HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1976-10-06 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
CO
MI
OF MEETING HELD ON
1
L
ISSION
TES
OCT 61976
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
RALPH G, ONGIE
CITY CLERK
IBEX
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
ITEM NO,
SUBJECT
ORDINANCE OR
RESOLUTION NO
PAGE NO,
1.
CANVASS RESULTS OF ELECTION HELD SEPTEMBER
28, 1976 FOR BONDS AND CHARTER AMENDMENTS -
M-76-865
R-76-866
R-76-867
M-76-868
M-76-869
1-4
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
- 12.
WORKSHOP DISCUSSION - PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL
YEAR 1976-1977 -
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM -
PENSION FUNDING REPORT -
CIVIL SERVICE BUDGET -
AFTER SCHOOL CARE AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS -
MILLAGE INCREASE -
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS -
DISCUSSION OF RENOVATION OF COMMISSION ROOM
AND THE "911" TELEPHONE SYSTEM -
CIVIL SERVICE FUNDING - HUMAN RESOURCES
DISCUSSION -
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE CHARGEABL
TO 1976-77 FISCAL YEAR -
STATUS OF PERSONS IN UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE
THREATENED WITH DISMISSAL BY CIVIL SERVICE -
4-26
Discussion 26-30
M-76-870 30-33
M-76-871 34-37
M-76-872 37-63
M-76-873 63-67
First 67-80
Reading
Discussion
Discussion
8577
Discussion
80-81
82-103
104-106
106-107
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
*******
On the 6th day of October, 1976, the City Commission of
Miami, Florida met at its regular meeting place at City Hall in
said City in SPECIAL SESSION to consider the proposed appropriation
ordinance for.the City of Miami for fiscal year 1976-1977.
The meeting was called to order 3:20 O'Clock P.M. with the
following members of the Commission present:
Also Present:
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Joseph R. Grassie, City Manager
Frank H. Weston, Acting City Attorney
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Absent: None.
1. CANVASS RESULTS OF ELECTION HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1976 FOR BONDS
AND CHARTER AMENDMENTS:
Mayor Ferre: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, this is a special
Commission meeting for the purpose of discussing the proposed budget
but before we do that, I am going to call a special Commission meeting
so that we can canvass the City of Miami Bond and Charter Amendment
Election of September 28th. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Plummer: Move.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Plummer.
Rev. Gibson: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Gibson. Further discussion. Call the roll.
•
Thereupon, the following motion was introduced by Commissioner
Plummer who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-865
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE CITY
CLERK TO PRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BOND - CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION HELD
SEPTEMBER 28, 1976 FOR CANVASSING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the motion was
passed and adopted unanimously.
Mayor Ferre: Now Ralph, what do we have to do now?
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Mayor, I have spent 3 days in a complete audit of
the election. We have audited the return sheets against the print-
o-matic, the final IBM sheet is before you. The way it has been done
in the past is if you just want to arbitrarily select certain precincts,
1
OCT g 1976
you just call out the number and I'll read the return sheets vs. the..a
Mayor Ferre: Alright, 818.
Mr. Ongie: Alright sir, Bond Question no. 1, for - 220, against
186. Bond Question...
Mayor Ferre: No, you've got it backwards. For is 220.
Mr. Ongie: For is 220, against is 186. On Bond Question number 2,
for the question - 156, against the question - 251. Bond Question
number 3, for the question - 144, against the question - 265. Char-
ter Amendment, for the question - 115, against the amendment - 297.
Total vote was 472.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you, Bond No. 1 was the 25,000,000?
Mr. Ongie: Yes sir, that was the sewers.
Mayor Ferre: Number 2 was f.re.
Mr. Ongie: Yes sir. Number 3 was streetlights.
Mayor Ferre: And streetlighting was number 3. Now in this particu-
lar, they went against the Fire and against Lights but for the sewers.
Mr. Plummer: You know what's really a strange observation here?
Almost that entire precinct is 100% sewers and they're willing to
obligate themselves to give other people sewers.
Mayor Ferre: Are they lit?
Mr. Plummer: But you know the one nice thing I'm going to have all
my neighbors that come screaming to me about when are we going to get
the yellow lights, I'm going to show them the results.
Mayor Ferre: What's my precinct?
Mr. Plummer: 814.
Mayor Ferre: 814? Is that Towers? Well I want you to see
what happens in my precinct.
Mr. Ongie: Okay, precinct 814. Bond Question number 1, for the
question - 310, against the question - 101.
Mayor Ferre: That happens to be the highest number in the City of
Miami.
Mr. Ongie: Bond Question number 2, for the question - 225, against
the question - 183. Bond Question number 3, for the question - 218,
against the question - 192. On the Charter Amendment, for the amend-
ment - 150, against the amendment - 255. Total vote - 561.
Mayor Ferre: That was the highest turnout of any precinct in the
City of Miami. Any other questions? I want to tell you that I can't
see of one precinct that voted for the salary increases.
Mr. Plummer: There were four precincts; 449, 621, 622, 623 and 624.
Mayor Ferre: Where is 621, 622 and 623?
Mr. Plummer: Phyllis Wheatley, Overtown Community, St. John's Baptist
and Douglas Elementary. 449 is Liberty...
2
OCT 1976
Mayor Ferre:
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre:
the middle of
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
You want to
Well 622 sure didn't vote for it.
Oh, I'm sorry,
Little Havana,
yes. What's the one that is right in
the one that's 75% Latin.
Tell me what it is and I'll tell you.
Well I think there's one...
How about Aida Merritt.
Yeah, Aida Merritt.
657.
657, alright, let's do that one and then call it a day.
read 657.
Mr. Ongie: Yes sir. Alright, precinct 657, Bond Question number 1,
for the question - 141, against the question - 40. Bond Question
number 2, for the question - 147, against the question - 39. Bond
Question Number 3, for the question - 135, against the question -
46. On the Charter Amendment, for the amendment - 64, against the
amendment - 95. Total vote - 278„
Mayor Ferre: I want to tell you that on the bonds, that's about the
highest proportion of any major group turnout. Alright, are there
any further questions.
Mr. Plummer: I move we accept.
Mayor Ferre: Moved by Plummer.
Rev. Gibson: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Gibson. Further discussion, call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 76-866
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE FOLLOWING
RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL BOND ELECTION HELD SEPTEMBER
28, 1976: WITH RESPECT TO BOND QUESTION NO. 1,
ISSUANCE OF $25,000,000 BONDS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COST
OF IMPROVEMENTS AND EXTENSIONS FOR THE SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, APPROVED; WITH RESPECT
TO BOND QUESTION NO. 2, ISSUANCE OF $10,000,000 FOR
PAYMENT OF THE COSTS OF FIRE FIGHTING, FIRE PREVENTION
AND RESCUE FACILITIES, APPROVED; WITH RESPECT TO BOND
QUESTION NO. 3, ISSUANCE OF $10,000,000 FOR PAYMENT OF
COSTS OF STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF
MIAMI, DISAPPROVED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE PROPER CITY OFFICERS TO PERFORM ANY AND ALL
INCIDENTAL DUTIES AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID SANITARY
SEWER BONDS AND FIRE FIGHTING BONDS, AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
3
UCT 1976
• •
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr,
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None.
Mr. Ongie: The next resolution is certifying the results of the
Charter Amendment Election.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer
who moved .its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 76-867
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS
OF THE SPECIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1976, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
FOR THE RATIFICATION OR REJECTION OF THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION:
"SHALL SECTION 4 (h) OF THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BE AMENDED TO PRO-
VIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALARIES TO BE
PAID TO CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM THE $5,000
PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED IN 1949 TO $12,000
ANNUALLY EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 10, 1977 AND
FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALARY OF THE MAYOR -
COMMISSIONER FROM THE $5,000 PREVIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED IN 1949 TO $15,000 ANNUALLY,
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 10, 1977?"
AS BEING A REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice -Mayor Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
Mayor Ferre: You know, it's interesting to see that on Bond Issue
No. 2 which is the Firefighters, we just squeaked by really when you
stop to think about it. It wasn't a real squeaker but it was less
than 900 votes and on the other one, we only lost it by 650 votes
so it was really that close. We might try it again someday. Anything
else on this matter?
2. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION; PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1976-1977:
Mayor Ferre: We're on, this is a Special Meeting of the City of Miami
Commission to consider the budget. Mr. Grassie.
Mr. Grassie:
Mr. Plummer:
of the record,
this a public
We have, Mr. Mayor,
Mr. Grassie, may I
is this a special
hearing;
10 items on your proposed agenda,,..
first inquire, just for clarification
meeting, is this a Workshop or is
Mr. Grassie: This is a special meeting, it is not a workshop nor a
public hearing.
OCT 1976
• •
Mr. Plummer: Okay, will we still have a public hearing at 5?
Mayor Ferre: Oh sure, we've got to have a public hearing.
Mr. Plummer: I'm just asking, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: By law, you have to have one.
Mr. Grassie: Plus two other public hearings I would expect.
Mr. Plummer: Tonight?
Mr. Grassie: No.
Mayor Ferre: Rose, I want you to hear this because I'm going to
make a motion in a second. I'm going to pass the gavel to you and
I want to make a motion. The motion is as follows: I move that the
City of Miami adopt a budget that will follow the following lines:
Number one, that we increase the miliage as proposed in the City
budget estimate presented to us which is how much, Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: In rough terms, Mr. Mayor, one milt including debt service.
Mayor Ferre: Approximately one mil. Number two, that we provide
sufficient monies in this budget to cover salary and wage increases
up to now, which I will further specify after discussion but which
is roughly the amount that has been negotiated or offered by the City
Manager to the various employee groups. We all understand and we
can get to the specifics of that later on. I also move that, number
3, that the social programs be increased $1,570,000 which is 10% of
the Federal Revenue Sharing. I further move, number 4, that the
Manager be instructed to cut from the proposed budgets of the various
departments whatever percentage points must be cut at his discretion,
department by department, so that we can meet the employee require-
ments and let it be very clearly understood that we have no further
money than what we're going to dispose of now and that we're going
to have to cut these departments proportionate to the increase of
salaries to the various employee groups. I so move.
Mrs. Gordon: You've heard the motion, is there a second? Is there
a second?
Mr. Plummer: Is the floor open for another motion?
Mr. Reboso: No, I second the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, the motion has been seconded. Under discussion.
Mr. Plummer: Under discussion whenever you're ready for it. Mr.
Mayor, I have to have some clarification from you on point number
one, you're increasing by one mil. What you're actually saying then
is that you are adopting that as proposed by the Manager.
Mayor Ferre: No, let me be explicit. I don't know exactly what we
are talking about and the Manager can explain a little bit more in
detail what the salary increases would amount to. I'm just arbitrarily,
for my own figures, taking anything from 21 to 32 million dollars.
Mr. Plummer: I think for the clarification of a motion you've got to
be more definitive.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, let's just, for discussion sake, say it's
going to be 31 million dollars. In addition to that, there is an
increase of the millage which would amount to approximately 21 million
5
OCT 61976
dollars,
Mr. Plummer: 2.2.
Mayor Ferre: 2.2. Alright, in addition to that, I have, in My MO,a
tion in point number 3, increased the social services portion of
the budget from $1,270,000, is that right?
Mr. Plummer: $1,300,000.
Mayor Ferre: $1,300,000 to $1,570,000 which is an increase of
$270,000 dollars. Okay?
Mr. Plummer: Well I understand what you're...
Mayor Ferre: Well what I'm, excuse me, what I'm roughly saying is
that there is $6,000,000 that we're talking about in this of which
2.2 million is coming from an increased millage and of which 3.8
million is going to have to come from a decrease of the existing
budgets. Now in addition to that, we've already adopted a whole
series of amendments which amount to how much? About $1,000,000.
Mr. Grassie: In terms of what they net out to, yes, approximately
that.
Mayor Ferre: So you have to add that million to that 3.8 and, in
effect, what we're telling this Manager is that he's got to reduce
his existing budget by 4.8 million dollars and in addition to that,
increase taxes by 2.2 million dollars or increase the millage to
cover that. What I don't see, frankly, is that this Commission can
get all $7,000,000 from this budget and therefore, what I am, in
effect, saying.is that we get 2.2 million dollars from increasing
the millage and the balance, which is 4.8 million dollars, from
decreasing the existing budgets. Now I'll tell you, we're going to
cut more than fat out of that budget. Now I well realize that to
increase the millage by 1 mill creates a hardship on many homeowners
who can ill afford the $15.00 to $20.00 extra that this is going to
impose, or $30.00 or $40.00 that this is going to impose on them.
I don't think, in a normal household it wouldn't be much more than
$10.00 or $15.00 or $20.00.
Mr. Grassie: Just one word of clarification, Mr. Mayor. Of the
one mill, three tenths of a mill is the result of the certification
process, the certified millage process.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Grassie: Well you're right, the result is one mil but seven
tenths of a mill is the result of the action of this City Commission
and three tenths of a mill is the result of the certified millage
process.
Mayor Ferre: So what, in effect, we would ask for an increase in
three tenths of a mill.
Mr. Grassie: Your action would be seven tenths of a mill and the
automatic certification of millage process accounts for three tenths
of a mill.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I see.
Mrs. Gordon: You want to repeat your motion because I think...
OCT 61976
Mr. Reboso: The 1976-77 millage is going to be 3.6 million dollars?
Mrs. Gordon: The .716 is as per budget as you have outlined it.
Isn't that correct? There is no change or variation from the amount
you requested.
Mr. Grassie: In the millage, that is correct, that's the way I
understand the Mayor's...
Mrs. Gordon: Increase above certified millage which is what we
are asked to adopt by the motion. Is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: That's correct. It's the same that you have on page
2 of the...
Mayor Ferre: In other words, we would not go beyond the certified
millage?
Mr. Grassie: You would go seven tenths of a mill passed certified
millage.
Mr. Plummer: This year or last year?
Mr. Grassie: This year and that's the difference that I was pointing
out. There is a three tenths of a mill difference between last year's
and this year's certified...
Mayor Ferre: Alright, shall I repeat my motion?
Mr. Plummer: I've still got to have a clarification, Mr. Grassie,
can you answer what, in fact, is the increase? Is it seven tenths
of one mill under the Mayor's motion?
Mr. Grassie: Well let me make that very clear to you. This sheet
that we're handing out right now is designed to show three things.
One, the certified millage for the existing year; two, the certified
millage for the coming year which will happen whether you do any-
thing or not, that's an automatic certification; and three, the
proposed operating millage which would require new certification_
If you look across the top of that sheet and putting aside for the
moment debt service which doesn't make any difference and if you
look at the line that we call certified, you will see that the cer-
tified millage for 1975-76, the current year, is 8.619. The cer-
tified millage for the next year, without any increase on taxes on
your part, that's just what will happen through the certification
process, will go to 8.876. Now that's the three tenths of a mil
that I was talking about. In addition, if you do what is proposed
in the budget, you would go above that, another seven tenths of a
mill which you see in the third set of figures there, it's actua Uy
716 tenths of a mill...
Mr. Plummer: For a total of 973 with debt service.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, so that would be then what he's in fact saying
is 973 above. Okay, now Mr. Mayor, are you saying from that is
going to come, excuse me, let me revert back to question one.
That is exactly what you have proposed in the budget, is that correct?
Mr. Grassie; That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, now what you're saying then, Mr. Mayor, what-
ever increase is given to the employees...
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: It's got to come out of the departamental budget,
Mr. Plummer: Has got to come out of the departamental budgets.
Mayor Ferre: That's right. If it's 2%, it's 2%, if it's 3%,
it's 3•%o and if it's 4%, it's 4% - whatever it is.
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Out of the departamental budgets.
Yes.
Mr. Grassie: I want to make sure that all of the Commission under.-
stands the emphasis that Commissioner Plummer is giving...
Mr. Plummer: That's right, you better understand it.
Mr. Grassie: What'he's saying is that every department will take
the same size cut, that's what he's saying.
Mr. Plummer: No, that isn't what I'm saying. That is what I'm
asking for clarification.
Mayor Ferre: That's not my motion. My motion is that the reduction
come from the departamental budgets but where the reduction comes
is going to be determined by the City Manager.
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Grassie:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
Does the Manager understand that?
Yes.
That's right, at his discretion.
Social programs increased $270,000.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, and that is to be discussed by the Commission
after the adoption of this motion. When this motion, I'm not
making any committments as to how that's going to be distributed,
that's something that we're going to have to talk about.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, you're going to change the motion
that is on the board now.
Mayor Ferre: No.
Mr. Plummer: Possibly.
Mayor Ferre: No. I want to clarify it that my point as to social
services is that we increase by $270,000 the amount dedicated to
social services. I'm not in any way eluding to or discussing or
implying how that is to be spent.
Mr. Plummer: But what I'm trying to bring out, Mr. Mayor, is that
the present posture and policy of this Commission is for an amount
of 1.3 million dollars and it is at the discretion of the Manager.
Mayor Ferre: That hasn't been voted upon.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, it has.
Mayor Ferre: No, I don't think so. That motion was brought up and
then the maker of the motion, which was Reboso, withdrew the motion,
Mr. Plummer: No sir, I brought it up.
8
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: You brought it
Mr. Grassie: I believe you
for social services, Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Grassie: Yes, you adopted that...
Mayor Ferre: No sir, I distinctly remember...
Mr. Plummer: That's the way I understood it.
up and then it was withdrawn.
did adopt the 1.3 million as the level
Mayor Ferre: Well I'll tell you, if you
you get a clarification, that motion was
and then somebody said something and you
motion and we'll take it up again. Even
will certainly vote for it.
go back to the record and
made, I guess it was.by you,
said alright, I withdraw the
though, I will state that I
Mr. Plummer: Alright, now I have clarification on those four points.
Mayor Ferre: Five points really because...
Mr. Plummer: Four.
Mayor Ferre: Well it's been in this and I just wanted to,
for the record, point out that we've already adopted about $1,000,000
worth of additional items at the last hearing even though we did skip
over the $10,000 for the County Art Program and there was one other
that we went over, I forgot what it was.
Mr. Plummer: Improvements to this place, I believe.
Mayor Ferre: $40,000 improvements, those are the two that we didn't
vote on.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me make my points very clear. When I
make my points, please, I make them as a general observation, the
way I will predicate my vote it is not directed at any individual or
the Manager. Mr. Mayor, your motion, to my estimation, merely plugs
in the machine which at any time we're waiting for someone to unplug
this machine and let the City die. I am thoroughly convinced, as I
have been and have stated for some two to three years, that unless
drastic cuts are made in this budget, and this is the last one...
Mayor Ferre: The last budget?
Mr. Plummer: The last budget that I feel that we have a chance to
make a stand for survival of this City.
Mayor Ferre: You sound like Steve Clark.
Mr. Plummer: No, I sound like an undertaker if you want the truth
but I want you to know I'm not going to bury the City for nothing.
Mayor Ferre: Plummer, we're nowhere near that.
Mr. Plummer: Well I hope you're right, Mr. Mayor, and I'm wrong.
Mayor Ferre: Well you made this statement several years before in
duplications.
Mr. Plummer: No, I took 48 months then and I'm now cutting it down to
24 to 36. Mr. Mayor, I think that the proposed budget contains more
9
OCT 61976
•
fat than I, as a taxpayer, want to pay and I base it upon one thing,
Mr. Mayor and that is the admission of the Manager and the brief time
that he has been here, when questioned as to the efficiency of the
City work force, his response was, in a ballpark figure, approximately
60% and I will give him the latitude there of one way or the other.
But Mr. Mayor, I cannot vote in favor to continue for another 12
months that kind of inefficiency and because of that, i will have to
vote in the negative. I am convinced without question that with the
dedication that it would take, I am convinced that we could make
certified millage, I am convinced that we could carry on the programs,
I am convinced that this man sitting over here would gain the efficiency
that needs to be made and that the employees would be guaranteed an
increase. There is no question in my mind, it is very hard to say,
yes, we would have to let some employees go but one of the problems
that this Commission finds itself faced with is wall to wall people,
90.2% of our budget is people, employees and fringe benefits. It
is my firm conviction that we can come in at certified millage.
Because of that, Mr. Mayor, I will have to vote against the motion.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, in response if I may, I'd like to say that
this is the fourth budget that you've voted on or is it the fifth?
Mr. Plummer: This, I believe, is the sixth.
Mayor Ferre: I want to tell you that in your tenure of office the
expenditures that you have approved along with those that served with
you including myself for a few years have gone up more than 100%
during your tenure of office. I want to point out to you that your
same pesimistic remarks about the future tenure of the City have been
stated on several occasions in the past. I also want to point out to
you that you did not need Mr. Grassie to reaffirm your belief which
you have stated before Mr. Grassie came here that the efficiency factor
of the City of Miami was much less than 100%. I might point out two
things in rebuttal of that argument and that is that under surveys
done by various foundations and organizations in the last 10 years
whereas the Federal Budget and the employees of the federal system
have gone up substantially, that local government has gone up 4 and
5 times more than federal government has. I might also point out to
you that at no time in the history of Miami ever before has less of
the total budget been paid for by Ad Valorem taxes on a proportionate
basis. This is the highest, I'm not saying this is an excuse, but I
am saying that we are very close to 25% of the total dollars expended
are paid for by Ad Valorem taxes and the 75% are paid for by other
sources such as Federal State Revenue, Fees and other franchise taxes,
utility taxes and many other things other than Ad Valorem taxes. And
lastly, I might point out that my motion is based on the premise that
at the present time we have many fronts that we have opened. We have
opened a front which seems to be a rather obvious and direct confron-
tation of Civil Service, we have also yet unsolved problems with our
bargaining units in the City, we have pending before us another sort
of domicles called the Consent Decrees, two of them and the fact that
our Revenue Sharing Funds may be challenged, we have a new Manager and
a new City Attorney that are just beginning their tasks, we have major
lawsuits before us as we do with the Double Taxation lawsuit, with
Metro, the FEC property taking lawsuit, we have the Du Pont Plaza
lawsuit, we have many challenges in the City of Miami. I personally
am convinced that the City of Miami does have a future, that we will
survive the crisis, that we are not in as difficult a financial crisis
as some of us would believe. Oh, I forgot to mention the Pension
lawsuit.
Mr. Plummer: Which hasn't yet been filed.
10
OCT 61976
•
Mayor Ferre: Which hasn't yet been filed but has been threatened.
We have all these things before us and I don't think that this is
a _ , I don't think it will keep any of us happy. I'm not
happy with it, I agree that there's inefficiencies but I am convinced
more so than ever now that I am personally going through a problem
in one of my own companies, that the way you go about removing fat
is not with a hatchet but with a scalpel. That doesn't mean that you
can't move quickly with a scalpel. You can move just as quickly and
a heck of alot more effectively with a scalpel than with a hatchet.
The hatchet operations tend, in the long run, to sometimes be success-
ful operations but the patient dies and I think we've got, we have to
have a serious concern and I feel that we've got to give this Manager
sufficient time to not only get firm in the saddle but also to get
the working tools so that he can feel comfortable and he will have
the proper administrative helf that he is requesting that will help
him in making the decisions as to where to cut because if you don't
do it scientifically, when you're cutting fat you might be cutting
bone and when you start cutting fat you might get into a vein or an
artery that you don't want to cut and the bleeding might start and
it might be tough to stop it so I don't think this is a time for us
to take hatchet -type actions, I'm not completely satisfied with the
budget but I am to the extent that I think we've got to give this
Manager sufficient latitude for him to function and come back next
year with what I hope will be a much more presentable, balanced,
efficient, non -fat type of a budget. Lastly, I might point out that
I, according to the articles that have come out in both the Herald
and the news, have seen very, very few cities that have been able to
get by this budget year without increases. In some cases, substantial
increases. There certainly is no more fiscally conservative city than
Hialeah. Hialeah, as I recall, is going up 60%. There are other
cities that are going up 15, 20%. Even Metro, the difficulties they
have are going up in a small amount on their mileage and I think we
have got to go up these seven tenths of a mil and with that...
Mr. Plummer: I would like to comment, Madame Vice -Mayor.
Mrs. Gordon: Go right ahead, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, maybe you need to know that no one knows a
scalpel better than I do and yes, I do know the difference between
meat and bone...
Mayor Ferre: In the body you do but I'm not too sure that you or I
or anybody else here...
Mr. Plummer: Unfortunately, Mr. Mayor, I somewhat am looking at a
dead body but what you need to know, Mr. Mayor, that maybe you don't
know and for the record I will ask Mr. Grassie. Mr. Grassie, approxi-
mately two weeks ago, sir, were you able to make payroll?
Mr. Grassie: Are you talking in terms of cash flow, Commissioner?
Mr. Plummer: I'm talking about...
Mr. Grassie: We did make payroll.
Mr. Plummer: You did make payroll?
Mr. Grassie: Yes.
Mr.. Plummer: Were you short?
11
OCT 6/976
Mr. Grassie: We had a very close time of it.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Mr. Grassie: It was difficult.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Were you about $900,000 short?
Mr. Grassie: Not quite that much, very close to that.
Mr. Plummer: Very close to that figure?
Mr. Grassie: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I know the difference between meat and bone
and I say to you, sir, the time for the hatchet is now.
Mr. Grassie: Just one comment, Mr. Mayor, to review.
Mayor Ferre: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: If you don't have the money in the bank you don't meet
salaries.
Mr. Grassie: He is very simply talking about cash flow.
Mayor Ferre: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I still make the same question. You don't
write a check for more than you have in the bank. Whether it's cash
flow, which it may be poor management, or whatever the reason. I
wish somebody would explain it. When you're $900,000 short in a City
with a budget of $131,000,000, I want somebody to explain it to me.
Mrs. Gordon: We have a motion and a second and we are still on discussion.
Okay, a question has been asked of you, Mr. Grassie by Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: I have one other point and really it's not a point, it's
a reiteration.
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you let the Manager...
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were ready. I apologize.
Mr. Grassie: I started to make a comment to the remark that you made
earlier. I simply want to make sure that we understand that we have
already created, you have, a $5,000,000 requirement in very round
figures for cuts. Now if, in addition to the cuts that are required
by the things that you have already done and which are implicit in
negotiations with employees, if, in addition to that you talk about
eliminating a revenue item of 2.2 million, it's obvious that we have
a 7.2 million dollar need to cut and I'm simply addressing the ques-
tion of whether we're talking about bone or fat or what have you.
We've already got that size of the problem.
Mr. Plummer: Are you ready with the other answer because I just want
to reiterate something, Mr. Mayor, so that... I apologize for being
so vocal but it's always nice to be able to come back to the minutes
and say here it is. I call your attention, Mr. Mayor, that when
Mr. Grassie was hired that on the meeting of May 5, 1976 in your
comments and directing them towards Mr. Grassie, I'm saying this so
that if the problem does arise during the coming year on whose budget
12
on' 61976
• •
this was, whether it was Joseph Grassie's budget, Paul Andrews'
budget, you used the terminology then and I am quoting and I'll tell
you why. I don't want you sitting over there a year from now and
saying well, you know, that was Paul Andrews' budget, I really had
nothing to do with it. When you questioned Mr. Grassie that it was
going to be his budget. I'm making that as part of the record.
Mayor Ferre: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: No sir, that's your statement to Mr. Grassie.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
But you're using my name...
I'm using the minutes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: I realize that. You're quoting from me. Then let me
ask you, Mr. Grassie, is this your budget or is this Mr. Andrews'
budget?
Mr. Grassie: This is a budget which I will definitely have to take
responsibility for, there isn't any question about that. I did not
prepare it but I will definitely have to take responsibility for it.
Mrs. Gordon: Well then you are in accordance with it.
Mr. Grassie: I have to be.
Mrs. Gordon: No, you don't have to be but are you?
Mr. Grassie: I have to be. The system does not give me a real alter-
native. If I had prepared the budget, I would have done it differently,
there is no question about that but that's not an option. I have to
work with what I have. In fact, this is a budget that I have to take
responsibility for and I am.
Mr. Plummer: That's good enough for me.
Mrs. Gordon: I have a question to the budget and someone from the
budget department will answer this question. It's on page 265.
The question that I'm raising, and I want an answer, is the requested
amount of monies that are on that page which are under Special Programs
in accounts, lists an amount of $8,694,280 and is that an accurate
total of those items that are on that page?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Beck, I can't hear you. Would you use the micro-
phone please.
Mr. Grassie: The list is on two pages, Commissioner, 265 and 267 and
when you take those two pages added together, as you will see the total
at the bottom of 267, yes, they are accurate.
Mrs. Gordon: There is a line in there, "Reserved For Employee Benefits
and Salary Adjustments" but there wasn't any figure inserted.
Mr. Grassie: That's because when this budget was prepared, there was
zero amount budgeted for employee salary adjustments.
Mrs. Gordon: I know that and that's the reason I questioned you on
this particular page, to find out whether or not that was it. We've
had some discussion mostly by the Mayor and Mr. Plummer. May I ask
13
OCT 61976
if you, Father Gibson, would like to say anything? Commissioner
Reboso, do you have any comments? Mr. Plummer, do you have anything
you want to say?
Mr. Plummer: No, I would like further clarification on the $900,000
term cash flow but I can wait for that. I think it's very important...
Mr. Grassie: Because this does involve basically a cash management
question, Commissioner, rather than give you a superficial answer I
would prefer to give you a written answer which makes that as expli-
cit as possible so that you'll know exactly where we have stood on
that.
Mr. Plummer: And I will also, just for the record, just state, Mr.
Manager, that I have tried my damnnest to understand the $2,000,000
in anticipated salary savings and I'm dumb, I can't figure that one
out. Don't you try. Experts have tried to explain it to me. Experts
don't understand it either but they try to think what you're trying
to do. I don't understand how you spend money you don't have that
you hope to lose that you won't gain.
Mr. Grassie: You understand that I've said to you publicly at least
three times that I do not agree with that practice. It is a practice
we have to back out of. It was 22 million dollars this year, I put
it down to 2 million dollars for this budget and I hope that we're
going to do away with that practice.
Mr. Plummer: Well I sure hope so because next year I don't want to
take a year to understand that.
Mr. Grassie: But understand that if we do away with it this year,
what it simply means is that you're going to have to find another
2 million dollars to appropriate and that's the problem.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I would just simply like to say that I was handed
an agenda when we came in here today and there are 10 items on it and
this one that we're discussing right now comes down towards the end of
this agenda and the motion we have just heard is the first thing to
come to the table without any of the other items being resolved.
Consequently, I think it's a wee bit premature to offer the motion
as a first item of business, Mr. Mayor, and I would ask you if you
would withdraw your motion until further down in the schedule where
it.. Y
Mayor Ferre: Well I'll tell you, Rose, the way I see it, I think we
have done an awful lot of talking and we can, I've already made my
statement about afterschool care and the Civil Service Budget, I'm
calling the Manager recommendation, Pension Fund reporting, again I
am going to call the Manager and the school research officer program,
you know how we stand on that and for the Metro Arts Commission, I
don't there's any secrets around here, how everybody feels, and you
can vote no against it or you can vote yes but I'm not going to with-
draw my motion. I think we've got to get on with this thing and then
get down to the business of running the City...
Mrs. Gordon: Then I will express myself that I am not ready to vote
on this motion and I would need to have a clarification on the other
items that are on this agenda so that we know where we're going and
also I would like to know how much are the increases, what are the
salaries going to be for the employees. I think we're groping in the
dark and we have to have all the facts and I just can't do it this
way. This is not the way I would do it even in the small business
14
OCT 61976
that I operate. I have to have facts, total figures before me and
study them and then I will be ready to vote. Whether we have to make
an increase, if we have to, we have to but I'm not ready to do it
now.
Mayor Ferre: The difference between your statement and I don't know
what the implication of the small business vs. small business is all
about but as far:as I'm concerned, I think I do have all the facts
before me sufficient to make a decision and I'm casting my vote with
the Manager and I think as far as the amount that the employees will
receive, I'm just making a philosophical statement that it has to
come from cutting the departamental budgets, that's all.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, you want to call the roll unless someone has
something further to say.
Mr. Ongie: Okay, roll call on the motion....
Mr. Plummer: May I make a statement and I will not back up what
Rose said because we do disagree a little bit now and then but I
personally, Mr. Mayor, feel that it is inappropriate to take this
action prior to a public hearing.
Mayor Ferre: All of this is not a final action, this has to be
brought before a public hearing.
Mr. Plummer: Well I think you're setting a precedent.
Mayor Ferre: Well I just think it's important that this Commission
stop dilly dallying around and being the nebulous cowards that we
sometimes are accused of being and just tell it like it is and just
stand up and be counted one way or the other and then after that,
hey, this is going to be changed. I'm sure we're going to get into
discussions about, I'm sure Rose wants to get right into afterschool
care and I want to get into Metro Arts Commission and so on so I'm
sure it will vary and this is not a final thing. I just think it's
time for us to declare ourselves as to which direction we're taking.
Mr. Plummer: Call the question.
Lt. Harrison: Is this open to the public or is this a workshop?
Mr. Plummer: It's a Special Commission Meeting.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, do you want to open this to the public?
Mayor Ferre: Well Kenny what we're doing here is we're expressing an
intention. My motion is a motion of intention so that it's clear as
to what direction we're taking on this budget. It obviously is not
a final thing because we still have not finalized negotiations with...
Lt. Harrison: Your motion closes down negotiations.
Mayor Ferre: Does what?
Lt. Harrison: It closes it down.
Mayor Ferre: How do you figure that, sir?
Lt. Harrison: You're mandating that any increase has to come out of
the budget. You've established priorities, there is no negotiations
from here on.
15
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: Oh yes there is.
Lt. Harrison: How can there be? You're saying that the budget for
the Police Department will include salaries in any increase that the
employee groups can get will come from the other part of the budget.
Mayor Ferre: As a matter of philosophy, Lieutenant, that's correct.
Lt. Harrison: That, to me, is clearly establishing the priorities.
There are no programs that can change, the budgets are there, nego-
tiations are non-existent.
Mr. Grassie: You do have a public hearing at 5:00,.Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: What time?
Mr. Grassie: 5:00 today.
Mayor Ferre: Today?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, in an hour.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, at that time we will recognize you.
Thereupon, the following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre
who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-868
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED 1976-1977
BUDGET ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES:
1) INCREASE MILEAGE AS PROPOSED IN THE
BUDGET ESTIMATE BY APPROXIMATELY ONE MIL;
2) PROVIDE SUFFICIENT MONEY IN THE BUDGET
TO MEET SALARY AND WAGE INCREASES UP TO
THE AMOUNTS NEGOTIATED AND OFFERED BY
THE CITY MANAGER TO THE VARIOUS EMPLOYEE
GROUPS;
3) THAT THE AMOUNT OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY
FUNDING BE INCREASED TO $1,570,000; and
4) THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE INSTRUCTED TO
CUT FROM PROPOSED DEPARTAMENTAL BUDGETS
FOR FISCAL 1976-77 A PERCENTAGE AT HIS
DISCRETION TO MEET EMPLOYEE DEMANDS FOR
SALARY INCREASES AND ANY APPROVED ADDI-
TIONAL EXPENSES OTHER THAN RECOMMENDED
BY THE CITY MANAGER IN THE SUBMISSION OF
HIS BUDGET ESTIMATE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I proffer for the record a question
which I can't answer and this was a question asked of me, I'm not
asking it, I don't deny in case it causes a little referral. Mx,
16
OCT 61976
Weston, a question was asked of me today. We know for a fact that
F.O.P. has been certified as the agent to negotiate for the Police
and the firefighters for the fire and we also know that there are
three organizations vined to negotiate for the so-called non -uni-
formed employees. A man asked me this morning what happens to those
employees which don't belong to any organization and I couldn't
answer him. Now does that injure your negotiations.
Mrs, Grassie: No, but I may be in somewhat of a better position to
answer than the Attorney if he is willing to yield on it.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, fine.
Mr. Grassie: Normally, Commissioner, a City will have two policies.
One which is a negotiated policy as it applies to employees and of
course you will end up in the case of Miami with either 3 or 5 con-
tracts or possibly more. You will end up with contracts that cover
the situation for employees and then the City Commission will establish
a policy with regard to what it will do for non -organized employees.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think we've ever done that in the past.
Mr. Grassie: I understand but it will certainly be my
that you do and I think that should be a conscious act
mination on your part.
recommendation
and a deter -
Mr. Plummer: In other words, do I understand you correctly that you,
the Manager, will make a recommendation to the Commission as to what,
how the non -organized employees should be treated. You're going to
make a recommendation on that.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, fine.
Mrs. Gordon: The Mayor stepped out and I think we should wait until
he comes in before we proceed but the first item of business on this
agenda that you prepared for us...
Mr. Grassie: I'm sorry, Commissioner.
Mrs. Gordon: The first item of business on the agenda that you pre-
pared for us is an approval of continuing budget ordinance. This is
necessary regardless of what that this be adopted today. Is that
correct?
Mr. Grassie: I feel it is, yes, Commissioner, particularly because
we have people who need to get unemployment compensation, workman's
compensation checks from the City and we're folding those up.
Mrs. Gordon: -Everything is in abeyance that is to keep the City
operating. I would move you, number one, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I'm open for a motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Approval of continuing budget ordinance until the end
of this month.
Mr. Grassie: We're distributing the Ordinance to you. It's the same
one that you saw last week, last Thursday, but we're distributing a
new copy.
17
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there a second to this motion?
Mr. Plummer: Well I once again have to ask the same question that
got us deviated before. Are you going to continue all of the Social
Programs for 1/12 of their funding?
Mrs. Gordon: Everything is until the end of the month unless we
adopt our budget ahead of time and...
Mr. Plummer: Rose, you don't issue the checks, he does and I want
the answer from him.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Grassie: That's my intention.
Mr. Plummer: Even the programs that you are recommending be disban-
ded, you're going to continue funding for an additional 1/12.
Mr. Grassie: Until you take a specific action. Now I should point
out...
Mayor Ferre: i'll tell you, I'm against it.
Mr. Grassie: Item 8 on your agenda is consideration of the Revenue
Sharing Ordinance. Now depending on what action you take on that,
that will condition my answer with regard to...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, your being new in the City don't have a
listed home phone number...
Mr. Grassie: No, I'm sorry, sir, I do have a listed phone number.
Mr. Plummer: Do you?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, anybody can call the telephone company and they
will give it to them.
Mr. Plummer: Well all of the calls that I got Friday night at my
home and my funeral home said they couldn't reach you and they all
wanted to know about their checks. All of the calls that I got were
from Social programs.
Mayor Ferre: The reason they called you and not Grassie, Plummer,
is because they know who the real boss is.
Mrs. Gordon: Well then he's got a partner because I got the other
half of the calls he didn't get.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I've often told you what boss is spelled
backwards. In other words, just so I understand, you are proposing
that even the programs which are being recommended by you and your
staff to be discontinued, you're going to fund them for an additional
30 days.
Mr. Grassie: The posture that we have to take if you adopt a contin-
uing resolution in my estimation is that we simply continue the status
quo until you take a specific determination, yes„ Now that is not
easy to do. It's an awkward procedure but I would assume that that's
what we have to do until you take a determination.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I moved it. Is there a second?
18
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion by Mrs. Gordon for item number one,
is there a second?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, to give him some money to pay his payroll and
whatever else.
Mr. Grassie: I have to recommend that we
ordinance, yes, because...
Mayor Ferre: Why for a month?
adopt a continuing budget
Mr. Grassie: Let me explain it this way. If you are going to adopt
a budget today... We still have to have two public hearings to make
the budget work.
Mayor Ferre: I realize that but I'll tell you, I'm going to express
my opinion. I am going to vote against this and I will vote for one
for a week because I think we've got to keep on going until we adopt
a budget one way or the other,
Mrs. Gordon: Well my motion was until the end of the month. That's
less than a month, it's not a full month.
Mr. Plummer: This doesn't speak to that in any way, shape or form.
This Ordinance that is presented to us is not addressing itself to
that.
Mrs. Gordon: Well what does it say?
Mr. Plummer: It just makes certain appropriations. No time frame,
no dollar amount, just Carte Blanche. It makes certain appropria-
tions to various departments, divisions, bureaus, boards and offices
of the City but it's chargeable to '77 and we haven't yet set a budget
for '77.
Mr. Grassie: But the resolution does include the current
budget and establishes those limits.
year's
Mr. Plummer: Yes but Mr. Grassie, the way the wording of this is,
sir, this could go on indefinitely for a 12 month period.
Mayor Ferre: That's why I'm going to vote against it.
Mr. Grassie: That's not our intention.
Mr. Plummer:
intention is
in black and
I understand your intention, sir, .and I think your
honorable but it is not spelled out, as Father says,
white.
Mrs. Gordon: Well Mr. Weston, will you redraft this so it meets the
intent of the motion? The motion is to the end of the month. We
should have a budget adopted prior to that which then would take the
place of this.
Mr. Weston: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we anticipated
that this Ordinance would be necessary to continue until a budget
was adopted but we didn't have the directions as to the length of
time so we just prepared one that would cover the needs of the City
until a new budget was adopted„ We'd be happy to redraft it now that
we have your directions but we were just trying to anticipate what we
needed ahead of time.
19
OCT 61976
Mr. Grassie: I wonder, Mr. Mayor, whether this would be an appro-
priate time to talk about timing problems. We do have some very
serious timing problems with regard to the County. You know that
they issue tax bills that they want to have our millage as part of
the tax bil that goes out at the end of this month. They want us
to get to them a final millage determination which has to be pro-
ceeded by two public hearings by the 18th of October. Now we can't
make that schedule unless you take some initial action today because
we have to advertise twice and we have to have two public hearings.
It's possible that they send out for us our tax bills on a separate
issue. That, again, would be extremely cumbersome and extremely
awkward. We also have additional complications with the mortgage
companies. They're completely up in the air in terms of what they're
supposed to be doing on all of these mortgage notices to...
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I think that covers it. Rose, you have a motion
or do you want to amend your motion or do you want to withdraw it
or what.
Mrs. Gordon: No, I don't want to withdraw it, I'd like to make the
motion to allow the Manager to run the City until we adopt a budget.
Mayor Ferre: Is that a motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes. That was the motion that I made before except
that I said to the end of the month. If that is more time than is
needed, I will withdraw it and make it smaller but he needs some
protection.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, I would like to recommend the following. An
Ordinance making certain appropriations to the various departments,
divisions, bureaus, boards and offices of the City of Miami, Florida
in making such appropriation chargeable to the appropriations for
fiscal year 1976-1977 carried through the 18th day of October, 1976;
declaring this Ordinance to be an emergency measure and dispensing
with the requirements of reading the same on two separate dates by a
vote of not less than four -fifths of the members of the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: All you've done is interject the date.
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Mrs. Gordon: October 18th?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Does that suit you, Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, mam.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, that's a motion.
Mr. Reboso: I second the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: I mean that's the Ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: I just read it, are you making that motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, I move the Ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, there's a motion and a second by Reboso.
Further discussion? Call the roll.
20
OCT 61976
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Plummer.
Mrs. Gordon: I have a question on it though, Mr. Grassie. This is
everything that you are funding, not just some things. The way this
reads, Boards, Offices, is that also including those services that
we're providing, the Social Services? Is that included in here?
Yes or no.
Mr. Grassie: You need to adopt, as I mentioned before, you need to
adopt the item number 8 on your agenda which is the Federal Revenue
Sharing Ordinance in order to accomplish the continued funding of
the Social Agencies, that's where the money comes from. In other
words, the City has traditionally operated with two Ordinances; one
which is the regular budget ordinance and the other which is the
Federal Revenue Sharing Ordinance.
IARI 111111111111111III IIII'
Mrs. Gordon: Well if you do this and you don't do that, then effect-
ively what you've done is closed off all programs and they will not
have any monies to operate with until after the 18th if they're re-
funded. Correct?
Mr. Grassie: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, then I withdraw my motion. When you prepare
something that includes both I will move it.
Mayor Ferre: I thought you wanted to take these things one at a time.
One through ten.
Mrs. Gordon: I didn't write this Ordinance and that's why when I
read it I questioned it because it is not complete, Mr. Mayor, it's
partial.
Mayor Ferre: Rose, I think you have the very same right that I had
in making my motion.
Mr. Grassie: Would it help if you took item number 8 first?
Mayor Ferre: But you see, she objected to that and now you don't
object because now it suits you but before...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, don't interrupt me, let me finish my thought.
My thought is that we permit everything that is in the status quo
prior to October 1st to remain at the same level, everything the City
is funding, until we adopt a budget. If this document handed to me
does not include that, then I do not make the motion. If somebody
else wants to make it it's okay with me.
Mayor Ferre: Rose, look, we need four -fifths and I'll pass you the
gavel and I will make the motion as read previously on item number 1.
Mrs. Gordon: And I'm going to give everybody your number to call.
Mr. Reboso: By October the 18th again?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, that does not include any of these programs that
are in place, any of them.
Mr. Plummer: That isn't what I understood.
Mrs. Gordon: That's what they just said:
Mr. Plummer: Well that's a second ordinance? Okay.
21
O C T 61976
Mr. Reboso: I second the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, call the roll.
(THE PRECEEDING MOTION INTRODUCED BY MAYOR FERRE AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER REBOSO FAILED TO PASS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE):
(Motion to continue appropriations as an emer3ency measure).
AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
Mr. Plummer: Is the floor open for a motion?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I will take the gavel back and the floor is open
for a motion.
Mr. Plummer: I make a motion that we have a continuation of the
present 1975-76 budget at the same level of funding until such time
as the new budget for 1976-77 is adopted.
Mrs. Gordon: Clarify it.
Mr. Plummer: Same level of funding. In other words, they're not
going to go dump 6 months of funding at one time in that. Now we
can make another motion as it relates to Social Programs and he
wants it, we've always done it that way Rose, two motions, one for
General Budget and one for Revenue Sharing.
Mayor Ferre: Is this for General Budget?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, just for General Budget. This is not excluding
Social Programs.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I can go with that.
Mrs. Gordon: This is not excluding?
Mr. Plummer: Not excluding, no mam.
Mrs. Gordon: This is including.
Mr. Plummer: No it is not including. It's a separate motion, it's
going to take two. This motion pertains only to the General Budget
and the second motion will be to the Social Programs.
Mayor Ferre: As I understand it, the difference between your motion
and the motion that I made is that in your motion you're restricting
it to the same level of expenditures.
Mr. Plummer: Same level. In other words, I don't want anyone to
have Carte Blanche to go and dump 6 months of funding into one before
the 18th of October.
Mayor Ferre: I go with that. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a
second?
Mr. Reboso: I second.
Mayor Ferre: There's a second to the motion. Further discussion?
Call the roll.
22
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: And there was no date included.
Mr. Plummer: until the new 1976-77 is adopted.
Mayor Ferre: Call the roll.
Thereupon the following motion was introduced by COmmissioner
Plummer who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-869
A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PRESENT 1975-1976
APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET AT THE SAME LEVEL OF
FUNDING UNTIL THE 1976-1977 BUDGET IS APPROVED.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was
passed and adopted unanimously.
Mayor Ferre: Take up item number 2, funding for the Metro Arts
Commission.
Mrs. Gordon: The second portion of that continuing budget has not
yet been taken care of. On the continuing budget, I would move you
that the Manager be instructed to continue, the exact same wording
that Mr. Plummer used for the regular budget, those programs that we
are funding.
Mayor Ferre: That item is number 8 and I will take it up in accor-
dance unless there is a motion to overrule.
Mrs. Gordon: That is not the same, Mr. Mayor. You're talking about
1976-77 when you're talking about number 8 and I'm not talking about
that.
Mayor Ferre: I will reverse my ruling and take your motion. Is
there a second to the motion?
Mr. Plummer: Give me your motion again, Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: To continue those programs that are in place that we
are funding from Federal Revenue Sharing Funds until, the same word-
ing you used in the other motion. The same level.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but it's the same machine keeping it alive for 30
days.
Mrs. Gordon: Well let me tell you something. The money is there in
reserve from the monies that we allocated to the 75-76 budget when
we transferred $900,000, I don't remember just how long ago, in
Revenue Sharing Funds and we didn't use it all up yet.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, if it's understood that that additional funding
for programs which will not be continued is going to be deducted from
the total of $1,527,000, I will concur. It's got to be understood
though that whatever that additional funding for that 30 or whatever
it is has got to come from the total amount.
Mrs, Gordon: That's okay.
Mr. Plummer: I'll second the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: That's okay because you're really not talking about a
lot of money but you are talking about alot of people who are looking
23
OCT 61976
• •
for their paychecks on Friday night that called you and called me.
Mr. Plummer: Well Rose, as you know, I voted against the increase
but if that's the case and it's accepted that it comes from that
total, I'll go along and I'll second the motion.
Mayor Ferre: There's a motion and a second. Further discussion?
Call the roll.
Mr. Ongie: Reverend Gibson?
Rev. Gibson: Yes.
Mr. Ongie: Mrs. Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: Before my vote, I have to ask a question which is most
important. Mr. Parkins, as per instructions of this Commission at
the last meeting, has all of the people that have been recommended
not to be continued, have they been notified? For the record you
are indicating "yes".
Mrs. Gordon: When were they notified?
Mr. Plummer: Is that correct? Well who others knowledge do we have?
Either the answer is "yes" or "no". They have been? I vote "yes".
Mayor Ferre: Okay, I'll tell you under discussion now. You asked
a question. Before I vote, I want to say that I will vote for the
funding of this thing for the Manager's recommendation but I will
not vote for this motion because we're going to be funding programs
that the Manager's recommending not be funded and I probably will
vote against them.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Didn't you, Mr. Manager, recommend what
this motion says? You told me you had no other choice.
Mr. Grassie: What I recommended to you, what I indicated I thought
was the reasonable thing to do, Commissioner, was that if you have
not had a chance to go through our list of recommendations with re-
gard to Social Service Agencies and concur in those recommendations
that until you do that that it would be our intent to continue the
past policy that you adopted a year ago, that's all I said.
Mrs. Gordon: That's what I thought.
Mayor Ferre: And what I'm saying is I'm voting against that because
I will vote with the intention of the package that was given to us
at the last meeting and for the funding of those programs that are
being recommended and not for the funding of anything else.
Mrs. Gordon: Well Mr. Mayor, you're adopting a new budget by your-
self and a new funding all by yourself too because,,..
Mayor Ferre: I'm only one vote.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: That's what I'm trying to clarify,
24
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry Rose, I have to withdraw. The Manager
informs me that we are definitely going to make the decisions today
on the Social Programs. Is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, we're going to present them and I hope you make...
Mr. Plummer: Well if that be the case, Rose, I think this is a pre-
mature motion. I'm sorry because i would feel much better at the
end of after discussion. I thought it was now or they don't get
paid...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Rob Parkins, have you notified... h:•a long ago
have you notified those programs that you have not recommended that
they will not be funded according to your recommendation?
Mr. Parkins: It's been during the past week and a half.
Mrs. Gordon: You notified them a week and a half ago?
Mr. Parkins: During this past week and a half we notified every-
body and visited with many of them.
Mrs. Gordon: And you have notified the others that they are being
funded?
Mr. Parkins: Yes, we have.
Mrs. Gordon: Then you've made an assumption, haven't you?
Mr. Grassie: No, just that he's recommending it, not that they're
going to be funded, there's a difference.
Mr. Parkins: That they've been recommended.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, I would feel more comfortable, let's discuss it
and then if a decision is not made at the end of this day, then I
will go with that motion. In other words, I'm not going to have
what happened to me last Friday night happen again and I don't think
you want it either and I think that's what your motion addresses.
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
That's what I'm trying to prevent.
If we don't decide...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, the Chair will rule as follows. A motion
has been made and it was duly seconded. We are in the middle of roll
call and technically you cannot withdraw your motion. Now what you
can do is you can either vote "no" at this time or after the motion
passes you can move to reconsider it.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, on parliamentary procedure, if that is what
you're following, you yourself was the greatest violator by discussing
the motion once the roll call had started.
Mayor Ferre: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: So then I think that that then null and voids the whole
motion and throws it all out.
Mrs. Gordon: I'll withdraw it.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, the motion is withdrawn and I don't know what
the parliamentary procedure is. I suspect that you can't do that once
25
OCT 61976
• •
you start calling the roll but we won't be technical about it since
the two makers of the motion are in effect saying that they are with
drawing it. We're on item number two, funding of the Metro Arts
Commission for $10,000.
Mr. Grassie: This is an item that was brought to the City by a
Mr. Parker Thompson, I believe. He was here at one of your...
Mayor Ferre: As in the capacity of Chairman of the Board of the
Arts Council.
Mr. Grassie: Yes. He was here at one of your public hearings but
we were into a long discussion and he had to leave.
Mrs. Gordon: Is this a Revenue'Sharing item, Mr. Grassie?
Mr, Grassie: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: And why is it being handled separate and apart from
the other revenue sharing items?
Mr. Grassie: Because you handled 10 out of 11 or 12 revenue sharing
items and you tabled this one so this is the tabled one that's coming
back to your agenda.
Mrs. Gordon: Well why did you handle them this way? Why didn't you
put them all in one package in the first place?
Mr. Grassie: Because you've already handled all the rest, this is
the one that was tabled.
Mayor Ferre: May I explain that? Because that is not part of his
recommendations and we took it out of order which is separate from
his recommendations and voted on some and tabled some. Now under
parliamentary rule, you could table a motion and the table could
only last through the last meeting otherwise it automatically dies
so therefore it must be brought up and it either must be tabled again
or voted on.
Mrs. Gordon: You're wrong, Mr. Manager, that's not a revenue sharing
item. You're talking about an item that is some other source of
funding because if you're referring to those items that you listed
and gave to us last week, they also included the Sanitation Department
Holiday Waste Collection and that's not a revenue sharing item.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct but I assumed that you wanted this par-
ticular...maybe that's the wrong assumption. I assume you want this
particular item taken from revenue sharing because of the...
Mrs. Gordon: Well I think that this should wait till the other
revenue sharing items come up.
Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion then to...
Mrs. Gordon: It doesn't need a motion.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, that's technically right. We can skip over it.
It does need a motion by the end of the day.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes, it would come up when number 8 comes up.
Mayor Ferre: Take up number 3.
26
our 61976
3. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM:
Mr. Grassie: This is simply a status report, Mr. Mayor. As you
know, the Mayor and Vice Mayor Gordon met with the School Board to-
day to determine whether they would be willing to fund the School
Resource Officer Program in the amount of $225,000 and I think that
while you received a generally favorable impression from the School
Board, they referred this back to their budget staff and they will
be providing the City with an answer very shortly and we hope that
it will be a positive answer.
Mr. Plummer: Gee, I'm at a loss. The present policy of this
Commission, instructions to the School Board last year was that we
would match them dollar for dollar last year and that they would be
fully aware that this year they would have to pick up the entire
program. That was the understanding that I had of the policy of this
Commission.
Mayor Ferre: Your understanding was correct. The problem is that
the School Board is now saying they cannot do that so our decision
is we either ask them to match it or drop the program.
Mr. Plummer: Well I think that would take a policy change of this
Commiss ion.
Mayor Ferre: It would.
Mr. Plummer: And Mr. Mayor, I think that School Board comes under
the same 10 Mill Cap that we do. You know, when the School Board
didn't feel adequate with our Police Department, they formed their
own and so well that they formed their own that they paid $1,000
more than we paid our policemen. Our policemen ran over there after
we had already spent thousands of dollars to train them, they got
$1,000 more in salary. Now if they feel that this program, and I
do to, I think that this is a tremendous program but in the same way
that I feel that the secv-:ity of the schools was the responsibility
of the School Board, I fuel this program is the responsibility of the
School Board. So I don't see or haven't heard any action before this
Board to change the policy of last year.
Mayor Ferre: Well what's the will of this Commission?
Mr. Plummer: I think the question should be raised, Mr. Mayor, is
there a difference in opinion to change last year's policy.
Mayor Ferre: Yes, I would certainly state that I for one would be
willing to vote for $225,000 from the City of Miami for the purposes
of matching the like amount from the School Board to continue this
program for one more year.
Mrs. Gordon: Are you making a motion?
Mayor Ferre: I'll make it in the form of a motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, is there a second? Is there a second?
Mr. Plummer: I assume the issue then is dead.
Mrs. Gordon: Well I would pass the gavel to someone else.
Mayor Ferre: Pass it on to Plummer, I guess, is the next one.
Mrs. Gordon: Well Plummer, you've got the gavel and I'll second the
motion. I second the motion because I appeared at the School Board
27
OCT 61976
•
also and because I felt that there was some interest in the program
and i certainly don't want that program to die.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: I know, J. L., but the Mayor said that next year it's
all your baby to them and of course they didn't take a position,
they just referred it to their department and you know what depart-
ments might do, I do.
Mayor Ferre: It might be a mood question.
Mrs. Gordon: It might be, however if they give us the money, I think
that we should then match it so I'll second your motion.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I can see what's going to happen again and
of course I've been on the short end of that stick quite frequently
but I would hope since it obviously is going to pass, Mr. Mayor, one
of the things that we have had a problem with on the Pension Board
is those people who are in limbo. These are able-bodied policemen
who our doctor tells us can work, can't do combat duty. You pre-
sently are tying up 18 officers, 13 vehicles for that program of
combat policemen. Now if this motion, as I see, is passed, I hope
you will give serious consideration for those people who we have to
send back to the chief and say no, we're not giving you disability
because the doctor says you can work, that that's where they would
be placed. I hope that's the case because we have had a problem on
the Pension Board where we don't feel a man is entitled to pension,
the department has recommended it and he's here in limbo.
Mayor Ferre: J. L., in theory it sounds good. Let me tell you what
the problem is as I see it practically. You know, it takes a special
kind of an individual to get along with all these kids out in these
different schools and I think you've got to let the Police Department
have the flexibility as to who is going to be working in that program.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I can appreciate your comments and I have
to somewhat concur. Yes, it does take a special individual but Mr.
Mayor, it also takes a special individual to work in a downtown and
to fight the daily problems of the downtown area and when you take
18 combat men off of the street where I think the priority is needed
and you put them somewhere where they're not going to be, and I know
the argument is you try to cut off crime before it starts in the school
and I can't disagree with that.
Mayor Ferre: Well we're not voting on that right now, are we?
Mr. Plummer: Well we're voting on whether or not possibly to fund
this program.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: And what about the Community Schools? Are they going
to fund any of that?
Mr. Grassie: They are willing to if we do, yes.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, community schools.
Mr. Grassie: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: You know, J. L., I've got to tell you what,.,
28
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer:
Mr. Grassie:
What about the
You've got me,
flower program for Grand Park?
Commissioner, I don't know about...
Mr. Plummer: You remember or I'll
in with Elizabeth Virrick to start
at the last minute they backed out
you're holding the bag.
Mr. Grassie: That's true.
Mr. Plummer: Am I right?
Mr. Grassie: That's true, yes.
remind you. They agreed to enter
a horticultural school there and
completely and said hey City,
Mrs. Gordon: Sheppard said to the Mayor, "What do you want -
community schools or this program".
Mr. Plummer: well Rose, I'm just saying the School Board has the
same problems we do. They're faced with a 10 Mill Cap and I honestj.y
feel this is their responsibility and they should have to live up to
their responsibilities. I honestly feel that way.
Mayor Ferre: Call the question.
Mr. Plummer: Call the roll, sir.,
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Reboso?
Mr. Reboso: No.
Mr. Ongie: Mayor Ferre?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Ongie: Reverend Gibson?
Rev. Gibson: No.
Mr. Ongie: Mrs. Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mr.. Ongie: Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: I can't take the shock. I vote "no".
Mrs. Gordon: Somebody better call and tell him to save his
trouble.
Mayor Ferre: No, let's not give up on that.
Mrs. Gordon: Well it would be a very great embarrassement to us if
in fact they came through the funding and we said hey buddy, we're
not doing our share.
Mayor Ferre: Well I want to ask you a question. I told you all that
we were going to go down and ask for this, what the hell did you let
us go down there for?
Mr. Plummer: I told you from the very beginning, Mr. Mayor, my feelings
on this program.
29
O C T 61976
•
Mayor Ferre: Well let's see what they do and I intend to bring it
up again if you would consider it but we'll see.
4. PENSION FUNDING REPORT:
Mayor Ferre: Pension Funding Report, item number 4.
