The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, November 30, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were absent:
Terry Ballard Arlene Waldron
Mike Bedke

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. Mr. White 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 November 9, 2000. Mr. Hurley moved to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Mr. White, and carried nine to zero.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, summarized his comments of the past nine months about proposed charter changes regarding an elected County chairman, nonpartisan elections, an appointed County administrator, residence requirements for single-member districts, term limits, and a cap on budget increases. Mr. Carl Warren, 1710 East North Bay Street, spoke about the issues of equality and discrimination. He would file an objection with the Justice Department and an amicus curiae brief in the proper courts if the CRB attempted to put a structure in place that would further disenfranchise minorities. Mr. Warren clarified that he was not threatening the CRB or its members. Mr. Mike Carducci, member of Fair Action in Representation, supported seven single-member districts, nonpartisan elections, term limits, and residency requirements. He noted that many people would become active in County government, because they wanted better representation. Ms. Laura Simpson, representing the Greater Brandon Chamber of Commerce, supported the Fair Action in Representation group. Chairman Smith noted that Ms. Maryanne Ladutko, who had served on the 1991 CRB, was in the audience.

BOARD DISCUSSION
Chairman Smith suggested the CRB continue its discussion from the last meeting on duties of the chairman. In reply to Mr. LaBour, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell confirmed that taking two or three options to public hearing would be proper. The restriction, by statute, was how the referendum question would appear on the ballot. Mr. LaBour submitted a modification of the existing structure of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and modifications of options 4 and 5 of the decision model presented at the last CRB meeting. Discussion included expanding the duties of the chairman and what had occurred in the recent BOCC organizational meeting. A poll of CRB members indicated the majority favored a BOCC structure of seven members with residency requirements. Discussion included pros and cons of an elected chairman, the current system, single-member districts, residency requirements, term limits, and representation.

Mr. LaBour had asked for research on a presentation to a prior CRB, documented with exhibits, about why single-member districts were not a good idea. He wanted that information made available to CRB members. If residency would be a requirement, Chairman Smith suggested inviting Supervisor of Elections Pam Iorio to talk about how district divisions could or could not occur. A poll of CRB members indicated most favored seven commissioners, split four/three.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:56 p.m.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Mr. White asked when the County Attorney's Office would bring the proposal related to the auditor's position; he wanted to see the proposal before going to public hearing. Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler said the proposal could be included in the next packet to CRB members. Although the CRB had approved placing the auditor position on the ballot, Chairman Smith said that could change before the CRB adjourned sine die in February 2001. Attorney Tinkler would research how many votes would be required to remove that issue from the ballot. The only requirement in the charter was ten votes to place an issue on the ballot. Mr. LaBour noted that if another public hearing would be required to remove the issue from the ballot, it would have to be dealt with during public hearings on other issues.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, would include budget figures and the questionnaire summary in the next packet to CRB members. December 2000 meetings would be held in the Boardroom; January 2001 meetings were tentatively scheduled in the Boardroom. Ms. Merritt had searched County records since 1983 for information on why single-member districts were not a good idea; however, she had been unable to locate any maps. The four/three split was originally suggested by Mr. Norman Hickey, a former County administrator. She would continue searching for the maps. CRB members would be given CRB questionnaires if they wanted to attend the town hall meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 7, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., at Wharton High School. Ms. Iorio and Mr. Jim Hosler, Planning Commission, would be invited to attend one of the next two CRB meetings. Ms. Merritt reported the BOCC had enacted the resolution recommended by the CRB for oath of office during the investiture ceremony.

Regarding the issue of single-member districts and the four/three split, Chairman Smith recalled that a committee had met in the early 1980s and approved the ordinance that went to the public for approval. She thought Messrs. Matt Jetton, John Paulk, E. L. Bing, and Ms. Fran Davin, former commissioners, and Commissioner Jan Platt had served on that committee. As suggested by Chairman Smith, Ms. Merritt would send a letter to the committee members, inviting them to express their thoughts on that issue.

BOARD DISCUSSION - RESUMED
A poll of CRB members indicated that most favored a geographical residency requirement for at-large commissioners and retaining the present term limits. Mr. LaBour thought the question of whether the term limit restriction would apply to a commissioner running for chairman, if there was an elected chairman, was moot if current term limits were unchanged. Mr. White asked for a straw poll to take the issue of an elected chairman off the table, have the BOCC elect its chairman, and have the chairman serve a two-year term. Ms. Lasher said the CRB had not discussed that issue. However, she agreed the CRB was in conflict, because it had voted on having at-large commissioners come from different geographic areas. Now, Ms. Lasher favored a one-year term, because the BOCC had the option of reelecting the same member as chairman. Mr. Ambler acknowledged a potential conflict if a residency requirement was imposed and the chairman was elected. Attorney Tinkler said the County Attorney's Office had envisioned that scenario as four/two/one--no residency requirement upon the at-large chairman, since that person would represent the County, and the two remaining at-large districts would be divided geographically. Mr. Ambler said that would resolve the conflict. Both options could be presented at public hearing to hear how the public felt about an elected or appointed chairman.

Mr. Ambler proposed the CRB submit options A, four/two/one, and B, four/three, for public hearing. Option A included an elected chairman from an at-large district with no residency requirement, two at-large districts with residency requirements, and four single-member districts. Option B included four single-member districts, three at-large districts with residency requirements, and an appointed chairman. Within options A and B, the CRB could refine whether the appointed chairman would serve for one year versus two years, et cetera. Chairman Smith said no residency requirements on any at-large district might be another option, because residency requirements could split the County in half. Mr. Hurley expressed concern about lack of leadership, which an elected chairman would resolve.

