The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, February 1, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., in Frederick B. Karl County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Mr. LaBour led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Carl Warren, Tampa, submitted and read a letter he had sent to Ms. Zee Galliano, administrative assistant, Florida Attorney General's Office, regarding three legal questions dealing with setting County spending limits. Based upon those questions, Mr. Warren's argument was, by definition, the cap concept was rigid, whereas a limit would allow expansion and retraction and allow government to act responsibly based upon population and inflation changes. He hoped the CRB would not be influenced by an unsigned Attorney General opinion.

Ms. Mimi Osiason, representing the League of Women Voters of Hillsborough County (League), said limiting increases in the general revenue budget and a County performance auditor attacked the charter. Specifying details of governance in the constitution was dangerous; prescribing legislative issues in the constitution was against the principles of efficient government. She did not understand how the CRB could assert those changes were an improvement to and belonged in the charter. The Attorney General had rendered an opinion that the spending cap proposal was unconstitutional. Therefore, Ms. Osiason did not see an advantage to the public to be involved in or pay for a lawsuit.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, urged the CRB to place the budget increase limitation on the ballot in 2002 and not be dissuaded by the unsigned and unscrutinized Attorney General opinion presented at the last meeting. The CRB could place the proposal on the ballot. If the Attorney General opinion was valid, the proposal could be taken off the ballot. The argument that a budget limitation did not belong in the charter was without merit. Mr. Hughes named 17 people who spoke at the last meeting in favor of the budget limitation. Mr. LaBour read a letter from Attorney Rhea Law, vice chairman, Committee of 100, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), supporting the Chamber position on an elected County chairman and structure of government.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Chairman Smith suggested the CRB take final votes on the proposals so the County Attorney's Office had an opportunity to review and ensure the resolutions approved were appropriately worded for ballot language. The CRB could finalize issues at the next meeting and adjourn according to the charter rules.

Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler distributed the corrected version of the performance auditor resolution, as requested at the last meeting to include a budget analyst. The second draft of the Attorney General opinion had been distributed. Still unsigned, the opinion had lengthened, and it appeared to be more focused on the question. The Attorney General had been advised of the CRB time line and had not said when to expect a signed opinion. Attorney Tinkler responded to questions from Mr. Ambler regarding the unsigned opinion.

Mr. LaBour asked, if the CRB approved the budget limitation for referendum, could the issue be taken off the ballot if the signed Attorney General opinion said the issue was unconstitutional. Attorney Tinkler explained the process; once the CRB adjourned sine die, there was no provision to retract or amend a proposal. Mr. LaBour pointed out the County Attorney's Office would be placed in the position of defending the referendum the CRB had approved, and a judge would ultimately decide.

Ms. Lasher asked if County Attorney Emeline C. Acton had reviewed the draft opinion and what was the opinion of the County Attorney's Office. Attorney Tinkler explained Attorney Acton had been apprized of the opinion. Given the trend, it appeared the limitation would be contrary to general law and inappropriate in the charter.

In reply to Mr. Beltran, Attorney Tinkler explained the Attorney General considered Chapters 129 and 200, Florida Statutes. The argument was the legislature preempted the charter taking action related to the specific subject. Mr. Ambler asked how Chapter 200, which pertained to procedures involved in levying millage rates, related to the proposal that concerned expenditure limitations. Attorney Tinkler said the court had linked Chapters 129 and 200, the budget and ad valorem procedures, as a whole. Mr. Bedke said the question was if the Attorney General understood the distinction between the cases cited in the opinion, which focused on revenues, versus the proposal, which focused more on expenditures. Attorney Tinkler said the exact question and answer was set out at the beginning of the opinion; the Attorney General was narrowly focused on the request. Chairman Smith opined the United States Justice Department could make an argument against the proposal and would contact the Florida State Attorney to develop a recommendation.

