The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the 26th Floor Conference Room, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:
Jan Smith, Chairman
Denise Lasher
John Bales
Arlene Waldron
Terry Ballard
Gerald White
Henry C. Beltran
Danny L. Wilkes
David Hurley
Dee Williams
Steve LaBour

The following members were absent:
Kevin Ambler
Mary Lou Tuttle
Mike Bedke

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:16 p.m. Mr. Ballard led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present. Chairman Smith reported that Mr. Bedke was attending a domestic violence conference in Washington, D.C.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Waldron moved to approve the minutes of April 27, 2000, seconded by Mr. Ballard, and carried eleven to zero.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Grant Walters, 13726 Staghorn Road, a member of the Town <N Country Alliance and Citrus Park Civic Association, submitted a completed public comment questionnaire, which was the first written response. Chairman Smith said copies of those responses would be provided to members in the agenda packet; however, if that procedure became unwieldy, Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, would summarize those comments during the executive report. Mr. Walters suggested cataloging the responses numerically.

Mr. Carl Warren, Tampa, submitted a written copy of his presentation and resubmitted his presentation from the last meeting, because it contained some typographical errors. Mr. Warren expressed concern about the inherent structural tension between the roles of the County Administrator and his staff and the roles of the County Commissioners. He pointed out that the Florida Sunshine Law prohibitions placed on County Commissioners were not as restrictive for the County Administrator and his staff. The County Attorney had rendered a legal opinion that should have nullified or restricted certain activities of the County Administrator and his staff in directly influencing decisions. Mr. Warren suggested the issue was worthy to be presented to voters for their consideration.

Mr. Joe Robinson, Tampa, discussed points related to the Supervisor of Elections Office that included the following: confirming residency and citizenship; educating voters; maintaining signatures; absentee voting; technical support; updating the security procedure manual; training for staff and poll workers; replacing the existing voting system; and the location of voting precincts.
Ms. Marilyn Smith, County resident, pointed out the County Administrator did not have a performance bond, which needed to be remedied or the language changed in Section 5.05.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, said it was the duty and responsibility of the CRB to deliberate charter change proposals and to give people the opportunity to vote on any proposed change that would cause a meaningful improvement in County government. He discussed County Administrator qualifications and an appointed County auditor.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER JAN PLATT

Commissioner Platt had served as chairman of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) when the charter was created. The basic thrust of the charter was to disperse power. Before the charter was created there were five at-large Commissioners. The County was a growing metropolitan area, and those County Commissioners felt that expanding the BOCC and having a professional in a leadership position would be better. The qualifications set out in the charter for the County Administrator were beneficial, because professional administrators abided by a code of ethics.

The issue of a County mayor had been considered. Commissioner Platt felt that issue continued to come up because of former Commissioner Ellsworth Simmons, who was chairman of the BOCC for 15 of 21 years. A year after Mr. Simmons left office, the first administrative form of government in the County was put in place, which was developed by a group of consultants and created by a special act of the legislature. However, many people in the community wanted to return to that strong elected figurehead. Commissioner Platt pointed out that when Mr. Simmons was chairman, the unincorporated County was tomato and strawberry patches and phosphate mines, not the urban area of today. Also, many people equated a County mayor with the mayor of the city of Tampa, which could not be done, because the County was an arm of the State. As an arm of the State, the BOCC funded the constitutional officers.

Commissioner Platt suggested the CRB consider making the BOCC nonpartisan. Being partisan was a financial advantage for the political parties. Tampa City Council and the School Board were nonpartisan. The other issue Commissioner Platt thought should be considered was expanding the time between charter revisions from the current five years to seven years.

Regarding an auditor, Commissioner Platt pointed out that under the Florida Constitution the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk) was the auditor and was not under the BOCC or the Administrator. She read Article V, Section 16, Florida Statutes, which stipulated the duties of the Clerk. The audits performed by the Clerk had found more cost-saving measures than performance audits costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Clerk did audits at the request of the BOCC and was free to do audits as he saw fit.

Commissioner Platt responded to questions about enforcing the charter, audits, whether the County Attorney position hired by the County Administrator worked, nonpartisan counties, and campaign finance reform. Regardless of what the CRB did, Commissioner Platt would ask the County Attorney's Office the status of the County Administrator performance bond issue.

Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell said the performance bond was required by general law; however, general law did not address a performance bond for the County Administrator. The general law that required constitutional officers and County Commissioners to post a bond was changed in 1998. The statute that abolished those bonds provided that Counties could require performance bonds by ordinance. The County adopted an ordinance that mirrored the prior statute. Attorney Campbell said the ordinance could be changed to also require the County Administrator to post a bond. She confirmed for Mr. LaBour that the language about general law in Section 5.05 could be deleted; however, the amount and with whom it would be filed should be specified.

MS. PAM IORIO, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS

Ms. Iorio gave a brief history about how the current form of government was created. The fundamental question was whether the current form of government was the proper structure for the efficient delivery of urban services and whether the current form of government provided effective leadership. She observed the problems were policymaking by committee, lack of strong political leadership, and lack of accountability. Ms. Iorio thought those issues could be solved with an elected County Administrator. She opined the CRB's job was to look at a proposal and provide a forum for the electorate to vote; CRB members did not necessarily have to agree.

Ms. Iorio responded to questions from CRB members about the advantage of constitutional officers not having term limits and campaign finance reform. She opined that the amount of money that could be spent on particular local elections should be capped. Regarding a County mayor, Ms. Iorio said a successful candidate had to appeal to all parts of the County. However, she thought several changes would have to be made at one time: (1) election of a County mayor; (2) a stipulation requiring the elected County executive to hire professional managers/chief of staff to assist in the day-to-day operation of the County; and (3) eliminate the three at-large districts and move to seven single-member districts for greater neighborhood representation. Mr. LaBour asked Ms. Iorio to submit her comments in writing. Ms. Iorio replied to questions about partisan versus nonpartisan elections, accountability for constitutional officers, qualifications for an elected executive, and issues over which an elected executive should have veto power.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:43 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:57 p.m.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DANIEL A. KLEMAN

Mr. Kleman reviewed his background and qualifications. He submitted charts and outlined the commission-manager, elected executive commission, and elected mayor-commission-manager forms of government. Following the presentation, he submitted a written copy of his comments and the International City and County Management Association (ICMA) code of ethics, articles titled "Council-Manager Government: A form whose time has come . . . again" and "Counties Rapidly Moving to Administrator Form of Government," and ICMA criteria and guidelines for recognition of a council-manager position.

If the CRB decided that changing the form of government was necessary, Mr. Kleman suggested the form of elected mayor-commission-manager was better than the elected executive. The elected mayor-commission-manager form of government maximized what citizens did best--selected good political leaders; retained a commitment to professional management; encouraged the attraction of the most qualified professional managers; avoided the conflict that would exist between an elected executive and a BOCC, each with its own agenda and its own staff; ensured public policy would be debated and decided in the sunshine; and was more likely to receive the support of the electorate.

Mr. Kleman held a different view than what had been expressed earlier in the meeting about the process of whether a CRB member should vote to place an issue on the ballot, which he or she personally opposed but felt people had the right to vote on. He explained people looked to the CRB to conduct a comprehensive study of the charter. People would conclude that any issue the CRB placed on the ballot represented an improvement in County government, and it was something in which the CRB believed. Mr. Kleman suggested the CRB would be equally responsible in its charge if it decided not to place an issue on the ballot. However, if the CRB decided to place an issue or two on the November 2000 ballot while considering other issues for a future ballot, Mr. Kleman encouraged CRB members to consider that its deliberations later in the year might lead to amending those items.

Responding to CRB questions, Mr. Kleman said he would change partisanship in the current BOCC structure. The current structure between the County Attorney's Office and County administration worked. However, if the CRB decided that was something to pursue, Mr. Kleman encouraged hearing adequate testimony from people who used the legal services to make a judgment about whether something was wrong with the present arrangement--he did not feel anything was wrong. Mr. Kleman thought an elected County mayor would be the seventh commissioner--a countywide district. The ICMA had materials available that the CRB could use. Partisanship seemed to drive relationships.

Chairman Smith said there had been discussion that there was a problem with the Sunshine Law as it related to the County staff dealing with County Commissioners and the interaction between the entire BOCC or one or two Commissioners. She asked if a policy was in place about how to proceed when meeting with Commissioners that could allay those concerns. Mr. Kleman explained nothing was in place other than a clear understanding of State law and a strong commitment to adhere to that in both practice and principle. He answered questions about the four single-member and three at-large districts and minority representation. Mr. Kleman encouraged the CRB to review the Model County Charter Revised Edition about the pros and cons of single-member districts and the size of the commission, and see how those tested against CRB members' experience and observation of how government worked. Chairman Smith said a publication from the ICMA had many interesting articles on that issue. Mr. Kleman would see what could be found in response to that request. Mr. LaBour thanked Mr. Kleman for the courtesy provided to Ms. Merritt and the CRB in setting up the CRB office, et cetera.

Chairman Smith said civic associations were invited to attend the first meeting in June; the business, legal, and building communities were invited to attend the second meeting in June. She asked if people who could not attend the meeting could telephone and ask questions. Mr. Kleman said that process had been used at town hall meetings for the BOCC. The CRB could be given telephone or Internet access during the meeting.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

Ms. Merritt had sent 576 letters inviting guests to attend CRB meetings. As requested by Ms. Merritt, Mr. Ballard would attend the agricultural meeting on July 11, 2000, at the Farm Bureau. Some CRB members had attended the BOCC Town Hall meeting in Sun City Center and had been well received.

Mr. Richard Ake, Clerk of the Circuit Court; Mr. Rob Turner, Property Appraiser; Mr. Robert Hunter, Executive Director, Planning Commission; and Mr. Roger Stewart, Executive Director, Environmental Protection Commission, would be the guest speakers at the May 25 meeting. Dr. Sam Horton, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; County Commissioner Ben Wacksman; and Professor Susan McManus, Government and International Affairs, University of South Florida, would be the guest speakers on July 13.

Through June and July, the CRB's questionnaire and meeting dates would be included in mailings from the County Water Department. Ms. Merritt would ask all the municipalities to do the same. Chairman Smith clarified the neighborhood associations and businesses could discuss any issue within a time frame of five to seven minutes, which could be extended if only a few people wanted to speak. Ms. Merritt would ask for written presentations before the meeting and would mail those to members, unless it were too cumbersome. County Commissioner Thomas Scott would address the CRB on August 10.

Mr. Hurley said the CRB members needed some time for discussions. Chairman Smith suggested inviting a county representative from a county that had an elected mayor. Ms. Linda Chapin, Orlando, was no longer in office but had first-hand knowledge, and having two such representatives in one evening would bring discussion to the floor.

Mr. Tony Morejon, Hispanic Affairs Liaison, would translate the questionnaire into Spanish, assisted by Mr. Beltran. Mr. White thought a small brochure about the CRB members would be good for citizens to have. Ms. Merritt would place biographies of CRB members on the web site. Chairman Smith encouraged members to submit photographs for the final report before the CRB adjourned sine die. Chairman Smith thanked Ms. Williams for helping to organize the meeting in Sun City Center and thanked Mr. White for attending that meeting. Two or more CRB members could attend public-noticed meetings and answer questions according to their own opinions. Mr. LaBour asked for extra cards to hand out.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Attorney Campbell reviewed the draft resolution to amend the oath of office for County Commissioners. A motion was required to approve the wording of the resolution. Mr. White moved to approve the wording of the resolution, seconded by Mr. Beltran, and carried eleven to zero. Attorney Campbell would draft a cover letter to the BOCC explaining the vote, and she would include a copy of the minutes where amending the oath was discussed. She would let CRB members know when the item would be on the BOCC agenda.

About campaign contributions, Attorney Campbell said Section 106.08, Florida Statutes, set out the actual language regarding campaign contributions. Other information included an Attorney General's Office opinion written when the language was first codified in the statutes. She wanted the CRB to understand the two basic issues of general law and preemption that went across the board with other issues and campaign contributions. The charter had to be consistent with general law, and the election campaign area was preempted by the State Legislature. For those two reasons, the issue of campaign contribution would be in violation of the mandates of the constitution. There might be other areas the CRB could consider; however, Attorney Campbell needed a specific proposal to compare against the statutes to see if it could be legally pursued. Municipal recall could not be dealt with in the charter. An opinion by Attorney Lynn Cash was available for review. Mr. LaBour suggested the CRB consider requiring government access television to provide free time for candidates. Chairman Smith said several candidates had established their own campaign limits and set them lower than required.

Mr. Hurley referenced Commissioner Platt's comments about the County receiving a better return from the Clerk's audits and noted $1 million had been exposed in an outside audit that cost $50,000--a 200 percent return. He opined outside audits paid for themselves. Regarding procedure, Mr. Ballard felt the CRB had been used as a political forum by Mr. Robinson during public comment, but he wanted to know if citizens had considered amending the charter and what changes were recommended. Chairman Smith expressed concern about what had happened. Mr. LaBour suggested CRB members ask what was the suggested change to the charter.

Chairman Smith announced the May 25 meeting would be held on the 26th floor of County Center, at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Merritt was pursuing whether all the CRB meetings could be held on the 26th floor, because the location was better for the CRB. At the next meeting, Ms. Waldron wanted to discuss a balance between gathering information and having an opportunity to engage in debate.

Ms. Williams moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Hurley. Chairman Smith called for public comment; there was no response. The motion carried eleven to zero.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.