The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, June 22, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:
Jan Smith, Chairman
Denise Lasher
Kevin Ambler (arrived at 8:18 p.m.)
Mary Lou Tuttle
John Bales (arrived at 7:15 p.m.)
Arlene Waldron
Terry Ballard
Gerald White
David Hurley
Danny L. Wilkes
Steve LaBour

The following members were absent:
Mike Bedke (schedule conflict)
Dee Williams
Henry C. Beltran

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m., following which Mr. Ballard led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Smith called for a motion to approve the minutes of May 25, 2000. Mr. LaBour so moved, seconded by Mr. White, and carried nine to zero. For the minutes of June 1, 2000, Mr. White said a motion he made during the audit discussion did not die for lack of a second; the motion was not recognized by the Chairman, because a motion was already on the floor. Chairman Smith said the information would be verified; the minutes would be considered at the next CRB meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Assistant County Administrator Ed Hunzeker, Management Services, submitted a follow-up report requested at a prior CRB meeting. The information addressed budget issues, transfers and reserves, combining the administrative support functions, debt issues, citizens input on the budget process, and tax rates. He also provided a separate report, from his perspective, on a County auditor. Mr. Hunzeker felt that a County auditor was not needed in the current form of government, where the County administration worked for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and served as staff to the BOCC. A County auditor would be an additional expense without much merit, because County administration was not separate from the BOCC. However, if the CRB disagreed, three options were included in the report for how that audit function might be addressed.

In response to questions from CRB members, Mr. Hunzeker explained the budget process was different from the audit function. Staff provided the budget to the BOCC 45 days earlier than required by law. The BOCC could change that process if it wanted, without a charter change or an auditor. Four different types of audits were already being done in the County. The question would be if more savings could be accomplished with a different kind of audit function. He explained who performed and how performance audits were generated. Four or five years ago, the legislature had mandated eight other performance audits to be done. Four of the organizations were funded by the BOCC: the Planning Commission (PC), Environmental Protection Commission, Public Transportation Commission, and Civil Service, and four were independent authorities: the Tampa Port Authority, Expressway Authority, Tampa Sports Authority, and Aviation Authority. Each had gone through one cycle, and one audit had been done. That requirement was eliminated in the last legislative session. Performance audits on constitutional officers by independent auditors were not a legal requirement.
Under the current makeup of the BOCC, Mr. Hunzeker did not know how the BOCC would structure the audit review process if the auditor were responsible to the BOCC, other than having it managed by staff. Two Commissioners could not meet with an auditor without having a publicly noticed meeting, because of the Sunshine Law. Regarding draft reports on audits, Mr. Hunzeker explained there was a period that audits conducted by the Clerk of the Circuit Court were not public records. The audit findings were reviewed with the auditors to ensure the findings were correct before the audits became a public record. Mr. Hunzeker thought that was the same with external auditors who did financial audits. Audit recommendations were presented to the BOCC for a decision. As requested by the CRB, Mr. Hunzeker outlined the County auditor proposal he had submitted, which included information on financial audits, cash audits, compliance audits, performance audits, and options for a County auditor. Mr. Hunzeker recommended the County auditor qualifications include governmental accounting.

Mr. Hunzeker would give a report to Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, prepared by Mr. Eric Johnson, Director, Management and Budget Department, about the benefits of performance audits. The analysis concluded that $1.5 million to $1.6 million had been spent on performance audits, for departments under the County Administrator, during the past five years. Approximately $5 million had been spent to implement the findings, and about $600,000 to $700,000 had been documented as real savings. The audits had been beneficial, but the predicted savings had not occurred. Mr. Hunzeker noted that all four types of audits were being done. Constitutional officers could do performance audits on their operations. The office of a County auditor would increase the expense to the taxpayers to fund that office, without a corresponding benefit of equal magnitude.
Mr. Ben Eason and Ms. Louise Thompson, Tampa residents and members of the Speak Up Tampa Bay Board, explained they were addressing the CRB as citizens and discussed the frustration experienced in negotiating with the County to obtain funding for public access television. Ms. Thompson said County staff did not follow instructions from the BOCC, and she supported having an independent auditor to report to the BOCC.
Ms. Marilyn Smith, County resident, said the County Administrator did not support public access. She supported a qualified independent auditor, requested an answer regarding a performance bond for the County Administrator, and discussed the difficulty she had experienced in obtaining public records.

SCHEDULED SPEAKERS
Mr. Stephen Meyers, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), explained the Chamber was interested in what the CRB was doing and planned to solicit recommendations from its members, which would be presented to the CRB. Ms. Merritt gave Mr. Meyers CRB survey cards for the Chamber to use. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Meyers to present the Chamber's recommendations in the fall.

Mr. Parker Keen served on the Hillsborough County Farm Bureau and Agriculture Economic Development Council and was employed by Cargill Fertilizer; however, he was not authorized to represent any of those entities. He pointed out the County's support for the Agriculture Economic Development Council and its activity. Mr. Keen would take information to those agricultural bodies and be certain they understood the CRB process; he would return with information or recommendations. Chairman Smith said Mr. Keen could contact Ms. Merritt and make arrangements to address the CRB, or he could address the CRB during public comment, as could anyone else. Mr. LaBour welcomed background information or written material on issues. Mr. Keen said the Agriculture Economic Development Council was in the final phase of preparing its annual report for the BOCC, which could also be given to the CRB.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, chairman, Florida Engineered Construction Products Corporation, addressed the issue of an appointed County internal performance auditor. He rebutted comments made during a prior CRB meeting related to moving forward with a charter change addressing that issue. Performance audits were beneficial if recommendations were implemented. Mr. Hughes urged the CRB to place the issue on a referendum in November 2000.

Mr. White noted that an auditor position was not in the top recommendations from Florida TaxWatch or the Blue Ribbon Committee. Mr. Hughes replied that those groups had not considered the County's form of government; they had concentrated on ways for the County to operate more efficiently, effectively, and economically. In response to Mr. Hurley regarding privatization, Mr. Hughes felt the public sector should never do what the private sector could do more efficiently, effectively, or economically. Mr. LaBour pointed out that the BOCC could approve hiring an auditor to do a performance audit, which would be sent out for bid. The County would get a good price for the audit, and the Board could act on the recommendation. Therefore, Mr. LaBour asked how a department responding directly to the BOCC would be more effective, efficient, and economical. Mr. Hughes said the BOCC was not required to request performance audits, and he felt that should be a requirement in the charter.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:43 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Assistant County Attorney Ken Tinkler reported Resolution 2000-01, the oath of office, had gone to the BOCC. The CRB would be notified when the item would be placed on the BOCC agenda.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Merritt reported the best response had been received from the surveys included with water bills, of which copies would be forwarded to the County Administrator and the BOCC Chairman to address issues that were beyond the CRB's purview. CRB meetings would be shown several times countywide after July 29; the city of Tampa (City) had offered to show the CRB meeting on June 23 and another time as time permitted. Mr. Beltran's vista segment would be aired the week of June 26. Mr. Ballard would attend the Agriculture Economic Development Council meeting on July 12, 2000. The next CRB meeting would be held on Thursday, July 13, 2000, in the Boardroom. Ms. Merritt could be reached by E-mail at crboard@hillsboroughcounty.org.

Ms. Merritt had prepared minutes of the committee meeting held on June 13, 2000. Mr. LaBour suggested the CRB receive those minutes. Mr. LaBour noted that only approved minutes were posted on the web site, and he suggested making a notation where minutes could be obtained if they were not on the web site. Ms. Merritt would have a question corrected on the CRB survey that was already answered on the web site.

In answer to Mr. White, Ms. Merritt explained another letter had been sent to City Mayor Dick Greco requesting him to address the CRB. Mayor Fran Barford, city of Temple Terrace, wanted to address the CRB. Ms. Joanna Tokley, Tampa Urban League, had not scheduled a date to address the CRB. Mr. Hurley said Mayor Barford was serving in a form of government described by County Administrator Daniel A. Kleman. Mr. Hurley wanted a resident's perspective of that form of government as opposed to the academic perspective. Ms. Merritt had sent a letter to Ms. Linda Chapin, Orange County, asking for information. Mr. Ballard made a motion for the CRB to receive the minutes of the committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried ten to zero. Audio tapes could be obtained from Ms. Merritt or the Clerk's Office.

CRB DISCUSSION
Mr. White asked how many lists of items had been submitted by CRB members, and what was the priority. Chairman Smith explained 11 lists had been submitted, which included two submitted that evening. The results would be discussed at the next CRB meeting. Mr. White initiated discussion on advertising CRB meetings. Ms. Merritt would obtain the cost for advertising. Mr. LaBour said the County advertised public hearings, because it was required by law.

Ms. Lasher asked to discuss the draft proposal for a County internal performance auditor. Mr. White moved to postpone that discussion, because the maker of the motion was not present. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Smith explained the motion had been made to draft the proposal; therefore, the CRB had a draft proposal and minutes of the committee meeting.

Mr. Ambler said both he and Mr. Bedke had found the committee process productive and useful. Mr. Ambler reviewed the following changes to the proposed draft for a County internal auditor: Section 1, Section 4.10(2), first sentence, replace "a supermajority vote" with "five affirmative votes" and delete "for a term limit of four years"; second sentence, same paragraph, replace "a supermajority vote of the board" with "five affirmative votes." Responding to CRB members, Attorney Tinkler explained supermajority was not defined in the charter; it was BOCC policy. Mr. Ambler said requiring five affirmative votes was to ensure consistency, because there were references to five votes on other issues mentioned in the charter. If the CRB wanted to increase the BOCC membership, Attorney Tinkler recommended the CRB look through the charter to see what other numbers should be changed to be consistent with that request.

In Section 1, Section 4.10(3), replace the first sentence with "The County internal performance auditor shall be a certified public accountant holding an active license to practice public accountancy in the state of Florida, or shall be qualified by education and experience in governmental accounting, internal performance auditing practice, and fiscal controls." Mr. Ballard expressed concern about using the word "or" after the state of Florida, because that would delete requiring a certified public accountant (CPA). Chairman Smith thought that eliminating the requirement for CPAs would be a conflict between Yellow Book standards and the charter. The County's intent had always been to follow Yellow Book standards. Attorney Tinkler said that could be included in the provision. The audits that affected organizations beyond the charter usually involved State law and included specifics on how those audits must be carried out. Chairman Smith thought eliminating professional requirements placed the public in a position of not being able to put full faith and trust in the person who was carrying out the job.

In Section 1, Section 4.10(5), the committee proposed adding the following sentence to the existing language: "That the budget for the office of the County internal performance auditor shall be approved by resolution of the BOCC." Mr. Ambler explained that was to address the concerns that the office of the internal performance auditor would become a separate entity unbridled by any fiscal constraint. In Section 1, Section 4.10(6), first sentence, replace the semicolon with a colon following the word incumbent; replace "is by death, illness, or other casualty unable to continue to perform the duties of the office" with "dies" and insert "by five affirmative votes" at the end of that sentence. In Section 1, Section 4.10(7) in the original draft was deleted. In Section 2, Section 9.04, political activities, replace "auditor's assistants" with "auditor and the internal performance auditor's assistants." Mr. Ambler said the Committee had reviewed provisions for a performance auditor from other counties, considered ideas from the County Attorney's Office and CRB members who attended the committee meeting, and determined the proposed changes were the only necessary changes.

Ms. Tuttle recalled County Commissioner Pat Frank, BOCC Chairman, had discussed the BOCC needing guidance on the budget. Ms. Tuttle thought the proposal went beyond that guidance, and she suggested inviting Commissioner Frank to provide a short recap of her comments. After expressing concern that the CRB remain independent, Chairman Smith suggested Commissioner Frank could clarify her comments in writing. Ms. Tuttle agreed; however, she opined the CRB was starting in the middle of the process. If the CRB decided it wanted an elected head of the government, that elected head would not work nearly as well having the independent auditor report to the BOCC. If the CRB wanted to discuss restructuring the government, Ms. Tuttle wanted to have a paradigm of where that was going. The committee had worked hard and had done a good job on the proposal; however, Ms. Tuttle was more comfortable keeping the proposal in mind as the CRB considered the overall structure. Most of the citizen comments received from the questionnaire dealt with matters that would be handled by the BOCC. The CRB could not do anything about rezonings, growth, and water issues.

Mr. Ambler said the one consistent theme throughout the CRB discussions had been a need for an internal performance auditor, which issue had been the subject of considerable emphasis by the 1995 CRB. After acknowledging that several CRB members were absent, Mr. Hurley moved to table the issue until there was a full CRB board, seconded by Mr. Bales, and carried eleven to zero.
Ms. Lasher submitted the Blue Ribbon Committee Deliverable 1 to CRB members, which compared the County Charter with other urban county charters in Florida. As requested by Ms. Lasher, Ms. Merritt would provide copies of the Orange County charter to CRB members. Referring to Ms. Tuttle's earlier comment, Mr. LaBour said the CRB might discuss issues that were not under its purview, but the CRB should be mindful of the frustrations expressed by citizens about dealing with government, which could be structural issues.

Mr. White liked the process of a committee to discuss an issue in-depth. He asked if preliminary information could be obtained from the PC related to the census. Chairman Smith explained the PC obtained its original figures from the census, which was updated annually based on permits, et cetera, that were pulled regarding electrical connections. Chairman Smith would ask Mr. Jim Hosler, PC staff, to provide the most recent information on population numbers when that information related to an issue the CRB was addressing. Mr. White wanted to consider minority participation on the BOCC.

In reply to Mr. Ambler, Attorney Tinkler said if the CRB chose to put an issue on the November ballot, the material needed to be ready by the end of July to go to the Department of Justice. Chairman Smith opined the easiest way for the CRB to move forward was to prioritize issues and set up committees to draft recommendations for the CRB to discuss. In response to Mr. White, Attorney Tinkler explained general law addressed how vacancies were filled on the BOCC, and he would provide written specifics to Ms. Merritt for distribution to CRB members. In answer to Ms. Lasher, Chairman Smith anticipated presenting priority recommendations at the next meeting. Ms. Waldron suggested assigning priorities at the next meeting to a mini task force to begin research.

Chairman Smith called for public comment; there was no response. Mr. Hurley moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Bales, and carried eleven to zero.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk

sw