Mr. Ballard pointed out the proposal would change the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) vote from majority to majority plus one. Attorney Tinkler explained the problem was the method, not the proposal. The legislature could take action to allow the BOCC to do that, and the BOCC could limit itself internally. Because Chapters 129 and 200 laid out the budget and tax system, the CRB could not place the limitation in the charter.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, listed information contained in packets given to CRB members, and she asked for suggestions for material to be included in the executive summary. Chairman Smith said the report should reflect the work of the CRB, not individual opinions. Ms. Merritt suggested the report include a group photograph of CRB members.

Chairman Smith noted that some CRB members had expressed an interest in what would appear on the government web site. She and Ms. Merritt had discussed keeping the motions, resolutions, minutes, et cetera on the web until the election. Mr. LaBour said an educational strategy would be needed for a referendum, if approved, since it would be on the ballot in 2002. He wanted Mr. Michael Foerster, Director, Communications Department, to attend the CRB meeting on February 8, 2001, to address how to educate the public on issues. Ms. Helen Levine, Public Affairs Officer, said there were limitations on what the County could do; however, Mr. Foerster would attend the meeting and discuss what could be done.

DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED CHANGES

Limiting Increases in the Charter Government Operating Budget With a Stipulation That the Limit Could Be Overridden by a Five to Two Vote of the BOCC - Mr. Ambler wanted the CRB to discuss the substitute resolution regarding the tax expenditure limitation. Mr. Ambler moved to consider the resolution, as drafted in the package handed out by the County Attorney, for Section 9.13, charter government annual budget increase limitation. He clarified the motion would substitute that language for the 3 percent language. Mr. Beltran seconded the motion. Mr. LaBour would vote to substitute the language, but he did not want that to be misconstrued as support for the final vote. Mr. Ambler wanted the CRB to debate the language the committee felt was appropriate to consider. The motion carried eleven to two; Chairman Smith and Ms. Tuttle voted no.

Changing the Election of County Commissioners from Partisan to Nonpartisan - Mr. Ambler moved to not approve the resolution submitted as item number 2 in the packet, seconded by Mr. Beltran. (The motion was not voted on.) Following discussion about negatively wording the motion, Mr. LaBour moved to take to referendum the referendum that would make all County commission races nonpartisan, seconded by Mr. Ballard. The motion failed four to nine; members Ambler, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Lasher, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Amending the Previously Passed County Auditor Proposal - Attorney Tinkler clarified no action was required; the proposal had been approved. After reviewing Fair Action in Representation (FAIR) information and County Commissioner Pat Frank's letter and testimony on the issue, Mr. LaBour felt the request was for a budget analyst, not an auditor. Mr. LaBour moved to amend the original approved motion, to take off the performance auditor from the referendum, or withdraw it as a referendum. The motion died for lack of a second. Attorney Tinkler clarified the motion was an amendment to delete all language for a County performance auditor. Mr. LaBour moved to amend the original approved motion, to delete all the language that was passed. Ms. Waldron seconded the motion. Mr. LaBour did not disagree that a budget analyst should be considered; however, that issue was never given the appropriate time for discussion. A budget analyst was a substantial change to the original motion and would have required a separate proposal for public hearing. Although the current language said performance auditor and budget analyst, it had to be one or the other. The BOCC wanted someone to help it interpret the budget, which was why Mr. LaBour wanted to withdraw the proposal.
Mr. Ambler said the language for referendum was succinctly stated to define the budget analyst/performance auditor--an individual to advise and assist the BOCC in conducting continuing studies of the operation of County programs and services and serve as a budget analyst for the BOCC. Broad language had been drafted, without specifically defining the job, to give the BOCC the ability to define the contract for the help it needed, independent of the County Administrator.

Mr. Bedke, over the past year, had become troubled about the proposal. He supported the original intent to drive fiscally sound policy. However, he understood the BOCC had essentially privatized that issue by issuing requests for proposals (RFP) to audit certain areas. Mr. Bedke felt that might be the better way to go. As requested by Ms. Lasher, Attorney Tinkler clarified wording that would appear on the ballot. Ms. Lasher felt the public wanted a budget analyst. She wanted the language to state a budget analyst and that the budget analyst could partake in performance audits or would oversee performance audits. Mr. Bedke wondered if there was a way to improve what was originally adopted to address the concern expressed, one of which was to change the title from County internal performance auditor to County internal performance auditor/budget analyst. Mr. LaBour would not accept that as an amendment to the motion, because he thought the words performance auditor should be eliminated.

Mr. Bedke made a substitute motion to change the title from County internal performance auditor to County internal performance auditor/budget analyst; add a sentence to the beginning of subsection 4, which would read: "Individual commissioners shall be prohibited from requesting or directing activities of the County internal performance auditor/budget analyst"; add a subsection 6; subsection 6 would become subsection 7; and subsection 6 would become: "The County internal performance auditor shall adhere to government auditing standards in conducting its work and shall be considered independent as defined by those standards--the yellow book standards." Mr. Bedke clarified the sentence referenced in subsection 4 would be the first sentence. Mr. Ambler seconded the motion. Mr. LaBour suggested the title be amended by removing performance auditor. Ms. Tuttle suggested performance auditor should be removed from the entire language if it were removed from the title, to be consistent and prevent confusion. The substitute motion failed eight to six; Chairman Smith and members Beltran, LaBour, Tuttle, Waldron, and White voted no.

Mr. Ambler called the question, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried fourteen to zero. The motion to delete the proposal failed four to ten; members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Lasher, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no. Mr. LaBour thanked Mr. Bedke for attempting to craft a compromise motion.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:59 p.m.

Changing the Structure of Government - Mr. Ambler moved to approve proposal 1.A., reapportioning County Commission Districts 5, 6, and 7, so that the commissioners elected countywide would have to reside in geographically distinct districts. Ms. Lasher seconded the motion. Mr. Hurley thought the proposal sounded good but reapportionment would be difficult without including Tampa in two of those districts. Mr. LaBour felt that only one proposed structure did not contain technical at-large districts--six single-member districts with one at-large, which was the countywide elected chairman. If the motion was approved, single-member districts would not be discussed. Therefore, Mr. LaBour made a substitute motion to approve the third option, 1.C., six single-member districts with the County chairman elected countywide, seconded by Mr. Hurley. Various CRB members explained why they either supported or opposed the six/one structure. After commenting that CRB members had already formed an opinion on the structure, Ms. Lasher called the question, seconded by Ms. Tuttle, and failed two to twelve; Chairman Smith, and members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, LaBour, Waldron, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no. Following discussion, the substitute motion failed seven to seven; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Ballard, Beltran, Lasher, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

The motion to approve 1.A. failed six to eight; Chairman Smith and members Bales, Bedke, Hurley, LaBour, Tuttle, Waldron, and White voted no.

Mr. Bales moved to consider 1.B., seconded by Mr. Bedke. CRB members gave their opinions on the proposal. Chairman Smith said three telephone calls had been received supporting at-large commissioners with geographic residency requirements, seven single-member districts, the auditor, and term limits. The motion failed five to nine; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Ballard, Beltran, Hurley, Lasher, Tuttle, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Limiting Increases in the Charter Government Operating Budget With a Stipulation That the Limit Could Be Overridden by a Five to Two Vote of the BOCC - Chairman Smith said the CRB had not received the legal opinion. Ms. Tuttle moved to wait, just on that one, until next week, with the hope and fervent prayer that the CRB would get a definitive answer from the Attorney General, and then vote it up or down. Ms. Tuttle thought the opinion was necessary; otherwise the CRB would step into an enormously expensive situation that the County would have to pay to defend if the proposal turned out to be unconstitutional. Ms. Williams seconded the motion, which carried nine to five; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Beltran, Hurley, and LaBour voted no. Chairman Smith pointed out at the next meeting, if the CRB decided to go forward with the proposal, there would be no opportunity for the CRB to review the ballot language or the resolution. Wording would be handled by the County Attorney and Ms. Merritt.

Providing That CRB Proposed Amendments to the County Charter Be Placed on the Ballot After the Conclusion of the CRB's One-Year Term - Chairman Smith had received a telephone call, after the last CRB meeting, regarding comments by a member of the public. Chairman Smith had mistakenly believed that individual had been a member of the committee that worked with BOCC members to develop and write the charter. However, that person was not a member of the committee. County Commissioner Jan Platt had called Chairman Smith and the County Attorney's Office in regard to that and the weight given to those comments. Chairman Smith read and submitted a letter from Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell regarding CRB placement of issues on ballots. Mr. Bedke felt the CRB should ratify its prior action.

Chairman Smith said the intent, according to Commissioner Platt, was that the resolutions and ballot language would be placed on the ballot at the conclusion of the CRB's work. Mr. Hurley moved to reconsider. Attorney Tinkler said the motion should be to renew or rescind prior action not to place the issue on the ballot. Mr. Hurley withdrew the motion. Ms. Waldron initiated discussion about the historical background in prior minutes. Mr. White moved to schedule the issue for the next meeting so there would be opportunity for research. The motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Ballard moved, on item number six that was voted on January 25, 2001, to renew the CRB position. Chairman Smith said the CRB position was not to change the charter. Mr. Ballard had put forth the motion to resolve the issue; however, he would vote against the motion. Mr. Hurley seconded the motion. Mr. Bales expressed concern about hurting the reputation of the person referenced in the memorandum. Ms. Merritt thought that individual had confused the date, because he was a member of the first CRB in 1986, and that issue was part of the executive summary. Before that, he had served on the Hillsborough County Study Commission for the charter. Mr. Bedke called the question, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried fourteen to zero. The motion failed five to nine; members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Waldron, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Chairman Smith said the CRB would review ballot language at the next meeting for the proposed changes and discuss the issue of the spending limitation. Mr. White said the CRB might not have an opinion from the Attorney General by the next meeting. He asked if the County Attorney's Office could render a legal opinion on that issue. Attorney Tinkler explained the County Attorney's Office would render an opinion on what was requested by the CRB. The opinion would be based on relevant case law and both draft Attorney General opinions. Mr. White made that a motion. Attorney Tinkler clarified the County Attorney's Office would prefer to have the final Attorney General opinion to include in the analysis. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bales. Ms. Lasher explained the County Attorney's Office had given its opinion earlier in the meeting. Mr. Ambler expressed concern about the County Attorney's Office rendering a formal opinion. Mr. Hurley called the question, seconded by Mr. Ambler, and carried fourteen to zero. The motion failed four to ten; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, LaBour, Tuttle, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Mr. Ambler moved to present Ms. Merritt with a plaque in commendation for outstanding work as the CRB executive director, so it could be presented to her before the CRB permanently adjourned. Mr. White seconded the motion, which carried fourteen to zero. Mr. White moved to give a plaque to both of the CRB's County Attorneys for their service. Chairman Smith suggested the CRB send a letter to Attorney Acton. Mr. White said a letter could also be sent. Mr. Beltran seconded the motion, which carried fourteen to zero.

Regarding the budget increase limitation, Mr. Ballard asked if the new draft had been sent to the Attorney General. Attorney Tinkler explained that draft had not been sent to the Attorney General, since it had not been adopted by the CRB as the official position. The base issue of whether the cap was permissible under general law was the same as far as the analysis. However, the new language would be sent to the Attorney General. Mr. White complimented Chairman Smith on managing the CRB budget.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Osiason would not attend the February 8, 2001, meeting. She would send the CRB a copy of her statements about why the CRB should not adopt a budget cap. Ms. Osiason offered the services of the League, through its education fund, to help educate the public on the pros and cons of the amendments placed on the ballot.

Ms. Merritt reminded the public to voice its opinions by calling (813) 276-8181 or E-mailing crboard@hillsboroughcounty.org.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk