Amendment to Minutes of June 10, 2013 per Legal Mr. Smith provided background on the enactment of the Ordinance. The Charter provides
that the compensation of the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk shall be set by
Ordinance. Commissioner Wolfson had a concern that the Ordinance that was in place prior
to this Ordinance being enacted merely stated that the compensation of the City Manager
and City attorney would be set by the Commission. He felt that: 1) the Ordinance should not
delegate the responsibility to the Commission to set the compensation of those two officials,
but rather it should be done through a specific Ordinance stating what the compensation is
for those two officers. Not just salary, but also benefits. Mr. Smith's original research going
back to the 1960's revealed that back in the 60's the word "salary" and "compensation"
meant the same thing. Over the years, the word "compensation" began to take a different
meaning such as health insurance, stipends, sick leave, vacation, etc. So Commissioner
Wolfson said that we are in the year 2012, it is time for us to have a specific Ordinance
setting forth not just the salary but also the benefits of the office.
Mr. Fernandez asked if the base salary for the City Manager, which is listed as $162,916 per
year to $263,126 per year, includes the insurance and the deferred compensation. Mr.
Smith stated that the number referenced is only salary. The other categories are additional
to salary or "other compensation."
Ms. Lalonde inquired if it was term life insurance or whole. Mr. Smith stated that it was term.
Ms. Lalonde asked if the 457 deferred compensation given to the City Attorney and the City
Manager was made by the City. Mr. Smith confirmed that the City contributed on behalf of
the employ both. Ms. Lalonde asked if the amount was predefined. Mr. Smith stated that
it was up to the maximum authorized by the IRS. Ms. Lalonde thereafter asked what was the
actual 457 given to the City Attorney and the City Manager. About $23,500.00 was Mr.
Smith's response.
Thereafter discussion was had regarding how the IRS calculates the maximum
compensation that may be given to an employee. Ms. Sylvia Crespo-Tabak, Human
Resources Director, stated that the minimum authorized by the IRS is $7,000. Ms. Crespo-
Tabak explained how the 457 program worked, and that it was not taxable income, and
cannot be withdrawn until retirement or the employee leaves the organization.
Mr. Smith explained that the City Manager's salary is in the neighborhood of $240,080
$255,000 plus. This City Manager, based on his negotiations with the City Commission, is
not receiving deferred compensation. If he wanted a deferred compensation plan, he would
have to fund it himself.
Ms. Lalonde explained that in City government type plans, just like a 401 K, you have an
equivalent called a 457 deferred compensation plan. Employees can self-contribute to the
maximum limits authorized by the IRS, which is based on age. What is traditionally different
in government is that the City is contributing on behalf of the employee. In a 401K plan, it
would be the employee who would be making the contribution of his or her own salary.
Mr. Smith explained that both the City Attorney and the City Manager are classified at level
26 saw. Level 26 provides for compensation between $162,916 and $263,126. So the
Commission is authorized by Code to negotiate a contract with the City Manager
somewhere in that range.
2
Mr. Kendle asked if the City Commission h*as to approve the base salary and all additional
compensation for the City Manager and the City Attorney. Mr. Smith responded in the
affirmative, that a contract has to be entered approving the benefits.
Mr. Kendle asked about trips and expenses, if they too had to be approved by the City
Commission via Ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that if it is a reimbursable, such as wheR
attending a conference or continuing education, is not considered compensation.
Mr. Kendle stated that the Miami Herald a few weeks ago stated that the Mayor was paid an
extra $20,000 that was not pensionable. Mr. Smith stated that the Charter stated that the
salary for Commissioners is $6,000 per year and the Mayor receives a salary of $10,000 per
year. Mr. Smith added that since the 1990's, as part of the budget process, the elected
officials have received a stipend, which when he served as the Commission was about $600
a month, which is supposed to go towards public policy/benefit types of issues. Over the
years that stipend, which is part of the budget approved in October, is currently $1,500 a
month for Commissioners and $2,000 a month for the Mayor is $2,000 a MoRth. The Elected
officials receive a stipend in addition to salary. Mr. Smith stated that the stipend is part of the
Mayor and Commission's budget, which is approved annually.
Mr. Kendle inquired as to how the expenses for the Commissioners and the Mayor, when
they travel, are done. Mr. Smith explained that travel is a line item in their budget, which is
ultimately approved by the director of the department, which in this case it is the Mayor.
Mr. Fernandez explained that it is not an individual amount for each Commissioner for travel;
it is one sum for the office.
Mr. Kendle stated that his reading of the Charter is that the intent is that salaries and
expenses should be approved by Ordinance. Everything should be approved by Ordinance.
Therefore, the perception is not that they are gaining a benefit that is not approved by
Ordinance. This way everyone can see what the expense is.
Mr. Zack inquired if there is a policy as to how the Commission travels, i.e. business or
coach; how is that determined? Mr. Smith replied that the standard is that used in the
County and approved by the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission. It is coach, and there
are guidelines as to mileage and how much you can spend per day. TO DO: City
Attorney's Office to obtained Guidelines.
Mr. Fernandez explained that each department gets a lump sum for travel allocation, which
is approved during the budget hearings, which are held in public; and the public is invited to
participate and discuss the number.
