The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 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 November 30, 2000. Mr. White moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Beltran, and carried thirteen to zero.

PUBLIC COMMENT

County Administrator Daniel A. Kleman knew the CRB had received suggestions to loosen the qualifications of County administrator, so that more people could be considered. Instead, Mr. Kleman encouraged the CRB to tighten the qualifications of the County administrator and set standards that required a strong, professionally trained administrator. He suggested continuing the specific requirement for a master's degree or a comparable degree and to strengthen the qualifications by adding language that would require anyone selected to become a member of the International City and County Management Association (ICMA) and commit to the professional standards and code of ethics of that organization. Later, Mr. Kleman would submit specific language to improve or strengthen the qualifications of the County administrator. He responded to questions about the cost and requirements to join the ICMA, why the requirement of a master's degree was critical, and why being a member of the ICMA had great import to a County administrator.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, rebutted comments made by Mr. Ed Turanchik, former County commissioner, at the November 30, 2000, meeting. He listed accomplishments achieved under the current structure of government. Mr. Mike Carducci, 1427 Clarion Drive, commented on fair and equal representation based on population and single-member districts.

MR. JIM HOSLER, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

Mr. Hosler submitted information on the 1990 Census, years 2000 and 2010 population estimates, and County redistricting in March 2001. District 4 was the largest district geographically and for representation; district 3 was the smallest. From a redistricting perspective, districts 1 and 3 would have to be much bigger geographically to include 250,000 people. Using the 1990 census track map, Mr. Hosler pointed out population density changes between 1990 and 2000. Most growth occurred in Northwest, New Tampa, and East County areas. Discussion included redrawing districts, minority representation, and keeping neighborhoods in tact. Mr. Hosler would provide the density change map to CRB members.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler submitted the draft County structure proposals and explained changes could be incorporated into the proposals. The auditor proposal had been included in packets to CRB members; the auditor would report to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Mr. White asked if the CRB was required to take additional action on the auditor proposal. Chairman Smith explained further action would not be required; however, nothing was final until February 8, 2001. Discussion included the procedure to make changes to the auditor proposal, to which Mr. White opposed any change. Based on comments made by CRB members and whether the structure of government was changed, Chairman Smith said reconsidering the auditor proposal might become imperative. In answer to Ms. Lasher, Attorney Tinkler would research to make sure the term budget analyst was incorporated in the auditor proposal.

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS PAM IORIO

Ms. Iorio said her staff had looked at the redistricting that would occur in 2002, although the BOCC would do the redistricting. Growth would be in the North/Northwest and Brandon/South County areas. Those districts would geographically shrink, because the population had increased so much, and other districts would grow geographically. Minority representation in district 3 would be harder to maintain under the four-three BOCC configuration to maintain higher numbers of the African-American minority, because of the growth patterns in the County. Having once served as a single-member County commissioner in district 2, Ms. Iorio said most constituent complaints went to single-member commissioners. Commissioners in high growth areas were swamped with problems of growing jurisdictions and constituent complaints. Having more single-member districts would make sense for a greater emphasis on neighborhood representation. Ms. Iorio responded to questions about the structure of government, residency requirements, minority representation, and voting machine issues. Mr. White commended Ms. Iorio for her outstanding job and leadership during the past election cycle.

Ms. Iorio said the State Association of Supervisors of Elections (SASE) had made a priority, as part of its legislative agenda, to make the supervisors of elections across the State nonpartisan. She did not want the supervisor of elections under the charter, because the supervisor of elections should have the greatest independence of all the constitutional officers. Mr. LaBour pointed out that the CRB could send a resolution to the Legislative Delegation and the SASE supporting nonpartisanship. Ms. Iorio would give the CRB written language of what the SASE had sent to the legislature.

PUBLIC COMMENT - RESUMED

Commissioner Chris Hart, District 5, said the various structures of government discussed by the CRB had prompted more questions than answers regarding accountability, responsibility, authority, and checks and balances. He submitted that the form of government should be based on the function of government; there should be one key leader, an elected County mayor. The BOCC served a valuable purpose and should continue as it was to focus on service delivery, land use and planning, and other issues. No mayor should have override authority. Constitutional officers should be charter officers for direct oversight and more accountability. Commissioners should serve in single-member districts and be elected at-large. To provide greater representation, no group of at-large commissioners should live in one area. Commissioner Hart responded to questions about enlarging the BOCC to nine County commissioners, partisanship, and an elected County mayor.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:24 p.m.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, submitted survey results. Ms. Lasher suggested sending the survey to the BOCC, because the comments dealt with County government and delivery of services. Noting that public hearings were scheduled for January 11 and 25, 2001, Ms. Lasher suggested having people call in questions. Mr. LaBour said call-in sessions only worked if they were well advertised. Chairman Smith suggested call-in questions and comments would be submitted at a specific time. Mr. Ambler suggested placing information on a crawl, showing the issue and the telephone number. Ms. Merritt reported budgetary items for postage and advertising. Mr. LaBour would work with Ms. Merritt to get information to the city of Tampa (City) residents, and he pointed out that the County neighborhood list also included City neighborhoods.

Ms. Tuttle suggested Chairman Smith visit the editorial board of The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times about the charter and citizen involvement. Chairman Smith would do that. Mr. White preferred a team of three CRB members, with Chairman Smith, make a presentation to the St. Petersburg Times, The Tampa Tribune, and the La Gaceta. Chairman Smith and Mr. Hurley clarified that would be a violation of the sunshine law. Chairman Smith explained the difficulty getting time specific with the editorial board and that speaking to them via the telephone was easier. Any CRB member could contact the editorial board. Mr. White moved for the Chairman to make a formal presentation to the editorial boards of the Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, La Gaceta, and Florida Sentinel Bulletin on the proposals voted to go to public hearing. Mr. Ambler seconded the motion. Chairman Smith preferred to telephone and speak with an editorial writer to make sure the importance was understood of what the CRB was doing, how the CRB was going about that, and what the CRB intended to propose. Mr. LaBour would not support the motion, because an informal discussion would be more productive than a presentation of something that might change and might confuse the electorate. Mr. Ambler called the question, which carried fourteen to zero. The motion failed six to eight; Chairman Smith and members Ballard, Hurley, LaBour, Lasher, Tuttle, Wilkes, and Williams voted no. Mr. LaBour encouraged Chairman Smith to contact, by telephone, whomever she felt might help generate support for people to participate in CRB meetings.

Ms. Mimi Osiason, League of Women Voters (League), clarified the League would never be involved in contests for elected office. To do so would undermine the League's fundamental principles. She pointed out that Ms. Iorio had made an important point that should be considered in the structure of the BOCC; the primary role of the BOCC was the delivery of services.

As requested by Chairman Smith, regarding the salary issue, Ms. Merritt explained the CRB budget fell in two budget years but was budgeted for one year. The budget had been realigned and approved by the BOCC. Another budget amendment was necessary for the Clerk of the Circuit Court and would be addressed during the next week. Mr. White expressed concern about the amount of time before issues were placed on the ballot, and he suggested placing the final CRB report in the Supervisor of Elections' Office. Chairman Smith said the report would also be placed in libraries. Ms. Merritt noted the Legislative Delegation would meet on January 6, 2001. She would draft a letter for the CRB to consider regarding support for nonpartisan supervisors of elections.

CLARIFICATION OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHAIRMAN

Mr. LaBour said the additional responsibilities of being the official spokesman for the BOCC, appointing BOCC members to boards and agencies with majority approval by the BOCC, and chairing meetings would apply to options B and C. Mr. Ambler felt those duties could apply to either an appointed or elected chairman. Ms. Tuttle pointed out that an elected chairman had time to consider and plan appointments. Under the current structure, BOCC members would not have time to contemplate whom they would like to appoint to boards and authorities. Ms. Tuttle wanted to opt out option A.

