following members were present:

Jan Smith
Kevin Ambler (arrived at 6:11 p.m.)
John Bales (arrived at 6:10 p.m.)
Terry Ballard
Mike Bedke
David Hurley
Steve LaBour
Denise Lasher
Mary Lou Tuttle
Arlene Waldron
Gerald White
Danny L. Wilkes
Dee Williams

The following members were absent:
Henry C. Beltran (schedule conflict)

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Ms. Tuttle 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 approval of the July 13, 2000, minutes. Mr. White moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried eleven to zero. Chairman Smith called for approval of the July 27, 2000, minutes. Mr. Hurley moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Williams, and carried eleven to zero.

Chairman Smith said a request had been made for each CRB member to contribute $2, following each meeting, for Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, to arrange to have sandwiches, pizza, et cetera, available for CRB members at the 7:30 p.m. recess. Chairman Smith reported that Representative Lesley Miller, Jr., had been scheduled as a guest speaker, but he was unable to attend the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Joyce Russell, Hillsborough County African-American Liaison, explained her job was to observe the CRB process, disseminate information to the African-American community so they understood the process, and encourage them to get involved.

Mr. LaBour noted the public hearing would be on the referendum, and he wanted to make sure testimony on that issue was included in that record. Chairman Smith said those comments could be included with the public hearing comments; anyone writing a letter could have it be part of the public hearing, if it was received within the next 24 hours.

Ms. Mimi Osiason, representing the Women League of Voters of Hillsborough County (League), objected to placing the internal auditor on the 2000 ballot, pointing out that the decision on the structure of government should be made first. There was also some question about whether the result of a ballot could be challenged, if the CRB chose to put issues on two different ballots, and whether putting the issue on a ballot would effectively adjourn the CRB sine die. The League did not think the charter was the place to address the issue of an internal auditor. The charter should provide a broad framework for government, and it should not be weighted down with legislative issues or details of government. The League felt funding decisions should follow policy decisions to provide fiscal accountability and responsibility. A funded government function or program should be an effective expenditure of tax dollars. All expenditures should be consistent with economic, social, environmental, and other goals. If, as stated by some CRB members in favor of the amendment, it was the intent of the proposal to ensure that funding decisions were based on and consistent with policy decisions, the League agreed with that intent. However, the League questioned whether an internal performance auditor was by itself an effective expenditure of tax dollars and was the best way to accomplish the goal of ensuring that funding decisions followed policy decisions. Ms. Osiason understood that constitutional officers could not be covered; if that was true, she asked what was the point. Constitutional office budgets comprised approximately 25 percent of the County's operating budget. Florida Statutes empowered the County to employ an independent accounting firm to conduct performance audits.

As requested by Ms. Lasher, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell clarified constitutional officers would not be affected by the amendment as drafted. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) had authority to require any entity funded by the BOCC to conduct a performance audit by an independent accounting firm. Attorney Campbell had sent CRB members a memorandum that pointed out risks if the CRB decided to change the proposal language so that the BOCC had auditing authority over constitutional officers.

In reply to Mr. Wilkes, Chairman Smith explained the administrative code stipulated the audit process. The agency or department being audited reviewed the draft with the auditor, after which the final draft was written and given to the BOCC and County Administrator. Mr. LaBour pointed out that citizens would attend the 8:00 p.m. public hearing, and that discussion should continue then. Ms. Lasher recalled a discussion about a year ago regarding a performance audit of the Sheriff's Office. Some issues for the BOCC were: (1) who would pay for the audit, (2) the scope of work, and (3) if the draft report was a public record or if the final draft was the only public record. Consequently, there had not been an order for a performance audit of constitutional officers. Mr. Hurley agreed that the questions were germane to the public hearing.

CHARTER LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE CENSUS

Since the guest speakers had not arrived, Chairman Smith suggested the CRB discuss the issue held over from the July 27, 2000, meeting, which dealt with changing the wording in the charter as it related to the census. Attorney Campbell explained the concern raised about a legal challenge regarding reapportionment. The existing language could be interpreted about when the County received the certified data, and she opined that a judge would not hold the County to something to which adhering would be impossible. Following discussion, Mr. LaBour pointed out that Attorney Campbell had said the language was not in conflict and was defensible if challenged. Language could be added in different places to wordsmith the charter and make it absolutely clear, but that did not warrant the CRB spending money for two public hearings to add clarification words when it was legally defensible as worded. Mr. LaBour suggested adding that issue to the pending calendar for consideration later. That issue did not warrant the expense to take it to the ballot in November. Ms. Williams agreed. Chairman Smith said the item could be held for discussion later, if any CRB member wanted to raise that issue, with the possibility of suggesting to the BOCC that it would be in their purview if they would like to put it on a ballot.

SENATOR JAMES T. HARGRETT
Senator Hargrett spoke about County government and the leadership he had provided during the legislative session to cause debate in the community over the type of governance Hillsborough County possibly should have. He gave a brief background about his involvement in creating the current County governance structure. Most programs, such as transportation, human services, and environmental programs, had a federal, State, and local component. Intergovernmental cooperation was extremely important and extremely critical.

It had become clear to those who served in the Senate that Hillsborough County government, given its current structure, was more difficult to do business with than other governments in large urban counties around the State. In doing business with elected executive forms of government, the Senate had found that those entities could be contacted any time during the legislative session for their position on issues, whereas the Senate found itself in the position of having to wait until the BOCC met again. Sometimes the BOCC's position was unclear even after it met, because different BOCC members would indicate that was not the true position.

Senator Hargrett did not believe Hillsborough County government was equipped with a central authority and central accountability in the executive function. Senator Hargrett had filed legislation to create a County mayor. The intent was to start debate. After listening to the community, Senator Hargrett had amended the legislation to address issues such as the Planning Commission (PC), the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), and the qualifications of the administrator, so debate would continue. The community wanted changes in the structure of local government. He urged the CRB to consider the governance of Hillsborough County.

REPRESENTATIVE RUDOLPH BRADLEY
Representative Bradley spoke about single-member districts and the importance of having a County governmental system that would be closer to the people, which would be less expensive for individuals to put forth a candidacy. Single-member districts would open the process and create a more representative government and provide efficient and effective representation. He opined that single-member districts would provide a natural campaign finance reform, because a candidate could walk the precinct, use the local media, and meet with civic organizations to get the message out and sell himself or herself as someone who would be an effective representative.

It had become clear to those who served in the Senate that Hillsborough County government, given its current structure, was more difficult to do business with than other governments in large urban counties around the State. In doing business with elected executive forms of government, the Senate had found that those entities could be contacted any time during the legislative session for their position on issues, whereas the Senate found itself in the position of having to wait until the BOCC met again. Sometimes the BOCC's position was unclear even after it met, because different BOCC members would indicate that was not the true position.

Senator Hargrett did not believe Hillsborough County government was equipped with a central authority and central accountability in the executive function. Senator Hargrett had filed legislation to create a County mayor. The intent was to start debate. After listening to the community, Senator Hargrett had amended the legislation to address issues such as the Planning Commission (PC), the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), and the qualifications of the administrator, so debate would continue. The community wanted changes in the structure of local government. He urged the CRB to consider the governance of Hillsborough County.

REPRESENTATIVE RUDOLPH BRADLEY
Representative Bradley spoke about single-member districts and the importance of having a County governmental system that would be closer to the people, which would be less expensive for individuals to put forth a candidacy. Single-member districts would open the process and create a more representative government and provide efficient and effective representation. He opined that single-member districts would provide a natural campaign finance reform, because a candidate could walk the precinct, use the local media, and meet with civic organizations to get the message out and sell himself or herself as someone who would be an effective representative.

Representative Bradley and Senator Hargrett responded to questions by Mr. Hurley about the ideal population and boundaries for single-member districts. Representative Hargrett opined that four single-member districts were too large to represent the diversity in the community. Senator Hargrett preferred having an elected executive; however, he was unsure if he was right. He wanted to start a debate and was willing to listen to other opinions and might agree that what he proposed was unwise. Mr. Ambler pointed out that citizens could vote for a Commissioner from his or her district and for three countywide Commissioners, which was a majority of the commission. A pure single-member district process would dilute access to one commissioner. Representative Bradley compared the single-member districts to how the State legislature functioned. Senator Hargrett said Mr. Ambler's argument had merit, but it lacked accountability and would cost much money to run for office. Representative Bradley left the meeting to attend another function and thanked the CRB for inviting him to the meeting. In reply to Mr. White, Representative Bradley said that systemic changes opened avenues for minority participation.

Senator Hargrett responded to CRB questions about a County Administrator, minority influence, parochial districts, expanding the BOCC, and term limits. Ms. Tuttle opined at-large districts were needed with more single-member districts. Mr. LaBour thanked Senator Hargrett for the years of service he had given to the community. Chairman Smith thanked Senator Hargrett for attending the meeting.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:03 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOCC INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR/BUDGET ANALYST - 8:00 P.M. TIME CERTAIN
Chairman Smith reviewed the procedural rules for the public hearing. Mr. Bedke reviewed the draft proposal for auditor. The proposal would be placed on the ballot at the next scheduled general election. Attorney Campbell said a question was posed at the last CRB meeting about a special act that required performance audits of the PC and EPC. She explained a bill was approved in the last legislative session that repealed those requirements. Senior Assistant County Attorney Catherine Teti, who was an expert in that field, was available for questions. Ms. Osiason gave a broad overview of the four points she made in public comments: (1) The League objected to placing the issue on the 2000 ballot. The most important reason for that was the CRB was considering changes in the structure of government, which decisions should be made first. (2) Although the League agreed with the intent that funding decisions should follow policy decisions, the League did not feel the Charter was the appropriate place for that issue. (3) Ms. Osiason understood the County Attorney had said constitutional officers could not be covered. If so, it seemed inappropriate since 25 percent of the budget would not be covered under the amendment. (4) The BOCC could require performance audits as stipulated in Chapter 125.01, Florida Statutes.

Ms. Denise Layne, Hillsborough County taxpayer, said the amendment would create another level of bureaucracy. The BOCC did not want an auditor; they wanted someone in government to talk to them about the budget, to give them fiscal advice, and they were uncomfortable with the County Administrator doing that. The proposal was not a solution to those concerns. She supported an independent auditor, but the auditor position would not be independent, because the BOCC would control the salary. The proposal did not include a sunset date. Ms. Layne urged the CRB not to put the issue on the ballot and to continue talking and find a way to provide accountability.

Mr. Ron Wolfe, 1414 Deirdre Drive, realized the position was for an internal performance auditor, but auditor meant different things to different people. An internal policy analyst would be a better position description. Chairman Smith said Mr. Wolfe could leave his written comments with Ms. Merritt.

Mr. Randy Larson, 207 North Franklin Street, applauded the CRB's efforts to streamline government. While the office of a County performance auditor was well intended, Mr. Larson's experience had shown that ideals and values to streamline government always ended being something they were never intended to be. An evaluator of performance would drive a wedge between the legislative and executive branch of the government and subvert their responsibilities. Mr. Larson opined that departments would evolve into meeting auditor expectations of performance instead of the BOCC's or citizen's expectations. Trust would evolve into distrust. He urged the CRB to reconsider the issue to develop a better policy for audit.

Ms. Lynn McGarvey, 13610 Diamond Head Drive, agreed with Mr. Larson's comments. She opined that having a single performance auditor for the entire County government would be impossible, because the auditor would have to understand all the goals and objectives of each department. The biggest problem would come when the short-term bottom line was contrasted with the long-term goals and vision of the County preparing for the next 25 years. Ms. Auralee Buckingham, 19216 Blount Road, reiterated the amendment would create another level of bureaucracy. An internal auditor would answer to the BOCC; an external auditor needed to look at the problems.

Mr. Roy L. Davis, 3216 McIntosh Road, owner of Tampa Wholesale Nursery, was appalled at the reasons given for not having accountability. Performance audits could legally be requested, but they were not being done. A performance auditor would look at the efficiency with which money was spent. Mr. Joseph Caetano, 5304 Cannery Court, supported letting the taxpayers decide the issue. Mr. Ron Stoy, 907 Tomlinson Drive, said the question was whether the auditor should be internal or external. He expressed concern about the auditor becoming a political instrument and the growth potential for that organization. Ms. Kelly Clem, 12018 Shadow Run; Mr. Cliff Dennison, president, Love America; and Mr. Jason Mimms, P.O. Box 1049, supported placing the issue on the ballot.

Ms. Laura Swain, 18240 Wayne Road, spoke about a performance audit of the EPC, PC, and Planning and Growth Management Department (PGMD). A great deal of money was spent for independent auditors that returned with findings of not much duplication and that the little duplication that existed was good. Few recommendations had been followed through by administration or included in the BOCC budget. She questioned having an internal performance auditor when the BOCC did not follow external audit recommendations. Ms. Swain thought the BOCC did not work properly. The question should be why the BOCC was not working and if an internal auditor would help it work better. Ms. Swain read a letter from Mr. Steven Morris, president, Keystone Civic Association, opposing an independent auditor. As requested by Chairman Smith, Ms. Swain gave the letter to Ms. Merritt.

