1 CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, 2-1-01 **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: WELCOME, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TO THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW BOARD'S MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1st, 2001. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REGULAR MEETING THIS EVENING. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. MR. LaBOUR, WILL YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE. >>JAN SMITH: MS. WEST, MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> YES. [ ROLL CALL TAKEN ] YOU HAVE YOUR QUORUM. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. THIS EVENING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST AT OUR REGULAR MEETINGS. EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES THIS EVENING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD. I DON'T HAVE A SIGN-IN SHEET. MR. KARL WARREN. >> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS KARL WARREN. FIRST, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THE TOPIC I'M GOING TO SPEAK 2 BRIEFLY ON IS SUCH THAT I BELIEVE MY CREDENTIALS, MY EXPERIENCE, MY BACKGROUND MAKE ME QUITE COMPETENT TO SPEAK ON IT. BEYOND MY BACHELOR'S, I HAVE SEVERAL BACHELORS, I HAVE A MASTER'S IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN PUBLIC POLICY. MY DOCTORIAL STUDIES ARE IN PUBLIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT PRACTICE LAW, I THINK I HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW. I HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH MS. ZEE GALANO, THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IN THE FLORIDA COUNTY OFFICE. WE HAVE COMMUNICATED BACK AND FORTH TODAY. I HAVE SENT TO THEM, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD, WHICH I HAVE PASSED OUT TO YOU, IS THAT PER OUR BRIEF DISCUSSION TODAY, I ASKED HER WHETHER OR NOT -- I RAISED THREE LEGAL QUESTIONS. MAY THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD PRESENT TO THE VOTERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AN OPTION, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, ORDINANCE, OR QUOTE, UNQUOTE, REFERENDUM FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITIZENS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY, THE TAXED CITIZEN, WOULD LIKE TO SET SPENDING LIMITS, NOT THE CAP, ON THE GENERAL TAX SPENDING OF THEIR GENERAL HOME RULE COUNTY THAT IS BASED ON NATIONALLY ESTABLISHED INFLATION CHANGES AND POPULATION CHANGES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. SECONDLY, I ASKED IF THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF LIMIT AND IMPERMISSIBLE CONCEPT THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1, FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, SECTION 2501 FLORIDA STATUTE AND CHAPTER 129 AND 200 OF 3 FLORIDA STATUTE. AND THE THIRD QUESTION WAS, IF THE CONCEPT LIMIT LEGALLY SYNONYMOUS WITH THE CONCEPT CAP. AND BASED UPON THESE THREE QUESTIONS, MY ARGUMENT IS BY DEFINITION THE CONCEPT CAP ITSELF IS A RIGID CONCEPT THAT ONCE YOU CAP SOMETHING, IT'S LIKE PUTTING A CAP OVER THE BOTTLE, IT SMOTHERS IT. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF LIMIT, IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE CONCEPT OF ELASTICITY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR EXPANSION, PROTRACTION, RETRACTION. IT IS A FLEXIBLE CONCEPT WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR A GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO ACT IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER BASED UPON POPULATION CHANGES AND BASED UPON INFLATION CHANGE, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. BECAUSE OF THIS, I'M HOPING SINCE WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SIGNED OPINION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND I DON'T THINK WE WILL BE GETTING THAT FOR SOME TIME, THEY DID SAY THAT THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERING MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE RAISED IN VIEW OF HOME RULE THIS TIME. HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE GETTING A SIGNED OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT I HOPE THAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE INFLUENCED BY AN UNSIGNED OPINION WHEN THERE'S NO REAL CLARITY. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. WARREN. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MS. MIMI OSIASON. >> I'M MIMI OSIASON, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE 4 OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THANK YOU, ONCE AGAIN, FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND YOUR INTEREST IN OUR OPINIONS. I WILL BE DIRECT. TWO OF THE AMENDMENTS YOU ARE STILL CONSIDERING ATTACK THE VERY DOCUMENT WHICH IS AT THIS MOMENT UNDER YOUR CARE AND PROTECTION. THE TWO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE OF CONCERN ARE THE PROPOSAL LIMITING INCREASES IN THE GENERAL REVENUE OPERATING BUDGET AND THE PROPOSAL FOR A COUNTY AUDITOR. THESE PROPOSALS ARE A THREAT BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS TO SPECIFY DETAILS OF GOVERNANCE IN OUR CONSTITUTION. IT IS AGAINST EVERY PRINCIPLE OF EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT TO PRESCRIBE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN OUR CONSTITUTION. YOU HAVE SPENT A YEAR STUDYING OUR CHARTER, AND, THEREFORE, ARE BETTER ACQUAINTED WITH IT THEN MOST OF US HAVE THE TIME OR INCLINATION TO BE. WE ARE LOOKING TO YOU FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. BECAUSE YOU ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT THE CHARTER IS AND WHAT IT DOES, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU, BY PLACING THESE PROPOSALS ON THE BALLOT, CAN ASSERT THAT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE AN IMPROVEMENT TO AND BELONG IN THE CHARTER OF OUR COUNTY. IN REGARD TO THE SPENDING CAP, WE DO, IN ESSENCE, HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I CANNOT SAY WHAT ADVANTAGE OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY TO 5 BE INVOLVED IN, TO PAY FOR A CERTAIN LAWSUIT. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS NEVER EXCEEDED THE PROPOSED CAP. WHAT ARE WE FIXING HERE? IN ADDITION, WE NEED TO LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO FIND EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS WHEN TAXATION OR EXPENDITURE ISSUES ARE SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE PROPERTY TAX CAP RESULTED IN OUR HAVING WHAT A ESSENTIALLY A MANDATED 3% PER YEAR INCREASE. THE LOTTERY IS NOW BEING USED TO SUPPLANT RATHER THAN SUPPLEMENT EDUCATIONAL FUNDING. WE HAVE YET TO SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL AMENDMENT. NEITHER OF THESE TWO AMENDMENTS CAN COVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. THEIR BUDGETS COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 20% TO 26% OF THE COUNTY'S OPERATING BUDGET. IF ONE ADDS OTHER AGENCIES NOT UNDER THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S SUPERVISION, IT WILL BE EXEMPT. FUNDING DECISIONS SHOULD FOLLOW POLICY HE DECISIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT. ALL EXPENDITURES OF TAX DOLLARS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, OR OTHER GOALS. NEITHER OF THESE PROPOSALS MOVE US TOWARD THAT GOAL. NEITHER OF THESE PROPOSALS ACCOMPLISH ANY GOAL THAT WARRANTS THE VERY SERIOUS OFFENSE OF USING OUR CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS 6 LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL GOALS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF OUR COMMENTS. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. OSIASON. MR. RALPH HUGHES. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. RALPH HUGHES, TAMPA. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU VOTE TONIGHT WHETHER OR NOT TO PLACE THE BUDGET INCREASE LIMITATION AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT IN 2002. STAND UP AND BE COUNTED. DO NOT BE DISSUADED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S UNSIGNED, UNSCRUTINIZED OPINION PRESENTED AT YOUR LAST MEETING, WHICH MAY WELL PROVE TO BE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS INVALID. IF YOU DO NOT ACT TONIGHT, TO PLACE THIS PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO WILL BE LOST FOR FIVE YEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU VOTE TO PLACE THIS PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION PROVES TO BE VALID, THIS PROPOSAL CAN BE TAKEN OFF THE BALLOT AT ANY POINT IN TIME. IF I WERE ON THIS BOARD, I WOULD VOTE TO PLACE THIS BUDGET INCREASE LIMITATION AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT EVEN IF NINE OTHER MEMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH ME. I WOULD BE VERY PROUD TO BE ABLE TO SAY AS I GO FORTH TO ALL MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS AND TO ONE AND ALL THAT I DID MY VERY BEST TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE TO PLACE THE LIMIT ON THE SPIRALING ANNUAL INCREASE IN OUR BILLION DOLLAR OPERATING BUDGET. 7 EVEN THOUGH THIS AMENDMENT WILL ONLY AFFECT THIS PORTION OF THIS BUDGET. I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO SAY I VOTED AGAINST GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION. I WOULD LIKE NOW TO SPEAK TO A PHRASE THAT'S BEEN REPEATED AD NAUSEAM AT OUR PRIOR MEETINGS. THAT IS THAT IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. IF WE FOLLOWED THE "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT" LOGIC, WE WOULD NO LONGER HAVE ANNUAL MEETINGS OF CONGRESS, OR THE STATE LEGISLATURE, OR MEETINGS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION, OR THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. THESE ENTITIES WOULD ONLY MEET WHEN AND IF WE DISCOVERED SOMETHING WAS BROKE. NO, THESE MEETINGS TAKE PLACE ON A REGULAR SCHEDULED BASIS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATUS QUO. THEREFORE, OUR POSITION SHOULD BE IF IT AIN'T BROKE, IMPROVE IT. THIS POSITION WAS FIRST ESPOUSED TO ME BY TAX COLLECTOR DOUG BELDEN, A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WHO REDUCED THE BUDGET OF HIS OFFICE BY 6% HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE. THE ONLY ARGUMENT I HAVE HEARD AGAINST PLACING THIS PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT IS IT DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR CHARTER, OUR CONSTITUTION. THIS ARGUMENT FAILS ON ITS FACE. OUR STATE CONSTITUTION MANDATES A BILLION DOLLAR TRAIN. DOES THIS BELONG IN THE CONSTITUTION? YES. 8 OUR STATE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE ANNUAL INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AT 3% OR THE ANNUAL INFLATION RATE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. DOES THIS BELONG IN THE CONSTITUTION? YES. A PERSONAL INCOME TAX AND THE RATE IMPOSED CAN ONLY BE MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. IS THIS AS IT SHOULD BE? YES. THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CHARTER -- THAT THE CHARTER IS NOT THE PLACE FOR A BUDGET CAP AMENDMENT HAS NO MERIT. 17 PEOPLE SPOKE AT YOUR LAST MEETING IN FAVOR OF THE BUDGET INCREASE LIMITATION, IN SPITE OF THE UNSIGNED, UNSCRUTINIZED ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION, WHICH IS STILL NOT SIGNED, AS KARL WARREN HAS VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT, WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AS THEY WALKED INTO THE MEETING AT THE LAST MEETING. ONLY EIGHT SPOKE AGAINST THE BUDGET INCREASE AMENDMENT LIMITATION, A MARGIN OF BETTER THAN TWO TO ONE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL. YOU WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE, AND YOU DID. THESE 17 PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY WELL INFORMED ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND ARE HIGHLY RESPECTED IN OUR COMMUNITY. I WILL NOW READ THE NAMES OF THESE 17. KARL WARREN, DR. KARL WARREN WHO JUST SPOKE; BART SIEGEL, CPA AND CANDIDATE FOR THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT; MARK SHONBRUN, 9 ASSOCIATE WITH BART SIEGEL; RON WOLF, A PUBLISHER IN SOUTH COUNTY; GORDON COMMEE, STATE DIRECTOR OF TAXWATCH PROPOSAL; JANET WILSON, A LEADING REPUBLICAN; OWEN WHITMAN, A CONSULTANT; MIKE CARDUCCI, FORMER EXECUTIVE OF FORTUNE 500; GENE WELLS, SMALL BUSINESSMAN AND MEMBER OF THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE; TIM CURTIS, FORMER CANDIDATE FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CURRENT CHAIRMAN OF THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE NUMBER ONE COMMITTEE ADVISING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON ISSUES; DAVID HUBBELL; KELLY CLEM, EDUCATOR; JOSEPH CATANO, FORMER CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LEADER IN NEW TAMPA AND A SMALL BUSINESSMAN; MARILYN SMITH, GRANDMOTHER IN LARGE; AND ROY DAVIS, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE FARM BUREAU, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ONE OF LEADERS IN THE FARMING COMMUNITY IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. HUGHES. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MS. RHEA LAW COULD NOT BE WITH US TONIGHT. AND SHE HAS DELIVERED TO OUR DESK, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS PART OF THE RECORD, A MEMO SENT TO US. VICE-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE OF 100. THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN OBVIOUSLY READ THE LETTER. 10 BASICALLY WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS SHE BASICALLY SUPPORTS THE CHAMBER'S POSITION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT THE -- I'M NOT SUGGESTING I SUPPORT OR OPPOSE HER POSITION. >>JAN SMITH: BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST QUICKLY GET THROUGH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND THEN OPEN UP OUR BOARD DISCUSSION. I'M GOING TO PREFACE THAT WITH AN OBSERVATION THAT I THINK WE SHOULD ALL PAY HEED TO. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK AT LEAST HALF OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THIS EVENING ASKED ME IF WE COULD PLEASE BE DONE BY 9:00 THIS EVENING. AND ACTUALLY THAT'S THE TIME WE HAVE AGREED ON IN THE PAST TO END OUR DELIBERATION. THE PAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS WE HAVEN'T MET THAT AND THE TIME WENT LONG. BUT I DO BELIEVE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE MOST OF OUR -- IF NOT ALL -- AND I WOULD PREFER ALL OF OUR FINAL VOTES THIS EVENING ON THE PROPOSALS THAT WE INTEND TO TAKE TO THE PUBLIC. SO THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THE RESOLUTIONS THAT WE PASS ARE APPROPRIATELY, ADEQUATELY, CORRECTLY WORDED, AND THAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS DONE SO THAT OUR NEXT MEETING WE CAN FINALIZE EVERYTHING AND ADJOURN ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S CHARTER REVIEW BOARD THAT WE DO HAVE ONE YEAR. 11 BUT I THINK THAT WE REALLY -- BECAUSE WE CANNOT HAVE ANOTHER MEETING AFTER FEBRUARY 8th. THIS EVENING IS THE NIGHT TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS AND THEN GIVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY STAFF THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORDING AND EVERYTHING IS RIGHT, AND I DO HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL AGREE WITH ME AND THAT WE'LL TRY TO GET THERE THIS EVENING. MR. KEN TINKLER FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORT. >> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS, KEN TINKLER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. JUST TWO THINGS FOR YOU THIS EVENING. WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED THE CORRECTED VERSION OF THE AUDITOR RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAD REQUESTED LAST MEETING. THE ONLY CHANGE TO THAT IS IN THE FIRST SECTION, AND IN THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT, WHICH SPECIFICALLY LISTS BUDGET ANALYST AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD. THE SECOND THING IS, BARBARA SHOULD HAVE DISTRIBUTED THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION. AS YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT INDICATED, IT IS STILL NOT SIGNED AT THIS POINT. THE OPINION HAS LENGTHENED AT THIS POINT, AND IT APPEARS TO BE A BIT MORE FOCUSED ON THE QUESTION THAT WE ASKED. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF OUR TIME LINE AND HAS NOT TOLD US WHEN WE EXAMINE THE TO RECEIVE A SIGNED COPY, BUT WITH HE DID MAKE A REQUEST FOR THE LATEST DRAFT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE AT THIS 12 POINT. AS FAR AS THE OPINION ITSELF, IT HAS NOT CHANGED. ITS CONCLUSION HAS MERELY GOTTEN LONGER. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. TINKLER. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. TINKLER ON THIS? >>KEVIN AMBLER: I DO. THE DOCUMENT YOU SENT OUT, THE REVISED DRAFT, IS JUST THAT. FIRST OF ALL A SIGNED ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION IS ADVISORY ONLY, CORRECT? IT IS NOT PRECEDENT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: YES, SIR. IT IS ADVISORY. IT IS OFTEN USED TO HELP INTERPRET A QUESTION OF STATE IMPORTANCE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: BUT IT IS NOT LIKE A CASE, AN APPELLATE CASE, IT IS NOT PRECEDENT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: NOT FORMALLY BINDING ON US. WE CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT. IT IS MORE DIRECT TO US THAN MOST ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS. >>KEVIN AMBLER: THAT'S TO A SIGNED ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, ADVISORY ONLY. IF WE HAVE AN UNSIGNED ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, THAT MEANS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HASN'T SANCTIONED THIS AS HIS OFFICIAL POSITION IN ADVISING US ON THIS ISSUE, CORRECT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IS FINAL UNTIL HE SIGNS IT. WE HAVE SOUGHT TO GET THE LATEST COPY BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS 13 SUCH TIME CONSTRAINTS AND ONLY RELY ON WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS TOLD US AS TO THE TREND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS GOING ON THIS. >>KEVIN AMBLER: THIS IS BASED ON THE OPINION DRAFT LANGUAGE PREPARED BY AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, CORRECT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: OBVIOUSLY EACH ONE IS DRAFTED BY AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE WAY THEY HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO US, THE FIRST DRAFT HE RECEIVED THE FIRST TIME HAD GONE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE ASKED THE LANGUAGE BE TIGHTENED UP IS THE WAY HE PUT IT AND MADE MORE USER-FRIENDLY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANT, AND THIS IS THE RESULT AND IT IS PRESENTLY ON HIS DESK. >>KEVIN AMBLER: CLEARLY THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, BUT EVEN WITH THE LENGTHIER LANGUAGE THAT IS INCLUDED HERE IN THIS DRAFT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PUT HIS STAMP OF APPROVAL TO SAY HE AGREES WITH THIS AS HIS OPINION, RIGHT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, IT IS STILL UNSIGNED. >>KEVIN AMBLER: THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. TINKLER. MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MR. TINKLER, IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS AND MOVE THIS TO THE REFERENDUM -- AS A REFERENDUM IN 2002, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, IF THIS COMES BACK AS A SIGNED 14 OPINION, AND WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS IS, IN ESSENCE, IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL FOR US TO DO THIS, CAN -- AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THEN AT THAT TIME WE THEN COULD TAKE THE REFERENDUM OFF -- OR THE ISSUE OFF AS A REFERENDUM. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY TRUE, IS IT? IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO APPEAR AS A REFERENDUM, IN ESSENCE, EVEN IF IT PASSED, I'M NOT SURE THAT -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOMEONE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO TAKE SOME KIND OF ACTION TO SAY THAT THIS REFERENDUM IS ILLEGAL. BASED ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION AND THERE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE A COURT CASE THAT WOULD ARGUE, AND ONLY A COURT COULD ORDER THE REMOVAL OF THE REFERENDUM FROM THE BALLOT. IS THAT CORRECT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THAT'S RELATIVELY CLOSE. LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH HOW IT IS LAID OUT. ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER, THIS BOARD MAKES PROPOSALS. THOSE PROPOSALS ARE SENT TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL BALLOT. ONCE YOU GO SINE DIE, NO PROVISION TO PULL SOMETHING BACK, NO WAY OF AMENDING ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU NO LONGER WILL EXIST FORMALLY. A LEGAL CASE COULD BE BROUGHT IF SOMEONE CHOSE TO DO THAT, TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE PLACEMENT OF THIS ON THE BALLOT OR SOMETHING COULD BE BROUGHT AFTER IT WAS ON THE BALLOT TO CHALLENGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MADAM CHAIR. 15 >>JAN SMITH: GO AHEAD. >>STEVE LaBOUR: IF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD BE PUT IN A SITUATION TO DEFEND THE REFERENDUM THAT WE WOULD HAVE PASSED; IS THAT CORRECT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: YES, SIR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THE JUDGE WOULD MAKE A DECISION, YEA OR NAY, IF IT WAS AGAINST, IN ESSENCE, THE BOARD, THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, THEN THEY CAN PULL THE REFERENDUM OFF THE BALLOT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THE COURT COULD ORDER AN INJUNCTION PREVENTING THIS FROM APPEARING ON THE BALLOT. A GOOD CASE TO LOOK AT IS BROWARD COUNTY. VARIOUS LEGAL ISSUES THAT THEY PLACED TWO ITEMS OPPOSING EACH OTHER ON THE BALLOT. THE COURT CHOSE NOT TO INTERVENE. IF THEY HAD PASSED, IT WOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT STRUCTURES OF GOT AT THE SAME TIME. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MY SECOND QUESTION THEN. IF NO ONE CHALLENGES THE REFERENDUM LANGUAGE PRIOR TO THE VOTE AND THE VOTERS IN GOOD CONSCIENCE GO OUT IN 2002 AND PASS IT, SOMEONE THEN COULD BRING AN ACTION AND SAY THIS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PLACED ON THE BALLOT IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND YOU, AGAIN, WOULD HAVE TO DEFEND THE FACT THAT THE REFERENDUM WAS PLACED AND PASSED. >>KENNETH TINKLER: RIGHT. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE THE DEFENSE OF THE COUNTY CHARTER ITSELF IN ANY CASE IF THERE WAS A CHALLENGE OF HOW WE 16 GOVERN OURSELVES. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I SUSPECT YOUR OFFICE, PROBABLY, MORE TIMES THAN YOU WOULD WANT TO SAY HAVE GONE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ASK FOR AN OPINION. HAS IT BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT WHEN YOU RECEIVED A DRAFT OPINION THAT IT DRASTICALLY CHANGES OR IS PULLED BEFORE THE SIGNATURE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? >>KENNETH TINKLER: GIVEN -- OBVIOUSLY I CAN ONLY SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ON THIS ONE. GENERALLY FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR, GENERALLY WE DON'T GET A DRAFT OPINION. NORMALLY, WE DO NOT SEE IT IN THIS PROCESS. BECAUSE OF YOUR TIME CONSTRAINTS, WE HAD TO GO ALONG THIS METHOD. AND ALL I CAN TELL YOU GIVEN FROM THE FIRST DRAFT TO THE SECOND DRAFT, WE HAVE NOT SEEN A CHANGE. WE'VE ONLY SEEN THE LANGUAGE GET TIGHTER. WE HAVE NOT SEEN MISGIVINGS FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. OBVIOUSLY UNTIL HE SIGNS IT, WE WILL NOT KNOW FOR SURE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MY LAST COMMENT, MADAM CHAIR. UNFORTUNATELY, I HEARD SOME RUMBLINGS WITH DISSATISFACTION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LAST WEEK PASSING THIS DRAFT OPINION OUT, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEY HAVE BEEN VERY NEUTRAL IN THIS ISSUE. THEY WERE ONLY DOING WHAT WE WERE ASKED -- WE ASKED THEM TO DO. 17 THE FACT THAT I THINK THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE -- I'VE HAD SOME EXPERIENCE IN SIMILAR KINDS OF CASES WHERE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SO QUICK TO OFFER OPINION. AND SO I THINK THAT -- THAT SENDS A MESSAGE TO ME THAT THEY RESPECT THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AND THOSE WHO ARE ASKING FOR THE INFORMATION, AND THE FACT THAT WITHIN JUST A WEEK'S TIME, YOU CAN ALSO GET BACK A SECOND DRAFT OPINION BECAUSE WE ASKED YOU TO GIVE THEM MORE CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE. I COMMEND YOU AND APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE. AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN ANYTHING BUT NEUTRAL IN THIS SITUATION AND I APPRECIATE THAT PROFESSIONALISM. >>KENNETH TINKLER: THANK YOU, SIR. >>JAN SMITH: MS. LASHER. >>DENISE LASHER: A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. >>KENNETH TINKLER: OF COURSE. >>DENISE LASHER: HAS MS. ACTON REVIEWED THIS DRAFT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: SHE'S BEEN MADE APPRISED OF ALL OUR DRAFTS SO FAR. >>DENISE LASHER: CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR OPINION OR YOUR OFFICE'S OPINION IS ON THIS ISSUE? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD DECIDED TO TAKE THIS ACTION, AND ALSO BASICALLY TO GO FORWARD WITH PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST A OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. GIVEN THE TREND YOU HAVE SO FAR, IT APPEARS THAT THIS KIND OF LIMITATION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO GENERAL LAW AND WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THE CHARTER. >>DENISE LASHER: THANK YOU. 18 >>JAN SMITH: MR. BELTRAN. >>HENRY BELTRAN: I'M VERY CONFUSED WITH THIS PROBLEM. THERE IS NOT A CAP, THERE IS NO LIMITATION BECAUSE THE BOARD CAN CHANGE AT THE LAST MINUTE AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE MORE MONEY FOR THIS OR FOR THAT. I WONDER WHY THIS PROBLEM. >>KENNETH TINKLER: IF I CAN GIVE IT A TRY. THE -- >>HENRY BELTRAN: I DON'T SEE THE LIMITATION OF EXPENDITURES WHEN THE BOARD CAN CHANGE IT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS POINTING AT IS CHAPTERS 129 AND 200. WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING IS THAT THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE PREEMPTED US FROM TAKING ANY ACTION RELATING TO THIS SPECIFIC SUBJECT. THE LEGISLATURE COULD MAKE THAT CHANGE. THEY CAN CHANGE 129 AND 200 TO LET US DO THIS, BUT GIVEN THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ONLY ACT -- THAT -- OUR ACTIONS THAT WE TAKE CANNOT BE CONTRARY TO GENERAL LAW; THEREFORE, IF THE ACTION IS PREEMPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, WE CANNOT DO SOMETHING CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE. THAT'S WHY WE ARE IN THE POSITION WE ARE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. AMBLER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: TWO QUESTIONS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY CHAPTER 200 THAT PERTAINS TO THE PROCEDURES INVOLVED IN LEVYING OF MILLAGE RATES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR PROPOSAL WE ARE DISCUSSING WHICH CONCERNS 19 EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND HAS NO BEARING ON THE SETTING OF AD VALOREM TAXES WHATSOEVER. >>KENNETH TINKLER: WHERE THEY ARE GETTING THAT IS THE CHARLOTTE COUNTY CASE LOOKED AT BOTH CHAPTERS 129 AND 200 AND INTERPRETED THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SET THE ONLY METHOD THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN USE TO SET BOTH THE AD VALOREM TAXES AND CREATE THE BUDGET ITSELF. THEY LINKED THE TWO OF THOSE TOGETHER. IF THE LEGISLATURE WOULD ACT TO SEPARATE THAT TO ALLOW A CHARTER COUNTY TO PROCEED WITH SUCH A LIMITATION, THAT WOULD THEN BE PERMISSIBLE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER, BUT MY QUESTION WAS, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW CHAPTER 200 SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO OUR PROPOSAL? I'M NOT -- I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A SEPARATE ARGUMENT TO DISCUSS ABOUT CHAPTER 129, BUT IF WE BREAK THIS DOWN, AND I'VE READ THE DECISIONS, AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THESE PROPOSALS WERE, I WAS BEFORE I EVER MADE THIS MOTION, I STILL FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 200 TO THE PARTICULAR PROPOSAL WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. >>KENNETH TINKLER: WELL, THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN ADD TO THAT IS THAT IT APPEARS THE COURT DECIDED TO LINK THE TWO OF THOSE TOGETHER AS A WHOLE OF THE BUDGET AND AD VALOREM PROCEDURE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PORTION OF IT I CAN CITE FOR YOU. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I'M LOOKING AT THE HOLDING FROM THE SECOND DCA CASE IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY BOCC VERSUS TAYLOR. 20 AND THE HOLDING OF THAT CASE, AFTER THEY GO ON WITH THEIR DICTA AND THEY ARE DISCUSSING POLICY STUFF, THE HOLDING IS THE TAX MILLAGE IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY MUSTING DETERMINED PURSUANT TO 129 AND 200 BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY. THE ELECTORS HAVE INFORMED THE APPELLANT THEY DO NOT WANT TAXES RAISED UNNECESSARILY. AND THEY GO ON TO SAY IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR TAXES RAISED, THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THAT AT THE BALLOT BOX. SO THE HOLDING IN THE CASE IS A HOLDING THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO A PROVISION WHERE THEY WERE TRYING TO PLACE A CAP ON THE SETTING OF MILLAGE RATES, AND THEY SAID, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. FURTHERMORE, IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF OVERRIDE PROVISION OR SAFETY VALVE THAT ALLOWED ANY DISCRETION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO GO AROUND THAT CAP. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REPORTED CASE THAT DISCUSSES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION OVERRIDING A CAP BUT REQUIRING A GREATER THAN NORMAL MAJORITY VOTE; IS THAT RIGHT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT CAME UP WHEN THIS DISCUSSION INITIALLY BEGAN. THE FACT THAT THE CHARLOTTE COUNTY COURT HAD ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE BUDGET -- THEY BASICALLY TOOK IT AS A FULL PACKAGE, THE TAX SETTING AND THE BUDGET WERE LINKED TOGETHER UNDER 129 AND 200. THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMENDED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NO ONE HAS EVER PROPOSED AS WE HAVE DONE A MEASURE THAT IS JUST DIRECTED TO THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF THE 21 BUDGET, COUPLED WITH A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE BOCC TO HAVE DISCRETION TO OVERRIDE THAT IMPOSED EXPENDITURE LIMITATION BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. >>KENNETH TINKLER: WE FOUND NO CASE LAW THAT INDICATES THAT HAS HAPPENED ANY OTHER PLACE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NO ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION OTHER THAN THIS DRAFT THAT WE HAVE THAT GOES TO THAT ISSUE AS WELL, CORRECT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THAT IS WHY WE REQUESTED IT. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>MIKE BEDKE: YES, KEN, RATHER THAN TREAT THIS AS ORAL ARGUMENT, JUST TO PUT THIS IN A LAYPERSON'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS, I THINK, THE QUESTION. THERE WAS A QUESTION LAST WEEK AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED OR NOT. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, DID ANYBODY HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH SOMEONE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, OR ARE YOU CONFIDENT THEY UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CASES CITED IN THE OPINION WHICH FOCUS ON THE REVENUE SIDE VERSUS THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH FOCUSES MORE ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE. >>KENNETH TINKLER: WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH THEIR OFFICE, AND WE DO BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE DISTINCTION. IF YOU FOCUS ON THE EXACT QUESTION ANSWERED THAT THEY LAY OUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE OPINION, THEY ARE VERY NARROWLY FOCUSED ON WHAT EXACTLY THIS BOARD HAS ASKED THEM. >>JAN SMITH: MR. TINKLER, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TIME WHEN A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN 22 BEFORE JUSTICE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE MAY BE AN ARGUMENT MADE BY THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THIS ALSO. WE HAVE NOT -- THAT WE HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED THAT, BUT THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO COMMENT ON THIS. WOULD THEY IN THEIR EFFORT TO DO THAT CONTACT THE STATE ATTORNEY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO -- TO COME UP WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE IF THIS GOES ON THE BALLOT, IT WILL GO TO JUSTICE. >>KENNETH TINKLER: YES, MA'AM. OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING THEY SHOULD PLACE ON THE BALLOT SHOULD GO UNDER REVIEW OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THE JUSTICE WILL LOOK AT ANY AVENUE THEY SEE FIT TO OF LOOKING AT WHATEVER ACTION THE BOARD WAS TRYING TO DO. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. TINKLER. THANK YOU. WE HOPE THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE BOARD UNDERSTAND WE ARE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. WE UNDERSTAND YOU ARE OUR INTERMEDIARY AND YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. THIS IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE IN TRYING TO GET US THE FINISHED PRODUCT. THANK YOU. >>TERRY BALLARD: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT. ONE THING -- THE WAY I VIEW THIS AND AS A LAYPERSON AND NOT AN ATTORNEY AND WE'VE GOT SOME UP HERE AND I LISTEN TO SOME OF 23 YOUR ARGUMENTS, REALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS CHANGING THE VOTE FROM A MAJORITY VOTE TO PASS THE BUDGET TO A MAJORITY PLUS ONE WITH CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY -- IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT ANYTHING. IT'S NOT SAYING THAT IT CAN'T BE PASSED. JUST CHANGING THE VOTE. >>KENNETH TINKLER: THE PROBLEM WE LIE IS NOT ACTUALLY WITH THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, IT IS THE METHOD THE PROPOSAL IS GETTING OUT THERE. THE HOLDING IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD TAKE THIS ACTION, THEY CAN ALLOW THE BOARD TO DO THIS, AND THE BOARD COULD LIMIT THEMSELVES INTERNALLY, BUT THEY ARE SAYING BECAUSE THE FACT IT IS IN 129 AND 200, A LAYOUT FOR A BUDGET AND TAX SYSTEM, WE CANNOT PLACE THIS IN THE CHARTER. THAT IS THE ARGUMENT. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL. IT'S MORE HOW IT GETS OUT THERE AS WHETHER IT CAN BE IN THE CHARTER OR HAS TO BE A LEGISLATIVE ACT. >>TERRY BALLARD: I JUST VIEW IT AS A MECHANICAL THING TO CHANGE FROM MAJORITY TO MAJORITY PLUS ONE. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU, MR. TINKLER. >>BARBARA MERRITT: GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. I'M SORRY ABOUT MY VOICE. BARBARA MERRITT. 24 I JUST WOULD LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T DO A FORMAL REPORT TONIGHT BECAUSE I WAS BUSY COPYING AND COPYING AND COPYING. THE PINK SHEETS IN YOUR PACKETS ARE THE UPDATED MOTIONS. I THINK WE ARE UP TO PAGE NUMBER 10. ALSO IN YOUR PACKET IS A LETTER FROM MIKE FOERSTER EXPLAINING WHAT THE -- WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD RECORDS. THE LATEST A.G.O. OPINION IS COPIED IN YELLOW. CHAIRMAN SMITH TOUCHED UPON THIS LAST WEEK. NEXT WEEK WILL BE OUR LAST MEETING. AND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING WE'D LIKE TO GET OUT TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU CAN GET IT TO ME BY MONDAY OR TUESDAY SO I CAN GET COPYING BECAUSE NEXT WEEK IS A BOARD MEETING AND I HAVE TO SHARE THE COPY MACHINE. THE OTHER THING IS, WE WILL BE DOING AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. I'VE STARTED ON IT. THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME THINGS THAT I NEED TO INCLUDE IN IT. ANYONE HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE GET THEM TO ME AND OUR CHAIRMAN. AND MS. SMITH, WE TALKED ABOUT IT BRIEFLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW, SINCE THE COMMITTEE DIES NEXT WEEK, DO WE GET VOLUNTEERS TO HELP US THEN? DO WE GET VOLUNTEERS TO HELP US OR DO WE DRAFT THEM BEFORE THE COMMITTEE DIES? >>DAVID HURLEY: COULD YOU USE A DIFFERENT TERM, PLEASE. DISBAND WOULD BE BETTER. [ LAUGHTER ] 25 >>JAN SMITH: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AFTER THAT MEETING. AFTER THAT MEETING. I THINK IT'S BETWEEN YOU AND ME AND THEN ANY BOARD MEMBER AND MY HOPE WAS THAT BEFORE -- WE STILL DO HAVE MONEY IN OUR BUDGET TO FINISH THIS WORK? >>BARBARA MERRITT: YES. >>JAN SMITH: I HAD MENTIONED TO THE BOARD ONCE BEFORE THAT I HOPED WE COULD GET A DRAFT OF THE REPORT OUT TO EVERYONE SO THEY CAN READ IT, SEND THEIR COMMENTS BACK, IF THEY SEE ANY BLATANT ERRORS OR MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT THAT WE CAN CORRECT IT THAT WAY. THE REPORT SHOULD REALLY REFLECT THE WORK OF THE BOARD AND NOT THE OPINIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUALS, STRICTLY THE WORK OF THE BOARD. IF YOU HAVE NOT TURNED IN YOUR RESUMES TO MS. MERRITT OR A PHOTO, AND WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR PHOTO TO BE IN THE BOOKLET, PLEASE GET THEM TO HER. >>BARBARA MERRITT: EXCUSE ME. THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD WHEN I HAD MY MEETING WITH MR. FOERSTER. I ASKED HIM ABOUT MAYBE TAKING A BOARD PICTURE AND THEN HAVE ONE PICTURE BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAD BLACK-AND-WHITE PICTURES, SOME HAD COLOR. AND THAT'S GOING -- >>JAN SMITH: GENERALLY SPEAKING, AND I KNOW THAT EVEN THE COMICS ARE IN COLOR, BUT IN THE PAST, THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN DONE IN BLACK AND WHITE. 26 AND I GUESS I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE BOARD IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A GROUP PICTURE TAKEN NEXT TIME, WE CAN DO THAT. EVERYBODY PROMISES NOT TO DO THIS BEHIND SOMEBODY'S HEAD. [ LAUGHTER ] >>STEVE LaBOUR: DEPENDS HOW MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS VOTE THIS EVENING. [ LAUGHTER ] >>BARBARA MERRITT: THE BEAUTY TOO OF SOME OF THE TECHNOLOGY NOW WITH THE DIGITAL CAMERA THAT IT IS SCANNED TO DISK, I CAN INCORPORATE IT IN THE REPORT VERY EASILY. >>JAN SMITH: I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE A COUPLE OF THE OLD REPORTS JUST TO KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE. >>BARBARA MERRITT: YES, I DO. >>JAN SMITH: WHETHER WE HAVE ANY VOLUNTEERS, I SUSPECT, IF NECESSARY, I CAN TALK TO MR. KLEMAN AND CHAIRMAN FRANK ABOUT GETTING US SOME ASSISTANCE IF WE NEED IT OR FROM THE CLERK. BUT I THINK THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO COMPLETE IT IN TIME AND ON BUDGET. THIS BOARD HAS BEEN REAL GOOD ABOUT THAT, AND I THINK -- >>BARBARA MERRITT: I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE ABOUT $12,000 LESS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DIDN'T GET SOME OF THE FINAL BILLS IN. AND I WON'T KNOW -- BECAUSE I POST DIFFERENT TIMES. PROBABLY WON'T HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHERE WE ARE WITH THE BUDGET UNTIL AFTER OUR NEXT MEETING. >>JAN SMITH: THE ONE CONCERN I'M SURE THE BOARD HAS IS WHAT'S GOING TO APPEAR ON THE GOVERNMENT ACCESS -- ON THE WEB SITE. 27 AND YOU AND I HAD TALKED THAT WE WOULD TRY TO KEEP THE MOTIONS, THE RESOLUTIONS, THE MINUTES, WHATEVER WE CAN KEEP ON -- ON THE WEB UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO GO THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT ON UNTIL THEN. AND I SUSPECT THE COUNTY WILL BE GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ALLOW US TO KEEP THAT UP AND RUNNING. >>BARBARA MERRITT: I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS SEEN THE WEB SITE OR HAS BEEN USING IT. IF THERE ARE ANY SUGGESTIONS THERE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: JUST BACK TO MR. FOERSTER'S LETTER, AND I APPRECIATE THAT HE QUICKLY GOT BACK TO US, BUT MR. WHITE I THINK HAD RAISED A GOOD POINT LAST TIME. I THINK THAT THERE HAS TO BE A -- SINCE OUR WORK SINCE WE DO PASS ANYTHING OUT, WE ALREADY PASS THE AUDITOR OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE OR NOT, BUT IF WE HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE BALLOT, IT IS NOT GOING TO APPEAR UNTIL 2002. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY A PR STRATEGY OR MARKETING STRATEGY, BUT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY, IF YOU WILL, AND I THINK MR. FOERSTER, I WOULD -- HE'S -- I APPRECIATE WHAT HE'S OFFERED HERE, BUT GIVEN THE FACT HE'S OUT OF COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT, MR. KLEMAN WOULD PERMIT HIM, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIM COME NEXT WEEK AND AGENDA IT AS AN ITEM AS TO HOW WE ARE GOING TO EDUCATE THE AS TO WHAT WE HAVE PASSED OUT AND MAYBE LOOK AT SOME KIND OF STRATEGY. 