Chairman Smith observed options B and C required BOCC approval of the chairman's appointments to boards and authorities, which effectively eliminated that additional responsibility. The responsibility should or should not be given to the chairman. Mr. LaBour moved to put in the responsibilities for options B and C as stated; in option A, put in all the responsibilities except appointments to boards and agencies and allow that to remain as the present process, for the sake of public hearing. The proposal was not a final decision. Mr. Hurley seconded the motion. Chairman Smith preferred to take the other emphasis--not requiring BOCC approval of the chairman's appointments--to public hearing so people could argue against that. Mr. LaBour amended the motion for the chairman to make appointments without BOCC approval, except option A, which would remain the same, and accept the Environmental Protection Commission as stated. Mr. Hurley accepted the amendment. Ms. Waldron thought the amendment was as stated in the six/one draft proposal, Section 4.04. Mr. LaBour said the amended motion accepted the draft language on the duties of the chairman, as listed in the draft document of the three options, with the exception under the first four/three option that the appointments to boards and agencies not be given as a power to the chairman. Following discussion, Mr. LaBour said the motion was the language as drafted for all three options. Mr. Hurley accepted the amendment. The motion carried fourteen to zero.

CLARIFICATION OF VICE CHAIRMAN DUTIES AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS

Mr. LaBour said the draft proposals were silent on the vice chairman. Mr. White moved that the vice chairman be elected by the majority of the BOCC, seconded by Mr. Ambler. Mr. White clarified that would be for all three options. The motion carried fourteen to zero. Chairman Smith asked if the CRB could establish in the charter that the vice chairman would serve in the position of chairman until someone was elected if the chairman was unable to serve or left office. Attorney Tinkler said the Governor would make an appointment. Meanwhile, the vice chairman would serve in that position. Chairman Smith preferred the BOCC choose. Mr. LaBour felt issues would become clear once the options went to public hearing.

Mr. LaBour moved to go to public hearing with the three options discussed and with the amendments made in the meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Ballard asked to delay a decision until the next meeting, so he could read the proposals in detail. Mr. LaBour said the CRB consensus at the last meeting was to take the proposals to public hearing with the knowledge that only one option could be placed on a referendum. The proposals had not been amended. Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell said the substance would be the same. For the next CRB meeting, the County Attorney's Office would draft the formal language in a resolution. In reply to Mr. Ballard, Attorney Tinkler clarified the four/three plus option added the geographic requirements for at-large commissioners; a spokesman duty had not been given to the chairman. Ms. Lasher asked if designating the chairman as a spokesperson could be addressed in the Administrative Code and BOCC Rules of Order. Attorney Tinkler said the BOCC could take that action; the chairman was the official signature of the County. Mr. LaBour moved to accept the draft proposal for the three options given to CRB members by the assistant County attorney and ask the County Attorney's Office to come back at the next meeting with the appropriate ballot language, so the CRB could move the proposals to public hearing. Mr. White seconded the motion, which carried thirteen to one; Mr. Ballard voted no.

PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THE CRB

Frequency of CRB Convening to Coincide With Presidential Elections - Ms. Lasher said the 1996 proposal, Section 8.02., regarding CRB appointments, reflected the CRB would convene every eight years, so there would be ample time to complete its business and time for Justice Department review and community education for ballot language. The intent was to vote on referendums during presidential elections. Ms. Lasher moved to accept the draft language, seconded by Mr. LaBour. Attorney Campbell said dates in the proposal worked, depending on when the CRB wanted that proposal to take effect. The date could be changed to begin in February 2009; with that change, the proposal could be kept as drafted. Ms. Lasher amended the motion to include changing the date, seconded by Mr. LaBour. Ms. Lasher received clarification from Attorney Tinkler that the date would be 2007. Chairman Smith said the CRB could meet four years after 2007 and meet from then on every eight years, which would be in line with presidential elections. Mr. White supported having a committee consider all the ramifications and presenting a plan to the CRB. Chairman Smith spoke about the time it would take to send the issue to a committee. She opined the CRB could resolve the issue by vote. Chairman Smith suggested CRB members consider keeping February 1, 2001, available for an additional meeting after the public hearings. The motion carried ten to four; members Ballard, Hurley, White, and Wilkes voted no.

