>> ON THAT NOTE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, [00:00:02] WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL MEETING, [Call to Order] TO OUR WORK NOTICE OF [INAUDIBLE]. IT IS MARCH 10TH, IT IS 6:00 PM. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US HERE TODAY. CITY CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER BOLTON? >> GOOD EVENING. >> COMMISSIONER GELIN? COMMISSIONER PLACKO? VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS? >> PRESENT. >> MAYOR GOMEZ. >> GOOD EVENING. >> THANK YOU. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER GELIN TO SAY THE PLEDGES BUT I DIDN'T HEAR HIM SAY HE IS PRESENT, SO VICE MAYOR GO AHEAD, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY COLLEAGUE, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS THE DIRECTION FOR SEEKING FOR PERMANENT CITY SERVICES. [1. Discussion and direction for seeking permanent City Attorney Services] WE HAVE HAD OUR LAST REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION PRESENTED TO US. THERE WERE SOME EDITS THAT WERE DONE BASED ON LAST CONVERSATION. WE'VE HAD THE JOB PRESENTED TO US. DO YOU WISH TO HAVE KEITH GLATZ, OUR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, PROVIDE US WITH AN UPDATE? GREAT. >> I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING. >> YOU'RE NOT HEARING ME? I'M SITTING AS CLOSE TO THE THING AS I POSSIBLY CAN. >> YOU'RE BREAKING UP. I'M NOT SURE IF I'M THE ONLY ONE. >> YOU ARE BREAKING UP AS WELL FOR ME. >> IS IT BETTER? [BACKGROUND] LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK WHILE WE JUST TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WE'LL BE BACK HERE AFTER THE BREAK. ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TAKE 3. WELCOME TO OUR COMMISSION MEETING OR WORKSHOP. WE ARE NOW GOOD TO GO AND CITY CLERK, IF YOU WOULD, JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL STILL HERE. >> I CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMISSIONER BOLTON? >> HELLO. >> COMMISSIONER GELIN? >> HERE. >> GOOD, COMMISSIONER PLACKO? >> YES. >> VICE MAYOR VILLALOBOS? >> YES. >> MAYOR GOMEZ. >> YES, WE GOOD. ALL RIGHT, WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO START WITH THAT, I WAS HEARD BY SOME ENOUGH BUT NOT BY ALL. NOW, I HAVE FEEDBACK. IF EVERYBODY CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ON MUTE RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. WE WENT THROUGH THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. THERE WERE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION THAT WERE SENT BACK FOR REVIEW. WE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE ORIGINAL VERSION, THE REDLINE VERSION AND A CLEAN COPY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS NOW ON THE CLEAN COPY THAT WE'VE RECEIVED? OKAY, SEEING THAT THERE ARE NONE, LADY AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE NOW UP TO THE POINT OF SETTING OUR TIME, THE TIME FRAME FOR DOING THIS. AS WE ALL KNOW, THIS HAS NOT BEEN A SECRET. EVERYBODY HAS KNOWN SINCE DECEMBER THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE PUTTING THIS OUT FOR BID FOR A PERMANENT ATTORNEY. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE FIRMS OUT THERE WHO HAD BEEN PREPARING BECAUSE THEY'VE LET US KNOW. SO COMMISSIONER GELIN, GO AHEAD. >> YEAH, BECAUSE HANS IS ALREADY ENGAGED IN LEGAL MATTERS AND FOR ME, I'M PRETTY SATISFIED WITH HIS SERVICE, [00:05:03] I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A NEED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AT THIS TIME WHEN THERE ARE MORE PRESSING ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON. HE'S DEMONSTRATED HIS KNOWLEDGE, HIS EXPERIENCE, HIS CREDIBILITY, AND I'M PRETTY SATISFIED AND DON'T HAVE AN APPETITE FOR CHANGE NOW OR REALLY IN THE NEXT 6-8 MONTHS OR SO. >> THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS THAT THEY WISH TO MAKE? I HAVE NO HANDS RAISED. COMMISSIONER BOLTON? >> THERE'S A QUESTION FOR KEITH GLATZ. HOW IS THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION DIFFERENT FROM THE PROCESS THAT WE USE FOR THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY? >> GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? >> YES, WE CAN. >> GOOD EVENING, KEITH GLATZ, YOUR PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS MANAGER. THERE WE GO. FEEL BETTER. THE PROCESS THAT WE UTILIZE, LETTERS OF INTEREST, IS A LITTLE BIT INFORMAL. BASICALLY, IT'S FIRMS THAT ACTUALLY JUST SHOW AN INTEREST IN DOING BUSINESS WITH US AND IT'S [INAUDIBLE] QUALIFICATIONS BASE THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, IT'S A BIT OF A MORE FORMAL PROCEDURE, AND IT ALLOWS US TO REVIEW THE SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL THE ATTORNEYS TOWARDS THE PERMANENT POSITION. LETTER OF INTEREST IS USUALLY USED WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO MIGHT WANT TO BID ON SOMETHING, WHEREAS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS IS MORE OR LESS USED WHEN YOU KNOW THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO BID ON IT, AND WE TAKE A DEEP DIVE LOOK AT THEIR CAPABILITIES, AND EXPERTISE, AND PROFESSIONAL ATTRIBUTES. NOT THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH A LETTER OF INTEREST, BUT THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS IS JUST USUALLY A BIT MORE ATTUNED TO THAT TYPE OF PROCESS. ARE YOU MUTED? >> COMMISSIONER? >> SORRY, WE COULD DO IT WITH LETTERS OF INTEREST, BUT WE CAN ALSO GO THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ROUTE? >> YES. >> OKAY, DID YOU INCLUDE THAT OPTION AS A PART OF THE BACKUP? >> LETTER OF INTEREST? >> YEAH. >> I HAD NOT INCLUDED THAT AS AN OPTION, BUT THE OPTIONS ARE COMPLETELY IN YOUR COURT. YOU CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. A LETTER OF INTEREST USUALLY GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT "YEAH, WE'D LIKE TO GET INVOLVED," BUT IT'S USUALLY NOT NECESSARILY USED FOR THE DEEP-DIVE TYPE OF REVIEW THAT WE PROBABLY WANT TO DO IN THIS SITUATION. >> OKAY. >> ALTHOUGH A LOT OF IT IS SEMANTICS, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. >> OKAY, AS I SAID BEFORE, WHEN I MET WITH YOU, I LIKE THE LETTERS OF INTEREST OPTION. I THINK THAT WAS A FAIR AND EASY PROCESS. I THINK THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO LOOK FOR A PERMANENT ATTORNEY, THAT IS THE OPTION THAT I'D LIKE TO USE SO THAT THE PROCESS REMAINS ONE THAT IS DRIVEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION RATHER THAN STAFF. WE'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THAT IT'S OUR PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT ACHIEVES THAT. LET US GO WITH THE LETTERS OF INTEREST OPTION, SEE WHO IS INTERESTED, AND CHOOSE SOMEBODY WHEN THEY'RE ALL INTERESTED, AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. [00:10:01] >> THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR? >> PERHAPS IT'S A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY. GOOD EVENING, SIR? HOW MANY LITIGATIONS SCENARIOS DO WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY BESIDES WOODMONT? >> RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE WOODMONT, AND YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY, A LITIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO WOODMONT ALSO THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY OUR INSURANCE COUNSEL, BUT I'M ALSO INVOLVED IN DISCUSSING MATTERS WITH HIM. YOU ALSO HAVE OBVIOUSLY, A POTENTIAL ISSUE WITH WOODLAND, IF IT COMES BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION. YOU HAVE SOME POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ISSUES THAT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH WITH THE PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR. IT CAN BE RESOLVED WITHOUT LITIGATION, BUT THAT'S ALWAYS A POTENTIAL WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH CONTRACTOR. SO WE'RE DEALING WITH PROBABLY TWO LITIGATION, MAYBE THREE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, THAT WAS FOR CERNECH, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER, MR. HANS. >> THANK YOU. >> VICE MAYOR, DID YOU GET YOUR ANSWER OR YOU STILL WANT TO HEAR FROM CITY MANAGER? >> DO YOU CONCUR WITH THAT, MR. MICHAEL? >> HI, VICE MAYOR. I'D SAY THAT WAS AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF OUR LITIGATION AT THIS POINT. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER PLACKO, ARE YOU LOOKING TO RAISE YOUR HAND? UNMUTE YOURSELF, PLEASE AND PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. HANS, DO WE HAVE ANY INDICATIONS? WE HAVE TWO LITIGATION ISSUES GOING ON WITH WOODMONT. DO YOU HAVE AN EDUCATED GUESS WHAT TIMEFRAME WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR EITHER OR BOTH OF THESE? >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE APPEAL FIRST. THE APPEAL CASE. OBVIOUSLY, GENERALLY APPEAL WILL TAKE JUST TO RESOLVE IT, THE COURT MAKE DECISION, I WOULD SAY FROM MY EXPERIENCE SOMEWHERE WITHIN SIX MONTH MAYBE TO NINE MONTH TIMEFRAME. EVEN AFTER YOU SUBMIT ALL THE PAPERWORK WITH THE COURT, YOU WILL REQUEST ALL ARGUMENT AND THE COURT BASICALLY CONTROL THE CALENDAR, ESPECIALLY IN THE APPEAL PROCESS. YOU CAN'T REQUEST EXPEDITE HEARING. THE COURT HEAR THE APPEAL WHENEVER THEY WANT. BASED ON MY PANEL EXPERIENCE, SOME APPEALS MAY TAKE A YEAR, MAYBE EIGHT MONTHS, MAYBE MORE. IT DEPENDS. WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVIL LITIGATION AT THE TRIAL LEVEL, RIGHT NOW, BASED ON MY CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL BURKE, WE'RE JUST AT THE DISCOVERY STAGE. SO JUST GO REMAINS YOU AT THE EARLY STAGE OF ANY LITIGATION, AND SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A TIMEFRAME ON THAT ONE. I WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO MICHAEL, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF HOW THE COURT IS OPERATING ON THE COVID RULES, I DON'T SEE THAT UNLESS THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT ENDING ANYTIME SOON. >> THANK YOU, HANS. MOHAN WHILE YOU'RE ANSWERING QUESTIONS, SO THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY ONE ACTIVE CASE THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW THAT YOU'RE HANDLING IS WOODMONT APPEAL BECAUSE THE OTHER CASE IN WOODMONT IS WITH BURKE AS THE LEAD ATTORNEY AND YOU'RE ASSISTING, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT MA'AM. >> OKAY. WE WRITE THE ONE APPEAL THAT YOU JUST SEND US EMAIL THE OTHER DAY THAT WE'VE GOT AN EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS TO RESPOND TO IT. ARE YOU USING ANY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ASSIST YOU WITH THAT? >> NO. I'M WORKING ON THAT BY MYSELF AND MY OTHER COLLEAGUES [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY? >> OKAY. HOW MANY APPEALS HAVE YOU HANDLED? >> I CAN'T COUNT IN TERMS OF WORKING ON APPEALS. OVER THE 20 YEARS, AT LEAST FIVE OR SIX OR SEVEN APPEAL EITHER FIRST CHAIR OR CO-COUNSEL. MOSTLY LAND-USE MATTERS. SOME APPEALS HAS IN FACT, I HAD ONE CASE WHERE THAT WENT TO THE THIRD DC AT LEAST THREE TIMES. [00:15:04] IT WAS ONE LAND USE SPAN OF THAT. I'M JUST GUESSING BUT IT'S 20 YEARS IS DEFINITELY BEEN MORE THAN SIX, SEVEN, PROBABLY MORE THAN 10. OKAY? >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE OTHER MATTERS THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE POTENTIAL, NOT NECESSARILY AND IT DEPENDS ON IF THEY COME BACK BEFORE US OR WHAT IF THEY COME BACK AND WHEN THEY COME BACK BEFORE US. THERE'S NOTHING. >> OBVIOUSLY MY JOB IS TO PREVENT US FROM GOING TO COURT, IN FACT, RESOLVE IT WITHOUT LITIGATION. YOU DO IT. >> THANK YOU. AS FAR AS LETTERS OF INTEREST VERSUS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, I THINK THE INFORMATION IN BOTH IS THERE. I THINK THE DIRECTIVE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR [INAUDIBLE] >> I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD ALSO. THERE'S A NUMBER OF FORECLOSURE MATTERS, A NUMBER OF LEAN CASES THAT [INAUDIBLE]. I'M DEALING WITH THEM. I'M DEALING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL. THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM GENERALLY LEAN ISSUES THAT I'M DEALING WITH. I HAVE THOSE CASE ALSO, I HAVE THE NOTICE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNCIL AND I CAN TELL YOU, THEY'RE AT LEAST 15 OR 20 OF THEM. OKAY? >> UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, FAMILIAR WITH FORECLOSURE COURT, VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT. BY THE WORLD'S IS WHAT I WORK ON AS WELL. I KNOW THE PALATE PROCESSES ROLLING WOULD BE MORATORIUM AS WELL. WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THE LETTER OF INTEREST AND THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, THEY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME THING WITHIN THE ITEMS THAT ARE WORKING THE LETTERS OF INTERESTS ARE IN THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. THE QUALIFICATIONS JUST SEEM TO BE MORE. PRESENTS IT IN A DIFFERENT PACKAGE, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY IN THE ATTORNEY WORLD IS EXPECTING A MORE PROFESSIONAL PACKAGE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY US AS A COMMISSION. WE'RE STILL CONTROLLING IT. IT IS JUST HAVING STAFF, WHICH IS WHAT WE USUALLY DIRECT THEM TO DO, TO ASSIST BY COLLECTING THE DATA, PREPARING IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO ON PUT IT. ARE WE GOING TO COLLECT IT INDIVIDUALLY? I DON'T THINK SO, AND BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL GETTING THE SAME PACKAGES AND HAVING EVERYTHING TO US IN AN ORDERLY FASHION, WHICH IS WHAT WE USUALLY ASK STAFF TO DO. LETTERS OF INTERESTS VERSUS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION, I THINK IS SEMANTICS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AS FAR AS THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE AND THE IDEA OF KEEPING THE OTTINOT LAW FIRM FOR SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR. FORGIVE ME. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU PERSONALLY, HANS. I BELIEVE I HAD SAID IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN WE HAD OUR INTERIM CONVERSATION. WE HAD TOLD THE PUBLIC, WE TOLD OUR RESIDENCE IT WAS GOING TO BE AN INTERIM THING AND WE WOULD QUICKLY MOVE TO FIND A PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE MADE A PROMISE TO OUR RESIDENCE FOR. WE ALSO DISCUSSED WHETHER WE WANTED A FIRM OR WE DIDN'T WANT A FIRM OF AN INDIVIDUAL. WE SAID THAT WE WANTED A FIRM BASIS. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT IN A WONDERFUL ATTORNEY ON THIS PANEL, RYAN. BUT YOUR FIRM IS STILL A SIZE OF TWO AND IT'S STILL THIS IS NOT FOR A BATTLE THAT. >> IT'S NOT A FIRM WITH TWO. I HAVE OTHER ATTORNEYS. >> MR. RONALD, [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS THE THIRD TIME. >> I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD. >> SHE'S NOT WITH YOUR FIRM? >> PAMELA RYAN IS WITH MY FIRM. I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ATTORNEY WHO IS ALSO WITH MY FIRM. SHE'S NOT OBVIOUSLY WORKING PHYSICALLY AT TAMARAC, BUT SHE'S ALSO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE WITH MY FRIENDS. SO WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO ATTORNEYS. >> IT'S LONG SINCE WE HIRED YOU AS OUR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY. CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S ONE THING. IT'S STILL THE POINT OF WE SAID THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE PERSON OR ENTITY THAT WAS GOING TO BE YOUR INTERIM ATTORNEY BE QUALIFIED TO BE OUR PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY. I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO STICK TO OUR WORD, TO OUR RESONANCE AND OUR BUSINESS OWNERS IN OUR CITY. WE TOLD THEM WE'D MOVE QUICKLY. I THINK DELAYING THE MATTER IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT AS FAR AS THE ITEMS THAT OUR INTERIM THE ATTORNEY IS WORKING ON IF HE IS VERY MUCH ENTRENCHED IN THEM AND IT IS TOO DIFFICULT TO HAVE HIM NO LONGER BE WORKING ON IT. [00:20:02] THEN I SAY WITH OUR NEW ATTORNEY THAT WE WOULD HIRE HAVE THE OTTINOT LAW FIRM CONTINUES TO ASSIST THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THOSE MATTERS. THIS WAY THERE IS THAT CONSISTENCY. BUT I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO MOVE ON IN GETTING WHETHER IT'S THROUGH LETTERS OF INTEREST OR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION, WE NEED TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ON AND GET TO SELECTING A PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY. THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS. COMMISSIONER GELIN, YOU HAVE YOUR SECOND ROUND TO SPEAK. WOULD YOU, COMMISSIONER GELIN? >> YEAH. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I WANT JUST TO SURVEY THE COMMISSION TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT EACH ELECTED OFFICIAL IS SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OF WORK, WITH THE MEMOS ISSUED AND THE LEGAL ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. IF THE CLERK CAN JUST ASK EACH COMMISSIONER IF WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY AND WORK AND SERVICES, YES OR NO. >> COMMISSIONER GELIN, MIGHT THAT NOT BE SOMETHING SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION MAY NOT WANT TO DO BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE? >> THEY CAN INDICATE THAT THEY'RE NOT IN RESIDENCE RESPONDING. >> I THINK YOU'RE PUTTING SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES IN A POSITION, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO. [OVERLAPPING] >> THIS IS A WORKSHOP MEETING AND WE'RE HERE TO INTERACT AND GET FEEDBACK. WE'RE HERE TO MAKE A CRITICAL DECISION, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET EVERYONE'S OPINION ON THE RECORD. >> WELL, THERE ARE SOME TIMES WHERE IT'S FOR OUR OWN OPINIONS WE GIVE ENOUGH FOR CROSS [OVERLAPPING] >> WHY DON'T YOU ALLOW EACH PERSON TO ASK? [OVERLAPPING] >> IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? >> I ASKED THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL, SO CALL, GET A CONSENSUS. >> YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M STILL THE CHAIR OF THE MEETING. I'M ASKING IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO ANSWER THAT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO CALL ON YOU. VICE MAYOR. >> I HAVE NO OPINION AND I'M SATISFIED AT THE MOMENT, SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER BOLTON. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HANS OTTINOT AT THIS TIME. BUT I DO WANT TO SEE A PROCESS GO FORWARD. IF IT'S GOING TO BE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, FORGET ABOUT IT. IF IT'S FOUR LETTERS OF INTEREST MIRRORING WHAT WAS USED FOR THE INTERIM PROCESS, THEN I'M ALL FOR THAT. >> MR. BLAST. [NOISE] THE CONCERN BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN [INAUDIBLE] REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION. DOES THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE BUSINESS TENDERS AND WHAT YOU NEED TO DO? >> WE CAN ADAPT IT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER PLACKO? >> THANK YOU. NO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HANS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, HE'S SPOILED ME IN THAT HE KEEPS ME UP TO DATE SO WELL ON EVERYTHING. HOWEVER, FROM A SELFISH STANDPOINT, I DO HAVE TWO LITIGATION ISSUES COMING UP IN WOODMONT WHICH ARE PARAMOUNT, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE IN BETWEEN ATTORNEYS AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO CATCH EVERYONE UP TO SPEED. SO I THINK WE NEED TO START THE PROCESS THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO. THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON ANYONE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO AT THIS TIME, I'M HEARING THAT THERE'S THREE OF US WHO WISH TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ON. [NOISE] COMMISSIONER BOLTON? [NOISE] >> QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. IN THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HELD FOR CHOOSING THE INTERIM ATTORNEY, WE MENTIONED THAT WE DID NOT WANT THE INTERIM ATTORNEY TO BECOME THE PERMANENT ATTORNEY. IS THAT A MISUSE OF CODE OR THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL STAND OR WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THAT? >> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, THAT'S BASICALLY A POLICY STATEMENT THAT THE COMMISSION MAY, IT'S NOT A CODE ISSUE, IT'S NOT A LEGAL ISSUE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THEY MADE AS A POLICY STATEMENT, OKAY? >> OKAY. SO SINCE WE MADE THAT AS JUST A POLICY STATEMENT, NOTHING PRECLUDES US IN CASE LAW OR OTHERWISE, [00:25:02] THAT NAMING YOU THE PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE AN ISSUE. >> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU'RE CORRECT, NOTHING PRECLUDES THE CITY COMMISSION FROM NAMING ME AS A PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN A QUESTION FOR KEITH GLATZ. I CAN'T SEE BACK IN THERE. IF WE GO TO THE LETTER OF INTEREST ROOT AND WE MIRROR EXACTLY THE PROCESS THAT WE USED FOR THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, HOW IS THAT PROCESS DIFFERENT FROM THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU GAVE US, THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION? >> I'D PROBABLY ACTUALLY JUST MAKE A CHANGE TO CHANGE THE DELINEATION OF WHAT THE DOCUMENT IS. IT WOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH DIFFERENT. WE MIGHT TAKE THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT UP OFF THE BACK OF IT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT WOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH OF A STRETCH TO CHANGE THAT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN WHAT IS THE TURNAROUND THAT YOU WANT FOR US TO FIND A PERMANENT ATTORNEY? >> IS THAT ADDRESSED TO ME, COMMISSIONER? >> YEAH. >> WELL, THE TIME FOR PROCESSING, WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE EASILY WITHIN ABOUT 2 TO 2 1/2 WEEKS FOR TERMS TO RESPOND. BUT THE TIME FRAME IS YOUR TIME FRAME TO SAY. >> OKAY. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT AT ANY TIME, WE COULD TERMINATE THAT PROCESS AND CHOOSE HANS IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED? >> YOU HAVE THE COMPLETE PREROGATIVE IN THAT AREA, COMMISSIONER. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO TWO WEEKS FOR PEOPLE TO RESPOND, AND THEN THE PACKAGES WOULD COME TO WHO, YOU OR THE CLERK? >> THEY'D COME HERE. I'D HAVE THEM COME TO THE PURCHASING SYSTEM BECAUSE I NEED TO HAVE THEM DOCUMENTED, BUT YES. >> OKAY. >> THEN WE COULD FORWARD THEM TO THE CLERK AND THEN SHE COULD FORWARD THEM TO YOU AT THAT POINT. WE WORKED VERY WELL WITH THAT, THE LAST TIME. >> OKAY. THEY COME TO YOU, YOU FORWARD THEM TO THE CLERK, AND THEN WE SET A MEETING WHERE WE CAN CHOOSE OUR TOP THREE OR WHATEVER AND MAKE THE SELECTION AT THAT TIME? >> IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WISH TO DO IT, ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. THAT'S THE METHOD I LIKE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IN TERMS OF THE ATTORNEY IS WE DID PUT IT OUT AND PEOPLE RELIED ON US, AND THERE WERE FIRMS THAT SAID THAT THEY DID NOT PUT THEIR APPLICATIONS IN BECAUSE THEY WERE WAITING FOR THE PERMANENT APPLICATION [NOISE] PROCESS. DO WE OPEN OURSELVES UP TO ANY KIND OF LAWSUIT BY THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD AN EXPECTATION TO BE ABLE TO BID AND DID NOT BID BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY POSITION BECOME FULL-TIME? >> THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME? >> YEAH. >> IT'S A ONE-WORD ANSWER. NO. >> YOU DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ATTORNEYS OUT THERE THAT [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. >> YEAH. OKAY. I'LL BEG TO DIFFER ON THAT ONE, BUT THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S WHAT ATTORNEYS USUALLY [OVERLAPPING] >> THERE'S NO CONTRACT, RIGHT? THEN OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU TAKE THIS ANALOGY ANYTIME THE CITY ADVERTISED FOR A JOB AND DOES NOT AWARD IT, LET'S SAY WE SEND A JOB APPLICATION ON HIGHER INTERNALLY, THEN THE PERSON ON THE OUTSIDE THEN CAN SAY THEY HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF CONTRACT RIGHT TO SUE THE CITY BECAUSE THE CITY ADVERTISED FOR THE JOB AND WE HAD THE EXPECTATION TO AT LEAST APPLY AND BE HIRED. SO THERE'S NO BASIS, THERE'S NO CASE LAW. I'VE PRACTICED EMPLOYMENT LAW EARLY IN MY CAREER AS AN EMPLOYMENT LAWYER AND LITIGATOR, AND I COULD TELL YOU, [00:30:03] I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A CASE WHERE EMPLOYER IS SUED WITHOUT ANY CONTRACTUAL BASIS BY INDICATING THAT THEY MAY ADVERTISE FOR A POTENTIAL JOB. >> I THINK THAT YOUR ANALOGY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE SITUATION AT HAND, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT IT, YOU HAVE YOUR OPINION AND I BELIEVE I'VE STATED MINE WHERE I DO THINK THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION PROVIDED AND SET BY THIS COMMISSION THAT IT WOULD BE AN INTERIM AND THERE WERE ATTORNEY LAW FIRMS THAT HAVE SAID POINT-BLANK, THAT THEY WILL WAIT UNTIL THE FULL-TIME POSITION IS AVAILABLE. I KNOW THAT LAWYERS LIKE TO LITIGATE, SO I'LL JUST SAY THAT. [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] >> NO, I WANT TO TELL YOU, I WOULD REPRESENT THE CITY FOR FREE ON THAT CASE. >> OKAY, I'M SURE YOU WOULD. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. >> OKAY? [LAUGHTER] >> I THINK WE DO NEED TO PROCEED FORWARD AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS SAID IF THE LETTER OF INTERESTS AND TWO-WEEK TURNAROUND AND OUR ABILITY DEPENDING ON HOW MANY APPLICATIONS THAT WE RECEIVE TO GO THROUGH WOULD THEN DEPEND ON HOW QUICKLY WE'D BE ABLE TO SET THE NEXT MEETING IN TIME TO PROCESS IT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND THEN COMMISSIONER PLACKO. >> DID YOU MEAN COMMISSIONER GELIN? BECAUSE I HAD MY HAND UP. >> I'M SORRY. I DID, YES. COMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]. >> QUESTION FOR THE PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR. WERE YOU HERE IN 2005? >> YES, I WAS, COMMISSIONER. >> OKAY. HOW WAS THE PRIOR CITY ATTORNEY SELECTED? BECAUSE I HAVE THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF ME. HE WAS SELECTED ON APRIL 20TH, 2005 BY RESOLUTION TO SERVE ON AN INTERIM BASIS. WHAT WAS THAT SELECTION PROCESS? >> WELL, IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, AND MIKE [INAUDIBLE] CAN PROBABLY BACK ME UP ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT BECAUSE HE WAS HERE AS WELL. WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY, SAM GOREN, AND HIS FIRM HAD DONE FOR THE OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA. WE ASKED HIM TO STEP IN BECAUSE ON AN INTERIM BASIS BECAUSE WE HAD A FAIRLY QUICK DEPARTURE OF AN EXISTING [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]. >> WHAT WAS THE TIMELINE OF THAT QUICK DEPARTURE? >> MIKE, DIDN'T THE COMMISSION VOTE HIM OUT WITHIN ABOUT A WEEK OF DISCUSSION? I CAN'T RECALL FOR SURE. >> THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION. MITCH [INAUDIBLE] DEPARTURE WAS IMMEDIATE. HE WAS TERMINATED AT A COMMISSION MEETING AND THE DEPARTURE WAS IMMEDIATE. THERE WAS A MUCH GREATER SENSE OF URGENCY WHEN THE