If the CRB was considering two options for public hearing, Mr. LaBour wanted to include his modified option 4--seven BOCC members with six single-member districts and an elected chairman. Mr. White had supported an elected County chairman to provide a single, individual leader; however, if that was off the table, he supported the current structure. If the CRB was not going to address the concerns expressed by citizens, then the CRB needed to leave that issue alone and allow it to be addressed by the BOCC or the Legislative Delegation. Following further discussion on the duties of an elected chairman and residency requirements, Mr. White opined the CRB should present three different proposals for public hearing.

Mr. Hurley moved to take to public hearing the three options laid out by Mr. LaBour; strike the nonpartisan election issue to keep it separate. Mr. White seconded the motion. (The motion was not voted on.) Mr. Hurley clarified the three options were the modified existing structure and modified options 4 and 5 submitted by Mr. LaBour; the nonpartisan issue was separate. Ms. Lasher said most CRB members supported seven BOCC members, and she proposed the third option be the four/two/one proposal. Mr. Hurley preferred to modify the existing structure to four/two/one, because modified option 5 was different. Ms. Lasher said much time had been spent working through the decision model. The process had concluded with scenarios for four/three, four/two/one, and six/one structures, which Ms. Lasher would support if the current motion failed.

Mr. Ambler did not support the current motion. He would support a substitute motion for the three options mentioned by Ms. Lasher, similar to options A and B that he had mentioned earlier, and adding the ability to discuss the six/one structure. The current proposal included the term limit issue that most CRB members did not favor. Mr. LaBour could support a substitute motion. In reply to Chairman Smith, Attorney Campbell spoke about the notice requirements for public hearings. Ms. Tuttle thought the time was right to consider having the auditor position report to the chairman. That person could report to one person who would work with the budget and inform the BOCC.

Mr. Bales asked Mr. Hurley and the CRB to consider four options, hear what people had to say, and then decide. Messrs. Hurley and White accepted the fourth option, four/two/one. Mr. Hurley clarified that the modified existing structure would be option A; four/two/one would be option B; six/one, modified option 4, would be option C; and 5/3/1, modified option 5, would be option D. Options A, B, and D included residency requirements; all options excluded term limits and partisanship.

Ms. Lasher said the CRB had gone through the decision model and eliminated several scenarios that were back on the table. Four options were too many to take to public hearing. Ms. Lasher made a substitute motion to take options A, B, and C to public hearing, seconded by Mr. Ambler, and carried six to five; members Bales, Hurley, LaBour, Tuttle, and White voted no.

Ms. Tuttle asked the CRB to consider putting under the additional chairman duties the County auditor position reporting to the chairman and making the modified existing structure so the chairman would not have any additional duties. Mr. Hurley agreed. Ms. Tuttle moved that the auditor would report to the chairman, whether the chairman was elected or appointed, seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Ambler clarified the intent of the motion was to go to public hearing. In reply to Messrs. White and Hurley, Attorney Tinkler explained the current auditor position would report to the entire BOCC; however, he would have to look at the proposed language to see if the auditor reporting to the chairman had to go to public hearing. Chairman Smith suggested tabling the motion until the issue was clarified. Ms. Tuttle moved to table the motion, seconded by Mr. White, and carried eleven to zero. Chairman Smith clarified that before that issue could be addressed again, a CRB member had to take it off the table.

Chairman Smith asked members to consider other issues separately such as how to appoint the County administrator, qualifications, partisan issues, and a 3 percent cap that Mr. Hughes had asked the CRB to consider. Following discussion of option B, Mr. LaBour moved that the chairman would not have any veto power under option B, seconded by Mr. White. Mr. Ambler said the chairman would not have veto power under any of the options. The motion carried eleven to zero. Mr. LaBour did not want to confuse the public on any option; they would have questions about what additional powers meant. Mr. LaBour suggested including the powers previously approved by the majority so there was no question. Mr. Ambler so moved, seconded by Mr. LaBour, and carried eleven to zero.
CRB members listed issues they wanted to consider at either of the next two meetings. The list included the following issues: (1) the frequency of the CRB convening to coincide with elections; (2) placing the Supervisor of Elections under the charter and making that office nonpartisan; (3) moving the motion submitted by Mr. Ambler at the last meeting toward the top of the list; (4) addressing the qualifications of the County administrator; (5) one-time appointments to the CRB; (6) changing the way the CRB was appointed; (7) the frequency of items that could be placed on the ballot; (8) different BOCC members than when the CRB was convened; and (9) the CRB convening during an election year.

Attorney Campbell would see if the language recommended by the prior CRB could be clarified so the next CRB would be appointed at a five- or six-year interval, and thereafter, at four- or eight-year intervals, so issues could be on the ballot in a presidential election. Mr. Ambler reminded the CRB that he had suggested considering extending CRB members' term of office and lengthening the time in which the CRB met. Mr. LaBour asked that the minutes be checked to see if votes had been taken on those issues. Attorney Campbell and Attorney Tinkler would try to have draft language for options A, B, and C before the next CRB meeting. Chairman Smith asked that CRB members contact Ms. Merritt with any other issues they wanted to discuss.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Ella Coffee, Tampa, had been offended by the implication that residents would not understand the differences between the options, commented on the proposals, and was gratified the CRB was considering options. Mr. Ed Turanchik, former County commissioner, recommended single-member districts if the CRB contemplated putting power in a chairman or County manager; otherwise, votes of minorities would be diluted. He asked that the CRB let the people decide what form of government they wanted and to place a leadership position on the ballot. Mr. Turanchik responded to questions about the options proposed for public hearing. He opined the Orange County system seemed to work well. Mr. Turanchik would assist the CRB to get either Orange County Chairman Mel Martinez or former Chairman Linda Chapin to address the CRB in December 2000 or January 2001. Ms. Lasher moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Bales, and carried eleven to zero.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk