CAPTIONING
OCTOBER 7, 2009
BOCC REGULAR MEETING
AFTERNOON SESSION

***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the 
***following meeting.  It should be used for informational 
***purposes only.  This document has not been edited; 
***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words 
***that did not translate.

>>KEN HAGAN:  GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME BACK TO THE 
AFTERNOON SESSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING.
AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO PASS THINGS OVER TO THE COUNTY 
ADMINISTRATOR.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A 1:45 TIME CERTAIN.
>>PAT BEAN:  THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIR.
YOUR FIRST ITEM IS THE 1:45 TIME CERTAIN SCHEDULED ON ITEM 
F-2.
THIS IS AN ITEM BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BY COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT AND OTHER ISSUES RELATED 
TO THE OGDEN VS. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND KEVIN WHITE CASE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
AS WE ALL KNOW, WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS 
WHITE/OGDEN/HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ISSUE FOR WAY TOO LONG.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT PERHAPS WE CAN FIND SOME CLOSURE TODAY.
MR. WHITE, TO YOU FIRST, MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE THAT 
I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION OF YOU THREE TIMES DURING OUR 
DELIBERATIONS AND OUR DISCUSSIONS, SO AGAIN, AS A COURTESY 
TODAY, BEFORE I MAKE MY COMMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE 
SAME AGAIN.
AT THIS POINT CAN WE OR MORE IMPORTANTLY THE CITIZENS WE 
REPRESENT LOOK TO SOME NEW EXPECTATION THAT PERHAPS YOU AS 
A CODEFENDANT IN THIS CASE WILL ACT AS A COPAYER WITH 
REGARDS TO JUDGMENT TURNED SETTLEMENT IN THE OGDEN CASE?
>>KEVIN WHITE:  ARE YOU RELINQUISHING THE FLOOR TO ME NOW?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I'M JUST ASKING YOU THAT PARTICULAR 
QUESTION.
THAT'S ALL.
>>KEVIN WHITE:  I BELIEVE MY ATTORNEY HAS SENT THE COUNTY 
ATTORNEY A LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THAT, AND THERE IS STILL 
OPEN AND PENDING LITIGATION IN REGARDS TO AN INSURANCE 
POLICY THAT WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF, THAT THE COUNTY 
ADMINISTRATOR NOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MADE MY ATTORNEY 
AWARE OF, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ASKED ABOUT IN THE MEDIATION, 
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, NOTHING UNTIL THAT'S RESOLVED.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU.
I'M AWARE OF THOSE LETTERS, BOTH MS. SAADY'S TO WENZEL, 
WENZEL TO SAADY ON 9/21 AND 9/23 RESPECTFULLY.
OKAY.
SO THEN THERE'S REALLY NOT ANYTHING NEW OTHER THAN THAT.
SO I'LL PROCEED THEN.
ON SEPTEMBER 16th WE MADE SOME GREAT STRIDES IN THE RIGHT 
DIRECTION.
BY A VOTE OF 5-1, WITH ONE ABSTENTION, OF COURSE, MY MOTION 
TO SETTLE WAS SUPPORTED.
NOTHING THAT CERTAINLY ANY OF US ENJOYED, BUT IT STOPPED 
ANY POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THE VOTERS.
WE TURNED A JUDGMENT ISSUE INTO A SETTLEMENT ISSUE, INTO A 
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ALLEVIATED THE COUNTY FROM ANY 
ADDITIONAL COSTS IN THIS SUIT.
THAT WAS A GOOD THING.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE MR. WHITE CLEARLY ON TWO SEPARATE PAGES 
OF THAT SAME TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 35 OF 54, 38 OF 54, MADE 
REFERENCE -- PERHAPS BETTER SAID MADE WHAT I INTERPRETED TO 
BE SOME THREATENING OR ULTIMATUM TYPE COMMENTS, AND I'LL BE 
HAPPY TO BRIEFLY READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD SO THERE'S NO 
MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M QUOTING.
FIRST HE SAID, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT FROM THIS 
COMMISSIONER'S STANDPOINT AND FROM AN INDIVIDUAL 
STANDPOINT, THERE WILL STILL BE -- CONTINUE TO BE MORE 
COSTS INCURRED BECAUSE I WILL DEFEND MYSELF AT ALL COSTS, 
AND THERE WILL BE MORE LITIGATION AND IT WILL CONTINUE AND 
CONTINUE.
AND THEN ON PAGE 38, HE SAID, LET ME JUST SAY, IF I'M 
LITIGATED AGAINST, I WILL APPEAL.
AND IT WENT FROM THAT.
AND SO I KIND OF ASSUMED THAT THAT WAS SORT OF A THREAT 
THAT SAID IF WE TOOK ANY ACTION SIMILAR TO WHAT I MIGHT 
SUGGEST TODAY THAT PERHAPS WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT 
ADDITIONAL COSTS, AND I REALIZE THAT.
SO, HOWEVER, NOW THAT'S NOT A VIABLE CHOICE ANYMORE FOR MR. 
WHITE.
WITH THAT SETTLEMENT WE EXERCISED CAME A RELEASE FROM 
MS. OGDEN THAT NO LONGER THREATENS MORE EXPOSURE FOR THE 
COUNTY.
MR. WHITE IS, IN ESSENCE, ON HIS OWN FOR WHATEVER HE WISHES 
TO PURSUE.
END OF THAT STORY.
AT THE SAME MEETING, WHEN I SUGGESTED THAT WE MOVE FORWARD 
WITH LITIGATION FOR CONTRIBUTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. 
SHARPE THAT SUGGESTED MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO WAS TO 
HAVE MS. SAADY CORRESPOND WITH MR. WHITE'S ATTORNEY, MR. 
WENZEL, TO SEE IF HE COULD SUGGEST A REMEDY FOR 
REIMBURSEMENT.
I -- I AGREED WITH MR. SHARPE IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE 
BUT ALSO NOTED THAT IF THAT SUGGESTION FAILED, WE REALLY 
NEEDED TO GO BACK TO LITIGATION.
ON SEPTEMBER 21st AT OUR REQUEST, MS. SAADY SENT THIS 
LETTER TO STEVE WENZEL, MR. WHITE'S ATTORNEY.
DEAR STEVE, PURSUANT TO OUR CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 17th, 
THE COUNTY HAS ASKED ME TO INQUIRE HOW MUCH MONEY 
COMMISSIONER WHITE WILL PAY IN THE OGDEN MATTER.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY SEPTEMBER 24th.
AND OF COURSE, AS MR. WHITE REFERENCED, HE SAID OR HIS 
ATTORNEY SAID ON SEPTEMBER 23rd, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER.
COMMISSIONER WHITE IS UNABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AT 
THIS TIME.
COUNTY APPARENTLY DID NOT NEGOTIATE A RELEASE ON HIS 
BEHALF, SO HE'S EXPOSED TO CLAIMS FROM THE PLAINTIFF.
FURTHER, THE COUNTY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ATTACHED -- 
ATTENDED HIS RESPONSIBILITIES WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANIES 
THAT ARE INVOLVED.
HE ASSERTS A RIGHT TO BE COVERED IN TANDEM WITH THE COUNTY.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING WHAT INSURANCE, IF 
ANY, MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THE UNDERLYING JUDGMENT 
AND FEES FOR WHICH MR. WHITE IS PRESENTLY OBLIGATED.
WHETHER WE WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE TOTALITY OF HIS 
EXPOSURE, WHEN WE ARE, WE WILL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO YOUR 
INQUIRY.
SO THAT FAST FORWARDS AT LEAST FOR ME TO TODAY.
CLEARLY STATED, WE HAVE SPENT TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO SETTLE.
WE NEED TO MAKE AN EARNEST EFFORT TODAY TO GET SOME OF 
THOSE DOLLARS BACK TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
IF WE HAD AGREED TO THE SETTLEMENT ON THE BACK OF TAXPAYERS 
AND ALLOWED MR. WHITE TO BE A BENEFICIARY OF THAT COST 
WITHOUT CONTRIBUTION, OUR TAXPAYERS WOULD PROBABLY BE AND 
SHOULD PROBABLY BE DISGUSTED WITH US.
WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THOSE COSTS, AND I CAN REFERENCE THEM.
WE HAVE TO DATE -- AND MR. TODD PRESENTED ME WITH THESE, 
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, STEVE -- BETWEEN THE COUNTY 
ATTORNEY'S FEE FROM SAADY, THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO THE 
PLAINTIFF IS 474,633 THAT HAVE BEEN CURRENTLY PAID, AND 
THERE ARE STILL 7,000 PLUS FROM THE APPELLATE COUNSEL AND 
ALMOST 9,000 STILL NOT PAID BUT INVOICED FROM CLAIRE SAADY, 
SO WE HAVE SPENT JUST AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO TRY 
TO GET THIS BEHIND US AND SEPARATE OUR CONCERNS FROM THOSE 
OF MR. WHITE.
SO I PROPOSE A MOTION THAT WE -- WE FOLLOW REMEDIES 
PROVIDED IN SECTION 768.31, FLORIDA STATUTE, WHICH DOES 
ALLOW A REMEDY FOR THE COUNTY TO SEEK CONTRIBUTION FROM 
COMMISSIONER WHITE.
A LAWSUIT WOULD BE FOUNDED BASED LARGELY ON PRINCIPLE OF 
EQUITY OR FAIRNESS.
A LAWSUIT COULD CLAIM THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE IS 
RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT, 
INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES PAID TO THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY.
IF THERE'S NO PRESUIT AGREEMENT, NO RESULTS AT THAT POINT, 
THEN CERTAINLY THE COUNTY CAN FILE SUIT IN STATE COURT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAD CONSULTED FLORIDA BAR ABOUT 
WHETHER THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE COULD REPRESENT THE 
BOARD IN CONTRIBUTION LAWSUIT.
THE BAR'S ATTORNEY STATED THE COUNTY -- COUNTY'S OFFICE 
REMAINS IN A POSITION OF ETHICAL CONFLICT REGARDING THIS 
ISSUE.
SO THE BOARD WOULD NEED TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO 
REPRESENT ITS INTERESTS IN SUCH A CONTRIBUTION ACTION, AND 
CERTAINLY, I'M SURE THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I ALSO ASKED MR. TODD IF HE COULD AT THIS POINT GIVE ME 
SOME APPROXIMATION OF WHAT -- AN ESTIMATE OF PROSPECTIVE 
BANKRUPTCY POSITIONS WOULD TOTAL BETWEEN MAYBE 2,000 AND 
4,000 FOR A ROUTINE CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY, INCLUDING 
ATTORNEY FEES AND FILING FEES.
SO MY MOTION TODAY IS TO DIRECT OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO GO 
FORWARD WITH THE LITIGATION AGAINST KEVIN WHITE AND DEMAND 
CONTRIBUTION.
THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
WHAT MR. WHITE DOES GOING FORWARD IS REALLY A MATTER THAT 
IS BETWEEN HIM AND HIS CONSTITUENTS AND DOESN'T INVOLVE US.
WE DO LEARN A LESSON ABOUT POLICY, AND CERTAINLY WE AND THE 
ADMINISTRATION WILL MOVE TO REMEDY THAT, BUT AT LEAST WE 
WILL NO LONGER BE INVOLVED IN THIS EMBARRASSING AND 
DEPLORABLE DISPLAY.
THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS MY MOTION.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT IT SO WE CAN 
MOVE ON TO OTHER ISSUES THAT OBVIOUSLY HAVE SUFFERED 
DISTRACTION BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MS. LEE, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENT BEFORE 
WE GO TO BOARD DISCUSSION?
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONER, THERE ARE -- THERE ARE SEVERAL 
THINGS PENDING THAT I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE 
OF TODAY, AND COMMISSIONER WHITE IS CORRECT, THAT THERE IS 
AN EXCESS POLICY THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT MAY PROVIDE 
COVERAGE TO THE COUNTY.
IT IS -- IT HAS A $350,000 DEDUCTIBLE TO IT, SO REGARDLESS 
OF WHATEVER AMOUNT WE RECOVER, WE WILL BE -- WE WILL HAVE 
TO PAY $350,000.
WITH RESPECT TO INFORMING COMMISSIONER WHITE REGARDING THE 
INSURANCE POLICY, AS YOU -- AS YOU KNOW, HE WAS REPRESENTED 
BY COUNSEL.
IT IS REQUIRED BY THE COURTS THAT DISCLOSURE OF ANY 
INSURANCE POLICY BE MADE TO THE OTHER ATTORNEY, SO THERE IS 
EVIDENCE IN THE FILE THAT MR. WENZEL HAD INFORMATION ABOUT 
THESE POLICIES VERY EARLY ON IN THE CASE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD IS -- I DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE 
REGARDING THE INSURANCE POLICIES, AND MAYBE CHRISTINA'S 
HERE OR -- TO TELL US WHAT THEIR RESPONSE IS, AND SHE IS. 
MS. SWANSON, IF YOU WILL --
>>CHRISTINA SWANSON:  CHRISTINA SWANSON, HUMAN RESOURCES 
DEPARTMENT.
[INAUDIBLE] IS THAT THE CLAIM IS STILL BEING CONSIDERED 
WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING 
CLOSELY, BUT THEY -- THEY HAVE SEVERAL THINGS TO CONSIDER 
AS WELL AS REVIEWING TRANSCRIPTS AND SO ON, SO THEY HAVE 
NOT YET MADE A DECISION.
AS SOON AS WE HEAR FROM THEM, WE WILL LET YOU KNOW.
>>RENEE LEE:  THEY ARE REVIEWING THAT CLAIM, COMMISSIONERS, 
SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION OF RIGHTS LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO 
US ON OCTOBER 6 -- IT SAYS OCTOBER 16th -- YES, 2008, AND 
BASICALLY THE RESERVATION OF RIGHTS SAYS THAT THEY HAVE THE 
RIGHT TO RESERVE COVERAGE ON THIS LAWSUIT UNTIL THEY'VE 
COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION.
SO REALLY THERE IS NO ENTITLEMENT TO THE MONEY FROM THE 
INSURANCE POLICY.
THEY MAY EXTEND COVERAGE, BUT THAT'S NO GUARANTEE EITHER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA AS FAR AS WHEN WE 
COULD EXPECT TO HEAR?
>>RENEE LEE:  I DON'T.
MS. SWANSON'S BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THEM.
>>CHRISTINA SWANSON:  SIR, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT, BUT 
IT'S A CASE OF WE'RE TRYING TO LET THEIR PROCESS GO THROUGH 
IN THEIR NORMAL PROCEDURES.
OUR -- OUR BROKER IS IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THEM, AND 
THEY HAVE ALSO ASSIGNED A CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE, BUT RIGHT 
NOW THEY ARE REVIEWING THE COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
THERE ARE EXCLUSIONS IN THIS POLICY THAT MAY NOT PROVIDE 
THE COVERAGE, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
BUT WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 
MATTER OF WEEKS OR A MATTER OF MONTHS OR --
>> SIR, I WOULD THINK WITHIN TWO WEEKS AT THE MAXIMUM, I 
WOULD HOPE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MS. LEE?
>>RENEE LEE:  NO FURTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MS. LEE, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA YET AS FAR AS AN ESTIMATED 
AMOUNT IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS LAWSUIT OF 
ADDITIONAL EXPENSE THAT THE COUNTY WOULD INCUR?
I KNOW IT'S GOING TO VARY, BUT IS THERE ANY BALLPARK 
ESTIMATE ON THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO 
RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL?
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONER, I THINK WE'RE ESTIMATING 
PROBABLY AROUND 20,000 -- NO MORE THAN 20,000 I THINK WOULD 
COVER US.
IF IT BECOMES A CONTESTED LAWSUIT, IF THERE IS, YOU KNOW, 
LONG DRAWN-OUT LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IT COULD BE 
MORE.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  OKAY.
AND THAT'S WHY -- BECAUSE, COMMISSIONER FERLITA, I THINK 
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US PROBABLY, YOU KNOW -- SPEAKING 
ALSO FOR MYSELF, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE AMOUNT 
OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE EXPENDED ON THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY IN 
THESE TIGHT BUDGETARY TIMES WHEN WE'VE LAID OFF PEOPLE, 
WE'VE HAD TO CUT SERVICES, I THINK ALL OF US ARE SICKENED 
BY THE AMOUNT OF TAX DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN WASTED IN THIS 
TYPE OF A PROCESS.
I THINK THE MESSAGES THAT I HAVE RECEIVED AND I THINK AGAIN 
PROBABLY MANY OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED AS WELL IS THAT THERE'S 
A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM THE TAXPAYERS THAT THEY WANTED THE 
BLEEDING TO STOP, THEY WANTED US TO GO ON WITH MUCH OF THE 
BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO GO ON WITH AND AGAIN TRY TO 
REFRAIN FROM EXPENDING TAX DOLLARS ON FUTURE LITIGATION.
WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THERE'S ALSO AN EXPECTATION THAT 
COMMISSIONER WHITE PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTRIBUTION, YOU 
KNOW, TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY, AS THE JUDGE HAS FOUND THAT 
WE ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALBLY LIABLE, AS WELL AS THERE IS 
AN EXPECTATION BY THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS FROM MYSELF -- 
AND I THINK I PROBABLY SPEAK FOR SOME OF THE OTHER BOARD 
MEMBERS -- THAT SOMEHOW HE PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTRIBUTION 
TO -- TO RESTORE AND MAKE WHOLE THE COUNTY AND THE 
TAXPAYERS FOR SOME OF THE PROCESSES AND THE EXPENSES THAT 
WE HAVE INCURRED IN THIS CASE.
MY CONCERN THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS IS 
THE -- IS THE WAY THAT WE GO ABOUT SEEKING THE 
CONTRIBUTION, AND I GUESS, MS. LEE, ANOTHER QUESTION TO YOU 
IS WHEN WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES THAT WE GET INTO 
LITIGATION WITH OR THAT WE HAVE DISPUTE WITH, DO WE 
TYPICALLY -- DOES THAT TYPICALLY PLAY OUT HERE IN FRONT OF 
THE BOARD, OR IS THAT USUALLY -- DO WE USUALLY MAKE THE 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES?
WHAT'S USUALLY THE PROCESS THAT ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WOULD 
GO THROUGH THAT WE WOULD -- THAT WE MIGHT HAVE LITIGATION 
WITH?
>>RENEE LEE:  WELL, COMMISSIONER, MANY -- MANY TIMES WE 
HAVE LITIGATION THAT'S RESOLVED AT MEDIATION, AND IN THE 
INSTANCES WHERE THE BOARD IS ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS, 
THERE'S GENERALLY AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ISSUES 
AND -- AND TO MAKE -- AND THE BOARD CAN MAKE DECISION AND 
GIVE DIRECTIONS OUT OF THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN THEIR 
DISCUSSION TAKES PLACE.
THERE IS GENERALLY NOT OPEN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PARTY 
FROM THE BOARD'S DAIS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  YEAH.
AND THAT'S WHAT -- YOU KNOW, AND I -- WHEN I LOOK AT THIS 
CASE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AFFORDING COMMISSIONER 
WHITE THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE WOULD AFFORD ANY OTHER 
INDIVIDUAL OR ANY OTHER COMPANY THAT WE MAY DECIDE TO 
LITIGATE WITH OR HAVE A DISPUTE WITH, AND I THINK FIRST AND 
FOREMOST WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL 
THE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES IN -- YOU KNOW, FROM 
NEGOTIATIONS AND FROM TALKS BEFORE WE ENTER INTO ANY TYPE 
OF LITIGATION THAT'S GOING TO INCUR MORE EXPENSES TO THE 
TAXPAYERS, AND IN THE LETTER THAT MS. -- THAT COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA REFERENCED FROM THE 23rd, AT THE END OF THE 
STATEMENT IT SAYS THAT WHEN THEY UNDERSTAND MR. WHITE'S 
EXPOSURE AS FAR AS IT RELATED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, 
THEY'D BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO OUR INQUIRY THAT MS. SAADY 
SENT HER, SO BEFORE THAT -- I WOULD DETERMINE THAT WE NEED 
TO MOVE TO LITIGATION, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND -- YOU KNOW, TO GET THE INFORMATION 
THAT THEY NEED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND I THINK WE 
AS A COUNTY ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR HARD COSTS ARE 
GOING TO BE AS WELL.
WE KNOW THAT PROBABLY AT MINIMUM WE'RE LOOKING AT $350,000, 
BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE WHOLE ENTIRE PICTURE BEFORE I 
WOULD BE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LITIGATION.
AGAIN, FOR THE TAXPAYERS' SAKE, I THINK WE NEED TO BE 
CAUTIOUS IN ENTERING INTO FURTHER LITIGATION UNLESS IT 
NECESSITATES AND WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE COMMISSIONER 
WHITE OR HIS COUNSEL FEELS LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS BOARD OR TO THE TAXPAYERS OR THEY'RE 
UNWILLING TO CONTRIBUTE OR NEGOTIATE IN ANY WAY IN THE 
PARTICIPATION OF THIS.
SO I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE EXISTING MOTION AS IT IS TODAY, 
AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL LET MY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS SPEAK, BUT I 
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE IS AFFORDED 
THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE REPRESENTATION AND DUE 
PROCESS FROM HIS COUNSEL AND TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO -- TO RESPOND ONCE THEY GET THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
INSURANCE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE GOT TO GET THIS 
BEHIND US, AND FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD SECOND THE 
MOTION IF WE CONTINUE TO PURSUE ALL INSURANCE RECOVERIES.
IN OTHER WORDS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE -- IF 
THAT'S A PART OF THE -- ON A PARALLEL THAT WE CONTINUE TO 
TRY TO RECOVER ALL POSSIBLE DOLLARS.
DO YOU FOLLOW ME?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  ABSOLUTELY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW -- BUT I NEED TO 
ASK THE -- A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE.