GOREN FIRM WAS BROUGHT IN. >> OKAY. HE SERVED ON AN INTERIM BASIS FROM APRIL OF 2005 AND WAS MADE PERMANENT WITHIN, IT LOOKS LIKE SIX MONTHS. APRIL OF 2005, AND HE WAS MADE PERMANENT NOVEMBER 23RD OF 2005. WHAT WAS THE EVALUATION CRITERIA TO DETERMINE THAT HE SHOULD BE PERMANENT AT THAT TIME? DID THE COMMISSION INTERVIEW ANY OTHER LAW FIRMS? WAS THERE A LETTER OF INTEREST? WHAT WAS THAT PROCESS? >> COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE IT WAS A BIT MORE INFORMAL. I BELIEVE THEY JUST ASKED THE OTHER FIRMS IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PRESENTING, AND THEY HAD ORAL PRESENTATIONS AT THAT TIME. THE ORAL PRESENTATION STATUTES WERE NOT QUITE AS DETAILED AND HARRIED AS THEY ARE TODAY. SO THEY BROUGHT SEVERAL FIRMS IN, INTERVIEWED THEM, AND CHOSE THE GOREN, CHEROF, DOODY & EZROL FROM THAT. >> IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THOSE ORAL PRESENTATIONS? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT REFERENCE HERE. IT JUST SAYS THAT TAMARAC DEEMS IT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS TO SELECT THE LAW FIRM. THEN IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY REFERENCE OR ANY KIND OF PROCESS IN THIS RESOLUTION. >> TO BE HONEST, I WASN'T INVOLVED SPECIFICALLY IN THAT PROCESS. THAT WAS COMPLETELY THE COMMISSION'S PROCESS. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY, THAT THERE PROBABLY WOULD BE MINUTES OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS, TO SOME EXTENT. [OVERLAPPING] I CAN'T SPEAK FOR JEN ON THAT BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE EITHER, BUT I IMAGINE THEY TOOK SOME MINUTES. >> OKAY. WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO DO AN RFQ, RFP, OR LETTER OF INTEREST. WE COULD JUST HAVE PRESENTATIONS, HAVE THESE FIRMS PRESENT, AND THEN MAKE OUR SELECTION. >> SOME MUNICIPALITIES IN THE AREA HAVE DONE IT THAT WAY. >> OKAY. QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. [00:35:02] PRIOR TO YOU BEING SELECTED AT THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, HOW WAS THE PRIOR FIRM SELECTED BEFORE YOU WERE SELECTED? >> BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION, THEY BASICALLY CAME IN AS INTERIM, AND EVENTUALLY WERE GIVEN A JOB AS PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY. THIS IS MY RECOLLECTION. >> OKAY. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE CONTROL THIS PROCESS. SO IF WE SAID ON ONE DAY, WHOEVER'S INTERIM CAN NOT BE PERMANENT, THEN WE SAID ON ANOTHER DAY WE WANT TO MAKE THE INTERIM PERMANENT, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> AS KEITH GLATZ INDICATED, YES. YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE PROCESS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE INTERIM PERMANENT AS THE COMMISSION, ABSOLUTE RIGHT. >> OKAY. MR. GLATZ, AS YOU KNOW, I SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO DIFFERENT CITIES ALL THE TIME, AND I ALWAYS SEE A CAVEAT OR A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL TO THIS AGENCY DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WIN THIS CONTRACT OR IT'S AN ACTUAL CONTRACT AT ALL. DO WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN OUR RPS AS WELL? >> WE GENERALLY HAVE LANGUAGE. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT, REJECT, OR TAKE ANY PORTION OF A PROPOSAL. IT'S MORE OR LESS THAT OR ON THAT LINE. >> I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND FOR THE MAYOR, WHO'S AN ATTORNEY AS WELL, IF YOU OFFER SOMEONE A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, YOU CAN ALSO TAKE THAT CONTRACT AWAY, IS THAT RIGHT, MR. CITY ATTORNEY? >> IT DEPENDS ON THE FACTS, IF, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME CONSIDERATION AND SOME RELIANCE ON THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF THERE WAS SOME NEGOTIATION. IT IS A FACTS-BASED ISSUE. IF A CONTRACT WAS OFFERED AND THE CANDIDATE ACCEPTS THE CONTRACT, THEN YOU HAVE A BINDING CONTRACT. IF THERE WAS NO OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE, YOU DON'T HAVE A BINDING CONTRACT. >> OKAY. WHEN WE SAID THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER PROCESS OR THAT THE INTERIM CANNOT BE PERMANENT, THERE WAS NO OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE WHEN WE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER GELIN. >> OKAY. THERE'S BEEN SOME ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER BY THE MAYOR AND BY THE MIAMI HERALD MAGAZINE. WERE ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE ACCUSATIONS TRUE? >> THESE STATEMENTS WERE FALSE. IN FACT, THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEHIND THEM WOULD NOT, OBVIOUSLY, DISCLOSE WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO HIRE LAWYERS SOON FOR SLANDER. >> OKAY. JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE SUCCESS, YOU GET ATTACKED. I EXPERIENCED THAT MYSELF PERSONALLY, WHERE THE FIRST TIME I WAS ON THE COVER OF THE MIAMI HERALD WAS NOT WHEN I HAD THE ISSUE WITH BSO. IT WAS WHEN I WON A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI. WON A CONTRACT FAIR AND SQUARE, BUT THE INCUMBENT INSURANCE BROKER, A LADY BY THE NAME OF RACHEL SAPOZNIK, CONTACTED HER FRIENDS AT THE MIAMI HERALD AND THEY WROTE A PRETTY SLANDEROUS ARTICLE ABOUT ME WITH ALMOST NO STATEMENTS OF FACT WHATSOEVER. IT APPEARED THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE COMMISSION OF COWARDS, I WOULD CALL THEM, THEY BUCKLED UNDER THE PRESSURE, THREW THE RFP OUT, AND THEY REBID THE RFP. I DIDN'T WASTE MY TIME AND REBID ON IT. BUT ANOTHER FIRM DID WIN. THE SAME BROKER, RACHEL SAPOZNIK, SHE LOST, AND SHE DID NOT CALL HER FRIENDS TO WRITE ANY ARTICLES ABOUT THE WINNER. BUT I FOUND IT STRANGE THAT I LANDED ON THE COVER OF THE MIAMI HERALD BECAUSE I WON A CONTRACT FAIR AND SQUARE. IT JUST SEEMS UNIQUE TO ME THAT THERE WERE NO ATTACKS ON MR. OTTINOT WHEN HE FIRST WENT OUT FOR THE INTERIM POSITION. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WITH THIS MEETING COMING UP, THERE'S BEEN ONE EMAIL BY AN UNNAMED SOURCE, AND THEN SOME BLOGGER THAT ATTACKED ME AS WELL WHEN I WON THE NORTH MIAMI CONTRACT, DOING THE SAME ATTACK ON MR. OTTINOT. IT'S A SHAME THAT, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE SUCCESS, PEOPLE ATTACK YOUR CHARACTER AND TRY TO CHANGE THE MINDS, BUT I GUESS THAT'S JUST THE GAME OF POLITICS. PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE THE TIME OF [00:40:01] ANY POTENTIAL APPLICANTS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE CITY ATTORNEY ROLE. I'M PRETTY SATISFIED WITH THE LEVEL OF WORK AND THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT'S BEING PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY OF THE PARTIES WHO ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING THE ROLE. I DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S NO ONE THAT IS DISSATISFIED, EXCEPT PERHAPS THE MAYOR, WHO SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME OR HANS OR MERLIN, AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT'S JUST A FACT. EVEN OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MR. [INAUDIBLE] , CANNOT SPEAK AT A WORKSHOP WHERE THE MAYOR PRESIDED, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE GOING TO DO A PROCESS, LETTERS OF INTERESTS OR JUST A SIMPLE PRESENTATION. I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T DO THE SAME PROCESS WE DID WHEN WE SELECTED THE PRIOR CITY ATTORNEY, AND THEN WE MAKE UP HER MIND. BUT IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULDN'T EVEN REVISIT THIS FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR SO. HE'S MOVING FORWARD, HE'S GETTING THINGS DONE, HE'S KEEPING US INFORMED. I NEVER GOTTEN MEMOS FROM THE PRIOR CITY ATTORNEY WITH OPTIONS AND A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE, PROS AND CONS. SO I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANY TIME. I'M PRETTY SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICES. MR. OTTINOT, I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THOSE SERVICES WITH HIS LAW FIRM, WHICH HE'S GROWN IN THE VERY SHORT TIME THAT HE'S BEEN WITH US. IT'S AN ACTUAL SUCCESS STORY, WHERE HANS IS JUST A KID FROM THE GHETTO, GOT A SCHOLARSHIP- [OVERLAPPING] >> SORRY. I THINK THIS TIME YOU'RE FILIBUSTERING KNOWING THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING TO GO TO. SO I THINK YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINT. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, WE ALL DO. IT'S TIME FOR COMMISSIONER PLACKO TO SPEAK. >> SURE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER PLACKO. >> THANK YOU, MIKE. THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON HANS. HOWEVER, THE FIVE OF US STATED IN PUBLIC THAT WE WERE ONLY LOOKING FOR AN INTERIM ATTORNEY, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL FIRMS WHO CONTACTED US AND WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT. ARE WE NOW BEING UNFAIR? I BELIEVE IN PLAYING FAIR ACROSS THE BOARD. I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED RECENTLY BY SOME OF THESE FIRMS AND I HAVE SAID THE SAME THING TO EACH ONE OF THEM. I PROMISE, WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE, I WILL SPEAK WITH YOU, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. TO ME, I'VE GIVEN THEM MY WORD THAT I WOULD TALK WITH THEM AND TO GO BACK ON OUR WORD NOW, AND THE FIVE OF US AGREED TO THAT, I THINK WOULD BE A MISTAKE ON OUR PART. I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROCESS AND LET IT PLAY OUT THE WAY IT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT. >> WE NEVER DEFINED THE TERM INTERIM, SO WE NEED TO DEFINE THE TERM INTERIM, WHETHER IT MEANS THREE MONTHS, SIX MONTHS, NINE MONTHS, OR TWO YEARS. >>MR. GELIN, YOU'VE HAD YOUR PEACE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PARKER. FOR THE QUESTION ASKED OF ME EARLIER, AND I SEE COMMISSIONER BOLTON, AND I'LL GET TO YOU IN A MOMENT AS WELL, VICE MAYOR. MY ISSUES ARE PROCEDURAL. AS YOU ALL KNOW, I'M VERY PROCEDURAL. SO DURING THE REMAINDER OF WHATEVER TIME THAT OUR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY IS HERE, MY ISSUES ARE TO HAVE OUR DOCUMENTS TO US BEFORE THE SIX BUSINESS DAYS, SO WHEN THE PACKAGE IS READY FOR REVIEW, DURING OUR AGENDA REVIEW, I HAVE SOMETHING TO READ, I HAVE SOMETHING TO GO BY. GETTING IT A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE COMMISSION MEETING OR THE DAY ON THE MONDAY BEFORE A COMMISSION MEETING, I STILL DO NOT ENJOY THAT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GIVE ME THE TIME FOR ME TO PROCESS, DO OTHER THINGS, AND MAYBE MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE CITY, AND BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO YOU. ALSO, WHEN YOU CAME ON BOARD, YOU WERE ONLY FOCUSING WITH US, AND I CONGRATULATE YOU, IT'S WITH SINCERITY YOU NOW HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY POSITION IN NORTH MIAMI BEACH, AND THAT'S GREAT. BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE INITIAL WHEN I SELECTED, AND YOU KNOW MY COMMENTS, I MADE THEM AT THAT TIME. I WAS OKAY WITH HAVING YOUR FIRM AS THE INTERIM BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO GET YOUR SOLE FOCUS, WE WERE GETTING YOU. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO GET AND NOW WE DON'T GET YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SPLIT YOU WITH NORTH MIAMI BEACH, BECAUSE YOU MADE THE SAME PROMISE TO THEM AS YOU PROMISED TO US. YOU'D BE AT THEIR BUILDING FIVE DAYS A WEEK. WE CAN'T HAVE YOU IN TWO PLACES. THAT'S THE REALITY OF IT. THOSE ARE MY ISSUES OF WHY I HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH KEEPING YOUR FIRM AS OUR INTERIM ATTORNEY TO BECOME OUR FULL ATTORNEY, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE PROMISE WE MADE TO EVERYBODY ELSE. COMMISSIONER BOLTON. [00:45:01] >> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I'M MORE OF A UNIFIER TO BRING EVERYBODY'S IDEAS INTO ONE PLACE AND HAVING EVERYBODY WIN, SO TO SPEAK. TO ME, THIS IS A WORKSHOP, WE CAN'T TAKE ACTIONS NECESSARILY LIKE THAT IN A WORKSHOP. I THINK A WORKSHOP IS NARROW IN ITS MEANING. COMMISSIONER GELIN HAS SOME DESIRES, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PLACE FOR THAT. LET'S MOVE ON, IT'S SEVEN MINUTES TO SEVEN O'CLOCK. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PRESENTATIONS OF EVERYBODY, I THINK KEITH AND HANS, AND COMMISSIONER GELIN, THAT WE CAN NAME HANS PERMANENT ATTORNEY IF WE WANTED TO AT ANY TIME. WE CAN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THIS IS OUR PROCESS. SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE, VERY NEAR FUTURE, LET'S DISCUSS THIS. WE ARE GOING OUT FOR A PROCESS. WE HEARD LETTERS OF INTEREST. LET US TAKE THOSE LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO APPLY. HANS, IF YOU WANT TO APPLY, [LAUGHTER] GO AHEAD, AND LET'S CHOOSE THE BEST ONE FOR THE CITY AND MOVE ON FROM THERE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VICE MAYOR. >> WHAT I WANT TO SHARE IS A STORY OF A FRIEND OF MINE, THAT WITH HIS CHILDREN, FOR CHRISTMAS, HE'LL TAKE THEM TO, AT THAT TIME, TOYS 'R' US. THEY'LL PICK THE BEST GIFTS, AND THEN FOR CHRISTMAS, HE'LL SAY, "WHO DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THOSE GIFTS TO?" NOT KNOWING THAT THE FATHER WAS GOING TO REPLACE THOSE GIFTS AFTER THEY GIVE THEM AWAY. HE WANTED TO CHECK WHERE THEIR HEART WAS. THAT'S WHAT I THINK ABOUT IN THIS SITUATION, IN THE SAME MANNER. WE HAD THREE APPLICANTS FOR THE INTERIM POSITION. THEY WANTED TO PAVE THE GROUND, THEY WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING. THE OTHER ONES THAT DIDN'T, ALL THEY WANTED WAS THE WHOLE ENTIRE CAKE. THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO SACRIFICE, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET ME PROVE MYSELF. AT THIS MOMENT, MR. HANS DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS INTEREST OR THAT THERE IS INTEREST OF BEING OF HIRED FULL TIME. THIS IS ON YOU TO MOST OF US, BUT CONSIDERING THAT HE WAS NOT PART OF THAT, HE'S APPLYING TO BUILD SOMETHING UP. THAT, FOR ME, SPEAKS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. ANYONE COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR THE INTERIM POSITION. THEY ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. DID THEY DO THAT? EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A BUSINESS, TO BUILD A KINGDOM. DO THEY DO IT? NO. BUT SOME OF US WILL MAKE THE SACRIFICE, AND WITH THAT SACRIFICE, YOU GET SOMEWHERE, AND IT'S ACTUALLY AN HONOR TO THEN BE TOLD, HEY, BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DID SAY THAT. BUT HOW MANY TIMES DO WE ALL CHANGE OUR MINDS? I CHANGE MY MIND SEVERAL TIMES A DAY. I CHANGE MY MIND EVERY DAY, AND WE ALL DO, AND WHEREVER IT SAYS THAT THEY DON'T, THEY'RE LYING, YOU'RE A LIAR. IF WE'RE IN A POSITION NOW TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU ARE PAVING SOMETHING NICE AND THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT YOU ARE DOING A GOOD JOB, WHY NOT KEEP YOU AS A PERMANENT? I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD VOTE ON. YES, WE DID [INAUDIBLE] TO THE RESIDENCE. HOWEVER, WE ARE RESERVE THAT RIGHT TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER AND HOW DO WE IMPROVE FROM THAT? THAT'S MY POSITION ON THIS, AGAIN, JUST TO WRAP IT UP, MY OPINION, EVERYONE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME THE INTERIM, AND WITHOUT KNOWING, THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE ENTIRE CAKE. BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT THE LITTLE PIECE. THEY WANTED THE WHOLE THING. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME, IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO [00:50:01] DIRECT OUR PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR TO PREPARE THE LETTERS OF INTEREST, HAVE IT GO OUT WHEN THEY'RE READY, FOR TWO WEEKS, FOR US TO START RECEIVING APPLICATIONS OR LETTERS OF INTEREST, AND THE PACKAGES FOR US TO REVIEW. CORRECT? >> YES. >> I HAVE THE NOD BY COMMISSIONER PLACKO. I'VE GOT A YES BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON. [OVERLAPPING] THEN A YES BY MYSELF. CITY STAFF, THAT IS YOUR DIRECTIVE FROM TODAY'S WORKSHOP. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT'S 6:57. YOU'VE GOT THREE MINUTES UNTIL WE START OUR COMMISSION MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ADJOURNED. SEE YOU IN THREE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.