Charter Review Board, 11/30/00

**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.
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, NOVEMBER 30th IN THE YEAR 2000.
MR. WHITE, WOULD YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE.
>>JAN SMITH:  YES.
THANK YOU.
COULD WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
[ROLL CALL TAKEN]
>> YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
WE DID GET NOTIFIED THAT ARLENE WALDRON WOULD BE OUT OF TOWN THIS EVENING.
I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, SO I'M HOPING THEY'LL ARRIVE.
BE PREPARED FOR MR. AMBLER TO RACE THROUGH THE DOORS AND RUN TO HIS SEAT.
HOPE THAT HE'LL MAKE IT.
WE HAVE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 9th MEETING.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>>GERALD WHITE:  SECOND.
>>JAN SMITH:  WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9th.
ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS?
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANYONE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.
THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND WE ONLY HAVE THREE PEOPLE HERE THIS EVENING TO TALK AT THE MOMENT.
MR. HUGHES, AND HE HAS A SORE THROAT, SO LISTEN CAREFULLY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
RALPH HUGHES, TAMPA.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SUMMARIZE MY COMMENTS TO YOU OVER THE PAST NINE MONTHS THAT PERTAIN TO CERTAIN PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGES THAT REMAIN UNDER CONSIDERATION.
ITEM, ELECTED COUNTY CHAIR.
I BELIEVE OUR SEVEN-MEMBER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD CONTINUE TO ELECT A CHAIR.
MY REASONS ARE TWO-FOLD.
ONE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK TOGETHER ON A YEAR-ROUND BASIS.
THEY, THEREFORE, ARE IN A POSITION TO KNOW WHICH COMMISSIONERS ARE QUALIFIED TO BE CHAIR.
WHEN THEY MAKE A MISTAKE SOME YEARS?
SURE, BUT THEIR MISTAKE WILL ONLY LAST ONE YEAR, WHEREAS, IF THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAPPEN TO ELECT THE WRONG CHAIR, WE ARE STUCK FOR THAT PERSON FOR FOUR YEARS.
TWO, ASK YOURSELF WHO IS LIKELY TO BE ELECTED CHAIR BY THE PEOPLE.
THE ANSWER IS, IT WILL BE THAT PERSON WHO IS BACKED BY THE NEWS MEDIA AND THE ELITE DOWNTOWN SILK-STOCKING CROWD.
FURTHER, HE OR SHE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY TO WAGE A CAMPAIGN.
ONE THING IS FOR SURE, THAT PERSON WILL BE A SKILLED POLITICIAN.
LET'S SAY NO TO AN ELECTED CHAIR.
ITEM, NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS.
NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS ARE OKAY FOR SMALL CITIES WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYBODY AND/OR FOR THOSE ELECTED OFFICES THAT DO NOT SET POLICY; HOWEVER, NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS ARE NOT OKAY FOR OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT WITH OUR POPULATION OF 1 MILLION PEOPLE AND 500,000 REGISTERED VOTERS.
THE VOTERS ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW THE PARTY AFFILIATION OF ALL THE CANDIDATES FOR THE BOCC BECAUSE THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION REFLECTS THEIR POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
BE AWARE THAT IF WE PUT THIS ISSUE ON THE BALLOT, THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WILL RALLY THEIR TROOPS TO GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE NO.
LET'S NOT ENCOURAGE "NO" VOTES.
ITEM.
QUALIFICATIONS OF APPOINTED COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
THE QUALIFICATIONS IN OUR CHARTER FOR AN APPOINTED COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ARE VERY NARROW.
WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LEAD OF PINELLAS COUNTY.
THAT COUNTY GAVE THE BOCC THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WHO IS EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB.
PERIOD.
IF WE CANNOT TRUST OUR BOCC TO MAKE THIS APPOINTMENT, THEN WE HAVE A MUCH MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM IN WHO THEY MAY APPOINT.
WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR CHARTERS AND QUALIFICATIONS IN THIS REGARD CAN BE INTERPRETED MORE BROADLY, WHY SHOULD WE LEAVE THIS MATTER OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION FOR WHOEVER MAY BE IN A POSITION TO RENDER AN INTERPRETATION IN THE FUTURE.
THE ANSWER IS, WE SHOULD NOT.
ITEM, ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF MAKING SURE FIVE OF OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DO NOT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA EVER AGAIN.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS DIVIDE OUR COUNTY INTO THREE DISTRICTS AS EQUAL IN POPULATION AS POSSIBLE AND REQUIRE THAT OUR THREE COUNTYWIDE COMMISSIONERS RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFICE THEY SEEK.
THE RESULT WILL BE BETTER REPRESENTATION FOR THE PEOPLE, AND THIS WILL ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OF THOSE WHO OWN ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
PLUS, WE WILL RETAIN A STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT THAT WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR EVERY VOTER TO VOTE FOR A MAJORITY OF THE BOCC.
ITEM, TERM LIMITS.
TERM LIMITS ARE A TWO-EDGED SWORD.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A TOUGH CALL FOR ME AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE THEM, AND THAT WON'T CHANGE.
I HOPE ALL OF YOU REALIZE HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET GOOD QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE ON THE BOCC.
BELIEVE ME, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE A COMMISSIONER CIRCUMVENTS TERM LIMITS WHEN HE OR SHE -- IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT OR RUNS FOR A COUNTY SEAT OR VICE VERSA.
THE REASON I FEEL AS I DO BECAUSE THAT COMMISSIONER MUST THEN BE ELECTED BY A DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCY.
THIS IS LIKE LEAVING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON A STATE LEVEL WHEN TERM LIMITS ARE UP AND RUNNING FOR THE STATE SENATE.
OBVIOUSLY, THE COUNTYWIDE CONSTITUENCY IS A DIFFERENT GROUP OF VOTERS THAN A SINGLE-MEMBER CONSTITUENCY.
ITEM, ESTABLISH A 3% OR THE ANNUAL INFLATION RATE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER CAP ON THE INCREASE IN OUR ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET WITH A PROVISO THAT THIS STIPULATION MAY BE WAIVED BY A 6-1 VOTE OF THE BOCC.
PLEASE BEAR IN MIND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR TOTAL BUDGET NOW $244 BILLION.
-- $2.4 BILLION, EXCUSE ME.
I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR $1 BILLION OPERATING BUDGET WHICH CONSISTENCY PRIMARILY OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND OPERATING EXPENSES.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROADS, LIBRARIES, PARKS, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
I HAVE A FEW MORE SENTENCES.
PEOPLE COME UP TO ME ON A REGULAR CONSISTENT BASIS AND TELL ME HOW MUCH THEY FAVOR THIS PROPOSAL, AND SOME ASK, WHAT IF QUESTIONS.
THE ANSWER TO THE "WHAT IFS" IS THAT THE BOCC CAN WAIVE THIS PROVISION AT ANY TIME IF SIX COMMISSIONERS DEEM IT NECESSARY AND, BY THE WAY, DO NOT CONSIDER A SUPER-MAJORITY 5-2 VOTE.
THESE ARE COMMON.
MAKE IT 6-1 WHICH IS A BOCC STANDARD FOR EMERGENCIES.
REMEMBER IT TOOK SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE BOCC TO LIMIT LAWN SPRINKLING TO ONE DAY A WEEK.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY.
>>JAN SMITH:  NEXT SPEAKER IS KARL WARREN.
>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I'M SIMPLY GOING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING PHILOSOPHICALLY.
I BELIEVE MY POSITION ON CERTAIN ISSUES IS WRITTEN AND IT'S ON RECORD.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I STRONGLY BELIEVE OUR GREAT NATION IS AT A VERY CLOSELY DEFINED CROSSROAD.
I BELIEVE MUCH IS BEING LOST WHILE LITTLE IS BEING GAINED FROM AN OBTUSE AND PAROCHIAL WAY OF DOING BUSINESS.
I BELIEVE THE ISSUE OF INEQUALITY IN DISCRIMINATION WILL NOT GO AWAY, EVEN AFTER WHOLESALE PLUNDERING AND RAPING OF HISTORICAL COMMUNITIES FOR SELF-SERVING REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NAME OF PROGRESS.
I BELIEVE EACH OF YOU ARE AT PERSONAL CROSSROADS.
I BELIEVE YOUR CHARACTER IS BEING TESTED AND YOUR INTEGRITY IS BEING MAGNIFIED.
I BELIEVE WHO YOU REALLY ARE WILL BECOME CLEAR TO YOU AND TO OTHERS WHILE ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD.
I BELIEVE WE ARE LIVING IN THE DAYS THAT OUR SOULS ARE BEING CHALLENGED AND TESTED.
I BELIEVE EACH OF YOU HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN MOVING OUR COMMUNITY FORWARD OR RETRENCHING IT IN THE PAST.
BEFORE CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I NEVER ISSUE THREATS, BUT I DO FOREWARN A PERSON OR GROUP OF THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING THEIR POSITION PROPERLY CHALLENGED IN THE APPROPRIATE ARENAS.
IF SUCH CANDID TRUTHS OF OFFENDS THE SENSIBILITY OF SOME BOARD MEMBERS, I IN GREAT HUMILITY AND LOVE BEG YOUR FORGIVENESS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, IF A STRUCTURE IS INTENDED TO BE PUT IN PLACE THAT WOULD FURTHER DISENFRANCHISE BLACKS AND OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES, YES, I WILL PRO SE FILE OBJECTIONS WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND I AM PRO SELY PREPARED TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS IN THE COURT.
THIS IS NOT A THREAT, THIS IS SIMPLY MY INTENTION AND COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE AND EQUALITY TO ALL CITIZENS OF OUR GREAT COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>>JAN SMITH:  MIKE CARDUCCI.
>> I WASN'T THREATENING THE BOARD, NOR WAS I THREATENING ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AT ALL.
THANK YOU.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD.
AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME BEFORE YOU TO SPEAK.
IT'S TOWARD THE END OF THE YEAR AND YOU HAVE ONLY A FEW MORE MEETINGS TO COME AND VERY CONTROVERSIAL CONCLUSIONS.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SUMMARIZE AS MY GOOD FRIEND, RALPH, DID OUR POSITION OF AND IT REFERS TO STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT SO MUCH IN THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT BUT IN THE FUNCTION AND STRUCTURE OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT COMMUNITY.
WE ASK FOR SEVEN INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS WITH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS FOR SIMPLE REASON OF REPRESENTATION OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS.
WE BELIEVE THE CENSUS AND THE POPULATION WILL JUSTIFY THAT TRANSITION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PARTISANSHIP IN THE ELECTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT TERM LIMITS SHOULD ALSO BE IN EFFECT BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN A PROVEN VOTED APPROVAL BY THE CONSTITUENCY IN THE STATE, AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL AREAS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WHO REPRESENT A DISTRICT SHOULD RESIDE IN THAT DISTRICT, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WILL GIVE US THE GREATEST REPRESENTATION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE VERY FIGHT YOU SEE GOING ON IN TALLAHASSEE TODAY IS LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT WE CONSIDER REPRESENTATION.
IN THIS CASE, FIGHTING FOR VOTES THAT WE ALL CONSIDER SO IMPORTANT.
IF YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE AND THEY DON'T REPRESENT YOU, YOU MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE VOTED AT ALL, AND USING A WELL USED WORD RIGHT NOW, IT REALLY DISENFRANCHISES THE PERSON FROM THE COMMUNITY ACTIVITY, AND WE SURELY DO NOT WANT THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT OF ALL THE THINGS THAT OUR GROUP HAS DONE, WE'RE PROBABLY MOST PROUD OF THE FACT THAT THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL REPRESENT A CHAMBER WHO IS GOING TO BECOME ACTIVE IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
WE HAVE A SUCCESSFULLY AND IN THE LAST MEETING HAD MS. HASKINS, GONZALEZ HASKINS WHO REPRESENTS A LARGE HISPANIC GROUP IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA STATE THEY WILL GET INVOLVED.
WE HAVE A GROUP IN THE NORTHEAST SECTION OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT REPRESENT THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND MINORITY GROUPS OF THAT AREA AND THEY ARE GOING TO GET INVOLVED.
IF NOTHING ELSE, THE APATHY OF A COUNTY AREA IS CERTAINLY BEING MOTIVATED BY THE CONSTANT OBSERVATION OF WANTING REPRESENTATION.
WE IN NO WAY BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHO NOW EXIST ARE IN ANY WAY ABUSING US, AND THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE.
THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION FOR WHAT YOU KNOW BEST, AND YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH YOUR DECISION, YOU THEN REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.
IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY A KNOCK ON THE PRESENT COMMISSIONERS WHO WE ALL LIKE AND THINK REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, NOT KNOWING OUR COMMUNITIES OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, WE BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD RESIDE IN OUR AREA AND NOT ALL IN SOUTH TAMPA.
AND WE CAN -- I COULD GIVE YOU A LITANY OF EXPRESSIONS OF WHY THAT IS WRONG AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT EXISTS AS SUCH.
WITH THAT, I WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY HOLIDAY AND SEE YOU NEXT YEAR.
MAKE THE TOUGH DECISIONS AND CROSS YOUR FINGERS AND HOPE THEY WORK WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
THE LAST PERSON I HAVE IS AS A SPEAKER IS LAURA SIMPSON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD REPRESENTING THE BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE STATING WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE FAIR REPRESENTATION GROUP THAT MIKE WAS JUST REPRESENTING FOR US.
AND WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE REPRESENTATION AND BEING ON THE BOARDS AND THINGS AS THEY ARE APPOINTED THROUGH THE COUNTY.
SO WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO BE PART OF THIS GROUP AND WANT TO BE INCLUDED.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT MARYANNE LADUTKO WHO SERVED ON CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IN 1991 IS HERE AGAIN LISTENING TO OUR DEBATE.
PERHAPS SHE WOULD AT SOME POINT LIKE TO GIVE US AN ASSESSMENT IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS CHARTER REVIEW BOARDS.
THANK YOU.
SO IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THIS EVENING?
OKAY.
WELL, THEN, BOARD MEMBERS, WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF, I HOPE, LAST TIME, AND THAT WAS WE HAD BEEN THROUGH -- ARE WE GOING -- DO YOU WANT TO DO THOSE?
I WAS HOPING TO GET -- AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT, GET TO SOME OF THIS AND -- LET ME ASK, MS. CAMPBELL, DO YOU NEED TO LEAVE THIS EVENING EARLY?
NO?
I THOUGHT WE WOULD TALK FOR PERHAPS AN HOUR OR MAYBE 45 MINUTES.
THEN WE'LL HAVE THOSE -- THOSE REPORTS.
AND THAT WILL GIVE US SOMETHING TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT DURING THE BREAK AND THEN COME BACK TO IT AGAIN.
SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO BACK TO -- WE HAD -- I THINK WE WERE LEAVING OFF WITH THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIR TO BE EXPANDED.
AND MR. LaBOUR, YOU HAD THREE SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THAT, AND -- YES, WE COMPLETED THAT, AND THAT WAS THE ONE WE WERE GOING TO TAKE TO PUBLIC HEARING AS IT WAS LAID OUT.
WAS THAT THE DECISION?
IT WASN'T?
-- BUT WE VOTED ON IT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE VOTES THAT WE TOOK AT THE LAST MEETING, GOING DOWN THE ISSUES --
>>JAN SMITH:  PUT THE WHOLE THING.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  -- IT WAS KIND OF -- WHERE ARE WE AT THAT MOMENT KIND OF -- AND I THINK WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ONCE WE GOT THROUGH THE WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS, THEN WE CAN GO BACK AND MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY, SO --
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I DO HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK LEGAL ABOUT, IF I MAY.
>>JAN SMITH:  MS. CAMPBELL, WILL YOU OR MR. TINKLER COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE?
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I'M SORRY.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
>>JAN SMITH:  WANT TO BE SURE WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, WHICH IS WHY I'M THROWING THIS OUT.
WE ARE ALL UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE'RE GOING.
GO AHEAD, MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  MY QUESTION IS, COULD WE -- COULD WE PUT FORTH -- I KNOW ON THE BALLOT, WE CAN ONLY -- WE CAN ONLY PUT ON ISSUES THAT ARE YES OR NO, THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T SAY WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING THREE STRUCTURES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS CHANGE TO -- OR WHATEVER.
BUT CAN WE IN PUBLIC HEARING -- CAN WE PUT -- CAN WE PUT FORWARD TO PUBLIC HEARING MAYBE TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT ACTUALLY WE WOULD TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON, AND THEN AT THE END, WE WOULD ONLY VOTE OUT ONE OF THOSE.
>>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL:  CERTAINLY.
FOR THE RECORD, MARY HELEN CAMPBELL.
YES, THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY PROPER TO DO THAT.
THE ONLY RESTRICTION WOULD BE BY STATUTE, HOW THE REFERENDUM QUESTION LOOKS.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
JUST TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, I DID PASS OUT A SHEET, ONCE AGAIN, OF MY THOUGHTS ON LOOKING AT THE TABLE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US BY THE CHAIR LAST TIME THAT I MODIFIED OPTION 4 AND 5 AND KIND OF MODIFIED THE EXISTING STRUCTURE JUST FOR OUR DISCUSSIONS.
>>JAN SMITH:  I JUST -- THE REASON I TRIED TO START OUT THIS WAY IS I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR EACH OF US TO HAVE A FEELING OF WHAT WE ARE DOING AND WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE REALISTICALLY, WE HAVE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER, TWO MEETINGS IN DECEMBER.
WE HAVE THE TWO MEETINGS IN JANUARY.
AND THOSE TWO MEETINGS IN JANUARY OF NECESSITY WILL LIKELY HAVE TO BE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO THANK YOU MR. LaBOUR AND MS. LASHER ON YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS.
IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THEN DOWN THIS PAGE, THEN MR. LaBOUR, AS WE GO THROUGH IT, I THINK IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO COMMENT AS WE GET TO EACH OF THESE ITEMS AS WE BEGIN IT AS TO HOW YOU CAME UP WITH YOUR DRAFT THAT WE STARTED WITH.
BUT LET'S FOLLOW THIS.
SO -- AND THEN REMEMBERING THAT WHEN WE'RE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THIS AND THERE'S -- THERE'S TEN, I BELIEVE -- TEN ISSUES THAT WE STARTED WITH.
WE GET THROUGH THOSE TEN, WE CAN GO BACK AND RECONSIDER ANYTHING THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER WANTS TO RECONSIDER.
AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO RECONSIDER, IF YOU WANT TO VOTE ON IT AS A PACKAGE OR VOTE ON IT AS INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AS MS. CAMPBELL MADE CLEAR, THERE CAN BE A GREAT LITANY OF THINGS THAT CAN GO TO PUBLIC HEARING.
SO LET'S TAKE UP THE ISSUE THEN, IF THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIR ARE TO BE EXPANDED WITH ADDITIONAL DUTIES.
SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED FOR THE CHAIR AND MS. MERRITT WAS GETTING TOGETHER A LIST OF ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIR AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE THEM.
DO YOU ALL HAVE THAT?
>>DAVID HURLEY:  HERE IS THE FOUR THAT --
>>JAN SMITH:  IS THAT -- ARE YOU ALL SAYING THAT'S SEPARATE FROM -- YOU'RE SAYING WE ARE ACTUALLY THROUGH NUMBER 3?
THE ONLY REASON I BRING IT UP IS THAT WE DID ASK, I BELIEVE, AT THE LAST MEETING, THAT SHE GET -- EITHER WE ASK OR I ASK HER --
[ LAUGHTER ]
-- AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE TO GIVE US THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CURRENT CHAIR, WHAT IS REALLY LAID OUT THAT THEY HAVE TO DO.
[INAUDIBLE]
>>DENISE LASHER:  ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD LAST MEETING WAS WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES NOW BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED CHANGING OR --
>>JAN SMITH:  TECHNICALLY ADDING ONE.
>> WE VOTED ON THAT.
>>JAN SMITH:  YES.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE BOARD WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU NOW HAVE BEFORE YOU THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CURRENT CHAIR.
BARBARA, YOU DID GET THOSE OUT TO EVERYONE?
OKAY.
IF EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THE JOB OF THE CHAIRMAN IS, AND BASICALLY THE ONLY CHANGE WAS TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO THE VARIOUS BOARDS WITH THE FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION.
THEN WE'LL GO ON.
SO NOBODY WANTS TO -- OKAY.
MR. WHITE.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I DO HAVE ONE CONCERN RELATING TO THE LAST REORGANIZATION MEETING OF THE BOARD WHEN THEY ELECTED THE CHAIR AND THE VICE-CHAIR AND THEN THEY ASSIGNED POSITIONS.
>>JAN SMITH:  IS YOUR QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OR FOR THIS BOARD TO DISCUSS?
>>GERALD WHITE:  FOR THIS BOARD TO DISCUSS.
ARE YOU ALL IF FAMILIAR WITH THE REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO?
AND THE CONCERN THAT I HAD ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW THE CHAIR TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL BOARD AND THEN THEY MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AT THIS PAST REORGANIZATION MEETING.
AND I FEEL AS THOUGH IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHAIR, YOU NEED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE THEM THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS OR WE'RE GOING TO EXPERIENCE WHAT THE BOARD JUST DID A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHERE THEY -- THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE UNHAPPY.
THEY DIDN'T GET THE ASSIGNMENTS THAT THEY WANT.
YOU KNOW, THE LEADERSHIP IS NOT THERE IN THAT REGARD.
AND I JUST WANT TO ASK MR. LaBOUR, DO HE WANT TO RE-EVALUATE THAT IN LIGHT OF WHAT THE PAST COUNTY COMMISSION JUST DID A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN THE REORGANIZATION.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  JUST MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF WHAT I SAW AND LATER WHAT I READ.
I THINK THAT THE -- IF WE'RE GOING -- REMEMBER, WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT IS WE'VE STARTED TO GO THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS.
WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING AN ELECTED CHAIR.
I THINK IF YOU HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM RESPONSIBILITIES, AND I THINK THAT WHAT I SAW HAPPEN IN THE REORGANIZATION MEETING THAT SEEMED TO GET A LOT OF ATTENTION, AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PAST OR HAPPENED IN THE PAST, CAN BE FIXED BY THE FACT THAT THE CHAIRMAN CAN COME TO THE BOARD AND SAY I HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE APPOINTMENTS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING PERSONS BE APPOINTED TO THE FOLLOWING BOARDS.
AND THEN -- I THINK WHAT IT DOES IS IT ACTUALLY GIVES SOME COMMISSIONERS SOME -- I'LL USE THE WORD "COVER" SO THAT THEY CAN SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN OR MADAM CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU FELT THAT MS. LASHER WOULD BE VERY GOOD AT THAT, BUT I KNOW MR. HURLEY HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTED IN THAT.
WOULD YOU MAYBE RECONSIDER.
OR MAYBE I WOULD ASK MY BOARD MEMBERS TO RECONSIDER.
AND I THINK AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUALLY THEY KIND OF HAVE TO RAISE THEIR HAND AND SAY I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THIS, AND THAT KIND OF MAKES, MAYBE DENISE A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE SHE KNOWS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT JAN REALLY WANTS TO BE ON.
I THINK THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A BETTER PROCESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
BUT MADAM CHAIR, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME HERE.
AND I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE ISSUES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THIS BOARD TO DISCUSS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH STRUCTURE.
I KNOW MS. LASHER HAD SOME ISSUES ABOUT THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD.
MR. AMBLER, I THINK, HAD SOME ISSUES.
I REALLY THINK THAT IF IT TAKES UNTIL MIDNIGHT TONIGHT, WE NEED TO GET STRUCTURE ISSUES SETTLED.
WE VOTED 14-0 ON A MOTION THAT'S IN THE -- IN THE MINUTES.
I THINK IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
>>JAN SMITH:  BUT THE FACT THAT WE VOTED DOES NOT EVER PRECLUDE UNTIL --
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  IT DOES NOT.
>>JAN SMITH:  AND THE REASON I RAISE THAT IS BECAUSE THIS BOARD DID ASK TO HAVE THE INFORMATION.
AND SO NOW YOU HAVE IT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  THAT'S FINE.
>>JAN SMITH:  NOW YOU HAVE IT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  OUR VOTE WAS NOT FINAL, MADAM CHAIRMAN.
AND WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVISIT IT.
>>DENISE LASHER:  I'LL HOPEFULLY MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT ON THIS AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO SET RULE OR PROCEDURE THAT THEY FOLLOW CURRENTLY ON HOW THEY MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS.
EACH YEAR, IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT ON HOW THEY DO THAT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SETTING UP A CERTAIN PROCEDURE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN PROCEDURE CURRENTLY.
THEY DECIDE AS A GROUP HOW THEY WANT TO MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS.
SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW IS SETTING UP A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
OKAY.
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY.
NOW, THE NEXT QUESTION, NUMBER 4, WHAT SHOULD BE THE SIZE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?
AND WE DID TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ONE NIGHT, SORT OF, ABOUT TWO MEETINGS AGO, AND AS I RECALL, THERE WAS NOT THE SENTIMENT TO GO TO NINE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO SORT OF CALL THAT TONIGHT SO THAT AS WE BUILD THIS STRUCTURE, THAT THAT NUMBER FITS.
SO I WOULD -- MR. HURLEY, I'LL LET YOU START THIS ONE.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  I DON'T HAVE A BURNING DESIRE EITHER WAY.
I CAN SEE SEVEN OR NINE.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MORE OF THE PUBLIC -- NO OFFENSE TO RALPH HUGHES OR KARL WARREN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM SOME OTHER FOLKS.
AND I THINK IF WE PUT THAT OUT THERE AND SAID THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS, WE'LL SEE SOME PEOPLE SHOW UP TO TELL US WHAT THEY FEEL ABOUT IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT FOR MYSELF, GET SOME MORE PERSPECTIVE.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER.
I THINK THAT MAYBE SINCE -- I HAVEN'T HEARD -- I THINK MAYBE THERE'S BEEN ONE OR TWO SUGGESTIONS OF A DIFFERENT NUMBER OTHER THAN SEVEN OR NINE.
I THINK I'VE HEARD EIGHT AND MAYBE THERE WAS ONE MORE THAN NINE, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK SEVEN AND NINE IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE -- WHERE WE'RE -- WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND LIKE MR. HURLEY, CANDIDLY, I KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH ALL THE TIME.
THAT'S WHY I THINK MAYBE IF WE DISCUSSED -- IF WE HAD A STRUCTURE THAT WAS WITH SEVEN AND A STRUCTURE WITH NINE, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND TAKE BOTH OF THOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
MAYBE THAT WILL HELP US IN A DISCUSSION.
>>JAN SMITH:  AND IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, IF THAT WERE THE ONLY VARIABLE IN IT --
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  RIGHT.
>>JAN SMITH:  -- THAT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING PROPOSAL TO PUT OUT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE -- I WOULD SUSPECT IF YOU HAVE NINE, YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND FOR INSTANCE, ONE ELECTED CHAIR THAT'S COUNTYWIDE.
THAT'S WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SINGLE-MEMBER AT-LARGE MODEL.
ON SEVEN, OUR DISCUSSION WILL BE DO YOU WANT THEM ALL SINGLE-MEMBER EXCEPT FOR ONE OR KEEP IT AS IT IS AND DO THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
THAT IS WHAT I HANDED OUT.
I THINK MAYBE -- I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT.
THAT MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO PICK BETWEEN SEVEN AND NINE.
WE CAN SAY WHAT WOULD THE STRUCTURE LOOK LIKE IF IT WERE SEVEN.
WHAT WOULD THE STRUCTURE LOOK LIKE IF IT WERE NINE AND NOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION PER SE UNTIL WE MOVE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING.
>>JAN SMITH:  I THINK THE ONE PROBLEM WE GET OURSELVES IN IF WE DO IT ON THIS ONE, WE CAN DO IT ON A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
AND I GUESS, AS YOU PASS THIS OUT THIS EVENING, IF WE HAD -- WHEN WE'RE FINISHED HERE, WE COULD HAVE TWO OR THREE ALTERNATIVES.
IF YOU PUT THAT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC, I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF WHAT YOU ALREADY HEARD.
AND I DON'T KNOW IT'S GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING IN YOUR MIND.
IT MIGHT.
IT MIGHT.
THERE'S NO TELLING.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD HAS TO COME UP -- WHEN YOU GO TO PUBLIC HEARING -- WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS REALLY GOOD, SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS GOING TO MAKE IT BETTER, SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.
AND I THINK TO TAKE OPTIONS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WILL CONFUSE THE ISSUE FOR US AND FOR THEM.
I REALLY FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO COME UP ON THIS BOARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WANT TO MAKE IN CLOSER TO A FINAL FORM.
THAT'S MY OPINION.
ANY ONE OF YOU MAY CERTAINLY DISAGREE AND I WILL RESPECT YOUR OPINION, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS BOARD HAS TO FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AND THAT THE PIECES FIT.
SO I KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO JUST HEAR WHAT EACH BOARD MEMBER THINKS, NOT ANYTHING CAST IN STONE RIGHT NOW, BUT IF WE WENT AROUND THE DAIS AND SAID, I FAVOR SEVEN.
I FAVOR NINE, JUST SO WE HAVE SOME SENTIMENT OF WHERE WE'RE GOING.
SO IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE BOARD, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS START WITH MR. BELTRAN AND GO AROUND THE TABLE AND SEE WHAT THE SENTIMENT IS.
>>HENRY BELTRAN:  SEVEN.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  SEVEN.
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  SEVEN.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  SEVEN, WITH A REGIONAL REQUIREMENT.
>>JAN SMITH:  RESIDENCY.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MINE TOO WITH A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
>>JAN SMITH:  TIMES TWO.
IS THAT HOW YOU FEEL MR. BELTRAN?
THE SEVEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
MR. HURLEY.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  FOR THE AT-LARGE, RIGHT.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  I'LL GO SEVEN OR NINE, BUT I THINK IT'S ALL SINGLE-MEMBER EXCEPT FOR THE CHAIR.
THAT'S --
>>JAN SMITH:  YOU'RE SEVEN OR NINE SINGLE.
OKAY.
I'M IN FAVOR OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS, AND THEN HOWEVER WE DEFINE IT AT SOME POINT.
SO I AGREE WITH WHAT THE --
>>DENISE LASHER:  I'M IN FAVOR OF THE SEVEN WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I'M SEVEN OR NINE WITH WHAT I PASSED OUT.
I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IF WE DECIDED ON SEVEN --
>>JAN SMITH:  YOU'RE MIXED.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I REALLY HAVE NOT DECIDED.
>>JAN SMITH:  YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS?
ARE YOU WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW?
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  WITH SEVEN, LEANING TOWARD SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT -- IF NINE, A COMBINATION OF BOTH SINGLE-MEMBER AND AT-LARGE.
>>JAN SMITH:  PUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT ON?
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  YES.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WHITE.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I COULD SUPPORT THE GEOGRAPHIC PLAN.
I CAN SUPPORT THE SIX SINGLE-MEMBER AND ONE AT-LARGE PLAN, AND I CAN SUPPORT THE TWO AT-LARGE AND FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER PLAN.
>>JAN SMITH:  SO YOU FAVOR SEVEN COMMISSIONERS IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAID?
>>GERALD WHITE:  SEVEN COMMISSIONERS.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WILKES.
>> SEVEN WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
>>JAN SMITH:  I THINK AT THE MOMENT, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT AND SAY THAT THE MAJORITY FAVORS SEVEN HERE AS YOU ARE KEEPING TRACK OF YOUR LIST, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WILL PROBABLY COME BACK TO AS WE WORK THROUGH THE REST OF IT.
BUT THAT'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT IN FAVOR OF SEVEN.
AND THEN THE REST OF YOU IN FAVOR OF A COMBINATION OF PROPOSALS.
SO IT COULD BE 19 -- LIKE ISN'T IT JACKSONVILLE?
MIAMI-DADE.
>>DENISE LASHER:  MIAMI-DADE AND JACKSONVILLE.
>>JAN SMITH:  NUMBER 5, HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSIONERS BE ELECTED?
AND THAT'S -- THAT'S REALLY GOING TO MAYBE GET US TO THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS.
SO --
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION EITHER.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY TO EXPLAIN THAT.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  HOW SHOULD THEY BE ELECTED?
SIX AT-LARGE, 3 AND 4 -- AND SINGLE-MEMBER AT-LARGE IS PART OF THE THING.
I THINK -- CAN I --
>>JAN SMITH:  GO AHEAD.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  LISTENING TO SEVERAL PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTY, I MEAN THE PEOPLE FROM -- OVER IN THE EAST SIDE OF THE COUNTY HAVE BEEN TO SEVERAL MEETINGS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MEETINGS IN A ROW, BUT THEY'VE BEEN HERE A LOT TALKING ABOUT THE REPRESENTATION.
PEOPLE FROM SOUTH COUNTY HAVE BEEN HERE.
PEOPLE FROM LUTZ AND THAT NORTHERN TIER, I'LL CALL IT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
AND WE'VE HEARD THAT REPRESENTATION THING OVER AND OVER, AND WITH THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS THAT WE HAVE, WITH FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, EACH A QUARTER OF A MILLION, A LOT OF DIVERSE PEOPLE.
A LOT OF DIVERSE PEOPLE IN 167,000.
BUT IF WE CUT IT TO THE SIX SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, WE HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY OF CREATING INTEREST GROUPS THAT -- WHERE THEY CAN ACTUALLY REPRESENT THOSE INTERESTS.
I BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM WITH PAROCHIALISM WILL BE SOLVED WITH THE FACT THAT NONE OF THEM ON THEIR OWN CAN ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COALESCE.
THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.
THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REACH ACROSS TO ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
I DO LIKE THE ELECTED CHAIR, BECAUSE I THINK THE POLITICAL LEADER NEEDS TO BE SOMEONE THAT THE PEOPLE PICKED AS A POLITICAL LEADER, EVEN IF IT'S 50.005% TO 49.995%.
I THINK THAT THAT'S A THING THAT CAN HAPPEN AND SHOULD HAPPEN.
I THINK THAT THEY CAN CAMPAIGN ON A VISION, AND IF -- THAT'S A VISION FOR THE COUNTY, EVEN IF IT IS NOT A VISION WHICH I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF OR SEE AS APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S STILL OKAY.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  MADAM CHAIR.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. AMBLER.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  I HAD JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS IN RANDOM ORDER HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, ONE THING THAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THE PRESENT STRUCTURE, AND I SUBSCRIBE TO THE PHILOSOPHY, IF IT ISN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT.
IS I LIKE THE IDEA -- AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE PAST -- ABOUT BEING A RESIDENT AT ANY PLACE OF THE COUNTY AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AS A CITIZEN AND VOTER OF THE COUNTY TO ELECT THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.
IF YOU GO TO ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THAT ISN'T GOING TO OCCUR.
YOU ONLY WILL HAVE A SAY-SO FOR THE COMMISSIONER IN YOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT.
AND I -- SO I DON'T LIKE WORKING -- AND THE CHAIR.
BUT YOU DON'T -- YOU'VE LOST THAT POWER AS A VOTER TO HAVE A SAY-SO IN THE ELECTION OF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION.
THE SECOND POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT I LIKE THE BIFURCATION, IF YOU WILL, WITHIN THE COMMISSION OF HAVING ESSENTIALLY A SPLIT BETWEEN SINGLE-MEMBER AND AT-LARGE, ALMOST LIKE COMBINING YOUR SENATE AND YOUR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATION.
USING THAT ANALOGY, IN YOUR SENATE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL, U.S. SENATE, THE SENATOR REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE STATE OF FLORIDA.
YOU HAVE TWO SENATORS LIKE YOUR AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS, THOSE CONGRESSMEN REPRESENT INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS.
THEY EACH SERVE VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS.
THE INDIVIDUAL CONGRESSMAN HAS HIS EAR AND EYES ON THE PULSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE MEMBERS AND VOTERS IN HIS DISTRICT AND ARE GOING TO PUSH THOSE PAROCHIAL CONCERNS FOR THOSE MEMBERS, PERHAPS WITH TRADE-OFFS OF MEMBERS FROM ANOTHER, BECAUSE AS WAS JUST POINTED OUT, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING WITHOUT GIVING UP SOMETHING.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE YOUR MEMBERS, LIKE YOUR SENATORS, THAT ARE TRYING TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF EVERYBODY, THAT HAVE MORE OF A GLOBAL OR MACRO VIEW OF THINGS THEN A MICRO VIEW OF A CONGRESS, AND THEY HAVE TO BALANCE THE INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION, WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THAT INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.
IF WE GRAPH THAT MODEL THEN ON WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IN OUR COUNTY COMMISSION, YOU HAVE AT-LARGE MEMBERS THAT RUN FOR A SEAT AND HAVE TO CAMPAIGN FOR AND APPEAL TO AND REPRESENT THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND THOSE INTERESTS ON MACRO SCALE.
THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THOSE COMMISSIONERS THEN ARE THERE TO ENSURE THAT NO INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT'S NEEDS AND CONCERNS ARE LEFT OUT OF THE MIX, AND THAT INPUT IS PUT IN THERE, AND YOU HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED WHICH ARE SINGLE-MEMBER, BUT THEY NEVER CAN FORGET ABOUT THE MACRO VIEW OF THINGS.
WITH THE PRESENT PROPOSAL OF GOING TO ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, YOU ONLY HAVE ONE PERSON ON THAT COMMISSION WITH A MACRO VIEW, AND THAT'S YOUR ELECTED CHAIR.
EVERYBODY ELSE IS CAUGHT UP IN THEIR PAROCHIAL VIEWPOINT, THEIR MICRO ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT OF TRYING TO PLEASE WHAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE IN THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
AND IF WE TALK ABOUT TRYING TO CREATE A SYSTEM THAT'S GOING TO ENCOURAGE LESS DEVISIVENESS THAN WHAT WE ARE PRESENTLY SEEING, I DON'T THINK GOING TO SINGLE-MEMBER -- ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WITH AN ELECTED CHAIR WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT.
I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IS GREATER DEVISIVENESS INSTEAD OF -- INSTEAD OF LESS FOR THE REASONS I'VE JUST ILLUSTRATED.
AND THEN YOU -- ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE GOING TO PUT YOUR ELECTED CHAIR AT ODDS, BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE THE GLOBAL MACRO IMAGE OR PHILOSOPHY OR POLICY-MAKING APPROACH TO IT, BUT THEY'VE GOT TO GET THE VOTE OF A MAJORITY, AND THOSE MAJORITY DON'T HAVE THE SAME INTERESTS.
SO THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME -- I'LL JUST PUT THIS OUT.
THIS TIES INTO OUR ISSUE OF REAL TERM LIMITS VERSUS THE PRESENT SYSTEM.
IF YOU GO TO THE SIX SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT APPROACH THAT'S BEING PROPOUNDED HERE, THEN ESSENTIALLY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SINGLE-MEMBER PERSON RUNNING FOR CHAIR, YOU HAVE ELIMINATED THE ABILITY TO GO FROM SINGLE-MEMBER INTO THE AT-LARGE -- THE AT-LARGE SEAT.
SO IF YOU'RE AGAINST WHAT WE CALL "REAL TERM LIMITS," OR IF YOU FAVOR THE ABILITY OF A COMMISSIONER PRESENTLY TO BE ABLE TO SERVE FOR EIGHT YEARS IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT AND GO TO AN AT-LARGE DISTRICT, THEN YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ALL AT-LARGE DISTRICTS IN THE WAY IT'S PRESENTLY PROPOUNDED.
NOW PERSONALLY, MY VIEW IS THIS.
IF WE USE THAT ANALOGY AGAIN OF THE SENATORS AND THE CONGRESSMEN, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT SEATS WITH DIFFERENT INTERESTS.
WE ALLOW SOMEONE TO RUN FOR -- WELL, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TERM LIMITS AT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL, BUT EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL, WE ALLOW SOMEONE TO RUN FOR THE STATE HOUSE AND SERVE AND THEN WE WOULD ALLOW THEM, ONCE THEY REACH TERM LIMITS, TO RUN FOR THE STATE SENATE, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST OF THOSE PUBLIC OFFICIALS BECOME DIFFERENT.
IT'S FOR THOSE SAME REASONS THAT I FEEL WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW A COMMISSIONER WHO HAS SERVED IN A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT TO THEN EXPAND THEIR VIEWPOINT TO MORE OF THE MACRO SCALE AND RUN FOR AN AT-LARGE DISTRICT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO.
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I LIKE IS BEING ABLE TO PRESERVE -- IF YOU HAVE A POPULAR PERSON WHO THE ELECTORATE LIKES IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING, TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE THE CONTINUITY OF THAT CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE OF AN EXPERIENCED PERSON ON THE COMMISSION.
BUT THEY HAVE TO EARN THAT SPOT.
IT'S NOT GIVEN TO THEM.
I MEAN, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR OWN DISTRICT, BUT IF THEY WANT TO JUMP FROM THEIR OWN DISTRICT INTO A COUNTYWIDE RACE, THEY NOW HAVE TO SHOW HOW THAT EXPERIENCE THEY'VE GAINED IN THEIR OWN DISTRICT HAS GIVEN THEM THE ABILITY, SKILLS, AND REQUISITE EXPERIENCE LEVEL TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY AT THE MACRO LEVEL.
AND I THINK WE SHOULDN'T DISCOURAGE THAT.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOURSELF AND HAVE TO RUN FOR THAT OFFICE AND GET ELECTED, BUT IF WE -- IF YOU DO GET ELECTED, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A COMMISSIONER WHO BRINGS TO THE COMMISSION A GREATER LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE THAN SOMEBODY WHO'S STARTING OUT AT SQUARE ONE.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN LEND TO THE BOARD JUST BY WAY OF ANALOGY IS, I'VE SERVED ON A NUMBER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN PRIVATE COMPANIES, AND, FOR EXAMPLE, ON FIVE-MEMBER BOARDS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE DONE VERY SUCCESSFULLY, LIKE IN SOME OF THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS I SERVE ON, IS WE'VE DONE A TIERED DIRECTORS SYSTEM.
CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C DIRECTORS.
CLASS "A" DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED FOR TWO-YEAR TERMS AND GET ELECTED ESSENTIALLY IN EVEN YEARS AND CLASS "B" DIRECTORS GET SELECTED IN TWO-YEAR TERMS BUT EXPIRE IN ODD YEARS.
AND CLASS "C" DIRECTOR THAT'S SELECTED FOR ONE YEAR.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE BEHIND ALL OF THAT?
THE REASON IS TO TRY TO PRESERVE ON YOUR BOARD SOME TYPE OF CORPORATE MEMORY SO THAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE THERE AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME.
AND THAT THE NEW MEMBERS COMING ON ALWAYS GET TO BENEFIT FROM THE FACT YOU HAVE MORE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE ON THERE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THEIR VIEWPOINT, BUT YOU DON'T LOSE THE BENEFITS OF HAVING TO KEEP REINVENTING THE WHEEL EVERY TIME THERE IS AN ELECTION CYCLE.
WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMISSIONER -- I KNOW WE HAVE STAGGERED RACES NOW, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMISSIONER THAT'S SERVED EIGHT YEARS AND THE PUBLIC LIKES WHAT THEY'VE DONE, WHY PRECLUDE THEM FROM CONTINUING TO SERVE IF THEY WANT TO JUMP INTO A COUNTYWIDE RACE.
SO THOSE ARE KIND OF MY RANDOM THOUGHTS ON WHY I BELIEVE THE PRESENT STRUCTURE OF THREE AT-LARGE AND FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WORKS FOR THIS COUNTY.
BUT THE GEOGRAPHICAL REQUIREMENT SOLVES SOME OTHER PROBLEMS AND KIND OF A QUASI-SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTING CONCEPT THAT AT LEAST ENSURES THAT ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTY, EVEN AT THE AT-LARGE DISTRICT LEVEL ARE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. LaBOUR AND THEN MS. TUTTLE.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  THANK YOU.
I HAVE ALMOST A TOTALLY OPPOSITE, I GUESS, VIEW, WHICH MIGHT NOT SURPRISE SOME AND MR. AMBLER PROBABLY.
FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE NOT TWO BODIES IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE ONE.
AND I THINK THAT THE STRENGTHS THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FORM OUT OF GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE -- THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY STRUCTURED SO THAT THERE IS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON BOTH HOUSES, IF YOU WILL.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
WE DON'T NEED THAT IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO ONLY HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, I THINK WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH TESTIMONY IN OUR -- IN OUR TENURE ON THIS BOARD THAT THE PEOPLE ARE FEELING THEY ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED WELL, THAT UNDER PRESENT STRUCTURE OF FOUR AT-LARGE MEMBERS IS JUST NOT -- LET ME JUST SAY -- ONLY -- ONLY HAVING THREE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, IT'S NOT --
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I'M SORRY.
I KNEW IT WASN'T CLICKING.
FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IS THAT THE DISTRICT IS TOO LARGE AND THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER IS NOT ABLE TO REPRESENT THE NEEDS.
I FIND IT IS MORE DEVISIVE UNDER THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS THREE AT-LARGE CAN TEAM UP WITH ONE SINGLE-MEMBER, AND THERE'S FOUR VOTES AND THE OTHER TWO SINGLE MEMBERS FEEL AS IF THEIR NEEDS AREN'T DEALT WITH, AND IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUND THEIR ISSUES.
NOW, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE CORRECTED IF WE HAVE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, I DON'T THINK SO.
AND I THINK, ESPECIALLY IF WE GO TO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH I DO SUPPORT IF WE ARE GOING TO GO FOR AT-LARGE, THEN WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SITUATIONS WE HAVE TODAY.
I THINK IT IS A FALSE SENSE THAT WE ARE GIVING THE VOTERS THAT IF THEY CAN VOTE FOR FOUR PEOPLE, THEY ARE VOTING FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION.
BECAUSE THE REALITY IS THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND IF THERE'S ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR ONE, THE CHAIR, AND I'LL GET BACK TO THE CHAIR IN A SECOND, IT'S GOING TO FORCE ME AS ONE OF THOSE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS TO SAY, I REALLY -- I REALLY WANT TO DO THIS FOR MY DISTRICT.
I'VE GOT TO CONVINCE YOU, MR. AMBLER, WHO REPRESENTS ANOTHER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT WHO HAS MAYBE A SIMILAR NEED -- OR MAYBE DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM IN YOUR DISTRICT.
I HAVE GOT TO BRING YOU ON BOARD OF BEING MORE SENSITIVE OF WHAT YOU NEED FROM ME IF YOU'VE GOT AN ISSUE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BRING FORWARD.
I THINK I DON'T HAVE TO THEN JUST WORRY ABOUT CONVINCING THREE OTHER AT-LARGES TO GO WITH ME AND THEN I WIN.
I'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THREE OTHER FOLKS, INCLUDING AN AT-LARGE CHAIR, AND SAY, THIS IS WHY MY ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY GOING -- IT'S GOING TO BRING MORE DISCUSSION TO THE TABLE, AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE, AS THEY COME DOWN, TO TALK TO THE COUNTY ARE GOING TO BE MORE AWARE OF WHAT THE COUNTYWIDE PROBLEMS ARE.
I DON'T THINK THAT EXISTS TODAY UNDER THE PRESENT STRUCTURE.
BUT I'M MOST CONCERNED, IF WE ARE GOING TO STAY WITH SEVEN, THAT OUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS RIGHT NOW ARE TOO LARGE.
AND I THINK IF WE GO TO SIX, WE'RE ABLE TO GET SMALLER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
NOW, THE CHAIRMAN AT-LARGE I THINK IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN HAVE A CHAIRMAN.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE SEVEN SINGLE-MEMBER AND HAVE THEM CHOOSE THEIR OWN CHAIR.
I THINK THAT -- I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO SIX SINGLE-MEMBER, I THINK THAT THE VOTERS OF THIS COUNTY BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS THE INTEREST OF THE WHOLE COUNTY, AND THAT PERSON, IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE INTEREST OF THE WHOLE COUNTY, SHOULD BE CHAIRMAN.
THAT'S WHY I WOULD SUPPORT WHAT MR. HURLEY SAID IS SIX -- IS THE 6-1.
NOW IN MY OPTION -- MODIFIED OPTION NUMBER 4 OF MY HANDOUT, IF YOU NOTICE THERE, MR. AMBLER, I DO ADDRESS THE ISSUE IF YOU ARE A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, YOU CAN RUN TWO CONSECUTIVE -- FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS, AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO RUN FOR CHAIR.
BUT THE CHAIR CAN ONLY RUN FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE CHAIRS.
THEY WOULD BE PRECLUDED TO RUN -- TO RUN THEN FOR A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT.
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  MR. AMBLER, WITH ALL KINDNESS AND DUE RESPECT, YOU WENT FROM NUMBER 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND ALMOST TO NONPARTISAN ALMOST ALL IN ONE BREATH.
AND I THINK THE PROBLEM WE GET INTO WHEN WE DO THIS IS WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO TAKE LITTLE BITES OF IT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS, BUT WE'VE BEEN RANDOM FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS NOW OR NINE.
AND WE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY GET DOWN TO SOME VERY SIMPLE THINGS.
DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT WANT SEVEN MEMBERS?
DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT WANT SINGLE PLUS ONE OR WHATEVER?
AND IF WE CAN JUST KEEP IT TO THAT.
AND THE SECOND THING I NEED TO CONTINUE TO STRESS TO YOU PEOPLE IS THAT WE ARE UNDER A SERIOUS SUNSHINE LAW.
COMMISSIONERS MAY SAY HELLO TO EACH OTHER.
THEY MAY TALK ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN.
THEY MAY TALK ABOUT ANY AND ANY OTHER THING EXCEPT MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE THEM.
AND WE -- OURSELVES ARE LIKE THAT TOO.
IT'S VERY HARD TO GO TO A MEETING AND SEE DAVID AND SEE DENISE, AND I WANT TO ASK THEM SOMETHING, AND I CAN'T.
AND STEVE ALWAYS SAYS, NOPE.
BUT IF WE CAN JUST LIMIT THIS TO OUR LITTLE THINGS HERE, AND THEN WHEN WE FINISH, MAYBE WE CAN PULL THEM ALL TOGETHER.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  I'M NOT GOING TO TALK OUT OF TURN, BUT JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT COMMENT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ONE ITEM, THEY DO INTERPLAY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  OF COURSE WE DO.
BUT WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.
WRITE SOMETHING.
>>JAN SMITH:  PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE A RULE NOW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING UNLESS YOU SAY SOMETHING NEW OR DIFFERENT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
MS. LASHER AND THEN MR. WHITE.
>>DENISE LASHER:  THANK YOU.
AND I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE ITEM.
OKAY.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  WHICH ONE?
>>JAN SMITH:  WE'RE ON NUMBER 5.
>>DENISE LASHER:  NUMBER 5.
OPTION IS IF YOU HAVE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY COME BEFORE US IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A SINGLE ONE, THAT I CAN RECALL, THAT HAS SAID THAT THEY HAVE CONTACTED A COMMISSIONER, THEIR COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONERS, AND THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN CARE OF THEIR NEED.
OR THAT THE COUNTY STAFF DID NOT TAKE CARE OF THEIR NEED THROUGH THEIR COMMISSIONER.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY THAT.
THEY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE SMALLER DISTRICTS BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY COULD HAVE BETTER REPRESENTATION, BUT THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN ME ANY EXAMPLES OF WHERE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE HAS NOT REPRESENTED THEM.
I WAS ENCOURAGED TO HEAR PEOPLE SAY THIS EVENING THAT CAME BEFORE US, AND IN PRIOR MEETINGS ACTUALLY ALSO, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
AND SOME OF THE MODELS THAT THEY'VE SHOWN US, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE GIVEN US HAS SHOWN ON THESE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES THAT THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINT, HOW MANY OF THEM ACTUALLY LIVE WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMPA, MAJORITY OF THEM OF THE PEOPLE THEY APPOINT VERSUS PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
I THINK THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE VERY ACTIVE THAT LIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS AND REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT MOST OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND DEMAND TO BE APPOINTED TO SOME OF THESE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES.
I THINK WHAT I SEE HAPPENING IS A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T SUBMIT THEIR NAMES FOR CONSIDERATION.
YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, ONLY A COUPLE OF NAMES THAT ACTUALLY -- PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING TO BE INVOLVED.
BUT I'M ENCOURAGED TO SEE THERE ARE NUMEROUS GROUPS OUT THERE OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THEIR COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
SO I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S BEEN THIS UPROAR OF WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SAID, I HAVEN'T HAD GOOD REPRESENTATION BECAUSE I CALLED MY COMMISSIONER AND THEY DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF MY NEED.
THE GEOGRAPHIC REQUIREMENT OF YOUR AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS, OF YOUR THREE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS WILL GIVE YOU MORE REPRESENTATION IN THAT -- THAT COMMISSIONER WILL BE REPRESENTING A THIRD OF THE COUNTY, AND YOUR OTHER COMMISSIONER WILL BE REPRESENTING ONE-QUARTER OR 25% OF THE COUNTY.
AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT I GET TO VOTE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
SO I'M SUPPORTING THE CURRENT FRAME THAT WE HAVE -- STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE, BUT THAT THE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS LIVE IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREA, BUT, AGAIN, THEY WOULD RUN COUNTYWIDE.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REFER YOU ALL -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FOLLOWED THIS LAST DEBATE THAT THEY HAD ON SOME EXTRA MONEY THAT THEY DECIDED TO GIVE TO THE LIBRARY BOARD, LIBRARY SERVICES FOR NEW LIBRARIES.
AND IT WENT OVER SEVERAL MEETINGS OVER A COURSE OF TWO OR THREE MONTHS WHILE THEY TRIED TO DECIDE HOW TO DIVVY UP THIS POT OF GOLD THAT THEY HAVE BETWEEN DIFFERENT LIBRARY PROJECTS.
IT BECAME VERY PAROCHIAL.
IF WE HAVE SIX SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE IT WILL TAKE THEM SIX MONTHS TO DECIDE HOW TO DIVVY UP THIS LITTLE CHUNK OF CHANGE THAT THEY WANT TO DISTRIBUTE TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS.
IT IS BENEFICIAL TO HAVE MAJORITY -- THREE COMMISSIONERS AT-LARGE, BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN THINK IN A COUNTYWIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
BECAUSE ALL -- THEY HAVE TO RUN COUNTYWIDE, AND THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO ALL THE VOTERS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
SO THAT'S JUST SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS THAT I'M MAKING WHY I SUPPORT THE PARTICULAR POSITION I HAVE ADVOCATED FOR.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WHITE AND THEN MR. HURLEY.
>>GERALD WHITE:  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
WELL, THE REASON, STEVE, I MOVED TO SEVEN, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY I SUPPORTED THE NINE SEATS, IS THAT IN TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEY CAME BEFORE US, THEY DON'T WANT TO EXPAND TO NINE.
THE IDEAL PLAN TO SOLVE EVERYONE'S CONCERNS IS THAT THE NINE SEATS, BECAUSE YOU CAN GET THE AT-LARGE AND THE DISTRICT SEAT, BUT THE COMMUNITY HAVE COME AND SAID THEY DON'T WANT THAT, SO THAT'S OFF -- IN MY MIND, THAT'S OFF THE TABLE, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IN CONSIDERING THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU SAY YOU HAVEN'T HEARD, DENISE, CITIZENS COME AND CALL FOR SOMETHING.
WELL, THEY HAVE CALLED FOR SOMETHING.
WE'VE HAD THE BRANDON AND THE SOUTH COUNTY PEOPLE CALL FOR REPRESENTATION, OKAY.
THAT'S A CONCERN.
WE'VE HAD THE BLACK COMMUNITY COME VIA SENATOR HARGRETT, NAACP, DR. HORTON, JOANNA TOKELY WITH THE URBAN LEAGUE.
I SPOKE WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE LES MILLER, KARL WARREN HAS BEEN HERE.
THEY HAVE COME AND SAID THE BLACK COMMUNITY WANTS TO BE ABLE TO ELECT SOMEONE OF THEIR CHOICE.
AND WITH THE GROWTH OF THE COUNTY OVER A MILLION RESIDENTS, THEY WON'T BE ABLE -- THE BLACK DISTRICT WILL NO LONGER EXIST ONCE THE LINES ARE REDRAWN, OKAY.
AND SO THAT'S A CONCERN.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD CARE ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW.
AM I WASTING MY TIME CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS NOT WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE?
AND THE WAY YOU ACCOMMODATE ADDRESSING THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS, THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY'S CONCERN TO AT LEAST ADD ONE ADDITIONAL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT, EITHER WITHIN THE SEVEN SEATS, WELL, WITHIN THE SEVEN SEATS TO ACCOMMODATE -- TO ACCOMMODATE THE GROWTH.
AND THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT, ARE YOU HEARING THE BLACK COMMUNITY'S CONCERN ABOUT, HEY, WHEN THESE LINES ARE WITHDRAWN, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ELECT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
WE'VE HAD -- MR. HUGHES SAY, WELL, I BET YOU THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ELECT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
WELL, THAT'S WISHFUL THINKING.
I WANT TO SEE IT IN THE NUMBERS, AND THAT WAY WE'LL KNOW THE REALITY, AND WE'LL BE ENSURED THROUGH DEMOCRACY OF THE VOTE.
BECAUSE THE HISPANIC, THE BLACK COMMUNITY WILL BE WITHIN THAT DISTRICT TO BE ABLE TO ELECT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THE TAPE, AND I HEARD MR. HURLEY TALK ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY IS NOT RACIST.
THE COMMUNITY IS NOT BIGOTS.
THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION.
AND I'VE NEVER ACCUSED ANY OF THE SPEAKERS OF -- EVER ACCUSED THE COMMUNITY OF BEING SUCH.
BUT THE REALITY IS, EVERY COMMUNITY HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS, THEIR OWN PLAN OF HOW THEY WANT THINGS DONE, AND SO THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ELECT SOMEONE TO ADVOCATE THEIR ISSUES.
AND THAT'S -- THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY HAS COME TO THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD AND REQUESTED.
TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND SO, I GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.
IS THIS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY, THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?
AND ARE YOU HEARING THE CONCERNS OF BRANDON AND SOUTH COUNTY SAY THEY WANT REPRESENTATION?
I'VE HEARD THAT.
I'VE HEARD THAT SINCE WE'VE BEGUN.
AND ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT?
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  OKAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO ONE THING THAT YOU MENTIONED.
I THINK YOU MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING THAT I SAID.
I SAID THERE ARE BIGOTS IN THE COUNTY.
I'LL BET ON IT.
I PROBABLY KNOW SOME OF THEM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR ELECTED COUNTY CHAIR AT THAT TIME, AND SOMEONE MENTIONED THEY DIDN'T THINK A BLACK COULD GET ELECTED TO THAT, AND I BELIEVE THAT A BLACK, WITH THE APPROPRIATE SKILLS SET, COULD DO THAT.
THAT WAS MY POSITION AT THAT POINT.
I STILL BELIEVE THAT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT IS SOMETHING WHOSE TIME HAS COME.
SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO TEND TO APPOINT PEOPLE WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT TO THESE VARIOUS BOARDS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, THE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS BEG TO GET PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR THESE BOARDS.
I WAS PRESIDENT OF THE HILLSBOROUGH ASSOCIATION OF CHAMBERS AND SOME OF THE OTHER SMALL CHAMBERS AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH OVER THE YEARS.
I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT WE GO OUT -- EVERY TIME WE KNOW THERE'S AN OPENING AND SEND OUT A THING TO ALL OF THE MEMBERSHIPS.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THIS BOARD, COME OUT AND DO IT.
MOVE THE COUNTY CENTER TO BRANDON.
EVERYBODY IN BRANDON WILL COME.
BUT PEOPLE SAY, I DON'T WANT TO GO TO DOWNTOWN TAMPA.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PARK.
THERE'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
WE ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE SAME ISSUES, BUT I THINK IF YOU HAVE THE SMALLER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THOSE COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO WORK REALLY, REALLY HARD TO APPOINT PEOPLE WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT.
SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE RUNNING COUNTYWIDE.
WE SAY, THEY ARE GOING TO REPRESENT THIS DISTRICT 5, WHICH IS A PIE-SHAPED PIECE OF THE COUNTY, BUT THEN WE SAY, THEY REPRESENT EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTY.
WHICH IS IT?
ARE THEY COUNTYWIDE OR ARE THEY A DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO FIT IN?
TODAY, ARE THEY REALLY REPRESENTING THIS PIE OR ARE THEY REPRESENTING THE WHOLE PIE?
IT'S REALLY A PROBLEM AT THAT POINT FOR ME TO SAY WE'VE CREATED MORE REPRESENTATION BY GETTING DOWN THERE.
AND I JUST -- I DID CHECK MY DRIVER'S LICENSE A LITTLE WHILE AGO, IT'S STILL ME EVEN THOUGH I AM AGREEING WITH STEVE LaBOUR.
I HAD THE CHAIRMAN CHECK MY DRIVER'S LICENSE --
>>JAN SMITH:  I DIDN'T LIKE THE PICTURE.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  SHE DIDN'T LIKE THE PICTURE, NEITHER DID I.
I WAS YOUNGER THEN.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS CLEARLY WILL CREATE THE REPRESENTATION THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN REQUESTING.
>>JAN SMITH:  MS. LASHER AND THEN MS. WILLIAMS.
>>DENISE LASHER:  THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS FOLLOWING UP WHAT MR. WHITE HAD SAID.
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, MR. WHITE.
I THINK YOU HAD MISUNDERSTOOD ONE OF THE POINTS I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT I DIDN'T SAY THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T COME DOWN AND ASKED FOR A CHANGE OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I JUST SAID I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY THAT THEIR CURRENT COMMISSIONERS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS WHEN THEY'VE CALLED A COMMISSIONER ON THE PHONE OR BROUGHT A PROBLEM TO THEM.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HELPFUL IN TRYING TO RESOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
OKAY.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT -- AND I AGREE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE DIVERSE REPRESENTATION ON A BOARD.
I TRULY DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY TO HAVE DIVERSITY, OKAY.
BUT -- AND YOU -- YOU WOULD -- YOU WOULD HAVE A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR ME, BUT SINCE THEY RESTRUCTURED THE BOARD WHERE THEY WENT FROM FIVE TO SEVEN, I BELIEVE THE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN ON THE BOARD EVER SINCE THAT, IS THAT -- COULD YOU --
>>JAN SMITH:  THAT'S CORRECT.
>>DENISE LASHER:  THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WE HAVE HAD AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
SINCE THEY WENT FROM FIVE TO SEVEN, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
THAT'S WONDERFUL.
I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT'S A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY.
IF YOU HAVE A MAJORITY IN A DISTRICT THAT ARE MINORITIES, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT A MINORITY WOULD BE ELECTED.
I THINK THAT PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE PERSON THAT THEY FEEL WILL BEST REPRESENT THEM BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.
AND YOU COULD HAVE A MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICT, AND YOU CAN HAVE A MINORITY RUNNING AND YOU COULD HAVE A CAUCASIAN RUNNING.
AND THE CAUCASIAN COULD GET A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES.
SO THERE'S NEVER A GUARANTEE.
NEVER, EVER CAN YOU DO -- HAVE -- BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE DIVERSITY WITHIN THAT DISTRICT.
>>GERALD WHITE:  YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD, IF I MAY.
>>JAN SMITH:  LET ME LET HER FINISH HER COMMENTS.
>>DENISE LASHER:  MY POINT IS YOU WANT A DISTRICT THAT HAS THE MAJORITY OF MINORITIES.
THAT MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT ARE MINORITIES, OKAY.
I'M SAYING THAT EVEN IF YOU HAD THAT, IF YOU HAD 80% OF THE POPULATION THAT WERE MINORITIES IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT, IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT A MINORITY WOULD BE ELECTED.
OKAY.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR THE BEST PERSON.
OKAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT MINORITIES ONLY VOTE FOR MINORITIES, IF THEY HAVE A CHOICE.
I DON'T THINK THEY JUST VOTE FOR MINORITIES.
I THINK THAT THEY TRULY VOTE FOR THE BEST PERSON, AT LEAST I HOPE THAT'S WHAT MOST EVERYBODY TRIES TO DO.
THE BEST -- THEY FEEL IS THE BEST PERSON.
SO, YOU KNOW, MY POINT IS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GUARANTEE ANYTHING.
BUT WE HAVE ALWAYS, SINCE WE EXPANDED THE BOARD, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD REPRESENTATION, A DIVERSE REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD.
SO -- AND I THINK THAT WE ALWAYS WILL.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S VERY HIGH-QUALITY MINORITIES THAT WOULD LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT, THAT LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT NOW, THAT WILL BE ELECTED FROM THE POPULATION WITHIN THAT DISTRICT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE DIVERSITY ON OUR BOARD.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT POINT OF VIEW.
>>JAN SMITH:  MS. WILLIAMS AND MR. LaBOUR AND MR. WHITE.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  ON THIS SITUATION, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ALL THIS COMPLAINT THAT WE DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM BRANDON AND FROM SOUTH COUNTY.
A LOT OF TIMES, I'VE FOLLOWED UP THOSE COMPLAINTS WITH RONDA STORMS AND WITH DOTTIE BERGER BEFORE HER.
AND I FOUND OUT A LOT OF TIMES WHAT THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION COULD EVEN HANDLE.
IT WAS SOMETHING COMPLETELY OUT OF THEIR PURVIEW.
BUT BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T DO IT, THEN THEY WEREN'T REPRESENTED.
AND I THINK THAT IF YOU FOLLOWED UP SOME OF THIS, YOU WOULD FIND OUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THAT THEY'VE HANDLED WHAT THEY ARE EQUIPPED TO HANDLE, BUT SOME OF IT IS JUST SIMPLY OUT OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, SO TO SPEAK.
ISN'T ANYTHING THAT THEY CAN DO.
SO -- I KNOW -- I KNOW I HEAR A LOT OF COMPLAINING OUT OF SOUTH COUNTY.
WE AREN'T REPRESENTED.
I BET RONDA SPENDS MORE TIME IN SOUTH COUNTY THAN ANY OTHER PLACE IN HER DISTRICT.
SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED.
I JUST THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING SHE CAN'T DEAL WITH ANYWAY.
SOME OTHER AGENCY NEEDS TO.
AND I THINK IF YOU WENT TO THE 4-3, WHERE YOU HAD THE THREE AND THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
I THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE -- WOULD BE INCLINED TO AND SHOULD BE TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THE PARTICULAR REGION THAT THEY -- FROM WHICH THEY CAMPAIGN AND SHOULD BE.
AND THAT -- THAT WAS REALLY MY IDEA FOR SUGGESTING IT, BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A BIG COUNTY.
AND THEY CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE.
SO THEY COULD CONCENTRATE MORE ON THE REGION WHERE THEY LIVE IN COOPERATION WITH THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER FROM -- FROM THE DISTRICT CLOSE TO THEM.
THERE MIGHT EVEN BE TWO DISTRICTS CLOSE TO THEM.
AND I THINK THAT THEY COULD GIVE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE COUNTY, THE PART THAT THEY LIVED IN, MORE PERSONAL ATTENTION.
AND I THINK, ALSO, WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW THAT WOULD BE A BIG HELP TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE YOU'RE SEEING THESE LITTLE GROUPS LIKE F.A.I.R., LIKE THE SOUTH COUNTY ROUNDTABLE, AND LUTZ HAS SOMETHING, I FORGET WHAT IT'S CALLED.
>>JAN SMITH:  THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  I HAVE A FEELING NOW THAT BRANDON IS FORMING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK IF THESE ASSOCIATIONS, I WILL CALL THEM, COME TOGETHER AND WORK TOGETHER AND LET THE COUNTY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT AND WHAT THEY EXPECT AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THEIR CAPACITY TO DEAL WITH IT, AND WE'RE FINDING THAT NOW COMING OUT OF THE SOUTH COUNTY ROUND TABLE.
I THINK YOU'RE FINDING IT COMING OUT OF THE LUTZ GROUP AND HOPEFULLY NOW THIS F.A.I.R. GROUP THAT'S JOINED INCLUDES VALRICO AND BRANDON AND EVEN BLOOMINGDALE, WHERE THIS GROUP WORKS IN TANDEM WITH THEIR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK YOU WILL FIND, THEN, THAT THE -- IT WOULDN'T BE SUCH A HEAVY BURDEN FOR THAT COMMISSIONER WHO IS REPRESENTING 250,000 PEOPLE.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU, MS. WILLIAMS.
MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  A COUPLE OF THINGS.
LAST MEETING, AND IT MAY HAVE STARTED THE MEETING BEFORE LAST, I ASKED FOR RESEARCH ON -- BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN TOLD THERE WAS A PRESENTATION MADE AT SOME POINT TO A CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THAT WAS DOCUMENTED WITH EXHIBITS AS TO WHY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO -- TO HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO BOARD MEMBERS, NUMBER ONE, SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT, EVEN THOUGH I'M LEANING TOWARDS THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS BOARDS.
I WAS GOING TO BRING IT UP IN BARBARA'S REPORT.
I DON'T NEED A REPORT ON THAT NOW, I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE.
SECOND OF ALL, I UNDERSTAND -- FIRST OF ALL, I AGREE WITH MS. WILLIAMS, MANY TIMES PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED WHEN THEY DON'T GET THE ANSWER THEY WANT.
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
BUT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED IF WE DO AT-LARGE ARE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS A PSEUDO SIX-MEMBER -- OR SEVEN MEMBER SINGLE DISTRICTS BECAUSE YOU EVEN SAID, AND MS. LASHER REFERRED TO IT, THAT IT'S THEIR AREA THAT AT LEAST THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT, AND THEY REPRESENT IT.
AND MS. LASHER EVEN WENT SO FAR AS SAYING THEY WOULD HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT THEM.
IT CAN'T BE THAT WAY.
IT WORKS FINE FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD BECAUSE OF THE -- OF THE -- OF THE LARGER ISSUES THEY DEAL WITH IN EDUCATION.
BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO CONSTITUENT ISSUES AND ESPECIALLY COMMUNITY ISSUES, AND WE HAVE SUCH A DIVERSE NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES IN OUR AREA, WE CAN'T HAVE AN AT-LARGE THAT I VOTE FOR IF I LIVE IN TAMPA THAT IS GOING TO SAY, WELL, QUITE FRANKLY, EVEN THOUGH I WAS AT-LARGE, I'M GOING TO LEAN MORE TOWARDS THE SOUTH COUNTY BECAUSE THAT'S THE AREA I WAS ELECTED FROM.
WE ARE -- IN ESSENCE, WE ARE CREATING SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
I THINK WE NEED TO BITE THE BULLET AND SAY THEY ARE ALL SEVEN -- SINGLE-MEMBER AND GO FROM THERE.
IT REALLY MAKES ME UNEASY TO HEAR THIS TALK ABOUT, WELL, THEY ARE GOING TO KIND OF REPRESENT THIS AREA SINCE THAT IS WHERE THEY HAD TO LIVE.
ONE LAST ISSUE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE A MINORITY TO BE ELECTED.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS YOU CAN'T DISTRICT YOUR COUNTY SO THERE ISN'T AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MINORITIES TO PARTICIPATE.
SO LET'S GET OFF THIS FEELING THAT WE'VE GOT TO CREATE A DISTRICT -- AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT MR. WHITE IS TALKING ABOUT -- HE'S NOT CREATING A DISTRICT SO A BLACK CAN BE ELECTED, HE'S TALKING MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENCIES OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO HAVING REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED.
AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I THINK HE'S SAYING.
AND I THINK HE'S NEXT TO TALK.
SO HE CAN SAY IT FOR HIMSELF.
>>JAN SMITH:  SEE IF HE WANTS TO SAY THAT.
>>GERALD WHITE:  MR. LaBOUR SITS A LITTLE TOO CLOSE BECAUSE HE READS MY MIND.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR A HISPANIC WILL BE PHYSICALLY, AS I AM, AS AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, BE PUT ON THE BOARD BY THE CONSTITUENCY, BUT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ISSUES, COMMON ISSUES WITHIN A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.
NOW THE LIKELIHOOD THAT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR HISPANIC WILL BE ELECTED IS STRONG BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT PARTICULAR BODY WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE THERE, OKAY.
AND I, FOR ONE, I WOULD HAVE -- NO MATTER WHERE I LIVED IN THE COUNTY, I WOULD WANT THAT PARTICIPATION ON A BOARD.
OKAY.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE, BUT THERE IS A STRONG DESIRE FROM AFRICAN-AMERICANS, NO MATTER -- WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN A PARTICULAR PART OF COUNTY OR NOT TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD, OKAY, AND THE HISPANIC -- I WISH WE CAN GET A HISPANIC ON THE BOARD BECAUSE THOSE ARE LARGE PERCENTAGES OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
OKAY.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AND MS. WILLIAMS, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT REPRESENTATION, YOU TALK ABOUT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE PEOPLE'S CONCERN, BUT THE THIRD QUESTION IS THAT I'VE HEARD -- IS THAT -- YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK TEN YEARS OUT, OKAY.
THE LINES WEREN'T REDRAWN FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS.
AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF GROWTH THIS COUNTY IS GOING TO EXPERIENCE WITHIN THAT TEN-YEAR TIME FRAME.
AND HOW MANY CITIZENS DO YOU WANT EACH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS TO REPRESENT?
THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION WE NEED TO ANSWER.
DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO GO BEYOND 250,000, 300,000, YOU KNOW?
WHERE DO YOU STOP FOR THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS THAT EACH SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY REPRESENT?
AND I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION AS WELL THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
AND THAT'S -- THAT'S, AGAIN, ANOTHER REASON TO ADD AT LEAST ONE ADDITIONAL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  WELL, THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE HERE IN THIS COUNTY BEFORE.
PEOPLE HAVE LIVED HERE LONG ENOUGH.
MOST OF US ARE TRANSPLANTS.
WE STARTED OFF BEFORE WE WENT TO THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE NOW, THIS CHARTER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WE HAD FIVE COMMISSIONERS ALL WITH A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO A SINGLE DISTRICT AND THEY ALL RAN AT-LARGE.
AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, I ACTUALLY GOT TO VOTE FOR ALL FIVE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND I DON'T THINK I HAD ANY MORE CLOUT, I GUARANTEE YOU -- I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO HAVE CLOUT WITH SOME OF THOSE GUYS.
BUT YOU KNOW HOW THAT WAS.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>JAN SMITH:  JUST MADE A GOOD POINT.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  THREE OF THEM WENT AWAY IN HANDCUFFS AND SHACKLES HERE FROM THE COURT HOUSE.
BUT I THINK THAT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT RUNNING AT-LARGE IS -- IT'S A FALSE DISTRICT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
IF WE THINK THAT'S CREATING ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR A DISTRICT, THEN WHY ARE WE HAVING TO RUN AT-LARGE?
LET'S SAY THIS IS A DISTRICT AND LET'S HAVE AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT THEY RUN IN AND LET'S SAY IT IS A DISTRICT AND STEVE SAID, GO TO SEVEN SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS A GOOD SITUATION.
I BELIEVE SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE ELECTORALLY TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. AMBLER.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THOSE PORTION OF THE COMMENTS THAT TALK ABOUT HOW THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS CHANGE THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND THE AT-LARGE DISTRICTS.
SPECIFICALLY, I GUESS, FOR MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, I DIFFER WITH DENISE OF HOW I VIEW THAT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT OR MAYBE IT DIDN'T COME OUT QUITE RIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T SEE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, IF YOU IMPOSE THAT ON AN AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER AS ALLOWING THAT COMMISSIONER THEN TO ONLY BE REPRESENTING A THIRD OF THE COUNTY.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I BELIEVE IT IS.
THE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER IS JUST THAT.
THEY ARE ELECTED BY EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTY.
THEY GOT TO RUN IN ALL PARTS OF THIS COUNTY.
THEY'VE GOT TO BE ELECTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OR BY THE PLURAL ALT OF VOTES -- THOSE VOTERS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY ON YOUR COMMISSION, THAT THE PERSPECTIVE BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION BY THOSE AT-LARGE MEMBERS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COUNTY.
NOT THAT THEY REPRESENT THAT AREA THAT THEY COME FROM SO MUCH, BUT THAT, BY VIRTUE OF HAVING LIVED IN AN AREA OF THE COUNTY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE FROM HAVING LIVED THERE.
YOU HAVE TO GET OUT AND GET IN TOUCH WITH ALL THE CONCERNS OF EVERYONE.
BUT YOU CAN BRING THAT RESIDENCY PERSPECTIVE -- I MEAN, I'VE LIVED IN NORTH TAMPA NOW THE ENTIRE TIME WE HAVE LIVED IN TAMPA SINCE 1986.
I CERTAINLY HAVE A MUCH BETTER GRASP OF THE CONCERNS AND THE ISSUES AND THE THINGS THAT EXIST UP IN THE NORTH PART OF TAMPA, NORTH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THAN I WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, DOWN IN SOUTH COUNTY.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IF I'M AN AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER I DON'T HAVE TO GET AROUND AND KNOW WHAT EVERYONE IS WORRIED ABOUT OR BE RESPONSIVE TO THOSE NEEDS.