Mr. Gene Wells, 6205 Sanders Drive, Mr. Dave Hubbard, 2306 West Texas Avenue, and Mr. Tim Curtis, 3008 Fox Squirrel, asked the CRB to place the issue on the ballot. Mr. Peter Alesandri, 4514 Old Saybrook Avenue, certified public accountant, said the amendment was an attempt to address two issues: (1) whether the County needed an independent performance audit function reporting to the BOCC; and (2) if the BOCC needed an independent investigative resource. Mr. Alesandri opined that, in 2002, when the County had to produce a profit and loss statement similar to the private sector, bond ratings, grants, et cetera, could be affected. He suggested placing the issue on the ballot.

Mr. Carl Warren, Tampa, expressed curiosity about the County Administrator, via the administrative office or County staff, being involved in organizing or mobilizing community opposition to an appointed County performance auditor. Mr. Michael Carducci, 1427 Clarion Drive, and Mr. Gordon Commee, 1038 Commee Cove, supported placing the issue on the ballot. Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, explained why he disagreed with the League's position that the issue should be addressed after considering the current form of government and that it should not be in the charter. He rebutted other comments about people being confused about the issue. Mr. Hughes said the audit of the PC and PGMD was mandated by the State legislature, which did not follow through or express concern about the recommendations. The position of power in County government controlled information. The proposed amendment would provide the BOCC a tool to help provide a balance of power.

Chairman Smith closed the public hearing comments. Mr. Ambler moved to carry the issue forward, to put it on the November 2000 ballot, seconded by Ms. Williams. In response to Mr. LaBour and Ms. Waldron, Mr. Ambler clarified the language was as stated in the handout; the performance auditor would conduct performance audits and budget reviews. Ms. Waldron noted the auditor would not do performance audits on constitutional officers. Mr. Ambler said the auditor would operate within all aspects of the charter government. The issue was open, and he felt the BOCC should decide if its authority extended to auditing constitutional officers as entities receiving County funds. The proposal was consistent with the language in Section 1.02. Attorney Campbell pointed out the statute required an independent accounting firm to do the performance audit, which would remain in effect if the proposal were approved.

Ms. Williams noted that citizens did not appear to know exactly what the CRB wanted the auditor to do. Mr. Ambler said the proposal stated: as directed by resolution of the BOCC, the County internal performance auditor would conduct performance audits and budget reviews of all aspects of the charter government and its officers and officials with written reports submitted to both the BOCC and County Administrator. The position was independent of the County Administrator, answerable only to the BOCC.

Mr. White spoke about the League raising concern about whether the proposal would jeopardize the ability to work. Attorney Campbell restated Article VIII dealt with the CRB. It stipulated the CRB would meet for one year; any proposal would be placed on the ballot. Research of the legislative history did not indicate whether the CRB could place an issue on two different ballots. The legal opinion was that nothing said it could not happen, and there was some degree of risk. However, Attorney Campbell could not state how a judge might rule. Placing an item on the ballot in 2000 would not automatically adjourn the CRB; however, a challenge could be made to a proposal placed on the ballot in 2002.

Ms. Lasher supported the idea but questioned what would appear on the ballot. Attorney Campbell explained the ballot language was typically prepared last. Pending any additions or changes the CRB might make, Attorney Campbell had revised the ballot language vis-a-vis the resolution. Budget analyst could be included in the title and placed in the language as a performance auditor/budget analyst, if the CRB so directed. However, Attorney Campbell asked that the CRB give the County Attorney's Office some leeway in drafting the ballot language once the final resolution was approved. Ballot language had to be 75 words, and it would be somewhat different from the draft. Ms. Lasher wanted that wording included in the ballot language so people would understand the auditor was not just an internal auditor. Attorney Campbell said the language she had drafted said to conduct a performance audit and budget reviews of charter government. Ms. Lasher was still unsure, based on the County Attorney's opinion, whether resolutions could be placed on two different ballots.

Mr. LaBour expressed concern about hindering the CRB from placing an issue on the 2002 ballot, but he was more concerned about the structure of government, which discussion would begin August 24, 2000. Placing the County auditor issue on the ballot in 2000, before discussing the structure of government, would do a larger disservice to the public. Mr. LaBour suggested tabling the issue until November. Attorney Campbell said the County auditor issue could be included in the public hearing notice for the structure of government. Mr. LaBour expressed concern that some people would want to use the referendum for County auditor against the administration. He wanted to have more discussion and thought about that, and he did not like the pressure of placing the County auditor issue on the 2000 ballot, which could go away depending on how the CRB might reshape the structure of government.

Ms. Waldron agreed with Mr. Ambler that citizens should have the opportunity to vote; she also felt it was her responsibility to be totally convinced and able to support the issue. The BOCC had the authority to hire an analyst but had not done so. Also, the BOCC currently contracted performance audits. The CRB was proposing to form a department to do that. Ms. Waldron expressed concern that the CRB discussed the County auditor position before it discussed the structure of government, and she was uncomfortable implementing something in the middle of the system. Ms. Tuttle opined the BOCC needed to hire its own budget analyst who would be present at all meetings, not just during budget meetings, to brief the BOCC beforehand on issues coming up on the agenda and how the agenda fit with the overall plan. The Commissioners did not have time to do that. She agreed with Mr. LaBour about not rushing into a decision.

Mr. Bales said the CRB should be bold enough to put the issue on the ballot to let citizens decide. Other issues could be addressed later. Ms. Williams pointed out that four affirmative BOCC votes were required to approve audits, which was why she thought they had not been done. The amendment would require the BOCC to do that. Mr. LaBour commented that once the charter required the BOCC to hire an auditor, the BOCC had to set the work program of the independent auditor, and politics would come into play. Mr. Bedke was unsure if there was enough support to place the issue on the 2000 ballot; therefore, he suggested placing the issue on the 2002 ballot. Mr. Wilkes supported the proposal for November 2000.

Ms. Lasher wanted some minor things changed such as the frequency of convening the CRB, so it was not between elections, and qualifications of the County Administrator. In reply to Ms. Lasher, Attorney Campbell explained the CRB could adopt the proposal with a caveat that it could be amended in the same manner as it was originally enacted. Mr. Ballard supported the resolution.

Chairman Smith said she did not have the responsibility to approve an issue for the ballot just to give citizens the right to vote; her responsibility was to study issues and determine if they solved a problem. Under the current County government, the charter, and the administrative code, the BOCC had the right and responsibility to hire or appoint a budget officer. It had been the BOCC's decision to appoint the County Administrator to that position. The current audit process in place was correct and followed the rules of the government accounting office and general auditing standards. The issue of creating a conflict with the County Administrator was important. Chairman Smith expressed concern about a budget analyst having an opposite perspective than the County Administrator and what kind of adversarial controversial situation that would create if both were before the BOCC. Chairman Smith did not support the motion. The motion failed eight to five; Chairman Smith and members LaBour, Lasher, Tuttle, and Waldron voted no. Mr. LaBour moved to close the public hearing on the issue. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Lasher moved to put the resolution before the CRB on the 2002 ballot, seconded by Mr. White. Mr. LaBour called a point of order and asked if that could be done without two additional public hearings. Attorney Campbell said that could be done with an amendment to the resolution indicating the 2002 general election. Mr. LaBour wanted all final language approved by the CRB. Attorney Campbell preferred to draft amendments requested by the CRB and present those to the CRB before acting on them. Mr. White said the motion was an opportunity to place the issue on the 2002 ballot. The CRB would continue to meet and could revisit the issue if there were additional concerns or problems. The motion addressed Ms. Waldron's concern about starting in the middle.

Chairman Smith would not support the motion. The changes that would be made to the recommendations, the wording, et cetera, might not be what she wanted after having more time to review the issue. Mr. LaBour agreed with Chairman Smith; he understood that after discussing the structure of government and if the CRB unanimously agreed that the auditor proposal might not be the best thing to offer the people, a two-third's vote would be required to take the issue off the ballot.

Mr. Ambler said the public had spoken, and it was time to give them the opportunity to vote. Approving the proposal would cause candidates who were running for the County Commission to address the issue. The CRB should not miss the opportunity to involve the public, candidates, and press in the issue. Mr. Bedke supported the proposal; however, he did not feel a need to rush to judgment. In answer to Ms. Waldron, Chairman Smith explained that issues were not final until the CRB adjourned sine die. Mr. Ambler called the question, seconded by Mr. Ballard, and failed by majority vote. Chairman Smith did not support the motion. There would be opportunity to consider the issue further, refine the proposal, and do what was right to fix the problem and make something better.

Chairman Smith said the proposal for an internal performance auditor did not include the words budget analyst since that change had not been voted upon. Ms. Lasher amended the motion to include budget analyst. Attorney Campbell suggested the Board take a vote to place the issue on the 2002 ballot, which would satisfy the charter requirement. However, she asked that she be allowed to make the changes mentioned, the budget analyst, and look at the next general election when the resolution might become effective. The motion carried ten to three; Chairman Smith and members LaBour and Tuttle voted no. Mr. LaBour moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried thirteen to zero. Attorney Campbell confirmed for Mr. LaBour that the final language would be presented to the CRB for approval. Mr. White congratulated the CRB for approving the proposal. Mr. LaBour moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Ambler, and carried thirteen to zero.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk
jp