The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the 26th Floor Conference Room, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:

Jan Smith, Chairman
Steve LaBour
Kevin Ambler (arrived at 6:25 p.m.)
Denise Lasher
Terry Ballard
Mary Lou Tuttle
Mike Bedke
Arlene Waldron
Henry C. Beltran
Gerald White
David Hurley
Danny L. Wilkes

The following members were absent:

John Bales
Dee Williams

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Mr. Hurley led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Mr. Wilkes introduced himself.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Smith called for additions or corrections to the minutes of February 9, 2000. Ms. Tuttle referenced page two, first paragraph, and corrected the word broadcasted to broadcast, and on page two, third paragraph, fourth line, the word which appeared to have been omitted from "did not include the provision." Mr. LaBour moved approval as amended, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried eleven to zero. Chairman Smith called for any additions or corrections to the minutes of March 15, 2000; there was no response. Mr. Ballard moved approval, seconded by Ms. Tuttle, and carried eleven to zero.

APPROVAL OF CALENDAR

Chairman Smith explained the June 8 meeting was rescheduled to June 1, because the boardroom and 26th floor conference room had been reserved for other meetings on June 8. The CRB agreed to the change by consensus.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Carl Warren, Sr., Tampa resident, spoke about a legal challenge to the County Charter and efforts to facilitate constructive changes; and he challenged CRB members to make constructive changes in the community. Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa resident, encouraged CRB members to begin discussing charter revisions soon that could be placed on the ballot in November 2000. The CRB could then work on other changes to be placed on the ballot in November 2002. Mr. Hughes outlined several changes the CRB could make with voter approval.

The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present. In response to the comments made by Mr. Hughes, Mr. White explained that he supported debate and deliberation on charter issues; he did not support change just for change. Mr. White thanked Mr. Warren for his work with the Florida Sentinel Bulletin and articles he had written.

COMMISSIONER PAT FRANK, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC)

Commissioner Frank noted the charter separated the responsibilities of the County Administrator, as the head of the executive branch, from the BOCC, as the policymakers or legislative branch. Grey areas in that division should be considered, one of which was the budget. Controlling the budget was the most important issue for government, because the budget set priorities and provided funding to implement them. The BOCC relied upon the County Administrator to present the budget, but it was not part of the filtering process and did not hear arguments made to the County Administrator. Commissioner Frank saw a need to separate those responsibilities more than they had been. One way to do that would be to give some independence to people involved in budget management to direct responsibility under the BOCC. Commissioner Frank opined there should be checks and balances for the budgets of constitutional officers.

Another issue Commissioner Frank saw as a problem was the County Attorney, who was hired and fired by the County Administrator with the advice and consent of the BOCC. The County Attorney also carried out responsibilities inherent in the administrative function and answered to the duties of the legislative body. Sometimes those obligations might not coincide. Commissioner Frank opined the definition should be better delineated to balance the independence of the BOCC and the County Administrator.

Commissioner Frank saw the issue of a County mayor as a greater opportunity for decisions to be made out of the sunshine, because one person would have authority. However, she supported a greater definition of leadership at the County level and thought the annual rotation of the BOCC chairmanship could be considered as a way to address that issue. The BOCC chairman received 10 percent more than the base salary for commissioners, which Commissioner Frank felt might not be justified, because the BOCC chairman did not serve on as many committees as other commissioners.

Commissioner Frank responded to questions regarding the chairmanship, the BOCC's composition of single-member and at-large districts, retirement benefits, budget accountability for constitutional officers, local campaign finance reform, the budget and budget analysts, County Administrator qualifications, and the County Attorney. Responding to questions related to the day-to-day business of the BOCC, Commissioner Frank explained the separation between the administration and legislative branches meant questions and issues had to be channeled through the County Administrator. When elected, Commissioner Frank had discussed with County Administrator Daniel A. Kleman how the School Board divided the County into areas with coordinators assigned to those areas.

Mr. White initiated discussion about minority representation on the BOCC and whether that representation would continue if districts were reconfigured following the census. Chairman Smith asked if the BOCC could hire a consultant for the first year of each two-year budget to consider the priorities, consider the capital improvement plans, and look at operating expenses, et cetera, to help the BOCC. She opined the CRB could look at the administrative code and ask the County Administrator to go through that process. Chairman Frank thought that getting the County Administrator's perspective was a good idea.

Chairman Smith referenced Mr. Warren's earlier comments about a legal challenge to the charter that dealt with preclearance and districts, and she asked legal staff to prepare a summary of what took place and why that was an issue while CRB deliberated the charter. She also suggested that a copy of the administrative code dealing with the budget be provided to CRB members. Chairman Smith noted the County Commissioners could not interfere in the affairs of the County Administrator, and she asked if Tampa City Council members had to go through the Mayor's Office to ask questions of various department heads to get information or if they had direct access. Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell would bring that information to the next CRB meeting. Mr. White asked if changes had been made to the special acts concerning the Environmental Protection Commission and the Planning Commission. Attorney Campbell would research that; some audit changes had been made to the special acts.

CONFLICT ATTORNEY UPDATE

Attorney Campbell said additional responses had not been received. She asked for direction to schedule the two applicants for the next CRB meeting. Mr. LaBour moved to ask the legal department to schedule those two individuals to appear before the CRB at its next meeting, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried twelve to zero.

COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE

Ms. Helen Levine, Public Affairs Officer, reported the CRB office space was located at 505 East Jackson Street. Agenda materials included a report from the communications staff outlining the current and future activities to support the CRB. Once the executive director was appointed, the communications staff would establish a schedule and be more specific about what Hillsborough Television (HTV) support could be provided to ensure community participation. Mr. White noted that a verbatim transcript of the meetings was on the web site; he asked if the minutes of the meetings could be placed on the Internet, because the minutes were easier to read and understand. Ms. Levine said both documents could be provided. Chairman Smith thanked Attorney Campbell, Ms. Levine, and Ms. Jean Morgan, County Administrator's Office, for their help and for researching information.

Ms. Levine would follow up on Mr. Ambler's suggestion that members have a CRB business card that included the Hillsborough County logo, telephone number, address, executive director's name, et cetera. Chairman Smith said citizens could leave messages or speak to the executive director at (813) 276-8181; letters could be sent to the CRB at 505 East Jackson Street, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33602; and the E-mail address was crboard@hillsboroughcounty.org.

Ms. Levine initiated discussion about the comment forms and would follow up on the suggestions about direct questions and citizens leaving completed forms at County facilities and public libraries. Mr. Ambler recommended citizens identify the main problems the CRB should address and tell what they thought the solutions would be to those problems, if they had any.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS AND SELECTION

Applicants for the executive director position, Ms. Barbara Merritt, Mr. John Petrimoulx, and Ms. Lynda Smith, said why they were the best candidate and responded to questions. With seven affirmative votes, Ms. Merritt was selected as executive director. Chairman Smith wanted to review information before it was released to the public. Ms. Tuttle asked that a three-hole punch be available for use at meetings.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Smith had received a letter from Mr. Tom Jones, representing the Carrollwood Area Association of Neighborhoods, requesting 30 minutes to present proposals to the CRB in May. She asked members for their opinion about opening the process for presentations. Mr. Hurley suggested discussing a specific issue on a specific date, so that citizens who were interested in that issue could present their views. Chairman Smith explained her intent to structure meetings by prioritizing issues. She also intended to handle the process for public comment differently: When a motion was made to place an issue on the ballot, public comment would be allowed after the CRB members had commented on the motion. Straw votes could be taken on each issue at the beginning of the process to organize issues to present at public meetings held in the communities.

Mr. Ambler encouraged the public to provide information on issues before the meeting, so CRB members could digest the information. The dialogue would be among the 14 CRB members. Chairman Smith noted a presentation could be divided between different people and presented during public comment. Mr. White thought the fundamental question was whether to place an issue on the November 2000 ballot or in two years. Any issue for the November 2000 ballot should be debated first. Chairman Smith said that issue would be discussed at the next CRB meeting.

Ms. Waldron thought the consensus was to hear from everyone, but she encouraged citizens to make a five-minute presentation and supply information in writing before the meeting for members to review. Chairman Smith said the opportunity existed for a presentation to be split into three five-minute presentations at the beginning of public comment; she would call Mr. Jones to see what agreement could be reached. Ms. Waldron suggested that format be used as a precedent for other presentations.

Mr. LaBour suggested inviting neighborhood associations to a particular meeting, because they had a day-to-day experience with County government. Chairman Smith agreed and suggested doing the same with business organizations. Ms. Lasher wanted to focus on certain issues with the possibility of placing those issues on the fall ballot, but continuing deliberations about proceeding on another ballot. Following discussion about placing items for discussion on the next agenda, Chairman Smith asked for the option of leaving issues open for discussion based on comments made by guest speakers who would present their opinions. She asked members to consider scheduling extra meetings. Some issues could be studied by committees to develop a recommendation for the CRB.

Chairman Smith suggested the CRB choose the guest speakers according to the priority list at the next meeting. Mr. LaBour asked for a legal opinion of whether the CRB could place issues on the November 2000 ballot and continue deliberations to propose a ballot issue for 2002. Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler would research the issue and comment at the next CRB meeting; if possible, the opinion would be included in agenda materials to members. Chairman Smith called for public comment; there was no response.

Mr. Ambler moved to adjourn. Mr. White noted the Supervisor of Elections had spoken in the Brandon area and asked to be given copies of newspaper articles related to the charter. Chairman Smith asked Ms. Merritt to report the issues most commonly discussed by the public that they wanted the CRB to address. Mr. Hurley seconded the motion, which carried twelve to zero.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By: Deputy Clerk