BUT I BRING THAT GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE, THAT GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY, AND EACH COMMISSIONER FROM THOSE GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS WILL BRING THAT TO THE MIX TO HELP BETTER SERVE THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE SO THAT WHEN YOU ARE DISCUSSING ISSUES BEFORE A VOTE IS TAKEN, YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THAT INPUT IN THE MIX.
NOW, LET'S CONTRAST THAT TO AN EXAMPLE OF IF YOU HAVE THREE SINGLE -- EXCUSE ME, THREE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS AND ALL THREE ARE FROM ONE -- ONE PLACE IN THE COUNTY.
LET'S SAY THAT'S SOUTH COUNTY OR EVEN NORTH COUNTY.
YOU'VE LOST -- YOU'VE GOT ONE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT ALREADY FROM THE NORTH PART OF THE COUNTY, AND LET'S SAY YOU HAVE THOSE THREE COMMISSIONERS ALL FROM THE NORTH PART OF THE COUNTY.
NOW YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE GOT A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION ALL FROM ONE GEOGRAPHIC CENTER IN THE COUNTY.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT NECESSARY GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY FOR DIVERSITY FROM PERSPECTIVE FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES INTO THE MIX?
YOU WON'T.
YOU'LL LOSE IT.
YOU WON'T ALWAYS HAVE A COMMISSION LIKE THAT.
BUT THAT'S CONCEIVABLE UNDER OUR PRESENT FORM THAT YOU CAN DO THAT.
A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION ALL FROM ONE GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
AND THAT'S I DIDN'T SUPPORT KEEPING AT-LARGE, BUT WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
YOU ALWAYS WILL ENSURE THAT GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING IN ANY WAY THAT THAT AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER LOSES THEIR OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT EVERYBODY.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY AND THEN I'M GOING TO HOPEFULLY GET YOU ALL TO TAKE A POSITION ON WHAT THE NUMBER BREAKOUT IS YOU LIKE.
MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT WHERE THE PERSON IS FROM AN AREA, THAT GIVES THEM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THAT AREA.
WELL, I REALLY HOPE WE DON'T HAVE -- THAT WE'RE NOT ELECTING PEOPLE WITH SUCH A NARROW EXPERIENCE THAT THEY ONLY SEE ONE SMALL LITTLE PIECE OF THIS COUNTY.
I'VE LIVED IN THIS COUNTY FOR OVER 22 YEARS.
I'VE SPENT TWO-THIRDS OF THAT LIVING IN WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS DISTRICT 4.
I NOW LIVE IN CITY OF TAMPA.
I SPENT AN EARLY PART OF MY LIFE WORKING WAY TOO HARD LIVING ON A FARM IN INDIANA.
I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE THINGS THE FARMERS ARE GOING THROUGH AND UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IN DISTRICT 4.
I LIVED IN SOUTH COUNTY AND ALSO LIVED IN BRANDON.
SO IF WE ARE ELECTING SUCH SMALL-MINDED PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN ONLY SEE ONE LITTLE SPOT -- I MEAN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM CALLING COMMISSIONER THOMAS SCOTT WHO HAPPENS TO BE PROBABLY -- FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEMBER OF OUR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WHO REPRESENTS DISTRICT 3 WHERE I DO NOT LIVE TO DISCUSS AN ISSUE WITH HIM.
I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
I DON'T THINK HE HAS A PROBLEM DISCUSSING IT WITH ME BECAUSE HE KNOWS NO MATTER WHERE HE IS OR WHERE HIS DISTRICT IS, HE STILL REPRESENTS ME.
WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR HIM TO VOTE, THEY DON'T SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS DOESN'T AFFECT -- THIS IS AFFECTING WHERE DAVID HURLEY IS, AND SORRY, MR. SCOTT, HE'S NOT YOUR COMMISSIONER, YOU CAN'T VOTE ON THIS.
BY THE WAY, COMMISSIONER NORMAN -- HE DOESN'T LIVE UP THERE, -- THEY ARE ALL VOTING COUNTYWIDE.
THEY ARE ALL VOTING COUNTYWIDE, PERIOD.
SO I JUST THINK IF WE -- IF WE THINK THAT WE'RE HIRING -- GOING TO ELECT SUCH SMALL-MINDED PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T SEE BEYOND THEIR OWN ENCLAVE, WE ARE PROBABLY IN TROUBLE BEFORE WE START.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
BOARD MEMBERS, I WANT TO TELL YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW I FEEL ON THIS.
I REMEMBER 20 YEARS AGO, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND IT'S LARGE, 1072 SQUARE MILES.
IF YOU LIVE IN NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH, AS I DO, AND YOU'RE ATTENDING A MEETING IN RUSKIN OR OUT IN THE AREA OF FORT LONESOME, YOU MAY AS WELL PLAN ON AT LEAST AN HOUR'S DRIVE, BECAUSE WITH THE TRAFFIC AND THE ROADS AND ALL, DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF DAY, IT IS GOING TO TAKE YOU A WHILE TO GET THERE.
I REMEMBER MANY TIMES THE COMMUNITY OF LUTZ IN THE EARLY '80s COMPLAINING VERY VOCIFEROUSLY IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, POINTING THEIR FINGERS AND ALL, AND BEING VERY ANGRY THAT THE BOARD DIDN'T HEAR US.
WE WEREN'T REPRESENTED.
AND THE ISSUE WAS, THAT THEY VOTED A WAY WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO VOTE.
WHAT IT MEANT WAS, THEY DISAGREED WITH US.
SADLY, IT'S CREATED MANY PROBLEMS IN THAT COMMUNITY AND PROBLEMS THAT THIS COUNTY AND THIS COUNTY COMMISSION WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH FOR YEARS TO COME BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE.
BUT NONETHELESS, THERE IS THAT SENTIMENT.
I THINK THE ISSUE -- ONE OF THE BIGGER ISSUES HERE IS IN REPRESENTATION.
REALLY DOES COME DOWN TO VERY SPECIFIC AREAS AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNTY THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE COUNTY STAFF AT PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THESE COMMUNITY PLANS AND SECTOR PLANS ARE REALLY GOING TO HELP PEOPLE AND GIVE THEIR COMMUNITIES IDENTITY AND LET THEM BE WHAT THEY WANT TO BE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL, IN FACT, HELP SOLVE THIS REPRESENTATION ISSUE.
I THINK WHEN YOU GO TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THE PROBLEM BECOMES THAT I ONLY HAVE TO TRAVEL IN MY DISTRICT.
I MAY HAVE A VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS SOUTH COUNTY, BUT I DON'T REALLY HAVE TO TRAVEL THERE.
IT MAY TO BE TOO FAR OUT OF THE WAY.
I MAY NOT HAVE TIME.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS REALLY CONCERN ME.
I HAVE TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN POLITICS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 40, 50, 60 YEARS, AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM FEEL -- OF THE PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO, AND I'VE TALKED TO DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND NONPARTISANS, THAT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE, A STEP BACKWARDS TO GO TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE REALLY IS A GOOD REASON, AN IMPORTANT REASON TO HAVE THESE AT-LARGE SEATS.
THE ONE THING I REMEMBER FROM YEARS AGO WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE GEOGRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS ON THE AT-LARGE, AND WE STILL DON'T, BUT A COMMISSIONER WHO LIVED IN THE CITY VOTED TO PUT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON THE SHORE OF A LAKE BECAUSE THEY COULD SITE IT IN THE SWAMP AND YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
BUT, OF COURSE, THESE PLANTS WEREN'T MONITORED.
THEY WEREN'T MANAGED.
THEY WEREN'T MONITORED ON A 24-HOUR BASIS.
ONCE A MONTH IF YOU WERE LUCKY.
IF THAT THING MALFUNCTIONED, THE LAKE WAS POLLUTED AND EVERYBODY'S WELL WAS POLLUTED AND I REMEMBER A TIME WHEN THE OWNER OF ONE OF THOSE PACKAGE PLANTS CAME OUT, AND IT HAPPENED OVER A HOLIDAY WEEKEND AND A STORM WAS BREWING, HURRICANE ELENA, I BELIEVE.
AND THE SOLUTION WAS TO POUR CLOROX ALL OVER THE PLACE.
AND LET ME TELL YOU, NOT ONLY DID IT STINK, IT BURNED YOUR EYES AND THE FISH WERE DEAD ALL OVER THE PLACE AND IT WAS A NIGHTMARE.
AND WHEN THAT COMMISSIONER VOTED TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE KIND OF PLANTS ON A SWAMP ON A LAKE IN LUTZ AND WAS ASTOUNDED WITH THE ANGER THAT ERUPTED IN THE AUDIENCE IN A DIFFERENT BOARDROOM, AND HER RESPONSE IS, WELL, JUST WHERE IS LUTZ.
WELL, I THINK THIS ISSUE OF MAKE -- AND WHERE IS THE -- YOU KNOW -- SOUTHWEST -- BUT THE POINT IS, YOU REALLY NEED TO PUT THESE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS ME IN LUTZ, YOU IN SUN CITY, PEOPLE IN THE CITY, ALL OVER THIS COUNTY, THONOTOSASSA AND -- YOU REALLY NEED TO PUT THESE PEOPLE THAT VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS YOU IN A POSITION WHERE THEY HAVE TO SEE WHERE YOU LIVE, HOW YOU LIVE, WHAT THE SERVICES ARE, AND I BELIEVE THAT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS WILL REMOVE THAT NEED FOR THEM TO SEE.
I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I THINK MANY TIMES, I'VE WATCHED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS OR THE AT-LARGE DISTRICTS SAY THAT I HAVE TO LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO WHAT THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SAYS.
HE KNOWS HIS DISTRICT BETTER THAN ANYBODY.
I HAVE TO LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO THAT, BUT I HAVE TO WEIGH IT WITH THE OTHER ISSUES.
AND I THINK IT'S -- IT'S -- MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT I BELIEVE THE 4-3 SPLIT IS RIGHT NOW THE BEST ALTERNATIVE WE HAVE.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE US GO TO SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
HOW WE -- IF WE PUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS ON, I WOULD THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE OUGHT TO DO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IS INVITE THE SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS PAM IORIO HERE TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT DIVISION WOULD OCCUR.
I DON'T OBJECT TO THAT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT TO DO, AND YOU MIGHT -- AS YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP OVER THERE, YOU WANT TO PUT A HALF-MOON AROUND THE CITY OF TAMPA.
LEAVE PART OF THE NORTHWEST AND PART OF THE NORTHEAST IN ONE DISTRICT AND BRING THE OTHER ONE DOWN.
YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE AN EFFORT TO ELIMINATE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY FROM HAVING ANOTHER AT-LARGE SEAT OR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT VERY CAREFULLY.
AND I WOULD -- WOULD THINK THAT PERHAPS -- BUT IF -- IF IT'S A PROPOSAL THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER, I THINK IT WOULD BE IN OUR INTERESTS, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, TO HAVE THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS COME IN AND TALK ABOUT THAT DIVISION AND HOW IT COULD OR COULD NOT COME ABOUT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE, BOARD MEMBERS, IS TO TRY THE SAME THING WE JUST DID AND GO AROUND THE TABLE AND SAY WHETHER YOU FAVOR -- AND PERHAPS WE SORT OF ACCOMPLISHED THAT THE FIRST TIME AROUND.
WE HAVE OPTION UNDER SEVEN COMMISSIONERS AND UNDER NINE.
IF THERE IS -- IS A LETTER -- "A," "B," "C," "D," "E" UNDER SEVEN OR NINE THAT YOU CAN FAVOR TO HAVE CLOSURE ON THIS.
MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  ONE TECHNICAL THING OF HOW TO SPLIT IT UP INTO THREE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE COMMISSION DISTRICTS RIGHT NOW, ONE OF THE AT-LARGE DISTRICTS IS GOING TO ENCOMPASS ALL OF DISTRICT 4 AND MORE.
>>JAN SMITH:  POPULATION.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  POPULATION.
THE IDEA WE ARE GOING TO COME AROUND INTO THAT AND FILL THE COUNTY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.
A TECHNICAL OBSERVATION.
>>JAN SMITH:  THE OTHER OBSERVATION MIGHT BE THAT EACH DISTRICT PICKS UP A PORTION OF THE CITY AND YOU HAVEN'T SOLVED YOUR PROBLEM.
IT IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO ASK MS. IORIO IF SHE WOULD COME.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>>JAN SMITH:  ASK MR. HOSLER TO BE HERE AND SEE HOW HE FEELS ABOUT IT.
MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  TO MAKE THE VOTING EASIER OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HEARD IS THAT "A," "B," AND "C" CHOICES HAVE BEEN FLOATED.
JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS, "C" IS REALLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
WITHOUT THE RESIDENCY.
DO YOU WANT US TO BE VOTING ON THESE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A RESIDENCY?
I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF THEN.
SO WE WOULD BE VOTING "A," "B," OR "C."
>>JAN SMITH:  RIGHT.
"A" IS SIX -- SIX SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, ONE AT-LARGE.
AND THEN IF YOU HAD NINE, IT WOULD BE EIGHT AND ONE AT-LARGE.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  WE'RE JUST DOING SEVEN.
>>JAN SMITH:  BUT IT FALLS -- I AGREE WE ARE STILL DOING SEVEN, BUT IT WOULD FALL THE SAME WAY IF YOU WENT TO THE OTHER NUMBER, WHICH YOU WERE WANTING TO KEEP THE OTHER OPTION ON.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  WE VOTED ON THAT.
THE MAJORITY WANTED SEVEN SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.
UNDER SEVEN, MR. AMBLER, THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THE HURLEY-LaBOUR SUGGESTION OF SIX SINGLE, ONE AT-LARGE WITH THE AT-LARGE BEING THE ELECTED CHAIR, I SUSPECT.
"B" WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. WHITE PROPOSED AS AN OPTION.
I DON'T THINK HE WAS NECESSARILY STRONGLY ADVOCATING FOR IT, BUT FIVE FROM A DISTRICT, SINGLE-MEMBER, TWO AT-LARGE.
AND THE "C" WOULD BE REALLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND I SUSPECT WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IF THAT PASSES IN THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.
I THINK --
>>JAN SMITH:  SO LET'S START AT THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE PLEASE.
MR. WILKES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US WHICH YOUR FAVORITE IS?
>> "C."
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WHITE?
>>GERALD WHITE:  I CAN GO WITH EITHER "A" OR "B."
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY.
MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  "A."
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. BALES.
>>JOHN BALES:  "C."
>>DENISE LASHER:  "C."
>>JAN SMITH:  I GO WITH "C."
MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  "A."
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  "C."
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  "A."
PARDON ME, EITHER "A" OR "C."
>>JAN SMITH:  THAT'S DIFFERENT.
MS. WILLIAMS.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  "C."
>>HENRY BELTRAN:  "C."
>>JAN SMITH:  "C" -- IT'S LIKE EIGHT.
EIGHT WITH A QUESTION MARK.
SO IT'S -- THE DISTRICTS ARE LINING UP VERY MUCH LIKE WE HAVE THEM AT THE PRESENT TIME.
LET'S GO ON.
ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE START THE NEXT DISCUSSION, LET'S TAKE A BREAK.
THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND START WITH NUMBER 6.
AND IF THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS -- MAYBE WE'LL LET THEM MAKE THEIR COMMENTS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING IN CASE THEY FEEL INCLINED TO DEPART.
SO THIS -- THIS MEETING IS IN RECESS.

>>JAN SMITH:  CHARTER REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS, WE'RE BACK IN SESSION, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET A COUPLE OF OUR HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES TAKEN CARE OF.
NUMBER ONE IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT.
MR. TINKLER.
>>KEN TINKLER:  GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS.
KEN TINKLER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.
WE HAVE NO FORMAL REPORT TONIGHT.
WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THE NIGHT GOES ON.
THANK YOU.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY, MADAM CHAIR.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN ARE YOU ALL GOING TO BRING BACK THE PROPOSAL RELATED TO THE AUDITOR'S POSITION THAT WE CREATED?
>>KEN TINKLER:  WE CAN BRING THAT BACK AT ANY TIME THE BOARD FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT.
>>JAN SMITH:  I THINK WE'LL BRING THAT BACK THE LAST MEETING IN DECEMBER BECAUSE BY THEN WE'LL HAVE WORKED THROUGH ALL OF THIS.
WE CAN SEE IF THAT FITS WHEN WE'VE WORKED IT OUT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO HANDLE IT.
>>GERALD WHITE:  WELL, WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, MADAM CHAIR, IS MY OWN RECOLLECTION IS WE ASKED FOR, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IN ADVANCE BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC HEARING IN A TIMELY WAY.
>>KEN TINKLER:  WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE COPIES OF IT IN THE PACKET WE SEND OUT FOR THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU'D LIKE.
>>JAN SMITH:  THAT WILL BE FINE, BUT I THINK IT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE -- EITHER THE END OF THE NEXT MEETING OR THE ONE AFTER.
>>GERALD WHITE:  WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND, FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE VOTED TO SEND THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT?
>>JAN SMITH:  IT'S BEEN TO PUBLIC HEARING.
>>GERALD WHITE:  EXCUSE ME.
WE VOTED TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, RIGHT?
>>JAN SMITH:  RIGHT.
NOW, THAT CAN STILL CHANGE.
ANYTHING CAN CHANGE SINE DIE BEFORE THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED IN FEBRUARY.
IF THE BOARD WANTS TO PULL THAT, THEY CAN.
IF THEY WANT TO LET IT GO, IT CAN GO.
THAT WILL BE THE FINAL NIGHT OF DECISION-MAKING.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I WANT TO UNDER STAND WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WE DECIDED TO SEND PART OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE BALLOT.
WE NEED THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO GO ALONG WITH WHAT WE'RE SENDING TO THE BALLOT.
AM I -- I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT.
>>KEN TINKLER:  IF I CAN HELP ON THIS ONE.
WE DID PLACE THE AUDITOR PROVISION WITHIN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SECTION OF THE CHARTER, SO IF YOU MAKE CHANGES TO THAT CHARTER, WE MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THE NUMBER THAT WE PLACE ON THE AUDITOR JUST TO MAKE IT FIT IN.
OBVIOUSLY IF YOU CHANGED SOME OTHER FORM OF STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD AFFECT THAT, YOU COULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE AUDITOR POSITION.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I NEED TO GET AHOLD OF THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TILL THE LAST MINUTE.
>>JAN SMITH:  THERE IS NO REASON THE REPORT CAN'T BE -- YOUR FINAL WORDING AND ALL CAN'T BE SENT OUT TO BOARD MEMBERS, BUT MY GOAL IS TO GET THROUGH THESE TEN POINTS EITHER THIS NIGHT OR OUR NEXT MEETING, AND THEN HOPEFULLY PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER AS THE LAST MEETINGS, THE TWO MEETINGS IN DECEMBER SO THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TO PUBLIC HEARING IN JANUARY.
>>GERALD WHITE:  JUST WANTED SOME CLARITY.
>>JAN SMITH:  GOOD.
MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT.
WE SAID WE TOOK IT TO PUBLIC HEARING, AND DID WE HAVE TEN VOTES TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
TO TAKE IT OFF THE BALLOT, DOES IT TAKE TEN VOTES TO TAKE IT OFF THE BALLOT?
NORMALLY WHEN YOU CHANGE SOMETHING YOU HAVE ALREADY ACTED ON, IT TAKES A SUPERMAJORITY.
WHAT IS THE -- HOW HIGH IS THE BAR TO REMOVE IT FROM THE BALLOT?
JUST --
>>JAN SMITH:  I WOULD ALSO SUSPECT THAT SOMEBODY ON THE PREVAILING SIDE MAY HAVE TO BRING IT BACK.
LET'S ASK MR. TINKLER OR MS. CAMPBELL.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IN THE CHARTER IS TO HAVE TEN VOTES TO PLACE IT ON THE BALLOT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN TAKING IT OFF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE.
YOUR OWN RULES DON'T ADDRESS IT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, AS ANOTHER ISSUE, IF WE SEEM TO BE COMPELLED TO WANT TO EVEN DISCUSS TAKING IT OFF, WOULD THAT REQUIRE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING?
>>JAN SMITH:  BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO IT COULD GO BACK ON.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD MEMBERS KNOW WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT AS WE SET THE OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE OTHER ISSUES.
>>KEN TINKLER:  AGAIN, THE ONLY FORMAL REQUIREMENT IS THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE PLACING IT ON THE BALLOT.
WE WOULD BE IN A GRAY AREA.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  SECOND OF ALL, WE DID PASS, LAST MEETING -- I THINK IT WAS LAST MEETING -- OR THE MEETING BEFORE LAST -- TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING ON A NONPARTISAN.
ARE YOU PREPARING THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT?
>>KEN TINKLER:  THAT IS, AS IT WAS FROM LAST MEETING AT THIS POINT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>JAN SMITH:  CORRECT.
OKAY?
>>KEN TINKLER:  THANK YOU.
>>JAN SMITH:  WELL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
AND IF -- YES.
MS. MERRITT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE YOUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND TELL US HOW OUR BUDGET IS BEING MANAGED?
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  BARBARA MERRITT.
BOARD MEMBERS, ABOUT THE BUDGET.
I WASN'T ABLE TO GET THE FIGURES THIS WEEK.
I WILL GET IT OUT IN YOUR PACKET.
THE ONLY ADDITION TO IT WAS MY SALARY, SO WE'RE AT APPROXIMATELY $24,500.
IN THE PAST TWO -- ACTUALLY THREE -- WEEKS SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, I'VE INCLUDED IN YOUR MATERIALS MR. KLEMAN'S DISCUSSION MODEL, SO YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, KEEP TRACK OF HOW YOU'RE VOTING AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
I DID THE FIRST DRAFT OF OUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY.
RIGHT NOW I HAVE 29 PAGES, SO I WANT TO GO BACK AND TRY TO SUMMARIZE IT, AND SO I HOPE TO HAVE THE FIRST DRAFT TO YOU IN THE NEXT MAILING.
OUR DECEMBER MEETINGS WILL BE HELD HERE IN THE BOARDROOM.
JANUARY MEETINGS ARE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE BOARDROOM, BUT WE MAY BE ON THE 26th FLOOR.
I WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL THE -- ABOUT THE 8th OF DECEMBER.
CHARLOTTE EMRICK WILL GET BACK TO ME BECAUSE THEY'RE DOUBLE-CHECKING SCHEDULES WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOME MEETINGS THEY'RE HAVING.
MR. LaBOUR, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, I HAVE BEEN THROUGH COUNTY RECORDS FROM 1983 -- I THINK I CAN FIND ALMOST EVERYTHING EXCEPT THOSE MAPS.
WHAT I DID FIND WAS THE 4-3 SPLIT WAS SUGGESTED BY NORM HICKEY, OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, SIX -- I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S SIX OR SEVEN ADMINISTRATORS AGO.
THIS WAS HIS -- HIS DECISION CAME OUT OF MEETINGS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND WITH OUR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER PLATT WAS OUR CHAIRMAN AT THAT TIME, AND COMMISSIONER PLATT HAD MR. HICKEY PRESENT THE PLAN TO THE BOARD, I BELIEVE, AND IT WAS IN APRIL OF 1983.
THAT'S WHERE THE 4-3 CAME FROM.
I HAVE BEEN DRIVING EVERY ENTITY IN THIS COUNTY CRAZY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE THE MAPS WERE THAT CREATED ALL OF THAT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID THEY DON'T HAVE IT, BUT THEY'VE MOVED FIVE TIMES SINCE THEN.
THE COUNTY CLERK -- SUE CAN TELL YOU I'VE BEEN DOWN THERE FOREVER.
THEY HAVE HAD THREE MOVES OF RECORDS, AND THEY'RE NOT IN THEIR RECORDS.
COMMISSIONER PLATT'S RECORDS REFER TO THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT AT USF, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY MAY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BECAUSE OF THE RECORDS RETENTION, THEY ONLY HAVE TO KEEP THEM A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS.
I HAVE SEARCH GOING ON AT USF, BUT DR. MacMANUS HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT BUSY, SO IT WILL BE SOME OF HER STUDENTS ASSISTING ME.
THE LAST THING I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IS GOING OVER TO THE FEDERAL COURT TO SEE IF THEY MAY BE OVER THERE.
IT MAY BE JUST A -- A -- GRASPING AT STRAWS.
BUT I'LL KEEP ASKING PEOPLE, AND TONIGHT DID I ASK MR. WARREN AGAIN.
HE SAID HE HAD ANOTHER IDEA WHERE THEY MAY BE, SO I'LL KEEP QUESTIONING MR. WARREN.
THE OTHER THING, NEXT WEEK THERE WILL BE A TOWN HALL MEETING IN THE NORTHWEST.
IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, IF YOU'D LET ME KNOW, I WILL GIVE YOU CHARTER REVIEW BOARD QUESTIONNAIRES OR WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO -- I'M SORRY.
CHARTERS, NOT CHARTER REVIEW BOARDS.
AND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, IT WILL BE NEXT THURSDAY NIGHT AT 7 P.M., AND I THINK IT'S AT WHARTON HIGH SCHOOL.
>> 6:30.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  6:30.
I'M SORRY.
AND NOW I WILL -- DURING YOUR DISCUSSION, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, YOU WOULD LIKE MS. IORIO AND MR. HOSLER.
WOULD YOU LIKE THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING?
>>JAN SMITH:  I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET THEM HERE AND PUT THEM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA --
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  MADAM CHAIR, DOES THAT GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME?
PLUS WE'RE ONLY GIVING THEM TWO WEEKS.
>>JAN SMITH:  CONSIDERING MS. IORIO'S SCHEDULE AT THE MOMENT AND WHAT'S GOING ON, IT MAY BE THE SECOND MEETING, BUT WE'LL GIVE THEM THE TWO DATES THAT THEY'RE MEETING AND SEE WHETHER IT FITS WITH THE TWO OF THEM.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  OKAY.
AND THE OTHER THING, I DID ATTEND THE SWEARING IN, AND IT WAS REALLY EXCITING THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR FRUITS CAME TO FRUITION, WHERE THEY SWORE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN, AND THEY USED THE PHRASE -- GERALD.
GERALD WAS RIGHT UP FRONT.
TELL ME WHAT THE PHRASE WAS.
I FORGOT.
>>GERALD WHITE:  THEY USED THE OATH OF RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED, AND THEY EVENTUALLY PASSIONED.
IT WAS ENACTED FORMALLY.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  AFTER THAT DID FOLLOW THE BOARD'S REORGANIZATION, AND THERE WAS NOTHING FORMAL, AND SUE PARRISH DID START OUT AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WHO IS THE DEPUTY CLERK.
>>GERALD WHITE:  MADAM CHAIR, I WILL SAY THAT THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD, AND I'M SURE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL GOOD THAT OUR WORK HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND YOU KNOW, I FEEL -- I FEEL LIKE WE DONE SOMETHING.
>>JAN SMITH:  THREE OUT OF SEVEN IS A GOOD NUMBER, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET THE LAST FOUR TO AGREE TO SUPPORT YOU.
MS. MERRITT, ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES REGARDING THIS ISSUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICTS AND THE 4-3, AT THE TIME THAT COMMITTEE MET IN THE EARLY '80s, THEY FINALLY VOTED ON THE ORDINANCE IN MAY, AND IT WENT TO THE PUBLIC IN THE VOTE THAT FALL.
MATT JAUDON, WHO WAS AN APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE BOARD, AND JOHN POLK, AND E.L. BING, JAN PLATT, AND I BELIEVE FRAN DAVIN WERE THE PEOPLE THAT SERVED ON THAT.
IT MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SEND A LETTER TO EACH OF THEM JUST ASKING THEM IF THEY REMEMBER THEIR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND FIND OUT WHAT THEY THINK OR INVITE THEM TO COME HERE AND SAY WHAT THEY THINK IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  I'D ALSO LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT SENATOR FRANK, AT THAT TIME, WAS THE DELEGATION, SO -- REPRESENTATIVE.
THAT WOULD BE NO PROBLEM.
OF COURSE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO CONTACT MR. BING.
>>JAN SMITH:  YES, THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  OKAY, BUT I HAVE TALKED TO MR. JAUTON AND MR. PAULK, AND I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN DO.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS MS. DAVIN OR BETTY CASTOR.
>>JAN SMITH:  IT WAS FRAN.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  IT WAS REPRESENTATIVE CASTOR.
THAT'S RIGHT.
I FORGOT.
>>JAN SMITH:  IT WAS FRAN BECAUSE THAT IS WHO WAS LEFT AFTER THE -- YEAH, FRAN AND JAN.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  OKAY.
NO.
IT WAS RODNEY COLSON.
>>JAN SMITH:  RODNEY WAS ELECTED AFTER THAT.
THERE WERE ONLY FIVE AFTER THAT.
WHEN DID CARL CARPENTER LEAVE?
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  HE WAS ON THE DELEGATION AT THAT TIME.
>>JAN SMITH:  HE WAS ON THE DELEGATION, BUT WAS HE ON THE DELEGATION DURING THAT DISCUSSION?
>> YES.
>>BARBARA MERRITT:  I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS COMMISSIONER COLSON THAT I HAVE IN MY RECORDS, BUT I'LL LOOK AGAIN.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT MAYBE GETTING SOME MORE OF THAT INFORMATION, AND IT MAY COME TO YOU IN LETTER FORM.
OKAY, BOARD MEMBERS.
LET'S GO BACK AND PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF.
WE'RE AT NUMBER 6.
IF THE ELECTION SYSTEM INCLUDES MORE THAN ONE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER IN ADDITION TO ELECTED CHAIR, SHOULD THERE BE A GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT?
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION ALL EVENING, SO LET'S JUST START OVER HERE WITH MR. BELTRAN AND GO AROUND THE TABLE.
DO YOU FAVOR HAVING A GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS?
MR. BELTRAN IS A YES.
MS. WILLIAMS.
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  YES.
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  YES.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  YES, SUBJECT TO THEM BEING OF RELATIVELY EQUAL POPULATIONS.
>>JAN SMITH:  IT WOULD HAVE TO BE.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  NO.
IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE AT-LARGE, LET THEM BE AT-LARGE.
>>JAN SMITH:  I SAY YES.
MS. LASHER.
>>DENISE LASHER:  YES.
>>JOHN BALES:  YES.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  NO.
>>GERALD WHITE:  YES.
>>DANNY WILKES:  YES.
>>JAN SMITH:  THANK YOU.
OKAY.
SO THE GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS PART OF OUR THOUGHT PROCESS OF BUILDING OUR GOVERNMENT HERE.
NUMBER 7, SHOULD TERM LIMITS BE CHANGED TO RESTRICT SERVICE TO AN ABSOLUTE TIME?
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GO AROUND THE TABLE, THEN IF THERE'S -- IF YOU-ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR POSITION ON THAT, AND I THINK AT THIS POINT AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MOST RECENT ELECTION, YOU-ALL WILL HAVE SOME COMFORT LEVEL.
SO MR. WILKES, DO YOU WANT TO START WITH THIS ONE?
>> "B."
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WHITE?
NUMBER 7, "A" OR "B"?
SHOULD TERM LIMITS BE CHANGED TO RESTRICT SERVICE TO AN ABSOLUTE TIME?
YES, OR RETAIN THE PRESENT SYSTEM?
>>GERALD WHITE:  YES.
>>JAN SMITH:  YOU'RE "A."
MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  "B."
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. BALES.
>>JOHN BALES:  I DON'T KNOW.
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY.
MS. LASHER.
>>DENISE LASHER:  "B."
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  "B."
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. AMBLER.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  "B" IS RETAIN THE PRESENT SYSTEM?
"B."
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  "B."
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WITH "A" OR "B" ON IT.
IS IT THIS BLUE PIECE OF PAPER?
>>JAN SMITH:  LET ME READ IT TO YOU.
>> IT'S THE THING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HANDED OUT THAT HAD ALL THOSE --
>>JAN SMITH:  SHOULD TERM LIMITS BE CHANGED TO RESTRICT SERVICE TO AN ABSOLUTE TIME?
>>DEE WILLIAMS:  YES.
>>HENRY BELTRAN:  "B."
>>JAN SMITH:  THE "B"s CARRY.
WOW.
WE'RE ON A ROLL HERE.
NUMBER 8, IF YES, HOW SHOULD TERM LIMITS BE CHANGED.
I WOULD GUESS BASED ON THE VOTE WE CAN SKIP THAT ONE AND GO TO NUMBER NINE.
IF THERE IS AN ELECTED CHAIR, DOES THE TERM LIMIT RESTRICTION APPLY TO A COMMISSIONER WHO IS RUNNING FOR CHAIRMAN?
MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  CAN WE GET A CLARIFICATION OF THAT THOUGH?
DOES THAT MEAN THAT A DISTRICT COMMISSIONER COULD NOT RUN FOR COUNTY CHAIRMAN, OR DOES THAT MEAN SOMEONE WHO IS COUNTY CHAIRMAN COULD NOT RUN FOR DISTRICT COMMISSION?
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  MADAM CHAIR.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK NINE PROBABLY -- WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN ELECTED -- WELL, I DON'T THINK -- WELL, WE'RE IN CONFLICT, MADAM CHAIR, BECAUSE WE VERY EARLY ON SAID YES, WE'D ALL LIKE TO HAVE ELECTED CHAIR, BUT I -- IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN ONE OF OUR AT-LARGE DISTRICTS THAT WE JUST CREATED HAS TO BE A, QUOTE, CHAIR.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?
>>JAN SMITH:  YES.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  OKAY.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE KEPT THE TERM LIMITS UNDER ITS PRESENT SYSTEM, IT PROBABLY IS MOOT.
>> BECAUSE IT'S AN AT-LARGE SEAT?
>> CORRECT.
>>JAN SMITH:  IT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE THAT PERSON FROM COMING BACK TO RUN FOR A SINGLE-MEMBER OR AT-LARGE?
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  THAT'S HOW THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS.
>>DENISE LASHER:  I THINK YOU SAID WE ALL SUPPORTED AN ELECTED CHAIR.
THERE WAS SIX NOs TO THAT VOTE.
THAT CAN BE IMPORTANT.
>> I MEANT THE MAJORITY.
>>DENISE LASHER:  I'M JUST CLARIFYING SOMETHING.
THAT'S ALL.
FOR THE RECORD.
>>JAN SMITH:  NOW WE'RE TO THE ISSUE OF SHOULD ELECTIONS BE PARTISAN OR NONPARTISAN, AND WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN A POSITION ON THAT AND HAVE WORDING THAT WE'VE ALREADY REVIEWED, AND WE ARE TAKING THAT TO PUBLIC HEARING.
IT WAS -- AM I RIGHT ON THAT?
DID WE AGREE TO -- I THOUGHT WE AGREED TO TAKE THAT ONE TO PUBLIC HEARING AS IT STOOD.
>>DENISE LASHER:  THAT WAS THE ONE WE -- YES.
>>JAN SMITH:  THAT ONE AND THE AUDITOR WERE THE TWO.
>>DENISE LASHER:  RIGHT.
NOW THE AUDITOR --
>>JAN SMITH:  RIGHT.
AUDITOR HAS BEEN TO PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO SO FAR WE'VE EITHER SAID WE'RE TAKING OR HAVE TAKEN.
TO TRY TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, MR. WHITE HAD HAD HIS HAND UP, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY.
MR. WHITE.
>>GERALD WHITE:  YEAH.
IN LIGHT OF THE FACT WE HAVE ELIMINATED ALL THE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR STRUCTURE AND THE ONLY THING THAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE IS THE GEOGRAPHIC PLAN, I WOULD LIKE TO READDRESS THE CHAIR POSITION BECAUSE UNDER THIS SCENARIO, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT AN ELECTED COUNTY CHAIR BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNFAIR FOR THE COUNTY TO HAVE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRICTS -- THE ELECTED COUNTY CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO READDRESS THAT ISSUE.
>>JAN SMITH:  MS. TUTTLE.
>>MARY LOU TUTTLE:  THIS IS NOT ON HIS ISSUE.
I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH IN LIEU OF WHAT YOU TOLD US HAPPENED LAST TIME WITH BOTH PARTIES, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS AS A SEPARATE ISSUE, NOT CONNECTED TO THE ENTIRE FRAME, AND LET PEOPLE DECIDE ON ITS OWN THIS PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN SO THAT YOU WON'T HAVE THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS AND GREENIES AND EVERYBODY ELSE COMING DOWN HERE AND SAYING, NO, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
WE ARE GOING TO TELL EVERYBODY TO VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE CHARTER BECAUSE OF THAT ONE PROVISION.
SO IF WE COULD ISOLATE THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE MUCH NICER.
>>JAN SMITH:  YES.  I THINK THE BOARD WOULD PROBABLY BE IN AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT --
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
>>JAN SMITH:  THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE NOT GONE BACK TO THAT WE MIGHT IS TO DISCUSS AGAIN THE APPOINTMENT -- I AM ONLY SAYING THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE TONIGHT.
I'M NOT READY TO GO THERE TONIGHT.
THAT IS ANOTHER KIND OF ISSUE THAT COULD BE SEPARATE FROM THIS WHOLE PLAY-OUT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE A MEETING IN WHICH WE TALK ABOUT THE MISCELLANEOUS ONES TO BRING BACK.
I THINK MR. WHITE BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO REVISIT THE ELECTED CHAIR.
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY.
MR. WHITE?
>> IN LIGHT OF ALL THE OTHER VOTES.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WHITE, THEN MS. LASHER.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A STRAW POLL TO TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE AND -- WITH THE -- AND GO TO THE BOARD ITSELF ELECTING ITS CHAIR AND HAVING THAT CHAIR SERVE A TWO-YEAR TERM.
>>DENISE LASHER:  JUST A CLARIFICATION.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT WHEN THE BOARD VOTED ON THEIR OWN CHAIR THAT THAT CHAIR WOULD SERVE FOR TWO YEARS?
>>GERALD WHITE:  CORRECT.
>>DENISE LASHER:  OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S AN -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT.
I GUESS -- WE WOULD NEED TO OPEN THAT UP FOR -- BUT I AGREE THAT WE ARE IN CONFLICT BECAUSE WE'VE VOTED ON HAVING OUR AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS COME FROM DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS.
I MEAN, SOMEWHAT WE ARE IN CONFLICT BECAUSE WE ARE THINKING THREE AT-LARGE COMING FROM DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS UNLESS YOU HAD AN ELECTED CHAIR AND THEN THE OTHER TWO AT-LARGE CAME FROM, YOU KNOW, HALF THE COUNTY OR THE OTHER HALF OF THE COUNTY.
SO I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE TABLE, BUT THAT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT THAT YOU'VE JUST THROWN OUT.
I WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE A ONE- OR TWO-YEAR TERM THAT THEY WOULD BE ELECTED TO.