Change the Way the CRB Was Appointed to Include the Municipalities - Chairman Smith explained there had always been a perspective by many people in the community that the CRB reflected the opinions of the BOCC, which was not true. She had raised the issue for CRB members to approve or deny. Mr. Bedke moved to say nay to the proposal, seconded by Mr. Hurley, which was approved by consensus.

Establish Term Limits for CRB Members - Mr. LaBour thought there should be an opportunity for different people to consider the charter. A sentence in the middle of Section 8.02. of the amendments to the charter, read as follows: "Members of the CRB shall serve for a term of one year without compensation." Wording could be added after the word compensation to say "or reappointment to any future CRB." Mr. White would not support that, because having experience on a CRB was valuable. Ms. Tuttle supported term limits with the caveat that any new CRB should have a three- or four-hour meeting or small retreat before the first CRB meeting. Former CRB members and attorneys could work out parameters of what the CRB could or could not do. Mr. LaBour moved to include the language that he had read, seconded by Ms. Tuttle, and failed three to eleven; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Lasher, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

ISSUES FROM CRB MEMBERS TO BE DISCUSSED

Three Percent Budget Limitation Cap - Mr. Ambler had submitted a motion to CRB members two or three meetings ago to take to public hearing adding a new provision, Section 9.13, of the general provisions of the charter. Mr. Ambler moved to place a proposal on the ballot in 2002 that would result in the inclusion of a provision in the charter to limit the annual increase in the County's operating budget to 3 percent or the annual inflation rate, whichever was lower; further, a stipulation would be included that the budget cap could be waived by an affirmative vote of six members of the BOCC.

Attorney Tinkler explained research found no cases directly addressed the proposal. A case in Charlotte County addressed limitations on ad valorem tax rates. Given that the court addressed an ad valorem limit versus a budget limit, the County Attorney's Office recommended seeking an opinion from the Attorney General. The issue could be discussed in public hearing while awaiting for the Attorney General opinion. A vote would be needed to authorize the County Attorney's Office to seek an Attorney General opinion for the CRB. Mr. Ambler amended the motion to include that it be subject to obtaining an Attorney General opinion, seconded by Mr. Hurley. Mr. Ambler said the motion addressed the County operating budget excluding constitutional officers. If voters approved the cap, it would be an incentive for constitutional officers to operate within a budget cap. Attorney Tinkler clarified the proposal would not affect constitutional officers.

Ms. Lasher asked for the percentage of revenue increase and revenue collected per year for municipal service taxing unit and ad valorem taxes, the inflation rate, and the percentage increased in the operating budget for the past five years. Chairman Smith would ask Mr. Eric Johnson, Director, Management and Budget Department, for that information. Ms. Lasher wanted more information before voting on the proposal. Mr. LaBour wanted to know the pros and cons and the fiscal impact. Mr. Ballard supported the proposal, because many people lived on a budget and administration would have to justify why the budget needed to be raised. Mr. Bedke supported taking the issue to public hearing, but he expressed concern about the six/one vote requirement; a supermajority of five/two gave Mr. Bedke an additional level of comfort. Chairman Smith would not support the motion, because there was not enough money to meet the needs the community demanded.

Mr. Ambler pointed out that the motion would take the issue to public hearing and included an opinion by the Attorney General. There was time to obtain information before public hearings. Attorney Tinkler said, if approved, the County Attorney's Office would seek an Attorney General opinion of whether such a limit could be placed in the County Charter or if that would violate general law; if the override provision would save the provision; and what level of votes would be required. Mr. Ambler said the motion could be adjusted to be consistent with the Attorney General opinion. The motion carried ten to four; Chairman Smith and members LaBour, Tuttle, and White voted no.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Joe Smith, former CRB member, an original drafter of the charter, and former Citizens Advisory Committee member, disagreed with the CRB decision to convene every eight years. While he understood the idea of a cap, fiscal limitations through the charter had never been envisioned.

Chairman Smith said the next meeting would begin with the 3 percent budget limitation report by Mr. Johnson, followed by items to be placed on the ballot.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk