Miami Lakes commission advances charter edits on council size, manager powers and clerk appointment

Miami Lakes — Commissioners spent most of their Feb. 12 meeting debating how to rewrite the town charter to change council size, clarify vacancy and resign-to-run rules, and adjust executive and clerk authorities.

Esperanza Cruz, a resident who gave her address for the record, opened public comment by urging the commission to “go back to the citizen’s bill of rights” and asking that the charter prioritize “the protection of the governed, not the governing.” She also asked that a ballot question be considered on whether Miami Lakes should remain incorporated.

The meeting moved quickly into detailed line-by-line review of draft charter language prepared by the town attorney. A central topic was whether voters should be asked to reduce the council from seven members to five and, if so, how to transition seats without disadvantaging those elected in 2024. The town attorney and town manager outlined two transition methods: attrition (allowing specified seats to expire) or electing particular seats to a two-year term to phase the reduction in. Commissioners discussed moving a targeted implementation date from 2030 to 2032 so incumbents elected in 2024 can serve full terms.

Commissioners also pressed staff to clarify related items that must move with any seat-reduction question, including whether legacy incorporation language should be preserved for historical continuity (several commissioners and the town attorney recommended leaving historical language unless specific items are proposed for removal).

On election mechanics and vacancies, commissioners debated whether an irrevocable resignation filed under the state's resign-to-run rules could trigger a special qualifying period so the vacated seat appears on the same November ballot. Town staff said the charter's current vacancy rules would apply but agreed to research model language and municipal examples so the commission can consider a clear process for concurrent special elections.

Another sustained debate concerned Article 3, which governs the town manager. Commissioners debated word choice about removal: changing the clause that the town manager "shall be removed by a majority vote" to say the manager "may be removed by a majority vote." Supporters said the change appropriately distinguishes a required appointment ("shall") from a discretionary removal ("may"); opponents warned about unintended legal consequences and asked staff to ensure removal rules remain consistent with state law and the manager's contract. The commission voted to amend the text as proposed; opposition was recorded during the voice vote.

On the town manager's temporary absence and disability (Section 3.4), commissioners approved revised language that (1) lets the manager designate a "qualified employee" as acting town manager by formal written communication, (2) allows the council by majority vote to designate an acting manager if the manager does not or the designation is unacceptable, and (3) gives the council discretion to replace an acting manager if a prolonged disability prevents the manager's return. Commissioners debated whether the initial designation should be mandatory or discretionary, whether to set a fixed time limit for an acting designation, and how the charter language would interact with the manager's contract and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A high-profile procedural change passed when the commission voted to mirror the town-attorney appointment formula so the town clerk would be appointed by the council rather than selected by the town manager. The clerk, who spoke to describe the current "hybrid" role and said the job benefits from collaborating with both elected officials and the manager, acknowledged the debate but the commission approved language to make the town clerk a council-appointed charter officer and added a sentence preserving clerk duties (giving notice of council meetings and keeping minutes).

Commissioners also approved a series of housekeeping changes in meeting rules — replacing numeric thresholds with "majority" to align with a potential smaller council — and asked staff to post any proposed draft language in advance of future meetings.

A motion to add a fixed timeline for authentication of adopted ordinances (a proposal that would have required the mayor — and if the mayor failed to sign within a short period, the vice mayor or a council member — to sign within a set number of days) drew prolonged debate. The town attorney cited state statute (Florida Statutes —166.041) noting that ordinances become effective by statute in a set timeframe and warned about unintended consequences for time-sensitive items such as the annual budget. That proposed authentication timing amendment failed on a recorded vote.

The commission also asked staff to confirm recall-petition thresholds (the draft charter notes 10% of electors) and to return with comparisons to Miami-Dade County practice, and discussed statutory deadlines for independent audits (the attorney cited Florida Statute 218.39). On borrowing and bonds, the attorney reminded the commission that general-obligation bonds require voter approval while certain revenue bonds do not, and that borrowing authority is tied to permitted revenue streams.

What happens next: commissioners asked staff and the town attorney to return with ballot-ready language, timing adjustments (including the 2032 transition option), and model provisions for vacancy/special-election mechanisms. The commission scheduled follow-up meetings and asked members to circulate proposed draft language to the clerk in advance so materials can be posted for public review.

Votes at a glance: the commission approved minutes, advanced changes to manager absence/acting-manager language, moved to make the clerk a council-appointed position (with added responsibilities recorded in the charter), and modified quorum/threshold wording to "majority." A proposed amendment to impose an authentication deadline for mayoral signatures failed.

Quotes: "The charter reads that the purpose of government is the protection of the governed, not the governing," resident Esperanza Cruz told the commission during public comment. Commissioner Bennett warned commissioners not to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" when considering removing legacy charter language. Town staff said they will return with ballot-ready wording and comparative examples.