Tampa City Council
Special call meeting
Thursday, June 16, 2016
11:00 a.m.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
11:02:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Roll call.
11:09:31 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
11:09:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.
11:09:39 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
11:09:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
Mrs. Mandell.
11:09:43 >>JULIA MANDELL:
City attorney.
We started this special call session, discussing an
opportunity of changes as it relates to the audit process, I
provided you information as to strong mayor form of
government and where those functions lie.
Right now you have three items in front of you.
The first is a general discussion as the internal audit
process.
The second was a report back from me which I had given you a
written report relating to whether or not if the draft
internal audit was provided to the mayor for our current
process, as you requested, would also go to City Council at
the same time as the mayor receives the draft audit, whether
or not that would retain protections under the public
records law exemption for draft audit.
I researched that issue.
As indicated in the memo, I also had opportunity to have
discussion was the city of Miami and city of Jacksonville
and city of Orlando, and it is very clear both in the case
law, the statute and also with those conversations that
regardless of whether or not the internal audit function
falls under the legislative branch or under the executive
branch, at the moment in time that draft audit is given to
the legislative body, in this case City Council, that no
longer retains the exemption under public records law.
So that is answering the question and the issue that I
raised at the last proceeding in which we spoke about this.
In addition I provided late yesterday a memorandum under
which per your motion I am providing you language relating
to City Council having the right to require internal auditor
to do an internal audit on the basis of age, super majority
vote of council.
I have also provided within that language some bracketed
language, and I have also provided some additional options
per other motions of council which did not seem to fall
under this agenda but I figure that it would be more
appropriate for us to discuss everything together versus
piecemealing the conversation.
You will see within the body of that memorandum, I have the
underlined language under which I add the language that City
Council has requested, and I have bracketed language that
says as provided pursuant to ordinance.
In addition I have provided the language that would be
necessary for your other motion which includes the internal
auditor shall provide the City Council on a yearly basis
it's scheduled audit which schedule shall include expected
start dates.
Number 2, all final internal audits must be delivered to
City Council within so many days -- and I left that blank
per your previous motion, any draft audit presented to the
mayor, and third which is part of the discussion you had but
I put it in here for your continuing discussion the number
of internal audits that can be provided by City Council is
limited to blank per year, and I didn't put a number in,
because I thought it was more appropriate for you to
continue to have that part of the discussion.
I should explain the reason why I put in that bracketed
language.
After discussing this matter with individual council members
and with Mr. Shelby, the thought is that you have the
option -- and this would be your option -- to instead of
putting in the one, two and three, directly within your
charter, you could put language in there as I suggested
which would allow you to provide the process for you to seek
your internal audits as you put within your charter, would
have the right to do.
The process within ordinance.
And then as part of that, you could delineate the number of
audits you can request, the process that you receive, the
schedule for the internal audits, in order to make
additional requests for audit.
It would probably be appropriate for you to know the audit
is coming down the line before you make those requests.
And while I understand that information is online, I
understood from council that you wanted to have that
directed towards you at the beginning of the process, as
well as what the number of days is, time frames, and those
types of things.
So that language would give you flexibility to put in your
audit -- I'm sorry, in your ordinance, issues related to
audit that would allow you to delineate the process without
putting that directly in your charter.
So those are the options that I am promulgating to you.
I know it's a little bit more than you had placed in the
motion for today's meeting.
However I thought as I said it would be more appropriate to
discuss this all together, because as you know, if you do
decide that you want to put something on the ballot for this
year as it relates to a charter amendment, that has to be --
the process needs to be completed and to the supervisor of
elections at the date of the primary, which I believe is
August 31st, and Mr. Shelby -- I'm sorry, 30th --
will correct me if I am wrong.
So you will need an ordinance in order to put this towards
the ballot, on the ballot, as part of the general election
in November, which you need time to be able to go through
the ordinance process properly, and to go ahead and get this
accomplished.
So that's really all I have for you today.
I would encourage you to discuss the process that you would
like to see.
And I also know that you do have a charter review commission
that's coming up as well that's not part of your
conversation today.
But I did want to remind council of that.
Thank you.
11:15:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen.
11:15:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just to get the conversation going I think
90 or 120 days is a reasonable amount of time.
I am open to whatever council's pleasure is in terms of
limiting the number of audits either in the charter language
or by ordinance.
But I think it's important that the reason you limit the
number of audits that could be called for in any one year is
just because for budget reasons the audit department has to
be -- you can't give them ten audits in a year.
They just don't have the ability, I think, to do it.
So-so I thought the number maybe was three.
But I'm open to other people's comments on that.
