Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 05-25-1982 Regular — reading text

for quite a few present who were within the City - saying it was not something they had not been able to work out among themselves, the wrecker drivers, but they generally felt wrecker dealers within the city should be able to pool but those without the City should not be able to pool in the City. He said they had discussed this but had not come to an agreement on it. Jeff Sharon said the trouble with wrecker service had all stemmed from outside the city wreckers. He agreed with Mr. Landis position. He suggested a fee for those outside the City to equal tax paid by those inside the City. Mr. Miller said that was an important issue and asked the City Attorney if the City could discriminate in that manner. The Attorney said he had seen ordinances that validly did it but because of a geographical reason - a reason that was something other than just an artificial city limit boundary. He indicated he would research it. He said he had serious questions about whether or not Council' could consitutionally prevent someone who was in the County but not in the incorporated area from participating in the rotation. It was noted Shalimar did not allow wreckers from Fort Walton Beach to work there. Mr. McClelland said with regard to a 24 hour rotation and noted there had been 16 wrecker operators on the rotation list and everyone was busy but if there happened to be a tractor trailer accident there was not one wrecker in the ci ty who had the size wrecker that coul d hand'le. He noted Mr. John Bruner and Mr. Larry Ford, both outside the City, were the only two with C" wrecker service. Mr. Miller asked how the ordinance addressed the issue of financing fees and it was explained. Mr. Miller felt str&ngly that Council should not delegate legislative functions. Mr. Baughman said if it were done and then ratified by Council that would still give Council control. Mr. Miller felt that set up a separate body of 1 aw. I Mr. Baughman moved that the ordinance be postponed for two weeks. his motion to postpone. on first reading. Motion seconded by Mr. Grant with the stipulation that the wrecker committee also had the opportunity to re- address the ordinance. Mr. ' Baughman withdrew Mrs. Thornber moved that the ordinance be passed Motion seconded by Mr. Baughman. Voting aye: Baughman, Grant, Thornber, Franklin. Voting nay: Bishop, Miller. Motion carried.  5- 25- 82 086 WRECKER ORDINANCE, continued. It was noted the three mile radius would not eliminate any, wrecKers in the Fort Walton Beach area. t- The wrecker dealers thanked the Council and the wrecker committee for their work and cooperation. ORDINANCE 678. 2 Ordinance 678. 2 was read on first reading by the City Attorney, by title: An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 678. 1, clarifying the distinction between employees generally and managerial employees, establishing a permanent personnel board, and establishing a method of presenting management level grievances. Mr. Baughman moved for approval on first reading. Motion seconded by Mr. Grant. Mrs. Thornber said in Section 2( d), she felt it too restrictive. She moved to amend by deleting the following words' p.hone,<' l solicitingfurids or' votes, eitberby ,letter, tel€' person~ oT~ ice'!' contact or speechesin behalf of any .<;, arfdidate, for icipal mUl'} Motion seconded by ' Mr. Bishop. - There was discussion of whether or not a criminal lawyer should or should not serve on the board. Vote was unanimous. Mr. Miller asked Mrs. Thornber to repeat the amendment which she did. It was determined that the words" f No person who actively participated in the immediately preceding municipal election by seeking office" was not included in the deletion. Mr. Miller I changed his vote to no. I Mr. Miller said in general he was concerned with two areas saying he felt the foundation for the proposal was based upon an opinion of the Attorney f that was contrary to a ruling they had out of the circuit court in one I of the Ray proceedi,ngs and that ruling was and was on appeal that we have a procedure presently available to city employees which at the circuit I court level has met muster for compliance with state law. He said if they took away the opinion of the Attorney which might be confirmed on appeal or t then they had may be rejected on appeal, then by taking away that opinion, no basis to formulate that they were compelled to change their grievance procedure that we now have presently available to city employees and which Step 4 of that procedure which is in litigation. Mr. Mil.ler said Mr. Baughman was the motivator for that provision and said Council had no basis for conclusion that it was not an appropriate structure for a proceeding. He said the litigation was pending in appellate court who would render what he believed would be final disposition of that issue and he felt they should have that disposition before they move to create, some other system for the grievance process. He indicated the Ray matter was the first serious challenge we had to that procedure or any serious question relating to that and when they had gotten into that particular fact situation, they had some council members who were compelled , to feel uncomfortable with that he did procedure just as he might if he were a defendant in a suit. He said not feel that was a fair motivation for Council to determine that the system should not be retained. He felt the present system was fair. Mr. Miller said ~ e felt extremely strong about one area of ,the proposed ordinance in addition to thedis- enfranchisement question which he was not satisfied Mrs. Thornber' s motion had adequately addressed yet and he would have them to, remove any aspects that would attempt to dis- enfranchise a citizen and he hoped she would re- address that and attempt to expand it. Mr. Miller felt that the Council ought not to be involved in indirectly or directly in the process of hiring, firing, management of particular employees and he saw the appointment power of the Board  5- 25- 82 087 ORDINANCE 678. 2, continued to fringe into the area that is exclusively the City Manager' s to an extent he was concerned and could not support. He said he would not have the Council be the appointing authority for any board relating to personnel and the reason for that was the concept the Charter was founded upon removalpf Ployees E!T! matters from the political spectrum. He said the political spectrum intrusions into matters of employees had, and they were experiencing presently and had been for several months, some very dire and substantial consequences as a result I of such actions. He said he would not have Council get into directly or indirectly; he would not have Council have the authority to appoint that board if they did in fact create such an ordinance., The City Manager said he had no objection. Mr. Franklin said he would not get into the legality of the present ordinance on the books as to the ruling made by Judge Barron; he said he only knew what he had read in the paper; he had not been appraised of what the ruling actually was except that Mr. Ray was entitled to Step 4 in the present ordinance. Mr. Franklin said step 4in Section 15A- 44 was in violation of Florida Statute 166, Home Rule and he thought Council would be remiss in its duties by not declaring that step illegal and void. Mr. Baughman agreed in general with Mr. Franklin but the point needed to be made that it was Mr. Miller that brought this issue to a head by bringing them an extremely brief ordinance which seemed to bring forth his own viewpoints and try to rush it through very quickly and very' hastily, essentially on an emergency basi$ and put Council in the positiQn of being forced to take a position on the matter. He felt one ordinance was more responsible as far as the citizens were concerned. Mrs. Thornber asked if the definition in the ordinance of employees and management the same that it is in State Statutes. The Attorney said this ordinance borrowed the definitions in Chapter 447 of the Statutes by speci'f'ic reference. He indicated a police office was entitled under a chapter to a police officer review board unless he is a chief in which event he was not entitled to a police officer review board. He also said firefighters did not because of the collective bargaining agreement. I Mr. Miller cl arified Mr. Baughman s accusation saying, ' the two issues appeared I at the 1 ast Council s agenda simu1taaeGusly and he d'id not motivate anythi ng; both the issues arose; both proposed ordinances were presented to Council on the same standing at the last meeting. Mrs. Thornber moved to amend to removed. fromd'. uNo person who actively participated in the immediately preceding mu[ ticipal election by seeking officeu because she felt they were enfranchis5ng some people. I dis;,;.. Mr. Mi 11 er seconded the amendment. Voti ng for the amendment were: Thornber, Miller, Franklin, Grant. Votinga i'nst the amendment was Baugb.wan. Mr. Miller moved to delete uNo lawyer who pr,a~ ticQs cr'tminal law in Okaloosa County, Florida, shall , serve on the Personne,l' Board. uMotion seconded by Mr. Bishop. Mr. Baugb.man yow stillb.adthe sit. uatjgn of the lawyer who specializes or often practices crimin'allaw could have a bone to pick with police officers and he felt they should leave the clause in. Mr. Miller said that had to be considered at the appointment process level. Voting aye to removing the clause: Miller, Bishop. . Voting nay to removing the clause: Grant, Thornber, Frankl1n, Baughman. Motion failed.  5- 25- 82 088 Mr. Miller moved to exclude the City Council from the position of appointing the board and place that exclusively in the City Manager. Motion died for lack of a second. Voting aye to the first reading of 678. 2 were Baughman, Grant, Thornber, Franklin. Voting nay: Bishop, Miller. Motion carried. EMPLOYEE