Charter Review Committee approves redline changes to referendum rules, officer appointment language and investment policy

The Charter Review Committee met June 17 and approved a package of redline edits to the City of Venice home-rule charter, voting by voice on changes to several sections that the committee said clarify current practice and modernize dated language.

The committee approved edits to Section 5.01 to remove duplicative text and to Section 5.03 to make explicit that ordinances will be considered by the city attorney before the city commission acts. City Attorney Ritchie presented the redlines to Section 5.08 (referendum and initiative), saying she referenced the recall procedures in Section 3.14 to avoid repetition and suggested optional exclusions that the committee could adopt or reject. "I added salaries of city officers and employees," she said, "and zoning, because once you pass a zoning case that property is entitled that way" — examples she offered as measures that can create legal risk if reversed by referendum.

Committee members stressed voter education for any items placed on the ballot. One member urged town halls and clear, lay-language materials so that voters are not confronted with long, legalistic proposition text in the polling booth. The chair and staff agreed outreach would be important if the commission orders an election.

The committee also approved amended language in Article 6 clarifying that the city secretary and city attorney may appoint assistants "subject to the adopted budget approved by the commission." The municipal court section (Article 7) was edited to replace the term "policemen" with "police officer" in Section 7.10. Article 8 changes to Section 8.05 will allow bond funds to be invested "as authorized by the city's investment policy;" counsel cautioned, however, that bond counsel advised against investing in the city's own bonds because that could be treated as a merger.

All motions were approved by voice vote; the record shows the committee called for ayes and declared each motion carried. The committee asked staff and counsel to prepare finalized proposition language and to return suggested ballot language at the July 1 meeting so that the City Commission can consider ordering an election and planning public outreach.

The committee also agreed to keep working through Articles 9–12 at the next meeting and to prepare clear proposition language so the public can understand each ballot item. The next scheduled meeting is July 1, when the committee expects to present drafted proposition language to the commission.