Mr. Grassie: This was included on the agenda simply so that you
would have an occasion to discuss this if you felt that it needed
further discussion. I know that some of you have been into this
question for years literally. You know what the impact on the budget
is of changing the assumptions. That's the only thing that's in front
of you at this time is whether or not the assumptions that are included
specified in the budget are the ones that you want to approve and you
know what the money consequences are of making different assumptions
so this is the opportunity for you to review that.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, I forwarded to you a copy of the memo from
Mr. Mazin. Do you take any serious exception with that, sir?
Mr. Grassie: Yes. I think it's a very...
Mrs. Gordon: What are you referring to, J. L.?
Mr. Plummer: I gave all of you, Rose, a copy of a memo the other day
that indicated that if you do in fact except the funding of the Manager
of 35 years and 4 3/4 that it would cost just in excess of $30,000,000
just to do that.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes but on the other hand, the extra payments we have
to pay almost downs that so we pay either way.
Mr. Grassie: Yes and that is strictly a very mechanical, what they
call a "straight line projection" and...
Mrs. Gordon: We pay it up front or we pay it on the tail end...
Mr. Plummer: Rose I think on TV it's called gather in all your little
bills and have one conveniently monthly payment for the rest of your
life. Okay, I'm merely documenting this for the record that it has
been computed to the point that it will cost an additional $30,000,000
and I bring that up...
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I need the Budget Director or the Manager to in-
struct the Budget Director to give me a figure of what the difference
would be if we funded on the other assumptions this year in dollars.
Mr. Grassie: I'll give it to you right now.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay.
Mr. Plummer: It's about another $3,000,000, Rose.
Mr. Grassie: 3.2 million, I'll give you the figures.
Mr. Plummer: 3.,2 more.
Mrs. Gordon: That is approximately a mill.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct, it's just under a mill.
Mrs. Gordon: If that, in fact, J. L., is what we do, we go over the
10 mill cap for intensive purposes.
30
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: I understand, Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: So what do we do? We hang upside down or straight up?
Mayor Ferre: So in other words, instead of needing $7,000,000, now
we'd need $10,000,000.
Mr. Plummer: No, sir, instea%'. of 8.3, it's 11.5.
Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected.
Mr. Plummer: And that doesn't include, Mr. Mayor, any possible
changes that might occur in labor negotiations this year.
Mayor Ferre: Well I think we may as well get this one one way or
another behind us and I will pass the gavel over and move you, Madame ■_
Chairman, that the matter of the Civil Service Budget and the, what's
that called?
Mr. Plummer: City's contribution to the Pension Fund.
Mayor Ferre: That the City's contribution to the Pension Fund be as
recommended by the City Manager which is what?
Mr. Grassie: 35 years and 4 3/4 assumptions.
Mayor Ferre: That's my motion.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, let's see if you get a second. I happen to
have an important question.
Mr. Reboso: Recommended by the Manager, I second it.
Mr. Plummer: Now that it is seconded, Mr. Grassie, we requested of
you at the last meeting that you go back with Mr. Paulk and discuss
possible redoing his budget for some increases or no increases and I
have to ask you sir, did you meet with Mr. Paulk and if you did, what
was the outcome and your recommendation?
Mayor Ferre: You talking about Civil Service?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: Well how does that impact the Pension Funding Report?
Mr. Plummer: You made it in two motions. You made two parts to that
one motion.
Mayor Ferre: You better clear it up for me.
Mr. Plummer: Didn't you understand?
Mr. Grassie: You did mention the Civil Service Budget and the...
Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, I didn't mean Civil Service. I beg your
pardon. My motion is that the Pension Funding be based on 35 years
and 4 3/4% interest assumption. Okay, that's my motion, strictly
limited to that.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, I was just doing a little multiplying because
the 3.2 it would cost us this year and if it was on a 20 year basis
which is what the Board's wish, and I bring you their wish, that it
be funded, the cost to the City up front would be 3.2 times 20...
31
OCT 61976
•
Mr. Plummer: No.
Mrs. Gordon: 20 years.
Mr. Plummer: No mam, you're wrong.
Mrs. Gordon: Or maybe more.
Mr. Plummer: That's where the zinger in this thing is and I hope
you realize what you're doing. Many of the amortization schedules
that we presently are under, some of them have already run 8 and 10
years and only have 10 and 12 years left to run. You are, by your
motion today, creating an entirely new slate starting from today and
running to the year 2011.
Mrs. Gordon: I'll bring you backwards then. If, in fact, we didn't
go to the 35 years and we just went to the 33, the majority of our
unfunded liability occurred in the years of 1973, I believe, or 1972.
Mr. Plummer: 1974.
Mrs. Gordon: 1974 so consequently even if you took that from the top
of the 35 and funded forward for that number of years would be the
same thing. What I'm trying to say is we can't meet it, we just
don't have it and there's no way we can do it because we're going to
hit the 10 Mil Cap and go over it and you do that and you have very
serious problems.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, can I bring two things to your attention. Number
one, that you haven't even yet to begin to address in this, you are
addressing in this motion but you haven't addressed in reality.
Approximately 40 more million dollars this year of unfunded liability.
Joe, am I about right in that? Let's call it 30 million.
Mr. Grassie: That's the initial calculation, Commissioner, but as I
said...
Mr. Plummer: From the Actuary, our Actuaries...
Mrs. Gordon: What is our unfunded liability now, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Plummer: With last year or without it?
Mrs. Gordon: With everything until today, October 6th.
Mr. Grassie: I don't think anybody can really tell you that, Commissioner,
but it's something like $170,000,000...
Mrs. Gordon: A hundred and how much?
Mr. Grassie: Give or take $30,000,000 and that's the problem.
Mrs. Gordon: A hundred and how much?
Mr. Grassie: 170.
Mr. Plummer: It's 148 going into this year and the Actuaries have
at roughly 180 million just based on the increase in
salaries of last year. I just hope everybody is clear...
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., I want you to tell me...
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: Because the one thing that I'm astonished at, Rose,
yes, I agree where is the City going to get the money. Well I want
to tell this Commission one thing that this same Board who has ad-
vocating the suit against the City is also advocating to go before
the Legislature in this coming session to take away or take out of
the regular budget from the 10 Mill Cap that 4 mills pertaining to
Pension. That's been under discussion. Now the other point that I
have to make very clearly is that no discussion, and this is what
astonishes me, that no discussion has evolved between 20 years which
has been since the beginning of the Plan and 35, There is a 25 year
funding, 30 year funding and a 35 year funding and a 40 but no dis-
cussion has even evolved about 25 or any time period in between.
Mrs. Gordon: It was discussed at the Board, the Plan Board did dis-
cuss that and the Plan Board did want to go to 20 years.
Mr. Plummer: Wanted to stay at 20 years.
Mrs. Gordon: Well no. To stay, they would have stayed at 17.
Mr. Plummer: Remaining.
Mrs. Gordon: Right but they did agree to go to 20 and the money just
isn't there, we still have the cap. If the Legislature should remove
the cap and if in fact the Pension Millage is removed from the cap,
of course that leaves leverage but we don't know that's going to happen
and if it does happen...
Mr. Plummer: Rose, I merely made a statement that my Board has talked
about this, okay?
Mrs. Gordon: If it does happen, what that does mean is that the tax-
payers of the City of Miami are just going to be charged more money
for taxes and they're not going to exactly enjoy the fact that the
extra money they pay for taxes is going to pay for more pension bene-
fits. You know, we already have a problem in this area so there is
very little choice that I, as a Commissioner, have to make in this
regard. I have no choice, I have to agree with the majority on this
item that I just have to go with it. Call the roll.
Thereupon, the following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre
who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-870
A MOTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER FOR PENSION FUNDING UN-
DER THE 35 YEARS, 4-3/4% INTEREST ASSUMP-
TION PROPOSAL.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
33
OCT 61976
5. CIVIL SERVICE BUDGET:
Mayor Ferre: Okay, take up the next item which is the Civil Service
Budget. Mr. Grassie, I think there was a question that was made of
you by Mr. Plummer and I think this is a perfect time to answer it.
Mr. Grassie: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner, we have met with the
Director of the Civil Service Board on more than one occasion inclu-
ding briefly today. My staff met with representatives of the Civil
Service Board at some length. I think that we agreed philosophically,
if you wish, with regard to the need for working cooperatively but
there was not any middle ground or any staff agreement with regard
to the positions that should be allocated to the Civil Service Board
so that the present recommendation that we would make in your budget
is the one that you had previously and no significant changes are
suggested.
Mrs. Gordon: You mean you're sticking with the one that's in the book?
Mr. Grassie: That is correct.
Mrs. Gordon: There are no changes whatsoever.
Mr. Grassie: No. The position basically the Civil Service staff
was that they would not go below 18 which is one more than they have
now and under those circumstances it was simply no place to recommend
a change.
Mayor Ferre: What's the will of this Commission at this time? Bobby,
we'll listen to you at the public hearing in 10 minutes, this is just
direction type of stuff.subject to change.
Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Mayor, I'm at a loss. I personally feel that
it's mandatory, it's a must that their budget must be increased just
if nothing more to allow them to belong to the Civil Service Associa-
tion and I think that it has been indicated to me and to the rest of
this Commission that if their budget remains at the level of funding
that it is, they don't even have sufficient funds to join that associa-
tion.
Mayor Ferre: So what's your motion?
Mr. Plummer: Well I don't know, Mr. Mayor, I haven't had the oppor-
tunity to go over line for line for line in which I feel is the increase
that is needed.
Mr. Grassie: Can I explain that?
Mr. Plummer: Surely, please do.
Mr. Grassie: That membership is a City membership, not an individual
membership and I would expect that the City would belong to IPMA which
is the organization in question, I believe, and any persons working for
the City would of course be eligible to go to those conferences if travel
was budgeted in their budget.
Mr. Plummer: Well then the next question has to be is travel in that
budget sufficient to allow them to attend the conference?
Mr. Grassie: As I recall, from the comments of Mr„ Paulk made, for
one person only and that is a sort of thing that if it needs to be
changed it seems to me...
34
OCT 61976
•
Mr. Plummer: What is the past policy? One person has gone, two?
Mr. Grassie: We never got down to that level of discussion.
Mr. Plummer: Well that's why I say I'm at a loss.
Mr. Grassie: We certainly would be willing to recommend any kind of
changes...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion at this time to give me
the time to go over the budget of Civil Service so that I can make an
intelligent recommendation, that we table this item until I've had the
time to go over it and come up with something that I feel that is...
Mayor Ferre: Then the motion is that this item be tabled. By the
way, Kenny gave me a little booklet, I don't see him here and I want
to thank him for clarifying for me what parliamentary procedure is.
There is a second needed, a motion to table needs a second. I was
wrong. There's a motion to table.
Mrs. Gordon: Well you're talking about Mason's rules or Robert's?
Mayor Ferre: I think in both.
Mrs. Gordon: Well not in Mason's but we adopted our own rules with
regard to that that we take a second„ If you remember, there was once
a period of time where you made that rule when I offered a motion and
said we didn't need a second.
Mr. Plummer: May I simplify it by making a motion to defer?
Mayor Ferre: It's the same thing and that also needs a second.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I'll second it.
Mayor Ferre: There's a second to the motion to defer. The difference
between tabeling a motion and deferring it is if you table a motion,
parliamentary it must be brought up for discussion at the very next
meeting.
Mr. Plummer: That's what I intend to do anyhow.
Mayor Ferre: If it's not brought up then it dies. When you defer,
you don't have the restrain so it's a broarder type of a motion. Is
that right?
Mrs. Gordon: Well it should be until a time certain anyway, I think
it would be better. J. L., why don't you ptxt the time in:there.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, there's only 24 hours in a day. Fine, at the next
meeting. Is that what you want?
Mayor Ferre: It's the same thing„ Alright, there's a motion and a
second. I think that's something that we ought to take a stand on.
I think we've had that book before for almost three weeks now.
Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Mayor I can be voted down and if you don't like
the motion...
Mrs. Gordon: I appreciate the time and I'll tell you why. I have dug
up my copy of the original recommendation for the developing of a Human
Resource Management System and I have a little studying to do in here
and I'd like to have overnight to do it...
OCT 61976
4
Mayor Ferre: Rose, let me tell you something. I don't have the files
before me right now, I have them upstairs. You know, this very same
motion has been made twice or once. It was made two years ago for
the first time. You made the motion that the matter be deferred un-
til there would be further study on it and we never brought it back
up again. We've had this thing before us for two years and everybody
knows exactly what's involved.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, may 1 ask a question?
Mayor Ferre: Yes sir, Father.
Rev. Gibson: The Manager and Mr. Plummer were talking about the
amount of money to send a second person. The Manager indicated a
willingness to make that amount of money available in the budget and
the Manager also said that Civil Service wasn't interested in talking
at all. So what are we doing?
Mayor Ferre: We're deferring it one more time and I, that's the mo-
tion. On further discussion this item has been moved and seconded
that this item be deferred. Is there further discussion? Call the
roll.
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Reboso?
Mr. Reboso: No.
Mr. Ongie: Reverend Gibson?
Rev. Gibson: No.
Mr..Ongie: Mrs. Gordon?
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Ongie: Mayor Ferre?
Mayor Ferre: I vote "no Alright, we're still on the item.
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor, I move that we follow the recommendation of
the Manager.
Mayor Ferre: There's a motion that the Manager's recommendations pre-
sented in the budget estimate be followed.
Mr. Reboso: Second.
Mrs. Gordon: You're taking a portion of the budget to adopt and not
the rest of the budget?
Mayor Ferre: Well I think what we're doing here is we're not adopting
the budget at all, we're just expressing the opinion of this Commission.
Obviously it tells the manager what thrust is and eventually if it
comes to a final vote, it has to be voted upon by 4/5. As I interpret
it at this time, it just requires a simple majority for intentions to
be expressed. It doesn't mean anything really in the long run because
you can vote against it in the end. Under discussion.
36
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: Is it necessary to have this motion now or can we have
our public hearing?
Mayor Ferre: Well we voted on other things but that's up to the maker
and the seconder of the motion. If they want to withdraw it, it's
fine with me.
Mr. Plummer: I think if the majority of the Commission has spoken,
I'm willing to abide by that decision.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, call the question.
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Mayor, who seconded that?
Mayor Ferre: It was seconded by Reboso.
Thereupon, the following motion was introduced by Commissioner
Gibson who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-871
A MOTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PROPOSED
BUDGET ESTIMATE AS IT RELATES TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE FUNDING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
ON ROLL CALL:
Mrs. Gordon: Just how do you have the motion? Would you tell
us how you have it.
Mayor Ferre: Father Gibson moved that the Manager's recommen-
dation on the budget for Civil Service, he moved that recommen-
dation as presented in the budget estimate.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I see. Are you calling for me?
Mr. Ongie: Yes, mam.
Mrs. Gordon: The vote is "no".
Mr. Ongie: Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: At this time I will have to vote "no" until I
can go further into that budget but I will not, of course, now
have that opportunity. I will have to vote "no
6. AFTER SCHOOL CARE AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS:
Mayor Ferre: Alright, item number 6, discussion - after school care
and community school programs, $270,000.
Mr. Grassie: This was brought back to your agenda, Mr. Mayor, because
it was specifically requested of us. You remember that in reaching a
o rm/arm* Tw
37
OCT 61976
level of funding for Social Service Agencies of $1,300,000 that the
next recommended but not funded programs were two. The first of those
was the community school program, roughly $70,000 of expenditure and
the second was the after school care program with an expenditure of
approximately $200,000. So that $270,000 is the question that is in
front of you.
Mrs. Gordon: I move it.
Mayor Ferre: It's moved by Mrs. Gordon. Is there a second?
Mr. Reboso: I second.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, there's a second. Under discussion, I will
recognize Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: Once again I have to ask the question, is this a program
which is to be matched with school funds?
Mr. Grassie: Yes sir. In thr. case of the community school program,
state and local school board funds match City funds in a ratio of
approximately 8-1. In the case of the after school care program, it
is a City funded program, it is not a matched program.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, the next question I have to ask is, you, the
Manager, were recommended that this not be continued.
Mr. Grassie: If you had $1,300,000 worth of funding, that is correct.
It was the next item to be funded, to be recommended if you had more
money available.
Mr. Plummer: And then I have to ask you, now that you know the will
of this Commission, the majority of this Commission, not unanimously,
that we have increased federal spending to $1,500,270. Then what is
your recommendation?
Mayor Ferre: We haven't voted on that.
Mr. Plummer: Yes we did vote on that, didn't we?
Mayor Ferre: It was voted down. Part of my motion...
Mrs. Gordon: We didn't vote on it, we discussed it but we said we'd
vote on it later.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, based upon the majority's feelings...
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, I beg to differ. I made a motion with 4 and
then expended it to 5 points, Reboso seconded the motion, the motion
was voted upon and the vote was 3-2. The dissenting votes were Plummer
and Gordon.
Mr. Plummer: I once again restate the same question that I asked be-
fore that the majority feeling of this Commission is that we will ex-
pand beyond the 1.3 million dollars an additional $270,000 ironically
enough, just the amount needed for community after school. Based upon
the additional funding, the majority feeling of this Commission, then
what is your recommendation?
Mr. Grassie: That we fund these two programs.
Mr. Plummer; Two?
38
OCT 61976
,741
Mr. Grassie: Well yes, the community school and the after school
care program.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, it's a combination.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, are there further questions from the Commission?
Mrs. Gordon: Just as a clarification to your statement, Mr. Mayor,
that you said that Mr. Plummer and I voted against this, we did not
vote against this particular item, this was a portion of your con-
tinuing budget ordinance.
Mayor Ferre: That's accurate and I stand corrected.
Mrs. Gordon: Excuse me, it was a part of your budget adoption for the
coming year.
Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, I just wanted the records to reflect it.
Mayor Ferre: That's accurate. At this time, it is 5:00 which there-
fore it is a public hearing and at this time Mr. Armando La Casa raised
his hand and wanted to talk to this item and I will recognize you for
this purpose and those of you that want to speak to this item...
Mrs. Gordon: Which item, Mr. Mayor? He wants to speak to the after
school care?
Mr. Armando La Casa: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: He kept waiving at me so I assume that that's what you
want to talk about, is that right?
Mr. La Casa: Right.
Mayor Ferre: You can only talk to that subject.
Mr. Plummer: No sir, I'm sorry. You're going to put Mr. Harrison
down, this gentleman likewise will have to be put down under parlia-
mentary procedure. Mr. Mayor, this is still a Special Commission Meeting
at which cime you have declared that no one will speak, there is a mo-
tion and a second on the floor, I think you have to resolve that matter
and then go into your public hearing, sir.
Mayor Ferre: Technically you're right, Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: We're going to play the game fair right down the line
and I think it has to be done that way.
Mayor Ferre: La Casa, you cannot speak at this time. Since Mr. La
Casa cannot speak, he did mention to me that he wanted to point out
to this Commission, and I will point out, that the item of after school
care and community schools was voted down by all of the task forces for
revenue sharing. When this came up for a vote, this was voted down.
Mrs. Gordon: I wanted to remind, also, everybody here that there was
no such thing as a task force for revenue sharing. In the absence of
a committee that we failed to appoint in July, the department was forced
to call upon the community development persons and it was their decision
to not fund this and I am wondering how many of those people are acquainted
with the program. You and how many others who are on that particular
so-called task force for revenue sharing which you were never designated
as a task force for revenue sharing.
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: I can't permit you to talk, I'm sorry.
Mrs. Gordon: You don't have to answer me, I just want everybody here
to understand that I don't think there was anybody there that has
ever become acquainted with the program. That's my personal opinion.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I n,3ke a motion that this item be deferred.
Mayor Ferre: I guess that takes precedence over the previous motion
but you need a second.
Mr. Plummer: I want to hear what the gentleman has to say and if we
are going to follow procedure, I think the proper procedure is to de-
fer it and let this man speak under the public hearing. I want his
input before I make my decision.
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., I might second your motion but I do want to say
this that if this Commission takes a posture of vetoing every item
that this so-called "revenue sharing task force" took, there will be
many items on the recommended list which will be scratched or should
be if that's the procedure, okay?
Mr. Plummer: Rose, I...
Mrs. Gordon: If you want that deferred, I
that or we can call for the vote right now
I don't think it will make any difference.
for the vote.
will go along with you on
as far as I'm concerned.
I would just assume go
Mayor Ferre: There's a motion to defer. Is there a second to the
motion? Is there a second for deferral of this motion? Hearing no
second, then we are on the main motion. Is there further discussion?
Mr. Reboso: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw my second on the motion to hear
Mr. La Casa.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, if you withdraw the second to the motion, then
is there a second to the motion? Hearing no second to the motion, the
motion dies for lack of a second and at this time now, since there are
no motions on the floor, I declare this an open public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING (5:05 P.M.):
Mayor Ferre: Now I will recognize you, Mr. La Casa.
Mr. Armando La Casa: Thank you; Mr. Mayor. A question of the school
program that we are debating here was turned down by the recommendation
of the task force unanimously and the people that were discussing this
question on the task force were pretty much aware what they were dis-
cussing. Actually, at least three, if not four, of the 10 members of
the task force have been directly involved in the operations of these
particular programs.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. La Casa: At least three, if not four which is practically half
of the total members of the task force. The main question here is
this. We don't have any quarrel with the philosophy behind the oper-
ation of the program. We work on that type of a program and we have
thought for this type of operation„ The question is that the City
of Miami, and here today we have heard discussions about the economic
situation of the City of Miami, the financial difficulties and we are
very well aware of the fight that the City of Miami is carrying with
Metro because of double taxation and we fail to see why if the school
40
OCT 61976
board of Dade County is the solely responsible entity for funding
this particular program, why should the City of Miami, who is having
so much trouble financially, undertake this responsibility. We are
here today discussing the increase of millage to go with the City's
expenses. We see now how last year we have 1.4 million dollars from
revenue sharing monies assigned to social services. This year it
was the Commission here, the one that is raising this from a proposed
$900,000 by the previous Manager, to what is being discussed today of
1.6 and that is not even enough to go with the situation. So as we
have it, the school board of Dade County, who should be the responsi-
ble body to fund particular program, I don't think that the City of
Miami, and this was the unanimous consent of the 8 target areas being
represented in the revenue sharing task force of the City of Miami,
the so-called voice of the people that willingly went into this
discussion and gave their input. what we feel we are doing is backing
this Commission in their fight for keeping the City financially sound.
Mrs. Gordon: That almost makes me laugh because if you will take a
look at the programs that are being considered for funding, I'm won-
dering how many of those are bread and butter items. Some of them
are but some of them are certainly not and if you're talking about
bread and butter items, Mr. La Casa, then you must consider the bene-
fits to the people who live in the City of Miami who have children
and the people, the mothers, the fathers who have to go to work and
you would prefer, apparently, you and your other people who did or
did not approve this program, that these youngsters should be on the
street.
Mr. La Casa: No, Mrs. Gordon, that is not the question.
Mrs. Gordon: What do you prefer?
Mr. La Casa: Last year I came to see you actually asking for your
help in getting the 10% of City monies, discretionary funds, to fund
social programs, specifically one of this kind. The question here is
not the philosophy of the program. We are 100% behind this program
and we do intend to go to the school board and ask the school board of
Dade County to fund this program. The question here is that the fund-
ing should not come out of the City of Miami Revenue Sharing Funds
because we are tight enough in this City to have to take responsibi-
lity for expenses that should be those of the Dade County school board.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, now may I ask you a question. Do you live in
Miami?
Mr. La Casa: Yes, I do.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay. Aren't you connected with Dade County?
Mr. La Casa: Yes, I am.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, what is your capacity with Dade County?
Mr. La Casa: That's a very good question. I am a of Dade
County and I am standing here...
Mrs. Gordon: You are what?
Mr. La Casa: I'm Director of a program which is funded by Dade County,
Mrs. Gordon: What is it?
111 IIIII 111111111111111111Ni I! III
41
OCT 61976
Mr. La Casa: SABER, a Manpower Training Program funded by the Dade
County and I don't mind standing here even though I am, to
a certain extent, shall we say under the supervision of the County
and say that the City of Miami should be saved this expense in this
particular item and the responsibility should fall on Dade County
which is strong enough to take and not we who are in such a tremendous
problem fina;,cially according to the Commission...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. La Casa, did you appear before the Dade County
Commission and ask them not to fund the after school care programs
for the County?
Mr. La Casa: No, Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: Why not?
Mr. La Casa: Because this is not the Dade County Commission the one
responsible for this, this is the school board.
Mrs. Gordon: No, you did not understand me..Is it my understanding
that Dade County has begun a similar type of program that we have
been doing for the past three years which is an after school care
program which operates not only during the school year but also in
the summertime so that the children whose parents are working will
not be on the street. Now schools are closed in the summertime as
you know. Okay, unless there are some recessions in some particular
school and this program which you're speaking against, have you ever
visited the program?
Mr. La Casa: I am not speaking against the program, Mrs. Gordon.
Mrs. Gordon: You are.
Mr. La Casa: No, I am not. I feel that the program is a very valid
program and as we say, our task force stands 100% behind the program
and behind the concepts of the program. What we are trying to do is
to have the adequate body of the local government pay for the program.
In other words, the school board is not the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. La Casa, let me ask you a question, sir, because I
don't understand completely. Now the task force, you say, is an 8
person task force?
Mr. La Casa: The task force was composed of the 8 target area Chair-
men...
Mayor Ferre: Within the City of Miami?
Mr. La Casa: Within the City of Miami limits.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, and how were those target Chairmen selected?
Mr. La Casa: Mr. Parkins, who is responsible...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Parkins...
Mrs. Gordon: You're a community development task force, you're not
any other titled task force.
Mr. La Casa: The community development task force of the 8 target
areas were by Mr. Parkins.
Mayor Ferre: Well let's get this from Mr. Parkins.
42
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Parkins, is it true...
Mayor Ferre: How were the task forces developed, how were the
Chairmen selected and what exactly were they selected for and how
did they get involved in revenue sharing?
Mr. Rob Parkins: Okay, we had originally asked the Commission to
assist us with a Citizen Review Committee in July 22nd and that re-
quest was deferred or I understand it wasn't even discussed. We were
following the, I believe, mandated Commission to involved citizen
participation in the process this year. The only vehicle we had left
were the task forces for the community development areas. We approached
each of the task forces individually in their own neighborhoods, we
have a list of the meetings that we attended.
Mayor Ferre: How many meetings were there?
Mr. Parkins: There were a total of 16 meetings altogether.
Mayor Ferre: Were they attended by the people in the community?
Mr. Parkins: Yes sir. The initial meetings were, we explained the
process to them that we'd be providing technical assistance and we
were asking them and each of their neighborhoods to assist in priori-
tizing the agencies related to needs. Not necessarily funding because
the funding levels rested here.
Mayor Ferre: Was each program explained to each one of these...
Mr. Parkins: Yes sir, they were. And then we asked all of the 8
target areas to draw together as a group to review city-wide programs.
Mrs. Gordon: And you took a recommendation on everything they said,
didn't you, Mr. Parkins?
Mr. Parkins: By and large, we did, yes.
Mrs. Gordon: By and large but not totally.
Mayor Ferre: Is there anybody else here who is a task... Annette,
were you Chairman of one of the task forces?
Mrs. Annette Eisenberg: Let me explain that the people on these task
forces, Rose, are the people that were here last year and the year
before.discussing revenue sharing and these programs came up, it took
a great deal of time of the people. I did not attend every one because
of the campaign but the last meeting, we were there for four hours.
Now the only thing I resent in what you said, Rose, and I don't think
you really meant it was that you're saying, in essence, that what these
people sat and did should be null and void because they weren't authorized.
Why were we called upon to sit and review this then?
Mrs. Gordon: Annette, I want to ask you a very frank question. Did
you vote against the after school care program?
Mrs. Eisenberg: I wasn't the Chairman, the Chairman was Mr. Harman.
I, as you know, am an advisor.
Mrs. Gordon: Did you vote against it?
Mrs. Eisenberg: I didn't vote, Mr. Harman voted,
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: Would you vote against it if you were there?
Mrs. Eisenberg: Rose, I don't think that's fair because I had just
completed a campaign and I know where the money in the Dade County
school board is so I did not vote. I know where the money is there
and I wouldn't vote anyway because it's Mr. Harman. It's only one
vote so don't ask me that because I can expond upon where you can find
money. The program is great and as Mr. La Casa said, I don't think
the intent of the people there was to cut it out. It was just priori-
tizing where funding could come for certain programs. In other words,
some programs couldn't seek funding anyplace else.
Mrs. Gordon: But if, in fact, Annette, the school board does not
fund it, do you want this program to die?
Mrs. Eisenberg: ? don't want any program to die, Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: I'm asking a question, yes or no.
Mrs. Eisenberg: No. I don't want to see the program die but I would
like to see the program perhaps go on a sliding fee basis...
Mrs. Gordon: It is.
Mrs. Eisenberg: Well there is not enough revenue coming from there.
Is there, Mr. Parkins?
Mrs. Gordon: It is on a sliding fee scale.
Mrs. Eisenberg: Alright but what was the reaction of Mr. Tassey when
you asked him to raise the fees?
Mr. Parkins: We were advised that they could not, at this time, raise
the fees. That they published a fee schedule. He estimated that the
average fee collected to somewhere around $4.00. We differed on that
and that was basically the conclusion.
Mrs. Gordon: But there is a sliding fee scale.
Mr. Parkins: Yes, there is.
Mrs. Eisenberg: But let me just reiterate one time. None of the pro-
grams that were considered, every program was considered important but
the programs perhaps ;that some of these people voted on were programs
that other funding sources just like Manpower or the community develop-
ment... Remember, we're schooled in community development now that
says that they will not fund any program if there are other funding
sources. That's what they taught these people and they felt that there
was other funding sources for the program. If there isn't, then it
must come back to here.
Mr. Plummer: Well I think, if I may interject a point. I think what
Mr. La Casa is saying and somewhat what I have said is the fact that
the school board, with its responsibilities and its own 10 Mill Cap and
its own funding is asking this Commission to subsidize school board
programs in the amount of $745,957 and its school board itself. We are
not asking another agency to subsidize us and I don't feel that it's
fair that any other agency should ask us, who has the same guidelines,
the same rulings that they have, to subsidize them.
