Mayor Thurston opened the discussion to the public.
Mr. Alan Brown, Lauderhill resident, commented, at the reading of the subject
resolution, and looking at the modification to vehicle use policy: GA-13, and the
travel policy: GA-23, and going down to the clarification that public officers, and
others who were nonemployees were not permitted to use city vehicles, but that
the City had that exact situation occur, asking for clarification.
Mayor Thurston clarified the subject resolution stated more clearly the use of
city vehicles in the manner laid out in the resolution.
City Attorney Rosenberg indicated the policy component was still under
investigation, so it had yet to be ruled on; what had been ruled on was whether
there was criminal violations, and none were found. This was separate, and
distinct from city policy, which was not yet investigated, so it could not be
discussed at present; it was about to be under pending investigation, where the
findings would be examined to determine if there was a city policy violation. She
stated, in the interim, the City Manager and she reviewed the policies, and
identified language in the policy where they thought the wording needed
clarification, and the subject resolution was to ensure the City’s intent was
expressly stated in words that under no circumstances was a member of the
City Commission, or board members were to use city vehicles, along with other
provisions.
The numerous amendments included clear language in the
definitions, such as: neither a city commissioner, nor any public officer as
defined by State statute, neither of whom were city employees, so they should
not be driving city vehicles; additionally, the revised language stated the entire
handling of all city vehicles was moved from the Fleet Division to under Public
Works; there were expressed requirements that all city vehicles should have an
identifiable keychain to indicate the vehicle as the property of the City of
Lauderhill, so if the keys were found, the Public Works Department was to be
notified. She added city staff was re-monitoring, and checking every city-owned
vehicle to ensure was equipped with an automatic vehicle location (AVL) device,
in which there was a tracking device to help provide information for safety
purposes on the city end; the AVL device helped track speed, if a seatbelt was
being worn, if brakes were applied in the event of an accident to help determine
who was at fault. The resolution included provisions for vehicle maintenance;
the only ride-alongs permitted were in police and fire vehicles, and as those two
department policies provided.
She restated those persons who were not
allowed to be transported in city vehicles, and under the travel policy, GA-23, the
language expressly addressed the use of city vehicles by public officers, going
through each of the steps with an explanation.
For example, public officers
could not use city vehicles, though if they needed a vehicle for travel, one could
be rented on their behalf, or they could fly, take a train, etc., but this option was
for city business use only, with the purpose clearly shown, and detailed on an
affidavit attesting the reason for the use that was already in effect. City Attorney
Rosenberg said the goal was to tighten up any provisions whose language
might not be clear, making sure the intent of each policy was spelled out to
close any potential gaps.
Varion Harris, Lauderhill resident, noted he heard nothing about the person
driving a city vehicle must have a valid driver’s license.
City Attorney Rosenberg explained she did not go through every detail of the
policy that comprised about 21 pages, and that was an existing requirement in