11:16:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other discussion?
Mrs. Montelione.
11:16:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I agree with Councilman Cohen, 90 days
is a reasonable time frame.
I think that puts some structure.
It's not too much to ask.
And the number of audits, three sounds reasonable.
Maybe four.
Either one.
A quarter.
So three or four.
We have the ability once a quarter to ask for a special
audit.
That doesn't mean we are going to.
It just gives us opportunity to.
So I would go with four.
By charter, by ordinance, I would say, you know, charter is
permanent.
Ordinances can be changed.
So my preference would be to go the charter route so that it
is a permanent fixture and could not be easily changed by an
incoming council.
11:17:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could in terms of the charter, I think
what Mrs. Mandell was trying to say to us is that you put
the power of ordering the audits within the charter and then
within the ordinance charter language would refer to the
ordinance for the specifics, meaning the time frame, the
numbers, that type of thing.
So what I would probably do with the ordinance language --
I'm excuse me, the charter language, would be you are
allowed to do this, and those specifics are within the
ordinance.
So that I think is what Mrs. Mandell was discussing.
So Mr. Miranda is next.
11:17:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I agree with your assessment,
Mr. Chairman.
I believe if you are looking for something like this you
have the power to do it and then whoever is deciding the
fact, which would be, I guess, us at some point, to discuss
how many.
I certainly don't want -- but remember with this comes a
responsibility.
If you ask for it, then it's up to you to interpret it and
what are you going to do with it once you interpret it and
how you are going to carry out, which has been a tremendous
responsibility up to now.
And there is an election coming up in 2019 for some office
called mayor, and I don't know how many of you are
interested in it, but whatever you vote for, you can divide
it by 7, and you look at it --
11:18:42 >> Depends on how things start out.
11:18:44 >> The first three months, a week and a half.
It's not a joking matter but it is at this point in the
discussion, anyway.
And it is that whatever you do, it's your responsibility to
ask, and that's all I am going to say.
Because God bless you if you come back with something you
don't like, then you are going to want -- you wanted it, you
got it, handle it.
11:19:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Capin.
11:19:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
[Off microphone.] as to the four, would you
limit that to one per quarter?
Let's say one at throw months and not more than --
11:19:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yeah, I would just say four a year. We
might ask for two.
But that might run simultaneously.
They might start a month apart from each other.
I wouldn't want to limit -- to restrict, let's put that the
way.
11:19:39 >>JULIA MANDELL:
The only comment I was going to make is if
you choose to have the simplified language that just
provides that you will determine how you are going to
process your ability to request internal audits per
ordinance, that is not something that you need to decide
today.
I will also tell you that in terms of how, and one a
quarter, that really does need to be a discussion that
relates to the schedule of audits and within the internal
auditor at the time the request is made, because the
internal auditor from the way I understand the process, the
beginning of the year, comes up with a schedule, and that
schedule typically includes some form of a start date, and
so I think that the best process for you would be to, when
you do an ordinance for this, is to have input from the
internal auditor as to how they would like to see any audit
that City Council might request pursuant to a super majority
involved in the schedule which is one of the reasons I think
it was important, and it's going to be important if you have
an ordinance that comes after the charter amendment, that
you also have that opportunity to see the schedule prior to
making whatever motion you want to add to it.
11:20:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
And when you mentioned the schedule, we
talked about that.
And I remember the last auditor saying that to me and how
that worked.
And so when we look at the schedule, because of this one or
two by super majority, we could actually look at the
schedule and feel that maybe one of the not choices of the
mayor is one that we want to look at.
11:21:31 >>JULIA MANDELL:
And again I think that's why in talking to
council, I felt that possibly doing it this way where you
can set this up in ordinance that would allow you that
opportunity to delineate the best process.
11:21:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Right.
I understand that.
So what we want to do now is decide to move on the charter,
voting if we want to move it --
11:21:59 >>JULIA MANDELL:
What I would like -- what I think would be
the best approach today, since we are in a special called
session, but I don't have an ordinance that I am presenting
to you, is to request the legal department to come back
where an ordinance, and to utilize the underlying language
including that bracketed language, I will take the brackets
out, as the basis of that ordinance.
I can come forward with an ordinance with the correct
language for the ballot for you to review and have your
first reading on, and given the time frame, I can make my
best effort to try to get that to you by next week.
I don't know that it would be that complicated.
But I am not the expert on writing ballot language.
So we'll need to look towards others in that regard.
But at least I can promulgate something to you by either the
next meeting or I don't know what the meeting is after that.
11:22:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The 14th.
11:22:56 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I can absolutely do it by the 14th.