Mrs. Gordon: Alright, may I clarify a very important point. The least
expensive way to care for children after school is in the school, that
is the least expensive way. We could do it in our park system. This
OCT 61976
is not an education per say program that you turn to for the school
board to do. The reason why it's done in the schools is because it
allows the children not to leave the protection of the school and
have to go to some other place because that's where the danger lies.
Consequently, when we conceive this program, it was a practical approach
to taking care of children who are in need of protection for the hours
of 2-6, this is not an education program per say and it's not a baby-
sitting program either. It's a program that provides them with par-
ticular skills training that they cannot get in normal school routine.
It allows them to have music, it allows them to have art, it allows
them to have many things that many children, especially children of
deprived income families cannot give their children. I don't have
any children in the program.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Rose, I can use the same argument. First let me
say, Rose, look, there are so many needs in this community that are
never met and will not be met. There's just not enough funding avail-
able to take care of all of the needs. You know, you read in the pa-
per this morning, my god, look, Variety Children's Hospital is having
to tell the County, we're sorry, we can't subsidize you anymore. Now
there is a tremendous need and all of us know the good work that they
do and maybe this City should consider funding Variety Children's
Hospital but here again I don't think this City can address itself to
that problem. Our needs are here in our City and I think that that's
what has got to be addressed and Rose, if you want to use the other
side of the argument, yes, I agree that the best place for those kids
after school are in the school but I also agree that the best person
that can handle it is a school teacher and that's paid for by the
school board and I could probably, if I had a little bit of time, sit
down and figure out for you...
Mrs. Gordon: J. L. ...
Mr. Plummer: I'm not saying that it isn't a great program, it is, it
is a great program and I hope that those people whose responsibility
it is to fund it will see the great program that is there and continue
the funding under their own responsibility.
Mrs. Gordon: It's our responsibility. It's the same kind of respon-
sibility we have in our parks and recreation programs. If, in fact,
we are not responsible for that, then we should not be responsible
for parks because we're providing the same kind of service in a dif-
ferent location.
Mr. Plummer: How many kids are in the after school or community school?
Mrs. Gordon: About 500 children are being serviced in the after school
care programs...
Mr. Plummer: How many? 300?
Mr. Grassie: I understood it was...
Mrs. Gordon: And they're on a revolving basis, every child doesn't
come every day so...
Mr. Grassie: About 400.
Mr. Plummer: About 400?
Mr. Grassie: On the average, 400. It varies from 300 and 500 accor-
ding to Mr. Tassie, I believe, Commissioner.
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: That's right but there are more children than that bea,
cause they are like every other program, the same child doesn't go
every single day.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, one person at a time because this thing, two
people talking at the same time. Who wants to talk and then when you
finish talking, whoever wants to talk I'll recognize and go back and
forth. Let's see if we can keep this down...
Mrs. Gordon: May I continue?
Mayor Ferre: Yes mam.
Mrs. Gordon: Let me remind you. There are alot of families where
there is just one parent, a mother or a father. What about those
kids? Where are they going to go?
Mr. Plummer: Rose, you know, that heart string is great but you know,
I can turn around and I can say to you that the 1500 people that the
Brothers of Good Shepard feed every day, the meanest man in the world
is a man with a hungry stomach, an empty stomach, and when those people
bring those children into the world, it's their responsibility to
care for those children and you know, I made the statement last year
and I'm going to make the same statement again this year. My votes
on revenue sharing will be predicated on first to feed the hungry,
second to take care of the sick and then if I've got anything left
over we'll talk about the rest. Now that's just the way I feel, I'm
sorry.
Mrs. Gordon: I understand your feelings and you have good feelings
with regard to wanting to feed the hungry and take care of the sick
but there are other fund monies available for feeding the hungry and
taking care of the sick and those monies come under special titles
and they're available for the poor and the near poor. Don't think
we have utilized all of the sources that are available for us to do
that. Instead, I don't know why, maybe it's easier to use the revenue
sharing social funds for the food programs, we have gone that route
but there is money available to feed the poor and the elderly and
they're under special titles, they're special funded programs.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask a question. Mr. Parkins, Mr. Manager, through
you to Mr. Parkins, I'd like to ask a question. There are from 300
to 500 kids that are in this program, how much are we spending on that
now?
Mr. Grassie: Well the City has proposed to spend $200,000.
Mr. Plummer: 270, I thought.
Mr. Grassie: No, $200,000 for the after school care program and
$70,000 for the community school program.
Mayor Ferre: Well how many kids are there in the whole program, both
of them put together?
Mr. Grassie: Well they are quite different programs and I am just
becoming acquainted with the program, you understand, here. They are
very different. The after school care program caters to about, on
the average, 400 children...
Mrs. Gordon: On an average.
Mr. Grassie: Yes, on the average. The community school program,
however, runs all kinds of different educational improvement kinds of
programs, some for adults...
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: For children and adults, there are both.
Mr. Grassie: Alot of them are for adults too.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask this. What is it? A continuing education
type of a thing?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, and they may have, I think, about 20,000 people
involved in that.
Mr. Parkins: 16,600.
Mayor Ferre: Who runs...
Mrs. Gordon: It's about 3,000, Mr. Mayor, that are served in the
community schools and...
Mayor Ferre: Alright, let me ask a question. Who else funds the
community school programs besides the City of Miami?
Mr. Grassie: The school board funds, as I recall the figures, Mr.
Mayor, about i of the cost, the state about h and the City about h.
Mr. Plummer: School board, 61% -the state - 15% and the City - 17%.
Mayor Ferre: Does the county put any money into it?
Mr. Plummer: None.
Mrs. Gordon: Not in our schools.
Mayor Ferre: Well does the county put any money into their schools,
into the schools into the county? They do?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, they do but the county, I understand the county
does make the local contribution out in the county part.
Mayor Ferre: Of course the taxpayers that live in the City also pay
county taxes and of course sometimes when it comes to doleing out
money, the county doesn't seem to think so. I just wanted to get that.
In other words, it costs about 4 to 500 dollars per child in the after
school care.
Mr. Plummer: $1,433.
Mayor Ferre: Per child:::?
Mr. Plummer: Roughly.
Mayor Ferre: No, J. L., no way.
Mr. Plummer: Take the figures that are right there. Not just the
City's contribution now, take all the contribution.
Mayor Ferre: That's almost as much as it costs...
Mr. Plummer: The total contribution...
Mrs. Gordon: You're not talking about what we're contributing.
Mr. Plummer: I'm talking about our contribution, the state and the
school board.
'7
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
ourselves...
Into what? The community school program?
The community school program, there it is right there.
Oh, well we're not talking to that, we were addressing
Mr. Plummer: Well that's what it costs per individual, Rose, that's
what the Mayor asked. You've got to take the total fund and divide
it.
Mayor Ferre: Now let me ask you the question with regards to the
child care. How much does that cost per child?
Mr. Grassie: On the average, about $500. That's a very quick cal-
culation.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Manager, you would be right if only 400 children
were participating in the program but that is not true. There are a
great many more children participating but not all are there everyday.
Therefore, when we say 400, that is an average figure and that also
includes the summer program when the kids have nothing else to do and
they're out on the streets totally or they're in the program which is
a full day program. They do pay for some of it, Mr. Mayor, they don't
get it all for nothing.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, let me ask you this question. How many,
I guess we really don't have demographic figures for the City but of
the 350,000 citizens that we have, how many would we estimate would
be in the age and could use this service? 20 or 30,000 kids? 40,000?
Mr. Grassie: Well as you say, you're asking me to do you a very rough
estimate. Since there is a sliding...
Mayor Ferre: Do you know that, Mr. Parkins?
Mr. Grassie: There is a sliding scale and not only people who are
under the poverty income guidelines can apply for the program so
conceivably you could have 100,000 kids that might want to participate
one way or the other if it were freely available. It's very difficult
to say.
Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Plummer, put it into the record.
Mr. Plummer: I hate to keep beating a dead horse but if you want to
look at it the other way, look what this City, and I have said this
every year, what this City is paying per child in the day care program.
This City is now paying, according to the figures that Mr. Parkins gave
me, at a total cost of $360,000, 150 kids were paying...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Manager, how much money are you putting into the
general fund for revenue sharing funds?
Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Gordon, I will recognize you as soon as Mr. Plummer
finishes his statement. Let him finish his and then I'll recognize you.
Mr. Plummer: Based upon not my figures but that of Mr. Parkins, the
day care center is $360,000 which includes the state money, for 150
kids comes out to $2,400 per child. Now I send my child to a private
school and I pay $1,600 a year which includes transportation and I
raise holy hell about it. Now maybe what we ought to do, and here
again I hate to bring this up because I lose every time, is to go con-
tact that school where my child is and let them run the program because
we come out $800 per child better and that doesn't include any capital
O C T 61976
improvements that have already been amortized down.
Mayor Ferre: Well we're not talking about that now, are we?
Mr. Plummer: No, we're talking about this year. The amortization
of capital improvements came out in a one year lump sum so what we
are talking about... Now Mr. Parkins, you correct me if I'm wrong,
sir. -
Mr. Parkins; No, that's correct.
Mr. Plummer: We're paying roughly...
Mayor Ferre: You mean to tell me that all we have in day care cen.-
ters is 150 children?
Mr. Parkins: At the present time, that's correct.
Mayor Ferre: And we're spending $360,000 for...
Mr. Plummer: No, we're spending 300 and a contribution from the state
is 60 or total fund of cost is 360. Is my figure $2,400 per child
incorrect?
Mr. Parkins: No, that would be correct based on the...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Parkins, would you answer me please a question i
asked you before? How much money are your food programs paying per
meal for meals?
Mr. Parkins: Well it varies. It runs from $1.30 to $1.60 per meal.
Mrs. Gordon: Why is it that we are paying between $1.30 and $1.60
for our program meals when the county is paying in a particular pro-
gram that they have between $1.10 and $1.25? Why do we have so much
fat in our programs?
Mayor Ferre: You mean in the day care centers? Is that what you're
talking about?
Mrs. Gordon: I'm not talking about day care, I'm talking about the
programs that have been recommended for funding and which are greatly
over -funded for the amount of service and the amount of people that
they're serving.
Mayor Ferre: Then we ought to cut them down, absolutely. If we can
get them for $1.10, I'll go with that one and I sure as heck don't...
I'm going to tell you point blank and I'm not changing my vote on this.
If we're spending $360,000 to service 150 kids, that is unbelievable.
I cannot, in all good conscious, vote for something like that, I don't
care how many of these kids show up at the next meeting with signs
and pies in their hands. I didn't realize that we were... I thought
it was alot more than that. We've got silver bluff and we've got...
Mrs. Gordon: Annette, how many children are you serving in your pro-
gram at Edison Little River?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: 21 is what it said.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: 21.
ga
OCT
61976
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
see here that
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre:
You're not spending any $2,200 per child.
Annette, you have 21aaccording to what I read and 1
your budget is $38,500. Okay?
You've got to be wrong, man.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, it's low. $2,400 is.low. Now this is one of the
things, Mr. Grassie, I hope we get understood next year because this
Commission is going to get realistic and practical answers. I just
had to go back and ask another question and I'll ask it on the record.
Mr. Parkins, of the $360,000, sir, does that include any Manpower
money?
Mr. Parkins: No, it does not.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, sir, my next question has to be, how many Man-
power people are in that program and what is the total of that cost?
Mr. Parkins: Well we just have four in that program.
Mr. Plummer: Now let's get together. Is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: You only have four people in that program and how much
are those four people getting? How much are those four people getting?
Mr. Mario Molins: Less than $10,000 a year each.
Mr.
Plummer: Well less than $10,000 is... Are they getting 25 a
piece? What's less than $10,000? Is it 990?
Mr. Molins: There is a Secretary whose salary is $7,000...
Mr. Plummer: What I'm trying to say, Mr. Molins, and I'll make it
more clearer for you, sir, I want to know what is the total cost of
the program.
Mr. Molins: The Manpower salary probably amounts to $35,000 a year.
Mr. Plummer: Then what we're really, in fact, talking about is
$395,000 rather than $360,000. Is that correct, Mr. Parkins?
Mr. Parkins: Well I'm going to give you an exact figure.
Mr. Plummer: Please do. Mr. Mayor, I brought to your attention and
members of this Commission last year that that figure, excuse me, year
before last, was $3,200 per child and that contained the amortization.
Mayor Ferre: J. L., I'm going to have to plead guilty to that because
I really don't remember having heard the figure that we were spending
22 or $3,000...
Mr. Plummer: I'm not criticizing. I'v
that what I was paying for my child in
paying double. May I have that answer,
Mr. Parkins: About $2,600 per child.
e just made the statement before
a private school, the City was
Mr. Parkins?
Mr. Plummer: The City is paying $2,600 per child in the day care
program. Does that include supplies?
50
OCT 61976
Mr. Parkins: That would include everything:
Mr. Plummer: Electricity?
Mayor. Ferre: Well you better get them before the public hearing.
Mx. Plummer: Wait a minute now, you're saying "no".
Mr. Parkins: It wouldn't include that kind of overhead, Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: well isn't that part of the cost of doing business,
overhead?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer:
Excuse me?
Mr. Parkins: Yes, the only thing it doesn't include is capital
Mr. Plummer: Well the capital has already been amortized, correct?
Mr. Parkins: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: That was a one shot, one year program as far as amor-
tization is concerned. Now are you saying to me, let me get my act
together because I keep getting this piece meal bit. Are we saying
the day care costs the taxpayers $395,000?
Mr. Parkins: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, and that's all of the cost involved because I
want to tell you that I can put you against the wall if I find out
there ain't something in there.
Mr. Parkins: Okay.
Mr. Plummer: You understand that.
Mr. Parkins: Sure.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, and that equates to $2,600 per child.
Mr. Parkins: Roughly, yes.
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Gordon:
I apologize for saying $2,400.
Mr. Parkins, how many people are serviced in your Youth
Co-op Program which you're recommending funding for $60,000?
Mayor Ferre: Well
basis on all these
then I'll tell you
I really think we have to look at it on a per capital
expenses. I'll tell you, if it's $2,500 or $2,000,
I'm against that.
Mr. Plummer: $2,600.
Mayor Ferre: Well we're talking about Youth Co-op.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Ferre: If Youth Co-op is spending $2,500 per child, I'm against
it, I will tell you right now before you even...
51
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Parkins, will you answer that?
Mr. Parkins: Alright, I'm hearing things from both sides. Where
are about 600 clients in that program and...
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Parkins: That $60,000 would be about 100.
Mayor Ferre: 100 what?
Mr. Parkins: 100 per client..
Mayor Ferre: $100?
Mr. Parkins: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: That's a little different. Next. Where are we now?
Discussion of after school care and community school program. can
we go back to that? Mr. La Casa, do you have anything else you want
to add to that?
Mr. La Casa: No, Mr. Mayor, that's about it.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you this. There was a vote taken on this?
Mr. La Casa: Yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: What was ,`.he vote?
Mr. La Casa: 8 - 0.
Mayor Ferre: 8 - 0?
Mr. La Casa: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, would you tell us, or if you can't furnish it
right now, I'd like you to furnish the names of the 8 people.
Mr. La Casa: Mr. Parkins, I'm sure, should have the names because...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Parkins, I would like you to furnish me the names
of the 8 people.
Mayor Ferre: Would you give us the names of the 8 people?
Mr. Parkins: Rosaline Sparks...
Mayor Ferre: For what area?
Mr. Parkins: There were only 6 there at that particular meeting, is
that correct?
Mayor Ferre: well then it couldn't have been 8.
Mrs. Gordon: Then it couldn't have been 8 - 0, right?
Mr. Parkins: Right.
Mrs. Gordon: Go ahead, who were the other 5?
Mr. Parkins: Nimerod Harmon.
52
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: Nimerod Harmon which is an...
Mr. Parkins: Edison Little River.
Mrs. Gordon: Oh, Harmon, okay.
Mr. Parkins: Jose Mendez from Wynwood. Mr. Willie Calhoun.
Mrs. Gordon: What area is Mr. Calhoun?
Mr. Parkins: Model Cities representing Mr. George Hepburn, And
Dr. Armando La Casa representing Little Havana.
Mayor Ferre: Is that 6?
Mr. Plummer: May I interject, Rose, just a simple question? Were
these people who were selected by their task force, how were they
selected?
Mr. La Casa: The selection actually was, actually there was not a
selection specifically for the task revenue money. The question is
that the task revenue, the revenue sharing monies, did not have a
task force...
Mayor Ferre: We know that, that has been explained.
Mr. La Casa: So what they did is they used the City Chairmen.
Mayor Ferre: That's not the question. The question was how were the
CB Chairmans in each task area elected or selected.
Mrs. Gordon: They're from the poverty areas, Mr. Mayor and they are
not the entire City of Miami.
Mr. La Casa: You mean how were we elected Chairmen of our particular
areas?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. La Casa: By the vote of the people.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, will you ask the question? Is every area
of the City represented by a task force or are there areas that are
not represented by a task force?
Mr. Parkins: There are areas that are not represented by a task force.
Mrs. Gordon: Then we are not speaking of the entire City of Miami
population being represented, exactly.
Mayor Ferre: Now would you answer the question? How were they selected
to Chairman?
Mr. La Casa: We are elected by popular vote once a year in an election
supervised by the Dade County Community Action Agency.
Mayor Ferre: Well, for example, in the election process, were you
elected by 10 people or 20 or...
Mr. La Casa: No, I was elected by about 1,100 people.
Mayor Ferre: 1,100 people?
O C T 61976
Mr. to Casa: 1,100.
Mayor Ferre: Did you have any opposition?
Mr. La Casa: I had an opposition.
Mayor Ferre: And how many did your opponent get? 1 just want to get
a total.
Mr. La Casa: About 200 votes.
Mayor Ferre: So there was a total of 1,300 people that voted.
Mr. La Casa: Correct.
Mayor Ferre: In your . Is that kind of high or is that kind
of the same all over? How about your area, Annette?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: I see, okay.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. La Casa, may I clarify something to you since you
are speaking for the Latin people apparently, that most of the children
in the Silver Bluff program are Latin.
Mr. La Casa: I'm aware.
Mrs. Gordon: You're aware? Have you ever visited the program?
Mr. La Casa: Yes. The question, Rose, I want you to understand this.
When I come here, I address the City Commission or the County Commission,
I don't think only as a representative of the Latin people or of a
segment of this community. I feel that every one of us regardless of
the ethnic origin should represent the whole community so I come here
with the feeling of the City of Miami as a whole and the reason I am
standing here today conveying to you the feeling of this task force
is not in representation of an isolated segment of our community. We
feel that the City of Miami is unduly charged by $200,000 on this
specific item. Due to the fact that we do feel that this is the
responsibility of the school board and it is very unfortunate that we
have 90% of the children being served there as Latins because I am a
representative, as you said, of the Latin people to a certain extent
and I am willing to take this responsibility to my people because I
feel that it is correct that I stand here not only representing them
but to represent the City of Miami's best interest as a whole whether
it's the colored, the Anglo's, the Latins, the Jews, everybody.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, thank you very much.
Mrs. Gordon: When the various items come up before us on the social
service programs, I wish the records to reflect each one where the
task force voted "no" and our department is recommending it and where
our Manager is recommending it, everyone to be noted into the public
record, please.
Mayor Ferre: I would like to make a brief statement about all of this.
I have voted like, I guess, all of us here in the past for day care
centers and child care centers and after school centers. There is no
question that there is a need for these types of programs. There is
a human need. I've got two and have had two problems in the past and
still have two problems. The first problem is I don't see how govern-
ment, whether it be federal, state or local government, can afford to
54
OCT 61976
spend $2,500 per citizen in rendering a social service. I just don't
see how in the world we can subsidize that type. I think that we've
got to use what little money we have in a much broarder way so that
more people are covered. It is difficult for me to believe that
there's 150 kids that get day care center services and 3 to 500 in
after school care for the kind of money that it's costing. Secondly,
and I hope that those of you that are here and the public would not
misinterpret my feelings on this. I really don't consider myself
a racist is any kind of a way and by that I mean a racist either
ethnically, racially, black or white, christian or jew, rich or poor,
Anglo-Saxon or Spanish, I think people are people and they're tax-
payers and they're citizens and they have a need and I don't think
that their race, creed, language, national origin, sex, age or any-
thing has anything to do with it. I've had a serious problem in the
past with the United way and I've expressed it here before and i'll
tell you what it is. I'm not against United Way, I'm for it, I think
it's good and I think it renders an important service but it bothers
me and it bothered me when I was on the Board of United way and I
expressed it that we go out and raise funds and then a great deal,
millions and millions of dollars, are used to subsidize programs that
cater to middle class America and to the rich for example. All my
boys have been Boy Scouts, I've had four Boy Scouts in my family.
Now I know, since I served on the Boy Scout Council, that it costs,
for the $25.00 that I put into it, somebody has got to put up $50.00.
Now I don't see why the United Way has to subsidize me, and I'm
moderately well off, why should the United Way subsidize Maurice Ferre's
four Boy Scout children in a program when I can afford to pay $75.00
and I kept saying, look, I ought to be made to pay $100.00 for my
child to be a Boy Scout and if Pincher's kids can't pay $25.00, then
that's where the money ought to go because those black kids in the
central area of Miami have just as much right and perhaps much more
of a need to have that kind of recreational activity than my kids do
because I can afford to take my kids to the Grand Canyon and have,
walked all the way down to the bottom and walked all the way up and
there aren't that many kids that have that kind of an opportunity.
Now it's the same philosophy that bothers me about this type of funding.
You know, if you take that day care center, when you really look at
it, it's not that I'm against working mothers, hey that's super, I
think that's a great thing but when you really look at it, these are
people that are a part of mainstream middle America and I know they
are perhaps the ones that have been overlooked the most, god knows
that that's probably true but the fact is that I don't see why the
City of Miami should be subsidizing any citizen, rich, poor or middle-
class, $2,500 so that they can have a kid... That's unacceptable to
me and I just, an expression of philosophy, maybe the time has come
to bite the bullets. Alright, now I got that off my chest. Plummer,
you wanted to say something before...
Mrs. Gordon: Miss Kory, did you want to add some information...
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I'm leaving before those 150 kids get here and that
woman comes with the plume in her hair.
Mayor Ferre: I will recognize you as soon as the members of the
Commission finish their statements. Plummer, I interrupted you, did
you want to say something on that.
Mr. Plummer: No, go ahead.
Mrs. Delores Kory: I have never addressed the Commission on these
issues but I feel that it is very vital to do so. Ann Wilson, who is
our permanent child care committee advisor, Chairman of the permanent
committee of the City of Miami which is an active committee, incidentally,
gentlemen and Mrs. Gordon knows this and the Manager knows this. This
OCT 61976
committee is meeting regularly without Ann's presence, her daughter
lays critically ill in the hospital or she would be speaking and I
am mainly speaking in her behalf because I know how close and how
much attention she has given the City in this capacity. The after
school program I'd like to address first, I think i'll start the
other way around. The child care program has brought nationwide
attention to the City of Miami. It is the steller example of the
use of revenue sharing funds for social services and for any given
program in any major city. In that sense, it drew a major feature
picture in the issue of Nation cities which I'm sure you have all seen.
The cost of that child care is running right square along with the
nationwide average of child care which is $2,500. Special children's
functions, if you added in some enrichment programs, this ups it to
about $3,100 per child. Our program has served the needs of all socio-
economic persons in this community. The consequences and the benefits
of both programs are beyond dollars and cents, cost benefit analysis
of the very most skilled management analyst you can find. We have,
and Father Gibson, Manolo Reboso and all those, Mr. Plummer, I'm sure
you have all visited our programs, they are model programs. They are
a quality care program that is not warehousing of children, these are
Ann Wilson's own words and I am taking liberty of using them and Dr.
Alma David, who is our authority and Vice -Chairman and who isn't here,
we did not ask them to be present for this meeting because we felt
that the reason of this Commission would be to continue the pre-school
child care program. Now going to the after school care program, the
school board, in public documents in the newspaper, has in recent days
issued a call for help. Their business is education during the normal
school days. They do have recreation programs granted after school
but their business is not in caring for children as our Vice -Mayor
indicated. We house this program, the Child Care Committee again
takes responsibility for this. We house this program in the school
simply as a maximazation of resources which the public already owns,
they already paid for the schools and they already have the cafeteria
there and they already have the staff so in this sense the school
board is under writing by providing us with the use of the schools.
The after school care program, on its first anniversary two years ago,
had a combined program at Carver Junior High School and Commissioner
Gordon and myself attended that program, maybe some of the others in
the audience did. There are over 300 children on the stage of Carver
Junior High School representing every possible segment of this commu-
nity. Each individual center, Silver Bluff, Little River Elementary
and Carver each put on a segment of the program. The conclusion was
a massive song, 5 rows of 60 kids each singing come on everybody let's
love one another right now and I want to tell you that if you've ever
done a worthwhile thing in this community with your money, that this
is it and its benefits are proven, its cost is down, it's the biggest
maximazation of resources you can have and Wilson took it to the County
Commission and the County replicated the program and incidentally, one
of the five programs will be within the City of Miami.
Mayor Ferre: They have funded five programs.
Mrs. Kory: They have funded five identical programs and one will be
in the City of Miami which is like a pro -rated share, absolutely.
Mayor Ferre: At the same rate? $2,500 per kid?
Mrs. Kory: It figures it to the same rate, they're funding
a little bit different in their contract that they worked out with
Dr. Tassie and the school board is different.
Mayor Ferre: what if every citizen in the City of Miami said I want
to take advantage of that program?
our 61976
Mrs. Kory: They can provided they are a single parent family, that
is first priority, working family that lives within the City, that
contributes to the tax base of this City. Then they pay on a pro-
rata share based on their income. This is not a giveaway program.
This is entitling our working parents, and the majority in both pro-
grams are single parents, to work.
Mayor Ferre: Delores, let me ask you this. Out of the total budget
of what, $350,000...
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: $400,000, how much is actually paid for by the...
Mrs. Kory: We are forgetting the fees that are returned to that pro-
gram. we are forgetting the monies that we get from the state allo-
cation.
Mayor Ferre: I'm not talking about that. I'm saying out of the total
budget, let's say it's $400,000, how much of that is paid for by the
users of the service?
Mrs. Kory: They pay according to the bill you pay. Some pay $35.00
a week per child.
Mayor Ferre: I'm not asking you that. I realize that it's a sliding
scale.
Mrs. Kory: And incidentally, Mr. Mayor, I might point out...
Mayor Ferre: The total was $37,000?
Mr. Plummer: $37,000 is what fees that are collected.
Mayor Ferre: So it's about 10%, is that it?
Mr. Plummer: 10 on a dollar.
Mrs. Kory: We are investigating the use of Title 20 money for those
at the lower income level that will entirely depray a portion of that
but this is not a fact yet. I would be glad to try to give any answers
that you...
Mayor'Ferre: I just wanted that one but Plummer answered that. Is
that wrong? $37,000 out of $400,000 is what is paid for by the re-
ceivers of the service?
Mrs. Kory: I believe that's right.
Mayor Ferre: Rob, is that right?
Mr. Parkins: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: It's about 10%.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I comment?
Mr. Reboso: Let me ask you something J. L., because J. L. keeps saying
I am getting the information from the administration. Why doesn't the
whole City Commission get this type of information from the Administra-
tion on a breakdown on each program and how much it costs and everything
and we have to find out the last minute and they don't supply us with
that information. How many kids are in the program, how much it costs...
7
OCT 61976
9
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Reboso, I think maybe I can answer that better than
the Administration can. The reason that J. L. has this information
that I have spent about 150 hours in the budget office in the last
four weeks and I asked these questions because I think they need
answers and I feel that it's my responsibility to bring these facts
at the only time I have available which is at these meetings.
Mayor Ferre: J. L., that's very commendable and it really is and I
think all of us are very proud and very grateful that we have one of
ours that has that type of persistency and that type of dedication
to the job. I think what Commissioner Reboso is pointing out, Mr.
Grassie, is that it really shouldn't require a member of the Commission
and 150 hours to get pertinent information to make decisions on.
Mr. Grassie: You're entirely right, Mayor. We had hoped, I think
you know, to have a workshop with you on September 28th specifically
on the question of every revenue sharing program and because of what
happened in the budget, you know, we did not get to do that but you
are right, it should be much easier for you to find out the details
of these programs, no question about it.
Mayor Ferre: Well it's 6:00 and I do want to hear the debates tonight...
Mr. Plummer: Can I make two statements, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: As long as they are not political.
Mrs. Kory: I just want to point out, Mr. Mayor, that we have done
nothing to alarm or to mention anything in the community, to the
community schools, the parents don't know anything about what's hap-
pening here, they're working parents but they would be here, I'm sure,
tonigt. And there are hundreds. There are 400 parents in one case
and 150 in the other. These are who you are impacting on. We're
talking about families, not just children.
Mayor Ferre: They will certainly have the opportunity to be heard
at the public hearing and I'm sure they will all be here as they have
in the past.
Mr. Plummer: Just two brief statements if I could, Mr. Mayor. One
statement, and I will defer to my friend from which I got the infor-
mation, I think really it's important to know that to send a kid to
Florida State University including room and board, is $1,875 a year
or roughly $600 less.
Mayor Ferre: That's not fair, J. L..
Mr. Plummer: Oh, isn't it?
Mayor Ferre: No, and I will tell you why not. Because you know darn
well that the state is subsidizing $3,000 approximately per student.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, so I will as to that point. Mr. Grassie,
you have had sufficient time, sir, to see the day care program and I'm
really asking this on the record. we discussed it off the record.
Do you feel that the money that is being allocated towards the day
care program is money well spent? If not, what recommendation would
you have to this commission for change either up or down?
Mayor Ferre: You see, Mr. Grassie, as the sign said, "Nobody promised
you a rose garden." We promised you one rose but not a rose garden.
OCT 61976
Mr. Grassie: To answer the question, I have seen some of these pro-
grams, I think they are inefficiently administered, I think that if
these programs fall into the category of those out of which we have
to get much more productivity if we want to get the dollars worth.
Whether or not you up or decrease the total amount of money that you
spent for the program really should be a decision on how many people
you want to reach. What I'm saying is that if you are now spending
$2,600 per person, I think that it should be an absolute understanding
of this City Commission that if we can't operate at the level of
$1,500 and give good service, that a year from now we ought to be out
of business.
Mayor Ferre: Of course you may be dreaming a little bit about a na-
tional average as $2,500, how can you now say that it could be 15?
Mr. Plummer: Don't stiffle initiative.
Mr. Grassie: I'm dreaming based on the assumption that Commissioner
Plummer is correct in telling me that in the private sector, and I'm
assuming that this is not a church subsidized program.
Mayor Ferre: It is a church program. He sends his kids to St. Ste-
vens.
Mr. Grassie: Well now that's different, you see?
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute: Would you quit telling me where I'm
sending my kids.
Mayor Ferre: Well I'm asking you, where do you send them?
Mr. Plummer: One to Bayshore and the other one to St. Stevens. St.
Stevens costs less.
Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected, St. Stevens and Bayshore.
Mr. Grassie: If I could finish, Mr. Mayor, the point that I'm making
is that if we can't run the program at approximately as efficiently
as the program that Commissioner Plummer is talking about, it seems
to me that a year from now we mean to be out of business, we need to
have somebody else doing it. Now that does not speak to the question
of whether you want to appropriate $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000.
What is recommended now is $300,000. I think we need to use the money
better...
Mayor Ferre: Is that out of the million three that you have?
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: Let me ask you this, Delores. Has anybody ever been
turned down legitimately? I mean, some citizen had a child and wanted
to put him in the day care and you didn't have room?
Mrs. Kory: Yes, we have a waiting list at each of the centers and we
really need to consider expansion rather than denial of the entire
program. It is one of the more valuable efforts we have.
Mayor Ferre: How many people you think are waiting in line right now?
Miss Kory: I know Shennandoah, which is the first center we opened
and will be celebrating its third anniversary in December to which you
are all invited by the Day Care Committee incidentally including our
new City Manager. The Shennandoah Center could be double the size or
at least a separate entire unit built there. And incidentally, we have
OCT 61976
so many other inputs into this. We have free services of college
students, we have free services of the Shennandoah people, their
learning experiences in handling children, there are so many other
benefits.
Mayor Ferre: Would you say that's true, that doubling all over, or
there might even be more...
Miss Kory: There is a waiting list at each center if you want to get
your child in it.
Mayor Ferre: We're taking care of 150 and the need really is 3 or
400, right?
Miss Kory: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, it is also a hope, a dream if you want to
put it that way, for us to be able to have an infant care center in
our Riverside Baptist Church property because the facility there is
so perfectly set up for this use and because it would take very little
capital improvement and just some staffing in order to service another
segment of our community.
Mayor Ferre: As a matter of fact, it was at one time used as a day
care...
Mrs. Gordon: And I am totally in favor and I have no quarrel with
you about tightening it up and making sure just those that can't pay,
don't pay and that those that can pay, and they pay proportionately
to their income, I'm not opposed to that. I'm just totally in favor
of it. I want to expand it, I want to utilize that center, that
Riverside because that's where alot of working parents are and under
2, we don't have anything for a child under 2.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, let's move along because we've got a long way to
go and we're still on item number 6. What is the will of this Commi-
ssion?
Mrs. Gordon: What's the will of this Commission? We've been going
half-cocked, what are we on?
Mayor Ferre: We're on item number 6 and there was a motion, the
seconder of the motion withdrew his second, we went into the public
hearing an hour ago exactly. You made the motion.
Mrs. Gordon: To approve the after school care? Is that where we are
Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: I move that.
Mayor Ferre: Rose Gordon moves.item number 6.
Mr. Reboso: I second the motion, Mr. Mayor as in previous years hoping
that the administration will have a much better program this year.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, there is a motion and a second? Any discussion
on the motion? I want to just state for the record that I am philo-
sophically for this however I find myself in a difficult position that
I have to vote against it at this time until I know exactly where the
money is coming from and what we're going to do with the millage, I
do not think we can vote for this and other items unless we agree to
increase the millage as I previously stated and decrease the departa-
60
OCT 61976
mental expenses otherwise we're just playing a game around here and
just going on a merry-go-round so I have no, i want to apologize and
I wanted to explain my vote does not mean that I am against the pro-
gram but just like Mrs. Gordon stated, she was not against some of
the things in the original motion at the beginning of this hearing,
it was just the timing of it and my vote is based exactly on that
same statement.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, just for the record. The school board is
picking up part of the funding of this program.
Mr. Grassie: Well in the last 20 minutes we have talked about 3
different programs.
Mr. Plummer: The community school.
Mr. Grassie: The community school, $70,000 of our money.
Mr. Plummer: And after care.
Mr. Grassie: Those are two different things.
Mr. Plummer: Well
item 6, the motion is to approve item 6.
Mr. Grassie: I just want to make sure you understand they are two
different things.
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., let me tell you why it's in one item. Because
you can't have after school without community school, therefore you
have to have that first because the administrator for that community
school is the overseer of the after care, it's the same person.
Mr. Plummer: And the school board is funding both of these programs.
Mr. Grassie: No, the school board is funding the first which is the
community school. They are putting in much more money than we are,
they are putting in nothing but their facility for the care program.
The care program is City funded in terms of expenses other than phy-
sical facilities.
Mr. Plummer: And that's roughly $70,000.
Mr. Grassie: No, that is the $200,000 part.
Mr. Plummer: That's the $200,000 and they're not putting in anything.
Mr. Grassie: Except their facilities, that is correct. $70,000, they
are putting in approximately $265,000 to match our $70,000 and the
state is putting in, as I recall, about $66,000.
Mr. Plummer: And you are recommending this.
Mr. Grassie: If you raise the level of revenue sharing funding for
social services to $1,570,000, yes, I am recommending it.
Mr. Plummer: Well then I have to get back. Mr_ Grassie, I'm not
real happy with that answer. You're original recommendation was
$1,300,000. Now if what you're really saying is that now that the
Commission has brow beat you into $1,500,000 or $1,600,000, then you
feel that it's legitimate. Is that the way you're putting it?
Mr. Grassie: No, Commissioner, I don't...
C
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon:
that. That's
raise the 900
Let me answer for you because I feel responsible for
not fair to him. J. L., you're the one that asked to
to $1,300,000 in a motion, he didn't, you did.
Mr. Plummer: I agree.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: That's right.
Mrs. Gordon: Then you brow beat him in the first place.
Mr. Plummer: I don't deny that in the least.
Mrs. Gordon: No, that's not fair to him.
Mayor Ferre: Any further discussion on this item number 6? Call the
roll.
Thereupon, the following motion was introduced by Commissioner
Gordon who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-872
A MOTION OF INTENT TO FUND AFTER
SCHOOL CARE AND COMMUNITY SCHOOL
PROGRAMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $270,000.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Reboso, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
NOES:
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
ON ROLL CALL:
Mrs. Gordon: What is the motion?
Mr. Plummer: It's your motion.
Mrs. Gordon: Totally we've tossed around. The motion is
to the school care and community school programs to fund it
for $270,000 which will be added to the allocation of the
previously motioned allocation. Correct?
Mr. Grassie: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Plummer:
the monies of
(INAUDIBLE)
Okay, yes.
And then I understand that that then is all of
social programs. Is that the understanding?
Mr. Plummer: Well that's what I'm saying. If that's the
understanding...
Mayor Ferre: We haven't voted on that yet.
Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Mayor, if you have $1,300,000 and he
has recommended programs with $1,300,000 and you've increase
.0
OCT 61976
it to $1,570,000...
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, that hasn't been accepted yet.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, it hasn't?
Mayor Ferre: No, sir, we haven't voted on that.
Mr. Plummer: Boy are you in for a real treat. I vote "no".
Mrs. Gordon: Are you voting "no" to the program or "no" that
they haven't funded it? Which are you voting on?
Mr. Plummer: I'm voting, I am, like the Mayor, if I could
afford it, I think it's a great program and I'd love to vote
for it. I don't have the money, I think it's the responsibility
of the school board and I have to vote "no".
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, don't paraphrase me because I
didn't quite say that. I said that...
Mr. Plummer: That's my feelings, not the Mayor's.
Mayor Ferre: What I said is when I know where the money is
coming from, then I'm going to vote for it if there is the
money.
Mr. Plummer: You know where the money is coming from. There
is only one pot in this City and not the kind you smoke.
7. MILLAGE INCREASE:
Mayor Ferre: Alright, take up item number 7, millage requirements.
Mr. Grassie: I believe, Mr. Mayor, that the City Commission has dis-
cussed this item. We went through the question of how much millage
was a result of the certification process and how much is a result of
the action of the City Commission. What is proposed is that in addition
to the 3/10 of 1 Mil which will be increased as a result of the cer-
tification process that in addition to that to fund this budget that
you add 7/10 of 1 Mil so that the total increase, including debt ser-
vice, will be of one mil.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Rose, I pass you the gavel. We're on item
number 7, I'm passing you the gavel and I make a motion that the
millage be increased as recommended by the Manager.
Mr. Plummer: With your five stipulations.
Mayor Ferre: No, without 5... This is just plain number 7, millage
requirements. I move that the millage go up 7/10.
Mrs. Gordon: You're voting that the millage be as the Manager recommended.
Was there a second?
Rev. Gibson: Yes.
Mrs. Gordon: Who seconded it?
Rev. Gibson: I did.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, I have to ask a question or two because the millage
adoption sets the whole budget in place and we have resolved a very
6,3 OCT 61976
important issue which I think is reflected and does affect the budget
and that is the one regarding the Civil Service budget.
Mr. Grassie: I don't believe, Commissioner, that that would be
necessarily true. What you are doing is putting in place the amount
of tax revenue which will support this budget, that is the only thing
you are doing with the millage. The whole question of how that revenue
is distributed internally, whether with regard to the Civil Service
budget or any other budget is still within your determination. For
example, as you said before, we have the major iter of salary increases
and that has to come from within the budget so there is alot of in-
ternal change that has to take place. The only thing you're setting
now is the revenue side.
Mrs. Gordon: I have so many questions that we don't have answers for.
How much...
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre:
Maurice, just let me finish.
I know but I want...
Mrs. Gordon: Maurice, let me finish: The salary increases are number
one, that's it, that's a big thing.
Mr. Grassie: Yes it is and I think that the only realistic posture
that the City Commission can have at this stage in that regard is one,
to assume that the salary increases will be within the guidelines of
the City Commission itself as mandated for us and within that authority
that we will have to get the money from within the budget to make the
salary increases that we finally agree to through negotiations.
Mayor Ferre: Madame Chairman, may I speak now? I would like to simply
state that all these things have questions. I have alot of questions
about after school care and community school programs and the day care
centers and the social programs that are coming up in item number 8
so I'm sure these are the very same questions that we all have but
somewhere along the line we've got to start moving so I think it's
time for us to recognize it. There is no way that we can take all of
this from the budget. I think it's just criminal to go and take it.
I think it's going to be tough as it is to take the millions of dollars
we're going to have to take from each departamental budget to give the
salary increases that we have to give but I certainly think we're going
have to bite the bullet like most of the other cities have done.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, may I ask a question of why you're proposing
that we go to the taxpayers and tell them they're going to have to pay
more money and I've got to put a line in here. My father keeps saying
two years ago I told him that we were dropping the millage and he says
how come I'm paying more money and my father is not a simple man. Let
me ask this question. You were proposing at this time that we go to
a millage of 9.592. Why not 10 which is the maximum? Based upon the
criteria that you know that the Mayor is going to build into the next
motion. Now if I take you upon your word that this budget which you're
not real happy with but you're going to have to stand behind is in fact
a legitimate budget, it is legitimate demands and legitimate funding
and the Mayor is sitting here telling you he is going to cut you 5.6%
of your total budget or of your operational budget, then why wouldn't
you recommend to go to the maximum millage of 10? See, he's going
upon your recommendation of the 9.5.
Mr. Grassie: There is no magic answer, Commissioner.
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: There is a maximum.
Mr. Grassie: There is but there is no magic figure. Now the fact
is that we could use more money and if we have to operate with less,
we will. If you ask me to specifically justify that millage as against
2/10 of a mil different, you know as does the rest of this Commission
that that's not possible. It is possible to adjust this budget within
some very broard limits to almost any millage you set. The only question
that's in front of us, I think, is whether the process that you have
participated in and developed over a period of years and which I in-
herited in the last month is going to be the basis for the decision
you take or not. Now I am not telling you that that figure is a
magic figure, that it's the only figure, but it is the figure that
resulted from a process that you have been following for 5 years.
It represents departamental judgements with regard to their needs and
it represents a combined staff judgement with regard to what is rea-
sonable for the City. Now it have only that validity and no more.
Mr. Plummer: So in other words you're still sticking to the 9.592.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mrs. Gordon: We're now on the motion for the adoption of the millage
at the level that the Manager recommends. We still have many questions
to decide, this is not an ordinance, this is a motion and this is a,
this could pass by a majority and not a four -fifths. Is that correct?
Call the roll, please.
Thereupon, the following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre
who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 76-873
A MOTION OF INTENT THAT THE PROPOSED
MILLAGE FOR 1976-1977 BE INCREASED
TO 9.592, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY
MANAGER.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gibson, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
Mayor Ferre: Alright, now I take the gavel back and we are now on
item number 8.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. May I have a clarification, Mr. Attorney?
Did that motion pass or fail?
Mrs. Gordon: It's a motion and therefore majority passes a motion.
Mr. Plummer: As it relates to setting millage?
Mayor Ferre: If that's the case, then my original motion passed.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Weston: As I understand what's going on now, you're passing motions
of intent and it would pass.
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: A motion of intent, this has no bearing on reality.
Mayor Ferre: Well I think then, Mr. City Manager, if you would then
rule, my original motion passed by a 3/5 vote and it was a motion of
intent so therefore I conclude that it did pass because that was not
a final budget in which you need a four -fifths vote because I would
like to point out to you that item number 6, the discussion on after
school care and community school programs which was also a motion,
passed by 3/5 so therefore I'm saying that my original motion did
pass. Is that correct?
Mr. Weston: In the same spirits that we were just talking about, as
a motion of intent, yes sir.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: How can you have different spirits?
Mr. Weston: The Commission knows, I believe, that you cannot act
officially except on a written ordinance or resolution. You were
just expressing your intention now but when you get to passing some-
thing which is official, you're going to have to do it with the ne-
cessary number of people.
Mr. Plummer: So what you're saying is what we did just now really
means nothing until you reduce it to writing.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, what we've done, all of it means nothing
until it's reduced to writing and we get four -fifths vote.
Mrs. Gordon: Exactly, and also, for instance, to give you a for in-
stance, the motion that passed previously on the pension funding was
also only a motion of intent which doesn't bind anyone when the reso-
lution or ordinance is presented so it could logically be a change of
position after due thought.
Mayor Ferre: You could always change your position...
Mrs. Gordon: If further analysis reveals a need to change.
Mr. Grassie: Could I, Mr. Mayor, comment on the process as we had
envisioned it? When we set up the agenda, what we attempted to ask
you to accomplish was that we go through all of the questions that
remained as open questions or controverted questions and that you de-
cide them presummably by a majority vote, hopefully by at least a 4-1
vote but at least that you decide each question on a majority basis.
We had hoped that we would then take those decisions of the City
Commission, incorporate them into what we're going to ask you to do in
item 9 which is adoption of a resolution finalizing the budget and
that we would come out of this process with you having discussed each
one of these items, having decided it by a majority vote and then
having incorporated all of those things into a final budget. Now that
may be optimistic but I would want to indicate to you that there are
some significant consequences to the City Commission's not living with
whatever its majority decides because we do have a real problem in terms
of getting the taxes levied and we're going to run out of time.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, that's what is called the :ninority shall
rule the majority.
Lt. Harrison: Mr. Mayor, obviously you're working from some kind of
agenda. Could I get a copy of it so I know what's happening here.
It's a little difficult to follow what's going on here.
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: We're now on item number 8. You want mine?
Lt. Harrison: Traditionally you discuss some items in a workshop
session. I would assume then that you're going to return to those
and give these people an opportunity to speak.
Mayor Ferre: I certainly will, Lieutenant.
Lt. Harrison: Thank you.
8. FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS:
Mayor Ferre: We are now on item number 8, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Grassie: You have discussed this indirectly, Mr. Mayor. What
we had anticipated doing here was two things. One, clarifying your
position with regard to the allocation of funds within whatever limit
you set and second to establish that limit and if you did those two
things, then the last step would be the question of adopting the
Federal Revenue Sharing Ordinance so that we could keep these programs
going and we would not have any interruption in funding.
Mr. Plummer: You're speaking to the entire fund, not just social
service programs.
Mr. Grassie: Because of the practice of the City Commission in terms
of the way they have adopted the federal revenue sharing ordinance,
that is correct, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Because there's alot of items in here that has never
yet been discussed at all, correct?
Mr. Grassie: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, I just want to make sure that we just don't
rush into the social programs and forget that there's another 13z
million dollars back there.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, is there any further discussion on this item?
Are there any motions?
Mrs. Gordon: Which one are you on, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: On item number 8, Mrs. Gordon.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, for my edification, sir, this reflects $710
in funding for the federal revenue program according to page 281, I
am overlooking a typographical error.
Mrs. Gordon: Is this an ordinance? If it is, I don't have a copy.
Mayor Ferre: It's not an ordinance, it's a motion of intent.
Mr. Plummer: $7.10 is what is being given to us.
Mrs. Gordon: Well the item says Ordinance.
Mr. Plummer: Am I correct, sir. I think the comma after the 7 indi-
cates $7.10 and Rose, I want you to know I'm going to get it all clear.
Mr. Grassie: You're correct that it is a typigraphical error.
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Plummer, Mr. Grassie, I think Mrs. Gordon asked a
valid question that the agenda item says an ordinance and we have not
passed an ordinance.
Mr. Grassie: No, there is an ordinance available to you if, I didn't
think that you were ready for it yet. I don't know whether you have
discussed the two points that you wanted to discuss but it is here if
you want to see it. We have it in two forms. One at the level of
$1,300,000 and another in blank so that you could put in whatever
figure you finally decided.
Mayor Ferre: Well we've already agreed to $270,000.
Mr. Grassie: Well then we'll simply write that figure in and we have
the ordinance here for you to adopt if you wish.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, are you referring now, when you adopt
federal revenue to this $7.10, is that all we're adopting at this time
because I have to question the other 8 million where that's going which
is not addressed here or broken down in any way.
Mr. Grassie: Would it help, Commissioner, if we put the Ordinance in
front of you and then went down the items individually?
Mr. Plummer: If you feel that it would clarify it, yes sir, because
you have one time money cooped in with the annual donation coming to
about $15 million something. Is that correct?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, that is something that I believe we discussed in
some detail when we went through the general terms of the...
Mr. Plummer: Right and you're only showing here $7,100,000. Now I
think that this Commission should have some idea where that other
$8,000,000 is going and a breakdown.
Mr. Grassie: No question about it, it is detailed. It is detailed
in your budget and we can, why don't we start by giving you the Ordinance
that is proposed and we can go through each item and we'll try to
answer whatever questions you have about it.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, is it your intention sir to go down each
one of these items and give us a rough idea of what is the $165,000
for the additional recreation program, a mechanicalization program,
I don't know what that is, I do know what streetlighting program is,
contribution to general fund, I've got great problems with $8,600,000
plus the $3,500,000 for the contingency. I just really don't see that
as the real intent of revenue sharing and that's why I would like a
breakdown, sir.
Mr. Grassie: Well how would you like us to treat this, Commissioner?
This is not a very good forum to go into the details of it because what
I would think you would want is a fair amount of departamental input
on the value of some of those programs.
Mr. Plummer: I think you're right.
Mr. Grassie: We can have the budget staff run down each one of these
items for you if you wish and give an explanation of it. For example,
if you want the detail on the $8,600,000 and where it goes in the budget,
that is available and easy to produce for you.
Mr. Plummer: Well Mr. Grassie, I think it's only fair sir that we have
some other explanation of 81 million dollars than just telling me that
it's a contribution to the general fund.
OCT 61976
Mr. Grassie: I agree. Would you like it now?
Mr. Plummer: I will acquiess to the Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I've seen it in the general budget.
Mr. Plummer: The 81/2 million?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: would you point it out to me?
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Grassie, would you point it out?,
Mr. Grassie: Well I'm trying to decide whether it would be easier
for you if we work off this summary sheet. Why don't we see if this
sheet will work. I'm going to ask the staff to distribute this to
you and ask Mr. Johnson to go down the list with you and comment on
these items.
Mayor Ferre: Listen, before we get much further, I want to say that
I am leaving here at 9:00 so I don't want anyone upset with me at
9:00.
Mrs. Gordon: What time does the debate start?
Mr. Plummer: 9:30.
Mr. Grassie: Would you like Mr. Johnson to start down the list?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, the contributions of the general fund in the amount
of approximately 8.6 million follows the pattern of distribution of
the funds that we have previously done in the last two or three years.
I might go down the list, the first item on the list is the incinera-
tor. We have, again, used a million dollars anticipating the phase-
out of the incinerators. We have anticipated that perhaps the school
resource officer program in the amount of...
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Johnson, I don't know why your microphone isn't,
you're not coming through up here. Maybe just speak right into it.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. The total amount of contributions to the general
fund of 8.6 million are broken down as follows.
Mr. Plummer: May I ask a question before you start? Are these items
presently incorporated in their budget as it appears in the book?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Every one of these items.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, let me tell you how this was done if you wish, Mr.
Commissioner. What we do, following the pattern established two years
ago, we have identified certain items in all of the budgets which are
to be funded through federal revenue sharing funds. This includes the
incinerator in the amount of $1,000,000, the school resource officer
program in the amount of 225. We have taken the commodities, contrac:tural
services and inter-departamental services as outlined on this sheet and
included this as part of the funds of the 8.6 million dollars. If you
will notice, on the end.of this there is a balance of $447,000 which
means that if the school resource officer program, for example, is not
OCT 61976
• •
funded under federal revenue sharing funds, we do have some other
ways of making up this 8.6 million dollar contribution. Mr. Plummer,
one of the questions you have asked every year is are there any sal-
aries funded in this and there are no salaries, following the pattern
established two or three years ago, where salaries were to be removed
from the contribution to the general fund.
Mr. Plummer: That pertains to the Yeager pay plan only.
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Mr. Plummer: It does not go as to the general fund.
Mr. Johnson: well this contribution is strictly to the general fund.
Mr. Plummer: Yes but, in other words, when it is placed into the
general fund, it can, in fact, be used for salaries.
Mr. Johnson: Well no, not the way we have it broken out because we
are required by law to submit a planned use report which indicates
how we have spent these funds.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Johnson, what was the contribution last year to the
general fund from federal revenue sharing?
Mr. Johnson: 5.6 million approximately.
Mr. Plummer: And that was a total contribution.
Mr. Johnson: That was a total contribution to the general fund.
Mrs. Gordon: At the beginning of the year but then we did add another
$900,000 towards the end of the year.
Mr. Johnson: Alright, now you're coming back into the recommendations
which were given to you for the use of the equity funds in the federal
revenue sharing balances. $900,000 of that was recommended for use
to balance this year's budget. The additional $3,000,000 you see here
was also recommended to balance this year's budget, the 1976-77 proposed
budget and the other $3,000,000 is to be used in the 1977-78 proposed
budget. That is detailed on page 262 of your proposed budget.
Mrs. Gordon: Excuse me but isn't it true that revenue sharing funds
are going into the general fund with alot more money than 8.6? It's
that plus 3.
Mr. Grassie: The total amount is what you have at the bottom of that
Ordinance, $15,707,000.
Mrs. Gordon: Not all of it is going into this year though. 900 was
the past year and 300 is supposed to be for next year except if we
take some off which I see on this Ordinance you've already removed
400.
Mr. Plummer: I have to get back, Mr. Grassie, to the Mayor's original
proposal. When he said that he wants whatever, the $5,000,000, you
remember that, that is $5,000,000 that is coming out of the individual
budgets, it's not coming out of this $3,000,000 for next year.
Mr. Grassie: That's my intention, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
"�� OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: What did you ask? What wasn't coming out, J. L.?
Mr. Plummer: The monies that the Mayor has indicated in his original
motion which now the spirit says that he passed, is that it is coming
out of those budgets as proposed and not out of the $3,000,000 buffer
for next year and the answer was that that is his intention.
Mrs. Gordon: The only thing that came out of that was the $400,000
which is already been allocated to social services over the 900 that
Mr. Andrews first recommended.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct and that shows in the Ordinance that you
have in front of you, the last figure.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes and the ordinance which I have before me has
$1,300,000 for social services which is somewhat different than the
one that was recommended, one million three something which I don't
have here.
Mr. Plummer: So based on $8,600,000, what we are dedicating this
year in social services is just about 18%.
Mrs. Gordon: What:
Mr. Plummer: Is that correct?
Mrs. Gordon: 18% of what?
Mr. Plummer: Of the $8,600,000.
Mrs. Gordon: No sir. Out of the $15,000,000...
Mr. Plummer: No Rose, they're not using all of it this year.
Mrs. Gordon: All but $2,600 and that's a...
Mr. Plummer: No, $2,600,000. Am I correct?
Mr. Grassie: You take out the $2,600,000 and the $900,000 that is
presummed to be used this year, then your percentage...
Mrs. Gordon: Excuse me, Mr. Plummer, we still have almost $450,000
unused out of the 900. Right? Okay.
Mr. Plummer: Okay, now the question I have to ask is this. You have,
from federal revenue sharing, roughly 22 million dollars dedicated
using the police as the example is the way I read it here.
Mr. Grassie: That's roughly correct, yes. It's about that, $2,400,000.
Mx. Plummer: Now what I have to know is, is all of this money going
for a one shot thing or is it not and what is it, do we have any kind
of breakdown, could some of this money come from the bond issue?
Mr. Grassie: No, these are ongoing operating expenses of that depart-
ment, they are not one shot, in their great majority, they are not one
shot things, they are not the sort of things you would fund out of a
capital bond issue.
Mr. Plummer: So what you're really saying then is that 10% of our
operating budget is funded by federal revenue sharing.
Mr. Grassie: In the departments that you see in front of you on that
list, that is correct, yes.
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: There's the thing that pulls the plug.
Mrs. Gordon: That's why your percentage was off, Mr. Plummer, because
you just took a portion of it which in fact is not so. The City has
15 million plus federal revenue sharing dollars and of which even if
we took the $1,570,000 we would only be using 10% and you said we were
using 18 which you know of course we're not.
Mr. Plummer: Rose, I'll give you a statement I made last year and
it's truer this year than it was last year. We're going to the poor-
house in a Cadillac limosine.
Mrs. Gordon: Well the minute revenue sharing stops, the plug comes
out and the water goes down and that's it. We're funding our general
budget with revenue sharing funds. I don't know anything that's
riskier than that, nothing is riskier than that. We're only safe for
as long as revenue sharing is in place and that is, as I understand
it, until 1980 and then we're not too safe because we don`t know what
level they're going to give us next year.
Mr. Grassie: But the reality, if I may, Commissioner, the reality
of the situation in front of the City Commission is this as I see it.
You have two choices. Either you can use federal funds which are
risky to support ongoing City programs and take that risk or you have
to determine that you're not going to use that money. Now you have
an alternative which apparently this City has not adopted and that is
to use all of your revenue sharing money for what Commissioner Plummer
would call one shot expenses. That is, presummably, capital expenses
that have no ongoing operating cost to them. That is an option, it
is an option you have not exercised and at this stage, your budget,
as the Mayor indicated earlier, dependant only 25% on general taxes,
your budget is dependant on the use of federal revenue sharing as
well as many other kinds of funds over which you do not have 100%
control.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, I believe that you're correct but you're
incorrect. Mr. Ongie, here again I'll have to ask you to go back to
your minutes of the past that this Commission did, in fact, pass a
resolution last year that all monies to be used in federal revenue
sharing with the exception of the Yeager pay plan implementation would
be one shot monies. Do you recall that, sir?
Mr. Ongie: It sounds familiar, Mr. Plummer, but we'll have to check.
Mr. Plummer: And I think you will find that this Commission, in fact,
altered. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Beck, do you recall having to shuffle alot
of figures to put things over into a one shot thing?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: Okay, Mr. Grassie, then the question has to be to you,
sir. Of the options, including the one that you just brought, that
maybe we did or we did not, what is your recommendation, sir?
Mr. Grassie: I don't think you have a choice. Let me put it this
way. You already have at minimum a $5,000,000 problem. Depending
on what you decide today, you may add between 2 and $5,000,000 on
top of that problem. But even with a minimum $5,000,000 problem, I
do not think that you have the option of eliminating an additional
$8,000,000 in revenues supporting basic ongoing City programs. I don't
think you have that realistic option because basically, the decision
that you would have to take is that you are going to severely cut
operating departments and put that money into one time construction
OCT 61976
or purchase kinds of activities and when you got to the reality of
what that meant for City services, I think you would conclude that
it is completely irrational, it is not something that you would
support. Now I recognize fully the direction of your comment which
is that City finances are very precarious and in fact we are dependent
on sources that we don't control and, in fact, if something drastic
happens in Washington, we're in bad trouble, no question about it.
Mayor Ferre: So is Washington.
Mr. Grassie: So is Washington? So is every other City in the United
States, they're all in this situation. The only thing that I would
suggest to you is, in addition, that contrary to common opinion,
federal revenue sharing, when it was initially adopted in fact was
intended to make it possible for Cities to maintain services. It
was not intended as contrasted with community development monies, for
example, to do things other than routine governmental services and I
think that the use of revenue sharing monies to provide basic govern-
mental services is entirely valid and all we can say is that we're
living in a chancy world and we're taking a chance and we don't have
much of an intelligent option, that's what we have to do.
Mr. Plummer: Well I can agree with that to maintain City services
and I'll use your wording. Then I have to ask you, Mr. Grassie, it
would be nice to expand the recreational program but can we afford
it? It would be nice to supplement call -in service which is something
we never had in the past of $147,000 but can we afford it? I can go
right on down the list, sir. These expansions of programs, not main-
tained but expansion of programs, is it a luxury that we can ill
afford or cannot afford?
Mr. Grassie: They are luxuries in the sense that several years ago,
just to take one example, you did not have sanitation call -in service.
In my estimation, in the little I know of this program, you apparently
have decided that that was a significant program for the City to main-
tain. What I'm saying is I believe that you have concluded that it
is a good thing for the City to do. The alternative to spending your
money in this way is as I say, either put it in a capital investment
of some kind or to put it in the sock. Now it's difficult to suggest
publicly that a City take chances and in fact that's what we're doing.
What we're doing is taking a financial chance on the fact that the
basic structure, the revenue structure of this country, is going to
remain somewhat as it has been. It's a chance and you are taking a
chance.
Mayor Ferre: Not much. In the first place, you already see the leader-
ship of the United States Senate and I don't mean to brag but I have
talked to Hubert Humphrey and I have talked to Ted Kennedy and I have
talked to Fritz Mondale and I have to talk to Senator Scoop Jackson
and I talked to the Senator from New York, Javitz, and everybody fas
told me that there's no way that the Democratic controlled Congress
is going to in any way abandon the cities and we've already got the
funding through 1980, don't we? There is no way that that's going to...
I'll tell you, it's a gamble but it's not much of a gamble.
Mr. Plummer: Until November 3rd when the election is over.
Mayor Ferre: Yes and when the election is over and we have a good
democratic President, then I think you're going to have even a stronger
guarantee but if the American people happen to make a mistake in judge-
ment and we end up with a Republican President, then we're going to
have a good, strong Democratic Congress to make sure that that Republican
President doesn't go too far.
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: I hope the City employees will negotiate for peanuts.
Mayor Ferre: Okay, let's get onto the business of the day.
Mrs. Gordon: I have some amendments to this Ordinance if we're going
to vote on it.
Mayor Ferre: Well we don't have any motion yet, I think we've been
talking up until now.
Mrs. Gordon: Well before I make a motion, I would have to change
the number 6 item to $1,570,000.
Mayor Ferre: Well why don't you do it that way. Why don't you make
a motion to that and then we'll take up the Ordinance as a whole after
that. Rose Gordon moves that item 6, social services and recreational
programs, these funds to be allocated by resolution of the City
Commission to designate a social service and recreational program
would be increased from $1,300,000 to $1,570,000.
Mrs. Gordon: Does that make it 10% of your total allocation, Mr.
Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: Yes. Would you also indicate in the motion please that
the money would come from item 8.
Mrs. Gordon: I didn't hear you.
Mr. Grassie: Would you indicate in the motion also that you are
adding $270,000 to item 6 and you are deleting $270,000 from item 8?
Mr. Plummer: No sir.
Mr. Grassie: Or some other source, whatever your source wants to be.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, well you don't really have to because you have it
left in item number 8 in the first portion, the 900, there is a surplus.
Mayor Ferre: That's what he's telling you, Rose.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes but J. L. said no sir on the 260000...
Mayor Ferre: Well that's not the point. The point is you take it
from one column...
Mrs. Gordon: It doesn't make any difference, J. L., whether you take
it from that half of the item or the lower half. It's coming from
that item.
Mr. Plummer: Well I disagree now. We've gone then according to this
on a falicy that we are going into next year with a 2.6 million buffer.
Now you're going to start attacking that buffer and this reduction of
5% is going to come out of that buffer.
Mayor Ferre: (INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: J. L., I'm saying that it could come out of the first
half of that item which is the 900 because there is a surplus there.
Mr. Plummer: Out of last year's budget?
Mrs. Gordon: It hasn't been used. There is 400... Am I right, Mr.
Grassie? Mr. Johnson, is there a surplus of $400,000 from that 900
still unused?
OCT t1976
Mr. Johnson: Mam, I don't think there is but we would have to check
that out very carefully with the Finance Department.
Mrs. Gordon: Well I saw it in the budget so you better check it be
fore I can say anymore.
Mr. Grassie: The basic question is whether you want us to take the
money, the $270,000, from some place in this $15,700,000 or not. If
you would indicate that to us...
Mayor Ferre: George, we've got a problem. What time does your Board
meet?
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: Alright.
Mr. Plummer: Ask him a question again that I asked prior. Did this
reduction of 5.6%, as it had been advocated by the Mayor which in-
cludes the salary increases, the million dollars of the Commission
request and the $270,000 is not coming out of the contingency of next
year.
Mr. Grassie: That's for you to decide.
Mr. Plummer: Well I thought you said that was your intention.
Mr. Grassie: That was my intention, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
Mr. Grassie: All I'm asking is that wherever you take it from that
you tell us where you want it out of. If you don't want it out of...
Mr. Plummer: You have stated that the 5.6% advocated by the Mayor
would have to come from the departments.
Mr. Grassie: If what you're saying is that you want the -additional
$270,000 to come out of the departments, that's fine.
Mr. Plummer: Well that is part of the $5,000,000 and all I'm saying
is I don't want us going down this river with a buffer going into
next year of $3,000,000 and suddenly at the end of the year find out
it's not there.
Mrs. Gordon: We don't have $3,000,000 now, J. L., you only have
$2,600,000.
Mr. Plummer: Then you've got to go back and juggle your figures in
the book.
Mrs. Gordon: Well that's because it was changed at the last meeting
of this type and you've got to realize that you have to take it from
somewhere.
Mr. Plummer: Well the original intent was, as I understood it, that
it was coming from the individual department budgets.
Mr. Grassie: If that's what you indicate is your intention, that's
what we'll do.
Mr. Plummer: Okay.
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: Well on this item I'm trying to get an answer on the
$900,000, if it's all been used up.
Mr. Grassie: The truth is they haven't closed out that account,
Commissioner.
Mrs. Gordon: That means there is a balance.
Mr. Grassie: No, what I mean is that they don't know what the balance
is until they close out the account.
Mrs. Gordon: Well in your opinion do you believe there's $270,000
in there?
Mr. Grassie: The last time I asked, which was about 7 days ago, I
thought so, yes, that there would be that much money but as I say,
they have not closed out the account.
Mrs. Gordon: Well I don't know. I can't move anything when we don't
know where we're going.
Mr. Grassie:
that...
Mayor Ferre:
the motion...
motion?
As I understand Commissioner Plummer's intention, it is
As Plummer likes to say, when nobody else wants to make
You want to make a motion or am I going to make the
Mr. Plummer: You've done pretty well all day.
Mrs. Gordon: I asked a question a few minutes ago. Mr. Grassie, you
seemed knowledgable then and you said "yes" when I said there's
approximately $400,000 still in that account.
Mr. Grassie: That was my impression a week ago, Commissioner, and
getting a report...
Mrs. Gordon: If we spent it in this week, I'd like to know how we
spent it.
Mr. Grassie: I'm getting the report from Johnson and Beck right here
behind me that they're not sure so I have to rely on them and they're
saying they're not sure.
Mrs. Gordon: I know, you're not bookkeeping. Mr. Mayor, I would
suggest that you go on with this public hearing and we come back to
this because we're just wasting time. You want to leave in two hours
and so do I and I don't think these people want to leave without being
heard.
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Grassie:
Are you going to be prepared to answer that question?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question, sir.
Mrs. Gordon: Where are we going to get the $270,000 that I'm asking
to...
Mr. Grassie: One of two places. Either it will come out of the un-
allocated balance which is in this Ordinance. If you decide not to
do that, then it will come out of the general fund which means it will
come out of departamental operations someplace; one of those two
alternatives.
•
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: I just want you to understand that.
Mrs. Gordon: But Mr. Plummer doesn't want the 2600 reduced, that's
his position. Correct, J. L.?
Mr. Grassie: That's his position as I understand it.
Mayor Ferre: When will you be able to answer where you recommend it
come from?
Mr."Grassie: Well the basic question, Mr. Mayor, is whether or not
you, as a policy issue, want to carry forward $2,600,000...
Mayor Ferre: Or $2,330,000.
Mr. Grassie: Right, and that's the basic question.
Mr. Plummer: Or $3,000,000 as advocated originally in your balanced
budget.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mrs. Gordon, if you'll take the gavel, I'm
ready to make a motion. I move you that this Ordinance, as proposed
and as explained in a memorandum dated 9/15/76 with the initials J.B.J.
entitled "Federal Revenue Sharing Contribution to General Fund", be
adopted and I will read it. It reads -- "An Ordinance making appro-
priations of federal revenue sharing funds in the amount of $15,707,000
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1977, such funds comprised
as follows: Funds in the amount of $8,807,000 to be received during
the 1976-77 budget year and $6,900,000 of equity funds provided that
if any section, clause or sub -section shall be declared unconstitu-
tional, it shall not effect the remaining provisions; repealing all
ordinances or parts of the ordinance in conflict herewith; declaring
this ordinance to be an emergency measure and by a four -fifths vote
of the members of the City Commission; dispensing with the require-
ments of reading this ordinance on two separate days." Now I don't
see why we have read this as an emergency ordinance. Would you tell
me why?
Mr. Weston: You won't have any appropriations until you pass it
finally otherwise.
Mayor Ferre: We're not going to pass it anyway until we pass the
budget so what's the difference?
Mr. Weston: This is your revenue sharing ordinance.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: I want to wait 30 days.
Mr. Grassie: You don't have to but you could.
Mayor Ferre: I.move this not as an emergency but as a regular motion
with the following changes in it: Item number 6, social services be
increased to $1,570,0000 and item number 8 be decreased from $3,500,000
to $3,330,000...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, you're not being realistic. The man is telling
you $900,000 of that is probably gone.
Mayor Ferre: Well if it's gone, then it's gone.
Mr. Plummer; Beautiful.
OCT 61976
Mr. Grassie: We should understand...
Mayor Ferre: Hey Plummer, you know exactly what we're saying here.
If we have to reduce the budget, the budget item going forward from
$2,600,000 to $2,330,000, then that's what I'm proposing. It is that
specific and I so move.
Rev. Gibson: Second.
Mr. Plummer: May I... Did you second it, Father?
Rev. Gibson: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, I find a conflict in figures. On page 281
of the budget we're speaking to $7,100,000 but we're speaking in this
Ordinance to $8,807,000. May I ask where the discrepency is?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, you certainly may and there is a expla-
nation of that which Mr. Beck has given me on two occasions and I'll
ask him to give it to me again.
Mayor Ferre: Oh, we love all those explanations. We're really
used to them around here.
Mr. Plummer: There is just no way we could answer this without a
explanation.
Mr. Grassie: To facilitate the explanation, Commissioner, if you will
turn to page one of the blue sheets on your budget, I think that we
can use that summary to try and sort out the difference between these
two figures for you.
Mr. Beck: On page one of the blue, we have a total federal revenue
sharing funds of $15,707...
Mr. Plummer: What item are you on, sir?
Mr. Beck: This is item number 3.
Mr. Plummer: Alright.
Mr. Beck: $15,707,000 and on page 281, we have the $7,107,000...
Mr. Plummer: Is that part of the $15,707,000?
Mr. Beck: Yes, it is and the other item that is not on that page is
the $8,600,000 that remains as a contribution in the general fund.
Mr. Plummer: You're advocating, sir, as I see here, a contribution
of the general fund of $8,600,000.
Mr. Beck: That's correct.
Mr. Plummer; Your Ordinance calls for $8,807,000. That's $207,000
difference. I'm not buying from you that if it's gone, it's gone,
I have to buy that from him but I ain't buying that from you. What
happened to the other $207,000? Sir, once again, you state here in
7, contributions to the general fund, $8,600,000.
Mr. Beck: That's correct, Mr. Plummer, but there...
Mr. Plummer: Your ordinance calls for funds of $8,807,000. Where is
the other $207,000 going?
OCT 61976
Mr. Beck: Oh, Mr. Plummer, what you're reading...
Mr. Plummer: I'm reading this ordinance.
Mr. Beck: Okay, funds in the amount of $8,807,000 to be received
during 1976-77 budget, that is the allotment that federal government
is going to be giving the City here in 1976-77 and the $6,900,000
which would be added back to that is what we have in the equity funds
we presented to you some time back.
Mr. Grassie: Hold on, let me try another attack at this, Commissioner.
If you will take the Ordinance in front of you and add up the $8,807,000
and the $6,900,000, a total is $15,707,000. Now another way of
approaching that same figure, if you go to your budget and take the
$7,107,000 and add to it the $8,600,000 which you know we have distri-
buted as we have indicated to you and all the City departments, those
two figures also add up to $15,707,000.
Mr. Plummer: I concur, sir. I still ask you, where is the other
$207,000 going, it is now outlined on this paper. Can you tell me?
Mr. Grassie: I guess the difficulty that Mr. Beck is having in answering
is that he doesn't know what $200,000 you're talking about.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: I understand that but where is the other $207,000 going?
Mr. Beck: You're looking at the revenues, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: This is appropriations, it's not caning in, it's going
out.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Beck: You have to add the two together to get total money available.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, I stand corrected. You got a motion on the floor,
Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ferre: Yeah, I've got one. I made it and Gibson seconded it.
Mrs. Gordon: Will you read it, it's an Ordinance?
Mayor Ferre: I did read it, I'm not going to read it twice.
Mrs. Gordon: You're eliminating the emergency part?
Mayor Ferre: I eliminated the emergency part and made it first reading.
Mrs. Gordon: Why?
Mayor Ferre: Because I don't want to vote on it on an emergency basis.
Mrs. Gordon: Why?
Mayor Ferre: Because I want to see how the rest of this thing goes.
Mrs. Gordon: Oh, come on. What are we going to do with the money?
Mayor Ferre; I don't know.
OCT 61976
Mr. Grassie: As I understand it, if you adopt this motion, then this
would provide $1,570,000 for social programs and...
Mayor Ferre: Not until it's passed on second motion.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mayor Ferre: This would just be first reading.
Mrs. Gordon: Any further discussion? Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
Gibson
AYES:
NOES:
Was
and
AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS OF FEDERAL
REVENUE SHARING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,707,000,
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1977,
SUCH FUNDS COMPRISED AS FOLLOWS: FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,807,000 TO BE RECEIVED DURING 1976-1977
BUDGET YEAR AND $6,900,000 OF EQUITY FUNDS; PROVIDING
THAT IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE OR SUBSECTION SHALL
BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHALL NOT AFFECT
THE REMAINING PROVISIONS, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES,
OR PARTS OR ORDINANCES, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.
introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner
passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
Commissioner (Rev.) Theodore Gibson
Commissioner Manolo Reboso
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
Vice Mayor Rose Gordon
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
The Mayor read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City
Commission and to the public.
9. DISCUSSION OF RENOVATION OF COMMISSION ROOM AND THE "911"
TELEPHONE SYSTEM:
Mx. Plummer:
Mayor Ferre:
Next item.
That's it.
Mr. Plummer: No, you've got two others that were tabled - rennova-
tion to the chambers and 911.
Mr. Grassie: I'm sorry, I hadn't understood it that way. I thought
you voted those down. If you wish to bring them up again...
Mr. Plummer: No sir, I asked you to come back and tell me about 911,
whether $60,000 was a realistic figure.
Mr. Grassie: I don't have that answer for you yet and I don't think
that I can get that answer...
Mayor Ferre: Anything else?
Mr. Plummer: We voted down the improvements to these chambers?
Mayor Ferre: That's right.
Mr. Grassie: My understanding is that you voted down both of those
things until we get better information and I don't have better infor-
OCT 61976
mation on either one of them right now.
Mr. Plummer: Well then may I ask this question on 911. You also have
addressed in your budget $25,000 in the regular budget for 911. That
gives you a total of $85,000 so, in reality, are we turning the whole
$85,000 down?
Mr. Grassie: I don't believe so. I believe that...
Mr. Plummer: We're leaving $25,000 in?
Mr. Grassie: Yes, that is correct. It is still the intention of this
City Commission that that project move forward. The only question, as
I understand it, is whether or not we are going to have to pay for
engineering costs. My previous experience would indicate that we
should not have to but it is not a resolved question at this point.
Mr. Plummer: Well it is resolved by the legislature that the imple-
mentation of 911 has been halted in its entirety until appropriations
can be made by the state to fund the program so I think that precludes
any action by this commission that it has, in fact, been stopped.
Mr. Grassie: That is all of the outstanding questions, Mr. Mayor. I
believe you voted on all of them. The question now is the matter of
finalizing the budget.
Mayor Ferre: Well I think now we have to let alot of people that
want to talk, talk. who wants to talk? Raise your hands. One, two,
three, four. Anybody else?
Mr. Plummer: One in the back makes five.
OCT 61976
A
10. CIVIL SERVICE FUNDING - HtJi'4AN RESOURCES DISCUSSION:
Mayor Ferre: All right, who is the first speaker? Mr. Paulk, you want to be
first?
Mr. Robert Paulk: Not really, but I'll take a chance. Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would
like to address the commission.
Mr. Plummer: Abolish my secretary's position?
Mr. Paulk: Just part of the action
INAUDIBLE
Mr. Paulk: No, I didn't imply that. I wasn't the one that was solely responsible
for that, no, just part of it.
Mayor Ferre: Where is Charlie Huttoe by the way? When is he coming back?
Mr. Paulk: I think that he'll be back some time in the middle of this month.
Mayor Ferre: The 23rd?
Mr. Paulk: I really don't know for sure. I would judge probably by the end of
this week or the middle of next week but I'm not certain. I've gone over with
the commission and with the City Manager extensively what the Budget of the Civil
Service Board Office is all about in presenting it here last Tuesday evening and
subsequently to that to the Budget Office again in an effort to recapture some of
that which was stricken. It isn't absolutely correct what Mr. Grassie indicated
here that there is no middle ground, that we've taken a hard and fast line, that
there is no way to be flexible or to adjust. But bearing in mind that we submitted
a budget that consists of 23 personnel, 23 persons, we believe that the budget
that we originally submitted is one that would provide sufficient personnel and
funds to do what we believe the Charter speaks to insofar as the Civil Service
Board and its functions. I speak particularly to Section 71 of the Charter.
Section 71 of the Charter states that the City Commission shall set the salaries
of the Civil Service Board, its employees and shall appropriate a sufficient sum
to carry out theCivil Service provisions of this Charter. What I say to you is
that the needs of the Civil Service Office to be able to fulfill its obligations
under that particular section and under other sections as its rules are adopted
under is inadequate if we don't have sufficient personnel to the extent than no
less than 18 that we arrived at through a discussion with the Budget Office which
was submitted to the City Manager. We have certain responsibilities insofar as
the preparation and the administration of examinations which I've stated prev-
iously. We also must maintain the classification and perform audits. There is
a requirement that a job study must be conducted, a task analysis, a study of
each job in order to be a part, an ingredient insofar as the validation of exam-
inations with the responsibility of administering examinations falling under the
Civil Service Board. The responsibility of developing those same examinations
likewise falls under the board and one in order to assume that responsibility
must have a staff in order to be able to take care of those chores insofar as
doing a task analysis, identifying the necessary abilities, knowledges and skills
from which a determination is made to be tested to determine whether or not people
posess what they need to posess insofar as being employed into the classified
service of the City of Miami. That's what we're asking for, sufficient people to
be able to meet our obligations. Now Mr. Grassie feels that there could be a
cooperative effort between 7 people remaining in the Civil Service Office working
with the Human Resources Department, if you will, utilizing the services of the
Human Resources Department as an adjunct to Civil Service Staff in the performance
of the work necessary to validate an examination. Well, that's true, that could
be done, no question about it. But, it is constraining through budgetary process
and not in keeping with Section 71 of the Charter if it is done that way. And I
say to the commission that if it is done that way it is tantamount to changing
the Charter by an ordinance appropriation and not by the electorate process, and
that's the way I see it. That's likewise the Civil Service Board sees it. They've
indicated it is their desire to retain sufficient staff to meet their obligations
under the Charter of the City of Miami and they've directed me to request that
of this commission. And it isn't within the purview of responsibility of the com-
mission to do that under Section 71 of the Charter.
Mr. Plummer: What are you saying different than you said the other day?
ra
OCT 61976
Mr. Paulk: Not a thing, Commissioner Plummer, there is nothing different I can
say.
Mr. Plummer: I have to ask him is there anything new because Bobby, even though
I was on the losing side unless there 3.s something new why would the vote change
from what it was the other day? That's all I'm saying.
Mr. Paulk: Well, I can't say anything different, I've said just about all I can
say.
Mr. Plummer: I think you said it all quitel adequately, very nicely the other
day and Mrs. Gordon and I went down fighting. Now, what I'm asking you, is there
anything new that you're saying today that you dit-In't say the other day? It might
sway the three other votes to vote with Mrs. Gordon and I.
Mr. Paulk: Only to reinforce the fact that Section 71 of the Charter is not
being complied with...
Mr. Plummer: Alright, you're entitled to your opinion. All right? Now, what I
would rather get to, Bobby, and you know I was on the short end of the stick, I
would rather if you wish and if the commission would like to listen, you have been
allocated in this budget $146,225. I know it is hard to say that you lost but
assuming that is the case, and we're somewhat near adopting a budget of which you
would get $146,225 less 5.6%. Where are your needs that this is not going to
satisfy? I think that's really what the commission needs to near.
Mr. Paulk: All right. I went over point by point the various form of the B-3
as it related to the operation of the Civil Service Board's Office. There's
insufficient office supplies in the administration of examinations and the corres-
pondence with people that are interested in becoming employees of this city -
it's not there. There's insufficient postage.
Mr. Plummer: Bobby, let me simplify it. Assuming that this is going the way that
it is proposed here in the budget, has Civil Service Board given any thought to
what it needs under this new proposal? Does it need another $10,000? Does it
need another $12,000, $4,000? The majority of this commission, Bobby, has spoken.
Now you know I just don't like to beat a dead horse. Based upon this how much
insufficient is this? Have you given any thought to that?
Mr. Paulk: I've given some thought to it, Commissioner Plummer, and I don't believe
that we can function without sufficient, and even with seven people it's going to
be inadequate.
Mr. Plummer: Alright, sir. That's your answer then I have to accept it. I don't
like it...
Mr. Paulk: I don't like to say it because you don't like it but I'm telling you
that we won't have enough people to perform.
Mr. Plummer: I can appreciate that and I did the other day and it was reflected
in my vote. What I'm saying is the majority of the commission has said you are
going to operate on seven. Ok? Now, what I'm trying to get at is based on the
seven that you're going to operate with, is $146,000 adequate money or is it not?
Mr. Paulk: No, sir, it is not.
Mr. Plummer: And if it is not, do you need how much more dollars to adequately
operate with the seven people?
Mr. Paulk: I can't tell you that at the moment.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Then you know what you're doing in reality? In reality
you're going to settle for the $146,225.
Mr. Paulk: Not if I can help it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, if this commission can't have a figure of what the additional
money you need is we have no other way to do it.
Mr. Paulk: Commissioner Plummer, let me say this: When the Budget Office cut
across the Civil Service Budget and tried to analyze the functions that were going
to be transferred from Civil Service to Human Resources I don't believe they gave
serious thought as to what functions were going to remain and the kind of classif-
ied positions that would be remaining in the office to be able to perform that
OCT 61976
which was identified let alone - well, I'm telling you that the Budget Office did
a very poor job even if it was cut to seven. They did a poor job in allocating
the resources to support the seven people in order to do a job.
Mr. Plummer: All I keep asking is the same question - You, knowing your depart-
ment, how much more do you need? I can't sit here and say give the Civil Service
$200,000.
Mr. Paulk: I understand that. t
Mr. Plummer: Ok. I can't say give you one penny more than what is allocated here
unless you give me some justification, and what you're telling me is you can't
answer it.
Mr. Paulk: Not at this moment, I can't.
Ms. Pat Skubish: Excuse me, Mr. Paulk, with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bledsoe, did we
not agree to 18 people and how much that would be?
Mr. Paulk: Yes, we did work...
Ms. Skubish: Well, how much money was that?
Mr. Paulk: Somewhere around $322,000 as I recall.
Ms. Skubish: That's the answer.
Mayor Ferre: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: I think we should ask Mr. Johnson to answer for himself rather than
ask Miss Skubish to do it.
Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Pat, and then I'll recognize you. Through you, Mr. Grassie,
to Mr. Johnson, it's my understanding that you after reviewing the Civil Service,
the statement has been made that you figured it would need 18 people. Is that a
fair statement?
Mr. John V. Johnson: Let me explain the background perhaps of the conversations
we had for four hours on September 30 with Miss Skubish and Mr. Paulk. During
this time the Civil Service personnel explained in detail their duties and respon-
sibilities and their corresponding needs for funds. Their posture was that they
needed a minimum of 18 people to carry out the responsibilities under the Charter.
I did not agree to that. I took it down as a point of information. We have recom-
mended in the budget seven. I think what we have to remember, Mr. Mayor, is that
we are talking about a total personnel function and the total function of personnel
functions is divided between Human Resources and the Civil Service Board. When
we look at it from that point of view I think we have to say, Ok, there are many
things that are now being done in Civil Service which could be done in Human
Resources. This was the basis for the division of responsibilities and duties in
the initial proposal. The initial proposal said that they required 7 people and
this was incorporated into the Manager's Budget.
Mr. Paulk: But as it relates to the necessary supplies, and the necessary support
of the things we didn't get into that discussion last week with Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Bledsoe. We got to the point that we discussed personnel only and the remain-
ing portion of the Civil Service Budget is really very limited as it relates to
the additional kinds of things insofar as office supplies, the maintenance con-
tracts, postage, etc. The overall budget for the most part is personnel. Vehicles
and supplies are very minimal.
Mr. Plummer: Are you finished, Mr. Paulk?
Mr. Paulk: I'm through.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Johnson, sir, you had the opportunity of going over the budget
of Civil Service. Knowing the years of experience, it your conclusion, I must
assume, that you feel $146,225 is adequate. Is that correct?
Mr. Johnson: I feel under the circumstances, Commissioner, that when we are talk-
ing about a total function in the city and the division of the responsibilities
and functions under the ordinance and the Charter that this is a fair amount.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. Since Mr. Paulk has nothing to counter act that I have no choice
but to accept it.
RQ
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: ...but to accept it.
Mr. Plummer: I have to accept it. I'm surely not going to make any proposal t
can't justify.
Lt. Ken Harrison: Maybe I'm confused. The administration doesn't have to justify...
Mayor Ferre: For the record, lieutenant.
Lt. Ken Harrison: For the record, I'm Lt. Ken Harrison, President of the Fraternal
Order of Police, Miami Lodge. I'm somewhat confused. I thought we were all on
equal footing and obviously we're not. The administration doesn't have to justify
anything but any employee oriented, as this commission perceives it group, has
to come in and justify it. It is phenomenal to me that you can sit up here and
tell us how economically deprived this city is and what financial problems we have
and not question the Manager, and I recognize that he's not happy with this pro-
posal but it is his responsibility, that you are only taking some $300,000 from
Civil Service and creating a department with a budget in excess of $600,000. I'd
like that justified to me.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Harrison, I asked that same question at the last meeting, sir,
and it is being prepared. Am I correct?
INAUDIBLE
Lt. Harrison: Mr. Plummer, I point out to you that at the last meeting you also
asked that the administration provide some data to me and I have yet to receive
that also.
Mr. Plummer: I have it and you will have it.
Lt. Harrison: Thank you.
Mr. Grassie: Assuming that the lieutenant is talking about the question of the
cost of a police officer, that's available to you right now. If you'd like to
step up over here we'll give it to you.
Mayor Ferre: Pat, do you want to make a statement now?
Ms. Pat Skubish: My name is Pat Skubish. I'm Chief Examiner to the City of Miami.
When I was at the meeting with Mr. Paulk and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bledsoe I was
under the assumption that we went by person by person by person and we took that
budget apart and Mr. Bledsoe said that he would come before the commission and
tell you he was under the same assumption that we needed 18 people. Hey, listen,
I'm satisfied just to stick with 17 that we have you know just to keep us intact
but 18 was what they came up with.
Mr. Plummer: Who is Mr. Bledsoe?
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Bledsoe is an operations analyst who prepares the budget. However,
he was under the impression that the 18 was the number that the Civil Service Board
requested. This doesn't mean that this is the number that the City Manager recom-
mended.
Ms. Skubish: I don't understand how we could have requested it, we really requested
23. We never requested 18.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, ma'am, you requested 23. In the discussions again you pointed
out that it was absolutely imperative that in order for the Civil Service Board
to function you had to have at least 18 and we have these identified by position.
Ms. Skubish: Mr. Johnson, weren't you sitting there and going over every individ-
ual's job and then didn't you agree that we needed 18?
Mr. Johnson: Ma'am, I did not agree.
Ms. Skubish: Ok, well I'm not going to get into a debate with you. All right,
Mx. Mayor and members of the City Commission, I don't really relish my role at
this moment since so many have misinterpreted it. This is not as Mr. Grassie said
on radio a personal vendetta either by myself or by the Civil Service Board.
Truthfully, I don't even know the man. And honestly, before three months ago I
never even heard of him. Mr. Grassie is rapidly changing the face of the City of
Miami. Do we really need Miami to become a Grand Rapids Junior? Don't we have
OCT 61976
any qualified people in the City of Miami or in Dade County or in the State of
Florida? Isn't Mr. Grassie in spirit violating the intent of the Cohen Consent
Decree by importing Anglo males to Miami to work at top level jobs? This is what
Civil Service is all about. A few days ago when Mr. Grassie replaced one of his
top assistants that man's first thoughts as reported in the paper were, "Well, I
have my Civil Service Rights to fall back on." If he didn't have those rights
he wouldn't have a salary. What rights are these? The rights of job protection
and due process. Fifty-six people in the past week were given notice that they
were no longer to be carried illegally as unclassified. They were given the opt-
ion of being classified and being given Civil Service rights. And do you know
what? The majority of these employees are very thankful for this opportunity to
be classified. People do not feel secure without job protection and that is what
we are talking about - job protection. The only alternative to Civil Service is
patronage or the spoils system which is what these 56 employees were part of.
They are in violation of Section 69 of the Charter. The Mayor has said that Civil
Service if it can't be changed should be abolished. Now I'm going to have to
check on that with the minutes but I'm pretty sure I sat here when he said that -
If it can't be changed it should be abolished. The Mayor has said also that a
referendum should be held to accomplish this. If this is done
Mayor Ferre:
because that
Ms. Skubish:
Mayor Ferre:
Well, I want, after she finishes I want to correct their statement
isn't what I said at all.
Did you say change, Mr. Mayor?
I did say change, I didn't say abolish. I never said abolish.
Ms. Skubish: Alright, I stand corrected. A referendum should be held to accom-
plish this. If this is done all C.E.T.A. funding will be cut off as one of the
requirements of the funding is a Civil Service System or a merit system. CAn we
exist as a city without $9,000,000? Several department heads have gone on record
saying that their departments could not function without Manpower. Mr. Mayor,
why have a referendum? Why bother? Why burden the taxpayer with this expense?
Because no matter what the result of the referendum is you and the majority of
this commission will do what you want to do anyway. The Commission and the City
Manager have not been complying with the Charter in the past so why not continue
disregarding it. However, in one area pertaining to the Charter I think this com-
mission should be aware; that if you against the Charter and a lawsuit results
the City Attorney would not be allowed to represent you. You would then have to
hire your own attorney out of your own pockets, not utilizing city funds. And if
you lose you could be held personally liable in damage. Believe it or not, the
City Attorney is not the commissioners' attorney but rather is the attorney for
the city. And in any litigation of Civil Service versus the City Commission and
the City Attozney would have to represent the Civil Service if the commission
knowingly violates Section 71 and does not appropriate a sufficient fund to carry
out the functions of the Civil Service. A sufficient sum includes enough personnel,
not the seven that the City Manager suggests but the 18 people that the Budget
Office agreed to. Who knows what it is? Who knows what's sufficient? Budget or
a Manager with less than 3 months here? His solution to our personnel problem
appears to be where we once were - no women, no blacks, no Latins. Mr. Grassie
should realize the Consent Decree addresses itself to high level positions too.
Therefore, this commission should think very carefully before appropriating funds
for Civil Service because as I've only touched lightly, there are many ramificat-
ions to what merely appears to be Civil Service versus Booz-Allen and Human
Resoures. Mr. Plummer, a while back maybe two or three hours ago you made ment-
ion of the fact to the City Manager that you were looking for $900,000. Is that
not right? You said, how can we come up with $900,000 we were short. Is that
right? Was it $900,000?
Mr. Plummer: Right.
Ms. Skubish: Well, the total salary of all unclassified people, the 56 totals
almost $900,000. I think that should give you information.
Mr. Plummer: I fail to see your point.
Ms. Skubish: Well, if the city is so worried about the money and saving money and
cutting here and cutting there then all these people who are unclassified, you
know it's not where I'm trying to chop heads, I'm not the Queen of Hearts or any-
thing. I don't enjoy this role, I really don't. I really don't, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I didn't say anything.
Ms. Skubish: Well, you've got that look on your face. You know? Like I said
before, I really happen to like you guys. I mean I don't always happen to agree
OCT 61976
k
with you but I like you and you're not helping me any. I mean God, you know we've
got to give tests. We have to, we're mandated by the Charter. Now if you don't
like it, if there is something wrong with Civil Service, and believe me I'm the
first one to admit it - Hey, there is a lot of changes that could be made but God,
let's go one step at a time. Don't gut us like you're doing. Can't we find some
common ground? Now I have a lot of faith in this commission, I really do. Rose
Gordon, I think you're about one of the most astute politians going. And Theodore
Gibson, I really don't know him that well. Mr. Ferre, u-h-h-h, you know. And
Reboso, u-h-h-h. And J.L. ...
Mayor Ferre: I want to thank you for the compliment.
Ms. Skubish: You know where I stand. It's nothing personal, really it's not.
But I think this commission should try to help us. I mean just try to help us
before adopting it. Just try to look and read the Charter and see what you're
mandated to do. And if there is any way feasible work it out with us somehow.
mean Human Resources - Hey, some of that stuff is terrific, it's really great.
Personnel Department, take it, take what the heck you want but leave us something,
leave us a bone. Alright? alright.
Mayor Ferre: Pat, I want to, you're going to have to forgive me for what I'm
going to do I hope. I've got a bad habit. Sit down.
Ms. Skubish: I'm scared.
Mayor Ferre: No, I'm not going to do anything bad, sit down for just a second.
I want you to hear something. I tell you what I do, I've got a bad habit and the
bad habit I have is that I always read the Washington Post, the New York Times
and the Wall Street Journal and I'm always clipping out newspaper things and I
collect them. You go to my office and there's just junk, it goes up and up and
up every year. It's stuff that I read and I clip out and once in a while I put
it all together. Now I put a little package here of all the things I've clipped
out this year on Civil Service. I want to read you about two minutes worth, three
paragraphs. This is the Washington Post, an article written for the Post in the
main editorial page. This came out last year some time, I don't have the exact
date. It's within the last 12 months. Independent Civil Service Commissions,
critics say become little duchies unto themselves. They rob elected officials
and managers of the right to pick able personnel. They cause inordinate delays
in appointment through time consuming red tape and they put employees into a lock
step on pay advances without regard to the true talents and contributions. Quote.
In short, Rapp , this is the guy who write this book on this, Civil Service
in many cities become a meritless system in which existing employees are protected
from objective evaluation and competition in the same manner the political ward -
heelers were once protected from public accountability by the politicians they
helped elect. In many respects Civil Service has created a spoil system in reverse.
conclusion made in a forthcoming book is sure to infuriate Civil Service
Commissions who see themselves as defenders of the true religion of merit appoint-
ments and advancements. On the other side, it can be said that officials often
make Civil Service the scapegoat of their own inability to manage well. Neither
management not Civil Service Commissions take much interest in modern motivation
oriented personnel systems. Government management, however,... Government Man-
agers, however, aren't alone in attacking traditional Civil Service practices.
Even the national Civil Service League which wrote in one passage of the Federal
Civil Service Law of 1883 shifted its policy dramatically in the year 1970. It
now recommends, and this is the part that I wanted to build up to, the hiring and
firing be placed under a personnel director responsible to a city or state's chief
executive officer and that Civil Service Commissions be abolished or transformed
into boards overseeing honest operation of personnel systems. Gene Courtrier?,
former head of the league says, "How can you turn your back on the very thing you
invented, the Civil Service Commission form of government in America?" We replied,
well, it's an anachronism. Now a little bit on it says this: MOre than 100
government, she's got a copy of it because I sent it all to you last year. You
got one too, Mike Carter. The date of it is about a year.
Mike Carter: (INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: Hey, I know how deeply you're involved in this so you're welcome to
speak anytime you want. Alright, then I'll read you one that came out recently.
All right? After.I finish reading if I may finish. MOre than 100 governments
across the country have moved to abolish or modify their Civil Service Systems in
the past few years, among them Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Albequerque, Sacra-
mento and the State of Oregon. Now since that one is passe, I'll read you a recent
one from the Wall Street Journal. All right?
Mike Carter: (INAUDIBLE)
OCT g 197&
4
Mayor Ferre; Alright, let me finish this and then you can read from Elroy versus
Cook. Bryan Wrapp, this comes out of the... Go ahead, I can do this later on.
You want to have a little debate here, is that what we're going to do now? Well,
let me just finish and then you can do all the rebutting you want to. Bryan Wrapp,
this is another article, a management consultant who was City Manager of Flint,
Michigan in the early 1970's and is co-author of a coming book in a municipal
government reform says, "Typical Civil Service System flies in the face of modern
management techniques." He adds, elected officials have little control over the
selection of their employees and thus, are hampered in instituting programs that
were presumably elected to carry out. Hiring and promotion are done on the basis
of tests scored out three decimal places that have little relation to job perform-
ance. Pay increases are automatic and standard so the Manager is unable to reward
good performance or punish incompetence. Red tape makes dismissal so difficult
that Civil Servants are virtually tenured no matter how badly they perform. In
short, the so-called merit system has produced just the opposite. Civil Service
reform has also been spurred by the struggle of minority groups for a large share
of public jobs. For example, the concept of merit hiring has been eroded by a
flood of recent federally funded state and local programs such as Model Cities
that mandate hiring on the basis of income level rather than merit. Morever,
nearly 100 government units throughout the United States have been forced to scrap
traditional Civil Service Tests and other hiring and promotional criteria for the
police and firemen in the past three years as a result of a flury of lawsuits
brought by the United States Justice Department and various Civil Rights groups.
And it keeps on going. And lastly, I want to even though I don't often agree with
editorials in the Herald I do want to read this one which I think was very apropos
this week. The Miami Civil Service System has become highly visible of late
because of threats by its officials to fire 56 employees not under its jurisdict-
ion. It is acting under provisions of the City Charter which seem to require that
with only a few exceptions employees come under the Civil Service System. Dispute
raises again questions that have been asked from time to time. Do government
employees still need Civil Service now that they have labor unions to protect them?
Is it fair to the public to allow them to continue to enjoy the best of both
worlds? There are many who believe that Civil Service has outlived its usefullness.
Instead of getting rid of employees not under Civil Service, the City of Miami
should consider getting rid of Civil Service even if it takes an election to change
the Charter. At very least, an inquiry into the feasibility of such action should
be launched. Now, I'd like to say that I do not subscribe to the elimination of
Civil Service. However, I do want to go on the record saying that I think the
main purpose of Civil Services in the United States including the City of Miami
is as a protective barrier for improper action by management against employees.
That was the original purpose, that still is the purpose of it. In that capacity
I think Civil Service should act as a judiciary body. I do not think that the
Civil Service Board should act as an advocate, as a jury, as a prosecutor and as a
judge all at the same time and I think that's exactly the function that it performs
at this time. What in effect, the Booz-Allen, Hamilton Report, Manager Melvin
Reese, Manager Paul Andrews and Manager Joe Grassie have been recommending is that
we remain with Civil Service, that it be allowed to perform a judiciary function
and that we transfer the administrative personnel type of functions over under the
administration. I happen to believe that it's time to do that and we'll see how
it goes. We'll see how it goes but I think the time has arrived. Now we talked
about this for two years, we've been putting it off and putting it off. There
was supposed to be some changes. Mr. Faulk, I recognize that there have been
changes. I happen to think very highly of you. I think that you happen to be one
of the most qualified, one of the most intelligent public servants this city is
fortunate to have. But I do feel that the time has arrived for the system to
change. And I think that we can go as far as the Charter allows us for the time
being. It is my opinion following three City Manager's recommendation and three
City Attorney's recommendations that we can do what we are about to do hopefully
under the Charter of the City of Miami. I'm sure that Mikele Carter and others
will challenge this and you're perfectly ... Mrs. Carter, I'll tell you, as soon
as I finish I will recognize you to make a statement, you're entitled to do that
and I promise you that I will not be rude and I will not interrupt you. That
basically sums up my feelings on this matter. I think that, and correct me if I
am wrong, Mr. Weston, and you Mr. Grassie, if this is an illegal act that we're
about to perform. I think you've got a legal and a moral obligation to so inform
us. Mr. Weston, do you want to respond?
Mr. Frank Weston: Mr. Mayor, I think I have responded before....
Mayor Ferre: Well, one of your employees doesn't seem to agree with you and she
has a right to speak as a citizen.
Mr. Weston: She has a right to speak but as I have responded before the ordinance
was written in accordance with the Charter and if it is carried out this commission
will be in accordance with the law.
PS
OCT
Mayor Ferre: Now, Mrs. Carter.
Mrs. Mikele Carter: Let's not talk about the ordinance as its written, let's talk
about the interpretation of the ordinance by the City Manager. Let's talk about
not funding Civil Service. Let's talk about who is going to represent the Civil
Service Board when they file suit against the City Commission for being in violat-
ion of the Charter. Will you agree with me, Mr. Weston, (1) the City Attorney is
the attorney for who?
Mr. Weston: The City Attorney is the attorney for the City of Miami, the people
of the City of Miami.
Mrs. Carter: Is it the commission's attorney?
Mr. Weston: Not the commission's attorney, now just a minute, Mike. It's not the
commission's attorney, he's not the City Manager's attorney, he's not the Civil
Service Board's attorney, he is the attorney for the City of Miami, the people of
the City of Miami.
Mrs. Carter: All right. Now, may I ask you one other question. When the commis-
sion is mandated by a Charter to act in a certain way and they do something in
derogation of the Charter, what happens then?
Mr. Weston: Mike, what you're trying to say, if they act out of the scope of
their authority then we can't represent them. I certainly don't intend to see
the commission operate out of the scope of their authority and as long as they
are operating within that scope the City Attorney's Office will have to represent
them and will represent them.
Mrs. Carter: All right. Now, let's go to the next question. What about Section
71 of the Charter?
Mr. Weston: What about Section 71, Mike?
Mrs. Carter: Didn't you tell people from Civil Service that the funding that is
being done by the Manager was in violation of that section, that it was not the
intent of that section of the Charter?
Mr. Weston: I haven't interpreted Section 71 of the Charter but what Section 71
of the Charter says, Mike, is this: A sufficient sum shall be appropriated each
year to carry out the Civil Service provisions of this Charter. It doesn't say
a sufficient sum will be appropriated to the Civil Service Board. It gives the
commission the latitude to appropriate the amount of money that is necessary to
carry out the functions. Now there is another part of the Charter also.
Mrs. Carter: Are you aware of an Escambia County Case when they tried to do the
same thing? 152, Southern Second One.
Mr. Weston: Mike, I'm sure there are all sorts of cases.
Mrs. Carter: And what has the Florida Supreme Court ruled on this?
Mayor Ferre: Well let him answer. Do you want to give him a chance to answer?
Mr. Weston?
Mr. Weston: I'm trying to find the other part of the Charter here. But anyway,
there is another part of the Charter dealing with the Civil Service Board which
says "The Civil Service Board shall have such subordinate employees as may by
appropriation be provided for."
Mrs. Carter: Right. And does this section of the Charter say that they have to
go through the City Manager or does it say that they have to go to the City Com-
mission?
Mr. Weston: The Charter says that the City Manager will make a recommendation
for the budget for all departments...
Mrs. Carter: 71 says what?
Mr. Weston: Mike, there are other parts of the Charter. You know you could pick
out just like people pick out of the Bible sections and interpret them the way
they want. You could pick out any section you want here and come up with any one
you want to prove. But the City Manager's authority here is to recommend a budget
for all departments and boards and that's what he's doing.
OCT 61976
Mt. Weston: ---a budget for all departments and boards and that iiS
what he is doing.
Me. Carter: You don't agree with the City Manager's statement last time,
'well, this is your budget and this is my budget', ----there are two budgets.
Mr. Weston: I don't recall that statement at all.
Ms. Carter: At the police station, I remember the City Manager saying that.
'Mr. Paulk, this is your budget, and this is my budget', like never the 'twain
shall meet.
Mr. Weston: If that is what he is talking about, what he was saying as
I understand it, --that was Mr. Paulk'd proposal, this is his proposal. The
final budget will be the one approved by this commission.
Ms. Carter: Would you like to also inform, or tell the commission about the
municipal home rules powers act and how one can't change part of the Charter by
ordinance, when it pertains to boards and to the rights of employees?
Mr. Weston: Mike, I keep telling you, I don't think they are going to
be changing the Charter. They are moving functions around but the functions
are still going to be there.
Ms. Carter: You say that it doesn't touch at all on Civil Service Rules which
say that the Civil Service Office shall keep personnel files and they are the
only ones wi►a arc allowed to keep it, where the Florida Supreme Court has said this
is a complete package of employment rights regarding all areas of employment, where
ther are talking about employment and appointment where you told Alice of the
Civil Service Board that employment and appointment meant the same thing, even
though employment is something which happens after you are appointed.
Mr. Weston: Mike, I think you are misquoting me.I said I did not know the
complete definition of employment there.
Ms. Carter: But why don't you try looking it up Mr. Weston? I have.
Mayor Ferre: Why don't you let him finish his statement.
Mr. Weston: I have since then, but I did not make that statement to
Alice Spano at any time.
Now, getting back to your citation concerning this being a complete plan for
the pay and etc. That is in a case which is dealing, --
Ms. Carter: --with collective bargaining.
Mr. Weston: --yes, dealing with collective bargaining, ---
Mayor Ferre: wait, I am going to run this meeting, and I will rule
anybody out of order who interrupts the other person.
Now, you have the floor, when you finish, --then I will let you do the talking,
then when you finish, then he can do the talking. Please, no more interruptions.
Mr. Weston: The thing that was referred to there is the Charter, not Sec. 67
of the Charter.
Ms. Carter: Right, it is referring to the Charter.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a moment,
Ms. Carter: He paused.
Mr. Plummer: Will you give him a rubber mallet there?
Ms. Carter: He paused and backed away from the mike. That is finishing, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: I'll decide when he finishes. Now you can speak.
Ms. Carter: You make me lose my train of thought. Really at this point, I don't
think that Mr. Weston, ----well NO. 1, we can preface it with his ordinance he is going
90
OCT 61976
to uphold, No. 2, I don't think he really ruled on whether the funding of the
ordinance which Mr. Weston drew up, is proper, giving the intent of Sec. 71 of
Charter and if he did this, I am unaware of it. I have never seen an opinion
on that.
There is something else I wanted to mention Mr. Mayor. Booz-Allen was hired
by this City for one specific purpose and it was to do away with Civil Service.
You can hire any group you want, who will come in an tell you anything they want
and we have spent over 600 thousand dollars so far on Booz-Allen, which figure
I got from the Finance Department a couple of weeks ago. In attempting to implement
what Booz Allen had said, and if you read the Booz Allen report, they have completely
overlooked Florida law, they are an outside company, as are many people lately coming
to the City of Miami, who don't have any knowledge at all of the area, of the State,
of State statutes, city ordinances, and obviously of the City Charter. This has been
completely overlooked. As so happens at so many of your city commission meeting, I
sit here and cringe. You don't pay any attention to the Charter. You are supposed
to act by written resolution or written ordinance, yet we have motions, motions of
intent. There are attorney general opinions on that. You don't have any right to
pass this. So what is this? Just window-dressing. That Charter means something.
It is supposed to be like your Bible. You should be looking in there to configurations
of where you can go. It is like telling a child, you can't cross the street, you
are going to be hit by a car. You don't have any knowledge of what you can do and
what you can't do. It is perfectly obvious to everyone sitting in this audience
at times, that you completely disregard this Charter. And again I say you are doing
this. What you are doing unfortunately, you are playing around with a lot of people's
lives and their livelihood, and you are losing the support of your employees. And
I don't think your track record on referendums have been that good. What do you want
90% against you next time?
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Grassie, may I have a question of you?
Mayor Ferre: I would like answer a few of the charges that have been made
here by Ms. Carter. First of all I do not believe that Booz Allen was hired for
the sole purpose of getting rid of Civil Service. I would say that Booz Allen
has spent an awful lot of time and there are an awful lot of reports, some have
been implemented and some have not. Unfortunately we have not implemented all the
things Booz Allen has recommended. Booz Allen happens to be one of the outstanding
firms, not only in the county and the world, that do these type of studies.
Secondly as far as the opinion from Mr. Weston is concerned, I think Mr.
Weston, since we are obviously headed for legal action, you had better document
your opinions in writing so we have it. I would so like to instruct you with the
concurrence of the City Commission that everything you have stated, I want in
writing with proper research, and proper brief on it.
Now, as long as I can remember, you have been around for a long time,
Ms. Carter:--unfortunately,---
Mayor FErre: You don't look like you have done too badly Mr. Carter. I think
you have done rather well. I am very proud of the fact you have done rather well,
and we have the kind of city where you can come out and speak out the way you do.
I think that is great.
As I recall, I don't remember one time that we have voted on this commission
against the opinion of the City Attorney, and if the City Attorney and City Manager
have guided us wronly, this is the first they have ever been challenged like this.
You might be right, and I am sure you will have the opportunity to prove it in court.
Ms. Carter: I would like to say that the only reason I have enough guts to
come up here, is I can always fall back as a police sergeant, in radio patrol,
mid -nights in Liberty City, which is where I came from before I went to the law
department.
Mayor Ferre: You said that before.
Ms. Carter: I said that before, right. But I do have my civil service rights
as Mr. Crouch said, to fall back on.
Mayor Ferre: And as far as our track record in passing issues, I would like
to remind you,
Ms. Carter: Charter changes, ---not bond issues.
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: I'd say that we have pretty good support from the electorate,
and most of the things that we have put on to the electorate to vote on. We missed
3 that I can remember but for the 3 or 4 we missed we panned a dozen.
Ma. Carter: What happened when the electorate voted against a deputy
City Manager. We we went around to the back door what we couldn't get in the
front door, is the way The Rev. Gibson put i.t one tlmc.
Mayor FErre: That is your opinion, not mine.
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor may las a question? Mr. Grassie do we have someone
on staff now that you call the director of Human Resources Services?
Mr. Grassie:No.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay. May I refer you to the Booz Allean report, 1974, January 18th,
which stated that this process should be implemented slowly over a period of apparently
3 years. Now, what I think the real problem is, is that you are swallowing the whole
loaf without biting into it and that is why is everybody is up -tight. The chart for
organization on page following 1170 in the book says that in 1974 the step to be was to
begin staffing Human Resource Services Department, No. 1, hiring a director. We don't
have a director yet.
Okay. The second step which was to have taken place in 1975 was, No. 4 item,
continue staffing new Human Resources Services Department with personnel,special
personnel technicians, reinforcing personnel officers, ----I am just reading from the
report and then in 1976, to complete staffing of Human Resource Services Department.
Okay, but this was a 3-year development plan for Human Resource Management
Services and I know that you wern't here three years ago, so obviously you could
not have been involved.That is the reason why if we go into a procedure of something
like the first step and only step that ought to be taken this year is to hire a
director of Human REsource Services period, and that is all. Otherwise, you have
infact bunched together all of the 3 years of operation into one big swallow.
Mayor FErre: What is the date on that report?
Mrs. Gordon: 1974, January.
Mayor Ferre: I'll get you the date tomorrow, because I have your words,
---I think was April 1974 and I might point out that is over two and one-half years
ago since that report came out. When the matter was brought up Paul Andrews for
discussion, you said I move this matter be deferred, I have just gotten this in my
hands this time. I have to read this report, I don't understand it, we can't rush
into this thing. We will have to do it slowly. Booz-Allen themselves recommend. You
made a very similar speech to the one you just made right now, and the matter was
deferred. Two and one-half years have gone by. So I would say the 3 years, --we are
within 4 months of celebrating the 3rd anniversary since that report was made.
Mrs. Gordon: Maurice I have to also kind of remind you that in this report
they refer to deputy city managers and that was a matter for the ballot, and
I am not sure it was '74, but I think it was. Would somebody refresh my memory
which election it was. It was defeated in the election to implement deputy city
managers, so it was not called deputy city managers, so it was not called deputy
city managers, as you heard somebody else say, it is called something else.
Mr. Grassie: Are you asking a question?
Mrs. Gordon: I asked you the question, which you answered me and that is
what I wanted to know. Have you hired a director of Human of Services, which
was the first step. If that was done this year then two years from now the rest
would be done.
Mr. Grassie: Except that you are 3 years behind.
Mrs. Gordon: That is what I am reading from the report. If you are following
the Booz Allen recommendations, apparently you are.
Mayor Ferre: I would like to get the Clerk to get,if you would, for me,
every time this matter has been discussed. It has been 3 times in the last
two and one-half years. Will you go back and research that and send us the
copies of those minutes.
09
OCT 61976
Rev. Gibson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, ladies and
gentlemen, I have not participated in much of this discussion because something
is missing. More than two and one-half years ago, we tried to persuade this com-
mission and we wanted to cajole the commission to do exactly what Rose just read
you. The Mayor is imminently correct. We didn't have the temerity nor the backbone.
I want to use those two words again. And look them up after you leave here, those
of you who do not know what those words mean. We did not have the temerity nor the
backbone to stand up and be counted. So we postponed. So we put it off. It came up
another time, again, we didn't have the temerity nor backbone, to say nothing about
the courage and stamina. And so I am even surprised that we would refer to that book
because the argument used then was that we had spent unusual sums of money to
point out the direction in which this commission with its employees should travel.
We tried that. We should have done that. We didn't. Now three years after we want
to start step 1. I shall always remember the Civil Service people who said, 'give
us a chance --we are going to make these changes'and they are still asking for a
chance. They are going to make the changes. I am aghast at what I see and what I
hear, and what I have seen and what I have heard since this process has started.
My brethren, I'll tell you something. I think if you want to really do the right
thing, and if you want to really change and live up to what is happening today,
you would start trying to understand this process. You will try. Unfortunately
for this Manager, he has to bear all of this. Not any one of the previous men
had the guts, and I want you to look that word up too,to grab the bull by the horns,
and come up and face this problem. They knew this was a hot potato, and note, I shall
never forget,I was away out of the country, when I came back I learned Mel Reese
had retired. I said what? Shocked me. Everybody was pleading, I was the in -hiring
guy. You remember that. Don't forget that now. More than any man up here, I was the
guy advocating in -hiring. All of a sudden, Paul Andrews, he retired. Didn't
want to cut that mustard. Look that word up too. So he retired. Let me mention an
aside, More than any single commissioner, of the 5 of us, I have been strongest for
in -hiring. I hope nobody in this audience nor in the city would try to persuade me
to follow that process continually. You have a new Manager. I'll tell you this for
the benefit of the public. Mr. Grassie, the Manager is a professional. I look at him
like I look in the ministry. He if a professional. You may not like what he does or
is doing, or his method, but I will tell you this. He is a professional. You cannot
in good conscience make that man responsible for operating this city and you choose
his team. When he gets his personnel, they are not under Civil Service which means and
implies, when he goes, his team goes. While he is here, we have to hold him responsible.
You can't hold him responsible for a team he does not choose. Of all the things as a
Black, I should be on the other side. I want to tell you this. Right is right; truth
thrust to earth will rise again,and if it isn't right, it is wrong. All you got to do
is, you start occupying his position. Then you will start understanding.
I am going to make this final commment. I happen to be head of a church, that
follows the same kind of government. No way in the world you call a priest to a church
and let all of the assistants sit up there to pick him off, then the vestry holds
hom responsible for running the church. It just doesn't work.We have a church over
on 17th Street and 3rd Avenue, it is the biggest in the south, you know one thing,
the Rector just retired. They ain't keeping nobody. All I am trying to say is, I
think the maa has a right to be tried before you really judge him. I would hope that
we, those of you who have Civil Service status, ---nobody will bother you, nobody is
trying to bother you. Give the man the same thing that you would want. I know it is
hard. It is a little difficult but it is also true that you, under civil service,
isn't it right Mr. Mayor, we can't fire you, but that is not the way it is with him.
Anytime J.L. Plummer talks about percentage of proficiency in the city, it is about
high time, based on some of those article we read, that we take the second look.
He says you have people from wall-to-wall, in each other's way, not performing.
Isn't that what you said J.L. in the budget hearing down at the Police Station?
Mr. Plummer: You are about 99% correct.
Rev. Gibson: There you are. Now, look, no good business can operate with
that kind of percentage , of inefficiency and lack of getting results. I just
thought I had better say that. This is the only speech I have made today, and I
hope I am not going to say more. But I think we ought to become realistic, and
face up to the problem and get with the business.
OCT 61976
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make a comment that I
think needs correcting. Many times you have referred to the Civil
Service Board as the judge, jury and I believe the advocate and the
prosecutor. Mr. Mayor, I think a correction is in order because it
is well-known that the Civil Service Board is in fact not the final
word. Any and all final words are that of the Manager who has the
right to agree, disagree or overrule. So, in fact, I don't see that
comment of yours being correct.
Mr. Weston: That's not precisely correct, Mr. Plummer. The Civil
Service Board is the trier of the fact. The Manager is the determiner
of what the penalty presumming they found there is an offense.
Mayor Ferre: That's my point. Thank you, Mr. Weston.
Mr. Plummer: You're saying that the City Manager does not have the
right to overturn...
Mr. Weston: He does not have the right to overturn the finding of
facts when it's supported by compident, substantial evidence.
Mr. Gene Naples: Mr. Mayor, my name is Gene Naples and I'm the
President of the Miami Association of Firefighters. Mx. Mayor, I
think Mr. Plummer was quite correct when he said that I don't think
anything is going to be said tonight that's going to change the mind
of the majority of the minority or however he put it and I agree with
that. I just would like to comment briefly on Civil Service as Civil
Service, what it means in Miami and what it means in other areas. I
had occasion to visit the University of Wisconsin school for grievance
arbitration and I was there with 129 other cities represented by
other firefighters. I can tell you that without a doubt, our Civil
Service was much superior to anything they had and I say that not be-
cause someone might construe that to mean that it was favorable to the
employee or gave him certain protections, I'm talking about the
democratic process that I feel has taken place in our Civil Service
Board and I'm not as hung up on anything more than I am for that Civil
Service Board to maintain standards within the City. But as I said,
I talked to people from many, many parts of the country. For the most
part, Civil Service Boards are either totally appointed by the City or
in combination with appointments from the Manager in which case when
an employee comes before that Civil Service Board, they are either a
rubber stamp either whatever the City Manager has said or that Commission
or if they happen to have a strong mayor form of government, that Mayor
and so I don't think we can really compare, for instance, some of the
Civil Service Boards you mentioned unless we take it just like you would
two contracts or two insurance policies, put them side by side, read
them word by word and see what you come out with because they are not
the same, there is no question about that. I just wanted to mention
that. I'm not going to get emotional here or anything, I may repeat
some of the things I said the other night. First of all, I'm very
disappointed in the facts that the talks between Mr. Paulk and the
City Manager and whoever else took part in that, didn't come to some
better conclusion. Apparently nothing happened there and of course I
understand that process because I've been going through it for four
months now at the bargaining table so I am disappointed that it didn't
come through with something better than they have and in that there
would be some flexibility on the part of the Manager to at least allow
these people to function. I think that that would have been much more
palible to everybody concerned but maybe that's not what it's supposed
to be. The other thing I was disappointed in was the fact that I
thought we had a promise from this Commission when we passed the Ordinance
to establish the Human Resources Department that this one would in no
way interfere with the rights of the employees and maybe you still be-
4
OCT 61976
lieve that, I really don't. I really think that we're getting to
where we are going through a deteriorating process of the Civil Ser-
vice Board. I really believe that and I think we're giving too much
power to the Manager to handle some of these things that they're
taking over and i really believe that there are some Charter violations
but of course, I'm no more an attorney than some of the other people
that have spoken around here so that's just an opinion of mine. I
also believe that what the majority of the Commission have really said
here, and I think that you made the statement at the last meeting,
Mr. Mayor, that Civil Service Board is passee and that, to me, means
that this is just part of the process of eventually eliminating Civil
Service.
Mayor Ferre: I never said that it was passee and I didn't use that
word...
Mr. Naples: It's on its way out...
Mayor Ferre: No, what I said was I think it's time for modification.
I didn't say that I'm for getting it out or changing it or dumping it,
I'm saying that it's time for an effective change.
Mr. Naples: That's right and I agreed with modifications in this
thing from the very first and I have spent hours and hours before this
microphone speaking on this very issue and I thought we had finally
come to some agreement as to how this thing would be implemented and
apparently we're forgetting about that but I'm really interested in
maintaining standards more than anything else and where Civil Service
Boards have been abolished and where there have been weak Civil Service
Boards where they were dominated by appointees either by the Commission
or the Manager, standards have deteriorated and that is really my
primary concern. I don't really think the Civil Service Board and its
members has any choice if they're going to be responsible, under the
Charter, as the Charter states it, they can do anything other than to
take this issue to court. As I say, I am very disappointed in how this
whole thing turned out. My organization intends to support their
actions. We had to consult with our attorney, our attorney felt that
until we were actually injured that we should stand by the Civil Service
Board and they were the ones to bring suit and we will certainly support
that position. Again, I'm sorry this whole thing worked out the way
it did. I think there have been some broken promises and whether it
was intentional or not, I don't know but the other issue that was brought
up that Ken Harrison spoke to and it was giving this salary requirements
on the $26,727 for each policeman and each firefighter. I notice in
this thing that he has included some things that this City really has
no part in as far as funding and I speak specifically to the incentive
pay program that is done by the State Legislature and is part of the
Florida State Statutes, and the fact that he brought the insurance
benefit into this thing as part payment which the implication is that
these are two things that the City is paying for and that's not quite
true and I was just bringing that to your attention. Again, I'm very
sorry that this evolved the way it has and thank you for your time.
Mr. Frank Williams: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, three years
ago I became President of the General Employees' Association and I had
some thoughts then and I'm sure Mr. Grassie thought recently. What
kind of a City do we have here where we go around suing each other.
Some kind of Mickey Mouse operation. My organization was a Mickey Mouse
organization. We had a set of books you wouldn't believe and now we've
got a set of books where we know where all the money goes and I went to
some of these meetings, I went to the retirement board and I was really
shocked. We changed that. We found out that they were asking the
impossible to the members of the retirement board. They were asking
95 OCT 6197&
these people to be adjudicators, lawyers, rehab people, doctors and
making decisions and they didn't even give them the tools to do it.
We've got the System is going to sue the City, Civil Service is going
to sue somebody and I sat at all these meetings and I read the Booze -
Allen report and I've heard Labor and I've heard Management and I've
heard the Civil Service people say that there are good parts in this
Booze -Allen thing. I've also heard Civil Service Board say the same
thing you did, Mr. Mayor, judge, jury, executioner or whatever, I've
heard the same thing said about the City Manager. The fact that we
are three years behind doesn't mean that we have to accelerate this
implementation in the three years. The Civil. Service Board, I believe,
thinks that because they had to pick up the void and do things that
there wasn't anybody else to do it. They picked up alot of activities,
personnel activities that wasn't their original intent but there wasn't
anybody to do it and I'm sure that the Civil Service Board feels that
they should give these up but they're pushed into a legal question
here in which they say when the rules and regulations that they enacted
are recommended to the Commission became law and that the only way to
reverse this is the same way you implemented it, not the other way
around. The Commission shouldn't change these rules and regulations
that the civil Service Board should recommend that this activity be
given up, recommending it to the Commission and the Commission agreeing
and relaxing these things. You know, if I were Mr. Grassie, I would
not have done it the way he did it but he is a professional and thank
God he is, we needed one. I don't know, $500,000 for Human Resources.
What are we going to put in there? We're going to put in a medical
staff, we're going to put in training safety officers, most of the
activities over there, employee service, workman's comp., and then
we're going to start implementing things that are not true Civil
Service and they're going to be moved over there. It seems like we
should change the budget. We should fund this thing to the point where
all the loose ends should be pulled in and then that we should nego-
tiate, somebody should negotiate what the Civil Service Commission is
going to give up and they admit that they should give up things and
they say they don't need these things but you're not going to have a
compromise, you're not going to be able to do this with this two mack
trucks running down the street and crashing into each other. I believe
in negotiations. I don't believe the audicratic way of doing things.
That you should sit and talk. What's wrong with somebody from the
Civil Service Commission, somebody from Mr. Grassie's office and a
neutral member go over these things and very logically turn over to
Human Resources what should be Human Resources and retain what should
be Civil Service but the way we're doing it is wrong and if there is
any good in the Booze -Allen, if there is any good in Human Resources,
it's going to be three years before we finally get around to it because
we're going to sue each other and we're having enough trouble surviving
in this town, in this county, in this state. and in this country and I
suggest that somebody ought to give direction along these lines on
Civil Service like they want it. Set a time limit and let Civil Service
commission themselves turn loose the things they know they don't want,
that they don't have under the Charter. Don't do it this way. You're
tearing up the employees, you're tearing up the management, you're
tearing everybody up. This just doesn't seem to be the right way to
do it and I don't know where this started. Cram three years into a
recommended program into a year. Hell, it's going to be less than
that. You're cramming it into one budget, you're cramming it into the
day after you approve :the budget. It's just not the right way to do
things, it's not efficient. All of a sudden, everybody assembles under
a tree over there near the badmitton court and what happens then? Is
that what you had in mind? Everybody in the parking lot, we're going
to implement this thing. It doesn't make any sense at all to do it
that way and it doesn't make any sense to fight each other. There
ought to be a way, human, sane, reasonable people can sit down and
OCT 0976
decide who gets what, what's legal, what's illegal and then if you
can't resolve it 6 months from now, three months from now, then sue
the hell out of each other but right now that's all we got going for
us is a court case and there has got to be a better way. That's all
I have to say.
Mrs. Edna Benson: I would just like to ask one question...
Mayor Ferre: Name for the record.
Mrs. Benson: Oh, I'm sorry. Edna Benson and I'm with the Civil Ser-
vice office. Instead of quoting items from the Miami Herald which
everybody in this room knows is anti -city and always has been and
instead of reading words on paper that Booze -Allen put out, why doesn't
the Commission come up to the Civil Service office and see what each
person does and see that there is no way that that office can function
with 7 people. We do need more people, as Mr. Paulk has said, but
there is no earthly way unless we don't see the fine print that what
they are trying to do is do away with Civil Service completely because
we're not stupid, we can see this but there is no earthly way, and it
would behoove the Commission, one at a time or the entire Commission,
to come up there and see what every person does and see that everybody
is busy. We've got more work than we can handle and we cannot function
with 7 people and from what I understand when I came back from vacation,
I was told I was one of those that's being transferred to Human Resources.
But everybody in that office, the people we have now, are needed there
plus more people but I think it would behoove the Commission to come in
there, don't call and say you're coming, just drop in so we can't pre-
pare but I think it would be a very good thing that Booze -Allen has
put on a piece of paper or the Miami Herald said that Civil Service
Labor Unions will protect you. What about the people that don't belong
to any unions? Where is our protection there? But I think that the
Commission should come up there and see what we do and see that there
is no earthly way that that office can function with 7 people, 6 people
and Mr. Paulk. There is no way it can be done. Now there are those
of us that work, we don't take breaks which doesn't matter but we work.
There aren't enough hours in a day to do the work that we've got now
and if you cut us back 10 people, there is not going to be any work
done so you are destroying Civil Service. Thank you.
Mr. Robert Barbinera: My name is Robert Barbinera and I'm a City of
Miami Surveyor. I've never been before this Commission before and
never spoke before it before and I've been with the City for 10 years
and I only have a couple of thoughts and that's this. You talk about
Civil Service not being good, maybe being antiquated, but what finer
system could you have? I work in a position where my boss is actually
a good friend of mine and a promotion came up and I failed the test
and I didn't get the job. Another man passed it and he got the job.
Now what finer system is there than this? Now I would like to ask Mr.
Grassie, because I, as a General Employee, and alot of other general
employees, don't know how the department of Human Resources is going to
operate. How are they going to hire people? How is this system going
to be any better than what you've got?
Mayor Ferre: Bob, excuse the interruption, we're getting close to 9.
We've been here for a long time and I guess we're all edgy but let me
tell you. I don't think the intention is to change the system. I
would vote against a change of Civil Service. I think that we need a
Civil Service system and that the exams must be given and if you fail,
you fail and if you pass, you pass. I don't think that's at stake here.
Now I may be wrong and I'll tell you this that if I'm wrong, I'm going
to be man enough to admit it, I've done it in the past when I've made
mistakes, I made a mistake and go back and change it. I don't think
that this is by any means a final thing. I do think it's a major
Rmi i irani+ir'rrirImP rllrrwrwm1i!'1111'111111!!111 i 11
gr�
aCT 6 197 6
change in direction. I do not think that it will in any way it will
kill gut the Civil Service system.
Mr. Barbinera: Can you answer me how the Department of Human Resources
is going to hire people?
Mayor Ferre: Yes, they're going to hire people by using... The De-
partment of Human Resources will not hire people, that's going to
be done through Civil Service procedure. The Administrative office
work is going to be done by a Human Resource Department, like a
personnel department. There is a major move of foot and it's happened
in the federal government more than the state government but when I
was in the legislature, it was on then, it was a Florida Public Service
Commission and the theme was, get a consumer advocacy, okay, and that
was put in a separate department and I fought like a tiger to get it
under the Attorney General's office and I lost. And the consumer
advocacy division was put under the department of agriculture and I
fought that real bad and Don Connor, I don't think he has ever for-
given me for that because I made a real strong speech in the committee
and I wasn't against Don Connor, I think Don Connor is a fine man, but
I just didn't think that the Department of Agriculture of the State of
Florida was really going to care that much about consumers in the
State of Florida and by god, I'm right and time has proven it and
that's exactly what has happened. The consumer advocate office of
the Department of Agriculture in the State of Florida, when have you
ever heard of it? Never, they're not doing their job. Now that
should have been under the Attorney General's office and it should
have been a strong department of consumerism and they're the ones that
should go up before the public service commission everyttime Florida
Power & Light and Southern Bell wants to increase a rate, have the
staff and ability to argue that case for the people of Florida, the
consumers are affected and that's not the way it is now. You know who
does the arguing? The Florida Public Service Commission. They do all
the research, they write all the briefs, they recommend what the P.S.C.
is supposed to do, they go up and they defend the consumer, they also
represent the utilities, the P.S.C. usually does what the staff
recommends. Look, you say well what the hell has that got to do with
this? Well this is what it has to do with it. All we're trying to
do here, as I perceive it, is separate personnel functions so that
it's not all in the Department of Civil Service. Civil Service will
continue to be the judge and the jury but it's not going to be the
advocate and it's not going to be the prosecutor. I mean, I happen
to perceive it that way but I may be wrong.
OCT 61976
Mrs. Gordon: Mr. Mayor, may I clarify a point because you've made
the best point yet. The point you made was that a consumer advocate
is not operating effectively and you know why, they're underfunded.
(APPLAUSE)
Mayor Ferre: Well see, that's your opinion but my opinion is not
the funding of it, what's wrong with it is that it's placed in an
area which is not being responsive to the problem and therefore it's
doing because right now, Rose, the consumer advocate, under the
Department of Agriculture, cannot petition the Public Service Commission
to fight for or against a rate increase. See, that doesn't happen
and it doesn't happen has nothing to do with the funding, the man
and the staff are there but they don't show up and they don't do the
job and they don't preceive it as their responsibility and therefore,
it goes back to the Public Service Commission and they're the ones
that end up doing it and that's wrong.
Mrs. Gordon: Well that's what I'm agreeing with you. It's wrong
because they didn't make the position strong in giving them enough
funds to operate effectively and do all there is...
Mayor Ferre: They've got plenty of funds.
Mrs. Gordon: No, they don't. They have a very limited budget and
hardly enough to do anything with.
Mayor Ferre: They cannot, you're talking about the new consumer ad-
vocate that the Governor appointed.
Mrs. Gordon: Yes.
Mayor Ferre: I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the
Florida Legislation that was passed in 1967 creating a consumer advo-
cacy department in the Department of Agriculture, they don't have the
authority to go before the public service commission to debate and
present the facts for the consumer on rates and that's all I'm saying.
Mrs, Gordon: Well we've been talking in circles and we've got five
minutes to go so...
Mayor Ferre: Alright, who else wants to talk?
Lt. Ken Harrison: Are you still leaving at 9?
Mayor Ferre: Yes.
Lt. Harrison: Have we adopted the resolution of finalizing the
budget?
Mayor Ferre: No.
Lt. Harrison: Could you continue talking for another 5 minutes and
then we won't have this problem. You won't have a budget and we're
going to have to deal with it another time.
Mx. Grassie: We also, Mr. Mayor, won't have enough money to make any
purchases or to pay any employees.
OCT 61976
Mayor Ferre: I know, we've got to vote on that so would you pass
that information out.
Mr. Plummer:
Sit. Harrison:
Mayor Ferre:
Kenny, I want to take just one moment, please.
You're going to do what you want anyway.
Well I think that's what we got elected to do.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make the record clear
so that nobody mis, and this really has nothing to do with budget.
Since we don't have another meeting until the 14th, I would like to
bring to Mr. Grassie's attention something that I feel that needs to
be and that's resolution 74-1375. Unfortunately, once again I read
in the newspaper before I was notified of an action which he took
and I understand is well within his perview to do relating to his
Assistant City Managers. But I would like to call to your attention,
so that there is no misunderstanding at a later date, I think the
best way is to just read this into the record. "In which this
resolution, passed by the Commission and to the best of my knowledge
has not been changed, a resolution establishing the policy of the
City Commission that the City Manager shall establish salary levels
for the unclassified service of the City with the City Commission
reserving to itself the right to establish salaries for the City
Manager, which we do, Assistant City Managers, which I expect to do,
City Attorney's, Assistant Director of the Department of Law,
Assistant City Attorneys, City C1erkS:and Executive Secretary of the
Civil Service Board." I just merely make that part of the record.
Mrs. Gordon: What's your point, J.L.?
Mr. Plummer: My point is...
Mr. Grassie: I appreciate, he's bringing to my attention the fact
that we have to bring the question of salary for any new Assistant
City Manager to your attention, I appreciate that and of course we
will do it.
Mr. Plummer: The point being, Rose, that what I'm trying to say is
this that I have found that too often we have found where we have
scales of pay running 1 through 8. That a man who is hired to re-
place a man who has been with the City for 15 or 20 years, is started
at the pay which that other man left at and since it has been deter-
mined or named by Mr. Grassie as the Assistant City Manager's posi-
tion, the present one who is leaving, he is leaving at a salary of
roughly $40,000.00 but the pay scale runs from $34,000 to $48,000.
Now the same way that we negotiated Mr. Grassie's salary, approxi-
mately 10% less than that of Mr. Andrews, I think this Commission is
reserving this right to negotiate the salary of whoever is chosen
as the new Assistant City Manager. Mr. Grassie was not here in 1974
and I want to bring that on the record so it's not said at a later
date that the Commission is running in ]ere with a left -end
so I'm just establishing it.
Lt. Harrison: Sergeant Ken Harrison. I think in the role I'm here
tonight is just Ken Harrison, President of the Fraternal Order of
Police and I don't get hung -up on titles because they change drama-
tically and rapidly.
Mayor Ferre: Not till next November,
OCT 61976
Lt. Harrison: No inference along those lines, Mr. Ferre. I'd like
to repeat what Mr. Naples said, he said it so much better than I
can because I usually occupy the role of being the emotional one,
it's usually saved for me. I'm disappointed in some of the things,
I think where Gene suggested to some broken promises, I'll tell you
flat out that there have been some broken promises. I'm disappointed
that the Mayor elected to read from a selected group of writings
that are as much as a year old, quoting book reviews and quoting
surveys by Management Consultants certainly isn't the issue to be
discussed with a group or employees that are coming before you and
requesting that you look out for their best interest. If I'm working
as a Management Consultant, I"m going to get a management -oriented
report to you, that's what you're paying me for. Booze -Allen is an
interesting thing in itself, the book that we have been over some
four times now was voted down twice by this Commission or deferred,
if you would, motion of deferment. If you read the parliamentary
book that we did give you, it said that the intent is to kill that
motion so I would suggest that through a very effective lobbying
effort by the City Manager then and Booze -Allen, they were success-
ful in overcoming the intent of the motion of this Commission on two
previous motions, the intent being to kill that report. I see
somebody quoted some $600,000, I saw that one of the last acts of
the outgoing Manager was to sign another Booze -Allen contract for
surveyance of $79,000 yet what we see here in the ongoing thing here
is that this Commission apparently is telling the employees that the
surveys is what we want, not your services. Somebody quoted 60%
efficiency, I wouldn't be surprised if you see some morale factors
enter into it and that would be reduced even further now. I think
it's clear that this Commission has lost touch not only with its
community but with its employees and I think Reverend Gibson said
it better than any of us can say it. Our hostilities are directed
to the City Manager when, in fact, he's doing what his bosses told
him to do. I think we should re-evaluate and I find myself agreeing
with Father Gibson along that line. Mr. Grassie is a professional,
he's received his instructions and he's carrying them out and I
admire him for that because he's taking the heat that he does not
justify. I asked this Commission before, I think this issue is lost,
you're going to do what you want, you're going to implement this
Department and the only thing I ask is that you take care of your
employees, they've taken very good care of you over the years and I
think you owe them that. Don't let this hurt any of their rights or
benefits and I think you are very close to that. I can agree whole-
heartedly with what Mr. Naples said. That's all I have to say, it's
9:00 and it's...
Mayor Ferre: Kenny, I want to tell you for whatever it's worth that
if anytime I perceive that this is hurting the basic thread of the
City of Miami and it's employees, I will reverse myself as quickly
as I reversed myself, this wasn't too quick because it took me two
years to come to where I am now. I want to say, and I hope that
nobody takes offense at this because I really say it very, very
deeply felt, I perceive my responsibility to be first for the citi-
zens of Miami. Secondly, I per-.ceive my responsibility to the City
and thirdly, I perceive my responsibility to the employees of the
City, in -that order. That doesn't mean that I am necessarily in
conflict. I think happily the majority of times I feel that my
responsibility in all three cases coincide because I think a well -
paid, well -motivated employee is paramount to the survival of the
City and the well-being of the City. Alot of problems have crept
into this process, some of which we have addressed ourselves to and
some which we haven't,,some which we've begun to solve and some
which we haven't. As I see it, this is a step in a direction that
101
OCT 61976
we've been taking for a long, long time and we just haven't quite
made it. Now I want to tell you, and for those of you that want to
get angry, you get angry at me because Gibson and Reboso have been
there two years as I wrote them in this memorandum I put out today.
Plummer and Mrs. Gordon have been consistent too, they have not
changed their position. I'm the, -one that's changed my position so
if you get angry, get angry with me, I'm the one that's doing this,
it's my vote, I want to say it publicly, I want to admit it, I hope
I'm not wrong and if I'm wrong, you have my word that I'll change
my mind.
Lt. Harrison: I hope, then, that it's not too late for those that
have a vested interest here in the City and an obligation to it.
Mayor Ferre: I certainly don't think so, Kenny, and I certainly
pray and hope that it won't be and you certainly, if at anytime
this thing gets to a point where it has to be reviewed, I'll be there
to listen and I'm sure that everybody on this Commission feels the
same way. W. Parks.
Mr. Ralph Parks: Ralph Parks, Department of Finance. I wanted to
mention the fact of inefficiency. I think I agree with Mr. Plummer
but I want to say these words before going on any further. The fact
that you must remember, the rest of you, that you can delegate authority
but not responsibility. Number one, if inefficiency is caused be-
cause of all this , it's too many people in the budget but
you have the final say. Number two, if it isn't too many people,
it's your Director or Assistant Director who were appointed by you
who are the people that should be able to see that efficiency is
carried out so don't use that as an excuse to get through to Civil
Service by saying or entimating that we are hiring people that will
not wait because they're Civil Service. It all comes from the top.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Frank Williams: Can I have 30 seconds?
Mayor Ferre: We do have a new top, let's see what happens.
Mr. Williams: Because people do things in different ways and since
I became a 'Laborer Leader", this is the example of why there will
always be a Kenny Harrison and Gene Naples and Bill Smith and Frank
Williams. He might be a Frances Williams but there's always going
to be one of us around because people have a knack of doing the
damn job wrong. If there is a right way to handle an employee, you
do it wrong and that's why we've got Labor Organizations, that's
why the G.E.A. is ...
Mayor Ferre: Amen to that,
Mr. Williams: Right and I think you're doing it wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
Mayor Ferre: Well I'll tell you. Like the Miami Herald said and I
don't know if you're going to agree with them, that's what Labor
Unions are for. Now that we have Labor Unions in the City of Miami,
now I think that's a very strong argument why we've got to modify
the situation because previously there were no Labor Unions ana
now you fellows come here and represent your constituency well and
you do a good job.
102
OCT 61976
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: Well not all of them. You've all done a good job and
it's an important part of the City.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, where are we in Labor negotiations?
What's the posture?
Mr. Grassie: We have felt that we were reasonably close to an
agreement in the case of the Firefighters, we are farther from an
agreement but still talking as recently as 3:00 this afternoon.
Mayor Ferre: J. L., why don't you talk to the Manager about that
after because I'm really going to leave and we've got an Ordinance
to pass.
Mrs. Gordon: Can I remind you that this Ordinance is incomplete.
If you consider this complete and do not intend to do anything
further than just pass this Ordinance, tell your people who
are expecting to receive paychecks Friday night from your various
programs that are funded by the City, there won't be any.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mayor Ferre: "An Ordinance making certain appropriations to the
various Departments, Divisions, Bureau's, Boards and Office of the
City of Miami, Florida, in making such appropriations chargeable
to the appropriations for the fiscal year 1976-1977, declaring this
Ordinance to be an emergency measure and dispensing the requirements
of reading same on two separate days by.a vote of no less that 4/5
of the members of this Commission."
Mrs. Gordon: This does not cover any agencies that we are funding,
that we are a conduit for funds.
Mayor Ferre: How are we going to do that, Mr. Grassie?
Mr. Grassie: The logical way, based on the fact that you've already
approved a Revenue Sharing Ordinance is to give that Revenue Sharing
Ordinance immediate effect.
Mayor Ferre:
Mrs. Gordon:
Mr. Grassie:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Grassie:
it emergency,
Mayor Ferre:
Ordinance for
Well that's not true. It passed 3/5.
It passed 4/5.
Well for an Ordinance, that is sufficient.
No mam, it did not get a 4/5, it got a 3/5 vote.
Yes but I'm saying the Ordinance passed. Now to4give
you need 4/5 as you know.
J. L. and Maurice Ferre, F-E-R-R-E, voted against the
Revenue Sharing, let it be known.
Mrs. Gordon: That's okay.
Mayor Ferre: I stand up. My votes aren't popular all the time but...
Mrs. Gordon: Just everybody get Maurice's phone number to call him
and not me on Friday night, okay?
1103
OCT 61976
11. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE CHARGEABLE TO 1976-77
FISCAL YEAR:
Mayor Ferre: My wife just called me and said, why aren't you like
Harry Truman, he's brief and to the point. Okay, who moves this
motion?
Mrs. Gordon: Well are you aware of what we're doing and...
Mayor Ferre: Yeah, I'm aware of what we're doing.
Mrs. Gordon: Okay, you know that these programs that are here in
place are not going to be funded for quite some while.
Mayor Ferre: Alright, is somebody going to move this?
Rev. Gibson: Move.
Mayor Ferre: Gibson moves.
Mr. Reboso: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Reboso seconds. Further discussion on this? Call
the roll.
Mrs. Gordon: Is there an amendment to this Ordinance, Mr. Grassie;
that will take care of those programs that are depending upon+,the
City for their funds?
Mr. Grassie: There is not an amendment in the document that you
have in front of you, no.
Mrs. Gordon: Can you make an amendment, Mr. Weston? Look, I'm
not getting any of these funds, I'm not a program that's receiving
funds but I'm concerned about people who are depending on a paycheck
and aren't going to get it. Now if you don't want to care about
them, just say so, let the record say so.
Mayor Ferre: The records are clear.
Mrs. Gordon:
Mayor Ferre:
Mr. Plummer:
read it.
The records are clear, Mr. Eerre says.
My position is very clear. Call the roll.
I'm withholding my vote until I've had a chance to
Mrs. Gordon: I'm withholding my vote too because I'm not going to
vote on it unless you fund all programs that the City is presently
funding until the new budget is adopted and that includes everything.
Mr. Plummer: In other words, as I understand it, Mr. Grassie, then
you are continuing the Civil Service at the present level of funding.
Mr. Grassie: That's correct.
Mrs. Gordon: Every department but not any agencies that we're
funding.
Mr. Grassie: Only the things that are funded out of the General
Revenue Sharing Budget which you adopt traditionally in a different
104
OCT 61916
Ordinance only those things are not covered by the Ordinance that
you have in front of you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Grassie, did I also understand you to say that if
we don't pass a mileage this evening that we'll have to meet tomorrow?
Mr. Grassie: It's my estimation that the City does have the neces-
sity and the obligation of resolving this question hopefully tonight
but certainly tomorrow morning but hopefully tonight.
Mr. Plummer: But it's pretty obvious to me that you're not.
Mr. Grassie: If I could ask, Mr. Mayor, if there is some sentiment
on the part of at least two Commissioners that we're no;: going to
adopt the budget tonight, at least not to finalize it, I would think
that we would have to at least discuss what our next steps are be-
cause we're getting to the point of no return...
Mayor Ferre: Now wait a minute, Mr. Grassie, I called for a roll
call and a motion was made and duly seconded. Now I think that
Commissioner Plummer is entitled to consideration and I'm certainly
willing to sit here and wait for him to read it but I do expect for
him to vote like everyone else on this Commission. He can vote "yes"
or he can vote "no" and then we'll know what to do beyond that.
Mr. Weston: Mr. Mayor, I may remind the Commission that no
Commissioner may abstain from voting...
Mayor Ferre: I know that, that's what I'm trying to say.
Mr. Plummer: Did anybody indicate that they were going to abstaii2
(INAUDIBLE)
Mrs. Gordon: I'm going to qualify my vote and tell you that the
only reason for my "no" vote is that you're not funding agencies
that are presently looking to this Commission, that are conduits
for their funds and it does not have anything to do with whether
or not we fund them again for next year.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS
TO THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS,
BUREAUS, BOARDS AND OFFICES OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND MAKING SUCH APPROPRIA-
TIONS CHARGEABLE TO THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1976-77; DECLARING THIS
ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND
DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF READING
THE SAME ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS 13Y A VOTE OF
NOT LESS THAN FOUR -FIFTHS OF THE MEMBERS
OF THE COMMISSION.
Was introduced by Commissioner Gibson and seconded by Commissioner
Reboso, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the
requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed
to by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Plummer, Commissioner Reboso, Commissioner Gibson,
Mayor Ferre.
NOES: Vice -Mayor Gordon
1°5
OCT 61976
t
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Gibson and
seconded by Commissioner Reboso, adopted said Ordinance by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Plummer, Commissioner Reboso, Commissioner Gibson,
Mayor Ferre.
NOES: Vice -Mayor Gordon.
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 8577
The Mayor read the ordinance into the public record and announced
that copies were available to the members of the City Commission
and to the public.
12. STATUS OF PERSONS IN UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE THREATENED WITH
DISMISSAL BY CIVIL SERVICE:
Mayor Ferre: Before we depart, Mr. Manager, I would like to make
a motion and you'll have to look at the legality of all this but
the 56 or 53 or whatever people that Miss Pat Skubish and Bob Paulk
recommended be dismissed on the 23rd of October, I would like to
know the legality of where we stand on that. Number one, is it
legal and number two, if it's not to be challenged, what solutions
you have for it, can they be put under employees of the Manager and
can we vote on it at this time.
Mr. Grassie: I have in preparation, Mr. Mayor, a letter to those
56 employees indicating my feeling that, in fact, they will not be
dismissed. I can't tell you that that's exactly what's going to
happen but that's my feeling that we will find a way around that
problem and the City Attorney's Office is working on it right now.
Mr. Plummer: There's only one thing worse than getting dismissed
and that's working without getting paid.
Mr. Grassie: I understand, Commissioner, and I wish there were a
simple solution.
Ms. Pat Skubish: Can I say one thing, Mr. Mayor, just one thing
because I want to go home and watch the Ford and Carter debates too.
That was not the intent, to dismiss them, you understand, it's to
make them classified. They're illegally unclassified, they're
appointed. I want to give them jobs classified. In some instances,
these people are going to be making more money, that's it.
Mayor Ferre: Pat, let me ask you this. Why has this come up at
this particular time?
Ms. Skubish: This has been going on for 21 years.
Mayor Ferre: Why didn't you do something about it?
Ms. Skubish: We have tried, even with Mr. Andrews. Did you read
the memo that we sent out? As that memo states, we have tried. In
fact, we have started audits. We started 5 audits already, Mr. Mayor,
of Administrative Assistants. We've started those audits and the
truth of the matter is, we wouldn't be finished with those 56 un-
classified audits for another 21/2 years or 3 years but now we won't
have any staff to do those audits.
Mayor Ferre: Why the talking date of October 23rd?
Ms. Skubish: Well I'll tell you something, Mr. Mayor, I could have
done it immediately as provided and mandated by the Charter. I want
1106
OCT 61976
to make the people classified, I want to give them a salary, It's
not the intent to terminate them.
Mayor Ferre: Well Mr. Manager, I want you to know that as Mayor of
Miami, I am ready, willing and able to call a Special Commission
Meeting any time you want to handle this case. I have my own way
of handling it which I hope we don't have to resort to but we'll
see.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I ask for clarification as to when our
next meeting is?
Mr. Grassie: Could we have a continuation of this meeting as soon
as you are willing to do it, possibly tomorrow morning?
Mayor Ferre: We're not adjourning this meeting, we are recessing
it. I will recess this meeting until the Manager is prepared for
the next meeting and now we'll coordinate with everybody to see...
Mr. Grassie: 9:00 tomorrow morning?
Mayor Ferre: My life isn't that simple.
Mr. Grassie: Whenever you say, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Ferre: Well, whenever everybody is available.
RECESS: The meeting was recessed at 9:16 P.M. and was
reconvened on October 7, 1976 at 2:04 P.M..
ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAYOR
10"'
OCT 61976