IT SOMEWHAT DISTURBED ME A LITTLE BIT THAT, YOU KNOW, EARLY 
ON I ASKED ABOUT THE BONDS, I ASKED ABOUT COVERAGES, AND -- 
AND THIS WAS FOUND.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE DISSECTED AND SCRUBBED 
EVERY POLICY THAT WE HAVE, EVERY -- I MEAN, CERTAIN -- 
CERTAIN POLICIES WILL COVER CERTAIN THINGS.
THAT YOU HAVE YOUR ENTIRE -- YOU HAVE YOUR STAFF DISSECTING 
EVERY POLICY NOW THAT THIS COUNTY HAS POTENTIALLY THAT 
COULD DEFLECT ANY COSTS THAT WE MAY HAVE.
AT THE -- YOU KNOW, THIS -- THIS WAS FOUND LATER, 
APPARENTLY, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT -- I MEAN --
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONER, THAT -- THAT IS THE JOB OF THE 
RISK MANAGER, CHRISTINA SWANSON, AND I THINK -- CERTAINLY, 
CHRISTINA CAN SPEAK FOR HERSELF, BUT SHE PROBABLY DIDN'T 
UNDERSTAND THE LIABILITY IN THIS CASE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO 
IDENTIFY A POLICY UNTIL WE WERE WELL INTO IT THAT MAY EVEN 
PROVIDE COVERAGE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER 
POLICIES OUT THERE.
>>CHRISTINA SWANSON:  UH-HUH.
YEAH.
CHRISTINA SWANSON, HUMAN RESOURCES.
WE DID IDENTIFY THAT WE DO CARRY THIS POLICY EARLY ON, AND 
WHEN WE BECAME AWARE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE POSSIBLE 
LITIGATION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS PUT ON NOTICE EARLY 
ON.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MS. SWANSON, EVEN LIKE -- AND AGAIN, THE 
REASON I RAISED THAT AS KIND OF A -- A LOT OF THESE 
POLICIES ARE MULTI -- HAVE DIFFERENT MULTICOVERAGES UNDER 
DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> YES.
>>JIM NORMAN:  GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, 
YOUR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE WILL COVER A MULTIPLE DEGREE OF 
THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT TYPICALLY BELIEVE IT WOULD COVER.
I JUST WANT ALL POLICIES TO DEFLECT ALL COSTS --
>> YES, SIR.
>>JIM NORMAN:  JUST TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THESE.
>> ABSOLUTELY, SIR.
>>JIM NORMAN:  BECAUSE THAT'S PARAMOUNT AT THIS TIME THAT 
WE DO THAT.
>> YES.
ABSOLUTELY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  AND GOING BACK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, 
ANOTHER QUESTION.
AND I KNOW THE FEDERAL AND I KNOW THE STATE AND I KNOW THE 
IMMUNITIES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BEEN TOTALLY 
VETTED ABOUT THIS $200,000 LIABILITY THAT WE'RE PROTECTED 
UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
>>RENEE LEE:  UNDER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES.
>>RENEE LEE:  WE DID --
>>JIM NORMAN:  HAS THERE BEEN A CASE THAT DID NOT -- IN 
OTHER WORDS, DOES IT NOT JUST EXIST OR IS THERE ON POINT A 
CASE THAT SAYS THERE IS NOT A -- THERE'S NOT $200,000 
COVERAGE FOR US?
>>RENEE LEE:  I'LL LET STEVE TODD ADDRESS THAT.
HE DID PART OF THE RESEARCH ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WITH 
RESPECT TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
>>STEPHEN TODD:  STEPHEN TODD, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  IN OTHER WORDS, I'M LOOKING FOR PIGGYBACK, 
I'M LOOKING FOR --
>>STEPHEN TODD:  I APPRECIATE THAT, COMMISSIONER.
WE DID RESEARCH THIS VERY THOROUGHLY, AND BECAUSE THAT 
ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS EXCLUSIVELY A FEDERAL STATUTE, THE 
STATE CAP ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR TORT ACTIONS DOES NOT 
APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW.
THERE'S SIMPLY NO PRECEDENT FOR APPLYING THAT CAP.
>>JIM NORMAN:  YOU SAY THERE'S NO PRECEDENT, BUT IS IT
JUST --
>>STEPHEN TODD:  THERE ARE CASES --
>>JIM NORMAN:  THERE IS A CASE -- THERE ARE CASES OUT 
THERE?
>>STEPHEN TODD:  THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CASES THAT 
SPECIFICALLY SAY IT DOES NOT APPLY UNDER A 1983 ACTION.
>>JIM NORMAN:  ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>STEPHEN TODD:  YES, SIR.
>>KEN HAGAN:  I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION BEFORE COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA GOES NEXT.
MS. LEE, WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME OR IS THERE A TIME FRAME 
FOR THE BOARD TO -- TO --
>>RENEE LEE:  THERE IS, COMMISSIONER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  -- FILE SUIT AGAINST COMMISSIONER WHITE?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  A YEAR.
>>RENEE LEE:  YES.
IF WE -- IF THE BOARD'S DIRECTION IS TO BRING LITIGATION 
AGAINST COMMISSIONER WHITE, THEN WE HAVE TO DO IT WITHIN 
ONE YEAR OF THE JUDGMENT DATE, SO WE STILL HAVE ABOUT EIGHT 
MONTHS -- YES, ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS TO DO THAT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  AND THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION.
ARE THE RESULTS OF THE INSURANCE ISSUE -- DOES THAT 
INFLUENCE YOUR -- YOUR DECISION OR YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS 
FAR AS FILING SUIT AGAINST COMMISSIONER WHITE?
DOES THAT PLAY ANY ROLE?
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONER, I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT THE BOARD 
IS GOING TO BE OUT OF $350,000 REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH MONEY 
THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS.
IT WILL ONLY PAY OVER THAT INITIAL INVESTMENT BY THE 
COUNTY, SO WE ARE EXPECTED PROBABLY TO RECEIVE NO MORE THAN 
$150,000.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND OF COURSE, THAT IS, MS. LEE, DEPENDENT ON WHETHER OR 
NOT THE INSURANCE LOOKS AT THIS AS INTENTIONAL ACTS BECAUSE 
WE MAY -- THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION HERE THAT WE MIGHT GET 
SOMETHING.
WE MIGHT NOT GET ANYTHING.
>>RENEE LEE:  THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE ARE EXCLUSIONS.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WE KNOW FOR SURE WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 
FIRST 350, AND THEN WE SEE WHERE WE GO FROM THERE, AND I 
UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHAT MR. HAGAN ASKED.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS CERTAINLY ONE YEAR FROM THE 
DATE OF SETTLEMENT, AND SO WE HAVE A YEAR TO FILE SUIT OR 
SUCH A SUIT WOULD BE WAIVED.
I FULLY ANTICIPATED THAT SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES WOULD 
SUGGEST REFERENCING THE INSURANCE POLICY, AND THAT'S FINE, 
BUT THIS THE ISSUE.
WE CONTINUE TO DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE CAN'T START THIS -- AND STEVE, 
I HOPE I CAN WORD THAT THE SAME WAY I ASKED YOU YESTERDAY 
BECAUSE I GOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ON IT.
WE CAN START THIS, AND THEN DEPENDING ON WHAT THE FINAL 
LOSSES ARE TO THE CITY -- TO THE COUNTY AND DEPENDING ON 
HOW MUCH OR NONE OR WHAT MR. WHITE DOES, WE CAN CERTAINLY 
ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT?
>> YES, THAT IS AN OPTION.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THAT DOESN'T STOP US FROM STARTING THE 
PROCESS FOR A LOT OF REASONS.
FIRST OF ALL, WE GET IT STARTED SO WE'RE MOVING IN THE 
RIGHT DIRECTION, AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, 
AND AT THE SAME TIME, AT LEAST OUR TAXPAYERS SEE THAT AFTER 
THE $500,000 APPROXIMATE EXPENDITURE, WE ARE BEING 
CONSERVATIVE. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO COST A 
LOT OF MONEY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU USE THE ASSUMPTION THAT 
PERHAPS MR. WHITE MIGHT NOT GET ACTIVE INTO THIS CASE.
WHETHER HE CAN FINANCIALLY AFFORD IT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S A SUPPOSITION ON MY PART.
BUT IN ANY CASE, WHAT WE DO NOW WILL NOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME 
OF THE DOLLARS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ABSORB, SO WE 
COULD START IT, AND WE COULD FILL IN THE EMPTY LINE 
DEPENDING ON WHAT REIMBURSEMENT WE GET WHEN WE GET IT.
>>STEPHEN TODD:  THAT'S ALL CORRECT.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  AND THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE 
WOULD LOOK TO HIM FOR LITIGATION FOR CONTRIBUTION?
>>STEPHEN TODD:  YES.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  SO THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE 
IN CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THE OUTCOME OF THE INSURANCE?
>>STEPHEN TODD:  YOU CAN PROCEED ALONG SEPARATE TRACKS IN 
LITIGATING THIS AND THEN PURSUING THE INSURANCE ON A 
DIFFERENT TRACK WITHOUT CONFLICTING WITH EACH OTHER.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  RIGHT.
AND ALSO TO THAT CONCERN, I THINK THAT MR. NORMAN VERY 
APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT UP -- YES.
I CERTAINLY WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO 
OUR TAXPAYERS IF WE WERE NOT PURSUING THAT EXTRA TRACK TO 
TRY TO GET EVERYTHING WE CAN BACK IN TERMS OF 
REIMBURSEMENT.
>>STEPHEN TODD:  YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO SO, COMMISSIONER.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  AND THAT'S THE REASON, GENTLEMEN, THAT I 
UNDERSTAND WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, BUT THIS 
IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT YOU SUGGESTED, MR. BECKNER, IT 
JUST GETS THE PROCESS STARTED, SO THAT'S WHY I HOLD TO THAT 
MOTION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MS. LEE, IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS LAWSUIT, YOU HAD 
MENTIONED WE HAVE TO OBTAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THIS.
WOULD THEY REQUIRE A RETAINER OR SOMETHING UP FRONT OR WHAT 
WOULD WE HAVE TO -- TO PAY?
>>RENEE LEE:  GENERALLY, COMMISSIONERS, THESE CASES ARE 
TAKEN BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON AN HOURLY BASIS.
WE TRY TO NEGOTIATE A GOVERNMENT RATE OF 295 -- BETWEEN 295  
AND 300 PER HOUR FOR THESE KIND OF CASES, HOPEFULLY LESS, 
BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN COMING IN ANY LESS THAN THAT LATELY.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  SO IMMEDIATELY ONCE WE GO FORWARD, THEN, 
THE BILL FOR THE TAXPAYERS STARTS RUNNING AGAIN, AND THEY 
START PAYING AGAIN FOR LITIGATION, AND I GUESS THIS IS WHAT 
KIND OF PERPLEXES ME.
AS I'VE SAT HERE ON THIS BOARD FOR THE LAST YEAR AND WHEN 
WE'VE HAD CASES COME BEFORE US WHERE WE'RE POTENTIALLY -- 
WHETHER IT'S THE EPC OR SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT SUING SOMEBODY OR TAKING SOMEBODY TO THE COURT, 
EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT GOING TO THE BACK ROOM AND 
SAYING, OH, LET'S WORK THIS OUT, LET'S WORK THIS OUT, LET'S 
SEE WHAT WE CAN WORK OUT BEFORE WE HAVE TO GO INTO COURT, 
AND I AM VERY PERPLEXED THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAUSE OF THE 
HIGH PROFILE OF THIS CASE THAT WE WANT TO RUSH INTO 
LITIGATION AND SUE COMMISSIONER WHITE WHEN COMMISSIONER 
WHITE HAS NOT SAID THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE.
THEY'RE MERELY ASKING FOR SOME TIME TO SEE WHAT THE 
INSURANCE POLICY IS GOING TO PAY.
SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF WHAT SOME OF 
OUR PHILOSOPHIES AND POLICIES HAS BEEN.
NOW, I KNOW IT WOULD MAKE A GREAT HEADLINE IN THE 
NEWSPAPER, THE MEDIA, AND THE PUBLIC WOULD PROBABLY LOVE 
IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE SERVED COMMISSIONER WHITE 
WITH DUE PROCESS, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO GIVE HIM 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY NO, HE'S NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE OR 
COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY 
TYPE OF CONTRIBUTION BEFORE WE DECIDE THAT WE ARE GOING TO 
SPEND ADDITIONAL TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS TO LITIGATE THIS 
PARTICULAR CASE.
I THINK IT'S UNFAIR AND IT -- TO COMMISSIONER WHITE, I 
THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO THE TAXPAYERS OUT THERE, AND I WOULD 
MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS CONVERSATION 
UNTIL WE HAVE HEARD BACK FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY ABOUT 
WHAT THEY WILL PAY OR NOT PAY, AND I WANT A DEFINITE ANSWER 
FROM COMMISSIONER WHITE IF HE'S GOING TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT 
BEFORE WE DECIDE WE'RE GOING TO LITIGATE.
I THINK THAT THAT'S THE FAIR WAY TO DO IT.
THAT'S THE WAY WE TREATED OUR OTHER CITIZENS, AND I WOULD 
HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD TREAT COMMISSIONER WHITE 
NO DIFFERENTLY, SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE GOT FROM MY 
PERSPECTIVE TWO OPTIONS, AND NEITHER ONE OF THEM ARE 
PERFECT OPTIONS, AND BOTH OF THEM ARE GOING TO RESULT I 
STILL BELIEVE IN THE TAXPAYERS REGRETTABLY HAVING TO COVER 
A PORTION OF THIS COST.
I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD PURSUE WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS A 
MONTH OR SO AGO -- I GUESS IT WAS A MONTH AGO -- THE -- THE 
APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL -- TO THE 11th REGARDING JOINT AND 
SEVERAL LIABILITY BECAUSE I FELT THAT WE HAD AND I STILL 
BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A STRONG CASE WITH REGARD TO THE 
SEPARATION, AND THAT JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY IS WHAT 
I'VE BEEN WRESTLING WITH BECAUSE THERE'S NO SET OF -- OF 
INSTRUCTIONS WITH REGARD TO HOW YOU ENFORCE THE JOINT AND 
SEVERAL, WHAT'S THE -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE BOTH OBLIGATED, 
WE'RE NEITHER -- AND SO WE'RE BOTH REQUIRED TO PAY, BUT 
THERE'S NO SET OF AMOUNTS AT WHO'S GOING TO PAY WHAT, SO WE 
NOW HAVE TO WORK OUT AN UNDERSTANDING WITH COMMISSIONER 
WHITE.
COMMISSIONER WHITE I THINK HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE'S NOT 
CAPABLE.
MAYBE I'M -- MAYBE I'M PUTTING WORDS IN HIS MOUTH ON BEING 
NOT CAPABLE, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SENSE THAT 
HE'S -- HE IS NOT CAPABLE OF PAYING, AND MY CONCERN -- AND 
THIS IS TO COMMISSIONER BECKNER'S POINT -- IS IF WE NOW 
BEGIN THE -- IMMEDIATELY INTO A LAWSUIT, WE START INCURRING 
NEW LEGAL COSTS, AND THEN THERE'S A CHALLENGE, THAT COULD 
ONLY CONTINUE TO DAMAGE THE TAXPAYER.
MY QUESTION TO YOU -- THIS GOES TO THE ATTORNEY.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOINT AND SEVERAL, CAN -- THE PARTIES THAT 
HAVE BEEN TIED TOGETHER, CAN WE SUE EACH OTHER?
>>RENEE LEE:  YES, COMMISSIONER.
THAT'S WHAT THE SEVERAL PART IS.
IN SOME INSTANCES YOU'RE LIMITED -- I'M SO SORRY.
IN SOME INSTANCES YOU'RE LIMITED BY LAW FOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT WE'VE DONE SOME INITIAL RESEARCH 
AND DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT APPLIES HERE.
THE SEVERAL ALLOWS THE CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, ALLOWS THE CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE 
PARTIES, BUT HOW IS THAT DETERMINED?
DO WE --
>>RENEE LEE:  IT -- THERE'S NO FORMULA FOR IT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE SOME 
FORM OF MEDIATION WHERE -- I MEAN, I HAD ASKED BEFORE -- 
AND I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A REPORT BACK, BUT I DID ASK ABOUT 
GOING TO HIM, GOING TO HIS ATTORNEYS, AND FINDING OUT FROM 
HIM WHAT HE MIGHT BE CAPABLE OF PAYING, EVEN THE 
POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE WOULD THEY BE 
WILLING -- ONCE EVERYTHING'S SETTLED, THE INSURANCE ISSUE'S 
SETTLED, OF HIM MAKING SOME FORM OF A PAYMENT OUT OVER A 
PERIOD OF TIME.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THESE 
CIRCUMSTANCES?
>>RENEE LEE:  ABSOLUTELY, YES.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I MEAN, BOARD MEMBERS, I GUESS WHAT I'M 
ASKING IS THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO RESOLVE THIS.
WE STILL -- COMMISSIONER WHITE HAS AN OBLIGATION AND 
RESPONSIBILITY, BUT IS THERE A -- IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO 
RESOLVE THIS WHERE WE ARE NOT GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE 
ATTORNEYS?
COULD WE NOT SEND OUR -- CAN OUR ATTORNEYS NEGOTIATE WITH 
HIS ATTORNEYS -- I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NOW TAKING 
HIM -- IF WE WERE NOT THE TO SUE HIM -- AND WE'D ASKED YOU 
LAST TIME TO GO TALK WITH HIS ATTORNEYS.
CAN OUR ATTORNEYS TALK WITH HIS ATTORNEYS AND SEE IF THERE 
IS A -- SOME FORM OF A SETTLEMENT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE 
BOTH TO THE COUNTY, OBVIOUSLY TO THE TAXPAYERS, AND 
SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE COULD ACTUALLY PAY?
>>RENEE LEE:  WE COULD CERTAINLY GO TO MEDIATION WITH 
COMMISSIONER WHITE AND HIS ATTORNEY.
I WOULD OFFER THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE COULD NOT 
DO THAT.
WE'VE BEEN CONFLICTED OUT ENTIRELY THROUGH THIS PROCESS, 
AND I AM SURE THAT THE FLORIDA BAR WOULD SAY NO AGAIN.
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO WE CAN'T EVEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH 
HIM ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO --
>>RENEE LEE:  NO.
NO.
WE -- IT'S DUAL REPRESENTATION, COMMISSIONER.
WE REPRESENT COMMISSIONER WHITE AS A BOARD MEMBER AS WELL 
AS THE FULL BOARD.
>>MARK SHARPE:  ALL RIGHT.
SO WHEN THE JUDGE THEN MADE THE DETERMINATION JOINT AND 
SEVERAL, HOW THEN -- HOW THEN DO THE PARTIES MAKE THE 
DETERMINATION AS TO WHO'S GOING TO PAY WHAT OTHER THAN 
GOING TO SOME FORM OF LAWSUIT?
>>RENEE LEE:  YOU MAY EITHER DO A MEDIATION AND MAKE AN 
AGREEMENT, OR YOU CAN SUE HIM FOR HALF OF IT OR 100% OF IT.
WE'RE BOTH 100% LIABLE FOR THE OBLIGATION, FOR THE 
JUDGMENT.
AND SO WE CAN EITHER TRY TO RECOVER 100% OF THAT, 50% OF 
THAT.
IT'S NEGOTIABLE.
THE COURTS LEAVE IT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO DECIDE THAT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I'M NOT IN A RUSH TO START PAYING NEW 
ATTORNEYS, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO FIND SOME WAY OF 
RESOLVING THIS.
I MEAN, THAT -- IT'S THE REASON WE DIDN'T APPEAL.
WE DIDN'T APPEAL BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE COULD HAVE I THINK 
WON OR WE DISCUSSED THE OPPORTUNITY OF WINNING, WE REALIZED 
WE WANTED TO CUT IT AND NOT CONTINUE PAYING ATTORNEYS, AND 
NOW WE'RE GETTING READY TO PAY ATTORNEYS FOR THIS PORTION 
OF IT, SO I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO LISTEN.
>>RENEE LEE:  WE COULD CERTAINLY GO TO MEDIATION, DO A -- A 
BOARD-ORDERED MEDIATION.
CERTAINLY THAT WOULD COST SOME DOLLARS BUT MAYBE LESS THAN 
LITIGATION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  YOU'VE -- YOU'VE MENTIONED THE RATE OF 
295 TO 300 AN HOUR.
HOW MANY HOURS ARE WE LOOKING AT IF WE WERE TO PURSUE THE 
MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR AND THEN WE MAY END UP WITH A 
JUDGMENT?
>>RENEE LEE:  STEVE, DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF THE HOURS?
WE HAVE TRIED TO DISCUSS WITH SOME ATTORNEYS WHO DO THIS 
KIND OF WORK WHAT IT WOULD TAKE IN TERMS OF HOURS AND 
DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND IF YOU WOULD REPORT ON THAT.
>> IT COULD BE AS LITTLE AS A FEW HOURS IF THERE IS NO 
OPPOSITION FILED.
THAT WOULD INVOLVE PREPARING, FILING THE LAWSUIT, AND 
GETTING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, WHICH WOULD BE A JUDGMENT IN 
THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
IF THERE IS A CONTESTED LAWSUIT, IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY 
MORE HOURS, SO THE ISSUE IS WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT 
THERE WOULD BE OPPOSITION IN SUCH A LAWSUIT, AND THAT IS AN 
UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  SO FEW AND SIGNIFICANT IS ALL WE HAVE?
>> I'D SAY 10 TO 20 HOURS AT A MINIMUM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  OKAY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU, MR. -- MR. CHAIRMAN.
