The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were absent:
John Bales
Denise Lasher

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.

MAYOR DICK GRECO, CITY OF TAMPA (CITY)

Mayor Greco thanked CRB members for giving their time to make government better. Mayor Greco responded to questions about the way County government functioned in its relationship with the City, an elected County chairman, term limits, consolidation, and what was broken within County government that was not responsive to providing adequate representation to residents. He explained most people did not think anything was broken. County commissioners might bicker more than over governments, because of the way County government was set up. Adding more commissioners without changing the form of government would not change the situation. Chairman Smith thanked Mayor Greco for addressing the CRB.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Mark Schonbrun, 1802 North Morgan Street, thought public comments made at the last CRB meeting about elected officials accepting campaign funds from employees was in poor taste. That practice was not against policies in the Supervisor of Elections handbook. The County Attorney's Office researched the issue and reported that there were numerous protections for employees who did not wish to support an incumbent or the incumbent's opposition. Chairman Smith noted that issue was not before the CRB and expressed concern about that issue becoming a political campaign. She asked if State law had any effect on the comments. Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell was unfamiliar with the statements made by Mr. Schonbrun concerning constitutional officers, offices, employees, and what they had done or had not done. However, Attorney Campbell had informed the CRB of laws in place and available to people. Mr. Bart Siegel, 6107 South Elkins Avenue, spoke about term limits, placing constitutional officers under the charter, and political contributions from subordinates; he opposed an internal performance auditor.

Mr. Dave Heckman, 3802 Castle Key Lane, expressed concerns about fair and equitable representation for the County area and a concentration of power given to an elected County chairman. Ms. Denise Layne, Lutz, said an elected chairman was the first step toward a County mayor. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) chairman was not elected but was in charge. The Administrative Code could be used to strengthen the BOCC chairman position, because the duties discussed for the charter were in the Administrative Code. Ms. Layne asked the CRB to consider the danger in having an elected County chairman. She liked the power to elect the majority of the BOCC and supported a nonpartisan BOCC and campaign reform. The Administrative Code, which implemented the charter, had not been revisited in more than ten years. She suggested the CRB consider recommending the BOCC look at the Administrative Code. The CRB had initiated an internal auditor proposal for accountability, auditing, and balance. An ordinance had removed that balance from the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk). Therefore, Ms. Layne suggested the CRB ask the BOCC to rescind the ordinance and place the chief financial officer with the Clerk. Term limits allowed an elected official to gain a fresh perspective.

Mr. Rick Eckhard, 2531 Prospect Road, charter review task force member, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), reported the Chamber's board of governors recently adopted the following motion: The Chamber supported in concept the revision of the charter for Hillsborough County to provide for the popular election of a County chairman, with a preference over time for the County chairman to have the power and authority usually attributed to a strong mayor form of government, provided that the County continued its reliance upon strong professional management, as was currently being provided by the existing County Administrator. The board of governors further urged the CRB to take necessary steps to place the proposed revision to accomplish that before the voters of Hillsborough County. The Chamber felt that experience might dictate a need to modify the powers of the elected chairman. An elected County chairman would be an effective point person for both economic development initiatives and consensus building.

Ms. Betty Crislip, 4405 West Platt Street, stressed that an elected County chairman was not consolidation. Powerful interests preferred a strong mayor form of government, because they had only one decision-maker to deal with, influence, and convince. She had seen a deliberate campaign by The Tampa Tribune and the Chamber to convince citizens that County government, as presently constituted, was not working. Ms. Crislip asked if the additional powers and duties the Chamber had discussed giving to an elected chairman would be a veto over ordinances or land use zonings, placing independent agencies under the mayor's control, et cetera. Ms. Crislip urged the CRB to tell the community that the difficult and tedious process to arrive at a consensus in a commission form of government was a protection for citizens. Mr. Michael J. Carducci, 1427 Clarion Drive, supported term limits for all elected officials and discussed conflict with an elected County chairman.

Ms. Marilyn Smith, P.O. Box 66, Sydney, opposed having nine commissioners or an elected executive of any kind. The Chamber, which was funded by the County and City, should not attempt to persuade the CRB. Ms. Smith agreed with the comments made by Ms. Crislip, and she spoke about the perception of CRB members being lobbied or coerced. Chairman Smith explained that CRB members had the right to contact any person to help them in the decision-making process. Attorney Campbell said the sunshine law generally came into effect with two members of the same board. Attorney Campbell responded to Mr. Ambler's questions about public records. Mr. LaBour expressed disappointment that people used the public comment forum to advance a political issue that was not before the CRB or to make insinuations. Anyone who felt CRB members had contacted or was contacted by anyone illegally should present that concern to the County Attorney's Office.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, Chamber member, disagreed with the Chamber, explained why he opposed changing the government structure, and asked the CRB not to take a straw vote that evening on nonpartisan and term limit issues, so the public would have an opportunity for input. Mr. LaBour clarified those issues had been known to the public and advertised for over a month. Mr. Carl Warren, 1710 East North Bay Street, opposed an elected County executive and supported expanding the existing district structure. Mr. Ron Wolfe, 1414 Deirdre Drive, suggested the following changes to support fair representation: (1) Keep the same number of commissioners to avoid impacting the County budget, with one commissioner, elected by his or her peers based upon leadership skills, to serve as chairman. (2) Create seven single-member districts each representing 150,000 people. (3) Make it mandatory for each commissioner to reside within the district being represented. (4) Eliminate the three at-large districts. (5) Place the matter before the citizens for a referendum in November 2000. Noting that the time limit had expired, Chairman Smith asked Mr. Wolfe to provide his written comments to Ms. Merritt for distribution to CRB members. At Mr. White's suggestion, future sign-in sheets would include the information that there would be no proxy speakers.

Mr. Francis Cape, 3404 South Beach Drive, asked if the CRB had considered placing on the ballot that there would be no transfer of private property between government offices. Chairman Smith explained County authorities were generally an arm of the State, and she asked the County Attorney's Office to look into that issue. Mr. Heckman objected to disallowing speakers yielding time to another speaker. Chairman Smith explained that was CRB policy. Mr. Neil Cosentino, chief executive officer, Bay World Public Trust, Incorporated, thought an elected County executive made sense only if the County were totally incorporated, including all entities; opposed combining issues on the ballot; suggested two elected officials for the boards of authorities; and suggested organizations be prevented from using Hillsborough County in the title. Mr. Michael O'Hern, 315 South Tamiami Trail, restated the suggestions made by Mr. Wolfe.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:28 p.m.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPORT

Chairman Smith asked the County Attorney's Office to clarify CRB rules regarding proxy on comments. Assistant County Attorney Ken Tinkler explained CRB rules did not specifically state that members of the public could yield time to each other; however, a five-minute time limit was imposed per speaker. Chairman Smith replied to Mr. White about security.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Ms. Merritt clarified the next meeting would be held on October 26, 2000. The 2001 budget amendment for the CRB was approved and would be presented to the BOCC as a bookkeeping procedure for two budget years. Meetings for January 11, January 25, and February 8, 2001, were tentatively scheduled for the 26th floor. A citizen, Mr. Harold Stoops, had asked that the CRB look into strengthening the ethics provisions in the charter. Mr. LaBour suggested Mr. Stoops educate the CRB about those concerns during the public comment section. The CRB would then decide how to address that issue. Chairman Smith suggested Ms. Merritt give Mr. Stoops minutes of the committee established to research that issue in 1991. The final action was that State law prevailed. As a follow-up to Mr. White, Ms. Merritt reported the CRB web site had received 3,253 hits. Agenda materials also included a draft for an elected County chairman and the minutes of the subcommittee meeting to consider that issue.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON AN ELECTED CHAIRMAN

Ms. Waldron summarized the proposal for an elected County chairman position. Messrs. LaBour and Ambler had been unable to attend the meeting; however, Ms. Merritt had provided audio tapes to them. Messrs. LaBour and Ambler congratulated the subcommittee on its work. The subcommittee meeting was attended by members Bales, Bedke, Lasher, Waldron, and White. Mr. Ambler explained why he opposed a single person appointing members to all boards and authorities. Ms. Waldron explained the subcommittee's assignment was to return to the CRB with the structure in mind. She suggested deciding whether to proceed to ballot with the proposal before getting into a discussion and spending time on the proposal.

Ms. Waldron reviewed 14 issues listed in agenda materials considered by the subcommittee. Discussion included clarification of term limits; salaries; appointments to boards, councils, and authorities; setting the agenda; and how someone would move into the position of chairman if the chairman could not discharge his or her duties or act as the chairman in case of illness or death. In the subcommittee meeting, Mr. White had suggested paying the chairman equal to the salary of the City mayor. He asked for an opinion from the Attorney General on that issue. Attorney Campbell said an opinion was usually rendered within 30 days. Mr. White wanted that opinion if the issue went to public hearing. Mr. LaBour thought the Mayor received $200,000 per year. Chairman Smith did not want the BOCC to appoint a staff person to represent them at meetings.

Chairman Smith suggested the CRB develop the best document, determine other issues that related to that, and take the full issue to public hearing. She had asked Ms. Merritt to consider scheduling public hearings in January in case there was a proposal to take forward. However, Chairman Smith did not want to take a single issue or item to public hearing until after considering the bigger picture of the structure, term limits, partisanship, et cetera. Presenting a single package to the public would be better, so all the pieces fit together.

Mr. Hurley asked for clarification of Section 4.06. Attorney Campbell explained the difficulty in drafting language, because the subcommittee decided to put a two-term limit on the chairman and not change the way the charter read. Therefore, Attorney Campbell had kept the same language, changing the numbers to reflect nine commissioners. As the CRB went through its discussion, that information could be meshed together. The language now allowed someone to go from single-member to at-large et cetera. The subcommittee saved that issue for CRB discussion.

Mr. LaBour said that if a majority of the CRB did not support an elected County chairman, he would want to take a different look at structure. If a majority supported an elected County chairman, the CRB could use the draft as a framework. Ms. Williams moved to decide whether to consider an elected County chairman, seconded by Ms. White. For clarification, Ms. Williams amended the motion that the CRB, at that time, take up a discussion of whether it wanted to have an elected County chairman. The motion carried eleven to one; Mr. Ambler voted no. Mr. Ambler clarified that he had voted no, because he had not understood the motion.

Mr. LaBour said, if a simple majority agreed to look at a model that included an elected chairman, going through the points would be easier. If a simple majority did not agree to that, a discussion would be open for what kind of structure the CRB wanted other than what had been presented by the subcommittee. Mr. LaBour moved to look at a model that would include an elected County chairman. Mr. LaBour amended the motion to accept the concept of an elected County chairman as presented in the model, seconded by Mr. White, and carried seven to five; members Ambler, Ballard, Beltran, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Mr. Hurley had submitted an outline for discussion, which he was not sure he would support; however, he wanted to discuss the issue thoroughly. Mr. Bedke noted that several CRB members had developed similar models, all of which agreed that someone was needed to set the vision for the County and be a statesman to lead the County. Mr. Ambler understood Mr. Bedke's viewpoint about the need for one person to provide a vision for the County and be on equal footing with the City mayor. However, Mr. Ambler wanted to discuss whether that could be accomplished through the Administrative Code and other vehicles available to the CRB, without actually changing the charter. If the proposal was to pay an elected chairman $200,000, and the current BOCC chairman earned $84,000 per year, assuming a model of eight years, the change would cost the County $1 million. Mr. Ambler asked if creating that office would be worth the cost versus other options available that could achieve the same objectives.

Ms. Williams wished the motion had included an organizational chart and a budget for an expansion of County government. She noted that there had been an equal number of people who had expressed a disinterest in an elected County chairman. Mr. LaBour felt the BOCC-elected chairman did not work well. Citizens would know what they were getting for a chairman if that person ran for the office. The model would not create an executive branch. Although Mr. LaBour did not support a strong mayor form of government, he supported an elected chairman. Nine commissioners would cause more debate and a broader understanding. Adding elected officials was worth the cost if it was right for the people.

Mr. White thought citizens wanted the decision left to the CRB; however, he also felt that if the CRB did not address that issue, the Legislative Delegation (Delegation) would. Ms. Tuttle said the CRB was not bound by what the Delegation had said. However, working with one person weekly on the budget, et cetera, would be easier. The chairman could report the status to the BOCC frequently. Currently, a new chairman was elected each November and commissioners appointed themselves to boards and authorities. Ms. Tuttle wanted to move forward with the concept of an elected chairman; where that person lived should not affect the position.

Mr. Ballard supported the sunshine law and expressed concern that an elected chairman might have enough power that meetings might be held out of the sunshine. Presently, the chairman was elected by commissioners. That could be changed so only the at-large districts were eligible for the position of chairman and elected by residents. The duties of the chairman could be included in the charter. Mr. Ballard wanted to discuss seven single-member districts. He preferred to fine-tune the current form of government. Ms. Waldron referenced a letter in agenda materials from Mr. James W. Lee, who had served on two prior CRBs, reminding CRB members that the subject had been debated since 1973. She suggested citizens should decide the issue. Ms. Waldron wanted to go forward with the public hearing and supported putting the issue on the ballot.

Chairman Smith expressed concern about changing the structure of government regarding accessibility by constituents, strong personalities working with other strong personalities, and professional leadership. The current BOCC chairman was the ceremonial head and the person people saw in the forefront. Hillsborough County had been lucky in its first 14 years of the government structure by not having a BOCC that was as partisan motivated as it had been in the past six years. Partisanship created an adversarial circumstance. Chairman Smith felt the Tampa General Hospital issue had caused the press and legislature discomfort and had become a catalyst for changing the structure. Chairman Smith felt the discussion should be carried forward to another meeting, so the CRB could get as much press coverage as possible--time on government access, messages to 256 business and civic organizations--to let everyone know that was the discussion. A public hearing was not necessary for the CRB to have a meeting to deal with the document.

Chairman Smith suggested that she and Ms. Merritt draft a press release, contact everyone notified in the past, send them the subcommittee report and the draft proposal, invite them to attend the next meeting, and ask them to keep their comments to the issues in the draft. Partisan/nonpartisan races and term limits could be added to that. Citizens would be given a three-minute time limit to speak. If all those people came, public comment could be eliminated so that it was not duplicative. The meeting could be in the format of a public hearing. After the CRB heard from the public, the discussion could be continued at the following meeting or that evening, depending on attendance.

Mr. LaBour suggested going forward and setting a public hearing. In reply to Mr. Ambler, Attorney Campbell clarified that a final document would not be necessary for public hearing, but parameters were necessary for advertising. Chairman Smith said the CRB could make changes to the draft if the changes were not substantial. Ms. Waldron moved to go forward with the proposal of the subcommittee to public comment, seconded by Mr. Hurley. Ms. Waldron clarified public comment was public hearing. Chairman Smith explained advertising would not be required if the draft was taken to a public meeting instead of a public hearing. A public meeting would allow the CRB to obtain public opinion without going through that process. Once the document was refined, a public hearing date could be set. Chairman Smith questioned taking the draft proposal to public hearing when it had not been refined, and the issues of partisan/nonpartisan, term limits, et cetera, were not included. Mr. White suggested Ms. Waldron table the motion until the next meeting.

Following discussion, Mr. LaBour amended the motion that instead of moving to public hearing, in the spirit of compromise and the concern Mr. LaBour was hearing from CRB members of not being ready to take that bold step, that the CRB simply place on the agenda at the next meeting, the draft, as it was, and be prepared to come and argue the issues, for or against; and hopefully, at the end of that discussion, the CRB would be able to have pretty good insight as to where to go; included in that would be at the same time a discussion about term limits and nonpartisan races. After clarification, Ms. Waldron and Mr. Hurley accepted the amendment. The motion carried twelve to zero.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Smith called for public comment; there was no response.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk

sw