I THINK RIGHT NOW I WOULD LEAN TOWARD WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY, A ONE-YEAR TERM, AND IF THEY FIND THAT THEY -- LIKE WE JUST HAD, COMMISSIONER FRANK HAS BEEN ELECTED FOR THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE TERM AS CHAIRMAN.
THEY HAVE THAT OPTION OF CONTINUING TO RE-ELECT THE SAME PERSON AS CHAIR IF THEY FIND THAT PERSON HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB OR THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THEM IN THAT POSITION.
AS I THINK ABOUT IT, I THINK I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM WE HAVE FOR THAT REASON.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I SEE THIS NOW IN TWO PARTS.
I THINK THE FIRST ONE WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY IS DO WE RESERVE ONE OF THE AT-LARGE MEMBER DISTRICTS TO BE A CHAIR OR NOT, AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SPECIFIC AT-LARGE DISTRICT SEAT BE THE CHAIR, THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THE GROUP ELECT ITS OWN CHAIR, THEN I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE ISSUES WE PERHAPS COULD TALK ABOUT.
LENGTH OF TERM.
SHOULD THEY BE ELECTED ONLY FROM THE AT-LARGE DISTRICT OR SINGLE-MEMBER?
SO I THINK ONCE WE GET THE FIRST ONE OUT OF THE WAY, THEN WE OPEN UP SOME DISCUSSION ON THE OTHERS.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. BALES.
>>JOHN BALES:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF WE HAVE A -- CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF THREE AT-LARGE AND FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, WHY THAT CHANGES ANYONE'S OPINION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE ELECTED CHAIR.
THE ELECTED CHAIR WILL STILL BE A VOTING MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.
THE ONLY THING THE ELECTED CHAIR -- OR AT LEAST WHAT I UNDERSTOOD OUR CONCEPT WOULD BE -- IS SOMEONE THAT MAY HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A VISION THAT WOULD GET TO A POINT, POSITIONS AFTER MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION.
BUT I HOPE WE ALL TAKE A MINUTE TO REFLECT BEFORE WE START SHOOTING AT THE ELECTED CHAIR, AND LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE ELECTED CHAIR IS ON ITS OWN, NOT BECAUSE IT'S SEVEN PERSONS ON THERE OR WHETHER IT'S ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS EXCEPT FOR ONE.
BUT LOOK AT WHAT THAT POSITION IS ON ITS OWN.
AND LIKE I SAY, I HOPE EVERYONE SITS BACK FOR A MINUTE AND THINKS ABOUT WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THAT YOU HAVE THREE AT-LARGE AND FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, WHETHER ONE OF THOSE AT-LARGES IS ELECTED CHAIR OR NOT, AND I SAY TO YOU, IT WILL NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS OR HAVING ENOUGH PEOPLE -- OR THE RIGHT NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEING EACH NUMBER OF DISTRICTS, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WANT TO HAVE ONLY 150 PEOPLE IN EACH DISTRICT OR YOU WANT 200 OR 250 OR 300 IN EACH DISTRICT.
OF COURSE, THAT'S GETTING BACK TO THE ISSUE OF HOW MANY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS YOU HAVE.
SO LET'S NOT -- LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT'S BEING SAID AND LET'S NOT GET UPSET ABOUT BECAUSE ONE OF OUR FAVORITE ISSUES ISN'T GOING FORWARD, AND LET'S MAKE SURE EACH OF THESE STAND ON THEIR OWN.
I APPRECIATE WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S OPINION, BUT THESE ISSUES CAN STAND ON THEIR OWN.
THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY ALL INTERRELATED.
AND DON'T MAKE IT BECAUSE OF OUR EMOTIONAL ASPECT, BUT LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S A THOUGHT ASPECT OF THEIR OWN BENEFIT OR LACK THEREOF.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. AMBLER.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  I THINK I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S THE POTENTIAL, IN MY OPINION, FOR A CONFLICT IF YOU IMPOSE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND YET YOU HAVE THE ISSUE OF AN ELECTED CHAIR.
I'M NOT BOTHERED BY THE CONFLICT AT THIS JUNCTURE UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PHASE, AND THEN THIS BOARD WILL HAVE TO CHOOSE IF IT WANTS TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN ULTIMATELY LEAVE THE CONFLICT, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF GETTING IT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR THE PUBLIC'S VIEW ON THE ISSUE OF HAVING AN ELECTED CHAIR OR NOT, WITHOUT CHASING -- CHANGING THE OVERALL COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION, THAT IS TO SAY WE LEAVE IT AT SEVEN MEMBERS, WE CAN HEAR THAT INPUT AND THEN ULTIMATELY HAVE OUR OWN DISCUSSION THAT RESOLVES WHETHER YOU CAN RECONCILE THE GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT WITH HAVING AN ELECTED CHAIR.
IT WOULD SEEM IN MY MIND, JUST LOGICALLY THINKING THAT THROUGH, THAT FOR AN ELECTED CHAIR SPOT, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO IMPOSE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT ON THAT.
IT WOULD KIND OF DEFEAT THE PURPOSE.
>>KEN TINKLER:  MADAM CHAIR.
AGAIN, KEN TINKLER FOR THE RECORD.
AS WE ENVISIONED IT SO FAR, IT WOULD BE A 4-2-1.
IT WOULD BE -- YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT UPON THE AT-LARGE CHAIR SINCE THAT WOULD REPRESENT THE ENTIRE COUNTY, SO THE TWO REMAINING AT-LARGE WOULD BE DIVIDED AMONG THE COUNTY GEOGRAPHICALLY.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION WENT SO FAR.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  THAT WOULD RESOLVE THE CONFLICT.
BUT, I MEAN, WE CAN SUPPORT BOTH JUST FOR PURPOSES OF GETTING IT TO PUBLIC COMMENT SO WE CAN HEAR HOW THE PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THE DEBATE ON WHETHER AN ELECTED CHAIR IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE COUNTY AS OPPOSED TO AN APPOINTED CHAIR.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE IDEA OF GETTING TO PUBLIC COMMENT WHEN WE TOOK THAT VOTE.
>>JAN SMITH:  IT IS AN ISSUE TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING.
ONCE YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE TAKING TO PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING TO PUBLIC HEARING, IT HAS TO BE REASONABLY DEFINED SO THAT IT CAN BE PUT IN THE ADS, IN THE MAILOUTS, HOWEVER YOU'RE GETTING THE INFORMATION OUT TO PEOPLE.
AND THEN THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, AFTER THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, CAN REFINE IT SOMEWHAT, BUT YOU'RE NOT REALLY -- IT'S MY OPINION, AND WE'LL ASK MS. CAMPBELL OR MR. TINKLER -- YOU CAN'T MAKE DRASTIC CHANGES TO SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IT HAS TO BE A REASONABLY REFINED PROCESS WHEN YOU TAKE IT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD FEEL THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND IS SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE MAKES COUNTY GOVERNMENT MORE RESPONSIBLE, FIXES SOMETHING, IS BETTER, MAKES GOVERNMENT BETTER, AND THEN IF YOU VOTE ON IT TO TAKE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING, THEN WHEN IT COMES BACK, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE COMING BACK AND SAYING, GEE, WELL, WE HAD THREE AT-LARGE GUYS, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE CHARGE AND TWO AT-LARGE.
YOU HAVE TO REALLY GET IT TO A POINT WHERE THE ADS IN THE PAPER --
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  IT'S CHOOSING "A" OR "B"?
>>JAN SMITH:  WE HAVE TO GET IT PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT WE WANT BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  IF THAT'S THE CASE AND GIVEN THE COMMENT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY JUST MADE, I WOULD PROPOSE WHAT WE SUBMIT FOR PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE THE 4-2-1 VERSUS JUST THE 4-3 WITH NO CHAIR BUT WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
A 4-2-1 WOULD BE AN ELECTED CHAIR AT-LARGE, NO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
TWO, AT-LARGE WITH RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS.
FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICTS.
OPTION -- FOUR SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.
 -- NO ELECTED CHAIR.
THE CHAIR WOULD BE APPOINTED.
AND THEN WITHIN THOSE TWO OPTIONS, "A" AND "B," WE COULD REFINE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OPTION "B," WHETHER THAT APPOINTED CHAIR IS FOR ONE YEAR VERSUS TWO YEARS, ET CETERA.
>>JAN SMITH:  THE OTHER OPTION MIGHT BE THAT IF YOU GO TO THE FOUR AT-LARGE AND THE THREE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS AND YOU SINGLE OUT ONE OF THOSE AT-LARGE DISTRICTS TO BE THE CHAIRMAN, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS ON ANY OF THE AT-LARGE.
SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU WOULD REALLY SPLIT THIS COUNTY IN HALF SOMEHOW, AND THAT MIGHT REALLY NOT BE GOOD IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO WORK -- I DON'T KNOW.
THAT -- THAT BOTHERS ME A BIT.
>> THEY STILL REPRESENT EVERYBODY.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY, THEN MS. LASHER.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  THE ELECTED CHAIR WITH OTHER AT-LARGE DISTRICTS, AND I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEY STILL RUN AT-LARGE -- IS SOMETHING I WOULD DEFINITELY VOTE AGAINST.
THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS A VISION, A LEADERSHIP VISION, SOMEONE WHO COULD RUN FOR THE COUNTY AND SAY THIS IS THE VISION FOR THE COUNTY.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THREE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER FRANK IS THE CHAIRMAN.
SHE IS AN AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER AND COULD CLAIM THAT SHE RUNS FOR THE VISION OF THE COUNTY BECAUSE THAT'S HOW SHE CAMPAIGNED THAT'S THE VISION FOR THE COUNTY.
WHAT GIVES HER ANY MORE RIGHT TO THE VISION FOR THE COUNTY THAN COMMISSIONER HART OR COMMISSIONER PLATT, WHO ALSO RAN AT-LARGE AND CAMPAIGNED IN FRONT OF THE SAME CONSTITUENCY SHE DID.
IF WE ARE SAYING THIS SAME ELECTED CHAIR IS GOING TO HAVE THE VISION, WE JUST CUT HIM IN THIRDS BY SAYING THERE ARE TWO OTHER PEOPLE, THE SAME PEOPLE AND RUN FOR THE SAME PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE JUST AS MUCH RIGHT FOR THE VISION OF THAT COUNTY AS HE OR SHE DOES.
THAT, TO ME, CREATES A PROBLEM IN LEADERSHIP BEFORE WE EVER START.
WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR LEADERSHIP IN THE COUNTY, WHY I SUPPORT AN ELECTED CHAIR, IS THAT A LEADER WITH SOME VISION TO RUN THE THING AND WHAT I ALSO POINTED OUT THAT I THINK MOST OF THE CRITICISM THAT I'VE SEEN LEVELED AT MR. KLEMAN HAS BEEN THE FACT THAT HE HAS FILLED UP THE VOID THAT'S CREATED BY THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WE'VE CREATED AT THIS POINT.
HE'S DOING WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, AND IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST FROM NORM HICKEY ON FORWARD, AND I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER ALL THEIR NAMES.
THERE'S BEEN A CROWD OF THEM.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH ALL OF THEM, THEY'VE HAD TO FILL UP THAT VOID BECAUSE IT HAS TO HAPPEN.
SOMEBODY HAS TO BE THERE.
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO FILL UP A VOID, AND THEN THEY'VE GOT SEVEN PEOPLE WITH NO EGO AT ALL THAT THEY ARE WORKING FOR, SO SOMEHOW THEY HAVE TO MAKE THAT WORK.
I DON'T KNOW.
>>DENISE LASHER:  WHAT THE MAJORITY HAD VOTED ON, AND I THINK ON THE SECOND ITEM, THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIR, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY VOTED YES TO THAT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN PRESIDENT THE DUTIES OF ELECTED CHAIR INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD APPOINTMENTS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE MAJORITY OF BOCC, AND SERVES AS THE GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON.
THOSE ARE THE DUTIES.
WE DID NOT VOTE ON THEM MAKING THE -- WE DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF THEM DEVELOPING THE VISION OR THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE COUNTY, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.
THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE DUTIES THAT WE GAVE TO THIS ELECTED CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  IT WASN'T A DUTY.
IT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE.
>>DENISE LASHER:  I THINK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THE VISION FOR THE COUNTY WOULD BE.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS THEN?
IS THAT POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE OPTION "A" AND OPTION "B"?
>>JAN SMITH:  AS LONG AS YOU ADVERTISE IT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>>DENISE LASHER:  OPTION "A" WAS ON THE TABLE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED IS FOUR SINGLE-MEMBERS, THREE AT-LARGE WITH TWO OF THOSE AT-LARGE MEMBERS HAVING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT?
AND ONE OF THEM BEING ELECTED CHAIR.
>> RIGHT.
THAT'S ONE OPTION.
>>DENISE LASHER:  OKAY.
OPTION "B" IS 4-3, WITH THREE OF THEM BEING AT-LARGE AND HAVING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND NO ELECTED CHAIR?
>> CORRECT.
>>DENISE LASHER:  OKAY.
I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT THAT'S WHAT THE TWO OPTIONS ARE THAT ARE ON THE TABLE.
OKAY.
>>JOHN BALES:  COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN?
>>DENISE LASHER:  I'LL TRY.
OPTION ONE -- OPTION "A" IS ELECTED CHAIR.
OPTION "B" IS NO ELECTED CHAIR.
>>JAN SMITH:  SEVEN COMMISSIONERS STILL.
>> BUT IT COULD BE A SELECTED CHAIR WITH THE OTHER CHANGES, EXPANDED DUTIES --
>> IT COULD BE -- 4-2-1.
>>DENISE LASHER:  OPTION "A" IS 4-2-1.
OPTION "B" IS 4-3 WITH NO ELECTED CHAIR.
>>JAN SMITH:  SINCE I DON'T SEE A HAND UP AT THE MOMENT.
I DO?
YES, I DO.
YOU'RE NEXT.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  I THOUGHT THE OPTION THAT -- THE TWO OPTION THAT IS MR. AMBLER HAD PRESENTED THAT HAD JUST BEEN REPEATED WERE FOR OUR STRAW VOTE.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT TWO OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THEN CANDIDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO DO 7 WITH 6 SINGLE-MEMBER AND ONE ELECTED CHAIR.
I THINK THE CHALLENGE, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE BY SAYING -- KEEPING IN THE FORM OF SEVEN AND DOING TWO AT-LARGE AND ONE IS GOING TO BE ELECTED CHAIR, THERE'S NO REASON -- I MEAN, WHAT'S THE REASON TO RUN FOR CHAIR?
UNDER THAT SCENARIO?
I MEAN, JUST SO YOU CAN MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS?
AND THEN TALK ABOUT -- WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE CREATING THREE SINGLE-MEMBERS, AND THIS IS HOW THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
THEY REPRESENT A SMALL AREA, THEN THEY THINK ABOVE THEM IS ONE PERSON THAT REPRESENTS HALF OF THE COUNTY AND ANOTHER PERSON REPRESENTS THE OTHER HALF OF THE COUNTY, AND THEN THEY HAVE A PERSON ABOVE THEM THAT'S THE CHAIR.
WE ARE CREATING INCREDIBLE CHALLENGES FOR GOVERNMENT IF WE DO IT THAT WAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF DOING IT, THEN, FOLKS, THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NINE BECAUSE ONLY -- ONLY UNDER NINE DO YOU GET THE ONE SINGLE CHAIR, A GOOD NUMBER OF AT-LARGE, AND APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF SINGLE.
BUT TO JAM IT IN UNDER SEVEN, YOU ARE CREATING CHAOS.
YOU THINK WE GOT PROBLEMS TODAY, IT'S GOING TO BE HORRIBLE.
I HOPE THE STRAW VOTE IS TO SETTLE THAT ISSUE AND LET'S MOVE ON.
IN NOT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A THIRD OPTION TO PUBLIC HEARING, THAT'S SEVEN WITH SIX SINGLE-MEMBER AND ONE ELECTED CHAIR.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS.
THE REASON I WAS WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH ALLOWING AN ELECTED CHAIR POSITION TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING IS BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE THAT SINGLE INDIVIDUAL LEADER OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
NOW, IF THAT'S OFF THE TABLE, THAT'S FINE.
THEN I WAS WILLING TO SAY, WELL, LET'S ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE GEOGRAPHIC REQUIREMENT WITH THREE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
I WAS WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT.
NOW, APPARENTLY, THAT'S OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TWO GEOGRAPHIC SEATS AND ONE COUNTYWIDE SEAT, I COULDN'T SUPPORT THAT.
SO I'M DOWN TO, NOW, JUST KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS.
BECAUSE AS A CITIZEN, I BENEFIT MOST FROM THE STRUCTURE THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.
IF I WANTED TO RUN FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I COULD RUN FOR FOUR SEATS.
THE DISTRICT SEAT OR THE THREE AT-LARGE SEATS.
SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, THEN WE JUST NEED TO LEAVE IT ALONE AND ALLOW THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES OR THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEMS ARE OUT THERE, AND ONE OF THOSE BODIES IS GOING TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES SOON.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. AMBLER.
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  ONE OF THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT THE ELECTED CHAIR AS IT WAS VOTED ON TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING, AND AS DENISE CORRECTLY POINTED OUT IN TERMS OF THOSE DUTIES, YOU NOTICE ABSENT FROM THOSE DUTIES IS THE FACT THAT ELECTED CHAIR DOESN'T HAVE ANY GREATER VOTE OR VETO POWER.
THEY HAVE THE SAME EQUAL VOTE AS ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.
UNLESS YOU ARE CREATING ELECTED CHAIR THAT HAS SOME KIND OF GREATER SUPER POWER LIKE A VETO POWER OR WHATEVER, I DON'T REALLY KNOW -- THIS IS WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE REALLY CREATING BY HAVING THIS ELECTED CHAIR.
THEY DON'T PROVIDE A VISION STATEMENT BECAUSE THEIR VISION IS EQUAL IN VOTE TO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER, WHETHER YOU ARE A SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OR YOU ARE AN AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER, AS LONG AS YOUR VOTE IS EQUAL, THEN AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT BIFURCATING THE GOVERNMENT INTO AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND A LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, YOU ARE KEEPING IT ALL WITH THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION IS.
YOU KNOW, THEN THE VISION STATEMENT IDEA DOESN'T WORK WITH AN EQUAL VOTE ON THAT SAME BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
I DON'T THINK IT CAN.
I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE IT AS ONE OF ITS DUTIES, WHENEVER A NEW COMMISSION IS SWORN IN, WITHIN ITS FIRST 90 DAYS, TO HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DEVELOP A VISION STATEMENT FOR THE COUNTY.
MAYBE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME FROM THE CHAIR, BUT WHAT YOU COULD WRITE INTO THE CHARTER IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO PUBLISH A VISION STATEMENT -- THAT THE ENTIRE COMMISSION HAS TO PUBLISH A VISION STATEMENT FOR THE COUNTY IN THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF TAKING A NEW OFFICE.
THAT'S JUST ONE IDEA IF THAT'S THE BIG CONCERN.
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
>>KEVIN AMBLER:  BUT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS SOMETHING WE ARE TRYING TO ANSWER THROUGH THIS CHAIR CONCEPT.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANTED TO COME BACK TO, JUST TO REPEAT, THIS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
BOY, IS THIS BEING MISCONSTRUED AND REPRESENTED IMPROPERLY.
I THINK WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AS A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS SIMPLY TO GAIN THE REGIONAL DIVERSITY OF THOSE MEMBERS.
THAT REGIONAL -- EXCUSE ME.
THAT -- THAT COMMISSIONER THAT HAS TO LIVE IN THAT AREA STILL REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
THEY ARE AN AT-LARGE SEAT.