11:22:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
If that's the case, I would like to move
for that, for that motion, to bring that ordinance or that
language for the ballot.
And if it comes back next week is fine.
I will not be here, but I will probably see it -- I'm sure I
will see the ordinance.
And if there's any issues, I can get with you.
But otherwise, I'm fine if it comes back next week and vote
on it.
11:23:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
Can I ask for clarification of the details?
We are going to go with 90 days?
Oh, super majority is going to be part of it?
11:23:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Not now.
When we bring the ordinance --
11:23:44 >>JULIA MANDELL:
The language that I promulgated --
(Overlapping conversations).
11:23:48 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I don't have my glasses on.
11:23:53 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I am going read the whole thing. This is
the existing language in the charter.
And I will let you know the additional language.
It's the section under the internal audit department,
internal auditing for the city, the internal auditor shall
the head of the department and shall be the duty of the
internal auditor to audit for each fiscal year all records
of the city and all accounts in which the city has an
interest.
The auditor shall perform what other audits as may be
required by the mayor and the City Council shall have the
right to require the internal auditor to perform additional
internal audits with a super majority vote of City Council
as provided for pursuant to ordinance -- I'm sorry, that's
in addition, the language there, the "in addition" language.
So what that would do, you would put that in your charter,
and then assuming we get through the entire process, and
this gets placed within your charter, then we will come back
and we will -- you will need to make more significant
decisions as to the process under which City Council will
ask for additional internal audits.
And I think at that point in time when that process is
delineated, it's within your ordinance, you can have greater
conversations about how many you think you should be able to
request.
What the process is for requesting those, and have some
additional input as it relates to those things from your
internal auditor, because keeping in mind -- and I think
anytime you ask for an audit, whether it's the mayor asks
for an audit or if this were to pass, you ask for an audit,
there is a budgetary and resource portion of that, and I
think that having the input on a more specific basis will be
important.
11:25:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have our motion by Mrs. Capin, a second
from Mr. Cohen.
Can I make a suggestion?
Mrs. Mandell, if you can answer this question for me.
The July 14th date -- and I would suggest July 14th
because we do have an incredibly full schedule next week,
and you won't be here.
So if we could ask for July 14th.
But where does that put us in terms of time frame to put it
before voters?
11:26:03 >>JULIA MANDELL:
When would we have second reading, I guess
would be the question.
11:26:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Because that's still not a public hearing
yet.
11:26:09 >>JULIA MANDELL:
That's two readings, one public hearing,
and you need ten days in between.
11:26:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
The calendar has August 4th.
11:26:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So we would have to have -- you would bring
back the ordinance.
Mrs. Mandell?
11:26:27 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I'm sorry.
11:26:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You would bring back the ordinance.
Then we would have to have two public hearings prior to that
during a regular session, correct?
11:26:35 >>JULIA MANDELL:
That's correct.
11:26:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If we look at our calendar --
11:26:40 >>JULIA MANDELL:
You can have those -- as long as those two
readings -- as long as there's two readings are ten days
apart in terms of our notice, that's the legal requirement.
So if you had -- if you needed to do --
11:26:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do the 14th and then August 4th.
I just want to make sure.
11:26:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry, not to complicate things, but
just so you are informed, you also have to allow for the
possibility -- and I say that would be the case of
possibility of mayoral veto, in which case there is a
process and time frame to come back to you.
11:27:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And to go to that point, the administration
has been notified, we have talked about this.
There's not been any discussion during any of our reviews
and discussion about this item to show that there is any
pushback from the mayor.
Now, having said that, that doesn't mean that he's not going
to veto it.
But we still have to work with our calendar as we have here.
Whether or not he vetoes it is up to him.
We have to go based on what we have gotten and the calendar
we have in front of us.
So I am going to prepare as if the mayor is going to sign it
which I think he will.
Okay.
11:27:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
[Off microphone.]
11:28:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Yes, every ordinance that may be passed by
council shall be presented before becoming measure.
If not he shall return it with objections to council and
such objections shall be acted upon and the council
thereupon shall proceed to reconsider the ordinance at the
next regular meeting after which there is a quorum.
After reconsideration, it shall be passed by two-thirds of
all members.
A vote shall be passed and it shall become law F.knot any in
accordance not returned to the council after 14 days after
presented to the mayor the same shall become effective in
like manner as if he had signed it.
11:28:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Language on, before we go forward, we have a
motion on the floor before we continue with that particular
motion.
Hang on, Mrs. Montelione.
I want to make sure we are straight because I am looking at
our will calendar. If we go to August 4th as the second
reading that gets passed that day, he will have then from
that point forward how many days?
14?
11:29:09 >>JULIA MANDELL:
14 days.
And respond within 14 days, it becomes law.
11:29:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Within that 14-day period.
So we are looking at the 25th is, you know, still 21
days.
So we would still have time to override that veto at that
time, and still meet our requirements to be able to put it
on the ballot.
Correct?
11:29:35 >>JULIA MANDELL:
That's correct.
11:29:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I want to make sure there's a time frame.
Does everyone understand the time frame that we have?
Any other discussion on the motion?
Mrs. Montelione.
11:29:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
[Off microphone.]
11:29:50 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I'm sorry,.
11:29:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I mean, we have on the 23rd, we have
morning regular session.
And we have an evening session.
We have -- and then the July 14th meeting.
We don't have -- between the 23rd and the 14th, we
won't have it any meetings.
So could we take that first vote after the -- or during the
evening session?
11:30:24 >>JULIA MANDELL:
If you don't have any 5:00.
11:30:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We have City Council evening session at
5:30 on the 23rd.
We have got a text amendment.
The action plan.
11:30:32 >>HARRY COHEN:
But she's still not here.
That's the point.
11:30:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But didn't we talk about voting by
electronic --
11:30:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I did talk about it but I can't.
They may frown upon me.
(Laughter)
(multiple conversations).
11:31:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Montelione.
It.
11:31:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Did I hear you say that had you were
okay were taking the vote if you are not being here?
11:31:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I did.
But, you know, my colleagues have put forth that they prefer
that we have -- that I be here, and if the time frameworks,
I didn't think the time frame was going to work.
That's why I agreed.
But apparently the time frameworks.
So I'm okay with -- if you want me to put the July 14, if
that time frameworks I'm okay.
I didn't think it was going to work.
11:31:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm just, you know, leaving it till the
last possible day and time.
I mean, they could come up with something, come back with
something, and I'm really, really hesitant to cut it down to
the wire.
11:32:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We still have the motion on the floor that
is set for July 14th.
Let's clear the -- you know, if you have a question of Mrs.
Mandell?
11:32:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, there seems to be a lot of
discussion so I want to know what they are talking about
that they might have concerns about.
There's a lot of discussion, it means something.
11:32:25 >>JULIA MANDELL:
It was just going back and forth on the
number of days and Marty clarified that.
So in terms of mayor veto, and that's clarified.
And we just were making sure that we didn't think there was
going to be an issue with notice and we don't think there
will be.
All that being said if you like I can bring it back 5:01 on
the evening agenda.
That would give me enough time to make sure you got it with
enough time to review it.
Otherwise the 14th I think would work in terms of
procedurally getting you where you want to be, and from a
time frame perspective.
So either one at the pleasure of council.
If I find out I'm wrong on this, I will make sure that you
are aware of that at your next meeting.
But there is an additional notice requirement should -- I
mean, newspaper notice requirement should the mayor veto it,
and it needs to come back to you.
11:33:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And that's what I am afraid of.
Because you and I have been -- that's usually where things
go wrong.
11:33:34 >>JULIA MANDELL:
That is the only issue and I'm not even
sure that would be a problem.
And so if you want to leave the schedule for the 14th, I
can always make sure you are aware of it.
I think you have enough time either way.
11:33:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion on the floor.
The maker of the motion still wants it on the 14th?
11:33:59 >>JULIA MANDELL:
In the event -- I'm sorry, let me
interrupt.
In the event I do find out throws a notice issue, I will be
prepared to walk it on on the 23rd.
11:34:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Mr. Reddick, any questions?
All right.
I have a motion by Mrs. Capin.
I have a second by Mr. Cohen.
Yes, ma'am?
11:34:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Can we amend the motion to say what Mrs.
Mandell just said, that if there is an issue with the
notice, that if this will be a walk-on item at 5:01 on June
23rd?
11:34:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
A friendly amendment.
11:34:32 >> I accept it.
11:34:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mrs. Capin.
Second by Mr. Cohen with a friendly amendment by Mrs.
Montelione.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Thank you very much.
11:34:42 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And have the legal department walk over to
the mayor and ask him if he's going to veto it or not.
(Laughter).
11:34:52 >> We can pass it unanimously.
11:34:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think Mr. Cohen makes a joke of it but
that is actually the main factor we are going to deal with,
which is if we pass it unanimously, I think he's going to
know that if he vetoes it, it's still going to get passed.
All right.
Any other issues concerning this particular item during our
special call are? Any other discussion item?
Can I have a motion to receive and file?
I have a motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Second by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
We are adjourned.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.