1 (11-9-00 Charter Review Board) **NOTIFICATION: **This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the **following meeting. it should be used for informational **purposes only. this document has not been edited; **therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words that **did not translate. >>JAN SMITH: GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. AND WELCOME TO THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW BOARD MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. BELTRAN PLEASE TO LEAD US IN A SALUTE TO THE FLAG. >>HENRY BELTRAN: THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE. [ ROLL CALL TAKEN ] >>RECORDING SECRETARY: YOU HAVE A QUORUM. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU ARE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA RIGHT NOW. IF ANYONE IN THE COUNTY CENTER OR AROUND TV WANTS TO LET US KNOW WHAT TRANSPIRES AT OUR BREAK, WE WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION REGARDING THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 12th AND OCTOBER 26th TO CONSIDER. ON THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 12th, ARE THERE ANY OTHER -- IS THERE A MOTION? TO APPROVE THOSE? I THINK MAYBE THEY -- ARE THESE THE ONES THAT WERE FAXED TO 2 YOU? AND HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THEM? >>GERALD WHITE: MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE MINUTES, MADAM CHAIR. >>DAVID HURLEY: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12th. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. NOW THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26th WHICH WERE IN YOUR PACKET. >>GERALD WHITE: MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE AS WELL. >>DEE WILLIAMS: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: A MOTION BY MR. WHITE AND A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26th. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THANK YOU. WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. AND I AM -- THAT'S ABOUT 30 MINUTES IN TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, BOARD MEMBERS, THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM SPEAK FOR LESS TIME SO THAT YOU CAN GET ON WITH YOUR DELIBERATIONS THIS EVENING THAT YOU SAY SO, OR OTHERWISE WE WILL GO WITH FIVE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL LEAVE IT AT FIVE. 3 THE FIRST PERSON IS STEVE SAUNDERS AND SECOND IS RICK ECKERD. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TONIGHT. I AM HERE AS A CITIZEN, NOT REPRESENTING ANY ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY. I HAVE BEEN IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE FOR 36 YEARS. I HAVE A MASTERS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA AND VETERANS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND I'VE OBSERVED THE PROCESS AND WORKED WITH THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FOR ABOUT 16 YEARS NOW, THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS, THAT I BRING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU SEND IT BACK TO FIVE MEMBERS INSTEAD OF THE SEVEN. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM TALKING TO SOME OF YOU AND FROM WHAT I'VE READ. SO LACKING THAT, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO WITH ONE OF THE OPTIONS -- THE OPTION ABOUT TALKING HAVING SEVEN MEMBERS OR LEAVING IT AT SEVEN MEMBERS. I LIKE HAVING THE SEVEN MEMBERS, HAVING SIX ELECTED FROM SINGLE DISTRICTS AND ONE ELECTED AT-LARGE AS THE CHAIR. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT PERSON SERVING TWO FOUR-YEAR TERMS. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF TERM LIMITS. I DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT IN THE AT-LARGE SEATS. JUST LIKE I DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT IN HAVING -- HAVING MORE 4 GOVERNMENT, HAVING MORE COMMISSIONERS. I MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN HAVE IT NONPARTISAN. I GUESS I AM SUPPORTIVE OF KEEPING IT PARTISAN. IT AIN'T MUCH, BUT IT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT. AND I LIKE YOUR -- I THINK WHERE I'M SEEING YOU GO SO FAR IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION, I'VE HEARD AT LEAST FROM -- AT LEAST FROM MEMBERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR NUMBER OF YEARS. I'VE BEEN IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR A LOT OF YEARS, AND HANDS DOWN, I THINK THIS IS THE BEST COUNTY STAFF I'VE SEEN. IT'S CERTAINLY THE BEST COUNTY STAFF I'VE WORKED WITH IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THAT'S FROM MR. KLEMAN ON DOWN, ESPECIALLY HIS ASSISTANTS AND HIS MANAGERS. IN YEARS' PAST AND I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS AND HAVE OBSERVED THIS, WE'VE RUN OFF SOME REALLY GOOD COUNTY STAFF MEMBERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS BODY CAN ADDRESS IT, BUT I THINK ONE OF OUR FAILINGS IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS THAT WE HAVE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO TEND TO MICROMANAGE. AND I THINK THAT'S A SHAME WITH THE QUALITY STAFF THAT WE HAVE. I THINK THEY SHOULD ACCEPT MORE THINGS THAT COME FROM STAFF REVIEW AND DO WHAT THEY'RE ELECTED TO DO, AND THAT'S REPRESENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE GOING -- GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 5 THAT WAS REALLY MY AGENDA, THE THINGS I WANTED TO SHARE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO DO THAT. BUT MORE THAN THAT, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU BECAUSE I THINK WE MISS DOING THIS FOR THE YEAR THAT YOU'VE TAKEN OFF TO SERVE ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT BOARD. AND THAT'S APPRECIATED. IT'S IMPORTANT WORK THAT YOU DO. IT IS -- IT'S IMPORTANT WORK THAT YOU DO. I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. SANDERS. MR. RICK ECKERD. >> RICK ECKERD WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE OF THE GREATER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO THE CHAMBER'S SUPPORT TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER INTRODUCING AN ELECTED CHAIR. AND DISTILLED TO ITS ESSENCE, THE CHAMBER SEES TWO BENEFITS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ELECTED CHAIR. FIRST, IS THE INTRODUCTION OF STRONG LEADERSHIP. SECOND IS THE INTRODUCTION OF A POINT PERSON IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARENA. AS TO LEADERSHIP, GERALD WHITE MADE A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION AT OUR LAST MEETING. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN POWER AND LEADERSHIP. THIS PERSON WOULD NOT BE ENDOWED WITH SIGNIFICANT POWER. WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE IS A HIGHLY VISIBLE PULPIT FOR LEADERSHIP. AND IT'S THAT BENEFIT SERVING AS A FOCAL POINT FOR LEADERSHIP 6 WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT WE PERCEIVE AS THE MAIN BENEFIT. IN THE -- AND ACTUALLY, SOME OF THE SPEAKERS LAST TIME QUESTIONED WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ELECTED CHAIR IS GOING AGAINST THE TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. THERE IS A TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO DECENTRALIZE MANAGEMENT, BUT I THINK WE ARE ALL GETTING TO THE SAME POINT. THE PRIVATE SECTOR STARTS WITH A VERY STRONG CEO MODEL, AND NOW THERE'S THE MOVEMENT TOWARD THE CENTRALIZATION AND SPREADING OF THAT POWER. HERE IN THE COUNTY, WE ARE STARTING WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF VISIBLE LEADERSHIP. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF A LEADER WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT POWER, BUT WHO WOULD HAVE A HIGHLY VISIBLE PULPIT. SO I THINK WE ARE STARTING FROM OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM, BUT I THINK THE ELECTED CHAIR IS CONSISTENT WITH TRENDS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AND LOOKING AT THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS A MODEL, I'M UNABLE TO IDENTIFY A BUSINESS THE SIZE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HIGHLY VISIBLE LEADER. SO I THINK THE PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTED CHAIR HERE WITH THE COUNTY IS CONSISTENT WITH -- WITH THE EXPERIENCE AND THE CURRENT TRENDS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, A QUESTION HAS COME UP FROM TIME TO TIME, WHAT'S BROKEN THAT REQUIRES THIS BOARD TO FIX. AND I THINK IN THE AREA OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE PEOPLE IN THE FRONT LINES PUSHING THE INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY CITIZENS IN AN AREA OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING IS 7 BROKEN. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS FORCED TO GO HEAD TO HEAD WITH OTHER LARGE URBAN CENTERS IN FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY ORANGE COUNTY, DADE, AND DUVAL, THAT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A VISIBLE LEADER, A POINT PERSON, AND WE'VE GOT TO GO INTO THAT ARENA LACKING A POINT PERSON. AND I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO RUN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHO ARE ON THE FRONT LINES FOR THE COUNTY WOULD TELL YOU THAT WE'RE AT A DISADVANTAGE THERE, AND THEY WOULD PERCEIVE THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ELECTED CHAIR AS A WAY OF LEVELING THAT PLAYING FIELD. SO FOR BOTH THE BENEFIT OF CREATING A PULPIT FOR LEADERSHIP AND FOR LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE CHAMBER WANTS AN ELECTED CHAIR AND TO PLACE IT ON THE 2002 BALLOT. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. MR. RALPH HUGHES. AND AFTER MR. HUGHES, KARL WARREN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, RALPH HUGHES, TAMPA. I CAME BEFORE YOU SEVERAL TIMES AT YOUR EARLIER MEETINGS AND SUGGESTED SEVERAL PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGES, DEEMED WORTHY OF YOUR CONSIDERATION. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ONE OF THESE TONIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER PUTTING A CHARTER CHANGE PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT FOR THE PEOPLE TO APPROVE OR REJECT THAT WOULD LIMIT THE ANNUAL INCREASE IN OUR COUNTY'S OPERATING BUDGET TO 3% OR THE ANNUAL INFLATION RATE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. 8 I REMEMBER WELL THAT SEVERAL OF YOU SEEMED VERY RECEPTIVE TO THIS PROPOSED CHANGE AT THAT TIME, I TRUST YOUR INTEREST REMAINS AND THIS YOU WILL VOTE TONIGHT TO MOVE THIS PROPOSED CHANGE FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT. YOU WILL RECALL THE PEOPLE OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO CHANGE OUR STAFF CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ANNUAL INCREASE OF ASSESSED VALUE IN HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TO 3% OR THE INFLATION RATE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. THAT WENT INTO EFFECT JANUARY, 1995, AND MANY OF OUR LOWER INCOME AND RETIRED SENIOR CITIZEN HOMES HAVE BEEN SAVED AS A RESULT. WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THIS ACTION? "A," OUR COUNTY SPENDING AND OPERATING BUDGET CONTINUES TO SPIRAL UPWARD AND OUT OF CONTROL. IT HAS INCREASED AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 5.4% OVER RECENT YEARS OR THREE TIMES OUR ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE OF 1.8%. AND OVER THREE TIMES THE ANNUAL INFLATION RATE OF 1998 AT 1.5%. "B," THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MET IN SEPTEMBER AND IMPROVED AN INCREASE IN OUR OPERATING BUDGET OF 80.3 MILLION DOLLARS, AND 8.2% INCREASE IN OUR OPERATING BUDGET, BRINGING IT TO A STAGGERING $1,600,000. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS HUGE INCREASE. IF THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE WAS IN EFFECT, THIS BUDGET INCREASE WOULD BE LIMITED $27 MILLION INSTEAD OF OVER $80 MILLION. 9 WOULD WE BE TYING THE HANDS OF OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT SO THEY COULD NOT DEAL WITH UNEXPECTED EMERGENCIES OR CONTINGENCIES? IF THIS CHARTER CHANGE IS APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE? ABSOLUTELY NOT. BECAUSE THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF SIX MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COULD OVERRIDE THIS BUDGET INCREASE LIMITATION PROVISION. OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BOASTS THAT WE HAVE LOWERED PROPERTY TAXES EVERY YEAR FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THIS IS A FACT, BUT MISLEADING. THE FACTS ARE THE ANNUAL REDUCTION WOULD BUY A MEDIUM SIZE PIZZA FOR THE OWNER OF A $125,000 HOME WITH HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. THE APPROVED BUDGET IN SEPTEMBER WILL NOT EVEN DO THAT. THE SO-CALLED TAX REDUCTION AMOUNTS FOR ONLY $6 FOR THIS $125,000 HOME. FOLKS, WE HAVE AN OUT-OF-CONTROL TAX AND SPEND COUNTY GOVERNMENT. YOU ALREADY KNOW OUR TAXES, RATES AND FEES ARE AMONGST THE HIGHEST IN THE STATE. THE SECOND HIGHEST AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATES, HIGHEST IMPACT FEES, WATER AND SEWER RATES TWO AND A HALF TIMES THAN PINELLAS AND POLK COUNTY AND 63% HIGHER THAN THE STATEWIDE AVERAGE. WE MUST TAKE ACTION TO STOP OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING THIS EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY OUT OF THE POCKETS OF THE 10 PEOPLE. THERE'S A MOVE UNDER WAY RIGHT NOW, IF SUCCESSFUL, WILL RESULT IN OUR LOCAL SALES TAX INCREASING TO 8 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, PLUS A 5 CENT INCREASE ON LOCAL GAS TAX, PLUS A NEW 10% TAX ON ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS. THE HARTLINE BOARD APPROVED MOVING FOR A SALES TAX AND GAS TAX AND 78% INCREASE IN IMPACT FEES. DOES OUR COUNTY NEED ALL THIS MONEY? NO. FURTHER, WE ARE GOING TO WORK HARD TO MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. BOARD MEMBERS, PLACE THIS ON THE BALLOT SO PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND ENABLING THEM TO KEEP MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS. I BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN A LANDSLIDE. AND IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, IT SHOULD BE DONE, AFTER ALL, THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. HUGHES. MR. WARREN. >> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I BELIEVE THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING IN A RIGHT ARCH. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THE PENDULUM OF CHANGE IS SWINGING IN A RIGHT ARCH. I BELIEVE LAST NIGHT'S ELECTION SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT A WIN OF CHANGE IN THE POLITICAL CULTURE IN AMERICA AND IN THIS 11 COMMUNITY IS OCCURRING. I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REAL SHIFT, A REAL, REAL ALIGNMENT OF A CONSERVATIVE PROPORTION SWEEPING THIS COUNTRY AND SWEEPING THIS COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE LAST NIGHT'S ELECTION AND THE RESULTS OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS SENDS SOME VERY CLEAR MESSAGES OF HOW THE ELECTORATE IN THIS COMMUNITY VIEWS CERTAIN PROPOSED CHANGES. I BELIEVE THERE IS A MESSAGE THAT HAS BEEN SENT IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T GO TAMPERING WITH IT. BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME BROKEN PARTS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF POPULATION CHANGES, WE ARE ALMOST AT A MILLION OR OVER A MILLION, GIVE OR TAKE. AND THE HOUSING PATTERNS, WHAT'S GOING ON IN HOUSING PATTERN, THESE CONDITIONS AND THE POTENTIAL OF THESE THINGS CONTINUING TO OCCUR BEGS FOR AN INCREASE OF A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS, WHEREIN, EVERYONE CAN BE FAIRLY REPRESENTED AND A COMMISSIONER CAN BE CLOSE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS. I BELIEVE THAT AN INCREASE OF NINE COMMISSIONERS WOULD SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THIS COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE IN TOTAL SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTING. THE REASON I BELIEVE IN TOTAL SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTING IS BECAUSE OF THE SHIFTING OF POPULATION AND HOW CERTAIN COMMUNITIES CAN BE UPROOTED AND SHIFT INTO DIFFERENT PLACES AND SERIOUS DILUTION OF VOTING STRENGTH CAN OCCUR. BUT WITH TOTAL SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTING, THAT WILL AT LEAST HELP TO BALANCE THAT OUT. 12 I BELIEVE THAT A 6-3 SYSTEM. IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MIXED DISTRICT SYSTEM WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. I DO NOT BELIEVE A SIX SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSION WITH ONE AT LARGE WILL BE IN ANY WAY BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE WHEN IT COMES TO MINORITIES. AND I WILL TELL YOU, IF THAT SYSTEM IS PROPOSED, I WILL BE FILING AN OBJECTION TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. I WILL DO THAT BECAUSE IT DON'T MAKE NO SENSE. IT WILL EXCLUDE MINORITIES. TO ACCESS AT LEAST AN OPPORTUNITY OR EVEN HAVE A SENSE OF EFFICACY OF BELIEVING THAT THEY CAN BE ABLE TO AT LEAST PARTICIPATE IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROCESS. I DO NOT ENVY YOUR POSITION RIGHT NOW. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU, NO CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE BOARD HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING. YOU ALL HAVE TAKEN THE COURAGE TO DO SOME THINGS. BUT I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER WHAT THE VOTES LAST NIGHT SAY. IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T GO AROUND TAMPERING WITH THE GOVERNMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. WARREN MR. KLEMAN AND THEN MR. MIKE CARDUCCI. >>DAN KLEMAN: MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. I'M DAN KLEMAN, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. 13 I COME TO YOU WITH A VERY, VERY BRIEF SERIES OF COMMENTS TONIGHT. HOPEFULLY IN THE HELP -- IN THE INTEREST OF BEING OF HELP TO YOU AS I'VE OBSERVED YOUR CHARTER REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS AND WATCHED YOU WRESTLE WITH THE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY OF REPRESENTATION, SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS VERSUS AT-LARGE REPRESENTATION, AND WRESTLED WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW TO SELECT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I WAS REMINDED OF SOME THINGS I HAD SEEN EARLIER. SO I WENT BACK TO A DOCUMENT WHICH I BELIEVE I DISTRIBUTED AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, PROBABLY BEFORE ALL OF YOU KNEW EACH OTHER AS WELL AS YOU DO NOW. THE MODEL COUNTY CHARTER. AND INCLUDED IN THAT IS A COMMENTARY ON BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES THAT DISCUSSES THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THOSE ISSUES. AND WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT JUST TO DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF SIX PAGES OF THAT DOCUMENT IN THE HOPE THAT IT MIGHT BE OF HELP TO YOU AS YOU WRESTLE WITH WHAT I KNOW ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO THIS COMMUNITY. THAT, MADAM CHAIR, IS ALL I HAVE TO BRING TO YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. MR. KLEMAN, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STAYING HERE FOR A WHILE THIS EVENING. MAYBE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS OR TWO -- OR TO HELP WITH SOME FUTURE DISCUSSIONS I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >>DAN KLEMAN: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. 14 >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. MIKE CARDUCCI. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, AND GROUP. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST THANK YOU AGAIN FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO LISTEN TO ALL OF US AND KNOW THAT I REPRESENT A FAIR AND ACCURATE -- FAIR REPRESENTATION. BY THE WAY, I HOPE YOU REMEMBER MY NAME. MIKE CARDUCCI AND I'M FROM VALRICO. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS THAT YOU ARE GOING THROUGH AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE VERY, VERY HARD BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF WHAT DECISION YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE, YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE SUBJECTED TO CRITICISM. I WOULD JUST ASK YOU AND IMPASSIONATELY PLEAD THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS POPULATION TRANSITION IN THIS COUNTY. THAT WHEREAS SOME TEN YEARS AGO, THE CONTROL, THE PEOPLE ALL LIVED IN TAMPA AND RIGHTFULLY SO CONTROL THE COUNTY. AND I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE STATISTICS TODAY AND SEE THAT SOME 64% OF THE POPULATION HAVE MOVED INTO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THOSE STATISTICS AND LOOK AT THE GROWTH OF WHERE THE NEW GENERATION IS GOING TO COME TO THIS COUNTY. AND IT'S ALL GOING TO BE IN UNINCORPORATED. THE MAJOR CITIES, TAMPA, TEMPLE TERRACE ARE LITERALLY BUILT OUT. THE REPRESENTATION IN THOSE AREAS IS REALLY SHATTERING AS 15 MR. VINCE FERRARA SHOWED YOU IN MANY OF THE CASES. IT'S OVER 80% REPRESENTATIVE BY THE PEOPLE OF TAMPA. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO LIVE IN TAMPA, YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT AWARE BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY VERY SELDOMLY FREQUENT THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. BUT I ASK YOU TO READ THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS AND SEE EVERY WEEK THE PLEADS OF PEOPLE BEING TOLD THEY CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED. THAT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT REPRESENT THE COUNTY ARE DEVOID OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE UNINCORPORATED AREAS. I COULD GO ON AND GIVE YOU A LITANY OF STORIES, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S MY JOB TONIGHT. MY JOB TONIGHT IS TO REMIND YOU TO PLEASE -- TO READ THOSE STORIES. A WOMAN WHO HAS A DUMPSTER PUT OUTSIDE HER BEDROOM DOOR, TOO POOR TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY, BEING ABUSED. STORIES ARE JUST UNBELIEVABLE. AND YET, WE SIT HERE AND QUESTION SHOULD THEY GET FAIR REPRESENTATION. IT'S A VERY SIMPLE SUBJECT. YOU WANT TO BE REPRESENTED. WE WANT TO BE REPRESENTED. WE WANT THE PEOPLE WHO OF THE RACE, OF THE GENDER, OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, ALL TO BE REPRESENTED. AND WE HAVE GONE OUT OF OUR WAY AS WE ARE GROWING STRONGER ALL THE TIME TO GET THAT REPRESENTATION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO THEM AS IT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU AND SHOWN TO 16 BE IMPORTANT AT THIS RECENT ELECTION. I ASK YOU VERY PATIENTLY AND PLEADINGLY TO LOOK AT ANY DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S MORE OR LESS GOVERNMENT, THAT QUESTION IN YOUR HEART, IS IT FAIR? AND IF IT IS NOT FAIR AND YOU VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT FAIR, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, YOU MUST HAVE SOME REMORSE. I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY ONE OF YOU WILL DO THAT DELIBERATELY. I LOOK UPON YOU AS CITIZENS AS I AM WHO ARE TRYING TO DO A JUST JOB. I JUST ASK YOU TO ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION. IS IT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHERE THEY LIVE AND NOT FAVORITISM TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED HERE FOR MANY YEARS? AND CERTAINLY WE DO NOT WANT TO IN ANY WAY SHORT CIRCUIT THEM. I WOULD LIKE TO AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THE TIME YOU HAVE GIVEN US. I DIDN'T HAVE OUR GROUP COME. YOU DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR A LITANY REPEATED 14 TIMES AGAIN, BUT PLEASE BELIEVE ME, WE ARE GROWING LARGER AND THE REASON FOR IT IS EVERYBODY WANTS FAIR. IT'S LIKE MOTHERHOOD AND CHEVROLET, PRETTY HARD TO BEAT IT. THANK YOU FOR THE JOB YOU ARE DOING AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GIVING ME THE TIME TO SPEAK. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. CARDUCCI. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THIS EVENING? MS. MERRITT, DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP? OKAY. 17 WHAT MY THOUGHT IS, IS THAT WE WOULD DO OUR FEW HOUSEKEEPING THINGS AND THEN GET INTO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO FIRST, IF WE CAN HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. KEN TINKLER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. JUST ONE THING I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL RECEIVED THE CHARTER -- SORRY, THE COMMITTEE PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE NONPARTISAN ISSUE. OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER IN THE MEETING, BUT THE COPY YOU SHOULD HAVE STARTS OUT "COMMITTEE DRAFT PROPOSAL." I THINK YOU HAD TWO DIFFERENT COPIES, BUT OTHERWISE, WE ARE HERE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. I THINK WE SHOULD ALL GIVE OUR CONSIDERATION AND A ROUND OF CONDOLENCES PERHAPS TO MR. TINKLER AND MS. CAMPBELL. THEY'VE BEEN UP FOR ABOUT 48 HOURS STRAIGHT DEALING WITH THE ELECTION ISSUES. AND IF THEY APPEAR TO BE TIRED, IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY ARE. AND I KNOW THEY WOULD LIKE US TO GET ABOUT OUR BUSINESS SO THEY CAN GO HOME AND GET SOME SLEEP. MS. MERRITT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. >>BARBARA MERRITT: GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. IN YOUR PACKET THERE, I HAVE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THERE'S THE BUDGET BEHIND IT, AND A LETTER FROM A CITIZEN. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE NOVEMBER 30th. 18 I'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER ALL THE CHARTER -- PAST CHARTER REVIEW BOARD RECORDS. IT'S BEEN KIND OF AN INTERESTING TASK BECAUSE I'M LEARNING DIFFERENT WAYS CLERKS DID FILING OF RECORDS OVER THE YEARS. I'VE COMPLETED MOST OF 1983, AND WE STARTED 1986. THE WEB UPDATE REPORT, THE CHARTER IS THE 13th MOST VISITED SITE WITHIN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SITE. WE HAVE 7746 VISITS LAST MONTH. I HAVE PREPARED A MATRIX. IT'S ON A PINK SHEET. MS. SMITH HAS IT. TO ASSIST YOU WITH YOUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING. IT FOLLOWS ALONG WITH MR. KLEMAN'S DRAFT. MR. KLEMAN WAS VERY GRACIOUS, BECAUSE I HAD TO BOUNCE SOME IDEAS OFF OF HIM, AND OUR CHAIRMAN -- WE WERE GOING BACK FORTH TODAY TO GET THIS MATRIX DONE. THE OTHER THING. WE HAVE SIX SCHEDULED MEETINGS LEFT. I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU PUT YOUR ATTENTION TO -- AS TO WHICH DATES WOULD YOU LIKE TO START PREPARING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE AND IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. AND I LISTED THE MEETINGS ON THERE. NOVEMBER 30th, DECEMBER 14th, DECEMBER 28th, JANUARY IS -- JANUARY 11th, JANUARY 28th, AND OUR FINAL MEETING FEBRUARY 8th. >>TERRY BALLARD: I THINK YOU MEAN JANUARY 25th. 19 IS THAT ON A THURSDAY? >>BARBARA MERRITT: I MAY HAVE LOOKED AT IT WRONG, I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S THE ONLY THING TO CHECK THAT OUT. >>JAN SMITH: I WAS JUST TRYING TO SCHEDULE DATES FOR JANUARY 11th AND THE 25th AS PUBLIC HEARINGS ASSUMING THAT WE WILL LIKELY BE TAKING SOMETHING AND TO USE A PORTION OF THOSE MEETINGS FOR THAT. AND I THINK THAT -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON TO CHANGE THAT AT THE MOMENT. I'M -- I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO TRY TO ARRANGE THOSE FOR DECEMBER. THE TIMING IS JUST NOT GOOD WITH BUSINESS SCHEDULES, HOLIDAY PARTIES. I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND THE DATES OF OUR REGULAR MEETINGS IN JANUARY TO BE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THEN A PORTION OF EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS WILL BECOME THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. >>BARBARA MERRITT: IT IS THE 25th. I'M SORRY. I JUST -- I'M SORRY. >>JAN SMITH: WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND THE INFORMATION FROM THE ORIGINAL CHARTER COMMISSION AND WHY THEY PROPOSED THE MINUTES AND ALL? WERE YOU ABLE TO -- >>BARBARA MERRITT: WE'RE PUTTING -- I'M STILL MISSING ONE PIECE. SO BEFORE I CAME -- MR. TINKLER, WE WENT THROUGH THE RECORDS 20 AND COULDN'T FIND THAT ANYWHERE WHERE IT WAS LAID OUT EXACTLY. I'M LOOKING FOR MINUTES FROM THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, THE COUNTY COMMISSION, AND THEN THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THAT MET THE YEAR BEFORE TRYING TO PUT THEM TOGETHER. >>JAN SMITH: THERE'S POSSIBILITY THAT WHEN COMMISSIONER PLATT WAS OFF THE BOARD A FEW YEARS AGO, MOST OF HER PAPERS WERE DONATED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA. >>BARBARA MERRITT: THAT'S WHERE I STARTED. >>JAN SMITH: YOU DID START THERE. BECAUSE SHE MAY HAVE HAD SOME OF THAT INFORMATION. >>BARBARA MERRITT: SHE DID. BUT NOT ALL OF IT. BECAUSE PART OF THE DELEGATION -- LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION -- THEY STARTED THE MEETING SO I HAD TO GO BACK TO THEIR RECORDS TO SEE WHERE THEY FIT IN WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND IT WAS A BLENDING TYPE OF A PROCESS. MS. TUTTLE, DO YOU REMEMBER SOME OF THAT? YOU WERE -- >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: NO, BUT I THINK -- HAD YOU CONTACTED LYNN CASH, WHO WAS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY? >>BARBARA MERRITT: BACK IN 1983, IT WASN'T LYNN CASH, IT WAS SARA FOTOPULOS. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: LYNN WAS INVOLVED WITH THE CHARTER AT SOME TIME. >>BARBARA MERRITT: '90 TO '91. AS I WAS LOOKING FOR SOME RECORDS FOR MR. LaBOUR, SOME OF THE RECORDS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, SOME OF THE BACK-UPS BECAUSE OF 21 THE RECORDS RETENTION. THEY ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO KEEP IT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. I DO HAVE A REQUEST IN TO USF LIBRARY. I'M HOPING WHEN DR. MENZEL DID HIS REPORTS, THEY ARE ON FILE OVER THERE. MR. LaBOUR AND MR. WHITE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: WHAT MS. MERRITT IS SPEAKING TO, LAST MEETING I KIND OF WANTED TO KNOW SOME BACKGROUND IF THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS, ALL SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS VERSUS A COMBINATION. AND MR. WARREN ACTUALLY POINTED OUT TO ME THAT ALSO SOMEONE HAD COME FORWARD THAT HAD DONE A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE STUDY AND HAD SOME VISUAL AIDS. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: BARBARA IS TRYING TO TRACK THAT DOWN AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR AT LEAST THE BOARD TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT REPORT, IF IT STILL EXISTS. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: I RECALL THE CLERK, RICHARD AKE, INFORMED US THAT HE HAD AN ENTIRE FILE ON THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. >>BARBARA MERRITT: HE HAS THE FILE, BUT NOT ALL THE BACK-UP IS THERE. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER SOME OF THE THINGS BACK FROM 1983 -- THEY MICROFILMED THE MINUTES AND SOME OF THE BACKUP, BUT THE MAPS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PROCESS EVEN THE COUNTY USES TO ARCHIVE MAPS. THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PROCESS WAS. 22 IT'S POSSIBLE THEY MAY NOT BE THERE. THEY MAY BE AT USF AND MAY ALSO BE OVER AT THE HISTORY MUSEUM. >>GERALD WHITE: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE TRIED TO DO IS MEET WITH THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT HAVE SERVED ON PAST CHARTER REVIEW BOARDS. AND THE ONES THAT I HAVE MET WITH HAVE THEN -- BEEN VERY, VERY HELPFUL. SOME OF THEM HAVE THEIR FILES ON CHARTER REVIEW WHEN THEY SERVED. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF YOU KNOW ANY OF THE PAST BOARD MEMBERS, TO CONTACT THEM. >>BARBARA MERRITT: I HAVE BEEN -- TODAY -- I SPOKE TO WARREN WEATHERS ALSO AND HE'S GOING TO LOOK. >>GERALD WHITE: I HAVE SPEAKING TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. >>JAN SMITH: THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE AFTER THE CHARTER WAS APPROVED AND TWO YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL CHARTER AND EVERYONE ELSE -- EVERY OTHER ONE WAS FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER. THANK YOU, MS. MERRITT. >>BARBARA MERRITT: WE DID HAVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AND MR. LaBOUR IS THE CHAIR AND HE HAS ALL THE MINUTES THERE. >>JAN SMITH: YES, AND MR. LaBOUR DID PASS ALL OF THOSE AROUND. FOR ALL OF YOU. IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEM, WE CAN TAKE THREE MINUTES AND GO THROUGH THEM. >>DAVID HURLEY: I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND MR. LaBOUR FOR DOING A GOOD JOB WITH THE MINUTES. 23 I READ THROUGH AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT SAYS STEVE LaBOUR ON IT. >>JAN SMITH: ASK MR. LaBOUR TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AS THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND THEN START THE DISCUSSION. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT -- I DID HAND OUT A MEMO -- AND I APOLOGIZE, THERE'S ONE PART I SAID I WOULD BE HANDING OUT THAT IS NOT -- I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT. AND I'LL ALLUDE TO THAT IN A SECOND. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IS THE ONE THAT'S STAPLED THAT SAYS "COMMITTEE DRAFT PROPOSAL" ON THE TOP. THE ONE ATTACHED TO OUR PACKET WAS AN EARLIER VERSION. THE COMMITTEE MET, AND IT WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE ON THE COMMITTEE DRAFT PROPOSAL. WE TALKED ABOUT MR. WHITE BROUGHT UP AN EXCELLENT POINT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING -- A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS WOULD BE -- WOULD BE HELD. WHILE WE KNOW IT'S ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE CHARTER, WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT IT BE ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT IN THIS SECTION. MS. MERRITT ALSO PROVIDED US WITH A CHART WHICH YOU ALSO HAVE BEFORE YOU OF THE DIFFERENT COUNTIES AND WHICH ONES HAVE NONPARTISAN OR PARTISAN ELECTIONS AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. AND THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE CITY OF TAMPA -- SOME OF YOU MIGHT KNOW -- HAS NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. AND IT'S PART OF THEIR CHARTER. 24 THEIR LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING TO HAVE A COPY TODAY, AND I FORGOT TO BRING MY COPIES. I DON'T KNOW IF MS. MERRITT HAS THAT WITH HER, BUT IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, EXCEPT IT GOES A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. APPARENTLY, THEY REALLY WANTED TO SEPARATE THE CANDIDATE FROM A PARTY, AND THEY WENT SO FAR AS TO EVEN SPELL OUT THAT A CANDIDATE COULDN'T ACCEPT FUNDS FROM THE POLITICAL PARTY. THERE COULD BE NO -- I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE LANGUAGE, BUT -- IN ESSENCE, THE CANDIDATE OF THE NONPARTISAN RACE REALLY HAD TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE PARTY, HAD TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM ANY KIND OF PARTY ACTIVITY. THEY COULDN'T ACCEPT FUNDS FROM THEM. AND I THINK MS. MERRITT IS GOING TO HELP US OUT BY GIVING ME A CHEAT SHEET HERE. THE THREE -- THE THREE ADDITIONAL ONES WERE CAMPAIGN AS A MEMBER OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY, WHICH MAKES SENSE. PUBLICLY REPRESENT OR ADVERTISES A MEMBER OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY. MEANING THEY COULDN'T ON THEIR -- ON THEIR SIGNS, FOR INSTANCE -- THEY CAN'T SAY JOE SCHMOE FOR CITY COUNCIL, DEMOCRAT. THEY HAVE TO LEAVE OFF THE PARTY AFFILIATION. AND THE THIRD WAS SOLICIT AND ACCEPT POLITICAL PARTY FUNDS OR ENDORSEMENTS. SO IT'S NOT JUST FUNDS, BUT THE POLITICAL PARTY COULDN'T GET TOGETHER AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE ENDORSE JAN SMITH. 25 SO THERE REALLY IS A DIVERSIFICATION, IF YOU WILL, IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, FROM THE CANDIDATE AND THE PARTY. WE -- WE DIDN'T -- WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND IT. WHAT WE FELT WAS THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE A GOOD DISCUSSION FOR THIS GROUP. WE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE TO GO AHEAD AND SAY, YES, WE WOULD RECOMMEND IT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS A LANGUAGE THAT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE AND I'LL READ IT. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS A NONPARTISAN OFFICE AND A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION IS PROHIBITED TO -- ON PARTY AFFILIATION. IN THE EVENT TWO CANDIDATES HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER, AN ELECTION SHALL BE HELD AT THE FIRST TIME OF THE ELECTION, THE TWO CANDIDATES RECEIVING THE MOST VOTES SHALL BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. SO THAT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCUSSION TO THE CRB. THAT'S IT, MADAM CHAIR. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: STEVE, I JUST HAVE ONE SUGGESTION, AND IF I HAD GOTTEN IT THE OTHER DAY, IT WOULD HAVE HELPED, WOULDN'T IT? IT'S THE SECOND SENTENCE. IN THE EVENT THAT MORE THAN TWO CANDIDATES -- NEVER MIND, I 26 JUST READ IT. IT'S FINE. I SKIPPED THE "MORE", FORGET IT. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I DID THE SAME THING WHEN I FIRST READ IT. >>JAN SMITH: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND THE DRAFT LANGUAGE? >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: WAIT A MINUTE. >>JAN SMITH: MS. TUTTLE. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: NEVER MIND. >>JAN SMITH: IT'S OKAY. [ INAUDIBLE ] >>JAN SMITH: AND WE HOPE YOU'RE DOING WELL, WE HOPE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: WE DID CONTEMPLATE AT THE FIRST TIME TRYING TO INSTITUTE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROCESS FOR THE COUNTY ELECTIONS BUT WE DECIDED NOT TO RAISE THAT TONIGHT. >>JAN SMITH: I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU DIDN'T RAISE THAT. MR. LaBOUR AND MS. TUTTLE AND COUNTY ATTORNEYS, I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS ON THIS. I APOLOGIZE, MR. WHITE, WHO WAS I TOLD DID NOT COME TO THE MEETING? >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: ME. >>JAN SMITH: BECAUSE YOU WERE ILL. I HOPE YOU ARE DOING BETTER. MR. WHITE, WE APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU SPENT ON THIS. WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THIS IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, OR WE CAN HOLD IT UNTIL WE GO TO THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION THIS EVENING. 27 AND I SAY THAT FOR A REASON. I -- IF YOU REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I TOLD YOU THAT I TRIED TO THINK OF THE THREE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AND LIST HOW I WOULD WANT THINGS CHANGED IF I, IN FACT, WANTED A CHANGE. AND AS I WENT THROUGH EACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT, I GOT SO BOGGED DOWN IN THE DETAILS THAT I COULDN'T GET IT TOGETHER, AND SO, I WAS HAVING TROUBLE REACHING SOME KIND OF A CONCLUSION. IT'S BEEN MY IMPRESSION OF WATCHING THE BOARD AND LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC AND LISTENING TO YOU ALL THAT WE ALL SHARE SOME OPINIONS AND DISAGREE ON SOME POSITIONS. AND SO, THIS MORNING AFTER A PHONE CALL FROM MS. CAMPBELL, SHE AND I DISCUSSED HOW WE COULD CREATE A MATRIX TO HELP US GET TO SOME POINT WHERE WE COULD PERHAPS VOTE ON SOMETHING OR VOTE TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING. SO I -- I HAVE CREATED THIS MATRIX. AND BEFORE YOU GET EXCITED ABOUT IT, JUST LOOK AT IT. THINK ABOUT IT. IT MAY BE SOME WAY TO HELP US GET TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO. I ALSO THEN TOOK THE LIBERTY OF SPEAKING WITH MR. KLEMAN ABOUT IT. AND MR. KLEMAN, AS I'M SURE YOU MUST GUESS, HAS BEEN WATCHING THIS BOARD EITHER LIVE OR ON TAPE TO SEE WHAT IT IS WE ARE ABOUT, AND I GUESS HE'S DISCOVERED, BY WATCHING US, THAT WE SOMETIMES DELIBERATE, DEBATE, DISCUSS, AND GO ON AND YET DON'T SEEM TO GET TO A FOCAL POINT. AND SO, HE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE TIME TO PUT TOGETHER A PACKET THAT SAYS "DECISION MODEL." 