In response to Mr. Zack's question, the City Attorney explained that it is easy to ascertain
the amount incurred by each Commissioner or the Mayor for travel during any given period.
Mr. Smith added that this is something that is frequently requested via public records
requests by the media.
Mr. Zack stated that there is no annual report as to how much the Commission spends on
travel. Mr. Smith agreed that such a report is not done-, but is reflected in the Department's
annual budget.
3
• Section 2.07— Vacancies in City Commission
Mr. Zack stated that when a vacancy is created the citizen ought to fill it as quickly and
inexpensively as possible. Mr. Zack inquired as to what is being done today.
Mr. Smith explained how the process has worked, and stated that there is an issues that
must be addressed. There have been three instances where elected officials have resigned
from office in order to run for a different office. Typically, it is a Commissioner that wants to
run for State Representative. What occurs is that the Commissioner files a paper under the
Resign to Run Law, which is a State Statute. It is a paper that must be filed ten days prior to
qualifying, which says, "I resign effective, for example November 4t", which is the day of the
election." Before he became City Attorney, the position of the City was that the Commission
had a choice of either selecting someone for that vacancy, or scheduling an election for the
next ensuing general election, which is typically November 4 or 5. However, there is a legal
problem when you set an election before you have a vacancy because the vacancy does
not really occur until the date of the election and by then it is not the appropriate way of
filling the seat when the seat has not been vacant. If you decide that you want to hold a
special election after the vacancy occurs in November, then you have to have a special
election, which is very costly. They need to clarify when a vacancy occurs. What the Board
must do is give the Commission the ability to appoint, if they want to appoint. If they do not
want to appoint, then they must have the election when they normally have the election in
November. That way you avoid calling for a special election.
Ms. Lalonde stated that there may be situation where items that come before the
Commission results in a tie; or there is no super majority when necessary, and the City
could stall for years if there is no appointment.
Ms. Lalonde recounted when Victor Diaz was appointed.
Mr. Zack asked why we could not have a Charter provision stating that "when a vacancy
occurs due to a resignation, the vacancy occurs the night before the actual election," and
therefore there is an actual vacancy for which the City can have an election on election day,
and therefore avoid the cost of a new election; and not have the City Commissioner who fills
that vacancy.
Ms. Lalonde stated that if someone resigns for health reasons two months after they are
elected, this proposal could create a stall. It is her understanding that historically they have
appointed someone. She does not know why they are visiting this issue, as the present
system has worked.
Mr. Smith explained that when David Pearlson resigned to run office, he made his
resignation effective the day of the election. This meant that the Commission scheduled an
election, not an appointment, for November. There was no appointment during that process.
Ms. Lalonde inquired what the City Attorney's recommendation was. He stated that he did
not have a recommendation today. He was only raising the problem. He believes the Chair's
suggestion is a good one. The day that a resignation is filed, under the Resign to Run Law
to run for another office, that should be the effective date. If someone resigns for another,
reason other than the Resign to Run Law, then there is an immediate vacancy, and the
Charter sets a window as to when a vacancy must be filled. Mr. Smith explained that they
are not taking away the power of the Commission to appoint.
12
Alex Fernandez explained that this +s elected officials who resign under the Resign to Run
Law.They need to give the Commission an opportunity to appoint. What the Board may
want to do is make the person appointed agree not to run for the seat they are filling so the
position does not become politicized and the person does not worry about reelection. We
have a very vocal community, who make its thoughts known to the Commission and he
would like to see when this occurs the Commission to make the determination of whether
they appoint or whether the voters should be allowed to decide.
Mr. Smith explained that the Resign to Run Law allows a candidate to resign at a future
date. Mr. Smith thinks this if is phony. If they resign, they resign. Then the Commission has
an opportunity either to appoint or to have an election. Mr. Smith stated that they must
submit their resignation, pursuant to the Resign to Run Law, ten days before qualifying for
the new office. They should be required to resign upon the filing of the notice of intention to
run for another office, under the Resign to Run Law.
Mr. Zack explained that when judges are appointed, they must stand for election at the next
regularly scheduled election. He suggested some similar provision for the City. Mr. Zack
would not mandate a prohibition against the person appointed from running for the seat they
have been appointed to, as that may be the best-qualified individual.
The Board was in agreement that a simple majority should be used when appointing an
individual to fill a vacant Commission seat.
MOTION:
Motion by Mr. Fernandez that in the event of a resignation in the City Commission, the
vacancy is immediate upon tendering the resignation, and the person who may be
appointed will stand for election at the next regularly scheduled election. Seconded by Mr.
Kendle. Voice Vote: Approved 6-0 (Mr. Diffenderfer absent.)
MOTION (No Second Offered):
Motion by Mr. Fernandez that when someone is appointed that they agree that they are not
going to run to permanently fill that seat. They can still run in a future race; but not in the
coming election. No second offered.
Ms. Lalonde stated that she did not agree with this proposal.
Mr. Zack stated that if a Commissioner did not want to give such an advantage, they would
not vote to appoint the person.
Mr. Fernandez stated that the appointment gives the perception of incumbency; and make
for political playing.
MOTION (No Second Offered):
Motion by Mr. Fernandez that when they fill a vacancy via appointment, the appointment
must be via a supermajority of 5/7 1h vote. No second offered.
13