Melbourne Beach commission approves charter amendments for voter referendum after late wording change

The Melbourne Beach Town Commission voted 3-0 on July 22 to approve second reading of Ordinance 2025-02, submitting proposed charter amendments to town voters, including a change to elected officials' residency requirement and revised language on forfeiture of office.

The ordinance, which the commission said will go to the electorate if approved at the ballot, includes a change to the residency requirement for commissioners from six months to 12 months and edits to the clause describing when a commissioner’s office is forfeited. The final wording adopted at the meeting reads in part that “the office of the commission member shall be forfeited whenever a member is finally convicted of a felony or otherwise provided by Florida law,” replacing earlier language that referenced conviction for “malfeasance” or “misfeasance.”

The commission emphasized the change followed questions about whether terms such as malfeasance and misfeasance required a criminal conviction or could be established through administrative or ethics proceedings. Town Attorney Ryan Knight said the word “conviction” normally refers to a criminal court, while findings by administrative bodies or ethics panels are typically phrased as being “found in violation.” Knight told the commission, “A conviction is normally with a criminal court, not with an administrative agency,” and that referencing state law broadly — “or as otherwise provided by Florida law” — captures removal and recall procedures the state already provides.

Commissioners said the wording was raised late in the review process after the Charter Review Committee, chaired by Jim Simmons with vice chair Bruce Larson and members Jessica Martinez, Kathy Iversoth and Charles Lepp, completed nine meetings and one joint workshop with the commission between January and May. A handful of emails from a committee member and a resident prompted commissioners to seek clarification from the town attorney before finalizing the language.

During public comment, resident Frank Robertson asked why the issue had surfaced so late; commissioners responded that they had received emails expressing concern about possible ambiguity in the original language and had asked the attorney to explain the practical effect. Robertson asked whether anyone on the commission was implicated; the commissioners said they were not aware of any specific case prompting the change.

The commission considered three procedural options: approve the ordinance as drafted, amend it, or continue the second reading to a later meeting so absent commissioners could participate. Commissioners noted only three of five members were present and that certain procedural moves would require unanimous agreement among the three. After discussion and a motion to amend the questioned clause to refer to state law, the commission approved the ordinance by voice vote 3-0. The commission recorded the second reading as passing on July 22, 2025; the first reading took place July 1, 2025.

Commissioners did not alter other proposed charter questions at the meeting. The ordinance text presented to the commission included multiple ballot questions; the town clerk and attorney were directed to proceed with the language as amended for the second reading. The commission adjourned after completing the item.

What happened next: Because the ordinance passed second reading, the proposed charter amendments will be submitted to the town’s electors as provided in the ordinance and state law; the commission did not take additional votes on scheduling a continuance at the meeting.