The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, June 1, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:

Jan Smith, Chairman
Steve LaBour
Kevin Ambler (arrived at 7:46 p.m.)
Denise Lasher
John Bales (arrived at 6:21 p.m.)
Arlene Waldron
Terry Ballard
Gerald White
Mike Bedke
Danny L. Wilkes
Henry C. Beltran
Dee Williams
David Hurley

The following member was absent:

Mary Lou Tuttle

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Mr. Wilkes led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. White moved to reconsider the minutes of April 27, 2000, seconded by Mr. LaBour, and carried eleven to zero. Mr. White noted the adjourned time should be corrected. Following discussion on the wording of the two failed motions, the Deputy Clerk clarified the motions were correct as written. Mr. Hurley moved to correct the April 27, 2000, minutes, seconded by Mr. White, and carried eleven to zero. Mr. White moved to approve the May 11, 2000, minutes, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried eleven to zero.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER RONDA STORMS

Commissioner Storms trusted that the CRB would choose issues important to the County and did not want to tell CRB members what they should do. She responded to questions from CRB members agreeing it might be beneficial to have the County Attorney report directly to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and to have a performance auditor. More general qualifications could be used for the County administrator position. Commissioner Storms commented on the citizen referral process, giving examples of how she responded to citizens. If a County mayor was elected, Commissioner Storms was concerned District 4, which included rural and agricultural areas, would not be well represented. She believed partisanship was healthy; different viewpoints should be expressed. Instead of adding BOCC districts, Census 2000 should reshape the current districts according to population; however, she was concerned about adequate African-American and Hispanic representation on the BOCC. Commissioner Storms did not agree with the resolution for the oath of office, the Planning Commission’s (PC) budget suggestion made at the May 25 CRB meeting, or that there was a lack of leadership on the current BOCC. She did think the current budget process was not efficient, and the BOCC should have an earlier role in that process.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, distributed a copy of his presentation to CRB members. He listed reasons the County needed an internal performance auditor, which included giving the BOCC needed budget assistance and saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, said Mr. Al Davis, former CRB member, had requested CRB backup information. Ms. Marilyn Smith, County resident, thought the County Administrator did not want the BOCC to know more about the budget; a benchmark was needed for that position. County administrator and executive director positions for agencies such as the PC and Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) should have the same qualifications. Interlocal agreements should be scrutinized. Ms. Ann White, County resident, was concerned about the CRB’s progress in bringing forth issues to which citizens could respond, and she commented on the airtimes allotted to CRB meetings on public access television. Chairman Smith agreed to ask County administration to provide a list of those airtimes.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Assistant County Attorney Ken Tinkler distributed two past legal opinions on County administrator qualifications. Under the Charter, Section 5.03, the qualifications were a master’s degree in public administration, management, or a related field; a jurisdoctorate degree, which was an advanced law degree, met the related field qualification. Mr. Ambler thought that qualification applied only to former County Administrator Fred Karl, because of his combined experience as the County Attorney.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:26 p.m.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS (LEAGUE)

Ms. Mimi Osiason, representing the League, said the League believed in a representative form of government. Although the League had not established positions on consolidation, appointing constitutional officers, and appointing a CRB every eight years, it thought the CRB should explore those issues. Ms. Osiason informed CRB members that the League did not have positions on partisan versus nonpartisan BOCC members, a County mayor, or an elected BOCC chairman; however it did strongly support the PC and EPC having enough independence and authority to function effectively and efficiently. The League would oppose a rushed conclusion on any recommendation for the 2000 election; citizens needed adequate notice of proposed actions. Ms. Osiason declared the League was willing to direct the CRB study, which would require a contribution, and/or would follow the study for League members to have a position before an issue was put on a ballot.

CARROLLWOOD AREA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS (CAAN)

Mr. Tom Jones, 4508 Viewridge Way, president, CAAN, Hillsborough County Conference of Communities member, explained CAAN had been in existence for three years; consisted of 41 homeowner and civic groups; and covered the area between Interstate 275, Veterans Expressway, Van Dyke Road, and Linebaugh Avenue. Mr. Kenneth Hoyt, 4610 Westford Circle, on behalf of Village West and CAAN, distributed copies of the CAAN recommendations to CRB members. CAAN believed municipal and County functions should be separated by incorporating eight to ten new cities, each with at least 50,000 residents; Gainesville, Florida, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, were examples. The CRB could add language to the current Charter to facilitate creation of the new cities, which would not immediately provide all municipal services. CAAN thought the BOCC should be expanded to single-member districts, each representing 50,000 citizens; there should be a countywide election for the BOCC chairman; a performance auditor should be appointed; BOCC membership on outside boards should be phased out; BOCC aides should be abolished; and the County administrator should be the chief executive officer for the BOCC. Mr. Hoyt said the CRB should focus on unit cost accounting and outcome measures. Government should occur at the closest level to the people where the necessary tradeoffs could be best made according to needs, preferences, and costs.

KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION

Ms. Laura Swain, 18240 Wayne Road, vice president, Keystone Civic Association (Keystone), Hillsborough Council of Communities, said the CAAN proposals were well received by Keystone members. Citizens were tired of sitting on boards whose recommendations were ignored by the BOCC. The idea of developing a framework in which municipalities could form was good; decisions should be made at the community level. She spoke in favor of an independent funding source for the PC and EPC, nonpartisan elections, and community planning efforts, but she opposed a County mayor.

LUTZ CIVIC ASSOCIATION

Ms. Denise Layne, president, Lutz Civic Association, asked that the CRB not rush to put issues on the ballot; time was needed for a comprehensive review. She submitted a list of 16 revisions for CRB to consider, which included the following: The County needed a troubleshooter to help solve problems. Nonpartisanship was the first step toward campaign reform. The Charter could direct planning responsibilities. Separate funding was needed for the PC and EPC. It was a conflict of interest to have the BOCC sit as the EPC board.

SUN CITY center

Dr. Robert L. McCroskey, representing Sun City Center Homeowners Association, spoke about growth management, integrity, and long-range planning. A balance was needed between the number of citizens in a community and quality of life issues. He opined long-range planning would be enhanced with a chief executive officer (CEO); the term of office for such a CEO should allow sufficient time for progress to take place, perhaps four to six years.

TOWN ‘N COUNTRY ALLIANCE (ALLIANCE)

Ms. Joyce Smith, 7201 Daiquiri Lane, chairman, Alliance, spoke about plans for the Town ‘N Country area, noting that area had urban needs. She asked that the CRB list specific subjects citizens could discuss and offer a response. The Alliance felt they had access to BOCC members and would want the same access to an elected County mayor. Services should correspond to the amount of taxes paid in each area. Ms. Smith asked to see how much money was contributed in each area of the County.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Janet Wilson, advocate for citizen issues, supported Mr. Hoyt’s comments, noting the County was too large and diverse to be ruled by one mayor or the BOCC. Citizens wanted their voices heeded. She thought BOCC members should live in the unincorporated County; there were many who would resist consolidation of governments; partisanship was important; and the BOCC needed more direct power and a performance auditor.

CRB members responded to and asked questions about the presentations from the neighborhood representatives. Ms. Osiason thought it would be difficult to get CRB members to serve in three-year sessions; however, a longer session could be beneficial. She opined term limits could cause as many problems as they solved, but time was needed to see if the current term limits were beneficial. Chairman Smith requested a written League opinion regarding that issue; Ms. Osiason agreed. Ms. Layne explained the 16-item list for CRB consideration represented issues that were of interest to the Lutz community. The Lutz Civic Association strongly supported the PC and EPC but did not have particular recommendations. Mr. Hoyt explained the CAAN concept for the rezoning process. He and Mses. Swain and Wilson thought the current process did not work. Mr. White asked the League to make recommendations regarding expanding the BOCC. Ms. Osiason said the recommendation would depend on the chosen government structure; that structure should offer a framework from which everyone could be equally heard.

Chairman Smith commented on the Florida Statutes that dealt with incorporation, which she asked Ms. Merritt to submit for review. Referring to the list of issues in the backup material, Chairman Smith asked that CRB members prioritize those issues, which could then be discussed by CRB committees. Mr. Ambler moved to dispense with the director report and move to the next order of business. Chairman Smith asked that the report be given. The motion died for lack of a second.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

Ms. Merritt said confirmations for the next CRB meeting had been received from Mr. Parker Keen, Farm Bureau; Tampa General Hospital; and Attorney Mike Peterson, Greater Tampa Association of Realtors. The CRB questionnaire would be included with County water bill statements, and the Office of Neighborhood Relations newsletter would have information about the CRB. Another letter had been sent inviting Legislative Delegation members to speak to the CRB. Chairman Smith informed CRB members that the BOCC had scheduled a Florida TaxWatch workshop on June 14. Discussion followed on when city mayors would speak to the CRB. Chairman Smith preferred city of Tampa Mayor Dick Greco to address the CRB on August 24, if possible.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m.

CRB DISCUSSION

Ms. Waldron initiated discussion of the motion that was tabled at the May 25 CRB meeting, which was to change Section 8.02 of the Charter to have the CRB meet for a three-year term one time per month and be appointed every eight years. Some members thought three years was too long to serve; they preferred discussing the issue later. Chairman Smith requested the ballot language and minutes from the 1995 CRB regarding the last proposed change to the CRB appointment period.

Mr. Bedke moved to amend the Charter to provide for the establishment of an appointed County internal performance auditor. Chairman Smith preferred a consensus on three or four issues that the CRB could address through CRB committees. Wanting the motion addressed then, Mr. Bedke submitted a draft resolution and ballot language, which was based on the work of 1995 CRB member Ron Glickman and modified by Mr. Hughes. He pointed out the diversity of those who supported the proposed auditor. Mr. Ballard seconded the motion and submitted guidelines for establishing audit functions that showed differences between financial and performance audits. (The motion was not voted on.)

Mr. LaBour was concerned there was not enough time to present the recommendation to the Justice Department and adequately educate the public; he preferred hearing from the business community before going forward with the proposal. Mr. Ambler supported the motion, since the concept was proposed by the 1995 CRB. Mr. White wanted to know how the proposal would affect County government overall. Ms. Williams said the 1995 proposal had failed, because there were no specifics regarding the job duties of the auditor. She would support the motion if the duties included dissecting the County budget. Attorney Tinkler explained the process for putting a recommendation on the ballot. In response to Ms. Lasher, Mr. Bedke said the exact job duties would be determined by the BOCC; he did not include a sunset provision. Chairman Smith explained, should the motion pass, a drafting committee would work with the County Attorney’s Office to draft ballot language before the public hearing.

Mr. LaBour asked Mr. Bedke to amend the motion to ask that the County Attorney’s Office work with the appointed committee to provide draft language to accomplish the directive to establish a County internal performance auditor. Mr. Bedke wanted the concept approved before the language was drafted. Mr. Ambler suggested referring the draft Mr. Bedke had submitted to the County Attorney’s Office for a legal opinion by the June 22 CRB meeting. If that language was sufficient, public hearings could be held July 13 and 27. Attorney Tinkler explained the resolution and ballot language, which could be no more than 75 words, would need legal review. Mr. Bedke amended the motion that subject to the approval of the County Attorney’s Office, the 75 words in the submitted document would be the 75 words that appeared on the ballot. Mr. Ambler said the language should include the creation or establishment of an internal performance auditor. Mr. LaBour asked if the motion was for the exact language Mr. Bedke had submitted. Mr. Bedke concurred.

Ms. Williams agreed a sunset provision was not needed now that there was a clear definition of the performance auditor. Mr. Bedke emphasized that only the next CRB could change or abolish the position. Attorney Tinkler explained the resolution was required in addition to ballot language to explain how the Charter language would change. Mr. Bedke amended the motion to the submitted draft document, which was the resolution and ballot language. Mr. Ballard concurred. Mr. White favored Chairman Smith’s suggestion to form a committee to address the proposal first and report at the next CRB meeting; he made that a motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Smith clarified that process and asked Mr. Bedke to amend the motion to include the committee process. Discussion followed on public notice. Mr. Bedke opined the committee process would delay the recommendation. Mr. LaBour would support the motion if amended to have the committee and County Attorney’s Office review the language first. He objected to not having more time for review; the language should have been sent to CRB members in advance. Regarding the sunshine law, Attorney Tinkler clarified information could be sent to Ms. Merritt for distribution to all CRB members.

Mr. White made a substitute motion to accommodate the procedure Chairman Smith outlined creating the committee, meeting with the County Attorney’s Office, and coming back with the language at the next CRB meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. LaBour. Following discussion about committees and the intent of the motion, Mr. Bedke called the question, which carried by voice majority. Chairman Smith clarified the substitute motion was for the County Attorney’s Office along with one or two members of the CRB to verify the draft language and make sure it was legal and served the intent of the motion and present the language to the CRB on June 22. The substitute motion carried seven to six; CRB members Ambler, Ballard, Hurley, Waldron, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Having had experience with similar language, Mr. Ambler volunteered to serve on the committee. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Bedke and Mr. Ballard to serve; both declined. At the request of CRB members, Mr. Bedke reconsidered. Chairman Smith clarified Attorney Tinkler and Messrs. Ambler and Bedke would meet at a time to be determined. Attorney Tinkler verified the meeting would be advertised, open to the public, and recorded. Chairman Smith observed the proposal could create another level of bureaucracy that could not be controlled. The BOCC already had the power to audit anything under its purview. She thought the CRB should agree on the form of government first. Chairman Smith asked if there was any possibility of a conflict of interest for the County Attorney’s Office to work on the recommendation. Attorney Tinkler did not think so at that point; however, he would review that issue; the CRB’s conflict counsel would step in if a conflict was discovered. Chairman Smith asked that the contract with the conflict attorney be signed as soon as possible.

Mr. White asked that all CRB members prioritize the issue list included in the backup material and send that list to Ms. Merritt for tabulation before the next meeting. Mr. Hurley moved to adjourn. Chairman Smith called for public comment; there was no response from citizens who had not already spoken. Mr. White seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk

jp