28 AND I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT. THEN WHAT I THINK WE'LL DO IS JUST TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES FOR EACH OF YOU TO LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, THINK ABOUT IT, AND THEN WE'LL START A DISCUSSION, AND THE DISCUSSION MAY GO STRAIGHT BACK TO MR. LaBOUR'S COMMITTEE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO MAKE -- TAKE A STAND ON NONPARTISAN OR PARTISAN RACES AT THE BEGINNING, OR DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL OF THIS. SO, I'M GOING TO PASS OUT MR. KLEMAN'S COMMENTS, AND MEANWHILE, MR. KLEMAN, IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND SORT OF TALK US THROUGH THESE. WE'RE STRUGGLING TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS, AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON FOR THIS. MR. KLEMAN, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND SEE IF YOU CAN -- >>DAN KLEMAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, DAN KLEMAN, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. AS THE CHAIR INDICATED, I PUT THIS TOGETHER THIS AFTERNOON AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHAIR AND WITH MS. MERRITT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A WAY TO BE HELPFUL IN YOUR PROCESS. I DON'T BRING TO YOU ANY KIND OF SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE WRESTLING WITH, BUT I'VE HAD THE JOY OF SPENDING THE LAST 26 YEARS OF MY LIFE WORKING AND STAFFING BOARDS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO OCCASIONALLY HAVE VERY DEEPLY HELD AND DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT IMPORTANT ISSUES. AND WHAT FUNDAMENTALLY BECOMES IMPORTANT IS AS MUCH AS THE 29 ISSUE IS HOW THE QUESTION IS FRAMED AND HOW YOU GO ABOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE. SO WHAT I SUGGEST IN THIS FIVE-PAGE DOCUMENT IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THIS MODEL, WHAT IT REALLY SUGGESTS IS YOU DECIDE YOUR PROCESS FIRST. STAY AWAY FROM ALL OF THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH ISSUE YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE OR WHATEVER, AND SIMPLY DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO DECIDE. AND I FRAME THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF TWO CHOICES. AS I OBSERVED YOUR LAST MEETING, AND YOU WRESTLED WITH DOING IT BY ISSUE AND THEN DOING IT -- BUT I REALLY LIKE THAT ISSUE BUT ONLY IF YOU DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT. THIS FRAMES THOSE AS TWO CHOICES, EITHER DO IT BY ISSUE OR DO IT BY PACKAGE OF ISSUES. IF THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO IT BY ISSUE, THEN YOU GO TO PAGES TWO THROUGH FOUR, IF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WISHES TO DISCUSS ON THE BASIS OF A PACKAGE OF ISSUES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO FRAME YOUR DEBATE. THEN PAGE FIVE FOLLOWS THAT COURSE OF ACTION. LET ME JUST RUN YOU THROUGH VERY, VERY QUICKLY. STARTING ON PAGE TWO, IF YOUR CHOICE BY PROCESS IS TO FOLLOW IT BY ISSUE, I'VE SIMPLY LISTED WHAT -- AS I'VE LISTENED TO YOUR DEBATE, ARE SOME TEN ISSUES THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE SEPARATE VOTES FOR YOU TO TAKE AND PROVIDE AT LEAST THE RANGE OF THE CHOICES THAT I'VE HEARD YOU DISCUSS IN YOUR DEB LIBERATIONS. THERE MAY BE DELIBERATIONS. 30 THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER ITERATIONS, BUT THIS CAPTURES THE GENERAL SENSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN WRESTLING WITH ON THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION PARTICULARLY. ON THE LAST PAGE, IF -- IF YOUR CHOICE IS TO DISCUSS IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A PACKAGE BECAUSE YOU ONLY LIKE AN ELECTED CHAIR IF SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS, THIS IS A LIST OF WHAT REALLY ARE 16 CHOICES OF HOW TO DO THAT. AND A SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW TO WORK YOUR WAY DOWN WITH LOTS OF DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING AS TO HOW YOU MIGHT ARRIVE AT WHAT I THINK REPRESENTS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. AND BECAUSE I KNOW SOMEONE WILL ASK ON THE DECISION PACKAGES, NUMBER 16 IS THE CURRENT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FORM OF GOVERNMENT. SO IF YOU LIKE WHAT EXISTS TODAY, YOU LIKE 16. WHICHEVER ISSUE OR WHICHEVER PROCESS YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO FOLLOW OR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW ANY OF THESE, THE LAST COMMENT ON THE LAST PAGE IS THE ONE THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE MOST IMPORTANT WHENEVER YOU FINISH, BY ALL MEANS CELEBRATE YOUR SUCCESS IN CONCLUDING. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>JAN SMITH: MS. TUTTLE. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: MR. KLEMAN, A NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND I KNOW WE WERE GIVEN A BUDGET BASED ON SALARIES FOR A CONTINUATION, BUT THIS IS SUCH A STRANGE BUILDING, THAT ARCHITECTURALLY, IT WOULD -- IT WOULD HAVE -- 31 IN ORDER TO ADD FOUR MORE OFFICES TO -- TWO FOR EACH COMMISSIONER AND TWO FOR THEIR AIDES. HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANY IDEAS FOR US TO JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE IT WOULD COST? >>DAN KLEMAN: ACTUALLY, I THINK IN THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THINGS, THAT PARTICULAR EXPENSE WOULD BE VERY, VERY MINIMAL. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: THE LEAST OF YOUR WORRIES? >>DAN KLEMAN: PROBABLY SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER SPACE ON THIS SAME FLOOR THAT COULD BE USED. IT IS, AGAIN, CLEARLY ONLY A ONE-TIME EXPENSE, NOT A RECURRING EXPENSE. THE LARGE EXPENSE IN ANYTHING IN THE GOVERNMENT OR THOSE IN ADDING PERSONNEL. I THINK IT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED WITH LITTLE EXPENSE. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. KLEMAN. IF YOU WANT TO STAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU -- >>DAN KLEMAN: I WOULD CONSIDER IT AN HONOR. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. [ LAUGHTER ] MEANS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN UP FOR THE LAST TWO NIGHTS WITH YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEYS, HUH? BOARD MEMBERS, ON OPTION 6, BOCC ELECTED FROM FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, NOT SEVEN. THE CHAIR AT-LARGE, THE VICE-CHAIR AT-LARGE. THE PINK SHEET. THAT SHOULD BE FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. WAIT A MINUTE -- NO, IT'S -- WE HAD IT RIGHT TO START WITH. 32 THAT -- NO, BECAUSE THE BOTTOM IS SUPPOSED -- THEN WHERE THE 9 IS, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A 7. CHAIR ELECTED AT LARGE, VICE-CHAIR ELECTED AT LARGE AND FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS THAT GIVES YOU A TOTAL OF SEVEN. >>DAVID HURLEY: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >>JAN SMITH: YES, MR. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: THE LAST MEETING OR A MEETING BEFORE WHERE YOU MENTIONED THE CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR BEING ELECTED AT LARGE. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WOULD YOU HAVE THEM ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME RUNNING AS A TICKET, OR WOULD THEY BE ON ALTERNATE YEARS. AND IF THEY ARE ON ALTERNATE YEARS, IT WOULD SEEM AWKWARD FOR A VICE-CHAIR THEN TO WANT TO ASCEND INTO THE THRONE AS OUR CHAIR BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO LAY OUT TWO YEARS AND BE VICE-CHAIR IN THE MIDDLE TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE RUNNING. I WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE THAT IN MY MIND HOW THAT WOULD WORK. >>JAN SMITH: WHEN I PUT IT ON HERE, I DID NOT -- I DID NOT CONSIDER IT AS A TICKET. I CONSIDERED IT AS TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE JUST RUNNING FOR TWO SEPARATE POSITIONS. AND IT COULD BE SET UP SO IT'S STAGGERED WITH THE CHAIR. OR NOT. THAT -- THOSE ARE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU COULD DEBATE THROUGH THIS. >>DAVID HURLEY: I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAD THOUGHT OF THAT. >>DEE WILLIAMS: MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: MS. WILLIAMS. 33 >>DEE WILLIAMS: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OPTION 7? >>JAN SMITH: OPTION 1 AND OPTION 7 REALLY AREN'T SO DIFFERENT EXCEPT THAT OPTION 7 ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND PROVIDE SOME OF THESE CHANGES ON THE LEFT SIDE UNDER "PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE." SO YOU CAN HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE OR YOU COULD TAKE WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND PROPOSE ANY OF THOSE ON THE LEFT. FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU FELT THAT EVERYTHING WAS FINE BUT YOU DID LIKE THE GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL SEATS, THE AT LARGE AND THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, YOU CAN PUT THAT UNDER OPTION 7. MR. AMBLER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: EXACTLY -- I UNDERSTOOD THE GEOGRAPHICAL RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND THE NEXT TWO, PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN, I THINK, IN THE GENERAL CONTEXT. I GUESS WHAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WERE TERM LIMITS VERSUS NO TERM LIMITS. BECAUSE WE HAVE TERM LIMITS NOW. IS THAT TO RETAIN THE CURRENT FORM OF TERM LIMITS THAT WE HAVE? >>JAN SMITH: YES. SO BASICALLY WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS MATRIX, YOU SAY I WANT TO KEEP THE TERM LIMITS WE HAVE IN PLACE. THE OTHER ISSUE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT TERM LIMITS, REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT REAL TERM LIMITS VERSUS TERM LIMITS WHERE YOU COULD RUN FROM A SINGLE MEMBER AND THEN RUN FROM ANOTHER AND 34 RUN -- SO DID YOU REALLY JUST WANT TO SAY ACROSS THE BOARD EIGHT YEARS OR IN THE CASE OF SOME PEOPLE WHO FALL INTO THE TWO-YEAR GAP, NO MORE THAN TEN YEARS? >>KEVIN AMBLER: I GUESS THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION WENT. THAT FELL IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO. >>JAN SMITH: THAT'S WHY I MADE THESE THINGS OVER HERE SORT OF SEPARATE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS DISCUSSION TO FALL IN, BUT BASICALLY, IT'S SAYING, DO YOU LIKE ANY OF THESE OPTIONS ONE THROUGH SEVEN? AND IF YOU LIKE ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS, PUT AN X UNDER "PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE." THIS IS A WORKING PAPER FOR YOU. FOR THE MOMENT, I'M NOT SAYING TO TURN IT IN AND TABULATE, BUT MAYBE A WAY FOR US TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN MAKE SOME DECISIONS. WE CAN DO ROUND TABLE. WE CAN GO AROUND AND SAY WHICH ONE EACH PERSON -- AND SEE WHICH ONE HITS THE BIG NUMBER, OR WHETHER ANY OF THEM DO. AND THEN YOU CAN GO WITH -- SAY YOUR OPTION WAS NUMBER -- THE OPTION NUMBER 3 AT THE TOP, BUT YOU WANTED THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND YOU WANTED TERM LIMITS, WOULD YOU MARK THOSE. AND SORT OF GIVE US A BASIS OF WHAT DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE AFTER WE MAKE MAYBE ONE BIG DECISION. SO, MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S VERY EXHAUSTING -- I ONLY HAD A FEW HOURS OF SLEEP OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS OVER THE PRESIDENTIAL 35 ELECTIONS. VERY, VERY TIRESOME FOR EVERYONE IN THIS COMMUNITY, BUT I DID THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND SO I'M HERE REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR COMMUNITY TONIGHT RELATED TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING TOGETHER THIS MATRIX. AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMING AND ASSISTING -- PRESENTING THIS. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT IT IS THAT I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ONCE BEFORE. AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE SURVEYS. WE'VE SURVEYED EACH OTHER. WE'VE DONE -- THIS IS THE SECOND -- THIS WILL MAKE A THIRD SURVEY. IT'S ALMOST LIKE STARTING FROM SCRATCH ALL OVER AGAIN. AND ANOTHER CONCERN IS THAT THE MOTION THAT WAS TABLED IS NOT A PART OF THIS MATRIX. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT, THAT YOU DIDN'T ACCOMMODATE A TABLED MOTION IN YOUR PRESENTATION. AND SO I'M GLAD THAT I TOOK A MOMENT AND WENT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAD THEM -- IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, I WANT TO SAY THAT FIRST, BUT I DID ASK THEM TO JUST TELL ME WHAT WAS SIX SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS COULD LOOK LIKE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. AND THERE IT IS. ONE FOR THE URBAN. GIVE YOU AN URBAN PERSPECTIVE. 36 ONE IS -- WILL MAXIMIZE THE BLACK DISTRICT. AND URBAN IS IN COUNTY URBAN, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. AND IT TABULATES TO ABOUT 167,000 RESIDENTS PER DISTRICT. AND THE ONE FOR THE BLACK DISTRICT, MR. WARREN TALKED ABOUT RAISING A LAWSUIT IF WE MOVED TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WITH SIX. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW HE WOULD FEEL ABOUT HAVING A MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICT. THAT SCENARIO AND THAT ONE, JUST THAT ONE, WOULD RAISE THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT TO 45.7%. AND HISPANICS WOULD BE 12.5%. SO THAT WOULD BE A MINORITY-MAJORITY DISTRICT. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT CAREFUL ABOUT THREATENING TO SUE A CHARTER REVIEW BOARD FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC BUSINESS. HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS. HE AS AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADER RAISING SUCH A CONCERN TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. YOU KNOW, I -- IT'S JUST AN OPTION. SINCE THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND I THINK THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD NEEDS TO START SEEING WHAT SOME OF THIS STUFF WOULD LOOK LIKE -- AND I'VE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES TO GET THE PLANNING COMMISSION HERE, TO MAKE PRESENTATIONS TO US. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE "MATRIX," BUT IN THAT MOVIE, THE GUY COULD NEVER BE CAUGHT. 37 AND I HAVE A FEELING IF WE GET INTO THIS -- WE'RE NEVER GOING TO REACH A CONCLUSION FOOLING AROUND WITH THIS MATRIX. I JUST THINK EVERYBODY JUST NEEDS TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DECISION ON THE MOTION THAT HAS TABLED -- RAISE IT. IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY WANT. PUT THE PROSPECTIVE MOTIONS ON FLOOR FOR THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES INVOLVING THE CHARTER, AND LET'S GOVERN OURSELVES ACCORDINGLY. >>JAN SMITH: IN REGARD TO MR. WHITE'S COMMENTS, CERTAINLY OPTION 5 OR 6 YOU COULD DRAW A LINE THROUGH THE VICE-CHAIR AND JUST MAKE IT THE -- YOU COULD CHANGE YOUR NUMBERS AND INSTEAD OF 7 THERE WOULD BE 8 SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS OR THERE WOULD BE 6 SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WITH OPTION 6. MR. WHITE, I COULD HAVE GONE ON AND CREATED A DOZEN MORE OPTIONS. AS MR. KLEMAN SHOWED YOU, THERE ARE 16 THAT HE CAME UP WITH. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS HERE. ALSO, UNTIL A MOTION THAT IS TABLED IS PUT BACK ON THE TABLE, IT'S NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION, SO IT DOES NEED TO BE PUT BACK ON THE TABLE IF THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. MR. HURLEY AND THEN MR. LaBOUR. >>DAVID HURLEY: I LIKE WHAT MR. KLEMAN GAVE US TO LOOK AT. IT'S A VERY GOOD PROCESS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH, BECAUSE MY PROBLEM WITH DEALING WITH THESE ONE AT A TIME, ELECTED CHAIR, 38 NONPARTISAN -- DEALING WITH EACH ONE OF THESE ISSUES ONE AT A TIME IS REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE HOW THEY RELATE IS AN ISSUE. I THINK HIS SUGGESTION ON THE LAST PAGE OF SEEING WHO WOULD -- OKAY, IF WE GET 0 ON SOME OF THEM, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T NEED TO DISCUSS IT BECAUSE WE PROBABLY ARE NOT GOING TO GET SUPPORT FOR IT. BUT IF WE HAVE -- I THINK MAYBE WE HAVE A CUT-OFF, FOUR PEOPLE SUPPORTING ONE THESE TYPES, WE BRING IT UP AND DISCUSS IT AND SEE IF THERE IS ANY WAY TO MODIFY IT SLIGHTLY TO GET MORE PEOPLE ON IT. AND TAKE IT FROM THERE. BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF US MOVE FORWARD. AND I THINK THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN ON THE FLOOR THAT'S BEEN TABLED, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IT AND I KNOW I PROBABLY WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE SOME OF THAT. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A POLLING TO FIND OUT JUST WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I THINK THIS IS WHAT CAN WE DISCUSS AND WILL WE HAVE A CHANCE. I THINK ONE -- I'M CONCERNED AS WELL AS MR. WHITE THAT WE HAVE BEEN THREATENED ALREADY WITH A LAWSUIT. I THINK IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, I MET A MAN NAMED COLIN POWELL, WHICH MOST OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF AND MET ANOTHER MAN NAMED HERMAN CANE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD OF HIM BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF GODFATHER PIZZA AND IF YOU EVER HEARD HIM SPEAK, YOU WOULD DRIVE ACROSS THE STATE -- SHE'S HEARD HIM ONE TIME AND I'VE HEARD HIM TWICE 39 NOW AND I HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF HIM SPEAKING. PHENOMENAL MAN. I THINK HE WOULD GET ELECTED TO ANY OFFICE IN THIS COUNTY IF HE WANTED TO. I THINK YOU HAVE TO PUT THE CANDIDATES OUT TO GET ELECTED. I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARILY ETHNICITY. I THINK THAT ETHNICITY IN ITSELF DOES NOT SERVE TO DISENFRANCHISE PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY. DO WE HAVE BIGOTS IN OUR SOCIETY, ABSOLUTELY. WILL WE ALWAYS HAVE BIGOTS IN OUR SOCIETY? ABSOLUTELY. I DON'T THINK BY IN LARGE IN OUR PARTICULAR SOCIETY WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT SITUATION. I WOULD NOT LET MR. WARREN'S THREAT MOVE MY DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THAT'S IT. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR KIND OF HELPING US FOCUS HERE. I ALSO MET WITH MR. KLEMAN AND EXPRESSED AND ASKED HIM QUITE CANDIDLY, HELP ME HOW I CAN GET THERE BECAUSE I -- I REALLY FELT THAT THERE WERE -- THERE -- FOR ME, THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN ONE STRUCTURE THAT REALLY HAS JUMPED OUT, AND I KIND OF WANTED, YOU KNOW, TO HEAR A LITTLE MORE ABOUT DIFFERENT STRUCTURES, AND HE ACTUALLY ASSURED ME THAT'S OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PICK ONE RIGHT NOW AND WE REALLY SHOULD BE IN THE STUDYING PHASE, AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE. 40 I APPRECIATE HIM COMING TO THE TABLE AND -- UPON THE CHAIRMAN'S SUGGESTION AND CERTAINLY MARY HELEN'S HELP, I APPRECIATE THAT. I LOOK AT THE PINK PAGES NOT NECESSARILY JUST PICKING ONE, MADAM CHAIRMAN. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF WE RANKED -- RANKED THEM AND TOOK A LOOK AT RANKING OR THAT -- YOU KNOW, GIVE US A LIMIT AND SAY, IF YOU PICK THREE, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TOP -- TOP THREE. SO THAT MIGHT HELP GET US MOVING FORWARD AS WELL, BUT I AGREE WITH MR. HURLEY THAT WE NEED TO START ELIMINATING SOME OF THESE CHOICES SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. LaBOUR. MR. AMBLER AND MS. WALDRON. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR AND MR. KLEMAN FOR PROVIDING US THE MODELS. WE HAVE COMPLICATED ISSUES AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE FRAMEWORK OR STRUCTURE TO IT, YOU'RE LOST. I THINK THE ONE GOOD THAT'S COME OUT OF US SEEMINGLY FLOUNDER FOR SEVERAL MEETINGS AND WRESTLING WITH THESE ISSUES IS THAT FOLKS THAT WEREN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DEBATE, LIKE MR. KLEMAN, WHO WAS LISTENING TO WHAT WE WERE SAYING EXTRAPOLATED OUT THE ESSENCE OF OUR POINT OF VIEW AND PUT IT INTO THESE MODELS. I, IN PARTICULAR, HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR ONCE YOU'VE LAID OUT 41 ALL OF OPTIONS. THE SMORGASBORD APPROACH. KIND OF LIKE AN A LA CARTE MENU. THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE TO A LA CARTE BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY CAN ORDER. IF YOU ORDER YOUR MEAL AS A COMPLETE COMPLEMENT. YOU MAY NOT LIKE THAT DESSERT OR MAY NOT LIKE THAT SOUP OR WHATEVER, SO YOU MIGHT NOT ORDER THAT ENTIRE MEAL PACKAGE. SO HAVING THE A LA CARTE CHOICES BUT HAVING THEM ALL LAID OUT IN THIS MATRIX FORMAT IS HELPFUL. WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS ARE THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THESE ITEMS THAT THE CHAIR HAS LISTED ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PINK SHEET THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED, FOR EXAMPLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU HAVE. AND WE CAN GET A CONSENSUS HERE AMONG THAT A LA CARTE MENU AS TO WHETHER THERE IS -- OR YOU CAN TREAT IT BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION. THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH INTEREST TO GO FORWARD WITH THE GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT OR THE PARTISAN ELECTIONS OR THE TERM LIMIT ISSUE, AND THEN THAT IS KIND OF -- IF WE GOT A CONSENSUS, THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE INTERESTED IN. FOR EXAMPLE, RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. WE CAN HOLD THAT AT BAY. WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF IT NOW, HOLD THAT UNTIL WE START DISCUSSING HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS DO WE NEED TO HAVE. 42 WE JUST KNOW THAT GLOSSING ON A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS SOMETHING WE WANT WITH IT. WANT THE GRAVY ON OUR POTATOES, SO TO SPEAK. SORRY TO USE THE FOOD ANALOGY. I GUESS IT IS THE TIME OF NIGHT WHERE I START THINKING OF FOOD. BUT IN ANY EVENT, I THINK THE LOGICAL PLACE TO START AND I LIKE MR. KLEMAN'S MODEL. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE IF CHOOSING HIS OPTION "A" AND "B" RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THIS AS A PACKAGE AND JUMPING INTO DOING THE NUMBERS WHICH MIGHT GET US LOST AND NOT GETTING TO, I SHOULD SAY, SOME OF THESE GOOD ITEMS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT AND GET CONSENSUS FOR. MAYBE WE SHOULD START AT THE EASIER THINGS WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT CHAIR AND WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT NUMBER AND GO DOWN YOUR LIST OF THE -- WHAT, FOUR OR FIVE ITEMS ON THE LEFT SIDE, AND THEN MOVE INTO THE HARDER QUESTIONS OF THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS, WHY EACH OF US FEEL A CERTAIN WAY. AT THAT POINT I THINK IT'S BEST PROBABLY WE START LOOKING AT SOME OF OUR TOP THREE OPTIONS AND PERHAPS BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION, AT LEAST GET IT -- THE FIELD OF CHOICES NARROWED DOWN FROM -- WHAT IS IT, MR. KLEMAN HAS 16. NOW THAT'S -- THAT'S TOO MANY. WE'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF ELIMINATION THAT MAYBE GETS US DOWN TO OUR TOP THREE OR FOUR. THEN WE CAN HAVE A SERIOUS DEBATE IN NARROWING WHY -- TRY TO INFLUENCE AND BUILD CONSENSUS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON 43 THERE SHORT OF CHANGING THE STATUS QUO THAT WE CAN ALL FIND THE REQUISITE VOTES TO CHANGE. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. AMBLER. MS. WALDRON. >>ARLENE WALDRON: MADAM CHAIR, I THINK WE ALL AGREE THESE ARE WONDERFUL TOOLS AND WE ALL APPRECIATE IT. SEEMS LIKE WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND I THOUGHT WE DEFINED A PROCESS THAT LOOKED LIKE STARTING WITH THE PROPOSAL, TAKING IT BY SECTIONS, WHICH I THINK THESE TOOLS WILL FIT INTO. I THINK WE NEED TO REDEFINE THE PROCESS WE DEFINED AT THE LAST MEETING AND MAYBE USE THESE TOOLS TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED. BEFORE WE GO ON, BEFORE -- IF IT'S APPROPRIATE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE SUBCOMMITTEE A QUESTION BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE DRAFT PROPOSAL. I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING REASON TO INCLUDE OR NOT INCLUDE THE THREE CONDITIONS ON THE DRAFT PROPOSAL? >>STEVE LaBOUR: THE ONES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE CITY CHARTER? >>ARLENE WALDRON: RIGHT. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. WE DID NOT -- WE PASSED THEM OUT AND TALKED ABOUT THEM A LITTLE BIT. WE FELT WE DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING THEM IN OR OUT AND WOULD BRING THEM TO YOU TO READ AND THIS BODY WOULD DISCUSS THEM. WE TOOK NO POSITION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 44 THAT IS NOT TO BE MISCONSTRUED THAT WE DIDN'T SUPPORT THEM OR DID SUPPORT THEM. >>ARLENE WALDRON: IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT WE MIGHT INCLUDE THEM UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD REASON NOT TOO. >>STEVE LaBOUR: IT WAS FOR THIS BOARD'S -- THE LARGER BOARD'S DISCUSSION. >>JAN SMITH: THE REASON I ASKED TO RAISE THESE OTHERS IS JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE BIG PICTURE OF WHERE WE WANT TO GO. I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GO BACK AND TO SEE IF IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES WE CAN RESOLVE THIS COMMITTEE'S DRAFT PROPOSAL. THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH ME. AND I THINK WE CAN LET MR. LaBOUR AND MR. WHITE AND MS. TUTTLE DISCUSS WITH US AND WE WITH THEM THESE THREE ISSUES IF WE WANT TO INCLUDE THEM. THE QUESTION MIGHT BETTER BE ASKED, DO WE WANT TO HAVE NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, OR DO -- AND ELIMINATE ONE OR THE OTHER? LET'S ELIMINATE ONE AND THEN IF THERE'S NO REASON TO GO ON, WE'LL NOT GO ON. AND IF THERE'S A REASON TO GO ON, THEN WE WILL WORK WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION HE HAS HERE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MADAM CHAIR, ONE LAST POINT FOR THE COMMITTEE. WE WOULD -- IF THIS WERE TO -- IF THE BOARD WANTED TO PUT THIS ON THE REFERENDUM, WE WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT IT BE FROM WHAT THE CHAIRMAN HAD INDICATED PREVIOUSLY THAT THIS WOULD BE 45 AT THE PUBLIC -- THE SAME PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT ANYTHING ELSE WE MIGHT COME UP WITH. SO I DON'T WANT THE BOARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION TONIGHT. WE DON'T. THIS IS JUST OUR RECOMMENDATION, AND WE'VE RECOMMENDED IF WE WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD TO REFERENDUM, THE PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME THAT ALL THE OTHER ONES WERE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: YES. AND TO ADD TO MR. LaBOUR. IN OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, THE REASON WE DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO A DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE WE WERE JUST ADDRESSING, LIKE ALL OTHER COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE MOTION THAT CREATED THE COMMITTEE, AND THIS WAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO OUR COMMITTEE MEETING. AND MY PERSONAL FEELINGS IS THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE RECEIVED RELATED TO PARTISANSHIP IS INTERNAL AND NOT EXTERNAL. AND THESE ISSUES ARE EXTERNAL ISSUES. AND SO, THAT'S WHY -- ANOTHER REASON WHY WE DIDN'T RAISE THE ISSUE. >>ARLENE WALDRON: I UNDERSTAND. >>JAN SMITH: MS. WILLIAMS. >>DEE WILLIAMS: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I IS THIS A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT ON THE DRAFT PROPOSAL? >>JAN SMITH: NO. >>DEE WILLIAMS: PARDON ME, I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 46 A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO SAY I DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANY PUBLIC. >>JAN SMITH: WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS WE MAKE WOULD ALL GO TO PUBLIC HEARING FOR A ONE-TIME COST SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY AND ALLOW TIME FOR DEBATE. MS. LASHER. >>DENISE LASHER: WHAT DID WE VOTE ON AT THE LAST MEETING REGARDING PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS? DID WE VOTE ONLY TO TAKE IT TO COMMITTEE FOR A DRAFT? WE DID NOT VOTE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING? >>JAN SMITH: RIGHT. AFTER THEY CAME BACK WITH A DRAFT, THE WHOLE BOARD WILL DISCUSS IT, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN DECIDE. >>DENISE LASHER: OKAY. >>JAN SMITH: SO I SUGGEST THAT IF -- IF IT IS THE BOARD'S PLEASURE THAT WE MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS DISCUSSION. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION EITHER TO ELIMINATE ONE OR THE OTHER OR TO PROCEED WITH ONE OR THE OTHER, IT WILL PERHAPS SHORTEN THE EVENING. MS. TUTTLE AND THEN MR. BALLARD. IT. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: I JUST MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL AND PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE FOR OUR COMMITTEE TONIGHT. >>ARLENE WALDRON: SECOND. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: NO, FOR -- FOR OUR -- OUR COMMITTEE. PARDON? [ INAUDIBLE ] 47 TO TAKE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING AT THE END OF THE SESSION, WHENEVER WE HAVE ALL OF THEM, YES. >>JAN SMITH: SO THERE'S A MOTION TO CONSIDER THE COMMITTEE'S DRAFT PROPOSAL AND TO TAKE THIS DRAFT PROPOSAL TO A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? >>ARLENE WALDRON: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: A SECOND BY MS. WALDRON. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE SAY -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: DO YOU WANT DISCUSSION? >>JAN SMITH: I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE DISCUSSION. WELL -- WE ARE GOING TO HAVE LIMITED DISCUSSION. IF NECESSARY, I'M GOING TO GIVE EACH BOARD MEMBER A MINUTE. [ LAUGHTER ] MR. BALLARD HAD RAISED HIS HAND EARLIER SO LET ME LET HIM TALK TO THE MOTION. >>TERRY BALLARD: I LOOKED AT IT AND READ MR. LaBOUR'S COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO IT. I CAN SUPPORT IT. THE OTHER THING IS ON THE COMMISSIONERS. I WOULD -- I LIKE SEVEN. I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY GET SOME DISCUSSION AND SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. AND WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF AN APPOINTED CHAIR BY THE COMMISSIONERS. AND WHEN YOU GOT SEVEN OF THEM, YOU ARE GOING TO GET DOWN TO 48 WHERE THEY REALLY CAN GET OUT AND REPRESENT THEIR DISTRICTS. WITH A PROFESSIONAL MANAGER AND EVERYTHING WE HAVE IN THE COUNTY, I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH, YOU KNOW -- IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOUR OF THEM -- THEY'VE GOT TO WORK IN HARMONY TO GET THINGS DONE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BALLARD AND THEN MR. WHITE SPEAKING TO THE MOTION -- I'M SORRY. >>GERALD WHITE: AM I NEXT? >>JAN SMITH: ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THE MOTION? >>GERALD WHITE: TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT PARTISANSHIP IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A GOOD NIGHT TO VOTE, BECAUSE I WOULD REALLY VOTE IN A PROTEST WAY TONIGHT THE WAY THE PARTISANSHIP HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THIS STATE RELATED TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. SO IF YOU ASK ME TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, I WOULD NOT VOTE TO ELIMINATE PARTISANSHIP TONIGHT. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. MS. LASHER AND THEN MR. AMBLER. >>DENISE LASHER: IS ANYBODY INTERESTED IN INCLUDING SIMILAR LANGUAGE AS THEY HAVE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA. IT GIVES MORE DEFINITION TO PARTISAN OR NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS AND WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. IT CERTAINLY MAKES IT MORE CLEAR WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US LEAVES SOME ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. YOU CAN SAY IT'S A NONPARTISAN, BUT YOU CAN STILL SOLICIT ENDORSEMENT FROM A POLITICAL PARTY. YOU COULD PUBLICLY STATE, I GUESS -- I DON'T KNOW, WE WOULD 49 NEED SOME INTERPRETATION. WOULD YOU STATE -- WHAT YOUR PARTY AFFILIATION IS? I KNOW WITH SCHOOL BOARD NOMINATIONS, THEY ARE NONPARTISAN. I AM MORE FAMILIAR WITH THAT THAN THE CITY BECAUSE I AM NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF TAMPA. SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS, IF SOMEBODY ASKED THEM WHAT THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION IS, THEY CANNOT TELL THEM. CERTAINLY ANY CITIZEN CAN LOOK IT UP IN THE VOTERS RECORDS WHAT YOUR PARTY AFFILIATION IS, IS THAT RIGHT, MR. -- >>TERRY BALLARD: THEY ALWAYS ASKED ME WHAT WAS MY PARTY AFFILIATION. AND THE SCHOOL BOARD IS ALWAYS ASKING -- AND EVERYBODY KEPT THE RECORD IN WHAT PARTY YOU HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF. AND YOU NEVER ELIMINATE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. THEY ALWAYS WANT TO KNOW -- >>DENISE LASHER: CAN YOU LEGALLY -- CAN YOU TELL -- >> I AM NO PARTISAN -- >>DENISE LASHER: BUT I'M REGISTERED AS A -- >> DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, EITHER ONE. THEY ALWAYS ASK YOU. I THINK THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ELIMINATE BECAUSE MY EXPERIENCE WITH PARTY SYSTEM IS ALWAYS THERE. AND THE CONTRIBUTION ALWAYS COME FROM THE DIFFERENT FELLOW WHO YOU KNOW THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN POLITIC AND THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW. >>DENISE LASHER: AND IN THE CITY OF TAMPA ELECTIONS, IF YOU'RE ASKED YOUR PARTY AFFILIATION, THEN YOU CAN TELL THEM 50 ALSO? >>HENRY BELTRAN: OH, YES. >>STEVE LaBOUR: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY'S LANGUAGE DOES -- ALSO DOES THINGS LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF I WANTED TO GET -- IF I WANTED TO GET WALK LISTS, FOR INSTANCE, I CAN'T GO TO THE PARTY AND ASK THEM FOR THEIR LIST. I WOULD HAVE TO AS A CANDIDATE PURCHASE IT ON MY OWN OR HAVE A SUPPORTER OF MINE PURCHASE IT FOR THE CAMPAIGN. IN THE CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, YOU REALLY HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE TO DRAW THAT LINE BETWEEN THE PARTY AND THE CANDIDATE. AND YOU CANNOT RELY ON THE PARTY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, TO AID YOUR CANDIDACY. >>DENISE LASHER: I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THIS GROUP IS, DO WE WANT TO HAVE MORE SPECIFIC DEFINEMENT TO WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO IF YOU HAD A NONPARTISAN ELECTION? >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION OF LEGAL. I'M SORRY, KEN, YOU JUST SAT DOWN, BUT YOU NEED THE EXERCISE TO STAY AWAKE. UNDER THE LANGUAGE WE DRAFTED PRESENTLY THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD, COULD -- AND GIVEN, YOU KNOW WHAT THE CITY'S THREE QUALIFIERS ARE, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR OPINION IF SOMEONE PUT ON THEIR -- THEIR NONPARTISAN COUNTY COMMISSION CANDIDATE AND DECIDED TO PUT ON THERE YARD SIGNS THAT THEY WERE PROUD TO BE A REPUBLICAN? >>KENNETH TINKLER: AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, KEN TINKLER. OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION WHETHER 51 THAT WAS CAMPAIGNING AS A MEMBER OR SIMPLY STATING A FACT THAT THEY WERE REGISTERED THAT WAY. IT'S A VERY FINE LINE. TO TELL YOU WHERE THIS LANGUAGE CAME FROM, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE PRESENTLY FROM FOR JUDICIAL ELECTIONS. THIS IS WHAT SERVES -- THAT'S AN EXACT COPY FROM THE STATUTE SWITCHED, OF COURSE, FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER, BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD MODEL. OBVIOUSLY HOW THAT'S FOLLOWED WITH JUDGES IS HOW THIS WOULD BE DONE FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER. THE CITY -- THAT'S -- THE CITY'S PROVISION IS PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ACT, AND THEY ARE MUCH MORE SPECIFIC. >>JAN SMITH: MS. WILLIAMS. >>DEE WILLIAMS: MY QUESTION ON THIS PROPOSAL. ARE WE GOING TO ROLL THIS INTO A WHOLE BALL OF WAX, OR IS THIS GOING TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY WHEN WE GET INTO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO GET TO. ROLLED INTO ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE GOVERNMENT THE WAY IT IS OR EXPAND. I WANT TO KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF A PACKAGE. >>JAN SMITH: THAT WILL BE DEPENDING ON THE -- >>DEE WILLIAMS: A LA CARTE OR THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. >>JAN SMITH: I BELIEVE IT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THIS BOARD WHETHER THEY WANT TO PROPOSE A PACKAGE. BUT THIS IS ALSO AN ISSUE IF THEY CHANGED OTHER THINGS, THIS COULD BE A SEPARATE BALLOT ITEM. A SEPARATE ITEM ON THE BALLOT. 52 THE BOARD COULD BE PART OF THE PACKAGE, BUT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS BOARD AFTER TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE DECISION IS FINALLY ADOPTED AS TO WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT. IT COULD BE A SEPARATE ITEM. >>DEE WILLIAMS: OKAY. THANKS. >>JAN SMITH: MR. TINKLER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT? YOU WANT TO LEAVE, DON'T YOU? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THE PROPOSAL AS WE LAID OUT IS IF YOU HAD THIS ISSUE INDIVIDUALLY. OF COURSE, IT COULD BE ROLLED INTO THE LARGER PACKAGE IF YOU SO WISHED. WE HAD IT LAID OUT IF YOU TOOK THIS ONE ISSUE AND TOOK NO OTHER ACTION BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY. >>JAN SMITH: MY COMMENT BACK TO IT WOULD BE THAT AT THE SECOND CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, THE ONE IN 1991, IT WAS PART OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. AND SO, THEN, IT WAS TAKEN OUT BECAUSE THE PARTY OFFICIALS CAME DOWN AND SAID, IF YOU LEAVE IT IN THE PACKAGE, WE WILL GO AGAINST ALL OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. SO COMMON SENSE WOULD ALMOST TELL YOU IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE IT, IT NEEDS TO BE A SEPARATE BALLOT. >>DEE WILLIAMS: REFRESH MY MEMORY. FROM THE '91, WAS THERE ANYTHING PUT ON THE BALLOT FROM THAT CHARTER REVIEW? >>JAN SMITH: THERE IS A VOTE TO TAKE ISSUES TO THE BALLOT. 53 AND THEN THERE WAS SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GETTING PRE-CLEARANCE AND EVERYTHING IN THE -- >>DEE WILLIAMS: THEY TOOK IT OFF. I REMEMBER NOW. >>JAN SMITH: IT WENT DOWN THE TUBES. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, MR. AMBLER? >>KEVIN AMBLER: JUST SO I'M CLEAR. WHAT I HAD ENVISIONED -- FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THIS PROPOSAL, AS OTHERS WE ARE GOING TO DO -- WHATEVER PROPOSALS WE VOTE ON TO TAKE TO PUBLIC HEARING WILL ALL AS SEPARATE A LA CARTE MENUS TO CONTINUE THAT ANALOGY OR ITEMS GO INTO THAT POT OF ISSUES THAT WILL ALL BE ADVERTISED AND DISCUSSED AT THOSE TWO MEETINGS I GUESS IN JANUARY. BUT BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AT THOSE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS DOESN'T NECESSARILY LINK ONE TO THE OTHER. THAT THEY CAN ALL BE TAKEN UP SEPARATELY, BY VOTING ON DIFFERENT ITEMS TO CREATE YOUR OWN PACKAGE BY THE END OF THAT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, OR THIS BOARD WILL CREATE ITS OWN PACKAGE OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT PARTISAN ELECTIONS YET. AS I'VE HAD A LOT OF THOUGHTS AND SOUL SEARCHING AS I WATCH THIS WHOLE POLITICAL PROCESS UNFOLD BEFORE US AND IT'S STILL -- THE SAGA CONTINUES, BUT I WILL SAY THIS. TWO COMMENTS ABOUT THE PENDING MOTION. ONE, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OR PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK WE WOULD BE BENEFITED BY THE THREE 54 CLARIFIERS THAT WE SEE IN THE NONPARTISAN ELECTION PROVISION THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE CITY CHARTER. THE REASON I FEEL THAT, I GUESS IT'S MY BACKGROUND WHEN I DO WORK AS A CONTRACT LAWYER IS, IT'S THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN YOUR CONTRACT THAT GET PARTIES INTO LITIGATION AND INTO TROUBLE, THE NOT THE THINGS THAT ARE THERE. AND I'VE ALWAYS ERRED ON THE SIDE OF BEING TOO OVERREDUNDANT OR WHATEVER. TOO VERBOSE, WHATEVER. I TELL YOU, WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT, THAT VERBOSITY IS THERE IN THE LONG RUN. >>STEVE LaBOUR: CHARGING PER HOUR, IT PAYS OFF FOR YOU. >>KEVIN AMBLER: BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT THESE THREE CLARIFICATIONS, JUST WITH THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP TONIGHT WITH THE YARD SIGN AND SO FORTH, IT GETS US TO A CLEARER PROPOSAL THAT COULD BE PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION. AND I WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE PENDING MOTION THAT ADDED THESE THREE ITEMS. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH THEM. AS I SAID I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD ULTIMATELY VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TAKING SOMETHING TO PUBLIC HEARING, HARKENING BACK TO OUR VERY FIRST AND SECOND MEETING WHEN MR. LaBOUR SAID HE WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. I THINK I'M AT THAT POINT. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS, HASHED IT OUT, I WANT TO HEAR WHAT VIEWS THERE ARE. AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNE TIME. 55 MY ONLY RESERVATION IS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT THE PRESENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE THREE POINTS -- ACTUALLY, I THINK POINT NUMBER 1 IS REALLY THERE ALREADY. >>STEVE LaBOUR: CORRECT. 2 AND 3. >>KEVIN AMBLER: ITEMS 2 AND 3 ABOUT PUBLICLY REPRESENTING OR ADVERTISING YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY, AND NUMBER THREE, SOLICITING FUNDS AND ENDORSEMENTS. >>JAN SMITH: MS. TUTTLE, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT? >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: YES. >>JAN SMITH: SECOND? MS. WALDRON, DID YOU SECOND THAT? >>ARLENE WALDRON: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>JAN SMITH: SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN AMENDED THAT SAYS WE'LL TAKE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DRAFT -- THE COMMITTEE'S DRAFT PROPOSAL WITH THE -- WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE REFERENDUM AND THE -- AND THE DETAIL OF IT ALONG WITH NUMBER 2 AND 3 FROM THE ASSOCIATED PAGE. >>GERALD WHITE: MADAM CHAIR -- >>JAN SMITH: JUST ONE MOMENT PLEASE. AND THAT IS THE MOTION WE WILL BE VOTING ON. MR. WHITE, IF YOU ARE SPEAKING TO THE MOTION. >>GERALD WHITE: YEAH, SPEAKING TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I THINK EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND -- >>JAN SMITH: IT IS AN AMENDMENT, NOT A SUBSTITUTE. >>GERALD WHITE: EXCUSE ME, THE AMENDMENT. I'M VERY TIRED. 56 THE ELECTION LAW OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE DOCUMENT I GAVE YOU SEVERAL MONTHS AGO ON DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN POLITICS, FOR A POLITICAL PARTY TO ENDORSE AND ENGAGE WITH A CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARY AND OUTSIDE OF THE PRIMARY PROCESS, THEY WOULD GIVE UP THEIR 2% MONIES THAT THEY GET. THEY'LL LOSE ALL KINDS OF POWERS AND ALL KINDS OF BENEFITS IF THEY PARTICIPATE IN NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS AND IN PARTISAN ELECTIONS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE POLITICAL PARTIES DO THAT. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTION. THEY GET INVOLVED IN GENERAL ELECTIONS, BUT THEY STILL CAN'T ENDORSE -- THEY STILL CAN'T DO A LOT OF THESE THINGS. SO YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE THEM ENGAGING IN THE CITY OF TAMPA POLITICS. SO I THOUGHT YOU NEED -- NEED TO KNOW THAT. AND THERE ARE BYLAWS AND THERE ARE RULES AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS INDICATE THAT THEY WON'T DO THAT. SO -- IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT THAT I GAVE YOU. IN CHAPTER 103 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. MR. BEDKE, SINCE YOU RAISED THIS ISSUE AT THE LAST MEETING. LET'S LET YOU BRING IT TO A CLOSE. >>MIKE BEDKE: THAT'S MY POINT. DON'T WANT A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE DISCUSSION, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MOVE US FORWARD, THEREFORE, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE 57 QUESTION. >>JAN SMITH: ALL IN FAVOR OF CALLING THE QUESTION, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAME SIGN. WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED. WE WILL DO THIS BY ROLL CALL PLEASE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: YES. >>JOHN BALES: YES. >>TERRY BALLARD: YES. >>MIKE BEDKE: YES. >>HENRY BELTRAN: YES. >>DAVID HURLEY: NO. >>STEVE LaBOUR: NO. >>DENISE LASHER: YES. >>JAN SMITH: YES. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: YES. >>ARLENE WALDRON: YES. >>GERALD WHITE: NO. >DANNY WILKES: NO. >>DEE WILLIAMS: NO. >>JAN SMITH: MAJORITY CARRIES ON THIS TO TAKE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING. SO THE VOTE IS 10-4. AS A RESULT, IT WILL GO TO PUBLIC HEARING. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT FINAL UNTIL THIS BOARD FINALLY VOTES AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. 58 LOOK AT THAT, 7:30, WAY TO GO, BOARD. LET'S TAKE A BREAK. WE'LL BE BACK IN 15 MINUTES. [ RECESS TAKEN ] >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS FOR COMING BACK AND SINCE WE'VE MADE A BIT OF PROGRESS THIS EVENING, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US CONTINUE ALONG THAT LINE. MS. WALDRON, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? >>ARLENE WALDRON: YES, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IN THE INTEREST OF STARTING THE DISCUSSION ON THE HARD STUFF, I WOULD LIKE US TO REFER BACK TO THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING WHERE CHAIRMAN SMITH SAID, "THE NEXT MEETING WOULD FIRST ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHETHER TO HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIRMAN, AT-LARGE VERSUS SINGLE DISTRICT, ET CETERA." AND PRIOR TO THAT CONVERSATION, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TAKING THE CHARTER SECTION BY SECTION. AND YOUR SUGGESTION IS ACTUALLY SECTION BY SECTION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE SUGGEST THAT WE START WITH SECTION 4.01 AND BEGIN THE DISCUSSION OF THE HARD STUFF. >>JAN SMITH: SO DO YOU HAVE SOME MOTION OR DISCUSSION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT RIGHT ON THE TABLE? >>ARLENE WALDRON: WELL, I THINK WE EVEN SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, SECTION 4.01, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY HAS IN FRONT OF THEM THE PROPOSAL AND THE CHANGE OR IF YOU JUST WANT TO GO WITH THE ACTUAL CHARTER. 59 BUT SECTION 4.02 GETS RIGHT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHERE THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROPOSAL IS RECOMMENDING GOING FROM SEVEN TO NINE. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT. I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF CITIZENS. WHAT I'VE HEARD THE CITIZENS SAY THAT THEY'RE REALLY NOT LOOKING FOR US TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS. I MEAN, FROM WHAT I HEAR, THAT SOUNDS VERY CLEAR. I ALSO FEEL THAT I HAVE HEARD THAT THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THE SINGLE DISTRICTS. SO I THINK GOING BY THE CHAIRMAN'S SUGGESTION IN SECTION 4.02, THE PROPOSAL WAS TO INCREASE IT TO NINE COMMISSIONERS, AND I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS THAT WE LEAVE THAT NUMBER AT SEVEN. WOULD THE -- WITH THE STRUCTURE OF SINGLE VERSUS AT-LARGE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. >>JAN SMITH: THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. IS THERE A SECOND? >>ARLENE WALDRON: TO STAY WITH THE SEVEN, BUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> SECOND. I'LL SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: DID YOU SECOND IT, MS. LASHER? MR. BELTRAN SECONDED IT. AND THAT IS THAT WE DO NOT GO -- YOUR MOTION IS THAT WE NOT CONSIDER NINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> WE STAY WITH SEVEN. 60 >>JAN SMITH: THAT WE STAY WITH SEVEN. >>ARLENE WALDRON: AND IF WE USE OUR CHARTS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE CAN JUST KIND OF WORK ALONG WITH OUR TOOLS, WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE, WE CAN EITHER CROSS IT OFF OR START ELIMINATING. >>JAN SMITH: IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THE ONLY THING AND I THINK I EXPRESSED THIS LAST TIME, THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT IS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EXPANSION OF THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. I'VE HEARD ENOUGH INFORMATION AND HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH THE INFORMATION THAT MR. WHITE GAVE US THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED WHICH I THOUGHT WAS HELPFUL. I REALLY THINK THAT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS HAVE TO BE EXPANDED. IF THE CONSENSUS IS OF THIS BOARD TO ALSO HAVE AT-LARGE, THEN THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET THERE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS THEN MAYBE HAVE NINE. IF THE BOARD DECIDES THAT AT-LARGE ISN'T AS IMPORTANT AND THEY WANT TO HAVE ALL SINGLE MEMBER, THEN I COULD SUPPORT THE SEVEN. SO THAT'S MY CHALLENGE IS -- IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS THE TOTAL NUMBER. IT'S THE -- FOR ME, IT'S THE MAKEUP. AND I THINK WE NEED TO ADD SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. I THINK THAT -- I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THREE IS TOO FEW. >> FOUR. 61 >>STEVE LaBOUR: I'M SORRY. FOUR IS TOO FEW. >>ARLENE WALDRON: DO YOU WANT TO AMEND MY MOTION TO THE SEVEN OR DOES IT NOT FIT? >>STEVE LaBOUR: I THINK YOUR MOTION IS TO START WITH THE TOTAL OF SEVEN AND THEN FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DRAW, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO AT-LARGE AND HOW MANY OF THE SEVEN SHOULD BE AT-LARGE AND SINGLE MEMBERS. SO I'M JUST SAYING TO YOU UNDER -- I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING, I'M CERTAINLY NOT FOR WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I WANT TO CHANGE IT. I WANT TO ADD SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. SO I DON'T THINK I CAN GET THERE WITH SEVEN. UNLESS ALL OF THEM ARE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. OR SIX -- MR. BALLARD WOULD LIKE THAT. EITHER SIX SINGLE MEMBER AND ONE AS AN ELECTED CHAIR AT-LARGE. >>ARLENE WALDRON: CAN I AMEND MY MOTION OR -- I MEAN, WE GOT TO START SOMEWHERE. WE'RE JUST GOING BACK AND FORTH ON WHAT TO -- >>JAN SMITH: LET'S KEEP THE DISCUSSION PHASE. MR. HURLEY AND THEN MR. AMBLER. >>DAVID HURLEY: YOU KNOW, I CAN SUPPORT THE SEVEN, SIMILAR TO WHAT HE SAID. I THINK THAT I COULD GO WITH THE SIX AND ONE. AND I THINK THAT WHAT KARL WARREN SAID, WHAT DAN KLEMAN TOLD US THE FIRST TIME HE WAS HERE, FIND OUT WHAT'S BROKEN AND TRY TO FIX IT. 62 AND WE'VE ALL SEEN THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE REPRESENTATION. I MEAN, WE'VE HEARD THAT FROM NORTH, SOUTH, CENTRAL, EVERY PLACE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT REPRESENTATION. AND I CONCUR THAT WE NEED TO DO MORE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IN THE VACUUM, I'VE HEARD CRITICISM OF MR. KLEMAN IS TAKING OVER TOO MUCH POWER OR DOING WHATEVER. THERE'S A VACUUM OF LEADERSHIP, AND HE'S BEEN FILLING IT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THERE. AND HE STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE TO DO THAT. SO I THINK IF YOU HAD AN ELECTED CHAIR, HE WOULD HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE MANAGEMENT JOB THAT HE'S HIRED TO DO AND NOT TRY TO FILL IN ANOTHER POSITION. AND WHETHER HE'S TRYING TO DO OR NOT, THERE'S A VACUUM, AND IT HAS TO BE FILLED. AND HE'S KINDS OF PULLED INTO THAT SPOT. SO I COULD SUPPORT SEVEN IF IT WAS SIX AND ONE. BUT I COULD SUPPORT AN EXPANSION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF VOTING FOR YOUR MOTION WOULD PRECLUDE EVER DISCUSSING NINE WITH EIGHT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW THAT I WOULD WANT TO DO THAT. SO I THINK I SEE THAT I COULD SUPPORT SEVEN UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. SO I GUESS MINE ISN'T A YES OR NO, IT'S A MAYBE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT WHAT I HAD IN MY MIND AS KIND OF GOING WITH IT AS 63 PART AND PARCEL TO IT IS PURSUING -- AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER TO HAVE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PINK SHEET FIRST, BUT THIS IS AS GOOD A TIME AS ANY. MY CONDITION ON THAT ABOUT THE SEVEN, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VIEWS LIKE OF MR. WHITE AND VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE EXPRESSED A DEEP CONCERN ABOUT INSURING WE HAVE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION, ESPECIALLY AS THE COUNTY EXPANDS, I THINK SOME OF THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE ORIGINAL SUGGESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO BY DEE WILLIAMS, AND THAT WAS GOING WITH A GEOGRAPHICAL RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. I CAN SUPPORT THAT, AND I THINK YOU COULD KEEP THE NUMBER AT SEVEN. BUT BY IMPOSING THAT GEOGRAPHICAL RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, DISPERSE AND ENSURE THAT THE REPRESENTATION OF EVEN THOSE AT-LARGE MEMBERS ARE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND, THEREFORE, ENSURE THEY ARE MORE IN TUNE WITH THE CONSTITUENCIES THAT LIVE IN THOSE REGIONS AND COMBINED WITH THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, ENSURE BETTER REPRESENTATION. BUT STILL ENSURE THE BASIC PREMISE THAT EVERY VOTER IN ANY DISTRICT CAN ELECT THROUGH THEIR VOTE A MAJORITY MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION. THAT'S THE ONE ONE THING I THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE. >>DENISE LASHER: I KNOW THAT WE RAN INTO THIS DILEMMA AT THE LAST HALF -- OR LAST SESSION. 64 AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE START AND I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE COMMISSION IS A GREAT IDEA TO LOOK AT THAT FIRST; HOWEVER, NOW WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THIS COMPLICATED SITUATION WHERE SOME PEOPLE WON'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THEY WON'T NEED TO KNOW THIS AND NEED TO KNOW THAT. AND IT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO PASS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WANT TO EXPAND IT AND SOME PEOPLE WANT MORE INFORMATION BEFORE THEY AGREE TO THE SEVEN. SO I THINK THAT NOW THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER POTENTIAL PROCESS IN FRONT OF US AND THAT IS THE PACKET THAT MR. KLEMAN PREPARED FOR US, I'D LIKE US TO MAYBE CONSIDER GOING THROUGH IT IN THAT FASHION, WE, PERHAPS, BE ABLE TO APPEASE EVERYBODY IN COMING UP WITH A FINAL DIAGRAM OF WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE WERE TO CHANGE IT. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NUMBER 4 IS WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE COMMISSION. YOU START WITH SHOULD THE CHAIR BE -- HOW SHOULD THE CHAIR BE SELECTED, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON UP FRONT. >> REGARDLESS OF SIZE. >>DENISE LASHER: REGARDLESS OF SIZE. SO IT DOES SORT OF MAKE SOME SENSE TO GO THROUGH IT THIS WAY NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE ORGANIZED DIAGRAM TO FOLLOW. SO MS. WALDRON, I MEAN, I WOULD SUPPORT YOUR MOTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH VOTES FOR IT TO PASS FOR US TO MOVE ON. WOULD YOU CONSIDER GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS EVEN THOUGH AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD DECIDED TO FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PROCESS 65 IN TRYING TO DELIBERATE THESE ISSUES? >>JAN SMITH: THE OPTION IS THAT WE COULD TABLE THIS MOTION FOR NOW FOR FIVE MINUTES, 15 MINUTES. WE COULD GO BACK AND DISCUSS THE GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND THEN MAYBE THAT WOULD BRING PEOPLE TO THIS OTHER OR WE CAN FOLLOW THAT. ABSOLUTELY. SO MR. BALES, THEN MR. BEDKE AND MR. HURLEY. >>JOHN BALES: MS. WALDRON, I'VE SUPPORTED YOU IN THE PAST AND I STILL SUPPORT YOUR MOVEMENT, WHICH I THINK IT IS, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND REACH A BOTTOM LINE. ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THOUGH, I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO TAKE THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A LITTLE OUT OF PLACE. I ALSO BELIEVE WE SHOULD TALK LESS AND SAY MORE. AND I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO HERE. ONCE AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE'RE TAKING IT OUT OF PLACE. I THINK WE NEED TO DO THE BIGGER ISSUE, WHICH I THINK IS THE ELECTED CHAIR ISSUE. AND I THINK THE OTHER ISSUES WILL FALL INTO PLACE AFTER THAT. SO I RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER TABLING THIS AND GOING TO THE LIST, START WITH PAGE 2, AND LET'S JUST WALK THROUGH THOSE ITEMS AND LET'S GO DEAL WITH THEM ONE BY ONE AND TALK ABOUT THEM. BUT WITH THE ISSUE IT IS RIGHT NOW, I CAN SAY THAT I BELIEVE, FROM WHAT I HEAR, THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE DISTRICTS TO HELP THE REPRESENTATION OF VARIOUS PERSONS, IDEAS, GROUPS, ET 66 CETERA; HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME, I DON'T KNOW SEVEN OR NINE. I PREFER TO KEEP SEVEN. I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OR HAVE THE IDEA THAT ENLARGING THE COMMISSION WILL NECESSARILY BE HELPFUL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THOUGH, I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THIS MOMENTUM FOR HAVING MORE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THOUGH, I NEED TO LOOK, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A GOOD IDEA. I THINK MOST PEOPLE DO. I HOPE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BECOME A DIVISIVE ISSUE IN AN ATTEMPT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. I WISH WE WOULD CONSIDER STARTING WITH PAGE 2 AND WALKING THROUGH IT THAT WAY INSTEAD OF DOING THIS MOTION AT THIS TIME. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>MIKE BEDKE: I AGREE WITH THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS. >>JAN SMITH: THAT'S CONCISE. MR. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: I'M GOING TO YIELD TO MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, YOU KNOW, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD, I THINK I'VE HEARD THREE GOOD PROPOSALS. AND, OF COURSE, ONE OF THEM WOULD BE MINE. [ LAUGHTER ] WHICH IS THE SIX-ONE, WHICH YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THERE. AND I DIDN'T HEAR IT AT THE MEETING, BUT AFTER I GOT THE MINUTES, I WAS OVERWHELMED IN JUMPING WITH JOY WHEN I LOOKED AT THE MINUTES THAT THE CHAIR PROPOSED A FIVE-TWO. FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS -- 67 >>JAN SMITH: JUST A SUGGESTION TO GET PEOPLE MOVING. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, I WAS MOVED BY IT, AND I JUMPED ON THE PHONE AND CALLED MY CLOSEST FRIENDS. WELL, ANYWAY, THAT WAS IN HER HEART TO EVEN PUT THAT ON THE TABLE, I WAS MOVED BY THAT. AND THE THIRD GOOD IDEA IS THE GEOGRAPHIC SUGGESTION BY MS. WILLIAMS. AND I THINK ALL OF THOSE THREE, ONE OF THOSE SHOULD PREVAIL. AND I THINK THE ULTIMATE QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IS DO WE WANT TO HAVE AN ELECTED COUNTY CHAIR. AND IF THIS PROCESS THAT MR. KLEMAN HAS GIVEN TO US WILL GET US THERE TONIGHT THEN WE NEED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I MOVE THAT WE TABLE MS. WALDRON'S MOTION, AND THAT WE BEGIN ON PAGE 2 WITH QUESTION NUMBER 1. >>JAN SMITH: IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: THAT MOTION IS NOT DEBATABLE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. [ MOTION CARRIED ] THAT ONE IS ON THE TABLE. CAN BE PICKED UP AT ANY OTHER DATE, TIME OR PLACE. SO WE'RE GOING TO WHO IS NEXT. >>DAVID HURLEY: DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DISCUSS IT? IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE DO THIS, WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND THEN WE'RE EITHER FOR IT OR AGAINST IT. AND I'D RATHER GO THROUGH AND TELL ME WHY YOU'RE FOR ONE OR 68 THE OTHER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE ODD IN PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. BUT TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE BEFORE WE START MAKING MOTIONS. >>JAN SMITH: I DID TRY THAT ONCE, AND THE BOARD ROYALLY PUT ME DOWN FOR THAT SUGGESTION, TO DO JUST LIKE EVERYBODY. GO AROUND THE TABLE AND SAY WHAT YOUR OPINION IS. IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT UP IN ORDER OF THE ISSUE, THEN DID SOMEBODY WANT TO PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO PROPOSE EITHER ONE OF THESE OPTIONS? >> WE NEED TO READ THE QUESTION OUT LOUD FOR THE FOLKS. >>JAN SMITH: HOW SHOULD THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BE SELECTED? THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS: POPULAR ELECTION, MEANING AN AT-LARGE ELECTION BY THE ELECTORATE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, OR SHOULD THE CHAIRMAN BE SELECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. MR. BEDKE, THEN MR. BALES. >>MIKE BEDKE: I MOVE THAT THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BE SELECTED BY POPULAR ELECTION. >> SECONDED. >>JAN SMITH: WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD BE ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE, POPULAR ELECTION MADE BY MR. BEDKE. SECOND BY MR. BALES. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >>HENRY BELTRAN: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT AUTHORITY HE'S GOING TO 69 HAVE AS CHAIR OF THAT -- >> THAT'S LATER. >> THAT'S NUMBER TWO. >> THIS IS JUST ON THIS ISSUE. THIS ISN'T TO MOVE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THIS WORKSHEET, SO TO SPEAK. >>JAN SMITH: THIS IS NOT TO TAKE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING YET. THIS IS OUR CONSENSUS BUILDING. MR. BALLARD. >>TERRY BALLARD: YES, I'LL PROBABLY VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I'LL TORPEDO IT IN THE OVERALL THING. I JUST SEEN IT WORK BOTH WAYS, AND I BELIEVE THAT SELECTING IT FROM THE MEMBERSHIP WITH THEM DOING IS KIND OF LIKE ELECTED CHAIR, BUT ELECTED BY THE OTHER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. YOU CAN CALL IT APPOINTED OR ELECTED, BUT I THINK THE LATTER OR "B" WORKS BETTER. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. >>JAN SMITH: MS. LASHER. >>DENISE LASHER: I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, AND ONE OF THE REASONS IS, IS THAT IF THE CHAIR IS ELECTED, THEN THAT PERSON WOULD BE CHAIR FOR FOUR YEARS. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SUCH A GOOD IDEA. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT BASED ON WHAT WE SAW HAPPEN TUESDAY WITH THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL, WHETHER THE VOTERS WOULD REALLY HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THEM TO MAKE THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE CHAIRMAN. YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY RUNNING IN THAT SLOT TO BE THE CHAIR 70 THAT HAS NEVER SERVED ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE. AND I THINK THAT THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD BE SOMEONE WHO HAS HAD EXPERIENCE WORKING AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WITH THE GROUP SO THEY UNDERSTAND HOW THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIR AND HOW THE COMMISSION WORKS VERSUS ELECTING SOMEONE WHO'S NEVER EVEN SERVED ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT INDIVIDUAL THERE IN THAT POSITION FOR FOUR YEARS. SO I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. >>MIKE BEDKE: THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE WITH THAT RATIONALE IS GENERAL POWELL, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE SAYING COULD NOT EVER BE CHAIR OF OUR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE HE HASN'T SERVED ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND THAT PRECLUDES A LOT OF POTENTIALLY PHENOMENAL LEADERS THAT I THINK FOLKS FROM EVERY GEOGRAPHIC PORTION OF THE COUNTY WOULD SUPPORT, FROM EVERY ETHNIC AND RACIAL PERSPECTIVE. YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO CROSS ALL BOUNDS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT SITTING UP HERE AS ONE OF SEVEN PEOPLE TO BE THAT VISIONARY OR THAT CONSENSUS BUILDER. ALMOST EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE HEARD AGAINST THIS POSITION IS REALLY BASED UPON FEAR, AND IT'S SORT OF THE NOTION THAT THE PERSON WHO WOULD FILL THAT POSITION IS EITHER GOING TO BE CORRUPT OR EXTREMELY MALLEABLE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WOULD GET ELECTED IN THIS TYPE OF COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY -- AGAIN, IT COMES DOWN TO DIFFERENT GROUPS SAYING, WELL, THE DOWNTOWN INTERESTS WILL CONTROL OR 71 THE DEVELOPERS WILL CONTROL OR THE BANKERS OR WHOMEVER, AND YET, FRANKLY, THE FOLKS FROM LUTZ AND SUN CITY CENTER AND SOUTH COUNTY AND EAST COUNTY ARE HAVING TREMENDOUS SUCCESS. SO IF ANYTHING, I CAN ALMOST SAY, BOY, AS A PERSON SOUTH OF KENNEDY, I'M NERVOUS THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO PREVAIL EVERY TIME. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO REALLY BE MOTIVATED BY THE BETTER ANGELS AND NOT OUT OF FEAR AND ELECT SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT AN ALL-POWERFUL KING OR QUEEN, BUT IS REALLY A FIRST AMONG EQUALS TO LEAD THIS COMMUNITY FORWARD. AND IF WE LOVED THE PERSON, FOUR YEARS ISN'T NEARLY ENOUGH. IF WE DON'T LIKE HIM, FOUR YEARS IS FOREVER, BUT WE'VE GOT THAT IN JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER MAJOR LEADERSHIP TYPE OF POSITION. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BALES. >>JOHN BALES: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. AND THE REASON IS THAT I BELIEVE IN VOTERS. AND I BELIEVE THE REASON THIS NATION IS GREAT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE GET TO VOTE. AND THEY MAKE DECISIONS ON WHO ARE OUR LEADERS. THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD DO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT'S QUITE OFTEN THEY DON'T. BUT I DO BELIEVE OVERALL, BECAUSE WE VOTE AND BECAUSE PEOPLE EXERCISE THAT RIGHT, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE TODAY. SO NOW TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR BECAUSE THE VOTERS DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEST WORRIES ME. 72 THEY DO KNOW WHAT IS BEST. THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I'M NOT ALWAYS GOING TO VOTE THE RIGHT WAY, BUT OVERALL, THEY ARE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES US WHAT WE ARE, AND I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE ARE. SO WE SHOULD ALLOW PERSONS TO VOTE FOR WHO IS CHAIR OF OUR COUNTY COMMISSION. >>DAVID HURLEY: WELL, I, TOO, HEARD THE FEAR OF LOOK WHO COULD BE THE CHAIR. AND SOME NAMES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THAT GIVE ME THE FULL-BODY SHIVERS. I JUST GUARANTEE YOU THAT RIGHT OFF. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE NOT SUPPORTED EVERY PRESIDENT THAT'S BEEN ELECTED. SOME OF YOU MIGHT HAVE FIGURED OUT A COUPLE OF WHO THOSE WERE, NOR HAVE I BEEN THE SUPPORTER OF EACH GOVERNOR ELECTED NOR HAVE I WON EVERY COUNTY COMMISSION RACE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN OR CITY COUNCIL OR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A LEADERSHIP POSITION, SOMEONE THAT CAN CAMPAIGN ON A VISION. I THINK THAT THE ANALOGY WITH THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS A POOR ONE BECAUSE THERE WAS VERY LITTLE INFORMATION TILL RIGHT AT THE END AND THE INFORMATION AT THE END WAS VERY MUCH MISINFORMATION. AND I THINK IF SOMEONE IS RUNNING FOR THIS OFFICE ON A COUNTYWIDE BASIS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RUN FOR IT FOR A WHILE AND THEY'LL GET VETTED PRETTY WELL. 73 WE'LL FIND OUT WHO THEY ARE. IF THEY WERE A COUNTY COMMISSION BEFORE, WE HAVE A RECORD WE CAN BEAT THEM UP WITH OR LOVE THEM WITH. AND IF THEY HAVEN'T, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME BACKGROUND THAT WE CAN POINT OUT TO SAY IT'S GOOD OR BAD. WILL WE GET A BAD COUNTY CHAIR SOMETIME? YEAH, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. IN MY VIEW, WE'LL HAVE A BAD COUNTY CHAIR. MY GUESS IS EVERYBODY HERE IF WE LIVE LONG ENOUGH AND HAVE A BAD COUNTY CHAIR, WE'LL SEE SOMEBODY WHO IS A BAD COUNTY CHAIR. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE LEADERSHIP VACUUM IN THE BOARD AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS BOARD SINCE, WELL, '78 -- I'M NOT THAT OLD. SINCE IT'S BEEN A SEVEN-MEMBER BOARD, IT'S BEEN QUITE FRACTIOUS. IT WASN'T SO FRACTIOUS AT FIVE. SOME OF THEM WERE GETTING PAID. EASIER TO GET ALONG WHEN YOU'RE GETTING PAID. BUT WITH THE SEVEN, ON EVERY BOARD, THERE'S BEEN A VACUUM OF LEADERSHIP. THREE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS THAT EACH CLAIM, LOOK, I'M REPRESENTING THE WHOLE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY ALL ELECTED ME. AND THEY EACH HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT TO SAY I HAVE THE VISION FOR THE WHOLE COUNTY AS ANY OF THE OTHERS. AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 74 I SURE AS THE WORLD DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR 218 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I THINK THAT IS A FALSE IDEA OF CONTROL OR POWER WHEN WE DO IT IN THAT MANY AREAS. I CAN CONTRIBUTE TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT DON'T LIVE -- THAT AREN'T IN MY DISTRICT, AND I DID THIS PAST ELECTION. DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN TO BE IN MY PARTY. SORRY. DON'T TELL ANYBODY. BUT AT THAT POINT, WE CAN ALL WORK IN THESE ELECTIONS AND ALL OF US THAT ARE POLITICALLY ACTIVE ARE GOING TO WORK IN THESE ELECTIONS. AND I CAN