IT'S JUST THAT THEY NEED TO COME FROM ONE PART OF THE COUNTY VERSUS ANOTHER SO YOU DON'T HAVE A STACKED DECK, SO TO SPEAK.
YOU DON'T HAVE ALL YOUR AT-LARGE POTENTIALLY COMING FROM ONE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE COUNTY WHEN COMBINED WITH THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT FROM THAT PART OF THE COUNTY GIVES THAT AREA OF THE COUNTY FOUR VOTES OR A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION VOTES.
SO THE -- THAT REGIONAL REQUIREMENT WAS JUST TO BRING THAT PERSPECTIVE TO THE COMMISSION.
DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THEIR REGION OR THAT THEY ONLY REPRESENT THAT REGION.
IT MEANS SIMPLY THAT YOU HAVE A -- A DISTRIBUTION -- A -- A REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT THEIR OBLIGATION TO RUN AND BE ELECTED, RAISE FUNDS, AND CONVINCE THE ELECTORATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ELECTED STILL EXTENDS TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
>>JAN SMITH:  MS. LASHER, THEN MR. BALES AND MR. LaBOUR.
>>DENISE LASHER:  JUST COMMENTS ON THE ISSUES WE'VE BEEN HASHING OUT HERE.
THE DUTIES OF THE ELECTED CHAIR.
I WANTED TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THESE DUTIES WOULD BE, AND YOU KNOW, I FELT LIKE THERE WASN'T MUCH DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT THE CURRENT CHAIR'S RESPONSIBILITIES ARE, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE HERE THIS EVENING ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
EXCEPT ONE IS ELECTED BY THEIR BOARD, AND THE OTHER ONE IS ELECTED BY THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE COUNTY.
BUT THE DUTIES ARE VERY, VERY SIMILAR FROM WHAT I COULD SEE.
WE JUST WENT THROUGH, I GUESS, MOST OF THIS MEETING AND MOST OF THE LAST MEETING, THIS DECISION MODEL TO KIND OF WHITTLE DOWN WHAT WE WANT TO POTENTIALLY TAKE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
NOW IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GONE BACK AND DISCUSSING EVERY SINGLE ITEM, AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- I GUESS WE KNOW WHERE EACH PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL VIEWPOINT IS ON ALL THESE DIFFERENT ITEMS, BUT WE STILL DON'T HAVE A -- A MODEL OR TWO MODELS.
>>JAN SMITH:  BUT I DON'T THINK YOU-ALL SHOULD BE UPSET BY THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF GETTING TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW HAS CAUSED YOU TO THINK ABOUT OTHER THINGS TO TRY TO EITHER REFINE IT OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE -- AND LET ME -- LET ME SAY BASED ON WHAT MS. LASHER WAS SAYING, WHEN I SAW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CHAIRMAN, AT FIRST IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS GOING TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS, AND THAT WAS FINE.
ONCE YOU PUT IT BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL, THEN YOU TOOK AWAY THE ONE POWER THAT WAS DIFFERENT, AND YOU JUST TOOK IT AWAY FROM THEM AND LET IT COME BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE BOARD TO VOTE.
AND SO I HAVE HAD VERY SERIOUS THOUGHTS ABOUT -- ALL ALONG, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING -- THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, THEN THE CHANGE HAS TO BE CLEAR, CONCISE, NOT MUDDY.
I THINK THIS ELECTED CHAIR THING RIGHT NOW, IN MY OPINION, IS JUST TOO MUDDY TO SOLVE A DILEMMA.
AND PERSONALLY, I THINK, THAT IF WE WERE REALLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING THE STRUCTURE FOR GOOD REASON, TO HAVE THAT POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WORK WITH THAT PROFESSIONAL OR THE ELECTED CHAIR, THEN YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT, AND IT NEEDS TO GO TO AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE.
YOU -- PLAYING THIS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD DOESN'T GIVE US ANY MORE, REALLY, THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW, AND I -- AND I DON'T LIKE TO THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING CHANGES JUST TO MAKE CHANGE SO THAT WE DO SOMETHING BECAUSE, QUOTE, PREVIOUS CHARTER REVIEW BOARDS HAVE BEEN DO-NOTHING BOARDS.
SO I AM TO THE POINT ON THIS THAT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS NOT SO BAD.
WE -- WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF AN AUDITOR THAT IS HANGING WITH US.
WE HAVE THE REALIZATION THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON PARTISAN/NONPARTISAN RACES.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP -- IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND THE CHANGE YOU MAKE DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING, THEN LEAVE IT AS WE HAVE IT WITH THE 4-3 AND PUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT ON THE THREE AT-LARGE, AND BASICALLY, YOU -- UNLESS YOU WANT TO WRITE SOME RESPONSIBILITIES IN FOR THE CHAIR, YOU HAVE A BOARD -- THIS PERSON RIGHT NOW, THIS CHAIRMAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING UNDER ANY OF THE SCENARIOS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, THIS PERSON HAS NO MORE AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY, LEADERSHIP ROLE, OR ANYTHING THAN EVERY OTHER COMMISSIONER BECAUSE HE IS A SINGLE VOTE ON THAT BOARD.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE.
AND ALL IT MIGHT DO IS CREATE MORE ANTAGONISM, AND WE KNOW HOW ANTAGONISTIC THINGS CAN BE ANYWAY.
SO THOSE ARE JUST MY OBSERVATIONS, AND I THOUGHT JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT I'D FINALLY THROW THEM OUT AT YOU.
BUT PERSONALLY, I --
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JAN SMITH:  AFTER MS. LASHER WAS MR. BALES AND --
>>DENISE LASHER:  I'M DONE.
THAT'S FINE.
>>JAN SMITH:  I'M SORRY, MR. LaBOUR.
I THOUGHT AT SOME POINT IN TIME I WOULD --
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  IN THE APPROPRIATE ORDER, YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
>>DENISE LASHER:  I YIELD MY TIME TO OUR CHAIRMAN.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. BALES, AND THEN MR. LaBOUR.
>>JOHN BALES:  I BELIEVE IN AN ELECTED CHAIR.
I ALSO BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF PERSUASION, AND I AM IMPRESSED BY THE LOGIC OF THE ILLOGIC I'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT IS PERSONS THAT ARE AGAINST AN ELECTED CHAIR HAVE FOUGHT SO HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH POWER.
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELECTED CHAIR HAVING TOO MUCH POWER.
TONIGHT I HEAR THE SAME PEOPLE SAY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY POWER.
THAT'S THE SAME PERSON AT BOTH SIDES.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
I NOW HEAR PEOPLE SAY I WAS IN FAVOR OF ELECTED CHAIR BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE.
BUT NOW I HEAR PEOPLE AGAINST ELECTED CHAIR BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CHANGE.
LIFE DOESN'T GO PERFECTLY.
LIFE GOES IN STEPS.
AND WE CAN'T ALWAYS ASSUME WHERE WE ARE IS ALWAYS THE BEST PLACE TO BE.
WE CAN'T ALWAYS ASSUME THAT CHANGE IS BETTER.
BUT THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK THAT WELL.
AND WE ALL WILL AGREE WITH THAT.
THE ELECTED CHAIR IS A REAL VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, AND THE REASON IT IS, THAT PERSON IS GOING TO BE THE CHAIR.
THAT PERSON IS GOING TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AS SOMEONE THEY CAN FOCUS ON TO GET AN OPINION FROM ABOUT THE BOARD.
THAT PERSON WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SET THE APPOINTMENTS, AND THEN THEY COULD HAVE SUPPORT OF THE BOARD, BUT NOBODY ELSE GETS TO DO THAT.
THAT IS A REAL CHANGE, AND I BELIEVE IT'S A POSITIVE CHANGE BECAUSE IT GIVES US SOME FOCUS ON A BOARD THAT HAS NONE EXCEPT FOR THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS.
SO PLEASE, LET'S NOT ALL GET OFF ON OUR OWN IDEAS, AND LET'S FOCUS BACK ON WHAT IT IS.
AND I APPRECIATE PERSONS NOT COMING TO ME ONE TIME SAYING I DON'T WANT A CHAIR BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH POWER, THEN THEY SAY IT, SAY, WELL, THAT PERSON HAS NO POWER, SO WHY SHOULD WE HAVE THEM?
ELECTED CHAIR IS A GOOD IDEA.
LET'S NOT GET CARRIED AWAY AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
LET'S BE -- I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
LET'S BE BOLD.
LET'S BE A LITTLE BIT OF A RISKTAKER.
LET'S TRY CHANGE.
LET'S PUT IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND NOT KILL THE IDEA BEFORE THEY GET STARTED.
EACH OF THESE ISSUES SHOULD STAND -- I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
EACH OF THESE ISSUES SHOULD STAND ON THEIR OWN.
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET ONE ISSUE DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD TRY TO KILL EVERYTHING AND LEAVE IT THE SAME.
TONIGHT QUITE FRANKLY IS THE MOST DISAPPOINTING NIGHT I'VE EVER BEEN ON THIS BOARD BECAUSE WHAT I'VE SEEN IS PEOPLE, BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVEN'T GOT WHAT THEY WANT, THEY ARE TRYING TO COLLAPSE THE WHOLE THING AND MAKE NO CHANGE.
WHEN I HEARD THEM BEFORE, ARE YOU FOR SOME CHANGES OFF AND ON?
LET'S STEP BACK AND LOOK A LITTLE HARDER, PLEASE.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. LaBOUR.
>>STEVE LaBOUR:  FIRST OF ALL, IT APPEARS AS IF THE -- WHAT HAPPENS AT EVERY MEETING IS THAT WE GET THROUGH A PROCESS AND AT THE END EVERYTHING DETERIORATES BECAUSE -- FOR SOME REASON.
I DON'T KNOW WHY.
PARTIALLY I THINK IT'S BECAUSE ALL OF US HAVE VERY STRONG PERSONAL OPINIONS AND WE COME TO THIS BOARD WITH A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE, AND I THINK LOVE AND SUPPORT FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
WHAT I REALLY TAKE OFFENSE TO IS WHEN SOMEONE COUCHES THEIR PERSONAL OPINION AS IF WE'RE BEING LECTURED TO, AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, AND WE NEED TO ACCEPT IT, AND I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT, AND I APOLOGIZE WITH MY IMPATIENCE TO THAT.
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME, TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THAT, THAT WHAT HAPPENED IS, AS WE WERE INNOCENTLY BELIEVING IF WE FOLLOWED THESE ISSUES IT WOULD HELP US GET TO RESOLUTION.
THE FIRST QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LAST, AND THAT'S THE CHAIR.
I THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENED, IF YOU RECALL THE VOTE, IT WAS VERY CLOSE.
AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT I THINK JUST UNDER THE SURFACE, THAT IS A -- THAT'S STILL A BIG ISSUE FOR THESE -- SOME OF THE FOLKS AROUND THIS DAIS.
SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY.
DO WE HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR OR NOT?
AND IF WE HAVE AN ELECTED CHAIR, THEN -- THEN THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HELP US LOOK AT SOME OTHER KIND OF STRUCTURE ISSUES THAT WE'VE TENTATIVELY ALREADY AGREED ON.
IF WE DON'T WANT AN ELECTED CHAIR, THEN I THINK IT WILL BE EASIER TO MOVE ON.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE JUST GO BACK AROUND THE DAIS ONCE AGAIN, AND WE MAKE OUR OPINIONS KNOWN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT AN ELECTED CHAIR, AND THAT WAY, MR. BALES, I THINK THE GAME PLAN WILL END.
WE'LL KNOW WHAT IT IS, AND WE CAN MOVE ON.
I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU WERE SPEAKING TO ABOUT CHANGING THEIR MIND OR NOT, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO THROW OUT THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND LET PEOPLE GUESS AS TO WHO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
SO I BELIEVE THAT LET'S JUST GO AROUND THE DAIS, AN LET'S TALK ABOUT DO WE WANT AN ELECTED CHAIR OR NOT, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON.
THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. WHITE, THEN MR. HURLEY, THEN MS. LASHER.
>>GERALD WHITE:  I WOULD LIKE TO BE CANDID TO THIS BOARD, AND I LIKE TO BE CANDID TO THE PUBLIC.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I BELIEVE TONIGHT WE HAVE FAILED AS A BOARD, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUES THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD.
WE HAVE -- WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN, HISPANIC CONCERNS.
WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE REPRESENTATION CONCERNS.
WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP CONCERN.
AND SO REALLY, WE'VE MET ALL THESE MONTHS, AND WE'VE GOTTEN NOWHERE.
I'M ASHAMED.
I'M EMBARRASSED.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE PUBLIC FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION, CONSENSUS, TO PUT AT LEAST THREE FORMIDABLE PLANS ON THE TABLE FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION.
WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD IDEAS.
WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD PROPOSALS, AND NONE OF THEM HAVE MADE IT TO THE POINT WE WOULD ALLOW -- AT LEAST ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO SAY YES OR NO.
AND SO I AM ASHAMED TONIGHT THAT WE'VE COME ALL THIS LONG -- WE'VE MET FOR 10, 11 MONTHS, AND HAVEN'T REACHED A CONCLUSION, AND THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY.
AND I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT HE WAS TALKING TO ME.
BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT CHANGED MY MIND ONCE THE STRUCTURE CHANGED.
I GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL IDEA WHEN I BELIEVED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE JUST PUT THREE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE, SENT THEM TO PUBLIC HEARING, AND ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO VENT THEMSELVES ON IT.
I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SERVICE THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
AND WE COULD HAVE PUT TO REST THESE ISSUES OF AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE, ELECTED CHAIR, AND ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES TO REST FOR A LONG TIME TO COME, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT.
AND SO I AM EMBARRASSED.
I AM ASHAMED THAT I'VE SIT HERE, APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD, AND NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC ISSUES.
AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT FORMALLY IS WITH TEN VOTES OR A MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD SENDING IT TO PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE PUBLIC TONIGHT.
>>JAN SMITH:  MR. HURLEY.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  I THINK HIS APOLOGY IS ACCEPTED.
IN RECOGNITION OF WHAT MR. WHITE SAID, MR. LaBOUR, AND MR. BALES, I AM GOING TO TRY TO BE BOLD AT THIS POINT.
>>JAN SMITH:  GO FOR IT.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  I THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYPLACE.
I'D LIKE PERMISSION TO UTILIZE A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR PIECE OF PAPER HERE, STEVE, AND GO THROUGH THE SITUATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE TO PUBLIC HEARING -- WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO REDO THIS -- THE -- BASICALLY ALL THREE OF THESE THINGS THAT MR. LaBOUR HAS LAID OUT.
STRIKE THE NONPARTISAN ELECTION THING FROM IT AND KEEP IT SEPARATE.
I THINK MS. TUTTLE CORRECTLY STATES THAT THAT'S NOT A PART OF STRUCTURE; THAT'S A PART OF PROCESS, AND THAT WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT OF THERE.
AND TAKE ALL THREE OF THOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING, AND LET'S FIND OUT IF THE PEOPLE FROM LUTZ AND SOUTH COUNTY AND NORTHEAST COUNTY OUT IN THE GREEN SWAMP AREA BELIEVE THAT DOING THE 7-3 WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FULFILLS WHAT THEY THINK IT NEEDS.
LET'S FIND OUT IF THEY THINK THE 7 -- OR WITH 6-1 FULFILLS THEIR NEEDS AND HEAR WHAT THEY THINK OF THE NINE THAT'S SET OUT HERE.
I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE SOMETHING TO THAT PUBLIC HEARING THAT HAS SOME CHOICES FOR THEM BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT, WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING JUST THE SAME THING WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND WE JUST AS WELL ABANDON THIS OPTION RIGHT NOW IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO AT LEAST THAT MUCH.
>>GERALD WHITE:  SECOND.
>> DISCUSSION.
>>DENISE LASHER:  WELL, I'M NEXT IN LINE.
>>JAN SMITH:  WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAD THEIR HANDS UP AND THIS MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.
SO LONG AS YOUR DISCUSSION RELATES TO THAT MOTION, I AM GOING TO CALL THE PEOPLE IN THE ORDER THAT I HAD THEIR NAMES DOWN HERE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION OR TO SAY WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU PROPOSED TO SAY.
AFTER MR. HURLEY, WHO HAS PUT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SECONDED BY MR. WHITE, MR. LASHER, MR. AMBLER, MR. LaBOUR, AND MS. TUTTLE.
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION?
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  TAKE THE MODIFIED EXISTING STRUCTURE, MODIFIED OPTION NUMBER FOUR AND MODIFIED OPTION NUMBER FIVE THAT STEVE PROPOSED ON THE PIECE -- I THINK ALL OF YOU GOT THAT -- AND STRIKE THE NONPARTISAN.
MOVE THAT -- THAT'S ITS OWN ISSUE THAT'S SEPARATE.
AND TAKE THOSE THREE FORMS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
>>JAN SMITH:  OKAY.
MS. LASHER, YOU'RE FIRST.
>>DENISE LASHER:  OKAY.
AND I WILL SPEAK TO THE MOTION, AND I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW TIME IS PASSING QUICKLY.
JUST TWO SHORT COMMENTS.
I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER THE POWER OF OUR WORDS AND THAT WE ALL NEED TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER.
I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT DONE TONIGHT.
I REALLY DO.
I THINK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IT TOGETHER, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S NOT TAKE THINGS SO PERSONALLY.
I DON'T THINK THINGS ARE MEANT TO BE TAKEN SO PERSONALLY, AND I THINK WE CAN GET A LOT DONE BY WORKING TOGETHER.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HAVING THREE OPTIONS ON THE -- BEFORE THE CITIZENS TO DISCUSS, BUT I -- I THINK THAT THIRD OPTION, BECAUSE WE DID GO THROUGH THIS MODEL, AND I THINK ALMOST EVERYBODY EXCEPT TWO WAS IN FAVOR OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD PROPOSE OR LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE THIRD OPTION BE THE 4-2-1.
THE WAY I SAW IT WAS THAT THERE WAS TWO -- EVERYBODY BUT TWO WANTED SEVEN COMMISSIONERS.
IF YOU WOULD MAKE IT 4-2-1 FOR THAT THIRD OPTION, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
>>DAVID HURLEY:  SHOULD I RESPOND?
I THINK THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH RESPONDING TO THAT TO GO TO THE 4-2-1 DOESN'T REALLY GIVE US A SEPARATION OF THINGS TO TAKE TO THE BOARD -- TO THE PUBLIC.
I WOULD RATHER TAKE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE MODIFIED OUT AND PUT IN THE 4-2-1 SO WE HAVE THREE THINGS.
DEFINITELY WHEN YOU GET TO MODIFIED OPTION FIVE, IT'S DEFINITELY DIFFERENT.
IT'S SOMETHING FOR THEM TO TALK ABOUT AND SOMETHING FOR THEM TO CONSIDER.
AND THAT'S -- AS IS THE 5-2-1.
I'LL GRANT THAT.
BUT THE VERY MINOR CHANGE IN THE MODIFIED EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT STEVE'S PROPOSED HERE IS SUCH A SMALL CHANGE THAT I WOULD RATHER SUPPLANT THAT WITH WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE I THINK WHAT HAPPENS, WE DON'T GET A STRONG TURNOUT AND A STRONG FEELING FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR ONE OF THESE SYSTEMS OR MULTIPLE OF THESE SYSTEMS, THEN THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ANYWAY.
THAT'S JUST --
>>DENISE LASHER:  I