWER TO CHANGE IT UNLESS THE MAYOR GIVES YOU PRIOR APPROVAL. BELIEVE ME, I WOULDN'T HAVE THGHTBOUT THIS AS I SIT HERE TODAY HAD I NOT HEARD THIS ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME. I AM JUST CONCERNED. YOU CAN PASS IT, COUNCIL. BUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS PROBABLY HAVING THE SAME LEGAL EFFECT AS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PRIOR COUNCIL IN 2015 AND THAT'S WHY YOU FEIGNED YOURSELVES WHERE YOU ARE TODAY IT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. SHELBY, I AM GOING TO QUOTE THE CHIEF RIGHT NOW AND SAY SOMETIMES WE NEED SOME FINALLY AT, OKAY? THIS MOTION ON THE FLOOR, LEGAL COUNCIL HANDED US A DOCUMENT PURSUANT T OUR MOTION, OKAY. I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT. HOPEFULLY IT WILL PASS. IF IT PASSES, AND LEGAL COUNSEL DOESN'T WANT TO SIGN IT, THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE, OKAY. I DON'T THINK THAT REMOVES ITS FUNCTION BECAUSE APPARENTLY DIDN'T GET SIGNED FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO EITHER. BUT IT'S BEEN LAW EVER SINCE. IF YOU LOOK IT UP ON MUNI CODE IT'S THERE. BUT THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION ON WHAT MRS. GRIMES MIGHT DO OR MATE NOT DO, THE SAME WAY IN REGARD TO THE MAYOR WHO I RESPECT TREMENDOUSLY. WHEN SHE GETS THIS ORDINANCE, IF WE APPROVE THAT TODAY, WHEN SHE GETS IT, I GUESS SHE HAS TWO CHOICES, THREE CHOICES, I GUESS, OR TWO CHOICES, I GUESS. SHE SIGNS IT, AND IT GOES INTO LAW. SHEET DOESN'T SIGN IT, IT GOES INTO LAW, OR SHE VETOS IT. THREE CHOICES. BUT THAT'S HER PREROGATIVE. WE ALL HAVE PREROGATIVES. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF OUR SYSTEM. WE ARE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. WE ARE ABOUT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING. LET -- PLEASE LET US VOLT ON IT, MR. SHELBY. WE CAN LOOK AT ALL THEHAT-IFS FROM HERE UNTIL ETERNITY AND MR. MIRANDA AND I WILL GET OLDER AND OLDER. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I AM ALREADY OLD. YOU ARE GETTING OLDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BUT LET US PLEASE VOTE ON THIS. LET'S NOT LOOK AT ALL THE WHAT-IFS. OTHERWISE WE WILL BE HEAR ANOTHER YEAR. LET'S JUST VOTE ON THIS. AND THE WHAT-IFS WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MRS. GRIMES? I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YOUR CONCERN AND MR. SHELBY'S CONCERN. >>GINA GRIMES: I WANTED TO SAY THAT THE EXAMPLE I DON'T KWS ACCURATE SINCE THE ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN IN THERE SINCE 2015. SO THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS NOT -- WE HAVE DONE THE BEST JOB THAT WE CAN TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED, ESPECIALLY YOU, MR. DINGFELDER. WE HAVE BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE EVERY REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE MADE. AND MR. CARLSON, THE RIBBON REPLACE PROPOSAL WAS DONE TO IMINELL THE HARD FEELINGS FROM THE 2015 CREATION OF THE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD. BUT AGAIN, THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE COOPERATION OF BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT HAS CREATED SUCH A STIR, SUCH A CONTROVERSY, WITH YOU. YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF IT THAT YOU HAVE WORKED TOGETHER, AND THAT YOU HAVE A PRODUCT LIKE THIS, THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU NO OTHER CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD HAS. SO WHEN YOU GET DOW TO IT, THE COMPROMISE WOULD BE THE FIVE FIVE ONE, THE FEBRUARY PROPOSAL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY, FUR GOING TO SAY SOMETHING -- MR. SHELBY. >>GINA GRIMES: WE COULD BE HERE FOR ANOTHER WEEK ARGUING. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO. I CAN'T SEE YOU. YOU HAVE TO SIT UP A LITTLE BIT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I AM NOT ITCHING TO SAY ANYTHING. I AM JUST ITCHING. >>BILL CARLSON: BY THE WAY, IN TERMS OF SCHEDULE, I HAVE GOT -- ONLY A FEW MONTHS TO LIVE BY CANCER AND I WANT TO SPEND THIS AFTERNOON WITH HIM SO I AM NOT GOING TO STAY HEAR FOREVER. DESPITE THIS SPARRING BACK AND FOH, I WAN TO LET MRS. GRIMES KNOW AND HER TEAM KNOW AND THE MUST BE KNOW THAT I PERSONALLY APPRECIATE IT, I KNOW THE COMMUNITY APPRECIATES ALL THE TIME THAT SHE PUT IN TO NEGOTIATE ALL THESE DIFFERENT GROUPS. AND I SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT ON A DAY THE MAYOR PRESENTED HER VERSION A FEW MONTHS AGO, MRS. GRIMES CONTINUED WITH THE MAYOR'S DIRECTION, CONTINUED WITH MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO TRY TO MODIFY IT AND MAKE IT BETTER. I THINK THE TIME THAT WE HAVE ALL TAKEN IN THIS IS GOOD. I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT SOME THINGS HAVE COME UP IN THE LAST MINUTE AND THESE ISSUES HAVE ALL BEEN OUT THERE, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN OUT THERE AND WE SHOULD HAVE DEALT WITH THEM EARLIER AND HIT THEM HEAD ON INSTEAD OF DEFERRING THEM MAYBE. BUT JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION, MRS. GRIMES. THE BRICK AND REPLACE IS NOT IN THE VERSION WE JUST VOTED ON, IS THAT CORRECT? >>GINA GRIMES: IT IS. THE MOTION THAT MR. DINGFELDER HAS IN HIS HAND, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE WITH THE MAY VERSION OF THE CODE, THAT IS REQUESTED, IT WOULD SUPERSEDE THE 2015 ORDINANCE. >>BILL CARLSON: I THANK YOU FOR PUTTING ALL OF THAT IN THERE. >>GINA GRIMES: HOW FAR, AS I SAID, AND I SAID BACK IN SEPTEMBER THERE, WAS A PowerPoint, I REMEMBER, ALSO MENTIONED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND HOW THAT WAS A FOLLOW-UP ITEM. THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE MAYOR TO ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING THIS LEGISLATION DIRECTING THE AFFAIRS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT DOES. IT REQUIRES THAT. AND SO IF SHE OBJECTS TO THE SEVEN FOUR AS OPPOSED TO THE FIVE FIVE ONE, THEN THAT EXUTIV ORDER WOULD NOT BE ISSUED, AND THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE DEALING WITH DIRECTING THE AFFAIRS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE, THE ORDINANCE NEEDS THAT COMPANION EXECUTIVE ORDER. THAT COMPANION EXECUTIVE ORDER ALSO REPLACES AND SUPERSEDES THE 20150 EXECUTIVE ORDER. WITH THE COMPROMISE, 2015 IS GONE AND IT'S ALREADY REPLACED WITH THIS NEW LEGISLATION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO BASICALLY WHAT'S HDING THIS UP IS WHO APPOINTS HOW MANY MEMBERS. THAT'S IT. OTHER THAN THAT, IT IS CORRECT THAT'S REALLY THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE RIGHT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I HAD THE PLEASURE OF BEING ON CITY COUNCIL SINCE 2015 WHEN THE BICYCLE ARTICLE CAME OUT AND ALL THAT, AND I REMEMBER THE QUOTE THAT I SAID, AND IT WAS, IT'S 2015 BUT IT FEELS LIKE 1965. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE THAT QUOTE. FINE. SO GOING INTO THAT WAS THE CALL TO HAVE THE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD, AND I REMEMBER THOSE MEETINGS, I REMEMBER PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC SHOUTING DOW COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE APPRAISEES. I REMEMBER MAYOR BUCKHORN PUSHING BACK ON HOW MANY PEOPLE APPOINT HOW MANY POSITIONS ON THE BOARD. I REMEMBER HIM CALLING ME. I WAS IN WEST TAMPA ONE DAY ASKING, WHAT ABOUT THIS, WHAT ABOUT THAT? I REMEMBER ONE A I WAS CHANGING BEFORE A NIGHT MEETING AND I CALLED THE MAYOR TO SEE IF I COULD MEET WITH HIM PERSONALLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HE WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO TELL ME THAT MY DOOR IS OPEN IF YOU COME RIGHT OVER. I HAVE ALWAYS TRADE TO BE A PEACEMAKER, TRY TO FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND TO BRING PEOPLE TO, WHETHER IT WAS ME, WHETHER IT WAS OTHER POWERS THAT BE, MAYOR BUCKHORN MOVED A LITTLE BIT ON HOW MANY APPOINTMENTS AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BOARD. SO WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE CREATION OF THE BOARD, BUT FAST FORWARD TO 2020 UNTIL NOW, SEVEN MEETINGS, SIX MEETINGS, WITH DIFFERENT CHANGES TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BOARD AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE MAKEUP AND WHATNOT. I HAVE OFTEN SAID IT'S OKAY TO BE SCARED, JUST DON'T BE AFRAID. AND WHEN IT COMES TO POINTING SEVEN MEMBERS BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALL SEVEN OF US ARE ENTRUSTED BY THE PEOPLE AND ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. WE MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING RIGHT BECAUSE EACH OF US GOT ENOUGH VOTES TO BE PUT ON THIS CITY COUNCIL AND HAVE EARNED THE PUBLIC'S TRUST. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING -- I MEAN, WE APPOINT MEMBERS TO OTHER BOARDS, AND WE APPOINT GOOD PEOPLE BECAUSE I SEE WHO APPOINTS -- I KNOW MANY OF THEM AND I KNOW DEEP THOUGHT GOES INTO WHO WE APPOINT TO THESE BOARDS. WE APPOINT PEOPLE THAT WE TRUST, TRUST.E KNOW THE PUBLIC CAN SO IF THIS IS WHAT'S HOLDING EVERYTHING UP, I MEAN, IT'S AGAIN, IT'S OKAY TO BE SCARED, JUST DON'T BE AFRAID. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE DISMANTLED. THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO FALL APART. WHAT'S GOING TO CAUSE IT TO FALL APART IS THE CONTINUED FIGHTING AND DISCUSSION AND BACK AND FORTH AND THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND WHATNOT. I RESPECT THE MAYOR VERY, VERY MUCH. I THINK SHE DOES A VERY GOOD JOB. I RESPECT YOU AS CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE ENTIRE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I TRUST WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND I ALSO TRUST WHAT THE CHARTER HAS TO SAY. BUT IF THIS IS ALL THAT'S HOLDING US UP, A WE CAN PUT THIS TO A CLOSE AND FINAL CONCLUSION TODAY, JUST THE APPOINTMENTS. THIS IS SO SIMPLE AND WE CAN PUT THIS TO BED AND MOVE FORWARD AND THAT'S IT. AND COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS IS THE MOTION THAT YOU HAVE MADE REGARDING -- THAT'S IT. NOT TALKING ABOUT SUBPOENA POWERS AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL. BY CITY COUNCIL.UT APPOINTMENTS- I THINK IT'S FAIR. WE HAVE SEVEN ELECTED CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, ONE MAYOR. THE PEOPLE ELECTED US LIKE THAT. THAT'S HOW IT'S DRAWN UP IN THIS CITY. WHY CAN'T WEUST MAKE THOSE SAME APPOINTMENTS ON THIS BOARD? I HAVE GRAPPLED, STRUGGLED WITH THIS FOR THE LAST TWO DAYS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT'S SO SCARY ABOUT IT? SEVEN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS APPOINT SEVEN INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD. I CAN'T WRAP MY HEAD AROUND. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT WHAT'S SO SCARY ABOUT IT. SO I WILL STONE THERE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I CAN TELL YOU THIS, MR. MANISCALCO, WHAT IT IS. IT'S POWER. POWER. POWER AND FEAR LIKE YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO REALIZE HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, HOW IT WORKS. BEEN WITH THE CITY A LONG TIME. WE WERE ENTRUSTED BY THE PUBLIC. I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ALL NIGHT LONG. ON A PHONE CALL I GOT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, THE PHONE CALLS I GOT FROM ACLU, THOSE PEOPLE. WE ARE ENTRUSTED TO PUT PEOPLE ON BOARDS WHO WE FEEL CAN DO A JOB, THE RIGHT JOB. BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. WE ARE INTERTWINING ADMINISTRATION ALONG WITH AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATIVE. I AM GOING TO TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO PROBABLY BITE US DOWN THE ROAD MAYBE LATER ON BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BALANCE OF WHAT IT IS, AND THE SCALE IS NOT BALANCED. IT'S NOT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OFF BALANCE. AND WE HAVE GOT TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY. THE OTHER THINGS WE CAN DEAL WITH ANOTHER TIME DOWN THE ROAD. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO PUT IT TO BED, PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND MR. DINGFELDER I BELIEVE WAS SECONDED BY MR. CARLSON, I BELIEVE, TOE MOVE FORWARD. THE ORIGINAL LAST MOTION, THE 7-4 CHARTER REVIEW BOARD WITH A 6 TO 1 VOTE LAST TIME. MR. VIERA, I RECOGNIZE YOUR HAND. AND THEN I WILL END IT. >>LUIS VIERA: I WANT TO SLOW DOWN MY VOTE AGAIN ON THIS. THE SAME AS LAST TIME. WE ARE GOING DOWN A PROCEDURE, AND AGAIN, LET'S -- IT'S FUNNY THAT COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, OUR FRIEND, INCREASED MY 80% TO 99%. THAT'S RIGHT, WE AGREE ON 99, 98% WHATEVER IT IS ON THIS NARROWLY TAILORED ISSUE. THERE IS NO PROPER PROCESS FOR MEMBERS WHO SERVED ON THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, IN TERMS OF REAPPOINTMENT, IN TERMS OF HAVING A PROPER PROCEDURE FOR THEIR SERVICE. THAT'S MY OBJECTION. AND IN ESSENCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE BECAUSE I THINK 100% OF US WOULD EITHER VOTE FOR A OR B. WE ARE VOTING ON THIS SPLIT, AND THE ISSUES THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE CREATING COMMON GROUND ON A LOT OF THESE ISSUES, BUT I FEAR THAT IF WE GET SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO END UP BEING VETOED OR NOT, IMPLEMENTED, THEN WE ARE GOING TO GIVE U THAT 99% THAT'S GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THAT 1 OR 5%. THAT'S MY CONCERN. BUT AGAIN I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE, I SUPPORT WITH MOVING FORWARD, BUT AGAIN JUST LIKE I SAID LAST TIME, I STILL PUT MY SAME RATIONALE IN TERMS OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE APPOINTMENTS, ET CETERA, THAT I THINK COULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES THAT THIS VERY COLLEGIAL BODY DOES NOT INTEND TO HAVE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MRS. GRIMES, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE IF WE VOTED INHE N APPOINTMENTS? HOW WOULD THAT WORK? LET'S CLEAR IT UP FOR ME. >>GINA GRIMES: IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MAY VERSION? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING? >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. 7-4, 6-1 VOTE. >>GINA GRIMES: THE MAYOR WOULD HAVE TO STUDY WHETHER OR NOT SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO USUAL YOU AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS IN THAT VERSION -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION, GINA WITH, ALL DUE RESPECT. HE'S REFERRING TO LUIS' CONCERN ABOUT HOW THOSE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS GET PICKED. >>GINA GRIMES: THE WAY THAT IT WOULD BE HANDLED IS VACANCIES OCCURRED, THE NEW COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS WOULD BE MADE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: AS VACANCIES OCCUR. >>GINA GRIMES: RATE NOW IT'S A 5-4. 5 MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS, 4 COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 7-7-4 BECAUSE WE CHANGED THE ALTERNATES TO FOUR BOARD MEMBERS SO THERE'S ELEVEN MEMBERS. RIGHT NOW THERE'S ONLY NINE. SO YOU HAVE TWO MORE APPOINTMENTS THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE. AND AS VACANCIES BECOME OPEN, AS VACANCIES OCCUR, THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE TWO MORE APPOINTMENTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: DOES THAT SATISFY YOU, MR. VIERA? >>LUIS VIERA: [OFF MICROPHONE] IT DOESN'T QUITE, I STILL DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH SPECIFICITY THERE. AGAIN, LET'S TAKE A VOTE, MOVE ON. AGAIN, WE HAVE THAT 90%, 99%, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THRESHOLD. >>GINA GRIMES: AND THE OTHER THING I DID WANT TO MENTION, YOU HAVE FOUR BOARD MEMBERS THAT YOU CAN APPOINT RIGHT NOW, AND UNDER THE FIVE FIVE ONE PROPOSAL FROM BACK FROM FEBRUARY, YOU WOULD STILL GET TWO ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENTS. YOU WOULD STILL GET TWO ADDITIONAL. YOU WOULD GET THE NAACP APPOINTMENT AND ONE ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENT. SO YOU ARE IN THE VIRTUALLY IN THE SAME POSITION. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENCE OF YOU END UP UNDER THE FRUAR VERSION WE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS, YOU END UP WITH ONE LESS APPOINTEES. ONE LESS APPOINTEE. THAT'S IT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO, THEN WE CAN WRAP THIS UP. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ONE LEFT FOR ME AND I AM FINISHED. WHEN I READ THE ORDINANCE YOU SAID IT COMES OUT THE SAME WHEN IT'S FIVE FIVE ONE BUT UNITS UNDER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PRESENTED HERE FROM WHAT I PERSONALLY READ QUICK, IT'S FOUR SEVEN. BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY WHO APPOINT IT IS PERSON FROM THAN THE NAACP WHICH IS A NECESSITY. IT DOESN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY, IF IT'S ONE OF THE MAYOR'S OR ONE OF THE COUNCIL'S. >>GINA GRIMES: IN THE SEVEN FOUR PROPOSAL IN N I BELIEVE IT SAYS IT'S UNDER THE MAYOR'S. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SO THEN THE MAYOR HAS NOT FIVE. SHE HAS ONE LESS. >>GINA GRIMES: LET ME DOUBLE CHECK IT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE SEVEN -- THE WHOLE THING ISHEEVEN WORDS ON THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH OF D. THAT'S MY ONLY OBJECTION TO EVERYTHING. THE SEVEN WORDS ON D AND THE FIRST SENTENCE OF D. READ THOSE. >>GINA GRIMES: OF EXHIBIT A? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I AM NOT LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE. WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT -- >>GINA GRIMES: OH, YES, THE SEPARATION OF POWER? EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED. YOU HAVE BROAD LEGISLATIVE POWERS EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED AND WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU DO NOT HAVE LEGISLATIVE POWER. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CAN I READ, CHARLIE, THIS PROVISION? DO YOU MIND? OKAY. IT SAYS, MOVING D-1, ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, IT SAYS THE CRB SHALL HEREINAFTER CONSIST OF ELEVEN MEMBERS WITH FOUR VOTING MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR, ONE OF WHICH SHALL A MEMBER OF THE NAAC AND SEVEN MEMBERS APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL. >>GINA GRIMES: THAT'S RIGHT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THAT'S THE RELEVA PROSION THAT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S ON THERE GRIMES GRAPES UNDER THE FEBRUARY PROPOSAL, IT'S FIVE FIVE ONE. IT'S REALLY FIVE FOR THE MAYOR, SIX FOR CITY COUNCIL. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAY AND FEBRUARY IS ONE APPOINTEE. ONE APPOINTEE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU CAN RECOGNIZED, MR. CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I WILL NOT FILIBUSTER, I PROMISE. A YEAR AGO A LIFE WAS LOST. DID IT NOT HAPPEN IN TAMPA. HOWEVER, SINCE THAT HORRIBLE DEATH, WE -- AND WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, WE HAVE MADE MAJOR STRIDES IN CHANGING THE WAY OF POLICING, OF PUBLIC SAFETY, O TRANSPARENCY, AND THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS WITH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OUR CITIZENS. NOW, I KNOW THIS COUNCIL HAS HEARD FROM ALL OF THE CONSTITUENTS. I KNOW IT'S HEARD FROM PBA. I KNOW IT'S HEARD FROM THE NAACP. I KNOW IT'S HEARD FROM LEGAL. WE HAVE BEEN BARRAGED. BUT THE ONE GROUP THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T HEARD FROM IS THE BOARD ITSELF. WE NOW HAVE A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THIS BOARD WILL REPORT TO US ANNUALLY AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY MADE THAT STATEMENT. IN MY OPINION, THE STRIDES THAT WE HAVE MADE OVER THIS YEAR WILL BE EXAGGERATED WHEN THE BOARD COMES TO US AND SAYS, HERE ARE THE THINGS WE WANT TO MAKE OUR IF THEY WANT SUBPOENA POWER, LET THEM ASK FOR IT. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THIS BODY. NOW, TO USE A BASEBALL TERM, WE ARE IN THE WARMUP. WE ARE WARMING UP RIGHT NOW. WE ARE PITCHING. WE ARE PITCHING STRIKES. BUT UNTIL WE TAKE ACTION TODAY AND FACE THE BATTER, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO STRIKE THEM OUT OR WALK THEM. MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M ASKING THAT WE DO SOMETHING TODAY. IF SOME POWERS, WHETHER IT THE POWER OF CITY COUNCIL OR THE POWER OF THE MAYOR, FORGETS THAT WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY AND WANTS TO USE THAT POWER TO FIGHT, ALL DEAL WITH THAT DOWN THE ROAD. I WANT A DECISION TODAY. AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN COME TO A DECISION TODAY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: LET'S DO IT. LET'S DO IT. >> MR. CITRO BROUGHT UP A GD POINT. I HAVE SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO THE CRB MEMBERS AND I HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THEIR MEETINGS TO ADDRESS THEIR QUESTIONS AND THAT IS A BIG CONCERN FOR THE CRB, THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT BUT NOT TALKED TO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU. >> URSULA: THAT IS A BIG CONCERN TO THEM. THEY ARE MOSTLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT BUT ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT NO ONE HAS REALLY SOUGHT THEIR INPUT OR INFORMATION FROM THEM, SINCE MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN DOING THE JOBS SINCE 2015. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I HOPE I CAN -- EXCUSE ME, MR. DINGFELDER -- THAT I C SAY WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRIMAND THAT THERE ARE A FEW I DO KNOW. I DIDN'T SPEAK SUBSTANTIVELY TO THEM BUT THEY HAVE CONCERNS. AND AGAIN, THIS COUNCIL HASN'T SPOKEN TO THEM TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SO WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. AND THEN HEAR BACK FROM THIS BODY THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY GOING TO HELP APPOINT BUT LISTEN TO ANNUALLY. LET'S DO THIS. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THERE'S BEEN A THE SEVEN FOUR APPOINTMENTS THAT WAS A 6-1 VOTE THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL, THAT MR. DINGFELDER PUT ON THE FLOOR, I BELIEVE MR. MANISCALCO -- CARLSON SECONDED IT. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD DISCUSSION. I WILL ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. DINGFELDER? >>MARTIN SHELBY: QUESTION FROM MR. DINGFELDER. QUESTION FOR THE CHAMAN, ACTUALLY. IT'S COUNCIL'S CHOICE AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE AND PUT IT ON FOR FIRST READING. YOU HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THE MOTION SAUCE SAID IT WAS FOR FIRST READING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE YOU HAVE TO READ IT BY TITLE. I APOLOGIZE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I AM GOING TO PUT MY INITIAL IN THE TOP CORNER OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT SAYS J, AND I AM GOING TO DO THE SAME THING ON THE EXHIBIT, BECAUSE APPARENTLY FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT SAYS AT THE BOTTOM 5-20 DRAFT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 5-20-21. THANK YOU, MRS. GRIMES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT DATE IS PART OF YOUR MOTION? FOR FIRST READING? THAT DATE THAT REACHESS WHICH EXHIBIT IS PART OF YOUR MOTION. IS THAT CORRECT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHICH VERSION? >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THE VERSION IN MY HAND THAT I JUST INITIALE- >>MARTIN SHELBY: IS DATED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND SAYS AT THE BOTTOM CRAODE SECTION 5-20-21 WITH A LITTLE V. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT'S FINE. AS LONG AS THE RECORD IS CLEAR. THANK YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: REPORT ALL RIGHT. I MOVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE 20-2015-121 WHICH CREATED SECTION 18-8 CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD FOR THE TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 18-8 CREATING THE CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD FOR THE TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>BILL CARLSON: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. CARLSON. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NOVARE VIERA FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS LIKE LAST TIME I SEE THIS AS A NARROWLY TAILORED ISSUE IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD I TALKED ABOUT, PURSUANT TO THAT, VOTE NO ON THE 1%. THANK YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH MIRANDA AND VIERA VOTING NO. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 17th, 2021 AT 9:30 A.M. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU. >>BILL CARLSON: THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. IT DID TAKE A YEAR BUT THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR DOING THAT. AND WE STILL HAVE ONE MORE READING, I GUESS. BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, NOT TO GET INTO A LOT OF DETAILS, BUT MY OLD BOSS FROM SINGAPORE IS TERMINALLY -- TERMINAL CANCER FEHOUR AND I REALLY NEED TOR A GET OUT TO SEE HIM IF YOU DON'T MIND. IS THERE ANYTHING I NEED TO VOTE ON NOW OR CAN I LEAVE? >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF I CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, TWO POINTS. JUST HAD A QUESTION. MADAM CLERK, WHILE IT'S STILL THE FRESH APPRECIATE IN THE PUBLIC'S AND THE PEOPLE'S MINDS, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN FOR THE RECORD? >> JUNE 17, 2021 AT 9:30 A.M. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CARLSON, COUNCILMAN CARLSON, I THINK WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO NOW ON WHATEVER COUNCIL'S CHOICE IS, AND YOU HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS WITH REGARDO THE ISSUE OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. YOU CAN EITHER MOVE IT TO FEBRUARY AS WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED OR YOU CAN ACTUALLY MOVE IT SOONER. YOU CAN EVEN MOVE IT SOONER THAN WAS DISCUSSED. OR YOU CANNOT EVEN TAKE UP THE ISSUE AND REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA AND TAKE IT UP AGAIN. >>BILL CARLSON: I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IT TO THE FEBRUARY WORKSHOP DISCUSSION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECONDED BY DINGFELDER. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. AND I AM SORRY, BEFORE THIS ON THE ATTORNEY ISSUE, I VOICE SUPPORT FOR THIS FOR MANY, MANY TIMES BEFORE, AND WHATNOT. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEE WHAT WAY THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT THIS. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, I GUESS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CARL CARBON MONOXIDE I AM GOING TO EXCUSE MYSELF. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AGAIN THAT DATE IS WHAT? >> FOR THE WORKSHOP? >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES. >>THE CLERK: FEBRUARY 24, 2022. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. >>THE CLERK: ARE WE GOING TO SET A TIME CERTAIN? >>MARTIN SHELBY: THE OTHER ISSUE WITH REGARD -- THERE WAS NO TIME ATTACHED TO IT RIGHT NOW. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IS THERE A TIME THE CLERK WOULD RECOMMEND BASED UPON -- IT WILL BE THE FIRST ITEM SO WE CANEAVE IT AT 9 A.M. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT WILL BE FINE IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WHO JUST LEFT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AS THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION, YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECONDED -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: 9 A.M. ON FEBRUARY 24, 2022. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: VOTING? OKAY. WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU GOT, MR. CHAIRMAN? >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM 55. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: LOOKS LIKE MR. CITRO, AND WE HAVE ALREADY LOST MR. CARLSON. DO YOU WANT TO DEFER 55? >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. ROGERO IS ONLINE. YOU MAY WANT TOPPIN CHOIR -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: GO AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR. HOW LONG IS YOUR PRENTATN? >>DENNIS ROGERO: IT'S ABOUT 20 MINUTES SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ANY HARM IN US DEFERRING THIS FOR TWO WEEKS? >>DENNIS ROGERO: NO, SIR, IT'S COUNCIL'S PLEASURE. WE ARE SCHEDULING ONE ON ONE BRIEFINGS WITH EACH OF YOU. SOME MAY HAVE ALREADY HIT YOUR CALENDAR. AGAIN IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I MOVE TO MOVE THE ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >>THE CLERK: WITH THAT CONTINUED TO JUNE 3rd STAFF REPORTS? >> YES, SIR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: TIM ARE YOU BACK THERE? HOPEFULLY NOT ON THE PHONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU EARLIER, I DO HAVE TO LEAVE. TIM, I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAD TO WORK TODAY. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY, VERY BUSY DAY. I HOPE THAT YOUR BIRTHDAY IS FILLED WITH JOY AND LOVE WITH YOUR FAMILY TODAY. AND I WISH YOU THE HAPPIEST OF A. [ APPLAUSE ] THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE GOT TO GO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO INFORMATION REPORTS. MR. VIERA, ANYTHING? >>LUIS VIERA: YES. I'M SORRY. CAN I GO AFTER COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO? >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NOTHING TODAY. IT WAS A GOOD MEETING, I THINK WE SHOULD BE PROUDF OURSELVES FOR WHAT WE HAVE DONE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA? >>LUIS VIERA: JUST REALLY QUICK IF I MAY. I MOTION AND I WILL PRESENT THIS OFFLINE, CITY COUNCIL COMMENDATION BE PRESENTED TO CAPPY'S PIZZA FOR THEIR WORK IN THE COMMUNITY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION BY VIERA, SECONDED BY DINGFELDER. ALL IN FAVOR? >>LUIS VIERA: NEXT, MR. JIM CREW IS RETIRED FROM THE CITY CLERK'S FICE AFTER 26 YEARS, SERVICE TO THE CITY. I MOVE THAT A COMMENDATION BE PRESENTED TO HIM ON MAY 27th. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECONDED BY MR. MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? >>LUIS VIERA: I MOTION TO PRESENT A TAMPA CITY COUNCIL COMMENDATION TO THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF TAMPA DIAPER BANK WHICH WILL CELEBRATE THE AMAZING MILESTONE OF DISTRIBUTING 1 MILLION DIAPERS, AN EFFORT OF YEARS AGO, AND I CAN DO THIS OFF-SITE AS WELL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION BY VIERA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: DIAPERS? >> DIAPERS AND PIZZA? >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL IN FAVOR? >>LUIS VIERA: THEREAFTER, LAST ONE, I MOTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL COMMENDATION BE PRESENTED TO RUTH I RAY WHO IS RETIRING AFTER 19 YEARS AT HART AND THE COMMENDATION TO BE PRESENTED OFF-SITE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECONDED BY MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? >>LUIS VIERA: AND MIKE SUAREZ, HAPPY BIRTHDAY. BY THE W, I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY FOR A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING. EVERYBODY WAS VERY CONTRIBUTING, AND WE GOT A LOT OF POINTS ACROSS, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. THANK YOU, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M GOOD TODAY. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: AS PART OF THE CITY'S PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE CONDUCTED WITH TAMPA CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO COMMENT ON THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR THE CITY. THEREFORE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO INDICATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 3rd, 2021, AT WHICH TIME THE DRAFT OF THE CITY OF TAMPA'S ANNUAL ACTION PLAN WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL, AND A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WITH APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF FINAL PLAN BY THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL TO BE CALENDARED FOR JULY 29, 2021. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. DINGFELDER. >>ANDREA ZELMAN: DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE MOTION. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CBBG ACTION PLAN. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY? >>MARTIN SHELBY: NO, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE IT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: GENTLEMEN, WE HAD AN INTENSE MEETING IN THE SECOND HALF. SOME FOLKS ARE UNHAPPY. SOME FOLKS ARE HAPPY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY ALL THE TIME. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE ADMINISTRATION REFERENCE THE VOTE WE MADE. JUST SIT BACK AND WE SUPPORT GOOD PEOPLE, TO BE IN PLACE AND DO THINGS FOR T CITY. SO I AM HOPING THAT WE ALL COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE, AND AGAIN, I JUST THANK EVERYBODY FOR GIVING THEIR THOUGHTS. IT WAS VERY INTENSE TODAY AT SOME POINTS. BUT I AM GLAD THAT WE SETTLED DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND GOT WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO. AGAIN WE ARE HERE TO WORK WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE MAYOR, I UNDERSTAND, BUT CERTAIN DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE AT CERTAIN TIMES. AGAIN, I THANK YOU ALL. MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SO MOVED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTIONY MR. MIRANDA, SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE ADJOURNED. [SOUNDING GAVEL]