Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/22/2022 WorkshopSeptember 22, 2022 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida September 22, 2022 Rules and Regulations Workshop LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 11:32 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman John Fuentes, Vice Chair Danny Blanco Kathleen Elrod Lee Rubenstein Tarik N. Ayasun, Alternate Zully Ruiz, Alternate ABSENT: Sue Curley ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Attorney to the Board Colleen Kerins, Assistant County Attorney Patrick Neal, Special Magistrate Michael Ossorio, Code Enforcement Division Director September 22, 2022 Page 2 MR. WHITE: You have a hot mic, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Let's do a roll call. Mike, do you want to call the names? I don't want to give you anything hard to do. MR. OSSORIO: You can go ahead and do it, Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want me to call the names? Okay. Robert Kaufman, here. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Danny? MR. BLANCO: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Bowman is no longer a board member. Sue Curley is excused absence. John? MR. FUENTES: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Lee? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tarik? MR. AYASUN: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Zully? MS. RUIZ: Here. MR. WHITE: Also present today you have Patrick Neal, the Special Magistrate; myself, Patrick White, the attorney for the Code Board; Colleen Kerins, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Michael Ossorio, the director of Code Enforcement. Today's discussion is a workshop regarding the rules and regulations for the Code Enforcement Board and the September 22, 2022 Page 3 Special Magistrate, all of which copies have been provided, I believe, to the Board Members and the Magistrate. Preliminary to today's -- or prior to today's hearing, I personally have had discussions with Mr. Neale about the proposed edits, as well as with Ms. Kerins, and with Mr. Ossorio and some of his staff. My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that we just begin with the CEB rules and go through them, you know, pretty much page by page, line by line. And if there are no questions about the draft that you have or anything that you believe needs to be commented on, we would just move through it in that fashion. And as Mr. Neale may believe the rules for the Magistrate may differ or agree, he would be free to comment. I think if we do it that way, running in parallel, but progressing, you know, line by line, page by page, we can do this as expeditiously and as cleanly as possible. I do anticipate we may have to have, as I noted in our earlier hearing today, some discussion about a topic or two to illuminate more clearly why things are the way they are in the rules and to entertain the possibility of modifying those rules. But they must be, first, consistent, certainly, with the constitution of the state and the U.S., second, they have to be consistent with Florida State law, Chapter 162 primarily; and they have to be consistent with the applicable sets of rules of court for appellate procedure. They cannot be inconsistent with other parts of your Code of Laws or any of the other things that I've mentioned. I believe what we have drafted and presented to you meets all of those requirements. And I'm not sure if you prefer to be the one to lead us September 22, 2022 Page 4 through, Mr. Chairman, or however. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I prefer you lead us through. MR. WHITE: All righty, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have the marked-up copy where you had the changes in red? MR. WHITE: I do, along with comments from Ms. Kerins. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: But they're, essentially, the same as what was provided to the Board. So on my Page 1, I show added text for the name adding -- or adding the role of the Code Enforcement Board, CEB, and I have corrected in my current version what the section is of the applicable portion of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. If there's no question, I'll move on to Article II. Article II is, again, primarily housekeeping to more clearly state what the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Board is and makes clear to anyone who is a respondent what it is that we cannot hear. Typically, you know, challenges to constitutionality, those are beyond your purview. They're something that goes to a court. If there's no questions about the changes in Article II regarding jurisdiction, I'll move on to Article III. In Article III, officers and their duties, I simply went ahead and made clear, instead of the word "permanent," that those members of the Board are regular members, distinguishing them from the alternate members. The same is true with no other changes in Article IV, but the change is similar in Article V that pertains to the Board making clear September 22, 2022 Page 5 that the Board consists of seven regular members and two alternates. And what it says in the existing text, no changes, is that an alternate is designated to fill any regular member vacancy at any meeting with full voting rights, which is what we have done and do do. Based on my reputation as attorney for the Naples Code Enforcement Board, an issue came up relative to their code, relative to the state statute making clear, at least from my perspective, that the process we've been following where so long as there are less than seven regular members, you are entitled to, by statute and your own rule, to seat and serve -- have alternates be seated and serve and, per your rules, have full voting rights. I just wanted to make that clear that that is, I believe, the proper legal position. And if there's no question about that, I'll move on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The selection of the alternate at a meeting is determined by? MR. WHITE: I believe that that would be left to the discretion of the Chair. Certainly, there's a number of guidelines that could be used. For example, seniority, frequency of the alternate being in attendance but not serving because the Board was otherwise full with all seven members, how often they actually have been seated and served. So there's a variety and, I think, a dynamic set of criteria that could be utilized. But regardless, at the end of the day, so to speak, it's at the discretion of the Chair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The other question I have regarding that is we have nine chairs up here. We have seven members and the possibility of two alternates. Does the alternate -- can the alternate also sit up September 22, 2022 Page 6 on one of these chairs, or do they have to be in the audience? MR. WHITE: You're asking a question, I think, that is different than the one I'm going to answer. They can be seated there, but they can say and do nothing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. WHITE: -- because they are not allowed to serve. That is the verb in the statute, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. WHITE: So from my point of view, and because -- again, harkening back to the discussion I had with the city board, that has to do with the question of attendance. Now, the city's different. The city says, all alternates must attend all meetings, and so in their instance, as long as their they're in the audience and are recognized and it's put on the record that they're, quote, here attending but not serving, it satisfies it. And I believe that that helps to inform this board if you have all seven regular members, and one or two of the alternates are present, they cannot be allowed to serve or be seated to vote, but they should be acknowledged so that in the minutes their attendance is there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me make this less complicated. I have a full board of seven members here, and I have two alternates that have also shown up to the meeting, can they be seated up here on the dais and -- MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me finish -- and not participate? MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a change from what we've done in the past. September 22, 2022 Page 7 MR. WHITE: I don't want to give the appearance -- this is my opinion -- that they are somehow participating, because they're not allowed to do so by law. So having them seated there is kind of more theater than substance. And I think, as I indicated, so long as you recognize that they are in attendance in the audience, that satisfies any concern about their, quote-unquote, attendance. The county doesn't have a per se requirement that alternates must attend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand what you've said. MR. WHITE: Okay. Now, the state rule regarding absence from meetings is clear in saying that if you miss two out of three, they typically are kicked off the Board if there's no excuse. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. WHITE: So if they're not present, the alternates, this is, you have a full seated seven regular members, if they're not present but they have notified staff and requested an excuse, then that should be put in the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's done during the time -- MR. WHITE: Roll call. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- when we do the roll call. MR. WHITE: Yes. Because, otherwise, you end up with the possibility that if you have alternates that aren't excused two out of three prior meetings, they could be subject to removal, so... That brings us -- if there's no other question about it, to the subsequent changes in Article V on what I have as Page September 22, 2022 Page 8 3 about attendance, and it says that regular members -- again, regular members -- if you miss two successive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, you may forfeit it subject to action by the Board to remove such member. And I think in this instance, our practice, as I'm understanding it, is that it is the Board of County Commissioners who take that official action. And I'd defer to Ms. Kerins on that and Mr. Ossorio on what the past practice has been so that whatever we write here is going to be consistent with that. My understanding by the statute is that, basically, this board makes, in essence, a recommendation and that the official action to remove and subsequently appoint is the actual Board of County Commissioners. MS. KERINS: I believe that's correct based on the fact that all of the recommendations for appointments for advisory boards go through our office to be approved at BCC meetings. MR. WHITE: Then I would suggest just adding a couple more words in Section 4 under this article under small letter b where it says, subject to action by the Board, meaning this board, to recommend removal by the Board of County Commissioners. Do you think that would be appropriate, Ms. Kerins? MS. KERINS: Yes, and we'll review final language later for legal sufficiency. MR. WHITE: Agreed. The other issue is in small letter c, under Section 4, notices, it talks about adding the language -- what it says presently is, attendance shall be in person and may not occur through any form of electronic medium. I've added -- you September 22, 2022 Page 9 know, here we are in the post-COVID world -- unless so authorized by applicable law or religions, however, a quorum of board members must be physically present. That, I believe, is consistent with AGOs and other applicable authorities. No questions. I'll move on. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I have one question. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I want to back up to b for a minute on Line 2 -- MR. WHITE: Sure. MR. RUBENSTEIN: -- where it says he or she may forfeit his or her appointment. Why is the word "may" used and not "will"? MR. WHITE: Well, because -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: "Shall." MR. WHITE: -- as the subsequent dependent clause says, it's subject to action by the Board to recommend removal by the BCC. MR. RUBENSTEIN: So you're saying that the Chair still has the right -- MR. WHITE: No. Your board, effectively, has to take a vote. It's not -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: So it's still open for discussion if someone misses two meetings? MR. WHITE: Correct, because what happened, for example, at the city was I had gone ahead and done due diligence, talked to the Clerk, talked to city manager's staff, talked to the prior chair to determine whether, in fact, there had ever been any request to be excused that was timely made and whether the nature of the request was one that was September 22, 2022 Page 10 actually, you know, a good reason, not just, you know, I wanted to go to the movies. And so there was that kind of dialogue back and forth, and it led to it being made clear that one of the members had emails, timely emails requesting, effectively, to be excused. So they were eligible, you know, entitled to stay on the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully we don't have a discussion that -- going back many years ago, we'd some attorneys on the Board, and there was a big discussion around and round about the difference between "may" and "shall." MR. WHITE: There's no difference between "may" -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The County Commissioners thought there was, so whatever we -- MR. WHITE: Not in my mind -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- because -- and the issue is with the word "shall." MR. RUBENSTEIN: Well, there is a difference between "may" and "will." MR. WHITE: My understanding of "shall" is that it's either "will," meaning in the future or "must," meaning it applies now. It is mandatory, not discretionary as "may" is. That's consistent with what the Board -- the Florida Bar holds as its position, that "shall" is mandatory. MR. BLANCO: Patrick, I just want to make sure that I'm clear and the rest of the Board is clear. As far as removing a board member, the Board can recommend something to the commissioners, but it is their decision at the end of the day whether to remove that board member or not, correct? September 22, 2022 Page 11 MR. WHITE: I believe that's the more appropriate way to apply the state law consistent with your rules. MR. BLANCO: Perfect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you, Danny. MR. BLANCO: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Tarik? MR. AYASUN: Yes. Since the Board doesn't get reappointed from year to year, does the absentees, then, go from year to the next year, like cumulative, or is it per year? MR. WHITE: Well, there is no annual cataloging. What there is is, effectively, a tracking over the prior three meetings. MR. AYASUN: Okay. MR. WHITE: That's all that I'm aware of. Now, there are other boards that have, you know, a percentage of X number of meetings per year. There may be a more general rule than I'm aware of that applies to all volunteer positions for boards. But relative to these rules, there isn't, to my knowledge, anything like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As far as I understand, the County Commissioners, when your term on the Board expires, they have the right, albeit, they generally don't, they can replace any member. MR. WHITE: Well, everybody -- once your term expires, you have to be reappointed -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. WHITE: -- by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. WHITE: I've been blessed to be reappointed numerous times to the Contractor Licensing Board. September 22, 2022 Page 12 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, they make mistakes, too. MR. WHITE: I understand that. That's why it was a blessing. Okay. If there's nothing else in Article V. MR. FUENTES: Mike's trying to talk. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Mike. MR. OSSORIO: Just a quick clarification. You do have to reapply. It's not automatic, you know, that you go in front of the Board of County Commissioners to get reappointed. Once your term is over, typically they send you a letter, the County Attorney's Office, that says if you want to reapply, but you still have to fill the information out and send it in, so... MR. WHITE: That's correct. That's further details. Article VI is the order of business. All I did was add in there something about emergency cases, but it does bring up a point that from time to time we've had a discussion about in our agendas, and I've discussed this with Mr. Neale as well. And it has to do with under public hearings, Roman Numeral 5, capital letter A, motions, and the distinction between a motion for a continuance and a motion for extension of time. I believe the more well-considered position is that a motion for continuance only applies to a case that you have not adjudicated, have not made a decision about; it's not been on your agenda before. For example, it could be on the same agenda for a hearing, but you would also have somewhere above a motion for a continuance. And as has happened in some other cases where we've done impositions of fines, et cetera, and withdrawn the case, September 22, 2022 Page 13 whatever, you can adjust the agenda accordingly if, for example, the way you dispose of the motion for a continuance is to continue it for some period of time. There's no order issued other than the granting of the motion to continue it to some time certain, typically X number of months, where it would then be on a subsequent hearing agenda. Is that okay? MR. NEALE: Well -- and, Mr. White, just one thing that we talked about, the County Attorney and I talked about, you and I talked about a little bit is I definitely think, at least in the Special Magistrate rules, we need to have more definition of those issues. What's a continuance? What's an extension of time? Because I agree with you, I think a continuance is we're continuing the whole matter. An extension of time is you're asking for an extension of time for -- to file an appeal, to comply, to do something like that. Now, in the case of the Special Magistrate, if I grant a continuance, I always issue an order. MR. WHITE: Correct. MR. NEALE: That's just our process. MR. WHITE: We do. MR. NEALE: But I think -- I would suggest that in both the CEB rules and the Special Magistrate rules, it would behoove us to flesh out those two issues so that, you know, when somebody's reading the rules they can understand what they really mean. MR. WHITE: And I have no objection with, you know, something being added in there that expressly states what we've just discussed. And let me offer an example of what we had this very morning was a motion for an September 22, 2022 Page 14 extension of time where that was the appropriate thing to request because there had been an order issued, but the motion for the extension of time was sought timely and prior to the date for compliance such that no fines had begun to accrue. And, therefore, the extension of time, in essence, moved the goal posts further down the timeline so that the respondent would be able to have more time to come into compliance before fines would begin to accrue. And I think that's the distinction between the two. And I think we can figure out how to write those words. MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically, a continuance, if you -- if fines have already been assessed, when you do a continuance, the fines continue to accrue. If you do an extension of time, they don't. MR. WHITE: Correct, except that a motion for a continuance with regards to a matter that's never been heard, clearly, there's no fines at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. MR. WHITE: So what the problem is is you get a -- quote, a motion for continuance, as we had made at the podium today by an attorney, I'd like you to continue the time for me to abate. Well, no. MR. NEALE: That's an extension of time, in my opinion. MR. WHITE: It's an extension of time in a sense, but we've treated those, I think, and when I read the orders, as it being continued, because what the actual request before the Board is from the county is to impose the fine. So in writing the orders -- we had the discussion about September 22, 2022 Page 15 splitting babies. This is another baby splitter, because you're denying the request to impose the fine, but you're granting, in lieu, a, quote, continuance or an extension of time. We've been writing them with the word "continued," because that's what the Board has ordered, and we continue the time for them to come back before the fine would be imposed. MR. NEALE: And I would suggest, the same -- just the way the Special Magistrate would do it is, it's a continuance if they -- if it's on -- a motion for imposition is brought forward, and they ask for more time or they want to be heard, that would be a continuance, the way I see it. It's prior to the motion of extension that I would suggest that they're asking for an extension of time to comply. So I sort of look at it a little bit differently, but... MR. WHITE: And I would tend to agree with you more and would prefer to defer to that position. I'm simply following the lead of the way the Chair and the Board have orally made motions and approved them. And, you know, the challenge in writing the order after is you may have some internal discussion between, you know, each side of how you say things. I've got to write the order. And so what I've done -- MR. NEALE: As do I. MR. WHITE: -- what I've done is do my best to follow as precisely as possible what the Board has ordered. I try to clarify it as I did today so that it does not put me in the conundrum of trying to, you know, split the baby, where the only way to properly write it would be to either acknowledge from the podium that someone was making, officially, a motion -- an untimely motion for a reduction of September 22, 2022 Page 16 fine, as was the case, and grant the county's request, in part, to impose a fine, but also it would seem "grant in part" the untimely oral motion for a reduction because where we ended up was rather than denying the county's request to impose the entire fine and costs, they wanted to impose a portion of the fine in the amount of $500, plus the costs. And so the challenge -- and I've discussed this with Mr. Neale before and Ms. Kerins and certainly with Mr. Ossorio is, I'm just trying to make your jobs easier and my jobs easier. That's the whole point and purpose, I think, of rules and having them written, you know, in a clear way. And it occurs to me that maybe the better way to approach that challenge, splitting the baby, is simply to, as I just described it, write the order that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not saying -- MR. WHITE: What -- the form of the orders that I have received and the review comments I've received from the county staff have been a particular way of having it been done and done in the past, and my goal today is to try to come to a place where we all agree on not only what it is that's appropriate and lawful to do, but is also kind of easy to implement by way of an order. In particular, if it's ever challenged, the county, and to whatever extent I participate, would be able to defend the Board's action -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what we have tried to do -- MR. WHITE: -- successfully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- for the past umpteen years that I've been involved -- MR. WHITE: Never missing a meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- never missing a September 22, 2022 Page 17 meeting also, but what we try to do is be as fair as we can with everybody. Now, if you tie the hands of the Board and say there's a -- one of -- the imposition of fines is $200,000, and we know that the respondent was wrong, dead wrong, given every opportunity, but the property that we're talking about is not even worth $200,000, the Board, in its ultimate wisdom, tries to let the people know that they're against forgiving the entire fine; they would like to impose some penalty. Now, you can call it what you want, but that's being fair to the respondent and to the people that are out there in Code Enforcement who are issuing these violations. And, as John has mentioned, who's been out there doing that, they become a laughingstock if everything is abated. So that's why we did and do what we have been doing, and I don't believe we've ever had an appeal. MR. WHITE: Well, you know, I agree with the pragmatic aspect of that, but you pay me -- and maybe you don't want to, to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I vote on that? MR. WHITE: Sure. It's a workshop. It's an open forum for discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there another way -- MR. WHITE: -- to make sure that if you are sued, you win. I hate to lose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we want to do what's fair. MR. WHITE: Absolutely. And the only way to do that -- and I intended to have this discussion later when we got down to that part of the regulations -- or the rules, rather, you've got to evaluate all the factors. And we don't have a September 22, 2022 Page 18 process that fairly, in my mind, illuminates all of that because, procedurally, we're only considering the county's motion. We've tried to shoehorn in from the podium a respondent's testimony that, arguably, is better characterized and cataloged and brought before you as a companion or a preceding-in-time motion for reduction or abatement. And so if we want to have that conversation now, that's fine with me. My recommendation -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. WHITE: -- is we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you just mentioned reduction. MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if somebody has a -- just a wild guess, someone had a fine of, say -- MR. FUENTES: 15,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- $15,800, and you wanted to reduce that to $500, what would be the process to do that that makes things legal and easy to do? MR. WHITE: First off, I believe the orders should have added to them somewhere in the boilerplate near the end that we put the respondent on notice that if the fines begin to accrue and they believe that at some point the county is getting ready to impose -- have a motion for imposition of those fines heard, they must file prior to the hearing their own motion for reduction. An email would be fine. We've done those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But we both know that that doesn't happen. MR. WHITE: My point is -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: It says that they have to do it in September 22, 2022 Page 19 writing for abatement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. RUBENSTEIN: And I don't see that happening. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not. It's not. MR. WHITE: And that's my point of why I said to you all today, you don't -- you can't split the baby. You either kill them or you let them live. MR. FUENTES: I'm not understanding as to why we can't reduce. MR. WHITE: Because the rules have to be changed and the process has to be changed to accommodate that. That was all I was saying this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. WHITE: And I was trying to use it to highlight the challenge we have given the current rules and process. And so my recommendation was to begin by providing fairness, which is notice to the respondent and the opportunity to be heard. That is consistent with what's known in lawyer speak as fundamental procedural due process. And I believe that would be the way someone would challenge it. Now, the gentleman went ahead and paid the money because he ain't going to go hire a lawyer for 500 bucks. MR. FUENTES: No. We give him a chance to, as well, give his side of the story. MR. WHITE: But the point is, if he wanted to make his side of the story, the time to have done that would have been before, and he would have done it by way of an email that, consistent with what Lee said, is a kind of written motion for reduction or abatement. Now, could we rewrite the rules to say that the Board is September 22, 2022 Page 20 going to entertain and weigh the factors that are listed? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about they can weigh rather than that they will? MR. WHITE: Well, once you open the door, you've got to open it all the way. You've got to weigh all the factors, which is why over the past X number of months of meetings I've been encouraging the Board to ask, and now I just flat out -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ask. MR. WHITE: -- myself ask the respondents those questions. I'm entitled to that under the existing rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. WHITE: I mean, that's within my scope of job description, if you will. MR. NEALE: My thinking, to some extent, is -- and I agree with your approach that -- you know, that there should be a motion for reduction of fines prior to imposition. That's what the rules say. That's what it should be. What I would suggest is a -- sort of a workaround to it -- and I don't know how everybody feels -- is that if someone comes up -- if you've got the motion for imposition of fines and lien, they come up and say, I've got all kinds of wonderful excuses as to why they should be reduced -- MR. WHITE: Explanations. MR. NEALE: -- explanations, then you say, okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to continue this hearing -- MR. WHITE: Continue it. MR. NEALE: -- and you get the next month to file an appropriate motion -- request for reduction of fines, and then we will hear that prior to hearing your motion for imposition September 22, 2022 Page 21 the following month. And if we deny your request then you go to imposition and you impose what was originally deemed. I think that is a cleaner and simpler procedure. MR. WHITE: That's a great workaround. I would call it post hoc. What I'm trying to suggest is there is a way that you put those respondents on notice -- MR. NEALE: We also put them on notice. MR. WHITE: -- the original order, number one, and two, this is a discussion staff internally has to have -- and I briefly mentioned it to Jeff. We were having a sidebar -- is you have a time frame by which you have to provide notice if the county's going to put something on the agenda for imposition. You've got to give notice of hearing. Well, the only way that the respondent knows that that's going to happen is when that notice of hearing comes out. Staff would have to add in sending something prior to that saying we intend to put this on the agenda. We are putting you on notice consistent with what it said in the order when you first were found in violation, and fines were imposed, that you had to timely file some motion for a reduction. Failing them doing that, then your approach, as you described it, certainly makes sense. I'm just trying to do it in one hearing -- MR. NEALE: What I would suggest, though, is that in that notice of motion to impose fines and liens, you make a point in that notice that they have the opportunity prior to that hearing -- MR. WHITE: I think the -- MR. NEALE: -- and prior to imposition to file that motion for reduction. MR. WHITE: And I think we could adjust that based September 22, 2022 Page 22 on whatever time frames are required for the notice for imposition and the subsequent notice for the motion for reduction. They'd have to be kind of nested one within the other so that both of them could be put on the agenda timely -- MR. NEALE: Yeah. That's -- MR. WHITE: -- and the Board would know they're going to get them both. And for me, writing the orders, it then becomes a whole lot simpler because you're going to -- the Board's going to take an action on either or both of them based on, again, choosing, as you say, to, you know, kind of continue it. MR. NEALE: And I agree. I mean, having -- being the one that writes my own orders, you know, it certainly would be easier for me if there was the ability to have that. You know, essentially, they come up as companion items. MR. WHITE: Yeah. MR. NEALE: The motion for reduction is heard before the motion for imposition -- MR. WHITE: Correct. MR. NEALE: -- and then, you know, they neatly dovetail into each other. MR. WHITE: That's similar to the circumstance where we have discussed earlier, someone wants to, quote, ask for more time when the county's motion for an imposition is pending, and they do so from -- sometimes from the podium, but other times staff has told them ahead of time, and we've kind of characterized it as a motion for continuance. And what I think we may need is a third category, if you will, under those new items that is something like a motion for reduction, because you can have September 22, 2022 Page 23 the motion for reduction heard earlier in the agenda, listed earlier, and also have the county motion for imposition there. We've done things similar to that and treated it as, you know, okay, we're going to continue the time frame you have to come into compliance before we consider the motion for imposition. Because what the Board then does is the county withdraws the motion for imposition, the Board votes to amend the agenda to withdraw it, and we go on in time to see what happens and bring it back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Many -- many times, many times someone will say, I just need another month to come into compliance -- MR. WHITE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and we either ask the county to withdraw it and resubmit it at the next meeting or grant a continuance for another 30 days. MR. WHITE: But you do so by denying the motion for imposition, and that's where the, quote, split the baby thing comes in, because you're denying the request, but you're granting some alternative relief. MR. NEALE: What I do is I actually grant a continuance of the hearing; that the hearing is continued until the next time, because the motion -- MR. WHITE: I tried that when I first started the job. MR. NEALE: Yeah. You know, fortunately, I can continue items. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We do that all the time. MR. WHITE: Yes and no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We do it just -- MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If the county doesn't want September 22, 2022 Page 24 to withdraw their case, we have, in the past, many, many times, said we will grant a continuance, and we'll hear it at that subsequent meeting. MR. WHITE: But you have on your agenda before you still, because the county did not withdraw its motion, the necessity in the order to dispense and dispose of that motion. And what we have done, in writing the orders, is deny the motion but grant the alternative relief of a continuance, and that's kind of worked out without the hiccup. Yes, sir. MR. RUBENSTEIN: And I'm listening to this. Why can't the language written for the Board, through parameters of what they can and can't do, is the list of the following, including -- MR. WHITE: We have that. That's the jurisdictional authorities you have. MR. RUBENSTEIN: So how does that conflict with what you're talking about? MR. WHITE: It's more of a procedural matter because if the county withdraws their motion, it's simple. It's not there. The agenda has, in a sense, changed. It's a zero; it's not there. And so the case just gets put on the next month's agenda. I don't have to write an order. It saves me time. And that's what I asked to be done in one instance, and -- MR. FUENTES: Your time is very valuable. MR. NEALE: What I would suggest is that, you know -- I mean, I do it as a continuance because I follow sort of like court procedure. If a judge decides that he doesn't want to hear a motion today and wants to hear it next month, the judge -- September 22, 2022 Page 25 MR. WHITE: He continues the request. MR. NEALE: I'm going to hear it next month, and he continues it. MR. WHITE: Like I said, I tried writing the order that way. It didn't go well. I colored outside the lines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. MR. WHITE: Okay. Then -- MS. KERINS: The continuance should be of the actual hearing coming before the Board. MR. NEALE: That is precisely what I continue. I don't continue -- MR. WHITE: The motion. MS. KERINS: For example, the homeowner is out of town. The homeowner has COVID. MR. WHITE: Absolutely. MS. KERINS: They want to make sure an expert is here. It should be a continuance of the hearing. MR. NEALE: Right. MS. KERINS: Motions for extension of time should be reserved for people needing to come into compliance or trying to abate an action. MR. NEALE: I continue the hearing if there's -- if there's some justifiable reason given. I issue -- I say the hearing is -- the hearing -- MS. KERINS: Hearing is continued. MR. NEALE: -- the hearing is continued, and I issue an order saying the hearing is continued until -- and Elena can testify to that -- that, you know, I issue an order that says, you know, we are continuing this hearing, not the motion, the hearing on the motion. MS. KERINS: Hearing. And there really should be September 22, 2022 Page 26 no harm to the homeowners in terms of continuance, especially on an imposition of fines because, most likely, if they're following the rules, if they're coming for a reduction or abatement, they've already come into compliance or are starting to make steps towards that compliance. So there shouldn't be an issue with tolls -- of the tolling of the fines or anything like that. MR. NEALE: And to me, this kind of continuance is a tool to use -- MS. KERINS: Yes. MR. NEALE: -- to get them to file a proper motion for reduction of fines. MS. KERINS: Yes. MR. WHITE: And it's also a tool that, when it's put on the agenda, that staff is doing to encourage compliance where there has been, let's say, dilatory or inappropriate, it sounds, excuses as opposed to explanations of why they haven't gotten it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is a time frame on that. If I want to -- I have to take my dog to the dentist, or whatever the hell it is, I have to request that X amount of days before the hearing, and what I'm saying from a practical point of view is it's not done. Almost never does somebody do that ahead of time. So I'm just trying to make it easy. MR. WHITE: And what I believe -- MS. KERINS: And to that point, it may not be being done because it's not within our rules as to how to do it. So I think if we put the public on notice as to procedures to be followed, we might see more compliance with bringing it properly before the Board. Because if I'm a layperson and September 22, 2022 Page 27 I'm reading this, it's not in there now how I go about doing it other than having to show up at the hearing and asking for it ex parte in front of the Board. MR. NEALE: And what I've done with -- you know, if I'm going to continue a motion for fines and liens, then somebody gives me a good justifiable reason, and, you know, I consult with county staff and make sure that there's no significant objection, because I feel like if you're going to do a continuance, to some extent there has to be mutuality between the parties. I will say, okay, we're going to continue this till the next scheduled hearing or 60 days or whatever because, I think -- MR. WHITE: And as long as. MR. NEALE: And then, you know, now I would also say, and, by the way, if you're considering getting -- you want your fines reduced, file a motion. MR. WHITE: And the challenge is, when you have, you know, kind of both sides of the brain being both the adjudicator and your own counsel to yourself, you're in a position to do that. And what I've tried to do is to walk the line with respondents to encourage that process between what the Board's direction is and what I know that staff's, you know, current process has been. And so what I'm saying kind of to Mike and to Jeff and to Helen and the staff, who I love working with, is are you okay with it? What way do you guys think, you know, kind of doesn't put the burden on you because, having been a former assistant County Attorney, I can tell you, what I'm -- Colleen's looking at is, I don't want to be in the place where I burden them with a lot of procedural work that has little or none in terms of a practical effect simply to make September 22, 2022 Page 28 my job easier, no, but to make it clearer to the folks that are there. If you do these things, you will, you know, find a favorable outcome, and you will, in general, no longer have your elected officials saying to appointed officials, hey, look, the system is kind of not broken, but it isn't achieving what we all agree is the public policy objective, and that is compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put -- it says on imposition, Collier County Code Enforcement Board imposition of fines slash lien hearing. Could you add "or reduction" in some fashion word that gives us the authority to do what we do now? MR. WHITE: What I'm -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or what we have been doing. MR. WHITE: What I'm suggesting is that instead of it being on the agenda under, quote-unquote, old business even though it technically is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. WHITE: -- is that it belongs up there as, you know, perhaps a new C, motion for reduction, abatement of fines and liens, and emergency cases becomes, you know, D, whatever. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That works. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify. Continuance, motion of time, that's not all exclusive as of just old business. That could be throughout the hearing. But I want to make sure that we can just move on. I get the motion of reduction, abatement of fines. I don't think the liens is appropriate due to the fact that it's not a September 22, 2022 Page 29 lien, so you're not reducing liens, the Board of County Commissioners' liens. MR. WHITE: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: So we need to work on that a little bit. But at the end of the day, I hear what you're trying to say. We're going to clean up the orders and specify that on the orders that any applicant or respondent has the ability for a motion of reduction or abatement. My only process would be is that if Jeff decides to go ahead and say, you're not really moving forward, the county's going to do a motion for imposition of fines. We send that information out. We should maybe rewrite the letter a little bit. It says, if you wanted to, you can actually have your own motion for reduction or abatement of fines, and if they choose not to, then there is no motion of reduction or abatement of fines because they chose not to, and we go right to a motion for imposition of fines. That's how I would think we -- it's just a matter of cleaning up the language a little bit. So in other words, if you did get into compliance and we sent you an imposition of fines, and then the applicant or the respondent came back and says, well, I want my own motion for reduction, and he provided a list of -- litany of things that -- prescribed by the statute, that will be heard first under Motion A, and if it was granted within -- it goes to -- because you're not imposing anything. And then it goes to our imposition, and that would dovetail into that, too, as well. MR. NEALE: I mean, the way I would view it, I agree, is that I think you -- you know, it's the Article VIII of our -- of the Special Magistrate rules says, it's a motion -- it's September 22, 2022 Page 30 a reduction or abatement of fines prior to imposition of fine. So it's definitely prior to that imposition hearing, and I agree with you, I think you hear that motion for imposition -- or motion for reduction. That's heard. You then make your reduction. Then you go directly to imposition. Imposition is imposing what you just decided. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. NEALE: All you're doing is saying, okay, we decided that the fines are going to be reduced from 15,000 to 500. So ordered. Boom. Next. Motion for imposition. We're going to impose 500. MR. OSSORIO: But it's not mostly -- MR. WHITE: Pat, would you consider that to be two orders or in one? MR. NEALE: I can do it in one. MS. KERINS: You can do it in one. MR. NEALE: You can do it in one. MR. WHITE: Yeah. I only ask because I think I knew the answer and hoped it would be one. MR. NEALE: Because what I would say is it came for the hearing of the motion for imposition of fines, and put both in one. Roll it -- MR. OSSORIO: Just remember, you know, obviously, you still have the latitude of reduction of fines on both A -- and motion of fines and reduction. One is just imposition. However, if you're going to see any kind of imposition from our office going forward, we're going to give that information about reduction of fines to the applicant or the respondent. So if you don't see it, we offered it. They didn't choose to use it. So we go right to imposition. September 22, 2022 Page 31 MR. NEALE: That's it. I mean, if they come in -- and maybe I'm being a little hardnosed about this. But if they came in, they had the opportunity. You know, it's like, you gave them a helicopter, you gave them a boat. If you told them, hey, you've got all the opportunity to file a motion for reduction and you didn't, and now you show up with a motion for imposition and you didn't do anything, I'm going to impose. MR. WHITE: It's kind of hard to argue -- MR. FUENTES: It's hard to impose, though, because -- MR. WHITE: -- you need a, quote, continuance at that point till the next month. MR. NEALE: I mean, so then you just blow through, go right to the imposition, and run. MR. OSSORIO: But it's also -- you could also be abated and still have a request for motion for reduction or abatement of fines. It just -- it's not mutually exclusive that it has to be -- violation has to be pending still. It could be abated. The applicant chose to have a discussion and motion to reduction of his thoughts, and then you come to a conclusion, and then you go right to imposition, or you can say, you know, it's pretty well moot, and it doesn't really make a big difference. Why don't we just go to imposition, because the factors are still going to be weighed in on both times. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're going to clean up the language, and we'll then have a chance to look at it at that time. MR. OSSORIO: Correct. MR. WHITE: And, Mike, as long as the notice has in September 22, 2022 Page 32 it the factors that the Board would subsequently weigh in considering that motion, I think that goes a long way to make things clearer for the respondent and ease the job staff has and Board has, those factors. MS. KERINS: I don't know necessarily we need to have all the factors listed, but if we're just referring them to the rules and regulations, that can be found on the county website or wherever it might be. That way our letter's not four pages long, because we're going to lose people's attention, honestly, if it's too long. As long as we're saying, make sure you're abiding by the rules and regulations and the procedure set forth. MR. NEALE: Put a link in -- MS. KERINS: And put a link or something like that where it's readily accessible; that should cut down -- MR. NEALE: That works for me. MS. KERINS: -- mailing and ink. MR. OSSORIO: Just to clarify, I see this working, and I agree with the whole concept; however, Jeff has mentioned that usually we're going to get something like this if we send a notice out for imposition within 10 days of the hearing. When does -- we send an imposition for motion for 10 days. They shouldn't have an opportunity, three or four days, to say now I want a reduction. So we should come up with a plan that says, if you really want to have a reduction, it should be 20 days -- it should be up to the respondent to do. It's not -- because I don't want to have an imposition hearing letter sent out and all of a sudden they're tripping us with now we want to have -- we want to have a hearing on the waiver of fines. Because ours is 10 days, and they generally get set. So how September 22, 2022 Page 33 are we going to put it on the agenda when you're saying that -- MR. WHITE: Well, there's no -- MR. OSSORIO: -- the reduction in fines has to be heard before imposition? MR. NEALE: But the way the rules are currently written is they can file this motion for reduction the day before -- MR. WHITE: Any time. MR. NEALE: They can file it -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. OSSORIO: But how do we add that to the agenda and give them the due process for the county to look at what their motion really is? It doesn't say the day of the hearing. It says before the hearing. MR. NEALE: Right. So, I mean, I would say that they have to file it within -- you know, they get -- it's 10 days' notice. They have to file it at least three days before the hearing. MS. KERINS: And then Helen can deal with it when she goes through changes to the agenda and does it on the day of the hearing to add it to the agenda. MR. NEALE: Precisely. I think that's the simplest way. MS. KERINS: Yeah. That's the easiest way to do it is just to have it added sua sponte when she's going through these change sheets. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WHITE: Yeah. And that's why it appears earlier in the agenda. MR. OSSORIO: And that goes for imposition for if September 22, 2022 Page 34 you're in compliance or not in compliance, because you hear them both. And I just want to make sure that, you know, we have time to look at it and reflect on it. Also to make sure that -- MR. NEALE: With 10 days' notice, and then they've got to file their motion for reduction three days before a hearing. MR. OSSORIO: If not, we just go right to imposition hearings. MR. NEALE: Now we just -- away we go. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Moving along. MR. WHITE: And if good cause is shown, you still have the option, as Pat has said, to potentially continue it -- MR. NEALE: Continue it. MR. WHITE: -- as a safety valve. MR. NEALE: If they come up with a really good reason, then I can continue the hearing, and the Board can continue the hearing on the motion for imposition to the 30 days out to give both sides a chance to look at everybody's work. MR. OSSORIO: But that goes -- MR. WHITE: Before we move back, I just want to move a little further down, and in Section 5, I want to just make sure everybody's clear that -- no changes here. The Board will not rehear a motion for reduction of fines once a decision has been reached on a previous motion for reduction of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yep. MR. WHITE: Okay? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: You don't get, what, three bites at the September 22, 2022 Page 35 apple. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You only get two. MR. WHITE: All right. Going back to -- I believe we're now on Page 5 of my printout. All I added in was the potential, since you're both boards, two different hats, Roman XIII just indicating, you know, the Nuisance Abatement Board, its hearings, and then adjourn, and that the order of business may be suspended or modified by a vote of the majority of the members present. In Article VII, if there's nothing more about Article VI about the agenda -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'd like to ask a question on VII. MR. WHITE: Sure. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Item 3. MR. WHITE: Section 3. MR. RUBENSTEIN: The first three sentences describes how the notice of violation is sent out to the violator. I've noticed over the months that the majority of the people that come before the podium that English isn't their primary language, and they stand there, and they're lost. And I think when something might be good is when we send out this information, in 3, the first three sentences, that we send it out to them in Spanish as well as English so that when they show up here, they have an understanding of what's going on. MS. KERINS: The problem with that becomes, from staff, and our liability of having to translate into different languages, and then assuming everyone is going to be speaking English or Spanish. If you're going to add something in regarding language, it should be that it is on -- the onus is on the respondent to be able to September 22, 2022 Page 36 communicate with the Board and the Special Magistrate and that translators will not be provided by the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That used to be the case in the past the county provided translators. Someone decided -- and I don't disagree with it -- that English is our language. If you want someone to translate, then you need to provide that person to do the translating. MS. KERINS: Correct, and that's consistent with how the Court's run, at least in civil court. We should be consistent and not have to take on that additional expense and burden, fortunately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As far as putting something in Spanish in the writeup that is sent out, I mean, I have no problem with doing that. It's just a translator that's at the podium, so... MS. KERINS: I don't think the county needs to take on that burden of making sure things are translated. MR. WHITE: Your rules in English. MS. KERINS: Everything's in English. Keep it English. Every other part of the county ordinances are provided in English. Let them deal with it, unfortunately. MR. WHITE: And the point that was rightly made -- and the deletion is to take out the words "and a copy of the rules and regulations." We don't send them a copy of the rules and regulations. We could, arguably, put a hyperlink in for them to be able to find it, but it's deleted. At the end of the article in Section 5 on Page 6, it simply correctly -- we add adherence of the Special Magistrate's rules, the words "or in the interest of justice." It kind of just clarifies what the guidelines are for an emergency situation. September 22, 2022 Page 37 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: A housekeeping item in Article VIII under Section 1, small letter d, it says, any facts or evidence stipulated to may be presented to the board members, not must be, using the word "shall," and making it clear that it would be as requested consistent with Article IX(a), pertaining to hearings below, and that would be in the non-contested case. The only evidence in Article X, this is -- or excuse me, Article Roman IX, hearings, small letter a, Page 7, in a non-contested case, the only evidence heard shall be the statement of the violation and any stipulated agreement unless additional information is requested from the Board. That's consistent, I think, with what the prior practice has been as I've experienced it. So it just kind of cleans up what it is we do. There may be, from time to time, based on my discussions with Mr. Neale, Ms. Kerins, Mr. Ossorio, some other words that, as your scriveners, your scribes, we might choose to put in to clarify things, correct grammar, spelling, capitalization, et cetera, and all those kind of non-substantive things I'm just glossing right over before you guys do completely -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Scrivener error stuff. MR. WHITE: -- get glossed over. On Page 9 of mine -- yours may have printed out differently. It's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Article? MR. WHITE: The article number, Roman numeral IX still, but it is under small letter o. We just reflected what the state statute is, up to 15,000 per violation if the Board finds the violation to be irreparable or reversible [sic]. One September 22, 2022 Page 38 of those scrivener kind of things that we did is everywhere the word "respondent" or "alleged violator" -- they're now kind of combined in the sense that you could be either one because, in particular, you might be an alleged violator if you're issued a citation, and until you come to hearing, then you're a respondent. I hope that isn't too confusing. Beginning a discussion about rehearing stuff. Under small letter q, a party may file a motion for a rehearing to comply based only on the grounds, et cetera, and that a motion for rehearing shall specify the precise reasons in support of its grounds. We're trying to make sure that people don't just say "because," like my 13-year-old. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to rehear a case. We're here to hear where we screwed up at the original hearing or if you have some new evidence. We're not here to rehash the past. MR. WHITE: Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that more or less? MR. WHITE: Yes, it is. And what you're doing is, in small letter renumbered to r, I think it is, or small letter -- some -- let me start over. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Some small letter. MR. WHITE: Yeah. Small letter i, under q. Under q. MR. NEALE: Q, small i. MR. WHITE: There you go. It says, make the determination on the motion for rehearing as to whether or not to rehear it, and that the decision is reduced to writing and mailed out within 10 days. If you determine that the grounds are not met, this is small ii, and it's denied, this is a larger point of discussion, and I believe that this following September 22, 2022 Page 39 set of words are the most appropriate crystallization of our best understanding of how to apply the rules of appellate procedure, state law, and a practical good public policy process. I say all of those words for the record. Let me just kind of read through what it says so that we all kind of understand how it ought to work. What we're saying is the Board determines, like I said, they're going to deny it. It puts in some timing provisions, because they weren't really clearly stated before. And it says, basically, you have 20 days from mailing of the rehearing order, but the bottom three lines, such that the prior order will then relate back to and be considered to be legally in effect when initially rendered whereby fines may be imposed for noncompliance as of the date specified in the prior order. I believe that that was a conversation we had earlier on in my tenure, and we've had maybe one or two instances where it might have come up, and this implements what it was that the Board had said it wanted to do and what it believed to be the proper process. The rules didn't say it before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that's what we did. I don't know if you folks remember that case, but if you didn't do it that way, a respondent could ask for a rehearing all the time, and the fines would automatically be reduced, and that wasn't the point. MR. WHITE: Right. Jumping to the other leg of the outcome, not a denial, but a granting of the rehearing, you hold it at the next meeting. And what happens relative to the original prior order that you issued is that it continues to be stayed, but the time for taking an appeal has to continue to be tolled. That September 22, 2022 Page 40 is because that's what the rules of appellate procedure basically say about how you handle a motion for rehearing. So your time to take an appeal is tolled, but if at the end of the day you get to the place where you decided you're going to modify or reverse your prior order, then you had that order stayed, and you can take whatever action you want to take -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Agreed. MR. WHITE: -- with a new subsequent order. MR. NEALE: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes. MS. KERINS: There's differences -- yes, there's differences at this point between the Special Magistrate rules and what Code Enforcement does in terms of written motions to stay appeals and the tolling of the time period to file the appeal pending a rehearing. I think there needs to be significant discussion on this point to clarify, because if there's going to be -- we just need to pick something, honestly, and come to an agreement as to how these things are going to be dealt with so that there's no legal issues as to differences between procedures between the two boards and the Magistrate. MR. NEALE: I would suggest that this is a discussion that is best held among the three lawyers as opposed to the three of us shouting about appellate rules in front of the Board. I think that would be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't try to confuse us with the facts. MR. WHITE: No, no, with the rules. MR. NEALE: But I think one of the -- one of the issues that I think is, at the very least, I think the provision September 22, 2022 Page 41 saying "stay," it should be "stay of the enforcement of the Board's prior order," because you're not staying the order per se. You're staying its enforcement. MR. WHITE: I agree. MR. NEALE: I would also -- my leaning is that the -- and absent authority to the contrary, my leaning is that the filing of a motion for rehearing does not stay the time to file an appeal. MS. KERINS: I agree. MR. WHITE: I think we'll have a conversation about that, and I will refer you to the Florida rule of appellate procedure. MS. KERINS: I tend to agree with Mr. Neale on this point. MR. WHITE: I don't disagree from a pragmatic and policy perspective. I'm simply illuminating what you don't -- anyway... MR. NEALE: We'll look at the rules and talk about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fight it another day. MR. AYASUN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MR. AYASUN: I have a question. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. AYASUN: When we impose a fine, say $500, and we tell them they have to pay this in 90 days, correct -- MR. WHITE: I think your -- MR. AYASUN: Any -- MR. WHITE: You're just jumping to the next article, X, for -- I don't know. MR. AYASUN: Okay. But it's -- I think we're talking about the notice. I think at that point, don't we have September 22, 2022 Page 42 to tell them where they can appeal this to? MR. WHITE: That's in every order. Every order has language regarding -- MR. AYASUN: I mean, I'm talking about here, when we don't say it, do we think we should say it, you can appeal this decision? MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The disclaimer -- MR. WHITE: I would advise you to not advise people on what their legal rights are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The disclaimer that I read before we have the meeting says if you would -- MR. WHITE: It's not your job. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- but I'm saying, it's read at every meeting. MR. WHITE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's how we open the meeting up. MR. WHITE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, to Tarik's point, he doesn't get to see the final order that I sign. MR. WHITE: I'm happy to share them with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But that would -- that would answer his question. MR. WHITE: I'm happy to have Mr. Kaufman, at his discretion, share them with you. MR. AYASUN: I would rather not, because this discussion we are having is a little bit over the head, because the people we're dealing with hardly understand what we're saying to them. So we are like here Harvard Law School. They're Lely High School. And I feel bad about that, but September 22, 2022 Page 43 there's nothing I can do. MR. WHITE: The whole point -- MR. AYASUN: We're doing the best we can. MR. WHITE: That's the whole point and purpose of trying to clarify these rules and to have processes in place that the staff implements to follow these rules. MR. AYASUN: Correct, correct. MR. WHITE: Because that is the way it should be. It should be fair. If you want to gain compliance, you ought to help people to achieve it. It should be predictable and consistent. MR. AYASUN: Well, my worry was if you go in the streets of East Naples or Golden Gate Estates or whatever, the word is, don't worry. If they come and write a ticket, take your time, and they'll forgive you anyway. MR. FUENTES: Forgive it. MR. AYASUN: So all this time is wasted, the county wastes money. I guess we don't get money, and I don't care -- MR. WHITE: You guys get paid even less. MR. AYASUN: Yes, and I don't mind. Because it's some service we are doing. But I want that impression to be lifted from the streets by having a few people getting fines and they tell their friends no, no, no, do it. MR. WHITE: And my goal is to be able to have you do what it is that you've desired to do over the past few months but do it in a lawful manner so that if you get sued by somebody's that's a fancy pants like me -- MR. AYASUN: You mean it's not lawful? MR. WHITE: -- you don't lose. MR. BLANCO: Mr. White. September 22, 2022 Page 44 MR. WHITE: Let's put it this way, when you impose a fine of tens of thousands of dollars, as a hypothetical discussion, you put a respondent in the place to say, how much is it going to cost me to appeal that or challenge it? That's all. I don't want to -- and like I said before, I want to make sure that your orders are upheld by a judge. MR. BLANCO: Mr. White, a quick question from what you touched on that the Board shouldn't be advising the respondent on what their legal rights or legal avenues are. MR. WHITE: Correct, correct. MR. BLANCO: Another point on that, in the past we've had previous board members or board members that are no longer here -- I'm not going to mention any names -- that have gone beyond telling the respondent you should do this or do that or -- I feel like there should be some type of rule for us board members that there has to be a limit as to how much we're sitting here mandating, telling the respondent you've got to do A, B, and C. I think that's between respondent and the county. MR. WHITE: I agree, I agree. And I think -- I distinguish that from, you know, the unauthorized practice of law giving someone legal counsel, as to simply say, again, if the goal is to obtain compliance and you're offering practical guidance on how to work the county system, that's not a bad thing. And I think the Chair has oftentimes used, you know, the appropriate level of kind of balance and good exercise and discretion in that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The county has somebody who takes care of these difficult questions -- MR. WHITE: Who helps, yes. September 22, 2022 Page 45 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and quite often we refer the respondent to that individual. MR. WHITE: Yeah. MR. BLANCO: But we've had previous board members in the past who have even said, well, that's illegal or used words like that. MR. WHITE: Yeah, that's ill advised. MR. BLANCO: Yeah. I think that's, you know -- and Bob does an excellent job doing that, but I think just as a reminder for everybody else, that our -- MR. WHITE: It's not our job. MR. BLANCO: -- duties here are limited, and I think we're just -- sometimes we get in the emotion aspect of it, and we go beyond what we're called to do here. MR. WHITE: Let me assure you that in doing my job, I will try to walk the line of supporting the Chair or, if necessary, preempting the Chair in addressing that with a board member from my position. You may not always think it's the kindest thing to do but I, again, believe that we need to treat the people at the podium with respect and not disagree with each other, if you will, in public. Certainly, we all get a vote, but I can tell you that just as recently as yesterday -- and Mr. Allen sat to my right, at Contractor Licensing Board -- I withdrew a motion because I could tell from a discussion that it was not going to pass. And what I believe in and encourage you as board members with respect to each other and to the jobs you do to the best of your ability as a public service is the idea of comity, which, from lawyer speak, kind of means you all try to achieve consensus in what you do. When you have votes against a motion -- and I anticipate when I do and am not September 22, 2022 Page 46 going to support a motion, I articulate my perspective of why not, because what I want my other board members to understand is my reasoning behind my vote. And I encourage the board members to do that if they have what they sense is a minority position. Because it should be heard, and you all should understand what each other are kind of thinking. Because the goal over time is to be as unified in as much of a consensus of perspective, because that reinforces that message you want to send to the people out there who seem to be hearing something different about how this system operates. And so if you wanted to, you know, kind of work as efficiently and effectively as possible, the more you're all kind of speaking with the same voice, I believe it helps resonate that message of compliance, compliance, compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Moving ahead. MR. OSSORIO: I've just got one little question/clarification, because I just had a quick thought on Section 6, old business. I know we talked about motions of reduction and abatement of fines and then motion of imposition. Would it be prudent for county to go forward, since I don't think it's mostly -- it's not mutually exclusive that we have to not motion for reduction. Could we send letters out saying that we're going to have a motion of reduction and abatement of fines and a motion of imposition so we can speak to the motion of reduction in fines, and then after the -- after that particular motion, we go to just the imposition of fines. Because we do speak to the reduction in fines on the September 22, 2022 Page 47 imposition of fines when the investigator comes up and talks about, you know, the factors of why we're here. And I know you're commingling those two items. But my thought would be is that if we just commingled one letter saying that the County Attorney's going for a reduction of fines and an imposition, and you can just have a -- it's just an agenda item. And so you're speaking to the reduction, and then once those factors are mitigated on the reduction of fines, say, a number of a thousand, then that is agreed upon, and then you go to imposition, and then you fine that amount. MR. WHITE: You can arguably combine it into one motion, perhaps. This is new ground, and so I'm kind of talking off the top of my hat. But what is the challenge to having the Board consider a motion for the reduction of an imposed fine? MR. NEALE: I think what we'd have to do is significantly amend the rules, because the rules right now put the burden for the reduction on the respondent. MR. WHITE: On the respondent. MR. NEALE: You know, the county can't ask for a reduction. It's the respondent that has to ask for the reduction. MR. WHITE: And that goes back to the whole notion of the recommendation sheets having listed at the bottom a series of factors. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Severity. MR. WHITE: And it doesn't list all of them. And as we saw today -- and I had a sidebar discussion with Jeff. What one of the factors says in the rules is prior violations. From my point of view, that means there was an order or a September 22, 2022 Page 48 citation issued. It isn't there's a case note and somebody voluntarily complied. I think the -- you know, the lawyerly perspective in a criminal conduct is that's not admissible evidence. It's a prior bad act. MS. KERINS: Correct. Mr. White, you're correct. The term "violation," I believe, is defined within our ordinance as being something previously adjudicated by the Board. MR. WHITE: So when you're putting it on the record -- and I think staff is going to do this going forward is it's only going to be those ones where there's been a determination made, an adjudication, if you will. MS. RUIZ: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. MS. RUIZ: When is the appropriate time, you know, to come up with that? MR. WHITE: To Mike's point, you know, the staff is, in a way, challenged to be on both faces of the coin -- bad pun intended -- when they want to impose a fine, but they, themselves, through the investigator's experience have recognized that the Board may have ordered 60 days, but based on what happened dealing with, you know, the process, it wasn't a reasonable period of time. And so staff is putting on the record and telling the Board, hey, your original order said 60, but that wasn't really reasonable because they ended up needing six months, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've done that in the past. When the imposition of fines comes up, if the officer, whether it's Joe or whatever, says listen -- MR. WHITE: They do. I'm not saying -- September 22, 2022 Page 49 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and we take that into consideration. That's how we do -- MR. WHITE: I'm not saying -- sorry, Mr. Chairman. MS. RUIZ: My question really is, when is the appropriate time, you know, to ask the question or to clarify? MR. WHITE: Ms. Ruiz. MS. RUIZ: When is the appropriate time to address the Board, the rest of the board members on that specific issue? MR. WHITE: Assuming for the sake of your question that the respondent didn't file a motion for reduction or abatement and you have that conversation in front of the Board, I believe the best way to fully clarify and give you the best set of balanced informations is to have all of those factors listed at the bottom of the recommendation sheet. Now, if the staff wants to not answer it, that's at their option, but what it's doing is putting you in a position to either -- be the ones to ask that question. And the example I use is, a reasonable period of time. Let's say, for example, you voted against a motion on the original order because you thought more time was needed than what the Board ordered. You thought they needed nine months, but the Board thought it was six; the majority went for six. So you're at a point where you can -- because that factor is listed at the bottom of the recommendation, you're prompted to say, I believe we should reduce this because it turned out to not be a reasonable period of time. And, oh, by the way, this other factor, which you heard me asking people today, how much did it cost you to do this, September 22, 2022 Page 50 what's it going to -- you know, we haven't delved into those things as fully as I think could help inform the Board to reach a balanced decision. And given the process steps we're talking about making changes to, I think you can come to a more unified perspective on what the appropriate reduction may be or even if one's not warranted. But I can, like I said before, a couple of months back and prior, we don't even ask -- they don't even articulate what the financial hardship may be if you impose a $90,000 fine on someone who's basically destitute, or it's an estate. You see what I'm saying? And so by just listing all of those factors for a reduction, I think you're balancing the other face of the coin for the imposition. MS. RUIZ: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Because what you have is a recommendation that's being made as part of an agenda item that's a motion for imposition of fine or lien. But if you have all of the factors that are in there for the reduction, even if you don't have a motion properly and timely filed for a reduction where the respondent does it, you know, the way we'd like them to, you're at least, again, in a place where you can ask those questions you're kind of prompted by what you're seeing in those list of recommendations. MS. RUIZ: Thank you, sir. MR. NEALE: I would suggest -- I don't know how the County Attorney feels about it -- that it would be appropriate for either myself as the Special Magistrate, or the Board, that if someone comes forth with those factors, is that they put on the record that the Board or the Special Magistrate is treating this as if you had timely filed -- September 22, 2022 Page 51 MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. NEALE: -- a motion for reduction of fines and, therefore, we're going to consider this prior to making the decision on the motion for imposition of fines and liens. I think it's -- it's clearer and more defensible, at least. MR. WHITE: I don't know that Terri will specifically recall, but there have been instances where I've kind of said that a time or two trying, again, to prime the pump to be able to be in a place where we're more clearly recognizing how we apply the rules, and because we're having a discussion with rewriting them and some of the modifications to process, I think it will help all of us to do our jobs, you know, more efficiently. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the impositions, the bottom of this sheet, it says, the gravity of the violation is low. The gravity of the violation is moderate. What steps have been taken? Et cetera, et cetera. It's on the sheets. MR. WHITE: But it's not complete -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. WHITE: -- in the sense of all the factors aren't there. MR. FUENTES: Some of the factors, to me, seem kind of irrelevant, though, because if someone were to violate, let's say, putting up an illegal shed. MR. WHITE: Yep. MR. FUENTES: No one told you to do that. You assumed the responsibility and the risk by making an ignorant decision by not pulling the permits necessary, and now I have to sit here and weigh in the factors of your ignorance to determine whether or not the fine is too severe or not. We do that anyways, but it's kind of like, what does September 22, 2022 Page 52 that information matter? They violated the code. MR. WHITE: Well, in that case you should impose the fines every time. MR. FUENTES: And then it takes six years to fix it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You could say, I murdered somebody, but, you know, I missed the sixth grade when I was growing up. That's not -- that doesn't come to play. You built the building. You didn't pull the permit. You need to pull the permit. I didn't know. Ignorance is no excuse for the law. We could go on and on and on. MR. FUENTES: It's not even that. I mean, half the time, then we forgive them. But then you sit there and you look at the code case, and it's been opened since 2016. And you've got one of the investigators up here, well, I inherited the case because the case belonged to 17 other, you know, investigators that are either in another area or have left. I don't know what's going on. And, yeah, it's been eight years. What do we do? Well, let's go ahead and ask them how severe his wallet was so that we can make a decision on that. I mean, well, sir, you took nine years to fix it. Whose fault is that? When there's a will, there's a way. If they want to fix it, they're going to fix it. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Is it our place to ask their personal financial situation, whether they can or can't pay? I mean, we had -- last month or the month before, we had Lowe's sitting here, a Fortune 500 company. Are we going to ask their attorney, can you pay this fine if it's imposed? Of course not. MR. WHITE: Of course, you should -- September 22, 2022 Page 53 MR. RUBENSTEIN: I think the -- let me -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. WHITE: -- if, as last month, Mr. Rubenstein -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: Let me finish. MR. WHITE: Let's make sure the record is clear, sir. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Let me finish, please. Are we going to do both sides of the coin or just one or none? MR. WHITE: I believe what you just heard the director of Code Enforcement say is that it's both. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And if I'm misunderstanding, then you have the wrong attorney working for you, because that's what the rules say. And I'm telling you, you should probably follow the rules. And if the best way you can do it is to simply, at the bottom of the recommendation, list all of the factors, that if you're going to entertain what is effectively an untimely oral motion for a reduction of a fine at a hearing, the best way to do that and be fair to yourselves in making an appropriate decision and fair to the respondent and fair to the process is to have the factors there. If you choose not to ask it or if there is no information or you think it's irrelevant, that's why you're there. You're there to weigh those things. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. I'm just trying to tell you what the job is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we do that. The only time -- MR. WHITE: I believe you do, Mr. Chairman. I'm -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I understand. And we do that unless the respondent is not present. MR. WHITE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if you're not present, September 22, 2022 Page 54 that's a problem, number one. MR. WHITE: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number 2, if you didn't pay your fees for the last hearing, we generally don't hear them then, although we have. But that has been a long-standing rule of the Board. MR. WHITE: I think that falls under the category of actions taken by the respondent to correct the violation. MR. NEALE: If they don't show up, then... MR. WHITE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. KERINS: It's a totality of the circumstances when you're looking at these factors. They're not mutually exclusive. MR. WHITE: Correct. MS. KERINS: And in each of these sections, just to the point regarding finances and all that, we do have a catch-all in here regarding "and other factors that may be considered by the Board." So as long as we're going through and looking at it in the totality as opposed to just picking one or two factors, we'll be fine. MR. WHITE: And that's basically what I'm saying is you can choose any one of them or more of them and give them whatever weight you think is appropriate. MR. FUENTES: So, I mean, what we technically do now is, or what you have been advising is, ask them if it's going to hinder them. Now, we haven't taken that into consideration, but we do consider the time frame of the case. We consider the severity the case. What type of case it is, right? Like, if it's a nuisance abatement case where they've had junk September 22, 2022 Page 55 vehicles, neighbor's been complaining, and they've got a hobo living inside the car, and it's been going on for, again, two years, I'd consider that pretty severe, right? So we consider those factors. My question is, Mr. White's been suggesting that we take into account the financial part. If we excluded the financial part, and we were looking at the other factors, is that -- is that sufficient? Again, we're looking at the time frame of the case, severity, what type of case it is, what kind of complaint was from. Was it an AIMS, was it something where it was just a neighbor making a complaint? Was it a drive-by, and then they witnessed it? MS. KERINS: It's going to have to be case-by-case basis as to how these factors come into play. And in terms of the finances, the focus should be more in terms of the finances as to whether or not the gravity of the violation fits the fines. For example, if you have a drug house that's been going on for two years, that should be considered maybe a little more severely than little Old Lady Sue who has overgrown grass or a broken-down car in her driveway. MR. FUENTES: Absolutely. MS. KERINS: So those are things to consider, not necessarily putting an emphasis on the ability to pay but whether or not the penalty makes sense as to what the underlying violation is. That's kind of a more conservative way to guide your decisions regarding fines and whatnot. And I believe Mr. Neale will probably agree that that's the emphasis, not necessarily ability to pay, but -- MR. FUENTES: So I guess with that information, I kind of feel that perhaps we haven't been making an error. You know, I think some of the rulings we've done have been September 22, 2022 Page 56 okay, then. MS. KERINS: To the contrary, it shouldn't be a situation where you're assessing more fines to a corporation just because it's a corporation. MR. FUENTES: Of course, yeah. MS. KERINS: So with that said, the opposite is also true. MR. NEALE: I mean, it's really -- the way I always look at it is it's a couple of factors. It's does the punishment fit the crime? MS. KERINS: Yes. MR. NEALE: You know, is a -- is a $5,000 fine reasonable? But you also -- and one of the things -- and at least in the Special Magistrate's rules it says things that may be considered. It doesn't say they shall be considered. But you may consider the economic impact on the violator. You don't have to, but you may. But it's more -- it's more equitable factors that, you know, is this an appropriate punishment for what this party has done? MR. FUENTES: Absolutely. MR. NEALE: And is it a punishment to sort of the -- from the public policy side of it, is it a punishment that they will be able to execute on? MR. FUENTES: I guess what I'm just trying to clarify is, at least from my perspective, I could never sit here and question will this fine hinder the individual. It's not a factor that I consider. I consider the severity, compliance. One thing I like to ask the investigators, hey, did you have communication? Did they neglect you? For instance, we had that case with the young lady from Golden Gate City September 22, 2022 Page 57 where she's like -- the investigator's like, I've knocked on this door several times. She tells me I can't come in. Well, you're not being compliant. You're trying to fight the process. I would never be able to feel that I should -- you know, case dependent, you're not willing to comply with the county. I feel that you're not working with us, that, yeah, I would probably say let's impose a fine of X amount, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since we're not doing it, and Patrick is asking them, that takes care of us. Done. MR. BLANCO: And I think at the end of the day, also, the difference between the Code Enforcement Board and the Special Magistrate is at the end of -- at the end of the day we are a board. At the end of the day, it's how each individual member sees it and what factors they find relevant in that case. MR. WHITE: Absolutely. MR. BLANCO: There's not going to be any scenario -- and the Assistant County Attorney just said that we're -- it has to be a case-by-case basis. MR. WHITE: But she also said it's the totality of factors. MR. BLANCO: Correct. MR. WHITE: And all I'm trying to illuminate is, there are factors out there that never are inquired or even considered. And one of them that's even less frequently talked about is -- and this is in your rules. I didn't write these things. I'm simply trying to, again, illuminate it. It says, the value of the real estate compared to the amount of the fine or lien. September 22, 2022 Page 58 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mentioned that at one of the hearings today. MR. WHITE: Yes, you did; yes, you did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. And -- MR. WHITE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- by you asking those questions, are you financially able, et cetera, et cetera, we have now lived up to the true meaning of the rules, so can we move from here? MR. WHITE: I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have more rules to go over. MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're done? MR. WHITE: Nothing is nothing. Nothing further. MS. KERINS: Yeah. Everything else was just stylistic or just grammar. MR. WHITE: Those were the big issues and but for the one I think, you know, the attorneys will discuss -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you guys are going to -- you guys, whomever, are going to write something up that clarifies a lot of this stuff, and then we'll have a chance to review that stuff as a board, and I'm certainly sure that Mr. Neale is going to be doing the same thing from the Magistrate's perspective. MR. NEALE: And, really, our goal is to try and make it so that there's no reason for someone to think they're getting a better or worse deal being in front of the Board or being in front of the Special Magistrate; that we're operating from, essentially, the same -- we're working from the same rulebook so that if someone -- if the staff decides they're September 22, 2022 Page 59 going to bring somebody in front of the Board or bring someone in front of the Special Magistrate, the person feels like they're getting appropriate treatment and they're getting fair treatment. MR. WHITE: Or the third leg, which is, you know, staff has the discretion to refer a case to a county court judge. MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. WHITE: So at the end of the day, what we have to be able to assure to be predictable and consistent is that whatever your rules are and how you apply them and how I interpret and advise you about them is that, you know, you're effectively creating three different paths that should, arguably, regardless of how they're heard, lead to a somewhat similar outcome, you know, case after case after case. MR. NEALE: And I think, you know, the issues that are really -- is the procedures, how cases move through each hearing, the things that people can or cannot do as far as appeals, rehearings, and things like that so that both groups, both the Board and myself as a Special Magistrate, are doing them the same way so that nobody can say, well, you know, the Code Enforcement Board is a lot tougher on this so, boy, I really want to get with the Special Magistrate kind of thing -- is that it's very clear that the rules for appeals and all those kinds of things are identical and that, you know, nobody can be -- can feel like they got a bad deal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me give you a 30-second -- first, I'd like to thank the Board. I think the Board has been super for many, many years. We've never been overturned. People come here, they're not paid, and September 22, 2022 Page 60 they deserve some thanks. MR. NEALE: Definitely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And some day I want to thank our coffee bringer, Mr. Ossorio, who brings some coffee, albeit, so strong it would grow hair on your chest, which is okay for me, but it might not be okay for Kathleen. But I think the Board does a terrific job in being, A, fair to the county and, moreover, fair to the taxpayers of Collier County. MR. WHITE: I view Code Enforcement -- you know, I've prosecuted hundreds and hundreds of cases. I've defended a dozen or so. And so I've kind of seen it in a light, I think, that I try to do my job by giving you the best balance to perspective I can. You may never have been sued because, you know, it's David and Goliath. But the point is, each of the attorneys here took an oath. MR. FUENTES: Well, I got sued once. MR. WHITE: I'm saying as a board. MR. FUENTES: Fogg's Nursery. MR. WHITE: I'm saying as a board. And so, you know, my point is real simple: I agree with the Chairman. I absolutely am astounded that, you know, folks take the time as citizens to come in and volunteer and provide this level of public service. My goal is to help you to be the best you can be sitting in that chair. And Mike knows exactly what I'm saying. He's seen it on the Contractor Licensing Board side where, you know, we've worked within the process to help improve it. But at the end of the day, make no mistake, I'm fully supportive of the fact that, you know, if you've got to drop a hammer on somebody, or a hatchet, you ought to do so. September 22, 2022 Page 61 My goal is to make sure that when you do, they're done. MR. FUENTES: I've got one question. This is more for you, Mr. White. Is there a way that we can set up a system where, when you're not in agreement with something we're doing, that you can address it with us through some type of group chat, maybe here on the monitors? One of the things that occurs sometimes is things get brought up in front of individuals and there's a little bit of back and forth. Can we make a system where when you're not in agreement, we have a way to read your message where we're not in front of the camera live with our County Attorney telling us X, Y, and Z? MR. WHITE: I'm not your County Attorney. I use to be. I understand exactly what you're saying, and I try to be very judicious about my comments, and I try to be very measured when I make them. And I'll go back to the example. And Mr. Letourneau agreed with what it is that I was suggesting to you. And I understand that you all have your own perspective, and I respect that. I bear no ill will. And Bob and I have talked about this stuff. MR. FUENTES: Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong. MR. WHITE: What I'm saying is -- MR. FUENTES: I'm saying how can we address it differently, if possible? MR. WHITE: By improving the rules and the process. That's, I believe, how you do it so that we're literally all on the same page. MR. FUENTES: I don't normally give men my cell phone number, but if you want it so you can text me when you're not in agreement, you'll have it. September 22, 2022 Page 62 MS. KERINS: Keep in mind we live in the Sunshine here. That's all I'll say. MR. WHITE: That's my point as well is you are a collegial board, and when I give counsel, I give it to the whole board. I'm not trying to make it appear or feel individual. I'm really trying to do everything I can to make you be the best board members and the best Code Enforcement Board in all 67 jurisdictions in this state. MR. FUENTES: That's easy. They have me, but yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think when we show up here, we all have the same thing in mind: Try to be fair to everybody, let everybody speak. And, like Danny said, we have a lot of different perspectives. We come from different lines of business and whatnot. We live in different areas of Collier County, and I think it brings a lot to that. It's tougher for Neale. MR. WHITE: No, it's easier. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, he's one person. So this way at least I can blame something on Danny and Kathleen. MR. WHITE: Or me, or me. MR. FUENTES: Or Sue. MR. WHITE: My lawyer made me do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we don't fight after the meeting. We fight during the meeting. MR. WHITE: I think that's Ms. Kerin's point is -- to yours, Mr. Fuentes, it, unfortunately, has to be there. If I believe that you're kind of getting close to one of the rules, you pay me to kind of be like I am a parent to my son, kind of a guardrail. September 22, 2022 Page 63 MR. AYASUN: If I may say something, and it's not serious, so it's between you and me. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. AYASUN: You usually -- you used the words "splitting babies." MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. AYASUN: And every time you said it, I sizzled, because we have a pregnant person here. MR. WHITE: My middle name -- MR. AYASUN: Maybe the record should show it's you splitting hairs, but then you, I, and a couple others here -- MR. WHITE: I love that. MR. FUENTES: I have hair. MR. WHITE: Let me just take 30 seconds and tell you my middle name is Gerard, who is the patron saint of pregnant women, and so I have a deep empathy and understanding and say with the wisdom of Solomon, I will split hairs going forward. MR. AYASUN: Okay. Thank you. MR. NEALE: On that note... MR. AYASUN: It was just a joke. It wasn't real. MR. WHITE: Are we adjourned, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tarik, are you okay? MR. WHITE: Do you want to adjourn, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. I'd like to adjourn. Get a motion. MR. BLANCO: Make a motion. MS. ELROD: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion September 22, 2022 and a second to adjourn. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the workshop was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 : 10 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RopBE UFMAN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on Q6 :,27)472.4 as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 64