28 >>JAN SMITH: IN THE PAST I BELIEVE THE COUNTY HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE COUNTY CANNOT GET INVOLVED IN THESE ELECTIONS. THEY CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION, BUT THEY CAN'T, IN FACT, JUST LIKE IN THE CITY, CAMPAIGN FOR AN ISSUE OR -- >>STEVE LaBOUR: THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. >>JAN SMITH: MS. LEVINE IS HERE. WE'LL LET HER HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. BO ARE BORE GREAT. I KNOW SHE CAN ANSWER. >>HELEN LEVINE: MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, HELEN LEVINE. I'M DELIGHTED TO HAVE MIKE FOERSTER WHO REPORTS TO ME TO COME TALK TO YOU AT YOUR FINAL MEETING OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO BE HELPFUL. THERE ARE, AS THE CHAIRMAN NOTED, LIMITATIONS OF WHAT WE CAN DO, BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO COME AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WE THINK WE CAN DO THAT WILL KEEP US ALL LEGAL. HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. MERRITT, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO REPORT. YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO REPORT? >>BARBARA MERRITT: THAT'S ALL. I WANT TO REMIND YOU OUR FINAL MEETING IS NEXT WEEK ON THE 8th AT 6 P.M. >>JAN SMITH: I DON'T KNOW, DID YOU ALL NEED TO BE REMINDED OF THAT? NO? 29 [ LAUGHTER ] >>BARBARA MERRITT: EVERYBODY IN TELEVISION LAND DID. >>JAN SMITH: MR. AMBLER WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OTHER THAN THAT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I'VE RECONSIDERED. >>BARBARA MERRITT: THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: ALL RIGHT, BOARD MEMBERS. YOU HAVE YOUR LIST OF THINGS THAT WE STILL HAVE IN FRONT OF US TO DISCUSS, DEBATE, AND -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: MADAM CHAIR, I WISH TO MAKE A MOTION. I WISH TO MOVE A SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TAX EXPENDITURE LIMITATION WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING AT GREAT LENGTH. SO AS TO ENSURE THAT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT OCCURS TONIGHT IS REGARDING THE RESOLUTION I THINK SHOULD BE BEFORE THE BOARD. SO MY MOTION IS THAT WE APPROVE -- WELL, MY MOTION IS THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION AS DRAFTED IN THE PACKAGE HANDED OUT BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR SECTION 9.13, CHARTER GOVERNMENT ANNUAL BUDGET INCREASE LIMITATION. >>JAN SMITH: NOW, THIS IS A VOTE THAT -- TO TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THIS. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NO. >>JAN SMITH: NO? >>KEVIN AMBLER: IT'S A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THIS LANGUAGE HERE FOR THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE THAT THE BOARD IS PREVIOUSLY -- THE 3% LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. >>JAN SMITH: OH, BECAUSE AFTER THE COMMITTEE DID THAT, WE 30 DIDN'T CHANGE THAT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NOT TO TAKE OUR FINAL VOTE. WE TABLED IT LAST TIME. I WANTED TO AT LEAST BE SURE THAT IF IT COMES UP FOR A VOTE TONIGHT, WE'RE DISCUSSING THE CORRECT LANGUAGE OR AT LEAST THE LANGUAGE I BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND VOTING ON. SO I'M MOVING TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKAGE FOR SECTION 9.13 CHARTER GOVERNMENT ANNUAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET INCREASE LIMITATION AS SET FORTH IN YOUR SUMMARY PACKET OF ALL THE RESOLUTIONS THAT WAS HANDED OUT AT OUR LAST MEETING. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WILL BE HAPPY TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD IF YOU WANT ME TO OR A COPY BE APPENDED TO THE MINUTES TO BE CLEAR WHAT THE RESOLUTION READS. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY. MR. AMBLER HAS MADE A MOTION THAT THE ENTIRE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO THE PROPOSAL FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET'S EXPENDITURES BASED ON THE WORDING OF THE DRAFT ATTACHED TO OUR WORK TONIGHT UNDER SECTION 9.13. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >>DAVID HURLEY: COULD THAT BE BROUGHT IN BY ACCLIMATION. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT TO BE ACTIVE. IS THAT THE ONE WE ARE CONSIDERING? >>KEVIN AMBLER: WE NEVER VOTED OUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION. 31 ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IN THAT DRAFT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION, YOU DON'T HAVE THE CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE LANGUAGE THERE BECAUSE WE NEVER ACTUALLY VOTED TO CLARIFY OR CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO READ AS IT DOES HERE IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE. >>JAN SMITH: IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? >> I SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: THE SECOND IS BY MR. BELTRAN. IS THERE DISCUSSION? MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: IN DEFERENCE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON IT, MR. AMBLER, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO VOTE TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE, BUT DON'T WANT TO BE MISCONSTRUED BY ANY MEANS AS SUPPORT FOR THE ACTUAL -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: I APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE DEBATE THIS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DEBATE THE LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMITTEE THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR BOARD'S CONSIDERATION. >>JAN SMITH: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION -- WE'LL DO ROLL CALL, I THINK, MS. WEST. >>KEVIN AMBLER: AYE. >>TERRY BALLARD: YES. >>MIKE BEDKE: YES. >>HENRY BELTRAN:. >>DAVID HURLEY: YES. >>STEVE LaBOUR: YES. 32 >>DENISE LASHER: YES. >>JAN SMITH: NO. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: NO. >>ARLENE WALDRON: YES. >>GERALD WHITE: YES. >> YES. >>DEE WILLIAMS: YES. >> THE MOTION CARRIED 11-2. >>KEVIN AMBLER: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: YOU'RE WELCOME. BOARD MEMBERS, THE ISSUE STILL ON -- IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THE CHANGES TO STRUCTURE. IF YOU HAVE YOUR OLD PINK SHEETS, IT'S "A," "B," AND "C." THE PARTISAN, NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. THE ISSUE OF THE LIMITATION ON SPENDING AND WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY PASSED COUNTY AUDITOR PROPOSAL. SO SOMEBODY -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: MADAM CHAIR, I WISH TO MAKE A MOTION DIRECTED TO THE PARTISAN VERSUS NONPARTISAN, WHICH IS ITEM 2. I JUST WANTED TO GET THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME. MY MOTION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION, TAKE A FINAL VOTE, I GUESS, ON THIS THAT WE NOT APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS SUBMITTED AS ITEM NUMBER 2 IN OUR PACKET. >> I SECOND. >>DAVID HURLEY: DOES THAT GET US INTO THE THING WE DID LAST TIME. A NEGATIVE MOTION TAKE TEN TO KEEP IT OFF? 33 >>JAN SMITH: I THINK WE TOOK IT TO PUBLIC HEARING. SO PERHAPS YOU NEED TO WORD IT AS TO CHANGE THE ELECTIONS TO NONPARTISAN AND THEN IT WILL BE VOTED. >>STEVE LaBOUR: IF MR. AMBLER IS UNCOMFORTABLE MAKING THE MOTION FOR NONPARTISAN, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE TAKE TO THE -- TO REFERENDUM THE REFERENDUM THAT WOULD MAKE ALL COUNTY COMMISSION RACES NONPARTISAN. >>KEVIN AMBLER: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >>JAN SMITH: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. LaBOUR. IS THERE -- >>TERRY BALLARD: I'LL SECOND THAT FOR THAT, ALTHOUGH I'LL VOTE AGAINST IT. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR AND SECONDED BY MR. BALLARD TO TAKE THE ISSUE OF COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTIONS FROM PARTISAN TO NONPARTISAN. ALL IN FAVOR -- WE'LL DO ROLL CALL. I'M SORRY. AND THIS IS TO GO TO THE BALLOT. >>DAVID HURLEY: DO WE HAVE TO HAVE -- SHOULD WE ASK FOR DISCUSSION OR -- I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NO. >>TERRY BALLARD: NO. >>MIKE BEDKE: NO. >>HENRY BELTRAN: NO. >>DAVID HURLEY: NO. 34 >>STEVE LaBOUR: YES. >>DENISE LASHER: NO. >>JAN SMITH: YES. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: YES. >>ARLENE WALDRON: YES. >>GERALD WHITE: NO. >>DANNY WILKES: NO. >>DEE WILLIAMS: NO. >> THE MOTION FAILED 4-9. >>JAN SMITH: TAKES A 10-4 VOTE TO PASS. >>STEVE LaBOUR: 10 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. >>JAN SMITH: TAKES 10 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, AND WE DO NOT HAVE THAT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. ON OUR SUMMARY SHEET THAT WE HAD FOR OUR VARIOUS MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, IT HAD AMENDING THE PREVIOUSLY PASSED COUNTY AUDITOR PROPOSAL; YET, THE PROPOSAL I HAVE IN MY PACKAGE OTHER THAN THE CHANGE IN THE TITLE ITSELF WHICH HAD SLASH BUDGET ANALYST, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY CHANGES, UNLESS I'M READING THAT WRONG. COULD I GET A CLARIFICATION? >>JAN SMITH: I THINK THE CLARIFICATION WAS THE WORDING THAT DID NOT INCLUDE BUDGET ANALYST, AND WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS MAYBE JUST AN OMISSION. AND THAT IT WAS CORRECTED. >>KEVIN AMBLER: ON PAGE 2 OF THE CORRECTION, "ADDITIONAL" BUDGET ANALYST. 35 YOU SAID THAT WAS A TYPO BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE THERE NOW. IS THAT THE CORRECTION? IS THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH? OR CAN THAT BE CORRECTED AS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR. THEN -- WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED THIS OUT WITH GREATER THAN TEN VOTES TO BE PUT ON THE BALLOT. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE WILL BE VOTING ON. >>JAN SMITH: WE'LL LET MR. TINKLER CLARIFY IT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: FOR THE RECORD, KEN TINKLER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. IT IS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION. THE REASON WE ADVERTISED AMENDING THE PREVIOUSLY PASSED PROPOSAL WAS IF YOU WISHED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THIS, AS FAR AS ANY AMENDMENTS, WE HAD TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING ON IT. SO IF THE BOARD WISHES TO TAKE SOME ACTION, THE BOARD CAN. THERE IS NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS POINT. YOU HAVE PASSED THIS PROPOSAL BY 10 VOTES. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MADAM CHAIRMAN, I HAVE WRESTLED WITH THIS ISSUE BACK AND FORTH, AND AS THE BOARD KNOWS I DID NOT SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL VOTE TO REFERENDUM. I'M GLAD WE DID IT EARLY, BECAUSE WE CONTINUED TO GET COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT, AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS INTERESTING. I WAS READING THROUGH ALL OF OUR -- A LOT OF THE HANDOUTS THAT WERE GIVEN FROM GROUPS THAT SPOKE ESPECIALLY. 36 AND I THINK F.A.I.R. ACTUALLY EXPRESSED IT WELL FOR ME WHEN I READ THEIR NARRATIVE ON HOW THEY FELT ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES. THEY SAID THEY SUPPORTED THE AUDITOR AS LONG AS IT WASN'T USED AS A WITCH-HUNT OR -- I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, I CAN'T QUOTE THEM DIRECTLY, BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE USE OF THE AUDITOR. I ALSO WENT BACK AND REREAD COMMISSIONER FRANK'S LETTER WHICH A LOT OF, I KNOW, BOARD MEMBERS HAD PLACED A LOT OF FAITH ON. AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. I -- I FOUND SOME DISCREPANCIES EVEN WITHIN HER LETTER AND I WENT BACK AND REWATCHED HER TESTIMONY, IF YOU WILL, BEFORE US ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ABOUT THE ISSUE. I THINK THAT WHAT -- WHAT SHE'S -- WHAT SHE AND SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY WERE ASKING FOR WAS MORE OF A BUDGET ANALYST THAN REALLY AN AUDITOR. AND THE AUDITOR REALLY CONTINUES TO TROUBLE ME. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WAS PASSED OUT BY SIMPLY -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO WORD THIS, MAYBE LEGAL WILL HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THIS, BUT MY AMENDMENT IS FOR US TO TAKE OFF THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR FROM THE REFERENDUM OR WITHDRAW IT. FROM THE -- AS A REFERENDUM. >>DEE WILLIAMS: IS THAT A MOTION? >>STEVE LaBOUR: YES. >>DEE WILLIAMS: I'LL SECOND -- >>JAN SMITH: MR. TINKLER, WILL YOU COME UP, PLEASE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: NOT A VERY CLEAR MOTION, MS. WILLIAMS. 37 >>DEE WILLIAMS: I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO GO. I'M TROUBLED TOO. >>JAN SMITH: DOES THE PERSON THAT MAKES A MOTION TO CHANGE THIS AFTER IT WAS ALREADY VOTED NEED TO BE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THIS IS NOT A RECONSIDERATION MOTION. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT MOTION, AMENDING THE PROPOSAL BY DELETING ALL LANGUAGE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THANK YOU, MR. TINKLER, THAT'S PERFECT. >>KENNETH TINKLER: MADAM CHAIR, SINCE THE BOARD CHOSE TO TAKE THIS ACTION EARLIER AND HAS PASSED THIS BY TEN VOTES, IT WILL REQUIRE A SIMILAR VOTE TO TAKE THIS BACK OFF. >>JAN SMITH: AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT -- HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? WE WOULD HAVE -- >>KENNETH TINKLER: IT JUST REQUIRES THE SAME NUMBER. >>JAN SMITH: WE HAD TO HAVE TEN HERE -- >>KENNETH TINKLER: AS IF IT WAS A NEW PROPOSAL ON A DIFFERENT SUBJECT, REQUIRE TEN VOTES TO GO ON THE BALLOT. THE SAME THING IN THIS MATTER. >>DENISE LASHER: YOU HAVE TO HAVE 10. >>JAN SMITH: HAVE TO HAVE 10 FOR IT TO PASS. >> FOR THE AMENDMENT. >>JAN SMITH: FOR THE AMENDMENT. MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE THE QUESTION? >>DEE WILLIAMS: I NEED FOR THE MOTION TO BE STATED AGAIN. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I THINK I GET IT NOW. MY MOTION IS TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WAS PASSED TO 38 DELETE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PASSED. >>DEE WILLIAMS: ALL OF IT? >>STEVE LaBOUR: ALL OF IT. >>DENISE LASHER: HE'S SAYING YOU CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT SAYING YOU WANT IT TO BE A BUDGET ANALYST. >>STEVE LaBOUR: NO. I WANT TO DELETE THE WHOLE ENTIRE AMENDMENT. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? >>ARLENE WALDRON: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY. NOW, MR. LaBOUR, YOUR INTENT HERE THEN, AS I TAKE IT, AND I NEED TO BE CLEAR, IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT -- YOUR MOTION IS TO NOT TAKE THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR TO THE PUBLIC FOR REFERENDUM; IS THAT CORRECT? >>STEVE LaBOUR: THAT'S CORRECT. AND I WILL GIVE MAYBE A CLEARER RATIONALIZATION. I DON'T DISAGREE THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE BUDGET ANALYST. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS NEVER GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR DISCUSSION, AND THAT'S WHAT MY GREATEST FEAR WAS WHEN WE RUSHED TO BRING THIS UP SO WE CAN VOTE ON SOMETHING BECAUSE WE ALL FELT WE HAD TO VOTE ON SOMETHING AND GET SOMETHING DONE. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BETTER WAY TO GO. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T HOLD ANY -- THAT'S SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY HAD 39 TO, IN MY OPINION, AND LEGAL CAN CORRECT ME, BUT WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO PUBLIC HEARING A SEPARATE KIND OF PROPOSAL THAT WOULD SIMPLY SAID A BUDGET ANALYST. I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR IS GOING TO BE A POSITION THAT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN VOTED ON THE STRUCTURE WHO THEY REALLY REPORT TO AND HOW WELL IT'S GOING TO FIT. AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I HEARD MORE COMMISSIONERS COMPLAINING ABOUT THEY WANTED SOMEBODY TO HELP THEM ANALYZE THE BUDGET, NOT DO PERFORMANCE AUDITS ON THE DEPARTMENT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT HOW IT GOT PASSED OUT. I APOLOGIZE. I FEEL BADLY FOR THE BOARD THAT IT DIDN'T GET PASSED OUT THAT WAY BECAUSE I WOULD BE LEANING TO SUPPORTING THAT. THE LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS TODAY, PERFORMANCE AUDIT OR BUDGET ANALYST, IT IS CLEAR IT CAN'T BE ONE OR THE OTHER. IT IS SOMEONE -- BECAUSE IT IS IN OUR CHARTER THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE HIRED TO DO PERFORMANCE AUDITS. I THINK THE COMMISSION WANTED SOMEONE TO HELP THEM INTERPRET THE BUDGET. AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD -- I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD -- WE COULD WITHDRAW THIS BECAUSE I ALSO AGREE FUNDAMENTALLY THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE CHARTER. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MR. AMBLER AND MR. BEDKE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT IS THAT WE VOTED OUT AFTER TWO 40 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE MATTER, CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT, AT LEAST THAT TURNED OUT FOR OUR MEETINGS FOR THIS MEASURE, AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WE REPORTED OUT TO GO TO REFERENDUM IS SUCCINCTLY STATED IN DEFINING WHAT IT WAS THAT THIS BUDGET ANALYST PERFORMANCE AUDITOR WAS IS SIMPLY AN INDIVIDUAL TO ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ASSIST THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN CONDUCTING CONTINUING STUDIES OF THE OPERATION OF COUNTY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AND SERVE AS A BUDGET ANALYST FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THERE SHALL BE A COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND TENOR OF A CONSTITUTION, WE DRAFTED BROAD LANGUAGE HERE WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY DEFINING THIS JOB TO GIVE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE ABILITY TO WRITE A CONTRACT FOR THE PERSON THAT THEY HIRE THAT GIVES THEM THE HELP THAT THEY NEED, WITHOUT OVERLY TYING THEIR HANDS. IF THEY WANT EMPHASIS ON BUDGET ANALYST, FINE. IF THEY WANT PERFORMANCE AUDITS, AS WE CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THEY'VE GOT THE ABILITY BECAUSE IT WILL BE THERE IN THE CHARTER. BY PUTTING THIS POSITION IN THERE, THEY HAVE AUTHORITY THEY DO NOT PRESENTLY HAVE. THE SECOND POINT IS, AND THE MAIN POINT FOR WHY WE -- I THOUGHT WE HAD THIS POSITION WAS TO GIVE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SOMEBODY INDEPENDENT OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THAT REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THEM TO GET A FRESH AND INDEPENDENT OPINION, UNABASHED BY BEING IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COULD FEEL 41 THAT THEY WERE GETTING INPUT THAT WAS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY MORE OR LESS OBJECTIVE. I JUST WANT TO SAY IS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE WITH DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS. BY HAVING THIS PARTICULAR POSITION, IT WAS OUR INTENT AS DISCUSSED BY THE PUBLIC, THAT WE COULD, IN FACT, SAVE MONEY BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL HELP THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD HAVE BOTH IN THE BUDGET PROCESS AND IN DOING THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS TO LOOK FOR WAYS OF SLASHING AND DASHING IN PROGRAMS THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE THE AREAS THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DOESN'T WANT TO HIT. BUT MY -- >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT -- IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DELETING THE LANGUAGE, LET'S BE CLEAR OF WHAT WE DEFINED AS WHAT THIS OFFICE WAS OR WHAT IT WASN'T. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>MIKE BEDKE: I GUESS I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS -- I, TOO, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST YEAR, I GUESS, HAVE BECOME A LITTLE MORE TROUBLED ABOUT THIS. I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT WHAT WAS MY ORIGINAL INTENT, WHICH IS TO DRIVE FISCALLY SOUND POLICY. I HAVE PRIDED MYSELF FOR THE BETTER PART OF 20 OR 25 YEARS OF BEING A BUDGET HAWK. THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, YOU MADE A STATEMENT, KEN, THAT I THOUGHT AT THAT TIME WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS WAS 42 ACCURATE THAT I'M NOT SURE IS ANY LONGER AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN'T GO DO THIS THEMSELVES NOW. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DO, IN FACT, -- THEY HAVE PRIVATIZED THIS ESSENTIALLY BY ISSUING RFPs FROM TIME TO TIME TO GO OUT AND AUDIT CERTAIN AREAS. AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BETTER WAY TO GO NOW BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY CAME TO ME, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SAID, WHO IS THE BEST ATTORNEY IN TOWN. MY RESPONSE WOULD BE, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT TYPE OF MATTER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ACTUALLY, IT WOULD BE ME, OF COURSE, BUT REGARDLESS. [ LAUGHTER ] IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE NOT CREATING A PERSON WHO IS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO GO SUBCONTRACT THIS OUT ANYWAY. AND I GUESS FUNDAMENTALLY, PART OF WHERE I HAVE BEEN COMING BACK IS, IN MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON PROPOSING THIS, I THOUGHT, AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, I THINK I NEED AN INDEPENDENT PERSON THERE LOOKING OUT FOR MY BEST INTERESTS AND TRYING TO FERRET OUT WASTE AND INEFFICIENCY IN THIS GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD SUPPORTS THAT. AND WHERE I'M SCRATCHING MY HEAD A LITTLE BIT IS IF THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT BECAUSE FUNDAMENTALLY TO ME AS I HAVE SEEN OTHER COMMISSIONERS COME FORWARD AND GONE BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT PAT FRANK WROTE TO US AND LOOKED BACK IN MY NOTES AND, IN ESSENCE, WHAT I SORT OF SENSE IS WE'RE NOT SURE IF THE 43 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IS GIVING US THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO DO OUR JOB. WE, BEING THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION. IF THAT'S THE CASE, RATHER THAN CREATE THIS NEW OFFICE AND THIS NEW POTENTIAL BUREAUCRACY, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THE RIGHT ANSWER ISN'T THAT THE BOARD OUGHT TO HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO GET A NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. IF THAT'S THE PROBLEM. AND AS A VOTER, RATHER THAN CREATE A BUREAUCRATIC POSITION TO LOOK OUT FOR ME, MAYBE WHAT I NEED TO DO IS VOTE OUT THOSE COMMISSIONERS WHO FRANKLY DON'T HAVE THE BACKBONE TO LIVE UP TO BEING IN FULFILLMENT OF THEIR DUTIES OF BEING FISCALLY SOUND. WHETHER WE DO IT THROUGH THE NOTION OF A BUDGET CAP OR DO IT THROUGH AN AUDITOR, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WANT TO TINKER SO MUCH, IN ESSENCE, WITH OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT -- IF WE GET IT WRONG, WE'VE GOT TO LIVE WITH IT FOR FIVE YEARS, AS OPPOSED TO AN EXPERIMENT THAT THE BOARD CAN GO DO. IF IT WORKS, GREAT. IF NOT, THEY CAN CAN IT. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT RATHER THAN TRY TO SYSTEMICALLY CHANGE THINGS THROUGH THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL OFFICES, WE OUGHT NOT DO IT BY HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, WHETHER IT'S THE BOARD HOLDING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS STAFF ACCOUNTABLE OR WHETHER IT'S THE VOTERS HOLDING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACCOUNTABLE. SO I'M STILL A BIT UP IN THE AIR, BUT I'M STARTING TO LEAN 44 TOWARDS NOT CHANGING THINGS STRUCTURALLY SO MUCH, AND, INSTEAD, GOING TO MOTIVATING PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND IF THEY DON'T, WE THROW THE RASCALS OUT. >>JAN SMITH: MS. WALDRON. >>ARLENE WALDRON: WELL, IN MY MIND, THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR AND THE BUDGET ANALYST IS TWO DIFFERENT JOB RESPONSIBILITIES, IN MY MIND. I THINK -- I ALSO WENT BACK AND READ AND TRIED TO STUDY AND LISTEN AND LEARN ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND IT SEEMS THAT CURRENTLY, IT IS PRIVATIZED. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. I THINK THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THIS INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR AUDITING, I THINK THAT IS ALREADY BEING DONE BY THE RFP PROCESS, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY IF THEY NEED HELP WITH THE BUDGET, THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE ONE TO HELP THEM WITH THAT ISSUE. SO, YOU KNOW, I -- I'M DEFINITELY LEANING TOWARD MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT WE CREATE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, DEPARTMENT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE PRIVATIZING. THAT WOULD BE MY -- MY FEEL ON THAT. >>JAN SMITH: MS. TUTTLE. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: I WISH I WERE AS ELOQUENT AS YOU, MIKE, YOU WERE VERY, VERY GOOD. I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH STEVE. 45 AND I AGREE WITH ARLENE. HAVING WORKED FOR THE COUNTY, I UNDERSTAND THE BOARD'S CONFUSION SOMETIMES WITH THE BUDGET. THERE ARE SOME COMMISSIONERS WHO DON'T EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT, AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO TRY VERY, VERY HARD. AND THERE ARE STILL, AFTER THOSE WHO REALLY HAVE TRIED VERY HARD, THERE IS STILL SOMETIMES A QUESTION OR TWO. I WOULD NEVER WANT OUR BOARD TO GET IN A SITUATION THAT PINELLAS IS IN NOW. THEY HAD THE PENNY FOR PINELLAS, AND THE BOARD KEPT ON SPENDING AND KEPT ON SPENDING AND GUESS WHAT, THERE'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH LEFT WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO THE END OF THE TEN YEARS. AND I THINK THE BOARD DOES POSSIBLY NEED ADDITIONAL HELP. THEY NEED "A" BUDGET ANALYST I THINK THEY CAN HIRE. THEY CAN HIRE THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THEY CAN HIRE ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE WHAT THEY WANT. AS FAR AS I REMEMBER TALKING TO COMMISSIONER FRANK, THAT'S WHERE THEY WERE COMING FROM. THIS WHOLE BUDGET ANALYST -- I MEAN, THIS WHOLE AUDITOR THING GETS -- IT REALLY DOES MUSHROOM INTO A NEW DEPARTMENT WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE, AND YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ALL THIS EQUIPMENT. AND IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER BUREAUCRATIC PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT, LIKE IT OR NOT. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE ADD-ONS AND MORE ADD-ONS. ANYWAY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PLACE FOR IT ANYWAY. KIND OF LIKE PUTTING THE BULLET TRAIN IN THE CONSTITUTION. 46 THE DUMBEST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED. I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY IT UP BY PUTTING PEOPLE IN OUR CHARTER POSITIONS. YOU NEVER WANT TO PUT POSITIONS IN YOUR CHARTER. THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY DONE, AND I THINK THE BOARD COULD DO IT. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MR. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: TO THAT, I WOULD SAY WE DO HAVE POSITIONS IN OUR CHARTER. WE HAVE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THERE. I HOPE EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THAT WE STUDIED THIS PRETTY MUCH IN DEPTH AND DISCOVERED THAT EVERY PLACE THEY HAD DONE THIS, THEY HAD SAVED MONEY AND IN MOST PLACES THEY WERE ACTUALLY WORKING THEMSELVES OUT OF A JOB. THE OFFICE GOT SMALLER OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. I VOTED FOR THIS TO GO ON THE BALLOT. AND I SUPPORTED IT AT THAT TIME. AND I HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING HAPPEN UP UNTIL NOW THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND ON THAT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE RFP PROCESS AND HOW THINGS GO OUT. BY THE WAY, IF YOU THINK THOSE RFPs AREN'T POLITICAL, I WOULD LIKE TO SELL YOU SOME HIGH, DRY LAND OVER IN PINELLAS PARK. IF ANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH PINELLAS COUNTY, PINELLAS PARK IS -- WAS A PARK FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE IT IS SO LOW. 47 SO THERE IS NO HIGH, DRY LAND IN THAT PART OF THE COUNTY. THE OPTION OF HAVING SOMEONE LIKE THIS WHO REPORTS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION AS OPPOSED TO GOING THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE ALL THE RFPs WILL GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REALLY DON'T HAVE A HANDLE ON THAT UNTIL IT'S DONE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO MANAGE THAT. AND I KNOW THEY DO HAVE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS A PERSON WHO COULD WORK WITH THEM ON THE BUDGET ANALYST AND ON THOSE ITEMS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EXTENSIVELY WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS. AND I'M REALLY DISTURBED THAT AT THIS POINT WE BRING UP TWO OR THREE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE LITTLE ISSUES WHEN WE DISCUSS THEM AT LENGTH. AND SO SOME OF US CHANGE OUR MINDS AS TO WHETHER WE SUPPORTED IT OR NOT. I MEAN, I WENT BACK AND FORTH SUPPORTING IT AND NOT SUPPORTING IT. BUT WENT THROUGH THAT STUDY AND NOW TO SECOND-GUESS IT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THAT SAME AMOUNT OF STUDY, I WOULD BE PRETTY UPSET. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO TELL MY WIFE, I PROMISED I WAS GOING TO BE QUIET TONIGHT. I WASN'T GOING TO SAY NOTHING TONIGHT. 48 BUT I HAVE TO RISE TO SPEAK. ALL I WANTED TO DO TONIGHT WAS VOTE AND GO HOME. IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I BETRAY THE PEOPLE. WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PEOPLE HAD SPOKEN. THIS ISSUE IS IN THE VOTERS' HANDS. THEY WANT THIS. THEY ASKED FOR THIS. THIS BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE STRONG AND BE TOUGH AND NOT BE PERSUADED BY BACK-DOOR LOBBYING. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE STRONG AND PREVAIL. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ON THIS ISSUE. AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT BACK. I AM NOT AN INDIAN GIVER. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, READ THIS ARTICLE THAT WAS IN THE TAMPA -- IN THE "ST. PETE TIMES." AND IT WAS DAVID KEMP, ONE OF THE TOP "ST. PETE TIMES" REPORTERS. WHEN THEY MEET, THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW BOARD SPENDS LONG DAYS DEBATING HOW TO REARRANGE THE STRUCTURE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT. THEY CALL SCORES OF WITNESSES, RESEARCHED WEIGHTLY ISSUES AND DELIBERATE LATE INTO THE NIGHT, BUT HISTORICALLY ACCOMPLISH VERY LITTLE. THAT'S HOW HE STARTED HIS ARTICLE. WE HAVE PUT THIS ISSUE IN THE PEOPLE'S HANDS. THEY ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT. 49 AND I AM NOT GOING TO BETRAY THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THEY WANT THIS. THEY CAME DOWN HERE AND TESTIFIED AND SAID DO IT! I'M NOT TAKING IT BACK. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BALLARD. >>TERRY BALLARD: I CONCUR -- BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO BRING OUT, IN MS. FRANK'S LETTER. AND ALSO TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HANDED US A -- THE RESOLUTION ON THE COUNTY PERFORMANCE AUDITOR TONIGHT. THIS IS THE LATEST COPY, I THINK, ISN'T IT? IT WAS ON THERE. BUT ONE OF THE POINTS THAT SHE HIT ON WAS THE FACT THAT CHAIRMAN FRANK WAS A SEPARATION OF POWERS. THAT -- WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUDGET AND DIFFERENT THINGS, REPORTS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. WELL, IN THAT IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATION OF POWERS. AND THIS IS WHAT THIS IS DOING IS SEPARATING THAT. IT'S GIVING -- AND I RECKON THE BEST THING IS WHAT THE VOTERS WILL SEE KIND OF EXPLAINS IT TO ME IS TO AMEND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CHARTER PROVIDING FOR THE EMPLOYMENT, REMOVAL, QUALIFICATION, COMPENSATION, DUTIES OF THE COUNTY'S INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR WHO WILL ADVISE AND ASSIST THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS A BUDGET ANALYST AND CONDUCT IN STUDIES OF OPERATION OF THE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 50 AND INCLUDES THE OFFICE OF COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR IN THE CHARTER SECTION AND IT PREVENTS CERTAIN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. WELL, THIS GIVES THEM -- IT MAY BE ONE OR THEY MAY HAVE TO HAVE TWO OR THREE ON THERE, BUT I SEE IT AS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WILL COORDINATE THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS THAT THEY WANT DONE, KEEP THE COUNTY COMMISSION INFORMED, AN UNBIASED OPINION, AND IT'S THE SAME THING IN A CORPORATION THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS THE AUDIT FUNCTION, AND IT DOESN'T COME TO MANAGEMENT. IT COMES TO THE BOARD. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION WILL BE ABLE TO FUNCTION PROPERLY THAT I SEE AND HAVING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CHARTER. SO IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. MR. AMBLER AND MR. LaBOUR ARE NEXT. YOU BOTH HAVE SPOKEN TO THIS, SO PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS BRIEF. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WILL. THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON CHECKS AND BALANCES. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A TRIPARTITE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THIS ENTIRE RESOLUTION WAS INTENDED TO INSERT INTO OUR CONSTITUTION AN ADDITIONAL CHECK AND BALANCE. IT WAS TO STRENGTHEN THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BEING ABLE TO STAND UP AND KNOWLEDGEABLY BE ABLE TO TACKLE 51 THE TOUGH DECISIONS THEY NEED TO MAKE IF THEY NEED TO GO AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEAVING IT ALONE AND HAVING IT CREATE A SOME SORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION BY THE CURRENT BOARD AND INSERTING IN THE CHARTER IS SIMPLY THIS. NUMBER ONE, PAST BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE NOT HAD THE BACKBONE OR RESOLVE TO GET A MAJORITY OF VOTES TO DO IT. SECONDLY, THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER THE PUBLIC WANTS THIS AS PART OF THEIR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AS AN ADDITIONAL CHECK AND BALANCE. THAT'S ALL THIS BOARD IS VOTING TO DO IS TO PUT IT BEFORE REFERENDUM SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN VOTE, WHETHER THEY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH, AND THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF HAVING IT ON THE GENERAL BALLOT FOR THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON, WE WILL HAVE DEBATE, WE WILL HAVE ARTICLES, AND WE WILL HAVE DONE SOMETHING MEANINGFUL AS A BODY. AND I WOULD -- I, TOO, WOULD FEEL LIKE GERALD WOULD AS AN INDIAN GIVER AFTER THE LENGTHY PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH TO HEAR WHAT THE PUBLIC HAD TO SAY ON THIS AND DEBATING THIS ISSUE AD NAUSEAM, WE VOTED TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A SINGLE WORD -- WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. THERE'S BEEN MAYBE ONE OR TWO COMMENTS IN THE LAST SEVERAL MEETINGS JUST CATEGORICALLY SAYING WE DON'T LIKE THIS, BUT THOSE WERE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT SPOKE BEFORE WHEN THIS CAME UP EARLIER ON IN THE YEAR. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY NEW COMMENTS TO SAY WHY THIS IS BAD. 52 IT'S A SHAME THAT WE ARE HERE AT THIS JUNCTURE WITH THIS MOTION TO REMOVE ALL THE LANGUAGE. BECAUSE I THINK IF ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP AND TOOK THE TIME OUT OF THEIR EVENING TO SEND THEIR MESSAGE OF SUPPORT FOR THIS WOULD KNOW THAT, THEY WOULD BE SORELY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE COULD THEN TURN AROUND AND TAKE BACK THAT WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEM. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MADAM CHAIR, I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK AGAIN, BUT I FEEL A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I HAVE TO. NUMBER ONE, THIS IS NOT AS A RESULT OF ANY BACK-DOOR LOBBYING. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR. MR. AMBLER, MR. WHITE, WE VOTED AS A BOARD TO PLACE THIS BACK ON PUBLIC HEARING. IT WAS NOT -- MY MOTION IS NOT BEHIND ANY CLOSED DOOR, COME AROUND ANY CORNER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I NEVER SAID THAT. >>STEVE LaBOUR: BUT YOU ARE INSINUATING IT IS NOT FAIR TO THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY SPOKE AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO COME BACK AGAIN. THEY DID HAVE A CHANCE AND WE DID HEAR PEOPLE WHO SAID WE THINK THAT THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR THAT YOU PASSED OUT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THERE WERE OTHERS THAT CAME DOWN AND YOUR MEMORY MIGHT NOT BE AS GOOD AS MINE, BUT CAME DOWN WHO WERE NEW, WHO SPOKE AGAINST THE AUDITOR. WE, AS A BOARD, PUT THAT ISSUE BACK BEFORE THE PUBLIC, AND IT 53 WAS ADVERTISED AS SUCH. SO I -- I FEEL -- I DON'T EVER DO ANYTHING BEHIND THE BOARD. I WAS THE ONE THAT WANTED, FOR INSTANCE, BOARD MEMBERS TO KEEP TRACK OF THE PEOPLE WHO TALK TO THEM AND POSSIBLY LOBBIED THEM. SO I WANT THIS TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN AND CLEAR, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE IN DOING SO. SO I HOPE YOU ARE NOT SUGGESTING MY MOTION IS IMPROPER. YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THE MOTION, BUT MY MOTION IS -- I'M NOT ASKING A QUESTION, MR. AMBLER. IT IS -- IT IS MADE BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT ON IT, AND THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED IT. LAST BUT NOT LEAST IS, I THINK THAT I AGREE WITH THE OTHER SPEAKERS AND I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, IS -- THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN HAVE THEIR SEPARATION TODAY. THEY CAN HIRE AN AUDITOR. THEY CAN HIRE A PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. THEY CAN HIRE A BUDGET ANALYST. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE CHARTER. AND BECAUSE OF THEIR LACK OF BACKBONE TO DO IT, AND THEN COMPLAIN AND WHINE ABOUT IT, I DON'T THINK JUST PUT ANY PRESSURE ON US TO SEE IF IT SHOULD GO IN THE CHARTER. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, MR. WHITE, THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT SPOKEN BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN AS A REFERENDUM. WHEN IT IS, THAT'S WHEN THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK. WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE COME DOWN HERE, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND TELL US HOW THEY FEEL. 54 THAT IS THE PART OF THE PROCESS. THAT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL. BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT SPOKEN. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MS. LASHER AND THEN MR. BEDKE. >>DENISE LASHER: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. MR. TINKLER OR MS. CAMPBELL, WHICHEVER ONE -- WHICHEVER ONE WANTS TO GET UP AND STRETCH THEIR LEGS. I NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATION. THE WORDING THAT WOULD APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, WOULD THAT BE WHAT'S IN -- WHAT WE SEE IN BOLD ALL UPPER-CASE LETTERS AT THE TOP OF THIS? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THAT IS -- AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, KEN TINKLER, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. THE PORTION THAT WOULD BE IN THE BALLOT IS ON PAGE 4 OF THIS PROPOSAL, "AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY." AT THE END OF THE PROPOSAL. >>DENISE LASHER: OKAY. AND THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR CURRENTLY, WHICH IS TO REMOVE THIS TOTALLY, TO TAKE THIS OFF THE BALLOT, YOU INDICATED THAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE TEN VOTES; IS THAT CORRECT? >>KENNETH TINKLER: THAT'S CORRECT. >>DENISE LASHER: THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>DENISE LASHER: I HAD A COUPLE MORE. 55 >>JAN SMITH: GO AHEAD. >>DENISE LASHER: I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT A BUDGET ANALYST IS PRIMARILY WHAT I HEARD THE PUBLIC THAT SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THIS, WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF GROUPS THAT CAME OUT TO SPEAK -- PEOPLE REPRESENTING GROUPS THAT WERE OPPOSED TO THIS ENTIRELY, AND SEVERAL OF THOSE PEOPLE REPRESENTING GROUPS SAID IF IT WAS A BUDGET ANALYST, THEY CERTAINLY COULD SEE THAT. CERTAINLY THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY NOW TO DO ANY OF THOSE ITEMS. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO A LOT OF THINGS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE SUCH THAT IT'S A BUDGET ANALYST, AND THE BUDGET ANALYST COULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTAKE IN PERFORMANCE AUDITS OR TO OVERSEE THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS. BUT I FEEL WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED IS A BUDGET ANALYST BECAUSE THE DIFFERENT COUNTY DEPARTMENTS SUBMIT THEIR BUDGET REQUEST TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. OUTSIDE AGENCIES THAT ARE FUNDED BY THE COUNTY SUBMIT THEIR BUDGETS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THEN TWEAKS THOSE BUDGET REQUESTS AND THEN SUBMITS THE BUDGET TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION. AND A BUDGET ANALYST THEN WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, WOULD BE THE THIRD PARTY THAT WOULD BE OVERSEEING THESE BUDGET REQUESTS AND MAKE THE DETERMINATION, ARE THESE REQUESTS LEGITIMATE, NECESSARY? 56 IS THIS INCREASE AT -- YOU KNOW, AT "X," "Y," "Z," DEPARTMENT REALLY NECESSARY. SOMEBODY INDEPENDENT FROM COUNTY STAFF THAT WOULD BE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS ON WHAT EXACTLY WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THAT'S WHY I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT HAVING A BUDGET ANALYST AND MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DUTY OF THIS PERSON. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>MIKE BEDKE: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE OR NOT, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S NOT A WAY TO IMPROVE WHAT WE ORIGINALLY ADOPTED TO ADDRESS, I THINK, THE BULK OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD. ONE OF WHICH IS, PERHAPS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MAY NEED TO ADVISE US BECAUSE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET A QUESTION ON WHETHER WE CAN DO THIS BASED UPON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WE'VE HAD, BUT CHANGE THE TITLE FROM JUST PURELY "COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR." TO COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST. AND IN SUBSECTION 4, HAVE A LEAD-IN SENTENCE BEFORE WE GET TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, AS DIRECTED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. SAY "INDIVIDUAL -- SO THIS WOULD BE AN INSERT. "INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM REQUESTING OR DIRECTING AUDIT ACTIVITIES." OR WE COULD SAY THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST. 57 AND THEN CHANGE SUBSECTION 6 TO SUBSECTION 7 AND INSERT A NEW SUBSECTION 6 THAT WOULD READ, "THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR SHALL ADHERE TO GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS IN CONDUCTING ITS WORK, AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENT AS DEFINED BY THOSE STANDARDS." I THINK THE PRIMARY CONCERN THAT PEOPLE HAVE, AND THE ONLY REAL COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT I'VE HEARD IS THE WITCH-HUNT CONCERN. AND I THINK WITH THESE CHANGES TO WHAT WE ADOPTED ORIGINALLY, THAT WILL HOPEFULLY ALLAY THE CONCERNS THE PEOPLE HAVE THAT ONE OR TWO COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO GET A BEE IN THEIR BONNET AND START GOING AFTER A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I THINK IT IS PROBABLY OKAY, AS DRAFTED, I THOUGHT INITIALLY, SUBSECTION 4, BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT A RESOLUTION, BUT IF WE ADDRESSED IT HEAD-ON BY SAYING AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER CAN'T DIRECT THE ACTIVITIES, AND IF WE MAKE REFERENCE TO, IN ESSENCE, THE YELLOW-BOOK STANDARDS, I THINK THAT PUTS IN SOME PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS THAT WOULD SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE TYPE OF ACTIVITY THE PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIABLY CONCERNED ABOUT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: IF THAT'S A MOTION, I'LL SECOND IT. OR SUBSTITUTE MOTION. >>MIKE BEDKE: I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS, UNLESS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WANTS TO ADOPT THIS SUGGESTION AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 58 >>STEVE LaBOUR: I WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT LET ME EXPLAIN WHY. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE NEED TO ELIMINATE THE WORDS "PERFORMANCE AUDITOR" OUT OF THIS COMPLETELY SO I COULDN'T ACCEPT YOUR AMENDED LANGUAGE. BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO THINK MORE ABOUT IT, I COULDN'T MAKE THE MOTION YOU ARE SUGGESTING. I THINK, THOUGH, AS A POINT OF ORDER, YOU CAN MAKE IT AS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WILL OVERRIDE MY MOTION AND MAKE IT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON IT FIRST. JUST AN OFFER, MR. BEDKE. >>HENRY BELTRAN: I REMEMBER THE COUNTY SAVED $6 MILLION A LONG TIME AGO IN OUR DISCUSSION HERE AND THE DISCUSSION WAS TO AMEND, NOT TO DELETE THIS MOTION THAT WAS ALREADY VOTED ON. THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS NOW. >>KEVIN AMBLER: HIS AMENDMENT IS TO DELETE IT, SO IT'S KIND OF -- >>JAN SMITH: THE AMENDMENT IS TO DELETE IT. AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION. >>DEE WILLIAMS: WHICH ONE? >>JAN SMITH: THE ONE THAT MR. LaBOUR MADE. IT IS ONLY ONE ON THE FLOOR. >>TERRY BALLARD: THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CAME UP A WHILE AGO AND NEVER DID SPEAK. YOU ASKED HER A QUESTION. >>JAN SMITH: I THINK IT'S -- IT IS PART OF THIS PROCESS THAT OVER TIME, WHICH IS WHY I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE 59 CHARTER REVIEW BOARD'S WORK GO AT ONE TIME TO THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE IT'S VERY -- I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO WATCH AND TO LISTEN AND TO HEAR FROM THIS BOARD AND THE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC AND SEE HOW YOUR OWN POSITIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE BEGINNING. SINCE, IN FACT, WE DID VOTE FOR THIS. AND AS YOU RECALL, I DID NOT SUPPORT THE COUNTY AUDITOR. ONE OF MY FAVORITE CLASSES IN BUSINESS SCHOOL WAS AUDITING, AND I GOT GREAT GRADES IN THAT. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE, AND I VOTED AGAINST IT. THE BUDGET PROCESS IS A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE RESERVED TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, WHICH IS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT RIGHT NOW. I ALSO FELT BEFORE, AND I STILL FEEL THAT HAVING THE INDEPENDENCE OF AN AUDITOR OUTSIDE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS IN AN AUDITING SITUATION. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HAS A JOB TO DO, AND IT'S HIS JOB TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ESTABLISH AND RECOMMEND A BUDGET TO THEM. IF HE'S NOT DOING THE JOB, THEN THEY NEED TO SUGGEST WAYS TO HIM TO EITHER GET THE JOB DONE OR HE SHOULD BE GONE. TO TALK ABOUT FRESH AND INDEPENDENT OPINIONS COMING FROM AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR, I WOULD SAY IN GOVERNMENT, ONCE YOU BECOME A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IT'S HARD TO BE THERE. THE OTHER QUESTION IN MY MIND IS, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A 60 PERSON THAT MANAGES AN AUDIT. SO YOUR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS BOUND BY THE SUNSHINE. I QUESTION HOW THE AUDITS COULD BE MANAGED UNDER AN INDEPENDENT OR -- AN INDEPENDENT INTERNAL AUDITOR. MY PERSONAL OPINION, AND THIS IS WHERE I'VE PROBABLY HAD THE BIGGEST CHANGE FROM THE BEGINNING, AND I VOTED NOT TO DISCUSS AN ELECTED COUNTY EXECUTIVE, AND I NOW BELIEVE THAT WAS PROBABLY A BAD DECISION ON MY PART. BUT I DO BELIEVE IF WE HAD THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IF WE EVEN HAD THAT DEBATE, IT MIGHT HAVE RESOLVED SOME OF THESE ISSUES. NOT TO SAY THAT'S WHERE I MIGHT HAVE GONE, BUT I THINK TO HAVE THAT DEBATE WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVANTAGEOUS TO ALL OF US. BUT I COULD SEE AN INDEPENDENT OR INTERNAL AUDITOR BETTER IN A STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT WHERE YOU TRULY HAVE THAT SEPARATION OF POWER FROM YOUR LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE. WE HAVE A STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT THAT IS A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. AND WE KNOW, AND WE'VE HEARD FOR YEARS AND YEARS ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE BOARD NOT TO MEDDLE IN HIS BUSINESS. THIS IS MEDDLING. THIS REALLY SETS IT UP TO MEDDLE. I THINK THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEARS AGO UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF FRED KARL DECIDED TO CHANGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE -- I GUESS IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE -- BUT THE BOARD AT THAT TIME DETERMINED THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE THE CHIEF BUDGET OFFICER OF THE 61 COUNTY. AND SO IT'S BEEN THAT WAY. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THAT WAY; IT COULD BE DIFFERENT. AND THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACT ON THEIR OWN BEHALF. THE FACT THAT'S HOW THEY OPERATED THE LAST FEW YEARS, IN FACT, AT THIS TIME, IN OUR COUNTY'S HISTORY, MAY NOT BE THE BEST WAY, BUT ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, I CAN'T -- I WILL SUPPORT MR. LaBOUR'S MOTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THIS TO START WITH. I'VE HEARD NOTHING TO MAKE ME CHANGE MY MIND, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION AND THEN IF THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION -- >>GERALD WHITE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: MR. TINKLER OR MS. CAMPBELL, COME UP PLEASE. >>GERALD WHITE: I DON'T HAVE THE PUBLIC NOTICE RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, BUT MY RECOLLECTION, IT WAS JUST TO AMEND. IS THIS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE? >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: WHICH MOTION ARE YOU -- FOR THE RECORD, MARY HELEN CAMPBELL. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MR. BEDKE'S LANGUAGE OR THE MOTION THAT WAS -- >>DAVID HURLEY: THERE'S ONLY ONE MOTION. >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: IT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO IT, AND IT WAS ADVERTISED IN A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IT COULD BE AMENDED, AND 62 IT COULD BE AMENDED IN THE SAME WAY IT WAS ENACTED. [ INAUDIBLE ] >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: RIGHT. ONCE -- >>GERALD WHITE: MY QUESTION TO YOU, IS THIS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE? I WAS TOLD, BY YOU ALL, THAT WE COULD MAKE CHANGES, BUT THEY HAD TO BE WITHIN A REALM. IS THIS A LEGAL CHANGE? >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: YES, A LEGAL CHANGE IF YOU WANT TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION BY THE SAME NUMBER OF VOTES, THE CHANGE IS TO DELETE THE LANGUAGE. NOW, IF YOU WERE GOING TO CHANGE IT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET ANALYST, IT DOESN'T SPEAK TOO MUCH TO THAT, AND THAT MAY STRETCH IT A LITTLE BIT. THE LANGUAGE THAT MR. BEDKE IS TALKING ABOUT IS ALSO WITHIN THAT. YOU ARE RESCINDING THE RESOLUTION, BUT IT WAS ADVERTISED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION. >>GERALD WHITE: IS MR. LaBOUR'S MOTION IN ORDER SINCE HE WAS NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF THE ISSUE. >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: IT IS NOT A RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT IS NOT DONE AT THE SAME MEETING. SO HIS MOTION IS IN ORDER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: EXCUSE ME, MR. BEDKE IS NEXT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WISH TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH YOU 63 HAVE TO RECOGNIZE. >>JAN SMITH: I WILL RECOGNIZE IT, BUT I TELL YOU HE HAD HIS HAND UP AND HE WAS NEXT TO BE CALLED ON. IF YOU WILL WAIT YOUR TURN -- >>GERALD WHITE: I WASN'T FINISHED, MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: WE'LL LET YOU FINISH YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN MR. BEDKE AND MR. AMBLER. >>GERALD WHITE: THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE BY THE OTHER BOARD MEMBER, IS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE? >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: NO, ALL HE'S DOING IS ADDING IN THE YELLOW BOOK STANDARD, WHICH WE'LL GO AND PROBABLY FLUSH OUT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING IF THAT MOVES FORWARD. AND THE OTHER THING IS, IT SAYS BY RESOLUTION AND ADDING IN SOME OTHER CLARIFICATION LANGUAGES. >>GERALD WHITE: OKAY. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE. >>MIKE BEDKE: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, AND THAT MOTION WOULD BE BASICALLY WHAT I SAID BEFORE, BUT I'LL SAY IT AGAIN -- >> SECOND. >>MIKE BEDKE: -- TO CHANGE THE TITLE FROM COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR TO COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST. TO ADD A SENTENCE TO THE BEGINNING OF SUBSECTION 4 WHICH WOULD READ, INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM REQUESTING OR DIRECTING AUDIT ACTIVITIES OR THE -- WHY DON'T WE CHANGE IT TO THE -- TO DIRECTING ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNTY 64 INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST. CHANGING -- OR ADDING A SUBSECTION 6. SO WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT AS SUBSECTION 6 WOULD BECOME SUBSECTION 7 AND SUBSECTION 6 WOULD BE THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR SHALL ADHERE TO GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND CONDUCTING ITS WORK AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENT AS DEFINED IN THOSE STANDARDS. THESE ARE THE, QUOTE, YELLOW BOOK STANDARDS THAT I'M REFERRING TO. >>KEVIN AMBLER: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. YOU WANT THAT FIRST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH 4 ABOUT INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS TO GO AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OR BE THE FIRST SENTENCE. >>MIKE BEDKE: TO BE THE FIRST SENTENCE BECAUSE IT CLARIFIES THE POINT OF THE SECOND, AS DIRECTED BY RESOLUTION. PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT ONE OR TWO COMMISSIONERS WOULD SEND THE AUDITOR OFF TO GO GET SOMEBODY. I THOUGHT THE PROTECTION WAS THERE INITIALLY WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION, BUT THIS WOULD MAKE IT EXPRESSLY ADDRESS THAT CONCERN. >>KEVIN AMBLER: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY MR. BEDKE AND A SECOND BY MR. AMBLER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I APPRECIATE MR. BEDKE FOR TRYING TO BRING EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS INTO THIS MOTION. 65 I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK HIM IF HE'S WILLING TO AMEND THE TITLE BY REMOVING THE TITLE OF "PERFORMANCE AUDITOR" AND JUST SAY "BUDGET ANALYST." STILL KEEPING THE DUTY IN WHICH A BUDGET ANALYST COULD CONDUCT PERFORMANCE AUDITS, BUT STRIKING IN THE TITLE THE ACTUAL TITLE OF "PERFORMANCE AUDITOR." >>MIKE BEDKE: SO I WANT TO MAKE -- OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU WOULD NOT CHANGE IN THE BODY THE TEXT THAT TALKS ABOUT PERFORMING OR CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE AUDITS? >>STEVE LaBOUR: THAT'S CORRECT. >>MIKE BEDKE: JUST CHANGING THE TITLE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THAT WOULD BE MY -- >>JAN SMITH: MS. TUTTLE. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: MR. BEDKE, IF YOU ONLY TOOK IT OUT OF THE TITLE, BUT YOU KEPT THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE LANGUAGE, AND THEN TALKED ABOUT THE YELLOW BOOK STANDARDS, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. BECAUSE A BUDGET ANALYST DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CPA AND ADHERE TO ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE TOP, IT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT ALTOGETHER IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT AND TALK ONLY ABOUT A BUDGET ANALYST. DOESN'T THAT MAKE SENSE? I'M ASKING FOR LOGIC. >>MIKE BEDKE: WELL, THAT'S WHY I MADE IT AS SLASH BUDGET 66 ANALYST BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS SOMEBODY WHO WILL BE THE TOOL AND THE RESOURCE TO THE BOARD THAT I BELIEVE THEY WERE ASKING FOR. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR -- I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR, BUT THEY TRULY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CONFUSING IF THIS PERSON -- IF THIS DOES GO THROUGH, THEY HIRE A PERSON. THE PERSON IS NOT GOING TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT TO HIRE A BIG STAFF AND GO START DOING PERFORMANCE AUDITING, WHICH I'VE DONE BEFORE, AND IF YOU ARE REALLY GOING TO DO IT, OUT THERE IN THE FIELD, RIDING WITH THEM IN THE TRUCKS OCCASIONALLY TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING, THEN YOU CAN REALLY DO SOME SUMMARY WORK. WHAT THEY NEED, APPARENTLY, IS A BUDGET ANALYST, NOT A PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. THERE REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT -- TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ALTOGETHER. AND I DO BELIEVE -- I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE EVER SEEN A COUNTY OFFICE GET SMALLER, EXCEPT DURING BUDGET CUTS WHEN SOMEBODY CAME UP AND SAID, WE'VE GOT TO CUT THIS BUDGET. TAKE OFF THIS, THIS, AND THIS. I WAS IN THERE 23 YEARS, IT DOESN'T GET SMALLER. THERE'S ALWAYS A NEED FOR MORE BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT MORE DUTIES ON THEM. THERE'S ALWAYS A NEED FOR MORE. I REMEMBER ONE, LITTLE SMALL OFFICE STARTED OFF IN 19 -- 67 AROUND 1980. THEY WERE -- 13 PEOPLE. AND ALL THEY WERE GOING TO DO IS REVIEW THE ZONING, AND NOW I THINK THEY HAVE ABOUT 300 PEOPLE IN THERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY PROMISED. ALL THEY WERE GOING TO DO IS REVIEW THESE THINGS. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, THESE THINGS GROW. AND IT IS REALLY HARD TO DOWNSIZE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE. AND YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR A NIGHTMARE IF YOU PUT THIS IN THERE, I THINK. BUDGET ANALYST IS WHAT THEY WANT, NOT PERFORMANCE AUDITORS. THE CLERK DOES PERFORMANCE AUDITS -- HE DOES FISCAL AUDITING, AND THEY DO HAVE OUTSIDE PERFORMANCE AUDITORS. SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN AWFUL. I'VE READ THEM, AND HAVING KNOWN THE INTERNAL PARTS, THEY WERE JUST DREADFUL. BUT SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD. SO I'M THROUGH. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WHITE AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. WHIT WHITE FIRST OF ALL, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BEFORE YOU CALL THE QUESTION, I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS. AND SECOND, WE KEEP REFERRING TO WHAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WANTS. 68 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT, BUT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 1 MILLION RESIDENTS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, WHAT DO THEY WANT. WE'VE HAD TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE, ON THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE, WE HAVE HAD TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN TO THIS ISSUE, I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN. SOME PEOPLE MAY BE CALLING FOR A CHANGE, BUT THIS ISSUE IS IN BLACK AND WHITE. AND THE CITIZENS READ THE PROPOSAL. THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PROPOSAL. THEY TESTIFIED TO THE PROPOSAL. I'M NOT WILLING TO CHANGE THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PEOPLE SAID YES TO. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO THIS, MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH THE WORDING THAT MR. BEDKE READ INTO THE CHANGES OF THE RESOLUTION FOR THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL PLEASE. >>TERRY BALLARD: BEFORE WE DO THAT, COULD WE CLARIFY THAT. BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING BACK AND TO, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M VOTING ON. >>JAN SMITH: IT WILL TAKE TEN TO PASS. MR. BEDKE. >>TERRY BALLARD: I THINK I KNOW, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. BEDKE, PLEASE REPEAT YOUR MOTION ONE MORE TIME. 69 >>MIKE BEDKE: MY MOTION IS TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE POSITION FROM "COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR" TO "COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST". >>TERRY BALLARD: THAT'S UP IN THE BOLD PRINT -- >> DOWN IN THE TITLE. >>DEE WILLIAMS: GIVE US NUMBERS. LASH LOW PRESSURE IN EVERYWHERE INTERNAL AUDITOR APPEARS, IT WOULD BE SLASH BUDGET ANALYST. >>MIKE BEDKE: A GLOBAL CHANGE. AND THEN IN SUBSECTION 4, WE WOULD ADD A SENTENCE AT THE BEGINNING, SO THE LANGUAGE I'M ABOUT TO READ WOULD BECOME THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SUBSECTION 4. "INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM REQUESTING OR DIRECTING ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST." YOUR -- WHAT IS CURRENTLY YOUR SUBSECTION 6 WILL BECOME SUBSECTION 7, BECAUSE I WILL ADD A NEW SUBSECTION 6 THAT WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST SHALL ADHERE TO GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS IN CONDUCTING ITS WORK AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENT AS DEFINED BY THOSE STANDARDS. PERIOD. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY. EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? >>TERRY BALLARD: I'M CLEAR. >>JAN SMITH: IT WILL TAKE TEN VOTES TO PASS THIS. WE ARE GOING TO DO ROLL CALL, PLEASE. 70 >>GERALD WHITE: MADAM CHAIR. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: OUR RULES OF ORDER REQUIRE THAT WE ASK IF THERE IS ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THIS. >>JAN SMITH: NO, THEY DO NOT. THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THAT. WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC AT FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS, PLUS EVERY SINGLE MEETING ABOUT THIS AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. >>GERALD WHITE: I WILL ASK FOR THAT PRIVILEGE SINCE YOU CALLED A CITIZEN TO SPEAK BEFORE WE TOOK A VOTE LAST MEETING. I WOULD ASK FOR THAT PRIVILEGE IF THERE IS ANYONE TO SPEAK TO THIS. >>JAN SMITH: I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT. >>GERALD WHITE: SINCE YOU ALLOWED SOMEONE TO SPEAK AT THE LAST MEETING. >>JAN SMITH: COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL. >>GERALD WHITE: CAN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HUGHES. >>GERALD WHITE: MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE ACCOMMODATE ME. >>JAN SMITH: I AM NOT GOING TO OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IT'S UNFAIR -- >>GERALD WHITE: WHY WOULD YOU DEPRIVE THE CITIZENS AN OPPORTUNITY? >>JAN SMITH: IF YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ENOUGH FROM MR. HUGHES AT THIS POINT. >>GERALD WHITE: THIS IS SUCH A CHANGE -- MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE THE FLOOR, MADAM CHAIR. 71 >>STEVE LaBOUR: THE CHAIR HAS RULED. >>GERALD WHITE: THIS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- >>JAN SMITH: MS. WEST, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >>KEVIN AMBLER: ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, CORRECT? AYE. >>JOHN BALES: AYE. >>TERRY BALLARD: AYE. >>MIKE BEDKE: AYE. >>HENRY BELTRAN: NO. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: AYE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: NO. >>DENISE LASHER: YES. >>JAN SMITH: NO. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: NO. >>ARLENE WALDRON: NO. >>GERALD WHITE: NO. >>DANNY WILKES: YES. >>DEE WILLIAMS: YES. >>JAN SMITH: THAT MOTION DOES NOT -- >> THE MOTION FAILED. I'VE GOT 7-6. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MAIN MOTION. >>JAN SMITH: WE ARE GOING TO -- WE HAVE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. >>DAVID HURLEY: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION 72 SAY AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. NOW WE ARE BACK TO MR. LaBOUR'S ORIGINAL MOTION WHICH BASICALLY DELETES THE PROPOSAL FOR THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL AGAIN. >> MR. AMBLER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NO. >>JOHN BALES: NO. >>TERRY BALLARD: NO. >>MIKE BEDKE: NO. >>HENRY BELTRAN: NO. >>DAVID HURLEY: NO. >>STEVE LaBOUR: YES. >> DENISE LASHER: NO. >>JAN SMITH: YES -- >>DENISE LASHER: NO. >>JAN SMITH: YES. >>MARY LOU TUTTLE: YES. >>ARLENE WALDRON: YES. >>GERALD WHITE: NO. >>DANNY WILKES: NO. >>DEE WILLIAMS: NO. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: 4-10, THE MOTION FAILED. >>JAN SMITH: SO THAT MEANS THAT THE PROPOSAL AS WE HAD IT AT THE BEGINNING IS STILL GOING FORWARD AS MY UNDERSTANDING. MR. LaBOUR. 73 >>STEVE LaBOUR: I JUST WANTED FOR THE RECORD SAY I APPRECIATE MR. BEDKE FOR I THINK TRYING TO COME UP WITH CRAFTING A COMPROMISE. I WISH I COULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT, BECAUSE IF IT HAD JUST BEEN THE BUDGET ANALYST, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO BRING US TO CONSENSUS, AND WE WERE ALMOST THERE. >>JAN SMITH: I THINK WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK. WE'LL TAKE A BREAK FOR ABOUT TEN MINUTES, BOARD MEMBERS. I WANT YOU TO COME BACK IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO 8 AND WE'LL GO INTO THE REST OF THESE. SOMEBODY PICK AN ISSUE THAT THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT. THIS MEETING IS IN RECESS. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY. THE BOARD MEMBERS -- [ GAVEL SOUNDING ] THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IS BACK IN SESSION. AND WE HAVE TECHNICALLY TWO ITEMS LEFT ON OUR AGENDA. THE ONE IS RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT, AND THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS THERE. AND THEN THERE IS THE LIMITING INCREASE IN THE CHARTER GOVERNMENT OPERATING BUDGET. SO WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE UP FIRST? >>KEVIN AMBLER: LET'S TAKE UP STRUCTURE. >>JAN SMITH: OKAY, MR. AMBLER, WE'LL TAKE UP STRUCTURE. ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ONE OF THESE? >>KEVIN AMBLER: YES. 74 MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSAL 1-A, REAPPORTIONING THE COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICTS 5, 6, AND 7 SO THE COMMISSIONERS ELECTED COUNTYWIDE WOULD HAVE TO RESIDE WITHIN GEOGRAPHIC DISTINCT DISTRICTS. >>DENISE LASHER: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>JAN SMITH: A MOTION BY MR. AMBLER AND A SECOND BY MS. LASHER TO SUPPORT REAPPORTIONING COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS 5, 6, AND 7, TO RESIDE IN GEOGRAPHIC DISTINCT DISTRICTS. AND THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE -- THAT IS A CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CHARTER, JUST THAT ONE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >>DAVID HURLEY: YES. >>DENISE LASHER: KEEP IT SHORT. >>JAN SMITH: MR. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: I THINK THAT SOUNDS REALLY GOOD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THEM ALL IN SOUTH TAMPA. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THEM LIVING IN TAMPA, BUT I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO APPORTION THIS COUNTY WITHOUT HAVING TWO OF THOSE PEOPLE IN TAMPA OR HAVING TWO OF THOSE DISTRICTS INCLUDE SOME OF TAMPA. REMEMBER, IT HAS TO BE CONTIGUOUS AND HAS TO BE BY POPULATION. THERE ARE RULES THAT IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED