Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childrens Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts Children’s Trust code update, adds aspirational residency language
Summary
The Recreation and Tourism Committee voted Nov. 10 to amend the county code governing the Children’s Trust to update board membership and term limits and adopted an amendment encouraging appointing authorities to consider Miami‑Dade County residents for position seats.
Get email alerts on the Childrens Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Recreation and Tourism Committee of the Miami Board of County Commission voted unanimously Nov. 10 to amend Chapter 2 of the Miami‑Dade County Code to revise membership and term limits for the Children’s Trust, and added an aspirational residency provision encouraging appointing authorities to consider Miami‑Dade County residents for position‑based seats.
Madam Attorney introduced Ordinance 2A as a technical and conforming change “to conform with the amendments to section 125.901,” explaining the ordinance revises membership and term limits and permits a mayoral designee on the Children’s Trust board. Commissioner Steinberg moved to add language urging appointing entities to consider county residents for position appointments; the committee adopted that amendment with no objection.
Amanda Gorski of the Children’s Trust described the board as a 33‑member body: seven gubernatorial appointees, five at‑large seats that represent community members countywide, and the remainder appointed by position (for example, institutions such as universities and offices such as the state attorney). She said at‑large members are chosen through a nominating committee and application process.
The clerk recorded a roll call after the amendment and the committee recorded the measure as passing unanimously out of committee. The ordinance was presented to the committee without further opposition; sponsors and staff indicated the change conforms county code language to the referenced statutory or code changes.
The committee did not set a full‑commission final action in the committee discussion; staff and sponsors did not provide a compliance schedule in the committee record. The committee requested no additional amendment and closed consideration after the roll call.
