Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Communication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Port commissioners spar over whether they may question city staff under charter
Summary
A heated debate over City Charter §5.02 and personnel policy 6.8 dominated the Dec. 9 North Port City Commission meeting, with the commission accepting an outside legal opinion that the policy does not conflict with the charter by a 3–2 vote and later rejecting a motion to send a charter amendment to the ballot.
The North Port City Commission spent the bulk of its Dec. 9 meeting examining whether commissioners may communicate directly with city employees, a dispute that traded legal readings and sharp political rhetoric.
Vice Mayor Langdon moved that the commission accept an outside legal review concluding North Port’s personnel policy 6.8 does not conflict with Charter section 5.02. The motion passed 3–2, with Commissioners Petro and Duvall dissenting. The vote formalized the majority’s view that the city manager’s non‑interference policy — which requires commissioners to route staff requests through the city manager — can be read in harmony with the charter’s non‑interference clause.
“Following the charter and the laws is not going to be supported by all up here,” City Manager Jerome Fletcher said in defense of the policy and the outside opinion, describing the rules as “sensible safeguards” that protect employees and preserve an even playing field among commissioners.
Commissioner Duvall argued the policy is unduly restrictive and said it prevents commissioners from learning facts in a timely way. “If you ask 10 attorneys, you may get 20 opinions,” he said, and added he believes the charter and the policy do not align. He voted against accepting the outside review.
Commissioner Petro said he does not intend to give orders to staff but pushed for the Charter Review Advisory Board to consider clearer language to allow commissioners to “scrutinize by personal observation and questions” without giving direction. He framed his proposal as a transparency measure and moved to task the advisory board with drafting referendum language. That motion — and a subsequent amendment to explicitly allow commissioners to ask questions — failed 3–2.
City Attorney Fowino (city attorney) and outside counsel who produced the written legal opinion were cited repeatedly during the exchanges; commissioners debated the legal meaning of the phrase “nothing in the foregoing” as used in neighboring municipal charters and whether North Port’s charter lacks an exception that would explicitly permit limited inquiry by individual commissioners.
Public commenters were split. Several residents urged the commission to support the city manager and preserve the chain of command; others and two commissioners urged clarification of the policy’s language so that ordinary, non‑directive questions would not expose commissioners to ethics complaints.
The commission did not change charter text or the personnel policy at the meeting. Staff said a formal attorney‑general request or an ordinance could be brought later, and that petitioning the charter review board or a public referendum would be the appropriate next step if the commission wished to change the charter’s language.