I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THIS ROUTE IS NOT ANYWHERE -- 
ANYWHERE GOING TO BE AS COSTLY AS AN APPEAL, SO I DISAGREE 
WITH YOU ON THAT, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, AND TO YOU, MR. 
BECKNER, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK THIS WAS 
ANYTHING THAT WE RUSHED TO TO MAKE A DECISION.
I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS AND REGONE THROUGH IT AND 
GONE THROUGH IT AGAIN.
IT IS JUST THAT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE ACTED IN THE CITIZENS' 
BEHALF, AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT FULL CIRCLE, WE NEED TO 
TRY TO RECOUP SOME OF THOSE.
CLEARLY I HAVE HEARD NOTHING FROM MR. WHITE IN MANY OF MY 
QUESTIONS TO HIM AND MANY OF OUR DELIBERATIONS THAT HE HAD 
ANY ANTICIPATION OF CONTRIBUTING OR PARTICIPATING IN 
CONTRIBUTION, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THIS 
COULD COST VERSUS WHAT THE APPEAL COULD HAVE COST, IT IS 
CERTAINLY -- IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AS EXPENSIVE.
AND THE THING THAT I WOULD THINK IF I -- I DON'T KNOW, 
MAYBE WE TALKED TO DIFFERENT -- MAYBE WE TALKED TO 
DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS.
I TALKED TO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS AT PUBLIX AND HOME DEPOT 
AND ANYPLACE I GO, AND I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, NINE OUT OF 
TEN OF THEM SAY, WE TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT.
YOU WENT OPPOSITE THE WAY OF AN APPEAL BECAUSE AT LEAST YOU 
STOPPED THOSE DOLLARS, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, STAND UP FOR US 
AGAIN AND TRY TO GET SOME OF OUR DOLLARS BACK.
IT MAKES NO GOOD GOVERNMENT SENSE FOR US TO HAVE DONE THIS 
AND THEN JUST NOT FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THIS.
IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO MAKE MR. WHITE PAY.
IT IS MR. WHITE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH IT THE WAY HE 
WANTS.
BUT FOR US TO SIT AND WAIT AND SEE FOR THE NEXT SCENARIO, 
FOR THE NEXT JUNCTURE, I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING IN THE 
WRONG DIRECTION.
IT'S LIKE PAY THESE DOLLARS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND AT 
THE SAME TIME, HE IS A -- HE'S A CODEFENDANT, HE'S 
CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS POINT BECOME A COPAYER, BUT HE WANTS 
TO BE A COBENEFICIARY OF THE PROCESS.
I AGAIN WON'T SUPPORT YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAUSE I 
THINK WE HAVE TO MOVE THIS ON SO THAT IT MAKES A STATEMENT.
WE DECIDED TO DO THIS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND I FEEL 
REAL GOOD ABOUT WHERE I AM WITH MY MOTION BECAUSE PEOPLE 
WILL SUPPORT YOU AT LEAST TRYING TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK, 
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS LITIGATION WOULD BE.
AND IT ABSOLUTELY, AS I SAID IN MY CLOSING COMMENT, WILL 
SEPARATE US FROM MR. WHITE.
AT THAT POINT I FEEL THAT WE'VE DONE WHAT WE SHOULD DO FOR 
OUR CONSTITUENTS.
MR. WHITE CAN DEAL WITH HIM, HIS OWN LEVEL OF -- OF ESSENCE 
OF INTEGRITY, ESSENCE OF ANYTHING, AND DEAL WITH HIS OWN 
CONSTITUENTS IN HIS OWN DISTRICT, BUT THIS MAKES A 
STATEMENT, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT EXPENSIVE, AND I 
THINK -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE COULD STOP THAT ANYTIME WE 
WANTED, BUT WE'RE TAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT HE'S GOING TO 
USE THE DOLLARS TO CONTEST IT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM USE THE DOLLARS TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, SO 
I'M -- I'M NOT VERY CONVINCED AT ALL THAT HE WOULD BE 
CONTESTING THIS.
SO CERTAINLY THE RATE FOR THAT CONCLUSION OF LITIGATION 
PROCESS WOULD BE VERY LOW COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE RATES 
WE'VE LOOKED AT, SO --
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND COMMISSIONER FERLITA, I VERY MUCH RESPECT YOUR POSITION 
ON THIS BECAUSE LIKE YOU, I FEEL MR. WHITE NEEDS TO BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS AND HE NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS.
I'M REFERRING BACK TO HIS LETTER THAT HIS ATTORNEY SENT 
WHEN IT SAID IN THE VERY LAST STATEMENT, WHEN WE ARE BETTER 
ABLE TO DETERMINE THE TOTALITY OF MR. WHITE'S EXPOSURE, WE 
WILL BE PLEASED TO RESPOND TO YOUR INQUIRY, SO MY QUESTION 
THEN GOES BACK TO THAT WE HAVE NOT EVEN GIVEN COMMISSIONER 
WHITE'S REPRESENTATION -- THEIR ATTORNEYS AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
RESPOND.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS -- IS WE'RE RUSHING INTO ANOTHER 
LITIGATION, AND EVEN IF WE SPEND 250 MORE DOLLARS, IF 
THAT'S -- IF IT'S 250 MORE DOLLARS THAN WHAT WE NEED TO 
SPEND, WHY WOULD WE SPEND IT?
WHY WOULD WE NOT TRY TO WORK THIS OUT WITH COMMISSIONER 
WHITE?
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ASKING COMMISSIONER WHITE TWICE ON THE 
STAND UP HERE IF HE'S GOING TO PAY OR NOT IS ACTUALLY FAIR.
WE DON'T DRAG IN CITIZENS WHO WE'RE SUING OR OTHER 
COMPANIES AND ASK THEM TO GET IN FRONT OF THAT PODIUM AND 
SAY HOW MUCH ARE YOU GOING TO PAY, ARE YOU GOING IT PAY OR 
DO WE NEED TO SUE YOU?
THAT'S NOT THE PROCESS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE UTILIZED.
JUST BECAUSE COMMISSIONER WHITE IS A CAPTIVE MEMBER OF THIS 
BOARD UP HERE AND HE SITS WITH US, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD 
DEVIATE FROM ANY OTHER PROCESS OR TREAT HIM ANY DIFFERENTLY 
THAN WE WOULD ANY OTHER CITIZEN, AND I THINK THAT IF WE CAN 
AMICABLY WORK THIS OUT WITHOUT FURTHER LITIGATION AND IF 
HIS -- ALLOW HIS ATTORNEYS TO RESPOND AND SAY THIS IS WHAT 
WE'RE ABLE TO DO -- BECAUSE PERHAPS THEY'LL COME BACK AND 
SAY THIS IS HOW WE'LL CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROCESS, THIS IS 
WHAT WE'LL -- COMMISSIONER WHITE IS -- IS WILLING TO OFFER, 
AND THEN WE CAN MEDIATE THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND 
ANOTHER DOLLAR ON LITIGATION.
NOW, IF IT COMES BACK WHERE THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE 
DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, WE'RE NOT PARTICIPATING AT ALL, WELL, 
THEN I THINK THE CONVERSATION CHANGES AGAIN, AND THEN WE 
NEED TO COME BACK HERE TO DISCUSS HOW WE'RE GOING TO HELP 
THE TAXPAYERS AND THIS BOARD RECUPERATE THE DOLLARS AND THE 
TIME THAT IT HAS SPENT ON THIS CASE, BUT UNTIL I'VE HEARD 
FROM HIS ATTORNEYS AND HIS REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THEY'RE 
GOING TO DO, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AGAIN WE TRY TO 
NEGOTIATE WITH CITIZENS TO AVOID LITIGATION AND WHY WE'RE 
RUSHING TO ENGAGE IN FURTHER LITIGATION WITH COMMISSIONER 
WHITE.
IF WE'RE LOOKING TO MAKE A STATEMENT, ANY EXTRA TAXPAYER 
DOLLAR THAT WE SPEND COULD BE A VERY EXPENSIVE POLITICAL 
STATEMENT TO MAKE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO LOOK AT 
EVERY SINGLE AVENUE POSSIBLE FIRST AND GET THAT NO FROM HIM 
THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE BEFORE WE DECIDE THAT 
WE'RE GOING TO FURTHER LITIGATE THIS CASE, AND THAT'S WHY I 
MADE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT I DID.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER WHITE.
>>KEVIN WHITE:  I'D LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR THE HEALTHY 
DISCUSSION.
FIRST OF ALL, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN A 
DEFINITIVE ANSWER FROM ME IS I DON'T KNOW THE LIMIT OF MY 
FINANCIAL EXPOSURE.
I DO KNOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME MY FINANCIAL EXPOSURE IN 
ITSELF IS IN EXCESS OF $150,000 FOR THIS CASE.
THAT IS AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT, AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT 
ON MY OWN.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR A 
QUESTION REAL QUICK.
HAVE WE EVER HAD PRECEDENT OF A SITTING COMMISSIONER BEING 
SUED BY THE BOARD BEFORE THAT YOU KNOW OF?
>>RENEE LEE:  I'M NOT AWARE OF THIS BOARD BRINGING A 
LAWSUIT AGAINST ANY COMMISSIONER, AND STEVE, I DON'T KNOW 
THAT YOU -- HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD NO, THAT HE'S NOT AWARE.
PAT'S BEEN HERE LONGER THAN I.
>>PAT BEAN:  I'M NOT AWARE EITHER OF ANY TIME THAT 
OCCURRING.
>>KEVIN WHITE:  ALL RIGHT.
A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT -- THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE 
AUDIENCE AND MAYBE SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DON'T KNOW, 
THAT WHEN THE JUDGE CAME UP AND SAID THE JOINT AND SEVERAL 
LIABILITY -- WHEN HE SAID KEVIN WHITE CANNOT BE SEPARATED 
FROM THE COUNTY, THE REASON THAT HE SAID THAT IN SO MANY 
INSTANCES DURING THE WEEK TRIAL WAS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT I 
HAVE IN MY HAND.
THIS IS A DRAFT POLICY THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY JUST PASSED 
OUT ON THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY, WHICH WAS NOT IN 
PLACE, AND THEY SAID, THAT'S WHY WE CANNOT SEPARATE YOU 
FROM THE COUNTY BECAUSE THE COUNTY DID NOT HAVE PROPER 
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO PROTECT YOU.
ANY COMMISSIONER UP HERE CAN BE ACCUSED OF THE EXACT SAME 
THING THAT I WAS ACCUSED OF WITH NO EVIDENCE AT ALL AND 
HAVE A CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM, WHICH THERE WAS NO 
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE OF ANY TYPE OF HARASSMENT, BUT EACH 
ONE OF US CAN BE EXPOSED TO THIS TYPE OF EXPOSURE AND 
LIABILITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME AS IT STANDS BECAUSE WE, AS 
COMMISSIONERS, DO NOT HAVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE 
TO -- TO THWART AGAINST THIS.
NOW, THERE WERE SOME ACTIONS THAT I AM VERY SORRY THAT 
TOOK -- THAT TOOK PLACE, BUT NONE OF THEM, NONE OF THEM 
WERE SEXUAL OR HARASSING IN NATURE, AND I WILL SAY THAT TO 
MY GRAVE, AND NONE OF THOSE WERE PROVEN DURING THIS CASE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE JURY DECIDED TO GO THE OTHER WAY, AND 
AGAIN, I WILL STATE, THEY SAID THAT WE WANT TO SEND THE 
COUNTY A MESSAGE, NOT COMMISSIONER WHITE, NOT COMMISSIONER 
WHITE, WE FOUND THAT YOU DID ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE OR WE 
FOUND THAT THERE WERE ANY INAPPROPRIATE ACTS.
WE WANT TO SEND THE COUNTY A MESSAGE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT 
HAVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO PROTECT YOU 
AGAINST THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT.
NOW, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE SAME PROTECTIONS AND PROVISIONS 
THAT WERE HERE TO PROTECT AN EMPLOYEE OF MINE SHOULD HAVE 
BEEN IN PLACE TO PROTECT ME AND MY OTHER FELLOW COLLEAGUES 
AS WELL, WHICH WERE NOT, BUT NOW BASED OFF OF THE JUDGE'S 
HEEDING 20 TO 30 TIMES DURING THE WEEK'S TRIAL, NOW ALL OF 
A SUDDEN WE HAVE A DRAFT POLICY THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR 
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DIDN'T 
HAVE ANY.
THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NO TRAINING, THERE'S NO MANDATORY 
TRAINING, THERE WAS NO -- THERE'S NO FOLLOW-UP WITH THE 
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, SO NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, YES, 
IT'S EASY TO JUMP ON AND IT'S EASY TO PILE ON, IT'S EASY TO 
CONDEMN SOMEBODY.
JUST BECAUSE A VERDICT COMES OUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN 
THAT -- THAT THE -- THE FACT OF GUILT IS THERE BECAUSE 
THERE IS NOT, AND WE SEE MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO 
PRISON AND 20 AND 30 YEARS LATER WE FIND OUT THEY'RE 
COMPLETELY INNOCENT BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE THIS GREAT THING, 
DNA AND ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS, BUT I'M HERE TO SAY TO 
MY BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL AS TO THE LISTENING PUBLIC, THE 
ONLY REASON -- THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM 
ME AS FAR AS WHAT I'M WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN IS BECAUSE 
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY EXPOSURE IS.
WHEN I FIND OUT WHAT MY EXPOSURE IS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO 
TELL THIS BOARD WHAT I THINK I CAN AFFORD, AND I'M WILLING 
TO PARTICIPATE FOR A -- IN -- IN REGARD TO THIS ISSUE, BUT 
I'M NOT WILLING TO COME OUT AND SAY A NUMBER THAT IN THE 
END I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD AND IN THE END WE -- WE'RE 
TALKING ABOUT NOT SPENDING ANYMORE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS AND 
STOPPING THE BLEEDING.
BEFORE COMMISSIONER SHARPE MADE THE -- MADE THE ANALOGY 
THAT HE WANTED TO GO ON WITH THE APPEAL.
WE HAD SOMEONE THAT WANTED TO DO THE APPEAL FOR FREE FOR US 
THAT COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE COUNTY OFF OF -- POTENTIALLY 
SAID THEY HAD A GREAT CASE.
WHY DIDN'T WE TAKE THEM UP ON THEIR OFFER?
IT WAS FREE, F-R-E-E.
WE'LL DO IT FOR FREE.
WHY DIDN'T THE COUNTY -- IT WAS NOT GOING TO COST THE 
COUNTY ANOTHER DIME.
IT WOULD HAVE -- IT WOULD HAVE SEPARATED THE COUNTY FROM 
KEVIN WHITE TOTALLY, AND THEN KEVIN WHITE'S ON THE HOOK 
100%.
YOU KNOW, WHY DIDN'T WE TAKE THAT AVENUE.
IT'S SO EASY TO CONDEMN AND CRITICIZE, BUT WHEN 
EVERYTHING'S NOT IN PLACE, IT'S EASY TO THROW STONES WHEN 
YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
JUST FIRST OF ALL FOR THE RECORD TOO, I NEVER WOULD PROFESS 
TO BE EITHER JUDGE OR JURY.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT GOES ON IN OUR PROCESS THAT'S CALLED 
A VERDICT.
THE VERDICT CAME OUT AGAINST KEVIN WHITE, SO -- AND EVERY 
TIME THAT I ASKED HIM, MR. BECKNER, WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD 
ANY EXPECTATION AT THAT JUNCTURE OR THE NEXT OR THE NEXT 
MEETING WHETHER HE WANTED TO PAY AND HE GAVE ME -- HIS 
SILENCE WAS VERY DEAFENING, LET'S JUST SAY THAT.
THAT WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE I PREFACED ANY COMMENTS BY ASKING 
HIM THAT BECAUSE OF COURSE THAT WOULD CHANGE MY POSTURE IF 
HE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE IN A HOLE FOR SO MUCH SO FAR, 
OKAY, SO WE'LL SHARE 50% EACH.
I NEVER HEARD ANY OF THAT.
SO WE HAD TO CONTINUE FORWARD AND MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS.
HE WENT, WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF A COURT WHERE A 
FEDERAL JUDGE, RICHARD LAZZARA, CLEARLY MADE THIS DECISION.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HE SUGGESTED THAT WE REGULATE 
AND CHANGE, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT, BUT AS FAR AS I'M 
CONCERNED, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE JUST SAID IN HIS 
TESTIMONY, HE IS NOT WITHOUT GUILT.
THAT BEING SAID, AT THIS POINT WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT WE 
NEED TO DO AND HE HAS TO DECIDE WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO, BUT IT 
ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE WE DRAGGED HIM IN HERE AND SAID, YOU'VE 
GOT TO DO THIS.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CITIZEN THAT'S ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THAT PODIUM AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY WHO IS AN 
ELECTED OFFICIAL IN WHOM THE TRUST OF HIS CONSTITUENTS HAS 
BEEN INSTILLED, AND SO WE HAVE TO ANSWER TO A HIGHER LEVEL 
OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND IF I CONTINUE TO -- TO ASSOCIATE 
WITH THAT IN TERMS OF A CODEFENDANT CASE, I'M EMBARRASSED.
I'M EMBARRASSED ABOUT WHAT I REPRESENT, AND SOME OF THE 
COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM MY CITIZENS CERTAINLY CONFIRM 
THAT.
YOU HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
IF YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT DOING THAT AND -- AND THE REST OF 
THE COLLEAGUES WANT TO DO IT, IT'S FINE.
TO ME WE NEED TO PUT THIS AHEAD OF US OR BEHIND US OR 
WHATEVER WAY WE NEED TO GO SO THAT WE CAN MAKE EVERY 
EARNEST EFFORT TO TRY TO GET THESE DOLLARS BACK, AND IF WE 
DON'T AND HE CAN'T PAY OR HE DECIDES TO GO THROUGH 
BANKRUPTCY AND THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES I THINK THAT HE'S DONE 
BEFORE, THAT'S FINE, BUT AT LEAST IT ALLOWS US ALL TO STAND 
TALL ABOUT WHAT EACH OF US REPRESENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE CAN DO.
I THINK THERE'S AN ARTICLE HERE THAT SAID IN HIS LATEST 
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE HE HAS A NET WORTH OF 143,000 AS OF 
DECEMBER '08, DOWN FROM 152 NET WORTH HE REPORTED IN TWO 
SEVEN.
IN, HOWEVER, NOVEMBER OF 2006 APPLICATION FOR A SURETY 
BOND, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR COMMISSIONERS, WHITE LISTED HIS 
NET WORTH AT 987.
I DON'T REALLY CARE WHERE HE IS, WHAT HE CAN DO, WHAT HE 
DOESN'T WANT TO DO.
ALL I'M SAYING IS WE NEED TO PUT THIS FORWARD AND LET 
WHATEVER THE OUTCOME BE SO THAT WE HAVE FOLLOWED OUR WHOLE 
RESPONSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE AND RESOLVING IT 
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, WHEN I CAME IN HERE, I REALLY 
HONESTLY DID NOT KNOW -- I WAS CONFLICTED ABOUT WHAT I 
THOUGHT THE CORRECT DIRECTION WAS.
I AGREE -- I THINK BOTH COMMISSIONERS -- COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA HAS STATED IT CLEARLY, I THINK COMMISSIONER BECKNER 
HIMSELF HAS STATED IT CLEARLY.
NOBODY WANTS TAXPAYERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THIS, 
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE AT SOME POINT THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO 
PICK UP A PORTION IF NOT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS 
COST.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN -- WE'VE BEEN SMACKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN 
OUR E-MAILS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UPSET AT US, AND A 
LOT -- AND AS I'VE RESPONDED AND WILL RESPOND AGAIN IN 
PART, IT'S THE DECISION OF BOTH THE JUDGE AND THE JURY, AND 
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
ONE OF THE THINGS, THOUGH, THAT IS HELPING ME MAKE MY 
DECISION AT LEAST AT THIS POINT -- BECAUSE COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA, I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT I WANT TO -- I'D LOVE FOR 
US TO BE ABLE TO JUST STOP THIS NOW AND MOVE FORWARD.
THE CHALLENGE IS I DON'T BELIEVE A LAWSUIT DOES THAT.
WE NOW HAVE A LAWSUIT, ONGOING DISPUTES BETWEEN TWO PARTIES 
WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON -- AS WITH MOST CASES, WE'RE 
SPENDING MONEY ON THE ATTORNEYS AND NOT ON THE ACTUAL 
SETTLEMENT.
I WOULD -- I WOULD PREFER IF I COULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH 
COMMISSIONER BECKNER'S CONCEPT -- BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEAN, 
COMMISSIONER FERLITA, THAT WE DON'T GO WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
I DON'T THINK I HEARD COMMISSIONER BECKNER SAY THAT, BUT 
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CAUTIOUSLY WALK FORWARD, 
ALLOW -- AND BOTH COMMISSIONER WHITE -- THE LETTER THAT WAS 
SENT BY HIS ATTORNEY AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT I JUST HEARD 
-- WOULD BE -- I WROTE DOWN, WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY, SO -- 
AND I WOULD PREFER THAT PAYMENT TO GO TOWARDS THIS 
SETTLEMENT THAN TOWARDS NEW ATTORNEY FEES, SO PERHAPS 
THERE'S A WAY THAT WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE 
THAT'S BEING SUGGESTED, WHICH IS TO -- TO LEARN MORE ABOUT 
WHAT -- WHAT WILL OR WILL NOT BE COVERED BY THE INSURANCE, 
WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMISSIONER 
WHITE, WHICH WILL DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, HE COULD BE -- HE 
WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY IN EXCESS OF -- HE HAS HIS OWN 
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
HE HAS ATTORNEY FEES HE'S GOT TO COVER -- AND SEE IF WE 
CAN'T THEN BEGIN THE MOVE AT LEAST ON THIS BOARD FOR WHAT 
WE ARE CAPABLE OF -- OF HANDLING AND WHAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE 
FOR.
WE CAN START MOVING TOWARDS SOME FORM OF A RESOLUTION, AND 
THEN AS I THINK I HEARD COMMISSIONER BECKNER SAY, IF WE'RE 
NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER, WE DO HAVE THE OPTION OF 
MOVING FORWARD AND -- WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
IS THAT CORRECT, COMMISSIONER BECKNER?
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  YES, COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT -- LET'S MAKE REALLY CLEAR IS THAT 
I'M 100% WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER FERLITA, THAT COMMISSIONER 
WHITE NEEDS TO HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY.
MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION JUST MERELY ADDRESSES HOW WE'RE GOING 
TO GO ABOUT ASKING FOR IT AND RECEIVING CONTRIBUTION.
WE GOT A LETTER FROM HIS ATTORNEY, AGAIN, THE LAST 
STATEMENT SAYS, WHEN WE'RE BETTER TO DETERMINE THE TOTALITY 
OF MR. WHITE'S EXPOSURE, WE WILL BE PLEASED TO RESPOND TO 
YOUR INQUIRY.
I HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE -- WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE INFORMATION 
BACK TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM MR. 
WHITE'S ATTORNEY, WE HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, 
AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE HERE AGAIN IS MAKE SURE THAT MR. -- 
COMMISSIONER WHITE GETS HIS DUE PROCESS, THAT HE'S ABLE TO 
RESPOND TO OUR INQUIRY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO MAKE SURE 
THAT WE ARE NOT GETTING INTO FURTHER LITIGATION THAT ARE 
GOING TO EXPEND MORE TAX DOLLARS ON THIS ISSUE IF WE DO NOT 
HAVE TO, AND SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HEAR FROM MR. WHITE'S 
REPRESENTATION, AND MR. WHITE ALSO JUST MADE A STATEMENT 
HERE THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN SOME FORM.
NOW, IF THAT PROPOSAL COMES FORWARD AND THE BOARD IS NOT 
SATISFIED OR WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT ADEQUATE, THEN IF WE 
NEED TO PURSUE OTHER AVENUES, THEN I THINK THEN WE SHOULD 
CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES, BUT AGAIN, HOW WE'VE TREATED 
EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S COME IN HERE, WE GIVE THEM AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE DUE PROCESS.
WE SHOULD TRY TO AVOID THE EXPENSE OF LITIGATION, IF 
POSSIBLE, AND AGAIN, I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE AT THAT 
POINT.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM COMMISSIONER WHITE'S ATTORNEYS 
AS FAR AS WHAT THEY ARE OR ARE NOT ABLE TO DO.
I AM NOT IN THE -- IN THE MOOD TO HAVING THIS DRAG ON AND 
ON AND ON, BUT AGAIN, I THINK BEFORE WE RUSH INTO ANOTHER 
SUIT, WE NEED TO PURSUE THIS AVENUE FIRST.
SO YES, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS THAT WE WOULD TABLE THE 
CONVERSATION UNTIL WE HEAR BACK FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY, 
UNTIL WE ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONER WHITE'S 
ATTORNEY OR HIMSELF TO RESPOND AND TO TELL THEM WHAT HE IS 
ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS, AND THEN WE CAN TAKE UP THE 
CONVERSATION AND REVISIT THAT AGAIN, AND THE NEGOTIATIONS 
AS FAR AS WHAT HE IS OR IS NOT ABLE TO PAY I THINK SHOULD 
BE CONDUCTED IN AN APPROPRIATE FORUM, WHICH SHOULD BE 
THROUGH HIS REPRESENTATION AND NOT MEDIATED OR NEGOTIATED 
IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM, YOU KNOW.
EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC RECORD THAT'S COMING FORWARD, SO WE 
KNOW WHAT ALL THOSE RECORDS ARE, BUT TO TRY TO FORCE 
COMMISSIONER WHITE TO -- TO A SETTLEMENT OR TO AGREE TO PAY 
"X" AMOUNT OF PERCENTAGE I THINK IS NOT NECESSARILY FAIR TO 
HIM, AND THEN HE CAN BRING THAT FORWARD OR HIS ATTORNEYS 
CAN BRING THAT FORWARD TO US WHEN THEY'RE READY TO PRESENT 
THAT, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT THIS TO DRAG ON AND ON, SO 
ONCE WE HAVE ALL THOSE FIGURE, I'M EXPECTING THAT THE 
ATTORNEYS -- HIS ATTORNEYS WOULD RESPOND TO OUR INQUIRY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, I -- I GUESS -- AND I APPRECIATE 
THOSE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
I'M VERY SENSITIVE OF THE ISSUE OF THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE 
FOR ANY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE 
ISSUE IS.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO -- AND WHILE I APPRECIATE WHAT 
COMMISSIONER FERLITA'S SAYING WE NEED TO ACT STRONGLY, I 
THINK WE ARE TAKING A STRONG POSITION.
IF WE GET OURSELVES KNOTTED UP IN ANOTHER LEGAL BATTLE 
RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE -- IT DOESN'T MEAN, COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA, THAT WE WON'T END UP THERE, BUT IF WE GET KNOTTED 
UP IN A LEGAL BATTLE RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, I DON'T SEE ANY 
MONEY GOING TO RECOVERING WHAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO 
BE PAYING, AND SO THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE 
TO TRY AND -- AND TO GET MORE INFORMATION AND TO DO IT IN A 
WAY THAT IS FAIR TO COMMISSIONER WHITE AND HOPEFULLY WILL 
BRING SOME FORM OF A RESOLUTION WHICH IS SATISFACTORY TO AT 
LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL 
SECOND THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I WAS WAITING TO SEE IF THERE WAS A 
SECOND.
I'M NOT SURE -- IN LISTENING TO COMMISSIONER BECKNER, YOU 
KNOW, I TOO WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUR DEBATE HEADED IN SOME 
OTHER DIRECTION.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE TAXPAYERS AND THE CITIZENS HERE 
EXPECT OF US, BUT TO TABLE THIS AT THIS TIME, DON'T WE JUST 
DELAY THIS DEBATE OVER AGAIN?
AND TO ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER FERLITA, 
IF YOU HAD -- AND I KNOW THAT MR. NORMAN SECONDED.
IF THERE WAS A MECHANISM THAT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THIS 
NEGOTIATION AND THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED AND THEN 
WE PROCEED WITH A SUIT FOR -- OR THE PROCESS OF -- OF -- OF 
GETTING THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY, WOULD THAT BE A MORE 
EXPEDIENT WAY THAN TO GO BACK THROUGH DEBATE IN TWO WEEKS 
IF WE TABLE THIS?
THAT'S MY CONCERN, IF WE TABLE THIS, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT 
AGAIN.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  IT'S TOUGH FOR THE PEOPLE HERE.
IT'S TOUGH FOR EVERYONE UP HERE AS WELL.
SO I'M ASKING YOU --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HAD REFERENCED, MR. 
HIGGINBOTHAM, THAT EVEN IF WE REFERENCED THIS AND THE 
DOLLARS THAT ARE INVOLVED CHANGED BECAUSE OF THE INSURANCE, 
WE COULD CONTINUE THE PROCESS AND -- AND ALTER THE DOLLARS 
BASED ON THAT, SO I MEAN, THIS IS NOT WRITTEN IN STONE.
I JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO START SOMEPLACE, AND YOU'RE 
RIGHT, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE DIALOGUE, AND I'D JUST AS SOON -
- READY FOR YOU-ALL TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION THAT HE HAS UP 
THERE.
YOU-ALL ARE VERY CONSIDERATE, AND IF I WERE SITTING WHERE 
COMMISSIONER WHITE IS, I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE 
COURTESIES SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES ARE GIVING HIM ABOUT DUE 
PROCESS, ABOUT IN MY MIND HE'S ALREADY HAD DUE PROCESS.
THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT HAD DUE PROCESS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT 
SUPPORTED THE DOLLARS WE'VE PUT INTO SETTLING THIS, SO I'M 
MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THAN ANY OTHER FURTHER DUE 
PROCESS.
I THINK DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN GIVEN.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE SHORT AND THE LONG IS WE COULD 
START THIS.
IF THE INSURANCE THING CHANGES, THEN WE CHANGE THE DOLLARS, 
BUT IN TERMS OF MR. WHITE KNOWING WHAT HIS EXPOSURE IS, HE 
KNOWS WHAT HIS ATTORNEY FEES ARE, HE KNOWS WHAT OUR 
$350,000 DEDUCTIBLE IS, EVEN IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY A 
DOLLAR OVER THAT, WHICH I DOUBT, SO I THINK HE HAS SOME 
EXPECTATION OF WHAT HE WANTS TO OFFER, BUT NOW HE'S GIVEN 
YOU-ALL SOME SATISFACTION THAT SAYS HE'S WILLING TO 
PARTICIPATE.
I HOPE YOU-ALL ARE -- I HOPE SOME ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY 
ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO DO IN TERMS OF 
CONTRIBUTION.
ANYWAY, SO I'M SORRY TO GET LENGTHY, BUT THAT'S --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE, AND 
COMMISSIONER FERLITA, FOR THAT REASON I'LL -- I CAN'T 
SUPPORT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, I AM -- 
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS VOTE.
I'D LIKE TO GET IT BEHIND US AND KNOW THAT WE SEE THIS 
LANDSCAPE CHANGES, THAT WE CAN COME BACK, AND THIS BODY CAN 
HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN AND WITH THE HOPE THAT THERE'S 
GOING TO BE THIS NEGOTIATION.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SENSING TOO IS THAT THERE'S A WILLINGNESS 
TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND GET THE NEGOTIATION MOVING AND PUT 
THIS DAY BEHIND US.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER, CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR 
MOTION OR THE INTENT OF YOUR MOTION?
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  AGAIN, THE INTENT IS NOT TO DELAY 
CONVERSATIONS, THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE -- NUMBER 
ONE, THE COUNTY HAS THE INFORMATION ABOUT -- CONCERNING THE 
INSURANCE, THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE'S ATTORNEY AND 
REPRESENTATION HAS INFORMATION CONCERNING THE INSURANCE 
SETTLEMENT SO THAT THEY ARE AT LEAST ABLE TO GIVE -- BE 
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WHICH THEY SAID THEY 
WOULD RESPOND ONCE THEY HAD THAT INFORMATION.
THAT'S THE SECOND -- THE PURPOSE FOR THE SECOND -- OR FOR 
THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET THE 
INFORMATION FROM THE INSURANCE AND -- AND COMMISSIONER 
WHITE AND HIS REPRESENTATION HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND 
TO OUR INQUIRY, AND IF AT THAT POINT WE ARE NOT SATISFIED 
OR THEY SEEM UNWILLING TO PARTICIPATE, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS 
FURTHER LITIGATION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  CAN -- DURING THIS TIME FRAME, CAN MEDIATION 
TAKE PLACE OR NOT UNTIL THE --
>>MARK SHARPE:  ARE YOU TALKING TO THE SUBSTITUTE NOW?
>>KEN HAGAN:  I'M TALKING TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  I'M OPEN IF MEDIATION STARTS AND TALKS 
BEGIN.
WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO GET THIS SETTLED, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONERS, THERE IS A COST OF MEDIATION.
USUALLY THE PARTIES WILL DIVIDE THE COST OF MEDIATION, OR 
IF YOU'RE JUST SAYING ATTORNEY TALK TO THE OTHER ATTORNEY, 
WE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT A MEDIATOR, BUT THERE IS --
>>MARK SHARPE:  DON'T COURTS SOMETIMES SEND IT TO 
MEDIATORS?
>>RENEE LEE:  YEAH, AND GENERALLY IF THERE IS A LAWSUIT 
THERE IS --
>>MARK SHARPE:  IT WILL GO TO MEDIATION.
>>RENEE LEE:  -- COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION AS WELL.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  BUT I'M NOT EVEN SURE WE'RE AT A POINT OF 
MEDIATION.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM COMMISSIONER WHITE'S ATTORNEY, 
AND THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS INQUIRY, 
SO THEY MAY COME BACK WITH AN OFFER TO US, AND THEY SAY, 
YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS WILL SETTLE IT.
THEY MIGHT NOT DO THAT.
WE MIGHT END UP BACK TO THIS POINT OF CONVERSATION OF 
LITIGATION.
AGAIN, I'M JUST -- I'M LACKING AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHY 
WE'RE RUSHING INTO THE LITIGATION AND WHY WE'RE NOT GIVING 
THE ATTORNEY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
COMMISSIONER WHITE SAID HE'S WILLING TO PARTICIPATE, THE 
ATTORNEY SAYS HE'S GOING TO RESPOND, SO WHY AGAIN DO WE 
FEEL THE NEED THIS MINUTE WHEN WE -- YOU KNOW, TO GO AHEAD 
AND DECIDE TO LITIGATE THIS DAY?
GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY.
IF WE'RE NOT SATISFIED WITH THEM, THEN LET'S CONSIDER 
LITIGATION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  YEAH, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REALLY WHAT WE 
HAVE IS TWO SEPARATE -- ONE MOTION IS LITIGATE FIRST AND 
THEN GET THE INFORMATION AS WE BEGIN THE CLOCK OF SUING, 
AND ONCE WE BEGIN THE SUING -- I JUST -- LOOKING AT THIS, I 
BELIEVE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET -- 
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO PARTIES FIGHTING AS OPPOSED TO THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO PERHAPS WORK TOWARDS SOME SORT OF A 
SETTLEMENT, AND IF WE'RE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SETTLEMENT, 
WE FALL BACK TO LITIGATION.
SO WE NEVER LOSE THE POWER OF LITIGATION, BUT IT GIVES US A 
CHANCE -- BECAUSE I -- I MEAN, I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN I HEARD 
HIM SAY -- I LOST MY NOTES, BUT WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY, 
I -- OKAY, GREAT, LET'S START WORKING TOWARDS THAT, SO I -- 
NO PERFECT MOTION.
I THINK WHICHEVER WAY THE BOARD MEMBERS GO, I HAVE NOTHING 
BUT RESPECT WHAT THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE TRYING TO DO TO 
RESOLVE THIS.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A -- PERHAPS  A BETTER -- I'M NOT 
GOING TO SAY IS BUT PERHAPS A BETTER COURSE, A SUBSTITUTE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO 
MOVE.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  OKAY.
YOU KNOW, MR. SHARPE, WHILE WE'RE LITIGATING, THAT DOES NOT 
PRECLUDE US FROM NEGOTIATING, BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE SOME 
STRUCTURED IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE GOING AND ULTIMATELY FOR 
SOMEBODY IN CHARGE, LIKE A JUDGE OR SOMEBODY, TO DECIDE.
WE CAN CONTINUE TALKING AND HIS ATTORNEY TALKING TO US AND 
WE CAN MEDIATE, BUT NOBODY'S GOING TO DECIDE WHEN THAT'S 
THE END, SO THAT MEANS YOU CAN START DRAWING UP COSTS THAT 
WAY WITH NO END IN SIGHT, BUT THAT BEING SAID, OBVIOUSLY 
FOR MANY OF THE REASONS THAT I -- THAT I'VE STATED, I FEEL 
SO STRONGLY THAT BY NOT DOING THIS WE'RE GOING IN THE WRONG 
DIRECTION, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE SUBSTITUTE, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, SO --
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
LET ME CHIME IN HERE REAL QUICK.
I OPPOSED SETTLING THIS CASE BECAUSE I DID NOT FEEL THE 
TAXPAYERS SHOULD BE FORCED TO PAY FOR -- FOR COMMISSIONER 
WHITE'S ACTIONS, AND BASED ON THAT THINKING, I CLEARLY FEEL 
THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE, YOU KNOW, SHOULD PAY OR SHOULD 
SHARE IN THIS -- IN THIS BURDEN, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DO 
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO -- TO MAKE SURE THAT COMMISSIONER 
WHITE PAYS.
LIKE COMMISSIONER SHARPE AND OTHERS, I QUESTION IF IT MAKES 
SENSE TO START PAYING ATTORNEY BILLS FOR LITIGATION WHEN, 
AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY INDICATED, WE DO HAVE EIGHT MONTHS 
TO FILE SUIT.
COMMISSIONER WHITE STATED AGAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS 
WILLING TO PARTICIPATE OR WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY IN THIS.
I'M INCLINED TO FEEL THAT MEDIATION OR HAVING THE ATTORNEYS 
TALK IS -- IS THE PREFERRED OPTION FIRST.
IF THAT DOES NOT WORK OUT, I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM GOING DOWN 
THE PATH OF A LAWSUIT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST TRY 
MEDIATION FIRST BEFORE WE GO THAT ROUTE, SO I AM GOING TO 
SUPPORT THE -- THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND BY 
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION FAILED 3-3.
COMMISSIONERS FERLITA, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND NORMAN VOTED NO, 
AND COMMISSIONER WHITE ABSTAINED.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MS. LEE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>KEN HAGAN:  DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT?
>>RENEE LEE:  NO, NOT ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST WANTED A MINUTE OF THE BOARD'S TIME AFTER THE VOTE'S 
TAKEN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
NOW WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION FAILED 4 -- 3-4.
COMMISSIONER BECKNER, HAGAN, SHARPE, AND WHITE VOTED NO.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  I'M SORRY.
I'LL EDIT THAT.
WHITE ABSTAINED.
THE MOTION FAILED.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MS. LEE.
>>RENEE LEE:  STATUS QUO.
A TIE VOTE IS A STATUS QUO, COMMISSIONER.
NOTHING HAS PASSED.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>RENEE LEE:  YES.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS WHAT YOU PASSED 
OUT?
>>RENEE LEE:  I WOULD, COMMISSIONER, AND THAT'S THE REASON 
I ASKED TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU YOU HAVE A PROPOSED POLICY FOR 
THE BOARD TO ADOPT, NOT TODAY, BUT THIS IS TO ADDRESS THE 
COURT'S CRITICISM THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE POLICIES AND 
PROCEDURES IN PLACE THAT WOULD AFFORD THE LEGISLATIVE AIDES 
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY HARASSMENT.
I HAVE JENNIE TARR AND DANIELLE GREEN HERE TO GO OVER THE 
BOARD'S POLICY WITH YOU AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IN 
ANTICIPATE -- IN ANTICIPATION OF BRINGING THIS POLICY BACK 
AT OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING, SO I'D LIKE DANIELLE GREEN TO 
GIVE YOU THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS, PLEASE.
>>DANIELLE GREEN:  COMMISSIONERS, DANIELLE GREEN WITH THE 
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HERE TO GIVE YOU JUST A BRIEF 
OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY.
THE POLICY APPLIES ONLY TO COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR AIDES, 
WANTED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EMPLOYEES UNDER THE COUNTY 
ADMINISTRATOR WHO ALREADY HAVE A POLICY THAT APPLIES TO 
THEM.
THE COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONERS' AIDES OBVIOUSLY VERY 
DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT, SO WARRANTED A SEPARATE POLICY.
OUTLINES THE DEFINITION OF "HARASSMENT," WHICH PRETTY MUCH 
FOLLOWS THE EEOC'S DEFINITION OF WHAT IS HARASSMENT UNDER 
THE LAW.
VERY IMPORTANT, THE POLICY SPECIFIES THAT IT IS INTENDED TO 
ADDRESS CONDUCT -- NOT ONLY CONDUCT THAT IS HARASSING UNDER 
THE LAW BUT CONDUCT THAT COULD BE HARASSING BUT NOT --
>>MARK SHARPE:  EXCUSE ME.
COULD -- THANK YOU.
AND I WANTED TO -- I THINK I'M STILL KIND OF LOST IN THE 
LAST VOTE TRYING TO -- TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT.
I MEAN, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE ARE NOW BECAUSE 
NOW, WHAT ARE WE JUST SITTING STILL?
I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE -- THE IDEA WAS A 
MOVEMENT TOWARDS -- THE DISPUTE WAS START LITIGATION AND 
TRY TO WORK THIS OUT OR WORK THIS OUT KNOWING LITIGATION'S 
THERE.
I -- I MEAN, I STILL THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONVERSATION 
WITH COMMISSIONER WHITE DETERMINING WHAT HE WILL IF -- IF -
- OR -- IS OR IS NOT CAPABLE OF PAYING TOWARDS THIS 
RESOLUTION, AND THEN FOLLOW UP.
ARE WE JUST GOING TO -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WHAT WE -- AND I JUST ASKED YOU THIS 
PRIVATELY.
>>RENEE LEE:  RIGHT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS OR WHAT WERE YOUR PLANS 
PRIOR TO THIS DISCUSSION TODAY?
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONER, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD 
THE BOARD SAY IS THAT, ONE, THEY WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH, 
IF ANY AMOUNT, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD PAY.
ONCE WE KNOW THAT AMOUNT, WE CAN CERTAINLY REPORT THAT BACK 
TO THE BOARD.
WE WILL -- ONCE WE HAVE THAT AMOUNT, WE MIGHT ALSO CONTACT 
COMMISSIONER WHITE'S ATTORNEY AND ONCE AGAIN POSE THE 
QUESTION TO HIM SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE A PRECONDITION TO -- 
TO HIS ANSWER, SO WE WOULD CORRESPOND WITH HIM SOME WAY AND 
SAY THAT, HERE'S THE AMOUNT, NOW PLEASE ANSWER.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL --
>>RENEE LEE:  I THINK THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE BROUGHT 
BACK TO THE BOARD.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THE -- I'M SORRY.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WE DID AT A PREVIOUS MEETING -- WHEN 
COMMISSIONER FERLITA BROUGHT THIS UP THE FIRST TIME, WE -- 
AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN, WHO'S NOT HERE, I THINK HAD SAID, 
OKAY, BEFORE WE GO THE ROUTE OF LITIGATION, LET'S TALK.
THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN -- AND COMMISSIONER WHITE MADE IT 
CLEAR IN HIS CONVERSATION THIS AFTERNOON THAT HE STILL HAD 
QUESTIONS THAT WERE UNANSWERED AS TO WHAT HIS LIABILITY IS, 
AND SO WE WERE ASKING HIM TO COME -- TO TALK WITH US, BUT 
HE STILL DIDN'T HAVE ANSWERS.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, ALL RIGHT, GIVE HIM THE TIME TO 
GET THE ANSWERS, AND THEN WE WOULD THEN DETERMINE WHAT, IF 
ANY -- WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF DOING AND SEE IF THAT'S 
SATISFACTORY, SO WE HAD AGREED EARLIER WE WERE GOING TO 
HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS, AND I WOULD ASSUME --
>>RENEE LEE:  AND WE DID.
THE LETTER WAS SENT TO HIS -- HIS ATTORNEY, AND HE DID 
RESPOND WITH THE ANSWER THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH 
INFORMATION TO RESPOND BECAUSE HE COULDN'T IDENTIFY THE 
LIABILITY.
>>MARK SHARPE:  OKAY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MS. LEE, I JUST HAD A QUESTION.
ON THIS INSURANCE THING, WHAT DID MS. SWANSON SAY, IT COULD 
TAKE HOW LITTLE OR HOW LONG?
CHRISTINA, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
>> CHRISTINA SWANSON.
WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR INSURANCE AGENT RIGHT NOW TO WORK 
WITH THE EXCESS INSURER.
I WAS HOPING TO HAVE AN ANSWER TODAY, BUT THEY ARE -- THEY 
ARE DELIBERATING ABOUT THE COVERAGE ON THIS, AND WE -- I'M 
HOPING -- WITHIN THE TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE BOARD MEETS 
AGAIN, I'M CERTAINLY HOPING WE'D HAVE AN ANSWER.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MS. LEE, DO YOU NEED BOARD DIRECTION TO DO 
WHAT YOU JUST OUTLINED, OR IS THAT KIND OF THE PROCEDURE 
THAT YOU PLANNED ON --
>>RENEE LEE:  IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME DIRECTION 
FROM THE BOARD TO BRING BACK AN UPDATE ONCE WE UNDERSTAND 
WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY ACTIONS WILL BE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT?
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, I MEAN, SINCE THE BOARD IS DIVIDED, I 
THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME UNANIMITY ON THE DIRECTION WE 
GO FORWARD, AND I THINK BOTH -- SO I GUESS I WAS GOING TO 
ASK THE MAKER OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR US TO MOVE 
FORWARD -- YOU KNOW, LET'S MAKE A MOTION WE WOULD MOVE 
FORWARD, ALLOWING HIM -- ALLOWING COMMISSIONER WHITE THE 
OPPORTUNITY OF GETTING FULL ACCESS TO ALL THE INFORMATION 
THAT THEY NEEDED REGARDING INSURANCE AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT 
MIGHT BE THAT WOULD HELP HIM DETERMINE WHAT HE IS LIABLE 
FOR AND CAPABLE OF PAYING, AND THEN -- AND THEN BEGIN ALSO 
CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMISSIONER WHITE HAS TO WHAT 
COMMISSIONER BECKNER HAD SUGGESTED, DETERMINING WHAT 
RESPONSIBILITY WITH THE FEES THAT ARE HERE HE IS WILLING TO 
ASSIST IN, AND THEN WE WOULD THEN MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS 
TO WHETHER FOLLOWING THAT WE NEEDED TO PROCEED WITH A 
LAWSUIT.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MR. SHARPE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, 
THAT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RECONFIGURING MY MOTION.
MY MOTION IS DEAD.
MY MOTION CLEARLY SAID WHAT IT SAID.
NOW IT'S KIND OF WE'RE BACK TO A 3-3.
YOU PICK YOUR POISON ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY 
WITHOUT A COURT OF LAW DETERMINING IF WE'RE GOING IN THE 
RIGHT DIRECTION.
YOU'RE -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT CONVERSATION, ATTORNEY 
DISCUSSIONS, MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, THOSE ARE ALL GOING TO 
COST YOU, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU WOULD HOPE AS ONE 
OF THE PARTIES THAT IS CONTRIBUTING TO THAT COST, TO THAT 
COST, THAT THE OUTCOME IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A 
JUDGE OR A JURY OVERSEEING THAT.
AND ALONG THAT LINES -- AND I'M NOT GOING TO SUBSCRIBE TO 
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE YOUR 
INITIATIVE -- IF WE DO THAT, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, FROM 
THE VERY PENNY THAT YOU SPEND DOING WHAT YOU THREE WANTED 
TO DO, ARE YOU GOING TO GET A COMMITMENT FROM HIM OR 
SOMETHING UP FRONT LIKE A DEPOSIT THAT HE IS GOING TO PAY 
PART OF IT OR HE'S NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT HE CAN AFFORD BUT 
WE WILL GO FORWARD WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE MEDIATIONS 
AND TALK AND GIVE KEVIN WHITE ENOUGH TIME TO SEE WHAT HE 
CAN DO AND SEE WHAT OUR ATTORNEY -- SO ALL I'M SAYING IS 
YOU BETTER COVER YOUR COSTS UP FRONT BECAUSE THAT'S WHY 
WE'RE IN THE PROBLEM WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW.
SO THAT'S JUST A WORD OF ADVICE.
NOW, WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THE MOTION I DON'T KNOW, BUT 
QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE MINE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
I MEAN, FRANKLY, I -- THERE ARE CERTAINLY -- I AGREE WITH 
COMMISSIONER FERLITA IN THAT THERE ARE COSTS ASSOCIATED 
WITH ANY OPTION THAT WE -- THAT WE CONSIDER; HOWEVER, THE 
MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION IS CLEARLY LITIGATION, SO THAT'S WHY 
I HAVE BEEN INCLINED TO GO DOWN THE -- THE MEDIATION ROUTE 
OR NOT THE OFFICIAL MEDIATION THAT MS. LEE INDICATED BUT 
HAVE THE ATTORNEYS TALK.
CLEARLY THAT IS A -- A -- A CHEAPER ROUTE THAN FULL-FLEDGED 
LITIGATION.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  BUT MR. HAGAN, THERE IS A COST.
INITIALLY IT MIGHT BE A LESSER COST, BUT WHOEVER MAKES THAT 
MOTION AND SUPPORTS THE MOTION, WHAT MECHANISM DO YOU HAVE 
IN PLACE, WHAT ASSURANCE WILL YOU HAVE IN PLACE, YOU 
MEANING THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THE SUPPORTERS OF THAT 
MOTION, THAT THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO BE SHARED?
OTHERWISE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE WITH MR. WHITE AND 
HIS ATTORNEY AND WHOEVER ELSE HE BRINGS TO THE TABLE, BUT 
IS HE GOING TO PAY UP FRONT AS WE GO AS PARTNERS TO DECIDE 
IF THAT MEDIATION'S GOING TO GET US ANYPLACE BEFORE 
ULTIMATELY WE END UP PERHAPS HAVING TO GO TO LITIGATION TO 
GET SOMETHING DONE?
IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THAT ROUTE, YOU BETTER COVER YOUR 
COSTS, SO I DON'T KNOW.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WHILE I AGREE WITH YOU, AT THE SAME TIME WE 
HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT WE -- THIS BOARD DECIDED NOT TO 
APPEAL AND WE HAD IT FOR FREE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S 
REALLY A --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WE DID NOT HAVE IT FOR FREE.
THERE WERE SOME COSTS.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MINOR COSTS.
IF WE LOST, THEN THERE WOULD BE COSTS ASSOCIATED AT THE 
END, BUT WOULD HANDLE THE CASE ESSENTIALLY FOR FREE, AND WE 
STILL DETERMINED NOT TO GO THAT ROUTE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF 
IT --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WELL, AND YOU DIDN'T SUPPORT SETTLING, SO, 
I MEAN, YOU'RE IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE, AND I SURE 
APPRECIATE THAT, MR. HAGAN, BUT THE ISSUE FOR TODAY IS -- 
WE WERE AT AN IMPASSE HERE, BUT IF SOMEBODY'S LOOKING AT 
DOING SOME MEDIATION, OUT OF CURIOSITY FROM THE FINANCIAL 
STANDPOINT, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO COVER THE COSTS ONGOING 
BECAUSE THAT COULD GO ON FOREVER.
IT COULD GO ON FOR EIGHT MONTHS, AND IN EIGHT MONTHS, YOU 
KNOW, YOU CAN'T LITIGATE ANYMORE, SO I'M JUST WONDERING FOR 
SOMEBODY WHO IS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ROUTE, AND CERTAINLY 
DEMOCRACY RULES, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET SOME SORT OF 
ASSURANCE THAT AS WE GO FORWARD, THE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE 
MEDIATING ARE GOING TO PAY IN CONCERT, IN TANDEM AS I'VE 
HEARD IN SOME OF THESE LETTERS, IN TANDEM, SO --
>>KEN HAGAN:  NO, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, AND FRANKLY, FROM 
MY PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE A VERY, VERY SHORT LEASH.
IT WOULD NOT GO ON EIGHT MONTHS, THAT'S FOR SURE.
COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  WELL, MY COMMENT AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT 
WOULD BE IS UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THEIR ATTORNEY, WE DON'T 
KNOW, AND IN FACT, IT COULD -- THERE MAY NOT BE ADDITIONAL 
COSTS.
IF HIS ATTORNEY AND HIM SEND BACK A LETTER AND SAY THIS IS 
WHAT WE'RE AGREEING TO DO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE SMALL 
HOURLY AMOUNT THAT WE MAY HAVE PAID OUR ATTORNEY, 
MS. SAADY, TO RESPOND TO THAT, MAY BE THE ONLY COST, BUT WE 
WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE HEAR BACK FROM THEM.
SO, I MEAN, THEY COULD COME BACK WITH AN ACCEPTABLE 
SETTLEMENT AND AGREEMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL 
COSTS, BUT UNTIL WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, 
WE WON'T KNOW THAT, SO I WOULD STILL MAINTAIN AGAIN THAT BY 
ALLOWING THEM TO RESPOND IS STILL RIGHT NOW THE -- THE 
LEAST MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION TO US, AND UNTIL WE HEAR BACK 
FROM THEM, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PREDICT FUTURE COSTS.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA, AND THEN COMMISSIONER 
NORMAN.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I'M SORRY.
THAT'S FROM A WHILE AGO.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WE TIED 3-3.
SUIT, NOT SUIT.
IT'S NOW -- WE'RE AN HOUR PAST DOING THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, 
SO LET'S GO THERE.
THAT'S WHERE I PREFER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
WHAT'S THE BOARD'S PLEASURE WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAFT OR 
DISCRIMINATORY HARASSMENT POLICY?
>>RENEE LEE:  THANK YOU.
DANIELLE GREEN WAS GIVING YOU SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF THE POLICY 
SO YOU'D JUST KNOW WHERE IT IS.
WE INTEND TO BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS OR WANTED TO GIVE US 
ANY DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE DANIELLE TO CONTINUE?
I THINK SHE'S PROBABLY GOT THREE MORE MINUTES TO HIGHLIGHT 
THE POLICY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THAT'S FINE, BUT I DIDN'T THINK THAT THE 
BOARD WAS GOING TO TAKE ANY FORMAL ACTION TODAY.
>>RENEE LEE:  NO FORMAL ACTION TODAY IS REQUESTED.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
IF SHE COULD PLEASE CONTINUE.
>>DANIELLE GREEN:  DANIELLE GREEN WITH THE COUNTY 
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THE POLICY WOULD ENABLE THE BOARD TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT 
THE BOARD DOES NOT CONDONE AND THE BOARD PROHIBITS ANY TYPE 
OF PROTECTED STATUS HARASSMENT.
PROTECTED STATUS HARASSMENT IS ANY HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS 
OF A PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC, SUCH AS GENDER, RACE, ET 
CETERA.
THE POLICY WOULD MAKE IT AN OBLIGATION OF BOTH 
COMMISSIONERS AND AIDES THAT IF THEY ARE AWARE OF ANY 
POTENTIAL HARASSMENT THAT THEY ARE TO REPORT IT.
IT GIVES A REPORTING MECHANISM.
ALSO, IF ANY PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER'S AIDE FEELS LIKE 
THEY'RE THE VICTIM OF POTENTIAL HARASSMENT OF ANY NATURE, 
THEN THERE WOULD BE THE OBLIGATION AGAIN TO REPORT IT AND A 
MECHANISM FOR REPORTING.
RETALIATION FOR ANYONE REPORTING THAT TYPE OF POSSIBLE 
HARASSMENT WOULD BE PROHIBITED, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY 
QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
AND MS. LEE, DO YOU PLAN ON AGENDAING THIS ITEM FOR A 
FUTURE DISCUSSION?
>>RENEE LEE:  I DO, COMMISSIONER.
I WAS GOING TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT BOARD MEETING'S AGENDA 
FOR APPROVAL BY THE BOARD.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
JENNIE, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THIS DIFFERS FROM THE POLICY 
THAT WE HAVE FOR OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES.
CAN YOU KIND OF FILL ME IN.
HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND WHY WE 
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE EMPLOYEES -- OR TWO 
SEPARATE POLICIES AS OPPOSED TO ONE POLICY THAT WOULD COVER 
EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THEY'RE COMMISSIONER AIDES OR, YOU KNOW, 
OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY?
>>DANIELLE GREEN:  SURE.
THE POLICY UNDER THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IS MUCH LONGER, 
MORE INTRICATE -- COMPLICATED.
WITH A SMALLER BODY, A SMALLER ORGANIZATION SUCH AS 
YOURSELF, YOU'RE ABLE TO HAVE A MORE SIMPLE, BRIEF, TO THE 
POINT POLICY, AND I THINK IT WOULD SERVE YOU BETTER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  BUT WHAT WOULD -- WHEN YOU SAY IT'S 
MORE -- I UNDERSTAND THERE'S MORE EMPLOYEES, BUT WHAT IS 
THE DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS -- I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE -
- WHAT AND WHY THE DIFFERENCES ARE, AND IT MAY BE A LITTLE 
BIT MORE COMPLICATED WITH MORE EMPLOYEES, BUT THE 
PRINCIPLES ABOUT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT TO ME SEEM 
TO BE VERY SIMILAR.
>>RENEE LEE:  COMMISSIONER, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ADOPTS 
POLICIES FOR THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES THROUGH THE HUMAN 
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
THOSE POLICIES DO NOT APPLY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS.
YOU'RE OFFICIALS, NOT EMPLOYEES, SO POLICIES THAT APPLY TO 
YOU ARE ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD THAT APPLY TO YOU, SO THAT'S 
PROBABLY THE BIGGEST DISTINCTION IS THAT HER POLICIES 
CANNOT COVER THE BOARD BECAUSE YOU'RE OFFICIALS, SO YOU 
WILL HAVE TO ADOPT THE POLICIES THAT COVER YOU.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHY CAN'T WE 
JUST ADOPT THE SAME POLICIES IN OUR OWN FORMAT TO -- TO BE 
IN CONGRUENCY WITH EVERYBODY -- WITH ALL THE OTHER COUNTY 
EMPLOYEES?
>>RENEE LEE:  THE REPORTING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER DETAILS HERE THAT WOULD NOT APPLY, AND 
YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE, DANIELLE?
>>DANIELLE GREEN:  SURE.
THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT IS THE SAME.
THAT'S THE SAME.
THE REPORTING WOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IF AN EMPLOYEE 
UNDER THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FELT LIKE THEY WERE THE 
VICTIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, CERTAINLY THEY WOULD BE 
REPORTING THAT TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAN THE COMMISSIONERS' 
AIDES WOULD, SO IT'S -- IT'S THE SAME CONTENT IN TERMS OF 
WHAT IS PROHIBITED AND THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM TO REPORT 
CONCERNS OR COMPLAINTS.
THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION WOULD BE NECESSARILY DIFFERENT, 
BUT IN TERMS OF THE CONTENTS, YOU HAVE EVERYTHING IN THERE 
THAT -- THAT THE POLICY UNDER THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 
WOULD CONTAIN.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  OKAY.
SO THE CONTENT AND EVERYTHING'S THE SAME, IT'S JUST THE 
REPORTING ASPECT OF HOW IT'S REPORTED IS DIFFERENT?
>>DANIELLE GREEN:  IT'S REPORTED TO A DIFFERENT PERSON, AND 
THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S 
POLICY ABOUT HOW THOSE THINGS ARE INVESTIGATED, AND IT'S 
HANDLED DIFFERENTLY IN THE POLICY BEFORE YOU.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  OKAY.
I GUESS MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT THAT I WOULD HAVE IS I WOULD 
HAVE SOME CONCERN -- YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE PROMOTE 
DIVERSITY IN OUR COUNTY, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CLASSES 
THAT AREN'T MENTIONED HERE, SUCH AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND 
GENDER IDENTITY THAT WOULD NOT BE COVERED, AND YOU KNOW, AS 
WE CONTINUE TO GROW AS AN ORGANIZATION, I THINK THAT AS A 
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY IT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD, 
YOU KNOW, ADDRESS, ESPECIALLY AS OUR ORGANIZATION GROWS AND 
WE BECOME A MORE DIVERSE WORKFORCE.
>>RENEE LEE:  CERTAINLY, COMMISSIONER, THOSE THINGS CAN BE 
ADDED IN.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>RENEE LEE:  CERTAINLY.
THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT TO THIS, WHICH I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS 
WITH THE BOARD, AND THAT'S THE ORIENTATION OF THE 
EMPLOYEES.
SOME BOARD MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED SENDING THE LEGISLATIVE 
AIDES THROUGH THE STANDARD ORIENTATION.
THAT CERTAINLY CAN BE DONE, AND WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE YOU 
THE INFORMATION REGARDING THAT ORIENTATION THAT ALL COUNTY 
EMPLOYEES GO THROUGH.
IF YOU FIND THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY CONDUCIVE TO YOUR STAFF, 
THEN WE CAN DO AN ABBREVIATED ORIENTATION, AND THAT'S 
SOMETHING THAT WE'LL DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL WITH -- 
INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS AS HOW YOU WOULD -- HOW 
YOU WANT TO APPROACH THE ORIENTATION.
COMMISSIONERS, IS IT YOUR -- WE WILL ADD THOSE THINGS THAT 
YOU'VE COMMENTED ON, COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THERE ARE SOME 
OBJECTIONS BY THE BOARD.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MS. LEE -- DID YOU ANSWER WHAT SHE ASKED 
YOU?
YEAH?
ALL RIGHT.
THIS IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL QUESTION.
I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE OUR POLICIES MORE ON POINT, AND 
I KNOW WE'RE REVISING A LOT OF THEM AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
IS THERE AN EXTREME URGENCY TO GET THIS BACK TO US AND 
APPROVE IT IN TWO WEEKS?
>>RENEE LEE:  I WOULDN'T SAY THERE'S AN URGENCY 
COMMISSIONER BECAUSE UP UNTIL NOW THERE'S NEVER BEEN A 
PROBLEM WITH THE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AND THE WAY YOU 
FUNCTIONED, BUT YOU DO -- WE DID RECEIVE CRITICISM IN THE 
COURT CASE FROM THE JUDGE ABOUT THERE WAS NOT A POLICY IN 
PLACE, SO I -- I THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IT AS 
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  OKAY.
AND THIS IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL COMMENT, BUT FOR REASONS I 
REALLY DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS AND I WON'T DISCUSS, I MAY 
NOT BE PREPARED TO -- TO SIGN OFF ON THIS IN TWO WEEKS.
IF I'M -- IF I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND I GUESS YOU DO 
BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD, I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT BUT NOT 
FOR REASONS OF ITS CONTENT BUT FOR REASONS THAT I'M NOT 
100% PREPARED TO -- TO WEIGH IN ON IT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT 
THE BEST -- BEST WAY IS TO DO IT.
I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO WAIT TWO MEETINGS, BUT IF THAT'S 
NOT THE CASE AND THAT INTERRUPTS ANY KIND OF A SENSE OF 
URGENCY THAT YOU WANT TO FOLLOW, I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO 
JEOPARDIZE ANYBODY.
I MEAN, WHAT I CAN DO IS I'LL TELL YOU THIS:  IF -- FOR THE 
REASONS AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO DISCLOSE, IF I'M PREPARED TO 
DO THAT AND IT'S OKAY WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, I 
WILL LET YOU KNOW BEFORE THAT MEETING, BUT RIGHT NOW IF -- 
GIVEN SOME -- SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO 
WEIGH IN ON IT.
IS THAT ALL RIGHT?
>>RENEE LEE:  YES.
AND GENERALLY, COMMISSIONER, I KNOW THAT THIS BOARD HAS 
RESPECTED ANY BOARD MEMBER WHO'S MADE A REQUEST TO DELAY 
ANY ITEM.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I KNOW THAT, BUT I WOULD HATE FOR US TO GO 
THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S LIKE, YOU 
KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT IT TODAY AND LET'S CONTINUE 
IT, SO I JUST WANTED TO JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A HEADS-UP ON 
THAT, AND JUST DO WITH IT WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO.
>>RENEE LEE:  YES.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WE'VE HAD SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS, 
MS. LEE, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT OUR AIDES 
ARE AFFORDED THE SAME TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES THAT OTHER 
COUNTY EMPLOYEES GO THROUGH, ESPECIALLY AS IT MAINTAINS TO 
ISSUES THAT MAY OPEN THE BOARD AND THE COUNTY UP TO 
LITIGATION, AND SO CERTAINLY MAKING SURE THAT -- I MEAN, I 
PERSONALLY DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY WOULD NOT GO 
THROUGH THE SAME TRAINING UNLESS THERE'S -- WE TALKED ABOUT 
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT MIGHT NOT BE RELEVANT TO THEM 
WHATSOEVER, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY GO THROUGH 
THIS TRAINING.
I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO MAKE ANY CURRENT 
COMMISSIONERS OR NEW COMMISSIONERS AWARE OF A TRAINING THAT 
THEY'RE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THAT ADDRESSES THESE ISSUES, AND 
MORE IMPORTANTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME TYPE OF A -
- A SIGN-OFF FORM THAT AIDES, COMMISSIONERS WOULD SIGN THAT 
THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL OR 
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR, CONDUCT, AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT 
COULD OPEN THEMSELVES OR THIS COUNTY UP TO -- TO LAWSUITS, 
SO I THINK IT'S A REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS 
POLICY THAT WE HAVE, AGAIN, THAT TRAINING AND MAKING SURE 
THAT THERE'S SOME TYPE OF A WRITTEN CONSENT SIGN-OFF FORMS 
THAT COMMISSIONERS AND AIDES WOULD ACTUALLY SIGN, THAT 
THEY'RE AT LEAST AFFORDED THIS OPPORTUNITY OR THEY 
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POLICIES ARE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF OUR -- OF OUR 
COMMISSIONERS.
I -- I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY, VERY NECESSARY.
I GUESS ONE THING THAT I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, 
HARASSMENT'S HARASSMENT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ACCEPTABLE HARASSMENT.
THERE'S NO FORM OF HARASSMENT WHERE, WELL, WE CAN HARASS 
THIS TYPE OF PERSON BUT NOT THAT INDIVIDUAL.
RATHER THAN MINING DOWN INTO DIFFERENT FORMS OF -- OF 
DIFFERENCES AND THEN SAYING, WELL WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT 
THESE -- BECAUSE SOMEONE'S GOING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT 
WE'RE NOT PROTECTING.
I SIMPLY THINK WE NEED A VERY BROAD STATEMENT OF 
PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT JUST LIKE PROHIBITION OF BULLYING 
IN SCHOOLS, SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT -
- RATHER THAN -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'VE MISSED, BUT I WANT 
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE -- THAT -- THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR THAT 
THIS IS A STATEMENT IRRESPECTIVE OF -- OF OUR DIFFERENCES 
OR, YOU KNOW, WHETHER PEOPLE ARE HARASSING, YOU KNOW, THE 
SAME -- WHO ARE THE SAME, SO I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO -
- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, YOU KNOW, VERY BROAD AND THAT WE 
COVER EVERYTHING.
THERE IS NO FORM OF HARASSMENT WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE WHILE 
WORKING HERE IN THE COUNTY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, I'VE HEARD A COUPLE THINGS HERE THAT 
KIND OF DISTURBS ME.
SOMETHING THAT MS. LEE JUST STATED.
YOU'RE GOING TO ADD THINGS TO THE POLICY THAT -- FIRST OF 
ALL, LET ME SAY I WILL SUPPORT EXACTLY WHAT THE ACCEPTED 
HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE IS IN THIS COUNTY.
YOU START ADDING IT, YOU CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, AND WE HAVE 
A HEARING FOR THAT.
THIS IS A BACK-DOOR ATTEMPT TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT 
ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
FRANKLY, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, AND I HEARD THE COUNTY 
ATTORNEY SAYING SHE'S GOING TO ADD THINGS TO THAT.
THAT IS OUT OF ORDER, SO -- IT'S WHAT ALL EMPLOYEES HAVE, 
IT'S WHAT OUR AIDES HAVE.
IF YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE, I WANT A FULL-BLOWN HEARING TO 
DO THAT.
>>RENEE LEE:  AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN, I THINK YOU'RE 
RESPONDING TO MY COMMENTS THAT -- TO COMMISSIONER BECKNER 
THAT I WOULD ADD THE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS THAT HE MENTIONED 
TO THE POLICY, AND IF THERE IS SOME OBJECTIONS TO THAT, WE 
CAN CERTAINLY -- WHAT WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS TO CAPTURE 
ALL OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON PROTECTED STATUS THAT 
THE FEDERAL COURTS --
>>JIM NORMAN:  IT'S THE SAME THING THAT THIS BOARD HAS AS 
AN ORDINANCE IS WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE -- IT SHOULD BE THE 
SAME ORDINANCE THIS COUNTY HAS PASSED.
ANYTHING ELSE SHOULD GO TO A FULL PUBLIC HEARING.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  NO.
[INAUDIBLE]
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE?
OKAY.
2:00 TIME CERTAIN.
>>PAT BEAN:  YES.
[INAUDIBLE] IS ITEM D-1.
THIS IS TO APPROVE THE 2010-2015 HART CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 
PROGRAM.
NED BAIER IS COMING TO THE PODIUM TO PRESENT THIS.
>>KEN HAGAN:  GOOD AFTERNOON, NED.
>>NED BAIER:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
NED BAIER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
I'LL INTRODUCE DAVID WATT.
HE'S THE DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WITH HART.
HE'LL BE MAKING A BRIEF PRESENTATION TO YOU.
FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION IS APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 
2010 TO 2015 HART CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND THIS IS 
A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT'S IN YOUR REPORT TO BE FUNDED IN 
PART BY COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
THE BOARD HAS ALREADY APPROVED FUNDS FOR HART'S IMPACT FEE 
PROGRAM, $114,458 PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, 
TOTALING $686,748 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2015.
IT'S REFLECTED IN THE COUNTY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
IT IS A REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM, MEANING HART BUILDS THE 
PROJECTS AND THE COUNTY THEN MAKES A PAYMENT TO HART.
THE COUNTY FUNDS ARE AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF LOCAL MATCHING 
FUNDS, LEVERAGING ALMOST 3.3 MILLION IN STATE AND FEDERAL 
FUNDS, SO DAVID WATT JUST HAS A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION, 
AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>>KEN HAGAN:  GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
>> DAVID WATT WITH HART, DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION 
MANAGEMENT.
LET ME GET MY POWERPOINT LOADED UP HERE.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS IT.
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT POWERPOINT.
>> IS IT THIS ONE?
IS IT THIS ONE?
>> YES, THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE.
OKAY.
WE HAVE -- AT REPORT ON 2009 OUR HIGHLIGHTS THIS YEAR OR 
LAST YEAR ENDING APRIL 30th WERE TO INSTALL FOUR BUS BAYS, 
THREE PARK-N-RIDE SHELTER UPGRADES.
WE OPENED A NEW SHELTER AT FISHHAWK, A PARK-N-RIDE AND A 
SHELTER.
WE'VE MADE 31 ON-STREET SHELTER DEVELOPMENTS, 72 NEW 
ADVERTISING SHELTERS IN THE COUNTY, AND WE'VE COMPLETED TWO 
SAFETY SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS WITH NEW SHELTERS.
2010 WE PLAN TO -- AND SOME OF THESE WE HAVE COMPLETED 
BECAUSE THIS ENDS APRIL 30th.
WE'VE INSTALLED A NEW ADA-COMPLIANT FACILITY AT THE CITRUS 
PARK WAL-MART.
WE HAVE SPENT $500,000 WITH THE D.O.T. FOR A PROJECT THAT'S 
JUST GOTTEN UNDERWAY TO FUND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE 
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 301.
WE HAVE ANOTHER SAFETY PROJECT ADDING SIDEWALKS AT 
HESPERDES AND HANNA, AND THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
WE HAVE SEVERAL NEW FREEDOM PROJECTS FOR ADA LANDING PADS 
THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED -- THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF 
BEING COMPLETED.
WE ALSO HAVE A MYRIAD OF OTHER TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE 
PROJECTS, INCLUDING NEW BUS BAYS, ADA UPGRADES, AND 
LIGHTING UPGRADES.
THESE ARE AWAITING CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS A SLIDE SHOWING A BEFORE-AND-AFTER PICTURE OF THE 
CITRUS PARK WAL-MART.
AS YOU CAN SEE, BEFORE THIS ADA -- NON-ADA-COMPLIANT AREA 
HERE, AND WE NEGOTIATED A DEAL WITH WAL-MART WHEREBY THEY 
ALLOWED US TO ENTER THEIR PROPERTY AND BUILD THIS VERY NICE 
SHELTER RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE FRONT OF THEIR STORE.
AGAIN, WE HAD A PARK-N-RIDE AT CITRUS PARK WHEREBY THE BUS 
HAD TO ENTER THE PARK BEFORE WE COULD BOARD PEOPLE, AND 
THIS SHELTER ON THE LEFT WAS NOT ADA COMPLIANT.
AFTERWARDS WE PUT THE SHELTER -- PUT THE SHELTER OUT ON THE 
STREET SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO ENTER THE PARK AND 
CONSTRUCTED A SIDEWALK SO THAT THE ADA OR THE HANDICAPPED 
PATRONS COULD ACCESS THIS SHELTER.
SIGNAL OUTDOOR, WE HAVE AN ADVERTISING CONTRACT WITH 
SIGNAL, AND THEY HAVE INSTALLED 35 NEW SHELTERS AT THE 
BOTTOM OF THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN AND 37 RETROFIT SHELTERS 
WITHIN THE COUNTY.
THAT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR US TO MAINTAIN THESE SHELTERS.
THIS IS A TYPICAL SHELTER INSTALLATION BY SIGNAL OUTDOORS.
THIS WAS A COUNTY-FUNDED BUS BAY PROJECT, AND YOU CAN SEE 
THE TWO SHELTERS THAT THEY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED.
WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH ALL OF OUR BUS 
STOPS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, APPROXIMATELY 4,000 STOPS.
THIS IS TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ADA GUIDELINES.
AND WE'RE USING THE IMPACT FEES WHICH YOU PROVIDE TO 
LEVERAGE FUNDING FOR THESE VARIOUS ROADWAY PROJECTS, NEW 
FREEDOM PROJECTS AND STATE PARK-N-RIDE FUNDING.
WE ALSO HAVE USED SOME OF THESE FUNDS FOR SIGNAL OUTDOOR 
ADVERTISING SUCH AS PERMITTING, OTHER DEVELOPER PROJECTS, 
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO USE THE MOBILITY FEES OR IMPACT FEES 
IN THE FUTURE TO CONTINUE THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THANK YOU, SIR.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. WHITE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
GERALD WHITE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTIVIST.
THE ONLY SHELTERS THAT I WOULD REQUEST THAT ARE FULLY 
COVERED IS BETWEEN 30th STREET AND 40th STREET WHERE BUSCH 
GARDENS IS.
YOU HAVE DECENT SHELTERS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF BUSCH 
GARDENS, BUT ON THE SIDE OF BUSCH GARDENS ON 40th AND 
BUSCH, PEOPLE JUST STAND IN THE STREET.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BECAUSE THE WAY THE TRAFFIC 
IS DESIGNED OR WHAT, BUT THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL 
ATTRACTION HERE, AND WE'VE GOT PEOPLE STANDING AT A SIGN 
SAYING THEY CATCH THE BUS HERE.
IF SOMETHING COULD BE DONE WITHIN THAT CORRIDOR WITH ALL 
THE SHELTERS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE FOUR STAR.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE COMING FROM ALL OVER 
THE WORLD, AND THERE'S A BUSCH GARDENS CORRIDOR, AND OUR 
SHELTERS LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW -- ON ONE SIDE THEY'RE UP TO 
PAR, BUT ON THE SIDE NEAR -- ON THE SIDE OF BUSCH GARDENS, 
THEY'RE JUST NOT -- THEY DON'T REPRESENT US.
THEY NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB WITH SHELTERS, AND I HOPE THEY 
CONTINUE TO UPGRADE SHELTERS ON 40th STREET WITH ALL THE 
NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT'S TAKING PLACE ON THE NEW ROAD -- ON 
COUNTY ROAD ON 40th STREET, AND I WANT STRONG EMPHASIS ON A 
SHELTER WHERE THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX 
IS.
YOU NOTICE THE CITIZENS HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET TO CATCH 
THE BUS, AND SO IF THEY CAN HAVE A DECENT SHELTER AT THE 
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WHERE SENIOR CITIZENS LIVE, THAT WOULD 
BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HARTLINE IS DOING WITH SHELTERS IN 
OUR COUNTY.
THEY LOOK BEAUTIFUL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STRONG 
EMPHASIS ON SHELTERS NEAR AND AROUND BUSCH GARDENS, OUR 
INTERNATIONAL ATTRACTION.
THANK YOU.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THANK YOU, MR. WHITE, FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ANYONE ELSE?
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.
>>JIM NORMAN:  SECOND.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, 
SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WHILE MR. WHITE'S HERE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A 
LITTLE PERSONAL THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU-ALL HAVE HEARD, BUT BUSCH GARDENS WAS 
SOLD TODAY, AND IT WAS BOUGHT BY BLACKSTONE, AND ALL THE 
PARKS ARE GOING TO NOW BE MAINTAINED AND HAVE -- THEY'RE 
GOING TO STAY TOGETHER THROUGHOUT FLORIDA, BUT BLACKSTONE 
ANNOUNCED TODAY THEY PURCHASED ALL OF THE PARKS.
THAT'S A GREAT BOOST FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT THAT 
PARK'S GOING TO BE MAINTAINED AND STAY IN TOP CONDITION, SO 
WHILE YOU WERE HERE, I JUST WANTED TO --
>> APPRECIATE IT.
A LOT OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE WORK THERE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
>>KEN HAGAN:  NEXT ITEM.
>>PAT BEAN:  THE NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM D-2.
THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THIS IS TO CONDUCT A 
PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED 
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE '08-'09 AND '09-'10 ACTUAL 
PLANS -- ANNUAL ACTION PLANS, AND VALMARIE TURNER'S HERE TO 
PRESENT THAT ITEM.
>>VALMARIE TURNER:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
VALMARIE TURNER, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
WE'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND 
CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR A SUBSTANTIAL 
AMENDMENT.
WE ARE SWITCHING FUNDING FOR BAYOU PASS PHASE III FROM 
CDBG-R TO HOME CHODO PROGRAM FUNDS, AND WE'RE ALSO 
SWITCHING THE UNIVERSITY AREA CDC HOME OWNERSHIP 
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FROM CDBG TO HOME AS WELL, AND WE'RE 
ALSO INCLUDING ANOTHER PROJECT WHICH IS THE FLORIDA -- 
FLORIDA HOME PARTNERSHIP AND THE HALO FOUNDATION.
IT'S ANGELS UNAWARE.
IT IS A GROUP HOME.
WE'RE INCLUDING THAT IN CDBG AS WELL, AND WE'VE HAD OUR 
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'VE ADVERTISED PURSUANT TO OUR CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR 30 DAYS, AND WE'RE HERE TO HOLD THE 
PUBLIC HEARING.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE BOARD.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  SO MOVE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>MARK SHARPE:  SECOND.
>>KEN HAGAN:  SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THANKS, VALMARIE.
>>VALMARIE TURNER:  THANK YOU.
>>PAT BEAN:  NEXT ITEM IS ITEM B-5 SCHEDULED FOR 2:10.
THIS IS DAN POHTO'S PRESENTATION REGARDING THREE 
PERFORMANCE AUDIT SCOPES THAT HE'S PRESENTING TO THE BOARD.
>>KEN HAGAN:  GOOD AFTERNOON, DAN.
>>DAN POHTO:  GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
AS A LITTLE BACKGROUND, BACK ON JULY 15th OF THIS YEAR THE 
CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE BOARD SIGNED A MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING 
THAT SAID THAT THE CLERK WOULD CONDUCT PERFORMANCE AUDITS 
FOR THE BOARD AND IN THAT MOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND 
DO THREE OF THEM.
WHAT I'VE BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY IS THREE SEPARATE SCOPES OF 
SERVICE FOR THREE DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE AUDITS ASKING YOUR 
APPROVAL SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THESE STARTED.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU.
MR. POHTO, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, AND THIS IS MORE AN 
INTERNAL PROBLEM THAN ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CLERK 
CERTAINLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE UTMOST 
RESPECT FOR THE KIND OF WORK AND THE QUALITY OF WORK YOU 
PUT OUT, BUT -- AND I'M SORRY THAT MR. JOHNSON'S NOT HERE.
I KNOW THAT WHEN WE WENT FORWARD -- AND GOSH, I WAS REALLY, 
REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS MOU WITH YOU-ALL -- YOU WERE 
GOING TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK HAVE NOT BEEN 
DONE IN THE PAST AND PROBABLY DO THEM VERY WELL.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE AS WE GO FORWARD -- AND I DON'T KNOW 
WHAT THE -- THE TIME FRAMES ARE OR THE TIMELINES ARE, BUT -
- I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD ANSWER BECAUSE ERIC'S NOT HERE, 
BUT PERHAPS MS. LEE OR MS. BEAN.
WERE NOT SOME OF THE SALARIES FROM THE IPA STAFF THAT WE 
DIDN'T ANTICIPATE TO BE WITH US AFTER THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR -- WERE NOT SOME OF THOSE GOING TO BE USED TO FUND THE 
MOU THAT WE HAD WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE IN TERMS OF AUDITS?
>>PAT BEAN:  THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION THAT DOLLARS THAT WERE 
REMOVED FROM THE IPA BUDGET WOULD BE USED TO HELP OFFSET 
THE COST OF THE MOU.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  OKAY.
SO WHERE DO WE GO WITH THAT DILEMMA NOW?
>>DAN POHTO:  PAT, IF -- THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD -- 
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY PREDICATED ON THE IPA MONEY, THAT 
THERE WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS $150,000 OF -- I CAN'T 
THINK OF THE RIGHT WORD FOR IT.
IT'S NOT ALLOCATED TO ANY DEPARTMENT.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WORD IS.
>>DAN KLEIN:  I BELIEVE SO.
AND MR. JOHNSON HAS REPEATEDLY TOLD ME DON'T TALK ABOUT HIS 
BUDGET, BUT I -- I THINK I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE 
BOARD'S ADOPTED BUDGET FOR 2010 HAS $150,000 APPROPRIATED 
IN WHAT IS CALLED NONDEPARTMENTAL ALLOTMENTS.
IT'S NOT ASSIGNED TO ANY PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT BUT IS 
AVAILABLE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE OUTSOURCING OF PERFORMANCE 
AUDITS OR THE CONTRACTING OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FOR 
PERFORMANCE AUDITS.
>>PAT BEAN:  YES.
THERE ARE FUNDS THERE IN AN ACCOUNT.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I KNOW THAT, BUT THEY'RE NONDEPARTMENTAL.
MR. HAGAN, SO I DON'T INTERRUPT YOUR MEETING, TELL ME WHERE 
OR HOW -- WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO ACCESS THIS?
BECAUSE OF THIS AND SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT I HAD LOOKED AT, 
WE REALLY NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF 
EXPECTATIONS OF OUR IPA THEN, AND I KNOW YOU HAD SAID AT 
SOME POINT THAT IT COULD BE AN AGENDA ITEM ON OUR -- ON 
OUR -- ON OUR REGULAR BOCC MEETING, BUT THERE ARE MANY 
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT GO 
BACK TO THE IPA STATUS AND THE AMOUNT OF HIS STAFF, SO WHEN 
WOULD I BE ABLE TO REQUEST MAYBE OF YOU THAT WE HAVE LIKE A 
WORKSHOP?
OCTOBER 28th I KNOW WE HAD ONE AND IT'S NOT SCHEDULED 
ANYMORE?
I KNOW THAT THIS IS INDIRECT TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT IT 
REALLY KIND OF AFFECTS THAT.
DAN IS RIGHT, THERE'S SOME NONDEPARTMENTAL DOLLARS, BUT 
THEN WE'RE USING THE NONDEPARTMENTAL DOLLARS ON YOU GUYS 
DOING AN AUDIT, A GOOD AUDIT I MUST SAY, BUT AT THE SAME 
TIME, WE'VE GOT EXTRA STAFF NOW, SO WHAT ABOUT THAT?
SO -- DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, THEY'RE REALLY 
INTERCONNECTED?
I'M ASKING YOU THAT, BUT -- RHETORICALLY.
I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN 
ANSWER, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  PAT, HAD YOU AGENDAED THE ITEM.
I KNOW ORIGINALLY MR. BARNES HAD REQUESTED A WORKSHOP.
WE HAD SPOKEN BRIEFLY ABOUT IT, AND FRANKLY, I THOUGHT --
>>PAT BEAN:  IN MY CONVERSATION WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR, YOU 
HAD INDICATED TO ME -- AND I DID GO BACK AND CHECK THE 
MINUTES.
THE BOARD HAD NOT AUTHORIZED THE SCHEDULING OF A WORKSHOP, 
AND SINCE THAT'S YOUR BOARD POLICY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE 
DONE THAT, WHAT I WAS THINKING WE NEEDED TO DO WAS TO ASK 
YOU WHETHER YOU WANTED TO SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP OR YOU JUST 
WANTED TO DO THE AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE YOUR COMMENTS -- YOU 
WERE QUOTED IN THERE TWICE IN THE MINUTES THAT YOU DIDN'T 
THINK IT NEEDED TO BE A WORKSHOP, YOU THOUGHT IT COULD JUST 
BE DONE AS A BOARD ITEM.
IF THE BOARD WANTS TO DO A WORKSHOP, YOU CAN CERTAINLY VOTE 
TO DO THAT TODAY, AND WE CAN SCHEDULE IT FOR THE 28th OF 
OCTOBER.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  SO MOVED.
>> SECOND.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, OR IF YOU WOULD 
LIKE ME TO BRING IT UP AT THE END OF THE MEETING, KEN, FOR 
DISCUSSION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  SO CURRENTLY I'M LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR 
RIGHT NOW.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WE HAD A WORKSHOP AT 1:30, BUT WE'RE 
PROBABLY NOT GOING TO USE THAT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  IS IT POSSIBLE AT ALL TO DO THE WORKSHOP WITH 
THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE SCHEDULED -- DON'T WE HAVE ONE 
SCHEDULED PRIOR -- PRIOR TO THAT?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>KEN HAGAN:  AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  IT GOT MOVED TO THE 14th.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT ONE, 
MR. HAGAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  CAN I CHIME IN AND ASK A QUESTION?
>> PLEASE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  AND I SEE ERIC JOHNSON HERE.
SEE, ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE GOT AN ISSUE THAT I -- IS HOW 
WE MOVE FORWARD AND HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CLERK IS -
- YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF LIKE WE'RE OPERATING WITH A -- AN 
IPA THAT'S NEVER HAD A PEER REVIEW.
IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, YEARS AND YEARS OF OPERATION WITHOUT 
A PEER REVIEW.
WHAT THAT DOES, IT SETS THE STANDARD AND GUIDANCE ON HOW 
THEY INTERFACE WITH OUR CLERK AND HOW -- THE PROCEDURES 
AND -- JUST LIKE NON-NOTIFICATION OF THE PEOPLE YOU'RE 
REVIEWING KIND OF THING.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW -- WHAT I'D LIKE IS A PEER 
REVIEW, A QUICK GET IT DONE -- WE'RE SUBJECTING IN A WAY 
OUR CLERK'S OFFICE TO INTERFACING WITH UNTESTED PRACTICES 
IN A WAY BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER DONE -- WE'VE NEVER REQUIRED 
THE PEER REVIEW TO BE DONE.
I WITNESSED OUR IPA AND MR. POHTO HAVING LITTLE CLASHES ON 
HOW THINGS WERE DONE AND HOW THINGS -- DO YOU RECALL THAT, 
MR. POHTO, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE CLASHING BACK AND 
FORTH?
FOLKS, WE'RE GOING DOWN A PATH THAT'S NEVER -- WE DON'T 
HAVE STANDARDS SET BY THE PEER REVIEW THAT'S DONE BY THE 
OUTSIDE PEOPLE, AND I THINK WE HAVE THAT, THEN WE GO FORTH 
WITH MR. POHTO AND THOSE FOLKS AND THESE WORKSHOPS, BUT 
UNTIL -- OUR PERSON THAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO THESE THINGS IS 
ALL OVER THE MAP WITHOUT ANY PEER REVIEW, WE'RE GOING TO -- 
YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF LIKE YOU CAN'T MAKE CHERRY PIE OUT 
OF MUD, YOU KNOW.
[LAUGHTER]
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT -- MR. JOHNSON, IN YOUR 
PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IF WE ACTED QUICKLY -- I KNOW WE 
TALKED ABOUT IT, WE PAID FOR IT, WE DID EVERYTHING.
HOW QUICKLY COULD WE GET A PEER REVIEW?
>>ERIC JOHNSON:  WELL, COMMISSIONERS, YOU MAY WANT TO ASK 
THE AUDITOR THAT'S IN THE ROOM.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS TO GET A PEER 
REVIEW DONE.
ONE IS THAT YOU OFFER YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THE PEER REVIEWS 
OF OTHER AUDIT ORGANIZATIONS AND YOU EARN CREDITS FOR THAT, 
AND IN RETURN YOU HAVE A LOW-COST PEER REVIEW WHEN 
VOLUNTEERS FROM OTHER AUDIT ORGANIZATIONS COME IN AND YOU 
JUST COVER THEIR EXPENSE.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MR. BARNES AND HIS STAFF HAVE EARNED 
ENOUGH CREDITS.
I KNOW THAT MR. GENTILE HAD PARTICIPATED LAST YEAR IN A 
PEER REVIEW DOWN IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SOMEPLACE, BUT THAT'S 
ONE APPROACH.
A FASTER APPROACH I SUSPECT IS TO SIMPLY GO OUT AND HIRE A 
FIRM OR AN ORGANIZATION TO DO THE PEER REVIEW.
>>JIM NORMAN:  DID YOU PUT MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT?
>>ERIC JOHNSON:  WE HAVE MONEY IN THE BUDGET.
YOU MAY NEED A FEW MORE DOLLARS.
I MISSED YOUR EARLIER QUESTION, BUT WE HAVE $150,000 FOR 
EXTERNAL --
>>JIM NORMAN:  RIGHT.
>>ERIC JOHNSON:  -- PERFORMANCE AUDITS THAT IS SET ASIDE 
NOT IN THE IPA BUDGET, BUT IT WAS INTENDED AT THAT TIME FOR 
THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO USE IN SECURING OUTSIDE SERVICES TO 
ASSIST IN PERFORMANCE AUDITS, BUT YOU COULD TAP A LITTLE 
BIT OF THAT IF YOU NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WE NEED A -- A SEAL OF APPROVAL OF THE 
PROCESS OF WHAT'S GOING ON BEFORE WE SUBJECT OUR 
DEPARTMENTS AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO WHAT'S GOING TO GO 
FORWARD.
THAT'S MY OPINION.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>DAN POHTO:  MR. CHAIR --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOVE THAT WE 
SCHEDULE THAT WORKSHOP FOR THE 28th, AND THEN I THINK 
MS. FERLITA SAID SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT.
WAS THAT --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  NO, I CAN MAKE IT ON THE 28th.
>>KEN HAGAN:  SHE CAN'T MAKE THE 14th.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THAT WAS MY MOTION WAS TO GET ONE ON SO 
WE CAN -- I'M SORRY?
>>JIM NORMAN:  I DON'T THINK I CAN MAKE IT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I CAN'T, I'M IN WASHINGTON.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WELL, CAN WE LOOK AT DIFFERENT DAYS?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  YEAH, I'M FINE WITH LOOKING AT A 
DIFFERENT DATE TOO.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MR. POHTO, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT?
>>DAN POHTO:  MR. CHAIR, WHEN WE SIGNED -- WHEN THE OFFICES 
SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD, IT WAS UNDER 
PERSONALLY MY UNDERSTANDING WITH SOME OF THE DISCUSSION 
FROM THE BOARD THAT YOU WANTED THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO DO 
YOUR PERFORMANCE AUDITS.
WE WENT FORWARD.
I'VE ALREADY STARTED ARRANGING PROCESS, PROCEDURES, AND AN 
AUDIT MANUAL IN MY DEPARTMENT TO COVER THAT, AND IT WAS MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT WHATEVER YOU WANTED YOUR PERFORMANCE 
AUDITOR TO DO, YOU WOULD HAVE HIM DO IT, BUT HE WOULD NOT 
BE A PART OF AN MOU, AND NOWHERE IN THE MOU DOES IT SAY 
THAT YOUR IPA WILL BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS.
AND I WILL GO OUT ON A LIMB HERE AND I WILL SAY TO YOU THAT 
IF YOU MAKE HIM A PART OF MY PROCESS, THAT OFFICE, I WILL 
HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT.
HE'S NOT YELLOW BOOK, HE DOESN'T HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS, 
AND -- AND I -- I DON'T WANT TO INHIBIT OR PUT MY YELLOW 
BOOK STANDARDS AND RED BOOK STANDARDS ON THE LINE.
I'VE GOT ANOTHER QAR AUDIT OF MY OFFICE COMING UP IN MAY 
AND JUNE, AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT I WANT TO JEOPARDIZE 
THAT, SO I'M SORRY, AND IF I'M BEING DISRESPECTFUL FOR YOU, 
I APOLOGIZE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  HE SAID IT BETTER THAN I DID.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT EXACTLY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH MY LIGHT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  YOU'RE UP.
YOU'RE BLINKING.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE DYNAMICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO 
DEAL WITH, WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHAT THE OTHER GUY'S DOING, 
WHAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE BEFORE, WHAT THEY HAVE NOW IN 
TERMS OF STAFF, BUT I REMEMBER -- AND I JUST CONFIRMED IT 
WITH MR. JOHNSON, HIS RECOLLECTION WAS MUCH THE SAME -- 
THAT IN AUGUST THE IPA SAID HE WAS READY TO GO WITH A PEER 
REVIEW.
THAT WOULD SOLVE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS.
WE'VE GOT MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO DO IT, AND WHY DON'T WE 
DIRECT HIM TO DO A PEER REVIEW IN NO LATER THAN THE NEXT 30 
DAYS?
HE SAID HE WAS READY TO GO THEN, WAS HE NOT, MR. JOHNSON?
OKAY.
SO THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE CAN GET 
OUT OF THE WAY.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GO ABOUT THAT MECHANISM.
I DON'T GUESS WE CAN MAKE A MOTION NOW --
>>JIM NORMAN:  THAT MAKES IT --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  -- BUT WHATEVER IT IS, HE SAID I'M READY 
TO GO NOW.
>>JIM NORMAN:  IT MAKES IT CLEANER TO DEAL -- THEM TO WORK 
TOGETHER IF YOU HAVE STANDARDS AND PROCESSES APPROVED AND 
PEERS HAVE APPROVED IT.
THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
I THINK THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, I SUPPORT THE -- I'M NOT SURE 
IF THE BOARD MEMBERS DO, BUT I SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT -- 
OR THE ITEM HERE, WHICH IS APPROVING THE THREE PERFORMANCE 
AUDIT SCOPES.
SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT NOW OR WAIT UNTIL THE 
WORKSHOP?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WE CAN DO THAT NOW BECAUSE THEY SAID IN 
NONDEPARTMENTAL WE HAVE IT.
THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE WE NEED TO DISCUSS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  AND THEN AT THE WORKSHOP WE CAN DISCUSS HOW 
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IPA'S OFFICE, WHAT THEY WILL 
DO.
MY -- MY GOAL, THIS COMMISSIONER'S GOAL, IS TO PERFORM THE 
PERFORMANCE AUDITS IN A MANNER THAT WILL BENEFIT THIS BOARD 
IN HELPING US MAKE POLICY, OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND 
THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWED SO 
THAT WE CAN ENHANCE OUR PERFORMANCE.
THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S THE PURPOSE, NOT TO TRY TO SHARE 
RESPONSIBILITIES.
I THINK THERE'S STILL A VALUE, AND THAT'S SEPARATE FROM 
YOUR TASK AT HAND, WITH OUR IPA IN DOING PERHAPS SHORTER-
TERM LOOKS AT THE PERFORMANCE, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT 
BE A PERFORMANCE AUDIT HERE IN THE COUNTY.
I WOULD, THOUGH, LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AS WE'VE HAD 
BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING AND GROWTH ON 
HOW WE CAN BEST PROCEED WITH COMMUNITY PLANS AND OTHER 
ISSUES HOW YOUR OFFICE AND THE IPA, WHICH HAS BEEN -- WAS 
CREATED BY THE -- BY THE VOTERS THEMSELVES.
THEY MANDATED THAT WE CREATE THE OFFICE.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.
-- HOW WE DO THAT BUT AT THE SAME TIME TAKE ADVANTAGE OF -- 
OF WHAT YOU'RE PROVIDING US IN THE -- IN THE -- IN THE WAY 
OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS TO YELLOW BOOK STANDARD.
SO I THINK THAT THE WORKSHOP IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I WOULD 
HOPE THAT WE COULD HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH BOTH YOU AND 
WITH MR. BARNES.
ARE -- ARE -- ARE YOU AND MR. BARNES TALKING NOW ABOUT HOW 
YOU'LL PROCEED WITH THE SCOPE OF ALL THE REQUESTS THAT 
MIGHT COME IN FROM COMMISSIONERS?
>>DAN POHTO:  AS I -- AS I REEMPHASIZE, I DON'T SEE A DAILY 
WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR IPA.
MY DUTIES ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE CLERK AND BY THE 
CONSTITUTION AND BY THE MOU THAT YOU FOLKS SIGNED.
I WANT TO GO FORTH.
I DON'T WANT TO MIX THE -- THE WATER AND THE OIL HERE.
I THINK YOU HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH YOUR IPA OFFICE THAT YOU 
NEED TO DEAL WITH SEPARATELY, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THE 
CLERK'S OFFICE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE MOU, PROCEED WITH THE 
SCOPE OF SERVICES.
WHEN WE GET THE -- WHEN WE GET THAT RFP, WE'RE GOING TO 
COME BACK TO YOU.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING 
WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH YOUR PURCHASING PROCESS, WE'RE 
GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY HERE'S WHAT WE RECOMMEND, 
YOU SAY YEA OR NAY, AND THEN IF WE DO, WE DO.
I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS WHOLE PROCESS --
>>JIM NORMAN:  RIGHT.
>>DAN POHTO:  -- BETWEEN YOUR IPA OFFICE AND THE CLERK'S 
OFFICE AS TWO SEPARATE --
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE THE RECOMMENDATION.
>>MARK SHARPE: SECOND.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU.
YES, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, AND 
ESPECIALLY SINCE MR. KLEIN SAID WE HAVE MONEY IN THE 
NONDEPARTMENTAL.
ONCE WE MAKE THIS MOTION, THEN I WANT SOMEBODY TO DIRECT ME 
ON -- LET'S LOOK AT SOME DIFFERENT DATES.
I KNOW I CAN'T DO THE 14th, YOU GUYS CAN'T DO THE 28th.
WE NEED TO EXPEDITE THE WORKSHOP, BUT MORE THAN THAT -- 
MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY THAN THAT, WHAT IS THE FASTEST TRACK TO 
GET ON SO THAT -- CLEARLY MR. BARNES SAID HE'S READY, WE 
HAVE THE MONEY.
WE NEED A PEER REVIEW, SO I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO 
TELL ME HOW WE GO ALONG WITH THAT, BUT ANYWAY, IN TERMS OF 
THIS MOTION, I WILL CERTAINLY SUPPORT IT.
GO AHEAD, MR. HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, 
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE TO APPROVE THE THREE 
PERFORMANCE AUDITS.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>DAN POHTO:  THANK YOU.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  CAN I DO IT NOW?
>>DAN POHTO:  MR. CHAIR.
>>KEN HAGAN:  YES, SIR.
>>DAN POHTO:  I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO ANSWER MR. SHARPE.
FRIDAY YOUR IPA, HIS SENIOR IPA, MR. KLEIN, THE CLERK, AND 
I MET FOR PROBABLY AN HOUR TO DISCUSS MANY OF THE THINGS, 
THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS, OTHER ISSUES, PEER REVIEWS, ET 
CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, OKAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT 
IF -- DISCUSSED WITH YOUR IPA THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE, 
IF ANY, INPUT ON HIS PART INTO THE MOU PROCESS UNTIL AFTER 
THE AUDITS WERE DONE AND WE PRESENT THEM TO YOU.
THEN YOU COULD TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO AND ASSIGN HIM 
TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY -- ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE DONE 
IN THOSE AUDITS, THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT HE GETS MANAGEMENT 
TO GET THEM DONE, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I SAID --
>>JIM NORMAN:  AND THOSE WERE MY WORDS ACTUALLY WHEN WE 
WERE DOING ALL OF THIS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  HE JUST SAID THEM BETTER.
>>JIM NORMAN:  HUH?
>>MARK SHARPE:  HE JUST SAID THEM BETTER, BUT, YEAH --
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, I KNOW THOSE ARE MY SAME WORDS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  EXACTLY.
>>DAN POHTO:  BUT THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN FRONT OF THE CLERK, 
IN FRONT OF YOUR IPA'S OFFICE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  YES.
>>DAN POHTO:  OKAY.
[INAUDIBLE] FRIDAY.
>>MARK SHARPE:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT --
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  DID WE VOTE ON THIS ALREADY?
>>MARK SHARPE:  YES, MA'AM, WE DID.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  ALL RIGHT.
>>DAN POHTO:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU, MR. POHTO.
ALL RIGHT.
SO THEN -- SEPARATELY, THEN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER 
MOTION THAT WE START THE WHEELS OF PROGRESS IN GETTING A 
PEER REVIEW DONE.
ERIC, DON'T GO AWAY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>ROSE FERLITA:  REASONABLE TIME.
I MEAN --
>>MARK SHARPE:  SECOND.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  IT CAN BE DONE IN WHATEVER.
I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
30 DAYS IS TOO LONG, BUT I DON'T --
>>ERIC JOHNSON:  WELL, COMMISSIONERS, OBVIOUSLY IT COMES 
DOWN TO THE SCHEDULE OF WHOEVER THEY FIND TO DO IT.
WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO IS TO SET A TIMELINE BY WHICH THE 
PEER REVIEW WILL AT LEAST BE SCHEDULED SO YOU HAVE SOME 
GUARANTEE AS TO WHEN IT WILL BE INITIATED, BUT WHETHER IT'S 
A PRIVATE FIRM OR WHETHER THEY'VE GOTTEN FAR ENOUGH THROUGH 
THIS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM WITH THIS ONE ASSOCIATION WHERE THEY 
REVIEW EACH OTHER --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  ALL RIGHT.
BUT ERIC --
>>ERIC JOHNSON:  IT'S STILL GOING TO COME DOWN TO SCHEDULES 
AND WHO'S AVAILABLE ON WHAT SCHEDULE, SO I DON'T THINK YOU 
CAN HOLD THE IPA ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE AVAILABILITY, BUT YOU 
CAN CERTAINLY SAY THAT BY SOME DATE CERTAIN YOU EXPECT TO 
HAVE THAT SCHEDULED AND HAVE SOME DIRECTION IN TERMS OF HOW 
QUICKLY YOU WANT IT COMPLETED.
>>JIM NORMAN:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I'M SORRY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  NOVEMBER 1 HAVE IT SCHEDULED BACK ON OUR 
AGENDA ON A SELECTED -- THAT GIVES HIM SIX WEEKS OR MORE TO 
COME BACK WITH A SCHEDULED DATE.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  YEAH, BUT I DON'T WANT HIM TO COME BACK 
NOVEMBER 1 AND TELL US IT WILL BE JANUARY OF 2010.
>>JIM NORMAN:  BUT THEY HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO US FOR -- 
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
[LAUGHTER]
>>ROSE FERLITA:  WELL, THAT'S FINE.
I MEAN, THAT'S -- IF THEY'RE JUST GOING TO COME BACK 
NOVEMBER 1, WE'RE NOT SETTING A TIME --
>>JIM NORMAN:  BEFORE NOVEMBER 1.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO 
GIVE THEM PARAMETERS, MR. NORMAN, ABOUT WHEN WE WANT IT 
DONE.
I'M SURE THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PRIVATE FIRMS IS 
NOT ALL BUSY, AND HE SAID HE'S READY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  OKAY.
WELL, I'M JUST SAYING YOU CAN'T -- IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT 
THESE OTHER FIRMS HAVE ON THEIR SCHEDULES, BUT I GUESS WE 
WOULD --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  OKAY.
THIS IS MY MOTION.
>>JIM NORMAN:  REQUEST 90 DAYS --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I WANT THEM TO COME BACK BY NOVEMBER 1st, 
GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHEN IT'S SCHEDULED BY A PRIVATE -- WITH 
A PRIVATE FIRM AND GIVE ME SOME SORT OF --
>>JIM NORMAN:  WITHIN 90 DAYS.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY CONTACTED AND WHO 
COULD NOT DO IT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  RIGHT.
BUT HOPEFULLY IN 90 DAYS HAVE IT COMPLETED.
YOU MOVED THAT?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THAT'S FINE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL SECOND.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
SO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>>MARK SHARPE:  SECOND.
WELL --
>>KEN HAGAN:  SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>PAT BEAN:  OKAY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  NEXT ITEM.
>>PAT BEAN:  YOUR NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM B-2.
THIS IS TO APPROVE THE FLORIDA HOME PARTNERSHIP, INC., 
AGREEMENT TO FUND DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FOR 
BAYOU PASS PHASE III.
>>VALMARIE TURNER:  VAL TURNER, AFFORDABLE HOUSING 
DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE WITH ME TODAY EARL PFEIFFER, WHO'S THE EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR FOR THE FLORIDA HOME PARTNERSHIP.
WE PARTNER WITH THEM FOR ANY DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.
THEY ARE A RECIPIENT WITH USDA FOR A LARGE SELF-HELP GRANT, 
AND SO THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION PROVIDES 166 HOMES, OF 
WHICH 100 OF THOSE WILL BE SET ASIDE FOR LOW-INCOME 
FAMILIES.
WE'VE ALREADY ASSISTED FLORIDA HOME PARTNERSHIP WITH THE 
ACQUISITION OF THE LAND.
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THE DOLLARS THAT WE PUT INTO THIS 
DEVELOPMENT IS THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO BE LEFT BEHIND FOR 
THE ACTUAL LOW-INCOME FAMILY TO BE ABLE TO SUBSIDIZE THE 
COST OF THE HOUSE FOR THEM.
>>KEN HAGAN:  DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM 
BOARD MEMBERS?
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO MOVED.
>>KEN HAGAN:  GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>KEN HAGAN:  SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>KEN HAGAN:  THANK YOU, VALMARIE.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>>VALMARIE TURNER:  THANK YOU.
>>PAT BEAN:  THE NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM F-1, 
WHICH IS YOUR APPOINTMENTS TO THE VARIOUS BOARDS AND 
COUNCILS.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MS. BEAN, DON'T WE HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM?
MS. BEAN.
>>PAT BEAN:  I'M SORRY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  DO WE HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM BESIDES THIS?
>>PAT BEAN:  WE DO.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COULD WE TAKE THAT UP?
>>PAT BEAN:  WE HAVE A 2:30 ITEM THAT ISN'T ON YOUR 
SCHEDULE BECAUSE IT WAS ADDED, BUT WE HAD STUCK IT DOWN 
HERE AT 2:30, WHICH IS -- YOU HAD REQUESTED THIS MORNING TO 
HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH 
LLC ACADEMY AS FAR AS THE FINAL CO.
YOU ADDED THAT TODAY DURING YOUR MEETING.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
CAN WE TAKE THAT UP WHILE WE'RE WAITING?
>>PAT BEAN:  YES.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
I'M SORRY.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  DON'T FORGET THAT WE ALSO HAD THAT -- WHAT 
WAS IT, A-14?
I DON'T REMEMBER.
WE NEVER MOVED THAT.
JAN MacLEOD TALKED TO PASTOR FAVORITE.
IT'S FINE.
IT'S FINE, BUT WE NEVER DID APPROVE THAT.
>>PAT BEAN:  WE'LL GO BACK TO IT.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  OKAY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  LUANN.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  OKAY.
THE FIRST BOARD IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.
MICHAEL --
>>MARK SHARPE:  WHOA, WHOA, NO, SORRY, WE'RE GOING WITH THE 
LLT.
>>PAT BEAN:  LLT FIRST.
>>MARK SHARPE:  LLT.
SORRY.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  SORRY.
I THOUGHT I LOST MY PLACE IN THE PROGRAM HERE.
PETER ALUOTTO, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  YOU DID.
GET TO THE BACK OF THE LINE, PETER.
[LAUGHTER]
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  THE LLT ACADEMY IS IN KIND OF A DIFFICULT 
SPOT, AS YOU HEARD THIS MORNING.
THEY'RE OPERATING A PRIVATE SCHOOL, AND THEY HAVE TO COMPLY 
WITH CERTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS.
NOW, WE HAVE TWO PROBLEMS BASICALLY.
ONE IS A SITE ACCESS PROBLEM, THE OTHER IS A CONCURRENCY 
ISSUE.
SITE ACCESS DERIVES FROM A ZONING CONDITION WHICH WAS 
PLACED WHEN THEY CAME IN TO REZONE THE PROPERTY ON MAY 
13th, 2008, AND THAT ZONING CONDITION SAID THAT THEY HAD TO 
HAVE A WESTBOUND TURN LANE INTO THEIR PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS THAT HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME 
ISSUE.
LEARNING GATE ACADEMY, YOU MAY RECALL, HAD AN ISSUE, AND, 
YOU KNOW, THEY PUT THE TURN LANE IN IN ADDITION TO ALL THE 
OTHER THINGS THAT THEY HAD TO DO.
WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER SCHOOL COMING IN BEHIND THIS THAT ALSO 
HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR A LEFT-HAND TURN TURN LANE.
IT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE WHERE THIS SCHOOL IS LOCATED ON 
MADISON AVENUE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC, THERE'S A LOT 
OF INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC, IT'S A COMMUTER ROUTE, AND PEOPLE 
TRAVEL AT HIGH SPEEDS, YOU KNOW, PAST THE SCHOOL.
SO WE HAVE THAT -- THAT SITE ACCESS PROBLEM.
THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE OTHER PROBLEM WAS A CONCURRENCY ISSUE, MEANING THAT 
WHEN THE ROAD BECOMES DEFICIENT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE 
IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT IT MEETS THE PROPER LEVEL OF SERVICE.
NOW, IN THE A.M. PEAKS WHEN THE SCHOOL WOULD NORMALLY 
OPERATE, TRAFFIC BACKS UP TO MAKE THAT LEFT-HAND TURN, AND 
AS TRAFFIC BACKS UP, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON 
THE ROAD FOR TRAFFIC TO GO AROUND, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER 
TURN, YOU KNOW, UP AHEAD FOR THE SCHOOL OR FOR THE NEXT 
ROAD.
WE -- WE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM OR THE SCHOOL SOLVED THAT 
PROBLEM BY HAVING THE -- ADJUSTING THEIR STARTING HOURS TO 
BE OUTSIDE OF THE PEAK -- OUT OF THE PEAK HOURS, SO BY 
STARTING AN HOUR LATER, YOU KNOW, THAT -- THAT ELIMINATED 
THAT CONCURRENCY ISSUE.
AND THE SECOND ISSUE WAS FOR SAFETY TO HAVE A -- YOU KNOW, 
TO HAVE A POLICEMAN OUT THERE DIRECTING TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, 
DURING -- DURING THOSE HOURS OF OPERATION.
NOW, IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS IS A RATHER -- WELL, FOR THE 
SCHOOL IT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE PROJECT TO FIX BECAUSE THERE'S 
A CULVERT NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY, AND THE ROAD HAS TO BE 
WIDENED.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY, WE HAD A 
NUMBER OF BUSINESSES COME IN ON THAT ROAD WHO ALSO HAD 
CONCURRENCY OBLIGATIONS FOR THEIR PROJECTS, AND IN THE 
COURSE EVER THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS AGREED THAT THESE OTHER 
COMPANIES WOULD MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROAD EAST OF THE 
SCHOOL FROM 78th STREET TO THE SCHOOL BOUNDARY, AND THAT'S 
WHERE THOSE PROJECTS STOPPED.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER COMPANIES TO THE WEST OF 
THE SCHOOL TO SEE IF THEY WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN MAYBE 
MAKING IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY PICK UP 
THE SCHOOL'S, YOU KNOW, PROJECT.
IT TURNS OUT THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION.
A LOT OF PEOPLE COULDN'T COMPLETE THEIR PROJECTS.
THEY'RE NOT READY TO DEVELOP.
WE HAD ONE, YOU MAY RECALL, WHICH WAS A STATE-SPONSORED 
HOUSING PROJECT, WHO REDUCED THE SIZE OF THEIR PROJECT AND 
CONSEQUENTLY THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THESE ROADS BECAUSE THEY 
DIDN'T GET APPROVAL FOR ALL THE UNITS THEY WANTED FROM THE 
STATE.
SO NOW WE HAVE THIS -- THIS SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A 
NUMBER OF PORTABLES, WHICH WE HAVE ALLOWED TO GO ON THE 
PROPERTY, BUT WE CAN'T GIVE A CO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE 
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS BASICALLY YOUR TURN LANE.
NOW, THERE -- I BELIEVE THERE WERE SIX BUILDINGS OR FIVE -- 
FIVE OR SIX BUILDINGS THAT THEY HAD ON THERE, AND THE WAY 
THE TEMPORARY CO WORKS IS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN RENEW THAT ON A 
30-DAY BASIS, YOU KNOW, UNTIL THEIR IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE, 
AND THAT WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $1,000 A MONTH FOR 
THE SCHOOL, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A CONSIDERABLE 
HARDSHIP.
SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO INSTEAD WOULD BASICALLY TO CO FIVE 
OF THEM AND KEEP ONE OPEN BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE 
THAT OBLIGATION FOR A TURN LANE IN THERE.
SO WE -- WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, MR. ALUOTTO.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  WELL, THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE DON'T HAVE A 
SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, UNLESS THE COUNTY'S WILLING TO 
STEP UP AND MAKE THE IMPROVEMENT OR SOMEONE'S GOT TO MAKE 
THE IMPROVEMENT.
WE CAN'T WAIVE IT.
NOW, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY MIGHT BE IF -- IF THE LEGAL 
DEPARTMENT CAN THINK OF A LEGAL WAY APART FROM THE ZONING 
OR A CONTRACT OR SOME OTHER WAY TO DO IT, THAT WOULD BE 
FINE, BUT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM, IT'S A DILEMMA.
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, YOU KNOW --
>>KEN HAGAN:  THANK YOU, SIR.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  MR. ALUOTTO, IF WE ISSUE -- LET'S JUST -- 
IF WE ISSUED THE CO, HOW WOULD THAT CHANGE THE OPERATING 
STATUS OF THE SCHOOL AS IT CURRENTLY OPERATES TODAY?
WOULD THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FLOW, ANY NEW 
STUDENTS?
I MEAN, WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT A SIGNIFICANT BUMP-UP IN 
ACTIVITY?
BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN GIVING THEM TEMPORARY COs; IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  RIGHT, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO CLOSE 
THE SCHOOL.
IF WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM A TEMPORARY CO, WE'D HAVE TO CLOSE 
THEM DOWN, AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION TO 
CLOSE THEM DOWN.
>>MARK SHARPE:  IF THEY DON'T GET THE CO, AS I UNDERSTAND 
IT, IT WILL HAVE THE SAME IMPACT, IT WILL CLOSE THE SCHOOL 
DOWN?
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  IF WE DON'T ISSUE IT?
>>MARK SHARPE:  RIGHT.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  CORRECT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  THAT'S THE PREDICAMENT THEY'RE IN, BOARD 
MEMBERS.
THE CHALLENGE IS MADISON IS -- I'M SURE THIS IS A FAIRLY 
EXPENSIVE PROJECT.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PARTNERS WHEN TIMES WERE BETTER WHO 
WERE PREPARED TO STEP UP AND WORK WITH THEM ON MAKING THESE 
IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY'VE GOT A SCHOOL THAT'S LOCATED IN A SPOT WHERE THERE'S 
A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
THEY ADJUSTED THEIR HOURS.
THEY BROUGHT IN A TRAFFIC -- OR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD 
HELP, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH TRAFFIC, AND WE'VE BEEN GIVING 
THEM TEMPORARY COs, AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO FUNCTION, SO 
THEY'RE FUNCTIONING CURRENTLY.
IF WE ISSUE THEM A CO, NOTHING CHANGES EXCEPT THAT WE'VE 
JUST KIND OF PUT OUR STAMP; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  WELL, IF WE DID IT, IT WOULD SOLVE SOME 
OF THEIR PROBLEM IS THAT -- THE DRAWS THAT HE WAS TELLING 
YOU ABOUT THAT HE NEEDS TO PAY HIS CONTRACTORS TO GET ALL 
HIS -- YOU KNOW, TO GET APPROVAL SO HE CAN PAY THOSE FOLKS 
OFF THE FINAL DRAW FROM THEIR BANK, WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
MY CONCERN IS THAT IF SOMEBODY HAS A WRECK --
>>MARK SHARPE:  I KNOW.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  -- TURNING INTO THAT PROPERTY AND THEY 
COME BACK TO US AND SAY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY KNEW THERE 
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TURN LANE, THEY WAIVED THAT REQUIREMENT, 
AND NOW THREE KIDS ARE DEAD, NOW WE'RE GOING TO SUE THE 
COUNTY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY CUT SOMEBODY A BREAK.
THE OTHER THING IS WE'VE NOT DONE THIS FOR ANY OTHER 
SCHOOL.
IF WE START DOING THIS NOW, I CAN IMAGINE THAT WE WILL HAVE 
OTHERS IN THE FUTURE, AND IT'S -- IT WAS A ZONING 
CONDITION.
SO THIS -- IT WASN'T A SURPRISE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  IS THE PERSON FROM THE SCHOOL HERE?
>> YEAH.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
DO YOU ANTICIPATE PUTTING THE TURN LANE IN AND WHEN?
>> I'M CURT MILLER, THE FOUNDER AND CEO OF LLT ACADEMY.
YOU-ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY.
CHARTER SCHOOLS --
DO WE ANTICIPATE DOING THAT?
>>JIM NORMAN:  DO YOU ANTICIPATE PUTTING IN THE TURN LANE, 
AND WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME IN -- EVEN WITH THE ECONOMICS 
AND -- WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME, THIS YEAR, IN BETWEEN 
SCHOOL?
>> NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AT THIS POINT IN TIME JUST 
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC SITUATION AND BECAUSE OF THE 
PARTNERSHIP THAT WE --
>>JIM NORMAN:  NEXT SUMMER?
>> IT -- IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ECONOMY.
YOU KNOW, WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS IT IS A FUNDING ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, WE DO RECEIVE $2,000 LESS, AND SO WE ARE IN A 
BUDGET CUT.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER ONE BASED ON NUMBERS WE 
RECEIVED.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT IS THIS:  I 
COULD -- I COULD ANTICIPATE WAIVING THE TEMPORARY COs UNTIL 
THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY TO -
- IF THEY WOULD MAKE A COMMITMENT TO DO IT DURING THE 
SUMMER TIME PERIOD, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE 
FACED WITH PAYING PENALTIES EVERY MONTH.
I MEAN, IF -- IF YOU-ALL STOOD RIGHT HERE AND MADE A 
COMMITMENT TO PUT THAT TURN LANE IN AFTER THE SCHOOL YEAR, 
I WOULD ASK -- I WOULD MAKE A MOTION, SEE IF IT PASSED, 
THAT WE WOULD WAIVE YOUR -- YOUR FEES FOR YOUR TEMPORARY -- 
YOU'D HAVE TO COME IN AND GET A TEMPORARY, BUT WE'D WAIVE 
THE FEE.
>> ESSENTIALLY, COMMISSIONER NORMAN, WOULD SHUT THE SCHOOL 
DOWN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  EXCUSE ME.
>> YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY SHUT THE SCHOOL DOWN FINANCIALLY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  FOR NEXT SUMMER TO PUT IN A TURN LANE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
ABSOLUTELY.
YEAH.
I MEAN, WHEN YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE -- IT'S A CHARTER 
SCHOOL, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR -- I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT --
>>JIM NORMAN:  YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE IN THE WHOLE COUNTY -- 
YOU SHOW ME WHERE WE'VE WAIVED IT BEFORE OR THAT WE'VE PUT 
IT IN OR SOMETHING, BUT IF WE START HAVING THEM LINE UP AND 
THEN WE HAVE A LIABILITY ISSUE OF -- LIKE HE JUST SAID, 
KIDS GET KILLED.
THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO FACE A -- THE BURDEN OF THAT 
LIABILITY, YOU KNOW.
IT'S A CATCH 22 ALL THE WAY AROUND, AND THE ONLY SOLUTION 
IS YOU FULFILL YOUR OBLIGATION OF YOUR REZONING EVENTUALLY 
AND MAKE THAT COMMITMENT TO THE COUNTY YOU'RE GOING TO DO 
IT.
>> YEAH.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I MEAN, THAT'S --
>> IT PUTS US IN A BURDEN SITUATION IN THE FACT THAT SOME 
OF THESE OTHER SCHOOLS -- I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE CHARTER 
SCHOOLS AND I KNOW THE SITUATIONS, BUT WHEN WE HAD ON 
MADISON BEING THE ROAD THAT IT HAS AND THE BUSINESS 
RELATIONSHIPS AND THEY BACKED OUT OF IT, THEN IT'S LEFT US 
AS THE ONE CARRYING THE BURDEN WITH THIS, AND SO THAT 
CAUSES THE CHALLENGE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE NOBODY TO WORK 
WITH.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION.
I UNDERSTAND THE LIMIT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I MEAN, I WAS TRYING TO BUY YOU SOME TIME IF 
YOU'D MAKE THE COMMITMENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN, WHAT IF WE WERE TO -- 
BECAUSE YOUR POINTS ARE WELL MADE.
WHAT IF WE WERE TO GIVE THEM ONE MONTH WITH WHICH TO SEE IF 
THERE'S A -- THERE'S A REMEDY.
WE'VE GOT A PRECEDENT ISSUE.
MY -- AND WE HAVE A LIABILITY ISSUE.
WE ALSO -- YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS, WE'RE LOOKING AT -- IS 
THIS A $250,000 PROJECT APPROXIMATELY?
>> 350 --
>>MARK SHARPE:  I MEAN, I'M FAMILIAR WITH PRIVATE SCHOOLS, 
AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH --
>>JIM NORMAN:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>MARK SHARPE:  CAN WE CONTINUE IT FOR ONE MONTH --
>>JIM NORMAN:  YEP.
>>MARK SHARPE:  -- AND THEN WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO, BUT 
--
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL SECOND THAT.
I MEAN --
>>MARK SHARPE:  WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I MEAN, I WANT TO GIVE YOU EVERY CHANCE.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
OKAY.
SECOND.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND BY 
COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO.
>>JIM NORMAN:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>ROSE FERLITA:  PETER, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING --
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  I WANTED TO CORRECT THE STATEMENT I MADE 
PREVIOUSLY.
WHAT WE'RE DOING, AS OPPOSED TO GIVING COs TO FIVE AND 
KEEPING ONE OPEN, WE'VE DECIDED TO TREAT THE WHOLE PROJECT 
AS A SINGLE PROJECT.
IT STILL RESULTS IN ONLY $150 FEE AS OPPOSED TO A THOUSAND, 
BUT I ONLY SAID THAT TO CORRECT THE RECORD SO THAT THE 
SCHOOL BOARD DOESN'T COME UP TO US AND ASK US WHERE THE COs 
ARE.
SO WE'RE TREATING THE WHOLE THING AS A SINGLE PROJECT AS 
OPPOSED TO FIVE OR SIX SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
>>JIM NORMAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA, YOUR QUESTION, WE GAVE 
THEM A COUPLE HOURS TO GO BACK AND TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION.
THIS GIVES THEM 30 DAYS.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FOR ME.
I DON'T WANT TO -- I WANT TO GIVE THEM EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  OH, SO DO I.
>>JIM NORMAN:  THAT'S WHY.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I JUST WONDERED WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE 
ABLE TO DO IN 30 DAYS.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MR. HAGAN, CAN I JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE A-
14.
PAT, IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
THEY HAD A DISCUSSION, AND IF HE'S GOT SOME OTHER CONCERNS 
-- JAN MacLEOD WAS VERY NICE AND SPENT A GOOD AMOUNT OF 
TIME WITH PASTOR FAVORITE --
>>JIM NORMAN:  SECOND.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  -- AND -- THAT'S FINE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  OKAY.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND 
COMMISSIONER NORMAN ON A-14.
NO COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>PAT BEAN:  NOW YOU SHOULD DO YOUR APPOINTMENTS.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  THE FIRST BOARD IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT 
BOARD.
MICHAEL SPALL WOULD BE APPOINTED.
THE SECOND BOARD IS THE HEALTH COUNCIL OF WEST CENTRAL 
FLORIDA.
PLEASE CHOOSE ONE FROM THE FIRST TWO CATEGORIES.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  HALL AND REED.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  IBARRA AND BRACAMONTE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  HALL, BRACAMONTE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  IBARRA AND REED.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  WHITE IS NOT HERE.
NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  HALL AND BRACAMONTE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  HALL AND BRACAMONTE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  HALL, BRACAMONTE, AND THEN JOEL CHUDNOW 
AND RUSSELL PATTERSON WILL ALSO BE APPOINTED.
LAND USE APPEALS BOARD, PLEASE CHOOSE ONE.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  PAYNE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  PAYNE.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  ANGELO.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  PAYNE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  PAYNE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  PAYNE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  ANGELO.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  IT WILL BE JOSEPH PAYNE.
PLANNING COMMISSION.
PLEASE REMOVE RUSSELL PATTERSON'S NAME AND JOSEPH PAYNE, 
SINCE THEY WERE ALREADY APPOINTED TO TWO BOARDS.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN, PLEASE CHOOSE ONE.
>>KEN HAGAN:  DOUGHTY.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  DOUGHTY.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  DOUGHTY.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  DOUGHTY.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  DOUGHTY.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  BELCHER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  IT WILL BE DEREK DOUGHTY.
HEALTH CARE ADVISORY BOARD, PLEASE CHOOSE ONE.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  DR. KINSLER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  DR. KINSLER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  MARTINEZ.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  KINSLER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  DAVIS.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  KINSLER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  IT WILL BE DR. KINSLER.
ENTERPRISE ZONE, PLEASE CHOOSE ONE FROM EACH CATEGORY.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
OH, EXCUSE ME.
TAKE RUSSELL PATTERSON'S NAME OFF OF THE SECOND ONE, SECOND 
CATEGORY.
>>KEN HAGAN:  WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
>>LUANN FINLEY:  COMMISSIONER -- OR LEERONE BENJAMIN IS THE 
CURRENT REP ON THE LOCAL BUSINESS.
>>KEN HAGAN:  BENJAMIN AND OLMSTEAD.
>>MARK SHARPE:  BENJAMIN AND OLMSTEAD.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  BENJAMIN, OLMSTEAD.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  BENJAMIN AND OLMSTEAD.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  BENJAMIN, OLMSTEAD.
>>JIM NORMAN:  DITTO.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  OKAY.
AND THEN MAJOR HOLLINSHEAD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PLEASE CHOOSE ONE.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  FADAL.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  FADAL.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  FADAL.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  FADAL.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  FADAL.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  MEZA.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  IT WILL BE FADAL.
NFL-YET, PLEASE CHOOSE ONE.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  SMITH.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  DOVE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ANDREWS.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  DOVE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  SMITH.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  DOVE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  OKAY.
IT'S GOING TO BE BETWEEN DOVE AND SMITH.
COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  DOVE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  DOVE.
OKAY.
SO IT'LL BE MICHAEL DOVE.
DOES EVERYBODY STAY THE SAME?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  DOVE.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  ARTS COUNCIL, CHOOSE THREE.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  DR. ALFORD, McLEAN, AND ZINOBER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  DR. ALFORD, McLEAN, AND ZINOBER.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  SAME.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  ALFORD, GREGORY, AND ZINOBER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  SAME.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  AS FERLITA?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  YES, OF COURSE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  ALFORD, McLEAN, ZINOBER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  AND BECKNER.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  ALFORD, McLEAN, AND ZINOBER.
>>LUANN FINLEY:  SO IT WILL BE ALFORD, McLEAN, AND ZINOBER.
>>KEN HAGAN:  CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONFIRM?
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO MOVE.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  SECOND.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND 
COMMISSIONER BECKNER.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>KEN HAGAN:  MS. BEAN, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS?
>>PAT BEAN:  ONLY THE -- IF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING 
YOU WANT TO ADD ON FUTURE ISSUES.
>>KEN HAGAN:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I JUST -- I WONDER IF MAYBE PERHAPS WE'LL 
SEND SOMETHING AROUND TO DECIDE ON A WORKSHOP THAT'S 
SUITABLE FOR --
>>PAT BEAN:  YES, WE'LL DO THAT.
>>KEN HAGAN:  ANY OTHER ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS?
OKAY.
WE'RE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.
>>PAT BEAN:  VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.


1