04/12/2007 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Spitzer promised to look at Commissioner O'Bryan's concerns and get back to him. To the third concern, he explained that the current practice would remain and the only at -will employees would be the two charter officers (County Attorney and County Administrator). County Attorney William Collins also addressed at -will issues. Discussion then ensued regarding whether direction/approval was needed from the Board for certain staff positions. Board members did not like the possibility of the Board approving personnel/department heads and wanted to leave it non-political. It was pointed out that the Board did not have the option to change the powers and duties of County Administrator if Charter is adopted by ordinance. Administrator Baird voiced strong opposition to the seemingly lack of choice he would have in the matter. Mr. Spitzer suggested that the Board could investigate whether the fact that this Charter is being proposed by a Part IV process forever lock the citizens of Indian River County into this particular system, or once the Charter is adopted or simultaneously with the presentation of the Charter, could an amendment to the Charter be considered to remove the requirement of consent. Attorney Collins did not believe they could have an amendment that would be inconsistent with General Law, and changing that provision in General Law could give rise to an inconsistency. Commissioner O'Bryan inquired if, under Sections 6.1.3 and 7.3.2 regarding limitation on changes by Petition, there could be additional language stating that changes to the powers, duties and functions of the Constitutional officers are also excluded from changes by Petition. Mr. Spitzer believed this already prohibits ordinances by petitions dealing with Constitutionals, and the real effect of that question is that they could do Charter by Petition. April 12, 2007 9am 5 Charter Government Workshop